The Scottish Philosophy [60]
died at the Hague, Jan. 31, 1748.[25]
Turnbull was the first metaphysician of the Scottish -- I believe of any -- school to announce unambiguously and categorically that we ought to proceed in the method of induction in investigating the human mind. He takes as the motto of his " Moral Philosophy " the passage from Newton about the method of natural philosophy being applicable to moral subjects, and the line of Pope, " Account for moral as for natural things." His enunciations on this subject are as clear and decided as those of Reid and Stewart in after ages. "If a fact be certain, there is no reasoning against it; but every reasoning, however specious it may be, -- or rather however subtle and confounding, -- if it be repugnant to fact, must be sophistical." It must have been from Turnbull that Reid learned, even as it was from Reid that Stewart learned, to appeal to common language as built on fact or universal feeling. "Language not being invented by philosophers, but contrived to express common sentiments or what every one perceives, we may be morally sure that where universally all languages make a distinction there is really in nature a difference." Reid only catches the spirit of his old master, who speaks of " philosophers who, seeking the knowledge of human nature not from experience, but from I know not what subtle theories of their own invention, depart from common language, and therefore are {100} not understood by others, and sadly perplex and involve them selves." In some respects, his exposition of the method is more comprehensive and correct (so I believe) than that given by Reid and Stewart; inasmuch as he avows distinctly that, having got facts and ideas from experience, we may reason deductively from them, in what Mr. J. S. Mill calls the deductive method, but which is in fact a joint inductive and deductive method. He sees clearly that in natural philosophy there is a mixture of experiments with reasonings from experiments; and he asserts that reasonings from experiments may have the same relation to moral philosophy that mathematical truths have to natural philosophy. " In both cases equally, as soon as certain powers or laws of nature are inferred from experience, we may consider them, reason about them, and compare them with other properties, powers, or laws." He instances among the moral ideas which we may compare, and from which we may draw deductions, those of intelligence, volition, affection, and habit. Moral philosophy is described by him as a mixed science of observations, and reasoning from principles known by experience to take place in or to belong, to human nature. In his preface to Heineccius, he says that the appended " discourse upon the nature and origin of laws is an attempt to introduce the experimental way of reasoning into morals, or to deduce human duties from internal principles and dispositions in the human mind." In following this method, he claims to be superior to Puffendorf, to Grotius, and the older jurists.
Proceeding in this method he discovers, both in matter and mind, an established order and excellent general laws, and on this subject quotes largely from his contemporaries Berkeley and Pope. He constantly appeals to these laws as illustrating the divine wisdom; and to the excellence of laws as justifying the divine procedure, despite certain incidental acts which may flow from them. As inquirers discover these laws, science is advanced; and he dwells as fondly on the progressiveness of knowledge as Bacon had done and as Stewart has done.
In particular, he shows that if we look at human nature as a whole, and at its several parts, we shall find beneficent general laws. He discovers in our constitution means to moral ends, and the science of these means and ends is properly {101} called moral philosophy. He shows that by such a study we can discover what are natural laws; and that, in all well-regulated states, the sum and substance of what is called its civil laws are really laws of natural and universal obligation adding that "civil law adopts
Turnbull was the first metaphysician of the Scottish -- I believe of any -- school to announce unambiguously and categorically that we ought to proceed in the method of induction in investigating the human mind. He takes as the motto of his " Moral Philosophy " the passage from Newton about the method of natural philosophy being applicable to moral subjects, and the line of Pope, " Account for moral as for natural things." His enunciations on this subject are as clear and decided as those of Reid and Stewart in after ages. "If a fact be certain, there is no reasoning against it; but every reasoning, however specious it may be, -- or rather however subtle and confounding, -- if it be repugnant to fact, must be sophistical." It must have been from Turnbull that Reid learned, even as it was from Reid that Stewart learned, to appeal to common language as built on fact or universal feeling. "Language not being invented by philosophers, but contrived to express common sentiments or what every one perceives, we may be morally sure that where universally all languages make a distinction there is really in nature a difference." Reid only catches the spirit of his old master, who speaks of " philosophers who, seeking the knowledge of human nature not from experience, but from I know not what subtle theories of their own invention, depart from common language, and therefore are {100} not understood by others, and sadly perplex and involve them selves." In some respects, his exposition of the method is more comprehensive and correct (so I believe) than that given by Reid and Stewart; inasmuch as he avows distinctly that, having got facts and ideas from experience, we may reason deductively from them, in what Mr. J. S. Mill calls the deductive method, but which is in fact a joint inductive and deductive method. He sees clearly that in natural philosophy there is a mixture of experiments with reasonings from experiments; and he asserts that reasonings from experiments may have the same relation to moral philosophy that mathematical truths have to natural philosophy. " In both cases equally, as soon as certain powers or laws of nature are inferred from experience, we may consider them, reason about them, and compare them with other properties, powers, or laws." He instances among the moral ideas which we may compare, and from which we may draw deductions, those of intelligence, volition, affection, and habit. Moral philosophy is described by him as a mixed science of observations, and reasoning from principles known by experience to take place in or to belong, to human nature. In his preface to Heineccius, he says that the appended " discourse upon the nature and origin of laws is an attempt to introduce the experimental way of reasoning into morals, or to deduce human duties from internal principles and dispositions in the human mind." In following this method, he claims to be superior to Puffendorf, to Grotius, and the older jurists.
Proceeding in this method he discovers, both in matter and mind, an established order and excellent general laws, and on this subject quotes largely from his contemporaries Berkeley and Pope. He constantly appeals to these laws as illustrating the divine wisdom; and to the excellence of laws as justifying the divine procedure, despite certain incidental acts which may flow from them. As inquirers discover these laws, science is advanced; and he dwells as fondly on the progressiveness of knowledge as Bacon had done and as Stewart has done.
In particular, he shows that if we look at human nature as a whole, and at its several parts, we shall find beneficent general laws. He discovers in our constitution means to moral ends, and the science of these means and ends is properly {101} called moral philosophy. He shows that by such a study we can discover what are natural laws; and that, in all well-regulated states, the sum and substance of what is called its civil laws are really laws of natural and universal obligation adding that "civil law adopts