01-what is man-第13部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





O。M。　　The　ant　discriminates　between　friend　and　stranger。

Sir　John　Lubbock　took　ants　from　two　different　nests；　made　them

drunk　with　whiskey　and　laid　them；　unconscious；　by　one　of　the

nests；　near　some　water。　　Ants　from　the　nest　came　and　examined　and

discussed　these　disgraced　creatures；　then　carried　their　friends

home　and　threw　the　strangers　overboard。　　Sir　John　repeated　the

experiment　a　number　of　times。　　For　a　time　the　sober　ants　did　as

they　had　done　at　firstcarried　their　friends　home　and　threw　the

strangers　overboard。　　But　finally　they　lost　patience；　seeing　that

their　reformatory　efforts　went　for　nothing；　and　threw　both

friends　and　strangers　overboard。　　Comeis　this　instinct；　or　is

it　thoughtful　and　intelligent　discussion　of　a　thing　new

absolutely　newto　their　experience；　with　a　verdict　arrived　at；

sentence　passed；　and　judgment　executed？　　Is　it　instinct？thought

petrified　by　ages　of　habitor　isn't　it　brand…new　thought；

inspired　by　the　new　occasion；　the　new　circumstances？



Y。M。　　I　have　to　concede　it。　　It　was　not　a　result　of　habit；

it　has　all　the　look　of　reflection；　thought；　putting　this　and　that

together；　as　you　phrase　it。　　I　believe　it　was　thought。



O。M。　　I　will　give　you　another　instance　of　thought。　　Franklin

had　a　cup　of　sugar　on　a　table　in　his　room。　　The　ants　got　at　it。

He　tried　several　preventives；　and　ants　rose　superior　to　them。

Finally　he　contrived　one　which　shut　off　accessprobably　set　the

table's　legs　in　pans　of　water；　or　drew　a　circle　of　tar　around　the

cup；　I　don't　remember。　　At　any　rate；　he　watched　to　see　what　they

would　do。　　They　tried　various　schemesfailures；　every　one。　　The

ants　were　badly　puzzled。　　Finally　they　held　a　consultation；

discussed　the　problem；　arrived　at　a　decisionand　this　time　they

beat　that　great　philosopher。　　They　formed　in　procession；　cross

the　floor；　climbed　the　wall；　marched　across　the　ceiling　to　a

point　just　over　the　cup；　then　one　by　one　they　let　go　and　fell

down　into　it！　　Was　that　instinctthought　petrified　by　ages　of

inherited　habit？



Y。M。　　No；　I　don't　believe　it　was。　　I　believe　it　was　a　newly

reasoned　scheme　to　meet　a　new　emergency。



O。M。　　Very　well。　　You　have　conceded　the　reasoning　power　in

two　instances。　　I　come　now　to　a　mental　detail　wherein　the　ant　is

a　long　way　the　superior　of　any　human　being。　　Sir　John　Lubbock

proved　by　many　experiments　that　an　ant　knows　a　stranger　ant　of

her　own　species　in　a　moment；　even　when　the　stranger　is　disguised

with　paint。　　Also　he　proved　that　an　ant　knows　every　individual

in　her　hive　of　five　hundred　thousand　souls。　　Also；　after　a　year's

absence　one　of　the　five　hundred　thousand　she　will　straightway

recognize　the　returned　absentee　and　grace　the　recognition　with　a

affectionate　welcome。　　How　are　these　recognitions　made？　　Not　by

color；　for　painted　ants　were　recognized。　　Not　by　smell；　for　ants

that　had　been　dipped　in　chloroform　were　recognized。　　Not　by

speech　and　not　by　antennae　signs　nor　contacts；　for　the　drunken

and　motionless　ants　were　recognized　and　the　friend　discriminated

from　the　stranger。　　The　ants　were　all　of　the　same　species；

therefore　the　friends　had　to　be　recognized　by　form　and　feature

friends　who　formed　part　of　a　hive　of　five　hundred　thousand！　　Has

