lecture01-第4章

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！





always　most　〃true；〃　when　measured　by　the　verdict　of　the　rest　of



experience。　　The　difference　between　Philip　drunk　and　Philip　sober



is　the　classic　instance　in　corroboration。　　If　merely　〃feeling



good〃　could　decide；　drunkenness　would　be　the　supremely　valid



human　experience。　　But　its　revelations；　however　acutely



satisfying　at　the　moment；　are　inserted　into　an　environment　which



refuses　to　bear　them　out　for　any　length　of　time。　　The　consequence



of　this　discrepancy　of　the　two　criteria　is　the　uncertainty　which



still　prevails　over　so　many　of　our　spiritual　judgments。　　There



are　moments　of　sentimental　and　mystical　experiencewe　shall



hereafter　hear　much　of　themthat　carry　an　enormous　sense　of



inner　authority　and　illumination　with　them　when　they　come。　　But



they　come　seldom；　and　they　do　not　come　to　everyone；　and　the　rest



of　life　makes　either　no　connection　with　them；　or　tends　to



contradict　them　more　than　it　confirms　them。　　Some　persons　follow



more　the　voice　of　the　moment　in　these　cases；　some　prefer　to　be



guided　by　the　average　results。　　Hence　the　sad　discordancy　of　so



many　of　the　spiritual　judgments　of　human　beings；　a　discordancy



which　will　be　brought　home　to　us　acutely　enough　before　these



lectures　end。







It　is；　however；　a　discordancy　that　can　never　be　resolved　by　any



merely　medical　test。　　A　good　example　of　the　impossibility　of



holding　strictly　to　the　medical　tests　is　seen　in　the　theory　of



the　pathological　causation　of　genius　promulgated　by　recent



authors。　　〃Genius；〃　said　Dr。　Moreau；　〃is　but　one　of　the　many



branches　of　the　neuropathic　tree。〃　　〃Genius；〃　says　Dr。　Lombroso；



〃is　a　symptom　of　hereditary　degeneration　of　the　epileptoid



variety；　and　is　allied　to　moral　insanity。〃　　　〃Whenever　a　man's



life；〃　writes　Mr。　Nisbet；　〃is　at　once　sufficiently　illustrious



and　recorded　with　sufficient　fullness　to　be　a　subject　of



profitable　study；　he　inevitably　falls　into　the　morbid　category。　。



。　。　　And　it　is　worthy　of　remark　that；　as　a　rule；　the　greater　the



genius；　the　greater　the　unsoundness。〃＇3＇







＇3＇　　J。　F。　Nisbet：　　The　Insanity　of　Genius；　3d　ed。；　London；　1893；



pp。　xvi。；　xxiv。















Now　do　these　authors；　after　having　succeeded　in　establishing　to



their　own　satisfaction　that　the　works　of　genius　are　fruits　of



disease；　consistently　proceed　thereupon　to　impugn　the　VALUE　of



the　fruits？　　Do　they　deduce　a　new　spiritual　judgment　from　their



new　doctrine　of　existential　conditions？　Do　they　frankly　forbid　us



to　admire　the　productions　of　genius　from　now　onwards？　　and　say



outright　that　no　neuropath　can　ever　be　a　revealer　of　new　truth？







No！　their　immediate　spiritual　instincts　are　too　strong　for　them



here；　and　hold　their　own　against　inferences　which；　in　mere　love



of　logical　consistency；　medical　materialism　ought　to　be　only　too



glad　to　draw。　　One　disciple　of　the　school；　indeed；　has　striven　to



impugn　the　value　of　works　of　genius　in　a　wholesale　way　（such



works　of　contemporary　art；　namely；　as　he　himself　is　unable　to



enjoy；　and　they　are　many）　by　using　medical　arguments。＇4＇　　But　for



the　most　part　the　masterpieces　are　left　unchallenged；　and　the



medical　line　of　attack　either　confines　itself　to　such　secular



productions　as　everyone　admits　to　be　intrinsically　eccentric；　or



else　addresses　itself　exclusively　to　religious　manifestations。　



And　then　it　is　because　the　religious　manifestations　have　been



