NOTES:
[144] Published originally in 1778; reprinted in edition of EPEA PTEROENTA or _Diversions of Purley_, by Richard Taylor (1829), to which I refer. The first part of the _Diversions of Purley_ appeared in 1786; and the second part (with a new edition of the first) in 1798.
[145] _Diversions of Purley_ (1829), i. 12, 131.
[146] _Ibid._ ii. 362. Locke"s work, says Prof. Max Muller in his _Science of Thought_, p. 295, "is, as Lange in his _History of Materialism_ rightly perceived, a critique of language which, together with Kant"s _Critique of the Pure Reason_, forms the starting-point of modern philosophy." _See_ Lange"s _Materialism_, (1873), i. 271.
[147] _Ibid._ i. 49.
[148] _Diversions of Purley_, i. 36, 42.
[149] _Ibid._ i. 373.
[150] _Ibid._ i. 374.
[151] _Diversions of Purley_, ii. 18. Cf. Mill"s statement in _a.n.a.lysis_, i. 304, that "abstract terms are concrete terms with the connotation dropped."
[152] _Ibid._ ii. 9, etc.
[153] _Ibid._ ii. 399.
[154] Stephens, ii. 497.
[155] _Life of Mackintosh_, ii. 235-37.
[156] Begun for the _Encyclopaedia Metropolitana_ in 1818; and published in 1835-37. Dugald Stewart"s chief criticism is in his Essays (_Works_, v. 149-188). John Fearn published his _Anti-Tooke_ in 1820.
II. DUGALD STEWART
If English philosophy was a blank, there was still a leader of high reputation in Scotland. Dugald Stewart (1753-1828) had a considerable influence upon the Utilitarians. He represented, on the one hand, the doctrines which they thought themselves specially bound to attack, and it may perhaps be held that in some ways he betrayed to them the key of the position. Stewart[157] was son of a professor of mathematics at Edinburgh. He studied at Glasgow (1771-72) where he became Reid"s favourite pupil and devoted friend. In 1772 he became the a.s.sistant, and in 1775 the colleague, of his father, and he appears to have had a considerable knowledge of mathematics. In 1785 he succeeded Adam Ferguson as professor of moral philosophy and lectured continuously until 1810. He then gave up his active duties to Thomas Brown, devoting himself to the completion and publication of the substance of his lectures. Upon Brown"s death in 1820, he resigned a post to which he was no longer equal. A paralytic stroke in 1822 weakened him, though he was still able to write. He died in 1828.
If Stewart now makes no great mark in histories of philosophy, his personal influence was conspicuous. c.o.c.kburn describes him as of delicate appearance, with a ma.s.sive head, bushy eyebrows, gray intelligent eyes, flexible mouth and expressive countenance. His voice was sweet and his ear exquisite. c.o.c.kburn never heard a better reader, and his manners, though rather formal, were graceful and dignified.
James Mill, after hearing Pitt and Fox, declared that Stewart was their superior in eloquence. At Edinburgh, then at the height of its intellectual activity, he held his own among the ablest men and attracted the loyalty of the younger. Students came not only from Scotland but from England, the United States, France and Germany.[158]
Scott won the professor"s approval by an essay on the "Customs of the Northern Nations." Jeffrey, Horner, c.o.c.kburn and Mackintosh were among his disciples. His lectures upon Political Economy were attended by Sydney Smith, Jeffrey and Brougham, and one of his last hearers was Lord Palmerston. Parr looked up to him as a great philosopher, and contributed to his works an essay upon the etymology of the word "sublime," too vast to be printed whole. Stewart was an upholder of Whig principles, when the Scottish government was in the hands of the staunchest Tories. The irreverent young Edinburgh Reviewers treated him with respect, and to some extent applied his theory to politics.
Stewart was the philosophical heir of Reid; and, one may say, was a Whig both in philosophy and in politics. He was a rationalist, but within the limits fixed by respectability; and he dreaded the revolution in politics, and believed in the surpa.s.sing merits of the British Const.i.tution as interpreted by the respectable Whigs.
