E-text prepared by Clare Boothby, Keith M. Eckrich, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
by
London
"The first philosophers, whether Chaldeans or Egyptians, said theremust be something within us which produces our thought. That somethingmust be very subtle: it is breath; it is fire, it is ether; it is aquintessence; it is a slender likeness; it is an intelechia; it is anumber; it is harmony; lastly, according to the divine Plato, it is acompound of the same and the other! It is atoms which think in us,said Epicurus after Democritus. But, my friend, how does an atomthink? Acknowledge that thou knowest nothing of the matter." —VOLTAIRE.
Self-Analysis, apart from its scientific uses, has seldom rewardedthose who have practised it. To probe into the inner world of motiveand desire has proved of small benefit to any one, whether hermit,monk or nun, indeed it has been altogether mischievous in result,unless the mind that probed, was especially healthy. Bitter has beenthe dissatisfaction, both with the process, and with what came of it,for being miserably superficial it could lead to no real knowledge ofself, but simply centred self on self, producing instead ofself-knowledge, self-consciousness, and often the beginnings of mentaldisease.
For fruitful self analysis it is apparently necessary then to have aclear, definite aim outside self—such as achieving the gain of somespecial piece of knowledge, and we find such definite aims inpsychology, and certain systems of philosophy—Greek, English, andGerman, in Plato Locke, Kant, and in the meditations of Descartes, andmany others. Self-analysis is the basis of psychological knowledge,but the science has been chiefly used to explain the methods by whichwe obtain knowledge of the outer world in relation to ourselves. Whena philosopher centres self on self, in order to know self as a resultof introspection, the results have been disastrous, and havecontributed nothing to knowledge, properly so-called. If religiousself-examination has its dangers, so also has philosophicalself-analysis for its own sake. It is a fascinating study for thosewho care for thought for thought's sake—the so-called Hamlets of theworld, who are for ever revolving round the axes of their own ideasand dreams, and who never progress towards any clear issue. Amiel's"Vie Intime" is a study of this kind. It adds nothing to any clearknowledge of self, absorbing and interesting as the record is. It issuggestive to a great degree, and in that lies its value, but it is asvague, as it is sad. It appeals deeply to those who live apart in aworld of their own, in thoughtful imaginative reverie, but its effectson the mind were deplored even by Amiel himself in words which areacutely pathetic. The pain which consumed him arose from theconcentration of self on self. Self was monopolised by self,self-consciousness was produced, though without a touch of selfishegoism.
...