The prestige of the absolute has rather crumbled in our hands. The
logical proofs of it miss fire; the portraits which its best
court-painters show of it are featureless and foggy in the extreme;
and, apart from the cold comfort of assuring us that with it all
is well, and that to see that all is well with us also we need only
rise to its eternal point of view, it yields us no relief whatever. It
introduces, on the contrary, into philosophy and theology certain
poisonous difficulties of which but for its intrusion we never should
have heard.
But if we drop the absolute out of the world, must we then conclude
that the world contains nothing better in the way of consciousness than
our consciousness? Is our whole instinctive belief in higher presences,
our persistent inner turning towards divine companionship, to count for
nothing? Is it but the pathetic illusion of beings with incorrigibly
social and imaginative minds?
Such a negative conclusion would, I believe, be desperately hasty, a
sort of pouring out of the child with the bath. Logically it is
possible to believe in superhuman beings without identifying them with
the absolute at all. The treaty of offensive and defensive alliance
which certain groups of the Christian clergy have recently made with
our transcendentalist philosophers seems to me to be based on a
well-meaning but baleful mistake. Neither the Jehovah of the old
testament nor the heavenly father of the new has anything in common
with the absolute except that they are all three greater than man; and
if you say that the notion of the absolute is what the gods of Abraham,
of David, and of Jesus, after first developing into each other, were
inevitably destined to develop into in more reflective and modern
minds, I reply that although in certain specifically philosophical
minds this may have been the case, in minds more properly to be termed
religious the development has followed quite another path. The whole
history of evangelical Christianity is there to prove it. I propose in
these lectures to plead for that other line of development. To set the
doctrine of the absolute in its proper framework, so that it shall not
fill the whole welkin and exclude all alternative possibilities of
higher thought—as it seems to do for many students who approach it
with a limited previous acquaintance with philosophy—I will contrast
it with a system which, abstractly considered, seems at first to have
much in common with absolutism, but which, when taken concretely and
temperamentally, really stands at the opposite pole. I refer to the
philosophy of Gustav Theodor Fechner, a writer but little known as yet
to English readers, but destined, I am persuaded, to wield more and
more influence as time goes on.
It is the intense concreteness of Fechner, his fertility of detail,
which fills me with an admiration which I should like to make this
audience share. Among the philosophic cranks of my acquaintance in the
past was a lady all the tenets of whose system I have forgotten except
one. Had she been born in the Ionian Archipelago some three thousand
years ago, that one doctrine would probably have made her name sure of
a place in every university curriculum and examination paper. The
world, she said, is composed of only two elements, the Thick, namely,
and the Thin. No one can deny the truth of this analysis, as far as it
goes (though in the light of our contemporary knowledge of nature it
has itself a rather 'thin' sound), and it is nowhere truer than in that
part of the world called philosophy. I am sure, for example, that many
of you, listening to what poor account I have been able to give of
transcendental idealism, have received an impression of its arguments
being strangely thin, and of the terms it leaves us with being
shiveringly thin wrappings for so thick and burly a world as this. Some
of you of course will charge the thinness to my exposition; but thin as
that has been, I believe the doctrines reported on to have been
thinner. From Green to Haldane the absolute proposed to us to
straighten out the confusions of the thicket of experience in which our
life is passed remains a pure abstraction which hardly any one tries to
make a whit concreter. If we open Green, we get nothing but the
transcendental ego of apperception (Kant's name for the fact that to be
counted in experience a thing has to be witnessed), blown up into a
sort of timeless soap-bubble large enough to mirror the whole universe.
Nature, Green keeps insisting, consists only in relations, and these
imply the action of a mind that is eternal; a self-distinguishing
consciousness which itself escapes from the relations by which it
determines other things. Present to whatever is in succession, it is
not in succession itself. If we take the Cairds, they tell us little
more of the principle of the universe—it is always a return into the
identity of the self from the difference of its objects. It separates
itself from them and so becomes conscious of them in their separation
from one another, while at the same time it binds them together as
elements in one higher self-consciousness.
This seems the very quintessence of thinness; and the matter hardly
grows thicker when we gather, after enormous amounts of reading, that
the great enveloping self in question is absolute reason as such, and
that as such it is characterized by the habit of using certain jejune
'categories' with which to perform its eminent relating work. The whole
active material of natural fact is tried out, and only the barest
intellectualistic formalism remains.
