Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-23

!: ].
fFE Moses d
I equaI tos lRg lLc Se7
ate it, and canna st Vic
is a power coeval 9ndefsignf b 4 The
sarface-tenor of e" Red address fines y
would seem to indicate SnsionsIf d be-
lever in the existence y plaltreatine
God1 You say, Bsttlesa5 believe in
mo God than to conceivefV him as not
creating. not loving" srfo believe in
God as acreating and loving" is, in
belief, TO endow Him with individuality
and form, with senses and affections
such as humanity knows. If the Deity
can love, He can hate, can grieve or en-
Joy. Is this the God you speak of? Or,
/ when you use the word is it mere pan
der to the faith of the masses, a "play
and juggle with the word ?" l know
the intolerance of the age, and that the
loftiest and brsvest intellects in q
measure must yield TO it, especially must
yield in theology, if they seek to teach
in politics.
| lido not say this from impertinence OI
from an idle curiosity. / truly desire to
know, If in mind like yours, reasoning
aud learning tends to strengthen be-
lief in God. Afy poor efforts in that
path, always so dissipate Gods in
dividual being, so ditfuse ii
J through spAce and eternity and time,
and matter, that tits no longer GOD to
reverence and trust and lean on, but 8
something, or a nothing intangible, in
conceivable, b0dlless, mindless, sOulless,
and so far off and spread about as not to
be worth bOthering about. ! well know
I to q religious person this must appear
awful. vet Pm sure even if you are re-
ligious, you are philosopher enough lot
I to be shocked into fits. To keep a re-
| ligious faith, must quiet the questioning
4 pTiucip!e, vet have that desire TO get al
hard solid truth. III embrace it, rather
than a delUsiOn, however sweet or lovely.
The writer Of the foregoing letter will
! find what lUe believe in respect to the
existence of a Deity, and may possibly
be led a little way towards a solution OF
her own doubts, by what we here ap-
/ pend
| C.-Not to gather new doubts, I advise
I you hereafter 10 let metafisik go its
| own way. and do you go yours. The
| whole Of that has ended in making il
doubtful, according TO logic, whether
Z there Is any existence at all. / do not
4 believe it has really effected anything
else. I hope have not helped you on
in that direction.
P.-The vaga-ies Of metaphysics aFe
/ very lamentable. Words BACON
saws, as a Tartar's bow, do shoot
! back upon the understanding, Of the
Z wisest, and nightly entangle and per-
| vert the Judgment Much of what is
! call logic and argument in meta
I physics, is but mere play upon words,
| and only ends in absurdities. Quid
! eniHl su5tiliHs vel DldgiS teaue, guam
! mod nihH est9' as TOORR says about
/ the Grammatical SlDeculatisd Of SCOTUs,
an exemplar,' he says, of the subtle
I art Of saving appearances, and OF dis
/ coursing deeply and learnedly on sub
I lect with which we are totally unac-
J auainted.' OF what use, on the whole,
/ have metaphysics been TO humanity
As BACON gays: The wit and mind OF
man, if il work upon matter, which is
I the contemplation pf the creatures OF
! COP, worketh according to the stuff, and
| is limited thereby; but il il work upon
/ ITSELF 90 the spider worketh his Eeb,
( then it is endless, and brings forth, In
deed, cobwebs of learning, admirable for
/ the fineness OF thFRad and work, but OF
I no substance or pronL'
/ C.-The souls of men, then, are not 10
/ be regarded AS the creatures Of GSiht
nor worthy of being studied. Nag to
I friend. metaphysics have not hs<as tel
( less. They deal with questioIb1an cres
| import to us than any otheifs tRd the
very errors Of the philosophers are in
/ structive. The subject Is, OF course, of
I the utmost perplexity, and especially on
account of the difficulty Of expressing
Ideas in regard to what is iWmaterial,
I by words that have wholly material
meanings.
