on the significance of science and art-第3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！


Comte；　consisting　of　two　parts；　of　positive　philosophy　and　of
positive　politics；　only　the　first　was　adopted　by　the　learned　world；…
…that　part　which　justifieth；　on　new　promises；　the　existent　evil　of
human　societies；　but　the　second　part；　treating　of　the　moral
obligations　of　altruism；　arising　from　the　recognition　of　mankind　as
an　organism；　was　regarded　as　not　only　of　no　importance；　but　as
trivial　and　unscientific。　　It　was　a　repetition　of　the　same　thing
that　had　happened　in　the　case　of　Kant's　works。　　The　〃Critique　of
Pure　Reason〃　was　adopted　by　the　scientific　crowd；　but　the　〃Critique
of　Applied　Reason；〃　that　part　which　contains　the　gist　of　moral
doctrine；　was　repudiated。　　In　Kant's　doctrine；　that　was　accepted　as
scientific　which　subserved　the　existent　evil。　　But　the　positive
philosophy；　which　was　accepted　by　the　crowd；　was　founded　on　an
arbitrary　and　erroneous　basis；　was　in　itself　too　unfounded；　and
therefore　unsteady；　and　could　not　support　itself　alone。　　And　so；
amid　all　the　multitude　of　the　idle　plays　of　thought　of　the　men
professing　the　so…called　science；　there　presents　itself　an　assertion
equally　devoid　of　novelty；　and　equally　arbitrary　and　erroneous；　to
the　effect　that　living　beings；　i。e。；　organisms；　have　had　their　rise
in　each　other；not　only　one　organism　from　another；　but　one　from
many；　i。e。；　that　in　a　very　long　interval　of　time　（in　a　million　of
years；　for　instance）；　not　only　could　a　duck　and　a　fish　proceed　from
one　ancestor；　but　that　one　animal　might　result　from　a　whole　hive　of
bees。　　And　this　arbitrary　and　erroneous　assumption　was　accepted　by
the　learned　world　with　still　greater　and　more　universal　sympathy。
This　assumption　was　arbitrary；　because　no　one　has　ever　seen　how　one
organism　is　made　from　another；　and　therefore　the　hypothesis　as　to
the　origin　of　species　will　always　remain　an　hypothesis；　and　not　an
experimental　fact。　　　And　this　hypothesis　was　also　erroneous；　because
the　decision　of　the　question　as　to　the　origin　of　speciesthat　they
have　originated；　in　consequence　of　the　law　of　heredity　and　fitness；
in　the　course　of　an　interminably　long　timeis　no　solution　at　all；
but　merely　a　re…statement　of　the　problem　in　a　new　form。

According　to　Moses'　solution　of　the　question　（in　the　dispute　with
whom　the　entire　significance　of　this　theory　lies）；　it　appears　that
the　diversity　of　the　species　of　living　creatures　proceeded　according
to　the　will　of　God；　and　according　to　His　almighty　power；　but
according　to　the　theory　of　evolution；　it　appears　that　the　difference
between　living　creatures　arose　by　chance；　and　on　account　of　varying
conditions　of　heredity　and　surroundings；　through　an　endless　period
of　time。　　The　theory　of　evolution；　to　speak　in　simple　language；
merely　asserts；　that　by　chance；　in　an　incalculably　long　period　of
time；　out　of　any　thing　you　like；　any　thing　else　that　you　like　may
develop。

This　is　no　answer　to　the　problem。　　And　the　same　problem　is
differently　expressed：　　instead　of　will；　chance　is　offered；　and　the
co…efficient　of　the　eternal　is　transposed　from　the　power　to　the
time。　　But　this　fresh　assertion　strengthened　Comte's　assertion。
And；　moreover；　according　to　the　ingenuous　confession　of　the　founder
of　Darwin's　theory　himself；　his　idea　was　aroused　in　him　by　the　law
of　Malthus；　and　he　therefore　propounded　the　theory　of　the　struggle
of　living　creatures　and　people　for　existence；　as　the　fundamental　law
of　every　living　thing。　　And　lo！　only　this　was　needed　by　the　throng
of　idle　people　for　their　justification。

Two　insecure　theories；　incapable　of　sustaining　themselves　on　their
feet；　upheld　each　other；　and　acquired　the　semblance　of　stability。
Both　theories　bore　with　them　that　idea　which　is　precious　to　the
crowd；　that　in　the　existent　evil　of　human　societies；　men　are　not　to
blame；　and　that　the　existing　order　of　things　is　that　which　should
prevail；　and　the　new　theory　was　adopted　by　the　throng　with　entire
faith　and　unheard…of　enthusiasm。　　And　behold；　on　the　strength　of
these　two　arbitrary　and　erroneous　hypotheses；　accepted　as　dogmas　of
belief；　the　new　scientific　doctrine　was　ratified。

