Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston University

Typescript. Thesis (Th.D.)--Boston University. N.B.: pages 259-260 and 279-286 appear to be missing from the original manuscript. The former case appears to be a page numbering error on the author's part; no actual content is missing. In the latter case, it is unclear whether content was lost or the author mis-numbered the pages. / The problem of this dissertation is the definition of the nature and limits of the creative activity of mind. Is the mind passive or creative or both? If mind is creative, in what sense and to what extent is it creative? This problem is important for, the view of mind as passive or as active influences scientists, philosophers, artists, and statesmen (whether consciously or unconsciously), in their aims and methods of procedure. Augustine's complaint (that men study everything except themselves) can still be made. Creation is making something new, that is to say, something which was not given in the situation prior to creation and is not logically implied in that situation. Creation has traditionally been regarded as an exclusively divine prerogative. In the past twenty years, however, much has been written about human creativity. Does man have a right to speak of his own mind as creative, that is, able to produce new qualities, new relations, or even new realities? Many represent mind as merely passive; such a mind cannot be creative. Others exclude all passivity and hold that mind is wholly active; but such a mind could not even receive impressions from without. A systematic study of the problem of activity, passivity, and creativity by comparing data from historical, rational, and broadly empirical sources, such as this dissertation undertakes, has not previously been attempted. I. The Historical Approach. 1. Greek Philosophy is investigated, as one of the main sources of Western civilization. The great thinkers with few exceptions viewed mind as active. From Pythagoras on, there was a tendency to regard reality as immaterial or spiritual rather than material. Anthropomorphism, originally crude, was first criticized by Xenophanes (and Deutero-Isaiah), and then transformed into the clear idea of an organic universe in Plato. The dialectic principle emerges with the discovery of the self, its logos (Heraclitus) and nous (Anaxagoras). There is a tendency to identify mind, reality, and God. Creative activity was suggested especially by Plato through love, imitation, imagination, thought, effort, and the Idea of the Good. 2. Later contributions after the union of Greek and Judaeo-Christian influences show: ( 1) From Augustine and Descartes on, frequent recognition of the prime certainty of the self; (2) in Plotinus, Augustine, and Kant, acceptance of the activity of mind even in sensation; (3) since Berkeley and Leibniz renewed emphasis on activity and individualism (a metaphysic combining qualitative monism with quantitative pluralism) ; (4) in Berkeley, freedom, the immanence of God in nature ("divine language"), the belief that God can be known empirically and by reflection on experience, and the suggestion that mind-body interaction is cooperation with God; (5) in Hegel, interpretation of the principles of mind as an organic whole, the emptiness of abstraction, spirit as reality, a universal dialectical movement, the rational as the actual, and God as the most concretely universal personality; (6) in Bowne, personality as the center of a systematic philosophy, with freedom, individuality, activity and creativity of mind as fundamental principles. II. The Empirical Approach. 1. The creative results of the more empirical Hebrew mind are reviewed and compared with those of the more rational Greek, revealing many similarities. The philosopher searching for truth and the prophet seeking religious satisfaction arrive at like views of a creative spiritual universe. 2. Progress, discoveries and inventions in the sciences and the arts reveal the creative genius of the mind of man. 3. An examination of individual consciousness is made, distinguishing its esse from its causa. Introspection reveals the prime certainty of the self, the experiences of passivity, activity, and creativity involving body, physical world, other minds, and God. Single functions of mind indicated by various authorities as responsible for creativity are then examined, with the conclusion that the functions are all interdependent, no one ever acting alone, and that it is the whole mind which creates. III. Resultant Hypothesis. Interpretation of the data from all the above-mentioned sources suggests sixteen specific explanatory hypotheses. These lead to the conclusion that all creativity involves divine action wholly or in part, and to the following classification of types of creativity: 1. Creations by God's will alone. (1) The production of novelties and emergents within God's experience (for example, the evolution of the physical world, as viewed by personal idealism). (2) The production of selves and persons external to God (the creation of conscious selves as an aspect of the evolutionary process). 2. Creations by mans' will alone; free choices within limits. 3. Cooperative creations of divine and human wills: (1) Mental productions spch as ideas, knowledge, literary achievements, the discovery of essences (or thinking God's thoughts after him), and the development of selves into personalities. (2) Novel rearrangements of physical materials (initiated by human purposes: works of invention, compositions of art and science, and the birth of new organisms. The Resultant Hypothesis. Mind and only mind is creative. God alone truly creates, but men may cooperate with him in producing something new which he could not have achieved alone. Human mind by its free will is creative within limits producing novelties because it is a creative member of that rational, organic, dialectic society which includes God the ultimate source of creativity. IV. Relation of the Hypothesis to Other Fields. The hypothesis is then related to epistemology, psychology, metaphysics, religion, ethics, and education to discover what difference its acceptance would make and whether or not a coherent view of each of these fields would be compatible with it. The main conclusions of the dissertation, resting on the metaphysical hypothesis that reality is a society of minds sustained and ordered by a supreme and rational, mind, are as follows: 1. A mind is a unitary, organic, functioning whole. 2. Mind is active, passive, and dialectical or interactive. Every moment contains some activity and some complementary passivity. 3. The highest most nearly independent creation of man is in his free choices, but man may be called creative if he is a cooperative factor essential to some of God's creations. 4. The human mind creates ideas and knowledge by choosing new relations and discovers essences by communicating with other minds and by cooperating with God. 5. By a process of interaction with God, mental creations of man lead to new material productions through the skilled use of the body. 6. Revelation is both a historical fact and also a present and future possibility, which is actualized only in active creative minds. 7. Only God creates in the highest sense of bringing minds into being external to himself; and the production of all novelties (except acts of choice within human experience) always involves divine creativity.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University Bibliography: p. 219-229. Copy 2 lacks port. / A. Statement or Problem The purpose or the study was to discover and compare the nature and erfectiveness or the leadership in Negro Protest Action as represented by the National Association for the Advancement or Colored People and the Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism as exemplified by the leadership or Paul Robeson and W. E. B. DuBois. The Negro Protest Actionist and the Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonist are at odds in the way in which they see and approach the problem or securing civil rights. While the revolutionist seeks to solve the Negro problem in a rundamental transrormation or the social system, the protest actionist accepts and works within the rramework or the social system. Choosing between these types or leadership has created a problem. The conflict has developed certain tensions among Negro Protest Leaders. It has developed confusion among the masses of Negroes who must choose between their leaders. The resolution of the problem requires an understanding of the nature and eff ectiveness of Negro Protest leadership which accepts the rramework of the existing order and of revolutionary movements in securing civil rights. In attempting to compare the alternative approaches to the problem, two movements were chosen as being representative of the two major schools of thought that are found in Negro leadership. B. The Methods of Procedure The study was limited to Negro Protest Action and Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism. It was based upon the hypothesis that Negro Protest Action had an advantage over Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism by virtue of the fact that it was not considered a threat to the status quo. The latter was allegedly identified with Russian Communism. The nature of each movement was compared by critically relating their natural characteristics. The comparisons were made on the basis of similarities in the natural characteristics of the movements, while at the same time discussing the dissimilarities. Criteria were set up for the comparative study of the effectiveness of each movement. These comprised seven subsidiary objectives which were sufficiently comprehensive and related to the ultimate or original objective to best approximate it when compJetely fulfilled. The ultimate or original objective of civil rights was the standard of measurement. The accomplishments of each movement were described and compared on the basis of the criteria. The period beginning in 1940, a little less than a year after the formal beginning of Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism, and ending in 1953 was chosen for the study, although consideration was taken for the length of the history of each movement. In the history of the effectiveness of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, no delimitations were made. For the comparison, each subsidiary objective composing the criteria was delimited to include only the period from 1940 to 1953. The more general results made it unnecessary to go into a detailed analysis of the comparative picture. The method of research was basically literary and documentary. No research had been done on the problem as defined, although research had been made on related problems. The basis of the test of the hypothesis was the comparative histories of the two movements. Since there was no objective means for determining the amount of reaction of the two movements upon each other, no attempt was made to utilize this in the comparison. C. Conclusions These movements were in nature quite similar. The similarities were not identical however. In other words, the natural characteristics of each movement which were similar varied in degree. These variations amounted to differences in the limitations on the characteristics in their function of working toward the ultimate objective. The natural characteristics were conditioned and partly determined by the methods, strategy, and procedures of each movement in endeavoring to reach its ultimate goal, civil rights. Negro Protest Action worked directly toward this goal. Feeling that civil rights could be gained within the existing social order and through its institutions, it geared its methods, strategy, and procedures to this end. Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism worked indirectly toward the goal. It believed that civil rights could only be realized in a socialistic system. The methods, strategy, and procedure of the movement were geared to efforts at establishing a form of socialistic state as a prerequisite to the gaining of civil rights. Comparatively, the nature of the movements were briefly as follows: Actionists (Negro Protest Actionists) were dynamic in the sense of putting forth continuous efforts to win full equality for Negroes as American citizens; Antagonists (Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonists) were dynamic in the sense of working continuously to propagate a socialistic ideology and destroy the American system. Civil rights were concomitantly emphasized. Actionists were aggressive in the sense of organized self-assertion. They consistently asserted themselves as representatives of a well organized movement. Antagonists were aggressive in the sense of unorganized self-assertion, operating more often as individuals and rarely as representatives of one of the organized elements of their movement. Actionists agitated against anti-Negroism and for Negro rights. Antagonists agitated against America and concomitantly for Russia as well as Negro rights. Actionists were accommodative to American law and the American system. Antagonists were revolutionary to American law and the American system. Actionists sought publicity that was favorable to their or ganization, to its efforts for civil rights, and to the goal of civil rights. Antagonists sought publicity that was anti-American, pro-socialistic, and pro-Russian. Actionists worked in the political area through votes, lobbying and other forms of political activity. Antagonists were opposed to the political system and utilized only the Progressive Party. Actionists were directly racial and national in emphasis and concern. Yet, they were interested in international problems. Antagonists were directly international and indirectly racial in concern, although, in a sense, they also had a national concern. Actionists operated in accordance with American law. Antagonists respected American law only when it was expedient and necessary. The history of Negro Protest Action revealed that it had accomplished many t hings in the area of civil rights. No direct accomplishments in the area of civil rights were revealed in the history or Negro Protest Revolutionary Antagonism. The picture was as follows: In the area of lynching, Actionists have consistently and progressively formulated anti-lynching opinion. Antagonists have made no discernable contribution in this area. In the area of Constitutional rights, Actionists won the right of a hearing on filibuster in the Senate. Antagonists made no contribution. In the area o:f :franchise, Actionists won decisions against Texas White Democratic Primaries. Antagonists made no contributions in this area. In the area of education, the Actionists won equal salaries for Negro teachers, better facilities for Negro education, rights or Negroes to attend professional and graduate schools of the South. Antagonists have made no contributions in this area. In the area of economics, Actionists won a decision against segregated Boilermakers' Unions in Rhode Island. They also assisted in the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Committee by the government. Antagonists made no contribution. In the area of public accommodations, Actionists contributed to the victory against segregation on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, and thus outlawing segregation in interstate travel . Antagonists made no contribution in this area. In the area of the military (discrimination in the armed forces), Actionists caused the liquidation of the All-Negro TwentyFourth Division and segregation in the Far East Command. They also forced the defeat of the Winstead Amendment, which would have permitted inductees to serve in segregated units if they desired. Antagonists won thirty-one out of thirty-four cases carried before the United States Supreme Court in the interest of civil rights. The Antagonists carried no cases before the Supreme Court.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University. Bibliography: [p. 157]-161. / What was the religion of Abraham Lincoln? This question is an open field of enquiry for the students of Lincolniana. Numerous attempts have been made to account for the significant impact of his life upon humanity by examining the nature of his religious faith; however, the problem has not been adequately resolved. An adequate ans-v1er to this question is tantamount to an understanding of the greatness of his li~e. Why did Lincoln refuse to become a member of the Christian church? This question presents a challenge not only to Lincoln scholars; it is an issue that confronts the church historian, theologian, and philosopher. Moreover, the problem challenges organized Christianity to consider the basic reasons why Lincoln did not identify himself as a member of the church. [TRUNCATED] The Christian church of the nineteenth century could not claim Lincoln as a member. This fact is significant not only to an understanding of Lincoln; it is i mportant to an evaluation of the Christian church. Organized Christianity presented a barrier to the religious faith of Lincoln because its institutional form and theological content had subordinated the ethical essence of the spirit of Jesus. Lincoln accepted the Jesus of history, but he could not accept the church's concept of the Christ of faith. Membership in the Christian church was contingent on the individual's acceptance of church doctrine and his obedi ence to church discipline. Lincoln did not consider the acceptance of the prevailing Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines as essential to Christian faith. Lincoln attended church and he respected the organizations of Christianity, but the primary basis of his religious faith was sought outside the framework of the Christian church. His approach to faith was through life itself--a realization of the eternal values of life under God through human experience. The right of individual conscience in experiencing religious faith was fundamental to Lincoln. According to his belief, faith and reason were job1ed in importance. He denied the assumption that by virtue of its alleged divine or igin, the church had exclusive authority to interpret the Hill of God. He deplored the divisive aspects of denominationalism that undermined the concept of brotherpood taught by Jesus. He recognized that the exclusive claims of the churches based on theology and polity did not foster a spirit of brotherhood. He could not justify the division of the churches over the issue of slavery. Lincoln was a Christian, but his Christian faith was not in conformity with the institutional Christianity of his time. He was a follower of Jesus in the sense that he loved God and humanity. Lincoln believed that t he Hay of Jesus v-ras infinitely larger and more meaningful than the example exhibited by the church. Although church membership was not important to him as a requisite to the Christian life, he did indicate that he would gladly join the church that specifically advocated adherence to the Two Great Commandments as the sole qualifications for membership. In his belief that ethical love transcended all other religious aspects of the Christian faith, Lincoln recognized that the living spirit of Jesus could not be contained in the rigid form of church doctrine. Thus his concept of God, Jesus, and man--the new wine of his faith--could not be contained in the old wineskins of organized Christianity.

Typewritten sheets in cover. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University Bibliography: p. [74-76]

Typewritten sheets in cover. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University Bibliography: p. 123-126 This item was digitized by the Internet Archive.

Typewritten sheets in cover. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University

This item was digitized by the Internet Archive. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University / https://archive.org/details/acomparisonofrel00arms

Typewritten sheets in cover. Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University This item was digitized by the Internet Archive. Bibliography: 10 p. at end.