Skip to main content

Full text of "Fugitive Essays"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 


Sooki bp Sfofiab Bopee. 

til* IngeraoU Lecture (or 1899. 16010, gilt top, $im». 

gilt top, Is. so. 

lamo, gilt top, |s.oo. 

CALIFORNIA. In Amirican CffmmomutaHhi S^- 
ritt. With Map. i6mo, gilt top, |, nw/. Post- 
age IS cents. 

Boston and Nkw York 



BOSnW ANI^ XFW vowt 

JUl righU r§i$rvtd 


BR yayinwT Asa> «sukii9Ti. ssoM^xmcs 
or ■» uxnKssfc. or x» <vcj»bi.» 
Ass» or 


Tim book «ke4oh^ iht^ biiai» of a ^y^tmk of ph)« 

la i^i^ioua im>Ueiiu8w Th^ fcMnu mid curdeir of thst 
ii^Uii^t tW)>t4itt t>u Htk^ miwh> of Uhx^ Uik^ prolh 
lt^iu» UieAua^v^ Mid m^ nol «u^ «i» a »y9toitt 

woiUd bd fr^ to takt^ Th^ n>Ugk)a« im>Utaii» luiy^ 
bi><m oba^Mi for Uu> {un^amit »twly bi^^u^ ih^y fiwi 

idl hum«ui iiitoiiMftts»« de«iMrvt> our be«»t dftirU Mid our 
utmost loyidty. 

A iMTgi^ portion of Uii» di»i>iis»iiou aaok» to upp^ 
boUi to iho «}HH>iid fttuiU^iit tif )diUo!»iik)ihy Mid to 
Ui^ I^No^Nr^d rtvtidor. A oou^d«mUo )imIi, ^^itmiit t^m 
inriib Uu> vt>ry Wt tif f^uiimo Kojh^ to intort^l ih» 
«pi^n«d «tiuU>iil of p)iUu^>)diy« but oMiuot ho\^ for 
iuori\ Tho l^rofiit^ iuu^aI UuMrtKfor^ toU vrb^t »ori of 
i^ppie^ i» luml^ to «^oli of tht^ two ivlMtsiHVA iif n>iid<Nr«% 

To b^^giii with th^ gt^uo«d r^Hidw* who iu»y bftvo 
ib« ourioaity to );^buivH> At tbut jdiUodMpUio i^iieM^s th» 

tI prsfaoe. 

author munt forthwith aotifuMN that whilo on tho ono 
hand ho dMniroN to trouble nobocly with fmitloNM And 
blank nof{ationi4, and whilo hin aim in tlioroforo on 
tho wholo a {Mmitivo aim, yot on tlio othor Imnd, an 
ho hai4 no ))roMont oonnootion with any viMiblo roli({- 
iouM iKMly, atul no Hort of doniro for any mioh oonnoo- 
tion, ho oannot bo oxpootod to writo an apology for 
a popular orood. ThiM oonfoiwion Im mado frankly, 
but not for tho nako of provoking a cpuirrol, and 
witli all duo rovoronoo for tlio faith of otlior mon» 
If tho fox who luul loNt hiM tail wa» fooliidi to b« 
poud of hid loHH, lio would tmvo boon yot moro fool- 
inh to hide it by woaring a faliio tail, Mtolon mayhap 
from a doad fox. Tlio full applioation of tho moral 
of tlu) fablo to tho pn^iont oaHO in moroover willingly 
aooeptod. Not an tho fox invitiMl hin friondi to 
imitato hin lorn, would tho ])roMont writor aim to 
mako otlior mon h>iio thoir faitlni. Kathor in it hii 
aim not to arotino f ruitloMM cpiarroU, but to oomo to 
flotno {maooful undorNtanding with hin foUowM totall- 
ing tho ultimato mimning and valuo and fcmndaticm 
of thin notoworthy ouitcmi, no widoly provalont 
amcmg im, tho ountom of having a roligicm. If tho 
author ondn by Ntating for hii own part a roligimin 
dootrino, it will yot l)o mm\ upon reading tlio namo 
that a man oould hold that and mtioh moro too ; m 
that what in hero «aid i« rather proponed an a banin 


fiMT n ccncMMvidjkk if wxy Ht off rMooMiUaiioii, thiA 
fti» an MguuMiit to di»raiiid» thoad n^ mny think 
ih»l th»y etn go f aiihi»r Uimi tlid mutlior) from 
IMroviiig in n jJ iil oao t A i egJ &ahioii irimtoTW Umj 
«iai pfovo» Sueh iM^opl^ mxj VBOMig^ la intoiiKfel 
wmy of lh» iM»giilioii» Uuil oe^or in thea^ pi^g^ aa 
dir^el^ ngmnsil an iniidequiil^ fomi, or iinpc^ile^A 
undwslftiidiiig^ of timr woi^ oUboml^ oi^« If 
dMj <mA do ao, no on^ will W mor^ lieaitilly d»« 
lighUd Uimi Ilia anUior, ahlioo|^ ba miqr nol i^praa 