Hegel tried, as we saw, to make the system concreter by making the
relations between things 'dialectic,' but if we turn to those who use
his name most worshipfully, we find them giving up all the particulars
of his attempt, and simply praising his intention—much as in our
manner we have praised it ourselves. Mr. Haldane, for example, in his
wonderfully clever Gifford lectures, praises Hegel to the skies, but
what he tells of him amounts to little more than this, that 'the
categories in which the mind arranges its experiences, and gives
meaning to them, the universals in which the particulars are grasped in
the individual, are a logical chain, in which the first presupposes the
last, and the last is its presupposition and its truth.' He hardly
tries at all to thicken this thin logical scheme. He says indeed that
absolute mind in itself, and absolute mind in its hetereity or
otherness, under the distinction which it sets up of itself from
itself, have as their real prius absolute mind in synthesis;
and, this being absolute mind's true nature, its dialectic character
must show itself in such concrete forms as Goethe's and Wordsworth's
poetry, as well as in religious forms. 'The nature of God, the nature
of absolute mind, is to exhibit the triple movement of dialectic, and
so the nature of God as presented in religion must be a triplicity, a
trinity.' But beyond thus naming Goethe and Wordsworth and establishing
the trinity, Mr. Haldane's Hegelianism carries us hardly an inch into
the concrete detail of the world we actually inhabit.
Equally thin is Mr. Taylor, both in his principles and in their
results. Following Mr. Bradley, he starts by assuring us that reality
cannot be self-contradictory, but to be related to anything really
outside of one's self is to be self-contradictory, so the ultimate
reality must be a single all-inclusive systematic whole. Yet all he can
say of this whole at the end of his excellently written book is that
the notion of it 'can make no addition to our information and can of
itself supply no motives for practical endeavor.'
Mr. McTaggart treats us to almost as thin a fare. 'The main
practical interest of Hegel's philosophy,' he says, 'is to be found in
the abstract certainty which the logic gives us that all reality is
rational and righteous, even when we cannot see in the least how it is
so.... Not that it shows us how the facts around us are good, not that
it shows us how we can make them better, but that it proves that they,
like other reality, are sub specie eternitatis, perfectly good,
and sub specie temporis, destined to become perfectly good.'
Here again, no detail whatever, only the abstract certainty that
whatever the detail may prove to be, it will be good. Common
non-dialectical men have already this certainty as a result of the
generous vital enthusiasm about the universe with which they are born.
The peculiarity of transcendental philosophy is its sovereign contempt
for merely vital functions like enthusiasm, and its pretension to turn
our simple and immediate trusts and faiths into the form of logically
mediated certainties, to question which would be absurd. But the whole
basis on which Mr. McTaggart's own certainty so solidly rests, settles
down into the one nutshell of an assertion into which he puts Hegel's
gospel, namely, that in every bit of experience and thought, however
finite, the whole of reality (the absolute idea, as Hegel calls it) is
'implicitly present.'
This indeed is Hegel's vision, and Hegel thought that the
details of his dialectic proved its truth. But disciples who treat the
details of the proof as unsatisfactory and yet cling to the vision, are
surely, in spite of their pretension to a more rational consciousness,
no better than common men with their enthusiasms or deliberately
adopted faiths. We have ourselves seen some of the weakness of the
monistic proofs. Mr. McTaggart picks plenty of holes of his own in
Hegel's logic, and finally concludes that 'all true philosophy must be
mystical, not indeed in its methods but in its final conclusions,'
which is as much as to say that the rationalistic methods leave us in
the lurch, in spite of all their superiority, and that in the end
vision and faith must eke them out. But how abstract and thin is here
the vision, to say nothing of the faith! The whole of reality,
explicitly absent from our finite experiences, must nevertheless be
present in them all implicitly, altho no one of us can ever see
how—the bare word 'implicit' here bearing the whole pyramid of the
monistic system on its slender point. Mr. Joachim's monistic system of
truth rests on an even slenderer point.—I have never doubted,'
he says, 'that universal and timeless truth is a single content or
significance, one and whole and complete,' and he candidly confesses
the failure of rationalistic attempts 'to raise this immediate
certainty' to the level of reflective knowledge. There is, in short, no
mediation for him between the Truth in capital letters and all the
little 'lower-case' truths—and errors—which life presents. The
psychological fact that he never has 'doubted' is enough.
The whole monistic pyramid, resting on points as thin as these,
seems to me to be a machtspruch, a product of will far more than
one of reason. Unity is good, therefore things shall cohere;
they shall be one; there shall be categories to make them
one, no matter what empirical disjunctions may appear. In Hegel's own
writings, the shall-be temper is ubiquitous and towering; it
overrides verbal and logical resistances alike. Hegel's error, as
Professor Royce so well says, 'lay not in introducing logic into
passion,' as some people charge, 'but in conceiving the logic of
passion as the only logic.... He is [thus] suggestive,' Royce says,
'but never final. His system as a system has crumbled, but his vital
comprehension of our life remains forever.'[1]
That vital comprehension we have already seen. It is that there is a
sense in which real things are not merely their own bare selves, but
may vaguely be treated as also their own others, and that ordinary
logic, since it denies this, must be overcome. Ordinary logic denies
this because it substitutes concepts for real things, and concepts
are their own bare selves and nothing else. What Royce calls
Hegel's 'system' was Hegel's attempt to make us believe that he was
working by concepts and grinding out a higher style of logic, when in
reality sensible experiences, hypotheses, and passion furnished him
with all his results.
