Outlines of a philosophy of the history of man / translated from the German of John Godfrey Herder, T. Churchill.

  • Herder, Johann Gottfried, 1744-1803.
Date:
1800
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Outlines of a philosophy of the history of man / translated from the German of John Godfrey Herder, T. Churchill. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    127/672 (page 105)
    and enjoyments impel us to imitate. Yet fince we know him fo obfcurcly ; fince we imitate him fo feebly and childiflily; nay even perceive the reafons why we cannot know him and imitate him otherwife in our prefent organiza- tion ; is it poffible for us to attain no other ? Do our moft indubitably bcft capacities admit of no advancement ? Then, too, thefe our nobleft faculties are fo little adapted to this world : they expand themfelves beyond it, fince every thing here is fubfervient to the wants of our nature. And ftill we feel our nobler part inceffantly contending againft thefe wants: precifely that which feems the end of man’s organization finds it’s birthplace indeed upon the Earth, but by no means it’s ftate of perfection. Has the deity, then, broken the thread, and with all thefe preparations in the human frame produced at laft an immature crea- ture, deceived in the whole of his deftination? All things upon Earth are frag- ments : and fhall they remain for ever and ever imperfect fragments, and the hu- man race a group of lhadows perplexing themfelves with vain dreams ? Here has religion knit together ail the wants and hopes of mankind into faith, and woven an immortal crown for humanity. CHAPTER VII. Man is formed for the Hope of Immortality. ILet not the reader expeCt here any metaphyfical proof of the immortality of the foul, from the fimplicity of it’s nature, it’s fpirituality, or the like. Natu- ral philofophy knows nothing of this fimplicity, and would rather incline to ad- vance doubts againft it, as we are acquainted with the foul only through it’s operations in a complicated organization, which appear to fpring from a diver- fity of ftimuli and perceptions. The moft common thought is the refult of innumerable fingle perceptions; and the ruler of our body acls upon the nu- merous tribe of fubordinate faculties, as if fhe were locally prefent with them all Neither can Bonnet’s philofophy, as it is called, the fyftem of germes, be our guide here: for, in refpeCt of thetranfition to a new exificnce, it is partly devoid of demonftration, partly inapplicable. No one has difcovered in our brain a fpiritual brain, the germe of a new exiftence; neither is the lead analogy to this perceptible in it’s ftruCture. The brain of the dead remains with us; and if the feed of our immortality poffeffed no other powers, it would lie and be confumed to dull. This fyftem appears to me, too, to be altogether inapplicable to the fubjeCt: for we fpeak not here of young creatures defeending from a creature of the fame kind, but of a dying creature, that fprings up to a new ftate of ex- P iftence.