The evolution of knowledge; a review of philosophy

Front matter

GopyrightN^

COPYRIGHT DEPOSn>

A Review of Philosophy

Preface

In the year 1881 there appeared in Chicago an anonymous satire entitled, "The Student's Dream." My aim was to show that the most general terms of existence, namely: space, time, matter, and force, can be resolved into motion. Four years later "The Religion of Philosophy," or "The Unification of Knowledge" was published in New York and London, in order more fully to prove the same thesis. To this one aim many studious years have since been directed, resulting in the present revision of the above mentioned work, in which I have endeavored to show that motion is the ultimate reality,

Part I The Pre-evolutionary Period Chapter Pagb

I. The Dawn of Philosophy. .... 1 Thales — Anaximenes — Diogenes of ApoUonia — Anaximander — Pythagoras.

II. The Pre-Socratic Period. . . . . 18

Xenophanes — Parmenides — Zeno of Elea — Heraclitus — Empedocles — Democritus — Anaxagoras.

III. The Climax of Greek Thought. ... 37

The Sophists — Socrates — Plato.

IV. Aristotle, the Cynics, the Stoics, and the

Skeptics of the New Academy. , . 57 Aristotle — Diogenes — Zeno tlie Stoic — Epicurus — Pyrrho — Arcesilaus — Cameades.

V. The Alexandrian School, Scholasticism,

AND the Revival OF Learning. . . 82

Philo — Plotinus — Abelard — Bruno — Bacon.

VI. Modern Philosophy. ..... 121

Descartes — Spinoza — Hobbes — Locke — Hartley — L ebnitz — B erkeley — Hume.

VII. German Philosophy. ..... 153

Kant — Fichte — SchsUing — Hegel — Herbert — Haeckel.

VIII. The Eclecticism and Positive Philosophy

OF France and the Scotch School. . . 198 Gassendi — Malebranche — Condillac — Cabanis Gall — Royer-CoUard — Cousin — Comt« — Reid — Hamilton.

Contents

Part II The Evolutionary Philosophy Chapter Pagb

IX. Herbert Spencer ..... 224 Knowledge, a Form of Motion.

X. Herbert Spencer (continued) .... 238 The Interdependence of Thought, Feeling and Action.

XI. Herbert Spencer (continued) .... 248

The Analysis of Reason.

XII. Herbert Spencer (concluded). . . . 259

The Principles of Sociology.

XIII. George Henry Lewes ..... 268 The Principles of Psychology.

XIV. George Henry Lewes (continued) . . . 280

Experience and Belief.

XV. George Henry Lewes (concluded) . . . 294

The Unity of Mind and Matter.

XVI. Conclusion . 305

INTEODUCTION

In the following pages the chief systems of ancient and modern thought are compared, the object being to measure the approach of each system to the goal of philosophy which is the demonstration of the unity of all things. The most difficult unity to explain is that of mind and matter. Prior to the discovery of evolution this explanation was generally considered impossible, but now the problem can be dealt with scientifically. If by reducing the intellectual and the physical to a single principle, the various schemes of philosophy are rendered more intelligible, those who believe that metaphysical speculation leads only to mystery may again take heart.

This attempt to simplify the problem of being would be of wide interest were it more generally understood that philosophy is not only a last analysis, but a commanding sjoithesis; that its purpose is not alone to resolve the most general terms of existence into a single principle, but to reveal the harmonies of life and the universe as the most direct way of increasing human happiness.

The discovery that all the sciences spring from a centre of reality reminds us that unity was the ideal of the ancient Greeks. Their art and letters proclaim a knowledge of natural proportion, or an appreciation

X Introduction

of the law of unity in variety. This sublime intuition enabled them to perceive that the powers of the intellect and the ideals of righteousness move in unison with nature. They reasoned with singular power concerning general principles, for they saw that the true and the good are evolved from nature, while their sense of proportion crowned their knowledge with beauty.

All thoughtful persons classify experiences, forming them into general views of life, perceiving more or less distinctly that all ideas centre in an ultimate relation. The trend of social progress is from indefinite to definite ideas; that is to say, from a supernatural to a natural theory of knowledge. Society will have reached its zenith when it realizes that thought is a development of feeling, and that both are evolutions of nature.

