the first place, it is quite easy to imagine an infinite observer, such as God, whom in this connexion I call infinite as being impartially aware of all relationships of items within nature. Each one of us is a finite observer because we are only aware of that selection among the relationships which are dominated by our body. But I cannot see that idealism would gain even if this reference to the body were absent. We can imagine that the perceptions of the sociable archangel, as he chatted with Adam and Eve in the garden, were not from the standpoint of his body, because he had no body, but that his selection of relationships observed was made on some other principle. What is essential as an argument for realism [under this heading of relativity] is that the relationships observed should form a closed system, whose characters refer to each other. There is a process of nature which is obstinately indifferent to mind. This is why I feel difficulty in assigning to mind, or knowledge, or consciousness any essential role in the flux of factessential, I mean, beyond the rôles played by other abstractions from that flux, such as chairs and tables. I cannot persuade myself that relativity in any way weakens this obstinate indifference of nature. It simply shows that there are more various relationships within nature than we had anticipated—no new discovery, for every advance of science adds to the complexity of nature. If Einstein had established the affirmative answer to Pope's question, "Shall gravitation cease as you go by," he would have done something to advance the claims of idealism. But all he has done is to make it more difficult for us to compare our watches with those of the inhabitants of Mars, entirely owing to circumstances over which we have no control; and also he has produced a law of gravitation more complicated than that of Newton-but, again, this law depends on circumstances over which we have no control. I don't see how it is any easier to bend space now than it was to alter the strains and stresses in the ether. Accordingly, I cannot appreciate what accession there has been to the arguments on behalf of idealism. We still find mental processes faced with an obstinately independent nature, so that the correlations of mental processes with natural processes appear as unessential for the course of natural events. I am not denying that there are such correlations, or that when they occur the natural and the mental are not the same fact with different aspects of it emphasized. But what I am denying is that some correlation with mentality can be proved to be essential for the very being of natural fact. I will summarize the foregoing discussion by saying that the modern doctrine of relativity is calculated to hearten idealists by emphasizing certain of their lines of argument, but that it does not essentially touch the validity of the controversial arguments as between the two sides. I should, however, not like it to be concluded that I am maintaining that relativity has no philosophical importance. The general character of its importance arises from the emphasis which it throws upon relatedness. It helps philosophy resolutely to turn its back upon the false lights of the Aristotelian logic. Ultimate fact is not a mere aggregate of independent entities which are the subjects for qualities. We can never get away from an essential relatedness involving a multiplicity of relata. Every factor A, discerned as an entity within fact, expresses in its very being its capacity for the relationships into which it enters, and requires that all other factors of fact should express their capacities as relata in relationships involving it. This is the doctrine that any factor A is significant of the relationships into which it enters, and that conversely all factors within fact must express the patience of fact for A. The more special aspect of the importance of relativity in philosophy is its treatment of space and time, particularly time. Space and time can never be mere side-shows in philosophy. Their treatment must colour the whole subsequent development of the subject. The relational treatment of space is a well established principle, and I doubt whether relativity has made much difference here, so far as philosophers are concerned. But it has made an immense difference to the treatment of time. The unique serial character of time has gone by the board; also a thoroughgoing relational treatment of time is now necessitated and made possible. I am told that there are phrases in Aristotle which look that way. Am I right in recollecting that he defines time as an ordering or disposition of events in respect to each other? Furthermore, the fusion of time with space and the dropping of the unique seriality involves the necessity of looking on ultimate fact as essentially a process. Accordingly wherever the idea of "process" has been lost, we are dealing with a very advanced type of abstraction. This is why, in treating this subject, I have always insisted that our lowest, most concrete, type of abstractions whereby we express the diversification of fact must be regarded as "events," meaning thereby a partial factor of fact which retains process. Now I conceive that nothing of this is really new in philosophical thought. It is as old as the hills. But I still think that a scientific doctrine which enforces consistent emphasis on these ideas has the utmost importance for philosophy, even although it does not settle the established controversies between realism and idealism. XIV. IN MEMORIAM: MISS E. E. CONSTANCE JONES. MISS CONSTANCE JONES, former mistress of Girton College, who died last April at her home at Weston-super-Mare, had been for many years an active Member of the Aristotelian Society. She joined us on December 19th, 1892. Her chief interest was in logical theory, and she was the author of several manuals and primers on Logic and Ethics for the use of students. She translated, with Miss E. Hamilton, Lotze's Microcosmus, and had been engaged, since her retirement from Girton College, in translating Hegel's "Larger Logic." Her chief work, and that on which she claimed to have made a distinct and original advance in logical theory, is entitled A New Law of Thought and its Logical Bearings. It is a small monograph of only 75 pages, published by the Cambridge University Press, and containing a Preface by Professor G. F. Stout; in it is concentrated the argument she had been expounding for a long time. The essential point for which she contended is indeed brought out clearly in the first paper which she read to the Society," The Import of Categorical Propositions,” published in the Proceedings, Old Series, Vol. II. In the analysis of every categorical proposition of the form S is P there is, she says, "Identity of Application of the two-terms and Diversity of Signification." Describing this as the Identity-in-Diversity view she then applied it to the Laws of Thought, and particularly to Lotze's treatment of the judgment of Identity, and to his attempt to justify the categorical judgment as the consequent of an antecedent hypothetical judgment. In 1911, she presented "The New Law of Thought" as a thesis, at the International Congress of Philosophy at Bologna, and shortly afterwards published the little book with that title. She was a member of our Executive Committee from 1914 to 1916. She will be remembered by all who had the privilege of knowing her and working with her for the charm and gentleness of her disposition. Intellectually, she had great force of character, and when she took part in philosophical discussion she could defend her thesis with a tenacity which derived its strength from her firm and comprehensive grasp of the problem. The following list of her papers, with the dates on which they were read, will show how continuous and constant was her interest: "The Import of Categorical Propositions," December 4th, 1893. "The relation of Language to Thought" (Symposium), March 19th, 1894. "The Rationality of Hedonism," December 3rd, 1894. "Some Aspects of Attention," April 13th, 1896. "Are Character and Circumstance Co-ordinate Factors in Human Life, or is either Subordinate to the Other?' (Symposium), April 27th, 1896. "The Paradox of Inference," January 17th, 1898. "Lotze's Theory of Concept and Judgment," February 27th, 1899. "A Refutation of Dualism," February 19th, 1900. "A New Logic" (Dr. Mercier's), December 16th, 1912. "The Import of Propositions" (Symposium), July 5th, 1915. "Practical Dualism," May 6th, 1918. |