按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
attribute them to Him only in a TERMINATIVE sense； as differing
aspects； from the finite point of view； of his unique essence。
God of course is holy； good； and just。 He can do no evil； for He
is positive being's fullness； and evil is negation。 It is true
that He has created physical evil in places； but only as a means
of wider good； for bonum totius praeeminet bonum partis。 Moral
evil He cannot will； either as end or means； for that would
contradict his holiness。 By creating free beings He PERMITS it
only； neither his justice nor his goodness obliging Him to
prevent the recipients of freedom from misusing the gift。
As regards God's purpose in creating； primarily it can only have
been to exercise his absolute freedom by the manifestation to
others of his glory。 From this it follows that the others must
be rational beings； capable in the first place of knowledge；
love； and honor； and in the second place of happiness； for the
knowledge and love of God is the mainspring of felicity。 In so
far forth one may say that God's secondary purpose in creating is
LOVE。
I will not weary you by pursuing these metaphysical
determinations farther； into the mysteries of God's Trinity； for
example。 What I have given will serve as a specimen of the
orthodox philosophical theology of both Catholics and
Protestants。 Newman； filled with enthusiasm at God's list of
perfections； continues the passage which I began to quote to you
by a couple of pages of a rhetoric so magnificent that I can
hardly refrain from adding them； in spite of the inroad they
would make upon our time。＇296＇ He first enumerates God's
attributes sonorously； then celebrates his ownership of
everything in earth and Heaven； and the dependence of all that
happens upon his permissive will。 He gives us scholastic
philosophy 〃touched with emotion；〃 and every philosophy should be
touched with emotion to be rightly understood。 Emotionally；
then； dogmatic theology is worth something to minds of the type
of Newman's。 It will aid us to estimate what it is worth
intellectually； if at this point I make a short digression。
＇296＇ Op。 cit。； Discourse III。 Section 7。
What God hath joined together； let no man put asunder。 The
Continental schools of philosophy have too often overlooked the
fact that man's thinking is organically connected with his
conduct。 It seems to me to be the chief glory of English and
Scottish thinkers to have kept the organic connection in view。
The guiding principle of British philosophy has in fact been that
every difference must MAKE a difference； every theoretical
difference somewhere issue in a practical difference； and that
the best method of discussing points of theory is to begin by
ascertaining what practical difference would result from one
alternative or the other being true。 What is the particular
truth in question KNOWN AS？ In what facts does it result？ What
is its cash…value in terms of particular experience？ This is the
characteristic English way of taking up a question。 In this way；
you remember； Locke takes up the question of personal identity。
What you mean by it is just your chain of particular memories；
says he。 That is the only concretely verifiable part of its
significance。 All further ideas about it； such as the oneness or
manyness of the spiritual substance on which it is based； are
therefore void of intelligible meaning； and propositions touching
such ideas may be indifferently affirmed or denied。 So Berkeley
with his 〃matter。〃
The cash…value of matter is our physical sensations。 That is
what it is known as； all that we concretely verify of its
conception。 That； therefore； is the whole meaning of the term
〃matter〃any other pretended meaning is mere wind of words。
Hume does the same thing with causation。 It is known as habitual
antecedence； and as tendency on our part to look for something
definite to come。 Apart from this practical meaning it has no
significance whatever； and books about it may be committed to the
flames； says Hume。 Dugald Stewart and Thomas Brown； James Mill；
John Mill； and Professor Bain； have followed more or less
consistently the same method； and Shadworth Hodgson has used the
principle with full explicitness。 When all is said and done； it
was English and Scotch writers； and not Kant； who introduced 〃the
critical method〃 into philosophy； the one method fitted to make
philosophy a study worthy of serious men。 For what seriousness
can possibly remain in debating philosophic propositions that
will never make an appreciable difference to us in action？ And
what could it matter； if all propositions were practically
indifferent； which of them we should agree to call true or which
false？
An American philosopher of eminent originality； Mr。 Charles
Sanders Peirce； has rendered thought a service by disentangling
from the particulars of its application the principle by which
these men were instinctively guided； and by singling it out as
fundamental and giving to it a Greek name。 He calls it the
principle of PRAGMATISM； and he defends it somewhat as
follows：＇297＇
＇297＇ In an article； How to make our Ideas Clear； in the Popular
Science Monthly for January； 1878； vol。 xii。 p。 286。
Thought in movement has for its only conceivable motive the
attainment of belief； or thought at rest。 Only when our thought
about a subject has found its rest in belief can our action on
the subject firmly and safely begin。 Beliefs； in short； are
rules for action； and the whole function of thinking is but one
step in the production of active habits。 If there were any part
of a thought that made no difference in the thought's practical
consequences； then that part would be no proper element of the
thought's significance。 To develop a thought's meaning we need
therefore only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce；
that conduct is for us its sole significance； and the tangible
fact at the root of all our thought…distinctions is that there is
no one of them so fine as to consist in anything but a possible
difference of practice。 To attain perfect clearness in our
thoughts of an object； we need then only consider what
sensations； immediate or remote； we are conceivably to expect
from it； and what conduct we must prepare in case the object
should be true。 Our conception of these practical consequences
is for us the whole of our conception of the object； so far as
that conception has positive significance at all。
This is the principle of Peirce； the principle of pragmatism。
Such a principle will help us on this occasion to decide； among
the various attributes set down in the scholastic inventory of
God's perfections； whether some be not far less significant than
others。
If； namely； we apply the principle of pragmatism to God's
metaphysical attributes； strictly so called； as distinguished
from his moral attributes； I think that； even were we forced by a
coercive logic to believe them； we still should have to confess
them to be destitute of all intelligible significance。 Take God's
aseity； for example； or his necessariness； his immateriality； his
〃simplicity〃 or superiority to the kind of inner variety and
succession which we find in finite beings； his indivisibility；
and lack of the inner distinctions of being and activity；
substance and accident； potentiality and actuality； and the rest；
his repudiation of inclusion in a genus； his actualized infinity；
his 〃personality；〃 apart from the moral qualities which it may
comport； his relations to evil being permissive and not positive；
his self…sufficiency； self…love； and absolute felicity in
himself：candidly speaking； how do such qualities as these
make any definite connection with our life？ And if they
severally call for no distinctive adaptations of our conduct；
what vital difference can it possibly make to a man's religion
whether they be true or false？
For my own part； although I dislike to say aught that may grate
upon tender associations； I must frankly confess that even though
these attributes were faultlessly deduced； I cannot conceive of
its being of the smallest consequence to us religiously that any
one of them should be true。 Pray； what specific act can I
perform in order to adapt myself the better to God's simplicity？