|
BACON AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY
BY
Muhammad Yousaf Gabriel
Oqasaorg@gmail.com
The
hand of providence gave a twist to the cause of Bacon’s life by
causing the death of his father. Then Bacon gave a twist to the
religious doctrine of moral and natural philosophy by reverting
the order of moral and natural philosophy. He changed the places
of moral and natural philosophy. He placed the natural
philosophy in the place of moral philosophy, and placed the
moral philosophy in the place of natural philosophy. The former
twist that is, which was given by the hand of providence to the
course of Bacon’s life through the untimely death of Bacon’s
father tossed Bacon on to a track that culminated in the
appearance of his universal and far-reaching philosophy. The
latter twist which Bacon gave to religious doctrine of moral and
natural philosophy, flung the entire human race, cross and the
crescent, the swastika and the chucker, the hammer and the
scythe, onto a course which running through stages ultimately
culminated in the blazing flames of the atomic hell, the logical
and scientific conclusion of Bacon's philosophy of modern
atomism. Not all the most convincing arguments and references to
prove a compatibility between a particular religion and this
modern atomism could alter the course of the philosophy of
atomism that led to the atomic hell, nor all the wishful
thinking of the Baconian world could avert the logical doom from
a misguided mankind. Indeed all those world-wide eulogies, that
have been poured on the author of so felicitous a philosophy,
and on the philosophy itself since its appearance would be
signed by merely the mention of the result of Bacon’s
philosophy, the atomic hell, that is these very atomic bombs and
atomic radiations that today threaten the existence of life on
earth. English nation prided over Bacon’s nationality, but who
will own the honour for the appearance of the results of Bacon’s
philosophy. Bacon, indeed, did not formulate his philosophy in
any vindictive mood, nor did he mean harm intentionally, far it
be from him, but it all resulted from the error of his
judgement, and the intensity of his feelings, Indeed, it is not
for man to give mankind a philosophy of his own contriving. It
is for the divine revelation to do that. Religion for man has
been perfected and completed by God to be resorted to by mankind
for guidance, and Bacon cannot be absolved from the guilt.
In
1607, Bacon was given the post of Solicitor-General, and was
thus at least relieved of the fear of want, and worked on his
philosophy in leisure. In 1613, Bacon became Attorney General,
and in 1617 the Lord Keeper ----- an appellation which he later
changed for the higher title of Chancellor. In October 1620 he
presented the king with the great work of his life, the "NOVUM
ORGANUM", the objet of which he said was to enlarge the bounds
of reason, and endow man’s estate with new value. That day for
Bacon might have been a great day. It is difficult to imagine
the inward joy of his mind. He had realised both the ambitions
of his life. He had by then reached the zenith of his worldly
power and dignity, and he had completed his philosophical work
which had haunted his mind ever since a student in Cambridge,
and which he thought was a light to guide humanity to eternal
bliss.
It
is surprising to hear in the light of Bacon’s
life and his activities that the works of Shakespeare were
written by Bacon. The tongue turns simply dumb with wonder to
hear such an opinion. Most of Bacon's time from sixteen to sixty
was spent in wool-sack and council board. While yet a boy he was
plunged into the midst of diplomatic business. Thence he passed
to the study of a vast technical system of law, and worked his
way up through a succession of laborious office to the highest
post in his progression. In the mean time he took an active part
in every parliament: he was an advisor of the Crown: he paid
court with greatest assiduity and address to all whose favour
was likely to be of use to him. Scarcely any man has led a more
stirring life than that which Bacon led from sixteen to sixty.
When did he then write all those bulky plays of Shakespeare.
Perhaps people preferred to think that plays get written by
themselves and require neither time, talent, wit or labour. Or
that every work of Merit should be attributed to Bacon. A man
who clamoured for a decade for a lucrative place in order to
write his philosophy, could not be expected to have turned off
thirty-seven plays of Shakespeare, in shear amusement. The
assumption might have been regarded as more plausible if the
writing of Shakespearean plays was attributed to king James
himself, who considering the work below his regal grace might
have transferred it to Shakespeare. Indeed, neither Bacon, nor
King James, nor any one else could have written those plays
except Shakespeare himself. How could Bacon have written
shylock. And if he could have written it, then indeed he could
have been regarded a monster of far greater rank than Macaulay
has given him out to be.
