28
PARTISAN REVIEW
tively"! And they appear quite unaware of the extra-natural
origin and status of their postulate. Until naturalists have applied
their principles and methods to formulation of such topics
as mind, consciousness, self, etc., they will be at a serious dis–
advantage. For writers of the "rational" philosophical variety
of anti-naturalism almost always draw their premises from alleged
facts of and about mind, consciousness, etc. They suppose the
"facts" are accepted by naturalists. When they do not find the
conclusions
they
draw, they accuse naturalists of holding an in–
consistent and truncated position.
II
Since this topic is too large for discussion here, the rest of this
paper is occupied with the contrast existing between charges
brought against naturalism (because of 'its alleged identity with
"materialism") and the facts of the case. At the present time
there is a veritable
~ruption
of such accusations. Many of them
seem to regard the present tragic situation of the world as a
heaven-sent occasion for accusing naturalism of responsibility for
the manifold evils from which we are suffering. I begin with
citing some specimen cases.
"Determinists, materialists, agnostics, behaviorists and their
ilk can be sincere defenders ' of democracy only by being incon–
sistent; for their theories, whether they wish it or not, lead in–
evitably to justifying government by brute force and to denying
all those rights and freedoms which we term inalienable." Natural–
ists are not included by name in the foregoing list. But a miscel–
laneous roll of writers that follows shows they fall within the "ilk"
in question: "Kant and Carlyle, William James and Herbert
Spencer, William McDougall and Henri Bergson, Gobineau and
Chamberlain-all of them would be horrified at the complete
product of Naziism-made such a philosophy as that of govern–
ment by brute force not only possible but almost inevitable by
their denial of one or more of the fundamentals on which any
free and humanitarian and Christian concept of society must
be built."*
The grouping together of men whose philosophies have noth-
ing, or next to nothing, in common beyond denial or neglect of
*Thomas P. Neill, in
The Catholic World,
May 1942, p. 151.
