01-what is man-第12章
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!
Y。M。 I have to concede it。 It was not a result of habit;
it has all the look of reflection; thought; putting this and that
together; as you phrase it。 I believe it was thought。
O。M。 I will give you another instance of thought。 Franklin
had a cup of sugar on a table in his room。 The ants got at it。
He tried several preventives; and ants rose superior to them。
Finally he contrived one which shut off accessprobably set the
table's legs in pans of water; or drew a circle of tar around the
cup; I don't remember。 At any rate; he watched to see what they
would do。 They tried various schemesfailures; every one。 The
ants were badly puzzled。 Finally they held a consultation;
discussed the problem; arrived at a decisionand this time they
beat that great philosopher。 They formed in procession; cross
the floor; climbed the wall; marched across the ceiling to a
point just over the cup; then one by one they let go and fell
down into it! Was that instinctthought petrified by ages of
inherited habit?
Y。M。 No; I don't believe it was。 I believe it was a newly
reasoned scheme to meet a new emergency。
O。M。 Very well。 You have conceded the reasoning power in
two instances。 I come now to a mental detail wherein the ant is
a long way the superior of any human being。 Sir John Lubbock
proved by many experiments that an ant knows a stranger ant of
her own species in a moment; even when the stranger is disguised
with paint。 Also he proved that an ant knows every individual
in her hive of five hundred thousand souls。 Also; after a year's
absence one of the five hundred thousand she will straightway
recognize the returned absentee and grace the recognition with a
affectionate welcome。 How are these recognitions made? Not by
color; for painted ants were recognized。 Not by smell; for ants
that had been dipped in chloroform were recognized。 Not by
speech and not by antennae signs nor contacts; for the drunken
and motionless ants were recognized and the friend discriminated
from the stranger。 The ants were all of the same species;
therefore the friends had to be recognized by form and feature
friends who formed part of a hive of five hundred thousand! Has
any man a memory for form and feature approaching that?
Y。M。 Certainly not。
O。M。 Franklin's ants and Lubbuck's ants show fine
capacities of putting this and that together in new and untried
emergencies and deducting smart conclusions from the
combinationsa man's mental process exactly。 With memory to
help; man preserves his observations and reasonings; reflects
upon them; adds to them; recombines; and so proceeds; stage by
stage; to far resultsfrom the teakettle to the ocean
greyhound's complex engine; from personal labor to slave labor;
from wigwam to palace; from the capricious chase to agriculture
and stored food; from nomadic life to stable government and
concentrated authority; from incoherent hordes to massed armies。
The ant has observation; the reasoning faculty; and the
preserving adjunct of a prodigious memory; she has duplicated
man's development and the essential features of his civilization;
and you call it all instinct!
Y。M。 Perhaps I lacked the reasoning faculty myself。
O。M。 Well; don't tell anybody; and don't do it again。
Y。M。 We have come a good way。 As a resultas I understand it
I am required to concede that there is absolutely no intellectual
frontier separating Man and the Unrevealed Creatures?
O。M。 That is what you are required to concede。 There is no
such frontierthere is no way to get around that。 Man has a
finer and more capable machine in him than those others; but it
is the same machine and works in the same way。 And neither he
nor those others can command the machineit is strictly
automatic; independent of control; works when it pleases; and
when it doesn't please; it can't be forced。
Y。M。 Then man and the other animals are all alike; as to mental
machinery; and there isn't any difference of any stupendous
magnitude between them; except in quality; not in kind。
O。M。 That is about the state of itintellectuality。 There
are pronounced limitations on both sides。 We can't learn to
understand much of their language; but the dog; the elephant;
etc。; learn to understand a very great deal of ours。 To that
extent they are our superiors。 On the other hand; they can't
learn reading; writing; etc。; nor any of our fine and high
things; and there we have a large advantage over them。
Y。M。 Very well; let them have what they've got; and welcome;
there is still a wall; and a lofty one。 They haven't got the
Moral Sense; we have it; and it lifts us immeasurably above them。
O。M。 What makes you think that?
Y。M。 Now look herelet's call a halt。 I have stood the
other infamies and insanities and that is enough; I am not going
to have man and the other animals put on the same level morally。
O。M。 I wasn't going to hoist man up to that。
Y。M。 This is too much! I think it is not right to jest
about such things。
O。M。 I am not jesting; I am merely reflecting a plain and
simple truthand without uncharitableness。 The fact that man
knows right from wrong proves his INTELLECTUAL superiority to the
other creatures; but the fact that he can DO wrong proves his
MORAL inferiority to any creature that CANNOT。 It is my belief
that this position is not assailable。
Free Will
Y。M。 What is your opinion regarding Free Will?
