In Christian societies, therefore, no one agrees as to what superstition is.The sect which seems to be the least attacked by this malady of the intelligence is that which has the fewest rites.But if with few ceremonies it is still strongly attached to an absurd belief, this absurd belief is equivalent alone to all the superstitious practices observed from the time of Simon the magician to that of Father Gauffridi.
It is therefore clear that it is the fundamentals of the religion of one sect which is considered as superstition by another sect.
The Moslems accuse all Christian societies of it, and are themselves accused.Who will judge this great matter? Will it be reason? But each sect claims to have reason on its side.It will therefore be force which will judge, while awaiting the time when reason will penetrate a sufficient number of heads to disarm force.
Up to what point does statecraft permit superstition to be destroyed?
This is a very thorny question; it is like asking up to what point one should make an incision in a dropsical person, who may die under the operation.
It is a matter for the doctor's discretion.
Can there exist a people free from all superstitious prejudices? That is to ask-Can there exist a nation of philosophers? It is said that there is no superstition in the magistrature of China.It is probable that none will remain in the magistrature of a few towns of Europe.
Then the magistrates will stop the superstition of the people from being dangerous.These magistrates' example will not enlighten the mob, but the principal persons of the middle-classes will hold the mob in check.There is not perhaps a single riot, a single religious outrage in which the middle-classes were not formerly imbrued, because these middle-classes were then the mob;but reason and time will have changed them.Their softened manners will soften those of the lowest and most savage populace; it is a thing of which we have striking examples in more than one country.In a word, less superstition, less fanaticism; and less fanaticism, less misery.Philosophical Dictionary: Tears TEARS TEARS are the mute language of sorrow.But why? What Connection is there between a sad idea and this limpid, salt liquid, filtered through a little gland at the external corner of the eye, which moistens the conjunctiva and the small lachrymal points, whence it descends into the nose and mouth through the reservoir called the lachrymal sack and its ducts?
Why in women and children, whose organs are part of a frail and delicate network, are tears more easily excited by sorrow than in grown men, whose tissue is firmer?
Did nature wish compassion to be born in us at sight of these tears which soften us, and lead us to help those who shed them? The woman of a savage race is as firmly determined to help the child that cries as would be a woman of the court, and maybe more, because she has fewer distractions and passions.
In the animal body everything has an object without a doubt.The eyes especially bear such evident, such proven, such admirable relation to the rays of light; this mechanism is so divine, that I should be tempted to take for a delirium of burning fever the audacity which denies the final causes of the structure of our eyes.
The use of tears does not seem to have so well determined and striking an object; but it would be beautiful that nature made them flow in order to stir us to pity.
There are women who are accused of weeping when they wish.I am not at all surprised at their talent.A live, sensitive, tender imagination can fix itself on some object, on some sorrowful memory, and picture it in such dominating colours that they wring tears from it.It is what happens to many actors, and principally to actresses, on the stage.
The women who imitate them in their own homes add to this talent the petty fraud of appearing to weep for their husbands, whereas in fact they are weeping for their lovers.Their tears are true, but the object of them is false.
One asks why the same man who has watched the most atrocious events dry-eyed, who even has committed cold-blooded crimes, will weep at the theatre at the representation of these events and crimes? It is that he does not see them with the same eyes, he sees them with the eyes of the author and the actor.He is no longer the same man; he was a barbarian, he was agitated by furious passions when he saw an innocent woman killed, when he stained himself with his friend's blood.His soul was filled with stormy tumult; it is tranquil, it is empty; nature returns to it; he sheds virtuous tears.That is the true merit, the great good of the theatres;there is achieved what can never be achieved by the frigid declamations of an orator paid to bore the whole of an audience for an hour.
David the capitoul, who, without emotion, caused and saw the death of innocent Calas on the wheel, would have shed tears at the sight of his own crime in a well-written and well-spoken tragedy.
It is thus that Pope has said in the prologue to Addison's Cato :-- " Tyrants no more their savage nature kept; And foes to virtue wondered how they wept."Philosophical Dictionary: Theist THEIST THE theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being as good as He is powerful, who has formed all beings with extension, vegetating, sentient and reflecting; who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness.
The theist does not know how God punishes, how he protects, how he pardons, for he is not reckless enough to flatter himself that he knows how God acts, but he knows that God acts and that He is just.Difficulties against Providence do not shake him in his faith, because they are merely great difficulties, and not proofs.He submits to this Providence, although he perceives but a few effects and a few signs of this Providence: and, judging of the things he does not see by the things he sees, he considers that this Providence reaches all places and all centuries.
