is, that the objects so far referred to in this statement of Professor Howison’s Ethical Realism are essentially transcendent objects. The free-agents, and the constitution of their “City,” belong to the realm of “things in themselves.” The “stainless allegiance” aforesaid is, logically speaking, nothing but an ordinary Realism. The ordinary materialist has his own kind of “stainless allegiance” to “matter in motion.” Spencer entertains similarly devout sentiments towards the “Unknowable,” and all such thinkers show in common with Professor Howison a tardiness in defining what they mean by their ultimate relation to that very object which, as they aver, they above all do mean. To be “unstained” by reflective definition may be an ethical virtue, but cannot be a logical recommendation of a fundamental philosophical concept.[1] As a fact, all this Realism, when duly considered, becomes either Absolute Idealism or nothing. The “things in themselves,” whether they are atoms, or Unknowables, or free-agents, or the “City of God,” must be in one unity of consciousness with the thoughts that mean them, with the acts of devotion that offer allegiance to them, with the ideals that strive after them, with the agents that undertake to serve them. For if not, the concept of Reality has no meaning, philosophy has served us no whit, and we are yet in our sins.
- ↑ [Professor Howison heartily accepts this principle, but rejects its applicability to his position. He has not the least wish to have allegiance to the City of God unstained “by reflective definition.” His use of this allegiance (see pp. 123-125 above) is simply as a stubborn Warning that any logical system which fails to satisfy it is defective, and requires revision. — Ed.]
