« ПредишнаНапред »
ing quite irresistible, it is of urgent im- it in this country are found amongst portance to place the spiritual facts on a phrenologists, spiritualists, some mental sound scientific basis at once. Profes- pathologists, and a few communist vissor Huxley implies that his business is ionaries. The far wider, vaguer, and with the physical facts, and the spiritual more dangerous school of Materialism is facts must take care of themselves. I found in a multitude of quarters-in all cannot agree with him. That is precise- those who insist exclusively on the physly the difference between us. The spir- ical side of moral phenomena-all
, in itual facts of man's nature are the busi- short, who, to use Professor Huxley's ness of all who undertake to denounce phrase, are employed in building up a priestcraft, and especially of those who physical theory of moral phenomena.' preach Lay Sermons.
Those who confuse moral and physical Professor Huxley complains that I phenomena are indeed few. Those who should join in the view-halloo against exaggerate the physical side of moral biological science. Now I never have phenomena are many, supposed that biological science was in Now, though I did not allude to Prothe position of the hunted fox. I fessor Huxley in what I wrote, his critithought it was the hunter, booted and cism convinces me that he is sometimes spurred and riding over us all, with at least found among these last. His Professor Huxley leaping the most ter- paper is an excellent illustration of the rific gates and cracking his whip with very error which I condemned. The intense gusto. As to biological science, issue between us is this :—We both agree it is the last thing that I should try to that every mental and moral fact is in run down; and I must protest, with all functional relation with some molecular sincerity, that I wrote without a thought fa@t. So far we are entirely on the same of Professor Huxley at all. He insists side, as against all forms of theological on knowing, in the most peremptory and metaphysical doctrine which conway, of whom I was 'thinking, as if I ceive the possibility of human feeling were thinking of him. Of whom else without a human body. But then, says could I be thinking, forsooth, when I Professor Huxley, if I can trace the spoke of Biology ? Well! I did not bite molecular facts which are the antecemy thumb at him, but I bit my thumb. dents of the mental and moral [facts, I
Seriously, I was not writing at Profes- have explained these mental and moral sor Huxley, or I should have named facts. That I deny; just as much as I him. I have a very great admiration for should deny that a chemical analysis of his work in biology; I have learned the body could ever lead to an explana- · much from him ; I have followed his tion of the physical organism. Then, courses of lectures years and years ago, says the Professor, when I have traced and have carefully studied his books. out the molecular facts, I have built up If, in questions which belong to sociol- a physical theory of moral phenomena. ogy, morals, and to general philosophy, That again I deny. I say there is no he seems to me hardly an authority, why such thing, or no rational thing, that can need we dispute ? Dog should not bite be called a physical theory of moral phedog; and he and I have many a wolf nomena; any more than there is a moral that we both would keep from the fold. theory of physical phenomena. What
But if I did not mean Professor Hux- sort of a thing would be a physical theley, whom did I mean? Now my pa. ory of history-history explained by the per, I think clearly enough, alluded to influence of climate or the like? The two very different kinds of Materialism. issue between us centres in this. I say There is systematic Materialism, and that the physical side of moral phenomthere is the vague Materialism. The ena bears about the same part in the eminent example of the first is the moral sciences that the facts about cliunlucky remark of Cabanis that the mate bear in the sum of human civilisabrain secretes thought, as the liver se- tion. And, that to look to the physical cretes bile; and there is much of the facts as an explanation of the moral, or same sort in many foreign theories-in even as an independent branch of the the tone of Moleschott, Buchner, and study of moral facts, is perfectly idle ; the like. The most distinct examples of just as it would be if a mere physical
geographer pretended to give us, out of 'craft'cannot well be made a chapter in his geography, a climatic philosophy of a physiological manual. It may be history. Yet Prosessor Huxley has not cheap pulpit thunder, but this idea of his been deterred from the astounding para- of inspecting a 'diseased viscus' is predox of proposing to us a physiological cisely what I meant by biological reatheory of religion. He tells us how the soning about spiritual things.' And I religious feelings may be brought within stand by it, that it is just as false in scithe range of physiological inquiry.' And ence as it is deleterious in morals. It is he proposes as a problemWhat dis- an attempt (I will not say arrogant, I am cased viscus may have been responsible for inclined to use another epithet) to exthe “ Priest in Absolution” ?' I will drop plain, by physical observations, what can all epithets; but I must say that I call only be explained by the most subtle that materialism, and materialism not moral, sociological, and historical observery nice of its kind. One might as vations. It is to think you can find the reasonably propose as a problem-What golden eggs by cutting up the goose, inbarometrical readings are responsible for stead of watching the goose to see where the British Constitution ? and suggest a she lays the eggs. congress of meteorologists to do the I ain quite aware that essor Hux work of Hallam, Stubbs, and Freeman. ley has elsewhere formulated his belief No doubt there is some connection be- that Biology is the science which “intween the House of Commons and the cludes man and all his ways and works.' English climate, and so there is no doubt If history, law, politics, morals, and posome connection between religious theo- litical economy, are merely branches of ries and physical organs. But to talk biology, we shall want new dictionaries of 'bringing religion within the range of indeed; and biology will embrace about physiological inquiry'is simply to stare four fifths of human knowledge. But through the wrong end of the telescope, this is not a question of language; for and to turn philosophy and science up- we here have Professor Huxley actually side down. Ah! Professor Huxley, this bringing religion within the range of is a bad day's work for scientific pro- physiological inquiry, and settling its gress
problems by references to ' diseased vis
cus.' But the differences between us ή κεν γηθήσαι Πρίαμος, Πριάμοιό τε παίδες.
