Scientific American Supplement, No. 360, November 25, 1882 — John Shaqi
Scientific American Supplement, No. 360, November 25, 1882Various
Science
Scientific American Supplement, No. 360, November 25, 1882
Various
Science -- Periodicals
There was a great and free intellectual movement in England in the
eighteenth century--indeed, it was from England that it passed into
France; but the English had not that strong natural bent for lucidity
which the French had. Its bent was toward other things in preference.
Our leading thinkers had not the genius and passion for lucidity which
distinguished Voltaire. In their free inquiry they soon found themselves
coming into collision with a number of established facts, beliefs,
conventions. Thereupon all sorts of practical considerations began to
sway them. The danger signal went up, they often stopped short, turned
their eyes another way, or drew down a curtain between themselves and
the light. "It seems highly probable," said Voltaire, "that nature has
made thinking a portion of the brain, as vegetation is a function of
trees; that we think by the brain just as we walk by the feet." So our
reason, at least, would lead us to conclude, if the theologians did not
assure us of the contrary; such, too, was the opinion of Locke, but he
did not venture to announce it. The French Revolution came, England grew
to abhor France, and was cut off from the Continent, did great things,
gained much, but not in lucidity. The Continent was reopened, the
century advanced, time and experience brought their lessons, lovers of
free and clear thought, such as the late John Stuart Mill, arose among
us. But we could not say that they had by any means founded among us the
reign of lucidity.
Let them consider that movement of which we were hearing so much just
now: let them look at the Salvation Army and its operations. They would
see numbers, funds, energy, devotedness, excitement, conversions, and
a total absence of lucidity. A little lucidity would make the whole
movement impossible. That movement took for granted as its basis what
was no longer possible or receivable; its adherents proceeded in all
they did on the assumption that that basis was perfectly solid, and
neither saw that it was not solid, nor ever even thought of asking
themselves whether it was solid or not.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account