Stewart represents the "common sense" doctrine. That name, as he observes, lends itself to an equivocation. Common sense is generally used as nearly synonymous with "mother wit," the average opinion of fairly intelligent men; and he would prefer to speak of the "fundamental laws of belief."[159] There can, however, be no doubt that the doctrine derived much of its strength from the apparent confirmation of the "average opinion" by the "fundamental laws." On one side, said Reid, are all the vulgar; on the other all the philosophers. "In this division, to my great humiliation, I find myself cla.s.sed with the vulgar."[160] Reid, in fact, had opposed the theories of Hume and Berkeley because they led to a paradoxical scepticism. If it be, as Reid held, a legitimate inference from Berkeley that a man may as well run his head against a post, there can be no doubt that it is shocking to common sense in every acceptation of the word. The reasons, however, which Reid and Stewart alleged for not performing that feat took a special form, which I am compelled to notice briefly because they set up the mark for the whole intellectual artillery of the Utilitarians. Reid, in fact, invented what J. S. Mill called "intuitions." To confute intuitionists and get rid of intuitions was one main purpose of all Mill"s speculations. What, then, is an "intuition"? To explain that fully it would be necessary to write once more that history of the philosophical movement from Descartes to Hume, which has been summarised and elucidated by so many writers that it should be as plain as the road from St. Paul"s to Temple Bar. I am forced to glance at the position taken by Reid and Stewart because it has a most important bearing upon the whole Utilitarian scheme. Reid"s main service to philosophy was, in his own opinion,[161] that he refuted the "ideal system" of Descartes and his followers. That system, he says, carried in its womb the monster, scepticism, which came to the birth in 1739,[162] the date of Hume"s early _Treatise_. To confute Hume, therefore, which was Reid"s primary object, it was necessary to go back to Descartes, and to show where he deviated from the right track. In other words, we must trace the genealogy of "ideas." Descartes, as Reid admitted, had rendered immense services to philosophy. He had exploded the scholastic system, which had become a mere ma.s.s of logomachies and an incubus upon scientific progress. He had again been the first to "draw a distinct line between the material and the intellectual world"[163]; and Reid apparently a.s.sumes that he had drawn it correctly.
One characteristic of the Cartesian school is obvious. Descartes, a great mathematician at the period when mathematical investigations were showing their enormous power, invented a mathematical universe.
Mathematics presented the true type of scientific reasoning and determined his canons of inquiry. The "essence" of matter, he said, was s.p.a.ce. The objective world, as we have learned to call it, is simply s.p.a.ce solidified or incarnate geometry. Its properties therefore could be given as a system of deductions from first principles, and it forms a coherent and self-subsistent whole. Meanwhile the essence of the soul is thought. Thought and matter are absolutely opposed. They are contraries, having nothing in common. Reality, however, seems to belong to the world of s.p.a.ce. The brain, too, belongs to that world, and motions in the brain must be determined as a part of the material mechanism. In some way or other "ideas" correspond to these motions; though to define the way tried all the ingenuity of Descartes" successors. In any case an idea is "subjective": it is a thought, not a thing. It is a shifting, ephemeral ent.i.ty not to be fixed or grasped. Yet, somehow or other, it exists, and it "represents" realities; though the divine power has to be called in to guarantee the accuracy of the representation. The objective world, again, does not reveal itself to us as simply made up of "primary qualities"; we know of it only as somehow endowed with "secondary" or sense-given qualities: as visible, tangible, audible, and so forth.
These qualities are plainly "subjective"; they vary from man to man, and from moment to moment: they cannot be measured or fixed; and must be regarded as a product in some inexplicable way of the action of matter upon mind; unreal or, at any rate, not independent ent.i.ties.
In Locke"s philosophy, the "ideas," legitimate or illegitimate descendants of the Cartesian theories, play a most prominent part.
Locke"s admirable common sense made him the leader who embodied a growing tendency. The empirical sciences were growing; and Locke, a student of medicine, could note the fallacies which arise from neglecting observation and experiment, and attempting to penetrate to the absolute essences and ent.i.ties. Newton"s great success was due to neglecting impossible problems about the nature of force in itself--"action at a distance" and so forth--and attention to the sphere of visible phenomena. The excessive pretensions of the framers of metaphysical systems had led to hopeless puzzles and merely verbal solutions. Locke, therefore, insisted upon the necessity of ascertaining the necessary limits of human knowledge. All our knowledge of material facts is obviously dependent in some way upon our sensations--however fleeting or unreal they may be. Therefore, the material sciences must depend upon sense-given data or upon observation and experiment. Hume gives the ultimate purpose, already implied in Locke"s essay, when he describes his first treatise (on the t.i.tle page) as an "attempt to introduce the experimental mode of reasoning into moral subjects." Now, as Reid thinks, the effect of this was to construct our whole knowledge out of the representative ideas. The empirical factor is so emphasised that we lose all grasp of the real world. Locke, indeed, though he insists upon the derivation of our whole knowledge from "ideas," leaves reality to the "primary qualities" without clearly expounding their relation to the secondary. But Berkeley, alarmed by the tendency of the Cartesian doctrines to materialism and mechanical necessity, reduces the "primary" to the level of the "secondary," and proceeds to abolish the whole world of matter. We are thus left with nothing but "ideas," and the ideas are naturally "subjective" and therefore in some sense unreal. Finally Hume gets rid of the soul as well as the outside world; and then, by his theory of "causation," shows that the ideas themselves are independent atoms, cohering but not rationally connected, and capable of being arbitrarily joined or separated in any way whatever.