Since there can be no reliable definition of truth or of right until knowledge is unified, we naturally look for this most important achievement to the universities, those centres of intelligence designed for the enlightenment of the world. But at the chief seats of learning, although investigations progress in many departments, there has been thus far a failure to co-ordinate the sciences. The cause of this lack of harmony among the various departments of research is not far to seek, for the prevalent philosophy, instead of reducing mind and nature to unity, maintains that the true and the good are not accounted for by physical laws.

The aim of this book, therefore, is to demonstrate the fact that knowledge can be unified by co-ordinating the sciences, or, in other words, that the most general terms of existence can be reduced to a single principle.

Ever since man has essayed to form definite ideas

Introduction xi

of existence the problem of motion has occupied the highest place in his thoughts. The effort to solve this problem can be traced from the dawn of philosophy to the present day, each age showing an advance toward the solution.

Now every science builds its system upon an ultimate, which resolves itself at last into motion. Thus, mathematics is the study of motion, expressed in number and quantity, or in time and space ; physics is the study of force ; biology, the study of life ; psychology, of mind ; law, of justice ; and religion, of God. It will be found upon investigation that all these terms have the same fundamental meaning, for they unite the subjective and the objective aspects of existence in motion. But, if it is necessary for each department of research to assimilate all universal terms before the sciences can be coordinated, we shall wait indefinitely for this most needed reform. Let us for the present, therefore, consider only those terms which are generally conceded to be universals, — ^namely space, time, matter, force and motion. To identify the last fact in each science with one or more of these principles is to unify knowledge, as the axiom holds true that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

The advantage to be gained by co-ordinating the sciences is as yet scarcely appreciable. When it is demonstrated that one relation accounts for mental as well as for physical existence, each discovery will throw new light upon all preceding ones. For example, if the principles of existence and of devotion are one, it follows that our most general ideas govern our religious beliefs, for the divine signifies the universal, or the most xii Introduction

general; that is to say, deity is the order of nature, reached through generalization.

One of the characteristics of our age is a reaction from skepticism or a demand for a justification of religious faith. To satisfy this greatest of human needs, we require a scientific theory of knowledge. In other terms, we need more than anything else, an explanation of the origin and development of general ideas.

There can be no liigher revelation than philosophy, for it discloses the interdependence of mind and nature. The deepest truths are appreciated not by reason alone, but also by sympathy. As thought is a development of feeling, philosophy is a refinement of religious sentiment.

The highest use of philosophy is to strengthen religious faith, by giving to our devotional instincts the sanction of reason. Those who have never submitted themselves to the discipline of thought, or who have yet to employ the safeguards of investigation and verification with regard to their religious convictions, are apt to accept devotional symbols literally, mistaking them for the true meaning of their faith. The devout mind has nothing to fear from reason, since it reveals no fate that is not compensated by the peace of eternal and universal truth.

As above indicated, there can be no reliable definition of the true and the good until mind and matter are reduced to a single principle. Science, quite as much as religion, is responsible, therefore, for prevalent superstitions. So long as the universities teach that intelligence and s}Tnpathy are inscrutable, or that the

Introduction ' xiii

deepest meaning of truth and of right is unknowable, just so long will religion veil itself in mystery. If those who presume to educate our theologians cannot agree concerning the meaning of ultimate terms, how can the Church enlighten us as to the principles of existence ?

Eeligion, or consecrated devotion, is the mainspring of social progress. Society organizes for righteousness, because righteousness is a necessity. All organizations having this aim are religious, whether their temples are reared to a personal deity or to the principle of justice.

If by disclosing the interdependence of ultimate terms knowledge can be unified, justice will appear in its true light, as the order of nature, commanding obedience because it is universal, and inspiring emulation because it is beautiful.

PART I THE PRE-EVOLUTIONARY PERIOD

CHAPTER I The Dawn of Philosophy Tholes — Anaximenes — Diogenes of Apollonia Anaximander — Pythagoras

There is a general belief that our origin and destiny are wrapped in impenetrable mystery. We do not realize that these questions can be solved by studying the nature of consciousness and of justice. The evolution of consciousness reveals the beginnings of life and the evolution of justice its purpose or end.

