“As we read Dr. Laurie we cannot escape a sense of strangeness, amounting almost to despair. It all seems aloof and unfamiliar. He has a language and a terminology of his own, which we can only regard as gratuitously scholastic and unhomely. There can be no question but that his thought would have come to us more easily if he could have written more simply.”
| + − | Acad. 71: 224. S. 8, ’06. 3540w. (Review of v. 1.) | |
| Acad. 71: 657. D. 29, ’06. 2110w. (Review of v. 2.) |
“Again, the first volume is by no means free from the confusions between psychology and epistemology, against which Sidgwick uttered an emphatic warning. However, whether we agree or disagree with the conclusions drawn—and they are many and controversial—the book well repays the not inconsiderable trouble of reading it.”
| + − | Ath. 1906, 2: 267. S. 8. 820w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.) |
“The interest of these volumes as a whole, apart from the feeling, and in many parts real inspiration and ‘élan,’ with which they are written, will probably be found in the comprehensiveness with which the problem of philosophy is grasped, and the sustained effort that is made to escape from the Scylla of the static or ‘stagnant’ Absolute without falling into the Charybdis of subjectivism and pluralism. In their own peculiar way they contain much that is helpful towards the restatement of idealism which is the chief philosophical requirement of the present time. Why this irritating form? It is not only that the second volume is merely a somewhat less technical restatement of the first, but in the argument of each there is endless repetition. For whom, again, is the book written? The uninitiated will find far too little; the initiated would be satisfied with much less; the positivist who could understand it if he would is not likely to persevere long in the attempt. But all this might be passed over if the writer had not made clear the point on which, as he rightly perceives, the whole must rest.” J. H. Muirhead.
| + − | Hibbert. J. 6: 207. O. ’07. 2700w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.) |
“Difficult in expression and intellectually confused as the work is, its general aim and method as well as its philosophical affiliations may yet be detected.”
| − | Nation. 84: 390. Ap. 25, ’07. 780w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.) |
“Regard for a rigorously clear form of exposition would have resulted in the simplification of many passages as well as the elimination of numerous repetitions. The author also has a tendency to construct for himself an elaborate terminology quite his own, and to employ unusual words when those of more general acceptance among philosophical writers would often have served his purpose equally well. These defects are the more to be regretted, as Dr. Laurie, at his best, is the master of a style which is clear, forceful, and not wanting in a note of distinction.” Walter G. Everett.