“Bacon’s
greatest performance” says Macaulay, “ is the first book of the
Novum Organum. All the peculiarities of this extraordinary mind
are found there in the highest perfection. Many of the
aphorisms, but particularly those in which he gives examples of
the influence of the Idols, show nicety of observation that has
never been surpassed. Every part of the book blazes with wit,
but with wit which is employed only to illustrate and decorate
truth. No book ever made so great a revolution in the mode of
thinking, overthrew so many prejudices, introduced so many new
opinions. Yet no book was overwritten in a less contentious
spirit. It truly conquers with chalk and not with steel.
Proposition after proposition enters into the mind, is received
not as invader, but as a welcome friend, and, though previously
unknown, becomes at once domesticated. But what we now most
admire is the vast capacity of that intellect which, without
effort, takes in at once all the domains of science, all the
past, the present, and the future, all the errors of two
thousand years, all the encouraging signs of the passing times,
all the bright hopes of the coming age”- (Literary Essays by
Lord Macaulay page 320 ).
Now
this is all very nice and beautiful. But woe, woe to the times.
This passage of Macaulay that indeed is a masterpiece in itself
even today, appears no more than the delusion of a capable mind.
Time has disclosed the reality of Bacon’s philosophy. It
appeared at first as honey which eventually has proved to be a
bitter poison. Yet it is not to be wondered if a species which
yesterday could attribute the plays of Shakespeare to Bacon,
today interprets hopes of avoiding the hazards of atomic age
“Science”. They would say even today, “Science could be used
both for constructive as well as destructive purposes, it
depends on men whether they used science for constructive or
whether for destructive purposes”. Now who could tell them that
the present perspective of the affairs shows the impossibility,
to wit, that it is not possible for anyone to use this atomic
science for constructive purposes, and that the end of this
modern progress certainly is in the flames of atomic hell. But
if this world prefers to play the blind who could convince them
of the existence of the sun during the bright day light. Judging
from the mood of this present day generation it appears, that it
will be hard for them to believe in the assertion even when they
will be being actually broiled in the fire of atomic bombs, or
will have been changed into a bundle of cancers or chimeras due
to the atomic radiations. Their assertion even then will be,
“Science could be used both for constructive as well as
destructive purposes, and man himself is responsible for all
this". And it is well said, for, no doubt a man himself is
responsible for all this. The difficulty only is that it is not
in the power of man to avert the atomic doom or to provide means
of protection against the atomic phenomena. Macaulay has alluded
to the bright hopes of future, and we have before us the
darkened horizons that presage complete atomic annihilation of
all life on earth.
Macaulay
continues to says, “Cowley, who was among the
most ardent and, and not among the least discerning followers of
the new philosophy, has in one of his finest poems, compared
Bacon to Moses standing on mount pisgah. It is to Bacon, we
think, as he appears in first book of “Novum Organum” ,that the
comparison applies with peculiar felicity. There we see the
great law-giver looking round from his lonely elevation on an
infinite expanse; behind him a wilderness of treasury sands and
bitter waters in which successive generations have sojourned,
always moving yet, never advancing, reaping no harvest, and
building no abiding city; before him a goodly land, a land of
promise, a land flowing with milk and honey. While the multitude
below saw only the flat sterile desert in which they had so long
wandered, bounded on every side by a near horizon, or
diversified only by some deceitful mirage, he was gazing from a
far higher stand on a far lovelier country, following with his
eye the long course of fertilising rivers, through ample
pastures, and under the bridges of great capitals, marts and
havens, and portioning out all those wealthy regions from Dan to
Beer sheba".
