Contemporary Literature [pp. 541-573]

560 CONTEMPO _ TA Y LrTE-CAnTU fE. [July,
attempted to show that all that wvas veluable in philosophy was tlhe posilivC
method anid results. He began to write a psvychology by studying animals>
but soon came to thie colnclu-ion that he could best understand animal psychology by studyin mm first — whieh was sensile. Th-en tlhroutgh a wid
range of researech l,,e came to another conclusion th..at without sFome rational
foundation to work upon, hn.n pisycholog y was an impossibility; and so
we hlave this work, devoted to a dic u s ion of l: t,. phys/ ica thie
met,aphysuicail mtlbliod-in contrast witl wh. rie cll s tij,Ie sceientifie method.
Such/lies as force, Cause, matter nd muid must be exalined and expliained
-if we are to ave te bi,as.is of a r,sao-iable p-yclhlogy. 3,,aphyies, he
avows, "shows symptoms of a reawakened life. After a, long period oi' neglect
and contempt [by those of hi,s sehol its p oblems are once more se,sserting
their claims." etaphysics cnnot )e; *tamlped oLt of existence." It l may
.however, be "transformed by redaction to lhe method of science.":. And
that is his present objeet. So, too, of eligion, whlichll, he sas, must still
"continue to rgulate tlei evolution of hmnTanity." "The internecinee war
which has so long dclist-urbed rei gion ond obstrucited scli ce will give place
to a doctrine wlhich- will resp the etims of both, aotnd saify the eeds o
both."
All this is in a very different, tone from the Mr Lewes of a few yelars back
it approximates to the genlieral position of IMr. lHerb ert Spencer but also
professes to do more than thle latter; for, he say-s, hle does not " agree tlhat
philosophy gains any refuage from difficuleties by invoking the Uinknowable;
though it may admit the existence of'the Unknowable, this admission is
transeendental and leaves all the purpose's of philosophy unaffected. Deeply
as we feel the mystery of this universe and the limitation of our faculties,
thefoundelctionz of a creed can only rest upon t,he known and knowable." That
is, Mr. Lewves is in advance of Spencer by claiming that he really knows
something about whiat the formler calls the Uni1now-able; yet how much,
and just what, he dloes not yet tell us.
In fact, this volume, so far as we can see, does nrot come to anty very definite results. It has a tentative, exploring air, as if tlie author were castingout his bait for something which did not quite rise to thle surface. Just,
how metaphysics, (or.meteimpirics. which lie sug;cs ts as a sub)stitute) can become true and valid by applying the idceSive miethlod to it, instead of the
"metaphysical," we confess we cannot see; alnd if the autholr tries it long
(enough, he may come, perhaps, to the same conclusion. His present theory
gives us a bridge and not any terva flumt. No strictlyr metaphlysical trluth
or definition thereof, can possibly be arrived at by thee ineulactive methiori
alone. All attempts of the sort are necessarily d(elulsive- -fromi the very nature of the case Calling "metaphy;sical truths,,mtempi'ical; applying
the "accentific " method so as to give us a -linmpse of a part of the teckiwlt
(implying that that is the whole of it) are onl;.y attempts to obtain what cannot be obtained in this way. And the longer 3r. Lew es writes, the more
likely will he be to illustrate this fact. This:retence of some entirely new
way of getting at the founfiation of things is vain and unsubstantial. With