orthodoxy-第8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！
can break out of the doomed fortress of rationalism。 They think they
can escape。
But they cannot escape。 This pure praise of volition ends
in the same break up and blank as the mere pursuit of logic。
Exactly as complete free thought involves the doubting of thought itself；
so the acceptation of mere 〃willing〃 really paralyzes the will。
Mr。 Bernard Shaw has not perceived the real difference between the old
utilitarian test of pleasure （clumsy； of course； and easily misstated）
and that which he propounds。 The real difference between the test
of happiness and the test of will is simply that the test of
happiness is a test and the other isn't。 You can discuss whether
a man's act in jumping over a cliff was directed towards happiness；
you cannot discuss whether it was derived from will。 Of course
it was。 You can praise an action by saying that it is calculated
to bring pleasure or pain to discover truth or to save the soul。
But you cannot praise an action because it shows will； for to say
that is merely to say that it is an action。 By this praise of will
you cannot really choose one course as better than another。 And yet
choosing one course as better than another is the very definition
of the will you are praising。
The worship of will is the negation of will。 To admire mere
choice is to refuse to choose。 If Mr。 Bernard Shaw comes up
to me and says； 〃Will something；〃 that is tantamount to saying；
〃I do not mind what you will；〃 and that is tantamount to saying；
〃I have no will in the matter。〃 You cannot admire will in general；
because the essence of will is that it is particular。
A brilliant anarchist like Mr。 John Davidson feels an irritation
against ordinary morality； and therefore he invokes will
will to anything。 He only wants humanity to want something。
But humanity does want something。 It wants ordinary morality。
He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything。
But we have willed something。 We have willed the law against which
he rebels。
All the will…worshippers； from Nietzsche to Mr。 Davidson；
are really quite empty of volition。 They cannot will； they can
hardly wish。 And if any one wants a proof of this； it can be found
quite easily。 It can be found in this fact： that they always talk
of will as something that expands and breaks out。 But it is quite
the opposite。 Every act of will is an act of self…limitation。 To
desire action is to desire limitation。 In that sense every act
is an act of self…sacrifice。 When you choose anything； you reject
everything else。 That objection； which men of this school used
to make to the act of marriage； is really an objection to every act。
Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion。 Just as when
you marry one woman you give up all the others； so when you take
one course of action you give up all the other courses。 If you
become King of England； you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton。
If you go to Rome； you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon。
It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that
makes most of the talk of the anarchic will…worshippers little
better than nonsense。 For instance； Mr。 John Davidson tells us
to have nothing to do with 〃Thou shalt not〃； but it is surely obvious
that 〃Thou shalt not〃 is only one of the necessary corollaries
of 〃I will。〃 〃I will go to the Lord Mayor's Show； and thou shalt
not stop me。〃 Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists；
and care for no laws or limits。 But it is impossible to be
an artist and not care for laws and limits。 Art is limitation；
the essence of every picture is the frame。 If you draw a giraffe；
you must draw him with a long neck。 If； in your bold creative way；
you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck；
you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe。
The moment you step into the world of facts； you step into a world
of limits。 You can free things from alien or accidental laws；
but not from the laws of their own nature。 You may； if you like；
free a tiger from his bars； but do not free him from his stripes。
Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump： you may be freeing him
from being a camel。 Do not go about as a demagogue； encouraging triangles
to break out of the prison of their three sides。 If a triangle
breaks out of its three sides； its life comes to a lamentable end。
Somebody wrote a work called 〃The Loves of the Triangles〃；
I never read it； but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved；
they were loved for being triangular。 This is certainly the case
with all artistic creation； which is in some ways the most
decisive example of pure will。 The artist loves his limitations：
they constitute the THING he is doing。 The painter is glad
that the canvas is flat。 The sculptor is glad that the clay
is colourless。
In case the point is not clear； an historic example may illustrate
it。 The French Revolution was really an heroic and decisive thing；
because the Jacobins willed something definite and limited。
They desired the freedoms of democracy； but also all the vetoes
of democracy。 They wished to have votes and NOT to have titles。
Republicanism had an ascetic side in Franklin or Robespierre
as well as an expansive side in Danton or Wilkes。 Therefore they
have created something with a solid substance and shape； the square
social equality and peasant wealth of France。 But since then the
revolutionary or speculative mind of Europe has been weakened by
shrinking from any proposal because of the limits of that proposal。
Liberalism has been degraded into liberality。 Men have tried
to turn 〃revolutionise〃 from a transitive to an intransitive verb。
The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against；
but （what was more important） the system he would NOT rebel against；
the system he would trust。 But the new rebel is a Sceptic；
and will not entirely trust anything。 He has no loyalty； therefore he
can never be really a revolutionist。 And the fact that he doubts
everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything。
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind； and the
modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces；
but the doctrine by which he denounces it。 Thus he writes one book
complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women；
and then he writes another book （about the sex problem） in which he
insults it himself。 He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose
their virginity； and then curses Mrs。 Grundy because they keep it。
As a politician； he will cry out that war is a waste of life；
and then； as a philosopher； that all life is waste of time。
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant；
and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the
peasant ought to have killed himself。 A man denounces marriage
as a lie； and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating
it as a lie。 He calls a flag a bauble； and then blames the
oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble。
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting； where he
complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts； then he
takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting；
where he proves that they practically are beasts。 In short；
the modern revolutionist； being an infinite sceptic； is always
engaged in undermining his own mines。 In his book on politics he
attacks men for trampling on morality； in his book on ethics he
attacks morality for trampling on men。 Therefore the modern man
in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt。
By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel
against anything。
It may be added that the same blank and bankruptcy can be observed
in all fierce and terrible types of literature； especially in satire。
Satire may be mad and anarchic； but it presupposes an admitted
superiority in certain things over others； it presupposes a standard。
When little boys in the street laugh at the fatness of some
distinguished journalist； they are unconsciously assuming a standard
of Greek sculpture。 They are appealing to the marble Apollo。
And the curious disappearance of satire from our literature is
an instance of the fierce things fading for want of any principle
to be fierce about。 Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm：
he could sneer； though he could not laugh； but there is always something
bodiless and without weight in his satire； simply because it has not
any mass of common morality behind it。 He is himself more preposterous
than anything he denounces。 But； indeed； Nietzsche will stand very
well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence。
The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not
a physical accident。 If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility；
Nietzscheism would end in imbecility。 Thinking in isolation
and with pride ends in being an idiot。 Every man who will
not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain。
This last attempt to evade intellectualism ends in intellectualism；
and therefore in death。 The sortie has failed。 The wild worship of
lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void。
Nietzsche scales staggering mountains； but he turns up ultimately
in Tibet。 He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing
and Nirvana。 They are both helplessone because he must not
grasp anything； and the other because he must not let go of anything。
The Tolstoyan's will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all
special actions are evil。 But the Nietzscheite's will is quite
equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good；
for if all special actions are good； none of them are special。
They stand at the crossroads； and one hates all the roads and
the other likes all the roads。 The result iswell； some things
are not hard to calculate。 They stand at the cross…roads。
Here I end （thank God） the first and dullest business
of this bookthe rough review of recent thought。 After this I
begin to sketch a view of life which may not inter
