232 



KEV. STEWART A. MCDOWALL, M.A., B.D., ON 



lover is always first an artist, so the Perfect Lover must be first 

 tlie Perfect Artist. But you must practise what you preach ! 

 If the views I have been putting forward are right in any degree, 

 it follows that real ugliness must be fought as fiercely as real sin 

 — the sin for which it is in so large a measure responsible. For 

 ugliness becomes the failure to realize what Godhead and man- 

 hood mean ; it is rooted and grounded in the failure to possess 

 and to present a clear intuition of Reality ; just as sin is, in its 

 own more directly practical manner. 



Discussion. 



Dr. ScHOFiELD said he congratulated the Institute, the 

 Philosophical Society of Great Britain, on the rare pleasure of having 

 heard a truly philosophic paper ; one, moreover, that has treated 

 a fascinating subject with great discrimination and delicacy of 

 touch. The lecturer clearly felt that his subject was somewhat 

 under a cloud, and to my mind the whole of philosophy shares this 

 position. The aftermath of a great war was hardly a favourable 

 atmosphere for this study, and Mr. McDowall is to be congratulated 

 on the detachment of mind that could give us such a paper at 

 such a trying time. 



He rightly points out on page 219 that the rejection of the 

 idea of God is open to objection. Surely it is much more than this. 

 Any system of Ethics or Esthetics without God is essentially un- 

 sound ; is absolutely equivalent to building a house without windows 

 — there is no light in it. 



On page 220, where it is stated that " pure intuition is not an 

 intellectual process " I must point out that pure intuition is a faculty 

 of the unconscious mind, and that though the process may not 

 be called intellectual, it certainly is mental. 



Might not, on page 222, the " expression " and " technical embodi- 

 ments" be termed more simply the "mental and material expressions"? 



Does not the closing of page 223 and beginning of page 224 express 

 beautifully " St. Paul's thought on Mars' Hill," " if haply they might 

 feel after Him and find Him " ? 



Lower down we read, " We receive : we cannot give " ; but we 

 do give, if we know the Giver, and the sacrifice of praise is our gift. 



The argument in the middle of page 225 strikes me at least as 

 dubious. It seems an attempt with our logical two -foot rule to 



