Professor Toynbee observes in his Study of History that as he walked down Whitehall one day in the spring of 1918, and passed the Board of Education offices which had been commandeered for a new department of the War Office, “improvised in order to make an intensive study of trench warfare,” he found himself repeating the passage from St. Matthew's Gospel.

PART 1: DEATH AND DYING: 1. The medical definition of death /A Keith Mant. 2. Philosophical concepts of death / Ninian Smart. 3. The dying and the doctor / John Hinton. 4. Death and the young /Simon Yudkin.

The damaging effects of the Industrial Revolution are discussed with particular reference to man's improvidence leading to the waste of irreplaceable natural resources and to the pollution of the environment. The role of the British Royal Society is then analysed in the context of technological advances and religious thought. It is claimed that monotheistic religions have removed the constraints on man's greed and have overthrown the traditional balance between man and nature. The present environmental crisis is ascribed to the rise (...) of monotheism. The remedy may consist in reverting to pantheism and the religions of the East. (shrink)

Arnold J. Toynbee was not only a controversial historian, but also a beguiling internationalist. This article analyses Toynbee as an observer of international politics. In particular, it examines both his understanding of contemporary foreign politics and his constant search of a stable world order. From the idealism of his youth to the utopianism of religious origin that marked his final years, passing through his partial and temporary disenchantment with regard to his youthful expectations, this essay will follow Toynbee’s path (...) in the study of the international affairs of the Twentieth century. (shrink)

This essay, which won the Prince Consort Prize for 1950, treats of the revolutionary change in historical writing that followed the entry into England, early in the nineteenth century, of the ideas of Vico and of the German historical school. Chiefly through Coleridge's influence, eighteenth-century rationalist suppositions gave place in certain men to a fundamentally opposed, 'Romantic' philosophy, and so to a new kind of History. Mr. Forbes is particularly concerned with the part played in this revolution by the liberal (...) Anglicans: Thomas Arnold, Headmaster of Rugby and Regius Professsor of Modern History at Oxford; Richard Whitely, Professor of Political Economy at Oxford and Archbishop of Dublin; Julius Charles Hare, disciple of Coleridge and translator (with Thirlwall) of Niebuhr's History of Rome; Connop Thirlwall, Bishop of St David's and author of the History of Greece; Henry Hart Milman, Professor of Poetry and Oxford and Dean of St Paul's; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, pupil and biographer of Thomas Arnold, and Dean of Westminster. They have elsewhere been studied in the compartments of 'classical' and 'ecclesiastical' history. But it is fundamental to their outlook on Church and State that for them no such compartments existed, and their idea of History as a whole has hitherto lacked an English historian. This essay does much more than clarify technical problems in one of the various ideas of History embraced in Professor Toynbee's system. Mr. Forbes addresses his book to all students of nineteenth-century thought. (shrink)

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the historian and internationalist Arnold J. Toynbee (1889?1975) conducted a highly public campaign against Western imperialism, arguing that the West needed to acknowledge and atone for its aggression if the world was to find peace. His efforts met with considerable resistance, damaging his reputation as a scholar and a political thinker. This article examines the origins of Toynbee's anti-imperialism in his philosophy of history, his public arguments of the postwar period, and the (...) reaction they provoked. (shrink)

When I was asked to formulate some questions or remarks about Prof. Barry’s paper, it was probably assumed that I would not confine myself to the expression of pure agreement. And yet, that is what I am inclined at first to do. I do agree that the view he criticizes is wrong for the reasons he mentions. And I admire the clarity and vigour of his arguments. However the reasons one has for agreeing with a thesis may belong to a (...) context that is very different from the context the thesis itself belongs to. Prof. Barry’s paper can be read at one level as the defence of a certain policy — it contains political recommendations. It is at that level that I entirely agree with it. But his recommendations are probably part of a theoretical outlook I do not share.The question I would like to deal with is: “How should the position which is the target of Brian Barry’s criticism be characterized?” One could say that it is anti-liberal. It is certainly opposed to the liberalism Brian Barry advocates. But there are, I think, also good reasons for characterizing it as a kind of liberalism. It is a sort of excessive, perverse, loony liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless. For the sake of convenience I call it quasi-liberalism. (shrink)

