CONDITIONS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.
Is the great Book of Nature--the world we live in--a closed or open
book to Man? On this question all have thought often,--and many have
written much,--students--men of science--religious teachers--poets, and
philosophers.
We ask this question of ourselves variously circumstanced, and under
various impulses. We ask it if, like Æschylus' watchman, we contemplate
"The congress of the nightly stars
Bright potentates, set proudly in the sky."
Or when we sail upon a sea made solemn by its vastness, dying in far
distance, with no boundary except itself, as each swelling wave rises
against the sky. We ask it, on some stately mountain top looking down
over light and shadow,--over the rest and the motion of the landscape.
More earnestly still, perhaps, while from the depth of a twilight
valley we admire the sunset lingering upon inapproachable alpine
snows;--rosy heights unveiling their loveliness, yet soon to be hidden
till the Light of this lower world shall shine afresh amongst their
clefts and pinnacles.
And who is not in earnest, as sunset and sunrise remind him how
the majestic clock of Time moves on? Yonder glorious luminary has
warmed with form and life countless organisms, scattered over
mountain summits, in ocean depths, through wild savannahs and
forests;--organisms throughout regions of earth, water, air, so remote
and inaccessible that their wonderful excellence of beauty has never
been beheld by Man's perishable eye. Knowing, as we cannot but know,
how soon our own eyelids must close beneath the sun, we yearn within
our soul, longing for a truer insight into the great Universe above
and beyond us; and for a firmer feeling that we ourselves are an
imperishable part of it. Somewhere in this Universe, must surely be
contained things brighter and better than those we now possess. Else,
why is it clothed so lavishly with half-revealed charms, adapted to
touch our most delicate sympathies, to win us from our worse selves,
and allure us on like willing captives to its loveliness? Awakened in
our senses, awakened in our souls, we desire to know, to feel, and to
attain;--these three impulses become our fixed and enduring aspirations.
But, how? We all remember that Undine sought a soul and found a
sorrow;--a sorrow the more intolerable, because through its burden she
first realized her hard-earned dower of coveted immortality. Yet, as
she truly says, every creature cannot but strive after that which is
naturally higher than itself.
_One_ secret of progress we soon discover. What Nature can give us
depends on what she can tell us. And here is a prevailing motive for
the endeavour to unclose fair Nature's book.
_Another_ step in thought is early taken in our day, though the
civilized world was slow in reaching it. We soon perceive that Nature's
answers must catch their tone and compass from our interrogations. In
numerous sciences, this axiom carries the whole theory and practice of
experiment;--that grand distinction between Bacon's inductive process,
and the induction of the ancient world. In other walks of inquiry,
intellectual and moral, the same truth has grown up and blossomed with
a ruling idea of the crucial or prerogative question: slow in being
framed, and difficult often in the asking, but, when asked, certain to
elicit a reply.
A _third_ postulate is also quickly apparent. Our inquiries must be
subject, for utility's sake, to our power of assimilating knowledge.
And thus our faculty for asking questions is governed by our faculties
for apprehending answers.
The _last_ and paramount requirement is _forced_ upon us. Beyond and
over all, comes the pressure of our own need and private anxiety.
There are many truths which we discern afar off, like features of a
smiling land of promise; and, knowing that they must become one day the
heritage of mankind, we tend towards them without haste, yet without
forgetfulness, and in this temper of mind wait contentedly. But, there
are some truths for which we cannot afford to wait. They concern our
destinies too closely; they are too near our hearts; too influential on
our lives and happiness.
The old question asked in the youth of human philosophy, is the one we
all begin by asking in our first confidence and eagerness of pursuit.
Ask it in what words we may, it always comes to much the same thing;
and if we could answer it, we should answer all questions in one. For,
though we clothe our query with various shapes, and seldom put it in
the form following, its true meaning is, "what are the realities of the
Universe, and what the essential ground of all we see and think?"
It is always worth a thinker's while to look this human problem
more than once in the face. Suppose a faculty[88] for such insight
granted, it must be different in kind, rather than degree, from our
logic of ordinary life. It cannot proceed discursively, abstracting,
generalizing, connecting, deducing. It must know--or look at its object
directly, just as genius knows, images and conveys to other minds, not
through a train of explanatory definition, but by kindling within them
a spark of its own light. If there be such a faculty, it will work, (as
Aristotle[89] says of the Supreme Intellect,) by what seems to us most
like an act of touch; a figure half-shadowed out when we say we grasp
or apprehend a truth; and much as St. Paul speaks, in bidding men to
seek and feel after and find the Lord.
We are not all conscious of such a faculty. But if dim to some, is it
certainly dim to all? Did Plato see farther than Herschel could when he
burst the barriers of the sky? Did Schelling at any time behold what
Hamilton pronounced invisible?[90]
Or again, if not actually ours now,--if those who have asserted it have
spoken in error,--is there a hope that in the Future of Man individual
or collective, he will ever grow up to it? The thought is not unknown
to physicists as well as moralists. In both camps hopeful minds have
conceived the possibility. And, _then_ Mankind will look the secret of
the Universe face to face.
