FALSE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AGE.
The moral philosophy of our age, (which term we use generically to
include Politics, Ethics, and Economy, domestic and national,) is
deduced from the existing relations of men to each other in free
society, and attempts to explain, to justify, to generalize and regulate
those relations. If that system of society be wrong, and its relations
false, the philosophy resulting from it must partake of its error and
falsity. On the other hand, if our current philosophy be true, slavery
must be wrong, because that philosophy is at war with slavery. No
successful defence of slavery can be made, till we succeed in refuting
or invalidating the principles on which free society rests for support
or defence. The world, however, is sick of its philosophy; and the
Socialists have left it not a leg to stand on. In fact, it is, in all
its ramifications, a mere expansion and application of Political
Economy,--and Political Economy may be summed-up in the phrase,
"Laissez-faire," or "Let alone." A system of unmitigated selfishness
pervades and distinguishes all departments of ethical, political, and
economic science. The philosophy is partially true, because selfishness,
as a rule of action and guide of conduct, is necessary to the existence
of man, and of all other animals. But it should not be, with man
especially, the only rule and guide; for he is, by nature, eminently
social and gregarious. His wants, his weakness, his appetites, his
affections, compel him to look without, and beyond self, in order to
sustain self. The eagle and the owl, the lion and the tiger, are not
gregarious, but solitary and self-supporting. They practice political
economy, because 'tis adapted to their natures. But men and beavers,
herds, bees, and ants, require a different philosophy, another guide of
conduct. The Bible, (independent of its authority,) is far man's best
guide, even in this world. Next to it, we would place Aristotle. But all
books written four hundred or more years ago, are apt to yield useful
instruction, whilst those written since that time will generally
mislead. We mean, of course, books on moral science. We should not be
far out in saying, that no book on physics, written more than four
hundred years ago, is worth reading, and none on morals written within
that time. The Reformation, which effected much of practical good, gave
birth to a false philosophy, which has been increasing and ramifying
until our day, and now threatens the overthrow of all social
institutions. The right of Private Judgment led to the doctrine of
Human Individuality, and a Social Contract to restrict that
individuality. Hence, also, arose the doctrines of Laissez-faire, free
competition, human equality, freedom of religion, of speech and of the
press, and universal liberty. The right of Private Judgment, naturally
enough, leads to the right to act on that judgment, to the supreme
sovereignty of the individual, and the abnegation of all government. No
doubt the Reformation resulted from the relaxation of feudalism and the
increased liberties of mind and body which men had begun to relish and
enjoy. We have no quarrel with the Reformation, as such, for reform was
needed; nor with all of the philosophy that has been deduced from it;
but it is the excess of reform, and the excessive applications of that
philosophy, to which we object. Man is selfish, as well as social; he is
born a part and member of society, born and lives a slave of society;
but he has also natural individual rights and liberties. What are his
obligations to society, what his individual rights, what position he is
entitled to, what duties he should fulfill, depend upon a thousand
ever-changing circumstances, in the wants and capacities of the
individual, and in the necessities and well-being of the society to
which he belongs. Modern philosophy treats of men only as separate
monads or individuals; it is, therefore, always partly false and partly
true; because, whilst man is always a limb or member of the Being,
Society, he is also a Being himself, and does not bear to society the
mere relation which the hand or the foot does to the human body. _We_
shall propose no new philosophy, no universal and unerring principles or
guide, in place of those which we assail. A Moral Pathology, which feels
its way in life, and adapts itself to circumstances, as they present
themselves, is the nearest approach to philosophy, which it is either
safe or wise to attempt. All the rest must be left to Religion, to
Faith, and to Providence. This inadequacy of philosophy has, in all ages
and nations, driven men to lean on religious faith for support. Though
assailing all common theories, we are but giving bold and candid
expression to the commonest of thoughts. The universal admiration of the
passages we are about to cite, proves the truth of our theory, whilst it
debars us of all claim to originality:
Solomon, melancholy, gloomy, dissatisfied, and tossed upon a sea of
endless doubt and speculation, exclaims, "Vanity of vanities, saith the
Preacher; all is vanity." But, at length, he finds rest from the stormy
ocean of philosophy, in the calm haven of faith. How beautiful and
consoling, and how natural, too, his parting words:
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep
his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."
"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
In his Tenth, or Golden Satire, JUVENAL comes to a like conclusion,
after having indulged in like speculations:
Nil ergo optabunt homines? Si consilium vis,
Permittes ipsis expendere numinibus, quid
Conveniat nobis, rebusque sit utile nostris.
Nam pro jucundis aptissama quaeque dabunt diis
Carior est illis homo, quam sibi.
The Epicurean HORACE, in his first Satire, sees the same difficulty, but
gives a less satisfactory solution:
Est modus in rebus; sunt certi denique fines,
Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum.
BURKE'S beautiful words, "What shadows we are, and what shadows we
pursue!" convey the same thought, without attempting a solution.
SHAKSPEARE employs the profoundest philosophy, to assail all philosophy:
"There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
The infidel, VOLTAIRE, admits that "philosophy had ascertained few
truths, done little good;" and when he sums up that little, satisfies
the reader that it has done nothing--unless it be to perplex and
mislead.
He, Voltaire, also, in another connection, exclaims, mournfully:
"I now repeat this confession, still more emphatically, since the
more I read, the more I meditate, and the more I acquire, the more
I am enabled to affirm, that I know nothing."
NEWTON, admitting his own ignorance, is a standing monument of the
inadequacy and futility of moral researches and speculations.
PINDAR--
Man, the frail being of a day,
Uncertain shadow of a dream,
Illumined by the heavenly beam,
Flutters his airy life away.
AESCHYLUS--
Vain thy ardor, vain thy grace,
They, nor force, nor aid repay;
Like a dream, man's feeble race,
Short-lived reptiles of a day.
SOPHOCLES--
'Tis sad to think, but me the farce of life persuades,
That men are only spectral forms, or hollow shades.
ARISTOPHANES--
Come now, ye host of fading lives, like the race of withering leaves,
Who live a day, creatures of clay, tribes that flit like shadows away;
Ephemeral, wingless insects, dreamy shapes, that death expects
Soon to bind in phantom sheaves.
We will conclude our citations, which we might continue to the crack of
doom, (for all who have written well and much, have indulged similar
reflections,) with Doctor Johnson's Rasselas, which is intended to
expand and apply what others had concisely and tersely stated. The
Doctor's is an elaborate failure.
Philosophy can neither account for the past, comprehend the present, nor
foresee and provide for the future. "I'll none of it."