Toward the close of the first period of Greek philosophy, Anaxagoras endeavored to correlate the spiritual and the corporeal, which is the present aim of psychology. A century earlier Solon laid the foundations of ethical science by proclaiming the interdependence of human and divine justice. Thus it is clear that the theories of the ancients were fraught with the deepest meaning. Their attempts to comprehend mind and nature brought them face to face with the very problems occupying us today.

Nothing will conduce more to the solution of these problems than a comprehension of the nature of language. The increase of definiteness in language marks the progress of humanity. The power of expression is the first fruit of social life. Thought is not a thing apart from language; the spirit of the race breathes in the words and sentences that have grown up to express the common life. "Language," says Ampere, "begins with being a music, and ends by becoming an algebra." Reason and its expression develop together; they advance from the incoherent to the coherent, or from vague metaphor to definite comparisons. Reason is comparison, and its vehicle, language, is a system of metaphors, arising from the same source.

In order to elucidate their theories Plato and Aristotle found it necessary to compare them with previous cognate thought. Almost all subsequent writers on metaphysics have followed this example ; in fact the only feasible method of metaphysical demonstration is the historical, because the principles of existence can be simphfied only by reviewing the discussions by which they have been evolved. As Professor Mahaffy remarks, "Conclusions alone are remembered, but the process by which they are reached, the antecedent doubts, difficulties and failures, are a necessary part of the demonstration."

Each metaphysical system portrays the growth of some individual representing a period of thought and is modified by those changes of opinion which are incident to progress. Thought can be accurately delineated only when it is clear, but with such profound problems as are attempted by philosophers this ideal is seldom reached. The chief advantage of the historical method of demonstration is that of addressing each logical sect in the terminology of its chosen master, for almost every thoughtful person is attached to some form of dialectical art which he deems it his duty to support. It is true that an agreement as to the meaning of universals would remove this sectarianism from philosophy, but the great difficulty is that universal terms can be defined only by performing in advance an ultimate analysis. In the following review of philosophical systems, therefore, the endeavor will be made to measure the approach of each metaphysical school to that goal of thought known as a last analysis of existence.

Although there is no doubt that Hellenic science and philosophy owe much to earlier nations, it is conceded that the Greeks founded the most accessible schools of ancient thought, and have transmitted to us the present types of ontological inquiry. For this reason Greek philosophy assumes a peculiar interest, affording as it does a view of the development of the art of generalization, the only means by which we are to gain a comprehension of the origin and the destiny of man.

THALES

The earliest Hellenic philosopher was Thales, born at Miletus, a Greek Colony in Asia Minor, about 640 B. C. His mathematical and astronomical knowledge was acquired, according to Eudemus, in Phoenicia and Egypt. An evidence of this knowledge was his prediction of the solar eclipse 585 B. C. In common with many great thinkers of antiquity, Thales took part in public affairs. With the Greeks, wisdom meant familiarity with civil as well as with natural laws. It was on account of statesmanship, therefore, as well as of scientific acquirements, that this philosopher was placed at the head of the seven wise men,

Thales believed that water is the source of all things. In assuming that a substance is the most general of facts, or the ultimate reality, the quest was begun which has since resulted in the discovery of evolution.

To the thoughtful Greek, six hundred years before our era, the universe was an infinity of unexplained and irreconcilable changes. The physical forces had not as yet been distinguished from the substances manifesting them. To the mind of Thales, matter and its attributes were one. How significant it is that the highest enlightenment has finally coincided with this earliest of intuitions. It is now well known that matter and force are indistinguishable one from the other. Some modem physicists, however, are so much impressed with the distinctions made between the physical forces and the substances manifesting them, that they unfortunately consider the separation as absolute. They neglect to restore to phenomena that fundamental unity which the ancients perceived intuitively.

It is difficult for us to realize the darkness that enshrouded all nature at the time of Thales, and yet, by assuming the identity of matter and force, the earliest Greek thinkers came near to that universal unity which has so long escaped us. How often has it happened that the last word of science has come to the support of primitive theory.

