NOIRE'S PHILOSOPHY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THZ " SPEOTRTOR.1
anywhere I expected a searching examination of my article " On the Origin of Reason," published in the February number of the Contemporary Review, it was in the Spectator, the only paper which has shown from time to time that there still exists in England a general philosophic culture, inde- pendent of school or clique, and that a bold discussion of "the great old questions" is not yet regarded universally as a bore. But what has happened ? In your notice of the last number of the Contemporary Review, your reporter makes me say the very opposite of what I wished to say. I wished to show Professor Noire's exact position among the various schools of thought in Germany, and for that purpose I contrasted his style with that of other more popular philosophers. I gave specimens of what certain so-called Darwinian philosophers allow themselves to write in Germany, these specimens being taken partly from Professor Noire's own writings, partly from other sources. I wrote :— " The following specimens of this kind of popular, or rather vulgar,
philosophy are taken from Noire's books and elsewhere Man possesses many internal qualities ; such as imagination and the milt." An ex- ternal quality is seeing, an internal quality is digestion." Thought is a secretion of the brain, as other secretions come from the kidneys.' ' Man is what he eats. Homo est quod eat."
"A lady published some letters addressed by her to Professor Moleschott, in which the following sentiments are forcibly expressed :— The moral rule for each man is given by his own nature only, and is different, therefore, for each individual. What are excesses and passions by themselves ? Nothing but a larger or smaller overflowing of a perfectly legitimate impulse." "A philosopher belonging to the other sex indulges in the following
dithyrambns Enjoyment is good, and frenzy and love are good, but hatred also ! Hatred answers well when we cannot have love. Wealth is good, because it can be changed into enjoyment. Power is good, because it satisfies our pride. Truth is good, so long as it gives us pleasure, but good is lying also, and perjury, hypocrisy, trickery, flattery, if they secure us any advantage. Faithfulness is good, so long as it pays, but treason is good also, if it fetches a higher price. Marriage is good, so long as it makes us happy ; but good is adultery also for every one who is tired of marriage, or who happens to fall in love with a married person. Fraud is good, theft, robbery, and murder, if they lead to wealth and enjoyment. Life is good, so long as it is a riddle ; good is suicide also, after the riddle has been guessed. But as every enjoyment culminates in being deceived and tired, and as the last pleasure vanishes with the last illusion, he only would seem to be truly wise who draws the last conclusion of all science, i.e., who takes prussic acid, and that without delay.' "
At the end of these extracts I took care to say that Professor Noire's style was as far as possible removed from such ravings, at which even a Greek cynic would have smiled, but that he was, nevertheless, by no means a timid philosopher, never shrinking from any conclusions that might be forced on him by facts and arguments. You may imagine, then, that I was somewhat dis- appointed when I read in the Spectator that " Professor Noir4 is a thorough evolutionist, holding that thought is a secretion of
the brain, as other secretions come from the kidneys, and judging- from Professor Max Miller's sketch of him, a most thorough- paced pessimist."
1 owe it to Professor Noire to protest against this no doubt unintentional misrepresentation of his character as a philosopher, and I shall feel truly obliged if you will insert this letter in your- next number.—I am, Sir, &c.,
-
[We may have misunderstood Professor Max Miiller—and indeed since he says so, we must have misunderstood him—but his words are very plain. He says on page 482-3
Noir6 is a true evolutionist, subjectively and objectively. But 'he- ir; a follower of Cuvier, not of Lamarck. He avails himself of all the. new light which modern science, particularly through Robert Mayer and Charles Darwin, has shed on that oldest of all problems, but he is not a Darwinian, in the ordinary sense of the word. With Robert Mayer, he holds 'that there is but one universal force of Nature in different forms,. in itself eternal and unchangeable. Whatever we perceive, whether in the form of light, heat, sound, or anything else, is due to motion' and must be solved as a purely mechanical problem. Nor can any motion be lost ; it can only be changed into a new kind of motion.' Even, organic life is looked upon as a mechanical process, though it is fully admitted that science has not yet mastered it." "Leaving the origin of organic life as an open question, and remem- bering that even Charles Darwin requires a Creator to breathe life into matter, we may afterwards follow the progress from the lowest to the highest forms of life, with all the new light that patient research has- thrown upon it. Noire here goes entirely with the evolutionists, he- believes even in the Bathybios Baeckelii. To me he does not seem tolay sufficient stress on the many gaps which the most laborious members- of the Evolutionist school are the most ready to acknowledge, nor to dwell sufficiently on the indications, supplied by Nature herself, that she may have had more than one arrow in her quiver. He differs, how- ever, most decidedly from the evolutionists in the explanation of the process of evolution."
If those sentences do not mean that Noire is a strong evolutionist, too strong for the Professor, what is their meaning? Moreover, we quoted at length the Professor's statement of Noire's theory of the origin of language, which is an extreme application of the theory of evolution. As to his pessimism we have doubtless mis- understood its degree, but when a writer says that a man has been. a follower of Schopenhauer, differing from him mainly in being " a thorough-going evolutionist in body and mind," the deduction that he is pessimist as well as evolutionist seems at least natural. We did not quote or rely on the rubbish Professor Max Miller denounces, but only a single line which we erroneously understood him to quote "from Noire's book," and therefore from Noire's- writing. If Professor Miiller will look at page 471 of the Review, he will see that though he repudiated the extravagances quoted. from R. Schuricht's writings, his repudiation as there printed
does not necessarily cover the line which alone we quoted.—ED.. Spectator.]
Previous page
