\ 
i 
F 
797-] 
finite variety of pleafant fenfations of 
which an animated being is fufceptible. 
It is popularly diftinguifhed from plca- 
fure, as including a longer period, buta 
more temperate and moderate degree of 
enjoyment. The exquifite and intenfe 
gratifications of fenfe foon exhauft the 
frame; and, if too long continued, deftroy 
the organs of fenfation, They occupy 
too fhort a portion of human life, to 
equal, in importance, the lefs vehement, 
but more durable enjoyments of percep- 
tion, recollection, and comparifon, which 
conftitute the intelleét. 
I am ftil! unable to conceive how hap- 
pinefs can be otherwife eftimated than by 
the compound confideration of its inten- 
fity and duration: Mr.’ T. claffes this 
affertion with the other erroneous and 
pernicious conclufions he undertakes to 
refute; but this was, doubtlefs, a flip of 
the pen. Jam equally unable to con- 
ceive how fruth and jfadfebood fhould be | 
predicated of pleafure, or how any teft of 
worth can be applied to’ that which, in 
itfelf, is the only ABSOLUTE GOOD; 
and for the attainment of which, the 
energies of intellect are but the inftru- 
ments. 
I cannot follow Mr. T. in his compli- 
cated definitions, for I do not underttand 
them. J am not yet initiated into the 
myfteries of ancient metaphytics, and, 
therefore, cannot comprehend how ‘‘ the 
nature, or being, of a thing confifts in 
that part of the thing which 1s mof excel- 
lent ;’’ or how this is proved, becaufe 
** nothing can have amore prineipal fub- 
fiftence than being.”’ 
The following fentence is, however, 
intelligible, and includes fo much of Mr. 
T.’s {cheme of happinefs, that if I fuc- 
ceed in refuting it, { may be excufed the 
trouble of replying more at large. 
“ As different animals have different 
perfeétions, their felicity alfo is different s 
and hence, if the human differs from the 
brutal f{pecies, it is ridiculous to place 
human happinefs in the. gratification of 
appetites which we poffels in common 
with brutes.” 
It feems to be here forgotten, that the 
logical arrangements of beings into genus 
and fpecres, is the artificial contrivance of 
philofophers, in which, however ingeni- 
oully or abfurdly formed, ature has no 
‘concern. There are not two fubtiances 
exifting which have not fome common 
properties, and which may not, there- 
fore, be fpecifically, or generically, claff- 
ed together; in like manner, every fub- 
fiance has diftinét and appropriate qua- 
Montusy Mac. No. xxl, 
Repl to Mr. Taylor on Happinefs. 
93 
lities, which demand a diftinét and indi-« 
vidual confideration. 
If, in eftimating the happinefs of man 
(one fpecies of the genus, animal) we 
muft not take into our account the plea- 
-furés which other fpecies of the fame 
genus enjoy; neither in calculating the 
happinefs of the sdivuidial (Mr. Tay- 
LOR, for inftance) muft we include thofe 
intelle€tuai powers which he exercifes in 
“common with other: individuals, who, 
as well as himfelf, ‘* energize according 
to the fummit and flower of their 
nature:’’ for, if the felicity of different 
animals -be different, becaufe they have 
different perfeétions ; fo muft the felicity 
of every individual be different, fince he 
too has perfetions peculiar to himfelf. 
Happinefs, furely, arifes from a feries 
of individual fentations, which are not 
more ér lefs pleafant, becaufe other indie 
viduals feel the like. 
Accurately to appreciate the worthy 
that is, the intenfity and duration of every 
pleafure, is the duty of every rational 
being; and experience fufiiciently proves 
the fuperiority of mental enjoyment. 
Independently of this experience, I muft 
confefs I fee no ground of preference, 
@ priori, between the corporeal and men- 
tal enjoyments. 
I muft deny the affertion of Ariftotle, 
that intellectual pleafures are not pre-= 
ceded by pain, fince I cannot imagine 
how curiofity fhould ever have been ex- 
cited, but by the evmu: arifing from want 
of employment, the hunger of a vacant 
mind. : 
I agree with Mr. T.-in deeming the 
prefent fubjecét important; for it does 
not feem reafonable to expeét that men. 
will eagerly purfue the means ull they 
have a clear perception of the end; but 
I think that end cannor be clearly per- 
ceived till fimplicity take the place of 
myftery; and, till our notions of happi-« 
nefs be made to reft upon the clear 
foundation of a€tual enjoyment, inftead 
of being made dependent upon ‘“ the 
proper perfection of a vital being.” 
_ SINBORON. 

To the Editor of 3 the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
[TX the Britith Critic, for July, p. 17, 
is the following paragraph : “* That 
bafe defeétion of the French troops from 
their officers in 1790, which the defign- 
ing or ill-informed advocates of the re- - 
volution vauntingly afcribed to patriot- 
ifm, has been long acknowledged by the 
oO French 