The method of mental procedure is constant. Thought establishes its base line, triangulating its advances toward a universal principle, or toward that most general fact by which all others may be explained. Thales, the founder of the line of ancient physicists known as the Ionian school, was the first among the Greeks to seek in nature a primal cause. In fixing upon a physical antecedent of all that he saw about him, his induction was far greater than would at first appear. It was during his time that a spirit of investigation first appeared among the Greeks. Hitherto men had contented themselves with the familiar aspects of tilings, remanding all obscure phenomena to the realm of superstition.

The choice of water as the ultimate or formative principle was the result of extended observation and thought. Even at that epoch, to the investigator of nature, the omnipresence of moisture was manifest. Moisture abounded in animals and plants, on the earth and in the sky, and by it seeds were apparently nourished. To the presence of water all hfe seemed due. Nor did this first attempt to discover the ultimate principle of nature escape the prevailing influence of myths, as indicated by the tradition that the earth floated upon the waters. To Thales, therefore, the evolution of seed germs, vivified by moisture, seemed to account for the universe.

ANAXIMENES

Anaximenes, who was born in the same Greek Colony as Thales, about 588 B. C, agreed fundamentally with his predecessor. Rejecting water as the first cause, he conceived air to be life. To him, air appeared to be infinite, and in its pure state invisible, and he, therefore, regarded it as the origin of all things. He maintained that only through its qualities, heat, cold, moisture and motion, could it be known. To its eternal motion he attributed all change. Reasoning that motion is the only agency manifested in the transformations of nature, he concluded that the condensation of air had produced the earth, which was flat and supported by air. He believed that all the heavenly bodies were also flat, although he saw that the moon shone by the sun's light.

Going a step farther than Thales, Anaximenes deduced general, from individual life. He viewed the cosmos as a living organism. The profundity of his thought is attested by his attempt to evolve consciousness from nature.

DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA

About a century later, Diogenes* of Apollonia (B. C. 440), offered another theory of the universe. Following the suggestion of Anaximenes, Diogenes reasoned that air is the origin of all things, but, giving it a deeper significance, compared it to the soul. This identification of physical and psychical energy has strong support from the recent investigations of German biologists in cellular psychology. Diogenes believed that universal energy accounts for mind as well as for matter. He defended the monism of Anaximenes against the doctrine of Anaxagoras, who held to a world ordering spirit.

According to Thales, the primary substance was more than moisture; it was water endowed with vital energy. To Diogenes air was more than atmosphere; it was that tenuous force which we now call ether, such as light and radiant heat — the soul of nature.

Diogenes conceived intelligence as a form of uni-

* Not Diogenes the Cynic.

versal energy. "Without reason," he said, "it would be impossible for it to be so ordered that one should find the proportion of all things, of winter and summer, night and day, rain and fair weather, ordered in the best possible manner."*

Thus to Diogenes ether and intelligence meant the same thing, because to him both seemed to represent the order of nature. "That which has knowledge is what men call air. By it all things are governed and regulated, and so it seems to me its use is to pervade all and to be in all, and there is nothing which has not some share in it."t The belief of Diogenes that intelligence is a manifestation of the order of nature is now generally conceded to be the most advanced theory of mind, far nearer the truth than the Kantian idea that mind accounts for the order of nature.

ANAXIMANDER

Thus the ancient physicists, Thales, Anaximenes and Diogenes, endeavored to explain the universe from a dynamical basis, citing respectively living water, air, and air-life, as the cause of all things. There was a contemporary of Thales, however, who divined perhaps more clearly than the other lonians, the great truth that nature itself is ultimate or, in other words, the life or motion of the universe. Discussions concerning the meaning of matter, such as occur in the writings of Aristotle, were unknown to these early Greeks, so that we have no choice but to admire the penetration of Anaximander in taking a position in harmony with the most advanced modern theories of the cosmos. It is true that many teachers of physical science still affirm that t Simpl. Phys. III.. 5 and Diog. Laert. 112 inert matter is the final fact. To assume that atoms have absolute weight and extension is to believe in absolute rest, whereas the best authorities now agree that substance, which is our symbol for rest, is itself a form of motion.

