ABSTRACT
1. The Possibility of a Self-explanatory System.—The conception of Perfection would seem to be the only one in which there is any hope of finding an ultimate explanation. If a system is seen to be perfect, no further explanation need be sought. It is then apprehended as causa sui. On the other hand, in dealing with anything that displays imperfection, we are always led to inquire, Why is it thus, rather than otherwise? Now, it is no doubt quite possible to harden our hearts against this demand for explanation, and to say that we must rest satisfied with the description of what we actually find in the universe of our experience, without any attempt at ultimate explanation. This is the attitude of Positivism; and, indeed, it is also the attitude of that kind of Agnosticism which is represented by Kant and some of his followers. According to these views, we can only know what is phenomenal, and the phenomenal never contains any explanation of itself. It has simply to be accepted. Now, it is of course true that we have to accept the phenomenal Universe. William James reported 1 the saying of Margaret Fuller, that she “accepted the Universe,” and Carlyle’s comment, “Gad! she’d better.” In a sense, it may even be admitted that we have to accept it without any hope of a completely satisfactory explanation. Yet it is hardly possible to inhibit altogether the demand of our nature for some sort of explanation of what we know. If we cannot find a complete one, we must at least try to see in what direction an explanation is to be sought. Now, there are two main directions in which in almost all ages of reflective thought men have been led to look for a self-explanatory system. Mathematical science seems to be, in a sense, self-explanatory, and so does human choice. A brief consideration of the sense in which this is true in each case may bring us to the heart of our problem.
