Page images
PDF
EPUB

manity is utterly baseless; and we are shut up either to asceticism for the extinction of the will, which is the root of all our trouble, as commended by Schopenhauer in theory, though unapplied by him in practice; or to utter worldliness, that the illusions of life may be speedily demonstrated, a course seriously advocated by Von Hartmann, and by him consistently pursued.

While this morbid creed is remarkable, the favor with which it is being received is even more so. Dühring claims that it is "the most sober philosophy of the century"; and Dr. McCosh, in the Princeton Review, calls attention to the fact that "Of late years German students have been wandering after Schopenhauer and Hartmann; and American and British youths, seeing the crowd, have joined them, and been gazing with them." But beyond the student classes the popularity of Pessimism in some of its forms is startling. Many persons in every community who do not subscribe to all of its positions unreservedly, yet sympathize with its estimate of life and its views of death. Thousands who have never heard the name of the system, and to whom it is meaningless, have already accepted its dreariest expectations and its darkest consolations. Grief, trial, disappointment, raises the question in minds inaccessible to Von Hartmann's speculations as to whether, after all, life can be called a blessing. The ambiguity of the term "happiness," as it is commonly used, and the inadequacy of multiplied pleasures, however pure and refined the pleasures may be, to answer to any definition, have prepared the way for the blank denial which Pessimists pronounce. It is welcomed as on the whole more rational than any other answer, if not as gratifying. Moreover, the dissolute orders of society hail it with delight. In Paris it is currently reported that books upon this subject are being widely read by the demireps and scoundrels, who find in them some solace

[blocks in formation]

ment for the virtue and integrity they have bartered for fleshly joys. Such works, therefore, have a large audience, and I am inclined to the opinion that it will increase before it diminishes. Not improbably literary men will be tempted by the avidity with which the more sentimental aspects of this Ism are received by the people, to multiply literature on the subject, and thus to disseminate even more widely than at present these doleful, lugubrious, sunless, and tenebrious views. Most likely the night will thicken before the daybreak comes, and society return to a kind of philosophic chaos before God shall once more say, "Let there be light." Such being the melancholy outlook, it is surely the duty of earnest inquirers to do all in their power to mitigate, if they cannot arrest, the impending gloom; and this can only be done by challenging the Pessimistic theory, and suggesting in its stead a more rational and satisfactory explanation of human suffering.

That the doctrine of the Unconscious is a metaphysical figment, which hardly deserves the attention of serious criticism, no one who is seeking clear views and not mere entertainment from dialectical gymnastics will for a moment question. It is difficult to believe that any person in sober earnestness can expect such a tissue of absurd speculations as Von Hartmann has put forth in the name of philosophy to commend themselves to common sense. When that Infinite Indefiniteness which is substituted for the Almighty is represented as divided, the Will breaking away from the unconscious Reason, and the unconscious Reason then seeking to overtake and annihilate the pernicious Will, into what incoherencies and contradictions of thought are we thrown! How can the Will, apart from conscious intelligence, create, and how can intelligence, deprived of will, determine? To will anything implies a conscious conception of the thing to be willed, and will

can no more will without intelligence than intelligence can will without will. But according to Von Hartmann we are to credit that the universe sprang from the independent activity of a will without plan and without knowledge, and that now an intelligence, which was once unconscious, is seeking to counteract the maleficent blundering of this will, although by the terms of the preceding proposition not a vestige of volitional energy is left to it wherewith to execute its benevolent intentions. Such an astounding cosmogony destroys itself. Its terms are irreconcilable with each other, and contrary to the fundamental principles of thought. Assuredly neither this involved hypothesis nor that of Schopenhauer possesses any advantages over the Theism of Scripture; neither is as intelligible nor as rational, and neither is as satisfactory to the heart nor as useful to the life. We may, therefore, dismiss the cloudy metaphysics of Pessimism as fanciful and profitless, and direct our attention to its more obvious teachings and tendencies. That these are equally unworthy of confidence may be inferred from the peculiar circumstances which have always attended the origin and progress of the theory. Never, as far as I can ascertain from its history, has it appeared among a people in the more youthful and natural stages of national development. It has only risen, like a grim shadow or unearthly monster, in after years, when civilization has introduced artificial methods of estimating things, or general corruption has seriously impaired the tone of buoyancy and hope. When religion has been asphyxied by impurities, when manliness has been atrophied by defective intellectual nourishment, and tenderest affections have been gangrened by lascivious indulgence and moral filthiness, then has this hideous Philosophical Nightmare disturbed the repose of much afflicted peoples. Among the Hindus it followed on the decline of the healthier Vedic-Faith, and was simply

