Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Conclusion from the above.

We come to this conclusion: that whenever powers act in conformity with law, they are acting in obedience to some idea existing in some intelligent mind. To illustrate this, let us suppose an army of one hundred thousand men all dressed and equipped alike, arranged in a given order, and all performing perfectly harmonious motions and evolutions. You here perceive the presence and all-pervading influence of law. Is it possible to conceive all this, and not suppose this law to be some idea in some intelligent mind—a mind that comprehends all the parts, and assigns to each part its position, &c.? If this could not be supposed of intelligent powers, much less could we suppose a similar action of necessary and unintelligent ones. The grand problem, then, the solution of which is the final object and distinctive character of philosophy, when once solved, leads the mind to the direct apprehension and contemplation of the Infinite, of God, whose creative idea is the law of all existences. The problem referred to is this: "For all that exists conditionally (i. e. the existence of which is inconceivable except under the condition of its dependency on some other as its antecedent) to find a ground that is unconditional and absolute, and thereby to reduce the aggregate of human knowledge to a system." Now, this ground can be found in nothing but in the mind of God.

Chronological Antecedent to this Idea.

As Mind wakes into conscious existence, and contemplates the action of the powers of nature within and around it, it at once perceives all things existing and acting as a means to an end. Everywhere diversity blended with harmony, presents itself. Now, this presentation of the powers of nature is the chronological antecedent of the idea of Law in the Reason. Hence the great inquiry ever after imposed upon the Intelligence, to wit: What are the laws in conformity to which they act? In this inquiry, the Intelligence begins to "feel after" the Infinite, and it never rests until it finds itself in the presence of " that creative idea, which appoints to each thing its position, and in consequence of that position, gives it its qualities, yea, its very existence as that particular thing."

Apparent Mistake in respect to Law.

Philosophers, as well as others, often appear at least to speak on this subject, as if, in their judgment, the powers of nature, with their present arrangement, on the one hand, existed, and Law on the other, as a separate something controlling their action. Coleridge maintains, that law (and by law, he means thought), is the only reality. Now, it should be borne in mind, that when we depart from ideas, nothing relative to the powers of nature exists, but the powers arranged in such a manner, that their mutual action and reaction shall produce results in harmony with such ideas. Look, as an illustration, at the steamboat. There is not here powers arranged in a given order, and then a something else, which controls their action. All the results we witness arise from the nature, and the peculiar arrangement of the powers here combined. So in all other instances.

Theory and Law distinguished.

The term theory is used in two senses somewhat different. The first meaning may be illustrated by a reference to what is denominated the Theory and Practice of Medicine. The end for which medicinal substances are used in cases of disease is the controlling of the disease, and its consequent removal. Now, when a certain disease appears, a particular course is adopted. The results are marked down. That course which, in given circumstances, is attended with the most favorable results, is set down as the course to be pursued in the treatment of this disease. The course becomes a Theory, to which medical practice is conformed. According to this usage, the term Theory supposes certain powers arranged under some one point of view, and certain principles of action adopted for the purpose of controlling these

powers.

According to another usage, Theory means a certain hypothesis which has been adopted for the explanation of a given class of facts; an hypothesis, in conformity to which, it is supposed, the facts may be explained. In respect to a given class of facts, it frequently happens that all admit of an equally ready explanation, on either of two or more distinct and opposite hypotheses, and hence a corresponding number of Theories are adopted for their explanation. Thus we have two distinct and opposite Theories of electricity, all the

facts presented being equally explicable in conformity to each.

Now Law, as distinguished from Theory, is an hypothesis which sustains to a given number of facts the relation of a logical antecedent. The facts being given, the hypothesis must be assumed as the ground of their explanation. The facts must not only be explicable by the hypothesis, but affirmed by it, in such a form as to contradict every other hypothesis which can be adduced for their explanation. This condition we find realized in the facts adduced by Newton, in demonstration of the law of attraction.

Nature of Proof.

One thought suggested by the preceding analysis demands special attention-the nature of proof. No proposition is, properly speaking, proven, till facts or arguments are adduced, which not only affirm its truth, but contradict every opposite proposition. How often is this fundamental law of evidence overlooked and disregarded in almost every department of human investigation. In Theology, for example, how often is an hypothesis denominated a doctrine, which merely consists with a given class of passages of Holy Writ, assumed as absolutely affirmed by these passages, when, in reality, they equally consist with the contradictory hypothesis. it ever be borne in mind, that no passage or passages of Scripture prove any one doctrine which do not contradict every opposite doctrine. No facts affirm any one hypothesis which do not equally contradict every contradictory hypothesis.

Fundamental and superficial Thinkers.

Let

Another suggestion which presents itself is this-the difference between superficial and fundamental thinkers. The former dwell only upon the surface of subjects, and having there found certain hypotheses which consist with mere exterior facts, they gravely conclude that they "have heard the conclusion of the whole matter." They have discovered all that can be known, and "wisdom will die with them." The latter class, on the other hand, retire into the interior of subjects, and taking their position upon some great central facts, announce the existence and operations of universal laws, sustaining to exterior facts the relation of logical antecedents, and explaining them all. The reason why the positions assumed by such men are uniformly so impregnable

is, that the error of every hypothesis, in opposition to that which they have assumed, as well as the truth of their own, becomes visible at once, in the light of the great central facts on which they have taken their stand.

THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEA.

The philosophic idea realized, or objectively considered, is the reduction of phenomena to fundamental ideas, the reduction of the sum of human knowledge to a system, the finding, amid the infinity of facts which are floating in the universe around us, some great central fundamental facts or laws, which are affirmed by all others, and explain them all.

This idea subjectively considered is a conception lying down in the depths of the Reason, that all substances exist and act in harmony with such ideas. Hence the questions perpetually imposed upon the Understanding and Judgment, in all departments of human research; to wit, what are the laws which explain the facts here presented? Science is everywhere now on the high road tending to the realization of this great idea. Happy the eyes that shall see it realized.

Chronological Antecedents of this Idea.

The chronological antecedents of this idea are the same as those which sustain a similar relation to that of law. Indeed this idea is but one form in which the idea of law manifests itself.

Other ideas of Reason will be considered, when we speak of matter and spirit, the soul, God, &c.

FIRST TRUTHS, OR NECESSARY PRINCIPLES OF REASON, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTINGENT PRINCIPLES.

Contingent and necessary Principles defined and distinguished. "Contingent principles," in the language of Cousin, "are those which force belief, though without implying any contradiction in the denial of them, and which are not therefore necessary, but irresistible, natural beliefs, actual, primitive, and instinctive, such as the belief in the stability of the laws of nature, the perception of extension," &c.

A necessary truth or principle, on the other hand, is one

which not only forces assent, but which is always attended with absolute conviction of its necessity, of the total impossibility of supposing the contrary; such as the proposition, Every event must have a cause. The above distinction perfectly corresponds with those made by Dr. Reid. "Truths," he observes, "which fall within the compass of human knowledge, whether they be self-evident, or deduced from those that are self-evident, may be reduced to two classes. They are either necessary or immutable truths, whose contrary is impossible; or they are contingent and mutable, depending upon some effect of Will or power, which had a beginning, and may have an end."

That a cone is a third part of a cylinder of the same base, and the same altitude, is a necessary truth. It depends not upon the will or power of any being. It is immutably true, and the contrary impossible. That the sun is the centre, about which the earth, and the other planets of our system, perform their revolutions, is a truth, but it is not a necessary truth. It depends upon the power and will of God.

First Truths defined.

First truths are those principles, whether contingent or necessary, which lie at the foundation of all science, of all reasoning. They admit," says Dr. Reid, "of no other proof than the following: 1. All men do admit them, as a matter of fact, in all their reasoning. 2. All men, even those who deny their validity, act upon them. 3. If denied, the validity of all reasoning fails."

Kind of Proof of which necessary Ideas or Principles admit.

The above remarks of Dr. Reid are strictly applicable to contingent principles. Necessary ideas and principles, on the other hand, admit of a kind of proof, that, as far as my knowledge extends, has escaped the notice of philosophers. All such ideas and principles sustain, as we have seen, to contingent phenomena and principles, the relation of logical antecedents, while the former sustain to the latter, the relation of chronological antecedents. Now, in addition to the kind of proof, adduced by Dr. Reid, necessary ideas and principles admit of this also: We can designate the phenomena or principles to which they sustain the relation of logical antecedents. Thus we may prove the reality of time, by referring to succession, of the reality of which every one is

« AnteriorContinuar »