Thus the ideas have ousted the facts. We cannot get beyond ideas, and yet ideas are still purely subjective. The "real" is separated from the phenomenal, and truth divorced from fact. The sense-given world is the whole world, and yet is a world of mere accidental conjunctions and separation. That is Hume"s scepticism, and yet according to Reid is the legitimate development of Descartes" "ideal system." Reid, I take it, was right in seeing that there was a great dilemma. What was required to escape from it? According to Kant, nothing less than a revision of Descartes" mode of demarcation between object and subject. The "primary qualities" do not correspond in this way to an objective world radically opposed to the subjective. s.p.a.ce is not a form of things, but a form imposed upon the data of experience by the mind itself. This, as Kant says, supposes a revolution in philosophy comparable to the revolution made by Copernicus in astronomy. We have completely to invert our whole system of conceiving the world. Whatever the value of Kant"s doctrine, of which I need here say nothing, it was undoubtedly more prolific than Reid"s. Reid"s was far less thoroughgoing. He does not draw a new line between object and subject, but simply endeavours to show that the dilemma was due to certain a.s.sumptions about the nature of "ideas."
The real had been altogether separated from the phenomenal, or truth divorced from fact. You can only have demonstrations by getting into a region beyond the sensible world; while within that world--that is, the region of ordinary knowledge and conduct--you are doomed to hopeless uncertainty. An escape, therefore, must be sought by some thorough revision of the a.s.sumed relation, but not by falling back upon the exploded philosophy of the schools. Reid and his successors were quite as much alive as Locke to the danger of falling into mere scholastic logomachy. They, too, will in some sense base all knowledge upon experience. Reid constantly appeals to the authority of Bacon, whom he regards as the true founder of inductive science. The great success of Bacon"s method in the physical sciences, encouraged the hope, already expressed by Newton, that a similar result might be achieved in "moral philosophy."[164] Hume had done something to clear the way, but Reid was, as Stewart thinks, the first to perceive clearly and justly the "a.n.a.logy between these two different branches of human knowledge." The mind and matter are two co-ordinate things, whose properties are to be investigated by similar methods. Philosophy thus means essentially psychology. The two inquiries are two "branches" of inductive science, and the problem is to discover by a perfectly impartial examination what are the "fundamental laws of mind" revealed by an accurate a.n.a.lysis of the various processes of thought. The main result of Reid"s investigations is given most pointedly in his early _Inquiry_, and was fully accepted by Stewart. Briefly it comes to this. No one can doubt that we believe, as a fact, in an external world. We believe that there are sun and moon, stones, sticks, and human bodies. This belief is accepted by the sceptic as well as by the dogmatist, although the sceptic reduces it to a mere blind custom or "a.s.sociation of ideas." Now Reid argues that the belief, whatever its nature, is not and cannot be derived from the sensations. We do not construct the visible and tangible world, for example, simply out of impressions made upon the senses of sight and touch. To prove this, he examines what are the actual data provided by these senses, and shows, or tries to show, that we cannot from them alone construct the world of s.p.a.ce and geometry.
Hence, if we consider experience impartially and without preconception, we find that it tells us something which is not given by the senses. The senses are not the material of our perceptions, but simply give the occasions upon which our belief is called into activity. The sensation is no more like the reality in which we believe than the pain of a wound is like the edge of the knife. Perception tells us directly and immediately, without the intervention of ideas, that there is, as we all believe, a real external world.
Reid was a vigorous reasoner, and credit has been given to him by some disciples of Kant"s doctrine of time and s.p.a.ce. Schopenhauer[165] says that Reid"s "excellent work" gives a complete "negative proof of the Kantian truths"; that is to say, that Reid proves satisfactorily that we cannot construct the world out of the sense-given data alone. But, whereas Kant regards the senses as supplying the materials moulded by the perceiving mind, Reid regards them as mere stimuli exciting certain inevitable beliefs. As a result of Reid"s method, then, we have "intuitions." Reid"s essential contention is that a fair examination of experience will reveal certain fundamental beliefs, which cannot be explained as mere manifestations of the sensations, and which, by the very fact that they are inexplicable, must be accepted as an "inspiration."[166] Reid professes to discover these beliefs by accurately describing facts. He finds them there as a chemist finds an element. The "intuition" is made by subst.i.tuting for "ideas" a mysterious and inexplicable connection between the mind and matter.[167]
The chasm exists still, but it is somehow bridged by a quasi-miracle.