Meanwhile, thinking men have laid siege to the absolute Truth by aid
of such powers as they commonly call into action. For centuries past,
the nature of things in themselves,--and along with (or perhaps above)
all other natures, the "_Self_" within every man has been among the
most fascinating of objects pursued by human thought. Yet, how far
do we really know the life throbbing in every pulse? Can we tell the
secret of our own individuality? We feel it every day;--it endues
us with a separate existence, distinctly several, and apart from
others, and so intensely vivid to ourselves, that we seem in our own
eyes like small centres of the Universe, with men and women,--nay,
worlds and stars,--revolving round us.[91] Yet, strange to say, our
bodies are at all times undergoing change, sufficient in a few years
to eliminate their present frame, and remould a future compound of
gradually assimilated elements. And it seems stranger still, that
while the law of Change rules supreme in these fabrics,--(built to be
continually dissolved and continually built again),--each rude mark and
scar maintains its place; no old wound forgets to ache; no cicatrice
even, nor superficial blemish, dies quite away. We are always changing,
always being transformed; yet, to each of our bodies continues its one
individual configuration; within each of our minds its self-collection,
its memories, its expectations, and its individual consciousness.[t]
Weighing these inconsistencies together, shall we say that, in any
proper sense, we _know_ our own selves? And, if not, can we expect
truly to know the _self_ of anything? May we not travel further, and
inquire whether we can conceive a _self-ness_ of any kind,--whether
the very idea is not to us absolutely inconceivable? And, when this
question is answered as it must be answered, need we feel surprised if
we fall short of conceiving the self-subsistent God? At what value,
therefore, shall we rate sceptical arguments drawn from our failure;
and resting on the fallacious consequence, that the inconceivable (or
unthinkable as some prefer to call it) is likewise the impossible?[u]
That a fallacy really lurks beneath these words,--that the contrary is
true, we know as a matter of fact.[92] We entertain really no doubt
whatever of our own continued sameness, and individual existence. We
are quite sure that our _self-ness_ has, gone on throughout the years
of our natural life. How it first became clear to our inward sense,
is a point confessedly disputable. Some suppose that it existed as
a principle of consciousness,--a kind of primordial instinct in our
minds. Others--that our internal impressions, one and all, formed a
panoramic scene; impressions from without and impressions from within
evenly painted on the retina of the mental eye. Time and comparison
were needful to give us the true distinction. Those who think thus
usually take another step; and add that _resistance_ to our _self-ness_
first informs us of its being. There is resistance to a muscular
sense, somewhat akin to touch, but specialized to feel the kind of
impact given by things impenetrable. There is also a resistance which
thwarts our desires, endeavours, and determinations. Be this as it
may, we never doubt our own identity of being; we never doubt the
_other-ness_ and _outer-ness_ of beings like ourselves, and of objects
beyond number. Yet, that which makes ourselves and them, what we and
they are,--_our_ self-ness and _their_ self-ness--raises a question
we cannot answer; here is, we feel, a something which overpasses our
means of investigation. Men, however, do not stay to discuss such
questions, or to test the origin and limits of intellectual conceptions
before accepting the fact. They do not even ask whether Philosophical
victory sits on the banner of Idealism, pure or constructive; Realism
materialistic or natural;--or whether it crowns any other imaginable
variety of cosmological theorem. We are perfectly sure of our facts;
and no array of possible difficulties whatsoever can prevail to shake
our assurance.
Let us leave for the present, in its native shadows, the central point
of our own self; the original centre of our earliest apparent universe.
Yet, if we cannot _know_ this first growing-point of our individual
life, it may be useful to inquire what can we know _about_ it? can we
learn, for example, how that inner vitality, once begun, is maintained
and fed?--By a process of receiving into itself, (we are told), the
aliment which flows through our senses. We are also told, (as appeared
in the last chapter), how very requisite is a knowledge of _natural_
processes. Let us, then, look at this process of sense-alimentation,
narrowing the problem as much as possible. We have already cut off
_one_ end of it--the germ-point of the _self_-stimulated; and will
now cut off _another_ piece--the assimilation of mental ideas when
elaborated. We simply ask how does this food from without, get _into_
us? The widest avenue of entrance is proverbially our sense of
eyesight. Its information, (as people in general agree, from Horace
down to Mr. Mill), being gathered through many definite impressions,
and received from all distances, is at once the most significant, and
the most commanding. The first step is clear. We see by impinging rays
of light,--movements in a luminiferous ether, making images on the
sensitive network of the eye; a circumstance ascertained by the same
sense of sight which receives the image. From this delicate surface,
begins a second series of movements;--they take place this time in an
organized nerve-material, and are carried, like telegraph-currents, to
the Sensory. Arrived there, we may next suppose that they excite some
new motions, or corpuscular changes. Do we know--_can_ we know any
more? Is the grammar or dictionary written which translates them into
the language of the mind; or teaches us how we have, since our infancy,
worked a perpetual miracle of speech respecting each of them? The eye,
as an optical instrument,[v] is a marvel of science displayed; the eye
as an instrument of intelligence, especially of human intelligence, is
a marvel of inscrutable mystery.
The mysteries of every-day life are the last things dreamed of in
every-day philosophy. When we wake up to their existence, it is
astonishing to find how continually, without being able to explain
things, we can feel, and know them;--know them that is in the sense of
acting intelligently (without theorizing) upon them.
The example we have taken, teaches us several good and important
lessons. There is in it much we can understand; much that we cannot
understand; and a twilight territory between the intelligible and the
non-intelligible. All three are, of course, mixed together when we
speak of sight,--in itself, a matter of every-day experience. So far
as the mechanical construction of an optical chamber goes, everything
seems obvious. We can, likewise, perceive how well contrived is the
apparatus for washing and wiping the outside transparent surface.
Also, the value of its arched hedge against irritants dropping upon
the eyeball from above; and of the arrangements for altering both
axis and focus instantaneously. But what does this instrument enable
us to see? _Not_ the rays of light themselves,--only objects which
they illuminate. The space traversed by rays from all suns and
all stars, remains itself unseen. The ether which fills space is
invisible,--yet its motions make the light of the world.[93] Then,
too, the nervous screen on which these ray movements are received, is
not sensitive to all transmitted undulations. Red excites the optic
nerve by striking it with four hundred and seventy-four _millions of
millions_ of wave-impacts in a single second. Violet strikes it in the
same time with six hundred and ninety-nine _millions of millions_ of
impulses.[94] These two colours are the extremes of the light octave.
In an octave of sound, the highest note vibrates twice as quickly as
the lowest. So too, the shortest wave of violet is half the length of
the longest red wave, and its motion is twice as rapid. But the curious
point is that the human ear receives eleven octaves in the scale of
sound;[95]--the human eye has a range over only one octave in the scale
of light.
Our remarks have carried us over the borders of the twilight
territory,--a circumstance we may ascertain by putting into words what
we think we know, and our reasons for thinking that we know it. If the
eye be in focus, (but not otherwise), a line of light--that is to say
moving imponderable matter of extreme tenuity--so passes through its
transparent liquids as to strike a sensitive spot, and there produce
what is called an image. We apprehend in our minds this image-producing
function as a relation between light and the effect realized. A
relation definite and exact,--in scientific language a "constant";
which we can formulate into optical laws, and thus express with useful
nicety. Taking advantage of the laws thus obtained, and employing
that light-power which everywhere blesses our world, we reproduce the
_like_, image upon a screen. Its likeness we gather from comparison, by
looking into an eye from without. Both images, thus seen by us, are in
point of fact similar sensations.
