★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
from succeeding<add>is</add> it in French. Think of the <foreign><hi rend="underline">Principe de moindre action</hi></foreign> - There you<lb/> | from succeeding<add>is</add> it in French. Think of the <foreign><hi rend="underline">Principe de moindre action</hi></foreign> - There you<lb/> | ||
have match for it. Was it not one of Leibnitz's? What could I do? When I came out with <del>the</del> <lb/> | have match for it. Was it not one of Leibnitz's? What could I do? When I came out with <del>the</del> <lb/> | ||
in or was in the fragment, I took it from Hume's Essays. Hume was in all his glory<lb/> | in or was in the fragment, I took it from Hume's Essays. Hume was in all his glory,<lb/> | ||
the phrase was consequently familiar to everybody. The difference between Hume & me<lb/> | |||
is this, the use he made of it, was - to account for that which <hi rend="underline">is</hi>, I to show what <hi rend="underline">ought to be</hi>.<lb/> | |||
After that, Paly without noticing me use it, in the sense I used it in. What I should have<lb/> | |||
done was — taking up Priestly's phrase: the greatest happiness of the greatest number;&<lb/> | |||
speaking of it under the denomination of a principle, but, the place I found it in was the<lb/> | |||
tail of a small pamphlet which was very little read, & neither by him nor any one else<lb/> | |||
had any application been ever made of it. Happiness is much nearer the mark than utility,<lb/> | |||
there may be a utility which stops short of the only materials of happiness, | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} |
to is: that is to say in English. What should hinder Principe du plus grand bonheur
from succeedingis it in French. Think of the Principe de moindre action - There you
have match for it. Was it not one of Leibnitz's? What could I do? When I came out with the
in or was in the fragment, I took it from Hume's Essays. Hume was in all his glory,
the phrase was consequently familiar to everybody. The difference between Hume & me
is this, the use he made of it, was - to account for that which is, I to show what ought to be.
After that, Paly without noticing me use it, in the sense I used it in. What I should have
done was — taking up Priestly's phrase: the greatest happiness of the greatest number;&
speaking of it under the denomination of a principle, but, the place I found it in was the
tail of a small pamphlet which was very little read, & neither by him nor any one else
had any application been ever made of it. Happiness is much nearer the mark than utility,
there may be a utility which stops short of the only materials of happiness,
Identifier: | JB/010/129/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 10. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1822-09-06 |
|||
010 |
|||
129 |
jb qsp to dumont aux philosophes pres geneve copy |
||
002 |
|||
correspondence |
3 |
||
recto |
|||
richard doane |
g & r turner |
||
edward wakefield |
|||
copy of letter 2918, vol. 11 |
3565 |
||