(Ibid -page 320-1)
O
how really splendid a description and we have to say nothing but
that the name of Moses be substituted by anti-Christ, as is
described by the Prophet of Islam, (peace be upon him,) by a
particular appellation of Messiah-id-Dajjal, that is the lying,
simulating Christ. Anyone acquainted with the topic will find a
very interesting example. We will presently add that Bacon
pointed only to the panorama of atomic hell, and that the
prophets of the past ages were not amiss. Bacon’s philosophy has
given only intensified sense of unappeasable hunger, and
desolation of mind, and problems that could not be solved and
were ever-increasing.
Earl
of Essex was a real benefactor and a kind of friend of Bacon. We
are obliged to state such events only to reveal the nature of
Bacon, the originator of modern philosophy, and we confess that
we do so with some pain. Circumstances drew the Earl in some
real trouble. He was sent to Ireland and he returned in
disgrace. Trouble flared up when he was summoned to give the
account of his conduct in Ireland, and he made reckless by
despair ventured on a rash and criminal enterprise. He rushed
out of his house with two hundred men on foot, crying
hysterically that plots were laid against his life, and that the
country was sold to the spaniard. And armed scuffle took place
and two men on each side were slain. Essex himself was shot
through the hat, but escaped to his house and surrendered in the
evening. It was on the strength of arms that the intended to
make terms. The person of the Queen was to be secured but not to
be harmed, but blunt it is said, confessed on the scaffold, that
“They were prepared, rather than fail in their ends to have
drawn blood from herself”. The case obviously was of a grievous
nature. We do not intend to sit here as a judge to decide the
case, Essex versus Bacon. But what we intend is to show what
friendship and gratitude in the eyes of Bacon was when his own
interest was at stake.
The
person on whom, during the decline of his influence, Essex
chiefly depended, to whom he confided his perplexities, whose
advice he solicited, whose intercession he employed, namely,
Bacon, a friend so loved, so trusted, bore a principal part in
ruining his fortunes, in shedding his blood, in Blackening his
memory. Bacon, indeed, had no desire to injure Essex. He did
whatever he could to serve his friend, but when he felt that he
could not help his friend without doing damage to his own
interests he changed his role. This was of those conjectures
which show what men are. To high-minded man, wealth, power,
court-favour, even personal safety, would have appeared of no
account, when opposed to friendship, gratitude and honour. Such
a man would have stood by the side of Essex at the trial, would
have spent all his power, might, authority, and amity in
soliciting the mitigation of the sentence, would have been a
daily visitor at the cell, would have received the last
injunctions and the last embrace on the scaffold, would have
employed all the power of his intellect to guard from insult the
fame of his generous though erring friend. An ordinary man would
neither have incurred the danger of succouring Essex, nor the
disgrace of assailing him. But Bacon did not even preserve the
neutrality and became the instrument of the court. He appeared
as the counsel for the prosecution. He employed all his wit, his
rhetoric, and his learning, not to insure a conviction for the
circumstances were such that a conviction was inevitable- but to
deprive the unhappy prisoner of all those excuses which, though
legally of no value, yet tended to diminish the moral guilt of
the crime, and which therefore, though they could not justify
the peers in pronouncing an equittal, might incline the Queen to
grant a pardon.
All
this, however, is wishful thinking in which we join with
Macaulay, but unfortunately nothing and no one could stand in
Bacon’s way to a lucrative place, so that he might write his
philosophy for this world. But the more you will read about this
case of Essex the more clearly you will see the character of
Bacon. And indeed, we are concerned not so much with the conduct
and the character of Bacon, as with a correlation which appeared
between the conduct and character of Bacon and of this Baconian
culture, and this Baconian population. Bacon’s was a mean,
opportunist, mal-odourous and skunky philosophy of life that
emanated from a similar origin, and infused the same qualities
in those who adopted and practised it. And hence it was, that
most of the biographers of Bacon were blinded to see these
particulars, and did everywhere see a plausible defence and
innocence of their hero and their redeemer, who according to
them, was the redeemer of all mankind from all the
misunderstandings of mankind since the human race began its life
on earth. And it was nothing, short of a miracle that Macaulay,
otherwise great admirer of Baconian philosophy should keenly
observe the faulty conduct of Bacon and the lowly features of
his actual nature. But to fate might be referred the affair of
Bacon.
And
let us resume the sad event that shed a flood-light on a
particular point of Bacon’s conduct. The Earl urged as a
palliation of his frantic as that he was surrounded by powerful
and inveterate enemies, that they had ruined his fortunes, that
they sought his life, and that their persecutions had driven him
to despair. This was true; and Bacon well knew it to be true.
But he affected to treat it as an idle pretence. He compared
Essex to Pisistratus who by pretending to be in immediate danger
of assassination and by exhibiting self-inflicted wounds,
succeeded in establishing tyranny at Athens. This was too much
for the prisoner to bear. He interrupted his ungrateful friend
by calling on him to quit the part of an advocate, to come
forward as a witness, and to tell the lords whether, in old
times, he, Francis Bacon, had not, under his own hand,
repeatedly asserted the truth of what he knew represented as
idle pretexts. The story altogether is lamentable, and the
reader is requested to note the trends and tendencies which help
to reveal, the true nature of men when on test. Bacon returned a
shuffling answer to the Earl’s question, and, as if the allusion
to Pisistratus were not sufficiently offensive, made another
allusion still more unjustifiable. He compared Essex to Henry
Duke of Guise, and the rash attempt in the city to the day of
the Barricades at Paris. Why Bacon had recourse to such a topic,
it is difficult to say. For, it was quite unnecessary for the
purpose of obtaining a verdict. It was certain to produce strong
impression on the mind of the haughty and jealous princes on
whose pleasure the Earl’s fate depended.
The
Earl was convicted. Bacon made no effort to save him, though the
Queen’s feelings were such that he might have pleaded his
benefactors' cause plausibly with success, and certainly without
any serious danger to himself. The English Queen certainly was
never to be so mean as not to understand the feelings of a
person under such obligations of a friend who stood on the verge
of death. The unhappy nobleman was executed. And now let every
one who is a follower of Bacon, rush to the mirror to see if
there were no similar signs of opportunistic ingratitude to be
discerned in his own face in this age of Baconian attitude. And
who in this age is not the follower of Baconian philosophy, a
philosophy of Moral bankruptcy. The fate of Essex excited
strong, perhaps unreasonable feelings of compassion and
indignation. Essex had a place in their hearts and they admired
and loved him for his qualities. The Queen was received by the
citizens of London with gloomy looks and faint acclamations. She
thought it expedient to publish a vindication of her late
proceedings. The faithless friend who had assisted in taking the
Earls’ life was now employed to murder the Earl's fame. The
queen had seen some of Bacon’s writings and had been pleased
with them. He was accordingly selected to write. A declaration
of the practices and treasons attempted and committed by Robert
Earl of Essex, which was printed by authority. The excuses of
Bacon in this respect appear to be insufficient. He was under no
professional obligation to write this abusive pamphlet regarding
a man who was in his grave, and was once a friend and benefactor
of Bacon. Bacon exerted his professional talents to shed his
friend’s blood, and his literary talents to blacken his memory.
And all this for what?
If
Bacon could lie prostrate at the feet of
Buckingham and would not rise till excused, why Bacon could not
fall at the feet of the Queen to beg life of his benefactor and
a loveable gentleman. For his own benefit, though provided
indeed the proud and haughty English Queen would suffer him to
do so, he would as life throw himself a hundred times at her
feet and expend all his rhetoric is supplication uttering
heart-touching moans. It is hard to miss the resemblance between
this habit of Bacon and of this present day Baconian culture.
Just mark the prevailing selfishness and opportunism in this
Baconian race. Macaulay’s surmise was “Bacon was a servile
Advocate that he might be a corrupt judge”. And Macaulay could
not have been regarded as amiss in his surmise.
|
