Moral Philosophy

BACON AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY
BY Allama Muhammad Yousuf Gabriel
www.oqasa.org
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 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.
Allama Muhammad Yousuf Gabriel
Adara Afqar e Gabriel Quaid e Azam Street Nawababad Wah Cantt Distt Rawalpindi Pakistan.
Yousuf_gabriel@yahoo.com
www.oqasa.org