C. C. J. W.
1919 Mind  
NEW BOOKS. 487 have, however, left him as convinced as ever thai neither emotion nor faith, feelings nor intuitions can do the' work of reason; and at a time when many 'substitutes for reason' (p. 21) are loudly advertised, this profession of loyalty to the true mistress of all philosophers is welcome. For Sir Henry Jones two faiths were at grips with one another in the war; the faith that the State has no duty but to be strong and the faith that her supreme purpose is moral. The latter faith
more » ... his own; but be is careful by a fine exposition (in oh. 4) of the truth contained in the Hegelian theory of the State to remind us that it is more important to bear in mind what is of permanent value in that theory than to abuse it on aooount of the ' corrupt following' of it by our late enemies. He parts company decisively with this • corrupt following' when he says (p. 140) that 'the State has no authority except on the assumption that it also speaks in a name that is higher than its own'. But when he describes this higher as ' the good of all rational beings' and tells us that' natural rights are in the human being in virtue of the recognition of a common good,' he. like other thinkers of his school, takes too much for granted the obviousness of the connexion between the correlative conceptions of authority and obligation and the notion of a 'common good, and the possibility of explaining the former by the Utter. While insisting eloquently on the importance of regarding the State as moral in its purpose and function, Sir Henry Jones makes it dear that so to regard it does not necessarily involve us in 'the cardinal error of pacifism ' (p. 72), the belief, as he puts it, in the absolute value of the particular fact and forgetfulness that' duty is never done de haut en bat'. The problem of the 'conscientious objector' is wisely and understandingĥ andled on pp. 168-9. On the future relations of capital and labour among ourselves, the difficulties in adjusting which are largely due, as he points out, to the fact that we, like the Germans, have allowed material progress to outrun moral, although we have not justified our fault by making it our creed (hat the State is above morality-Sir Henry Jones's position is one of generous but not undiseriminating optimism. And this optimism is rooted in his religious faith. The admirable and inspiring little book ends on a religious and indeed (in a quotation from Tennyson) on a definitely Christian note. 0. 0. J. W. The Siate in Peace and War. Professor Watson is in political philosophy a disciple of Green; and those acquainted with the teaching of the school to which he belongs will find little in this work which is not already familiar to them. It is a fundamental feature of this teaching that the notion of obligation is assumed to depend upon that of a * common good' far more obviously than to the present writer it seems to do; and the consequent subordination of the former notion to the latter by thinkers who are justly regarded as standing for the ethical and spiritual interpretation of human life has, I venture to think, bad an unfortunate effect upon the attitude toward political authority of a generation brought up in an intolleotual atmosphere which these members have done much to form. It is without surprise that we find Prof. Watson doing something less than justice to Kant's theory of punishment; for, although Kant's use of the word ' autonomy' must bear a considerable share of responsibility for the subsequent tendency to find in the conceptions of a ' common good' and a ' general will' an adequate
doi:10.1093/mind/xxviii.4.487 fatcat:v74o22kzurfn5pum577kyaaa5y