any　man　a　memory　for　form　and　feature　approaching　that？



Y。M。　　Certainly　not。



O。M。　　Franklin's　ants　and　Lubbuck's　ants　show　fine

capacities　of　putting　this　and　that　together　in　new　and　untried

emergencies　and　deducting　smart　conclusions　from　the

combinationsa　man's　mental　process　exactly。　　With　memory　to

help；　man　preserves　his　observations　and　reasonings；　reflects

upon　them；　adds　to　them；　recombines；　and　so　proceeds；　stage　by

stage；　to　far　resultsfrom　the　teakettle　to　the　ocean

greyhound's　complex　engine；　from　personal　labor　to　slave　labor；

from　wigwam　to　palace；　from　the　capricious　chase　to　agriculture

and　stored　food；　from　nomadic　life　to　stable　government　and

concentrated　authority；　from　incoherent　hordes　to　massed　armies。

The　ant　has　observation；　the　reasoning　faculty；　and　the

preserving　adjunct　of　a　prodigious　memory；　she　has　duplicated

man's　development　and　the　essential　features　of　his　civilization；

and　you　call　it　all　instinct！



Y。M。　　Perhaps　I　lacked　the　reasoning　faculty　myself。



O。M。　　Well；　don't　tell　anybody；　and　don't　do　it　again。



Y。M。　　We　have　come　a　good　way。　　As　a　resultas　I　understand　it

I　am　required　to　concede　that　there　is　absolutely　no　intellectual

frontier　separating　Man　and　the　Unrevealed　Creatures？



O。M。　　That　is　what　you　are　required　to　concede。　　There　is　no

such　frontierthere　is　no　way　to　get　around　that。　　Man　has　a

finer　and　more　capable　machine　in　him　than　those　others；　but　it

is　the　same　machine　and　works　in　the　same　way。　　And　neither　he

nor　those　others　can　command　the　machineit　is　strictly

automatic；　independent　of　control；　works　when　it　pleases；　and

when　it　doesn't　please；　it　can't　be　forced。



Y。M。　　Then　man　and　the　other　animals　are　all　alike；　as　to　mental

machinery；　and　there　isn't　any　difference　of　any　stupendous

magnitude　between　them；　except　in　quality；　not　in　kind。



O。M。　　That　is　about　the　state　of　itintellectuality。　　There

are　pronounced　limitations　on　both　sides。　　We　can't　learn　to

understand　much　of　their　language；　but　the　dog；　the　elephant；

etc。；　learn　to　understand　a　very　great　deal　of　ours。　　To　that

extent　they　are　our　superiors。　　On　the　other　hand；　they　can't

learn　reading；　writing；　etc。；　nor　any　of　our　fine　and　high

things；　and　there　we　have　a　large　advantage　over　them。



Y。M。　　Very　well；　let　them　have　what　they've　got；　and　welcome；

there　is　still　a　wall；　and　a　lofty　one。　　They　haven't　got　the

Moral　Sense；　we　have　it；　and　it　lifts　us　immeasurably　above　them。



O。M。　　What　makes　you　think　that？



Y。M。　　Now　look　herelet's　call　a　halt。　　I　have　stood　the

other　infamies　and　insanities　and　that　is　enough；　I　am　not　going

to　have　man　and　the　other　animals　put　on　the　same　level　morally。



O。M。　　I　wasn't　going　to　hoist　man　up　to　that。



Y。M。　　This　is　too　much！　　I　think　it　is　not　right　to　jest

about　such　things。



O。M。　　I　am　not　jesting；　I　am　merely　reflecting　a　plain　and

simple　truthand　without　uncharitableness。　　The　fact　that　man

knows　right　from　wrong　proves　his　INTELLECTUAL　superiority　to　the

other　creatures；　but　the　fact　that　he　can　DO　wrong　proves　his

MORAL　inferiority　to　any　creature　that　CANNOT。　　It　is　my　belief

that　this　position　is　not　assailable。







Free　Will



Y。M。　　What　is　your　opinion　regarding　Free　Will？



O。M。　　That　there　is　no　such　thing。　　Did　the　man　possess　it