A philosophic reader may at once perceive what the Idealist will infer
respecting this act of comparison. Neither image--on retina or on
screen--exists apart from the eye. So far as we know, if there were no
eyes there would be no images; and some writers (_e.g._, Schleiden)
have positively affirmed that without eyes all would be, not only to
us, but _in itself_, darkness;--the world absolutely void of Light.
But the truth may be summed in a sentence. Light is not for the eye in
the same sense that the eye is for light. Light is for other things
besides. It exerts its activity on life, animal and vegetable;--on
inorganic substances;--and in other ways likewise.--Going no further
than our screen, we can so manage matters as to engrave and otherwise
fix the image thrown upon it;--in other words our moving line of
imponderable matter will produce further effects, chemical and
mechanical, visible and palpable.
Proceeding to a cross-examination of the knowledge with which we
have credited ourselves, our next business is to try whether we can
verify the objectivity of our optical image. Now it impresses sight
in two respects,--as superficial form--and as colour. The family of
forms is, we are aware widely connected. Sound evokes them. Draw a
violin bow across a string stretched over finely silted sand, and the
different notes will be correlated by a diversity of shapes,[96]
into which the sand will arrange itself. Therefore, we ought to find
means of verifying Form without much difficulty. Indeed we do so
every day satisfactorily; our hands are perpetually demonstrating the
general accuracy of our eyes, and even those delicate instruments our
finger-ends, do not always add much to the information sight has given
us.
But about colour? Distinct colour-waves have (as we said before)
distinct velocities, and are therefore objectively distinguished even
in the inorganic universe. They also act differently upon the growth
of animals and plants,--and other distinctions might be added. The
_sensation_ is, however, our point,--the special thing called colour
both by careful speakers and in child parlance,--what do we really know
about this? Little indeed except as an impression received by sight.
The man born in complete blindness taking a piece of red cloth to
examine, described the fabric minutely; but, when asked if he could say
anything about its redness, likened that "hue angry and brave" to the
sound of a trumpet. A simile most conclusive,--suggested probably by
his having often heard of certain "scarlet-coated gentry";--and proving
beyond doubt that colour is non-existent in the sensory of a person
affected from birth by a deep-seated lesion. To one less thoroughly
blind, spectra are possible, and red light may be produced under
pressure. It thus appears, that colour must be perceived by a nervous
_substratum_, called the rod and cone layer; and hence we explain
our power of distinctly seeing the blood-vessels of the retina lying
immediately before that structure.[97]
These curiosities, of vision shew that our powers of verifying shape
are superior to our powers of verifying colour;[98] add, too, that
the latter sensation, (as an idealist might maintain,) is known to be
sometimes unreal, since it occurs without a coloured object. We can
produce it, for instance, by gazing at the sun--a phenomenon mentioned
by Aristotle. But then, this ideal sense-affection ranges with a
variety of others, which taken together constitute a very much wider
law. Not to mention many superinduced mental states, we see light under
the influence of a touch or blow,--of electricity,--of chemicals, such
as narcotic medicines, which attack the nervous system. We hear sound
under like appliances stimulating the auditory nerve. And the whole of
these affections are to be explained by another Aristotelian doctrine,
extended and pushed to its consequences. Special senses have their own
proper faculties, and when called into action each exerts its power
within its special province. Had Aristotle dissected out nerve-fibres,
he might have discovered the larger empire of specialty now known to
our anatomists.[99]
Idealism easily widens its doubt, to correspond with the dimensions of
the wider nervous law. Does not an aptitude for special impressions,
so stringently determined as to translate the antecedent "blow" into
the consequent, "light" or "sound," disqualify our senses for giving
evidence respecting supposed facts of the outer world? As for the
"distinctive impressibility of the eye," as Mr. Bain[100] describes
colour, it need not be held real except for our own sensorium,[w] and
if colour be a questionable reality, other alleged realities become
questionable too. The world we live in, may be a totally different
world from what we are taught, generation after generation, to believe
it. Who can lay down the limits of what our minds create for themselves
outside us?[101] The mental disease of the madman causes his eye to
see that which is not. Guilt and sickness fill bedchambers with unreal
spectres. Putting disease aside, and taking the case of healthy eye
and healthy mind, it is confessedly difficult to define the exact
province of each. A boy couched by Cheselden[102] saw all things in
one plane; there was no perspective, and objects in the room seemed to
touch his eyeballs. The mind creates perspective, how much then may it
not create? The mind also refuses to surrender its own associations
at the bidding of optical laws. Mr, Wheatstone's ingenious instrument
called the Pseudoscope, brings into play laws which reverse the
impressions of solidity and hollowness. A person looking through it
steadily at the face of a statue sees a hollow mask. The convexity of
feature is gone, and a concave set of features (representing the bust
reversed) is perceived in its stead. But, let the same person gaze
through his pseudoscope ever so long at the face of a human being,
and he will look for a like reversal in vain. The flesh and blood
features refuse to change;--in other words, the mind refuses to yield
its _long-accustomed_ impression.[103] If these things and others
like them are fairly considered, what becomes of our readings in the
unclosed book of Nature? The nature we see is our own thought reflected
back again. Nature's answers take not only tone and compass, but
meaning and utterance from our own interrogations. We think that we are
assimilating knowledge, when we are actually engaged in manufacturing
aliments to suit our own intellectual digestions. The most inward
of all things,--our essential _self_,--at once retired into shadow
when we pursued it; and now, in trying to show how _self_ is fed by
substance from without, we have learned to suspect that all its food is
unsubstantial.[x]
We may henceforth consider ourselves face to face with Sphinx; and
it is well to take the true measure of her lineaments. If the above
reasoning be sound, to know, is to make a mirror and reflect ourselves
back from it. To verify, is to put ourselves in new postures before
our infallible mirror. Each fresh item of induction, is a freshly
reflected phantom. At all events, the contrary position will never
be established. Ignorant as we are, respecting the true centre of
our mental firmament, we must necessarily be always more ignorant
respecting all _possibilities_ which seemingly outlie its glowing
horizon. No one who rationally weighs the worth of a fact, or who
decomposes it into its elementary constituents, will ever be absurd
enough to imagine that he can disprove the ideal theory by proving the
truth of its opposite.
The strongest strain of Idealism comes upon the _last_ sentence. Some
years ago, English philosophers had agreed in the conclusion that all
debates must for the future be settled by an appeal to facts. Could
there be a more happily chosen ground for arbitration?--or one better
suited to the calibre of everybody concerning whose business-like
reflections we might say, with King Henry,--
"His thinkings are below the moon"?
Some inquiring spirits preferred "law," but then they agreed with all
others, (except transcendentalists,) that a law to be valid must also
be a fact.
A belief in this settlement still pervades most non-philosophic
circles. A fact is now-a-days an infallible remedy for the disturbed
mind; just as once
"the sovereign'st thing on earth
Was parmaceti for an inward bruise."
A mind too disturbed to abstain from logical litigation when this
receipt is administered, must certainly be afflicted with monomania.
Nobody, of course, (whether Idealist or Transcendentalist,) need feel
much aggrieved by being called mad. At some time or other, it is the
common lot of all, from a murderer proud of being caught red-handed
in our day, to a Jewish Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, long ago
departed to his rest. Besides, some madnesses are so fortunate as to
justify themselves, an event now happening to Idealists.[104] In
Germany, France and England, the persuasion gains ground that no tasks
are so difficult as first to define, and secondly to establish a fact.
Now the task of a Natural Theologian, is to establish, (if he can),
the greatest and most solemn of all facts. In order to do his work
honestly, he must ascertain as far as possible the conditions of proof,
the ground on which fact-knowledge reposes. And it will be admitted
that the problem of evidence raised by Idealism, is difficult, crucial,
and underlies all other problems. "The most fundamental questions in
philosophy," says Mr. Mill, "are those which seek to determine what
we are able to know of external objects, and by what evidence we know
it."[105]
This field of inquiry is therefore of the most supreme interest to us.
Idealism possesses an additional attraction for any one who argues
under a belief in the final victory of truth. Both sides of the
argument may be placed in high relief, without incurring the imputation
of bad faith, or worse morality; and thus Idealism furnishes what used
to be sought for during the days of tournaments,--a strictly neutral,
ground.
In this ordeal let no one think a single effort directed
"To crush a butterfly or brain a gnat."
Reasoners on "hard texts" seldom commit any error between premises and
conclusion;--granted the former, the other will surely follow. Most
oversights occur--or are slipped in--over the first postulates.[106]
These generally appear very simple and very true, and pass
unquestioned. Yet, no primary truth can ever be very simple to man,
else why so many conscientious doubters?
What indeed can seem more _simply_ true than the admission of a fact?
Yet facts are often inspissated theories, while many theories are
merely explained facts. One of the greatest authorities on Inductive
Philosophy writes thus (Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences.
Ed. 2. Vol. I. p. 45)--"We are often told that such a thing is _a
Fact_; A FACT and not a Theory, with all the emphasis which,
in speaking or writing, tone or italics or capitals can give. We
see from what has been said, that when this is urged, before we can
estimate the truth, or the value of the assertion, we must ask to whom
is it a Fact? what habits of thought, what previous information, what
Ideas does it imply, to conceive the Fact as a Fact? Does not the
apprehension of the Fact imply assumptions which may with equal justice
be called Theory and which are perhaps false Theory? in which case, the
Fact is no Fact. Did not the ancients assert it as a Fact, that the
earth stood still, and the stars moved? and can any Fact have stronger
apparent evidence to justify persons in asserting it emphatically than
this had?"
The generality of English jurymen might be expected to give an
affirmative verdict. For have they not seen with their own eyes the Sun
rise up in the East, ascend to the top of the sky, and go down in the
West? And is not seeing, believing?
The question, what elements are required to yield the product of
trustworthy perception, phenomenon, or fact, is investigated by Dr.
Whewell through several pages preceding the one from which we have
quoted. After discussing it at length, he writes (p. 42): "And thus,
we have an intelligible distinction of Fact and Theory, if we consider
Theory as a conscious, and Fact as an _un_conscious inference, from the
phenomena which are presented to our senses."
The subject is in itself so singularly interesting that a few more
extracts are added in our Additional Notes.[y] Let the reader, while
perusing them, remember that Idealism once so sovereign in its empire,
is only the other pole of a line of thought which just now happens to
be in the ascendant. Both poles strongly resemble half-truths. And what
is more delusive in evidence than a half-truth, or more perilously
sophisticating to the mind of him who utters it?
The thorough-paced Idealist deals with the presentations of his inner
consciousness, precisely as the Positivist deals with the presentations
of his outer senses. They are _his_ phenomena, his facts. Beyond the
circumstances of their inward occurrence and succession he knows and
can know nothing. You may arrange them into series of antecedents
and consequents,--and then the observation becomes a law,--a law
of association, uniform order, or necessary connection: whichever
you may choose to call it. In one respect, he has an advantage over
the Positivist. No thinker equidistant from both, is likely to deny
that primary facts are for every man, the phenomena most immediately
apparent to his own consciousness.
Amongst ordinary men, however, the reasoning Idealist seldom appears;
the Idealist in feeling and temper is by no means rare. A man weary and
worn by sorrow or old age, thinks and speaks of his life as very like a
dream. And numbers who have exhausted the strength of self-controlling
will, loiter along their way, regardless whether a moving panorama on
each hand is or is not, an unreality. Like travel-tired travellers down
the Danube, or the Rhine, they interweave scenes bright and dark, as
they float by, in one endless train of dimly felt reverie.
The same characteristic holds good in regard to many a Positivist.
Very few people have ever examined those iron wheels, on which the
conclusions of Positively-inclined writers seem to run so rapidly. They
may be flawed--they may be true--hardly any one has thought of sounding
them. But common life has its Positivism, as well as its Chemistry; and
the Positivism of common life is everywhere. It saves labour,--you may
take facts as you find them. It troubles no one,--a Pyrrhonic posture
is the easiest of attitudes. It frees busy people from moral anxieties,
ideal terrors, the shadows of futurity. In short, to men of the world
it is neither more nor less than Indifferentism.
The comparison between these two Nihilistic tendencies might be
pushed farther, but it has been carried far enough for our purpose.
