The Logos

<p>The term "The Logos" was also applied by some of the schools to this Universal Life Principle. &nbsp;The Logos was held to be the Creative Principle of Nature, objective in the world, giving order and regularity to the universe of shapes and forms which it had manifested. &nbsp;</p>

<p>

This idea of The Logos was inherent in many ancient religions, and permeated even early Christianity. &nbsp;Ueberweg, in his History of Philosophy, says: "The Logos was a being intermediate between God and the world....The Logos does not exist from eternity like God, and yet its genesis is not like our own and that of all other created beings; it is the first begotten son of God, and is for us, who are imperfect, a god....Through the agency of The Logos, God created the world, and has revealed Himself to it."</p>

<p>

In the early Christian Church there was much dispute

about The Logos, but the revolution in the Church, effected

by Constantine, drove it from its place of importance in the

Christian theology.&nbsp;</p>

<p>

But, nevertheless, the idea has persisted,

as witness Cudworth, the eminent English theologian and

philosopher (1617–1688) who held to the existence of a “Plastic

Nature,” of which he claimed: “It may well be concluded that<br />

there is a Plastic Nature, under God, which, as an inferior and

subordinate instrument, doth grudgingly execute that part of

his providence which consists in the orderly and regular motion

of matter;” Cudworth held that this idea of Plastic Nature was

reasonable in view of the fact that “the slow and gradual process

in the generation of things would be a vain and idle pomp, or a

trifling formality, if the moving power were omnipotent; as also

may be noted those errors and bungles which are committed

where the matter is inept and contumacious; which argues

that the moving power is not irresistible, and that Nature is

not altogether incapable of being sometimes frustrated and

disappointed by the indisposition of matter. An Omnipotent

Moving Power, being able to dispatch its work in a moment,

would always act infallibly and irresistibly, as no ineptitude and

stubbornness of matter would be able to hinder such a one, or

to make Him fumble or bungle in anything.” The Plastic Nature

of Cudworth, and his followers, was but the old Demiurge, or

Logos, of the Gnostics—but another name for the Universal

Living Creative Principle, subordinate to the Higher Law.<br />

&nbsp;

Modern philosophers and thinkers have held to this idea

of the Creative Principle, regarding it rather as a Life Principle

than as a Being, however. Bruno held the existence of an

anima mundi, or world‑soul‑principle; others have held to the

Principle of “Nature”; Schopenhauer held to the existence of

an Universal Will‑to‑Live, which manifested its life the universe

of shape and form and variety; von Hartman held that there

existed an “Unconscious,” or Creative Principle, similar to that

of Schopenhauer’s “Will”; Wundt held to the existence of an

“Universal Will”; Crusius held to an Universal Dominating Will;

Balzac held to a “Universal Something, akin to Will”; Nietsche

held to a “World‑Will”; Maeterlinck holds to a Life Principle;

Bernard Shaw postulates the existence of a Universal Creative

Energy which he calls, “The Life Forces.”<br />

&nbsp;</p>