Page:Supplement to the fourth, fifth, and sixth editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica - with preliminary dissertations on the history of the sciences - illustrated by engravings (IA gri 33125011196181).pdf/215

Rh If the remarks in the text be correct, the characteristical merits of Descartes’ Meditations do not consist in the novelty of the proofs contained in them of the spirituality of the soul (on which point Descartes has added little or nothing to what had been advanced by his predecessors), but in the clear and decisive arguments by which they expose the absurdity of attempting to explain the mental phenomena, by analogies borrowed from those of matter. Of this distinction, neither Thomas, nor Turgot, nor D’Alembert, nor Condorcet, seem to have been at all aware.

I quote from the last of these writers an additional proof of the confusion of ideas upon this point, still prevalent among the most acute logicians. “Ainsi la spiritualité de l’ame, n’est pas une opinion qui ait besoin de preuves, mais le résultat simple et naturel d’une analyse exacte de nos idées, et de nos facultés.” (Vie de M. Turgot.) Substitute for spirituality the word immateriality, and the observation becomes equally just and important.

, p. 90.

The following extract from Descartes might be easily mistaken for a passage in the Novum Organon.

“Quoniam infantes nati sumus, et varia de rebus sensibilibus judicia prius tulimus, quam integrum nostræ rationis usum haberemus, multis præjudiciis à veri cognitione avertimur, quibus non aliter videmur posse liberari, quam si semel in vitâ, de iis omnibus studeamus dubitare, in quibus vel minimam incertitudinis suspicionem reperiemus.

“Quin et illa etiam, de quibus dubitabimus, utile erit habere pro falsis, ut tanto clarius, quidnam certissimum et cognitu facillimum sit, inveniamus.

“Itaque ad serio philosophandum, veritatemque omnium rerum cognoscibilium indagandam, primò omnia præjudicia, sunt deponenda; sive accuratè est cavendum, ne ullis ex opinionibus olim à nobis receptis fidem habeamus, nisi prius, iis ad novum examen revocatis, veras esse comperiamus.” ''Princ. Phil. Pars Prima'', §§ lii. Ixxv.

Notwithstanding these and various otter similar coincidences, it has been asserted, with some confidence, that Descartes had never read the works of Bacon. “Quelques auteurs assurent que Descartes n’avoit point lu les ouvrages de Bacon; et il nous dit lui-même dans une de ses lettres, qu’il ne lut que fort tard les principaux ouvrages de Galilée.” (Eloge de Descartes, par Thomas.) Of the veracity of Descartes, I have not the slightest doubt; and therefore I consider this last fact (however extraordinary) as completely established by his own testimony. But it would require more evidence than the assertions of those nameless writers alluded to by Thomas, to convince me that he had never looked into an author, so highly extolled as Bacon is, in the letters addressed to himself by his illustrious antagonist, Gassendi. At any rate, if this was actually the case, I cannot subscribe to the reflection subjoined to the foregoing quotation by his eloquent eulogist. “Si cela est, il faut convenir, que la gloire de Descartes en est bien plus grande.”

, p. 100.

From the indissoluble union between the notions of colour and of extension, Dr Berkeley has drawn a curious, and, in my opinion, most illogical argument in favour of his scheme of idealism;—which, as it may throw some additional light on the phenomena in question, I shall transcribe in his own words. 1em