XXIV ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 



PAGK. 



parts, of which the one would not apply to the absolute 

 "All," and the other would make it an ideal whole. 

 § 19. A third way conceivable, if the reality of the 

 whole could be directly inferred from the reality of the 

 parts. But it is not yet realized, and (§ 20) if it were, 

 it would make the parts as necessary to the existence of 

 the whole, as the whole to the parts. Though the ideal 

 of social harmony, this does not justify Pantheism. 



§§ 21-23. (4) ^^^ vietaphysical basis of Paiitheisin. 

 § 21. The ultimate question of ontology. Is existence 

 one, dual, or many ? Monism, Dualism, Pluralism. 

 Why Dualism must be rejected. The difficulties of 

 Monism — it cannot explain phenomenal plurality. § 22. 

 Pluralism does not need to do so. The relation of the 

 Many to the One. The One as the possibility of the 

 interaction of the Many. § 23. Pluralism can also 

 regard the One as the ideal of a real union. Perfection. 



v^ 24-30. The nature of God. § 24. The finiteness 

 of God follows from the adoption of Pluralism in meta- 

 physics. God not = " Nature," and hence "Nature" 

 can contain an element which resists God, i.e.^ Evil, due 

 to the imperfect harmony of ultimate spirits. The 

 world-process designed to harmonize them. § 25. This 

 view verified in the actual character of evil. Evil that 

 which obstructs the course of Evolution. § 26. Change 

 and death as consequences of inharmonious interaction. 

 § 27. God immanent as well as transcendent. Can be 

 in all because not = all. § 28. Our conception of the 

 Divine Power really heightened by this view : its practi- 

 cal value. § 29. Why pluralism must be theistic — a 

 Deity required to guide the world-process. § 30. 

 Pluralism not Polytheism. 



Chapter XI. Immortality 375 



§ I. The unreasonable attitude of men towards the 

 subject. Do they really desire to believe in a future 

 life? 5^ 2. Is such belief really desirable? Its dangers 

 and advantages. 5^ 3. Can the question be settled by 

 an appeal to facts in the shape of ghost stories, etc. ? 

 Facts which are not reasonable carry no conviction. 



5^ 4-13. But the reasons on both sides are inadequate, 

 (a) In favour of immortality. §4. (i) The*religious 

 argument. § 5. (2) The argument from moral necessity 