In this paper I argue against the view, defended by some philosophers, that it is part of the meaning of mental that being mental is incompatible with being physical. I call this outlook metalinguistic dualism, and I distinguish it from metaphysical theories of the mind-body relation such as Cartesian dualism. I argue that MLD is mistaken, but I don't try to defend the contrary view that mentalistic terms can be definitionally reduced to nonmental ones. After criticizing arguments by certain (...) philosophers which purport to establish MLD, I formulate a criterion for a phenomenon's being mental. I then show that this criterion is neutral between monistic and dualistic theories of the mind-body relation. Since if MLD were true it should be impossible to construct such a criterion, I conclude that it is false. The significance of my paper is that if I am right then I remove one important type of objection to aposteriori, noneliminative forms of the identity theory of mind, namely that such theories ought to be rejected merely on the basis of semantical considerations about the word mental. Beyond that, I believe that my criterion of mental phenomena correctly captures our intuitions about the nature of the distinction between mental and nonmental phenomena. (shrink)

Rorty’s rejection of Kantian universalism will upset some people for a laudable moral reason. They will feel that one cannot abandon the belief in a universal human rationality without abandoning the belief in human dignity and without giving indirect support to the particularistic ideology of groups who aim at the enslavement or destruction of other groups. However, those who are somewhat acquainted with Rorty’s work know that he is by no means attracted to a dangerous kind of particularism and that (...) he is deeply attached to the ideals of the Enlightenment.His point is not that we should only care about those who are in some way dear or near to us. He would not deny that our capacities to sympathize with others and to understand their outlook are severely limited, but it is certainly not his purpose to tell us that we should be particularly pleased with these limitations. Rorty is positively interested in the possibilities we have of enlarging our loyalties and of getting to understand outlooks which used to be foreign to us.What he denies, however, is that we need the concept of rationality in order to make sense of these processes. It is not because we wish to be rational that we sometimes manage to extend our sympathies or to widen our outlook. This negative thesis is very similar to the pragmatist position Rorty defends with respect to scientific knowledge. The growth of scientific knowledge is undeniable, but one should not describe it in terms of the thesis that it is the aim of science to bring us closer to the objective, absolute truth. Scientists do not need the belief in such an ideal terminus in order to be seriously committed to scientific progress. (shrink)

This article contests the argument that British political thought in the 19th century was exceptional in European perspective in lacking a strong concept of nationhood and nationality. On the one hand it argues, with reference to Mazzini, Michelet and Renan, that continental European theories of nationality were by no means as dependent on a strong concept of race as a focus on Germany might imply. On the other hand, it identifies the Liberal Anglican tradition (Thomas and Matthew Arnold, F.D. (...) Maurice, Arnold Toynbee) as a current of thought which generated an important but certainly non-racial concept of nationhood, as part of a general rehabilitation of community in the face of what these thinkers took to be utilitarian neglect. (shrink)

The 54 pieces chosen for this book are linked by short exclamatory passages.

This paper is an approach to the context in which Dawson's work originated as well as to the main critiques of the works by Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee and Thomas S. Eliot, with whom he differed on how to address the study of culture. The contrasts between Dawson and the views of these authors are significant and help to refine the concept of culture Dawson used in his philosophy. The paper highlights both Dawson's perspective and what separates or brings (...) him closer to these authors. Conclusions are drawn about the elements Dawson took from each one of them. (shrink)

An edited version of a talk between Urban and Toynbee on Radio Free Europe. The book concerns the nature of history as well as discussing Marxism and Christianity, the third world, and the effects of technology.

