Le Figaro of April 3
rd, 1868 contained the following letter about the debates that took place around that time in the Senate, regarding certain lessons taught at the School of Medicine.
“Paris, April 2nd, 1868. Mr. Editor,An error that concerns me slipped from the last talk given by Doctor Flavius. I did not attend Mr. Sée's inaugural lecture last year, and therefore I have no saying in this matter. Furthermore, it is an error of form and not of the substance, but to each one according to their actions. My name must be replaced by that of my friend Jaclard, who does not believe in an immortal soul any more than I do. And to tell the truth, I hardly see, in the whole Senate, someone other than Mr. Sainte-Beuve who dared, on the occasion, to entrust us with the care of his molars or the management of his digestive tract. And since I have the floor, allow me one more word. We must put an end to a joke that is starting to get annoying, besides having an air of retreat. The School of Medicine, says Dr. Flavius, stronger in childbirth than in philosophy, is neither atheist nor materialist; it is positivist. But what is positivism, if not a branch of that great materialist school that goes from Aristotle and Epicurus to Bacon, to Diderot, to Virechow, Moleschoff and Büchner, not counting the contemporaries and compatriots whom I do not name - and for good reason. The philosophy of A. Comte had its usefulness and its glory at a time when Cousinism[1] reigned supreme. Today that the flag of materialism has been raised in Germany by illustrious names, in France by young people among whom I am proud of and have the pretension to count myself, it is good that positivism goes back to its modest role. Above all, it is good that it does not affect materialism any longer, its master and ancestor, a disdain or reticence that are inopportune, to say the least. Receive, Mr. Editor, the assurance of my highest consideration. A. Regnard,Former hospital intern." Materialism, as we see, also has its fanaticism; only a few years ago it would not have dared to display itself so boldly; today, it openly defies spiritualism, and positivism is no longer radical enough to its eyes; it has its public manifestations, and it is publicly taught to the youth; it also has what it reproaches in others, intolerance that goes as far as intimidation. Imagine the social state of a people imbued with such doctrines!
These excesses, however, have their usefulness, their reason of existence; they frighten society, and good always comes out of bad; it takes the excess of evil to make people feel the need for the better, without which man would not come out of his inertia; he would remain impassive in the face of an evil that would be perpetuated, thanks to its insignificance, while a great evil awakens his attention and makes him seek the means of remedying it. Without the great disasters that took place at the beginning of the railroads, and that were terrifying, the small, isolated accidents, passing almost unnoticed, the safety measures would have been neglected. It is with moral as it is with physical: the more excessive the abuse, the shorter the term.
The primary cause of the development of incredulity, as we have said many times, is in the insufficiency of religious beliefs in general, to satisfy reason, and in their principle of immobility that forbids any concession on their dogmas, even in the face of evidence; if, instead of staying behind, they had followed the progressive movement of the human mind, always keeping themselves at the level of science, it is true that they would differ a little from what they were in the beginning, as an adult differs from the child in the cradle, but faith, instead of dying out, would have grown with reason, because it is a necessity for humanity, and they would not have opened the door to disbelief that undermines what is left of it; they reap what they have sown.
Materialism is a consequence of the time of transition in which we live; it is not progress, far from it, but an instrument of progress. It will disappear by proving its insufficiency for the maintenance of social order, and for the satisfaction of serious minds who seek the why of everything; for that, it was necessary to see it at work. Humanity, that needs to believe in the future, will never be satisfied with the void it leaves behind, and will seek something better to fill it.
[1] Related to Victor Cousin (1792-1867) T.N.
