wherever diversity is increasing, there chance must be operative. On the
other hand, wherever uniformity is increasing, habit must be operative.
But wherever actions take place under an established uniformity, there
so much feeling as there may be takes the mode of a sense of reaction.
That is the manner in which I am led to define the relation between the
fundamental elements of consciousness and their physical equivalents.
It remains to consider the physical relations of general ideas. It may
be well here to reflect that if matter has no existence except as a
specialisation of mind, it follows that whatever affects matter according
to regular laws is itself matter. But all mind is directly or indirectly
connected with all matter, and acts in a more or less regular way; so
that all mind more or less partakes of the nature of matter. Hence, it
would be a mistake to conceive of the psychical and the physical aspects
of matter as two aspects absolutely distinct. Viewing a thing from the
outside, considering its relations of action and reaction with other
things, it appears as matter. Viewing it from the inside, looking at its
immediate character as feeling, it appears as consciousness. These two
views are combined when we remember that mechanical laws are nothing
but acquired habits, like all the regularities of mind, including the
tendency to take habits, itself; and that this action of habit is nothing
but generalisation, and generalisation is nothing but the spreading
of feelings. But the question is, how do general ideas appear in the
molecular theory of protoplasm?
The consciousness of a habit involves a general idea. In each action of
that habit certain atoms get thrown out of their orbit, and replaced by
others. Upon all the different occasions it is different atoms that are
thrown off, but they are analogous from a physical point of view, and
there is an inward sense of their being analogous. Every time one of the
associated feelings recurs, there is a more or less vague sense that
there are others, that it has a general character, and of about what this
general character is. We ought not, I think, to hold that in protoplasm
habit never acts in any other than the particular way suggested above. On
the contrary, if habit be a primary property of mind, it must be equally
so of matter, as a kind of mind. We can hardly refuse to admit that
wherever chance motions have general characters, there is a tendency for
this generality to spread and to perfect itself. In that case, a general
idea is a certain modification of consciousness which accompanies any
regularity or general relation between chance actions.
The consciousness of a general idea has a certain “unity of the ego,”
in it, which is identical when it passes from one mind to another. It
is, therefore, quite analogous to a person; and, indeed, a person is
only a particular kind of general idea. Long ago, in the _Journal of
Speculative Philosophy_ (Vol. III, p. 156), I pointed out that a person
is nothing but a symbol involving a general idea; but my views were,
then, too nominalistic to enable me to see that every general idea has
the unified living feeling of a person.
All that is necessary, upon this theory, to the existence of a person
is that the feelings out of which he is constructed should be in
close enough connection to influence one another. Here we can draw a
consequence which it may be possible to submit to experimental test.
Namely, if this be the case, there should be something like personal
consciousness in bodies of men who are in intimate and intensely
sympathetic communion. It is true that when the generalisation of
feeling has been carried so far as to include all within a person, a
stopping-place, in a certain sense, has been attained; and further
generalisation will have a less lively character. But we must not
think it will cease. _Esprit de corps_, national sentiment, sympathy,
are no mere metaphors. None of us can fully realise what the minds of
corporations are, any more than one of my brain-cells can know what
the whole brain is thinking. But the law of mind clearly points to the
existence of such personalities, and there are many ordinary observations
which, if they were critically examined and supplemented by special
experiments, might, as first appearances promise, give evidence of the
influence of such greater persons upon individuals. It is often remarked
that on one day half a dozen people, strangers to one another, will take
it into their heads to do one and the same strange deed, whether it be
a physical experiment, a crime, or an act of virtue. When the thirty
thousand young people of the society for Christian Endeavor were in New
York, there seemed to me to be some mysterious diffusion of sweetness and
light. If such a fact is capable of being made out anywhere, it should
be in the church. The Christians have always been ready to risk their
lives for the sake of having prayers in common, of getting together and
praying simultaneously with great energy, and especially for their common
body, for “the whole state of Christ’s church militant here in earth,”
as one of the missals has it. This practice they have been keeping up
everywhere, weekly, for many centuries. Surely, a personality ought to
have developed in that church, in that “bride of Christ,” as they call
it, or else there is a strange break in the action of mind, and I shall
have to acknowledge my views are much mistaken. Would not the societies
for psychical research be more likely to break through the clouds,
in seeking evidences of such corporate personality, than in seeking
evidences of telepathy, which, upon the same theory, should be a far
weaker phenomenon?
C. S. PEIRCE.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I am rejoiced to find, since my last paper was printed, that a
philosopher as subtle and profound as Dr. Edmund Montgomery has long
been arguing for the same element in the universe. Other world-renowned
thinkers, as M. Renouvier and M. Delbœuf, appear to share this opinion.
