Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/323

 ECSTASY

277

ECSTASY

as the primary source of philosophy a mere fusion of systems, or the history of philosophy for philosophy proper. Eclecticism does not furnish us with the ultimate principles of philosophy or the criterion of certitude. We cannot say that philosophy has reached the highest degree of precision either in its solution or in its presentation of every problem; nor that it knows all that can be known about nature, man, or God. But even if this were the case, the principles of Eclecticism cannot provide us with a firm, complete, and true system of philosophy. Cousin says that there is some truth in every system; supposing this to be exact, this partial truth has evidently to be acquired at first tlirough principles and a rule of certitude which are independent of Eclecticism. When Cousin declares that there is a mingling of truth and error in every system, he evidently assumes a principle superior and antecedent to the very principle of Eclecticism. The eclectic must first separate error from truth before building into a system the results of his discrimination. But this is possiljle only on the condition of passing a judgment upon each of these systems and therefore of having, quite apart from history, some rational principle as an ultimate criterion. In a word. Eclec- ticism, considered as a study of the opinions and theo- ries of others in order to find in them some help and enlightemnent, lias its place in philosophy; it is a part of philosophic method; but as a doctrine it is alto- gether inadequate.

SuiDAs. ed. Bernhxrdy, Lexikan (2 vols., Halle, 1853); Rit- TER AND Preller, Historia Philosophias Grwcce (Gotha, 18SS); ZelIjER, Die Fhilosophie derGriechen (Leipzig, 1892); Alleyne, Eclectics (London, 1881); Cousin, Histoire generale de la philoso- phie (Paris, 1884); Leroux, Refutation de I' Eclectisme (Paris, 1839); Taine, Les philosopher classiques du XIX^ siicU (Paris, 1876), vi, xii; Mercier, Criteriologie generate (Louvain, 1900),

III, i. G. M. Sauvage.

Ecstasy. — Supernatural ecstasy may be defined as a state which, while it lasts, includes two elements: the one, interior and invisible, when the mind rivets its attention on a religious subject; the other, cor- poreal and visible, when the activity of the senses is suspended, so that not only are external sensations incapable of influencing the soul, but considerable difficulty is experienced in awakening such sensations, and this whether the ecstatic himself desires to do so, or others attempt to quicken the organs into action. That quite a large number of the saints have been granted ecstasies is attested by hagiology; and now- adays even free-thinkers are slow to deny historical facts that rest on so solid a basis. They no longer endeavour, as did their predecessors of the eighteenth century, to explain them away as grounded on fraud; several, indeed, abandoning the pathological theory, current in the nineteenth century, have advocated the psychological explanation, though they exaggerate its force.

False Views on the Question op Ecstasy. — The first three errors here mentioned are psychologi- cal in nature; they fail to estimate at its proper value the content of ecstasy; the other false theories spoken of identify this state with certain morbid physical or psychological conditions.

(1) Certain infidel philosophers maintain that dur- ing an ecstasy there is a lessening of intellectual power, that at a certain stage there is an utter loss of the ego, an annihilation of the faculties. This is the theory of Murisier and of Leuba. The arguments for this view are based upon an exaggerated interpretation of cer- tain phrases used by the mystics. Their accounts, however (those, for instance, of Blessed Angela of Foligno), give the lie to such an explanation. The mystics state clearly that they experience, not only the fullness, but the superabundance of intelligence, an increase of activity of the highest faculties. Now, in a science that is based on observation, as is mysti- cism, we are not justified in brushing aside the numer- ous and consistent testimonies of those who have

tested the facts, and putting in their place the crea- tions of the imagination.

(2) The theory of unconsciousness distorts the facts so unscrupulously that some writers have preferred a theory less crude, i. e. the emotional explanation. The ecstatic, it is admitted, is not buried in a heavy sleep ; rather, he experiences violent emotions, in consequence of which he loses the use of the senses; and as there is nothing new to occupy his attention, it follows that his mind is taken up by some trifling thought, so trifling, indeed, that these writers deem it unworthy of their notice. This theory clashes less with historical data than does the first, since it does not wholly eliminate the activity of the ecstatic ; but it denies half the facts emphatically urged by the mystical writers.

(3) It has been said that ecstasy is perhaps a phe- nomenon wholly natural, such as might well be occa- sioned by a strong concentration of the mind on a religious subject. But if we are not to rest satisfied with arbitrary conjectures, we must show that similar facts have been observed in spheres of thought other than purely religious. The ancients attributed natu- ral ecstasies to three or four sages, such as Archimedes and Socrates, but, as the present writer has proved elsewhere, these stories are founded either on incon- clusive arguments or upon false interpretation of the facts (Des graces d'oraison, c. xxxi).

(4) The rigid condition of the ecstatic's body has given rise to a fourth error. Ecstasy, we are told, is but another form of lethargy or catalepsy. The loss of consciousness, however, that accompanies these latter states points to a marked difference.

(5) In view of this, some have sought to identify ecstasy with the hypnotic state. Physically, there are usually some points of contrast. Ecstasy is always accompanied by noble attitudes of the body, whereas in hospitals one often marks motions of the body that are convulsive or repelling; barring, of course, any counter-command of the hypnotist. The chief dif- ference, though, is to be found in the soul. The intel- lectual faculties, in the case of the saints, became keener. The sick in our hospitals, on the contrary, experience during their trances a lessening of their intelligences, while the gain is only a slight representa- tion in the imagination. A single idea, let it be ever so trivial, e. g. that of a flower, or a Ijird, is strong enough to fasten upon it their profound and imdivided attention. This is what is meant by the narrowing of the field of consciousness; and this is precisely the starting-point of all theories that have been advanced to explain hypnotic ecstasy. Moreover, the hallu- cination noticed in the case of these patients consists always of representations of the imagination. They are visual, auricular, or tactual; consequently they differ widely from the purely intellectual perceptions which the saints usually enjoy. It is no longer possi- ble, then, to start with the extremely simple hypothesis that the two kinds of phenomena are one and the same.

A comparison of the effects that follow these states will bring out more clearly the essential difference be- tween the two. (a) The neuropath, after an hypnotic trance, is dull, lifeless, and depressed, (b) His will is extremely weak. In this abnormal weakness is to be sought the reason why the subject can no longer resist suggestion. These poor creatures, distraught, list- less, and helpless, pass their days in idle dreams, (c) The level of their morality is frequently almost as low- as that of their intelligence. From a threefold point of view, then, there is a contrast between their case and that of the saints who have been granted ecstasies, (a) The latter possess strong intellects, conceiving projects lofty and difficult in the execu- tion; in proof of this assertion we might appeal to the history of the founders of religious orders, (b) Their will-power is second to none in energy; so strong, indeed, as to enable them to break through all opposi- tion, especially that which arises from their own na-