Admitting, therefore, that Reid shows a gap to exist in the theory, his result remains "negative." The philosopher will say that it is not enough to a.s.sert a principle dogmatically without showing its place in a reasoned system of thought. The psychologist, on the other hand, who takes Reid"s own ground, may regard the statement only as a useful challenge to further inquiry. The a.n.a.lysis. .h.i.therto given may be insufficient, but where Reid has failed, other inquirers may be more successful. As soon, in fact, as we apply the psychological method, and regard the "philosophy of mind" as an "inductive science," it is perilous, if not absolutely inconsistent, to discover "intuitions" which will take us beyond experience. The line of defence against empiricism can only be provisional and temporary. In his main results, indeed, Reid had the advantage of being on the side of "common sense." Everybody was already convinced that there were sticks and stones, and everybody is prepared to hear that their belief is approved by philosophy. But a difficulty arises when a similar method is applied to a doctrine sincerely disputed. To the statement, "this is a necessary belief," it is a sufficient answer to reply, "I don"t believe it," In that case, an intuition merely amounts to a dogmatic a.s.sumption that I am infallible, and must be supported by showing its connection with beliefs really universal and admittedly necessary.
Dugald Stewart followed Reid upon this main question, and with less force and originality represents the same point of view. He accepts Reid"s view of the two co-ordinate departments of knowledge; the science of which mind, and the science of which body, is the object. Philosophy is not a "theory of knowledge" or of the universe; but, as it was then called, "a philosophy of the human mind." "Philosophy" is founded upon inductive psychology; and it only becomes philosophy in a wider sense in so far as we discover that as a fact we have certain fundamental beliefs, which are thus given by experience, though they take us in a sense beyond experience. Jeffrey, reviewing Stewart"s life of Reid, in the _Edinburgh Review_ of 1804, makes a significant inference from this.
Bacon"s method, he said, had succeeded in the physical sciences, because there we could apply experiment. But experiment is impossible in the science of mind; and therefore philosophy will never be anything but a plaything or a useful variety of gymnastic. Stewart replied at some length in his _Essays_,[168] fully accepting the general conception, but arguing that the experimental method was applicable to the science of mind. Jeffrey observes that it was now admitted that the "profoundest reasonings" had brought us back to the view of the vulgar, and this, too, is admitted by Stewart so far as the cardinal doctrine of "the common sense" philosophy, the theory of perception, is admitted.
From this, again, it follows that the "notions we annex to the words Matter and Mind are merely relative."[169] We know that mind exists as we know that matter exists; or, if anything, we know the existence of mind more certainly because more directly. The mind is suggested by "the subjects of our consciousness"; the body by the objects "of our perception." But, on the other hand, we are totally "ignorant of the essence of either."[170] We can discover the laws either of mental or moral phenomena; but a law, as he explains, means in strictness nothing but a "general fact."[171] It is idle, therefore, to explain the nature of the union between the two unknowable substances; we can only discover that they are united and observe the laws according to which one set of phenomena corresponds to the other. From a misunderstanding of this arise all the fallacies of scholastic ontology, "the most idle and absurd speculation that ever employed the human faculties."[172] The destruction of that pseudo-science was the great glory of Bacon and Locke; and Reid has now discovered the method by which we may advance to the establishment of a truly inductive "philosophy of mind."
