Laus Iracundiae and Against Materialism

Laus Iracundiae	Against Materialism
By Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney r. Samuel Johnson is said to have exclaimed, 'I do love a good hater.' This representative specimen of the John Bull was taught by his sturdy good sense to pierce the hypocrisy of your model gentleman, with perfect composure. The literary dictator's knowledge of human nature taught him that when one is crossed, it is his instinct to be angry; so that the apparent absence of emotion is more correctly to be ascribed to deceit than to sanctity. Hence, the bluff, hearty man, who made no concealments of his antipathies, and who was wont to ease his mind by some good volleys of sound, candid hard names, is much more likely a man of truthful and honest impulses than the pretentious philosopher, who assumes to be above the sense of injury. We can imagine the old gentleman, in his lively way, defending his naughty opinion against the pious horror of some Miss Nancy in male or female attire: 'My dear madam, is not wrong the opposite of right; and is not injury the counterpart of beneficence? By the same impulse by which the well-constituted mind responds to truth and right with approbation, and to beneficence with gratitude, must it meet error or vice with reprobation, and injury with resentment. These contrasted emotions are but the two poles which respectfully attract and repel the same magnet, the human heart. If the pole of repulsion be but feebly shunned, we shall expect the pole of attraction to be languidly sought. Hatred tranquilly worded is no more to be confided in than love coldly expressed. By the same reason that one professes to be able to regard his enemy without resentment, I should suspect him of being capable of behaving to his friend without affection. Your languid hater must ever be your languid lover. Give me, then, by all means, a good, honest hater. Remember, my dear madam, that it was not anger simply which the Prince of Peace himself condemned, but being "angry with our brother without a cause." To be angry where there is a cause is inevitable nature. He, therefore, who affects to be above anger, makes me suspect that his virtue is not supernatural, but hypocritical. He who is angry may be guilty of injustice; he who is incapable of it must be equally incapable of generous ardor in his friendships. Better the generous foe than the snaky friend,' etc., etc.	From a letter of Dr. J. H. McNeilly, concerning a visit he had with Dr. Dabney. remember in a conversation he [Dr. Dabney] asked me about a certain German materialist, who was lecturing then in some cities of the Mississippi valley. He asked me what was the gist of the lecture. I told him that it was a denial of the existence of a soul or of any spiritual principle, that there can, therefore, be no life after this for man, as his mind is simply a product of physical organization, and when the organization returns to dust, is disintegrated, then mind ceases; that there is no God, no responsibility to God, no right and wrong; that man is to be guided by what he finds best for his comfort and happiness here. I then said, 'Doctor, suppose you had to meet such a man in argument before an audience, how could you answer him, seeing there is no common ground for you to stand on?'' He sat for a minute or two, as if studying it over, then he sprang up to his full height, buttoning his coat about him-and he was a magnificent specimen of manhood-with eyes flashing, he strode forward, as if on a rostrum, and said, 'I would call on the audience and say, "Let's kill this fellow! It cannot hurt him more than taking away a short time of his fleshy life. It cannot be wrong, for there is no such thing as wrong. Bu experience we have found that such ideas as his bring great trouble to the world, and produce much unhappiness; so, for our own comfort and peace, let us kill him, and so save ourselves all such trouble." Then I would say to him: "Of course, you are in no danger, we are not going to kill you; but your safety depends on that very spiritual sense of right which you sneer at."' I said, 'Doctor, that would certainly be the argumentem ad hominem.' 'Yes,' said he; 'but it is absolutely the only argument to which such cattle are amenable.'

By Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney

r. Samuel Johnson is said to have exclaimed, 'I do love a good hater.' This representative specimen of the John Bull was taught by his sturdy good sense to pierce the hypocrisy of your model gentleman, with perfect composure. The literary dictator's knowledge of human nature taught him that when one is crossed, it is his instinct to be angry; so that the apparent absence of emotion is more correctly to be ascribed to deceit than to sanctity. Hence, the bluff, hearty man, who made no concealments of his antipathies, and who was wont to ease his mind by some good volleys of sound, candid hard names, is much more likely a man of truthful and honest impulses than the pretentious philosopher, who assumes to be above the sense of injury. We can imagine the old gentleman, in his lively way, defending his naughty opinion against the pious horror of some Miss Nancy in male or female attire: 'My dear madam, is not wrong the opposite of right; and is not injury the counterpart of beneficence? By the same impulse by which the well-constituted mind responds to truth and right with approbation, and to beneficence with gratitude, must it meet error or vice with reprobation, and injury with resentment. These contrasted emotions are but the two poles which respectfully attract and repel the same magnet, the human heart. If the pole of repulsion be but feebly shunned, we shall expect the pole of attraction to be languidly sought. Hatred tranquilly worded is no more to be confided in than love coldly expressed. By the same reason that one professes to be able to regard his enemy without resentment, I should suspect him of being capable of behaving to his friend without affection. Your languid hater must ever be your languid lover. Give me, then, by all means, a good, honest hater. Remember, my dear madam, that it was not anger simply which the Prince of Peace himself condemned, but being "angry with our brother without a cause." To be angry where there is a cause is inevitable nature. He, therefore, who affects to be above anger, makes me suspect that his virtue is not supernatural, but hypocritical. He who is angry may be guilty of injustice; he who is incapable of it must be equally incapable of generous ardor in his friendships. Better the generous foe than the snaky friend,' etc., etc.