heretics-第48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！




and　bold　we　have　to　go　to　the　doctrinaires。







In　concluding　this　book；　therefore；　I　would　ask；　first　and　foremost；



that　men　such　as　these　of　whom　I　have　spoken　should　not　be　insulted



by　being　taken　for　artists。　　No　man　has　any　right　whatever　merely



to　enjoy　the　work　of　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw；　he　might　as　well　enjoy



the　invasion　of　his　country　by　the　French。　　Mr。　Shaw　writes　either



to　convince　or　to　enrage　us。　　No　man　has　any　business　to　be　a



Kiplingite　without　being　a　politician；　and　an　Imperialist　politician。



If　a　man　is　first　with　us；　it　should　be　because　of　what　is　first　with　him。



If　a　man　convinces　us　at　all；　it　should　be　by　his　convictions。



If　we　hate　a　poem　of　Kipling's　from　political　passion；　we　are　hating　it



for　the　same　reason　that　the　poet　loved　it；　if　we　dislike　him　because　of



his　opinions；　we　are　disliking　him　for　the　best　of　all　possible　reasons。



If　a　man　comes　into　Hyde　Park　to　preach　it　is　permissible　to　hoot　him；



but　it　is　discourteous　to　applaud　him　as　a　performing　bear。



And　an　artist　is　only　a　performing　bear　compared　with　the　meanest



man　who　fancies　he　has　anything　to　say。







There　is；　indeed；　one　class　of　modern　writers　and　thinkers　who　cannot



altogether　be　overlooked　in　this　question；　though　there　is　no　space



here　for　a　lengthy　account　of　them；　which；　indeed；　to　confess



the　truth；　would　consist　chiefly　of　abuse。　　I　mean　those　who　get



over　all　these　abysses　and　reconcile　all　these　wars　by　talking　about



〃aspects　of　truth；〃　by　saying　that　the　art　of　Kipling　represents



one　aspect　of　the　truth；　and　the　art　of　William　Watson　another；



the　art　of　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　one　aspect　of　the　truth；　and　the　art



of　Mr。　Cunningham　Grahame　another；　the　art　of　Mr。　H。　G。　Wells



one　aspect；　and　the　art　of　Mr。　Coventry　Patmore　（say）　another。



I　will　only　say　here　that　this　seems　to　me　an　evasion　which　has



not　even　bad　the　sense　to　disguise　itself　ingeniously　in　words。



If　we　talk　of　a　certain　thing　being　an　aspect　of　truth；



it　is　evident　that　we　claim　to　know　what　is　truth；　just　as；　if　we



talk　of　the　hind　leg　of　a　dog；　we　claim　to　know　what　is　a　dog。



Unfortunately；　the　philosopher　who　talks　about　aspects　of　truth



generally　also　asks；　〃What　is　truth？〃　　Frequently　even　he　denies



the　existence　of　truth；　or　says　it　is　inconceivable　by　the



human　intelligence。　　How；　then；　can　he　recognize　its　aspects？



I　should　not　like　to　be　an　artist　who　brought　an　architectural　sketch



to　a　builder；　saying；　〃This　is　the　south　aspect　of　Sea…View　Cottage。



Sea…View　Cottage；　of　course；　does　not　exist。〃　　I　should　not　even



like　very　much　to　have　to　explain；　under　such　circumstances；



that　Sea…View　Cottage　might　exist；　but　was　unthinkable　by　the　human　mind。



Nor　should　I　like　any　better　to　be　the　bungling　and　absurd　metaphysician



who　professed　to　be　able　to　see　everywhere　the　aspects　of　a　truth



that　is　not　there。　　Of　course；　it　is　perfectly　obvious　that　there



are　truths　in　Kipling；　that　there　are　truths　in　Shaw　or　Wells。



But　the　degree　to　which　we　can　perceive　them　depends　strictly　upon



how　far　we　have　a　definite　conception　inside　us　of　what　is　truth。



It　is　ludicrous　to　suppose　that　the　more　sceptical　we　are　the　more　we



see　good　in　everything。　　It　is　clear　that　the　more　we　are　certain



what　good　is；　the　more　we　shall　see　good　in　everything。







I　plead；　then；　that　we　should　agree　or　disagree　with　these　men。　　I　plead



that　we　should　agree　with　them　at　least　in　having　an　abstract　belief。



But　I　know　that　there　are　current　in　the　modern　world　many　vague



objections　to　having　an　abstract　belief；　and　I　feel　that　we　shall



not　get　any　further　until　we　have　dealt　with　some　of　them。



The　first　objection　is　easily　stated。







A　common　hesitation　in　our　day　touching　the　use　of　extreme　convictions



is　a　sort　of　notion　that　extreme　convictions　specially　upon　cosmic　matters；



have　been　responsible　in　the　past　for　the　thing　which　is　called　bigotry。



But　a　very　small　amount　of　direct　experience　will　dissipate　this　view。



In　real　life　the　people　who　are　most　bigoted　are　the　people



who　have　no　convictions　at　all。　　The　economists　of　the　Manchester



school　who　disagree　with　Socialism　take　Socialism　seriously。



It　is　the　young　man　in　Bond　Street；　who　does　not　know　what　socialism



means　much　less　whether　he　agrees　with　it；　who　is　quite　certain



that　these　socialist　fellows　are　making　a　fuss　about　nothing。



The　man　who　understands　the　Calvinist　philosophy　enough　to　agree　with　it



must　understand　the　Catholic　philosophy　in　order　to　disagree　with　it。



It　is　the　vague　modern　who　is　not　at　all　certain　what　is　right



who　is　most　certain　that　Dante　was　wrong。　　The　serious　opponent



of　the　Latin　Church　in　history；　even　in　the　act　of　showing　that　it



produced　great　infamies；　must　know　that　it　produced　great　saints。



It　is　the　hard…headed　stockbroker；　who　knows　no　history　and



believes　no　religion；　who　is；　nevertheless；　perfectly　convinced



that　all　these　priests　are　knaves。　　The　Salvationist　at　the　Marble



Arch　may　be　bigoted；　but　he　is　not　too　bigoted　to　yearn　from



a　common　human　kinship　after　the　dandy　on　church　parade。



But　the　dandy　on　church　parade　is　so　bigoted　that　he　does　not



in　the　least　yearn　after　the　Salvationist　at　the　Marble　Arch。



Bigotry　may　be　roughly　defined　as　the　anger　of　men　who　have



no　opinions。　　It　is　the　resistance　offered　to　definite　ideas



by　that　vague　bulk　of　people　whose　ideas　are　indefinite　to　excess。



Bigotry　may　be　called　the　appalling　frenzy　of　the　indifferent。



This　frenzy　of　the　indifferent　is　in　truth　a　terrible　thing；



it　has　made　all　monstrous　and　widely　pervading　persecutions。



In　this　degree　it　was　not　the　people　who　cared　who　ever　persecuted；



the　people　who　cared　were　not　sufficiently　numerous。　　It　was　the　people



who　did　not　care　who　filled　the　world　with　fire　and　oppression。



It　was　the　hands　of　the　indifferent　that　lit　the　faggots；



it　was　the　hands　of　the　indifferent　that　turned　the　rack。　　There　have



come　some　persecutions　out　of　the　pain　of　a　passionate　certainty；



but　these　produced；　not　bigotry；　but　fanaticisma　very　different



and　a　somewhat　admirable　thing。　　Bigotry　in　the　main　has　always



been　the　pervading　omnipotence　of　those　who　do　not　care　crushing



out　those　who　care　in　darkness　and　blood。







There　are　people；　however；　who　dig　somewhat　deeper　than　this



into　the　possible　evils　of　dogma。　　It　is　felt　by　many　that　strong



philosophical　conviction；　while　it　does　not　（as　they　perceive）



produce　that　sluggish　and　fundamentally　frivolous　condition　which　we



call　bigotry；　does　produce　a　certain　concentration；　exaggeration；



and　moral　impatience；　which　we　may　agree　to　call　fanaticism。



They　say；　in　brief；　that　ideas　are　dangerous　things。



In　politics；　for　example；　it　is　commonly　urged　against　a　man　like



Mr。　Balfour；　or　against　a　man　like　Mr。　John　Morley；　that　a　wealth



of　ideas　is　dangerous。　　The　true　doctrine　on　this　point；　again；



is　surely　not　very　difficult　to　state。　　Ideas　are　dangerous；



but　the　man　to　whom　they　are　least　dangerous　is　the　man　of　ideas。



He　is　acquainted　with　ideas；　and　moves　among　them　like　a　lion…tamer。



Ideas　are　dangerous；　but　the　man　to　whom　they　are　most　dangerous



is　the　man　of　no　ideas。　　The　man　of　no　ideas　will　find　the　first



idea　fly　to　his　head　like　wine　to　the　head　of　a　teetotaller。



It　is　a　common　error；　I　think；　among　the　Radical　idealists　of　my　own



party　and　period　to　suggest　that　financiers　and　business　men　are　a



danger　to　the　empire　because　they　are　so　sordid　or　so　materialistic。



The　truth　is　that　financiers　and　business　men　are　a　danger　to



the　empire　because