Chapter Three

 From The Philosopher, Volume LXXXVIII No. 1 Special History Issue

Chapter 3 (1948-1963) 

New Beginnings

. . . and Controversies

Following the reconstitution of The Philosophical Society, on December 8th 1948, Earl Russell agreed to be the first Patron, and Lord Dunsany (the well known fantasy writer) President. The first 'new' Philosopher appeared in March the following year with an article by the Hon. General Secretary on the reorganisation, stating that the Society existed 'for the propagation of practical philosophy.' Its main object was stated in the Memorandum of Association as: 'the encouragement and promotion of philosophical studies and the furtherance of philosophical investigation and research in connection with the sciences, literature, the fine arts, and theology’.

__

The new series of The Philosopher (edited by Mr C. S. Flick) was published quarterly after March 1949, with an increase in pages and improvements to format and typography. It was reported that 'a determined effort had been made to raise the standard of the articles published and to keep within the scope of philosophy.' Articles in the first issue, Volume 1, New Series, concerned the role of philosophy, the philosophy of Christian theism, the philosophy of Hegel and the political theories of Plato's Republic. Amended regulations for the award of the Fellowship were published and Volume 1 records the Society's use, at this time, of the Medical Society of London for its accommodation, library and papers.

At the AGM, that year, Lord Dunsany occupied the chair. It was at this meeting that H.A. Godson Bohn who had been so influential in the early years of the Society and was at times referred to as its co-founder stepped down due to advancing years (he was to die three years later). It was also noted with concern that the credit balance of the Society had dropped by 50% in ten months due to 'the increased cost of the Society's publications and the honoraria' (although it remains unclear what these were paid for) and an appeal for contributions to the Society's library was also made. 

The Secretary's Notes from December 1949 outlined the object of the Society in the following manner:

The object of the Society is primarily to promote the study of practical philosophy, that is, teaching people how to think and apply their thoughts to self-expression, to living an interesting life, and to playing a constructive part in the life of society. This was never more necessary than it is to-day. People are sometimes put off the idea of philosophy because they think it is "highbrow". It need not be so. The study of academic philosophy, whilst it is of interest and assistance is by no means essential. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and wisdom is to be attained often by experiencing life to the full, by going through life with an active and enquiring mind, by applying one's own intellectual power to the way one lives. Those who join the society as members will have access to much interesting thought, will encounter new ideas, and will share in an attempt to make the essential principles of thought known, accepted, and applied by the general public.

The Secretary adds that 'It has been the policy since December 1948 to encourage the entry of new members, which has brought an influx of 30 members in nine months', a policy aided no doubt by new academic support. Aside from Earl Russell as Patron, Sir David Ross, Prof. C.D.Broad, Prof. John MacMurray, C.E.M. Joad, Prof. J.W. Scott, Prof. C. A Mace and Sir Cyril Burt were among the Honorary vice-presidents. There was also a seven strong examining board for the award of the Fellowship, led by the Director of Studies, Kathleen Freeman. The Secretary described it thus:

The diploma of Fellowship is awarded to those members of the Society who present to the Board of Examiners a thesis on any subject philosophically treated, which is adjudged to have attained a sufficiently high standard of scholarship, originality, or insight into philosophical matters. The Fellowship is therefore the mark of some distinction in philosophy and should prove of practical value to men and women of all professions. The Fellowship gown may be worn on practical occasions. A particular attraction of Fellowship is that it may be attained by private study, home reading, or as the product of the thinking individual's professional experience. 

There also appeared a ten page list of the chief books recommended for students reading philosophy to study.

In the March 1950 issue, the Society's academic programme for the year was outlined, and the afternoon of October 4th was scheduled for the AGM, followed by a dinner at the Waldorf Hotel in honour of Earl Russell, who had agreed to deliver an address. (See: Menu on back page 48!) Over 100 people attended this dinner and reports of the speeches were contained in The Times, The Evening Standard, The Daily Mail and The Western Mail. 

Articles in The Philosopher in 1950 included Niels Thulstrup on 'The Soren Kierkegaard Society' and 'The Study of Kierkegaard in Scandinavia', C.D.Broad on 'Imperatives, Categorical and Hypothetical' and Dr Hilda Diana Oakeley on 'Can Rational Principles be traced in History?' Other topics covered were ancient Greek philosophy, the philosophy of the social and universal, and the role of the unconscious. 

The Philosopher was still finding its role and the Editor ,C.S. Flick, stated at the AGM that year that:

A constant effort had been made to improve The Philosopher. Some people had said that it was too highbrow, others that it was too naive, but an attempt had always been made to steer a middle course. 

Articles now seemed to go through a form of peer review, since it was reported that 'Manuscripts submitted for publication had received careful consideration by at least two members of the committee who had consulted their colleagues when doubts as to suitability arose.' 

In terms of the membership of the Society at this time, Charles Wye (previously Charles Stromberg), the Honorary General Secretary, estimated that there were 124 Life Fellows, 140 Fellows paying subscriptions, 73 Members and 11 non-members subscribing to the magazine. Regular monthly meetings were held at Caxton Hall and the Manchester Group held a series of popular monthly meetings. The estimate was felt to be conservative due to non-payment of subscriptions. This may also have been a contributing factor to the Society relinquishing the use of 11 Chandos Street as headquarters in 1951. Despite this, the Society still appeared to be in good shape with a dinner, attended by over one hundred and seventy guests, being held in honour of Gilbert Murray (Chairman of the League of Nations, 1923-1938) on 11 September at the Rembrandt Hotel. Speeches were delivered by Dr Joad, Kathleen Freeman and Lord Dunsany, whilst Earl Russell sent his apologies.

Other initiatives included the publication of a newsletter aimed at ordinary members as opposed to Fellows. A series of lectures were held by Dr Joad and Kathleen Freeman and three receptions for various academics and artists organised by Dona Eva Parnell Bailey de Sanchez. Other talks during the year included one by Mr Marcus Sims, referred to as 'a provocative critique of Professor Gilbert Ryle's Concept of Mind.' Mr Sims was subsequently elected as a member of the Council. Whether this talk contributed to the controversy that was to engulf the Society in the following year is unknown; what was clear was that the peaceful, and some would say rather insular, world of The Philosophical Society of England was about to be dramatically upturned.

In 1952 the Society declared that all holders of Chairs of Philosophy and Readerships in Philosophy in British Universities were entitled to become honorary Fellows of the Society. This offer resulted in what The Philosopher called 'a somewhat petulant attack' by Professor Gilbert Ryle in The Spectator. (see panel.) Ryle ridicules the 'pretensions' of the Society, its 'ceremonial dress', its certificates and even its lack of buildings and premises, concluding that "to accept a 'fellowship' would be to concede that the title was professionally reputable; and so to decoy innocents into buying bogus academic titles and hoods".

Before a reply could be printed by the Chairman of the Society in The Spectator, the drama further unfolded with a question being raised in the Houses of Parliament by Tom Driberg MP seeking clarification of the status of the Society. The following is the report published in Hansard (April 19, 1952): 

Mr Driberg asked the Minister of Education what grants are made by her Department to the Philosophical Society of England.

The Minister of Education Florence Horsbrugh (Miss): None, sir.

Mr Driberg: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she saw Professor Ryle's exposure in a recent issue of the "Spectator" of this completely bogus organisation, and are there any steps which she can take to protect the public from confusion which may be caused by the activities of these degree-hawking imposters?

Miss Horsbrugh: Unless this society applies to me for a grant, I am afraid that I have no business to inquire into it, but I have been interested to read some of the statements which I have found in various papers. 

The Spectator published a reply to Gilbert Ryle by the Chairman of Council the next day, April 10th:

"The Philosophical Society of England"

SIR- The statements and suggestions in Professor Gilbert Ryle's letter in your issue of March 28th form a serious misrepresentation of this society's aims and functions. Surely, the learned Editor of MIND should, before he attacks a rival society, make certain of his facts. We therefore give below a point by point reply to Dr Ryle's statements.

(1) The society has used the appellation "The Philosophical Society of England" for forty years, without dispute; and it begs the question to limit the number of reputable philosophical societies in England to three.