It is not surprising that Stewart approximates in various directions to the doctrines of the empirical school. He leans towards them whenever he does not see the results to which he is tending. Thus, for example, he is a thoroughgoing nominalist;[173] and on this point he deserts the teaching of Reid. He defends against Reid the attack made by Berkeley and Hume upon "abstract ideas." Rosmini,[174] in an elaborate criticism, complains that Stewart did not perceive the inevitable tendency of nominalism to materialism.[175] Stewart, in fact, accepts a good deal of Horne Tooke"s doctrine,[176] though calling Tooke an "ingenious grammarian, not a very profound philosopher," but holds, as we shall see, that the materialistic tendency can be avoided. As becomes a nominalist, he attacks the syllogism upon grounds more fully brought out by J. S. Mill. Upon another essential point, he agrees with the pure empiricists. He accepts Hume"s view of causation in all questions of physical science. In natural philosophy, he declares causation means only conjunction. The senses can never give us the "efficient" cause of any phenomenon. In other words, we can never see a "necessary connection" between any two events. He collects pa.s.sages from earlier writers to show how Hume had been antic.i.p.ated; and holds that Bacon"s inadequate view of this truth was a main defect in his theories.[177]
Hence we have a characteristic conclusion. He says, when discussing the proofs of the existence of G.o.d,[178] that we have an "irresistible conviction of the _necessity_ of a cause" for every change. Hume, however, has shown that this can never be a logical necessity. It must then, argues Stewart, be either a "prejudice" or an "intuitive judgment." Since it is shown by "universal consent" not to be a prejudice, it must be an intuitive judgment. Thus Hume"s facts are accepted; but his inference denied. The actual causal nexus is inscrutable. The conviction that there must be a connection between events attributed by Hume to "custom" is attributed by Stewart to intuitive belief. Stewart infers that Hume"s doctrine is really favourable to theology. It implies that G.o.d gives us the conviction, and perhaps, as Malebranche held, that G.o.d is "the constantly operating efficient Cause in the material world."[179] Stewart"s successor, Thomas Brown, took up this argument on occasion of the once famous "Leslie controversy"; and Brown"s teaching was endorsed by James Mill and by John Stuart Mill.
According to J. S. Mill, James Mill and Stewart represented opposite poles of philosophic thought. I shall have to consider this dictum hereafter. On the points already noticed Stewart must be regarded as an ally rather than an opponent of the Locke and Hume tradition. Like them he appeals unhesitatingly to experience, and cannot find words strong enough to express his contempt for "ontological" and scholastic methods.
His "intuitions" are so far very harmless things, which fall in with common sense, and enable him to hold without further trouble the beliefs which, as a matter of fact, are held by everybody. They are an excuse for not seeking any ultimate explanation in reason. He is, indeed, opposed to the school which claimed to be the legitimate successor to Locke, but which evaded Hume"s scepticism by diverging towards materialism. The great representative of this doctrine in England had been Hartley, and in Stewart"s day Hartley"s lead had been followed by Priestley, who attacked Reid from a materialist point of view, by Priestley"s successor, Thomas Belsham, and by Erasmus Darwin. We find Stewart, in language which reminds us of later controversy, denouncing the "Darwinian School"[180] for theories about instinct incompatible with the doctrine of final causes. It might appear that a philosopher who has re-established the objective existence of s.p.a.ce in opposition to Berkeley, was in danger of that materialism which had been Berkeley"s bugbear. But Stewart escapes the danger by his a.s.sertion that our knowledge of matter is "relative" or confined to phenomena. Materialism is for him a variety of ontology, involving the a.s.sumption that we know the essence of matter. To speak with Hartley of "vibrations," animal spirits, and so forth, is to be led astray by a false a.n.a.logy. We can discover the laws of correspondence of mind and body, but not the ultimate nature of either.[181] Thus he regards the "physiological metaphysics of the present day" as an "idle waste of labour and ingenuity on questions to which the human mind is altogether incompetent."[182] The principles found by inductive observation are as independent of these speculations as Newton"s theory of gravitation of an ultimate mechanical cause of gravitation.
Hartley"s followers, however, could drop the "vibration" theory; and their doctrine then became one of "a.s.sociation of ideas." To this famous theory, which became the sheet-anchor of the empirical school, Stewart is not altogether opposed. We find him speaking of "indissoluble a.s.sociation" in language which reminds us of the Mills.[183] Hume had spoken of a.s.sociation as comparable to gravitation--the sole principle by which our "ideas" and "impressions" are combined into a whole; a theory, of course, corresponding to his doctrine of "belief" as a mere custom of a.s.sociating. Stewart uses the principle rather as Locke had done, as explaining fallacies due to "casual a.s.sociations." It supposes, as he says, the previous existence of certain principles, and cannot be an ultimate explanation. The only question can be at what point we have reached an "original principle," and are therefore bound to stop our a.n.a.lysis.[184] Over this question he glides rather too lightly, as is his custom; but from his point of view the belief, for example, in an external world, cannot be explained by a.s.sociation, inasmuch as it reveals itself as an ultimate datum.