[2] By a _vera causa_, in the logic of science, is meant a state of
things known to exist in some cases and supposed to exist in other cases,
because it would account for observed phenomena.
[3] Wiedemann, _Annalen_, 1887-1889.
[4] See Maxwell on Spherical Harmonics, in his _Electricity and
Magnetism_.
[5] The word _system_ has three peculiar meanings in mathematics. (_A._)
It means an orderly exposition of the truths of astronomy, and hence
a theory of the motions of the stars; as the Ptolemaic _system_, the
Copernican _system_. This is much like the sense in which we speak of the
Calvinistic _system_ of theology, the Kantian _system_ of philosophy,
etc. (_B._) It means the aggregate of the planets considered as all
moving in somewhat the same way, as the solar _system_; and hence any
aggregate of particles moving under mutual forces. (_C._) It means a
number of forces acting simultaneously upon a number of particles.
[6] But, in fact, an inspection of these curves is sufficient to show
that they are of a higher degree than the third. For they have the line
_V_ = 0, or some line _V_ a constant for an asymptote, while for small
values of _P_, the values of (_d_²)_P_/(_dV_)² are positive.
[7] Anticipated by Clausius as long ago as 1857; and by Williamson in
1851.
[8] “Physiologically, ... accommodation means the breaking up of a
habit.... Psychologically, it means reviving consciousness.” Baldwin,
_Psychology_, Part III ch. i., § 5.
THE FUTURE OF THOUGHT IN AMERICA.
History teaches us the nature of the degenerative and destructive
agencies in national life. These are of various kinds, but they may be
generally included under the heads of Physical Vices, Superstitions,
and Selfish Ambitions. These have become possible through excess of
emotional, and deficiency of rational states of the mind. When a large
part of a population is influenced by emotional rather than by rational
modes of thought, unethical conduct has full opportunity, and suffering
and destruction are sure to follow. All races and nations are subject to
such disorders, if only in some cases during their periods of infancy and
of degeneracy.
The peoples of Europe have difficulties and dangers which are due to
their own peculiar situation. The people of North America have to meet
certain risks of a somewhat different character, owing to our peculiar
position. In Europe we see an accumulation of many races who reached
their _Ultima Thule_ at the coast of the Atlantic, and who have had
to accommodate themselves to each other as best they could. Speaking
different languages and having different political organisations, they
have consolidated into separate nations. This result has only been
reached after many conflicts, and the result has been the combination and
absorption of smaller states into greater, such as we find them to-day.
This result has not terminated conflicts; it has reduced their frequency
but has increased their scope and importance. To-day the antagonisms of
these nations impose great burdens upon them, but they are at the same
time productive of great good.
With men as with other animals excellence is the result of use and
exercise. With animals this exercise has been compulsory, and has been
due largely to the pressure of hunger. Among men intellectual and ethical
excellence may be due to compulsion, or it may result from the capacity
to develop lofty ideals. In the former case man is driven; in the latter
case he is led. Now the organisation of human society is such, that if
man will not be led, he is driven. The “mills of the Gods” are ever ready
for those who lag behind in the progress of the race. But there are
mills and mills, and no mill has yet appeared in human history better
calculated to grind out a good grist from an intellectual point of view,
than western Eurasia, or Europe. The emulations and antagonisms of so
many nations have stimulated men to do their best, and have stimulated
governments to aid them in doing it, for several centuries. The result
has been modern art, modern science pure and applied, and modern
philosophy. To produce all this however, Europe has been under pressure,
and the pressure has been in some, if not all of its countries, more or
less galling.
The European, in order to escape local tyranny, political, social, or
theological, or to better his chances of physical living, has come to
America. He has taken possession, and has bettered his condition from a
physical point of view, most successfully. The question that interests
us now, is whether he has bettered himself in any other way, and whether
he is going to continue the mental progress which has so distinguished
his history in Europe. Population is rapidly increasing, and the
increasing severity of the “struggle for existence” which will follow,
will stimulate men to increased excellence in their methods of obtaining
a livelihood, but will it develop the mind in any other direction? We
have before us in the case of China, the effect of close industrial
competition in a dense population, without corresponding intellectual
development. What is the outlook for the American? Will the process of
natural selection only, the “devil-take-the-hindmost” doctrine of Darwin,
be sufficient to develop the higher mental faculties, or having developed
them, to enable them to survive and to become general, or not?