Spencer；　for　example；　in　one　of　his　first　works；　expresses　this
doctrine　thus：…

〃Societies　and　organisms；〃　he　says；　〃are　alike　in　the　following
points：…

〃1。　　In　that；　beginning　as　tiny　aggregates；　they　imperceptibly　grow
in　mass；　so　that　some　of　them　attain　to　the　size　of　ten　thousand
times　their　original　bulk。

〃2。　　In　that　while　they　were；　in　the　beginning；　of　such　simple
structure；　that　they　can　be　regarded　as　destitute　of　all　structure；
they　acquire　during　the　period　of　their　growth　a　constantly
increasing　complication　of　structure。

〃3。　　In　that　although　in　their　early；　undeveloped　period；　there
exists　between　them　hardly　any　interdependence　of　parts；　their　parts
gradually　acquire　an　interdependence；　which　eventually　becomes　so
strong；　that　the　life　and　activity　of　each　part　becomes　possible
only　on　condition　of　the　life　and　activity　of　the　remaining　parts。

〃4。　　In　that　life　and　the　development　of　society　are　independent；
and　more　protracted　than　the　life　and　development　of　any　one　of　the
units　constituting　it；　which　are　born；　grow；　act；　reproduce
themselves；　and　die　separately；　while　the　political　body　formed　from
them；　continues　to　live　generation　after　generation；　developing　in
mass　in　perfection　and　functional　activity。〃

The　points　of　difference　between　organisms　and　society　go　farther；
and　it　is　proved　that　these　differences　are　merely　apparent；　but
that　organisms　and　societies　are　absolutely　similar。

For　the　uninitiated　man　the　question　immediately　presents　itself：
〃What　are　you　talking　about？　　Why　is　mankind　an　organism；　or　similar
to　an　organism？〃

You　say　that　societies　resemble　organisms　in　these　four　features；
but　it　is　nothing　of　the　sort。　　You　only　take　a　few　features　of　the
organism；　and　beneath　them　you　range　human　communities。　　You　bring
forward　four　features　of　resemblance；　then　you　take　four　features　of
dissimilarity；　which　are；　however；　only　apparent　（according　to　you）；
and　you　thence　conclude　that　human　societies　can　be　regarded　as
organisms。　　But　surely；　this　is　an　empty　game　of　dialectics；　and
nothing　more。　　On　the　same　foundation；　under　the　features　of　an
organism；　you　may　range　whatever　you　please。　　I　will　take　the　fist
thing　that　comes　into　my　head。　　Let　us　suppose　it　to　be　a　forest；
the　manner　in　which　it　sows　itself　in　the　plain；　and　spreads　abroad。
1。　Beginning　with　a　small　aggregate；　it　increases　imperceptibly　in
mass；　and　so　forth。　　Exactly　the　same　thing　takes　place　in　the
fields；　when　they　gradually　seed　themselves　down；　and　bring　forth　a
forest。　　2。　In　the　beginning　the　structure　is　simple：　　afterwards　it
increases　in　complication；　and　so　forth。　　Exactly　the　same　thing
happens　with　the　forest；in　the　first　place；　there　were　only　bitch…
trees；　then　came　brush…wood　and　hazel…bushes；　at　first　all　grow
erect；　then　they　interlace　their　branches。　　3。　The　interdependence
of　the　parts　is　so　augmented；　that　the　life　of　each　part　depends　on
the　life　and　activity　of　the　remaining　parts。　　It　is　precisely　so
with　the　forest；the　hazel…bush　warms　the　tree…boles　（cut　it　down；
and　the　other　trees　will　freeze）；　the　hazel…bush　protects　from　the
wind；　the　seed…bearing　trees　carry　on　reproduction；　the　tall　and
leafy　trees　afford　shade；　and　the　life　of　one　tree　depends　on　the
life　of　another。　　4。　The　separate　parts　may　die；　but　the　whole
lives。　　Exactly　the　case　with　the　forest。　　The　forest　does　not　mourn
one　tree。

Having　proved　that；　in　accordance　with　this　theory；　you　may　regard
the　forest　as　an　organism；　you　fancy　that　you　have　proved　to　the
disciples　of　the　organic　doctrine　the　error　of　their　definition。
Nothing　of　the　sort。　　The　definition　which　they　give　to　the　organism
is　so　inaccurate　and　so　elastic　that　under　this　definition　they　may
include　what　they　will。　　〃Yes；〃　they　say；　〃and　the　forest　may　also
be　regarded　as　an　organism。　　The　forest　is　mutual　re…action　of
individuals；　which　do　not　annihilate　each　other；an　aggregate；　its
parts　may　also　enter　into　a　more　intimate　union；　as　the　hive　of　bees
constitutes　itself　an　organism。〃　　Then　you　will　say；　〃If　that　is　so；
then　the　birds　and　the　insects