already　condemned　because　the　critic　dislikes　them　on　internal　or



spiritual　grounds。







＇4＇　　Max　Nordau；　in　his　bulky　book　entitled　Degeneration。















In　the　natural　sciences　and　industrial　arts　it　never　occurs　to



anyone　to　try　to　refute　opinions　by　showing　up　their　author's



neurotic　constitution。　　Opinions　here　are　invariably　tested　by



logic　and　by　experiment；　no　matter　what　may　be　their　author's



neurological　type。　　It　should　be　no　otherwise　with　religious



opinions。　　Their　value　can　only　be　ascertained　by　spiritual



judgments　directly　passed　upon　them；　judgments　based　on　our　own



immediate　feeling　primarily；　and　secondarily　on　what　we　can



ascertain　of　their　experiential　relations　to　our　moral　needs　and



to　the　rest　of　what　we　hold　as　true。







Immediate　luminousness；　in　short；　philosophical　reasonableness；



and　moral　helpfulness　are　the　only　available　criteria。　Saint



Teresa　might　have　had　the　nervous　system　of　the　placidest　cow；



and　it　would　not　now　save　her　theology；　if　the　trial　of　the



theology　by　these　other　tests　should　show　it　to　be　contemptible。　



And　conversely　if　her　theology　can　stand　these　other　tests；　it



will　make　no　difference　how　hysterical　or　nervously　off　her



balance　Saint　Teresa　may　have　been　when　she　was　with　us　here



below。







You　see　that　at　bottom　we　are　thrown　back　upon　the　general



principles　by　which　the　empirical　philosophy　has　always　contended



that　we　must　be　guided　in　our　search　for　truth。　　Dogmatic



philosophies　have　sought　for　tests　for　truth　which　might　dispense



us　from　appealing　to　the　future。　Some　direct　mark；　by　noting



which　we　can　be　protected　immediately　and　absolutely；　now　and



forever；　against　all　mistakesuch　has　been　the　darling　dream　of



philosophic　dogmatists。　　It　is　clear　that　the　ORIGIN　of　the　truth



would　be　an　admirable　criterion　of　this　sort；　if　only　the　various



origins　could　be　discriminated　from　one　another　from　this　



point　of　view；　and　the　history　of　dogmatic　opinion　shows　that



origin　has　always　been　a　favorite　test。　　Origin　in　immediate



intuition；　origin　in　pontifical　authority；　origin　in　supernatural



revelation；　as　by　vision；　hearing；　or　unaccountable　impression；



origin　in　direct　possession　by　a　higher　spirit；　expressing　itself



in　prophecy　and　warning；　origin　in　automatic　utterance



generallythese　origins　have　been　stock　warrants　for　the　truth



of　one　opinion　after　another　which　we　find　represented　in



religious　history。　　The　medical　materialists　are　therefore　only



so　many　belated　dogmatists；　neatly　turning　the　tables　on　their



predecessors　by　using　the　criterion　of　origin　in　a　destructive



instead　of　an　accreditive　way。







They　are　effective　with　their　talk　of　pathological　origin　only　so



long　as　supernatural　origin　is　pleaded　by　the　other　side；　and



nothing　but　the　argument　from　origin　is　under　discussion。　　But



the　argument　from　origin　has　seldom　been　used　alone；　for　it　is



too　obviously　insufficient。　　Dr。　Maudsley　is　perhaps　the



cleverest　of　the　rebutters　of　supernatural　religion　on　grounds　of



origin。　　Yet　he　finds　himself　forced　to　write：







〃What　right　have　we　to　believe　Nature　under　any　obligation　to　do



her　work　by　means　of　complete　minds　only？　　She　may　find　an



incomplete　mind　a　more　suitable　instrument　for　a　particular



purpose。　　It　is　the　work　that　is　done；　and　the　quality　in　the



worker　by　which　it　was　done；　that　is　alone　of　moment；　and　it　may



be　no　great　matter　from　a　cosmical　standpoint；　if　in　other