A« lo Uia fdlalion of Uii» book to vhal i» eaUod 
wodmi doubly il ia a rdation nditbw of bUnd oba- 
dieoaa nor of unajmpatbatio rejaolion« Tba doo» 
trino of philowfilii^ idoaliam bora profioiaid^ ia nol 
wbal in tlio»a diqra ia po^kularily ealkd Agnoativ^iam* 
Y^ doubting OTf^xjrtbing ia on^ for all a m^i^oaaaiy 
^kiiMiil in tbd organlon of pbiloaopbio rdlaotion« 
Wbal ia b^ra dw^ll upon oY«r and orar again ia» 
bow«^YiNr« tbo t)onaid<»ration Ibal Iba doubisi of our 
tima ara nol to ba apol€gati€>all]r ^^rafutad^^^ in Iba 
okl faiduoiHHl aenae^ but tbal lakt^n jual aa tbay ara^ 
fully and «>onlially ftH.^aiv^^ tbay ara upon analyaia 
faund to eontain and imply a poaitiva and importani 
raligioua ef>e>4Ml« baaring botb upon eonduot and upon 
raalit)\ Not to bava on^^ tborougbly aee^pl^ aa 
naoaBsaiy tba graal pbiloaophio doubia and proUaoM 

49f imt An/f^ U ik\mY\y wAi Up imf^ ph\Upmph\ml m «i 
mm 4tf ttii# Hj(ti» lft«i Up h$if4$ m^miPU^ti iimm iUpuipU^ 
wi^mt in iitm 4'4ftnUif( Up tlmi tim i^^itiv^ inittt 
tfoni U ^m'Amkti in iimn^ (m Up irmi iimn m$ tim In* 
wpmni 1ii¥4priU$ ipf 1itfU$m Ut ti Mry UiU niwuyn ui 
tiwt timito Mn nmnfis', f(ih, H U mpt$P44Mnf( MPMuum 
Htul dinf(y^ mh/I im kyn it mrtiUmly tiwuy Ut hk 
mtufiy hffi$tm^ fmlUif( \ptPfpfMp i\mu t^ym, l^(t mm\ 
\mm\U U f^^^\ii\y^ Mu\ i\u^ itAry %\ii MU ym%f irM^ 
fi^nfm\ \mm ¥^\i\p % ¥fm\iU tff ^mtm Pitul HipUi^ mul 
n\frmfU tor ymi n, Wftpp^rtrnt^ Imim|«m4« To tim tmthdfr 
h$m iittttm t\iM tmu^ iUai mnUmt ^1/mU nmy \pt^ mpnm 
mu*\i Mry nfiH m# ihU, Atui im wmiM Him Up mg' 
f(mi Up pHmm rm4Un' wimi umy iHptmihly |m^4» tim 
tiffitl fpmhUtii iA mSnfi i\m U^Wmumu 

^T\m nmmfn\ tmA^^ if v^ ^ SpmmyoUmi^*^ nmy \m 
tkpU Up t^uXnm ifc« *♦ KJr^ \Stptpk ** 4pf iim iprmmi 
ytplnnm in >il# mtittdy j iti$t in tim ♦♦ Ht^anui Hfptpk ** 
tm will iUui nnmii iimi U nrntiui tmiy Utf tim p^mimt 
wii4pm UpU$r*mU$ nft^ ttiu^di^iiy UatimU^^ii. H4pnm wtim' 
lnf(H n.fti i^fmi Up tim U^nU Ut imip tim pi^mrtii rmti^r 
in niiiifiiinti, Ittii iH^m^m h tptny im w^ll fftf ipin 
imripfpm Up mptiUm iiUpimH Aiit mu'M in ilii^ iitHpii IL^ 
fUf imM, niPfpii tim ttp'nt r^^lir% Up tim foihfwUid |m#- 
mf(m^ tm^Ptmiy i Up < *im\tt^r VH f ^ Up tim Uitrtptipu^pfy 
fmpppiriiti mumI tim iir^t mul tim lA^i tm4^i4fpm 4ff tim 
i^mfpUtfi \ti i*ii$iipUfr fX/« Up tim intrmimfUpry r^ 

fllSPAOB* tz 

iniurk«i mid Seotiona L« II«« IIL« mid V* i in Cluq>tor 
X«t to ih^ iuiroduotory r«auiurka» «md S^tioua I«% 11%, 
Mid lV«s iu 0Iii4>tw XIn to Uio iutrodttotory ro« 
lunrkni «md Uio conolmliug M)otian only i mid Umui 
h» luny try tho wholo of Olmptor XIL Thiui he 
will not bo iroubltMl by tho tM>tmiofd utatomont ot 
tho proof of our dootriuo^ «md bo will m^ tbo trond 
of our tboiigbt) wbiob lui^ nt loMt muum) biiu« It 
bo h tbon «till ourioua» bo uifiy tidio bin own rialoi 
Mid look f Milior« 

