A CASE STUDY
233
of Monsignor Sheen. Not unexpectedly the liberal
is
characterized as
"a pathetically disinterested, up-rooted animal" (where have we heard
of the rootless intellectuals, guilty of the crime of objectivism?). Gibbon
is
mentioned with animus and the Middle Ages referred to as a period
"which partisanship and historical ignorance dismiss as the days of the
Inquisition." In certain ways the position is reminiscent of the line taken
by Mortimer Adler ten years ago in his claim that America had more
to fear from its naturalist professors than from Hitler. The unspoken
implication of the view that naturalist doctrines "lead to the most
frightful practical consequences" is, of course, that those who profess
them should be purged.
Despite its stream of innuendo and insult which just stops short
of personal vilification, the book contains not a particle of evidence that
naturalism or any school of philosophical analysis leads to frightful prac–
tical consequences. The naturalistic explanation of moral phenomena,
in terms of sociology, psychology, and intelligence, may be mistaken and
confused, but it does not call the existence of these phenomena into
question. The question at issue is whether naturalism can account for
the facts of moral experience, or any other set of facts, more adequately
than alternative doctrines. In short, the issue is one of truth, not of edi–
fication or of therapy for sick souls.
This theoretical question cannot be settled unless the position being
considered is accurately presented. And I regret to say that Mr. Vivas is
simply not trustworthy in reporting or interpreting the key positions
of naturalism, especially those of Dewey. I restrict myself to just a few
illustrations. He maintains that, save for a slight inconsistency in his
90th year, Dewey identifies scientific method with the techniques of
physics; that by growth he means the indefinite "addition" of any
quality to personality; and that he conceives of man "solely in terms
of abstract powers, faculties and endowments" (this of the author of
Human Nature and Conduct).1
1. In my own comparatively unimportant case Vivas doesn't even bother to
misinterpret. He simply resorts to outright invention. In my
Education for M od–
ern Man
I say that since the fundamental
social
problem of our culture "is to
defend and extend our democratic heritage of rights and duties in an industrial
society that can provide security for all," the social science curriculum of our
schools should study contemporary materials relevant to this problem and not
merely the great books of the past. Whereupon Vivas attributes to me the doc–
trine that the
ends
of education should be political, that students should be
brought up to enlist in a party, and similar Zhdanov-Iike views with which my
own are explicitly compared as only a weaker version. No mention is made of
the fact that I vigorously criticize this position. Nor is any reference made to
my list of the ends of education, cited on page 2 of the book and carefully
developed in the text. For it would give the lie direct to Mr. Vivas' words.