qualities　of　character　he　was　singularly　defectiveif　indeed　he



were　hypocrite；　adulterer；　eccentric；　or　lunatic。　。　。　。　　Home　we



come　again；　then；　to　the　old　and　last　resort　of　certitudenamely



the　common　assent　of　mankind；　or　of　the　competent　by　instruction



and　training　among　mankind。〃＇5＇







＇5＇　　H。　Maudsley：　　Natural　Causes　and　Supernatural　Seemings；



1886；　pp。　256；　257。















In　other　words；　not　its　origin；　but　THE　WAY　IN　WHICH　IT　WORKS　ON



THE　WHOLE；　is　Dr。　Maudsley's　final　test　of　a　belief。　　This　is　our



own　empiricist　criterion；　and　this　criterion　the　stoutest



insisters　on　supernatural　origin　have　also　been　forced　to　use　in



the　end。　　Among　the　visions　and　messages　some　have　always　been



too　patently　silly；　among　the　trances　and　convulsive　seizures



some　have　been　too　fruitless　for　conduct　and　character；　to　pass



themselves　off　as　significant；　still　less　as　divine。　　In　the



history　of　Christian　mysticism　the　problem　how　to　discriminate



between　such　messages　and　experiences　as　were　really　divine



miracles；　and　such　others　as　the　demon　in　his　malice　was　able　to



counterfeit；　thus　making　the　religious　person　twofold　more　the



child　of　hell　he　was　before；　has　always　been　a　difficult　one　to



solve；　needing　all　the　sagacity　and　experience　of　the　best



directors　of　conscience。　　In　the　end　it　had　to　come　to　our



empiricist　criterion：　　By　their　fruits　ye　shall　know　them；　not　by



their　roots。　　Jonathan　Edwards's　Treatise　on　Religious　Affections



is　an　elaborate　working　out　of　this　thesis。　　The　ROOTS　of　a　man's



virtue　are　inaccessible　to　us。　　No　appearances　whatever　are



infallible　proofs　of　grace。　　Our　practice　is　the　only　sure



evidence；　even　to　ourselves；　that　we　are　genuinely　Christians。







〃In　forming　a　judgment　of　ourselves　now；〃　Edwards　writes；　we



should　certainly　adopt　that　evidence　which　our　supreme　Judge　will



chiefly　make　use　of　when　we　come　to　stand　before　him　at　the　last



day。　。　。　。　　There　is　not　one　grace　of　the　Spirit　of　God；　of　the



existence　of　which；　in　any　professor　of　religion；　Christian



practice　is　not　the　most　decisive　evidence。　。　。　。　　The　degree　in



which　our　experience　is　productive　of　practice　shows　the　degree



in　which　our　experience　is　spiritual　and　divine。〃







Catholic　writers　are　equally　emphatic。　　The　good　dispositions



which　a　vision；　or　voice；　or　other　apparent　heavenly　favor　leave



behind　them　are　the　only　marks　by　which　we　　may　be　sure　they



are　not　possible　deceptions　of　the　tempter。　　Says　Saint　Teresa：







〃Like　imperfect　sleep　which；　instead　of　giving　more　strength　to



the　head；　doth　but　leave　it　the　more　exhausted；　the　result　of



mere　operations　of　the　imagination　is　but　to　weaken　the　soul。



Instead　of　nourishment　and　energy　she　reaps　only　lassitude　and



disgust：　　whereas　a　genuine　heavenly　vision　yields　to　her　a



harvest　of　ineffable　spiritual　riches；　and　an　admirable　renewal



of　bodily　strength。　　I　alleged　these　reasons　to　those　who　so



often　accused　my　visions　of　being　the　work　of　the　enemy　of



mankind　and　the　sport　of　my　imagination。　。　。　。　　I　showed　them　the



jewels　which　the　divine　hand　had　left　with　me：they　were　my



actual　dispositions。　　All　those　who　knew　me　saw　that　I　was



changed；　my　confessor　bore　witness　to　the　fact；　this　improvement；



palpable　in　all　respects；　far　from　being　hidden；　was　brilliantly



evident　to　all　men。　　As　for　myself；　it　was　impossible　to　believe



that　if　the　demon　were　its　author；　he　could　have　used；　in　ord