Both sorts, when viewed as principles of practical life, coincide
in yielding the conclusion we now wish to deduce. It is folly to
be deterred from the pursuit of ultimate truth, by any amount of
speculative difficulty whatsoever. And the reason is plain. Practical
truths--the beliefs which affect our hearts and lives--are always
ultimate truths. To give them up, is to give up our highest and
best,--perhaps our all. It is worse than useless to quail before
intellectual obstacles. The Difficult soon begins to appear the
Impossible.
And soon the result ensues, which might naturally be expected. Is it
possible to imagine any discouragement heavier, than the feeling that
we can effect little to acquire a knowledge of truth, goodness, and
God;--a feeling, that do what we will, all we want most--all that
is truly Divine--must remain to us a darkness or a dream? Let any
man think in his heart, that what ought to rule his life, and raise
him higher than his lower self, is a secret unknowable, and he loses
the fear of doing wrong;--for how can he help it?--and the hope of
a brighter and better future;--for how shall he attain it? Then, he
sits down to wrap himself in cynical self-sufficingness. Inevitable
ignorance is soon developed into intellectual Pessimism. The death of
hope and fear, makes the man himself a moral Pessimist. Our conscience,
sympathy, devotion, happiness in higher and in lower things alike,--if
unstirred by vivid emotions--must become dull and blunted. Next follows
"The waveless calm, the slumber of the dead;"--
a state of suspended animation, broken only by fierce stimulants--the
galvanisms of, our lower life. These are succeeded, in due course, by
spasmodic susceptibilities, which demand at no distant day the anodyne
and the narcotic. And--
"Oh, that way madness lies!"--
Therefore we repeat it,--and it cannot too often or too earnestly be
repeated,--let no man excuse himself from the pursuit of practical
truth[z] by any amount of speculative difficulty whatsoever. It
would be a false optimism to say there is no difficulty in thinking
truly;--to represent its difficulties as trifles;--or to forget the
painful fact that they beset our age of cold erudite criticism, like
pitfalls in the Valley of the Shadow of Death. But, must not all things
really great and good be toilsome to men who are neither very good nor
very great? And have we not, every one of us, who tries to be good, our
proper fields of hard yet repaying work? The bee gathers honey where
one idle schoolboy sees only thorns and briers--and where another sucks
poison.
In our days, Doubt is thorough. So thorough, that it soon ceases to be
doubt, and the mind passes quickly from its dim twilight to a rayless
blank. Mr. Herbert Spencer puts the case of Theology as follows (First
Principles p. 43): "Criticising the essential conceptions involved
in the different orders of beliefs, we find no one of them to be
logically defensible. Passing over the consideration of credibility,
and confining ourselves to that of conceivability, we see that Atheism,
Pantheism, and Theism, when rigorously analysed, severally prove to be
absolutely unthinkable." These three conceptions the writer does in
fact analyse after his own fashion,--briefly first, pp. 30-36,--and
further on argues the whole question _in extenso_. The result, of
course, is that all three "beliefs" must finally be abandoned. What
then becomes of the Absolute ground, or First Cause of all things?
Spencer is too clear-sighted not to acknowledge that there must
in reason be a First, and an Absolute. "M. Herbert Spencer," says
Ravaisson,[107] "en proclamant la grande maxime que nous ne connaissons
rien que de relatif, a fait cependant une réserve importante. L'idée
même du relatif, remarque-t-il, ne saurait se comprendre sans celle
à laquelle elle est opposée. Et nous concevons, en effet, au delà
de toutes les relations de phénomènes, l'absolu: c'est ce quelque
chose qui est placé au delà de toute science, et qui est l'objet de
la religion; quelque chose seulement de mystérieux, d'obscur, sur
quoi on ne peut avoir, selon M. Spencer, aucune lumière." The last
negative clause is amply justified on p. 113 of "First Principles." "By
continually seeking to know, and being continually thrown back with a
deepened conviction of the impossibility of knowing, we may keep alive
the consciousness that it is alike our highest wisdom and our highest
duty to regard that through which all things exist as The Unknowable."
And this closing word becomes with Spencer, the constant name of a
Power, the consciousness, of which is "manifested to us through all
phenomena."[108]
Such a position, maintained by such a writer, has of course met with
ample consideration. Mr. Huxley appears to have arrived at a somewhat
similar conclusion. Of Religion he says,[109] "Arising, like all other
kinds of knowledge, out of the action and interaction of man's mind,
with that which is not man's mind, it has taken the intellectual
coverings of Fetishism or Polytheism; of Theism or Atheism; of
Superstition or Rationalism. With these, and their relative merits
and demerits, I have nothing to do; but this it is needful for my
purpose to say, that if the religion of the present differs from that
of the past, it is because the theology of the present has become more
scientific than that of the past; because it has not only renounced
idols of wood and idols of stone, but begins to see the necessity of
breaking in pieces the idols built up of books and traditions and
fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs, and of cherishing the noblest and
most human of man's emotions, by worship 'for the most part of the
silent sort' at the altar of the Unknown and Unknowable."
Concerning this general idea (or negation of Idea) Mr. J. Martineau has
made antagonistic observations, by way of criticism on Mr. Spencer's
book. "To say," he writes,[110] "that the First Cause is wholly
removed from our apprehension is not simply a disclaimer of faculty on
our part; it is a charge of inability against the First Cause too....
And in the very act of declaring the First Cause incognizable, you do
not permit it to remain unknown. For that only is unknown, of which
you can neither affirm nor deny any predicate; here you deny the power
of self-disclosure to the 'Absolute,' of which therefore something
is known;--viz., that nothing can be known," And again with much
force,[111] "You cannot constitute a religion out of mystery alone,
any more than out of knowledge alone; nor can you measure the relation
of doctrines to humility and piety by the mere amount of conscious
darkness which they leave. All worship, being directed to what is
_above_ us and transcends our comprehension, stands in presence of a
mystery. But not all that stands before a mystery is worship."[aa]
Mr. Mill (doing battle with another antagonist) denies every attribute
claiming faith and worship, to the idea of a _morally Unknowable_ God.