Tbo iitudont of )ibib)aopby will find in tbia volumo 
n doi^trino tlmt uudortakoa tu bo in oortiun nignif^ 
ii>«uit ro»)HH^t>i indt))Hmdtmt und origiiudt but tbut, 
witbout ooaaing to bo tlio Hutbor'a own iiy«toni% 
fnmkly bolonga t^) Uio wido n>iUni of l\MiVKiintiMi 
Idoiili»in« Of iHnirAo no tnio lovor of )ibiloao)iby 
yonturoa« wbou bo onlla n dtn^trino bia own« tu pro- 
tt^nd t*^ moro tbtui tbo vory nuHlomto dogret^ tif rol- 
uti vo tmginality tbat tbo anbjoi>t in our day pormita ; 
luul oS iHnirao tbo autbt^r ftur biii own )iiirt ft)ola vory 
tUH^)dy bt>w muob what bo baa U^ t^or ia tbo protl- 
not t^f wbat bo baa bap)H>niHl to rtuid and rt>inomlH>r 
alnnit )JiiU^o)\hy and ita biati^ry* Mtiat id all bo 
fiH^la bia dobt to Kant ; tbtm bo knowa bow mui>b bo 
baa i^ntnl frtmi Fiobti\ frtun tbo nnnlorn NtHv-Kan- 
timivH in Oormany^ and frtun tbo rtn'ivora of idtuUiaui 
in Tooont yoara in Kngland and Aniorio^u To Uogol 


also he has of course a decided debt to acknowl- 

There are in recent philosophical history two 
Hegels : one the uncompromising idealist, with his 
general and fruitful insistence upon the great fun- 
damental truths of idealism ; the other the technical 
Hegel of the ^^ Logik," whose dialectic method seems 
destined to remain, not a philosophy, but the idea 
of a philosophy. With this latter Hegel the author 
feels a great deal of discontent ; to the other Hegel, 
whose insight, as we know, ¥ras by no means inde- 
pendent of that of Fichte and other contemporaries, 
but who ¥ras certainly the most many-sided and crit- 
ical of the leaders of the one great common idealistic 
moYement of the early part of the century, — to him 
we all owe a great debt indeed. It is, howeyer, a 
mistake to neglect the other idealists just for the 
sake of glorifying him. And it is an intolerable 
blunder to go on repeating what we may have 
learned from him in the awkward and whimsical 
speech of the wondrous and crabbed master. If 
Hegel taught anything, then what he taught can bo 
oonyeyed in an utterly non-Hegelian vocabulary, or 
else Hegel is but a king of the rags and tatters of a 
flimsy terminology, and no king of thought at all. 
It is therefore absolutely the duty of a man who 
nowadays supposes that he has any truth from He* 

imlividu^ fonu« Of ll^g^lUu lM^r^(ii|{0 r^^MmitHl to 
u» in \iiw^ ^ Ui^Imi Uuniyhtt wt» hAv« hm( by 

tliMik m^n whtK Uk^ th^ l»to Ituu^ntoil lH>of»)Mor 
()rt>0n« hAYt> tit liiAt In^m fr^ to h^mhUc tk^ir own 
thmi)tktM ywy wut4i in tht^i" own wiiy i Mid M u» bo 
IfUd txH) th»t th^ nunilH^ of WH^tnl ll^{(t>iiiuiMof 
viimiliui' ind«»})rad«mot^ i» d^ily fiH^winji {pr^tor« Tho 
iiut)H>r« bawt^vt»r« (»iinnot <)^ himw^ nn Ilegdiaiii 
mnt^b im h0 owt>« to Ut^ii^. 

