Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-12-23
PHILOSOPHY 4.

My communication to you which you did me the favor
publish in the Integencer, had for its object the es.
tablishment of the position that man. moral being
is unit brought to your attention the theory OF
Locke, that the first Of intelligent human life mind,
Of which will according to his view was Of its sub
ordinate faculties. combated this theory and denied
its philosophical accuracy and opposed to it the counter
theory that the first Of human life thinking will OF
rather will capable Of thinking The precise point Of
divergence between Lockes theory and mine is that his
makes mind the unit Of human life and say it is will
remarkedn my previous paper and you cannot fail
have perceived the whole system Of moral PHILOSOPHY
depends upon it. It involves shall show, the great
question whether be things whether we be persons
whether necessitation, Sir William Hamilton calls
it. be the true doctrine of human life whether upon
the contrary we be responsible and therefore moral
am aware Of the danger Of trespassng upon the do
main Of theology in the discussion Of the point at issue,
and shall therefore studously confne myself to the calm
philosophical inspection oft
In order to describe moral being you must
have something begin with which to constitute the
subjectmater Of your description There must be, OBJ
vousy something primary for you describe before you
can take the first step in the description there must be
something primary define before you begin def
nition. Now, what I want to know is, what is that
something Z
begin with this proposition it will conceive, stand
the test of scrutiny The description Of any thing always
subordinate to the thing described. For example, in
form you that wish to describe as something
distinct from his material organization and in this de-
scription proceed say that man. considered has
capacity and to hear Now say this capacity of
seeing and hearing being the description Of man. the
thing be described is subordinate and if subordinate
therefore secondary and inferior to the thing described
Hence describe thing haviag the faculties of
seeing and hearing Hence conclude, further that the
faculties of man are secondary to man himself This
brings us round to the very point at issue Is mind
faculty Of man or is man faculty of mind
This question absurd but it in truth is not and
will not continue to appear when you bear in mind
that the thing that call is immateria principle
of activity Let adopt this phraseology instead Of the
word man. and then let me put the very same question to
you only in different words Is that immateral princi
pie of activity (Which constitutes man faculty of the
mind Of man, or is the mind of faculty of that
active prinoipe The entire subject depends upon your
answer to this question If you say mind or intelligence
or thinking faculty is quality Of man immatera
active principle then you espouse my theory and aban
don Lockes you think otherwise, that will is ia
Guilty of the mind, then you sustain Locke It cannot
but suggest itself the reader that if will is faculty of
the mind then will is quality used in the description
of mind and hence subordinate to it, and therefore
condary Now if man be a unit must be mind If
man be mind then he cannot OF necessity be an active
intelligent principle.
II Is certainly very fair mode of inquiry in order
ascertain the primary Tor unit quality making man as
an immateral something to watch him, to scrutnise
him. to study him in his earliest appearance and develop
ment Let go to the nursery. Take the infant, the
germ of the man.
If can take on infant in my arms and with just phi
losophca accuracy hold the following language respect
to it. then my theory is true and Lockes false Having
the infant in my say of it. this child no@ has
sciH but after while it will begin to think" II can
hold the language with truthful exactude, then all the
philosophers upon earth cannot defeat the success Of my
theory.
The reader will observe that in the above observation
saw this child has will Our language is infrm should
have said this child is will regard child before it
begins to think as immaterial active principle and
there can be no distinction between the mmaeral active
principle in the material body Of the child and the win
that is in IT, But the whole of Lockes philosophy is pre-
cated upon the precisely opposite view Of the child He
is compelled to regard the primary quality Of the child as
mind for he says will is subordinate quality of mind
Messrs Editors there is who entertains pro-
founder respect for Locke than l. regard him one
Of the distinguished lights Of his age But his age was
not our age.
1t is scarcely needul for to inform you that this
great philosopher wrote learned treatise upon the
conduct Of the human understanding" Will you for
moment reflect upon the meaning Of the word "con
Duct, and then reflect upon the meaning of the word
understanding, and then ask yourselves you ever in
the whole course Of yeur reading, more re-