that metaphysical theory is more especially akin to the speculation that
mounts to the supernatural and the transcendental world. "Man's
relations to the infinite" is a frequent phrase in the mouth of the
metaphysician. Metaphysics is supposed to be "philosophy" by way of
eminence; and philosophy in the large sense has not merely to satisfy
the curiosity of the human mind, it has to provide scope for its
emotions and aspirations; in fact, to play the part of theology. In
times when the prevailing orthodox beliefs are shaken, some scheme of
philosophy is brought forward to take their place. If I understand
aright the drift of the German metaphysical systems for a century back,
they all more or less propose to themselves to supply the same spiritual
wants as religion supplies. In our own country, such of us as are not
under German influence put the matter differently; but we still consider
that we have something to say on the "highest questions". We are apt to
believe that on us more than on any other class of thinkers, does it
depend whether the prevailing theology shall be upheld, impugned, or
transformed. The chief weapons of the defenders of the faith are forged
in the schools of metaphysics. Locke and Butler, Reid, Stewart and Brown
are theological authorities. And when theology is attacked, its
metaphysical buttresses have to be assailed as the very first thing. If
these are declared unsound, either it must fall, or it must change its
front. It is Natural Theology, more particularly, that is thus allied to
metaphysics; yet, not exclusively; for the defence of Revelation by
miracles involves at the outset a point of logic.
Now I do not mean to say, that this is a purely factitious and
ill-grounded employment of the metaphysical sciences. I fully admit that
the later defences of theology, as well as the attacks, have been
furnished from psychology, logic, ethics, and ontology. The earliest
beliefs in religion, the greatest and strongest convictions, had little
to do with any of these departments of speculation. But when simple
traditionary faith gave place to the questionings of the reason, the
basis of religion was transferred to the reason-built sciences; and
metaphysics came in for a large share in the decision.
[METAPHYSICS AND THEOLOGY.]
What I maintain is, that there is something factitious in the degree of
prominence given to metaphysics in this great enterprise; that its
pretentions are excessive, its importance over-stated; and when most
employed for such a purpose, it is least to be trusted. Theological
polemic is only in part conducted through science; and physical science
shares equally with moral. The most serious shocks to the traditional
orthodoxy have come from the physical sciences. The argument from Design
has no doubt a metaphysical or logical element--the estimate of the
degree of analogy between the universe and a piece of human workmanship;
but the argument itself needs a scientific survey of the entire
phenomena of nature, both matter and mind. Our Bridgewater Treatises
proceeded upon this view; they embraced the consideration of the whole
circle of the sciences, as bearing on the theological argument. The
scheme was so far just and to the purpose; the obvious drawback to the
value of the Treatises lay in their being special pleadings, backed by a
fee of a thousand pounds to each writer for maintaining one side. If a
similar fee had been given to nine equally able writers to represent the
other side, the argument from design would have been far more
satisfactorily sifted than by the exclusively metaphysical criticism of
Kant.
When theology is supported exclusively by such doctrines as--an
independent and immaterial soul, a special moral faculty, and what is
called free-will,--the metaphysician is a person of importance in the
contest; he is powerful either to uphold or to subvert the fabric. But,
if these were ever to constitute the chief stronghold of the faith, its
tenure would not be very secure. It is only a metaphysician, however,
that believes or disbelieves in metaphysical grounds alone; such a man
as Cousin, no doubt, rests his whole spiritual philosophy on this
foundation. But the great mass will either adhere to religion in spite
of metaphysical difficulties, or else abandon it notwithstanding its
metaphysical evidences. An eminent man now departed said in my hearing,
that he was a believer in Christianity until he became acquainted with
geology, when, finding the first chapter of Genesis at variance with
geological doctrines, he applied to the Bible the rule _falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus,_ and thenceforth abandoned his old belief. I never
heard of any one that was so worked upon by a purely metaphysical
argument.