What I myself may mean by things being their own others, we shall
see in a later lecture. It is now time to take our look at Fechner,
whose thickness is a refreshing contrast to the thin, abstract,
indigent, and threadbare appearance, the starving, school-room aspect,
which the speculations of most of our absolutist philosophers present.
There is something really weird and uncanny in the contrast between
the abstract pretensions of rationalism and what rationalistic methods
concretely can do. If the 'logical prius' of our mind were really the
'implicit presence' of the whole 'concrete universal,' the whole of
reason, or reality, or spirit, or the absolute idea, or whatever it may
be called, in all our finite thinking, and if this reason worked (for
example) by the dialectical method, doesn't it seem odd that in the
greatest instance of rationalization mankind has known, in 'science,'
namely, the dialectical method should never once have been tried? Not a
solitary instance of the use of it in science occurs to my mind.
Hypotheses, and deductions from these, controlled by sense-observations
and analogies with what we know elsewhere, are to be thanked for all of
science's results.
Fechner used no methods but these latter ones in arguing for his
metaphysical conclusions about reality—but let me first rehearse a few
of the facts about his life.
Born in 1801, the son of a poor country pastor in Saxony, he lived
from 1817 to 1887, when he died, seventy years therefore, at Leipzig, a
typical gelehrter of the old-fashioned german stripe. His means
were always scanty, so his only extravagances could be in the way of
thought, but these were gorgeous ones. He passed his medical
examinations at Leipzig University at the age of twenty-one, but
decided, instead of becoming a doctor, to devote himself to physical
science. It was ten years before he was made professor of physics,
although he soon was authorized to lecture. Meanwhile, he had to make
both ends meet, and this he did by voluminous literary labors. He
translated, for example, the four volumes of Biot's treatise on
physics, and the six of Thenard's work on chemistry, and took care of
their enlarged editions later. He edited repertories of chemistry and
physics, a pharmaceutical journal, and an encyclopaedia in eight
volumes, of which he wrote about one third. He published physical
treatises and experimental investigations of his own, especially in
electricity. Electrical measurements, as you know, are the basis of
electrical science, and Fechner's measurements in galvanism, performed
with the simplest self-made apparatus, are classic to this day. During
this time he also published a number of half-philosophical,
half-humorous writings, which have gone through several editions, under
the name of Dr. Mises, besides poems, literary and artistic essays, and
other occasional articles.
But overwork, poverty, and an eye-trouble produced by his
observations on after-images in the retina (also a classic piece of
investigation) produced in Fechner, then about thirty-eight years old,
a terrific attack of nervous prostration with painful hyperaesthesia of
all the functions, from which he suffered three years, cut off entirely
from active life. Present-day medicine would have classed poor
Fechner's malady quickly enough, as partly a habit-neurosis, but its
severity was such that in his day it was treated as a visitation
incomprehensible in its malignity; and when he suddenly began to get
well, both Fechner and others treated the recovery as a sort of divine
miracle. This illness, bringing Fechner face to face with inner
desperation, made a great crisis in his life. 'Had I not then clung to
the faith,' he writes, 'that clinging to faith would somehow or other
work its reward, so haette ich jene zeit nicht ausgehalten.' His
religious and cosmological faiths saved him—thenceforward one great
aim with him was to work out and communicate these faiths to the world.
He did so on the largest scale; but he did many other things too ere he
died.
A book on the atomic theory, classic also; four elaborate
mathematical and experimental volumes on what he called
psychophysics—many persons consider Fechner to have practically
founded scientific psychology in the first of these books; a volume on
organic evolution, and two works on experimental aesthetics, in which
again Fechner is considered by some judges to have laid the foundations
of a new science, must be included among these other performances. Of
the more religious and philosophical works, I shall immediately give a
further account.
All Leipzig mourned him when he died, for he was the pattern of the
ideal german scholar, as daringly original in his thought as he was
homely in his life, a modest, genial, laborious slave to truth and
learning, and withal the owner of an admirable literary style of the
vernacular sort. The materialistic generation, that in the fifties and
sixties called his speculations fantastic, had been replaced by one
with greater liberty of imagination, and a Preyer, a Wundt, a Paulsen,
and a Lasswitz could now speak of Fechner as their master.