Fnrtkt^r ^n^HH^i^ tioknowl<^{^it^nt« th^ mithor 
wtinta tt) nitikt) to IHHdWwir WiUimn Jiunti^tii^ to Mf. 
Miml worth HiH(t{«ion« to Ih^^t^iuior Otto l^^itlerar^ 
to t^)tt>Mior IImiw Yftihingt^v^ to tVoMiior Otto 
I^^lunMuu to lV^0Mior Jniiun tWrfttOMUu to IVo- 
f^wor <liri»t«^}4i Si);:wnrtt Mitl to Mr. Artlmr tUl- 
four« fttr tlio vtUiinUo \\%A\^ in tbtniiitbt tlmt% ^m« 
known to tlionu ho, am «i rt^tb^r tvf tk<;>ir work«« biyi 
Mu wi\i\ Umt ho now rtHH^iitt^i am diMtinotly Alf^t- 
injf tliU b«M4(« To IVoft^MHir WiilitMn JMnt>M onot» 
num^ in j^rUonlArt Ant( aImo to lVt4t^MMor (Wr^o 
IHUmort U)o nutktir owt>M nuni^rooM onU MogjimitttittM 
Umt hiivt> inttn^ncHHl him mort> thtin ht^ now oim ««• 
At^Uy tMtinmto or fnlty ^h^iI^^mm. And tk<;>n tktMN) 
rt^nniin twti UUnkt>rM to }\tm\^% m^n vt>ry diffi?4imt 
from «A^ oth^ri but botk fur tk« imtkur v^ ytlvt^ 

aUe. Of diMe me wan aanong die ftvt ct die Ger' 
flMii diisikeri in the ebanee ordisfr of iiie sutlhin^B 
early feadiog, die odier wan deeply tnfloeiidal bodi 
bjr hM spdcen wordu and bj hk wridngiw ; die Umaex 
M^diat brilliafit and ndtmiladsig mauler of eootnk 
dJedonn, S^bopeobatierf die odier in die noir de' 
parted Lotee^ whose leelttrei^ die attdior will iieir«r 
lorgel nor diimsgard, aldioagb what b here taog^ 
in remote enongb from moiit of Lotee^n sjrcitem^ 

In ottter form dm woric may be eonindered bjr die 
l^loMiphie irtudent an a iort of roughly dcetdied 
and rery im^omplete Phenomenology of die relig' 
iooM itotmAmmtmm^ iin$t on ite morale and dien on 
ite theoretk^ mde. The parte of die argnment thai 
die andior fmifpme§ to eonimn most reladre origi' 
nafiiy will be found in Bodi: L^ Chaptera VL and 
VILf and in Book IL, Cluster XL On dieie diap* 
tern all else hingea^ 

The dimmmifm ot die Problem of Eril^ an it ap* 
pear» in Chapter XIL, in, an die andior ha# «een only 
ainee diai chapter wan in type, rery elonely parallel 
to part of the dineonnion of the name qnention in the 
new neoond edition of Pfleiderer^n ^ Ueljgionn{>hilon' 
ophie/^ Yet, an the thooghte of thin new edition of 
Pfleiderer^n argument were indicated in bin ftmt edi- 
tion, although turt m clearly exj^enned, the audior 
elaimn little originality here, nave in the form of 


prQaentation« in the iUnatrations used, and in the 
x^erenoe of the whole to the argoments of Chapter 
XL This last matter seems to him, of itself indeed, 
quite important* 

The work as it here appears is an ou^rowth of 
several separate lines of study. The questions of 
the present Chapter XL were first attempted by the 
author in a thesis for the Dootor^s degree of the 
Johns IIo)>kins University in 1878« The argument 
has since been essentially altereil. Several fra^ 
ments that are here used as organic parts of the 
whole book have appeareil sej^arately, in various de- 
grtH>s of iniH>mpleteness« in the ^^ Journal of Specu- 
lative Philosophy/' in ^' Mind/' and elsewhere. The 
present form of the book has grown out of lectures 
on religious questiims ti> the students of Harvard 
College ; but imly a small portion of the manuscript 
of these lectures has entereil into the structure of 
the book« whicK for its o>vn part, tries to be no 
patchworks but a single united, if incomplete, study 
of its chosen problem* 