In regard to the physical sciences, then, Stewart"s position approximates very closely to the purely "empirical" view. When we come to a different application of his principles, we find him taking a curiously balanced position between different schools. "Common sense"
naturally wishes to adapt itself to generally accepted beliefs; and with so flexible a doctrine as that of "intuitions" it is not difficult to discover methods of proving the ordinary dogmas. Stewart"s theology is characteristic of this tendency. He describes the so-called _a priori_ proof, as formulated by Clarke. But without denying its force, he does not like to lay stress upon it. He dreads "ontology" too much. He therefore considers that the argument at once most satisfactory to the philosopher and most convincing to ordinary men is the argument from design. The belief in G.o.d is not "intuitive," but follows immediately from two first principles: the principle that whatever exists has a cause, and the principle that a "combination of means implies a designer."[185] The belief in a cause arises on our perception of change as our belief in the external world arises upon our sensations. The belief in design must be a "first principle" because it includes a belief in "necessity" which cannot arise from mere observation of "contingent truths."[186] Hence Stewart accepts the theory of final causes as stated by Paley. Though Paley"s ethics offended him, he has nothing but praise for the work upon _Natural Theology_.[187] Thus, although "common sense" does not enable us to lay down the central doctrine of theology as a primary truth, it does enable us to interpret experience in theological terms. In other words, his theology is of the purely empirical kind, which was, as we shall see, the general characteristic of the time.
In Stewart"s discussion of ethical problems the same doctrine of "final causes" a.s.sumes a special importance. Stewart, as elsewhere, tries to hold an intermediate position; to maintain the independence of morality without committing himself to the "ontological" or purely logical view; and to show that virtue conduces to happiness without allowing that its dictates are to be deduced from its tendency to produce happiness. His doctrine is to a great extent derived from the teaching of Hutcheson and Bishop Butler. He really approximates most closely to Hutcheson, who takes a similar view of Utilitarianism, but he professes the warmest admiration of Butler. He explicitly accepts Butler"s doctrine of the "supremacy of the conscience"--a doctrine which as he says, the bishop, "has placed in the strongest and happiest light."[188] He endeavours, again, to approximate to the "intellectual school," of which Richard Price (1723-1791) was the chief English representative at the time. Like Kant, Price deduces the moral law from principles of pure reason. The truth of the moral law, "Thou shalt do to others as you wish that they should do to you," is as evident as the truth of the law in geometry, "things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other."
Stewart so far approves that he wishes to give to the moral law what is now called all possible "objectivity," while the "moral sense" of Hutcheson apparently introduced a "subjective" element. He holds, however, that our moral perceptions "involve a feeling of the heart," as well as a "judgment of the understanding,"[189] and ascribes the same view to Butler. But then, by using the word "reason" so as to include the whole nature of a rational being, we may ascribe to it the "origin of those simple ideas which are not excited in the mind by the operation of the senses, but which arise in consequence of the operation of the intellectual powers among the various objects."[190] Hutcheson, he says, made his "moral sense" unsatisfactory by taking his ill.u.s.trations from the "secondary" instead of the "primary qualities,"[191] and thus with the help of intuitive first principles, Stewart succeeds in believing that it would be as hard for a man to believe that he ought to sacrifice another man"s happiness to his own as to believe that three angles of a triangle are equal to one right angle.[192] It is true that a feeling and a judgment are both involved; but the "intellectual judgment" is the groundwork of the feeling, not the feeling of the judgment.[193] In spite, however, of this attempt to a.s.similate his principles to those of the intellectual school, the substance of Stewart"s ethics is essentially psychological. It rests, in fact, upon his view that philosophy depends upon inductive psychology, and, therefore, essentially upon experience subject to the cropping up of convenient "intuitions."
This appears from the nature of his argument against the Utilitarians.
In his time, this doctrine was a.s.sociated with the names of Hartley, Tucker, G.o.dwin, and especially Paley. He scarcely refers to Bentham.[194] Paley is the recognised anvil for the opposite school. Now he agrees, as I have said, with Paley"s view of natural theology and entirely accepts therefore the theory of "final causes." The same theory becomes prominent in his ethical teaching. We may perhaps say that Stewart"s view is in substance an inverted Utilitarianism. It may be best ill.u.s.trated by an argument familiar in another application. Paley and his opponents might agree that the various instincts of an animal are so const.i.tuted that in point of fact they contribute to his preservation and his happiness. But from one point of view this appears to be simply to say that the conditions of existence necessitate a certain harmony, and that the harmony is therefore to be a consequence of his self-preservation. From the opposite point of view, which Stewart accepts, it appears that the self-preservation is the consequence of a pre-established harmony, which has been divinely appointed in order that he may live. Stewart, in short, is a "teleologist" of the Paley variety.
Psychology proves the existence of design in the moral world, as anatomy or physiology proves it in the physical.
Stewart therefore fully agrees that virtue generally produces happiness.
