Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-11-11
COMMUNICATION.



giving up column two Of your paper philosophical
specuatons may ask the favor to be permitted to add
one to the number
Ihaye particular theory Of my own, and am very
certain do not wish to entertain it if it be untrue But
how am to know whether it be true or not unless
utter it, and how utter it without philosophical
speculation? Hence / ask space from you for my pho-
sophica speculation.
My theory relates to as moral being 1t con-
sists in the proper definition of him. Suppose to
inquire of youho would it be proper to define
moral being, how would you reply to me You will at
perceive that my inerregaory has relation to
the material organization of for matter Of which
his material organization is composed cannot possess
moral quality. My question relates to away aside
from his body and all its constituent physical elements.
Removing from man all that is material about him, ask
for definition Of that which is left
1t is very thing to see mans body lying in
dead state. dead mans body has every material
quality which live mans body has There is evidently
moral quality about dead mans body, although it
has brans eyes, ears and indeed every tangible material
which possessed when the lived in it. The man
that wish to describe is he that has gone from his dead
body, but that there. suppose need not tell
you that Plato believed in the Immortality Of the SOUL
Now if were to remove from the consideration Of man
all about him that is material and therefore mortal
would mot have to describe something that mmor
tai, if Plato right? Would not have to describe
man an immortal souls What want to know is, what
is the difference between the soul Of and the will of
man? II describe something distinct from his
material mechanism, soul, what to do with the
will of man and the mind of man?
Locke and other philosophers say that the will is IA
Guilty Of the mind. The mind is immaterial quality,
which leaves the body when the man is dead. The will
is likewise quality Of the man. which leaves
the body when the is dead So also the soul is an
mmateral quality which leaves the body when the
dies. Very we'll Then here we perceive three i'm
material qualities which constitute the man.
But Locke says the will is faculty of the mind Then,
if Plato and Locke be both right there but two pri
mary faculties in man, the soul and the mind, the win
being subordinate faculty Of the mind.
Now the question arises, when man does action,
what is it that does the acon Is the soul Isl the
mind is it the subordinate quality Of the mind called
the will?
My theory is that Locke is entirely mistaken and that
far from the win being faculty of the mind the mind
is endowment of the will, and that the soul and the
will mean the thing. My theory is that the will
acts and net the mind The mind thinks and does not
regard intelligence quality of the soul When
we say is intelligent being, what is there in or
about the body of that is intelligent? Itwould not
be proper say that the intelligence of is intei
gent 1t would be proper say that the mind Of
man possessed Of mind. My question is, what is
there about that is possessed of intelligence
Now, bound to that it is either the will
the SOUL for there is nothing else that be intelligent
1t is customary in philosophical language to say that
the mind thinks that the mind reasons, that the mind
judges and draws conclusions, SC. But how to
understand this language, in view of the fact that man.
apart from his material organization has intelligent
will? Does mans will think, and does his mind
think also? What! wothnking qualities endowmens
belonging to mans mmaterial nature This will not do.
But how win it do to say that mans mind only thinks
If say that, then it would be in precise opposition
it say that has intelligent viii ALSO 1t would
be plain to say that had intelligent will
unless were that indeed his will intelligent
And how mans will be intelligent if it be dyested
Of all power of thinking The power faculty Of think
ing is the intelligent power faculty Can this be phi
losophically denied? think not The question is
tremey important for the whole system of moral phoso
ply depends upon it.
Is it not just precisely the mistake say that
man ha, faculty called the understanding the mind
that the Scotch philosophers, Reid and Steward, made
when they held that had moral sense as distinct
faculty? Certainly it is.
| What is the of saying that man has mind when
you say that man is intelligent What is the Of say
ing that man has moral sense when that man is
| q moral being? Cannot man be moral being without
being possessed of distinct faculty called the moral fa
Guilty? Does not plainly follow that if mans distinct
faculty, called his moral faculty. is only moral that man.
as something aside from this moral faculty is moral?
If man be moral where is the necessity for any thing
more other, distinct apart in order make him
a moral being?
So precisely with regard to the understanding. What
is the of saying that there is something distinct and
apart from that has understanding called his mind
when you say that man is understanding being, is
being with mind, is thinking being?
Why not stick to the other of two plainly hostile
and contradictory propositionsf These two plainly
tile and contradictory propositions will transcribe
and place in juxtaposition--
l. Man, as an immaerial principle, is intelligent
being having understanding, endowed with thinking
capacity capable Of judging and of ntegenty conclud
ing, &c.
Man is being possessed Of having distinct IA
Guilty which distinct faculty is called understanding and
this distinct faculty thinks for the benefit and use Of
the
In this latter does the understanding IN the
man do the thinking for the man. and does this make
the man not thinking beng If the understanding as
distinct faculty apart aside from the man. (man be-
ing considered something apart aside from his ma
teral organization does all the thinking for the man.
does this not let man, materal being out of all
difficulty, in moral sense, arising from bad thinking and
from errors Of conducts
We habitually arraign man at the bar of supposed
lroor trthu NAL fnrc