This wise man is Confucius, who being legislator never wanted to deceive men.What more beautiful rule of conduct has ever been given since him in the whole world?"Rule a state as you rule a family; one can only govern one's family well by setting the example."Virtue should be common to both husbandman and monarch."Apply thyself to the trouble of preventing crimes in order to lessen the trouble of punishing them."Under the good kings Yao and Xu the Chinese were good; under the bad kings Kie and Chu they were wicked."Do to others as to thyself." Love all men; but cherish honest people.Forget injuries, and never kindnesses."I have seen men incapable of study; I have never seen them incapable of virtue."Let us admit that there is no legislator who has proclaimed truths more useful to the human race.
A host of Greek philosophers have since taught an equally pure moral philosophy.If they had limited themselves to their empty systems of natural philosophy, their names would be pronounced to-day in mockery only.If they are still respected, it is because they were just and that they taught men to be so.
One cannot read certain passages of Plato, and notably the admirable exordium of the laws of Zaleucus, without feeling in one's heart the love of honourable and generous actions.The Romans have their Cicero, who alone is worth perhaps all the philosophers of Greece.After him come men still more worthy of respect, but whom one almost despairs of imitating; Epictetus in bondage, the Antonines and the Julians on the throne.
Which is the citizen among us who would deprive himself, like Julian, Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius, of all the delicacies of our flabby and effeminate lives? who would sleep as they did on the ground? who would impose on himself their frugality? who, as they did, would march barefoot and bareheaded at the head of the armies, exposed now to the heat of the sun, now to the hoar-frost? who would command all their passions as they did? There are pious men among us; but where are the wise men ? where are the resolute, just and tolerant souls?
There have been philosophers of the study in France; and all, except Montaigne, have been persecuted.It is, I think, the last degree of the malignity of our nature, to wish to oppress these very philosophers who would correct it.
I quite understand that the fanatics of one sect slaughter the enthusiasts of another sect, that the Franciscans hate the Dominicans, and that a bad artist intrigues to ruin one who surpasses him; but that the wise Charron should have been threatened with the loss of his life, that the learned and generous Ramus should have been assassinated, that Descartes should have been forced to flee to Holland to escape the fury of the ignorant, that Gassendi should have been obliged to withdraw several times to Digne, far from the calumnies of Paris; these things are a nation's eternal shame.Philosophical Dictionary: Power, Omnipotence POWER, OMNIPOTENCE I SUPPOSE that the man who reads this article is convinced that this world is formed with intelligence, and that a little astronomy and anatomy suffices to make this universal and supreme intelligence admired.
Can he know by himself if this intelligence' is omnipotent, that is to say, infinitely powerful? Has he the least notion of the infinite, to understand what is an infinite power?
The celebrated historian philosopher, David Hume, says in " Particular Providence '' : '' A weight of ten ounces is lifted in a balance by another weight; therefore this other weight is of more than ten ounces; but one can adduce no reason why it should weigh a hundred ounces."One can say likewise: You recognize a supreme intelligence strong enough to form you, to preserve you for a limited time, to reward you, to punish you.Do you know enough of this power to demonstrate that it can do still more?
How can you prove by your reason that this being can do more than he has done?
The life of all animals is short.Could he make it longer?
All animals are the prey of each other: everything is born to be devoured.
Could he form without destroying?
You do not know what nature is.You cannot therefore know if nature has n0t forced him to do only the things he has done.
This globe is only a vast field of destruction and carnage.Either the great Being has be en able to make of it an eternal abode of delight for all sentient beings, or He has not been able.If He has been able and if He has not done so, fear to regard Him as malevolent; but if He has not been able, fear not to lock on Him as a very great power, circumscribed by nature in His limits.
Whether or no His power is infinite does not regard you.It is a matter of indifference to a subject whether his master possesses five hundred leagues of land or five thousand ; lie is subject neither more nor less.
Which would be the greater insult to this ineffable Being, to say: "He has made miserable men without being able to dispense with them, or He has made them for His pleasure? "Many sects represent Him as cruel; others, for fear of admitting a wicked God, have the audacity to deny His existence.Is it not better to say that probably the necessity of His nature and the necessity of things have determined everything?
The world is the theatre of moral ill and physical ill; one is only too aware of it: and the " All is good " of Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke and Pope, is only a witty paradox, a poor joke.
The two principles of Zarathustra and Manes, so carefully scrutinized by Bayle, are a still poorer joke.They are, as has been observed already, ThIolires two doctors, one of whom says to the other: " Grant me the emetic, and I will grant you the bleeding." Manichaeism js absurd; and that is why it has had so many supporters.
