McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis (1866-1925)
In J. R. H. Weaver (ed.) Dictionary of national biography, 1922-1930, London, 1937, pp. 550–551
Abstract
John M’Taggart Ellis M’Taggart developed a systematic metaphysical framework that adapted Hegelian dialectics into a unique form of personal idealism. His philosophical output progressed from an initial defense of Hegel’s Greater Logic toward a rigorous deductive system of his own. M’Taggart maintained that the dialectical method serves to make explicit the underlying structures of the rational mind, eventually concluding that the Absolute is not a deity, but a perfect society of eternal spirits related by love. This position combined a definitive atheism with a belief in the immortality and pre-existence of the individual soul, viewing time and change as delusive appearances of a timeless reality. His mature work utilized the Principle of Determining Correspondence to address the infinite divisibility of substance and the persistence of error within an eternal world. Beyond his theoretical contributions, his intellectual life was defined by a commitment to determinism, a rejection of divine omnipotence, and an active role in university administration and statutory reform. These contributions established a bridge between nineteenth-century idealism and the analytical rigors of early twentieth-century British philosophy. – AI-generated abstract.
Notes citing this work
Quotes from this work
Another apparent paradox in McTaggart’s opinions was that he was as strongly ‘liberal’ in university politics as he was ‘conservative’ in national politics. He was, e.g. a strong feminist in the matter of the admission of women to full membership of the university. This paradox, however, depends largely on the usage of words. There is no essential connexion between liberalism and the view that men and women should be educated together, or between conservatism and the view that they shoud be educated separately. Nor is there any essential connexion between liberalism and the view that the colleges should be subordinated to the university, or between conservatism and the view that the university should be subordinated to the colleges. Yet those who hold the first alternative on these two subjects are called ‘academic liberals’, whilst those who hold the second are called ‘academic coonservatives’. There is thus no kind of inconsistency between academic liberalism and political conservatism, or between academic conservatism and political liberalism. If there were more men like McTaggart, who considered each question on its merits instead of dressing himself in a complete suit of ready-made opinions, such combinations would be more frequent than they are, to the great benefit of both academic and national politics.