are a long story; and since Professor Pope Pius and his people will be glad Huxley has sought me out, and in somewhen they read that fatal sentence of what monitorial tone has proposed to set · yours. When I complained of 'the at- me right, I will take an early occasion to tempt to dispose (of the deepest moral try and set forth what I find paradoxical truths of human nature on a bare physi- in his notions of the relations of Biology cal or physiological basis,' I could not and Philosophy. have expected to read such an illustra- I note a few special points between tion of my meaning by Professor Hux- us, and I have done. Professor Huxley ley.
is so well satisfied with his idea of a' physPerhaps he will permit me to inform ical theory of moral phenomena,' that him (since that is the style which he he constantly attributes that sense to my affects) that there once was-and indeed words, though I carefully guarded my we may say still is an institution called language from such a construction. Thus the Catholic Church; that it has had a he quotes from me a passage beginning, long and strange history, and subtle in- “Man is one, however compound, but fluences of all kinds; and I venture to he breaks off the quotation just as I go think that Professor Huxley may learn on to speak of the direct analysis of more about the Priest in Absolution by a mental and moral faculties by mental few weeks' study of the Catholic system and moral science, not by physiological than by inspecting the diseased viscera science. I say : ‘philosophy and sciof the whole human race. When Profes- ence' have accomplished explanations ; sor Huxley's historical and religious I do not say biology; and the biological studies have advanced so far as to ena- part of the explanation is a small and ble him to explain' the history of Catho- subordinate part of the whole. I do licism, I think he will admit that ‘ Priest- not say that the correspondence between
physical and moral phenomena is an ex tain molecular changes for their inplanation of the human organism. Pro variable antecedents.' Nothing of the fessor Huxley says that, and I call it kind. The function of bodily motion materialism. Nor do I say that'spiritual explained when the laws, modes, sensibility is a bodily function.' I say, it and conditions of that motion are deis a moral function; and I complain monstrated; and molecular antecethat Professor Huxley ignores the dis- cedents are but a part of these conditinction between moral and physical tions. The main part of the explanafunctions of the human organism.
tion, again, deals with molar, not moAs 10 the distinction between anatomy lecular, states of certain organs. “The and physiology, if he will look at my function of sensation is explained,' says words again, he will see that I use these Professor Huxley, 'when the molecular terms with perfect accuracy. Six lines changes, which are the invariable antecebelow the passage he quotes, I speak of dents of sensations, are discovered.' the human mechanism being only ex Not a bit of it. The function of sensaplained by a complete anatomy and tion is only explained when the laws and biology,' showing that anatomy is merely conditions of sensation are demonstrated. one of the instruments of biology.
And the main part of this demonstration He might be surprised to hear that he will come from direct observation of the does not himself give an accurate defini sensitive organism organically, and by tion of physiology. But so it is. He no molecular discovery whatever. All says : Physiology is the science which
this is precisely the materialism which I treats of the functions of the living or condemn; the fancying that one science ganism.' Not so, for the finest spiritual can do the work of another, and that any sensibility is, as Professor Huxley ad molecular discovery can dispense with mits, a function of a living organism ; direct study of organisms in their organand physiology is not the science which ic, social, mental, and moral aspects. treats of the spiritual sensibilities. They Will Professor Huxley say that the funcbelong to moral science.