who　gave　the　old　woman　his　last　shilling　and　trudged　home　in　the

storm？



Y。M。　　He　had　the　choice　between　succoring　the　old　woman　and

leaving　her　to　suffer。　　Isn't　it　so？



O。M。　　Yes；　there　was　a　choice　to　be　made；　between　bodily

comfort　on　the　one　hand　and　the　comfort　of　the　spirit　on　the

other。　　The　body　made　a　strong　appeal；　of　coursethe　body　would

be　quite　sure　to　do　that；　the　spirit　made　a　counter　appeal。　　A

choice　had　to　be　made　between　the　two　appeals；　and　was　made。　　Who

or　what　determined　that　choice？



Y。M。　　Any　one　but　you　would　say　that　the　man　determined　it；

and　that　in　doing　it　he　exercised　Free　Will。



O。M。　　We　are　constantly　assured　that　every　man　is　endowed

with　Free　Will；　and　that　he　can　and　must　exercise　it　where　he　is

offered　a　choice　between　good　conduct　and　less…good　conduct。　　Yet

we　clearly　saw　that　in　that　man's　case　he　really　had　no　Free

Will：　　his　temperament；　his　training；　and　the　daily　influences

which　had　molded　him　and　made　him　what　he　was；　COMPELLED　him　to

rescue　the　old　woman　and　thus　save　HIMSELFsave　himself　from

spiritual　pain；　from　unendurable　wretchedness。　　He　did　not　make

the　choice；　it　was　made　FOR　him　by　forces　which　he　could　not

control。　　Free　Will　has　always　existed　in　WORDS；　but　it　stops

there；　I　thinkstops　short　of　FACT。　　I　would　not　use　those

wordsFree　Willbut　others。



Y。M。　　What　others？



O。M。　　Free　Choice。



Y。M。　　What　is　the　difference？



O。M。　　The　one　implies　untrammeled　power　to　ACT　as　you　please；

the　other　implies　nothing　beyond　a　mere　MENTAL　PROCESS：

the　critical　ability　to　determine　which　of　two　things

is　nearest　right　and　just。



Y。M。　　Make　the　difference　clear；　please。



O。M。　　The　mind　can　freely　SELECT；　CHOOSE；　POINT　OUT　the

right　and　just　oneits　function　stops　there。　　It　can　go　no

further　in　the　matter。　　It　has　no　authority　to　say　that　the　right

one　shall　be　acted　upon　and　the　wrong　one　discarded。

That　authority　is　in　other　hands。



Y。M。　　The　man's？



O。M。　　In　the　machine　which　stands　for　him。　　In　his　born

disposition　and　the　character　which　has　been　built　around　it　by

training　and　environment。



Y。M。　　It　will　act　upon　the　right　one　of　the　two？



O。M。　　It　will　do　as　it　pleases　in　the　matter。　　George　Washington's

machine　would　act　upon　the　right　one；　Pizarro　would　act　upon　the　wrong　one。



Y。M。　　Then　as　I　understand　it　a　bad　man's　mental　machinery　calmly

and　judicially　points　out　which　of　two　things　is　right　and　just



O。M。　　Yes；　and　his　MORAL　machinery　will　freely　act　upon

the　other　or　the　other；　according　to　its　make；　and　be　quite

indifferent　to　the　MIND'S　feeling　concerning　the　matterthat　is；

WOULD　be；　if　the　mind　had　any　feelings；　which　it　hasn't。

It　is　merely　a　thermometer：　　it　registers　the　heat　and　the　cold；

and　cares　not　a　farthing　about　either。



Y。M。　　Then　we　must　not　claim　that　if　a　man　KNOWS　which　of

two　things　is　right　he　is　absolutely　BOUND　to　do　that　thing？



O。M。　　His　temperament　and　training　will　decide　what　he　shall

do；　and　he　will　do　it；　he　cannot　help　himself；　he　has　no

authority　over　the　mater。　　Wasn't　it　right　for　David　to　go　out

and　slay　Goliath？



Y。M。　　Yes。



O。M。　　Then　it　would　have　been　equally　RIGHT　for　any　one　else　to　do　it？



Y。M。　　Certainly。



O。M。　　Then　it　would　have　been　RIGHT　for　a　born　coward　to　attempt　it？



Y。M。　　It