Stuk 6 - Richard Jones to William Whewell

Brasted - RJ wants the article by Quesnay [François Quesnay] from the French Encyclopaedia. It is true as RJ expected - 'metaphysics and reasoning had little to do with the origin of the Oeconomists - poor Boisguilbert [Pierre le Pesant, Sieur de Boisguilbert] was their real founder as these articles successively written by Quesnay shew very satisfactorily - the first a copy as to matter - the second an approach to abstraction and after that came his Books and those abstractions bound into a system and connected with the doctrine of evidence which he had before written upon independently all which additions almost were good for nothing - Galiani [Ferdinand Galiani] laughs at the evidence in one of his dialogues'. WW 'must get these dialogues and read them or read them here they are the wittiest and cleverest things ever written and they are good for nothing after all but to laugh at'. RJ wants to talk to WW about the phrase metaphysics of mathematics. RJ finds the terms 'metaphysics' and 'metaphysical' meaningless mongrel terms which 'offer themselves to every blockhead who will use them to fly in the face of any one who puzzles him besides standing sentry to drive away the conviction of his own ignorance whenever it approaches him. I want to shut them up in their own kennel - now I wonder what metaphysical means do you know? I don't'. Does it mean beyond nature, after nature or anything relating to spirit; 'is it to be interpreted by reference to the Scholastic division of sciences and does it in this sense always include the philosophy of mind inductive physiological and speculative and is it not possible and right to claim for the inductive philosophy an exemption from being included in it and in which of these sense or in what other do you mathematicians use it when speaking of the doctrine of infinities etc do you consider questions about the nature of power metaphysical and why? Do we not all sometimes use the term in such a sense that it includes reasonings on any subject where we have no power of observing facts or appealing to our senses or consciousness for a basis and is this a literal or metaphysical sense of it. In short what are its literal, or various literal, and various figurative meanings and above all to what precise literal meaning have its different figurative meanings separately reference? Is this not so indistinctly perceived by all who use the word as to be what gives it its vagueness and latitude? What do we mean by the metaphysics of languages. Is there any thing metaphysical in examining how far a sign answers its purpose of indicating a thing signified. The sign is not metaphysical nor the sign signified if we exempt the inductive philosophy of mind from the domain of the term but granting the metaphysics of language to be a proper phrase should it not be carefully confined to language considered abstracted and with reference only to the mind where notions it expresses and never extended to the subjects about which that mind is conversant if not what subject is not metaphysical? and is not some confusion on this head another cause of its vagueness? What the devil can the pure metaphysics of political economy mean? see Ed. Rev. [Edinburgh Review] on Lauderdale - Is not the man who talks so mistaking the difficulties of language for the difficulties of the subject about which language is employed and is he not thus puzzling and deceiving himself and other people - and lastly (cry out thank God) does not metaphysical in common parlance and sometimes in literary gossip or scribbling mean any thing whatever the talker or writer finds too hard for him and ought not the use of the phrase or any phrases connected with meaning cannot be assigned to be taken at once if as a confession of ignorance'. It would take RJ 'another sheet of paper to tell all the reasons for my wrath and anxiety to introduce a little day light and order amongst this darkness and confusion besides the Oeconomists and Turgot[,] Say[,] Galiani etc. etc. a new offender a Comte Hauterive [Alexander Maurice Blanc de Lanautte] who has grown old in office has written a Book for the instruction of young statesmen in which amongst - hundred similar is the following luminous definition - The organisation of labor is the total of human labors considered in the universality of their relations'. RJ warns WW that 'as soon as metaphysical is allowed to mean deep and to be extended to all subjects then come darkness and poetical analogies made into abstractions and big words set up for things and abomination of all sorts'. RJ wants WW to help him carve a space for his political economy.