Page:Philosophical Review Volume 20.djvu/578

564

M. Alfred Fouilée is the French philosopher of to-day who is perhaps in closest touch and deepest sympathy with his time. Hence there is hardly a question now before the French parliament and the French public that is not touched upon in this last volume of his. He treats of the organization of democracy, the education of democracy, and the social problems that beset democracy, from the standpoint of a sociologist who is not governed by considerations of expediency but presents his remedies, whether popular or not. It is indeed obvious that some of M. Fouilée's suggestions will meet with little response from the practitioners of French politics, many of whom, last year, did not seem even to have heard of him when his name was mentioned in the House. But the author of the Idées-forces would be a poor philosopher if that were to deter him from offering his advice: he knows that sound and just ideas have a way of reaching even the class of people that do not generally go to philosophers for guidance and inspiration.

It is the first part of the book that is likely to prove of greatest interest to the American reader because it deals with problems common to all modern governments. M. Fouilée enumerates, and characterizes with his usual felicity, the fallacies and antinomies of every individualistic democracy. He shows that the abstract notions of liberty and equality, the much heralded 'rights of man' must be considered in the light of a higher principle, a principle including not merely the individual but society, not merely the present but the future. Liberty of the individual to govern himself has for its counterpart the responsibility of that individual towards the nation whom he governs. Moreover, the equality provided by the constitutions is often in practice the triumph of inequality, since it equalizes what is unequal. A nation is something more than an accidental collection of units; it is a living and permanent being, having an organization to preserve, traditions to defend, rights and duties to protect against passing interests and ephemeral passions. A broader and more intelligent representation is needed in a republic. To obtain it the means advocated by the author are the adoption of proportional representation in the elections to the House, and a reform in the composition of the Senate as well as in the election of the President.

M. Fouilée's chapter on the "idea of Fatherland" is an echo of recent French controversies between nationalists and internationalists and concludes with a very sound reconciliation of the claims of country with those of humanity. Likewise the chapter on modern education deals mainly with the problem of the neutrality of the school, which was so violently agitated in France last year. But it emphasizes also the author's strong protest against the utilitarian tendencies of the school system which, if carried to their extreme consequences, will lower all liberal professions and bring about "the oppression of the best by the worst." While the author is in all the other debates on the side of the moderate element, on the question of school neutrality he is very much opposed to all compromise with any creed, religious or philosophical.