Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

cred fountain has fometimes been fuppofed, and it may be neceffary to extract the comprehenfive view of the question in the work before us.

The opinion, that Plato derived his philofophy originally from the Hebrews, and confequently from divine revelation, was commonly embraced by the fathers of the Chriftian church, and has been adopted by many learned divines. The chief grounds, upon which this opinion refts, are 1. The authority of the Jewish writers, Jofephus and Ariftobulus, and of the Chriftian fathers, Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eufebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Ambrofe, and others; 2. The opinion that a Greek verfion of the Hebrew fcriptures appeared in Egypt before the time of Plato, which he might have feen and read, as Clemens Alexandrinus and Eufebius, on the teftimony of Ariftobulus, affert; 3. The prefumption, that the Egyptians borrow ed many of their tenets from the Ifraelites, and communicated them to Plato; and 4. The agreement of the doctrines of Plato with thofe of the Hebrews. But these arguments will not, we apprehend, appear fatisfactory to thofe who are not inclined to pay implicit respect to ancient authority. For, 1. The teftimony of the Chriflian fathers is, in the prefent queftion, of little value for they had recourfe to no authentic memorials or impartial witnesses; but gave credit to the fuggeftions of certain Jewish writers, who, feveral centuries after the time of Plato, to gratify' their own vanity, and that of their countrymen, pretended that all Gentile wisdom had been originally derived from Moses; and particularly, that Plato, curing his refidence in Egypt, had been inftructed in the Hebrew fchool. This notion was eagerly embraced by feveral learned Platonifts, who, in the second century were converted to Chriftianity, but still retained an attachment to their former mafter: and from this time it became a common practice, among thofe who affected the credit of Greek erudition,' to maintain, that whatever opinions Plato and his followers held, fimilar to the doctrines of revelation, had been borrowed eitherfrom the Hebrews or the Christians. 2. A Greck verfion of the Hebrew fcriptures, prior to the time of Alexander, never existed, but in the brain of Ariftobulus, as will more fully appear when we come to trea of the Jewish philosophy. Neither the author,

For the occafion, of this verfion can be produced; nor does any fuch work appear to thofe who might have been acquainted with it, and whofe intereft it would have been to have read it. Separated as the Jews were, before the time of Alexander, from all intercourse with other nations, and carefully as they concealed the irmyfteries and facred books from gentile frangers; it is not easy to conceive how fuch a version could have been made; not to urge, that Greek literature was first introduced into Egypt

by

by Alexander. 3. Equally unfupported is the affertion, that the Egyptians, and even Plato himself, converfed with the Jews on theological fubjects. Upon this queftion, learned men have confounded the time, when the Greeks poffeffed Egypt, with a preceding period, in which it would not be eafy to prove, that any fuch intercourse took place between the Egyptians and Jews. Nor is it at all probable, that the small remnant of the Jewish nation, who after the captivity went with Jeremiah into Egypt, would appear of fo much confequence, as to engage the attention of all Egypt and Greece to their religious cuftoms and tenets. Laftly. no proof of the point in queftion can arise from the supposed agreement between the Mofaic and Platonic doctrines: for either the agreement is imaginary, or, it confifts in fuch particulars as might eafily be discovered by the light of reafon. Befides, it has not been fufficiently attended to, that the true doctrine of Plato was, in the Alexandrian school, so far adulterated, and blended with other fyllems, that thofe fathers of the Chriftian church, who had Atudied Platonism in this school, might easily imagine a greater harmony between the Platonic do&rine and their own creed than in reality exifted. The Chriftian fathers feem to have thought the fuppofition, that heathen philofophy had been the refult of the natural powers of the human mind, derogatory to the honour of revelation. But its grounds and principles are now too well understood, to render it neceffary to borrow any part of its cre dit and authority from Plato.'

