self-consciousness. The difference is, as to whether there really are many minds, or, in the last resort, there is only one Mind; whether the Absolute Reality is a system of self-active beings forming a Unity, or is after all, with whatever included variety, a continuous Unit; whether it is a free Harmony, or, as Professor James satirically calls it, a “solid Block.” The one view, then, would be more accurately designated Idealistic Monism, as Professor Royce himself prefers to call it; or Monistic Idealism, as it has sometimes been named; or Cosmic Theism, as still others at times call it, — though this last title is oftener used in an agnostic than in an idealistic sense. The opposed view would in like manner be called Pluralistic Idealism, or Ethical Idealism;[1] or, again, as its supporter would prefer, simply Personal Idealism, since all other forms of Idealism are, as he thinks, in the last analysis non-personal — are unable to achieve the reality of any genuine Person. Professor Le Conte’s special form of Pluralism has sometimes been called, with his approval, Evolutional Idealism; and this is descriptive of what he regards as the most important factors in it, and is in so far suitable.
- ↑ Professor Royce designates this view Ethical Realism. Professor Howison has no particular objection to this title, as it names, quite appropriately, an actual aspect of the doctrine. He would himself willingly call it Absolute Idealism (as in his opinion the only system expressing completely the Ideal of the Reason, and reaching an ideal that per se turns real), were not that name already associated — illegitimately, as he holds — with the theory of Hegel, and so with Professor Royce’s own. Absolute Idealism, of course, however interpreted, must also be called Absolute Realism. Accordingly, Ethical Idealism is in its reverse aspect Ethical Realism.
