Note 339 — THE CONCLUSION: COMPREHENDING A RETROSPECT OF THE LIFE OF DAVID RITTENHOUSE,

Although Mr. T. Cooper (before quoted) admits, that the “strict adherence to the syllogistic mode of reasoning,” that which he calls “playing tricks with syllogisms,” together with “the legerdemain of words without ideas,” was carried much too far by some late metaphysical writers of eminence; yet he is of opinion, that “in modern times, this invention of Aristotle is abandoned more than it deserves to be: For,” continues Mr. Cooper, “no man can so skilfully analyse the argument of another, as one who is well acquainted with the rules of scholastic logic, and accustomed to apply them. Good reasoners there are and will be, who know nothing of these rules, but better reasoners who do.”

Mr. Cooper doubts, whether metaphysical lectures should be delivered, at all, in colleges; but thinks, that if metaphysics were to be there taught, the writings of Beattie, Oswald and Gregory, would be unworthy of notice. Much as the Writer of these Memoirs respects the talents and ingenuity of the learned Professor of Chemistry, he can by no means concur in this opinion: and he regrets, that he feels himself obliged to differ still more widely, from a gentleman of such acknowledged abilities, respecting the propriety of his recommending to youth the study of the works of Hobbes, Leibnitz and Collins.

Now, what the complexion and tendency of the tenets of Hobbes, Leibnitz, and other philosophers of the same class are, may be learnt from the following passages, translated from a French work, entitled, “De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de Morale pour l’Epece Humaine, tire de la Philosophie et fonde sur la Nature;” a work which, though anonymous in respect to its author, had passed through three editions in the year 1777. The writer thus says:

“Of what importance to me are the names of Carneades, of Lysander, of Hobbes, and the author of The System of Nature, names unhappily celebrated, which the apostle of the moral indifference of human actions alleges in favour of this atrocious extravagance?” (the doctrines of Fatality, Moral Scepticism, &c.) “Carneades was an arrogant Pyrrhonian, who doubted of every thing, excepting the superiority of his own logic. Hobbes had the audacity to write a book against the everlasting truths of geometry. Lysander, the enemy of the liberty of Sparta, and the corrupter of the oracles of Delos and Ammon, was one of those spirits of spleen and filth, who strive to acquire a name by reducing wickedness to a system. As for the anonymous Writer, whose licentious pen vents so much blasphemy on Nature, in disavowing the existence of God, he has purchased the right to deny that of Morality. He is equally silly with Salmonius, in braving the thunderbolt destined to stifle the stings of conscience.” Speaking of Leibnitz, in another place, this French Moralist observes, that “the Philosopher of Leipsick made of the soul a monad, and explained all the phænomena of its union with matter by a pre-established harmony. One portion of Europe believed him; because he set up a new system! and what is it but a metaphysical theory, without system?” And again: “What names have we to oppose to those of Descartes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Malbranch? The suffrage of Newton, alone, is sufficient to crush their Materialism; if, in the humble materials for the examination of human reason, the suffrage of one great man is competent to balance a syllogism.”