Showing 67 results

Lord Francis Jeffrey is expecting a copy of WW's paper ['On the Fundamental Antithesis of Philosophy', Trans. of the Cambridge Phil. Soc., 1844] - 'you had better send one'. Charles Babbage would also like one Edward Ryan says. 'Ld. J. has been reading my copy and scribbling on it but he has been so seriously ill with the influenza that I have not had any talk with him about it '. John S. Mill 'has been publishing a paper to prove that a priori reasoning is not only good in Pol. Eco. but the only reasoning applicable to it. God help him and those this belief leads to trust in him[,] his Papa and his school'. Charlotte Jones is still an invalid and RJ is worried that her symptoms are precisely those which preceded the fatal illness of her sister.

Clifton - Thanks WW for his three works: 'One is above me, but I have read your remarks on Hegel [On Hegel's Criticism of Newton's Principia, 1849] and Mill [Of Induction, 1849] with much pleasure. The former you have well demolished; and I concur in much the greater part of your criticism of the latter, though not having his system of logic by me, I cannot go fully into it'. HH gives his comments on some of WW's remarks in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840): 'I have no right to object to your definition of Induction, though it seems to me more limited than ever the modern use of the word'. HH's remark is primarily directed at what WW says of the ancient induction. HH situates his understanding of Aristotle in the debate.

Suggests that 'a cheap edition' of Henry Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics be issued for the many students for whom expense is a large consideration all through their university careers, as well as for the wider public 'who have heard of the book.' Refers to John Mill's Political Economy and his Logic, which were both published in cheaper editions.

Haileybury - RJ is unable to lecture due to a 'visitation of the nerves of the face'. RJ thinks that the common character of Fourier, Comte and John S. Mill is St. Simonianism - they 'began with speculating on induction and well then they applied their instrument of discovery to history and politics. T hey found out that preceding states of mankind[,] religious and intellectual followed each other in a sort of necessary sequence in which [Jove?] and [J.C.?] found their proper places while the course of events urged on by a fluid and unreasoning necessity was even now producing new forms of religion and policy also in their proper place of which novelties they the great inductors were to be the prophets[,] expounders and administrators - and having the present and future thus in their hands they set no limits to the practical profligacy they meant to indulge in and having preached a community of women and goods they perished because it was quite clear they did not mean to share fairly'. RJ gives a synopsis of Fourier's book - 'published at the common expense of a society of Frenchmen associated for the purpose of disseminating his doctrines and if possible trying his plans. I see nothing of the inductive part but he takes up mathematically and astronomically the theory of successive cycles distinguished by different religious and political systems of these some are better some worse we are near the close of the very worst which is only to last 5000 years and near the opening of the very best which is to last 15000. He of course reveals its regime and becomes at once more disgustingly profligate than the St. Simonians because more elaborately and systematically'. Further, 'every woman is to be allowed 5 lovers - besides casual professors - by two of the lovers only is she to have children. and towns and buildings are to be constructed with a view to carry out all this in winter and summer by night and by day with the greatest possible comfort and convenience'. 'Very mad you say - good[,] in what sort of atmosphere moral[,] political and intellectual could all this be generated and wonderful to tell inculcated in an expensive form and with a confidence of finding readers and adherents?' RJ has nothing to say about the morals of Comte's books - 'Though there are significant indications of a new code of his own. But he too is an inductor (a very bad one) and is going to bring politics and religion to obedience to the laws of the positive sciences and whatever becomes of morals all that there is theological feudal or metaphysical in public institutions or ideas is to fall crushed beneath the power of the new positive philosophy and its revelations. With him too all the past has obeyed a set of laws acting quite independently of any will human or divine and so will the proximate future - the exact regime of that future he does not disclose - all existing institutions and opinions are to be chased away and as a practical preliminary step he proposes a committee of 30 sitting permanently at Paris consisting of 8 Frenchmen[,] 7 Englishmen and made up by the rest of the Continent who are to preach against all the past and proclaim the coming era till the nations of the earth are willing to receive new laws[,] manners[,] institutions and morals from the hand of a wise legislator Mr. Comte of course or his disciples - the change of institutions though compleat is to be less important than the equally compleat change in morals and manners from which again every thing theological[,] feudal or metaphysical is to be excluded and positive science is to preside and dictate'. Comte 'is a child of the St. Simonians without either their philosophical cleverness or their bold unblushing profligacy'. Just as Comte dedicates his book to Fourier, Mill dedicates his book to Comte: 'Whatever Mill may think of their morals his book we must admit steers clear of their profligacy but he of all men is unlucky in being linked with such a man at all. But as a philosopher Comte has done a great deal towards mystifying him'.

