New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-14
THE CLIFFORD LECTURES.
DIR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL FRAsER's
rHEIsTIc PHILOSOPHY.

oxford Emeritus Professor Of logiS and Me pa
Kill 2ss. Imported by Charles Scrioners sons
The argument Of DR.. Fraser's second volume
OF Clifford lectures apparently turns upon the
question Of personality. The word, OF course
conveys different meanings. To many 1t implies
the bodily outlines of given human creature
and they are apt to mix this notion up even
with discussion Of the doctrine OF the TRINITY
But a person In classic Latin was literally never
the individual man. but what he stood 1or' Ills
condition, status or honor in the community
his capacity for representing others VINO hao no
status say IN law These definitions grew al
rectly from the original meanine-a mash'
Even the Specification given to the WORD py IT.
Fraser and other modern thinkers wouid never
have occurred for example. to Cicero. but
the medieval philosophers needed word 10
distinguish the innermost nature or man. tha'
which he outwardy only represented, ana 'hus
they developed varied use for the word' one Vi
its definitions with them being mat Persoh 10
Individual substance OF rational nature. inter-
pretations Of this sort lead directly by 'he pain
wav ef history down to Dr. Frasers conception
of person as a moral being, one that can know
itself as acting in a way to deserve praise or TO
incur blame. If one stops to think, as they say
Descartes used to do before he opened a DOOR,
ore will discover obscurely at least what Is I'M
nIied in this definition In natural science the
business Of looking for the causes OF Things is
ners,s,entlv carried on But this never leads
cxcept by q leap somewhere, to cause that Is
not also an effect. The inference Is that until
positiye knowledge is attained OF the whole uni
verse, there is no hope of finding Cause whlch
has itself no cause. Within these agnostic limits
man has never been content to abide d.
Fraser insists that even Herbert Spencer over
steps the bounds and makes declarations ABOUT
his Irnknowable which, as an agnostc. ne mas
no right to make.
Now. a moments thought will show that the
ouestion whether the world and man are prod
net of evolution or Of direct creation has nothng
10 do with the search for the uncaused Cause OF
Fill things The creation Of the visible universe
might have been due mediately to an INFERIOR
power behind which the Origin would stlll nave
to be sought. Evolution might, so far as a nhite
observer could tell. be due to a fortuitous con-
course Of atoms. and it may resolve itself pacK
"a atoms again. so that all the boosted work OF
man, his literature. his wisdom. shall be Tor
gotten thing The fact that a universe with such
q destiny would be a universe without an object.
a sort Of practical Joke that takes millions OF
wears TO tell and finds nobody to laugh after
evervbody has been victimZed, has nothing TO
do with the truth Of the theory. Nor does 1t al
feet the case TO dispute whether man began or
did not begin his career on earth as an un'aush'
savage barely higher, perhaps not al all hisher'
than gorilla in point Of intelligence III the date
could be ascertained absolutely when man nrst
hogan TO reason with himself and with MS TEL
lows science would be no nearer the origin OF
things than 1t is now. The processes OF evolution
are curious and interesting. but the ndispensa-
HE consideration is not how man acquired given
faculty but his actual possession OF H. Man
mind his moral nature. are facts wnlch hopouv
thinks OF disputing. If there was a time wheh
tho nroeenitors OF man as he now exists were
totally without the capacity TO reason or 10 uls-
t,neuish in the slightest degree the morality
quality Of their own acts. II would be interest
ing and important to ascertain everything pos
s,hla about such creatures. But It would
onen no new questions about man as ne
Is So II Is TO man he is. and civil
ICED man at that TO man capable Of making or
Of understanding a Clifford lecture, that Dr.
Fraser appeals He seems even TO imply IN one
place that the readers Of society novels wouio
hardly be up to his requirements Perhaps ne
undertakes the value of guessing plot and peep
ing at the last chapter training In the logical
process Of deducing conclusions from premises
However evolution has something to say about
man as he Is. 1t calls him product or heredlty'
environment and Of natural and artificial seiec-
ton. Implicitly 1t denies him the responsibility
of his acts the ground that these are pre-
determined by the conditions that make his ex-
istence possible. When a decides TO per-
form a certain act or 10 follow certain course
of life II is really not he that decides, but the
ancestral prepossessons and the incidents Of his
surroundings which mould him to definite though
unforeseen ends Sense. will, thought are all in
him manifestly products of the bodily organism.
II is a curious fact that to the psychologist and
the experimental psychologist the movements Of
brain and nerve and muscle in murderer are
Just as interesting as the corresponding move
ments in a phianthropist. though the hand OF
one does harmless victim TO death, While that
of the other indites the papers that make posi-
bic a costly charity 1t has taken as many gen
erations Of ancestors TO perfect the physical CO.
ordinations in case as in the other. Evolu-
ton has not got so far as to excuse the muir
derer or to depreciate the philanth-opst to the
murderer's level 1t IL perhaps still busy with
questions respecting the physical basis of morals
DR.. Fraser points out these difficulties in the
theory OF evolution when 1t attempts to derive
the human brain and the obligation to obey we'll
known rules Of conduct both from thu same pro-
topiasmic source. But he does not need to do
this He can say TO evolutionistj as TO all others
that, whatever may be tho reason. the present
state OF facts is that man does not attribute
merit or demerit TO heredity and environment,
but considers himself praisewOrthy or blame
worthy as the direct independen. originator Of
certain classes Of actions. The moral quality Of
these actions is only transitional factor in the
argument Acts which had no aspect Of righ.
and wrong about them would serve the purpose
Just as well, providing were conscious of
originating them independently Of all external
forces past and present. Moreover It does not
matter whether is correct not scien-
tifcally In deeming certain acts original with
himself. 1t suffces If to his consciousness such
acts are always presented as original The OBJ
ject sought is the idea Of an uncaused cause and
here ii Is in mans own immediate knowledge Of
s. L. l...1-.. 49, :.