His mind was indeed one of those multitudinously organized
cross-roads of truth which are occupied only at rare intervals by
children of men, and from which nothing is either too far or too near
to be seen in due perspective. Patientest observation, exactest
mathematics, shrewdest discrimination, humanest feeling, flourished in
him on the largest scale, with no apparent detriment to one another. He
was in fact a philosopher in the 'great' sense, altho he cared so much
less than most philosophers care for abstractions of the 'thin' order.
For him the abstract lived in the concrete, and the hidden motive of
all he did was to bring what he called the daylight view of the world
into ever greater evidence, that daylight view being this, that the
whole universe in its different spans and wave-lengths, exclusions and
envelopments, is everywhere alive and conscious. It has taken fifty
years for his chief book, 'Zend-avesta,' to pass into a second edition
(1901). 'One swallow,' he cheerfully writes, 'does not make a summer.
But the first swallow would not come unless the summer were coming; and
for me that summer means my daylight view some time prevailing.'
The original sin, according to Fechner, of both our popular and our
scientific thinking, is our inveterate habit of regarding the spiritual
not as the rule but as an exception in the midst of nature. Instead of
believing our life to be fed at the breasts of the greater life, our
individuality to be sustained by the greater individuality, which must
necessarily have more consciousness and more independence than all that
it brings forth, we habitually treat whatever lies outside of our life
as so much slag and ashes of life only; or if we believe in a Divine
Spirit, we fancy him on the one side as bodiless, and nature as
soulless on the other. What comfort, or peace, Fechner asks, can come
from such a doctrine? The flowers wither at its breath, the stars turn
into stone; our own body grows unworthy of our spirit and sinks to a
tenement for carnal senses only. The book of nature turns into a volume
on mechanics, in which whatever has life is treated as a sort of
anomaly; a great chasm of separation yawns between us and all that is
higher than ourselves; and God becomes a thin nest of abstractions.
Fechner's great instrument for vivifying the daylight view is
analogy; not a rationalistic argument is to be found in all his many
pages—only reasonings like those which men continually use in
practical life. For example: My house is built by some one, the world
too is built by some one. The world is greater than my house, it must
be a greater some one who built the world. My body moves by the
influence of my feeling and will; the sun, moon, sea, and wind, being
themselves more powerful, move by the influence of some more powerful
feeling and will. I live now, and change from one day to another; I
shall live hereafter, and change still more, etc.
Bain defines genius as the power of seeing analogies. The number
that Fechner could perceive was prodigious; but he insisted on the
differences as well. Neglect to make allowance for these, he said, is
the common fallacy in analogical reasoning. Most of us, for example,
reasoning justly that, since all the minds we know are connected with
bodies, therefore God's mind should be connected with a body, proceed
to suppose that that body must be just an animal body over again, and
paint an altogether human picture of God. But all that the analogy
comports is a body—the particular features of our body
are adaptations to a habitat so different from God's that if God have a
physical body at all, it must be utterly different from ours in
structure. Throughout his writings Fechner makes difference and analogy
walk abreast, and by his extraordinary power of noticing both, he
converts what would ordinarily pass for objections to his conclusions
into factors of their support.
The vaster orders of mind go with the vaster orders of body. The
entire earth on which we live must have, according to Fechner, its own
collective consciousness. So must each sun, moon, and planet; so must
the whole solar system have its own wider consciousness, in which the
consciousness of our earth plays one part. So has the entire starry
system as such its consciousness; and if that starry system be not the
sum of all that is, materially considered, then that whole
system, along with whatever else may be, is the body of that absolutely
totalized consciousness of the universe to which men give the name of
God.
Speculatively Fechner is thus a monist in his theology; but there is
room in his universe for every grade of spiritual being between man and
the final all-inclusive God; and in suggesting what the positive
content of all this super-humanity may be, he hardly lets his
imagination fly beyond simple spirits of the planetary order. The
earth-soul he passionately believes in; he treats the earth as our
special human guardian angel; we can pray to the earth as men pray to
their saints; but I think that in his system, as in so many of the
actual historic theologies, the supreme God marks only a sort of limit
of enclosure of the worlds above man. He is left thin and abstract in
his majesty, men preferring to carry on their personal transactions
with the many less remote and abstract messengers and mediators whom
the divine order provides.
I shall ask later whether the abstractly monistic turn which
Fechner's speculations took was necessitated by logic. I believe it not
to have been required. Meanwhile let me lead you a little more into the
detail of his thought. Inevitably one does him miserable injustice by
summarizing and abridging him. For altho the type of reasoning he
employs is almost childlike for simplicity, and his bare conclusions
can be written on a single page, the power of the man is due
altogether to the profuseness of his concrete imagination, to the
multitude of the points which he considers successively, to the
cumulative effect of his learning, of his thoroughness, and of the
ingenuity of his detail, to his admirably homely style, to the
sincerity with which his pages glow, and finally to the impression he
gives of a man who doesn't live at second-hand, but who sees,
who in fact speaks as one having authority, and not as if he were one
of the common herd of professorial philosophic scribes.
