Balfour and Bergson. The Evolution of Life.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 13, 23 December 1911, Page 11

Balfour and Bergson. The Evolution of Life.

I (Hv Spectator.) When after (he (nrmoil and excitement of a. general election, ami with the cries of the contending parlies still ringing in his ears, one takes up a volume such as the decennial number of the "Hibbert Journal," which has just coino to hand, he leels as if he had been suddenly transported In a new world. To some people this cool, calm region of thought and ideas may seem a lillle unreal, but: after all the essence of reality does not consist in noise and strife. After heated discussions on questions of land tenure, the strength of parties, roads and bridges, and railway grievances, it is to many a wonderful yet welcome change to read Sir. Balfour's views on "Creative Evolution and Philosophic Doubt.," M. Henri liorgson's luminous paper on "Lifo and Consciousness," and other articles which carry our thoughts away from the rough and tumble of party politics into the more peaceful atmosphere of religion, philosophy, and science. Tho decennial issue of tho "Hibbert" is a really firstclass production, for it is seldom indeed that contribution!! from such a number of absolutely front-rank men in the sphere of modern thought have appeared in a single issue of any periodical. Such a collection of great thoughts on great subjects helps to remind us.all that lifo is, or should be, something bigger and better than a daily round of work and play, eating and drinking, with a comfortable home and. plenty of clothes. If is all thai - life means it is very doubtful whether it would be worth while; yet it must be admitted that this materialistic outlook is in practice very widely prevalent, though theoretical materialism has now few defenders in the sphere of philosophic thought. A Great Change. As Mr. lialfour points out in his article there has been a great change in recent years iu the trend of philosophy. He ran remember tlw lime when the scientific _ agnosticism of Hill and 'S|>encer doniinat'Kl Duglish thought and condemned all who dared to believe anything they could not logically prove, -llien came the groat idealistic. revival, and naturalism gradually lost it.s pliilosophic backing which was transferred to religion, not that philbspahy became the ally of any particular form of orthodoxy, but that it advocaletl a'spiritual view ol the universe, and was' therefovo quite inconsistent with naturalism. Here logic and the intellectual faculties have never since regained their dominating position, tor'when men began to ask what could be ' actually proved oil strictly logical principles they found how little there was that survived the test, for it is even doubtful whether a man can j-eally. prove iiis own existence or the existence of a world exterior to his own mind. ~o it comes about that when we get to bedrock, logic almost invariably fails us, and we are compelled to fall back on our primary instincts, intuitions, and feelings. Me do not prove; we simjily. know. i'Jiis point :of view is in accordance with ideas so finely expressed by 11. Henri Bergson, who is probably the i most brilliant and interesting personality in tho philosophical world at. the present time. He points out how and why the mechanical theory of the universe propounded by Herbert Spencsr and his school has broken down, and contends, to use Sir. Balfour's words, that not reason, but instinct, brings us into the closest touch, the directest relation, with what- is most real in the universe. Instinct, is in touch with n higher order of truth than, reason, for it ' is in touch with life itself. Though it is a, great gain from a religious point of vl m', °. P 1 lu! existenco of a creative wilt behind the evolutionary drama, and to recognise consciousness instead of matter and mechanism, as the ultimate reality, yet, it would be wrong, to jump to the conclusion that M. Bergson would accept the ordinary Christian idea of God. However, Sir. Balfour is probably right in claiming that SI. Bcrgson's metaphysic is religious, since "tho important philosophic distinction between "religious and < non-religious metaphysic" is that "God, < or whatever in the system corresponds to God, does in the former take sides in a • nio\ing drama: ivhilo, with ip.orc '-onsisteiicy. but tar less truth, he is, in the nonreligious system, represented as indifTer- i mtly