tNTttom*cTm?r ; lUuutoM Aft a Moral CotMt amd a« 

A TtiKimr 1 

L IVTUivo KIcnK^utnof IWIiinfm 3 

IL lUUU^m ttf Ki^liinim muI rhUo«o|4tj ...%.... 4 

in» Th« KMNmttiUii itf U<»lt|pimii IKwtTttio* » « . • 6 

IV. The IMmo of Ski^pticiMu in Uoligioun lliUoMplkx. . 9 





rnR ORNKRAt* KrniCAt. l^mtJCM. ...•«••.«••«• IT 

I. TIm^ I'Horitj of la^n in IMigimm Hiiliumtaix* ... 18 
II. Hm FnndMiMnua Difficulty nbmii all IdcRU 19 



L Tbo DiffiouUir nUmii tli« IilciU m it uppcHin in 

( Jrwf k *rhiHi|^t 

IL Th» tmnw Difficulty in Chriiitliin MmtOn 

IlL 8ttmnii%rT of the Difficulty thun fiir « 47 

IV. The Difficnltr m ilhut-mtctl hv the Doctrine of C^m* 

Kcience . « • M 

V. Qenend Samiiuurx mA 8kcptic«l Ketult * M 




Altruism aitd Eooibm in Cbrtaxm Regent Diboub- 


I. Uluatration of Certain Dootrinei about the Nature 

of Altruiim 03 

II. Ib Altruism Diflguiaed SolfUlmoiB ? 05 

III. Inquiry as to the real Di£forouoo between Altru- 

iiim and Solfliilmoiiii 00 

IV. If (}onuino Altrui«iu oannot now be DiBguiiod Belf- 

iMlmeHH, can Kvolution explain the Relations of 
the two ? 74 

V. Schoponliauer's Eif ort to define Altruism in Terms 

of the Emotion of Pity 85 

VI. Further Exi>lanation of Sohopenhauor's View. . . 89 

VII. The Selflshness and Cruelty that often are the Re- 

sult of Pity 04 

VIII. The Cruelty of the Happy, and the Selflshness a«- 

sooiated with active Sympathy 100 

IX. Rejection of Pity as the Bonis for a Distinction of 
Altruism aftd Egoism. Negative Result of the 
Chapter 104 


Etiiioal Skrptioirm and Etiiioal Prbbimibm 107 

I. The Skeptical Motive in Pessimism 108 

II. The Skeptical Motive in the Romantic Pessimism 

of Modern Poetry 110 

III. Ethical Skepticism in Mr. Balfour's Statement of 

its Positions 127 


tuE Moral Inbioiit 131 

I. Tlio Meaning of Ethical Skepticism, and the Ideal 

consetpteuily involved in it 131 

II. AuHwers to ( )bjections 141 

III. Application to the Problem of Altruism 146 

XABU OP oaniarnL xifi 

IT. SeMUhMB » HImm U» 

T. AAtraBMH; lu^iU 156 

TL Ikfr BadI CSoaffidt of Ite Scpuito UeAlB» wi Ite 

XatneoflteMaalLni^ ]6t 

chjlpter til 

The OBfiJkaazAXHEi OP Lds 171 

L IkeDtties of Ite fiisltClui Ii3 

IL IkfrlMKSoflteSccaiidCabB^micsfad&oBte 

doMsm. 18S 

HL Ikfr WoMk of Ite iBfiwUbnl 195 

IT. Ikfr FkuK of Liffividhnlim 201 

T. Tbt VmveesMk WOOL » aiwB^ «t OnsMoftiM. 

IMHiMi of tW Idnl SU 

TL AoBiiee to tW So^ of BoJiJ^ Sift 



The. Wckij> of Dotbt. 2SI 

Ml WoiU. TcsfMniT PVMtpwrwt of Ob 
Ksnssn of iftB BiflMtj. IfeWoddoflte 

IL IV FofMlir SeieMifiir CoHiqpl of tW WoiU 

tke B«%:wMBS lBs%HfioNKe of Ite Lnr of £n>- 

HL TV MoBisak Hkoeks of tW Emanl WotUl of 
tW F^onrasL Mtftii^iwml Mi BelisiMS DifB- 
«dhM»of tkft» TWnxitt 

IT. lIoHsa ukl tW PkvMm of Efil 

T. Doaissaie' TWkm a tbe W^xil of tke Kmbios,. iis 

M«capkTa«ftl «Bd B«%x«s IHfl&oilxKis 371 

TL Eiiqukdl IkeiBB aidL Ike Dttigm-Ai^;^^ 379 

Xfitt TABLB or COHTUTi. 

VIL BeliguMU LurigniAeaiice of tbe D«Hgii-Argiuiiiiit 

in tU World of the Powefs 283 

VIIL TIm Worid of tba Powofs m in iftMlf NooeManly 

a World of DouU 286 


TeS WoBLD of the P06TULATE« 201 

I. Pofitulatofl in Soienee and Religion 292 

II. Hie General Nature and Use of Postulates 297 

m. Postulates in tbe Notion of the External Worid. . 299 
lY. Psychological Analysis of the Postulates of Com- 
mon Life. Beliefs in Reladon to the Will .... 306 
Y. The Postulates of Science Defined. Hie Religions 
Use of the Postulates. Transition to a Hi^ber 
Point of View 324 


JjJiEAUAU • 333 

I. The General Nature and Religious Uses of Philo- 
sophical Idealism 333 

XL Idealism as an Hypothesis founded on Postulates. 
A Modification of the Berkeleyan Hypothesis 
stated 337 

