|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 15
"Thee all this heaven, which whirls around the earth,
Obeys, and willing follows where thou leadest.
Without thee, God, nothing is done on earth,
Nor in the ethereal realms, nor in the sea,
Save what the wicked through their folly do."
Antoninus' conviction of the existence of a divine power and government
was founded on his perception of the order of the universe. Like
Socrates (Xen. Mem., iv. 3, 13, etc.) he says that though we cannot see
the forms of divine powers, we know that they exist because we see their
works.
"To those who ask, Where hast thou seen the gods, or how dost thou
comprehend that they exist and so worshipest them? I answer, in the
first place, that they may be seen even with the eyes; in the second
place, neither have I seen my own soul, and yet I honor it. Thus then
with respect to the gods, from what I constantly experience of their
power, from this I comprehend that they exist, and I venerate them."
(xii. 28, and the note. Comp. Aristotle de Mundo, c. 6; Xen. Mem. i. 4,
9; Cicero, Tuscul. i. 28, 29; St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, i. 19,
20; and Montaigne's Apology for Raimond de Sebonde, ii. c. 12.) This is
a very old argument, which has always had great weight with most people,
and has appeared sufficient. It does not acquire the least additional
strength by being developed in a learned treatise. It is as intelligible
in its simple enunciation as it can be made. If it is rejected, there is
no arguing with him who rejects it: and if it is worked out into
innumerable particulars, the value of the evidence runs the risk of
being buried under a mass of words.
Man being conscious that he is a spiritual power, or that he has such a
power, in whatever way he conceives that he has it--for I wish simply to
state a fact--from this power which he has in himself, he is led, as
Antoninus says, to believe that there is a greater power, which, as the
old Stoics tell us, pervades the whole universe as the intellect[A]
([Greek: nous]) pervades man. (Compare Epictetus' Discourses, i. 14;
and Voltaire � Mad^e. Necker, vol. lxvii., p. 278, ed. Lequien.)
[A] I have always translated the word [Greek: nous],
"intelligence" or "intellect." It appears to be the word used
by the oldest Greek philosophers to express the notion of
"intelligence" as opposed to the notion of "matter." I have
always translated the word [Greek: logos] by "reason," and
[Greek: logikos] by the word "rational," or perhaps sometimes
"reasonable," as I have translated [Greek: noeros] by the word
"intellectual." Every man who has thought and has read any
philosophical writings knows the difficulty of finding words to
express certain notions, how imperfectly words express these
notions, and how carelessly the words are often used. The
various senses of the word [Greek: logos] are enough to perplex
any man. Our translators of the New Testament (St. John, c. 1.)
have simply translated [Greek: ho logos] by "the word," as the
Germans translated it by "das Wort;" but in their theological
writings they sometimes retain the original term Logos. The
Germans have a term Vernunft, which seems to come nearest to
our word Reason, or the necessary and absolute truths which we
cannot conceive as being other than what they are. Such are
what some people have called the laws of thought, the
conceptions of space and of time, and axioms or first
principles, which need no proof and cannot be proved or denied.
Accordingly the Germans can say, "Gott ist die h�chste
Vernunft," the Supreme Reason. The Germans have also a word
Verstand, which seems to represent our word "understanding,"
"intelligence," "intellect," not as a thing absolute which
exists by itself, but as a thing connected with an individual
being, as a man. Accordingly it is the capacity of receiving
impressions (Vorstellungen, [Greek: phantasiai],) and forming
from them distinct ideas (Begriffe), and perceiving
differences. I do not think that these remarks will help the
reader to the understanding of Antoninus, or his use of the
words [Greek: nous] and [Greek: logos]. The emperor's meaning
must be got from his own words, and if it does not agree
altogether with modern notions, it is not our business to force
it into agreement, but simply to find out what his meaning is,
if we can.
Justinus (ad Diognetum, c. vii.) says that the omnipotent,
all-creating, and invisible God has fixed truth and the holy,
incomprehensible Logos in men's hearts; and this Logos is the
architect and creator of the Universe. In the first Apology (c.
xxxii.), he says that the seed ([Greek: sperma]) from God is
the Logos, which dwells in those who believe in God. So it
appears that according to Justinus the Logos is only in such
believers. In the second Apology (c. viii.) he speaks of the
seed of the Logos being implanted in all mankind; but those who
order their lives according to Logos, such as the Stoics, have
only a portion of the Logos ([Greek: kata spermatikou logou
meros]), and have not the knowledge and contemplation of the
entire Logos, which is Christ. Swedenborg's remarks (Angelic
Wisdom, 240) are worth comparing with Justinus. The modern
philosopher in substance agrees with the ancient; but he is
more precise.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|