{ title: 'The Spirit of the age. (New York) 1849-1850, December 08, 1849, Page 9, Image 9', 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-9/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-9.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-9/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00110006/1849-12-08/ed-1/seq-9/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University of Rochester
Christian sought to describe in their dogma of the C r e a t i v e W o r d , can we come to a living knowledge of M an’s position, function and destiny, as a Free Intelligence. This introduces us to the next branch of the criticism. P. G. th u s c o n tinues: m . You complain of F o u rier as m isapprehending the func tions of Reason and Conscience, both individual and collective, in his view of hum a n life. He did not regard Reason, you say, “ as the deliberative and governing power, w ithout whose con stant regulation, Persons and States would fall into inextricable anarchy.” Certainly he did not, for hi3 whole thought is a p ro test against th a t view. He supposed that six thousand years of crime, suffering, sin. war, and spiritual death, are a sufficient refutation of th a t view. He m aintains, that it is precisely be cause Men have taken th a t view that they have fallen into such trem endous errors. He says th a t man is incompetent to the ex clusive guidance of his own destiny. He ran from such an aw ful responsibility. He was unw illing to leave the earth to such a direction. He wanted God, the only One wise enough and able to conduct H u m anity through its long career of varied destinies. And this, in my estimation, was not an objection to, but the crowning glory of his philosophy. It is precisely this which brings it into alliance with the Christian thought, and which renders it adequate to all those stupendous and glorious results, w hich were the beatific vision of h is mind. The simple question to me is here : W h e ther man is to live by the light of his own fallible reason, according to schemes of m o rality of his own devising, or w h e ther he is to live the Divine Life of Love communicated to the race through Christ ? If we say the form er, let us have no f u r th e r talk of Christiani ty : b u t i f the latter, then I ask by w h at process it is that Rea son,— in any sense we can give to that term .— communicates Life, or how it can guide man aright when it has no power to guide at all ? Reason is at best a mere inw a rd sight, a be holding, an intuition, and is energetic only in the intellectual sphere,—so th a t the Reason of an archangel would be of no use to us, w ithout that Impulsive or Active will which lies back of it, and is of altogether superior worth. Now Fourier regards man as pre-em inently a W ill and not an Intellect,— or r a ther an Intellect only in so far as he is a Will, thus making the ration al n a ture a consequent and not an antecedent of the Passional Life. Live the Truth, he says, and you w ill then know the T ru th ; but you will never attain it by reversing the process. You m ust come to God, co-operate w ith him, live from him. or rath e r let him live 'in you, as in himself, i. e., in a career of free creative activity, i f you would attain the tru e ends of y o u r existence! Do not set about c o n structing rationalistic schemes if you a re in the vain hope of getting at universal absolute Truth. Do not a ttem p t to regulate the destinies of your race by any puny m oral maxims evolved from your own perverted Conscience; do not undertake the trem endous folly of putting your little ignorant self in the place of God, which has so long been the one Original Sin of our r a c e ; but conjoin yourself to God practically by a life of unceasing and universal Use, so th a t every action and institution,—w h ether it be of the Family, —the State,—the University,—the Theatre,— the W orkshop,— may be a direct m anifestation of the Divine Life w ithin .the soul of Man. Thus God becomes virtually the universal Legis lator, and relieves the creature from a task to which .he is wholly ineompetent. Thus the collective and individual life of Man is reconciled, and the Universe broughtfinto a unity, of w h ich God is the inspiring centre, and Man the free, co-operat ing associate. R e p l y . R e a s o n . W ith due deference it m u st b e said, t h a t this pas sage, if aimed as a criticism at my criticism, falls short, because (1) it neither explains nor justifies Fourier’s'; view of Reason, and (2) dossnot touch the objections brought against th a t view. So far as my friend’s meaning in Lis positive statem ents is ap prehended, I ceitainly for the most part agree with him. That man is “'incom p etent to the exclusive guidance of h is own des tiny,' that God alone is “ wise enough and able to conduct H u m anity,” that man cannot “ live by the light of his own fallible reason, according to schemes of m o rality of his own devising,” but that he should “ live the Divine Life of Love,” th a t “ to live the tru th is the way to know the tru th ,” that we should come to God, co-operate w ith him , live from him,” are gene rally accepted axioms. Certainly all m u st adm it too that at tempts “ to regulate the destinies of our race by rationalistic schemes and puny moral maxims evolved from our own per verted consciences,” or “ to put our little ignorant self in place of God,” are “ trem endous folly” and “ the one o riginal sin.” And no man, sane in heart and head, could question, that our duty is “ to conjoin ourselves to God practically by a life of universal use.” Finally, th a t God should be “ virtually the universal legislator,” has been in all ages the longing of every devout spirit, the ideal of every thinker not u tterly mystified by sophistry and self-conceit. But these excellent aphorisms do not appear peculiarly pertinent to the occasion. The only p oint wherein a comparison of views was needed—the quality and function of Reason and Conscience—is passed by w ith the r e marks, that “ Reason is at best a mere inw ard sight, energetic only in the intellectual sphere.” “ o f no use w ithout the im p u l sive or active will, which lies back of it, and is of altogether superior w o r th ;” and that “ Fourier regards man as pre-emi nently a Will and not an Intellect, or rath e r an Intellect only in so far as he is a Will,” &c. P. G.’s thought and expression are somewhat indefinite here, but I think I understand w h at he means, and if so, m u st frank ly say that his own view of Reason seems very partial and his description of Fourier’s view quite inadequate. This subject 5s all-im p o rtant, and should be much more thoroughly discussed than it can be in a column of a journal like this. B u t let us briefly consider Fourier’s conception, and test, as we can, its sufficiency. 1. Fourier recognized in Man three D istributive Passions, the Cabalist, the A lternating, and the Composite,— whose func tion is to .unite in harmonious relations the Spiritual and M ate rial Elements of hum an life, collective and individual. In com bined action these passions are the regulator, orderer, arran ger, methodiser of the passions and conditions, which consti tute existence, public and private ; in other words they are Reason, Intellect, corresponding to Mathematics, the N e u tral Principle of his prim al T rinity. Perhaps, to do justice to his thought, it would be r ight to superadd as sovereign d ictator, the pivotal passion U n ityism ,—though he seems to have habitually regarded this as the resultant, r a th e r than the original, of all the passions acting collectively. The Associative School, in Europe and the United States, with the wish to fill out this view of their M aster,—which, as they could not but perceive, is quite incomplete—have got into the way of considering each of the “ Passions” as threefold,—impulsive, intellectual, executive; but there is not a word in his writings, so far as I am aware* sanctioning this conjecture. According to Fourier’s notion* then, Reason is the threefold Passion for O r d e r , perpetually discriminating, interlocking and combining the various plements of living unity, in Man collective and individual, by the Law of Series. This very condensed statem ent is, I tru s t, strictly faithful. In his treatise on Free-W ill, indeed, there are ex pressions, which indicate a fluttering consciousness that he had not quite solved the problem of Reason, and by several hints he seems to leave it in trust to his followers to work this pro blem out. B u t so far, as a consistent whole can be made of his system, the foregoing description will be found accurate. 2. Now is this conception of Reason ju s t ? One cannot but say that it would have been better for Fourier, and the w o rld,
