Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
Обновлено английское оглавление
(Актуализировано оформление по правилам альбомов) |
(Обновлено английское оглавление) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| author = Noel, Roden | | author = Noel, Roden | ||
| author signed = | | author signed = | ||
| title = On “The Philosophy of Immortality,” Theosophy, Böhme, Indian Philosophy, Materialisation, Conditional Immortality | | title = On “The Philosophy of Immortality,” Theosophy, Böhme, Indian Philosophy, Materialisation, Conditional Immortality. | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = Light | | source title = Light | ||
| source details = v. 2, No. 67, April 15, 1882 | | source details = v. 2, No. 67, April 15, 1882, pp. 175-76 | ||
| publication date = 1882-04-15 | | publication date = 1882-04-15 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
}} | }} | ||
It is seldom that a writer on philosophy, or a poet (unless, indeed, he happen to be “the fashion”) gets so careful, and conscientious, and intelligent a review of his work, however sincere and careful that work may be, as your reviewer, “C. C. M.,” has accorded to my “Philosophy of Immortality,” and I am glad publicly to thank him. There are only one or two points in his kind notice on which I should like to offer, with your permission, a few observations. Your reviewer has represented my view on three salient topics—discussed with all the impartiality and intelligence one mind is capable of in the interpretation of another, when questions of this rather abstruse nature are under consideration. These topics are (1) the nature of the Ego or person; (2) that of perception; (3) that of memory. On the ''moral'' argument, as I have stated it, in favour of our personal immortality, he has not touched; but of the metaphysical arguments those converging on these three points are the most important. (1) The Ego, or person, is immortal, because it is substance. (2) External nature, including the body, consists of persons, and the thoughts of persons; the dissolution of the body, therefore, is a phenomenon, or modification of the perceptions and thoughts of persons, not a destruction of thinkers or perceivers. (3) Memory involves the persistence of the person or thing remembered, with the penetration of rememberer and remembered to a transcendental region of being, where past, present, and future, which are modes of our present imperfect conceiving faculty, become one in a higher and fuller idea; prerogative, however, this ''in its completeness'', of a richer and more perfect personal life, which is the basis and fountain-spring of our actual truncated halting life—the latter as necessary to the consummation and actuality of the former, as the former in its stability and reality to such truth and sterling value as there may be in the illusoriness of the latter. | |||
“C. C. M.” is in error if he thinks I have not studied Böhme, whom I regard as one of the greatest of seers. But there are some points with respect to which I do not feel myself in harmony with him. It is from Böhme, however, that modern thought has derived its most fertile principle, that “in Yes and No consist all things, be they divine, terrestrial, or diabolic;” that “in self-distinction is the essential character of spirit, and consequently of God, so far as God is to be conceived as spirit.” “God is living spirit only if, and so far as, he comprehends within himself difference from himself, and through this other, this difference within himself is manifest, is an object, is a cognising consciousness.” The No is a counterstroke of the Yes. Without distinction of persons no consciousness, no thought, no love. That expresses philosophically the doctrine of the Trinity. And that thought was worked out with marvellous power of dialectic by Hegel; though I cannot accept his “Logic” as substantial and satisfactory. | “C. C. M.” is in error if he thinks I have not studied Böhme, whom I regard as one of the greatest of seers. But there are some points with respect to which I do not feel myself in harmony with him. It is from Böhme, however, that modern thought has derived its most fertile principle, that “in Yes and No consist all things, be they divine, terrestrial, or diabolic;” that “in self-distinction is the essential character of spirit, and consequently of God, so far as God is to be conceived as spirit.” “God is living spirit only if, and so far as, he comprehends within himself difference from himself, and through this other, this difference within himself is manifest, is an object, is a cognising consciousness.” The No is a counterstroke of the Yes. Without distinction of persons no consciousness, no thought, no love. That expresses philosophically the doctrine of the Trinity. And that thought was worked out with marvellous power of dialectic by Hegel; though I cannot accept his “Logic” as substantial and satisfactory. | ||