Somatopsychonoologia: showing that the proofs of body, life and mind ... cannot be deduced from physiology ... being an examination of the controversy concerning life carried on by Laurence [sic], Abernethy, Rennell, and others / By Philostratus [i.e. T.I.M. Forster].

  • Thomas Ignatius Maria Forster
Date:
[1824]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Somatopsychonoologia: showing that the proofs of body, life and mind ... cannot be deduced from physiology ... being an examination of the controversy concerning life carried on by Laurence [sic], Abernethy, Rennell, and others / By Philostratus [i.e. T.I.M. Forster]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    29/50 (page 507)
    I 29] the Controversy concerning Life. 507 again in the very somatopsychonoological stream in which the genius of that writer has always flowed. Again we perceive the same illusion whereby the author ima¬ gines that he has discovered, in his physiological acquirements, the true source of those elevated notions respecting man’s most noble part, the Mind, which he has confessedly always entertained, and which were, in all probability, impressed on his mind in infancy, either by the perusal of books, or by the instructions of other persons, and were confirmed by a sort of connate conscious¬ ness of personal identity. How vivid and how lasting are infantine impressions! how frequently do we see the fears, the hopes, the prejudices, which have once engaged the fancy of the child, subsequently direct the opinions of the man ! How clearly does this show the necessity of removing children from all sources of groundless superstition and imaginary theories, and of storing their young minds with useful knowlege ! There is undoubtedly a great natural difference in the talents and in the moral sentiments of infants, which depends on varieties of organization , but the character is, nevertheless, capable of receiving a very strong bias from early impressions : hence the fortiori, little danger of its being ruined by physiological remarks delivered as introductory to a description of the Hunterian collection. Without going back to the earliest attempts against the church in the commencement of Christianity, I shall cut short the retrospect down to the infidel age of Queen Elizabeth. What did the Freethinkers, as they were called, of those days, ever do, in the way of mischief, to be compared with the Puritans and Fanatics? Who understood the quaint language of Hobbes of Malmsbury, or cared about the philosophy ofSpinosa? It was the apostate schismatics who divided the cause of the church and marred her moral evidences, and not the literati who assailed her with philosophy, that produced a change of sentiment in favor of infidelity. All the splendid wit and sarcastic sallies of Voltaire against the church— the forcible appeal to sensual nature made by Rousseau—the mathematical arguments of Hume against the probability of miracles—the atheistical de¬ clamation of the whole host of French philosophers—all these together did not do the holy cause half the mischief that Volney did in his romance of the u Ruins because, in this work, he compared together the conflicting doctrines of the numerous religions of the world, and confronted the various heretics, each pretending to the exclusive possession of the truth ; and thus arming himself with their mutual contradictions, he boldly asked the inquirer after the true faith—which of the sects had possession of its proofs? Only one could be right, but all might be wrong ! The nature of this form of attack was always known to be the most dan¬ gerous, and accordingly we are encouraged and commanded to pray against Heresy and Schism; but 1 believe that no ritual or liturgy has yet got any form of prayer against the dangers of materialism, or the misdirected labors of the anatomist.