The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races: With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of MankindGobineau, Arthur, comte de
Philosophy
The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races: With Particular Reference to Their Respective Influence in the Civil and Political History of Mankind
Rome, at first strictly utilitarian, changed its character gradually as
the fusion with Greek, Asiatic, and African elements proceeded, and when
once the ancient utilitarian population was absorbed in this ethnical
inundation, the practical character of Rome was lost.
* * * * *
From the consideration of these and similar facts, I arrive at the
conclusion, that all intellectual or moral activity results from the
combined action and mutual reaction of these two tendencies, and that
the social system can arrive at that development which entitles it to
the name of civilization, only in races which possess, in a high degree,
either of the two, without being too much deficient in the other.
I now proceed to the examination of other points also deserving of
notice.
FOOTNOTES:
[94] Hazlitt's translation, vol. i. p 21. New York, 1855.--H.
[95] A careful comparison of Mr. Guizot's views with those expressed by
Count Gobineau upon this interesting subject convinced me that the
differences of opinion between these two investigators required a more
careful and minute examination than the author has thought necessary.
With this view, I subjoin further extracts from the celebrated "_History
of Civilization in Europe_," from which, I think, it will appear that
few of the great truths comprised in the definition of _civilization_
have escaped the penetration and research of the illustrious writer, but
that, being unable to divest himself of the idea of _unity_ of
civilization, he has necessarily fallen into an error, with which a
great metaphysician justly charges so many reasoners. "It is hard," says
Locke, speaking of the abuse of words, "to find a discourse written on
any subject, especially of controversy, wherein one shall not observe,
if he read with attention, the same words (and those commonly the most
material in the discourse, and upon which the argument turns) used
sometimes for one collection of simple ideas, and sometimes for
another.... A man, in his accompts with another, might with as much
fairness, make the characters of numbers stand sometimes for one, and
sometimes for another collection of units (_e. g._, this character, 3,
stand sometimes for three, sometimes for four, and sometimes for eight),
as, in his discourse or reasoning, make the same words stand for
different collections of simple ideas."
* * * * *
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account