CHAPTER V.

SOURCES OF ERROR IN METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION.

ALL proposed metaphysical principles are attempted expressions of the intuitions in the form of a general law. Now, error may at times spring from the assumption of a principle which has no existence whatever in the human mind. I am persuaded, however, that the mistakes thus originated are comparatively few, and are seldom followed by serious consequences. In regard to the assumption of totally imaginary principles, I am convinced that there have been fewer blunders in metaphysical than in physical science. As the intuitions of the mind are working in every man's bosom, it will seldom happen that the speculator can set out with a principle which has no existence whatever; and should he so venture, he would certainly meet with little response. It is possible also for error to arise from a chain of erroneous deduction from principles which are genuine in themselves and soundly interpreted. The mis takes springing from this quarter are likewise, I believe, few and trifling, the more so that those who draw such inferences are generally men of powerful logical mind, and not likely to commit errors in reasoning; and if they do, those who have ability to follow them would be sure to detect them. By far the most copious source of aberration in philosophic speculation is to be found in the imperfect, or exaggerated, or mutilated expression of principles which really have a place in our constitution. In such cases the presence of the real metal gives currency to the dross which is mixed with it.

In regard to many of our intuitions, the gathering of the common quality out of the concrete and individual manifestations is as subtle a work as the human understanding can be engaged in. This arises from the recondite, the complicated, and fugitive nature of the mental states from which they must be drawn. But from the very commencement of speculation and the breaking out of discussion, attempts have been made to give a body and a form to the native convictions. It is seldom that the account is altogether illusory; most commonly there is a basis of fact to set off the fiction. But the principle is seen and represented only under one aspect, while others are left out of sight. It often happens that those whose intuitions are the strongest and the liveliest are of all men the least qualified to examine and generalize them, and should they be tempted to embody them in propositions, they will be sure to take distorted, perhaps erroneous, forms. In all departments of speculation, metaphysical, ethical, and theological, we meet with persons whose faith is strong, whose sentiments are fervent, and whose very reason is far-seeing, but whose creed - that is, formalized doctrine-is extravagant, or even perilously wrong. In other cases the conviction, genuine in itself, is put forth in a mutilated shape by prejudiced men to support a favorite doctrine, or by party men to get rid of a formidable objection.

The human mind is impelled by an intellectual craving, and by the circumstances in which it is placed, to be ever generalizing, and this in respect both of material and mental phenomena. But the earliest classes and systems, even those of them made for scientific purposes, are commonly of a very crude character. Such laws as these have been laid down: "Nature abhors a vacuum;""Some bodies are naturally light, and others

heavy;" "Combustible bodies are chemically composed of a base with phlogiston combined; "The organs of

the flower are transformed leaves."

These are examples from physical science. Metaphysical science, from the subtle and intertwined nature of the phenomena, can furnish far more numerous instances. In mental philosophy the general statements have commonly a genuine fact, but mixed with this there is often an alloy. The error may not influence the spontaneous action of the primitive principle, but it may tell disastrously or ludicrously in the reflex applica⚫tion. It may not even exercise any prejudicial influence in certain departments of investigation, but in other walks it may work endless confusion, or land in consequences fitted to sap the very foundations of morality and religion. Take the distinction drawn, in some form, by most civilized languages between the head and the heart. The distinction embodies a great truth, and when used in conversation or popular discourse it can conduct to no evil. But it cannot be carried out psychologically. For in each a number of very distinct faculties are included. Under the phrase "heart,” in particular, are covered powers with wide diversities of function, such as the conscience, the emotions, and the will. The question agitated in this century, whether religion be an affair of the head or the heart, has come to be a hopelessly perplexed one, because the offices of the powers embraced under each are diverse, and run into each other; and certain of the positions taken up are, to say the least of it, perilous: as when it is said that religion resides exclusively in the heart, and persons understand that it is a matter of mere emotion, omitting understanding, will, and conscience, which have equally a part to play. Of the same description is the distinc

tion between the reason and the understanding. It points to a reality. There is a distinction between reason in its primary, and reason in its secondary, or logical, exercises, and the mind can rise, always, however, by a process in which the logical understanding is employed, to the discovery of universal and necessary truth. But each of the divisions, the reason and the understanding, comprises powers which run into the other. This distinction is at the best confusing, and it is often so stated as to imply that the reason, without the use of the understanding processes of abstraction and generalization, can rise to the contemplation of the true, the beautiful, and the good. Almost all metaphysical errors have proceeded from the improper formalization of principles which are real laws of our constitution. When presented in a mutilated shape, even truth may lead to hideous consequences. Suppose that the law of cause and effect be put in the form that "every thing has a cause," it will issue logically in the conclusion that God himself must have a cause. This consequence can be avoided only by the proper enunciation of the law that every thing that begins to be has a cause."

66

There is another circumstance to be taken into account by those who would unfold the theory of the metaphysician's extravagances; he is not restrained, as the physical investigator is, by stubborn facts, nor checked, as the commercial man is, by stern realities, which he dare not despise. He has only to mount into a region of pure (or rather, I should say, cloudy) speculation, to find himself in circumstances to cleave his way without meeting with any felt barrier. At the same time one might have reasonably expected that when such speculators as Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel felt themselves rushing headlong against all acknowl

edged truth, they would have suspected that there was something wrong in the assumptions with which they set out and in the method which they followed. Whenever metaphysical assumptions or speculations run counter to the established truths of physical science; whenever they lead to the denial of the distinction between good and evil, or the personality of the soul, or of the existence, of the personality, and continual providence of God, it is time to review the process by which they have been gained, for they are running counter to truths which have too deep a foundation to be moved by doubtful speculations. The remark of Bacon as to physical, may be applied to metaphysical, speculation, that doctrine is to be tried (not valued, however) by fruits: "Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced; for the fruits and effects are sureties and vouchers, as it were, for philosophy." "In the same manner as we are cautioned by religion to show our faith by our works, we may freely apply the principle to philosophy, and judge of it by its works, accounting that to be futile which is unproductive, and still more, if instead of grapes and olives it yield but the thistles and thorns of dispute and contention."