It is only in action, or in the act of living, that we view ourselves as
distinct from nature. When we think, we see that we are a part of the
world in which we live, as much so as the trees and the other animals
are a part. Intellect unites what life separates. Our whole civilization
is the separating of one thing from another and classifying and
organizing them. We work ourselves away from rude Nature while we are
absolutely dependent upon her for health and strength. We cease to be
savages while we strive to retain the savage health and virility. We
improve Nature while we make war upon her. We improve her for our own
purposes. All the forces we use--wind, water, gravity, electricity--are
still those of rude Nature. Is it not by gravity that the water rises to
the top stories of our houses? Is it not by gravity that the aeroplane
soars to the clouds? When the mammoth guns hurl a ton of iron twenty
miles they pit the greater weight against the lesser. The lighter
projectile goes, and the heavier gun stays. So the athlete hurls the
hammer because he greatly outweighs it.
II. MARCUS AURELIUS ON DEATH
Marcus Aurelius speaks of death as "nothing else than a dissolution of
the elements of which every human being is composed." May we say it is
like a redistribution of the type after the page is printed? The type is
unchanged, only the order of arrangement is broken up. In the death of
the body the component elements--water, lime, iron, phosphorus,
magnesia, and so on--remain the same, but their organization is changed.
Is that all? Is this a true analogy? The meaning of the printed page,
the idea embodied, is the main matter. Can this idea be said to exist
independent of the type? Only in the mind that reads the page, and then
not permanently. Then it is only an arrangement of molecules of matter
in the brain, which is certainly only temporary. On the printed page it
is a certain combination of white and black that moves the cells of the
brain through the eye to create the idea. So the conception in our minds
of our neighbor or friend--his character, his personality--exists after
he is dead, but when our own brain ceases to function, where is it then?
We rather resent being summed up in this way in terms of physics, or
even of psychology. Can you reconstruct the flower or the fruit from its
ashes? Physics and biochemistry and psychology describe all men in the
same terms; our component parts are all the same; but character,
personality, mentality--do not these escape your analysis? and are they
not also real?
III. THE INTERPRETER OF NATURE
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