alexandria and her schools-第15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！


d　heathen　Alexandrians　start；　is　not　merely　a　private　vagary　of　their　own；　but　one　which　has　been　accepted　undoubtingly；　under　so　many　various　forms；　by　so　many　different　races；　as　to　give　something　of　an　inductive　probability　that　it　is　not　a　mere　dream；　but　may　be　a　right　and　true　instinct　of　the　human　mind。　　I　mean　the　belief　that　the　things　which　we　seenature　and　all　her　phenomena　are　temporal；　and　born　only　to　die；　mere　shadows　of　some　unseen　realities；　from　whom　their　laws　and　life　are　derived；　while　the　eternal　things　which　subsist　without　growth；　decay；　or　change；　the　only　real；　only　truly　existing　things；　in　short；　are　certain　things　which　are　not　seen；　inappreciable　by　sense；　or　understanding；　or　imagination；　perceived　only　by　the　conscience　and　the　reason。　　And　that；　again；　the　problem　of　philosophy；　the　highest　good　for　man；　that　for　the　sake　of　which　death　were　a　gain；　without　which　life　is　worthless；　a　drudgery；　a　degradation；　a　failure；　and　a　ruin；　is　to　discover　what　those　unseen　eternal　things　are；　to　know　them；　possess　them；　be　in　harmony　with　them；　and　thereby　alone　to　rise　to　any　real　and　solid　power；　or　safety；　or　nobleness。　　It　is　a　strange　dream。　　But　you　will　see　that　it　is　one　which　does　not　bear　much　upon　〃points　of　controversy；〃　any　more　than　on　〃Locke's　philosophy；〃　nevertheless；　when　we　find　this　same　strange　dream　arising；　apparently　without　intercommunion　of　thought；　among　the　old　Hindoos；　among　the　Greeks；　among　the　Jews；　and　lastly；　when　we　see　it　springing　again　in　the　Middle　Age；　in　the　mind　of　the　almost　forgotten　author　of　the　〃Deutsche　Theologie；〃　and　so　becoming　the　parent；　not　merely　of　Luther's　deepest　belief；　or　of　the　German　mystic　schools　of　the　seventeenth　and　eighteenth　centuries；　but　of　the　great　German　Philosophy　itself　as　developed　by　Kant；　and　Fichte；　and　Schelling；　and　Hegel；　we　must　at　least　confess　it　to　be　a　popular　delusion；　if　nothing　better；　vast　enough　and　common　enough　to　be　worth　a　little　patient　investigation；　wheresoever　we　may　find　it　stirring　the　human　mind。

But　I　have　hope；　still；　that　I　may　find　sympathy　and　comprehension　among　some；　at　least；　of　my　audience；　as　I　proceed　to　examine　the　ancient　realist　schools　of　Alexandria；　on　account　of　their　knowledge　of　the　modern　realist　schools　of　Germany。　　For　I　cannot　but　see；　that　a　revulsion　is　taking　place　in　the　thoughts　of　our　nation　upon　metaphysic　subjects；　and　that　Scotland；　as　usual；　is　taking　the　lead　therein。　　That　most　illustrious　Scotchman；　Mr。　Thomas　Carlyle；　first　vindicated　the　great　German　Realists　from　the　vulgar　misconceptions　about　them　which　were　so　common　at　the　beginning　of　this　century；　and　brought　the　minds　of　studious　men　to　a　more　just　appreciation　of　the　philosophic　severity；　the　moral　grandeur；　of　such　thinkers　as　Emmanuel　Kant；　and　Gottlieb　Fichte。　　To　another　Scotch　gentleman；　who；　I　believe；　has　honoured　me　by　his　presence　here　to…night；　we　owe　most　valuable　translations　of　some　of　Fichte's　works；　to　be　followed；　I　trust；　by　more。　　And　though；　as　a　humble　disciple　of　Bacon；　I　cannot　but　think　that　the　method　both　of　Kant　and　Fichte　possesses　somewhat　of　the　same　inherent　defect　as　the　method　of　the　Neoplatonist　school；　yet　I　should　be　most　unfair　did　I　not　express　my　deep　obligations　to　them；　and　advise　all　those　to　study　them　carefully；　who　wish　to　gain　a　clear　conception　either　of　the　old　Alexandrian　schools；　or　of　those　intellectual　movements　which　are　agitating　the　modern　mind；　and　which　will；　I　doubt　not；　issue　in　a　clearer　light；　and　in　a　nobler　life；　if　not　for　us；　yet　still　for　our　children's　children　for　ever。

The　name　of　Philo　the　Jew　is　now　all　but　forgotten　among　us。　　He　was　laughed　out　of　sight　during　the　last　century；　as　a　dreamer　and　an　allegorist；　who　tried　eclectically　to　patch　together　Plato　and　Moses。　The　present　age；　however；　is　rapidly　beginning　to　suspect　that　all　who　thought　before　the　eighteenth　century　were　not　altogether　either　fools　or　impostors；　old　wisdom　is　obtaining　a　fairer　hearing　day　by　day；　and　is　found　not　to　be　so　contradictory　to　new　wisdom　as　was　supposed。　　We　are　beginning；　too；　to　be　more　inclined　to　justify　Providence；　by　believing　that　lies　are　by　their　very　nature　impotent　and　doomed　to　die；　that　everything　which　has　had　any　great　or　permanent　influence　on　the　human　mind；　must　have　in　it　some　germ　of　eternal　truth；　and　setting　ourselves　to　separate　that　germ　of　truth　from　the　mistakes　which　may　have　distorted　and　overlaid　it。　　Let　us　believe；　or　at　least　hope；　the　same　for　a　few　minutes；　of　Philo；　and　try　to　find　out　what　was　the　secret　of　his　power；　what　the　secret　of　his　weakness。