In the first place we lack in America the great stimulus to mental
progress already referred to, international jealousy and emulation. In
this respect we are situated very much like the Chinese, but if anything
less favorably. We practically own the continent. We have no fear of
Tartar invasions from the west nor Japanese from the north east. The
Canadians are of identical race with ourselves, and are almost certain
to become identical in nationality with us. We are accustomed to boast
ourselves of this, and to look with great satisfaction on our isolated
position among nations. But our self-gratulation must be greatly tempered
by the reflection that such isolation is only beneficial so long as we
can maintain our ideals without external stimulus. And this is something
that few nations have so far been able to accomplish. It is true,
however, that the Atlantic ocean is not so wide as it was formerly, and
we are truly one of the family of the Indo-European nations. But we will
miss the effect of the daily stimulus which they afford each other, and
the daily contact which transmits so much from man to man.
What is our present intellectual rank among these nations to-day; meaning
by this our status in actual production of intellectual work, and leaving
aside history? Without any great competence to speak on many branches
of such work, I may be not far from correct; if I summarise as follows:
In music and sculpture unproductive; in painting and literature (as an
art) good, but weak in quantity in comparison with our population. In
sciences, feeble in many branches, but very productive in some others. I
refer to pure science. In applied science we stand high. In philosophy as
a nation, weak.
But we have the future before us. If there is a demand for the products
of pure thought in this country, the supply will come. Much may be
expected of our race. We will hope that the demand will grow, for at
present it is not as large as it ought to be. It is of course easy for
thought to “run in accustomed channels,” and many people there are in
this as in all other countries, who believe that sufficient is already
known, and that he who would disturb current opinions is a “disturber of
the peace.” Strange as it may seem, in this comparatively new country we
have one special inducement to this habit of mind. This is to be found
in our political system, which requires an unhesitating submission to the
will of the majority.
* * * * *
Here is our second danger. We are apt to confuse mental submission with
physical submission. Physical submission to the will of the majority
is generally necessary for physical reasons, with which we are all
familiar. Ballots are simply a peaceful representation of bullets, and
we anticipate the submission to the latter by submission to the former.
But the mind should be free. Current or popular opinions are not always
correct. In fact if they were, reform or progress would be unnecessary.
A proposal for change always begins with a minority, and much time may
often elapse before such change becomes acceptable to the majority.
Before the majority accepts a new step of progress the progressive idea
cannot govern physically. It must be content to be unpopular for a
greater or less time. Now the politician naturally dreads unpopularity,
for it is political death. And just in proportion as we are politicians
do we share in this unfortunate mental attitude. And how many Americans
are not politicians? It is the prevalent ethical disease of Americans. If
it becomes general, the progress of this country is ended, and her fate
among nations is sealed. Her manhood is gone, and woman may well feel her
hand itch to
“Defeat their dirty tricks
Confound their politics.”
The prevalence of the habit of submission to what we know to be wrong
in this country is simply detestable. Herbert Spencer has given us
some excellent advice on this subject, and we will do well to heed
it. The habit extends all the way through political, scientific, and
domestic economy. The unpopularity of the reformer is expressed in the
term “kicker,” which is applied to him among the lower classes in this
country. As one of its advocates once said to me, it is the “American
System,” and there was a strong element of truth in his assertion. With
such people, criticism is identical with quarrelling, for they cannot
conceive of any motive for endeavoring to reform some abuse or correct
some error, but personal rancor. Such an attitude is a sure mark of
intellectual mediocrity and ethical incapacity, and it infinitely
increases the pains of the reformer, and readily converts him into a
martyr. However, there are a good many men left in this country, and
there are agencies at work which will probably keep up the supply.
In the absence of compulsion in the form of external or civil wars and
other disasters, the churches are doing a good work in keeping ideals
before the people, and in inviting corresponding practical life. It is
true that their efforts are more or less retarded by the insistence
on erroneous and even absurd opinions about some things, but they do
infinite service in teaching that “man shall not live by bread alone,”
nor by the mere display of physical possessions. They teach that there
are ideals of truth and beauty better worth living for, and that the
mind is the greater part of man. It is the churches which make the
majority of scientists and philosophers, as they formerly did of
painters. Then let the churches flourish. Like the nations of Europe,
their emulations and antagonisms bring out the truth. The Presbyterians
have to solve the knotty questions of biblical inspiration and divine
order. The Methodists will have to study the nature and value of human
emotions. The Friends will know what is to be known of immediate divine
influence. The Catholics have learned how to restrain in some measure
the most thoughtless of mankind. The Unitarians and Ethical Culturists
are proving that man may retain and live up to high ideals without much
or any theology. So long as there is no philosophy or none to speak of
in America, the evolution of thought will come from the conflicts of
the theologies; a peaceful war which is far less wasteful than physical
wars. Theology has been generally in Europe the parent of philosophy,
and so it will be here. From the various stages and conditions of the
agitation will spring science and art. By this method man is led into
progress by measures which involve the best attributes of his nature,
instead of being driven by appeals to his lower motives, or by physical
force. In this progress moral courage is not lost, but it is developed;
and criticism is truth’s best weapon, and is not a cause of offense.
