PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON JOHN STUART MILL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 428, 23 January 1875, Page 3

PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON JOHN STUART MILL.

The senior Greek Class at the Edinburgh University was recently opened by Professor Blackie, who delivered as an introiuctory address, a lecture on "Conventionalism and Pessimiem in Ethics," with special reference to the posthumns work of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill, he proceeded to say, was the Mephistopheles of moral philosophy — (laughter)— his delight was to fix his mind' on the bad, but to disregard the good — to exaggerate the point out of the bad as if it were the whole of that divinely beautiful world which wesawaround vs — (applause) — only he (Mill) was a great deal more offensive than Goethe, because he had written in sober prose, and had also made use of much worse words. Then, agaiD, Gothe was a poet who had not worked out one idea only — was a poet who had looked around him ; and it was far better that they should read Shakespear and the songs of Robert Burns, supposing these poets had not the faculty of metaphysical speculators, than they should read such books as Mill's. They would be cheated out of one part of their nature, and perhaps the best part of it, if they allowed themselves to be juggled by these presumptuous fools called metaphysicians. (Laughter.) Let them look for a moment at the real state of matters. Were, he would ask, teeth made in order that people might have toothache ? , (Laughter.) Were all men drunk, or were the majority of them always drunk ? Why, even in drunken Scotland, celebrated for its whisky, he could walk along the streets without seeing one drunken man— (hear, hear)— and yet they were told there was nothing but drinking going on. This was just a specimen of the way in which people always painted dark pictures. Then, again, he would inquire — Did all mothers die in childtfed — notwith. standing that John Stuart Mill held that men came into the world by a very clumsy method — laughter — or were the majority of children strangled in their birth ? Was everybody blown to pieces who travelled between Edinburgh and London? He had been travelling all his life, and had never been blown to pieces — (laughter) — and yet the "Scotsman" was always full of terrible accidents. Why, for that part of it, if they believed only the newspapers, they would think they were living in hell or bedlam, and this because tho newspapers were full of bad news, and scarcely ever a piece of good news turned up. But was this a true picture of the universe ? No ; neither newspapers nor novels, neither tragedies nor^John Stewart Mill, gave them the right picture of the universe. (Applause) . Was there, forsooth, nothing right in the world till John Stuart Mill had come to put it right ? They might see the heather burning upon the hills, but was not this done in order that blooming growth might again clothe the hill sides ? — and even though butchers did lay hold of lambs and sheep and convert them into mutton " chops, was there not a life of pleasure and enjoyment for these animals before their death to recompense for the pain to be endured. (Applause and laughter). Was Romeo and Juliet sirniliar to the general history of lovers ? (Laughter) . For his part, he had never known a man to commit suicide beceause of love, and he looked upon billing and cooing as a very pleasurable occupation. (Laughter and applause.) Was there never any suu shine in the world because it always rained in Glasgow except when it snowed ? (Laughter.) Mr. Mill argued that because an evil — say death — or the pain rather which in many cases preceded and accompanied dying — was an infinite evil to the individual, that therefore it indicated infinite evil in the world. Now he (the Professor) would like to know what right men had to live at all — what right they had to look for what they thought pleasure in living for ever and ever and ever. It appeared to him most extraordinary that men should imagine they had any such right. Then, again, the world did not exist for the sake of any individual. It existed for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number. He thought persons .ought to have known, this, although sometimes circumstances caused them inconvenience. In a word full of miraculous virtue, of which virtue perhaps the most miraculous element was enternal rejuvenescence, death was not an evil to the permanent whole — it was a loss to the ephemeral part. Without death the world could not go on- -if the old were always to exist there would be no room for the young. Mr. Mill forgot that certain evils, or things called evils, that might appear evil to us, or brought a certain amount of discomfort to individuals, were demonstrably necessary to social excellence as shade along with light and color was essential to the pictorial art. If all things ha.d been made perfect, there would have been nothing for individuals to do, ignorance had not existed, and in that case there would have been no necessity for teachers— (laughter) - — there would have been none of the pleasure enjoyed in acquiring knowledge ; there would have been no difficulties and dangers to over- , oome, therefore there would haye been

no heroism or strength of charactea formed; there would have been no rocks and reefs to encounter therefore there would have been no captainship or seamanship ; there would have been no moral cowardice in the world, therefore there would have been none of that virtue known as moral courage ; there would have been no broken legs, therefore there would have been, no surgeons — (laughter) there would have been no weak eyes therefore there would have been no triumphs of spectacles— (laughter)— there would have been no weeds, therefore no gardeners. They ought, therefore, to rejoice that the world, was a constant turning of chaos into order through self-energising Wisdom, and that men were . privileged to work along with God (Applause.) Then Mr. Mill forgot to ask the question whether it were possible even for an Omnipotent Being in a world the. making of which necessarily implied individual limitations (for all creation of species was a limitation df the genus)— or, if it were possible, advisable, to prevent the occurrence of many evils which to the individual implied an infinite loss. Let them suppose a granite wall to be standing, and a creature composed of ' softer matter after having consumed some of that elevating liquor called wine or whisky, ta be coining along, and to knock his head against the wall and to crack his skull. (Laughter.) Well, that would be a great evil to the poor fellow — laughter) — but was it right to say it was a bungle that such a thing should happen ! He (Professor Blackie) held it to he impossible that the Supreme Being should make men of harder material than the granite rock, otherwise they would not be susceptible of those fine feelings and sensations which they continually experienced. And as to any question that might be asked — Why is there such a thing as wine in the world to make men drunk ? he would answer — It is not intended to make men drunk. (Applause.) The learne.l lecturer next, after B further following up this argument, went on to contend that temperance was a virtue which would be altogether done away with in the event of abstinence being enforced upon every one, and to maintain that considerable blame in regard to the spread of atheistic opinions attached to those orthodox theologians who held extreme views as to the omnipotence of God. With all due reverence, he would ask how any one knew that God was omnipotent. H e was no doubt omnipotent in the sense that he could blow out any one's existence like the flame of a candle, but could He do everything anybody might fancy? Was it possible, for instance, that God would create a world in which two and two would make — not four, but five— and although Mr. Mill thought the present way in which mea came into the world rather a clumsy one he (the Professor) did not know that creatures could be made to jump out of granite rocks. (Laughter). Again, Mr. Mill, in the petty carping spirit with which he set himself to find faults iv the social framework of the great Architect of the Universe, forgot to inform them in what way he would have finished the universe, so as to make the existence of evil impossible. In his (the speaker's) opinion, if he had sketched any such world, made after the image of J. S. Mill and his father James Mill, he would have produced a very small, meagre, an d stupid machine. Mr Mill spoke about the cruelty of Nature, which to him meant God, in allowing animals of one kind to find amusement in hunting and tormenting others. But let them suppose all that had been imagined, and that men had

been made to feed on grass instead of mutton and what would have been the consequences — where would have been the sheep for example ? Why, these animals would not have been allowed to exist at all — men would have required the whole of the hills themselves. (Laughter.) Then take the case of dogs and cats — (laughter) — and he would ask them what dogs, which were not reasoning animals, would do if their whole existence consisted in eating, sleeping, or mere quiet. Hunting was a splendid excitement — it brought out the vitality of the animal hunting and the ingenuity of the animal hunted, and it was much beLter that dogs should be hunting than lying asleep on a sofa beside a stupid mistress reading Tennyson's poems. (Great laughter.)