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

[Chapter 10. The Logic of the Formation of Ideals] 171. One ofthe most obvious phenomena oflife is the apparent disjunction of the actual and the ideal. And the testing point ofevery ethical system is how it accounts for the splitting up of the ethical experience into the "is" and the "might be." In Psychology, the logic of actual and ideal would be applied to impulse and progress; in Politics, the positive laws and natural laws; [while1in Political Economy, supply and demand. 172. The origin of this distinction [is that1a given cycle of experience gets overloaded or congested. The principle or method on which that activity is being conducted is reflected in results, and these results are continually increasing in number. A given civilization works it out into the details of actual life. These results harmonize for a time (as the classical period ofGreek life) and there is no consciousness of any break. The results accumulated to the extent that they overload the principle, and distinctions arise in the activity itself. 173. The Ptolemaic theory worked out its own destruction. Newly observed facts were brought into the theory and it broke down. The picture of the universe became so complex that it could not be carried. The implicit method of Greek life worked itselfout in results that were too much for it. Socrates was the best product of the Greek life. In him the results worked out were too much for it and the result was his death. The continual research and discussion were essential elements of Greek life. Every proposal was brought before the assembly before it was made law. But the Greek social life could not stand becoming conscious of itself. 174. So in Plato and Aristotle the theory and the life are set over against each other. Plato tries to harmonize [them], while Aristotle virtually states there is a dualism in the distinction between the universal and the particular (which marked the whole scholastic philosophy). A working reconstruction for the whole system resulted. Socrates took it for granted that the universal was in life and attempted to show it. Later theory got the right to theorize by saying it would not attempt to apply itself to life.20 175. It is the very nature ofexperience to have these critical points where the working of it out becomes so elaborate that it must be reconstructed.2! These critical points ofreconstruction are essential and intrinsic in all experience. The getting ofthe new power cannot be simply cumulative and quantitative, e.g., the appearance of the eye so enlarges the world of the animal that it has to readjust all other organs. The possession of the eye is not simply a privilege. The art of photography grew out of old arts, but has required a readjustment of old arts. Lectures on the Logic ofEthics 77 176. The distinction between the actual and ideal arises out of and because of this necessity of reconstruction. Something now has to be done because of the accumulated details. Except at these times the ideal is actualized and there can be no split. The split arises because, when these accumulations become so numerous , it is necessary to reflect (a complication of the activity compels it) and this reflection polarizes or dualizes experience. The "stopping to think" is the actual thinking. When friction arises, it is a sign that you should stop and reflect. 177- How does the distinction arise through reflection? The reflection is an inventory. Its first question is, "What are the actual conditions?" There is set up on one side the status, the state of things, which is obviously equivalent to acquisitions , which are our resources in this particular case. It represents past accomplishment , what has been done. It is not present therefore, not the ultimate reality. What we term the actual, as distinguished from the ideal, consists ofthe resources at [our) command, of the realized accomplished state of things: that arising through reflection, which arises through conflict or friction.22 178. What is the ideal? When we reflect upon experience as a whole and set before us objectively a certain state ofthings, the subject drops out. There is projection on one side and withdrawal on the other. The very fact that we reflect on experience means that we make an abstraction. Now that which is left out is not destroyed, but reappears in another form as the subject. To define the stream you must stop it, and take a cross-section. The movement...

Share