FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53  
54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   >>   >|  
as not the aspect of an ultimate _principle_; which always assumes the simplicity and self-evidence of those axioms which constitute the basis of Geometry." Now, it is quite true that "ultimate principles," in the common understanding of the words, always assume the simplicity of geometrical axioms--(as for "self-evidence," there is no such thing)--but these principles are clearly _not_ "ultimate;" in other terms what we are in the habit of calling principles are no principles, properly speaking--since there can be but one _principle_, the Volition of God. We have no right to assume, then, from what we observe in rules that we choose foolishly to name "principles," anything at all in respect to the characteristics of a principle proper. The "ultimate principles" of which Dr. Nichol speaks as having geometrical simplicity, may and do have this geometrical turn, as being part and parcel of a vast geometrical system, and thus a system of simplicity itself--in which, nevertheless, the _truly_ ultimate principle is, _as we know_, the consummation of the complex--that is to say, of the unintelligible--for is it not the Spiritual Capacity of God? I quoted Dr. Nichol's remark, however, not so much to question its philosophy, as by way of calling attention to the fact that, while all men have admitted _some_ principle as existing behind the Law of Gravity, no attempt has been yet made to point out what this principle in particular _is_:--if we except, perhaps, occasional fantastic efforts at referring it to Magnetism, or Mesmerism, or Swedenborgianism, or Transcendentalism, or some other equally delicious _ism_ of the same species, and invariably patronized by one and the same species of people. The great mind of Newton, while boldly grasping the Law itself, shrank from the principle of the Law. The more fluent and comprehensive at least, if not the more patient and profound, sagacity of Laplace, had not the courage to attack it. But hesitation on the part of these two astronomers it is, perhaps, not so very difficult to understand. They, as well as all the first class of mathematicians, were mathematicians _solely_:--their intellect, at least, had a firmly-pronounced mathematico-physical tone. What lay not distinctly within the domain of Physics, or of Mathematics, seemed to them either Non-Entity or Shadow. Nevertheless, we may well wonder that Leibnitz, who was a marked exception to the general rule in these respects, and
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53  
54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

principle

 

principles

 

ultimate

 

simplicity

 
geometrical
 

Nichol

 

species

 

mathematicians

 

system

 

assume


evidence
 

calling

 
axioms
 
assumes
 

comprehensive

 

patient

 
astronomers
 

hesitation

 
courage
 
attack

fluent

 

Laplace

 

profound

 

sagacity

 
grasping
 
equally
 

delicious

 

Transcendentalism

 

Swedenborgianism

 

referring


Magnetism

 
Mesmerism
 

invariably

 

Newton

 

boldly

 
difficult
 

patronized

 

people

 
shrank
 

Entity


Shadow

 

Physics

 

Mathematics

 
Nevertheless
 

general

 

respects

 

exception

 

marked

 

Leibnitz

 

domain