This article examines E.H. Gombrich’s critical appraisal of Arnold Hauser’s book, The Social History of Art. Hauser’s Social History of Art was published in 1951, a year after Gombrich’s bestseller, The Story of Art. Although written in Britain for an English-speaking public, both books had their origins in the intellectual history of Central Europe: Gombrich was an Austrian art historian and Hauser was Hungarian. Gombrich’s critique, published in The Art Bulletin in 1953, attacked Hauser’s dialectical materialism and his sociological (...) interpretation of art history. Borrowing arguments from Karl Popper’s critique of historicism, Gombrich described Hauser’s work as collectivist and deterministic, tendencies at odds with his own conception of art history. However, in his readiness to label Hauser a proponent of historical materialism, Gombrich failed to recognize Hauser’s own criticism of deterministic theories of art, especially formalism. This article investigates Gombrich’s reasons for rejecting Hauser’s sociology of art. It argues Gombrich used Hauser as an ideological counterpoint to his own version of art history, avowedly liberal and individualist in outlook. (shrink)

McCabe's interpretation of Mill as a socialist is convincing but does not render his writings any less available to liberals. The term ‘socialism' was a slippery one in nineteenth-century Britain. For the likes of Arnold Toynbee, even self-proclaimed Tories could become socialists if they embraced the right policies. The existence of such ‘Tory socialists’ serves as a reminder of the hybridity of political identity at the time Mill was writing (hyphenated socialists were socialists nonetheless). Several aspects of Mill's socialism (...) – his rejection of class antagonism, his discomfort with revolutionary change, and his focus on small-scale socialist experiments rather than achieving a socialist state – will reassure liberal readers that his socialism did not overwhelm his more liberal commitments. McCabe's book might thus be best read as supplementing the liberal reading of Mill rather than supplanting it. I conclude by suggesting that a Liberal-Socialist hybrid inspired by Mill could prove useful to the effort (begun recently by Axel Honneth) to re-found socialism on a non-Marxian basis. (shrink)

Revision of a dialogue beween Kei Wakaizumi and Arnold Toynbee, originally published, in Japanese, in installments in the Mainichi Shimbun.

Who is Daisaku Ikeda? At one level, he is the leader of a religious movement--Soka Gakkai--which began in Japan, where it still has its headquarters, but which now claims 12 million adherents around the world. At another level, he is a globetrotting figure whose formal conversations with diverse writers, thinkers and diplomats--including Arnold Toynbee, Joseph Rotblat and Mikhail Gorbachev--have garnered him an international profile, as well as academic recognition. Perhaps above all else, Daisaku Ikeda is viewed as a campaigner (...) for peace. And it is Ikeda's specific contribution to peacebuilding, notably through the central emphasis he has placed on the significance of dialogue, that this book explores: the first to do so in a concerted way. Olivier Urbain shows that while Soka Gakkai (the "value society") may stem from the medieval principles of Nichiren Buddhism, under Ikeda's leadership it has taken these classic wisdoms and transformed them. Now essentially classless and secularised, as well as adaptable and sensitive to modern challenges like resource shortages and climate change, this, argues the author, is a pragmatic approach to peace which has proved both popular and eminently transportable. (shrink)

Arnold J Toynbee was a historian whose 12-volume A Study of History had a huge impact on the thinking of his day. This epic, multi-volume work offered a grand synthesis of world history from the global perspective of the rise and fall of civilizations, rather than concentrating on the history of nation-states or of ethnic groups. For Time magazine Toynbee was 'an international sage' and certainly in the same bracket as 'Einstein, Schweitzer or Bertrand Russell'. Daisaku Ikeda is a (...) figure of global stature, the spiritual leader of a worldwide lay Buddhist organisation devoted to the promotion of education, culture and peace. Between 1971 and 1974 Toynbee and Ikeda discussed many of the vital issues which confronted their societies in the early 1970s, all of which remain current and significant. Indeed, topics such as the problems of pollution, dwindling natural resources, conflict and war, the role of religion, and population growth, are even more pressing than they were thirty years ago. In this volume - which still reads as freshly as it did when it was first published, and which is now reissued for a new generation of readers - the inspiring challenge issued by both men is framed as follows: will humankind choose to salvage its destiny by a revolution in thinking and morals? Or will disaster ensue if it pursues its present course towards self-destruction and the despoliation of the environment? While recognising that our survival is threatened by the imbalance between human immaturity and technological achievement, the optimistic message of this classic Dialogue is that man-made evils have a man-made cure. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)