The nature of man : $b Studies in optimistic philosophyMetchnikoff, Elie
Philosophy
The nature of man : $b Studies in optimistic philosophy
Metchnikoff, Elie
Human beings; Human biology; Life (Biology)
Such words were capable of impressing men because of their eloquence and
sincerity, but they could not arrest the continued and triumphant
advance of science, which indeed, precisely at the end of the eighteenth
century, began its modern and lasting progress. For it was then that
Laplace described the system of the heavens and that Lavoisier laid the
foundation of modern chemistry and of our knowledge of the
indestructibility of matter.
In the nineteenth century, science has made a revolution in life by its
application of steam and by its other triumphs. None the less it has not
satisfied many distinguished persons. And to-day we find a writer of
genius, in the manner of Rousseau, raising his voice against the science
of the nineteenth century.
Tolstoi, in an essay of which the title is, “On the Aim of Science and
Art,” has attempted to show the incompetence of science with regard to
the great problems that occupy humanity. The task set himself by the
Russian writer was much harder than that of Rousseau, for with the
passing of a century science has become much more powerful.
Tolstoi is convinced that theoretical investigations into the origin of
life, the intimate structure of living matter and so forth, are of no
importance to human beings, and serve no other purpose than to flatter
the pretensions of the learned. “All that we call culture,” he affirmed,
“our sciences, our arts, improvements in the amenity of life, are no
other than attempts to deceive the moral cravings of mankind; all that
we call hygiene and medicine are no other than attempts to deceive the
physical and natural cravings of mankind.”[277]
The whole progress of science “up to the present time, has not only not
improved the lot of the majority of mankind, that is to say of the
labourers, but has made it worse.”[278]
Tolstoi thinks that the epithet “true science” could be given only to
“knowledge of the right aim and true happiness of each individual and of
mankind as a whole. Such a science would serve as a guiding thread in
determining the proper sphere of all knowledge”; “without knowledge of
the proper aim of life and of the real good of humanity, all other
knowledge and every art become merely amusements idle or even
harmful.”[279]
The chief grievance of the great Russian writer against knowledge,
culture, and progress can be resolved into the powerlessness of these to
explain the most difficult problems of humanity, that is to say the real
aim of human life, and what really constitutes true happiness.
In this connection, Tolstoi gives expression to a view which is shared
by many thinkers. Some years later, Brunetière,[280] a well-known French
writer and public man, under the influence of a recent journey to Rome
and visit to the Pope, made public a similar opinion, and proclaimed
aloud the fallibility of science.
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