PEACE OF THE WORLD

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 189, 9 May 1934, Page 10

PEACE OF THE WORLD

Influence of Russian Idealism ADDRESS BY DR. MITCHELL Principles underlying nationalism and internationalism from the Russian viewpoint were dealt with by Dr. Cyprus Mitchell in an address last evening to the annual meeting of the Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union. Dr. Mitchell said there was no reason why a man should deny the traditions of the Britisn people in order to be a more ardent, member of the League of Nations and a supporter of international machinery for the settlement of international disputes. Dr. Mitchell pointed out the importance in priority of time of the action of Tsai- Nicholas II in calling together the Hague Convention in 1899 “for the seeking by means of international discussion the most effective means of securing to all the peoples the benefits of real and lasting peace.” This particular action of the Tsar was a national characteristic, as was brought out by Dostoievsky in a speech at the Pushkin celebration at Moscow in ISBO. when he stated that the artistic quality of Pushkin consisted in his ability of “reincarnating himself in the genius of foreign nations.” A Russian Faculty. This faculty, said Dr. Mitchell, was a completely Russian faculty—a national faculty. It was brought out by the semi-conscious action of Peter the Great in the seventeenth century. Undoubtedly with a presentiment which almost instantly forewarned them of a destiny and an incomparably higher goal than mere utilitarianism, the Russian people obeyed “the hidden instincts which seemed to draw out the ideas and plans of Peter the Great for the future.” Dostoievsky said “Beyond all doubt it is generally recognised by the Russian people that Russia’s destiny is pan-European and universal,” that was, to become a true Russian meant also to become the brother of all men —to be the ideal universal man. Count Keyserling said that “the Russian is the only man in Europe who has a direct relationship to the soul of his neighbour.” and Leo Weiner said that “the Russian people are absolutely devoid of racial prejudice.” The attitude to the League of Nations of the Soviet Government in making such a sweeping suggestion for disarmament, as it did, was quite in keeping with this national conception of Russia as a world peacemaker. Professor Soloviev, in his book “Justification of the Good,” took the same position, apd under-girded it with ethical principles, pointing out that the universal good in which diversified human beings and nations lived was a common bond that would permit of diversified expressions, that just as a man did not lose his sex by becoming a Christian, so a nation did not lose its nationality by becoming international in ethical sympathies, but by bringing to bear their national difficulties they contributed to the unfolding of this universal good. “The cosmopolitan,” said Dr. Mitchel], “makes a mistake because he denies the right of nations as such, while the nationalist fails because he limits the rights of people to nationality. •Soloviev pointed out that spiritual goods cannot be gained by fraudulent methods. If this is true in the case of individuals, it must remain true in the case of nations. ( Personal Ethics. “The starting point in personal ethics is the love of one’s self, which must be drawn out to include the love of one’s neighbour, but the attitude that one takes ethically of loving one’s neighbour is not psychologically the same as loving someone you like and know. As we grow to know people we grow to like them personally, and in the same way our ethical obligation and duties to all peoples bind upon us the obligation to do to them morally what we would have them do to us. “In this way Dostoievsky makes a clear case for nationality and for international co-operation. Peace and war have their inspiration and origin in individual hearts and minds. The man who practices morally goodwill and neighbourliness to the people whom he sees every day is learning tlie alphabet, which is imperative to tlie speedi of international goodwill. There is no reason why a man should deny tlie traditions of the British people in order to be a more ardent member of the League of Nations and a supporter of international machinery for the settlement of international disputes.” In making passing reference to the views expressed recently by the Rev. W. Bramwell Scott, Dr. Mitchell said: "Mr. Scott has put something before us. He has placed a very logical alternative before 100 per cent, pacifists. The question is whether the Christian world is willing to accept the challenge.”