In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

SECTION V Getting a Fresh Start 1. The Fundamental Philosophical Problem: The Relation of the Particular to the Universal Lecture XIII. April 23, 1901 ALL PHILOSOPHY MUST arise out of some problem. The most fundamental statement of a philosophical problem in any of its forms is what, if we state it in terms of Logic, is the relation ofthe particular to the universal. If we identify, as we may, logic in its most general forms with the theory of philosophy in its most general forms, we might say the fundamental philosophical problem is the relation ofthe particular to the universal. In Ethics that problem appears. The popular statement ofit today is the relation ofegoism to altruism. That is not the fundamental problem but is the current mode of approach to the problem, egoism being the self-centered, the particular, altruism being the side ofconnection, the universal. In a somewhat deeper sense than the popular one of egoism and altruism-the relation of self-love and benevolence, to use the English phrase, the former phrase coming from the French-the ultimate statement of the problem is self-realization, that is to say, the ethics ofself-realization and the ethics ofsocial relationship, a problem which historically was first stated by Plato in his Republic, and which has been the problem on the social side ever since. In economic terms it is the relation ofcompetition to cooperation. At least that is one ofits most obvious applied forms. A more fundamental statement in Economics is the question of the relation between public and private wealth; or, the relation between the effort on the part of the individual to satisfy his wants and the contribution which he makes, in satisfying his own wants, to the public or national wealth. The problem is a theoretical one only because it is a practical one. 328 Social Ethics 329 Taken on the side of Politics first, when we state it as an antagonism of anarchism and socialism, it seems a more or less scholastic problem, a problem ofschools ofthought. The mass ofmen are neither anarchists or socialists, but the anarchist or socialist seizes upon abstract factors which are present as practical problems in the historical-political experience ofmankind. The average man who does not accept either ofthese political extremes believes there is a place for individual initiative and a place for freedom for the, relatively speaking, uncontrolled activity ofthe individual. He also believes there is a place for a central government , for an authority that controls by force if necessary, at least controls the individualistic activity so that it shall not violate but actually contribute to the public good. The practical problem, as ordinarily conceived, would be to find the limits or balance between these two things. And the ordinary man would say that you must not let one factor unduly predominate over the other, that you get disintegration ifyou allow the individualistic factor to go too far; you lose public spirit, the sense of solidarity, and your society breaks up into a number of indifferent, ifnot hostile, elements and hence renders not merely disintegration but degeneration. On the other hand, ifyou carry out authority too far you get despotism, arrest of freedom of thought and action, and fossilization of society. Ethically, the ordinary man is a dualist in the practical sense ofthe term. He believes there is room for self-assertion and room for regard for others. And it is a question offinding the proper limit between these two sets or spheres of action. It is not necessary, I think he would say, that all our actions should be selfish in the ordinary sense; nor would he say itwas necessary for a man to act simply from benevolent motives. I think the average man would maintain that in some things it was not only legitimate but a man's duty to look out for himself, protect and maintain his own interests: not at the expense of others, but there would be sentimentalism if we said everything a man did should be from a motive of benevolence or regard for others. To the scientific man, the question is as to the adjustment of the observation of a particular event to the element of generalization, of search for a statement oflaws ofgeneral relationship. There again, the ordinary position of the scientific worker would be dualistic in the practical sense ofdualism. He believes there is a sphere for the observation and collection of facts as facts, the details, particulars; and...

Share