if we take Professor Howison as he expresses himself, we find the constitution of the moral world, according to him, essentially resembling the constitution ascribed by realists to “things in themselves,” existent apart from the processes, the organisation, or the contents of any mind. On the other hand, from Professor Howison’s point of view, my own thesis inevitably reduces the constitution of the moral world to a collection of contents, presented merely as contents in the unity of the Absolute Experience. And Professor Howison not unjustly insists that such a thesis, if viewed as the whole of my doctrine, would deprive the moral world of elements essential to its genuine constitution. In reply, I have endeavoured to show that the development, and in fact the only consistent development, of my thesis introduces into the definition of the Absolute elements which render the definition of a moral world not only adequate and intelligible but inevitable; and that, too, without detriment to the absolute unity of this ultimately real Consciousness itself.
I
PROFESSOR HOWISON, AND THE ANTINOMY OF THE
MORAL WORLD
In view of the position that has thus been reached, I venture to return explicitly to the formal statement of the antinomy which was indicated in the Introduction of this supplementary paper, which was discussed substantially in its Second, Third, and Fourth Parts,