P.-Whak eOnld be more false and
| frivolotss than the arguments about
eauseE ! effect? 1t IS not true that we
can 81 legitimately hold that one
/ thinaS rely succeeds another, Rad not.
! that u y is any cduSdtLO1. We do not
IA l. idea of causatiOn as cOnclu-
h 6ased upon the observation of a
!, ,ree;aSSmber oflsegSsS lces, whereby, noting
IhSfat one - ,snenon uniformly tOtlOlcs
I or succeeds 10 another given phenOme-
non, we conclude that one causes the
other, when, in fact, we have no right
to say more than that one JOtl0tes the
other. No idea is more legitimate Than
that of causatiOn. 1t does not belong to
the human mind alone, but is as familiar
to the animals as to men. Ii young
puppy is struck, for the first time, with
a stick or stone, and you are near him,
| he will connect you with the blow, in
his mind. as its cause The idea is neces-
| sarv to self preservation, and therefore is
I as much given by GOD even to the ami
mails, as vitality itself, or the sense OF
fright and wrong to men and some of the
| brutes. Does not the young animal in
I stinctively kn0w, that is, know by Teue-
/ L1tiOn, that il can, with the action of its
Z liDs and mouth, cause the milk to flow
from its mother? 1t would starve, if 1t
I should wait to have that prOueSi to 1t, by
! freuuent recurrence of the sequence, be-
! fore itself making the attempt.
Then, again, what have philosophers
I attained TO, by ascribing all the mental
phenomena of animals to instinct, and
I not to reason. Animals certainly think
| and the great enigma is, how any organ
| ization OF matter can do that, at all.
/ Nine-tenths of the gabble of metaphysics
| about sensation and perception, the soul
/ aud the mental phenomena, is precisely
/ "a applicable to the dog as to the man.
! IL Is undeniable that the former thinks,
| remembers and dreams, has some sense
of what is right and what wrong, reas.
I ous, to a limited extent, within limited
/ circle. and has many emotions and pas
/ sions common to il and ourselves. Now
can understand how Reason can pro-
/ duce the results that we sscribe TO II in
man. 1t is s cause equal 10 the effects
/ Int when we assign them to instinct, We
! intentionally select g cause unequal tC
1 tha effects, for the very reason that it Il
insfheouate. To say that they are pro-
4 dueed iby instinct, is either to substitute
a word for a thing, because the WORD
I a. instinct IN this conneXion, has nc
meaning, and TO use it is but to say
These results are produced by some
what. | know not what; or il is to say
| that these phenomena in the animal are
| fer more marvellous and ineKplicablG
| than in the man. The instinct, II it bt
! not reason, must be the direct action q
COP, exercised in the production of each
| separate phenomens. No system OF met
aphysics is of the least use, that does mol
eTniain the mental phenomena Of ami
mails and men alike.
AS to the Deity, the philosophers, ls
word itself without special meaning, by
the way, since its sense merely is Lovers
of Wisdom, } have always forgotten that
SI,otfr s1Uoir ce qiti est Dieu, tdtt etrt
bie,t Dsenle.' They give US regular in
ventories of COPS attributes, as II they
/ we're familiarly acquainted with Him.
C.-The Theologians also, and even
more minutely. The worst is, that these
,,ersee,fte every one who viii not agree
fhat their inventory Is at all points cor.
rect. even quarreling about terms and
words of whose real meaning they are
Ignorant; and msny of which, indeed,
have for them no real meaning what
( ever.
P.-Has any demonstration OF the ex'
istence of q COP ever satisfied you?
CT think it surely can be demon
strated, No human testimony or what Is
claimed 10 be revelation could satisfy me
81 n II Il could not be demonstrated.
we believe il, because @e feel sure it can
be demonstrated, although we can rot
effect that demonstration. nor ever lind
it effected by any one. l have satisned
HEPlease tell us how
P.-Hear that vain baggage Does
! sbe expeet to understand what Philoso-
phy itself does not comprehend
- A.rs4 n 49,