網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

86

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

propofitions he undertakes to prove by fyllogifm, are all of them felf-evident. Take for inftance' the following propofition, That man has a power of felf-motion. To prove this, he affumes the fol-" lowing axiom, upon which indeed every one of his fyllogifms are founded, That whatever is true of a number of particulars joined together, holds true of every one feparately; which is thus expreffed in logical terms, Whatever is true of the genus, holds true of every fpecies. Founding upon that axiom, he reasons thus: "All animals have a power of felf-motion: man is an animal: ergo, man has a power of felf-motion." Now if all animals have a power of felf-motion, it requires no argument to prove, that man, an animal, has that power and therefore, what he gives as a conclufion or confequence, is not really fo; it is not inferred from the fundamental propofition, but is included in it. At the fame time, the felf-motive power of man, is a fact that cannot be known but. from experience; and it is more clearly known from experience than that of any other animal. Now, in attempting to prove man to be a felf-motive animal, is it not abfurd, to found the argument on a propofition lefs clear than that undertaken to be demonftrated? What is here obferved, will be found applicable to the greater part, if not the whole, of his fyllogifms.

Unless for the reason now given, it would appear fingular, that Ariftotle never attempts to apply

[blocks in formation]

his fyllogiftie mode of reafoning to any fubject handled by himself: on ethics, on rhetoric, and on poetry, he argues like a rational being, without once putting in practice any of his own rules. It is not fuppofable that a man of his capacity could. be ignorant, how infufficient a fyllogifm is for dif covering any latent truth. He latent truth. He certainly intended le certainly intended his system of logic, chiefly if not folely, for difputation and if fuch was his purpose, he has been wonderfully fuccefsful; for nothing can be better. contrived for wrangling and difputing without end. He indeed in a manner profeffes this to be his aim, in his books De Sophifticis elenchis.

J

Some ages hence, when the goodly fabric of the Romifh fpiritual power fhall be laid low in the dust, and scarce a veftige remain, it will among antiquaries be a curious inquiry, What was the nature and extent of a tyranny, more oppreffive to the minds of men, than the tyranny of ancient Rome was to their perfons. During every step of the inquiry, pofterity will rejoice over mental liberty, no lefs precious than perfonal liberty. The defpotifm of Ariftotle with refpect to the faculty of reason, was no lefs complete, than that of the Bishop of Rome with refpect to religion; and it is now a proper fubject of curiofity, to inquire into the nature and extent of that defpotifm. One. cannot peruse the following theets, without fympathetic pain for the weakness of man with refpect to his nobleft faculty; but that pain will redouble his

fatisfaction,

fatisfaction, in now being left free to the dictates of reafon and common fenfe.

In my reveries, I have more than once compared Ariftotle's logic to a bubble made of foap-water for amufing children; a beautiful figure with fplendid colours; fair on the outfide, empty within. It has for more than two thousand years been the hard fate of Ariftotle's followers, Ixion like, to embrace a cloud for a goddess.-But this is more than fufficient for a preface: and I had almoft forgot, that I am detaining my readers from better entertainment, in liftening to Dr Reid.

CHAP. I...

OF THE FIRST THREE TREATISES.

A

SECT. I. Of the Author.

RISTOTLE had very uncommon advantages:

[ocr errors]

born in an age when the philofophical fpirit in Greece had long flourished, and was in its greatest vigour; brought up in the court of Macedon, where his father was the King's phyfician;

[blocks in formation]

1

twenty years a favourite fcholar of Plato, and tutor to Alexander the Great; who both honoured him with his friendship, and fupplied him with every thing neceffary for the profecution of his inquiries.

These advantages he improved by indefatigable study, and immenfe reading. He was the firft, we know, fays Strabo, who compofed a library. And in this the Egyptian and Pergamenian kings, copied his example. As to his genius, it would be difrefpectful to mankind, not to allow an uncommon share to a man who governed the opinions of the most enlightened part of the fpecies near two thousand years.

If his talents had been laid out folely for the discovery of truth and the good of mankind, his laurels would have remained for ever fresh: but he seems to have had a greater paffion for fame than for truth, and to have wanted rather to be admired as the prince of philofophers than to be useful fo that it is dubious, whether there be in his character, most of the philofopher or of the fophift. The opinion of Lord Bacon is not without probability, That his ambition was as boundless as that of his royal pupil; the one afpiring at univerfal monarchy over the bodies and fortunes of men, the other over their opinions. If this was the cafe, it cannot be faid, that the philofopher purfued his aim with lefs induftry, lefs ability, or less fuccefs than the hero, M

His

His writings carry too evident marks of that philofophical pride, vanity, and envy, which have often fullied the character of the learned. He determines boldly things above all human knowledge; and enters upon the moft difficult queftions, as his pupil entered on à battle, with full affurance of fuccefs. He delivers his decifions oracularly, and without any fear of mistake. Rather than confefs his ignorance, he hides it under hard words and ambiguous expreffions, of which his interpreters can make what they please. There is even reason to fufpect, that he wrote often with affected obfcurity, either that the air of mystery might procure greater veneration, or that his books might be understood only by the adepts who had been initiated in his philofophy.

His conduct towards the writers that went before him has been much cenfured. After the manner of the Ottoman princes, fays Lord Verulam, he thought his throne could not be fecure unlefs he killed all his brethren. Ludovicus Vives charges him with detracting from all philofophers, that he might derive that glory to himself, of which he robbed them. He rarely quotes an author but with a view to cenfure, and is not very fair in representing the opinions which he cenfures.

The faults we have mentioned are fuch as might be expected in a man, who had the daring ambition to be tranfmitted to all future ages, as the

[blocks in formation]
« 上一頁繼續 »