Bulletin of the Santayana Society, No. 14 Fall 1996

              The Rival Naturalisms of
Dewey and Santayana
... the idea of naturalism is as elusive as it is important1 (John Lachs)
John Dewey once wrote "Mr. Santayana always makes it as difficult as possible for
anyone to agree with him. ... The case seems to resemble that of the Irishman who
said the two men looked very much alike, especially one of them. ... I am happy to
be that one."2 Before I examine what each man had to say about the other's conception of
naturalism, I want to state broadly wherein I feel their fundamental agreement lay. To fully
explicate this is beyond the scope of the paper, but I want it to be moving in the back of the
reader's mind as I deal in more detail with what their differences were on the subject of
naturalism.
hi 1906, Dewey explained Santayana's The Life of Reason thus: "Vital impulse gives
moments of excellence ...." These moments are reason, the sources of standards, the
" ... starting points of sustained efforts to bring all experiences into harmony with
themselves...." But Santayana took transcendentalism to task " ... for hypostati2ing ideals
into causes and substrates of the universe ... meanings into underlying substances and
efficient causes... physical instead of moral realities ... ."3 In Dewey also, there is that,
namely meanings and art, which is lifted up out of the general run of experience, out of the
natural. Also in Dewey, it is what is lifted up which is the source of values. And, as with
Santayana, that which we draw out of experience, particularly conceptually, is not then to
be conceived of as somehow constitutive of, prior to (Dewey), or causing, having power
over (Santayana) basic nature or experience itself, which is the more fundamental reality.
In these broad terms, the main difference between them is that for Dewey the lifting up is
done deliberately, purposively, and socially. For Santayana, despite the importance of
tradition to him, it is more adventitious and more a product of the individual imagination.
When I turn to their views of each other's concept of naturalism, I am reminded of
the 1992 Presidential election (and, for that matter, the 1996 one so far), in which two
essentially moderate men called one another extremists, hi the case before us, two
naturalistic philosophers each claimed the other was really a closet idealist
Dewey thought very highly of The Life of Reason. In reviewing it, he called it
" .„ the most significant contribution made in this generation to philosophic revision... It
is impossible to do (it) justice.... It is a work nobly conceived and adequately executed."4
He called it"... the only type of philosophy with which it is worthwhile to engage oneself;
a return to the ancient identification of philosophy with morals, with love of wisdom... the
most adequate contribution America has yet made — always excepting Emerson — to
moral philosophy."5
A major reason for Dewey's praise was Santayana's handling of the issue of
1 John Lachs, "Peirce, Santayana and the Large Facts," p. 4.
2 John Dewey, "Half-Hearted Naturalism," in Dewey and His Critics, pp. 264,266.
3 John Dewey, "Review of Santayana's The life of Reason, Volumes I and II," pp. 223-4.
4 Ibid., pp. 223-5.
5 John Dewey, "Review of Santayana's The life of Reason" pp. 119-20 and 128. Santayana,
difficult to agree with as ever, might have winced at the comparison to Emerson.