IIL Explanation and Justification of this Hypothesis, 
aa Simple and Fair. Subordination of the Pos- 
tulate of Causation to other Postulates. Criti- 
cism of the Notion of ** Possible Experience ". . 354 

IV. Difficulty aa to the Nature of Error, and Transi- 
tion to Absolute Idealism. Religious Conse- 
quences anticipated. 370 


Ehb Possibility of Ebrob 384 

L Sketch of the History of the Investigation 386 

IL The Doctrine of the Total ReLitiyity of Truth 

and Error 390 




ni. The IVohleiD of Uie Nature of Error iiUted 996 

IV. ISjeikologioia A5pe«i of Uie PtoUeiD 408 

V. The Prohl^ia in Case of Enrors about one's Fel- 

low-Beings ,.«..,.... 406 

VI. The IVoblem in Case of Errors about Matters of 

Eiperienee • • • 417 

VII. Summarr and Solution of tbe Ph>blein ^^Ojf/ 

VIIL Answer to tbe Objeetion tbat views Eiror as 

bareljr IHwsible 496 

IX. Absolute Idealism as tbe Result of tbe Cly^pter* • 431 


Tbk RiujGiors In»iout 436 

I. General Surrejr and Religious Aspeet of Philo- 
sophical Idealism as stated in the previous Chap> 

ter 437 

II. The Doctrine of the Abeolute Iliought as Pnleet 441 

UI. TheProblemof EvU 418 

I\\ The World of the P^Mtulates and the Eztenial 

World onoe more • • 460 

V. The Conception of Moral Progress 461 

VI. PnMjtiMl Bearings of the Doctrine 468 

Epiloqvs • • • 475 


iNTm^mnmoN ; rruoion a8 ▲ moiul a>i>E and 


Wm m fiKht^r UUuK« h«i«»i| 

An dim :^^n und MrgM 0«bl» 


iNTRNmNQ in tlu' blowing {ingids ti> »ki>toh oortidu 
phQo^>l>hic optutous Uiat ^huu to him U> hav« a 
n^ligious iH^artiig^ tlu> mithor mus»t In^gin by »tAUug 
what ho uudorstsauU ti> Ih> thi> n«tun^ of n>li|ci<>n^ 
imd h^>w ho oimiH>ivtv» philo^>phy to bo rokitoii to 

Wo »i>oak o^miiuouly of roli^ous toolings mid of 
roligiiHia l)olto£» ; but \vo llnd difiioiilty in «igrooing 
alnmt what mako8 olthor boliof^ or toolings ndigiimt% 
A tooling is not i\>ligious moroly Ihhnmim it b strongs 
m>r yot l>ooauso it is also morally valuaMo^ nor yot 
lH>causi^ it is olox^totU If tho strongtli and tho 
moral valuo of a tooling miulo it roligiotuk )>atriot> 
ism \nHild bo n>ligion« If olo>*atii>n of f^Hding wi^ro 
>«DOitgh^ all highor artistio t>motion wimld l>o rolig^ 
ions* Hut suoh >no\vs \vi>uld so^nu to uuvnt jn^rs^ms 
vory in«uloipmti\ As ft^r Miof^ it is not roligious 
mo-n>ly U'cciusi^ it is a l>oliof in tho suiH>mat.ural« 
Not mo.n>l Y is su)H'r«tition as suoh vory dii^Mront from 


rt)li((ioni but evou a Invliof in OoA aH tlio hi((hoat o( 
lunnpi nooil not bo a roligiouH l)oliuf. If La PlacH) 
luul noedod wlmt he oidlod *^ that hyimthotUM/* tho 
Doity, whon iiitriHluoiHl into hia ooloMtial iuoo]iaiiioii| 
would have Ihh>u but a umtliematiiuil Hyiuboli or a 
foruuila like Taylor*a theoreiUi — no tnie objeet of 
religious veueratiuii. On Uiu other luiud, Spiuoia'a 
ini)H)rsoual SubHtauoUi or the Nirv&iia of tlie Bud- 
dhiata, or any one of luaiiy like uoUoum, may hav6| 
eitlier tui dootriuea about the world or as idealu of 
huuuui oouduot) iuuueuae religious value. Very 
muoli tliat wo amiooiato witli religion ia tliereforo 
uon-etiHeiitial to i*eligion. Yet religion in Honietliing 
iinliitie in Inuuan boKef and emotion, and must not 
be dissolved into any lower or more oommonplaoe 
dements. What then is religion ? 


