The relation between MORE’s and DESCARTES’ (1596-1650) theories as to the nature of spirit is interesting.  When MORE first read DESCARTES’ works he was favourably impressed with his views, though without entirely agreeing with him on all points; but later the difference became accentuated.  DESCARTES regarded extension as the chief characteristic of matter, and asserted that spirit was extra-spatial.  To MORE this seemed like denying the existence of spirit, which he regarded as extended, and he postulated divisibility and impenetrability as the chief characteristics of matter.  In order, however, to get over some of the inherent difficulties of this view, he put forward the suggestion that spirit is extended in four dimensions:  thus, its apparent (i.e. three-dimensional) extension can change, whilst its true (i.e. four-dimensional) extension remains constant; just as the surface of a piece of metal can be increased by hammering it out, without increasing the volume of the metal.  Here, I think, we have a not wholly inadequate symbol of the truth; but it remained for BERKELEY
  (1685-1753) to show the essential validity of DESCARTES’
position, by demonstrating that, since space and extension are perceptions of the mind, and thus exist only in the mind as ideas, space exists in spirit:  not spirit in space.

MORE was a keen believer in witchcraft, and eagerly investigated all cases of these and like marvels that came under his notice.  In this he was largely influenced by JOSEPH GLANVIL (1636-1680), whose book on witchcraft, the well-known Saducismus Triumphatus, MORE largely contributed to, and probably edited.  MORE was wholly unsuited for psychical research; free from guile himself, he was too inclined to judge others to be of this nature also.  But his common sense and critical attitude towards enthusiasm saved him, no doubt, from many falls into the mire of fantasy.

As Principal TULLOCH has pointed out, whilst MORE is the most interesting personality amongst the Cambridge Platonists, his works are the least interesting of those of his school.  They are dull and scholastic, and MORE’S retired existence prevented him from grasping in their fulness some of the more acute problems of life.  His attempt to harmonise catastrophes with Providence, on the ground that the evil of certain parts may be necessary for the good of the whole, just as dark colours, as well as bright, are essential to the beauty of a picture—­a theory which is practically the same as that of modern Absolutism,[1]—­is a case in point.  No doubt this harmony may be accomplished, but in another key.

[1] Cf.  BERNARD BOSANQUET, LL.D., D.C.L.:  The Principle of Individuality and Value (1912).