O。M。 That there is no such thing。 Did the man possess it
who gave the old woman his last shilling and trudged home in the
storm?
Y。M。 He had the choice between succoring the old woman and
leaving her to suffer。 Isn't it so?
O。M。 Yes; there was a choice to be made; between bodily
comfort on the one hand and the comfort of the spirit on the
other。 The body made a strong appeal; of coursethe body would
be quite sure to do that; the spirit made a counter appeal。 A
choice had to be made between the two appeals; and was made。 Who
or what determined that choice?
Y。M。 Any one but you would say that the man determined it;
and that in doing it he exercised Free Will。
O。M。 We are constantly assured that every man is endowed
with Free Will; and that he can and must exercise it where he is
offered a choice between good conduct and less…good conduct。 Yet
we clearly saw that in that man's case he really had no Free
Will: his temperament; his training; and the daily influences
which had molded him and made him what he was; COMPELLED him to
rescue the old woman and thus save HIMSELFsave himself from
spiritual pain; from unendurable wretchedness。 He did not make
the choice; it was made FOR him by forces which he could not
control。 Free Will has always existed in WORDS; but it stops
there; I thinkstops short of FACT。 I would not use those
wordsFree Willbut others。
Y。M。 What others?
O。M。 Free Choice。
Y。M。 What is the difference?
O。M。 The one implies untrammeled power to ACT as you please;
the other implies nothing beyond a mere MENTAL PROCESS:
the critical ability to determine which of two things
is nearest right and just。
Y。M。 Make the difference clear; please。
O。M。 The mind can freely SELECT; CHOOSE; POINT OUT the
right and just oneits function stops there。 It can go no
further in the matter。 It has no authority to say that the right
one shall be acted upon and the wrong one discarded。
That authority is in other hands。
Y。M。 The man's?
O。M。 In the machine which stands for him。 In his born
disposition and the character which has been built around it by
training and environment。
Y。M。 It will act upon the right one of the two?
O。M。 It will do as it pleases in the matter。 George Washington's
machine would act upon the right one; Pizarro would act upon the wrong one。
Y。M。 Then as I understand it a bad man's mental machinery calmly
and judicially points out which of two things is right and just
O。M。 Yes; and his MORAL machinery will freely act upon
the other or the other; according to its make; and be quite
indifferent to the MIND'S feeling concerning the matterthat is;
WOULD be; if the mind had any feelings; which it hasn't。
It is merely a thermometer: it registers the heat and the cold;
and cares not a farthing about either。
Y。M。 Then we must not claim that if a man KNOWS which of
two things is right he is absolutely BOUND to do that thing?
O。M。 His temperament and training will decide what he shall
do; and he will do it; he cannot help himself; he has no
authority over the mater。 Wasn't it right for David to go out
and slay Goliath?
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 Then it would have been equally RIGHT for any one else to do it?
Y。M。 Certainly。
O。M。 Then it would have been RIGHT for a born coward to attempt it?
Y。M。 It wouldyes。
O。M。 You know that no born coward ever would have attempted it; don't you?
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 You know that a born coward's make and temperament
would be an absolute and insurmountable bar to his ever essaying
such a thing; don't you?
Y。M。 Yes; I know it。
O。M。 He clearly perceives that it would be RIGHT to try it?
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 His mind has Free Choice in determining that it would
be RIGHT to try it?
Y。M。 Yes。
O。M。 Then if by reason of his inborn cowardice he simply
can NOT essay it; what becomes of his Free Will? Where is his
Free Will? Why claim that he has Free Will when the plain facts
show that he hasn't? Why content that because he and David SEE
the right alike; both must ACT alike? Why impose the same laws
upon goat and lion?
Y。M。 There is really no such thing as Free Will?
O。M。 It is what I think。 There is WILL。 But it has
nothing to do with INTELLECTUAL PERCEPTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG;
and is not under their command。 David's temperament and training
had Will; and it was a compulsory force; David had to obey its
decrees; he had no choice。 The coward's temperament and training
possess Will; and IT is compulsory; it commands him to avoid
danger; and he obeys; he has no choice。 But neither the Davids
nor the cowards possess Free Willwill that may do the right or
do the wrong; as their MENTAL verdict shall decide。
Not Two Values; But Only One
Y。M。 There is one thing which bothers me: I can't tell
where you draw the line between MATERIAL covetousness and
SPIRITUAL covetousness。
O。M。 I don't draw any。
Y。M。 How do you mean?
O。M。 There is no such thing as MATERIAL covetousness。
All covetousness is spiritual
Y。M。 ALL longings; desires; ambitions SPIRITUAL; never material?
O。M。 Yes。 The Master in you requires that in ALL cases you
shall content his SPIRITthat alone。 He never requires anything
el