So much at all events seoms sure about religion, 
. It has to do witli action. It is im]KMisible witliout 
I some appearance of moral pur]H)se. A totally im- 
moral rtUigum may exist ; but it is like a totally un- 
seawortliy sliip at sea, or like a rotten bank, or like 
a wild-cat mine. It deceives its followers. It pre- 
tends to guide them into morality of some sort If 
it Ih blind or wicked, not ita error makes it religious, 
but tlic faitli of ItM followers in its worth. A relig* 
ion may tt^ach the men of one tribe to torture and 
kill men of anotlier tribe. Btit even such a religion 
would pretend to tt^ach right conduct Keligioni 
howeveri gives us more than a moral code. A moral 


oode fJonOt wiih ita ^^ Thou ahfJC* would be no more 
religious than is the oivil code. A reUgion adds some- 
thing to the moral oode« And what it adds is, first» \ 
enthusiasm* Somehow it makes the faithful regard ! 
the moral law with devotion, reverence, love. By 
histor J, by parable, by myth, by ceremony, by song, 
by whatever means you will, the reUgion gives to the 
mere code life and ?rarmth« A religion not only 
commands the faithful, but gives them something 
that they are glad to live for, and if need be to die 

But not yet ha>*e we mentioned the element of re* 
liglon that makes it especially interesting to a stu* 
dent of theoretical philosophy. So far as we have 
gone, ethical philosophy would criticise the codes of 
various religions, while theoretical philosophy would 
have no part in the work. But, in fact, religion al- 
ways adds another element Not only does religion 
teach devotion to a moral code, but the means that 
it uses to this end include a more or less complete 
theory of things. Beligiou says not merely do and 
ftely but also Mitvt. A religion teUs us about the 
things that it declares to exist, and most especially it 
tells us about their relations to the moral code and 
to the religious feeling. There may be a religion 
without a supernatural, but there cannot be a relig- 
ion without a theoretical element, without a state- 
ment of some supposed matter of fact, as part of 
the religious doctrine. 

These three elements, then, go to constitute any 
religion. A religion must teach some moral code, 
must in some way inspire a strong feeling of devo* 

4 TiiK tiKUOtoutt AiinccT or rmuHioraY. 

tinn to itmt (^ikIo, nttit In mo iloitiK ttittiii nhow MOttuh 
iUUiff In tttn nniurn of ilihiKM timi lutiiwnni io ihn ockUi 
or itmi M«rv(tM to rtfinforcHi th« f lulling. A religion 
in tttiirnfom prtu^iictiU, onuaioniU, nnct ituM^iDikml i it 
UtiM*hfM tin to (to, to fiH)l, nnd to Irallfivtt, iinil it teiU)lMNi 
thfl \w\M M n mnanii to itii tooahlng of tbo Motion 
und of tho fooling. 


Wn nmy now moo how ])hit(Mo])hy in rolntod to ro- 
ligion. IMiilowipliy im not dirodtly oonoomod with 
fooling, hut l»oth m*tlon itnd iNiliof nro dimot ohjootn 
/of philoMophioiil oriticlMni. And on tlio crthin* tiiuidi 
in MO fftf AM phlloMopliy MuggoMiM gonofitl mloM for 
oondtK^t, or iUmoummom tito tttoorloM nlMMit tho worldf 
jdtiloMopliy muMt Imvo n ndlglouM AMpimt. lioligion 
invltoM tho Morntlny of phUoMophy, unit philoMophy 
nmy not nogloot tho prohloniM of roligicm. KnntV 
fundnmmtUil prohloniM: IVhnf, do I kmn^f unit 
Whni ouff/U / to (to f nro of rollgiouM IntoroMt no 
loMM thfin of phihmophio intonmt. Tttoy luik how 
tho highoMt thought of fUAU MtmtitM roltttod to hiM 
highoMt umoiIm, Atid whnt In tlilngM nuMWorM to our 
lioMt {(IphIm. Huroly nr> ono ought to four Munh quoM- 
tiouM, nor ought nny philoMophio Mturlont to hoMitnto 
to MuggoMt in nuMWor U\ thoni wtmtovor nftor iltm 
roflm«ti(»n ho hfuioMtly onn MuggoMt, ]io«»r nnd tontn- 
tlvo thinigh It nmy Ini. In fmtt thoro Im no dofouMo 
for ono ttM Minooro thinkor if, nndortdliing to \^y nt- 
ti*ntion to phihmoptiy am muoIi, ho willfully or thought- 
loMMly nogli«otM Muoh prfddomM on tho grruuid thAt ho 
bAM no timo for th«m. Huroly ho hAM timo to lio not 

nmtODCCTioN. 6 

BierdiT m student of philosophy^, bat ilso m maiii, mud 
these things are mmong the essentials of humanity, 
which the non-philosophic treat in their way, and 
whidi philosophic students must treat in theirs. 

