Slike strani
PDF
ePub

engulfs all beings; it is Brahm again, issuing forth through its triad Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva-creation, preservation, and annihilation to return at last into its own void, gathering with it the sum of all its transitory modes. And let us not forget that the conceptions out of which this image of the One and All is spontaneously formed, are the ascertained and settled results of the science of nature in its exactest empirical form.

cal method, can be taken as permanent, but that even the latest must be reckoned as certified only to date, with a reservation, at best, of "tentative expectancy" for hope of continuance; that "natural selection," as empirically verified, is a process of cancellation, a selection only to death; and that the Whole alone has the possibility of final survival. The "tentative expectation " founded on the entire sweep of the observed facts, and not extended beyond it, would be that the latest observed survivor, man, is destined like his predecessors to pass away, supplanted by some new variation of the Whole, of a higher fitness to it. And so on, endlessly.

When to this powerful impression of the principle of conservation, as modified by that of dissipation, we now add the proper effect of the principle of evolution, the pantheistic inference appears to gather an overpowering weight, in no way to be evaded. As registered in the terms of a rigorous empirical method, evolution presents the pic ture of a cosmic Whole, constituted of varying members descended from its own primitive form, by differentiations so slight and gradual as not to suggest difference of origin or distinction in kind, but, on the contrary, to indicate clearly their kinship and community of origin. Still, these differentiations among the members, and the consequent differences in their adaptation to the Whole, involve a difference in their power to persist amid the mutual competition which their common presence in the Whole implies. In this silent and unconscious competition of tendencies to persist, which is called, by a somewhat exaggerated metaphor, the struggle for existence, the members of the least adaptation to the Whole must perish earliest, and only those of the highest adaptation will finally survive.

This clear pointing, by an empirically established and empirically construed doctrine of evolution, toward the One and All that swallows all, seems to gain farther clearness still when the principles of conservation and of evolution are considered, as they must be, in their inseparable connection. They work in and through each other. Conservation and correlation of energy, and their "rider" of dissipation, are in the secret of the mechanism of the process of natural selection, with its deaths and its survivals; evolution is the field, and its resulting forms of existence, more and more complex, are the outcome, of the operations of the correlated, conserved, and dissipated energies; and in its principle of struggle and survival, evolution works in its turn in the very process of the correlation, dissipation, and conservation of energy. It therefore seems but natural to identify the potential energy-the "waste heap" of power

So, by an exaggeration akin to that of the of correlation with the Whole of natural se

former metaphor, we may name the resulting persistence of the members most suited to the Whole the survival of the fittest; and as it is the Whole that determines the standard of adaptation, we may also, by figuratively personifying the Whole, call the process of antagonistic interaction through which the survivors persist a process of natural selection. Here, now, the points of determinative im port for inference are these: that the "survival" is only of the fittest to the Whole; that it is the Whole alone that "selects"; that no “survival," as verified to the strictly empiri

lection. And thus we appear to reach, by a cumulative argument, the One and Only in which all shall be absorbed.

If we now add to these several indications, both of the method and of the two organic results of modern science, the further weighty discredit that the principles of conservation and evolution appear to cast upon the belief in freedom and immortality, the pantheistic tone in modern science will sound out to the full. This discredit comes, for human free agency, from the closer nexus that the correlation of forces seems plainly to estab

lish between every possible human action and the antecedent or environing chain of events in nature out of which the web of its motives must be woven; and from the pitch and proclivity that must be transmitted, according to the principle of evolution, by the heredity inseparable from the process of descent. For immortality, the discredit comes, by way of the principle of evolution, through its indication, under the restrictions of the empirical method, of the transitoriness of all survivals, and through its necessary failure to supply any evidence whatever of even a possible survival beyond the sensible world, with which empirical evolution has alone to do; while, by way of the principle of the conservation and dissipation of energy, the discredit comes from the doom that manifestly seems to await all forms of actual energy, taken in connection with the general discredit of everything unattested by the senses, which the persistent culture of empiricism begets.