The passage occurs in his Examination of Hamilton, pp. 123-4. "If,
instead of the 'glad tidings' that there exists a Being in whom all
the excellences which the highest human mind can conceive, exist in a
degree inconceivable to us, I am informed that the world is ruled by a
being whose attributes are infinite, but what they are we cannot learn,
nor what are the principles of his government, except that 'the highest
human morality which we are capable of conceiving' does not sanction
them; convince me of it, and I will bear my fate as I may. But when I
am told that I must believe this, and at the same time call this being
by the names which express and affirm the highest human morality, I say
in plain terms that I will not. Whatever power such a being may have
over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel
me to worship him."[ab]
Now, suppose that instead of siding on this occasion with Mill and
Martineau, we were to accept the alternative offered by Spencer and
Huxley. Would this surrender of Natural Theology--or rather of all
Theology--necessitate in reason any _other_ vast surrender also? We
have already answered in the affirmative. The surrender would penetrate
every field of knowledge and of thought. We have already shewn this.
For, the thread binding the present section into a connected whole
runs thus: Survey the conditions of interrogating, _first_, nature;
_secondly_, our own highest nature; _next_, our senses; _finally_, our
consciousness; and _add_ to them the enormous difficulties which attend
every step taken in compliance with those indispensable _conditions_.
Indispensable, that is, to our knowing anything, of any sort, in any
way whatsoever. You have, then, no right to isolate Theism. It is
false logic, to speak of the intellectual difficulties attaching to
our apprehension of the Deity, as if they were substantial objections.
In this respect, Theism stands within the same category of speculative
perplexity, and reasonable necessity, as do other supreme truths.[112]
Put the case to the judgment of Reason, once for all. If we agreed
to accept Herbert Spencer's position, we should consent to deny that
anything can be known of an Absolute. And the denial would proceed
upon _this_ maxim:--"whatsoever is inexplicable is also unknowable."
Consider, now, what other ultimate truths would fall into the same
tomb-like Category. We must silence all human utterance respecting all
first grounds;--our own individuality;--and every object of reason
which becomes inconceivable, when we attempt to define it by the
processes of ordinary logic. All utterance respecting our own senses
and sensations;--our own existence, as beings distinct from a world of
beings and things really existing outside us.
In fine, we could never know that we _know_ either anything or nothing;
for, we should have silenced the deepest of all utterances,--_the_ one
upon which all truth and reason depend. We should have relegated our
Mind along with our God, to the same abysmal gulf of the Unknowable.
Henceforth, we could predicate of Mind nothing essential to purposes of
knowledge,--and least of all essentials,--Veracity.
Mr. Mill closes his laborious endeavours to explain our natural belief
in Mind as follows: "The truth is, that we are here face to face with
that final inexplicability, at which, as Sir W. Hamilton observes, we
inevitably arrive when we reach ultimate facts; and in general, one
mode of stating it only appears more incomprehensible than another,
because the whole of human language is accommodated to the one, and
is so incongruous with the other, that it cannot be expressed in any
terms which do not deny its truth. The real stumbling-block is perhaps
not in any theory of the fact, but in the fact itself. The true
incomprehensibility perhaps is, that something which has ceased, or is
not yet in existence, can still be in a manner, present: that a series
of feelings, the infinitely greater part of which is past or future,
can be gathered up, as it were, into a single present conception,
accompanied by a belief of reality. I think, by far the wisest thing
we can do, is to accept the inexplicable fact, without any theory of
how it takes place; and when we are obliged to speak of it in terms
which assume a theory, to use them with a reservation as to their
meaning."[113] Two pages further he ingenuously adds: "I do not profess
to have adequately accounted for the belief in Mind." In other words,
the perplexities remain on Mill's system as they do on all systems.
But the Belief and the Fact remain likewise.
It is the same with our belief of other ultimate facts. We live an
individual life,--we know not what. We see and perceive,--we know not
how. Yet such are the facts, and we thoroughly believe and act upon
them.
The pivot on which these and similar beliefs turn is a subject of the
greatest interest and importance. On this same pivot turns our primary
affirmative Argument for Natural Theism. To establish it will be the
purpose of the next Chapter, and a succession of affirmative arguments,
separate but convergent, will occupy the remainder of this Essay.
* * * * *
COROLLARY:--If any reader of these pages has felt the
fascination of some one among the many materializing hypotheses now in
vogue, let him remember that, in fair debate, Materialism can never
have the slightest chance against Idealism.
All materializing theories labour under an enormous weight of
unverified postulates. They set out from neither the most _natural_,
nor yet the _surest_, sources of our knowledge. Naturally, we start
from _self-ness_, and learn to put outer things and beings in
opposition to our own primary self-consciousness.
In after life, when we ask _why_ we are sure of any kind of knowledge;
the primary truths upon which _all_ our reasonings proceed, are always
the presentations of our own mind.
If we proceed to analyse accepted relativities, we soon perceive that
Mind enters into our facts, and also into our sense-presentations. In
particular, an examination of the noblest of all senses--the sense of
sight--will convince any careful analyst that such is undeniably the
case. The reader may recal Mr. Mill's words,[114]--"I do not believe
that the real externality to us of anything, except other minds,
is capable of proof." "For ourselves," says Professor Fraser, "we
can conceive only--(1) An externality to our present and transient
experience in _our own_ possible experience past and future, and (2)
An externality to our own conscious experience, in the contemporaneous,
as well as in the past or future experience of _other minds_"[115]
In this view Mr. Mill (who quotes Fraser), entirely acquiesces, and
in this same spirit he writes, "Matter may be defined, a Permanent
Possibility of Sensation;"[116]--and adds that he can accept no other
definition.
Whether the reader can or cannot define Matter otherwise; he will, at
all events, perceive that the Materialist assumes as _his_ primary
postulate, that which is by no means _the_ primary fact accepted
by Mankind. He starts with taking Matter for granted;--but, if he
inquires, he will discover that Matter is known to him in the _second_
place only; he really _first_ knew Mind. When he questions sensation,
or consciousness, he questions Mind; and, throughout his whole life,
theoretical as well as practical, Mind is _nearer_ to him, and more
_strongly_ evidenced, than any other "Possibility" whatsoever.
Such, then, is the _first_ heavy burden of unauthorized postulation,
which the Materialist's theory binds upon him. But, in the task of
postulating without authority from Nature, it seems impossible to
stop short. Mind, being an absolute necessity, must be got in some
way--(from Matter of course)--evolved, correlated, secreted. No account
is given _how_ Matter could have been thus transformed and glorified.
Yet, in default of such account, it is impossible to divine _why_ that
primary postulate ever existed at all.
The highest attenuation of Matter can no more help to explain Life or
Mind, than to say that brain, (deprived of its vitality,) is composed
of cerebrin, lecythin, and cholesterin, explains its sensibility, and
other vital and intellectual endowments. And we encounter the same
unbridged gulf at every turn of the materialistic hypothesis. There is
a wide gap between the inorganic world and all organisms, vegetable or
animal. We are, however, told that when certain inorganic elements are
combined, under certain conditions, they form protoplasm,--a substance
manifesting phenomena of vitality. The elements are known,--the
conditions are unknown,--and until protoplasm has been produced by
a chemical experimenter, instead of within a living laboratory, we
may safely believe that the unknown conditions form the essential
cause of the production. And we are given to understand by Professor
Huxley,[117] that on this subject speculation has been premature.
The gap between Body and Mind is wider still. Body has its known
properties,--measurable figure, weight, and other like specialties.
Mind has its properties also,--such as intelligence, emotion, reason,
will. _Thinking_ has never been shown to be a property of Body; nor
have _weight_ and _measure_ been applied to Mind. The laws of each
differ as decisively as their properties. Body obeys gravitation,
cohesion, and chemical affinity. Mind has its laws of reasoning,
mathematically, logically, analogically. Now, what resemblance is
here visible?[118] Body cannot compel Will,--but is moved by it;
and there is no more verisimilitude known to us of Body to Will,
than there exists between the noble thought of a high-souled Man
and the paving-stone he walks upon. The foregoing is, as every
honest materialist will acknowledge, but a slight specimen of the
many difficulties of Materialism. So little does any materializing
process of "resolution" really resolve anything, that _any_--even the
most plausible--can only be pronounced an abortive attempt to bring
something near and familiar to us, out of something unknowably remote.
The materialist's allegation is generally, that he wishes to accept
as little as possible. But the accusation of the natural Theologian
against Materialism, is that it accepts far too much. Mind being a
necessary and indispensable fact, the one fact underlying all other
facts,--whoever is bent on simplifying his beliefs, had better begin
by believing in his own Soul. And if further bent on viewing all things
as "resolvable," his surest wisdom will be to resolve Matter into
Mind. It is really the easier alternative, and has a double merit,--it
starts from the best-known fact, and it satisfies his desire for
"simplification."
At all events, the consequences resulting from Materialism, are too
serious to permit a disregard of Probability. We must, surely, find and
follow the very best guide we can:--
"These are no school-points; nice philosophy
May tolerate unlikely arguments,
But heaven admits no jests."
Mr. Huxley,[119] who sees advantages (simplicity and unification)
in employing a materialistic terminology, adds the very striking
caution--"But the man of science, who, forgetting the limits of
philosophical inquiry, slides from these" (materialistic) "formulæ
and symbols into what is commonly understood by materialism, seems
to me to place himself on a level with the mathematician, who should
_mistake_ the x's and y's, with which he works his problems, _for real
entities_--and with this further disadvantage, as compared with the
mathematician, that the blunders of the latter are of no practical
consequence, while the errors of systematic materialism may paralyse
the energies and destroy the beauty of a life."
The words italicized are remarkable. The materializing _façons de
parler_ do not embody a knowledge of "real entities" after all. And
such is the language of one[120] who stands in the foremost rank of
European Biologists.
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER III.
A.--ACCOUNT OF SOME THEORIES RESPECTING OUR PERSONAL IDENTITY.
In a sentence worthy of the pen of Glanvill or of Sir T. Browne, Locke
remarked "The _Ideas_, as well as Children of our Youth, often die
before us: And our Minds represent to us those Tombs, to which we
are approaching; where, though the Brass and Marble remain, yet the
Inscriptions are effaced by Time, and the Imagery moulders away. _The
Pictures drawn in our Minds, are laid in fading Colours_, and if not
sometimes refreshed, vanish and disappear." _On Retention_, B. II.,
chap. x. 5.
This truly human feeling did not hinder Locke from writing (chap,
xxvii.) on the subject of Self-ness in a manner which appeared to imply
that Consciousness, or Consciousness _plus_ Memory "_made_" Personal
Identity;--or to use Reid's words "whatever hath the consciousness of
present and past actions, is the same person to whom they belong."
Bishop Butler's strictures on the topic are known to most students:
but, as Sir William Hamilton observes (Foot-note on Reid, pp. 350,
351), "Long before Butler, to whom the merit is usually ascribed,
Locke's doctrine of Personal Identity had been attacked and refuted.
This was done even by his earliest critic, John Sergeant, whose words,
as he is an author wholly unknown to all historians of philosophy, and
his works of the rarest, I shall quote. He thus argues:--'The former
distinction forelaid, he (Locke) proceeds to make _personal identity in
man to consist in the consciousness that we are the same thinking thing
in different times and places_. He proves it, because consciousness
is inseparable from thinking, and, as it seems to him, _essential_ to
it.... But, to speak to the point: Consciousness of any action or other
accident we have now, or have had, is nothing but our knowledge that
it belonged to us; and, since we both agree that we have no innate
knowledges, it follows, that all, both actual and habitual knowledges,
which we have, are acquired or accidental to the subject or knower.
_Wherefore, the man, or that thing which is to be the knower, must have
had individuality or personality, from other principles, antecedently
to this knowledge, called consciousness: and, consequently, he will
retain his identity, or continue the same man, or (which is equivalent)
the same person, as long as he has those individuating principles...._
It being then most evident, _that a man must be the same, ere he can
know or be conscious that he is the same_, all his laborious descants
and extravagant consequences which are built upon this supposition,
that consciousness individuates the person, can need no farther
refutation.'
"The same objection was also made by Leibnitz in his strictures on
Locke's Essay....
"For the best criticism of Locke's doctrine of Personal Identity, I
may, however, refer the reader to M. Cousin's '_Cours de Philosophie_.'"
