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！
your history。 Your vision is not merely a fixture： it is a fact。〃
I paused to note the new coincidence of Christianity： but I
passed on。
I passed on to the next necessity of any ideal of progress。
Some people （as we have said） seem to believe in an automatic
and impersonal progress in the nature of things。 But it is clear
that no political activity can be encouraged by saying that progress
is natural and inevitable； that is not a reason for being active；
but rather a reason for being lazy。 If we are bound to improve；
we need not trouble to improve。 The pure doctrine of progress
is the best of all reasons for not being a progressive。 But it
is to none of these obvious comments that I wish primarily to
call attention。
The only arresting point is this： that if we suppose
improvement to be natural； it must be fairly simple。 The world
might conceivably be working towards one consummation； but hardly
towards any particular arrangement of many qualities。 To take
our original simile： Nature by herself may be growing more blue；
that is； a process so simple that it might be impersonal。 But Nature
cannot be making a careful picture made of many picked colours；
unless Nature is personal。 If the end of the world were mere
darkness or mere light it might come as slowly and inevitably
as dusk or dawn。 But if the end of the world is to be a piece
of elaborate and artistic chiaroscuro； then there must be design
in it； either human or divine。 The world； through mere time；
might grow black like an old picture； or white like an old coat；
but if it is turned into a particular piece of black and white art
then there is an artist。
If the distinction be not evident； I give an ordinary instance。 We
constantly hear a particularly cosmic creed from the modern humanitarians；
I use the word humanitarian in the ordinary sense； as meaning one
who upholds the claims of all creatures against those of humanity。
They suggest that through the ages we have been growing more and
more humane； that is to say； that one after another； groups or
sections of beings； slaves； children； women； cows； or what not；
have been gradually admitted to mercy or to justice。 They say
that we once thought it right to eat men （we didn't）； but I am not
here concerned with their history； which is highly unhistorical。
As a fact； anthropophagy is certainly a decadent thing； not a
primitive one。 It is much more likely that modern men will eat
human flesh out of affectation than that primitive man ever ate
it out of ignorance。 I am here only following the outlines of
their argument； which consists in maintaining that man has been
progressively more lenient； first to citizens； then to slaves；
then to animals； and then （presumably） to plants。 I think it wrong
to sit on a man。 Soon； I shall think it wrong to sit on a horse。
Eventually （I suppose） I shall think it wrong to sit on a chair。
That is the drive of the argument。 And for this argument it can
be said that it is possible to talk of it in terms of evolution or
inevitable progress。 A perpetual tendency to touch fewer and fewer
things mightone feels； be a mere brute unconscious tendency；
like that of a species to produce fewer and fewer children。
This drift may be really evolutionary； because it is stupid。
Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities；
but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one。 The kinship
and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for
being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental； but not for a healthy
love of animals。 On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane；
or you may be absurdly humane； but you cannot be human。 That you
and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger。
Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger。 It is one way
to train the tiger to imitate you； it is a shorter way to imitate
the tiger。 But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat
a tiger reasonably； that is； to admire his stripes while avoiding
his claws。
If you want to treat a tiger reasonably； you must go back to
the garden of Eden。 For the obstinate reminder continued to recur：
only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature。 The essence
of all pantheism； evolutionism； and modern cosmic religion is really
in this proposition： that Nature is our mother。 Unfortunately； if you
regard Nature as a mother； you discover that she is a step…mother。 The
main point of Christianity was this： that Nature is not our mother：
Nature is our sister。 We can be proud of her beauty； since we have
the same father； but she has no authority over us； we have to admire；
but not to imitate。 This gives to the typically Christian pleasure
in this earth a strange touch of lightness that is almost frivolity。
Nature was a solemn mother to the worshippers of Isis and Cybele。
Nature was a solemn mother to Wordsworth or to Emerson。
But Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi or to George Herbert。
To St。 Francis； Nature is a sister； and even a younger sister：
a little； dancing sister； to be laughed at as well as loved。
This； however； is hardly our main point at present； I have admitted
it only in order to show how constantly； and as it were accidentally；
the key would fit the smallest doors。 Our main point is here；
that if there be a mere trend of impersonal improvement in Nature；
it must presumably be a simple trend towards some simple triumph。
One can imagine that some automatic tendency in biology might work
for giving us longer and longer noses。 But the question is；
do we want to have longer and longer noses？ I fancy not；
I believe that we most of us want to say to our noses； 〃thus far；
and no farther； and here shall thy proud point be stayed：〃
we require a nose of such length as may ensure an interesting face。
But we cannot imagine a mere biological trend towards producing
interesting faces； because an interesting face is one particular
arrangement of eyes； nose； and mouth； in a most complex relation
to each other。 Proportion cannot be a drift： it is either
an accident or a design。 So with the ideal of human morality
and its relation to the humanitarians and the anti…humanitarians。
It is conceivable that we are going more and more to keep our hands
off things： not to drive horses； not to pick flowers。 We may
eventually be bound not to disturb a man's mind even by argument；
not to disturb the sleep of birds even by coughing。 The ultimate
apotheosis w