Anaximander, who was born about 610 B. C, taught that the infinite (rb direLpov) is the ultimate reality. This principle, he said, "is the origin of all things."

In thus recognizing a relation as the ultimate generalization, Anaximander rose above materialism, for he intuitively perceived the interdependence of the dynamical and the statical aspects of existence. The relation which he conceived as ultimate he called infinite in order to express the endless evolutions of the world. He reasoned that the primary cause must be infinite in order to suffice for the variety of phenomena.

Although Aristotle long afterwards characterized this infinite as a multiplicity of primary elements, to the mind of Anaximander it was evidently an ever-producing energy.

It is alleged that among the earliest philosophical writings of the Greeks was a treatise by Anaximander upon the size and distance of the heavenly bodies. His introduction of the sun-dial and his invention of geographical maps place him among the pioneers of science.

When Anaximander proclaimed that being is a relation, he struck the keynote of philosophy, that is to say, he reached a generalization that all subsequent research has failed to overthrow. When it is remembered, however, that the doctrines of Anaximander, as well as those of his contemporaries, had analogies in earlier philosophies, as will appear by reference to the EgyjDtians, the

Hebrews, the Chaldeans and the Hindus, we reahze how remote and how widespread are the origins of ontological inquiry.

PYTHAGORAS

Pythagoras, about the time of whose birth there is a dispute, opinions varying from 586 to 569 B. C, founded the first systematic school of thought. To him we owe the term philosopher, for it was in declaring himself a lover of wisdom that the word was coined. "A philosopher," says Pythagoras, ''is one who seeks wisdom for its own sake."* This great teacher maintained that thought is the noblest exercise of man, because the improvement of social conditions depends upon the progress of science and religion. It never occurred to him that our discoveries in natural phenomena were anything less than divine revelations. His life was devoted to investigating the methods of the architect of the universe. This was the avowed aim of his secret society, the influence of which survived among the Greeks long after the death of its founder.

Ancient accounts depict a spirit of exclusiveness as prevailing among early scientists. The general lack of education prevented all but a favored few from divining the secrets of nature. From remotest antiquity the profoundest suggestions of the cosmos have been held sacred. In order to guard these treasures of knowledge from sacrilege, secret religious orders were inaugurated with elaborate ceremonies and a ritual. These prehistoric attempts to preserve and to develop the germs of knowledge still survive in the form of religious and masonic worship, all of which celebrate the early dis-

* Iambi. Vita. pp. 58, 59.

lo The Evolution of Knowledge-

coveries of science, the rapture of the dawn of knowledge. As the Psalmist says, "The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork."

The constitution of the Pythagoreans was probably derived from the religious orders of Egypt and of the Orient. It provided that initiation was to follow years of probation devised as a test of character. So severe were these trials, chief among them the injunction of secrecy, that many novices surrendered in despair, "unworthy to enter the sanctuary of science."

The motto of the Pythagoreans was: "Not unto all should all be made known." Although the accounts of this fraternity are richly embellished with fable, we are not without reliable evidence concerning its teachings. As above indicated, the Pythagoreans appealed to the devotional instincts in behalf of better methods of government. The principles of harmony which they discerned in nature they endeavored to apply to civil institutions, just as in our time, we would identify righteousness with the order of the universe. They taught that justice is the chief end of man and that its precepts constitute the highest of religions. This sublime rationalism, however, did not save the founder of the sect from the charge of being a miracle worker, for then, as now, the populace attributed intimacy with the principles of existence to the favor of a personal deity.*

The Pythagoreans perceived that it is necessary to classify ultimate terms as a means of solving the problem of being. Their co-ordinates, consisting of ten pairs of antithetical terms, no doubt suggested to Aristotle

* Iambi. Vita., pp. 68, 80, 226-228. Diog. Laert. VIII. 6.8. Gell. Noct. Att.j.9.

The Dawn of Philosophy ii

his categories, which, being single principles, came nearer to universals.

In the Metaphysics Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans, who were nurtured in mathematics, believed that number is the principle of all things. They saw in nature a greater analogy to number than to such elements as fire, earth and water, for in the relations of numerals they discerned the harmonies of the universe. They even said that consciousness and justice could be arithmetically represented.