From the school of Megara he is faid to have borrowed his Dialectics: the principles of natural philofophy our author fuppofes that he learnt from Hermogenes and Cratylus in the Eleatic school; mathematics and aftronomy from that of Cyrene; from Socrates and Pythagoras the purity of his moral doctrines, and the vifionary fancies which pervade the greater part of his fyftem. From the misfortunes of Socrates, from his refidence at the court of the fufpicious Dionyfius, and from the efoteric fyftem of Pythagoras, he learned probably the art of concealment, and he has wonderfully improved it, by feeming to explain every thing, and fully teaching only thofe doctrines which are lefs dangerous. The doctrines of Plato were fupported with undiminished fplendor by his fucceffors in the old academy, particularly by Xenocrates, whofe calm, steady meditation, and amiable temper, were admirably qualified to connect and arrange the wilder fancies of Plato, and to render them more generally pleafing. Notwithstanding he was the fuccefsful antagonist of Ariilotle, a man in whom every mental faculty was probably more perfect than in any other perfon previous to the Chriftian æra, he must challenge the esteem of every rational enquirer, and hold a diftinguifhed rank in the

history

history of philofophy, though no one improvement can be fair. ly attributed to him.

The firft fchifm in the school of Plato was occafioned by a circumftance which forms a remarkable æra in the history of philofophy, and fhould have been noticed more particularly. The fallacy of judging from the fenfes was early known, and the diftinction of popular and concealed doctrines always kept in view. The attempts of Socrates to employ philofophy in the fervice of morality were only for a time popular; and Plato, in his eclectic fyftem, revived the opinion of the fallacious judgment of the fenfes, and taught that ideas were the only objects of fcience. Two new fects foon after his time arofe, the Pyrrhonic, which taught that every thing was uncertain; and that of Zeno, which refted on the abfolute certainty of human knowledge. Arcefilaus, at that time in the chair of Plato, distracted probably by contending tenets, and unwilling to difpleafe either party, was particularly cautious and referved in fpeaking of thefe very doubtful points, and, in the excess of his caution, verged almost to the Pyrrhonic philofophy, by teaching that, though there is a real certainty in the nature of things, every thing is uncertain to the human understanding. In this very doubtful ftate the academy remained, an object of reproach to philofophers, and of fufpicion to government, as thefe tenets might render even the foundations of virtue and policy uncertain, when the popular and more conciliating ta lents of Carneades produced a revolution of doctrines and of terms: the school of Plato was then styled the new academy.

"It was the doctrine of the new academy, that the fenfes, the understanding, and the imagination, frequently deceive us, and therefore cannot be infallible judges of truth; but that, from the impreffions which we perceive to be produced on the mind, by means of the fenfes, we infer appearances of truth, or probabilities. Thefe impreffions Carneades called phantafies or images. He maintained, that they do not always correfpond to the real na ture of things, and that there is no infallible method of determining when they are true or falfe, and confequently that they afford no certain criterion of truth. Nevertheless, with respect to the conduct of life, and the purfuit of happiness, Carneades held, that probable appearances are a fufficient guide, because it is unreasonable not to allow fome degree of credit to those wit neffes who commonly give a true report. Probabilities he divided into three claffes; fimple, uncontradicted, and, confirmed by accurate examination. The lowest degree of probability takes place, where the mind, in the cafual occurrence of any fingle image, perceives in it nothing contrary to truth and nature; the fecond degree of probability arifes, when, contemplating any ob

ject

jea in connection with all the circumftances affociated with it, we discover no appearance of inconfiftency or incongruity, to lead us to fufpect, that our fenfes have given a falfe report; as, when we conclude, from comparing the image of any individual man, with our remembrance of that man, that he is the perfon we fuppofed him to be. The highest degree of probability is produced, when, after an accurate examination of every circumftance, which might be fuppofed to create uncertainty, we are able to difcover no fallacy in the report of our fenfes. The judgments arifing from this operation of the mind are, according to the doctrine of the new academy, not fcience, but opinion, which is all the knowledge that the human mind is capable of attaining.

This doctrine of Carneades, concerning truth, may serve to fhew, in what fense we are to understand an affertion, which has been advanced refpecting this philofopher and his fect, that they would not allow it to be certain, that things which are equal or fimilar to the fame thing, are equal or fimilar to one another. They did not, probably, deny this axiom, confidered as an abftract truth; but merely maintained, that in its application to any particular cafe, fome uncertainty muft arife, from our imperfect knowledge of the things which are brought into comparison, fo that it is impoffible to prove the abfolute equality of any two things to a third, or to one another. It appears, moreover, that the chief point of difference between Arcefilaus and Carneades, or between the middle and the new academy was, that the latter taught the doctrine of uncertainty, in lefs exceptionable terms than the former. Arcefilaus, through his earneft defire of overturning all other fects, gave his opponents fome pretence for charging him with having undermined the whole foundation of morals; Carneades, by leaving the human understanding in pofdeffion of probability, afforded fufficient fcope for the use of practical principles of condu&t. Arcefilaus was chiefly employed in oppofing the doctrines of other philofophers in logic and phyfics, and paid little attention to ethics: Carneades, at the fame time that he taught the neceffity of fufpence in fpeculative researches, prefcribed rules for the direction of life and manners.'

The school of the Peripatetics was founded by Ariftotle, a name fingularly and defervedly famous. Ariftotle was a follower of Plato, but difgufted that Xenocrates had fucceeded this venerable philofopher, he became the author of a new fect; and, as he taught in the Lyceum, a grove in the fuburbs of Athens, difcourfing with his difciples in his walks, the philofophy has been ftyled the peripatetic. Ariftotle poffeffed a comprehenfion peculiarly acute and accurate: in his hands, dialectics was no longer a contest of words, but an admirable clue to conduct the mind, by the accuracy of its diftinctions,

through

through the most intricate inveftigations. A comprehenfion fo just and lively, regulated by the moft exact reafoning, could not fail to detect errors in Plato, and to extend human knowledge in other fubjects, fo far as the uninfpired intellect could probably penetrate; and, if he had held the ftation of Xenocrates, he would probably have produced the fame revolutions in philofophy, which he effected in the Lyceum. The events of his life are fufficiently known: it is faid, that he retired to Colchis where he died, to avoid the perfecution and fatal end of Socrates, which he is fuppofed to have provoked by his doctrines on fate.

His works have reached us in a very imperfect state, from various causes, among which, we have had occafion to observe, may be reckoned probably, a defigned obfcurity. Those which we poffefs lead us, however, feverely to lament thofe that are loft; for even at this time, when idolatry and blind admiration are no more, it may be faid that, on cach fubject treated of, if we except only the operations and productions of nature, Ariftotle has fcarcely left any thing to be added. Both on account of his reafoning and his obfervations, it were well if he were more generally studied by modern authors. We must not, however, be blind to his faults: they are, in this hiftory, exaggerated and multiplied: but the ftudied obfcurity of his own doctrines, an eagerness too often difplayed, and fometimes difingenuously pursued, to detract from the merits of his predeceffors, and the apparently unfinished ftate of fome of his writings, are errors which his admirers muft with to diminith, or inattentions which they muft regret. Ariftotle believed in one great author and mover of the univerfe; an opinion that his followers, Strato and Dæarchus, profeffedly excluded from their fyftems. A very fhort and imperfect abract of Ariftotle's opinions is added. Demetrius Phalereus and Theophrattus were the moft confpicuous of the uccellors of the Stagyrite.

The perfonal temperance, abftemioufnefs, and virtue of the greater number of the ancient philofophers is fufficiently evinced, not only by the concurrent teftimony of antiquity, but their advanced age. It will, however, be obvious, that the refinements of Plato had led away philofophers from the morality of the Socratic fyftem; and, though thefe fancies in the works of Ariftotle have been converted into wholefome aliment, the whole was still diftant from their great master's object. Every one was not, however, fafcinated in this way. Antisthenes, a cotemporary of Plato, and a difciple of Socrates, continued to teach, that virtue, a moral rectitude of manners, and a proper command over the appetites and propenfitics, was the great purpofe of philofophy. As ufual, this deviation was carried

too

« AnteriorContinua »