The aspect of theological doctrine that has come most to the front of
late is the question of the Divine goodness, as shown in the plan of the
universe. Speculations are divided between optimism and pessimism. How
shall we decide between these extremes, or, if repudiating both, how
shall we fix the mean? Is a metaphysician more especially qualified to
find out the truth? I hardly think so. I believe he could contribute,
with others, to such a solution as may be possible. He has, we shall
suppose, surveyed closely the compass of the human sensibilities, and is
able to assign, with more than common precision, what things operate on
them favourably or unfavourably. So far good. Then, as a logician, he is
more expert at detecting bad inferences in regard to the form of
reasoning; but whether certain allegations of fact are well or ill
founded, he may not be able to say, at least out of his own department.
If a mixed commission of ten were nominated to adjudicate upon this vast
problem, metaphysics might claim to be represented by two.
[FILLING THE THEOLOGICAL VOID.]
Least of all, do I understand the claims made in behalf of this
department to supply the spiritual void in case the old theology is no
longer accredited. When one looks closely at the stream and tendency of
thought, one sees a growing alliance and kinship between religion and
poetry or art. There is, as we know, a dogmatic, precise, severe,
logical side of theology, by which creeds are constructed, religious
tests imposed, and belief made a matter of legal compulsion. There is
also a sentimental, ideal, imaginative side that resists definition,
that refuses dogmatic prescription, and seeks only to satisfy spiritual
needs and emotions. Metaphysics may no doubt take a part in the dogmatic
or doctrinal treatment, but it must qualify itself by biblical study,
and become altogether theology. In the other aspect, metaphysics, as I
conceive it, is unavailing; the poet is the proper medium for keeping up
the emotional side, under all transformations of doctrinal belief. But
as conceived by others, metaphysics is philosophy and poetry in one, to
which I can never agree. The combination of the two, as hitherto
exhibited, has been made at the expense of both. The leading terms of
philosophy--reason, spirit, soul, the ideal, the infinite, the absolute,
phenomenal truth, being, consciousness--are lubricated with emotion, and
thrown together in ways that defy the understanding. The unintelligible,
which ought to be the shame of philosophy, is made its glory.
These remarks prepare for the conclusion that I arrive at as to the
scope of metaphysics with reference to the higher questions. That it has
bearings upon these questions I allow; and those bearings are
legitimately within the range of metaphysical debates. But I make a wide
distinction between metaphysical discussion and theological discussion;
and do not consider that they can be combined to advantage. In the great
latitude of free inquiry in the present day, theology is freely
canvassed, and societies might be properly devoted to that express
object; but I cannot see any benefit that would arise by a philosophical
society undertaking, in addition to its own province, to raise the
questions belonging to theology. I am well aware that there is one
society of very distinguished persons in the metropolis, calling itself
metaphysical, that freely ventures upon the perilous seas of theological
debate.[14] No doubt good comes from any exercise of the liberty of
discussion, so long restrained in this region; yet, I can hardly suppose
that purely metaphysical, studies can thrive in such a connection. Many
of the members must think far more of the theological issues than of the
cultivation of mental and logical science; and a purely metaphysical
debate can seldom be pursued with profit under these conditions.
* * * * *
[POLEMICS IN GREECE.]
I now pass to the POLEMICAL handling of the metaphysical subjects. We
owe to the Greeks the study of philosophy through methodised debate; and
the state of scientific knowledge in the age of the early Athenian
schools was favourable to that mode of treatment. The conversations of
Socrates, the Dialogues of Plato, and the Topics of Aristotle, are the
monuments of Greek contentiousness, turned to account as a great
refinement in social intercourse, as a stimulus to individual thought,
and a means of advancing at least the speculative departments of
knowledge. Grote, both in his "Plato," and in his "Aristotle," while
copiously illustrating all these consequences, has laid extraordinary
stress on still another aspect of the polemic of Socrates and Plato,
the aspect of _free-thought_, as against venerated tradition and the
received commonplaces of society. The assertion of the right of private
judgment in matters of doctrine and belief, was, according to Grote, the
greatest of all the fruits of the systematised negation begun by Zeno,
and carried out in the "Search Dialogues" of Plato. In the "Exposition
Dialogues" it is wanting; and in the "Topica," where Eristic is reduced
to method and system by one of Aristotle's greatest logical
achievements, the freethinker's wings are very much clipt; the execution
of Socrates probably had to answer for that. It is to the Platonic
dialogues that we look for the full grandeur of Grecian debate in all
its phases. The Plato of Grote is the apotheosis of Negation; it is not
a philosophy so much as an epic; the theme--"The Noble Wrath of the
Greek Dissenter".
At all times, there is much that has to be achieved by solitary
thinking. Some definite shape must be given to our thoughts before we
can submit them to the operation of other minds; the greater the
originality, the longer must be the process of solitary elaboration.
The "Principia" was composed from first to last by recluse meditation;
probably the attempt to discuss or debate any parts of it would have
only fretted and paralysed the author's invention. Indeed, after an
enormous strain of the constructive intellect, a man may be in no humour
to have his work carped at, even to improve it. In the region of fact,
in observation and experiment, there must be a mass of individual and
unassisted exertion. The use of allies in this region is to check and
confirm the accuracy of the first observer.
Again, an inquirer, by dint of prolonged familiarity with a subject, may
be his own best critic; he may be better able to detect flaws than any
one he could call in. This is another way of stating the superiority of
a particular individual over all others in the same walk. Such a
monarchical position as removes a man alike from the rivalry and from
the sympathy of his fellows, is the exception; mutual criticism and
mutual encouragement are the rule. The social stimulants are of avail in
knowledge and in truth as well as everything else.
A comparison of the state of speculation in the golden age of debate,
with the state of the sciences in the present day, both metaphysical and
physical, shows us clearly enough, what are the fields where polemic is
most profitable. I set aside the struggles of politics and theology, and
look to the scientific form of knowledge, which is, after all, the type
of our highest certainty everywhere. Now, undoubtedly, it is in
classifying, generalising, defining, and in the so-called logical
processes--induction and deduction--that a man can be least left to
himself. Until many men have gone over the same field of facts, a
classification, a definition, or an induction, cannot be held as safe
and sound. In modern science, there are numerous matters that have
passed through the fiery furnace of iterated criticism, seven times
purified; but there are, attaching to every science, a number of things
still in the furnace. Most of all does this apply to the metaphysical or
subject sciences, where, according to the popular belief, nothing has
yet passed finally out of the fiery trial. In psychology, in logic, in
eudaemonics, in sociology, in ethics, the facts are nearly all around
our feet; the question is how to classify, define, generalise, express
them. This was the situation of Zeno, Socrates, and Plato, for which
they invoked the militant ardour of the mind. Man, they saw, is a
fighting being; if fighting will do a thing, he will do it well.
[MOST USEFUL CLASSES OF DEBATES.]
In conformity with this view, the foremost class of debates, and
certainly not the least profitable, are such as discuss the meanings of
important terms. The genius of Socrates perceived that this was the
beginning of all valid knowledge, and, in seeing this, laid the
foundation of reasoned truth. I need not repeat the leading terms of
metaphysical philosophy; but you can at once understand the form of
proceeding by such an instance as "consciousness," debated so as to
bring out the question whether, as Hamilton supposed, it is necessarily
grounded on knowledge.
Next to the leading terms are the broader and more fundamental
generalities: for example, the law of relativity; the laws of memory and
its conditions, such as the intensity of the present consciousness;
Hamilton's inverse relationship of sensation and perception. These are
a few psychological instances. The value of a debate on any of these
questions depends entirely upon its resolving itself into an inductive
survey of the facts, and such surveys are never without fruit.
A debating society that includes logic in its sphere should cultivate
the methods of debate; setting an example to other societies and to
mankind in general. The "Topica" of Aristotle shows an immensity of
power expended on this object, doubtless without corresponding results.
Nevertheless the attempt, if resumed at the present day, with our
clearer and wider views of logical method, would not be barren. This is
too little thought of by us; and we may say that polemic, as an art, is
still immature. The best examples of procedure are to be found in the
Law Courts, some of whose methods might be borrowed in other debates.