In short, while the empirical method ignores, and must ignore, any supersensible principle of existence whatever, thus tending to the identification of the Absolute with the Sum of Things, evolution and the principle of conservation have familiarized the modern mind with the continuity, the unity, and the uniformity of nature in an overwhelming degree. In the absence of the conviction, upon independent grounds, that the Principle of existence is personal and rational, the sciences of nature can hardly fail, even upon a somewhat considerate and scrutinizing view, to convey the impression that the Source of things is a vast and shadowy Whole, which sweeps onward to an unknown destination, "regardless," as one of the leaders of modern science has said, “of consequences," and unconcerned as to the fate of man's world of effort and hope, apparently so circumscribed and insignificant in comparison.

MODERN SCIENCE IS, STRICTLY, NONPANTHEISTIC.

BUT now that we come to the closer question, whether this impression is really war

VOL. VI.-42.

anted, we stand in need of exact discrimination. With such discrimination, we shall find that, decided as the inference to pantheism from the methods and principles just discussed seems to be, it is, after all, illegitimate.

Our first caution here must be, to remember that it is not science in its entire compass that is concerned in the question we are discussing. It is only "modern science," popularly so called—that is, science taken to mean only the science of nature; and not only so, but further restricted to signify only what may fitly enough be described as the natural science of nature; that is, so much of the possible knowledge of nature as can be reached through the channels of the senses; so much, in short, as will yield itself to a method strictly observational and empirical.

Hence, the real question is, whether empirical science, confined to nature as its proper object, can legitimately assert the theory of pantheism. And with regard now, first, to the argument drawn with such apparent force from the mere method of natural science, it should be plain to a more scrutinizing reflection, that shifting from the legitimate disregard of a supersensible principle, which is the right of the empirical method, to the deliberate assumption that there is no such principle, because there is and can be no sensible evidence of it, is an abuse of the method in question—an unwarrantable extension of its province to decisions lying by its own terms beyond its ken. This shifting is made upon the assumption that there can be no science founded on any other than empirical evidence. That there is, and can be, no science deserving the name, except that which follows the empirical method of mere natural science, is a claim which men of science are prone to make, but which the profoundest thinkers the world has known--such minds as Plato, or Aristotle, or Hegel-have certainly pronounced a claim unfounded, and, indeed, a sheer assumption, contradicted by evidence the clearest, if oftentimes abstruse. When, instead of blindly following experi

ence, we raise the question of the real nature and the sources of experience itself, and push it in earnest, it then appears that the very possibility of the experience that seems so rigorously to exclude supersensible principles, and particularly the rational personality of the First Principle, is itself dependent for its existence on such Principle and principles; that, in fact, these enter intellectually into its very constitution. But, in any case, this question of the nature of experience, of the limits of possible knowledge, and whether these last are identical with the former, is one in the taking up of which we abandon the field of nature, and enter the very different field of the theory of cognition. In this, the pursuer of natural science, as such, has not a word to say. Here his method is alto gether insufficient and unavailing; if the problem can be solved at all, it can only be by methods that transcend the bounds of sense-experience-methods that philosophy merely empirical evidence. is now prepared to vindicate as higher and far more trustworthy. Yet, when once the supersensible Principle is reached, in some other way-the way of philosophy, as distinguished from that of natural sciencescience will then furnish the most abundant confirmations, the strongest corroborations; the more abundant and the stronger, in proportion as the First Principle presented by philosophy ascends, evolution-wise, from materialism, through pantheism, to rational theism. For science accords most perfectly with the latter, although she is, in herself, wholly unable to attain the vision of it. But it must be a theism that subsumes into its conceptions of God and man all the irrefutable insights of materialism, of deism, and, eminently, of pantheism; of which, as I will hope this paper has shown, there are those of the greatest pertinence and reality, if also of the most undeniable insufficiency.

G. H. Horison.

So, again, in the inferences to pantheism from the conservation of energy and the principle of evolution. trong as the evidence seems, it arises in both cases from violating the strict principles of the natural scientific method. All inferences to a whole of potential energy, or to a whole determinant of the survivals in a struggle for existence, are really inferences-passings beyond the region of the experimental and sensible facts into the empirically unknown, empirically unattested, empirically unwarranted region of supersensible principles. The exact scientific truth about all such inferences, and the supposed realities which they establish, is, that they are unwarranted by natural science; and that this lack of warrant is only the expression by natural science of its incompetency to enter upon such questions.

Natural science may therefore be said to

be silent on this question of pantheism; as indeed it is, and from the nature of the case must be, upon all theories of the supersensible whatever-whether theistic, deistic, or atheistic. Natural science has no proper concern with them. Science may well enough be said to be non-pantheistic, but so also is it non-theistic, non-deistic, non-atheistic. Its position, however, is not for that reason anti-pantheistic, any more than it is anti-theistic, or anti-deistic, or anti-atheistic. It is rather agnostic, in the sense, that is, of declining to affect knowledge in the premises, because these are beyond its method and province. In short, its agnosticism is simply its neutrality; and does not in the least imply that agnosticism is the final view of things. The investigation of the final view, the search for the First Principle, science leaves to methods far other than her own of docile

ETC.

:

THE important events in our Pacific community, such as call for mention in a periodical of THE OVERLAND'S character, have of late taken a remarkably collegiate turn. Apart from purely industrial events, such as the convention of fruit-shippers, the notable occurrences of the past half-dozen weeks have been the inauguration of President Sprague over the new Mills College; the appointment of Professor Holden to the presidency of the State University; the formal establishment of the great Stanford foundation; and the renewal of the anti-Chinese agitation on this coast. Of the first two of these events we have already spoken, as they occurred: the others have fallen within the past month.

The

THE Stanford foundation is now so far advanced as to be a text for almost endless comment. terms of the grant; the probable effect of this or that provision; the new and highly experimental fea tures, of which there are several; the way to secure the highest possible degree of coöperation between the new group of schools and those already existing in the State: these are points of the highest significance, which should by no means be passed by with bare mention. We are reluctantly compelled to postpone any discussion of them till a later issue of THE OVERLAND; but we do it with the less reluctance, because the first expression in view of the fact of Mr. Stanford's magnificent gift must so certainly be only of gratitude and admiration, that a month may without impropriety intervene before any critical consideration of details. The splendid gift already made, with the assurance, which seems to be authoritative, that this is only the beginning; the intention which is understood to be settled in the minds of Mr. and Mrs. Stanford, to devote the remainder of their lives to the service of the University; the magnificence and magnanimity of all this do, indeed, incline those most in sympathy to say least-in the spirit of Emerson's lines: "And loved so well a high behavior

In man or maid, that thou from speech refrained,
Nobility more nobly to repay."

To those whose hearts are most sincerely in the work of education, or of otherwise helping humanity to a higher stand, those who feel Mr. and Mrs. Stanford's great gift almost as if they had received a rich personal endowment, who watch its development, and dwell with almost breathless interest on the probable effect of each detail: to these, the instinctive thought of the action is not as "renunciation," but as achievement. It is hard to express adequately what a man becomes by such an act. Mr. Stanford was already, take it all in all, the foremost citizen of the State; but by the completion of the present endow

ment, he will become so to an extent that it is almost impossible to find paralleled in modern times. It is perhaps hardly realized by any one at present how far, a hundred or a thousand years from now, this University foundation will overshadow the railroad achievement, great though that was; but if any one wishes to thus realize how far the conferring of intellectual benefit upon a community outlives and outweighs the performance of great industrial works for it, let him try to tell the name of the builder of any one of the great Roman roads-works as marvelous for their time, and as valuable to the state, as the first great transcontinental railroad is to ours; and then let him think of the undying fame of Maecenas, the patron of art and literature and learning. But greater even than the achievement of lasting honor among one's fellow-men of later generations, is it to become a living power among them forever. If some inconceivable power should smite the name of Stan} ford absolutely ont of men's memories, he would still possess that greater thing than fame-undying power, immortality of beneficence on earth.

"Oh, may I join the choir invisible Of those immortal dead who live again In lives made better by their life!"

was the aspiration of one who believed in this earthly immortality only, and found it great and satisfying enough to make up for the loss of personal immortality. To one who believes in the personal future life, it gives two immortalities to "live again in lives made better by his life." This is the aspiration of many; the achievement of many to a greater or less degree; but it rarely happens to one man and woman to have both the power and the will to thus live after death on a great scale, working and shaping beneficently in the lives of many-not of tens nor of hundreds, but of thousands and tens of thousands, as the generations follow on. Herein is the wisdom of money spent in education rather than in charity -that each recipient of influence becomes in his turn a center to transmit the same in every direction, so that it multiplies forever in geometric ratio; while charity stops and perishes with the immediate recipiAnd this power to mould unborn generations for good, to keep one's hands mightily on human affairs after the flesh has been dust for years, seems not only more than mortal, but more than man-it is like the power of a god, to kill and make alive; and it is both sound theology and sound philosophy to say that in beneficent action a man does, in fact, to some extent, rise into participation in a divine nature and divine activity, becoming "coworker with God" in the shaping of the world to a good outcome. It does not often, in the history of mankind, happen to

ent.

any one to have both the power and the will to do so much of this joint work as in the present instance.

THERE is another peculiar felicity, which now falls to the remarkable man who thus becomes a modern Mæcenas. Had Senator Stanford's training been specifically scholarly, it is highly probable that the fascinations of one or another branch of scholarly research would have seized upon his active mind, and that his achievements in science or history or economic studies might have been great. There is no possible proof that he might not have become one of the great leaders of science or other scholarship. The possibility of this life (and those who choose it unquestionably find it more satisfying, more prolific in healthful enjoyment, than others find their respective call ings), a man absolutely renounces in entering the race for wealth and industrial achievement. There is no reconciliation: neither learning nor millions can be had by divided effort. What a rare and remarkable outcome, then, of a man's life, that after having obtained great success in industrial achievement, in money-getting, in politics, it should now become possible to him to be, by proxy, man of science or of letters; for his endowment will inevitably create more than one such man, who would never have been

such without it.

Of the recent renewal of anti-Chinese demonstrations in Washington Territory and this State, there is but one thing to be said: and that is that the pretence of "peaceable expulsion" is a shame to the moral sense of whoever uses the phrase. Expulsion under threat of violence is to the full as illegal, and only a shade less brutal, than the Wyoming method of sheer massacre. That even a touch of this wrong has fallen on our own State is deeply to be regretted. Nor is there, to our judgment, any truth in the assertion that the better class of citizens have anywhere been concerned in this sort of thing. A speaker-himself a workman-at Seattle, in the citizens' mass-meeting called to protest against the lawless proceedings, said that the cry at Tacoma had practically been, "The Americans must go "; that these were no American acts. And when in our own State we see an Englishman better protected in his unquestionable right to employ a Chinese servant than our own people, it certainly looks as if the American were being crowded very hard into a corner. But while we refuse to believe that worthy citizens have been concerned in this sort of illegal outrage, it is certain that a very great number of such among us regard the presence of Chinese here with so extreme an antipathy, that they cannot feel any serious reprobation towards the lawless expression of the same antipathy by men of another sort. We are not of these; yet, remembering how large a number of worthy citizens have been guilty of at least complaisance toward murdering of Indians on the frontier, family vendettas in the South, Jew-baiting in

Germany, abolitionist-mobbing in the New England of not so many decades ago, we submit that injustice would be done to our people to judge them less law. abiding than these. In not one of the cases we have just mentioned has there been so little participation in the wrong, so considerable a protest against it, by the better class; notwithstanding that in not one of them has there been so general and deeply rooted a conviction that the lawlessness was provoked by real and grave evil.

WE publish this month a paper called out by the Hon. A. A. Sargent's in our last number. It represents the views of a small minority of our people, and to suppress these, or conceal the fact that they exist, would be the sheerest dishonesty. If anti-Chinese sentiment on this coast needs the aid of any sort of terrorism, it puts itself into a bad light. We reiterate what we have said before, that this subject is the better for free discussion, that our press has not permitted this to the extent that it should, and that, without endorsing the opinions of contributors, the OVERLAND will maintain an open forum on this, as on other questions, insisting only upon temperance and courtesy of expression, and sufficient literary As it chances, for instance, neither Mr. Sarmerit. gent's nor "J's" views exactly meet the OVERLAND'S own, which were sufficiently indicated a month or two since, in commenting upon the Wyoming matter, and will be expressed again, from time to time, hereafter.

[blocks in formation]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »