What do you think?
Rate this book
The Practical Philosophy: Being the Philosophy of the Feelings, of the Will, and of the Con-Science, With the Ascertainment of Practicular Rights and Duties
Written by R. L. Dabney
Secular totalitarianism versus Christian liberty.
Beige cloth with black lettering on spine. 560 pages.
Secular totalitarianism versus Christian liberty.
Beige cloth with black lettering on spine. 560 pages.
- GenresPhilosophyEconomics
560 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1998
4 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
About the author
Robert Lewis Dabney
153 books42 followersRobert Lewis Dabney (March 5, 1820 – January 3, 1898) was an American Christian theologian, a Southern Presbyterian pastor, and Confederate Army chaplain. He was also chief of staff and biographer to Stonewall Jackson. His biography of Jackson remains in print today.
Dabney studied at Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Virginia (M.A., 1842), and graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 1846.
He was then a missionary in Louisa County, Virginia, from 1846 to 1847 and pastor at Tinkling Spring, Virginia from 1847 to 1853, being also head master of a classical school for a portion of this time. From 1853 to 1859 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and polity and from 1859 to 1869 adjunct professor of systematic theology in Union Theological Seminary, where he later became full professor of systematics. In 1883, he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy in the University of Texas.
By 1894 failing health compelled him to retire from active life, although he still lectured occasionally. He was co-pastor, with his brother-in-law B. M. Smith, of the Hampden-Sydney College Church 1858 to 1874, also serving Hampden-Sydney College in a professorial capacity on occasions of vacancies in its faculty. Dabney, whose wife was a first cousin to Stonewall Jackson's wife, participated in the Civil War: during the summer of 1861 he was chaplain of the 18th Virginia regiment in the Confederate army, and in the following year was chief of staff to Jackson during the Valley Campaign and the Seven Days Battles.
After the Civil War Dabney spoke widely on Jackson and the Confederacy. He continued to hold racial views typical in the South before the Civil War, and his continued support of slavery in speeches and a book published after the war and his strong loyalty to the Confederacy until the 1890s made him a visible figure in the post-war South (Hettle, 2003).
While at the University of Texas he practically founded and maintained the Austin School of Theology (which later became Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and in 1870 was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
Major works
Memoir of Rev. Dr. Francis S. Sampson (1855), whose commentary on Hebrews he edited (1857);
Life of General Thomas J. Jackson (1866)
A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (1867), an apologia for the Confederacy.
Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric (1870)
Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (1871; 2nd ed. 1878), later republished as Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology (1878)
Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Examined (1875; 2nd ed. 1887)
Practical Philosophy (1897)
Penal Character of the Atonement of Christ Discussed in the Light of Recent Popular Heresies (1898, posthumous), on the satisfaction view of the atonement.
Discussions (1890-1897), Four volumes of his shorter essays, edited by C. R. Vaughan.
Dabney studied at Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Virginia (M.A., 1842), and graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 1846.
He was then a missionary in Louisa County, Virginia, from 1846 to 1847 and pastor at Tinkling Spring, Virginia from 1847 to 1853, being also head master of a classical school for a portion of this time. From 1853 to 1859 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and polity and from 1859 to 1869 adjunct professor of systematic theology in Union Theological Seminary, where he later became full professor of systematics. In 1883, he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy in the University of Texas.
By 1894 failing health compelled him to retire from active life, although he still lectured occasionally. He was co-pastor, with his brother-in-law B. M. Smith, of the Hampden-Sydney College Church 1858 to 1874, also serving Hampden-Sydney College in a professorial capacity on occasions of vacancies in its faculty. Dabney, whose wife was a first cousin to Stonewall Jackson's wife, participated in the Civil War: during the summer of 1861 he was chaplain of the 18th Virginia regiment in the Confederate army, and in the following year was chief of staff to Jackson during the Valley Campaign and the Seven Days Battles.
After the Civil War Dabney spoke widely on Jackson and the Confederacy. He continued to hold racial views typical in the South before the Civil War, and his continued support of slavery in speeches and a book published after the war and his strong loyalty to the Confederacy until the 1890s made him a visible figure in the post-war South (Hettle, 2003).
While at the University of Texas he practically founded and maintained the Austin School of Theology (which later became Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and in 1870 was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
Major works
Memoir of Rev. Dr. Francis S. Sampson (1855), whose commentary on Hebrews he edited (1857);
Life of General Thomas J. Jackson (1866)
A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (1867), an apologia for the Confederacy.
Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric (1870)
Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (1871; 2nd ed. 1878), later republished as Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology (1878)
Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Examined (1875; 2nd ed. 1887)
Practical Philosophy (1897)
Penal Character of the Atonement of Christ Discussed in the Light of Recent Popular Heresies (1898, posthumous), on the satisfaction view of the atonement.
Discussions (1890-1897), Four volumes of his shorter essays, edited by C. R. Vaughan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 14, 2022
Dabney, R. L. The Practical Philosophy. 1897. Reprint, Harrisonburg, VA. Sprinkle Publications, 1984.
