The Abbeville banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1847-1869, 1858-06-03
ABBEvILLE S. G, THURSDAY MORNING. JUNE 3 1s5s

| ' ~ may pc ihlulrcu, WHAT IS the che
ground and characteristic of phrcnolocy
Is 1T not that the matter of the brain is ,ll
only material used in the process of sensa
ton and thought? And that is the sub
stance OF the philosophy of Hartley will
respect TO association and vibrations. IL
grounds his expication of sensation uno,
The material workings of the brain. Will
him, rs with phrcnologists, materialis,n an,
necessity arc the logical consequences o
their respective teachings.
In no part Of the works of Locke, i.
found any attempt TO detect the connecting
link existing between the matter of our or
gans, and the cause of orr thoughts and
emotions; or to expose the mode and man.
ner of sensational communication with til.
intelligent being or spirit within.
This is indeed the great problem in phil.
osophy.
This problem is expressed in the in
IuIry; can matter think and have ailcc-
tons
There is great deal more of sound sense
IN the theory of Hartley than is generally
supposed, if we will only consider him as
having taught that the man who nlabits
the body, and who is also capable of being
dlscmbodicd, is brought into communca-
ton with the outer world by listening to,
and feeling the vibrations of lis nervous
system and also considering his nervous
system as system Of material tissues, ut
tery incapacitatcd 10 perform any indie
pendent action Of thought or emotion.
1t docs very well to say that man, as an
immortal, an immaterial being, can both
think and feel. BuL if we regard man as
unit, this position, with respect to him,
binds us also to say that no part of the
agency Of thought and feeling is performed
10y the operations of the material, bodily
organs that shut the man within and cx-
cude linn from immediate communication
with the outer world.
Let me put the point little palmer;
Either | am ir immediate contact with the
world around me, or am embodied in a
frame of matter, which matter lies or inter-
2'soes Getwcen me and the world.
Set lis reason upon these two different
positions. 1t | am in immediate contact
with external things, no material tissues in
the shape of nervous fibres-no matter in
the shape Of organs can possibly intcrposc
between me and the world, for if they did,
they would destroy the immediate relation
assumed to exist between me and outward
things.
II material tissues, or nervous fibrcs of
matter, or material organs encompass me.
or embody me, and have to he brought
into acquaintance with the world of outer
things Mro~gA thcr agency and operations,
then it follows, logically, that am not in
'"'"eatate contact with the outer world.
The reader may take either of these two
positions he may prefer, for they have both
been resolutely maintained by wiser heads,
probably, than his or mine.
If l am m embodied being, but CAPABLE
OF being dscmbodicd, and also the same
identical, immortal aud immaterial being.
whether embodied or disembodied, and
while in my present embodied state am ca
pable of thought and emotion, then there
is no utility i'll saying that the bodily organs
of sense by which am surrounded and by
which I am brought into communication
with the outer world, can also either think
or feel an emotion for me, or, in other
words, can operate intelligcntly or aA.c-
tionately.
Now if this be the state in which I am
posted, the question arises: what office or
agency is performed by the organs of sem
sation in the business of thought and emo
tion2
TO this question there are but two con.
ceivable replies, and they are either the
theory of Hartley or that of Sir William
Hamilton.
The organs Of sensation must, either with
Hartley, give or produce but vibratory
emotion, purely mechanical, and which me-
cfanical emotion leads me to thought and
emotion, or they must, with Sir William
Hamilton, perform the Office and agency in
intelligent sensational emotion.
The question as to Office and agency OIL
the organs of sensation in tue affair of in.
teiligent emotion, yet remains 10 be definite.
ly settled.
Let us listen for a moment to what =
very acute writer thinks of the theory o.
Hartley
"There may be little shakings in the
brain for anything we know, and there may
even be shakings of different kind &C
companying every act Of thought or per
ception but that the shakings themselves
are the thoughts or perceptions, we are Sc
far from ad,niitino that wa find II i,nnossi