That this progress in the churches is real, is proven by our Woodrow,
McQueary, Briggs, and others, and it will go on as long as the love of
truth and moral courage exist in those organisations.
It is interesting to remember that this struggle of opinions has passed
through the same stages in Europe wherever the love of truth has had an
abiding place. This is especially true of Germany, where also philosophy
has had so large a development in relatively modern times. But we need
something more than opinions to counteract the dangers which threaten
earnestness of character in this country, which I have pointed out.
Active organisations are necessary, which shall resist tendencies
to crystallisation from both sides. Non-theological people must be
stimulated to maintain ethical ideals; and theological people must be
restrained from smothering them under useless and obstructive dogmas and
practices. It is too true that while some theological dogmas include
high ethical ideals, other dogmas discredit them by deriving them from
incredible sources, and seeking to sustain them by incredible sanctions.
Where such dogmas are sincerely held, true thought is suppressed,
knowledge makes slow progress, and ethical life is more difficult.
As already remarked, we cannot yet claim to be, as a nation,
distinguished for profound thinking on the subjects of highest human
interest; nor yet are we the most thoughtless. Ignorance of the
possibilities of mind is not so general as in some parts of Europe, but
it is greater than in others. Material objects and interests occupy
almost as exclusively the minds of the majority of our citizens whom we
are accustomed to consider “intelligent,” as among the unintelligent.
Hence our proneness to boast of our material greatness, instead of our
intellectual conquests. Hence that weakest of all forms of self-praise,
the publication of the dimensions of our country and its rapid growth,
as though these were indications of our superiority as a people or
as a race. This is repeated _ad nauseam_, while our real merits, our
contributions to the stock of the world’s progress in thought, knowledge,
and mental power, are passed by in silence. Our newspaper press reflects
this state of affairs, since they generally think it their best policy to
follow rather than lead public opinion. There are, however, noteworthy
exceptions to this character of the press both in the east and the west,
which we owe to the superiority of the men who edit and direct them.
In the conduct of our schools and of our scientific organisations, we
have a corresponding exhibition of mediocrity or worse, with a few noble
and distinguished exceptions. A mere interest in education and research
does not confer competency to direct and sustain them; yet an interest
in such matters is generally the only qualification demanded of the
directors of such institutions, provided they understand how to buy,
sell, and invest money. It is to be hoped that this state of affairs will
some day pass away, and that men who are influential in such matters
will some time know enough themselves to distinguish between the false
and the true, and between men of ability and adventurers who are after
the money and position with which our institutions of learning and our
scientific enterprises can endow them. This reform will progress exactly
in proportion as it is understood how much human happiness depends on
true research and on correct thinking, and how little on revelation and
on ancient dogma.
It is not, I repeat, sufficiently understood, how much human conduct
depends on correct thinking. How much financial dishonesty would be
averted by a rational thought as to the inevitable consequences? How much
social irregularity would be prevented by a similar treatment of the
subject? How much hatred and wasteful antagonism would the world lack, if
the ordinary conditions of living were understood and acted on! So the
cultivation of the rational mind is of incalculable importance, and if
we wish to prosper as a nation we must bend our energies to the pleasant
task this problem presents to us. Neglect of our mental powers means
degeneracy and decay; while their cultivation means power and happiness.
Wealth, except as a means of attaining this end, after physical
necessities are supplied, is simply useless.
E. D. COPE.
MENTAL MUMMIES.
If we should name the most important factor in the changes which
have gradually widened the contrast between modern science and the
scholasticism of the Middle Ages, we might define it as a “progressive
recognition of hereditary influences.”
There was a time when each individual of the human race was considered
a separate accident, called into existence by an act of unlimited,
arbitrary power, and apt to be as suddenly changed, even unto a complete
inversion of his former moral being, by a merciful, or revengeful,
caprice of the same power.
Biology has since taught us to apply the doctrine of evolution to the
problems of our own moral and physical nature, to trace the tendencies of
bygone times to their effects in the present age, to consider individuals
the outcome of a long series of precedent influences, and to recognise
the truth that the length of those influences is proportioned to the
persistence of the result.