(2) Does the professor imply that our distinguished Patron, President, Vice-Presidents and Honorary Officers are amateurs; or does he admit that they are the professional backing behind us; or does he impute that they are party to a plan "to decoy innocents into buying bogus academic titles and hoods"?

The society is an association of amateurs, lovers of philosophy. The usual distinction between the professional and the amateur is that one does for love what the other does for money. We have our academic stiffening, to watch that our philosophy does not degenerate, but keeps the proper concepts in mind!

(3) The society's Hon. Treasurer is Mr John Dove of the city firm. Also there is an Hon. Financial Secretary, Mr W.E.S. Brockbank. Officers and members of the Council are elected by the Fellows and members of the society; some may lack "philosophical credentials," if by that the Professor means a degree in philosophy. (In the same way and because they were amateurs, many philosophers from the days of Pythagoras to the time of Kant would have been debarred by Dr Ryle's strictures!) In any case the statement is erroneous, as a look at the list of Council members will show that nearly every member is a philosopher or scholar or travels by a cultural route. The society lacks funds, official premises and a library on account of the Second World War. That it was twice bombed out, and its books and papers burnt, is doubtless to its discredit.

(4) The society never has simulated, nor does now pretend to be a university. No suggestion of such a function may intelligently be read into the "laws" and "regulation for the Fellowship." To suggest intent on the society's part is a misrepresentation which can only be due to the Professor's ignorance of the subject of which he is writing. The functions of a Librarian are to be concerned with a library; those of the Hon. Director of Studies to direct members' studies and give advice in philosophical reading, when asked; the Registrar keeps a numerical list of the Fellows and members. The Academic Advisor advises us in connection with academic bodies and universities; it is not suggested that the society competes with either.

The society awards a Fellowship indicating that the candidate has certain philosophical knowledge. Since 1948 only a handful of the dozens submitted have been accepted. The procedure is for a member to prepare a thesis (philosophically treated) which must show originality, scholarship and insight, be at least 5,000 words long, typewritten in triplicate, and must be passed by three members of the Board of Examiners. Theology is not accepted in lieu of philosophy. The Board has included two professional philosophers, one Doctor of Divinity, one M.A; one medical doctor and psychologist, one reputed artist, an Archdeacon, and an antiquarian, all of them Fellows acclaimed by other Fellows of the society.

There is no law prohibiting a society from authorising its Fellows to wear a style of hood and gown particular to that society, and which cannot be confused with the academic garb of any university. The society cannot be held responsible for what appears in works of reference when it has not been consulted. Though we cater for the amateur, we are a learned society, and F.Ph.S. denotes a Fellowship, or a genuine certificate of intellectual merit. [ ...] 

(5) Why should our Fellows possess university degrees? They do not necessarily pretend to the university cast of mind. Professor Ryle is quite right in saying that "there exists a lot of untapped philosophical talent in very unexpected places." [... ]

The ex officio Fellowship which appears to be one end of Dr Ryle's bones of contention was not, as he makes out, "wholesale." It is being offered specifically to the chairholders and Readers in Philosophy at British Universities, as an act of courtesy, in the belief that, since they have the furtherance of philosophical education at heart, they would wish to have a link with a society concerned to bring a knowledge of philosophy to the general public, the amateur.- 

We are, Sir, yours etc.

The Philosophical Society of England

There followed a response by Gilbert Ryle a week later which while interesting added no material facts to the debate. One of the most curious features of this debate is the fact that Gilbert Ryle knew of the existence of the Society as far back as 1939 and had attended that small meeting (nine participants in total) at which the Aristotelian Society, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, MIND and The Philosophical Society of England were all represented. Thus, as the Editor of The Philosopher noted:

It is rather difficult to understand what motive he had, but the trigger which touched off his attack appears to have been an invitation to accept an honorary Fellowship ... The main gist of the attack was the alleged bogus nature of the Society's Fellowship, which Professor Ryle apparently considers pretends to be a University degree. Since it is not, and never has pretended to be a degree, the charge misfired. The Society remains, as it always has been, a voluntary society of amateurs, lovers of philosophy, who are joined together in a sincere attempt to learn more of the subject.

