Press enter after choosing selection

Philosophy, Scholarship

Philosophy, Scholarship image
Parent Issue
Day
23
Month
January
Year
1895
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

When President Angelí introduced Wm. E. Eussell last evening he said that the Massachusetts ex-governor was an eminent example of what we have been hearing so much about in tliese days - the young man and the scholar in politics. As to his being a young man, the appearances are all in his iavor without a word being said ; and as to his scholarship the address of last evening ought to remove any previous prejudice that anyone may have had against him on that score. His lecture was certainly the best prepared, most thoughtful and philosophical that any lecturer has given in the S. L. A. course for many a day. His address was not one of those in which the speaker depends upon the applause of his audience for his inspiration. It was one in which only the most thoughtful would be interested. It was characterized by the reasoning of a statesman rather than the politician. And his diction is so replete with studied, vigorous English that the expression alone, regardless of thought, holds the strict attention of an audience. Last evening he held the large crowd without a break, which fact is very much in his favor. As the subject "Individualism in Government - A Plea for Liberty" - would suggest, Mr. Kussell's words were entirely along the line of political philosophy. He began his address with brief reference to the collegiate Hfe, speaking of it as a great inspiration Yet he would not have it tend to exclusiveness. The fact of a collegiate education involves the duty of going into all the world and preachint the Gospel of truth. Education oughg not to be content to bound its influence in narrow limits. lts mission is service, not contemplation. The speaker alluded to democracy in its broad sense, and remarked that to him it meant also a political conviction. He spoke of the young man's place in political life, saying that the young men and women of to-day were embarrased less by their youth than by their responsibility. One hundred years ago Lessing declared his age one of coming enlightment. The same is true now. Utopia is not here. The presentís a time of abstract discussion of ïovernment. At such a time, when the idea of eombination is rife, it is not arniss tospeak of the individual : to assert the power and place of the individual in free government. Mr. Russell said he proposed to pay homage to the idea; not as between absolutism and anarchy but as the law of self-protection. The speaker said he did not mean to uphold crankiness. He meant individualism in which we trace the root of man when God breathed upon him and became a living soul. On this individualism Le Conté built his philosophy. On it is built all society. Science points the telescope at the solitary star, not at the whole heavens. The idea is true of man more than of science. All the commands of God are addressed to the individual, not to society in general. His command is, "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." The same idea is true of law in its rights and duties. Communities are not indicted : individuals are. Law deals with man as an individual moral agent. A right suggests a reniedy. Rights are innate. Remedies rests in governinent. The possibility of government rests upon man's association. The success of government must recognize the individual's right, it must protect him and must [establish institutions for the development and education of the people. In early ages there was not recognition of the individual. The central idea of government was control. The idea of compact grew out of this and with it carne Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and flnally freedom. With us the struggle has terminated in a democracy. The ballot gives man a personal privige, and as it controls others it gives him a trust. The question arises "what way government do and what may it not do? How far rnayit restrict the individual?" First comes anarchy. lts devotees say that government is inadequate. It must be destroyed. With it they would destroy rights, the result of centuries of development. They would go back to confusión and chaos out of wfaich we hav.e emerged. From that they would evolve a body politie, not from above but rather from the nether world. The theory of individualism is that protection is the limit of the gove.rnmental function. Then arisesthe question, "What is protection?" We must recognize the steady growth of incquality. Inequality from distribution is intensified by the power of wealth. Is government interference necessary to get individual rights? Our inter-state commerce ánd anti-trust acts say that it is. Labor, too, may combine in imions with gevernment sanction. It is not a functiou of government, however, to guaran tee opportunity. Labor cannot interfere with the right of the individual. Individualism like socialism insists upon education. It does not, however, believe in clothing the people ; weakening the motive for advance. Giving the individual freedom to use his own, and retaining him from injuring others is the creed of individualism. The idea of socialism is for all to take care of each, instead of each man caring for himself. It annihilates individual efï'ort. If, under such influences it can exist, it makes iudividual effort superfluous. "Train each according to ; his strength ; to each according to his ! need" is unjust. Socialism or collectivism inaugurates slaver-. Any acheme running contrary to , ism of man is wrong. Socialism flrst, individualism second is contrary to the law of God.

Article

Subjects
Old News
Ann Arbor Courier