For one thing, I think that each of the two leaders should provide the
members beforehand with a synopsis of the leading arguments or positions
to be set forth in the debate. This, I believe, should be insisted on
everywhere, not even excepting the debates of Parliament.
It is the custom of debating societies to alternate the Debate and the
Essay: a very important distinction, as it seems to me; and I will
endeavour to indicate how it should be maintained. Frequently there is
no substantial distinction observed; an essay is simply the opening of a
debate, and a debate the criticism of an essay. I should like to see the
two carried out each on its own principle, as I shall now endeavour to
explain.
[THE DEBATE: A FIGHT FOR MASTERY.]
The Debate is _the fight for mastery_ as between two sides. The
combatants strain their powers to say everything that can be said so
as to shake the case of their opponents. The debate is a field-day,
a challenge to a trial of strength. Now, while I admit that the
intellectual powers may be quickened to unusual perspicacity under the
sound of the trumpet and the shock of arms, I also see in the operation
many perils and shortcomings, when the subject of contest is truth. In
a heated controversy, only the more glaring and prominent facts,
considerations, doctrines, distinctions, can obtain a footing. Now truth
is the still small voice; it subsists often upon delicate differences,
unobtrusive instances, fine calculations. Whether or not man is a wholly
selfish being, may be submitted to a contentious debate, because the
facts and appearances on both sides are broad and palpable; but whether
all our actions are, in the last resort or final analysis,
self-regarding, is almost too delicate for debate. Chalmers upholds, as
a thesis, the intrinsic misery of the vicious affections: there could
not be a finer topic of pure debate.
My conception of the Essay, on the other hand, is that it should
represent _amicable co-operation_, with an eye to the truth. By it you
should rise from the lower or competitive, to the higher or communistic
attitude. There may be a loss of energy, but there is a gain in the
manner of applying it. The essayist should set himself to ascertain the
truth upon a subject; he should not be anxious to make a case. The
listeners, in the same spirit, should welcome all his suggestions, help
him out where he is in difficulties, be indulgent to his failings,
endeavour to see good in everything. If there be a real occasion for
debate, it should be purposely forborne and reserved. In propounding
subjects, the respective fitness for the debate and for the essay might
be taken into account.
[CO-OPERATIVE DISCUSSION IN THE ESSAY.]
When questions have been often debated without coming nearer to a
conclusion, it should be regarded as a sign that they are too delicate
and subtle for debate. A trial should then be made of the amicable or
co-operative treatment represented by the Essay. The Freedom of the Will
might, I think, be adjusted by friendly accommodation, but not by force
of contention. External Perception is beyond the province of debate.
It is fair and legitimate to try all problems by debate, in the first
instance, because the excitement quickens the intelligence, and leads to
new suggestions; but if the question involves an adjustment of various
considerations and minute differences, the contending sides will be
contentious still.
A society that really aims at the furtherance of knowledge, might test
its operations by now and then preparing a report of progress; setting
forth what problems had been debated, what themes elucidated, and with
what results. It would be very refreshing to see a candid avowal that
after several attempts--both debate and essay--some leading topic of the
department remained exactly where it stood at the outset. After such a
confession, the Society might well resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole House, to consider its ways, and indeed its entire position,
with a view to a new start on some more hopeful track.
My closing remark is, as to avoiding debates that are in their very
nature interminable. It is easy to fix upon a few salient features that
make all the difference between a hopeful and a hopeless controversy.
For one thing, there is a certain intensity of emotion, interest, bias,
or prejudice if you will, that can neither reason nor be reasoned with.
On the purely intellectual side, the disqualifying circumstances are
complexity and vagueness. If a topic necessarily hauls in numerous other
topics of difficulty, the essay may do something for it, but not the
debate. Worst of all is the presence of several large, ill-defined, or
unsettled terms, of which there are still plenty in our department. A
not unfrequent case is a combination of the several defects each perhaps
in a small degree. A tinge of predilection or party, a double or triple
complication of doctrines, and one or two hazy terms, will make a debate
that is pretty sure to end as it began. Thus it is that a question,
plausible to appearance, may contain within it capacities of
misunderstanding, cross-purposes, and pointless issues, sufficient to
occupy the long night of Pandemonium, or beguile the journey to the
nearest fixed star.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 12: An Address, delivered on the 28th of March, 1877, to the
Edinburgh University Philosophical Society. CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, April,
1877.]
[Footnote 13: This very plausible utterance begs every question. There
would be some difficulty in condensing an equal amount of fallacy,
confusion of thought, in so few words.
In the first place, it assumes that the three requisites--health,
freedom from debt, and a good conscience--are matters of easy and
general attainment; that they are, in fact, the rule among human beings.
Is this really so?
Take Health, a word of very wide import. There is a certain small
amount, such as is marked by being out of the physician's hands, but
implying very little of the energy needed for the labours and the
enjoyment of life. There is a high and resplendent degree that renders
toil easy, and responds to the commonest stimulants, so that enjoyment
cannot be quashed without unusually unfavourable circumstances. The
first kind is widely diffused; the second is very rare, except in the
earlier portion of life. Most men and women, as they pass middle age,
lose the elasticity required for easy and spontaneous enjoyment, and,
even if they keep the appearance of health, have too little animal
spirits for enjoyment under cheap and ordinary excitements.
But there is more to be said. In order to obtain, and to retain, health,
freedom from debt, and a good conscience, there are pre-supposed very
considerable advantages. We cannot continue healthy and out of debt,
unless we have a fair start in life, that is, unless we have a tolerable
provision to begin with; a circumstance that the maxim keeps out of
sight.
Yet farther. The conditions named are of themselves mere negatives; they
imply simply the absence of certain decided causes of
unhappiness--ill-health, poverty, and bad conduct. There is a farther
stealthy assumption, namely, that the individual is placed in a
situation otherwise conducive to happiness. Health, absence of debt, and
a good conscience will not make happiness, under severe or ungenial
toil, irritation, ill-usage, affliction, sorrow,--- even if they could
be long maintained under such circumstances. Nor even, in the case of
exemption from the worst ills of life, can we be happy without some
positive agreeables--family, general society, amusements, and
gratifications. There is a certain degree of loneliness, seclusion,
dulness, that destroys happiness without sapping health, or miming us
into debt and vice.
The maxim, as expressed, professes to aim at happiness, but it more
properly belongs to duty. If we fail in the conditions mentioned, we run
the risk rather of neglecting our duties than of missing our pleasures.
It is not every form of ill-health that makes us miserable; and we may
become seared to debt and ill-conduct, so as to suffer only the
incidental misery of being dunned, which many can take with great
composure.
The definition of happiness by Paley is vague and incomplete; but it
does not omit the positive conditions. After health, Paley enumerates
the exercise of the affections and some engaging occupation or pursuit;
both which are highly relevant to the attainment of happiness. Indeed
with an exemption from cares, and a considerable share of the positive
gratifications, we can enjoy life on a very slender stock of health;
otherwise, where should we be in the inevitable decline that age brings
with it?]
[Footnote 14: This Society has since been dissolved.]
* * * * *
VI.
THE UNIVERSITY IDEAL--PAST AND PRESENT.[15]
GENTLEMEN,
By your flattering estimate of my services, I have been unexpectedly
summoned from retirement, to assume the honours and the duties of the
purple, and to occupy the most historically important office in the
Universities of Europe.
The present demands upon the Rectorship somewhat resemble what we are
told of the Homeric chief, who, in company with his Council or Senate,
the _Boulè_, and the Popular Assembly, or _Agora_, made up the political
constitution of the tribe. The functions of the chief, it is said, were
to supply wise counsel to the _Boulè_ (as we might call our Court), and
unctuous eloquence to the _Agora_. The second of these requirements is
what weighs upon me at the present moment.
Whatever may have been the practice of my predecessors, generally
strangers to you, it would be altogether unbecoming in me to travel out
of our University life, for the materials of an Address. My remarks then
will principally bear on the UNIVERSITY IDEAL.
[THE HIGHER TEACHING IN GREECE.]