It’s the current year. Nothing I can say can (or should) excuse Dabney’s more egregious faults. I’ll only say this: apply the same standard across the board. Aristotle believed in abortion and didn’t believe women were fully human. Plato believed in sexual communism. Evangelicals voted for Trump. Which historical figure can stand in that great day?
Should one read Dabney? That depends. (It’s the current year.) Should one make him a staple of his theological diet? Probably not. That honor would go to Shedd or Hodge. On the other hand, if one wants to understand 19th century American intellectual thought (not simply Reformed thought), Dabney is required reading, if only to attack him. (It’s the current year.)
We can take it a step further. There aren’t many Reformed treatments on the emotions and the will. Before Richard Muller I can think of…well, none. If you want to understand how 19th century thinkers, both Christian and non-Christian, thought about the will and the soul, then you have to read Dabney. You simply won’t find any detailed treatment of faculty psychology from an American Christian on these issues.
In what is perhaps a surprising move from a Reformed theologian, Dabney stresses the importance of feelings. There can be no motive or action without feeling (Dabney 5). Feelings do not ebb or flow, only their intensity does. A state of calm is just as much “feeling.” Feelings are not independent, though. As he later writes, “Feelings are conditioned on the presence before the intellect of an appropriate cognition” (105).
To feel nobly is better than to think acutely. A noble incentive of generous feeling energizes the will, which whets the intellect. Dabney makes a distinction between sensibilities and appetencies (10ff). Sensibility is passive; desire is active. Desire or appetency: the soul acts from inward to outward (11). There is an element of spontaneity. Sensibilities are the occasions for the outflow of appetencies. My free agency doesn’t come into play when I experience sense impressions. This distinction necessary for free agency. Appetencies are the essential element for motive (14). A mere feeling is not necessarily a sensibility.
Book II is the most important part of the book, as he analyzes the nature of the will. When one chooses, one chooses something. This object presents itself to the mind as both attainable and good. The “conjoined function of judgment and appetency…prompts our own volition; it is the spirit acting in both these concurrent modes” (141). Our appetencies can remain dormant for a time. Our volitions do not.
It is better to speak of a “Free soul” than a free will. Faculties act efficiently on faculties. “Thought is the soul thinking,” etc.The soul determines volition, “and that soul is self-determined to volition, and therefore free”(151). God’s foreknowledge doesn’t compromise the freedom of a creature (154). An infinite mind can arrange for the certain occurrence of an act. The fatalist sneaks in a hidden premise: God can only work through compulsory means. Our motives determine all our deliberate volitions (158). Inducements are objects of our desire that are capable of stimulating our sensibility. Motives are subjective appetencies
Argument: Whatever we deliberately choose, “it is because we have a motive for our choice” (168). To persuade someone, we have to get him to move his will to some inducement (172). This isn’t the cause of his actions. We have to change his subjective disposition. While we maintain free agency, we do not believe the will is in equilibrium at the moment of the choice. It is in some sense determined by “prevalent antecedent motives” (190). Up to this point, Jonathan Edwards is correct. (He erred in making God the sole efficient cause in Original Sin).
The second half of the book deals in practical philosophy. Dabney refutes various ethical theories. Of particular interest is utilitarianism and Jonathan Edwards’ hedonism. Jonathan Edwards’ view: virtue is benevolence to being in general (220). “Every judgment of beauty is analyzable into a perception of order and harmony.” New England Theology: love to being in general became affection of benevolence.
Refutation: Scripture doesn’t define love to God as benevolence to being in general. Loving God’s holiness is not the same thing as affection for kindness. This ethics is unworkable for most of humanity. The average peasant mother doesn’t care about benevolence to being in general. On this reasoning, a son is better off saving a great stranger than his own father.
Dabney’s true genius lies in his take on wealth and economics. (In one of the strangest ironies, he sounds very close to Tim Keller and the TGC men). Dabney has an excellent section on wealth that avoids communist decadence on one hand and gangster capitalism on the other hand. We can desire wealth within its proper limits: The desire must not become inordinate (84ff). The desire must propose itself to pure and just objects. It must never become inequitable.
Unlimited luxury is sinful. God gives us wealth so that we may be stewards. It is objected that spending money on luxury items provides income for those who produce them. Dabney responds: these luxuries “create wider mischief” (471). It degrades those who use them, and redirects capital and energy away from nobler pursuits.
On usury: medieval scholasticism said usury was wrong because money cannot reproduce. This is a fallacy because we know that capital lent does create new values (489). Moreover, usury laws merely drive up the prices of goods. Lenders know that their loans will become riskier. This means the supply of money is diminished and the demand is now increased. The prices go up.
In conclusion, this is a valuable primary text for studying 19th century religious thought. Be that as it may, Dabney’s other views will prevent this from being more widely read.
It’s the current year. Nothing I can say can (or should) excuse Dabney’s more egregious faults. I’ll only say this: apply the same standard across the board. Aristotle believed in abortion and didn’t believe women were fully human. Plato believed in sexual communism. Evangelicals voted for Trump. Which historical figure can stand in that great day?
Should one read Dabney? That depends. (It’s the current year.) Should one make him a staple of his theological diet? Probably not. That honor would go to Shedd or Hodge. On the other hand, if one wants to understand 19th century American intellectual thought (not simply Reformed thought), Dabney is required reading, if only to attack him. (It’s the current year.)
We can take it a step further. There aren’t many Reformed treatments on the emotions and the will. Before Richard Muller I can think of…well, none. If you want to understand how 19th century thinkers, both Christian and non-Christian, thought about the will and the soul, then you have to read Dabney. You simply won’t find any detailed treatment of faculty psychology from an American Christian on these issues.
In what is perhaps a surprising move from a Reformed theologian, Dabney stresses the importance of feelings. There can be no motive or action without feeling (Dabney 5). Feelings do not ebb or flow, only their intensity does. A state of calm is just as much “feeling.” Feelings are not independent, though. As he later writes, “Feelings are conditioned on the presence before the intellect of an appropriate cognition” (105).
To feel nobly is better than to think acutely. A noble incentive of generous feeling energizes the will, which whets the intellect. Dabney makes a distinction between sensibilities and appetencies (10ff). Sensibility is passive; desire is active. Desire or appetency: the soul acts from inward to outward (11). There is an element of spontaneity. Sensibilities are the occasions for the outflow of appetencies. My free agency doesn’t come into play when I experience sense impressions. This distinction necessary for free agency. Appetencies are the essential element for motive (14). A mere feeling is not necessarily a sensibility.
Book II is the most important part of the book, as he analyzes the nature of the will. When one chooses, one chooses something. This object presents itself to the mind as both attainable and good. The “conjoined function of judgment and appetency…prompts our own volition; it is the spirit acting in both these concurrent modes” (141). Our appetencies can remain dormant for a time. Our volitions do not.
It is better to speak of a “Free soul” than a free will. Faculties act efficiently on faculties. “Thought is the soul thinking,” etc.The soul determines volition, “and that soul is self-determined to volition, and therefore free”(151). God’s foreknowledge doesn’t compromise the freedom of a creature (154). An infinite mind can arrange for the certain occurrence of an act. The fatalist sneaks in a hidden premise: God can only work through compulsory means. Our motives determine all our deliberate volitions (158). Inducements are objects of our desire that are capable of stimulating our sensibility. Motives are subjective appetencies
Argument: Whatever we deliberately choose, “it is because we have a motive for our choice” (168). To persuade someone, we have to get him to move his will to some inducement (172). This isn’t the cause of his actions. We have to change his subjective disposition. While we maintain free agency, we do not believe the will is in equilibrium at the moment of the choice. It is in some sense determined by “prevalent antecedent motives” (190). Up to this point, Jonathan Edwards is correct. (He erred in making God the sole efficient cause in Original Sin).
The second half of the book deals in practical philosophy. Dabney refutes various ethical theories. Of particular interest is utilitarianism and Jonathan Edwards’ hedonism. Jonathan Edwards’ view: virtue is benevolence to being in general (220). “Every judgment of beauty is analyzable into a perception of order and harmony.” New England Theology: love to being in general became affection of benevolence.
Refutation: Scripture doesn’t define love to God as benevolence to being in general. Loving God’s holiness is not the same thing as affection for kindness. This ethics is unworkable for most of humanity. The average peasant mother doesn’t care about benevolence to being in general. On this reasoning, a son is better off saving a great stranger than his own father.
Dabney’s true genius lies in his take on wealth and economics. (In one of the strangest ironies, he sounds very close to Tim Keller and the TGC men). Dabney has an excellent section on wealth that avoids communist decadence on one hand and gangster capitalism on the other hand. We can desire wealth within its proper limits: The desire must not become inordinate (84ff). The desire must propose itself to pure and just objects. It must never become inequitable.
Unlimited luxury is sinful. God gives us wealth so that we may be stewards. It is objected that spending money on luxury items provides income for those who produce them. Dabney responds: these luxuries “create wider mischief” (471). It degrades those who use them, and redirects capital and energy away from nobler pursuits.
On usury: medieval scholasticism said usury was wrong because money cannot reproduce. This is a fallacy because we know that capital lent does create new values (489). Moreover, usury laws merely drive up the prices of goods. Lenders know that their loans will become riskier. This means the supply of money is diminished and the demand is now increased. The prices go up.
In conclusion, this is a valuable primary text for studying 19th century religious thought. Be that as it may, Dabney’s other views will prevent this from being more widely read.
December 23, 2018
Dabney always requires some serious thought - his writing is clear and logical but cannot be skimmed over. This volume is a collection of lectures he delivered to his students on the nature of man. Many alternatives to Christian ideas are thoroughly examined and refuted.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews