orthodoxy-第4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！





Science　rebukes　certain　thoughts　by　calling　them　morbid。　　For　example；



some　religious　societies　discouraged　men　more　or　less　from　thinking



about　sex。　　The　new　scientific　society　definitely　discourages　men　from



thinking　about　death；　it　is　a　fact；　but　it　is　considered　a　morbid　fact。　



And　in　dealing　with　those　whose　morbidity　has　a　touch　of　mania；



modern　science　cares　far　less　for　pure　logic　than　a　dancing　Dervish。　



In　these　cases　it　is　not　enough　that　the　unhappy　man　should　desire　truth；



he　must　desire　health。　　Nothing　can　save　him　but　a　blind　hunger



for　normality；　like　that　of　a　beast。　　A　man　cannot　think　himself



out　of　mental　evil；　for　it　is　actually　the　organ　of　thought　that　has



become　diseased；　ungovernable；　and；　as　it　were；　independent。　　He　can



only　be　saved　by　will　or　faith。　　The　moment　his　mere　reason　moves；



it　moves　in　the　old　circular　rut；　he　will　go　round　and　round　his



logical　circle；　just　as　a　man　in　a　third…class　carriage　on　the　Inner



Circle　will　go　round　and　round　the　Inner　Circle　unless　he　performs



the　voluntary；　vigorous；　and　mystical　act　of　getting　out　at　Gower　Street。　



Decision　is　the　whole　business　here；　a　door　must　be　shut　for　ever。　



Every　remedy　is　a　desperate　remedy。　　Every　cure　is　a　miraculous　cure。　



Curing　a　madman　is　not　arguing　with　a　philosopher；　it　is　casting



out　a　devil。　　And　however　quietly　doctors　and　psychologists　may　go



to　work　in　the　matter；　their　attitude　is　profoundly　intolerant



as　intolerant　as　Bloody　Mary。　　Their　attitude　is　really　this：　



that　the　man　must　stop　thinking；　if　he　is　to　go　on　living。　



Their　counsel　is　one　of　intellectual　amputation。　　If　thy　HEAD



offend　thee；　cut　it　off；　for　it　is　better；　not　merely　to　enter



the　Kingdom　of　Heaven　as　a　child；　but　to　enter　it　as　an　imbecile；



rather　than　with　your　whole　intellect　to　be　cast　into　hell



or　into　Hanwell。







　　　　　Such　is　the　madman　of　experience；　he　is　commonly　a　reasoner；



frequently　a　successful　reasoner。　　Doubtless　he　could　be　vanquished



in　mere　reason；　and　the　case　against　him　put　logically。　　But　it　can



be　put　much　more　precisely　in　more　general　and　even　aesthetic　terms。　



He　is　in　the　clean　and　well…lit　prison　of　one　idea：　　he　is



sharpened　to　one　painful　point。　　He　is　without　healthy　hesitation



and　healthy　complexity。　　Now；　as　I　explain　in　the　introduction；



I　have　determined　in　these　early　chapters　to　give　not　so　much



a　diagram　of　a　doctrine　as　some　pictures　of　a　point　of　view。　　And　I



have　described　at　length　my　vision　of　the　maniac　for　this　reason：　



that　just　as　I　am　affected　by　the　maniac；　so　I　am　affected　by　most



modern　thinkers。　　That　unmistakable　mood　or　note　that　I　hear



from　Hanwell；　I　hear　also　from　half　the　chairs　of　science　and　seats



of　learning　to…day；　and　most　of　the　mad　doctors　are　mad　doctors



in　more　senses　than　one。　　They　all　have　exactly　that　combination　we



have　noted：　　the　combination　of　an　expansive　and　exhaustive　reason



with　a　contracted　common　sense。　　They　are　universal　only　in　the



sense　that　they　take　one　thin　explanation　and　carry　it　very　far。　



But　a　pattern　can　stretch　for　ever　and　still　be　a　small　pattern。　



They　see　a　chess…board　white　on　black；　and　if　the　universe　is　paved



with　it；　it　is　still　white　on　black。　　Like　the　lunatic；　they　cannot



alter　their　standpoint；　they　cannot　make　a　mental　effort　and　suddenly



see　it　black　on　white。







　　　　　Take　first　the　more　obvious　case　of　materialism。　　As　an　explanation



of　the　world；　materialism　has　a　sort　of　insane　simplicity。　　It　has



just　the　quality　of　the　madman's　argument；　we　have　at　once　the　sense



of　it　covering　everything　and　the　sense　of　it　leaving　everything　out。　



Contemplate　some　able　and　sincere　materialist；　as；　for　instance；



Mr。　McCabe；　and　you　will　have　exactly　this　unique　sensation。　



He　understands　everything；　and　everything　does　not　seem



worth　understanding。　　His　cosmos　may　be　complete　in　every　rivet



and　cog…wheel；　but　still　his　cosmos　is　smaller　than　our　world。　



Somehow　his　scheme；　like　the　lucid　scheme　of　the　madman；　seems　unconscious



of　the　alien　energies　and　the　large　indifference　of　the　earth；



it　is　not　thinking　of　the　real　things　of　the　earth；　of　fighting



peoples　or　proud　mothers；　or　first　love　or　fear　upon　the　sea。　



The　earth　is　so　very　large；　and　the　cosmos　is　so　very　small。　



The　cosmos　is　about　the　smallest　hole　that　a　man　can　hide　his　head　in。







　　　　　It　must　be　understood　that　I　am　not　now　discussing　the　relation



of　these　creeds　to　truth；　but；　for　the　present；　solely　their　relation



to　health。　　Later　in　the　argument　I　hope　to　attack　the　question　of



objective　verity；　here　I　speak　only　of　a　phenomenon　of　psychology。　



I　do　not　for　the　present　attempt　to　prove　to　Haeckel　that　materialism



is　untrue；　any　more　than　I　attempted　to　prove　to　the　man　who　thought



he　was　Christ　that　he　was　labouring　under　an　error。　　I　merely　remark



here　on　the　fact　that　both　cases　have　the　same　kind　of　completeness



and　the　same　kind　of　incompleteness。　　You　can　explain　a　man's



detention　at　Hanwell　by　an　indifferent　public　by　saying　that　it



is　the　crucifixion　of　a　god　of　whom　the　world　is　not　worthy。　



The　explanation　does　explain。　　Similarly　you　may　explain　the　order



in　the　universe　by　saying　that　all　things；　even　the　souls　of　men；



are　leaves　inevitably　unfolding　on　an　utterly　unconscious　tree



the　blind　destiny　of　matter。　　The　explanation　does　explain；



though　not；　of　course；　so　completely　as　the　madman's。　But　the　point



here　is　that　the　normal　human　mind　not　only　objects　to　both；



but　feels　to　both　the　same　objection。　　Its　approximate　statement



is　that　if　the　man　in　Hanwell　is　the　real　God；　he　is　not　much



of　a　god。　　And；　similarly；　if　the　cosmos　of　the　materialist　is　the



real　cosmos；　it　is　not　much　of　a　cosmos。　　The　thing　has　shrunk。　



The　deity　is　less　divine　than　many　men；　and　（according　to　Haeckel）



the　whole　of　life　is　something　much　more　grey；　narrow；　and　trivial



than　many　separate　aspects　of　it。　　The　parts　seem　greater　than



the　whole。











　　　　　For　we　must　remember　that　the　materialist　philosophy　（whether



true　or　not）　is　certainly　much　more　limiting　than　any　religion。　



In　one　sense；　of　course；　all　intelligent　ideas　are　narrow。　



They　cannot　be　broader　than　themselves。　　A　Christian　is　only



restricted　in　the　same　sense　that　an　atheist　is　restricted。　



He　cannot　think　Christianity　false　and　continue　to　be　a　Christian；



and　the　atheist　cannot　think　atheism　false　and　continue　to　be



an　atheist。　　But　as　it　happens；　there　is　a　very　special　sense



in　which　materialism　has　more　restrictions　than　spiritualism。　



Mr。　McCabe　thinks　me　a　slave　because　I　am　not　allowed　to　believe



in　determinism。　　I　think　Mr。　McCabe　a　slave　because　he　is　not



allowed　to　believe　in　fairies。　　But　if　we　examine　the　two　vetoes　we



shall　see　that　his　is　really　much　more　of　a　pure　veto　than　mine。　



The　Christian　is　quite　free　to　believe　that　there　is　a　considerable



