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！
profitable study； he inevitably falls into the morbid category。 。
。 。 And it is worthy of remark that； as a rule； the greater the
genius； the greater the unsoundness。〃＇3＇
＇3＇ J。 F。 Nisbet： The Insanity of Genius； 3d ed。； London； 1893；
pp。 xvi。； xxiv。
Now do these authors； after having succeeded in establishing to
their own satisfaction that the works of genius are fruits of
disease； consistently proceed thereupon to impugn the VALUE of
the fruits？ Do they deduce a new spiritual judgment from their
new doctrine of existential conditions？ Do they frankly forbid us
to admire the productions of genius from now onwards？ and say
outright that no neuropath can ever be a revealer of new truth？
No！ their immediate spiritual instincts are too strong for them
here； and hold their own against inferences which； in mere love
of logical consistency； medical materialism ought to be only too
glad to draw。 One disciple of the school； indeed； has striven to
impugn the value of works of genius in a wholesale way （such
works of contemporary art； namely； as he himself is unable to
enjoy； and they are many） by using medical arguments。＇4＇ But for
the most part the masterpieces are left unchallenged； and the
medical line of attack either confines itself to such secular
productions as everyone admits to be intrinsically eccentric； or
else addresses itself exclusively to religious manifestations。
And then it is because the religious manifestations have been
already condemned because the critic dislikes them on internal or
spiritual grounds。
＇4＇ Max Nordau； in his bulky book entitled Degeneration。
In the natural sciences and industrial arts it never occurs to
anyone to try to refute opinions by showing up their author's
neurotic constitution。 Opinions here are invariably tested by
logic and by experiment； no matter what may be their author's
neurological type。 It should be no otherwise with religious
opinions。 Their value can only be ascertained by spiritual
judgments directly passed upon them； judgments based on our own
immediate feeling primarily； and secondarily on what we can
ascertain of their experiential relations to our moral needs and
to the rest of what we hold as true。
Immediate luminousness； in short； philosophical reasonableness；
and moral helpfulness are the only available criteria。 Saint
Teresa might have had the nervous system of the placidest cow；
and it would not now save her theology； if the trial of the
theology by these other tests should show it to be contemptible。
And conversely if her theology can stand these other tests； it
will make no difference how hysterical or nervously off her
balance Saint Teresa may have been when she was with us here
below。
You see that at bottom we are thrown back upon the general
principles by which the empirical philosophy has always contended
that we must be guided in our search for truth。 Dogmatic
philosophies have sought for tests for truth which might dispense
us from appealing to the future。 Some direct mark； by noting
which we can be protected immediately and absolutely； now and
forever； against all mistakesuch has been the darling dream of
philosophic dogmatists。 It is clear that the ORIGIN of the truth
would be an admirable criterion of this sort； if only the various
origins could be discriminated from one another from this
point of view； and the history of dogmatic opinion shows that
origin has always been a favorite test。 Origin in immediate
intuition； origin in pontifical authority； origin in supernatural
revelation； as by vision； hearing； or unaccountable impression；
origin in direct possession by a higher spirit； expressing itself
in prophecy and warning； origin in automatic utterance
generallythese origins have been stock warrants for the truth
of one opinion after another which we find represented in
religious history。 The medical materialists are therefore only
so many belated dogmatists； neatly turning the tables on their
predecessors by using the criterion of origin in a destructive
instead of an accreditive way。
They are effective with their talk of pathological origin only so
long as supernatural origin is pleaded by the other side； and
nothing but the argument from origin is under discussion。 But
the argument from origin has seldom been used alone； for it is
too obviously insufficient。 Dr。 Maudsley is perhaps the
cleverest of the rebutters of supernatural religion on grounds of
origin。 Yet he finds himself forced to write：
〃What right have we to believe Nature under any obligation to do
her work by means of complete minds only？ She may find an
incomplete mind a more suitable instrument for a particular
purpose。 It is the work that is done； and the quality in the
worker by which it was done； that is alone of moment； and it may
be no great matter from a cosmical standpoint； if in other
qualities of character he was singularly defectiveif indeed he
were hypocrite； adulterer； eccentric； or lunatic。 。 。 。 Home we
come again； then； to the old and last resort of certitudenamely
the common assent of mankind； or of the competent by instruction
and training among mankind。〃＇5＇
＇5＇ H。 Maudsley： Natural Causes and Supernatural Seemings；
1886； pp。 256； 257。
In other words； not its origin； but THE WAY IN WHICH IT WORKS ON
THE WHOLE； is Dr。 Maudsley's final test of a belief。 This is our
own empiricist criterion； and this criterion the stoutest
insisters on supernatural origin have also been forced to use in
the end。 Among the visions and messages some have always been
too patently silly； among the trances and convulsive seizures
some have been too fruitless for conduct and character； to pass
themselves off as significant； still less as divine。 In the
history of Christian mysticism the problem how to discriminate
between such messages and experiences as were really divine
miracles； and such others as the demon in his malice was able to
counterfeit； thus making the religious person twofold more the
child of hell he was before； has always been a difficult one to
solve； needing all the sagacity and experience of the best
directors of conscience。 In the end it had to come to our
empiricist criterion： By their fruits ye shall know them； not by
their roots。 Jonathan Edwards's Treatise on Religious Affections
is an elaborate working out of this thesis。 The ROOTS of a man's
virtue are inaccessible to us。 No a