Gentile's philosophy merits the attention of every serious thinker, for it presents the doctrine that reality is spiritual in a more uncompromising form than is to be found elsewhere, and claims to solve on this principle all the great problems that have beset the history of metaphysic. His own name for it is Absolute or Actual Idealism (Idealismo assoluto or attuale). For Gentile, nothing is real but the Spirit, and by the Spirit he means the pure act of self-conscious thinking. “The subject that conceives itself in conceiving All is the reality itself.” In the act of conscious thinking, the Spirit is present in its entirety as subject (Io universale, transcendentale, assoluto); generating therein by its own creative spontaneity a world of objects, and resolving the products of this act of objectification into the womb that gave them birth. In this immanent dialectic–pure subject (thesis), pure object (antithesis), subject-object (synthesis)–lies the rhythmic life-history of the Spirit. “Our doctrine,” writes Gentile, “is the theory of the Spirit as act which posits its object in a multiplicity of objects, resolving their multiplicity and objectivity in the unity of the subject itself.” For such a doctrine, transcendence is the enemy, the Goliath whom Gentile has gone forth to slay. He confronts us, on almost every page of his writings, with an ineluctable dilemma. Either a philosophy of sheer immanence, or reality is unknowable.

The word “emergent” was suggested by George Henry Lewes for specialized use in contradistinction to “resultant.” Little came of the suggestion, so far as I know, for some forty years.

All that Lewes had to say on the matter is comprised within half a dozen, or at most eleven, pages, at the close of a long-winded, but at that time not negligible, discussion of Force and Cause, and is preceded by a section on Hume's Theory of Causation. This leads up to the statement: ‘There are two classes of effects markedly distinguishable as resultants and enter gents.’ Even here there was nothing new save in the adoption and adaptation of the word ‘emergent’ in place, let us say, of John Stuart Mill's ‘heteropathic effects.’

In considering this perennial question of the relationship between science and religion it is important to avoid any appearance—or reality—of burking the facts. When one speaks of science one speaks of science as it is understood, and as research is carried out in it, by specialists in the various fields; and it is the most honest and the wisest course to consider in each separate science what exactly the results amount to and what the theories represent.

An ethic is rational if it can justify itself rationally—that is to say, if there is a “why” and a “wherefore” in it amenable to reflection, and underivative. An ethic, on the other hand, is irrational if reason and reflection are irrelevant to it, or if, being relevant, they are fundamentally subordinate, and are only the lackeys of a governing consideration which is either irrational or non-rational. The intention of this lecture is to explore the possibilities of rationalism in ethics, supposing that the meaning of rationalism is, broadly speaking, what has just been stated.

Common sense holds that a physical object is confined to a definite region of space, and that it endures through a definite period of time. It scatters effects through other regions and periods, but it is the cause of those effects, and is just where it is and not everywhere. Physically its existence may entail other objects, but logically it entails nothing whatever beyond the limits of a certain volume.

Only one adult in a hundred gets his food and clothing without doing anything directly in exchange for them. The other ninety-nine form active parts of the system of relations in society which will be called, in what follows here, economic; and even the one in the hundred who does not give, takes something, as children and imbeciles take, out of the store of services which are economic life. Boots and bread are but the bridges over which one man is connected with another, through services exchanged. The philosophy of social life, therefore, must “place” these economic relations in the whole complex unity of human experience. The science of economics analyses some of the aspects of the relations of men in exchanging services, and it provides a language which is already sufficiently current to be used here without full explanation of the terms. Therefore, without more ado, the philosophical aspects of the economic system may be considered in the terms of economic science, but outside the frontiers proper to that partial analysis.

The belief that the universe is fundamentally a unity, that there is, in other words, some fundamental principle from which all the variety of nature and experience can be derived, has been entertained in some form or another by the majority of philosophers. It is also the presupposition of most religions. If we hold that the universe is really one, or really a unity, it will follow that there is a distinction between reality and appearance. For the universe certainly appears as a plurality; it certainly seems, that is to say, that there are many things in the universe, chairs and tables and people and numbers and thoughts about them, which are really different one from another. If, then, the universe is really one, this appearance of plurality will be in some sense an illusory appearance, and it will be necessary to explain how this illusory appearance arises.

Philosophical instruction in the French Universities usually consists in more or less direct preparation for the licence-ès-lettres (the “M.A.”) and the agrigation, or in informal discussion with candidates preparing for the Doctorate. But it has for long been the practice at the Sorbonne in Paris for the Professors to deliver a course of public lectures lasting throughout a half or the whole of the academic year. And since the eleinehts of logic and philosophy are taught in the top form of every lycèe quite a large part Of the ordinary educated public is able to follow with profit the communications of the foremost philosophers. This year, Professor A. Lalande lectures on “General Methodology”; Professor Brunschvicg on “The Object in Perception and in Science”; Professor Delacroix on “Consciousness and Personality”; Dr. Wallon on “Explanation and Constructive Thought in the Child”; Professor Basch on “The Æsthetic Categories,” and on “English Æsthetics in the Eighteenth Century,” and Professor E. Gilson on “The Main Problems of Mediaeval Philosophy.” At the College de France, Professor Le Roy lectures on “The Primitive Forms of Intelligence,” Professor Pierre Janet on “The Psychological Evolution of Personality,” and Professor Pièron on “Pain and Affective Reactions.”

Summary: In this survey I first consider two introductory books—the one an introduction to the theory of knowledge, the other an introduction to log—by August Messer and Arthur Drews respectively. I then proceed to E. v. Aster's very interesting History of English Philosophy, to a phenomenological study by Arnold Metzger, and to a discussion of pluralism monism, and dualism, by Boris Jakowenko. I conclude with notices o important new editions of Hegel, Franz Brentano, and Cusanus, and with a reference to the death of Max Scheler.