1920 Mind  
another on the question: Is then ' Knowledge by Acquaintance ' ? by Prof. Dawes Hioks, Drs. Moore and Edgell, and the present reviewer. The whole constitutes a very interesting contribution to current philosophical controversies. I propose to deal with the three symposia as briefly as possible, and then to give a short account of Mr. Russell's paper, whioh, whatever may be thought of its other merits, is certainly the most startling in the collection. Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the
more » ... thy feature of the symposium on Space, Time, and Material is the singular irrelevance of some of the contributions. Dr. Head gives a most interesting paper summing up the results of his physiological work on cutaneous sensations. Like »11 first hand accounts of his own researches by a great experimentalist it makes fascinating reading ; but I cannot see that it has muoh bearing on the question under discussion. Sir Oliver Lodge's paper contains nothing that calls for comment, and throws no fresh light on the subject Prof. Wnitehead's paper is a sketch of the ideas whioh he has sinoe developed in much greater detail and published in his Principles of Natural Knowledge. A good deal that is obscure in the symposium becomes clear when read in the context of the book. This contribution is of oourse the chef d'osuvre of this discussion. In Prof. Nicholson too we have » symposiast with a first-hand knowledge and a complete mathematical grip of the ideas and results of modern physics. The result is an excellent paper, in so far as it tells us about the quantum theory, points out the important distinction between the microsoopio and the macroscopic, and raises the question whether the concepts that are fundamental in the one region will be so in the other. But, just as Dr. Head's paper is interesting physiology with little bearing on philosophical questions, so Prof. Nicholson's paper is interesting physics leading to no very definite formulation of the question and still leas to any definite answer. Mrs. Stephen's contribution is, as usual, Bergson done muoh better than Bergson could do it himself. She does not indeed, to my mind, succeed in making the Frenoh philosopher intelligible, but her attempts are always amazingly clever and remind the present writer of Dr. MoTaggart's relation to Hegel, about which one feels that the
doi:10.1093/mind/xxix.2.232 fatcat:w3poczwkhbhf7mfaaltztlkjz4