Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/116

100 England, treated in a more disconnected way " (p. viii) may be open to dispute. To bring topics within the same covers is not necessarily to bring them into close relation, or to make them illuminate one another.

What, then, is the Social Philosophy to which the reader is introduced? It is defined "as concerned with the relations of men to each other, with their relations to the material world, and with the development of individual character in so far as that is affected by these relations" (p. 62). From this definition we may see what the author goes on to state, that its "three main departments" are "Political Philosophy, Economic Philosophy, and Philosophy of Education." Economic Philosophy or political economy (I understand the two to be used as synonyms) he analyzes into "two sciences and at least five arts" (p. 5 6), and says that "Social Philosophy ought to play the part of a kind of Platonic justice among them, setting each in its proper sphere, and teaching it to recognize what it can really accomplish and what lies beyond its limits" (p. 57). This definition is elaborately developed in the first chapter; the second states the problem with which Social Philosophy is confronted; the third analyzes the conception of an organism and shows the sense in which society may be called an organic unity; the fourth is devoted to the social aim and largely occupied with a criticism of hedonism; the fifth is an attempt to determine the ideal of society and includes an elaborate examination of socialism; the sixth is an effort to apply the ideal to the actual problems of society; the seventh and last is a brief chapter summarizing the whole.

Mr. Mackenzie attempts to defend himself against the objection that he has "gone entirely beyond the limits of such an investigation as is suggested in chapter I" (p. 369), but I cannot think he is successful in the effort. He holds "the special good that Social Philosophy yields us" to be that "it teaches us to place the various ends of life in their right relations to each other" (p. 375).

It is a fair inquiry whether such a branch of knowledge as Social Philosophy exists, and the proof of it given is hardly convincing. When two writers in such general sympathy in their views of political economy as Mr. Mackenzie and the author of the article on Political Economy in the last edition of the Encyclopœdia Britannica attempt to base their harmonious conclusions the one largely on Hegel's philosophy, the other largely on Comte's, the question naturally arises, has either one made out a necessary connection between his metaphysics and his economics?

But even if social philosophy be given a place in the hierarchy of the sciences, we cannot repress the doubt whether Mr. Mackenzie was wise in taking upon himself to introduce the public to its mysteries. Such a task requires in any case the maturest powers and the most thorough familiarity with all phases of the subject; above all is this true of so vast