Collingwood - RJ is full of things to say to WW as he continues to read John S. Mill's book on Logic. John Herschel has not yet got through Mill's section on dialectics [see RJ to WW, 6 April 1843] - 'he likes them but thinks as you do of Comte - or more meanly still. Mill obviously struggles against light and would willingly like Whately [Richard Whately] first shew the real value of the syllogism and then represent the use of it as the best means of getting at new truths for inconsistent as this is what else can he mean by talking of a deductive method which is opposed to and better than and which is to supplant induction - on which induction it is after all to rest. Practically he prefers I presume the smallest possible quantity of induction and the greatest possible of ratiocination. It would serve him right to take some of the social science in the probable progress of which he discards induction and shew where ratiocination led in other days his Papa and himself. How moderate an induction would have been their observation and how little when reasoning had led them by the nose into a slough they were in any plight to save themselves by a verification of facts. There is not only the case but a little army of cases in which they might be shewn floundering and lost and their path traced back through this miserable logic. I must read the second vol. over again after I have finished it once. I find much of it very obscure'.

Tithe Commission - Has WW seen young Mill's book [John S. Mill, 'A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation', 1843]: 'there is much that must interest us. He bestows a length of tedious pages on the first elements of dialectics which will assuredly frighten the public. I have only just got through this and like the atmosphere I have arrived at pretty well - which is a pity - he called me a blood-hound you know and I should have liked to be able to lay at him a little more than I feel disposed to do after looking at the book'. RJ and Charlotte Jones are going to stay with John Herschel for a week in Kent. Haileybury has been rocked by internal quarrelling.

Thanks Sidgwick for sending him his book on Ethics [The Methods of Ethics], which he has been looking through 'with great interest.' Believes that it will have a positive impact, as it is, in his opinion, 'by far the most comprehensive and elaborate investigation of the subject that has appeared in England for a long time'. Hopes that its impartial tone will assist in calming the 'theological bitterness' which has arisen around the subject. Refers to Sidgwick's remark about his [Lecky's] confustion of [ ] with Egoistic Hedonism, and to 'Mill's theory'. Hopes to avail himself of the light Sidgwick has thrown on the subject, when he is working on his own [performance] for another edition. Suggests that when HS comes to bring out another edition, he should have 'a short index mark', which would be an advantage given the numerous illustrations in the work.

Hopes she did not become ill on her return home; received a long letter from [Harriet] Martineau, who says she did not write the article on 'Woman' in the Westminster Review but rather it was by [John Stuart Mill]; Mr N [Nicholls] came to call before his departure for Ireland; encloses a note for her amusement from the man who called about an epitaph for his cousin [not present].

JCH is 'a most resolute monitor, for you repeat your admonitions without any regard to the answer which is made to them, or any information as to details' [see WW to JCH, 31 Mar. 1843]. WW challenges the characteristics of the three men JCH sent to assail WW's position: 'Wilberforce certainly did incur, from a very large body of persons, a most vehement charge of self-will'. Bishop Otter needed a little more self-will. The letter WW received from Connop Thirlwall 'was a most earnest condemnation of the suppression of one Welsh bishopric...I never dreamt that you could doubt on which side he was'. WW does not think JCH will find John S. Mill's 'Logic' will repay his study well: 'He is far removed from his former opinions, but equally positive in every phase of change'.

Thanks Mayor for returning his MS. Claims that if he had been confident enough in his memory to serve Mayor's or Nora Sidgwick's purpose regarding 'the philosophical discussions at Trumpington' he would have answered him before. Is confused about dates, but states that he has little doubt that he first went to Professor Grote's house to listen to, and occasionally read, philosophical papers in the October term of 1863. States that the only other people who attended these meetings at this time were Henry Sidgwick, 'John Venn of Caius, and Pearson of St John's'. Describes the attributes of each of those who attended, and remarks that Sidgwick obviously preferred ethics to metaphysics, and recalls [Professor] Alfred Marshall emphasising his admiration of this side of Sidgwick very soon after he made his acquaintance. Refers to Sidgwick's opinion of Kant and Hegel, and to the intuitionalism 'which in the end he united with his utilitarianism'. Is uncertain as to whether he gave any measure of assent to the first fundametal proposition of 'Ferrier's Institutes of Metaphysics'

Wishes that he could remember more of the actual papers that Sidgwick read to the Philosophical Society, which was, after Grote's death, called the Grote Society, but has the impression that 'they were tentatives towards the kind of line which he afterwards took in the Methods of Ethics'. Refers also to Sidgwick's attitude to metaphysics. Believes that J.S. Mill was the philosopher whom he always admired and trusted the most. Holds, however, that he changed his view of Mill between 1863 and 1873, citing his reaction to Mill's Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, and to Fitzjames Stephen's attack on Mill in Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Refers to Grote's view of ethics and metaphysics, and to his Treatise on the Moral Ideals, and to the similarities between him and Sidgwick. Refers also to other members of the society, such as Henry Jackson and Maurice. Recalls Sidgwick's good opinion of Venn, who was a great admirer of Mill, and names other members of the society, such as W. K. Clifford and T. W. Levin. Recalls also that when he [Mozley] went to Clifton in September 1864, Sidgwick wrote to somebody, referring to him as 'the first original a priori philosopher that has trod the streets of Cambridge for many a day'. Does not think that Herbert Spencer was ever a great favourite in the society, but had himself a great respect for him 'as the founder of the theory of evolution.' Adds that when 'the old crow, who could count up to five, but not beyond, once came before the Grote Society', Sidgwick 'was unkind enough to doubt his existence' and none of the rest of them could give evidence for him.

Thanks Sidgwick for sending him printed copies of Marshall's Theory of [Foreign] Trade. Declares his problems to be 'exceedingly ingenious and very important for throwing light on difficult points of pol[itical] econ[omy].' Refers to his own and Sidgwick's differing interpretations of one of Marshall's points regarding the method of diagrams and the method of symbols. States that he has 'for some time past been inquiring into the history of the mathematical treatment of Economics', and hopes eventually to publish his findings. Refers to the Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses by Augustin Cournot, which he believes to be 'a very beautiful piece of mathematical analysis applied to the laws of supply and demand'. Refers to an enclosed list (not included). Announces that he will refer to Professor Marshall's inquiries in the new edition of his Theory. Expresses his satisfaction at getting Sidgwick's ideas about his attack on Mill, but disagrees with him on a point in relation to Herbert Spencer. Claims that in Mill 'contradiction is of the essence of his method'. Hopes some day to complete his criticism and prove his assertions, but claims to be not equal to finishing all he undertakes.

Thanks Sidgwick for the copy of the additions to the new edition of Methods of Ethics. Remarks on Sidgwick's publishing of the additions separately as being 'a very liberal thing', and asserts that the book 'has done great service to the cause of accurate thinking'. Claims that 'all good candidates for London degrees make a point of reading it', and that, as a result, there is 'a sensible improvement in the mode of thinking on the subject.' Suggests that sometime in the future, when several of his proposed articles on [ ] have appeared, Sidgwick might give his opinion on 'the success or otherwise of [Jevons'] attack on Mill's [Logicalness].

Refers to two tables, which compare wages paid in Ireland with those paid in the United Kingdom. Observes that in general the remuneration of labour is less in Ireland than in Great Britain. Table three relates to 'the relative resources of Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.' Based on population statistics, including birth and death rates, concludes that the general conditions in Ireland are inferior to those in Great Britain. Refers to emigration levels in the two countries, and discusses income and income tax at length, and in relation to the various employment sectors. Refers also to the economic theory that 'taxable capacity may be taken as in strict proportion to income, that all members of the community should pay alike in proportion to income'. Cites the economic theory of John Stuart Mill, and his own book The Growth of Capital.

Reports that he has been reading and re-reading Henry Sidgwick: A Memoir; says that it deepens and extends his influence, and is the best assurance that those who knew Henry can have 'of his continued presence and unfailing sympathy.' Recalls that he first became acquainted with Henry in the late 1860s, and states that he writes to draw attention to 'a phase of his work which is not noticed' in the book. States that about that time Henry and others introduced a system of inter-collegiate lectures 'which were of inestimable value to impecunious students.' Refers to his own experience of this arrangement and to the benefits that he derived from it. Mentions the names of several men from whom he received tuition, including Mr Beatson at Pembroke, Henry, Mr Levine, Mr Percy Gardner, Mr [Henry?] Jackson and Mr Marshall. Claims that he owed his first class to Henry's lectures and the papers that he did for him. Refers to The Methods of Ethics, and also to Henry's lectures on metaphysics, Whewell, Hamilton, Bentham, Mill and Kant, and relates how he convinced him on the question of Utilitarianism. Refers also to Henry's stammer, without which, he claims' 'note-taking would have been impossible.'