If it be true (a doctrine, he thinks, beyond our competence to decide) that "the sole principle of action in the Deity" is benevolence, it may be that he has commanded us to be virtuous because he sees virtue to be useful. In this case utility may be the final cause of morality; and the fact that virtue has this tendency gives the plausibility to utilitarian systems.[195] But the key to the difficulty is the distinction between "final" and "efficient" causes; for the efficient cause of morality is not the desire for happiness, but a primitive and simple instinct, namely, the moral faculty.
Thus he rejects Paley"s notorious doctrine that virtue differs from prudence only in regarding the consequences in another world instead of consequences in this.[196] Reward and punishment "presuppose the notions of right and wrong" and cannot be the source of those notions. The favourite doctrine of a.s.sociation, by which the Utilitarians explained unselfishness, is only admissible as accounting for modifications, such as are due to education and example, but "presupposes the existence of certain principles which are common to all mankind." The evidence of such principles is established by a long and discursive psychological discussion. It is enough to say that he admits two rational principles, "self-love" and the "moral faculty," the coincidence of which is learned only by experience. The moral faculty reveals simple "ideas" of right and wrong, which are incapable of any further a.n.a.lysis. But besides these, there is a hierarchy of other instincts or desires, which he calls "implanted" because "for aught we know" they may be of "arbitrary appointment."[197] Resentment, for example, is an implanted instinct, of which the "final cause" is to defend us against "sudden violence."[198]
Stewart"s a.n.a.lysis is easygoing and suggests more problems than it solves. The general position, however, is clear enough, and not, I think, without much real force as against the Paley form of utilitarianism.
The acceptance of the doctrine of "final causes" was the inevitable course for a philosopher who wishes to retain the old creeds and yet to appeal unequivocally to experience. It suits the amiable optimism for which Stewart is noticeable. To prove the existence of a perfect deity from the evidence afforded by the world, you must of course take a favourable view of the observable order. Stewart shows the same tendency in his Political Economy, where he is Adam Smith"s disciple, and fully shares Smith"s beliefs that the harmony between the interests of the individual and the interests of the society is an evidence of design in the Creator of mankind. In this respect Stewart differs notably from Butler, to whose reasonings he otherwise owed a good deal. With Butler the conscience implies a dread of divine wrath and justifies the conception of a world alienated from its maker. Stewart"s "moral faculty" simply recognises or reveals the moral law; but carries no suggestion of supernatural penalties. The doctrines by which Butler attracted some readers and revolted others throw no shadow over his writings. He is a placid enlightened professor, whose real good feeling and frequent shrewdness should not be overlooked in consequence of the rather desultory and often superficial mode of reasoning. This, however, suggests a final remark upon Stewart"s position.
In the preface[199] to his _Active and Moral Powers_ (1828) Stewart apologises for the large s.p.a.ce given to the treatment of Natural Religion. The lectures, he says, which form the substance of the book, were given at a time when "enlightened zeal for liberty" was a.s.sociated with the "reckless boldness of the uncompromising freethinker." He wished, therefore, to show that a man could be a liberal without being an atheist. This gives the position characteristic of Stewart and his friends. The group of eminent men who made Edinburgh a philosophical centre was thoroughly in sympathy with the rationalist movement of the eighteenth century. The old dogmatic system of belief could be held very lightly even by the more educated clergy. Hume"s position is significant. He could lay down the most unqualified scepticism in his writings; but he always regarded his theories as intended for the enlightened; he had no wish to disturb popular beliefs in theology, and was a strong Tory in politics. His friends were quite ready to take him upon that footing. The politeness with which "Mr. Hume"s" speculations are noticed by men like Stewart and Reid is in characteristic contrast to the reception generally accorded to more popular sceptics. They were intellectual curiosities not meant for immediate application. The real opinion of such men as Adam Smith and Stewart was probably a rather vague and optimistic theism. In the professor"s chair they could talk to lads intended for the ministry without insulting such old Scottish prejudice (there was a good deal of it) as survived: and could cover rationalising opinions under language which perhaps might have a different meaning for their hearers. The position was necessarily one of tacit compromise. Stewart considers himself to be an inductive philosopher appealing frankly to experience and reason; and was in practice a man of thoroughly liberal and generous feelings. He was heartily in favour of progress as he understood it. Only he will not sacrifice common sense; that is to say, the beliefs which are in fact prevalent and congenial to existing inst.i.tutions. Common sense, of course, condemns extremes: and if logic seems to be pushing a man towards scepticism in philosophy or revolution in practice, he can always protest by the convenient device of intuitions.