Abstractly set down, his most important conclusion for my purpose in
these lectures is that the constitution of the world is identical
throughout. In ourselves, visual consciousness goes with our eyes,
tactile consciousness with our skin. But altho neither skin nor eye
knows aught of the sensations of the other, they come together and
figure in some sort of relation and combination in the more inclusive
consciousness which each of us names his self. Quite similarly,
then, says Fechner, we must suppose that my consciousness of myself and
yours of yourself, altho in their immediacy they keep separate and know
nothing of each other, are yet known and used together in a higher
consciousness, that of the human race, say, into which they enter as
constituent parts. Similarly, the whole human and animal kingdoms come
together as conditions of a consciousness of still wider scope. This
combines in the soul of the earth with the consciousness of the
vegetable kingdom, which in turn contributes its share of experience to
that of the whole solar system, and so on from synthesis to synthesis
and height to height, till an absolutely universal consciousness is
reached.
A vast analogical series, in which the basis of the analogy consists
of facts directly observable in ourselves.
The supposition of an earth-consciousness meets a strong instinctive
prejudice which Fechner ingeniously tries to overcome. Man's mind is
the highest consciousness upon the earth, we think—the earth itself
being in all ways man's inferior. How should its consciousness, if it
have one, be superior to his?
What are the marks of superiority which we are tempted to use here?
If we look more carefully into them, Fechner points out that the earth
possesses each and all of them more perfectly than we. He considers in
detail the points of difference between us, and shows them all to make
for the earth's higher rank. I will touch on only a few of these
points.
One of them of course is independence of other external beings.
External to the earth are only the other heavenly bodies. All the
things on which we externally depend for life—air, water, plant and
animal food, fellow men, etc.—are included in her as her constituent
parts. She is self-sufficing in a million respects in which we are not
so. We depend on her for almost everything, she on us for but a small
portion of her history. She swings us in her orbit from winter to
summer and revolves us from day into night and from night into day.
Complexity in unity is another sign of superiority. The total
earth's complexity far exceeds that of any organism, for she includes
all our organisms in herself, along with an infinite number of things
that our organisms fail to include. Yet how simple and massive are the
phases of her own proper life! As the total bearing of any animal is
sedate and tranquil compared with the agitation of its blood
corpuscles, so is the earth a sedate and tranquil being compared with
the animals whom she supports.
To develop from within, instead of being fashioned from without, is
also counted as something superior in men's eyes. An egg is a higher
style of being than a piece of clay which an external modeler makes
into the image of a bird. Well, the earth's history develops from
within. It is like that of a wonderful egg which the sun's heat, like
that of a mother-hen, has stimulated to its cycles of evolutionary
change.
Individuality of type, and difference from other beings of its type,
is another mark of rank. The earth differs from every other planet, and
as a class planetary beings are extraordinarily distinct from other
beings.
Long ago the earth was called an animal; but a planet is a higher
class of being than either man or animal; not only quantitatively
greater, like a vaster and more awkward whale or elephant, but a being
whose enormous size requires an altogether different plan of life. Our
animal organization comes from our inferiority. Our need of moving to
and fro, of stretching our limbs and bending our bodies, shows only our
defect. What are our legs but crutches, by means of which, with
restless efforts, we go hunting after the things we have not inside of
ourselves. But the earth is no such cripple; why should she who already
possesses within herself the things we so painfully pursue, have limbs
analogous to ours? Shall she mimic a small part of herself? What need
has she of arms, with nothing to reach for? of a neck, with no head to
carry? of eyes or nose when she finds her way through space without
either, and has the millions of eyes of all her animals to guide their
movements on her surface, and all their noses to smell the flowers that
grow? For, as we are ourselves a part of the earth, so our organs are
her organs. She is, as it were, eye and ear over her whole extent—all
that we see and hear in separation she sees and hears at once. She
brings forth living beings of countless kinds upon her surface, and
their multitudinous conscious relations with each other she takes up
into her higher and more general conscious life.
Most of us, considering the theory that the whole terrestrial mass
is animated as our bodies are, make the mistake of working the analogy
too literally, and allowing for no differences. If the earth be a
sentient organism, we say, where are her brain and nerves? What
corresponds to her heart and lungs? In other words, we expect functions
which she already performs through us, to be performed outside of us
again, and in just the same way. But we see perfectly well how the
earth performs some of these functions in a way unlike our way. If you
speak of circulation, what need has she of a heart when the sun keeps
all the showers of rain that fall upon her and all the springs and
brooks and rivers that irrigate her, going? What need has she of
internal lungs, when her whole sensitive surface is in living commerce
with the atmosphere that clings to it?
The organ that gives us most trouble is the brain. All the
consciousness we directly know seems tied to brains.—Can there be
consciousness, we ask, where there is no brain? But our brain, which
primarily serves to correlate our muscular reactions with the external
objects on which we depend, performs a function which the earth
performs in an entirely different way. She has no proper muscles or
limbs of her own, and the only objects external to her are the other
stars. To these her whole mass reacts by most exquisite alterations in
its total gait, and by still more exquisite vibratory responses in its
substance. Her ocean reflects the lights of heaven as in a mighty
mirror, her atmosphere refracts them like a monstrous lens, the clouds
and snow-fields combine them into white, the woods and flowers disperse
them into colors. Polarization, interference, absorption, awaken
sensibilities in matter of which our senses are too coarse to take any
note.
For these cosmic relations of hers, then, she no more needs a
special brain than she needs eyes or ears. Our brains do indeed
unify and correlate innumerable functions. Our eyes know nothing of
sound, our ears nothing of light, but, having brains, we can feel sound
and light together, and compare them. We account for this by the fibres
which in the brain connect the optical with the acoustic centre, but
just how these fibres bring together not only the sensations, but the
centres, we fail to see. But if fibres are indeed all that is needed to
do that trick, has not the earth pathways, by which you and I are
physically continuous, more than enough to do for our two minds what
the brain-fibres do for the sounds and sights in a single mind? Must
every higher means of unification between things be a literal brain
-fibre, and go by that name? Cannot the earth-mind know otherwise the
contents of our minds together?
Fechner's imagination, insisting on the differences as well as on
the resemblances, thus tries to make our picture of the whole earth's
life more concrete. He revels in the thought of its perfections. To
carry her precious freight through the hours and seasons what form
could be more excellent than hers—being as it is horse, wheels, and
wagon all in one. Think of her beauty—a shining ball, sky-blue and
sun-lit over one half, the other bathed in starry night, reflecting the
heavens from all her waters, myriads of lights and shadows in the folds
of her mountains and windings of her valleys, she would be a spectacle
of rainbow glory, could one only see her from afar as we see parts of
her from her own mountain-tops. Every quality of landscape that has a
name would then be visible in her at once—all that is delicate or
graceful, all that is quiet, or wild, or romantic, or desolate, or
cheerful, or luxuriant, or fresh. That landscape is her face—a peopled
landscape, too, for men's eyes would appear in it like diamonds among
the dew-drops. Green would be the dominant color, but the blue
atmosphere and the clouds would enfold her as a bride is shrouded in
her veil—a veil the vapory transparent folds of which the earth,
through her ministers the winds, never tires of laying and folding
about herself anew.
Every element has its own living denizens. Can the celestial ocean
of ether, whose waves are light, in which the earth herself floats, not
have hers, higher by as much as their element is higher, swimming
without fins, flying without wings, moving, immense and tranquil, as by
a half-spiritual force through the half-spiritual sea which they
inhabit, rejoicing in the exchange of luminous influence with one
another, following the slightest pull of one another's attraction, and
harboring, each of them, an inexhaustible inward wealth?
Men have always made fables about angels, dwelling in the light,
needing no earthly food or drink, messengers between ourselves and God.
Here are actually existent beings, dwelling in the light and moving
through the sky, needing neither food nor drink, intermediaries between
God and us, obeying his commands. So, if the heavens really are the
home of angels, the heavenly bodies must be those very angels, for
other creatures there are none. Yes! the earth is our great
common guardian angel, who watches over all our interests combined.
In a striking page Fechner relates one of his moments of direct
vision of this truth.
'On a certain spring morning I went out to walk. The fields were
green, the birds sang, the dew glistened, the smoke was rising, here
and there a man appeared; a light as of transfiguration lay on all
things. It was only a little bit of the earth; it was only one moment
of her existence; and yet as my look embraced her more and more it
seemed to me not only so beautiful an idea, but so true and clear a
fact, that she is an angel, an angel so rich and fresh and flower-like,
and yet going her round in the skies so firmly and so at one with
herself, turning her whole living face to Heaven, and carrying me along
with her into that Heaven, that I asked myself how the opinions of men
could ever have so spun themselves away from life so far as to deem the
earth only a dry clod, and to seek for angels above it or about it in
the emptiness of the sky,—only to find them nowhere.... But such an
experience as this passes for fantastic. The earth is a globular body,
and what more she may be, one can find in mineralogical cabinets.'[2]
Where there is no vision the people perish. Few professorial
philosophers have any vision. Fechner had vision, and that is why one
can read him over and over again, and each time bring away a fresh
sense of reality.
His earliest book was a vision of what the inner life of plants may
be like. He called it 'Nanna.' In the development of animals the
nervous system is the central fact. Plants develop centrifugally,
spread their organs abroad. For that reason people suppose that they
can have no consciousness, for they lack the unity which the central
nervous system provides. But the plant's consciousness may be of
another type, being connected with other structures. Violins and pianos
give out sounds because they have strings. Does it follow that nothing
but strings can give out sound? How then about flutes and organ-pipes?
Of course their sounds are of a different quality, and so may the
consciousness of plants be of a quality correlated exclusively with the
kind of organization that | they possess. Nutrition, respiration,
propagation take place in them without nerves. In us these functions
are conscious only in unusual states, normally their consciousness is
eclipsed by that which goes with the brain. No such eclipse occurs in
plants, and their lower consciousness may therefore be all the more
lively. With nothing to do but to drink the light and air with their
leaves, to let their cells proliferate, to feel their rootlets draw the
sap, is it conceivable that they should not consciously suffer if
water, light, and air are suddenly withdrawn? or that when the
flowering and fertilization which are the culmination of their life
take place, they should not feel their own existence more intensely and
enjoy something like what we call pleasure in ourselves? Does the
water-lily, rocking in her triple bath of water, air, and light, relish
in no wise her own beauty? When the plant in our room turns to the
light, closes her blossoms in the dark, responds to our watering or
pruning by increase of size or change of shape and bloom, who has the
right to say she does not feel, or that she plays a purely passive
part? Truly plants can foresee nothing, neither the scythe of the
mower, nor the hand extended to pluck their flowers. They can neither
run away nor cry out. But this only proves how different their modes of
feeling life must be from those of animals that live by eyes and ears
and locomotive organs, it does not prove that they have no mode of
feeling life at all.
How scanty and scattered would sensation be on our globe, if the
feeling-life of plants were blotted from existence. Solitary would
consciousness move through the woods in the shape of some deer or other
quadruped, or fly about the flowers in that of some insect, but can we
really suppose that the Nature through which God's breath blows is such
a barren wilderness as this?
I have probably by this time said enough to acquaint those of you
who have never seen these metaphysical writings of Fechner with their
more general characteristics, and I hope that some of you may now feel
like reading them yourselves.[3] The special thought of Fechner's with
which in these lectures I have most practical concern, is his belief
that the more inclusive forms of consciousness are in part
constituted by the more limited forms. Not that they are the mere
sum of the more limited forms. As our mind is not the bare sum of our
sights plus our sounds plus our pains, but in adding these terms
together also finds relations among them and weaves them into schemes
and forms and objects of which no one sense in its separate estate
knows anything, so the earth-soul traces relations between the contents
of my mind and the contents of yours of which neither of our separate
minds is conscious. It has schemes, forms, and objects proportionate to
its wider field, which our mental fields are far too narrow to cognize.
By ourselves we are simply out of relation with each other, for it we
are both of us there, and different from each other, which is a
positive relation. What we are without knowing, it knows that we are.
We are closed against its world, but that world is not closed against
us. It is as if the total universe of inner life had a sort of grain or
direction, a sort of valvular structure, permitting knowledge to flow
in one way only, so that the wider might always have the narrower under
observation, but never the narrower the wider.
Fechner's great analogy here is the relation of the senses to our
individual minds. When our eyes are open their sensations enter into
our general mental life, which grows incessantly by the addition of
what they see. Close the eyes, however, and the visual additions stop,
nothing but thoughts and memories of the past visual experiences
remain—in combination of course with the enormous stock of other
thoughts and memories, and with the data coming in from the senses not
yet closed. Our eye-sensations of themselves know nothing of this
enormous life into which they fall. Fechner thinks, as any common man
would think, that they are taken into it directly when they occur, and
form part of it just as they are. They don't stay outside and get
represented inside by their copies. It is only the memories and
concepts of them that are copies; the sensible perceptions themselves
are taken in or walled out in their own proper persons according as the
eyes are open or shut.
Fechner likens our individual persons on the earth unto so many
sense-organs of the earth's soul. We add to its perceptive life so long
as our own life lasts. It absorbs our perceptions, just as they occur,
into its larger sphere of knowledge, and combines them with the other
data there. When one of us dies, it is as if an eye of the world were
closed, for all perceptive contributions from that particular
quarter cease. But the memories and conceptual relations that have spun
themselves round the perceptions of that person remain in the larger
earth-life as distinct as ever, and form new relations and grow and
develop throughout all the future, in the same way in which our own
distinct objects of thought, once stored in memory, form new relations
and develop throughout our whole finite life. This is Fechner's theory
of immortality, first published in the little 'Buechlein des lebens
nach dem tode,' in 1836, and re-edited in greatly improved shape in the
last volume of his 'Zend-avesta.'
We rise upon the earth as wavelets rise upon the ocean. We grow out
of her soil as leaves grow from a tree. The wavelets catch the sunbeams
separately, the leaves stir when the branches do not move. They realize
their own events apart, just as in our own consciousness, when anything
becomes emphatic, the background fades from observation. Yet the event
works back upon the background, as the wavelet works upon the waves, or
as the leaf's movements work upon the sap inside the branch. The whole
sea and the whole tree are registers of what has happened, and are
different for the wave's and the leaf's action having occurred. A
grafted twig may modify its stock to the roots:—so our outlived
private experiences, impressed on the whole earth-mind as memories,
lead the immortal life of ideas there, and become parts of the great
system, fully distinguished from one another, just as we ourselves when
alive were distinct, realizing themselves no longer isolatedly, but
along with one another as so many partial systems, entering thus into
new combinations, being affected by the perceptive experiences of those
living then, and affecting the living in their turn—altho they are so
seldom recognized by living men to do so.
If you imagine that this entrance after the death of the body into a
common life of higher type means a merging and loss of our distinct
personality, Fechner asks you whether a visual sensation of our own
exists in any sense less for itself or less distinctly,
when it enters into our higher relational consciousness and is there
distinguished and defined.
—But here I must stop my reporting and send you to his volumes.
Thus is the universe alive, according to this philosopher! I think you
will admit that he makes it more thickly alive than do the other
philosophers who, following rationalistic methods solely, gain the same
results, but only in the thinnest outlines. Both Fechner and Professor
Royce, for example, believe ultimately in one all-inclusive mind. Both
believe that we, just as we stand here, are constituent parts of that
mind. No other content has it than us, with all the other
creatures like or unlike us, and the relations which it finds between
us. Our eaches, collected into one, are substantively identical with
its all, tho the all is perfect while no each is perfect, so that we
have to admit that new qualities as well as unperceived relations
accrue from the collective form. It is thus superior to the
distributive form. But having reached this result, Royce (tho his
treatment of the subject on its moral side seems to me infinitely
richer and thicker than that of any other contemporary idealistic
philosopher) leaves us very much to our own devices. Fechner, on the
contrary, tries to trace the superiorities due to the more collective
form in as much detail as he can. He marks the various intermediary
stages and halting places of collectivity,—as we are to our separate
senses, so is the earth to us, so is the solar system to the earth,
etc.,—and if, in order to escape an infinitely long summation, he
posits a complete God as the all-container and leaves him about as
indefinite in feature as the idealists leave their absolute, he yet
provides us with a very definite gate of approach to him in the shape
of the earth-soul, through which in the nature of things we must first
make connexion with all the more enveloping superhuman realms, and with
which our more immediate religious commerce at any rate has to be
carried on.
Ordinary monistic idealism leaves everything intermediary out. It
recognizes only the extremes, as if, after the first rude face of the
phenomenal world in all its particularity, nothing but the supreme in
all its perfection could be found. First, you and I, just as we are in
this room; and the moment we get below that surface, the unutterable
absolute itself! Doesn't this show a singularly indigent imagination?
Isn't this brave universe made on a richer pattern, with room in it for
a long hierarchy of beings? Materialistic science makes it infinitely
richer in terms, with its molecules, and ether, and electrons, and what
not. Absolute idealism, thinking of reality only under intellectual
forms, knows not what to do with bodies of any grade, and can
make no use of any psychophysical analogy or correspondence. The
resultant thinness is startling when compared with the thickness and
articulation of such a universe as Fechner paints. May not satisfaction
with the rationalistic absolute as the alpha and omega, and treatment
of it in all its abstraction as an adequate religious object, argue a
certain native poverty of mental demand? Things reveal themselves
soonest to those who most passionately want them, for our need sharpens
our wit. To a mind content with little, the much in the universe may
always remain hid.
To be candid, one of my reasons for saying so much about Fechner has
been to make the thinness of our current transcendentalism appear more
evident by an effect of contrast. Scholasticism ran thick; Hegel
himself ran thick; but english and american transcendentalisms run
thin. If philosophy is more a matter of passionate vision than of
logic,—and I believe it is, logic only finding reasons for the vision
afterwards,—must not such thinness come either from the vision being
defective in the disciples, or from their passion, matched with
Fechner's or with Hegel's own passion, being as moonlight unto sunlight
or as water unto wine?[4]
But I have also a much deeper reason for making Fechner a part of my
text. His assumption that conscious experiences freely compound and
separate themselves, the same assumption by which absolutism
explains the relation of our minds to the eternal mind, and the same by
which empiricism explains the composition of the human mind out of
subordinate mental elements, is not one which we ought to let pass
without scrutiny. I shall scrutinize it in the next lecture.