It was, I think, on account of their
self-evidency that many persons were led to consider them abstruse. It
is to Bon-Bon- but let this go no farther- it is to Bon-Bon that Kant
himself is mainly indebted for his metaphysics. The former was
indeed not a Platonist, nor strictly speaking an Aristotelian- nor
did he, like the modern Leibnitz, waste those precious hours which
might be employed in the invention of a fricasee or, facili gradu, the
analysis of a sensation, in frivolous attempts at reconciling the
obstinate oils and waters of ethical discussion. Not at all. Bon-Bon
was Ionic- Bon-Bon was equally Italic. He reasoned a priori- He
reasoned also a posteriori. His ideas were innate- or otherwise. He
believed in George of Trebizonde- He believed in Bossarion. Bon-Bon
was emphatically a- Bon-Bonist.
I have spoken of the philosopher in his capacity of restaurateur.
I would not, however, have any friend of mine imagine that, in
fulfilling his hereditary duties in that line, our hero wanted a
proper estimation of their dignity and importance. Far from it. It was
impossible to say in which branch of his profession he took the
greater pride. In his opinion the powers of the intellect held
intimate connection with the capabilities of the stomach.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25