amount　of　settled　order　and　inevitable　development　in　the　universe。　



But　the　materialist　is　not　allowed　to　admit　into　his　spotless　machine



the　slightest　speck　of　spiritualism　or　miracle。　　Poor　Mr。　McCabe



is　not　allowed　to　retain　even　the　tiniest　imp；　though　it　might　be



hiding　in　a　pimpernel。　　The　Christian　admits　that　the　universe　is



manifold　and　even　miscellaneous；　just　as　a　sane　man　knows　that　he



is　complex。　　The　sane　man　knows　that　he　has　a　touch　of　the　beast；



a　touch　of　the　devil；　a　touch　of　the　saint；　a　touch　of　the　citizen。　



Nay；　the　really　sane　man　knows　that　he　has　a　touch　of　the　madman。　



But　the　materialist's　world　is　quite　simple　and　solid；　just　as



the　madman　is　quite　sure　he　is　sane。　　The　materialist　is　sure



that　history　has　been　simply　and　solely　a　chain　of　causation；



just　as　the　interesting　person　before　mentioned　is　quite　sure　that



he　is　simply　and　solely　a　chicken。　　Materialists　and　madmen　never



have　doubts。







　　　　　Spiritual　doctrines　do　not　actually　limit　the　mind　as　do



materialistic　denials。　　Even　if　I　believe　in　immortality　I　need　not　think



about　it。　　But　if　I　disbelieve　in　immortality　I　must　not　think　about　it。　



In　the　first　case　the　road　is　open　and　I　can　go　as　far　as　I　like；



in　the　second　the　road　is　shut。　　But　the　case　is　even　stronger；



and　the　parallel　with　madness　is　yet　more　strange。　　For　it　was　our



case　against　the　exhaustive　and　logical　theory　of　the　lunatic　that；



right　or　wrong；　it　gradually　destroyed　his　humanity。　　Now　it　is　the　charge



against　the　main　deductions　of　the　materialist　that；　right　or　wrong；



they　gradually　destroy　his　humanity；　I　do　not　mean　only　kindness；



I　mean　hope；　courage；　poetry；　initiative；　all　that　is　human。　



For　instance；　when　materialism　leads　men　to　complete　fatalism　（as　it



generally　does）；　it　is　quite　idle　to　pretend　that　it　is　in　any　sense



a　liberating　force。　　It　is　absurd　to　say　that　you　are　especially



advancing　freedom　when　you　only　use　free　thought　to　destroy　free　will。　



The　determinists　come　to　bind；　not　to　loose。　　They　may　well　call



their　law　the　〃chain〃　of　causation。　　It　is　the　worst　chain　that　ever



fettered　a　human　being。　　You　may　use　the　language　of　liberty；



if　you　like；　about　materialistic　teaching；　but　it　is　obvious　that　this



is　just　as　inapplicable　to　it　as　a　whole　as　the　same　language　when



applied　to　a　man　locked　up　in　a　mad…house。　You　may　say；　if　you　like；



that　the　man　is　free　to　think　himself　a　poached　egg。　　But　it　is



surely　a　more　massive　and　important　fact　that　if　he　is　a　poached　egg



he　is　not　free　to　eat；　drink；　sleep；　walk；　or　smoke　a　cigarette。　



Similarly　you　may　say；　if　you　like；　that　the　bold　determinist



speculator　is　free　to　disbelieve　in　the　reality　of　the　will。　



But　it　is　a　much　more　massive　and　important　fact　that　he　is　not



free　to　raise；　to　curse；　to　thank；　to　justify；　to　urge；　to　punish；



to　resist　temptations；　to　incite　mobs；　to　make　New　Year　resolutions；



to　pardon　sinners；　to　rebuke　tyrants；　or　even　to　say　〃thank　you〃



for　the　mustard。







　　　　　In　passing　from　this　subject　I　may　note　that　there　is　a　queer



fallacy　to　the　effect　that　materialistic　fatalism　is　in　some　way



favourable　to　mercy；　to　the　abolition　of　cruel　punishments　or



punishments　of　any　kind。　　This　is　startlingly　the　reverse　of　the　truth。　



It　is　quite　tenable　that　the　doctrine　of　necessity　makes　no　difference



at　all；　that　it　leaves　the　flogger　flogging　and　the　kind　friend



exhorting　as　before。　　But　obviously　if　it　stops　either