There are tion of this Symposium is explained, mental, moral, affective functions of the when we have chemically analysed the living organism; and they are not within solids and liquids which are now effectthe province of physiology. Physiology ing molecular change in our respective is the science which treats of the bodily digestive apparatus? If so, let us ask functions of the living organism; as the butler if he cannot produce us a less Professor Huxley says in his admirable heady and more mellow vintage. What Elementary Lessons, it deals with the irritated viscus is responsible for the facts' concerning the action of the body.' Materialist in Philosophy? We shall all I complain of the pseudo-science which philosophise aright, if our friend Tyndrops that distinction for a minute. He dall can hit for us the exact chemical says: 'The explanation of a physiologi formula for our drinks. cal function is the demonstration of the It does not surprise me, so much as it connection of that function with the might, to find Professor Huxley slipping molecular state of the organ which ex nto really inaccurate definitions in phyerts the function.' That I dispute. It siology, when I remember that hallucinais only a small part of the explanation. tion of his about questions of science all The explanation substantially is the de- becoming questions of molecular physmonstration of the laws and all the con ics. The molecular facts are valuable ditions of the function. The explana enough ; but we are getting moleculartion of the circulation of the blood is the mad, if we forget that molecular facts demonstration of all its laws, modes, and have only a special part in physiology, conditions; and the molecular antece and hardly any part at all in sociology, dents of it are but a small part of the history, morals, and politics; though I explanation. The principal part relates quite agree that there is no single fact to the molar (and not the molecular) in social, moral, or mental philosophy, action of the heart and other organs. that has not its correspondence in some The function of motion is explained,' molecular fact, if we only could know it. he says, 'when the movements of the All human things undoubtedly depend living body are found to have on, and are certainly connected with, the
general laws of the solar system. And far, and in the great mural cause of the to say that questions of human organ- spiritual destinies of men he is often isms, much less of human society, tend content with utter indifference and simto become questions of molecular phys- ple nihilism. Mere raving at priestcraft, ics, is exactly the kind of confusion it and beadles, and outward investments, would be, if I said that questions of is indeed a poor solution of the mighty history tend to become questions of as- problems of the human soul and of sotronomy, and that the more refined cal- cial organisation. And the instinct of culations of planetary movements in the the mass of mankind will long reject a future will explain to us the causes of biology which has nothing for these but the English Rebellion and the French a sneer. It will not do for Professor Revolution.
Huxley to say that he is only a poor There is an odd instance of this con- biologist and careth for none of these fusion of thought at the close of Profes- things. His biology, however, 'includes sor Huxley's paper, which still more man and all his ways and works.' Beoddly Lord Blachford, who is so strict in sides, he is a leader in Israel; he has his logic, cites with approval.' 'Has a preached an entire, volume of Lay Serstone a future life,' says Professor Hux- mons; and he has waged many a war ley, 'because the wavelets it may cause with theologians and philosophers on rein the sea persist through space and ligious and philosophic problems. What, time?' Well! has a stone a life at all ? if I may ask him, is his own religion and because if it has no present life, I can- his own philosophy ? He says that he not see why it should have a future life. knows no scientific men who 'neglect How is any reasoning about the inorgan- all philosophical and religious synthesis.' ic world to help us here in reasoning In that he is fortunate in his circle of acabout the organic world? Professor quaintance. But since he is so earnest Huxley and Lord Blachford might as in asking me questions, let me ask him well ask if a stone is capable of civilisa- to tell the world what is his own synthetion because I said that man was. I sis of philosophy, what is his own idea think that man is wholly different from of religion ? He can laugh at the wora stone; and from a fiddle; and even ship of Priests and Positivists : whom, from a dog; and that to say that a man or what, does he worship? If he discannot exert any influence on other men likes the word Soul, does he think man after his death, because a dog cannot, or has anything that can be called a spiritbecause a fiddle, or because a stone can- ual nature? If he derides my idea of a not, may be to reproduce with rather Future life, does he think that there is needless affectation the verbal quibbles anything which can be said of a man, and pitfalls which Socrates and the soph- when his carcase is laid beneath the sod, ists prepared for each other in some beyond a simple final Vale? wordy symposium of old.