rcMaled to all the multiplicity of : "inch , lie constitutes tho unity." There seems no adequate reason whv. SI. Berg- ' -on should deny purpose to tlie super- i -•onsciousness which lis places behind the universe, end which tokos sides'ond re- i -oirnises values, for, as Sir. Balfour soys, '. it_ values are to-be taken into account, it is surely bettor to invoke God with a i purpose, tliart. supcr-consciousness with i done. \ Spiritual Force. j Coming to SI. Bcrgson's own article in t :he "Hibbert," it is significant lo no- • ice that lie regards as essential and vital i :hosc great questions which have chal- I enged the human intellect in all ages. 1 A'Jiat are we? What are we doing here? 1 iVhcnoe do we come and whither do we 1 o'• 111 a very striking passage he writes: ' "I doubt whether tho evolution of lite 1 rill ever he explained by a mere combina-' ■] ion of mechanical foro:s. Obviously ' here is a vital impulse: what T was just • allius? an impulse towards a- higher and I ugher efficiency, something which ever ccks to transcend itself, to extract from ) tselt more tliaa there is-in a \vord, to \ rente. Now, a force which draws from itself uoro. than it' contains, which gives more ' han if. has, is precisely wliat is called 1 - spiritual force; in fact, Ido not sec how 1 ■tlscrwiso. spirit is to be defined. . . . Jie spectacle of the evolution of life from i ts very beginning down to man suggests o us the image of a current of conscious- 1 eys winch Hows down into matter as into { . tunnel, which endeavours "to advance, I rhicli makes efforts on every side, thus .ißgin? Kallcrics. most of which are topped by a, rock that is too hard, imt c •ii! in .S! ,c diction at least, prove pos- n ♦ A 0 le break out j nto the light once more. Tins direction s i/ie line ot evolution resulting in man. M. Bergson goes on to say that the I l-eat triumph ot life is creation—tlio reatioa ol sell by self, the continual cnichnient ol personality by elements 'Inch it does not draw from outside, but f antes to spring forth froiu itself. Con- '1 .'lousness is creation, choice, and mem- t ry. -Nothing of the past is lost, tho •note ii to oi a conscious personality t eiiig an indivisible continuity which is s robably. being prepared for a higher )rm oi existence. This gives grounds p )i' the beliol that in man, though per- p aps in man alone, consciousness pur- si f ies its path beyond this earthly life." o I. Bergson concludes by declaring that 'e aspirations ot our moral nature are h ot in tho least contradicted bv positive uence, and (hat. broadly speaking, ho b gives with the views expressed "on this a j on many other points," by Sir Oliver cxlge, in his book on "Lite aud Matter" p nd other works. This incaus that he si ennitely throws in his lot with those C ho accept the Theislie standpoint, and ri must bo regarded as significant when C 10 most distinguished Freqcli philoso- ' lier of the day ranges himself along- ni de such leaders of thought as Pro- ii< -ssor Eucken, of Germany, Sir Oliver fa odge, ill'. Balfour, and Professor J. A. a homson, of Britain, and the late Wil- fc am James, of America, in declaring m ir a. spiritual interpretation of tho uni- T? use. 'With tho notablo exception of J1 rofessor llaeckel, leading philosophers et id scientists, generally speaking, no tl ngcr regard tlio theory of evolution as hi jeessarily anti-theistie. It is not ovo- hi [tion itself, but the mechanical e.\pfi: ion of it that is opposed lo theism. As k< rofessor Sorley slated in his British cademy paper on "The liitcpretation of of rolution," "throughout the ages median- tli m lias been a pretender to the throno. fi: f the world of thoiighl), but a flaw has ways Ixwn found in its title. I have m gned that the flaw remains even after it e promulgation of the evolution theory; sa id if authority were wanted to back e argument, it might be found in (lie ov jrds written by Darwin in the last year pc his life, 'If .wo consider the whole Tl livcrse, tho mind refuses to look at it sp the outcome of chance—(hat is, withit design or purpose.'" In this con- Pi usion Darwin has the support of his nious co-worker Dr. ■'Wallace, who in he s recent book on "World of-Life," deires that "beyond all the phenomena Nature, and their immediate causes sa id laws, there is Mind and Purpose; ,d the ultimate purpose is (so far as 1^: ! can discern) die development of man- wt ml for an enduring spiritual exist- to ca." I mi