III.

For nothing can be further from scientific fact than that

cross-grained and ill-tempered puritanism identifying pleasure with

something akin to sinfulness. Philosophically considered, Pain is so

far stronger a determinant than Pleasure, that its _vis a tergo_ might

have sufficed to ensure the survival of the race, without the far

milder action of Pleasure being necessary at all; so that the very

existence of Pleasure would lead us to infer that, besides its

function of selecting, like Pain, among life's possibilities, it has

the function of actually replenishing the vital powers, and thus

making amends, by its healing and invigorating, for the wear and tear,

the lessening of life's resources through life's other great Power of

Selection, the terror-angel of Pain. This being the case, Pleasure

tends, and should tend more and more, to be consistent with itself, to

mean a greater chance of its own growth and spreading (as opposed to

Pain's dwindling and suicidal nature), and in so far to connect itself

with whatsoever facts make for the general good, and to reject,

therefore, all cruelty, injustice, rapacity and wastefulness of

opportunities and powers.

Nay, paradoxical though such a notion may seem in the face of our past

and present state of barbarism, Pleasure, and hence amusement, should

become incompatible with, be actually _spoilt by_, any element of

loss to self and others, of mischief even to the distant, the future,

and of impiety to that principle of Good which is but the summing up

of the claims of the unseen and unborn.

Laurus Nobilis: Chapters on Art and Life · 第 111 / 131 题