The Scientific Basis of National Progress, Including that of MoralityGore, George
Philosophy
The Scientific Basis of National Progress, Including that of Morality
Gore, George
Ethics; Progress; Science
The most fundamental principle which pervades every one of the sciences,
and agrees with the actions of every natural form of energy without
exception, including mind, is, that of consistency or non-contradiction. No
machine or scientific apparatus of any kind can perform two contradictory
acts at the same time. It is both a physiological and psychological fact,
that we cannot experience two contradictory sensations, nor perceive two
contradictory ideas at the {100} same instant. We can neither feel,
perceive, nor observe, one thing, whilst we are feeling, perceiving, or
observing, one of a contradictory nature; nor can we perform any two
contradictory acts of comparison, inference, imagination, or volition,
simultaneously. As also two mental actions are often not exactly alike, or
entirely harmonious, they must so far as they are really contradictory, be
mutually exclusive; and one of them must partly prevent the other, the
strongest one prevailing, and this general truth is commonly though not
explicitly, recognised in the maxim, that to do anything well, we must do
only one thing at a time. In accordance with the universal truth, that
contradictions cannot co-exist, it is well-known that one disease
frequently expels another from our frame, and the action of
counter-irritants is based upon the same principle. The fortitude of
martyrs may probably be explained by this power of one set of ideas and
feelings to exclude another, and the facts of mental physiology afford
plenty of other examples.
It is probably because we cannot simultaneously perform two contradictory
actions, that we cannot contemplate consciousness, or think of an idea and
at the same time think of that act of thought. In accordance with this,
even Newton, and other great geniuses, have been unable to accurately
describe the mental processes by means of which they arrived at their most
difficult results. In consequence also of this, we cannot define
consciousness, and are often {101} unable to directly observe or analyse
our mental actions, especially those of a very abstruse or complex kind.
Much of the knowledge of the operations of our mind, we are therefore
obliged to obtain by indirect means; by analogies, and inferences from the
phenomena of nature, &c., and in this way our knowledge of mental action
largely depends upon our acquaintance with physical and chemical science,
and can only advance as it advances. To clearly understand one subject we
are often obliged to study several others. Ignorance of science in general,
and of cerebral physiology in particular, is the chief obstacle to our
acquiring a more accurate knowledge of mind.
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