Although not in the context one would want, the Philosophical Society of England is surely the only philosophical society to have a question directly raised about its activities in the House of Commons 

The Society had been reminded forcibly of its role in propagating philosophy for the general public, and for practical purposes. Ryle's allegations remained, however, a cause of concern, and the following year an article on 'Pan-existentialism' was to be cited in an anonymous letter to the TES also querying the academic standards of the Society. 

It is certainly understandable that much of that year's AGM was concerned with the attacks that had been made on the Society. However, it was concluded in a spirit of either optimism or of defiance that 'The present standard of the Fellowship was high' and that the Chairman 'did not think that these outbreaks of professional jealousy had seriously shaken our position.' Strikingly, the overall membership of the Society did not appear to have been affected by these attacks providing ample evidence - to both supporters and detractors - of the real motivation for membership of The Philosophical Society of England. But it would have been surprising if the Society's reputation had not been damaged, at least in academic circles.

On 22nd April, 1953, an Extraordinary General Meeting was held, at which the Report of the Council, the Memorandum and articles of Association, by-laws and amended regulations for Associateship and Fellowship were adopted. Much of the September issue of The Philosopher, now with a dazzling day glow green cover, was given over to outlining these. The main object of the Society remained one of 'practical philosophy' or: 

the encouragement and promotion of philosophical studies and the furtherance of philosophical investigation and research in connection with the sciences, literature, the fine arts, and theology...

At the Annual Dinner for 1953, held in honour of Sir Richard Livingstone who was ill at the last moment and thus unable to attend, Dr J.A. Hadfield spoke on the topic of 'Philosophy and the Ordinary Man'. The extent to which Dr. Hadfield had planned his speech is not clear, but its impact was to be widely felt within the Society. In particular, it was used to ridicule the Society in a letter to the Times Educational Supplement in 1956 as a sign of its lax academic standards. Hadfield had said:

It is therefore from the point of view of the common man that I welcome the opportunity to speak to-night. If, therefore, a good deal of what I say is rank heresy or, worse still, ordinary nonsense, I want you to remember that I am not a philosopher but a psychologist, and not a pure one at that, but one of the degraded type known as psychopathologist. That does not mean to say I am not interested in philosophy, for one of the greatest delights of my life is, in that luscious hour between 7.30 in the morning when I have my morning tea, and 8.30 when I have my breakfast in bed, to read philosophy. That is, in my opinion, the right time and the right place for the ordinary man to read philosophy and I would recommend it to him. But one thing I would impress upon him in reading philosophy in that way, and that is to read it for the pleasure of reading and not try to understand it and make sense of it, for I find, myself, that if I try to make sense of it I am completely at a loss, but as long as I read it for pleasure as I try to enjoy a piece of music, a picture or even a novel, then I get a great deal of enjoyment and profit out of it.

Now whilst this is indeed an unusual prescription for reading philosophy, at least in the nineteen fifties, the crucial sentence is 'in reading philosophy in that way'. Without seeming too apologetic or defensive it does appear that Dr. Hadfield was merely acknowledging that philosophy can be read in more than one way and the way he chose to read it was for pleasure only. 

Sadly the year 1953 also saw the death of Cyril Joad, a man who not only actively supported the Society but in many ways exemplified its aims.

Still further controversy buffeted the Society the following year when it was discovered that one of its Fellows, Mr James Crawford (referred to in the 1954 Philosopher as Rev. Jas. Crawford, MA, DD, St Dunstans School) had been operating on the basis of a number of bogus qualifications. Unfortunately for the Society, his F.Ph.S (Fellowship of the Philosophical Society) was reported to be one of his few genuine qualifications. 

Strangely, one effect of this philosophical attack was a shift towards religion in the Society, as those with academic pretensions clearly sought to distance themselves including a new Diploma in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics.

The chairman's report for 1955 reflected this 'conversion', stating:

Again, we had succeeded in agreeing upon a guiding policy for the Society, such as had not existed before. Broadly speaking, we had indicated our belief that man is a Spiritual Entity, with need to think, and who by thinking might bring about some form of social consummation into philosophy. On the other hand, in philosophy per se, we owed allegiance to no form of religion, creed or political concept, nor did we exclude those whose non-allegiance took the shape of positive allegiance to atheism, positivism, or materialistic concepts. Above all, we were striving to give people the means of sharing in the heritage of philosophical thinking and to encourage them to make their own present-day contribution to it.

For the second year running, in 1956, only one issue of The Philosopher was published. Articles increasingly reflected the spiritual stance of the Society with articles on the awareness of divinity, and the metaphysics of Sankara. 

The Presidential address that year took as its theme the basic principles of the Society in light of the recent criticisms levelled against it. Of particular note in this respect was an anonymous article entitled 'A Philosophical Society: Iddity of the Posit' published in the Times Educational Supplement in January. The thrust of the article was that the academic standards within the Society were worryingly low, citing some of the recent theses for the Fellowship most notably G. Orzabel D's 'bases of pan-existentialism.' Dr Hadfield's recommendation, in 1953, that 'when reading philosophy one should not try to understand it' was also brought to bear on the argument. Interestingly, the article alleged that the Society's awards, whilst being some form of impetus to study, may also have appeared as an impressive qualification for teachers and clergy without qualifications. Given that the anonymous author of this letter was quoting material from The Philosopher and was broadly sympathetic to the aims of the Society, it is possible that the author was in fact a rather disgruntled member - or officer - of the Society. Moreover the fact that someone waited three years before penning an anonymous letter to the TES concerning Dr Hadfield's address suggests at least some degree of strategy on the part of the writer.

As the last four years had seen the Society necessarily defending its interests against a very visible public and sustained attack, it was little surprise that the financial fortunes of the Society remained poor. An optimistic attempt to raise finances by sending out letters to the aristocracy and 'Big Business' resulted in only one reply, and that was negative. However, there still remained an impressive membership list with approximately 400 members, although about a third of these were life-members.

Two issues of the Journal appeared in 1957 and once again articles veered towards more spiritual concerns. Thus there were articles entitled, the 'Awareness of Divinity'; 'Towards a New Ethic'; 'Milton and the Extended Incorporeal' and 'Organic Philosophy'.

In the same year the Council became more assertive and confident. It ruled that members could continue to use the abbreviation M.Ph.S (Member of the Philosophical Society of England) a practice that had been criticized in the TES article - and by the Society itself just three years earlier. However there would be new limitations on its use:

The designation M.Ph.S (Eng.) may not be used or quoted as representing recognition by the Society of specific philosophical qualifications, being indicative only of general philosophical interest.

There was also clarification regarding the wearing of the academic gown and hood as well as the standard of the awards A.Ph.S. and F.Ph.S. Although it was acknowledged that the award of a gown and hood 'outside of established academic circles may not be in keeping with modern ideas and may give support to the belief that the Society's awards are of a professional nature' the Society was unrepentant and went on to state that 'there is no legal or moral reason why the Society should not award academic dress.' 

In terms of the awards of A.Ph.S. and F.Ph.S the point was made that they indicated, in the opinion of the Society's Examining Body, that the recipients had attained a standard of proficiency in the history of philosophy and 'had made an original contribution to the subject of such a nature as to justify their recognition within the Society.' The report also noted that:

. . . the type of philosophy which interests Associates and Fellows is outside the mainstream of contemporary British and American philosophy. It is of the perennial vintage rather than a study of epistemology and linguistics. For this reason, there are those who view it with suspicion.

However it was decided that there would be new unseen examinations for the Associateship with exemptions only if a degree in philosophy was already held.

Although the Society could be seen to have developed a new form of self-confidence and less defensiveness against its critics, the year 1958 saw such confidence in danger of becoming over-weening. Only one issue of The Philosopher was published, in midsummer, and it has to be the strangest issue to date. This issue, the largest so far published, contained articles by an undaunted Dr Hadfield on his favoured theme of 'Philosophy and the Common Man'; Mr Tomlin on 'Eastern Wisdom and Western Philosophy', Leslie Paul on 'Philosophy and Common Experience' and Charles Wye on 'Progress'. However it is two articles 'The Creative Word', by Gordon A. Speedie, and 'The Creative Quantum', by Erwin J. Saxl, that are the most unusual. The following is a quote from The Creative Word:

For twelve years ever since a conviction from within provided the courage to go forward alone I have been experimenting with intuition, thoughts, ideas, words and their resulting motivations. Keeping a symbol in my mind, and its meaning as my guide, I have sought relationships between fields of Art, Mathematics, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Business, Psychology, Physiology, Biology, Engineering, Medics, Physics, Aesthetics, and ethics. My findings have led me to accept the time value of man's heart beat as a bridge between these fields.

