CRITICAL IDEALISM IN FRANCE.

_La Science positive et la Métaphysique._ Par LOUIS LIARD,

Professeur à la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux. (Ouvrage couronné

par l'Institut de France.) Paris, 1879.

For some years past there has been observable in France, outside of and

in opposition to Positivism, a growing movement in favour of idealism in

general, and of the critical idealism of Kant in particular. This

philosophy, which had previously found very few adherents in our

country, has now begun to make its way into our teaching and our

Universities. Berkeley and Kant have been the subjects of special works,

and an attempt has been made to translate and reproduce their ideas by

harmonizing them with the principal doctrines of spiritualism. We have

here a movement full of promise and well deserving of attention.[1]

Among the different productions affording some notion of this

philosophical tendency, we make choice--as being both the most recent

and the most complete--of a remarkable work, distinguished and crowned

by the French Institute, _Positive Science and Metaphysic_, by a young

and learned professor of Bordeaux, M. Louis Liard.

To begin with, M. Liard's work is well composed, its plan being simple,

severe, and lucid. It divides itself into three parts. The first is

devoted to determining the nature and limits of positive sciences--that

is, of the sciences properly so called--and to showing that they cannot

pretend to abolish or replace metaphysics. In this portion of his book

the author discusses the three forms of the experimental philosophy of

our day, namely--Positivism, the philosophy of association, and that of

evolution.

In the second part, the author examines what he calls Criticism--that is

to say, the philosophy of Kant. The preceding discussion having

demonstrated that the human mind is incapable of departing from certain

forms, certain laws, without which experience itself would be

impossible,--the author now resolves these into five fundamentals:

space, time, substance, cause, the Absolute. But are these forms or laws

of the mind the laws of things as well? Have they an objective

authority? We know that metaphysics hang upon the solution of this

question. We know, too, what is the solution given by Kant to this great

problem. In recognizing the necessary existence of these forms as laws

of the mind he disputes their external reality; hence he only admits

critical, not real and dogmatic metaphysic. Now, as regards this point

the author of the book under our notice, instead of dissenting from

Criticism as he had done from Positivism, appears on the contrary to

accept it by its own name, and to admire and endorse its conclusions. He

seems to grant or even to affirm that if Positivism is wrong, Criticism

is right, and that, strictly speaking, metaphysic is not a science.

And yet if metaphysic were not a science in the strict sense of the

word--that is to say, in the sense of objective sciences--would it

follow that it was nothing, or nothing more than criticism itself? By no

means: our author does not stop at that apparent solution; metaphysic

according to him has an object that criticism has not reached, has not

shaken; metaphysic has its own proper function, in which criticism can

never take its place. Only instead of founding it on the object, we must

found it on the subject. The mind must turn away from the external world

and re-enter itself. It is there that, without need of forms or

categories of which criticism has demonstrated the fallacy, the subject

grasps itself not only in its phenomena but in its being, and determines

itself in conformity to an end. This end is goodness: and this is the

only notion we can form to ourselves of the Absolute. Thus, metaphysic

is not the science of the object, but that of the subject; or if the

name of science be still withheld, it is at least the study of the

subject, and it is founded on and completed by morality. Thus, the

author ends by an evolution very similar to that of Kant, but with

certain differences which it will be our part to point out.

These constitute the three parts of the work. We will now take them up

in succession.

The Contemporary Review, Volume 36, October 1879 · 第 11 / 44 题