One of Locke's arguments is worthy of attention from its oddity. He
says (chap. xxvii. 20), "But if it be possible for the same Man to have
distinct incommunicable Consciousnesses at different Times, it is past
doubt the same Man would at different Times make different Persons;
which, we see, is the Sense of Mankind in the solemnest Declaration of
their Opinions, Human Laws not punishing the _Mad Man_ for the _Sober
Man's_ Actions, nor the _Sober Man_ for what the _Mad Man_ did, thereby
making them two Persons; which is somewhat explained by our Way of
speaking in _English_, when we say, such a one _is not himself_, or is
_besides himself_; in which Phrases it is insinuated, as if those who
now, or at least, first used them, thought that _Self_ was changed, the
_self_ same Person was no longer in that Man."
It appears strange that so acute a writer should not have perceived the
true consequences to be deduced from his observation. We never really
treat a man who goes mad as becoming another personage. But if he has
lost his self-control from causes by himself uncontrollable, we do not
punish his criminalities, and we do divest him of his social powers; he
can neither vote for Parliament, bequeath property, nor do many other
acts, during the period of his affliction. But we use all means for his
cure, and rejoice at his return to health and society. If a man "beside
himself" were "a different person," then "tipsy he" would certainly
not be "ipse he."--Yet the father of ethical science decided that the
criminal drunkard deserves double meed of punishment.
To Locke's theory of Personal Identity Hamilton dedicates one more
note. He gives (_Reid_, p. 353), an extract from Lord Kames (_Essays
on the Principles of Morality and Natural Religion_), who pronounces
his own opinion and appends some unpublished remarks of Dr. Reid.
"Mr. Locke, writing on personal identity, has fallen short of his
usual accuracy. He inadvertently jumbles together the identity that
is nature's work, with our knowledge of it. Nay, he expresses himself
sometimes as if identity had no other foundation than that knowledge.
I am favoured by Dr. Reid with the following thoughts on personal
identity:--
"'All men agree that personality is indivisible; a part of a person
is an absurdity. A man who loses his estate, his health, an arm, or
a leg, continues still to be the same person. My personal identity,
therefore, is the continued existence of that indivisible thing which
I call myself. I am not thought; I am not action; I am not feeling;
but I think, and act, and feel. Thoughts, actions, feelings, change
every moment; but _self_, to which they belong, is permanent. If it be
asked how I know that it is permanent, the answer is, that I know it
from memory. Everything I remember to have seen, or heard, or done,
or suffered, convinces me that I existed at the time remembered. But,
though it is from memory that I have the knowledge of my personal
identity, yet personal identity must exist in nature, independent of
memory; otherwise, I should only be the same person as far as my memory
serves me; and what would become of my existence during the intervals
wherein my memory has failed me? My remembrance of any of my actions
does not make me to be the person who did the action, but only makes
me know that I was the person who did it. And yet it was Mr. Locke's
opinion, that my remembrance of an action is what makes me to be the
person who did it; a pregnant instance that even men of the greatest
genius may sometimes fall into an absurdity. Is it not an obvious
corollary, from Mr. Locke's opinion, that he never was born? He could
not remember his birth; and, therefore, was not the person born at such
a place and at such a time.'"
When we come to Hume, the case is considerably altered. He opens
the question after his own manner by asking _how_ the fact commonly
stated can be; and using the difficulty of explaining this "how" as
a sufficient objection against the fact asserted. "There are some
philosophers," he writes (_Treatise_, B. I., Part iv., Sect. 6), "who
imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our
_self_; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence;
and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its
perfect identity and simplicity....
"Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very
experience, which is pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of _self_,
after the manner it is here explained. For from what impression could
this idea he derived?... If any impression gives rise to the idea of
self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the
whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that
manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and
pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other,
and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any
of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is
derived; and consequently there is no such idea.... For my part, when
I enter most intimately into what I call _myself_, I always stumble
on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or
shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch _myself_
at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything
but the perception.... The mind is a kind of theatre, where several
perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide
away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.
There is properly no _simplicity_ in it at one time, nor _identity_
in different; whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that
simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead
us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind;
nor have we the most distant notion of the place, where these scenes
are represented, or of the materials, of which it is composed."
It is curious that Hume wishing to represent Mind as a melting mist of
successive perceptions, should be driven into the use of a word which
implied a something continuing and permanent as affording the _stage_
on which all passing scenes called "impressions" are enacted.
Hume next discusses the laws of association; and then proceeds (same
Section sub fin.) "As memory alone acquaints us with the continuance
and extent of this succession of perceptions, 'tis to be considered,
upon that account chiefly, as the source of personal identity. Had
we no memory, we never should have any notion of causation, nor
consequently of that chain of causes and effects, which constitute our
self or person. But having once acquired this notion of causation from
the memory, we can extend the same chain of causes, and consequently
the identity of our persons beyond our memory, and can comprehend
times, and circumstances, and actions, which we have entirely forgot,
but suppose in general to have existed. For how few of our past
actions are there, of which we have any memory? Who can tell me, for
instance, what were his thoughts and actions on the first of January,
1715, the eleventh of March, 1719, and the third of August, 1733? Or
will he affirm, because he has entirely forgot the incidents of these
days, that the present self is not the same person with the self
of that time; and by that means overturn all the most established
notions of personal identity? In this view therefore memory does not
so much _produce_ as _discover_ personal identity, by shewing us the
relation of cause and effect among our different perceptions. 'Twill
be incumbent on those who affirm that memory produces entirely our
personal identity, to give a reason why we can thus extend our identity
beyond our memory.
"The whole of this doctrine leads us to a conclusion, which is of great
importance in the present affair, viz., that all the nice and subtile
questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided,
and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical
difficulties. Identity depends on the relations of ideas; and these
relations produce identity, by means of that easy transition they
occasion. But as the relations, and the easiness of the transition may
diminish by insensible degrees, we have no just standard by which we
can decide any dispute concerning the time, when they acquire or lose a
title to the name of identity. All the disputes concerning the identity
of connected objects are merely verbal, except so far as the relation
of parts gives rise to some fiction or imaginary principle of union, as
we have already observed."
If any one feels dissatisfied with these conclusions our author
is ready with his apology--"The _intense_ view of these manifold
contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon
me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and
reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely
than another. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my
existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favour shall
I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and
on whom have I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am
confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in
the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest
darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.
"Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of
dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose,
and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either
by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively
impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine,
I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends;
and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these
speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that
I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther." (Part iv.,