Causality

IT is a rather depressing task for a Catholic to write a technical philosophical essay, for it is improbable that the philosophers whom he criticises wi l l read it . F r Hawkins therefore deserves our thanks in a special w a y ; such work as this is necessary and its effects, though slow, are sure. There are a number of excellences about the book. I t reveals a wide knowledge of contem­ porary English thought on the subject ; an index would have shown many references to Mind, to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society and to works of modern logic (the well-arranged table of contents gives some idea of the book's scope in this respect). Recent attempts to eliminate the notion of causality are very carefully repulsed. The writing is almost invariably attractive, and there are no slips or misprints obscuring the argument, which must be something like a record for Catholic philosophical books in recent years. These last virtues unfortunately are not shared by the only review (to the writer's present knowledge) which has had anything in particular to say about F r Hawkins's book, that in the Tablet (October 23rd, 1937). I t wi l l be of advantage to consider this article, for the criticisms which it em­ bodies deserve to be made clear, and it wi l l therefore be quoted later in some detail. T h e main criticism that we have to offer here affects the policy which F r Hawkins has adopted. He has written a small book (as someone said of Kant's Critique, it would have been quicker to read had it been longer) and by far the greater part is taken up by the historical setting of the question and