Hodgson, Clifford, and the Unseen Universe

W. Mander
{"title":"Hodgson, Clifford, and the Unseen Universe","authors":"W. Mander","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846499.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Metaphysical Society debates were largely between those espousing religious commitment to the transcendent and those defending scientific naturalism. However, this paper highlights a third strain of thought to be found among the Society’s proceedings, one which regarded philosophy – and especially metaphysics – as an autonomous discipline with its own method and authority. To this way of thinking the proper project of the Society was precisely to use such independent and constructive philosophy to seek for reconciliation between the opposed views of religion and science. The paper focuses on the pair of Society members who most strongly embody this point of view, Shadworth Hodgson (1832–1912) and William Kingdon Clifford, (1845–79) analysing their several contributions and, in particular, comparing their different responses to the theory set out in Peter Guthrie Tait and Balfour Stewart’s influential work, The Unseen World. (1875) Both thinkers see merit in the idea of an unseen realm. However, both relativize this ‘unseen’ to a point of view, thereby ruling out of court that which is utterly and completely unknowable. In this respect they are linked together in common opposition to one further widespread philosophy of the day, agnosticism. From an historical perspective neither Hodgson nor Clifford met with much popular or lasting success in their attempts at finding a philosophical reconciliation between religion and science, and the paper concludes by contrasting their efforts with those of the British Idealists who, seemingly, were able to achieve much greater recognition in what was in many respects a similarly motivated ambition.","PeriodicalId":194796,"journal":{"name":"The Metaphysical Society (1869-1880)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Metaphysical Society (1869-1880)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846499.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Metaphysical Society debates were largely between those espousing religious commitment to the transcendent and those defending scientific naturalism. However, this paper highlights a third strain of thought to be found among the Society’s proceedings, one which regarded philosophy – and especially metaphysics – as an autonomous discipline with its own method and authority. To this way of thinking the proper project of the Society was precisely to use such independent and constructive philosophy to seek for reconciliation between the opposed views of religion and science. The paper focuses on the pair of Society members who most strongly embody this point of view, Shadworth Hodgson (1832–1912) and William Kingdon Clifford, (1845–79) analysing their several contributions and, in particular, comparing their different responses to the theory set out in Peter Guthrie Tait and Balfour Stewart’s influential work, The Unseen World. (1875) Both thinkers see merit in the idea of an unseen realm. However, both relativize this ‘unseen’ to a point of view, thereby ruling out of court that which is utterly and completely unknowable. In this respect they are linked together in common opposition to one further widespread philosophy of the day, agnosticism. From an historical perspective neither Hodgson nor Clifford met with much popular or lasting success in their attempts at finding a philosophical reconciliation between religion and science, and the paper concludes by contrasting their efforts with those of the British Idealists who, seemingly, were able to achieve much greater recognition in what was in many respects a similarly motivated ambition.
霍奇森,克利福德和看不见的宇宙
形而上学社会的辩论主要是在那些支持宗教对超验的承诺和那些捍卫科学自然主义之间进行的。然而,这篇论文强调了在学会会议记录中发现的第三种思想,这种思想将哲学——尤其是形而上学——视为一门具有自己方法和权威的自主学科。对于这种思维方式,学会的正确计划恰恰是用这种独立的和建设性的哲学来寻求宗教和科学的对立观点之间的和解。本文着重于两位最能体现这一观点的社会成员,Shadworth Hodgson(1832-1912)和William Kingdon Clifford(1845-79),分析了他们的几项贡献,特别是比较了他们对Peter Guthrie Tait和Balfour Stewart颇具影响力的作品《看不见的世界》中提出的理论的不同回应。(1875)两位思想家都认为存在一个看不见的领域是有价值的。然而,两者都将这种“看不见的”相对化为一种观点,从而将完全不可知的事物排除在法庭之外。在这方面,他们是联系在一起,共同反对一个进一步广泛的哲学,不可知论。从历史的角度来看,霍奇森和克利福德在寻找宗教与科学之间的哲学和解的努力中,都没有获得广泛的或持久的成功。论文最后将他们的努力与英国唯心主义者的努力进行了对比,英国唯心主义者似乎能够在许多方面获得更大的认可,这在许多方面都是类似的动机野心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信