Why does man exist ? : the continuation and conclusion of Whence comes man ? / by Arthur John Bell.

  • Bell, Arthur John.
Date:
1890
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Why does man exist ? : the continuation and conclusion of Whence comes man ? / by Arthur John Bell. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    33/450 (page 21)
    is not a will at all. It is only a blind, nnconscions, know- notliing, mechanical force. And tliat sncli a force conld ever come to be conscious, to know, or conld cause the world to be, or conld cause life to be, is imsii])ported by even the shadow of a shade of evidence—nay, is contradicted by all tact. Only life can be conscious. Only life can will ; and all exi)erience, all experiment, all science, show that life comes only from antecedent life ; that there was a time in the world’s histoiy when life did not, conld not exist ; that the new ])ower, the new existence which we call life, mnst therefore have been created, caused to be, by a Being j)ossess- ing the jjower to create it, to cause it to be, not as a mere moditication of its own substance, but in addition to its own substance ; who not only created life, but all things ; and who is Himself infinite and eternal. Belief in that infinite and eternal Creator is called Theism. Mv reasons for holdino- tliat «- O belief have already been given in the first part of this work. A very brief reflection will show that, ju’operly speaking, there is no such “ tliiruj ” as “ will,” or a will.” But there is such an “ act ” as \\\W-ing. “ Wiliing ” is an act which can be jjerformed only by a conscious Bgo. To will is to resolve, to intend, to purpose, and always has for its ol)ject the satisfiiction of a desire; and such satisfaction is the cause, the reason of the act: willing, except as the consequence of desiring, is inconceivalde. Now, as Schopenhauer’s “ will ” is nothing Init an unconscious force, it cannot jwssibly desire; and l)eing incapable of desiring, it cannot strive to “ satisfy” a desire. Tlie ascrijdion of willing, and consequent striving, to an nnconscions force is absurd. Sehoj)enhaner’s “ micon- scious wll ” is an absurdity, and consequently all in his system which depends upon an unconscious force being able to “ desire ” and to “ will ” and to “ strive ” mnst be entirely rejected. Tlie necessities of his theory compel him not only to assert that the nnconscions will strives, but all inorganic substances as well.