Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

Pierre Charron.

De la Sagesse: trois livres; par P. CHARRON, Bordeaux, 1601; edit. expurg. Par. 1604.

Eloge de P. Charron, par G. M. D. R. (GEORGE MICHEL DE ROCHEMAILLET), prefixed to the Works of Charron, Par. 1607. See BAYLE.

306. Montaigne had great influence over two distinguished authors of his own day: Etienne Boëtie (died 1563), counsellor of the parliament of Bordeaux; who in his Discours de la Servitude Volontaire, set forth with considerable talent his republican principles: and Pierre Charron (born at Paris 1541), an excellent spiritual orator, and a man of ability and spiritual character; but who, in consequence of his intimacy with Montaigne, having contracted a habit of Scepticism, expressed himself with greater freedom on religious points. According to him, Wisdom (la Sagesse), is the free investigation of what is common and habitual. The desire of knowledge is natural to man; but Truth resides with God alone, and a description of his Nature is undefinable by human reason. On this principle he grounds another, of distrust and indifference with regard to all science; a bold disbelief of Virtue (in its manfestation); and even of the great doctrines of Religion (particularly the immortality of the Soul), as well as of the foundations of all positive Religion, not excepting the Christian; alleging that its external history did not correspond with its divine original, and the ideal of God in the Reason, and the worship of God. On the other hand he insisted upon the obligations of a certain Internal Religion connected with Virtue, and founded in the knowledge of God and Self, and exhorted with power and dignity to the practice of moral duties derived from a certain everlasting and imperishable law of Nature, which has been implanted in the reason by God himself, and contains the highest good of Man. This crude theory he expressed with some eloquence, and died 1603, decried by many as an atheist; which he did not altogether deserve.

307. We perceive that the human mind had, in the period of which we are treating, attempted many paths, already opened, to the attainment of science, by the of Revelation, Reason, and Experience. None of them had

ways

been pursued far enough, in order to lay a sure foundation; because, occupied with the pursuit of results and conclusions, men had omitted to begin by giving them a solid basis. They had not yet inquired in what respects Revelation may be justly expected to be a source of knowledge: nor had the pretensions of Experience and Reason to be severally the fountain-heads of knowledge, been balanced or adjusted. A sort of Scepticism, grounded on experience, discouraged the pride of philosophical speculation, without having the effect of silencing its inquiries; and rather busied itself with diving again into the exhausted mines of ancient doubts, than attempted any fresh proofs of the certainty of knowledge. A species of intellectual anarchy and chaos seemed for a time to prevail: the more exact knowledge derived from the writings of the ancients contributing rather to increase than to still the commotion; till it ended in something like an universal fermentation, which slowly defæcated. An immense mass of unorganized knowledge and manifold views contended together, till the necessity came to be gradually felt of more systematic and better-founded inquiries and knowledge; and to attain this end deeper and freer efforts were made, which became continually more effectual and more universal.

MODERN PHILOSOPHY.

FROM THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TO OUR OWN

TIMES.

A free and progressive spirit of inquiry into the principles, the laws, and limits of human knowledge; with attempts to systematise and combine them.

308. It was time that the human mind should assume confidence in itself, and, relying on its own powers, force its way through the deep labyrinth of knowledge. Many causes which we have already enumerated combined to stimulate its exertions; and among the most powerful were the desire of elucidating the grounds of Religious and Moral knowledge; and the wish to reconcile and associate the

Empiric and Rational systems. The philosophical systems of the Greeks continued to be examples of what might be effected, though they were no longer adhered to as models. The improvement in social habits, and the clearer views of moral duties, which Religion and established forms of Government had promoted, brought with them the necessity for a more perfect system of Ethics than was to be found in the theories of the Ancients; while the Scholastic system was found less and less capable of satisfying the demands of an increasing curiosity. The improvement effected in the mathematical sciences by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Torricelli, awakened a like enthusiasm among philosophers of another class, which the analogy subsisting between their pursuits tended to promote.

309. A want that appears to have been especially felt by the philosophic mind about this time, and which the Greeks. had been unable to satisfy, was that of bringing the whole mass of human knowledge to systematic unity. Greater attention was bestowed on the questions of the Origin, the Truth, and the Certitude of Knowledge, especially as relates to the belief in God, Immortality, Free Will, Human Destiny, and the foundation and obligation of Morality. Hence arose systems differing in their consequence and in their principles, according as they admitted experience or reason as sources of knowledge. Scepticism, which had been resuscitated by the discordance of doctrines and the pretensions of the Dogmatists, became more cautious and deliberate, and confined its attacks chiefly to the sphere of false specu

lation.

Revelation became daily less regarded as a source of philosophical knowledge, and Reason gradually obtained the casting-vote; yet Supernaturalism was maintained by a strong party; and as soon as an exclusive system of Dialectics showed its head, Mysticism and Theosophy were sure to rise up against it. The most influential philosophers acknowledged the accord of Reason and Revelation; but positive Theology still arrogated to itself the right of summoning Reason before its own tribunal.

310. The following is a summary of the chief merits of chat period. 1.-Philosophy began at length to obtain the right of occupying an independent field and domain of

human knowledge. 2.-The system of knowledge began to be better studied as a whole and in its branches. 3.-Philosophy began to be freer in its relations with Theology, though the latter still maintained the right of admonition and censure. 4.-Science daily gained in depth; it passed from the material to the formal, i. e., to the examination of knowledge in its nature and origin. The same path is fol lowed by Scepticism. 5.-The Philosophic method was applied more carefully to establish systematic unity in knowledge; and attempts were made to find the art of introduction to philosophy (Propädeutik).

311. This period may be subdivided into two: the first extending to the end of the eighteenth century, and capable of being distinguished into smaller epochs by the names of the great men who illumined it; the efforts at knowledge then made being principally of a Dogmatic character. This period also embraces the parallel movement of Mysticism and Theosophy. The second part, from the last twenty years of the eighteenth century to our times, presents the attempt by which men tried, through the assistance of the critical method, to set up philosophical Reason in its proper independence, and, moreover, the systematic movements and efforts to which this struggle has given birth.

FIRST PERIOD.

FROM BACON TO KANT.

FROM THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH.

Fresh and independent Essays of Reason, with a more profound and Systematical Spirit of investigation.

312. Two great spirits, Bacon and Descartes, determined the direction of the human mind for a long period; they respectively advocated Experience and Speculation as the secrets for deciphering philosophy. This new teaching originated first in Italy; but it only obtained a fair field in England, France, and Germany. Both parties sought to establish the nature of things on a sure foundation, and endeavoured to give currency and credit to their systems by the manifold nature, the oneness, and the completeness of their results. As, however, they neglected to lay firm foundations, owing to the rapid erection of this structure, they were not able to give them that degree of perfection which would secure them universal supremacy. The Reason fell. into schisms, owing to the opposite tendencies to unscientific Empiricism, or to an exaggerated love of Demonstration, through the conflict existing between the interests of the Understanding and the Reason, between Common Sense and Speculation.

Philosophers had, previous to this time, a divided interest, either in favour of theory or praxis. Hence there resulted, of necessity, a onesidedness. It was, therefore, easy to find defects in the conflicting systems; and in these defects to find a confirmation of one's own system. The opponents on each side repeated the same game; and from these causes there originated struggles which resulted at last in a spiritless indifference to all peculiar philosophical researches.

« PreviousContinue »