I have gone so far in order to ill.u.s.trate the nature of the system which the Utilitarians took to be the ant.i.thesis of their own. It may be finally remarked that at present both sides were equally ignorant of contemporary developments of German thought. When Stewart became aware that there was such a thing as Kant"s philosophy, he tried to read it in a Latin version. Parr, I may observe, apparently did not know of this version, and gave up the task of reading German. Stewart"s example was not encouraging. He had abandoned the "undertaking in despair" partly from the scholastic barbarism of the style, partly "my utter inability to comprehend the author"s meaning." He recognises similarity between Kant and Reid, but thinks Reid"s simple statement of the fact that s.p.a.ce cannot be derived from the senses more philosophical than Kant"s "superstructure of technical mystery."[200]
I have dwelt upon the side in which Stewart"s philosophy approximates to the empirical school, because the Utilitarians were apt to misconceive the position. They took Stewart to be the adequate representative of all who accepted one branch of an inevitable dilemma. The acceptance of "intuitions," that is, was the only alternative to thoroughgoing acceptance of "experience." They supposed, too, that persons vaguely described as "Kant and the Germans" taught simply a modification of the "intuitionist" view. I have noticed how emphatically Stewart claimed to rely upon experience and to base his philosophy upon inductive psychology, and was so far admitting the first principles and the general methods of his opponents. The Scottish philosophy, however, naturally presented itself as an antagonistic force to the Utilitarians.
The "intuitions" represented the ultimate ground taken, especially in religious and ethical questions, by men who wished to be at once liberal philosophers and yet to avoid revolutionary extremes. "Intuitions" had in any case a negative value, as protests against the sufficiency of the empirical a.n.a.lysis. It might be quite true, for example, that Hume"s a.n.a.lysis of certain primary mental phenomena--of our belief in the external world or of the relation of cause and effect--was radically insufficient. He had not given an adequate explanation of the facts. The recognition of the insufficiency of his reasoning was highly important if only as a stimulus to inquiry. It was a warning to his and to Hartley"s followers that they had not thoroughly unravelled the perplexity but only cut the knot. But when the insufficiency of the explanation was interpreted as a demonstration that all explanation was impossible, and the "intuition" an ultimate "self-evident" truth, it became a refusal to inquire just where inquiry was wanted; a positive command to stop a.n.a.lysis at an arbitrary point; and a round a.s.sertion that the adversary could not help believing precisely the doctrine which he altogether declined to believe. Naturally the empiricists refused to bow to an authority which was simply saying, "Don"t inquire further,"
without any ground for the prohibition except the "_ipse dixitism_"
which declared that inquiry must be fruitless. Stewart, in fact, really ill.u.s.trated the equivocation between the two meanings of "common sense."
If by that name he understood, as he professed to understand, ultimate "laws of thought," his position was justifiable as soon as he could specify the laws and prove that they were ultimate. But so far as he virtually took for granted that the average beliefs of intelligent people were such laws, and on that ground refused to examine the evidence of their validity, he was inconsistent, and his position only invited a.s.sault. As a fact, I believe that his "intuitions" covered many most disputable propositions; and that the more clearly they were stated, the more they failed to justify his interpretations. He was not really answering the most vital and critical questions, but implicitly reserving them, and putting an arbitrary stop to investigations desirable on his own principles.
The Scottish philosophy was, however, accepted in England, and made a considerable impression in France, as affording a tenable barrier against scepticism. It was, as I have said, in philosophy what Whiggism was in politics. Like political Whiggism it included a large element of enlightened and liberal rationalism; but like Whiggism it covered an aversion to thoroughgoing logic. The English politician was suspicious of abstract principles, but could cover his acceptance of tradition and rule of thumb by general phrases about liberty and toleration. The Whig in philosophy equally accepted the traditional creed, sufficiently purified from cruder elements, and sheltered his doctrine by speaking of "intuitions and laws of thought." In both positions there was really, I take it, a great deal of sound practical wisdom; but they also implied a marked reluctance to push inquiry too far, and a tacit agreement to be content with what the Utilitarians denounced as "vague generalities"--phrases, that is, which might be used either to conceal an underlying scepticism, or really to stop short in the path which led to scepticism. In philosophy as in politics, the Utilitarians boasted of being thoroughgoing Radicals, and hated compromises which to them appeared to be simply obstructive.
I need not elaborate a point which will meet us again. If I were writing a history of thought in general I should have to notice other writers, though there were none of much distinction, who followed the teaching of Stewart or of his opponents of the Hartley and Darwin school. It would be necessary also to insist upon the growing interest in the physical sciences, which were beginning not only to make enormous advances, but to attract popular attention. For my purpose, however, it is I think sufficient to mention these writers, each of whom had a very special relation to the Utilitarians. I turn, therefore, to Bentham.
NOTES: