animal, the natural life of obedience to immediate sensibility is not a life according to nature,' according to his higher and proper nature as man. All his natural tendencies to activity, all the surging clamant life of natural sensibility, must be criticised, adjudged, approved or condemned, accepted or rejected, by the higher insight of reason which enables him to see his life in its meaning as a whole. His life is not a mere struggle of natural tendencies; he is the critic, as well as the subject, of such promptings and it is as critic of his own nature that he is master of his own destiny. Just in so far as he makes impulse his minister, as he is master of impulse, or is mastered and defeated by it, does man succeed or fail in the task of self-realisation.

:

7. The rational or personal self: its intellectual and ethical functions compared. Thus interpreted, the business of self-realisation might be described as a work of moral synthesis. Since the time of Kant, epistemology has found in rational synthesis the fundamental principle of knowledge. Green has elaborated the parallel, in this respect, between knowledge and morality, and shown us the activity of the rational ego at the heart of both. Professor Laurie, in his conception of 'willreason,' has also emphasised the identity of the process in both cases. The task of the rational ego is, in the moral reference, the organisation of sensibility, as, in the intellectual case, it is the organisation of sensation. Impulses and feelings must, like sensations, be challenged by the self, criticised, measured, and co-ordinated or assigned their place in the ego's single life. The insight of reason is needed for this work of organisation or synthesis, as Plato and Aristotle saw. As, in the construction of the percept out of the original sensation, the ego recognises, discriminates between, selects from, and combines the sensations presented, and thus forms out of them an object of knowledge; so, in the construction of the end

out of the original impulse, we find the same recognition, discrimination, selection, and organisation of the crude data of sensibility. Only through this synthesis of the manifold of sensibility, through this reduction of its several elements to the common measure of a single rational life, can the ego constitute for itself moral ends, and a supreme end or ideal of life.

Following the clue of the epistemological parallel, we find that Hedonism in ethics rests upon the same kind of psychological atomism' as that which forms the basis of the sensationalistic or empirical theory of knowledge. Hedonism rests upon the atomism of the separate individual feeling or impulse, as Sensationalism rests upon the atomism of the separate individual sensation. A thoroughgoing empiricism, whether in ethics or in epistemology, fails to see the need of rational synthesis or system. The empiricist seems to think that the atoms of sensation or of sensibility will mass themselves; he endows them with a kind of dynamical property. And it is true that sensibility, like sensation, already contains within itself a kind of synthesis, that there is a certain continuity in the sentient as in the sensational life; that each is to be regarded rather as a stream than as the several links of a chain not yet in existence. But this elementary synthesis must be supplemented in either case by the higher and completer synthesis of reason, if we would pass from the level of the animal to the higher level of human life. Feeling gives a 'fringe' or margin, narrower or broaderassociation more or less intimate-but system comes with reason. To be unified or systematised, feeling must be idealised or intellectualised. Morality is the constant dictation of idea to existence, the continual chastisement of feeling by reason.1 The integration of impulse is the Man is more than a subject of feeling,

work of reason.

1 Mr F. H. Bradley puts this in his own way when he says that "the 'what' of all feeling is discordant with its 'that.'"- Appearance and Reality, p. 460.

he is also a thinker; and his thought, as well as his feeling, has a bearing upon his activity, though only through his feeling. The rational 'I' integrates the impulses by thinking or conceiving them, by considering their meaning. Like Plato and Aristotle, Butler and Kant saw that this 'practical wisdom,' or rational insight into the meaning of impulse, is the secret of self-control. Only through the exercise of this supreme endowment can the unity and harmony of a well-ordered life take the place of the discord and chaos of ungoverned impulse. The unity of moral life is the unity of rational purpose.

1

The answer of Kant to epistemological empiricism may therefore be extended to ethical empiricism. Psychology itself suggests the Kantian answer, and helps us to correct it. Feelings and impulses are not, any more than sensations, separate and atomic, but, even in their own nature, they form parts in the continuous stream of the mental life. But the life of feeling and impulse, as a whole, is 'loose' or separate, and has to be 'apperceived,' 1 or made an element in the life of the rational ego. The dualism of reason and sensibility is very real. The life of the spirit is never smooth and easy, like the life of nature; there is always opposition, an intractable matter to be subdued to spiritual form. And the labour and effort of the spirit is greater, the matter is more intractable, and the struggle with it harder, in the moral than in the intellectual life.

8. The sentient or individual self.—But while we thus extend to the ethical life the transcendental or Kantian answer to empiricism, we must be careful not to go to the other extreme, and lose the truth of Hedonism. Ethical, like intellectual empiricism, contains an important truth. Adopting Kant's terminology, we may say that ethical personality constitutes itself through the subsumption of the empirical or sentient ego by the

1 In the Kantian sense of that term.

6

transcendental or rational ego. Neither in the life of the empirical ego alone, as the Hedonists maintain, nor in that of the transcendental ego alone, as the ethical Rationalists maintain, but in the relation of the one to the other, or in the synthetic unity of apperception,' does morality consist. We must conserve the real, as well as the ideal, side of the moral life. The error of transcendentalism whether Kantian or Hegelian - is that it sacrifices the real, ethically as ontologically, to the ideal, that it sublimates the life of feeling into the life of reason. This is precisely the error of the ancient Greek moralists, the error of sacrificing the moral life, with all its concrete reality of living, throbbing human sensibility, on the altar of intellect or cool philosophic reason. We are not to think of reason as having exclusive interests of its own, apart from those of sensibility; its interest is rather the total interest of sensibility itself. By its peculiar insight and splendid impartiality, reason secures the well-being of the life of sensibility, and, through the integration of its several conflicting tendencies in the conception of ends and of a supreme ideal, effects that perfect and harmonious sentient satisfaction which we call happiness. We must insist that the person is always an individual; his personality acts upon, and constitutes itself out of, his individuality. The rational 'I'must not merely think, it must think the sentient and otherwise irrational Me'; the 'I' must live in the 'Me,' reason in feeling. The doctrine of the abstract universal, of pure rational selfhood, of form without content, is no less inadequate than the doctrine of the abstract particular, of mere individual sensibility, of content without form. In the moral as in the intellectual sphere, the real is concrete,-the universal in the particular, such a unity of both as means the absolute sacrifice of neither. Such a moral realism at once recognises the truth of idealism, Kantian or Hegelian, and supplements it by a more adequate interpretation of ethical fact. For,

morally as intellectually, "the individual alone is the real."

9. 'Be a person.'-The key to the ethical harmony, then, is: Be a person; constitute, out of your natural individuality, the true or ideal self of personality. The difference between the life of man and that of nature is that, while nature is under law, man has to subject himself to law. The law or order is, in both cases, the expression of reason; but the reason which shows itself in nature as force, shows itself in man as will. Will is the power of self-government which belongs to a rational being, or, as Kant said, 'practical reason.' For, while the entire life of man is permeated by feeling, and may even be regarded as the outcome and expression of feeling, the law of that life, the law of feeling itself, is not found in feeling, but in reason. Feeling must become organic to reason, the life of the former must become an element in the life of the latter, not vice versa. For feelings do not control themselves, as Mill said the higher control the lower, and as Spencer says the re-representative control the representative, and these in turn the presentative. The representative or higher feelings have not, qua feelings, any authority over, or superiority to, the presentative or lower. It is the rational self which interprets all feelings by its self-reference, or by its synthetic activity upon them, and which, by such self-reference, makes them higher or lower, assigns to each its place and value, according as each is a more or less adequate vehicle of its self-realisation.

Here we find the true autonomy of the moral life. The law of his life, the criterion of the manner and the measure of the exercise of each impulse, is the proper nature or rational selfhood of the man. He cannot, without ceasing to be man, abjure this function of selflegislation, or cease to demand of himself a life which shall be the fulfilment of his true and characteristic nature