Rather worryingly, at least in terms of editorial judgement, if not freedom, this particular issue seems to have been funded in part by Mr G. W. Speedie. It is interesting to note a comment at the beginning of The Creative Word, presumably by the Editor, that:

In May, 1957, Mr Gordon A. Speedie, of Massachusetts, commenced a correspondence with the Hon. Secretary/Editor about the Society's work and his desire to play a part in it and make it known in the United States. In this way he hoped to return to philosophy some of the income and benefits which he believes he is receiving from it.

A year later, in 1959, there was a review of The Creative Word by Gordon A Speedie himself, as well as an insert noting that there was a large stock of the issue available to the public. In his review, Mr Speedie (who was made an Hon. Vice President the same year), notes that he has registered as a new word for dialectic the word 'Emototronics.' A second issue followed later in the year with papers on 'abnormal psychology', 'the case for Theism' and 'clear and distinct ideas'. 

1958 culminated with the Annual General Meeting, held at Caxton Hall on November 28th, and followed by a public lecture on 'Philosophy in the New Era' by Alfred Belden in which he spoke of the Society as a kind of Philosophical Kindergarten.

Ours is no new position and although we dare not boast a Socrates, or even a McTaggart, in our present ranks, our movement, humble as it is, is no less vital for the future of Philosophy among the British people. In such a humble but vital role it is possible for us to serve as a kind of Philosophical Kindergarten to those who for one reason or another cannot aspire to academic standards in the subject, or avail themselves of the facilities of University tuition. To them we can become a Philosophic brotherhood in whose company they can find an introduction to the great Quest sufficient to test and release their own powers for its pursuit. 

The first year of the new decade saw two issues of The Philosopher with articles on 'Philosophy in the New Era', 'Sense Perception', 'Primacy of Ideas', 'Philosophy of Art', and 'Is the Expression Absolute Space Meaningful?' 

In 1961, for the first time in its forty-eight years, no issues of The Philosopher were published. Instead, the year began with an Extraordinary General Meeting in January charged with the urgent need to: (i) elect a President; (ii) elect Auditors; (iii) appeal for funds to guarantee The Philosopher; (iv) to discontinue the Associateship, and combine existing examination with submission of a thesis as the requirement for Fellowship. 

Unfortunately no minutes of this meeting were recorded, however, whatever was decided evidently had a degree of success, for publication resumes in 1962 with some of the most diverse articles to date, amongst them: 'The Rhythm of Creation'; 'The Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo'; 'The Philosophy of Clothes'; 'The Philosophy of Archery'; 'The Pattern of Creation'; 'A Concept of Health' and 'The Message of the Mystics', as well as twenty pages of book reviews. Commenting on this collection of articles, the Editor, Victor Rienaecker, says:

The future policy of The Philosopher will be to appeal, not only to the learned and trained academic type of student of philosophy, but also to that wider public who are ready for some help in their thinking upon the acute intellectual problems and spiritual aspirations of our day.

These then were the first fourteen years of the Philosophical Society after its reconstitution in 1948. It was a time in which it moved from a prestige to uncertainty - in need of direction. Attacks, firstly by Gilbert Ryle in The Spectator, then in the House of Commons itself, and again in the Times Educational Supplement undoubtedly did external damage to the Society's reputation and they also appear to have caused a good deal of internal turmoil, followed by a turning inwards and a seemingly constant search for identity. Some sort of resolution seems to have occurred through an explicit focusing on philosophy as a form of spiritual science. Thus, as the Society moved towards its Golden Jubilee, it was undoubtedly battered and a little unsure of itself, but still determined that its central message of introducing philosophy to all should continue to be heard.