按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
get into。
The main point here； however； is that this idea of a fundamental
alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought
about the past or future simply impossible。 The theory of a
complete change of standards in human history does not merely
deprive us of the pleasure of honouring our fathers； it deprives
us even of the more modern and aristocratic pleasure of despising them。
This bald summary of the thought…destroying forces of our
time would not be complete without some reference to pragmatism；
for though I have here used and should everywhere defend the
pragmatist method as a preliminary guide to truth； there is an extreme
application of it which involves the absence of all truth whatever。
My meaning can be put shortly thus。 I agree with the pragmatists
that apparent objective truth is not the whole matter； that there
is an authoritative need to believe the things that are necessary
to the human mind。 But I say that one of those necessities
precisely is a belief in objective truth。 The pragmatist tells
a man to think what he must think and never mind the Absolute。
But precisely one of the things that he must think is the Absolute。
This philosophy； indeed； is a kind of verbal paradox。 Pragmatism is
a matter of human needs； and one of the first of human needs
is to be something more than a pragmatist。 Extreme pragmatism
is just as inhuman as the determinism it so powerfully attacks。
The determinist （who； to do him justice； does not pretend to be
a human being） makes nonsense of the human sense of actual choice。
The pragmatist； who professes to be specially human； makes nonsense
of the human sense of actual fact。
To sum up our contention so far； we may say that the most
characteristic current philosophies have not only a touch of mania；
but a touch of suicidal mania。 The mere questioner has knocked
his head against the limits of human thought； and cracked it。
This is what makes so futile the warnings of the orthodox and the
boasts of the advanced about the dangerous boyhood of free thought。
What we are looking at is not the boyhood of free thought； it is
the old age and ultimate dissolution of free thought。 It is vain
for bishops and pious bigwigs to discuss what dreadful things will
happen if wild scepticism runs its course。 It has run its course。
It is vain for eloquent atheists to talk of the great truths that
will be revealed if once we see free thought begin。 We have seen
it end。 It has no more questions to ask； it has questioned itself。
You cannot call up any wilder vision than a city in which men
ask themselves if they have any selves。 You cannot fancy a more
sceptical world than that in which men doubt if there is a world。
It might certainly have reached its bankruptcy more quickly
and cleanly if it had not been feebly hampered by the application
of indefensible laws of blasphemy or by the absurd pretence
that modern England is Christian。 But it would have reached the
bankruptcy anyhow。 Militant atheists are still unjustly persecuted；
but rather because they are an old minority than because they
are a new one。 Free thought has exhausted its own freedom。
It is weary of its own success。 If any eager freethinker now hails
philosophic freedom as the dawn； he is only like the man in Mark
Twain who came out wrapped in blankets to see the sun rise and was
just in time to see it set。 If any frightened curate still says
that it will be awful if the darkness of free thought should spread；
we can only answer him in the high and powerful words of Mr。 Belloc；
〃Do not； I beseech you； be troubled about the increase of forces
already in dissolution。 You have mistaken the hour of the night：
it is already morning。〃 We have no more questions left to ask。
We have looked for questions in the darkest corners and on the
wildest peaks。 We have found all the questions that can be found。
It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking
for answers。
But one more word must be added。 At the beginning of this
preliminary negative sketch I said that our mental ruin has
been wrought by wild reason； not by wild imagination。 A man
does not go mad because he makes a statue a mile high； but he
may go mad by thinking it out in square inches。 Now； one school
of thinkers has seen this and jumped at it as a way of renewing
the pagan health of the world。 They see that reason destroys；
but Will； they say； creates。 The ultimate authority； they say；
is in will； not in reason。 The supreme point is not why
a man demands a thing； but the fact that he does demand it。
I have no space to trace or expound this philosophy of Will。
It came； I suppose； through Nietzsche； who preached something
that is called egoism。 That； indeed； was simpleminded enough；
for Nietzsche denied egoism simply by preaching it。 To preach
anything is to give it away。 First； the egoist calls life a war
without mercy； and then he takes the greatest possible trouble to
drill his enemies in war。 To preach egoism is to practise altruism。
But however it began； the view is common enough in current literature。
The main defence of these thinkers is that they are not thinkers；
they are makers。 They say that choice is itself the divine thing。
Thus Mr。 Bernard Shaw has attacked the old idea that men's acts
are to be judged by the standard of the desire of happiness。
He says that a man does not act for his happiness； but from his will。
He does not say； 〃Jam will make me happy；〃 but 〃I want jam。〃
And in all this others follow him with yet greater enthusiasm。
Mr。 John Davidson； a remarkable poet； is so passionately excited
about it that he is obliged to write prose。 He publishes a short
play with several long prefaces。 This is natural enough in Mr。 Shaw；
for all his plays are prefaces： Mr。 Shaw is （I suspect） the only man
on earth who has never written any poetry。 But that Mr。 Davidson （who
can write excellent poetry） should write instead laborious metaphysics
in defence of this doctrine of will； does show that the doctrine
of will has taken hold of men。 Even Mr。 H。G。Wells has half spoken
in its language； saying that one should test acts not like a thinker；
but like an artist； saying； 〃I FEEL this curve is right；〃 or 〃that
line SHALL go thus。〃 They are all excited； and well they may be。
For by this doctrine of the divine authority of will； they think they
can break out of the doomed fortress of rationalism。 They think they
can escape。
But they cannot