Modern thinkers and present problems : $b an approach to modern philosophy through its historySinger, Edgar A. (Edgar Arthur)
Philosophy
Modern thinkers and present problems : $b an approach to modern philosophy through its history
Singer, Edgar A. (Edgar Arthur)
Philosophers; Philosophy -- History
And this may be my matter in a nutshell--is not loyalty a thing to be
outlived, and is not that which alone can enable us to live it down a
love so perfect it calls for no sacrifices? Some such thought has long
been with me, but if I am to lay my troubles before you, it is time
I put aside a language too rich in sentimental associations and took
up the idiom I love best, that of cold and, if may be, mathematical
definition.
Any definition of loyalty that could have meaning for me must assume
the existence of something many deny to have either existence or
meaning, and which I shall call in my own way the mind of a group,
or a group mind. The conception of a mind belonging to a group of
beings each one of which has a mind of its own, yet such that the
mind of the group is no more to be known from a study of its parts
than is the mentality of Peter from the psychology of Paul, is a
very old conception and perhaps for that reason supposed by some to
be old-fashioned and out-worn. It is a mere analogy, they say, and
a very thin one at that, to speak of a group of organisms as itself
an organism; it is Plato, it is Cusanus, if you will, but it is not
modern. Benedetto Croce even goes so far as to be polite about the
matter. “The State,” he writes, “is not an entity, but a fluid complex
of various relations among individuals. It may be convenient to delimit
this complex and to entify it for the sake of contrasting it with other
complexes. No doubt this is so; but let us leave to the jurist the
excogitation of this and the like distinctions--fictions, but opportune
fictions--being careful not to call his work absurd. It is enough for
us to be sure we do not forget that a fiction is a fiction.”
To Royce the group mind is far from being a fiction, though he may
prefer to call it by some other name than group mind--maybe universal
mind or universal will. But if to him it seems natural, as it does
to me, to recognize group minds, while to Croce the entity is but a
polite fiction to be pleasantly dismissed, there must be some lack of
definition befogging our issue. Nor can I think of any way in which old
issues can better be made clear than by recalling old images.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account