{ title: 'The Spirit of the age. (New York) 1849-1850, December 08, 1849, Page 8, Image 8', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-8/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-8.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-8/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-8/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University of Rochester
THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE. NEW-YORK, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1849. C R IT IC IS M CRITICISED. [ c o n t i n u e d .] II. You assert that Fourier was a Pantheist,—which I deny in any consistent sense that I am able to give the word. Panthe ism, as I understand it, is th a t view of the Universe, which makes all the phenomena of N ature and Man the immediate de term inations of the one infinite universal Force ; which regards N a ture and Humanity, n o t as the creation of a personal God, but as the various a ttributes or modes of one indwelling substance, —the bald, necessary m anifestations or self-developments of an immanent Deity ; or in other words which looks upon all ef fects as the involuntary evolution of the One causal p rinciple (1) B u t this was not the view of F o u rier. His error lay r a th e r in : the other extrem e which makes nature and man quite too inde pendent of Deity. The critic him self says that Fourier regards his three principles, the Active, Passive and Neuter, or God, Mathematics, and M atter, as co-eternal, which shows that he did not confound one with the other or make one the all absorbing cause of the other, but r a th e r each one an independent princi ple, alike u nderived and immiscible. God, he regards of course as the sole source of movement or life, because he is the only active agent of thc Trine, but he does not regard him as the sole agent in any sense that excludes the freedom of man. On the contrary, Fourier though he speaks of the active as a principle merely, m anifestly considers him a person,— a free self-determined activity, the very essence of whose self-hood is Love, and whose continual end in Providence is the creation of free finite activities who shall co-operate as Persons with himself. Indeed he carries this view to such a height th a t he w ill not allow that God is a t all responsible for the errors and miseries of human development, which he as cribes exclusively to the self-will of man, who persistently re fuses to co-operate w ith God in the production of Universal H a r mony. Man alone he says is the cause of the hideous suffering he endures, because trusting to his own fallible reason as a guide, he has separated him self from that Divine Life, in the voluntary reception of and conjunction w ith which he can alone find his tru e destiny and happiness. In his treatise on Free Will, he says th a t the whole problem of hum an destiny is a composite problem, only to be resolved by a system which shall bring the human W ill or Reason into concurrence with the Divine W ill: th a t consequently the errors of philosophers have been two-fold,— one which gave hu man reason the exclusive reign in hum an affairs and the other which made God the exclusive agent, whereas the tru e view is th a t which conciliates the two impulsions, the human and di vine in one consentient and harmonious Life. The animals, he continues, are simple creatures, lim ited to the direct divine im- pulsise of instinct, or instinctive attraction, but man is a com posite creature, whose life consists in the free concurrence of his own reason with all Divine ends. He consequently, often speaks of human history as a play of intrigues, or as a cabalis tic contest between the Divine impulsion and. the human w ilful ness. Now, I do n ot say that this is the true philosophy of Life, but I do say that it is anything but a pantheistic view of it. M odulating as Fourier did constantly in the scientific sphere, languageoften assumed a bold, scientific character, and he seems to be concerned only with abstract force or p rinciples ; but when you penetrate a little into the heart of h is system, you find that t is full of freedom and personality. REPLY. P a n t h e i s m . One regrets to attem p t the discussion o f so profound a problem, as is here brought up, in tw o o r t h r e e brief p aragraphs. Indeed, my only end, in m aking thc c r i t i c i s m originally, was to indicate to fellow-Associationists the h o n e s t judgm e n t of one of th e ir num b er, that F o u rier cannot be c o n sidered an unerring guide in the highest philosophy ; and t h e feeling that prompted the tone of ex-cathedra positivcness,— which as I perceive, on reading it, pervades my letter, was a sense of the m agnitude, solidity, and completeness, o f t h e scheme called \ Fourierism .” Though, were the passage criticised to be rew ritten, it w o u l d seem ju s ter to say “ F o u rier’s system is Pantheistic” r a th e r than “ Fourier was a Pantheist,” for certainly he does not appear to have recognized the consequences of his own principles, I am still compelled to m t e r a t e my main assertion. Much o f w h a t P. G. says is true a i l to the purpose, and it m ight be difficult to account for F o u rier’s inconsistencies. But these very inconsis tencies serve to confirm th e opinion, th a t like other great men, his peers, Fourier failed to explain the relations whereby th e Divine Being, Spirits and the Universe are united. To make short of a m a tter,—which volumes only could fitly unfold and illustrate—F o u r ie r ’s view is Pantheistic, in both senses of th a t w o rd,—by regarding God as All, and All as G o d ; though there are expressions which r a th e r teach Dualism. By putting various passages side by side and interpreting them in the light of his method, the Theology of h is system appears to be—th a t the Divine Being is com plex—composed of twelve p r i mordial passions, (v. Nouv Monde p .445)— subject to a d u alm o d e of development, Univ. Unit. i. p. 82—the original U n ity and composite U n ity of all N a tu r e ; and th a t the M a terial W orld constitutes his S e n s i t i v e existence, which is passive, Spirits Human, Planetary. Universal, Biniversal, &c. his A i - f e c t i o n a l existence which is active, while the O rder of Movement, in ter mingling in endless v a riety and harm o n y all modes of existence constitutes his D i s t r i b u t i v e existence, w h ich is neutral. If this was Fourier’s view,— and w h e ther he was conscious o f it or not it seems impossible to make anything else consistently of his analogy between man and the divinity,— then one is con strained to say, th a t no w riter in any land or age, has produced Pantheism in a more pure, perfect, uncompromising a form. But again, from P. G.’s own statem ent, w h a t other inference can be draw n 1 God is the A c t i v e of three c o e ternal p rinciples, the Motive P ower in each existence, as well as all existence ; the “ one, infinite, universal Force” determ ining activity in every degree, kind, mode. Now superadd, F o u rier’s own defini tions, th a t God’s t: Radical A ttribute is the integral distribution of movement by a ttraction,” and his ‘'P iv o tal A ttribute unity of system ; ” and, according to usual processes of logic, the conclu sion is, that God is the One Efficient Cause , developing his energy in all seeming causes. U n d er what o ther head of p h ilosophy can such a system be classed, than th a t of Pantheism I The relations, recognized and described by F o u rier as exist ing betw e en the Hum an W ill and Divine Will, shall be spoken of d irectly, when we come to the next division of o u r subject. B u t before closing this head, let the suggestion be offered to fellow-Associationists w ith the hum ility becoming a seeker conscious of n ot having found in an}' teacher an apparently in tegral view of t r u th —th a t the best clue thus far given, in the attem p t to ju s tify by dem o nstration M a n k ind’s instinctive con viction of an essential distinction between the Divine Being, Spirits and the M a terial W orld, is to be found in the Grand Traditional doctrine o f Three Persons, Three Hypostases or three D e g r e e s , i u the Godhead. Unless wo can attain to some conception of U n ity in T rinity in the Divine Being Himself, it is difficult to see how a logical thinker can avoid arriving at Pantheism . Only b y a m o re o r less clear apprehension of the Reality, which a long train o f o u r ancestors'O riental. Greek and