ORIGIN OF PESSIMISM.

137

the expression of the wretched degradation into which entire tribes were falling. Brahmanism was not the first religion of the East. The first, if we may judge from the remnants of its literature which have descended to us, was jocund, elastic, taking bright views of life and destiny, and wholly free from Pessimistic taints. But wars, ambitions, the growth of caste, and the multiplication of other evils, undermined its strength, and in its place arose the gigantic and gloomy worship which for centuries oppressed India. Even this system was not without some advantages, but they quickly disappeared, and in a time of densest darkness the reformation known as Buddhism was inaugurated. This took its color from the age in which it originated, and while it corrected some abuses and protested against more, it taught that evil is the very essence of existence, that even in the lives of the greatest gods misery is feared, and that all worlds have been made in vain and are doomed to wretchedness. Among the Greeks and Romans this wormwood-faith never prevailed; and even Diogenes went not as far in cynicism as Gautama. These nations were not sufficiently morbid for it to take root in their intellectual soil. Too cheerful, too active, too discerning for such an insalubrious creed to suggest itself to them, it was reserved for the grave-minded, grimbrooding and tobacco-beclouded Germans to revive and naturalize it among Europeans. And this was not effected in recent prosperous, united times; but when disastrous wars, social depressions and commercial stagnations had prostrated the nation, had darkened its mind, and crushed its heart, Schopenhauer wrote of the great earth-sorrow. If it shall be thought singular that it should retain its vitality in these days of "unexampled prosperity," let it not be forgotten that we have drifted into materialism and secularism, and that in a different way, but just as truly, our century is as diseased as the last, and that to the un

wholesome condition of both must we ascribe the beginning and the advancement of Pessimistic philosophy. Now, from these facts its seems legitimate to conclude that there must be something abnormal in a theory which is thus identified with abnormal conditions of society. As we have seen, it flourishes only in a sickly, pestilential social atmosphere, and it is no more than reasonable to suspect that it simply exhales the poison of its surroundings, and is, therefore, a death-bearing tree, under whose shadow no mind should be tempted to seek repose.

It should also be remembered that it is natural for man, whatever he may profess, to act on the belief that life is not only desirable, but is really worth taking no small degree of trouble to enjoy. This was evidently the rule of Schopenhauer's conduct, however it may have run contrary to his creed. He was no ascetic, and some of his most ardent admirers approximate more closely to his appreciation of the good things to be found in this world than to his intellectual ability. Further, it should not be overlooked that many who charge themselves with the task of exposing the hollowness of existing institutions, and who point out most distinctly the unutterable woes of the race, are not Pessimists, and have no sympathy with their lugubrious estimates, but, like Rousseau and Byron, believe in the attainability of happiness, and, like Carlyle and Heine, acknowledge a supreme, satisfying Something somewhere. They who are most extreme in their denunciation of shams are most fully persuaded of an ultimate outcome in goodness and blessedness. Why, then, accept the ungladdening theory of life, painfully elaborated by a few moaning philosophers as an impartial statement, and why should we attach so much importance to their tearful array of horrors, when, on the whole, human consciousness testifies to a clear excess of enjoyment over suffering?

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »