filosofía griega y modernapdf

7/27/2019 filosofa griega y modernapdf

1/25

Mind Association

The Relation of Greek Philosophy to Modern ThoughtAuthor(s): Alfred W. BennReviewed work(s):Source: Mind, Vol. 7, No. 26 (Apr., 1882), pp. 231-254

Published by: Oxford University Presson behalf of the Mind AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2246450.

Accessed: 14/09/2012 15:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University PressandMind Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toMind.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2246450?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2246450?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/25

I. -THE RELATION OF GlPEEK PHILOSOPHY TOMODERN THOUGHT.II.

THE autlhorfthe Leviathan as sometimeseen representedas onewho carriedhe BaconianMethod ntopolitics nd pre-pared thewayfor ts morethoroughpplication o psychologyby Locke. But thisview,whichregards hethreegreat eadersof Englishphilosophyn the seventeenthenturys successivelinks n a connectederies,s a misapprehensionfhistory hichcouldonlyhave arisen hroug,heavingouit f account he con-temporaryevelopmentfContinental peculation,ndthroughthe nveterateabit f ooking n themodern istinctionetweenempiricismnd transcendentalisms a fundamentalntithesisdividingthe philosophers f everyepoch into two opposingschools. The truths that, f the threewritersust mentionedagree n deriving knowledgeolelyfrom xperience,hey greein nothing lse; andthattheirunanimityn thisone pointdoesnotamount o much,will be evidentfwe considerwhateachunderstoody thenotion n question. With Bacon, xperiencewas thenegation f mere uthority, hetheraking heform fnaturalprejudice,f individual repossession,fhollowphrases,or of established ystems. The questionhow we comebythatknowledgewhichall agreeto be the most ertain,s leftun-touchedn his ogic; either f the currentnswerswould havesuited his systemequally well; nor is thereany reasonforbelieving hathewould have sidedwithMill rather hanwithKant respecting he originof mathematical xioms. WithLocke, experiencemeant heanalysis f notions nd judg,mentsinto the simpledata of sense and self-consciousness;nidtheexperientialistsfthepresentdayarebeyond ll doubthisdis-ciples; but the parentageof his philosophy, o far as it issimiply denial of innate ideas,must be sought,not in theNovutmOrganum,or n anyothermodernwork, ut n the oldOrgsanonfAristotle,r n thecommentsftheSchoolmenwhofollowedAristotlen protestinggainst he Platonismof theirtime,ust as Lockeprotestedgainst hePlatonism f Descartesand Malebranche. The experience fHobbes differsoth inorigin nd applicationfromither fthese. Withhim, enisibleimpressionsre nota.courtof appeal againsttraditionaludg-ments, oryet are theythe ultimate lements nto whichallideas maybe analysed; they are the channelsthroughwhichpulsatingmovementsre conveyed nto the mind,and thesemovements,gain,representhe actionof nmechanicalorces r


3/25

232 The Relation f Greek hilosophyoAfodernhought.the will ofa paramountuthority.Andhe holds thisdoctrine,partly s a logical consequence f his materialism,artly s asafeguardagainst the theologicalpretensionswhich,in hisopinion,rea constant hreat o socialorder. The authority fthe politicalsovereigns menacedonithe one hand by Papalinfallibility,nd on the other yrebelliousubjectsputtingfor-warda claimto supernaturalnspiration. To thePope,Hlobbessays: You are violating he law of natureby professingoderivefromGod what is reallygiven onlyby the consentofmen, nd can only be given bythem otheir temporalhead-theright o impose particular eligion. To the Puritan hesays: Your inward lluminations a superstitious ream, ndyou havenoright o use it as a pretextforbreakinghe king'speace. Religionhas reallynothingo do withthesupernatural;it is only particularwayof nculcatingbedience othenaturalcoinditionsfsocialunion.Again,Hobbes differs hollyfromBaconin the deductivecharacter fhismethod. His logic s the old syllogistic ystemnreorganised n the model ofmathematical nalysis. Like allthe great thinkers f his time,he was a geometriciannd amechanicalphysicist,easoning romgeneraltoparticular ro-positions nd descending rom auses to effects.' His famoustheory f a social contracts a rationalconstruction,ot a his-toricalnarrative. But though mathematician;e shows notracesof Platonic influenCe.He is therefore ll the moregoverned yAtomist nd Stoic modesof thought. He treatshumannature,ingle ndassociated,s GalileoandDescarteshadtreatedmotion nd space. Like them, oo,he finds imself nconstant ntagonismo Aristotle. The descriptionf man as asocial animal is disdainfully ejected, nd the politicalunionresolvedntoan equilibriumfmanyopposingwills maintainedby violentpressurefroinwithout. In ethics,no less than inphysics,we find attractive orcesreplaced by mechanical m-pacts.Whileth% nalysisof Hobbes goes much deeperthanAris-totle's, he graspof his reconstructiveynthesis s wider andstrongern at least an equal proportion.Recognising he goodofthewholeas thesupreme ule ofconduct, e givesa newin-terpretationotheparticular irtues,anddisposes f thetheorywhichmadethem mepnbetween wo extremes o less effectu-allythanhis contemporariesad disposed f thesametheorynits application o the elementaryonstitutionf matter. Andjust as theywere ided in theirrevoltagainstAristotle ythe

1This s wellbroughtut n a remarkableeries f rticles nthePhilo-sophy fHobbesrecentlyublishedyT6nniesn theVierte1jahrsschriftiirwissenschaftlichehitosopliie.


4/25

The Relation f Greek tilosophyo ModernThought.233revivalof otherGreek ystems,o also was he. The identifica-tionof usticewithpublic nterest,hough ommonly ttributedto Epicurus lone,was, ike materialism,n idea sharedbyhimwithStoicism,nd was probably mpressedn modern houghtby the weight f their nited uthority.Andwhenwe find hephilosopherf Malmesburymaking ublic happinessconsist norderand tranquillity, e cannotbut think that this was ageneralisation romthe Stoic and Epicurean conceptionsofindividualhappiness;forboth embrace he same ideal of pas-sionlessrepose.

On the other and, hissubstitutionf the social for he per-sonal ntegernvolves correspondinghange nthevaluation fpersonal eelingss such. What thepassions- ad beento laterGreekphilosophy,hatthe ndividualsoul becamie o Hobbes,something,ssentiallynfinitend insatiable,whosedesires rowas they regratified,hosehappiness,fsuch t can be called, snot a conditionf stablereposebutof perpetualmovementndunrest. Here, again, he analogybetweenphysicsand ethicsobtains. In boththerewas an originalopposition etweeniheidea of a limit nd the dea of infinite xpansion. In boththeconflict as bequeathed y ancientto modern hought. Thosewho embraced oth tudieshave alwayshad a certain endencytotake thesame side in each; but this tendency as been moredistinctlymarkedn modernhan n ancient ystems. The suc-cessors fAristotle, hile fallingback on an older cosmology,had retained is limitingmethod n theirspeculationsnman.If he and Plato beforehim had imprisoned he formless ndturbulent errestrial lementswithin a uniform nd eternalsphere fcrystal,hey mposed similar estraintn the desiresand emotions, onfininghemwithin barrier f reasonwhich,when onceerected, ouldneverbe broken hrough.And if,be-fore he Athenian chool rose, herehad beena physicalphilo-sophyof the nfinite r, s its impugnersalledit, he ndefinite,therewas, correspondingo it,a philosophy f the infinite rindefiniten ethics,represented, ot indeed by professionalmioralists,ut by rhetoriciansnd men of the world. Theirideal was not the contentedman,but the popularorator rthedespotwho revels n the consciousness f power-the ability osatisfy isdesires,whateverheymaybe. And theextreme on-sequenceof thisprinciples drawnbyPlato'sCallicleswhenhedeclares hattruehappiness onsistsn nursing ne'sdesiresupto thehighest oint twhich hey an befreelyndulged;whilehis ideal of character s the superior ndividualwho sets atnaughtwhateverrestraints ave been devised bya weakandtimidmajorityoprotect hemselvesgainsthim.The Greek love of balanced antithesis nd circumscribing


5/25

234 TheRelation fGreek hilosophyo ModernT7hought.form riumphed verthe infiniten bothfields; and altlhoug,hthegroundwon n physicswas lost againfor time throtughrevivalofold theories,hiswas because true Hellenisinfoundits onlycongenialpheren ethics, nd therethe philosophyfP'lato continued o reigil supreme. With Christianity,herecamea certainnversionfparts. The externaluniverse gainbecamle ubjectedto narrow imitations,nd theflammantiamenia mundibeyondwhichEpicurushad daredto penetrate,wereraisedup oncemore ndguiardedynewterrorss an inm-passable barriero thought. But infinityookrefuge itlhinhesoul; and,while nthis ifea sternerelf-controlhan eventhatof Stoicismwas enjoined,perspectives f illimitable elight nanotherifewere disclosed. Finally,at theRenaissanceeverybarrierwas sihmultaneouslyverthrown,nd the accumulated,energiesfwestern ivilisation xpatiated' ver fieldwhich,fitwas vast nreality,was absolutely nbounded n imaginiation.Great as were the achievementsf that age, ts dreamsweregreater till; andwhatmost xeitesour wondern theworks fitsheroesis but the fragment f an unfinished hole. Theideal of ifesetup byAristotlewas, like his conceptionf theworld, ontradicted,n every articular; nd the relativeposi-tions ssignedbyhimtoact andpowerwereprecisely eversed.It has beenshownhowShakespearereflectedhe Platonism fhis contemporaries: e reflected'alsohefierce utburst ftheirambition,nd in describingwhat theywould dare, o possesssolely overeigniower nd rnasterdomrwearwithout orrivalall the dignities f honour, e borrowed lmost he verywordsnisedbyEuripides of xpressthe feelinigsncouraged y someteachers fhis time. The same spirit s exhibited generationlater in the diamas of Calderon and Corneille, eforetheirtlioughtswereforced'ntoa differenthannelby the stressofthe Catholicreaction;while its last and highestmanifestationis the sentiment f Milton'sruined' rchangel hat' o reign nliell is better han to serve in heaven. Thus,w-henHobbesreduces ll thepassionsto modesof'the fundamentalesireforpower, e doesbutgivethe scientificheoryf thatwhich tandsproclaimiednmore hrilliingccentsbythenoblest oetry fhisage.

Whereno danger oulddeterfrom he pursuitof power, obalancing fpainwithpleasure vailed'to quenchtheardour fdesire. Withfullknowledge hatviolenit elightshaveviolentendsand intheir riumph ie, hefatefulondition asaccepted.Not onlydid GiordanoBruno,n conscious arallelismwithhistheory f matter, eclarethat withoutmutation, ariety ndvicissitudenothingwould be agreeable,nothinggood,nothingdelightful, hat enjoyment onsists solely in transition nd


6/25

SheRelation fGreek hilosophyoModern hought.235movement, nd that all pleasure lies midway between thepainful onging f fresh ppetite nd the sadnessof its satiationand extinction; but the sedaterwisdomof Bacon, n touchingon the controversy etween Callicles and Socrates, eems toincline owards he side of the former; nd in all caseswarnsmen not o make too muchof the inconvenieincesttendanitnpleasure, ut so toproGureerenity s they destroy ot mag-nanimity .2These, hen,were the principal lements f the philosophicalReniaissance. First, herewas a certain urvival fAristotelian-ism as a method of comprehensivend logical arrangement.Then therewas the new Platonism, ringing.longwithit arevival of either Alexandrianor mediaeval pantheism, ndclosely ssociatedwithgeomnetricaltudies; Thirdly,herewasthe old GreekAtomism,s originally et forth yDemocritus ras re-editedcy Epicurus, raditionallynfavourableo theologry,potent like fordecompositionnld econstruction,onfirmedythe new astronomy,nd lendino ts method o the reformationof matlhematics; ext the later Greek ethical systems; andfinally he formless dea of infinite owerwhich ll Greek ys-temiisad, ss uch, onspired o suppress, ut which, evertheless,badplayed a greatpart n theearlier tages f Greek peculationbothphysical nd moral.Onthesefoundationshe ofty difice fSpinozismwasreared;ouitof these materials ts composite tructurewas built; andwithout previous tudy fthem t cannotbe understood.WhetherSpinoza ever read Plato is doubtful. One hardlysees whyhe shouldhave neglected writerwhoseworks wereeasily accessible, nd at that timeverypopularwith thinkinguminds. Butwhether e was acquaintedwiththe Dialogues atfirsthandor not,Plato will help us to understand pinoza,foritwas through he doorofgeometryhathe entered hilosophy,and underthe guidance of one who was saturatedwith thePlatonic spirit; so far as Christianitynfluenced im, t wasthroug,h lementsderivedfroinPlato; and hlis metaphysIicalmethodwas onewhich,more than any other,would lhavebeenwelcomedwith elight ythe uthor f heJenoand theBepublic,as an attempt orealisehis own dialectical deal. For Spinozismis,onthe faceof it, an application f geometrical easoning ophilosophy,nd especially o ethics. It is also an attempt oprove transcendentally hat geometricians nly assume-thenecessity fspace. Now, Plato looked on geomietricalemon-stration s the great typeof certainty,he scientificompletion

1' Spaccio della Bestica rionfante,ub in.2 JdvancermentfLearning, llis & Spedding,II., 428.


7/25

236 TheReltationfGreek hilosophyoModernThought.ofwhatSocrateshadbegunbyhis interrogative ethod,heonemeans ofcarryingrrefragableonvictionntoeverydepartmentofknowledge,ndmore articularlyntothestudy fourhighestgood. On the otherhand he saw thatgeometriciansssumewhat tselfrequires o be demonstrated;ndhe confidentlyx-pected hat hedeficiencyouldbesuppliedbyhisownprojectedmethod f transcenidentalialectics. Suchat leastseemstobethedrift f thefollowing assage: CCWhen speak of thedivi-sion ofthe nitellectual,oluwill also understandme to speak ofthatknowledgewhichreason herself ttainsby the powerofdialectic, singthe hypotheses ot as first rinciples,ut onlyas hypotheses-that s to say as steps and pointsof departureinto a- egionwhich s abovehypotheses,n orderthat she maysoarbeyond hem othefirst rinciple f thewhole; andclingingto this and thento thatwhichdependson this,bysuccessivestepsshedescendsagainwithout heaid ofanysensibleobject,beginningnd endingn ideas .The problem,hen,whichSpinoza set himselfwas, first, oaccount or hefundamentalssumptionsf all science, ndmoreparticularlyfgeometry,ydeducing hemfrom single self-evident rinciple; nd thentousethatprinciple or he solutionofwhatever roblemseemed ostandmost n need of tsappli-cation. And, s usuallyhappensnsuch adventurousnterprises,thesupposed nswer fpurereasonwas obtainedbycombiningorexpanding onceptions orrowed ithout riticism rompre-existing ystems fphilosophy.Descarteshad already ccomplished greatsimplificationfthespeculative roblem ysumming p all existence nder thetwoheads ofextensionndthought. t remainedo accountforthese, nd to reducetheni o a single dea. As we have seen,theywerederived romGreekphilosophy,nd the bondwhichwas tounite hemmustbe sought or n the same direction. Itwillbe rememberedhatthesystems fPlato andAristotle erebounded t eitherextremityy a determinatend byan inde-terminate rinciple. With the one, existencerangedbetweentheIdea ofGoodat theupper ndofthe scale and empty paceat the lower; withthe other, etween absoluteThought ndFirstMatter. It was bycombininghe two definiteerms,paceand thouight,hatDescarteshad constructed is system;andafter ubtractinghesethe two ndefiniteermsremained. Inone respect heywere even moreopposed to each otherthanwerethe termswithwhich heyhadbeenrespectivelyssociated.The Idea ofGoodrepresentednity,dentity,nd constancy,sagainst lurality,ifference,nd change;whileAristotle's atter

1Republic I. 511, n Jowett's rans. II. 398.


8/25

The Relationof Greek hilosophyoModernThought. 237was byits verydefinitionmultiform,luctuating,nd indeter-minate. Nevertheless,herewere equally important nalogiestraceable etween hem. No very lear account ould be givenof either, ndbothwerecustomarilyescribed y negatives. IfMatterfell hort fcomplete xistence,he Good transcendedllexistence. If the one was a universalcapacityfor assumingForms, he otherwas the sourcewhence all Forms proceeded.Whenthedistinctiveharacteristicsf n individualwere houghtaway,the questionmightwellbe mooted ntowhichprincipleitwouldreturn. The ambiguous se ofthe word Powercontri-buted still further o their identification,or it was not lessapplicable othe receptivehan otheproductiveaculty. Now,we have ust seen nto what mportancehe dea of Power sud-denly prang t the Renaissance:with Bruno it was the onlyabiding reality f nature; withHobbes it was the only objectof humandesire.Another erm ccuipyingveryargeplace nAristotle's hilo-sophywas well adaptedto mediatebetweenand eventuallyounite the two speculative xtremes. This was Substance; inlogicthesubjectofpredication,n metaphysicshe substratumof qualities, he ovicoiaor Being of the Ten Categories. Now,FirstMattermight airly laim the position fa universal ub-jector ubstance,ince twas investedwith very ensible ualityin turn; nd even, s the common lement f all Forms,withevery hinkable uality s well. Aristotlehimselfhad finallypronouncedor he ndividual ompound f Formand Matter sthetrue ubstance. Yet he also speaks s if the essential efini-tionof a thing onstitutedhething tself;inwhichcase Forrmalone could be the true subject; and a similar laimmightbeput forwardn behalf f the PlotinianOne.Suchwerethea priori elementswhich historical ynthesishad prepared o satisfyhe want of a metaphysicalAbsolute.Let us now see what resultwould followwlhen he newly-recovereddea of spacewas subjected oa metaphysicalnalysis.Extension s bothoneand infinite.No particular rea can beconceivedpartfromhewholewhichboth ontainsndexplainsit. Again,extension s absolutelyhomogeneous; o whateverdistancewemay ravel nimaginationherewillstillbethe amerepetitionfsimilar arts. But space,with he Cartesians, eantmore han a simple uxtapositionf parts; having een madetheessenceofmatter,t *as investedwithmechanical s well aswithgeometricalroperties.The bodies intowhich t resolveditselfwere conceived s moving, nd as communicatingheirmovemento one another hrouglhn unbroken hain of causa-tion in which each constituted single link,determiningnddeterminedytherest; so that, ere lso, achpartwasexplained


9/25

238 The Relation f Greek hilosophyoModernThougAt.byreferenceo an infinite hole, epro(lucingTts essence,whileexempt romhe condition f circumscribedxistence. We canunderstand,hen, that when'the necessityof accountingforextension tself nce becamefelt, he natural olutionwould beto conceive t as holding hesamneelation o somegreater holewhich its own subdivisions eld to theirsum total; in otherwords t shouldbe at oncea part, n emnianation,nd an imageoftheultimate eality, hich n turn ouldbe only conceived sits inultiplicationid infinitum.The direction n whicha methodfor explainingThoughtwould mostreadily uggesttself,was givenbothin the properformfthinlking,nd in its presumed arallelisin ith xtension.Speakinaphilosophically,o thinkwas to reason, nd to reasonwas tosubsume lowerunder higheror more ulniversalon-cept, o resolve ll subjectsntoa singlepredicate,rto connectall predicateswith a singlesubject; and owing oAristotle'sconfusionfformalwith efficientauses, his processwas con-sidereddenitical ith hatbywhichwe rise to the knowledgeofdetermininigntecedentsn theexternalworld.Spinozagathered p all thethreads f speculationhusmadereadyforhis grasp,whenhe defined od as a substancecon-sisting f nfinitettributes,achof which xpresses iis nfiniteand eternal ssence; subsequentlydding hat the essenceherespokenif s Power, ndthat two of the infinite ttributes re.ExtensionndThought, hereofheparticularhingsknown ous are nodes. If, now,we ask whythereshould be such anexistence s space, he answer s because existence, eing in-finite,mustniecessarilyncludeeveryconceivable hing. Thearguments strikinglyike a principle f the Epicureanphilo-sophy, ndmaywellhave beensuggested y t. AccordinigoLucretius,heappearance f design n our worldneed not beattributedocreativentelligence,ecause nfinitetomsmovingin infinitemanners hroughnfilniteime,mustat length rrive,after comprehensiveeries fexperiments,t thepresent rameofthings'; and the sameprinciples invoked na smaller caleto accountfor heorigin forganised eings, fmemory,nd ofcivilsociety.2 In both systems nfinitepace is the root-con-ception;butwhatLucretiushad legitimatelysed to explainbecoming, pinoza illegitimatelypplies to the elucidationofbeinig. At one stroke ll empiricalknowledge s placedon an

- Quiamultimodis,uLltis,mutata, eromneEx infinitoexanturercita lagis,Omnegenusmotus,t cetusexperiundo,Tandemdeveniuntntaleisdisposituras,QualibuLsaecrebus onsistituiuma reata.-I., 1023-7.2V. 853, V. 780-800, . 1025.


10/25

TheRelationofGreek hilosophyo ModernThotught. 39a priori founldation.By assuming nlimited redit t the bankof the universewe entitle urselves o draw a cheque foraniyparticular mount. Thus the idea of infinite ttributes s nonmereollateral peculation, ut forms n essenltial lement ofSpinozism. The knownvarieties f existence re, o to speak,surrounded,upported,ndfixedn their places by the endlessmultitudefthe unknown. And this conceptionif being asabsolutely lifinite,s anotherproofof Spinoza's Platonic teii-dencies, or t involves he realisation f an abstractdea, hat sto say, of Being,,which the philosopher reats as somethingmore comprehensivehanthe factsof consciousness hence tis derived.Therelation fSpinoza's Substance to its attributes s am-biguous. It is at once theircause, theirtotality, nd theirunity. The highlyelastic and indefiniteerm Power helpedthese various aspects to play inlto and replace one anotheraccording o therequirementsf the system. It is associatedwiththe subjectivepossibility f multiplyingmaginary xist-ences to any amount;with the- ausal energyn whichexis-tenceoriginates; ndwith heexpansiveness haracteristiclikeof Extension nd of Thought. For the two knownattributesof the universalsubstalice are not simply related to it asco-predicatesf a common ubject; they everally xpress tsessentialPower,and are, to that extent, denticalwith oneanother. Butwhenwe ask,How do they xpressPower? thesameambiguityecurs. Substance srevealed hrougLhts attri-butes as a cause throughtseffects; s an aggregatehroughtsconstituents; nd as an abstractnotionthroug,hts concreteembodiments. Thus Extension and Thought are identicalthrough-theirerydifferences,ilnce heseillustrate he versa-tility f their ommon ource. nd at thesametime ointly on-tributeo therealisation f tsperfection. But,for ll practicalpurposes, pinoza deals onlywith the parallelism nd resem-blanceoftheattributes.We haveto see howhe establishest,anldhowfar he was helped in so doing bythe traditions fGreekphilosophy.It has been alreadyshown how Extension,having becomeidentified itlhmatter,ook on its mechanical ualities, ndwasconceived s a connected eriesof causes or lodes of motion.Theparallelfoundby Spinoza forthis series is the chain ofreasons and conseque-ntsorming demonstrativergument;and here he is obviouslyfollowingAristotle,who althoughostensibly istinauishing etween formal nd efficientauses,hopelesslyonfouiids hem n the second book of his PosteriorAnalytics. We are said to understand thingwhenwe bringit under generalrule,andwhen we discoverthe mechanical


11/25

240 TheBelation fGreek hilosophyoModernThought.agencywhichproducest. For instance,we may knowthataparticularman will die,eitherfrom he fact that all men aremortal, r from he fact that he has receiveda fatalwound.The general ule,however,s not the causeof whatwillhappen,but onlythe cause of our knowing hat it will happen; andknowledge fthe rule byno means carrieswith it a knowledgeof the efficientause, s we see in the case of gravitationndothernaturalforceswhosemodus perandi s still a completemystery.WhatdeceivedAristotlewas partlyhisfalseanalysisof the syllogismwhichhe interpreteds the connexionof twoterms y the nterpositionfa middle answering o the causalnexusoftwophenomena; ndpartlyhis conceptionf the uni-verse s a seriesof concentricpheresthroughwhichmovementis transmittedromwithout,hus combining he two ideas ofnotional omprehensionnd inechanical ausation. Be this asit may, pinozatakesuptheAristoteliandentificationf ogicalwithdynamical onnexion,ndgives it the widest possiblede-velopment. For the Stagiritewould not, at any rate, havedreamed fattributingnybuta subjective xistence othede-monstrativeeries, or of extendingt beyondthe limits f ouractual knowledge. Spinoza,on the otherhand,assumes thatthewhole nfinitehainofmaterialcauses is represented yacorrespondinghain of eternal deas; and this chain he callsthe nfinite ntellectof God. Here,besidesthe necessities f;systematisation,he influence f mediaevalrealislms plainlyevident. For,whenthe absolute elf-existencef Plato's Ideashad been surrenderedn deference o Aristotle's riticism,homewas stillfound or hembyPlotinus n the eternalNous,and bythe Christian choolmenn the mindof God; nordidsucha belief resent nydifficultieso long as the divineper-sonalitywas respected. The pantheism,f Spinoza,however,was absolute, nd excluded he notionof any buta finite ub-jectivity. Thus the nfinitentellect fGod is an unsupportedchain of ideas recalling he theory t one timeimaginedbyPlato.' Or its existencemay be merelywhatAristotlewouldhave calledpotential; n otherwords, pinoza may mean thatreasonswillgo on evolving hemselves o longas we choose ostudy he dialectic fexistence,lways n strict arallelismwiththenatural eriesofmaterialmovements onstitutinghe ex-ternaluniverse;and ust as this is determinedhrough ll itsparts by the totality -f xtension, r of all matter whethermoving rmotionless)akentogether,o also at the sulmimitfthe ogicalseries tands he dea of God,fromwhosedefinitionthe demonstrationf every esser idea necessarily ollows. It

1Seethe assageromheRepublicuotedbove.


12/25

T[heRelationofGreek hilosophyoModernThought.241is true hat n a chainof connected nergies he antecedent,ssuch, muist e alwaysprecisely qual to the consequent;butapparently hisdifficultyid not present tselfto Spinoza, norineedwe be surprised; orKant,comincgcenturyater,was stillso imbuedwithAristotelianraditionss,similarly,oderive hecategory fCause and Effect rom he relationbetweenReasonand Consequentnhypotheticalropositions.'Meanwhilethe parallelismbetweenThought nd Extensionwas not exhausted y the dentificationust analysed. Exten-sionwas notonly a seriesofmovements; t still remained nexpressionfor coexistence nd adjacency. Spinoza,therefore,felthimself bliged o supplyThoughtwith a correspondinglycontinuous uality. It is here that his chieforigirnalityies,here that he has beenmost loselyfollowedbythe philosophyof our own time. Mind,he declai'es, s an attributeverywhereaccompanyingmatter, o-extensive nd co-infinite ithspace.Our ownanimation s the sum or theresultant f an animationclinging oeveryparticle hatentersnto thecompositionf ourbodies. Whenourthoughts reaffectedy an externalmpulse,to suppose hatthis inpulseproceeds roni nythingmnaterialsa delusion; it is producedbythe mindbelonging o the bodywhichacts on our body; orrather hetwoactions are onlydif-ferentspectsofa singleprocess. Spinozahas clearly xplainedthedoctrine fanimalautomatisin,nd shown t tobe perfectlyconceivable; but he has entirely mittedto explain how theparallel nfluence f one thoughtorfeeling) n another s tobeunderstood;for lthough histoo s spokenof as a causal rela-tion, t seemstobe quitedifferentromhe ogicalconcatenationdescribed s the infinitentellect f God; and to supposethatidea followsfrom dea like movement rommovementwouldamount o a completematerialisationfinind; whileourphilo-sopherwould ertainlyave repudiatedMr.Shadworth odgson'stheory hat statesof consciousness re onlyconnected hroughtheir xtended ubstratums thesegments f a mosaicpictureareheldtogethery theunderlyingurface fmasonry.The analogybetweenThought nd Extension under the twoaspectsofnecessaryonnexion ndmerecontingent elationncoexistence r successionwas, n truth,more nterestingo itsauthoras a basis for his etlhical han as a development f hismetaphysicalpeculation.Thetwo orders frelations epresenlt,in their istinction,heoppositionf science o opinion r magi-nation, he opposition f dutiful onviction o blind or selfish

I Thetendencyf ogicianssnow, ontrariwise,o force easoningntoparallelisnmithmathenmaticalhysicsby ilnterpretinghepropositionsan equation etweenubject ndpredicate.16


13/25

242 TheRelation,f Greek hilosophyo ModernThought.impulse. Spinoza borrows rom he Stoics their dentificationof volitioni ithbelief;but n working ut the consequences fthis principle t is of Plato rather han of the Stoics thathereminds s. The passions rein his systemwhat ense, magina-tion and opinionwere n that of the Atheniandealist; and hisethics may almost be called the metaphysics f the Republicturned utside n. Joy, rief nd desire are moreor less im-perfect orceptions f reality-a realitynot belonging o theexternalworld but to the conscious subject itself. WhenSpinozatraces hem o a consciousnessr expectation fraisedor loweredpower,we recognise he influence f Hobbes; butwhen,hereas elsewhere, e identifies owerwithexistence,wedetect return o Greekforms f thought. The great conflictbetweenllusion ndrealitys fought ut once more; onlythistime t is about our ownessence hatwe are first eceived ndthenenlightened.If the natureand origin f outward hingsarehalfrevealed, alf concealed by sense and imagination,uremotionsre nlike manner heobscuringnddistorting ediumthrough hichwe apprehend ur inmost selves, and whateveradds to ortakes awayfrom he plenitude four existence;andwhatscience s to theone,moralityndreligion re tothe other.It is remarkable hatwhile Spinozawas giving new appli-cationto the Platonicmethod, notherCartesian,Malebranche,was workingt outmore trictly ntheold lines of speculativeresearch. The Bechercheela/VJritefthis unjustlyneglectedthinker s a methodical ccountof the various subjectiveob-stacleswhich mpedeour apprehensionf thingsas theyreallyexist, ndofthe meansby which it may be facilitated.Herealso, attentions concentratedn the subjective side of philo-sophy; and if the mentalprocesses electedforstudyare oftheoretical ather han practical nterest, e may probably t-tribute his to thecircumstancehat every thicalquestionwasalreadydecidedforMalebranche y theChurchwhoseorders ehad assumed. But it wasnotmerelynthewritings fprofessedphilosopher?hat the new aspect of Platonismfound expres-sion. All great rt embodiesn oneform r another he eadingconceptionsf its age; and the latter half of the seventeenthcentury ound uch a manifestationn the comedies fMoli6re.If theseworks tand at thehead of French iterature,heyowetheir ositionnot more o their uthor's rilliantwit thanto hisprofound hilosophyf ife; orratherwe should saythat withhim wit and philosophyre one. The comic powerof Shake-spearewas shownbyresolving heoutward ppearancesof thisworldintoa series of dissolving llusions. Like Spinoza andMalebranche,Moli6re urnsthe illusionin, showingwhat per-vertedopinionsmen formof thenmselvesnd others,hrough


14/25

TheRelation fGreek hilosophy o ModernThought. 243misconceptionsnd passions ither f spontaneous rowth r se-dulously ostered y designing ands. Society,withhim, eemsalmost entirelymade up of pretenders nd their dupes, bothcharacters eingnot unfrequentlyombined n the same person,who s made a victim hrough is desire o pass forwhathe is notand cannotbe. And this s what essentially istinguishes heart ofMoli6re rom he New Comedy f Athens,whichhe,. ikeother moderns, ad at first elt nclined to imitate until thesuccess ofthe Pre'cieusesidiculesshowed himwherehis trueopportunitiesay. For the New Comedywas Aristotelian lhereit was not simplyhumanist; that s tosav, t was an exhibitionoftypes ike those ketched y Aristotle's isciple, heophrastus,and alreadyprefiguredn the master's wn Ethics. These werethe perennialforms n a world of infinite nd perishing n-dividualexistences, ot concealedbehindphenomena, ut ncor-poratedn them nd constitutingheir ssential ruth. The OldComedy s something ifferentgain; it is prae-philosophic,ndmay be characteriseds an attempt o describegreat politicalinterests nd tendencies hrough he medium of myths andfables and familiardomesticities,ust as the old theoriesofnature, he old lessons of practicalwisdom, nd the firstgreatnational chronicleshad been thrown nto the same homelyform.'The purely ntellectual iew of humannature, he definiitionof mind n termsof cognition,s one morefallacyfromwhichAristotle's eaching, ad itnot fallen ntoneglector contempt,mighthave guardedSpinoza. Nevertheless,is parallelism e-tweenpassion nd sensuousperceptionaves himfrom heworstextravagancesfhisGreekpredecessors.For the senses,how-ever muchtheymightbe maligned, ever were nor could bealtogether ejected;while the passionsmet with littlemercyfrom lato and withnonefrom heStoics,who consideredhemnotonlyunnecessaryutevenunnatural. Spinozamorewiselysees in them ssertions, oweverobscureand confused, f thewill to be and growwhich constitutesndividualexistence.And he seesthatthey an no morebe removedby pointing uttheir vil consequenceshansense-impressionsan be abolishedby provingtheir fallaciousness. On the otherhand, whenSpinoza speaksas if one emotion ould onlybe conqueredorexpelled byanother motion, e must not allow his peculiarphraseologyo concealfrom s the purelyntellectualharacterof his whole ethical system. What he reallyholds is thatemotion an be overcomeby reason or betterknowledge,e-

1 Greek ragedys ustthereverse-anexpansionf he old patriarchalrelationsnto mould ittedo receive hehighest houghtndfeelingfcivilised ge.


15/25

244 TheRelation fGreek hilosophyoModerinhought.cause it is itselfan imperfect ognition. Point by point, nanalogy-or somethingmiorehanan analogy--is made out be-tweenthe errors f sensuous perceptionoined to imagination,and the errors f our spont,aneousffortsfter appiness r self-realisation. Bothare iinposed n us fromwithout, nd neithercan be gotridofbya simple ct ofvolition. Both are affectedby illusions f perspective: he nearer objectof desire,ike thenearer bjectof perception,ssuming disproportionatelace inthefieldof view. In both, ccidental ontiguitys habituallyconfounded ith causation;while in both the assignment fcauses to effects,nstead fbeingtracedbackthroughn infiniteseriesofantecedents,tops hortwiththe antecedent earest oourselves. If objects reclassifiedccording otheir uperficialresemblancesr theusagesof commonanguage, o also arethe-desires ustained nd intensified y imitation nd rivalry. Byparity freasoniing, oral ducationmust be conducted n thesamelinesas intellectualducation. First,t is shownhowourindividual existence, epending s it does on forces nfinitelyexceeding urown, s to bemaintained. This s chieflyonebycultivatingfriendly elationswith othermen; probably, l-thoug,hpinozadoes not hiinselfmake the comparison,n thesameprinciple s that observedn the mutualassistanceandrectificationf the senses, ogether ith their preservation ymeansofverbal igns. The misleading assions re tobe over-iome y discoveringheir rigin; by referringhepleasures ndpainswhich producethem to the rightcauses; -by alling inthoughtoredress he balance of imagination; ydividingheattention mong an infinite umberof causes; finally,yde-monstratinghe absolutenecessity f whatever ctionsexcitethem, nd classifying,hem according o their relations,n thesamewaythatthephenomena f the materialworld are dealtwithwhensubjected o scientificnalysis.-So farSpinoza,following he exampleof Stoicism, as onlystudiedthe means by which reason conquers passion. Henow proceed5 o show,in the spiritof Plato or of PlatonicChristianity,ow far superior o the pleasuresof sense andopinion rethose ffordedytruereligion-bythe love of Godand the possessionof eternal ife. But,herealso, as in theGreek ystem,ogic does dutyfor emotion. The love of Godmeansno more hanviewingourselves s filling place in theinfiniterameworkfexistence, nd as determinedo be whatwe arebythetotality fforces omposingt. And eternal ifeis merelyheadjustmentfour thoughtso the ogical order ywhich all modesof existence re deduciblefrom he idea ofinfiniteower.Thus,while Spinoza drawsto a head all the tendenciesn-


16/25

tEhe elation fGreek hilosophyoModernThought.245herited from Greek philosophy, orrowing rom the earlyphysicists heirnecessarianism; rom he Atomists, heirexclu-sionoffinalcauses, heir denial of the supernatural,nd theirinfinite orlds; from he Athenian chool, heir distinction e-tween mind and body, nd between reason and sense; fromAristotle, isparallelism etween ausation nd syllogism; romthe Epicureans,heir indication fpleasure; nd from heStoics,their dentificationfbeliefwith ction, heir onquest f passionand theirdevotion o humanity;-it is to the dominant la-tonismof the seventeenth entury hat his systemowes itsfoundation,ts development,nd its crown; for he begins byrealising he abstract onception f being, nd infersts absoluteinfinity rom he nlisleading nalogy f space which s not an'abstractiont all; deduceshis conclusions ccording o the geo-metricalmethodrecommended y Plato; and ends like Plato,by translating ialecticformulas nto the emotionalanguage freligious aith.From this grand synthesis, owever, single element wasomitted; and, like the uninvitedguest of fairy tradition,tproved strongenough singlyto destroywhat had been con-structedbythe united efforts f all the rest. This was thescepticalprinciple,he critical analysis of ideas,first xercisedby Protagoras,madea newstarting-pointy Socrates, arried operfection y Plato, supplementingxperiencewith Aristotle,and finally roclaimedn its purity s the sole function f philo-sophybyan entire choolofGreek hougllt.Notwithstandinghesterility ommonlyssociatedwithmerenegation,twas this which, f all the later Greek schools, os-sessedthegreatest owers fgrowth. Besides passing throughmore hanonestageofdevelopment n its own account, cep-ticism mposed eriousmodificationsn Stoicism, ave birth oEclecticism,nd contribuitedo the establishmentfNeo-Pla-tonism. The explanations not' ar o seek. The morehighlyorganised system s, the moreresistance oes t offero change,themoredoes itstransmissionend o assume rigidlycholasticform. To 'such dogmatism he Sceptics were. on principle,opposed; andby keeping he problems fphilosophypen, heyfacilitated hetask ofallwho had a newsolution ooffer;whilemindand its activities eing, o someextent,afefromheuni-versal doubt, he scepticalprinciple pontaneouslyhrewbackthought n a subjective nstead of an objective ynthesis fknowledge-in otherwords, n that psychologicaldealism hepregnancynd comprehensivenessfwhich are every day be-comingmoreclearly ecognised.And we shall now see howthesamefertilising owerof criticism as been manifestednmodern itnes s well.


17/25

246 TheRelation f Greec hilosophy oModernThought.The scepticalphilosophy, lreadyadvocated n the Middle

Ages by John f Salisbury, as, ike every ther orm f ancientthought,evived at the Renaissance, ut onlyunder the verysuperficial ormwhich nfers rom he coexistence fmanydi-vergentopinions that none of them can be true. Even so,however,t ledMontaigne o soundernotionsof tolerationndhumanity hanwere entertained y any of his contemporaries.WithBacon, ndstill morewithDescartes, t also appears s thenecessary reparation or a remodelling f all belief; but.thegreatdogmatic ystems till exercised uch a potent nfluenceon boththosethinkers hat their professed emandfor newmethodmerely eadsup to an alteredstatementf the oldun-proved ssumptioins.Meanwhile the old principleof universaldoubt could nolonger e maintainedn presence f the certaintieslreadywonby moderncience. Man, n the timeofNewton, ad,as Popetersely uts t, toomuchknowledge or hesceptic ide . Theproblemwas nothowto establish hereality,ut howto ascertainthe origin ndpossible xtent f thatknowledge. The first operceive his, hefirsto evolve criticism ut of scepticism,ndthereforehe real founder f modernphilosQphy,as Locke.Nevertheless, ven with him,the advantage of studying hemorerecentn close connexionwith he earlier evelopmentsfthought oes notcease; it onlyenterson a new phase. If hecannot, ike his predecessors,e directly ffiliated o one ormoreoftheGreek chools, is positioncan be illustrated yaparallel derivedfrom the historyof those schools. WhatArcesilaus and Carneades had been to Socratesand his suc-cessors,hat Locke was in a large measureto Bacon and theCartesians. He wentbacktothe nitialdoubtwhichwiththemhad beenoverborne y the dogmatic eaction, nd insistedonmaking t a reality. The spiritof theApologia s absentfromPlato'slaterdialogues, nlytoreappearwitheven more han tsoriginal ower n the teachingof the New Academy. And, nlikemanner,escartes' ntrospective ethod, ith ts demand orclear deas;becomes,n theEssayconcerningwbman nderstand-ing, n irresistibleolvent or he psychologynd physics f itsfirst ropounder.The doctrine f nnate deas, hedoctrine hatextensions theessence fmatter,hedoctrine hat houghtstheessenceofmind, hemoregeneraldoctrine, eld also by Bacon,that hings avea diseoverable ssencewhence lltheir ropertiesmaybe deducedbya process nalogous omathematical eason-ing,-all collapsed whenbrought o the test of definite ndconcreteexperience. We have here, ndeed, something om-parablenot onlyto the scepticism f the New Academy, utalso to theAristotelian riticismfPlato's metaphysics; nd at


18/25

-The elation f Greek hilosophyoModernThought.247firstight t might seem as if the Peripateticphilosophywasdestined ncemore o regain he positiontaken from tby theresuscitationf tsancientfoe. But Lockewas not nclined osubstitutene form f scholasticisin or another. By applyingthe analyticalmethod of Atomismto knowledgeitself,hecreated weaponequallyfatal to the two competing ystems.Under his dissection he concrete ndividualsubstanceof theonevanishedno less completelyhanthe universal deas of theother. Nothingremainedbut a bundle of qualities held to-gether ya subjective ond.

Similarly,n political cience he analyticalmethod f assum-ino civilgovernmentoresultfrom concurrencef individualWills,whichwith Hobbes had servedonlyto destroy-cclesi-astical authority,hile leaving intactand even strengtheningtheauthority fsecularrulers,was reinterpretedyLockeas anegation f all absolutismwhatever.It is interestingo observehow,here also, he positive cienceof the age had a large share in determiningts philosophiccharacter. Foundedonthe discovery f theearth'strueshape,Aristotle'smetaphysics ad been overthrown y the discoveryofthe earth'smotion. And nowthe claimsof Cartesianismohavefurnishedn exactknowledge fmatternd a definitionfitwhence ll thefacts f observationouldbe deduced priori,weresummarily efutedly the discovery f universalgravita-tion. The Cartesianscomplained hat Newtonwas bringingrbacktheoccultqualitiesof theSchoolmen;butthe tendency fbodiestomove towards ne another roved s certainas it wasiniexplicably ysterious.For a time, he studyof causes wassupersededby the study of laws; and the new methodofphysical science moved in perfectharmonywith the phe-nomenism fLocke. One most mportant onsequenceof thisrevolutionwas toplacethenew Critical hilosophyn a footingquitedifferentromhat occupiedbythe ancient ceptics. Bothrestrictedertainknowledge o our own statesof consciousness;butit nowappeared hat hismight e donewithoutmpeachingthe value of accepted scientific onclusions,whichwas morethan theAcademicphilosophywould have admitted. In otherwords,granting hat we were limitedto phenomena,t wasshown that science consisted n ascertaining he relations fthese phenomenato one another nsteadof to a problematicrealityyingbehind hem;while, hat uchrelations xisted ndwere, n fact, art of the phenomena hemselves, as what nosceptic ouldeasilydeny.Neverthelessn each case subjectivedealismhad theeffectfconcentratingpeculation,properly o called, on ethical andpracticalinterests. Locke struckthe keynoteof eighteenth


19/25

248 The Relation f GPeek hilosophyo ModernThoutght.century hilosophywhen he pronouncedmnoralityo be theproper cience nd business f mankind n general '' And nosoonerhad morality ometo the front han the significancefancient houghtgain made itself pparent. Whether hroughconscious mitation,r because the same causes brought boutthe same effects,thicalinquiriesmovedalongthe lines orioi-nally laid down in the schools of Athens. When rules ofconduct were not directlyreferred o a divine revelation,theywerebased eitheron a supposed aw of nature, r on thenecessities f humanhappiness,r on some combination f the-two. Nothing s more haracteristicf the eighteenth entuirythan ts worship f nature. Even the theology f the age isdeeplycoloured y it; and with the majorityf thosewho re-jected theologyt became a new religion. But this sentimentis demonstrablyf Greekorigin, nd found ts most elaborate,thoughnot ts most bsolute xpressionn Stoicism. The Stoicshad inheritedt from heCynics,who held the faith n greaterpurity; and these, gain, o far s we can judge,from certainSophistic chool, omefragmentsf whose teachinghave beenpreservedby Xenophonand Plato; while the firstwho gavewide currencyo thisfamous bstraction as, n all probability,Heracleitus. To the Stoics,however,s due that intimBatesso-ciationofnaturalism ithteleology hich- eets s again n thephilosophy f the ast century,nd evennow wherever hedoc-trine of evolutionhas not been thoroughlyccepted. It wasassumed, n the teethof all evidence, hat naturebears themarks f a uniformlyeneficentesign, hat evil is exclusivelyofhumanorigin,nd that ven humannature s essentially oodwhen unspoiled y artificialestrictions.

Yet if teleologywas, n some respects, falling-offrom herigidmechanicism irstaught y the prae-Socratic chools ndthenagain by the Cartesian chool, n at least one respect tmarked comparative rogress. For the first ttemptsmadebothby ancient nd modernphilosophy o explain vital phe-nomenaon purelymechanical rincipleswerealtogetherrema-ture; and tfhemmense xtension fbiologicalknowledge hichtookplace subsequentlyo both, ould not but bringabout anirresistiblemovementn the opposite direction. The first orevive teleologywas Leibniz,who furnished transition romthe seventeentho the eighteenth entury y his monadology.In this,Atomism s combinedwithAristoteliandeas just as ithad previously een combinedwithPlatonic deas by Descartes.The movement f the atoms is explained by theiraspirationafter more perfect tate insteadof by mechanicalpressure.

1Essay,Bk. iv. ch.12.


20/25

TheJRelationf Greek hilosophyoMIodern hought.249But while Leibniz still relies on the ontological rgument fDescartesto prove he existenceof God, this was soon aban-doned, long withthe cosmological rgument,or the argumentfrom esign,whichwas also that used by the Stoics; while nethics he fitness f thingswas substituted or the more me-chanical law of self-preservation,s the rule of conduct; andthe subjectionof all impulse to reasonwas replaced by themilderprinciple f a control xercisedby the benievolentverthe malevolent nstincts. This was a verydistinctdeparturefrom he Stoic method, et thosewho made t were mnoreaithfulto teleologyhau Stoicismhad been; forto condemnhumanfeeling ltogether as immplicitlyocondemn he work fnatureor ofGod.The other reat thicalmethod f the eighteenth entury,tshedonism, as closely onnectedwith the scepticalmovementin speculative hilosophy,nd like thatreceived n entirely ewsignificancey becomingssociatedwith he deaof aw. Thosewho isolateman fromhe universe renecessarilyed to seek inhis interests s such the sole regulator fhis actions,nd theirsole sanction n the opinionof his fellows. Protagoraswentalready o far,notwithstandingis unwillingness o recognisepleasure s thesupreme nd; and in the system fhistrue uc-cessor,Aristippus, he nmost xtremehedonismwent hand inhand with the most extrenmedealism; while withEpicurus,again,both retempered ythe nfluence f naturalismmpos-ing on him tsconceptions fobjective aw alike in science ndin practice. Still his system eaned heavily o thesideof self-gratificationureand simple; and it was reserved ormodernthought o establish complete equilibriumbetweenthe twocompetingendencies f Greek ethics. This has been effectedin Utilitarianism; nd those critics re entirelymistakenl ho,like M. Guyau, egard t as a mere eproductionf Epicureanismii.It mightwithfullas muchreasonbe calleda modern ersion fStoicism. The idea of humanitys essentially toic; toworkfor he goodof humanitywas a Stoic precept; and to sacrificeone'sown pleasurefor hathigher ood s a virtuewhich wouldhave satistied he most rigorousdemandsof a Cleanthes, nEpictetus, r an Aurelius.Utilitarianismgreeswitlh he ancient hedonism n holdingpleasure obe the sole good and pain the sole evil. Its ad-herents lso,for he7most art, dmit hatthe desireof the oneand thedreadof the other rethesole motives o action; but,whilemaking heendabsolutely niversal nd impersonal,heymake the motive nto a momentarympulsewithoutanyne-cessary elation o the futurehappiness of the agenthimself.The goodmandoeshisdutybecausedoing tgiveshimpleasure,


21/25

250 TheRelation fGreek hilosophyo ModernThought.or because the failure to do it would give him pain, at themoment;although e knows that a contraryoursewouldsavehimfromgreaterpainor win him greaterpleasurehereafter.No accurate hinkerwould call this actingfrom selfish rin-terestedmotive;nor does tagreewith he teaching f Epicurus.Wereall sensitive eings o beunitedn a single rganism,hen,on utilitarian rinciples,elf-interest,nterpretedn the senseofseeking,tsown preservationnd pleasure,would be the onlylaw that the individualised ggregatecould rationally bey.But the goodofeach partwould be rigorouslyubordinatedothe goodof the whole; and utilitarianmorality esires hatweshould ct as if this hypothesis ere realised, t least in refer-ence to ourown particularnterests. Now,the dea ofhumanityas formiingucha consolidated hole is not Epicurean. It be-longsto the philosophywhichalwaysreprobated leasurepre-ciselybecause tspursuitwas associatedwith the derelictionfpublic duty ndwithbitter ivalry or he possessionof what,by itsverynature, xistedonly n limited uantities,whilethedemand or twasunlimitedr tanyratefar xceeded he upply.According o the Stoics, here was only one wayinwhichtheindividual ould studyhis private nterestwithout bandoninghis position s a socialbeingr,nd thiswas tofind t exclusivelyin the practiceof virtue. But virtue and public nterest e-mainedmereforms cantily upplemented yappeals to thetraditionalmorality,ntil the idea ofgeneralised appiness, fpleasurediffusedhrough he whole community,ame to fillthemwith ubstance ndlife. It has also to be observed hatthe dea ofutility s a testof moralgoodness s quite distinctfrom edonism. Plato proclaimsnthemost nequivocal ermsthatactionsmustbe estimated ytheir onsequencesnsteadofbythe feelings f sympathy r antipathywlhich hey xcite;yetno onecouldobject morestronglyo making pleasuretheendofaction. Thus,threedistinct octrines eem to convergein imodernnglish thics, f which all are traceableto Greekphilosophy,uttnlyonetoEpicureanismn particular,nd notultimatelyo thatbut to theolder ystemswhence t sprang.And herewe unexpectedlyind urselves onfrontedya newrelation etween ncient nd modern hought. Each acts as apowerful recipitantn theother, issolvingwhatmiglhtther-wise have passed for nseparableassociations, nd combiningelementswhich less complete xperiencemighthave led us toregard s necessarilyncompatiblewithone another. The in-stance ustanalyseds highlyignificant; ordoes tstand lone.Modernspiritualists ften alk as if moralitywas impossibleapart fromtheirpeculiarmetaphysics. But the Stoics,con-fessedlyhepurestmoralists fantiquity, ereuncompromising


22/25

The elacdion f reekPhilosophyoModernThought.2O1materialists;whilethe-spiritualistristotle aughtwhat s noteasily distinguishablerom very efinedort fegoism. Again,thedoctrine ffree-wills nowcommonlyonnectedwitha be-lief n the separability f consciousness rommatter,nd likethat is declaredto be an indispensable ondition f morality.Among the Greeks,however, t was held by the nmaterialistEpicureansmoredistinctlyhan byany other chool; whiletheStoics did not findnecessarianismnconsistent ith self-sacri-ficingvirtue. The partial derivationof knowledge romanactivityn our ownminds s another upposed concomitantfspiritualism; lthough Aristotletraces every dea to aii ex-ternal ource,while at the same time holdingsome cognitionsto be necessarilyrue-a tlheoryepudiated ymodern xperien-tialists. To Plato the spiritualityf the soulseemed oinvolveitspre-existenceo less than ts immortality,consequence otacceptedby hismnodernmitators. Teleology s nowcommonlyopposed to pantheism; the two were closely combined nStoicism; while Aristotle,lthoughhe believed in a personalGod, attributedhe marks fdesign n nature opurelyuncon-sciousagencies.The naturalismndutilitarianism f the eighteenth enturyarethe ast conceptions irectlynherited rom ncient philo-sophy by modern hought. Henceforward,hatever ight thestudyoftheformeran throw n the vicissitudes f the latter,is due either o their artialparallelisnmr to an influence e-coming verydayfainternd moredifficulto trace amid themultitude ffactorsnvolved. The progressf analytical riti-cismwas continually eflected rarrested ythe still powerfulresistance f scholasticism,ust as the sceptical tendencies ftheNew Academyhad been before, houghhappilywith lesspernmanentuccess; and as, in antiquity, his had happenedwithinno less thanwithout hecritical chool, o also did Lockecling othetheologyfDescartes;Berkeley apse ntoPlatonism;Humeplayfast nd loosewithhis own principles, hile Reidwas rallying he Aristotelian sychologyo a desperate tandagainstthe new movement; and Kant leaves it doubtful owhich idehe belonged, o evenlywere the two opposing en-denciesbalanced nhis mind, o dexterouslyid he adapt thenew criticism o the frameworkf scholastic ogicand meta-physics.Meanwhile hestrengthfthe analyticalmethodwas doubledbyits extension o the phenomenaof growthnd change; for,as appliedtothese, t became hefamous heory fDevelopmentorEvolution. No idea belongs o completelyomodern hilo-sophy;for ventheancient hinkers ho threwheir osmologyinto a historical orm adnever ttemptedoexplain he present


23/25

252 TheRelation fCreek hilosophyoModern houzght.bythepast. If anythinig,hey xplained hepastby thepresent,assumingarough nalogy o existbetweentheformationftheuniverse s a whole nd the aenesisof thosenatural rartificialbodieswhichwerecontinually rowing rbeing builtup beforetheir yes. Theircosmology as, n fact,nothing ut the oldmythologytripped f its personalor consciouselement;and,like t,wasa hypothesisnsupportedyanyexternalvidence;-a criticismot nconsistent ith he admissionhat hiselimina-tion of thesupernaturallementfrom peculationwas, even nthe absence of any solid additionto humanknowledge, nachievemenitf nestimable alue. The evolutionary ethodsalso an elimination f the supernatural,ut it is a great dealinore. By tracinghehistory f compound tructureso theirfirst rigin,nd noting he successive ncrementsowhich heirgradualgrowth s due, t reveals, s no statical analysisevercould, he actual orderof synthesis,nd the nmeaningf theseparate onstituentsywhose oint action heirmovementsredetermined;while, onversely,heirdissolutionupplies s witha number fready-madexperimentsn whichthe influence feach particularfactor n the sum total may be detectedbywatching he changesthat came on its removal. In a word,the method fevolution s the atomisticmethod,xtendedfrommatter omotion,nd viewedunder he form f successionn-steadofunder he form f coexistence.As a universalphilosophy,he theoryof Development,ikeevery thermodern dea, has onlybeen permitted o manifestitself n combinationwith differentorms f the old scholas-ticism. The whole speculativemovement f our century smadeupofsuchhybridystems; nd three n particulartilldi-videthesuffragesfmanythinking enwhohave notbeenableentirelyo shakeoff he influence f reactionarydeas. Thesearethesystems f Hegel,ofComte,nd ofMr.Herbert pencer.In eachthe ogicand metaphysicsnheritedromGreek houghtarevariously ompouDded ith henewscience. And each,forthat veryreason, erves ofacilitate he transitionromine totheother; a part analogousto that played amongthe Greeksthemselves ythe vast constructionsf Plato and Aristotle,r,in an age of less productivity,y the Stoic and Alexandrianeclecties.The influence f Aristotlehas, indeed,continued o makeitself eltnotonly hroughheteaching f his nodern mitators,butmoredirectlys a livingtraditionn literature,r throughthe renewed tudy f hiswritings t firsthand. Even in thepure sciences it surviveduntil a comparativelyecent eriod,ard,so far s theFrench ntellectgoes, s not yet entirelyx-tinct. FromAbelardon, Paris was the headquarters f that


24/25

TheBelationof Greek hilosophyo ModernThought. 253soberer cholasticism hich took its cue from he Peripateticlogic; and the resulting irection f thought, eeply impressedas it becameonthe French haracter nd the French anguage,was interrupted ather han permanentlylteredby the Car-tesianrevolution,nd with the fall of Cartesiailism raduallyrecoveredtsoldpredominance.The Aristotelianhilosopllysremarkable bove all othersfor clear definitions,ulldescrip-tions,comprehensivelassifications,ucid reasoning, ncyclo-paedic cience, nd disinterestedove ofknowledge; alongwitla certainncapacity or thical peculation,'trong onservativeleanings,nd a general endencyowards he rigiddemarcationrather hanthe fruitfulomminglingf deas. And itwillpro-bably be admitted that these are also traits characteristicof French hinking,s opposedtoEnglishor Germailthinking.For instance,widelydifferents is the MicaniqueCe'lesteromthe astronomyfAristotle's reatiseOntheHeavens, oth agreein being ttemptsoprove he eternal tability f the celestialsystem.2The destructive elugesbywhichAristotle upposescivilisation obe periodically nterrupted,eappearon a largerscale in thetheory f catastrophestill held by Frenchgeolo-gists. AnotherAristotelianogma,hefixity forganic pecies,thoughvigorouslyssailed byeminent renchnaturalists, as,on thewhole, triumphed ver the opposite doctrineof trans-formismn France, nd now impedesthe acceptanceof Mr.Darwin'steaching ven in circles wheretheological reposses-sionsare extinct. The accepted classificationsn botany ndzoology re the workof Frenchmenollowingn thefootstepsfAristotle, hosegeniusformethodicalrrangement as signallyexemplifiedn at least oneofthesedepartments,he division fanimals ntovertebrateild invertebrate eingoriginally ue tohim. Bichat'sdistinctionetween heanimalandthevegetablefunctions ecalls Aristotle'sdistinction etween the sensitiveandnutritiveouls; whilehis methodof studying he tissuesbefore he organs s prefiguredn the treatiseon thePartsofAnim.als. For a longtimethe rulingofAristotle's oeticswasundisputedn Frenchcriticism; nd if anything ould disen-titleMontesquieu's spritdes Lois to theproudmotto, rolensine matrecreata , it would be its close relationship o thePoliticsofthe same universalmaster. Finally, f it begrantedthatthe enthusiasmorknowledgerrespectivef tsutilitarianapplications xists o a greater egreemong he educated lasses

1WhatAristotle aswritten n the subject s notethicsbutnaturalhistory.2 CNe remarque-t-onommenthaquerecherchenalytique e Laplacea fait essortiransnotre lobe t dalisl'univers es conditions 'ordretdeduree -Arago, cEuvresII. 496.


25/25

254 lhe Relation f Greek hilosophyo ModernThought.of France than n any othermodern ociety,we mayplausiblyattributehishonourable haracteristicothefosteringnfluenceof one who has proclaimedmore eloquently han any otherphilosopher hat theoretical ctivity s the highestgood ofhuman ife, he dea ofall nature,ndthesolebeatitude f God.It remains o add a fewwords n the positionwhichancientand modernphilosophy espectivelyccupy owardstheology.Here their elation s one ofcontrast ather hanof resemblance.The Greek hinkers tart t an immense istance rom eligiousbelief,ndtheirfirst llusionsto it are markedbya scornfuldenial of its validity. Gradually,with the transition romphysical o ethical nquiries, n approximationetween he twois broughtbout, houghnotwithout ccasionalreturns o theirformerttitudeof hostility. Finally, n presence fa commondanger heybecomienterwovennd almost dentified ithoneanother; while the new religionagainst which they makecommon auseitself resentshe samespectacle fmetaphysicaland moral deas enteringnto combination ith he spontaneousproductsof popular nmythology.nd be it observed thatthroughouthe wholeof thisprocessaction and reactionwereequal and contrary.The decline nd corruptionf philosophywas thepricepaidfor heelevation ndpurificationf religion.While the onewas constantlyinking he otherwas constantlyrising, ntiltheyconvergedn tlleplane of dogmatic heology.By the verycircumstancesf the case an oppositecourse hasbeenimposed nthedevelopmentf miodernhilosophy.Start-ingfromn intimate nionwith religion,t slowlydisengagesitself rom he compromisinglliance; and, although ere alsothenormal ourse f deas has been interrupted y frequente-actions, hegeneralmovementfEuropean hought as beennoless decidedlyowards completemancipationrom hepopularbeliefs han the movementfGreek thoughthad been towardstheir onciliation nd support. ALREDW. BENN

filosofía griega y modernapdf

Documents