wealbk05-第22节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



sometimes　in　the　more　artificial　form　of　apologues；　like　what　are

called　the　fables　of　Aesop；　and　sometimes　in　the　more　simple　one

of　apophthegms；　or　wise　sayings；　like　the　Proverbs　of　Solomon；

the　verses　of　Theognis　and　Phocyllides；　and　some　part　of　the

works　of　Hesiod。　They　might　continue　in　this　manner　for　a　long

time　merely　to　multiply　the　number　of　those　maxims　of　prudence

and　morality；　without　even　attempting　to　arrange　them　in　any　very

distinct　or　methodical　order；　much　less　to　connect　them　together

by　one　or　more　general　principles　from　which　they　were　all

deducible；　like　effects　from　their　natural　causes。　The　beauty　of

a　systematical　arrangement　of　different　observations　connected　by

a　few　common　principles　was　first　seen　in　the　rude　essays　of

those　ancient　times　towards　a　system　of　natural　philosophy。

Something　of　the　same　kind　was　afterwards　attempted　in　morals。

The　maxims　of　common　life　were　arranged　in　some　methodical　order；

and　connected　together　by　a　few　common　principles；　in　the　same

manner　as　they　had　attempted　to　arrange　and　connect　the　phenomena

of　nature。　The　science　which　pretends　to　investigate　and　explain

those　connecting　principles　is　what　is　properly　called　moral

philosophy。

　　　　　Different　authors　gave　different　systems　both　of　natural　and

moral　philosophy。　But　the　arguments　by　which　they　supported　those

different　systems；　for　from　being　always　demonstrations；　were

frequently　at　best　but　very　slender　probabilities；　and　sometimes

mere　sophisms；　which　had　no　other　foundation　but　the　inaccuracy

and　ambiguity　of　common　language。　Speculative　systems　have　in　all

ages　of　the　world　been　adopted　for　reasons　too　frivolous　to　have

determined　the　judgment　of　any　man　of　common　sense　in　a　matter　of

the　smallest　pecuniary　interest。　Gross　sophistry　has　scarce　ever

had　any　influence　upon　the　opinions　of　mankind；　except　in　matters

of　philosophy　and　speculation；　and　in　these　it　has　frequently　had

the　greatest。　The　patrons　of　each　system　of　natural　and　moral

philosophy　naturally　endeavoured　to　expose　the　weakness　of　the

arguments　adduced　to　support　the　systems　which　were　opposite　to

their　own。　In　examining　those　arguments；　they　were　necessarily

led　to　consider　the　difference　between　a　probable　and　a

demonstrative　argument；　between　a　fallacious　and　a　conclusive

one：　and　Logic；　or　the　science　of　the　general　principles　of　good

and　bad　reasoning；　necessarily　arose　out　of　the　observations

which　a　scrutiny　of　this　kind　gave　occasion　to。　Though　in　its

origin　posterior　both　to　physics　and　to　ethics；　it　was　commonly

taught；　not　indeed　in　all；　but　in　the　greater　part　of　the　ancient

schools　of　philosophy；　previously　to　either　of　those　sciences。

The　student；　it　seems　to　have　been　thought；　to　understand　well

the　difference　between　good　and　bad　reasoning　before　he　was　led

to　reason　upon　subjects　of　so　great　importance。

　　　　　This　ancient　division　of　philosophy　into　three　parts　was　in

the　greater　part　of　the　universities　of　Europe　changed　for

another　into　five。

　　　　　In　the　ancient　philosophy；　whatever　was　taught　concerning

the　nature　either　of　the　human　mind　or　of　the　Deity；　made　a　part

of　the　system　of　physics。　Those　beings；　in　whatever　their　essence

might　be　supposed　to　consist；　were　parts　of　the　great　system　of

the　universe；　and　parts；　too；　productive　of　the　most　important

effects。　Whatever　human　reason　could　either　conclude　or

conjecture　concerning　them；　made；　as　it　were；　two　chapters；

though　no　doubt　two　very　important　ones；　of　the　science　which

pretended　to　give　an　account　of　the　origin　and　revolutions　of　the

great　system　of　the　universe。　But　in　the　universities　of　Europe；

where　philosophy　was　taught　only　as　subservient　to　theology；　it

was　natural　to　dwell　longer　upon　these　two　chapters　than　upon　any

other　of　the　science。　They　were　gradually　more　and　more　extended；

and　were　divided　into　many　inferior　chapters；　till　at　last　the

doctrine　of　spirits；　of　which　so　little　can　be　known；　came　to

take　up　as　much　room　in　the　system　of　philosophy　as　the　doctrine

of　bodies；　of　which　so　much　can　be　known。　The　doctrines

concerning　those　two　subjects　were　considered　as　making　two

distinct　sciences。　What　are　called　Metaphysics　or　Pneumatics　were

set　in　opposition　to　Physics；　and　were　cultivated　not　only　as　the

more　sublime；　but；　for　the　purposes　of　a　particular　profession；

as　the　more　useful　science　of　the　two。　The　proper　subject　of

experiment　and　observation；　a　subject　in　which　a　careful

attention　is　capable　of　making　so　many　useful　discoveries；　was

almost　entirely　neglected。　The　subject　in　which；　after　a　few　very

simple　and　almost　obvious　truths；　the　most　careful　attention　can

discover　nothing　but　obscurity　and　uncertainty；　and　can

consequently　produce　nothing　but　subtleties　and　sophisms；　was

greatly　cultivated。

　　　　　When　those　two　sciences　had　thus　been　set　in　opposition　to

one　another；　the　comparison　between　them　naturally　gave　birth　to

a　third；　to　what　was　called　Ontology；　or　the　science　which

treated　of　the　qualities　and　attributes　which　were　common　to　both

the　subjects　of　the　other　two　sciences。　But　if　subtleties　and

sophisms　composed　the　greater　part　of　the　Metaphysics　or

Pneumatics　of　the　schools；　they　composed　the　whole　of　this　cobweb

science　of　Ontology；　which　was　likewise　sometimes　called

Metaphysics。

　　　　　Wherein　consisted　the　happiness　and　perfection　of　a　man；

considered　not　only　as　an　individual；　but　as　the　member　of　a

family；　of　a　state；　and　of　the　great　society　of　mankind；　was　the

object　which　the　ancient　moral　philosophy　proposed　to

investigate。　In　that　philosophy　the　duties　of　human　life　were

treated　as　subservient　to　the　happiness　and　perfection　of　human

life。　But　when　moral；　as　well　as　natural　philosophy；　came　to　be

taught　only　as　subservient　to　theology；　the　duties　of　human　life

were　treated　of　as　chiefly　subservient　to　the　happiness　of　a　life

to　come。　In　the　ancient　philosophy　the　perfection　of　virtue　was

represented　as　necessarily　productive；　to　the　person　who

possessed　it；　of　the　most　perfect　happiness　in　this　life。　In　the

modern　philosophy　it　was　frequently　represented　as　generally；　or

rather　as　almost　always；　inconsistent　with　any　degree　of

happiness　in　this　life；　and　heaven　was　to　be　earned　only　by

penance　and　mortification；　by　the　austerities　and　abasement　of　a

monk；　not　by　the　liberal；　generous；　and　spirited　conduct　of　a

man。　Casuistry　and　an　ascetic　morality　made　up；　in　most　cases；

the　greater　part　of　the　moral　philosophy　of　the　schools。　By　far

the　most　important　of　all　the　different　branches　of　philosophy

became　in　this　manner　by　far　the　most　corrupted。

　　　　　Such；　therefore；　was　the　common　course　of　philosophical

education　in　the　greater　part　of　the　universities　in　Europe。

Logic　was　taught　first：　Ontology　came　in　the　second　place：

Pneumatology；　comprehending　the　doctrine　concerning　the　nature　of

the　human　soul　and　of　the　Deity；　in　the　third：　in　the　fourth

followed　a　debased　system　of　moral　philosophy　which　was

considered　as　immediately　connected　with　the　doctrines　of

Pneumatology；　with　the　immortality　of　the　human　soul；　and　with

the　rewards　and　punishments　which；　from　the　justice　of　the　Deity；

were　to　be　expected　in　a　life　to　come：　a　short　and　superficial

system　of　Physics　usually　concluded　the　course。

　　　　　The　alterations　which　the　universities　of　Europe　thus

introduced　into　the　ancient　course　of　philosophy　were　all　meant

for　the　education　of　ecclesiastics；　and　to　render　it　a　more

proper　introduction　to　the　study　of　theology。　But　the　additional

quantity　of　subtlety　and　sophistry；　the　casuistry　and　the　ascetic

morality　which　those　alterations　introduced　into　it；　certainly

did　not　render　it　more　proper　for　the　education　of　gentlemen　or

men　of　the　world；　or　more　likely　either　to　improve　the

understanding；　or　to　mend　the　heart。

　　　　　This　course　of　philosophy　is　what　still　continues　to　be

taught　in　the　greater　part　of　the　universities　of　Europe；　with

more　or　less　diligence；　according　as　the　constitution　of　each

particular　university　happens　to　render　diligence　more　or　less

necessary　to　the　teachers。　In　some　of　the　richest　and　best

endowed　universities；　the　tutors　content　themselves　with　teaching

a　few　unconnected　shreds　and　parcels　of　this　corrupted　course；

and　even　these　they　commonly　teach　very　negligently　and

superficially。

　　　　　The　improvements　which；　in　modern　times；　have　been　made　in

several　different　branches　of　philosophy　have　not；　the　greater

part　of　them；　been　made　in　universities；　though　some　no　doubt

have。　The　greater　part　of　universities　have　not　even　been　very

forward　to　adopt　those　improvements　after　they　were　made；　and

several　of　those　learned　societies　have　chosen　to　remain；　for　a

long　time；　the　sanctuaries　in　which　exploded　systems　and　obsolete

prejudices　found　shelter　and　protection　after　they　had　been

hunted　out　of　every　other　corner　of　the　world。　In　general；　the

richest　and　best