REVIEWS 



Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. Vol. i. Logic. By Arnold 



RUGE, WlLHELM WlNDLEBANK, JOSIAH ROYCE, LOUIS COUTURAT, 



Benedetto Croce, Ferderigo Enriquez, and Nicolaj Losskij. 

 Translated by B. Ethel Meyer. [Pp. vi + 268.] (London : Macmillan 

 & Co., 1913.) 



The title-page is strongly reminiscent of "Widdecombe Fair." The volume 

 consists of an article on the scope and purpose of Logic by each of the authors 

 named. Each presents the subject in a slightly different personal aspect. All 

 the articles are well written. The object of the series of volumes is expressed by 

 the editor in a few well-chosen words : " . . . each volume will consist . . . 

 of original and relatively exhaustive discussions of fundamental aspects of 

 each main subject." This is carried out thoroughly well. Another ideal, which 

 the present volume purports to subserve, and which is also said by the editor 

 to be the mission of philosophy, is to correct the surface tendency of present-day 

 human thought towards divergency. " The field of the thinker's inquiry is 

 becoming ever narrower, and the function of the practical man ever more 

 particular. . . . The theoretic and speculative intercourse of civilised peoples is 

 always becoming more intimate and full. . . . The promoters of the Encyclo- 

 paedia have set themselves the most difficult, but also the most significant task 

 of giving expression to this unity by means of the very freedom and variety of 

 the writers whom they have enlisted in the service." 



The reviewer is not disposed to deny the truth of the view expressed in the 

 first part of the quotation, having himself, on several occasions, asserted the same 

 thing. The last part is an unwarrantable and meaningless paradox. Regretfully 

 it must be stated that, so far as the present volume is concerned, the writers 

 have not given expression to this unity in any matter whatever. If this is the 

 object we must be definite in saying that there are high-sounding words and 

 promises, but no achievement. The volume will be of interest to that small 

 class of people, those absurd contradictions in terms, who, like Mr. Chesterton's 

 rhinoceros, exist but look as if they didn't, the specialists in philosophy. To 

 these, and to amateur dabblers, the book will appeal, but to no one else. 



To readers of this journal the main point of interest is that, by several writers, 

 considerable space is given to the treatment of methodology. What is metho- 

 dology ? It is supposed to have something to do with scientific method, and 

 consequently, might be expected to have some interest for men of science. As 

 usually presented it emphatically has not. But the potential scientific interest 

 of the subject, as it might conceivably be presented, will be sufficient excuse 

 for devoting the remainder of the space at our disposal to the methodological 

 aspect. 



Prof. Windlebank contributes very little of interest. " Strictly speaking, 

 methodology has no principles of its own. Its principles are to be found in 

 pure Logic, and methodology has only to deal with their application to the 

 different aims of the special sciences " (p. 43). Very admirable, but it does not 



770 



