Home > Positioning > Persons > Broad

C. D. Broad (1887–1971)

Broad gave emergentism its most careful statement — and the modern debate its founding text. The Mind and Its Place in Nature (1925) frames the question as a trilemma about wholes and parts. The vitalists were right that living wholes behave in ways chemistry did not predict, wrong to posit a component — an entelechy — doing the extra work. The mechanists were right that no extra component exists, wrong that the behaviour of wholes is deducible from the parts and their arrangement. Broad’s middle position: the properties of certain wholes are emergent — they belong to the whole in virtue of its composition, follow with complete regularity, and yet could not be deduced, even in principle, from the most complete knowledge of the components in isolation or in other combinations. The regularities connecting levels he called trans-ordinal laws: genuine laws of nature, discoverable only by meeting the higher level in fact, underivable from below. Chemistry was his confident example — the properties of a compound as emergent relative to its elements — a choice the standard history reads as the tradition’s undoing.

Life

Born 30 December 1887 in Harlesden, Middlesex, an only child. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1906 as a natural-sciences scholar — the scientific formation shows across the corpus — before turning to the moral sciences. Fellow of Trinity (1911); posts at St Andrews and a chair at Bristol (1920); recalled to Trinity in 1922 to succeed McTaggart’s teaching, becoming Knightbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy (1933–1953). He lived in Newton’s old rooms at Trinity and stayed there past retirement until his death in 1971. His method was proudly unheroic — “critical” rather than “speculative” philosophy: state every tenable position, distinguish its senses, weigh it, and say plainly which considerations point where. The books that resulted (Scientific Thought, 1923; Five Types of Ethical Theory, 1930; the two-volume Examination of McTaggart’s Philosophy) became models of philosophical bookkeeping, and his lucidity kept them read after their conclusions dated. He served as president of the Society for Psychical Research — twice — treating the evidence for paranormal phenomena as an empirical question philosophy had no business dismissing unexamined, a stance that puzzled colleagues and that he defended with the same bookkeeping care.

The emergentism

The layered world. Broad’s picture: reality comes in orders — matter, life, mind — each with characteristic properties. Intra-ordinal laws connect events within a level; trans-ordinal laws connect adjacent levels. An emergent quality is one whose trans-ordinal law is ultimate: a brute, unexplainable-but-lawful fact, to be accepted “with natural piety” (the phrase he borrowed from Samuel Alexander, his fellow emergentist). Emergence is thus compatible with complete determinism and complete regularity — what it denies is deducibility, not order.

The in-principle clause. Broad sharpened the claim past his predecessors (Mill’s heteropathic effects, Lewes’s coinage, Lloyd Morgan’s emergent evolution): the non-deducibility is not a fact about our current ignorance but about the world’s structure — a “mathematical archangel,” knowing everything about the components, still could not predict the whole’s behaviour. That clause is what made the position refutable — and, on the standard history, refuted: within a few years of the book, quantum mechanics began deriving chemical bonding (Heitler and London’s treatment of the hydrogen molecule, 1927, and the quantum chemistry that followed), and British Emergentism’s decline is standardly read off that collision. The reception is not unanimous, though: a line in the philosophy of chemistry — Hendry and Primas among its principals — holds that the derivation is less complete than the story assumes: molecular structure is put in by hand via the Born–Oppenheimer approximation rather than recovered from the full quantum description, so what the collapse narrative treats as settled is, on this dissent, still open. Both readings are live; the page reports the standard one as standard, not as final.

Mind, and the mind-body survey. The book’s larger business is the mind-body problem, surveyed with Broad’s usual completeness — he distinguishes seventeen possible positions before settling on “emergent materialism”: mental properties as emergent qualities of certain material structures, with the compresence of mind and matter a trans-ordinal fact. His treatment of the alternatives, more than his own verdict, is what endured: the taxonomy became the debate’s map.

The afterlife. Eclipsed for half a century, Broad’s apparatus returned when emergence did: the contemporary debate’s vocabulary — levels, in-principle non-deducibility, downward implications, natural piety — is Broad’s, cited by friends of strong emergence as the honest original and by critics as the clearest target. The revival reads him both ways: the position that failed on chemistry, and the formulation precise enough to fail informatively — which is its own kind of philosophical success.

Where Broad stops

Broad’s emergentism is a thesis about deducibility between levels; it offers no account of why the trans-ordinal laws hold — ultimacy is the account, accepted with natural piety, and he says so plainly. The position thus stops exactly where explanation gives out by its own lights: it names the bruteness, and declines to soften it. And the archangel clause ties the whole structure to a hostage it could not keep — what counts as deducible-in-principle shifts with mathematics and theory, and Broad supplied no way to state the clause that survives such shifts. Both boundaries are his own, drawn in his own prose; the second one closed over his central example within his lifetime.

Key works

See also: Kim · Bedau · Anderson · Whitehead