In Nora Sidgwick's hand. Declares his aim: to give an account of his life - mainly his inner intellectual life - 'as shall render the central and fundamental aims that partially at least determined its course when apparently most fitful and erratic, as clear and intelligible as [he] can.' Refers to biographical information in 'the Life of Edward Benson' [by A. C. Benson], in which he noted 'the great change that took place about the middle of [his] undergraduate time', which was triggered by his becoming a member of the discussion society known as the Apostles. Refers to a description of the latter in the late Dean Merivale's autobiography. Describes the spirit of the society as that of 'the pursuit of truth with absolute devotion and unreserved by a group of intimate friends, who were perfectly frank with each other and indulgent in any amount of humourous [sic] sarcasm and playful banter....' Emphasises the importance of sincerity, but not necessarily of gravity in its discussions. Had at first been reluctant to join the society, as he believed that it would interfere with his work for his two triposes, but came to feel that no part of his life at Cambridge was so real to him as the Saturday evenings he spent at the meetings at which Apostolic debates were held.

It was many years before he was to embrace the study of philosophy as his life's work: the reasons for this were partly financial. He had to accept the Classical lectureship that was offered to him on October 1859, and therefore had to devote a considerable amount of time to classical study. He also allowed himself 'to be seduced into private tuition as a means of increasing [his] income.' Adds that Cambridge vacations being long, he had a good deal of spare time, and he began a systematic study of philosophy, reading J.S. Mill's works. Discusses the influence that the latter had on him, but adds that he was 'by no means [then] disposed to acquiesce in negative or agnostic answers', and hat he had not in any way broken with the orthodox Christianity in which he had been brought up, though he had been sceptical of it.

Refers also to his study of theology and political economy. In 1862 he was very impressed by Renan's Essai [Études] d'histoire religieuse, and derived from that work that it was 'impossible really to understand at first hand Christianity as a historical religion without penetrating more deeply the mind of the Hebrews and of the Semitic stock from which they sprang.' This led him to devote much time to studying Arabic and Hebrew. Refers to an article he wrote on [J. R. Seeley's] Ecce Homo in the Westminster Review of July 1863, in which he reveals the provisional conclusions that he had formed with regard to Christianity. Says he found some relief from the great internal debate on the subjects of Christianity, Scepticism and Agnosticism in the renewal of his linguistic studies. His study of Arabic and Hebrew literature and history led him to think that he might secure one of the two professorships in Arabic at Cambridge. Believed that the inclusion of theology in the remit of the single chair of Moral Philosophy made it unlikely that he would attain this, since he was neither a clergyman nor orthodox.

Began to realise that the study of Arabic and Hebrew were drawing him away from 'the central problems which constituted [his] deepest interest', and the study of philosophy and theology began again to occupy more of his time. He accepted the examinership in the Moral Sciences Tripos, and was later offered a lectureship in Moral Science in exchange for his classical lectureship, and accepted. Determined to throw himself into the work of making a philosophical school in Cambridge. Had meanwhile been led back to the study of philosophy 'by a quite different line [of thought]', which led him to question whether he should keep his fellowship or not. Refers to his work The Methods of Ethics, and thoughts systematised therein. Note here by Nora Sidgwick refers to remarks made by Henry in relation to the 'miraculous birth' [of Jesus], the Resurrection and Ascension.

Also refers to psychical research, and his desire to attain direct proof of continual individual existence, 'which he regarded as necessary from an ethical point of view.' In relation to the education of women, states that he took up this cause 'as a piece of practically useful work for mankind', and that he turned his thoughts towards it after he had given up his fellowship.

Nora adds that the above information was written down from recollection 'not immediately after he said it.' Envelope accompanies 105/46-50. Addressed to Nora Sidgwick at Newnham College. Label "some MS notes, including 'Autobiographical Fragment', and 'Henry's instructions about his unfinished work etc.'"

WW is pleased John Mill is such a man as JCH describes and defends: 'I have no disinclination to believe his good qualities. My quarrel is with the Westminster Review'. WW believes this journal to be destructive and outrageous. John Mill does not write with his name but rather as a London Westminster Reviewer: 'If John Mill be a Coleridgian or a Conservative in any intelligible sense he must be the most infatuated of men to imagine that he can do any good by promulgating his opinions under such auspices. If he think his views of morals consistent with the objects of the review, I should like to see the connexion made out with any reasonable logic'.