FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   25   26   27   28   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   >>   >|  
e is any probability for or against the existence of the soul or of God, though Kant was very anxious to show that it is our duty on moral grounds to _believe_ very firmly in both. Now if Kant is right about this, his result is tremendously important. If psychology and theology are wholly devoid of scientific value, it is most desirable that we should know this, not only that we may not waste time in studying them, but because it may reasonably make a very great difference to the practical ordering of our lives. If Kant can be proved wrong, it is equally important to be convinced that he is wrong. We may have been led by belief in his teaching to neglect the acquisition of a great deal of knowledge of high intrinsic interest, and may even have been betrayed into basing the conduct of life on wrong principles. If, for example, we can really know something about the soul, it _may_ be possible to know whether it is immortal or not, and it is not unreasonable to hold that certain knowledge, or even probable belief, on such a point ought to make a great difference to our choice between rival aims in life. There is clearly much less to be said for the recommendation to 'eat and drink for to-morrow we die' if we have reason to believe our souls immortal than if we have not, and some of us do not share Mr. Russell's view that Philosophy is called upon to abdicate what the Greeks thought her sovereign function, the regulation of life. It is true that Kant convinced himself that it is a moral duty to act as if we knew the truth of doctrines for or against which we cannot detect the slightest balance of probability. But the logically sound inference from Kant's premisses would be that, to use Pascal's famous metaphor, a prudent man will do well to bet neither for nor against immortality. Unfortunately, as Pascal said, you can't _help_ betting; _il faut parier_. If it makes any difference to the relative values of different goods whether the soul dies with the body or not, one _must_ take sides in the matter. In making one's choices one must prefer either the things it is reasonable to regard as good for a creature whose days are threescore years and ten or those which it is reasonable to regard as best for a being who is to live for ever. The only way to escape having to bet is not to be born. I come to the second problem, the one which, as I think, Mr. Russell arbitrarily ignores. A human being is not a mere knowledge-machine. Th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   25   26   27   28   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   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

difference

 
knowledge
 
probability
 

Pascal

 
convinced
 
reasonable
 
regard
 

belief

 

important

 

immortal


Russell
 

betting

 

Unfortunately

 

immortality

 
prudent
 
doctrines
 

detect

 

slightest

 

balance

 
premisses

famous
 

inference

 

logically

 

metaphor

 
threescore
 

machine

 

problem

 
escape
 

arbitrarily

 
creature

ignores
 

relative

 

values

 

matter

 

regulation

 
things
 

prefer

 

making

 

choices

 
parier

practical

 

ordering

 

studying

 

proved

 
equally
 

acquisition

 

intrinsic

 
neglect
 

teaching

 

desirable