The Pelagians deny grace, and attribute all the merit of good works to liberty.The Fourierists, who teach that man's nature and passions are good, are reversed Pelagians; they give all to grace, and nothing to liberty.
The Socinians, deists in all other respects, admit an original revelation.Many people are Socinians to-day, who do not suspect it, and who regard their opinions as new.
The Neo-Christians are those simpletons who admire Christianity because it has produced bells and cathedrals.Base in soul, corrupt in heart, dissolute in mind and senses, the Neo-Christians seek especially after the external form, and admire religion, as they love women, for its physical beauty.They believe in a coming revelation, as well as a transfiguration of Catholicism.They will sing masses at the grand spectacle in the phalanstery.
For my part, I am not at all surprised, although at present I have no recollection of it.One thing is sure,--that my superstition and credulity reached their height at the very period of my life which my critics reproachfully assign as the date of my Fourieristic beliefs.Now I hold quite other views.
My mind no longer admits that which is demonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the methods of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and induction which excludes error.Of my past OPINIONSS I retain absolutely none.I have acquired some KNOWLEDGE.I no longer BELIEVE.I either KNOW, or am IGNORANT.In a word, in seeking for the reason of things, I saw that I was a RATIONALIST.
Undoubtedly, it would have been simpler to begin where I have ended.But then, if such is the law of the human mind; if all society, for six thousand years, has done nothing but fall into error; if all mankind are still buried in the darkness of faith, deceived by their prejudices and passions, guided only by the instinct of their leaders; if my accusers, themselves, are not free from sectarianism (for they call themselves FOURIERISTS),--am I alone inexcusable for having, in my inner self, at the secret tribunal of my conscience, begun anew the journey of our poor humanity?
I would by no means, then, deny my errors; but, sir, that which distinguishes me from those who rush into print is the fact that, though my thoughts have varied much, my writings do not vary.
To-day, even, and on a multitude of questions, I am beset by a thousand extravagant and contradictory opinions; but my opinions I do not print, for the public has nothing to do with them.
Before addressing my fellow-men, I wait until light breaks in upon the chaos of my ideas, in order that what I may say may be, not the whole truth (no man can know that), but nothing but the truth.
This singular disposition of my mind to first identify itself with a system in order to better understand it, and then to reflect upon it in order to test its legitimacy, is the very thing which disgusted me with Fourier, and ruined in my esteem the societary school.To be a faithful Fourierist, in fact, one must abandon his reason and accept every thing from a master,--doctrine, interpretation, and application.M.Considerant, whose excessive intolerance anathematizes all who do not abide by his sovereign decisions, has no other conception of Fourierism.Has he not been appointed Fourier's vicar on earth and pope of a Church which, unfortunately for its apostles, will never be of this world? Passive belief is the theological virtue of all sectarians, especially of the Fourierists.
Now, this is what happened to me.While trying to demonstrate by argument the religion of which I had become a follower in studying Fourier, I suddenly perceived that by reasoning I was becoming incredulous; that on each article of the creed my reason and my faith were at variance, and that my six weeks' labor was wholly lost.I saw that the Fourierists--in spite of their inexhaustible gabble, and their extravagant pretension to decide in all things--were neither savants, nor logicians, nor even believers; that they were SCIENTIFIC QUACKS, who were led more by their self-love than their conscience to labor for the triumph of their sect, and to whom all means were good that would reach that end.I then understood why to the Epicureans they promised women, wine, music, and a sea of luxury; to the rigorists, maintenance of marriage, purity of morals, and temperance; to laborers, high wages; to proprietors, large incomes; to philosophers, solutions the secret of which Fourier alone possessed; to priests, a costly religion and magnificent festivals; to savants, knowledge of an unimaginable nature; to each, indeed, that which he most desired.In the beginning, this seemed to me droll; in the end, I regarded it as the height of impudence.No, sir; no one yet knows of the foolishness and infamy which the phalansterian system contains.
That is a subject which I mean to treat as soon as I have balanced my accounts with property.
It should be understood that the above refers only to the moral and political doctrines of Fourier,--doctrines which, like all philosophical and religious systems, have their root and _raison d'existence_ in society itself, and for this reason deserve to be examined.The peculiar speculations of Fourier and his sect concerning cosmogony, geology, natural history, physiology, and psychology, I leave to the attention of those who would think it their duty to seriously refute the fables of Blue Beard and the Ass's Skin.