First：　　I　cannot　think　that　he　had　to　treat　his　own　sacred　books　unfairly；　to　make　them　agree　with　the　root…idea　of　Socrates　and　Plato。　Socrates　and　Plato　acknowledged　a　Divine　teacher　of　the　human　spirit；　that　was　the　ground　of　their　philosophy。　　So　did　the　literature　of　the　Jews。　　Socrates　and　Plato；　with　all　the　Greek　sages　till　the　Sophistic　era；　held　that　the　object　of　philosophy　was　the　search　after　that　which　truly　exists：　　that　he　who　found　that；　found　wisdom：　　Philo's　books　taught　him　the　same　truth：　　but　they　taught　him　also；　that　the　search　for　wisdom　was　not　merely　the　search　for　that　which　is；　but　for　Him　who　is；　not　for　a　thing；　but　for　a　person。　　I　do　not　mean　that　Plato　and　the　elder　Greeks　had　not　that　object　also　in　view；　for　I　have　said　already　that　Theology　was　with　them　the　ultimate　object　of　all　metaphysic　science：　　but　I　do　think　that　they　saw　it　infinitely　less　clearly　than　the　old　Jewish　sages。　　Those　sages　were　utterly　unable　to　conceive　of　an　absolute　truth；　except　as　residing　in　an　absolutely　true　person；　of　absolute　wisdom；　except　in　an　absolutely　wise　person；　of　an　absolute　order　and　law；　except　in　a　lawgiver；　of　an　absolute　good；　except　in　an　absolutely　good　person：　　any　more　than　either　they　or　we　can　conceive　of　an　absolute　love；　except　in　an　absolutely　loving　person。　　I　say　boldly；　that　I　think　them　right；　on　all　grounds　of　Baconian　induction。　　For　all　these　qualities　are　only　known　to　us　as　exhibited　in　persons；　and　if　we　believe　them　to　have　any　absolute　and　eternal　existence　at　all；　to　be　objective；　and　independent　of　us；　and　the　momentary　moods　and　sentiments　of　our　own　mind；　they　must　exist　in　some　absolute　and　eternal　person；　or　they　are　mere　notions；　abstractions；　words；　which　have　no　counterparts。

But　here　arose　a　puzzle　in　the　mind　of　Philo；　as　it　in　reality　had；　we　may　see；　in　the　minds　of　Socrates　and　Plato。　　How　could　he　reconcile　the　idea　of　that　absolute　and　eternal　one　Being；　that　Zeus；　Father　of　Gods　and　men；　self…perfect；　self…contained；　without　change　or　motion；　in　whom；　as　a　Jew；　he　believed　even　more　firmly　than　the　Platonists；　with　the　Daemon　of　Socrates；　the　Divine　Teacher　whom　both　Plato　and　Solomon　confessed？　　Or　how；　again；　could　he　reconcile　the　idea　of　Him　with　the　creative　and　providential　energy；　working　in　space　and　time；　working　on　matter；　and　apparently　affected　and　limited；　if　not　baffled；　by　the　imperfection　of　the　minds　which　he　taught；　by　the　imperfection　of　the　matter　which　he　moulded？　　This；　as　all　students　of　philosophy　must　know；　was　one　of　the　great　puzzles　of　old　Greek　philosophy；　as　long　as　it　was　earnest　and　cared　to　have　any　puzzles　at　all：　　it　has　been；　since　the　days　of　Spinoza；　the　great　puzzle　of　all　earnest　modern　philosophers。　Philo　offered　a　solution　in　that　idea　of　a　Logos；　or　Word　of　God；　Divinity　articulate；　speaking　and　acting　in　time　and　space；　and　therefore　by　successive　acts；　and　so　doing；　in　time　and　space；　the　will　of　the　timeless　and　spaceless　Father；　the　Abysmal　and　Eternal　Being；　of　whom　he　was　the　perfect　likeness。　　In　calling　this　person　the　Logos；　and　making　him　the　source　of　all　human　reason；　and　knowledge　of　eternal　laws；　he　only　translated　from　Hebrew　into　Greek　the　name　which　he　found　in　his　sacred　books；　〃The　Word　of　God。〃　　As　yet　we　have　found　no　unfair　allegorising　of　Moses；　or　twisting　of　Plato。　　How　then　has　he　incurred　this　accusation？

I　cannot　think；　again；　that　he　was　unfair　in　supposing　that　he　might　hold　at　the　same　time　the　Jewish　belief　concerning　Creation；　and　the　Platonic　doctrine　of　the　real　existence　of　Archetypal　ideas；　both　of　moral　and　of