?Space is not an extra-mental reality, sui generis, nor an order of relations among realities, but a form of dynamic appearance, the ground of which is the fixed orderly changes in reality. So time is the form of change, the subjective interpretation of timeless yet successive changes in reality. So far as God is the ground of the world process, he is in time. So far as he transcends the world process in his self-conscious personality, he is not in time. Motion too is the subjective interpretation of changes in things, which changes are determined by the demands of the world-system and the purpose being realized in it. Not atomism, but dynamism, is the truth. Physical phenomena are referable to the activity of the Infinite, which activity is given a substantive character because we think under the form of substance and attribute. Mechanism is compatible with teleology. Mechanism is universal and is necessary to all system. But it is limited by purpose, and by the possible appearance of any new law, force, or act of freedom.
?The soul is not a function of material activities, but is a true reality. The system is such that it can admit new factors, and the soul is one of these possible new factors. The soul is created as substantial reality, in contrast with other elements of the system, which are only phenomenal manifestations of the One Reality. The relation between soul and body is that of interaction between the soul and the universe. The body being that part of the universe which stands in closest relation with the soul versus Bradley, who holds that ?body and soul alike are phenomenal arrangements, neither one of which has any title to fact which is not owned by the other?). Thought is a knowledge of reality. We must assume an adjustment between subject amid object. This assumption is founded on time postulate of a morally perfect God.? To Lotze, then, the only real creation is that of finite personalities ? matter being only a mode of the divine activity. See Lotze, Microcosmos, and Philosophy of Religion. Bowne, in his Metaphysics and his Philosophy of Theism, is the best expositor of Lotze?s system.
In further explanation of our definition we remark that
(a) Creation is not ?production out of nothing,? as if ?nothing? were a substance out of which ?something? could be formed.
We do not regard the doctrine of Creation as bound to the use of the phrase ?creation out of nothing,? and as standing or falling with it. The phrase is a philosophical one, for which we have no Scriptural warrant, and it is objectionable as intimating that ?nothing? can itself be an object of thought and a source of being. The germ of truth intended to be
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?