The Pythagoreans, continued Aristotle, believed that the number ten is capable of expressing not only the arrangement of the heavenly bodies but the causes of all existence. In number they saw both unity and variety. They identified the even and the odd with the finite and the infinite. They connected the most general principles of existence with the number ten, postulating the following series of co-ordinates; "Finite and Infinite- One and Many.

Even and Odd.

Right and Left.

Male and Female.

Rest and Motion.

Square and Oblong.

Straight and Curved.

Light and Darkness.

Good and Evil."

"In these ten co-ordinates," continues Aristotle, "the Pythagoreans saw the principle of universal harmony; whereupon they affirmed that number is the substance of all things."*

Until the time of Socrates all knowledge of the Pythagoreans was in the form of tradition. We are told that these prehistoric scientists understood the rotation of the earth on its axis, and advanced a theory of atoms with a world-ordering spirit; and that they also advocated the doctrine of contraries, so highly developed in recent times by Hegel.

The somewhat contemptuous attitude of Aristotle toward the mysteries of the Pythagoreans has been since imitated by many learned authorities, but it is now known that this secret religious association possessed a knowledge of natural proportion more profound than that enjoyed even at the present time.

The wisdom religions from which descended the ancient mysteries inculcated principles of natural proportion. This ultimate analysis of form stands at the very threshold of the sciences. It is the law of unity in variety or the law of natural beauty, and was consciously exercised by ancient and medieval artists as the chief inspiration of their work.* When its universality is understood it will unite science and religion.

"I undertake to prove," says Kepler in the preface of his great work, "that God in creating the universe and arranging the order of the cosmos had in mind the five regular geometrical bodies known since the days of Pythagoras and Plato, and that He has fixed, according to their dimensions, the number of heavens, their proportions and the relation of their movements." Whether this quaint phraseology of Kepler was due in part to dread of the Inquisition, or wholly to the innate dis-

* See address by Jay Hambidge before the Hellenic Society, London Athenaeum, November 15, 1902; also "Nature" of same date.

position to regard the powers of nature as divine, will perhaps never be known. The fact remains, however, that the highest conception of nature and of deity are the same, namely: the infinite and the eternal order of the cosmos expressed in proportion or beauty.

In regard to their capacity for solving the problems of existence, the ancient Greeks were our peers. If introspection alone could have achieved the solution, we would have inherited it from them in the same perfection as that in which their art has reached us. Neither with ancients nor with moderns has there been lack of intellectual acumen. The cause of the failure, thus far, to unify the principles of existence, is to be found in the arbitrary restrictions placed upon our conception of knowledge. In its deepest sense, knowledge is life. Adequately to conceive the unity of mind and nature it is necessary to identify knowledge with life, and life with universal change, a generalization which the discovery of evolution has at last made possible.

Although psychology and ethics are interdependent inquiries, they are still taught separately because the psychologist and the moralist have not as yet come to an agreement concerning the meaning of universals. The definition of universals, therefore, is the reform most needed in educational work, for there can be no real comprehension of the true or of the good until we have reduced mind and nature to proportion or beauty, or, in other words, until we have reduced those universals known as the categories of thought, or the most general terms of existence to a single principle.

The ancients were aware that deity represents a principle, not a person. The best thinkers of all ages have perceived that we Hve, not under the tutelage of an individual, but in an empire of cause and effect.

As will later appear, the trend of human progress is toward the identification of mental and physical force, or toward the development of psychology from biology. Even without the aid of biological analysis, however, the ancients penetrated to the underlying principle of existence, which is, that reality is more general than mind or language, or that facts express themselves, which is the same thing. The failure to interpret experiences aright is a want of harmony between the individual and his surroundings, a mal-adjustment of inner to outer relations. Knowledge is an organization of changes, expressing relations which have their terms in other changes, and so on to infinity. The deepest meaning of change is motion, that ultimate relation expressed in terms of time and space. In analyzing terrestrial phenomena to determine affinities or proportions, we compare one change with another, measuring them by a unit. In comparing the phenomena of the heavens, we enlarge the scale, but preserve the same method. In studying humanity to determine the principles of its development, we use the same method and the results are expressed in the same terms of force or motion.