Lastly, Professor Huxley seems to P.S.–And now space fails me to reply think that he has disposed of 'me alto- to the appeals of so many critics. I cangether, so soon as he can point to a sym- not enter with Mr. Roden Noel on that pathy between theologians and myself. great question of the materialisation of I trust there is great affinity and great the spirits of the dead; I know not sympathy between us; and pray let him whether we shall be 'made one with the not think that I am in the least ashamed great Elohim, or angels of Nature, or if of that common ground. Positivism has we shall grovel in dead material bodily quite as much sympathy with the genu- life.' I know nothing of this high matine theologian as it has with the scien- ter: I do not comprehend this language. tific specialist. The former may be Nor can I add anything to what I working on a wrong intellectual basis, have said on that sense of personality and often it may be by most perverted which Lord Selborne and Canon Barry methods; but in the best types, he has a so eloquently press on me. To me that high social aim and a great moral cause sense of personality is a thing of someto maintain amongst men. The latter is what slow growth, resulting from our enusually right in his intellectual basis as tire nervous organisation and our comfar as it goes; but it does not go very posite mental constitution. It seems to
me that we can often trace it building up cerely. It may have been somewhat oband trace it again decaying away. We scure, since it has been so widely arfeel ourselves to be men, because we have raigned, and I think misconceived. My human bodies and human minds. Is position is this. The idea of a glorified that not enough? Has the baby of an energy in an ampler life is an idea utterhour this sense of personality? Arely incompatible with exact thought, one you sure that a dog or an elephant has which evaporates in contradictions, in not got it? Then has the baby no phrases which when pressed have no soul ? has the dog a soul? Do you meaning. The idea of beatific ecstasy know
of your neighbor, apart is the old and orthodox idea; it does from inference, than you know of the not involve so many contradictions as dog? Again, I cannot enter upon Mr. the former idea, but then it does not satGreg's beautiful reflections, save to isfy our moral judgment. I say plainly point out how largely he supports me. that the hope of such an infinite ecstasy He shows, I think with masterly logic, is an inane and unworthy crown of a huhow difficult it is to fit this new notion man life. And when Dr. Ward assures of a glorified activity on to the old or me that it is merely the prolongation of thodoxy of beatific ecstasy. Canon the saintly life, then I say the saintly life Barry reminds us how this orthodoxy in- is an inane and unworthy life. The volved the resurrection of the body, and words I used about the 'selfish' views of the same difficulty has driven Mr. Ro- futurity, I applied only to those who say den Noel to suggest that the material they care for nothing but personal enjoyworld itself may be the débris of the just ment, and to those whose only aim is to made perfect. But Dr. Ward, as might save their own souls.' Mr. Baldwin be expected, falls back on the beatific Brown has nobly condemned this creed ecstasy as conceived by the mystics of in words far stronger than mine. And the thirteenth century. No word here here let us close with the reflection that about moral activity and the social con- the language of controversy must always verse, as in the Elysian fields, imagined be held to apply not to the character of by philosophers of less orthodox severi- our opponents, but to the logical consety.
quences of their doctrines, if uncorrectOne word more. If my language has ed and if forced to their extreme.—The given any believer pain, Í regret it sin- Nineteenth Century.
THE MOONS OF MARS.
Only a few months ago we took occa- know that any discoveries he may make sion to consider the planet Mars, with spe- during some favorable presentation of a cial reference to the question whether it is celestial body, will attract the attention at present, like our earth, the abode of liv- they deserve. The experience of the ing creatures, and, in particular, of intelli- last few years has shown that observagent beings. The circumstance that tions far more interesting and even valMars was about to make a nearer ap- uable may be expected under such cirproach to our earth than he has made cumstances, than when the observer has for fifteen years, or will again make for reason to believe that only the routine forty-seven, seemed to render the occa- work of the observatory-work bearing sion a fitting one for discussing questions no closer relation to the true science of of interest relating to the planet. Apart, astronomy than land-surveying bears to indeed, from the interest with which in- geology-need be attended to. Certaintelligent persons regard the other worlds ly we may congratulate science that on of our solar system, it has always seemed this special occasion, for the first time in to us that exact science, nay, even what the history of astronomy, a great public may be called professional science, gains, observatory has obtained results such as when' attention is specially directed to heretofore only so-called amateur astronapproaching celestial phenomena. For omers—the Herschels, for example, Lasit affords no small encouragement to the sell, Rosse, and so forth-have achieved. systematic observer of the heavens to Taking advantage of the near approach