When, however, we say that the thinker must 
study and revere these questions, we must not fancy 
that because of their importance he may prejudge 
Uieni. Assumptions, postulates, cr priori demands, 
these indeed are in all thinking, and no thinker is 
widiout such. But prejudice, L e. foregone conclu* 
skms in questionable matters, deliberate unwilling^ 
ness to let the light shine upon our beliefs, all this 
is foreign to true thought. Thinking is for us just 
the clarifying of our minds, and because clearness is 
n ece ssa ry to the unity of thought, necessary to lessen 
the strife of sects and the bitterness of doubt neces- 
sary to save our minds from hopeless, everlasting 
wandering, therefore to resist the clarifying process, 
even idiile we undertake it, is to sin against what is 
best in us, and is also to sin against humanity. De- 
liberately insincere, dishonest thinking is downright 
bhufihemy. And so, if we take any interest in these 
things, our duty is pbin. Here are questions of tre- 
mendous importance to us and to the world. We 
are sluggards or cowards if, pretending to be philo- 
sophic students and genuine seehers of truth, we do 
not attempt to do something with these questions. 
We are worae than oowards if« attempting to con- 
sider them, we do so otherwise than reverently, feaiv 
leasly, and honestly. 

im uPAfUipm AM^m w tma^mmfs 


#^:#^ H^H4t M^ i^Utp'^ fff mmtjjf ^^/ Ht^ f^4 mf'Vm^, 
W^ /wv« f^4, MHiUciii ¥i/hU ^\m wm Umrfmi hffm tmf 

mn W4, fH MjiP'^^t pi^ttii Ht^mt, itm kiwi t4 ^fH^Um 

ffffM^iti^ f^tiffyfrn iw/|wMy/ Vi^^fUt ^tifs^ ^^y ^*" 

M pMi^yppm ^i^Ui^.- ^f)tp^ mpiHjf fpf dl^ m^jifffti^imm 
pA¥t¥f^ i\m ^/Kig WfW^K^ /r^' M^ f^fi*^^rtii^ i^mi ^mfpU \mvH 
ipp pppipui witpfpi M^ isiU *4 p-4i0^m.' t im ppim ^/pmUi 
ipp WfppMff ftnl^pni tm^,^ ppp' ^yw Hh^P'p^ Ui f^^t^^- 
ptp'Pti.- Ap4^4iHfp Hp4^U titppiimihjf Uf im UU UUt^ tAtj^ 
^a ppiSS^fp^ ^pipp^tpn^m,- f^ HPPfiUpfp' fiP%if*ity iuiMiM 
thpUr iUp^ t tpiUf^^fphU miipiti^ Ui^^ pMiffi^p^m Umf^f^ffft, 
^ffW U U f^fpppp4rUUif£ Uf im pipp^p^ U* piupp'psp^ua M 
p^m^i*fPi^ p^pfpi il ^tm mpm4 t0^p( /w pppipmp^', W« 

PitpMtt fUi t^^PPPHUipiH if #^ mijf tip^t PHPi i/APiPl^ ii U i\M 

ir^ tfPiUJM, Ui pm^k,' A«/< M/^ Ipppp^jAppji wm^Uppplipppm 
pppp^ Mp pp^ ipi iUU ^ppjf,' pt^Ptpi if wiml^ ftp\Up¥fpi pAuppM 
^m ^hAif ipp^p^i^K' Vf^ w*t \mifH ifM U* f^iP^ p^ 
Ap^il^ppp Mm4 ^#M pi%\tP'pm^ p^fi pimp'P^if ¥/\iPpl, h 

fWM(/M PH- H't^pUfiif^ m' pp, iUfPPiiM ppp' p^* H*ffi^tifpp4 

ppi*mPi^ ip^ Uif^ pp^iiaV^^i imi wiiipA mU pp^p^pp tt^tcr^^imPPi 
pppptm ipjf ppAif0tPHi 'thfjf mU w/n^ pppiif^ppp Ut A^ppH 

urrnoDUOTioN. T 

for them tbeir daty« to give tbeiu the heart to do it» 
and to point out to them auoh things iu the real 
work! aa ahall help them to be steadfast iu their de« 
Yotion to duty« When people pray that they may 
be matte happy^ they still dt^n^ to learu what they 
are to do iu order to become happy « Wheu saiuts 
of any ereed look up to their GihI as their only good« 
they are aeeking for guidauiH) iu the right way« 
The savages of whimi we ht^ar so muoh nowadays 
have indeed low forms of n^ligiou^ but these rolig- 
ions of theirs still require them to do somethings and 
tell them why it is worth while to do this« and make 
them more or less enthusiastic in doing it Among 
ourselves^ the poor ami the limely^ tlie dt^solate and 
the affiietetU when they demand rt^ligious etuufiu'tt 
want something that sliall tell them wtiat to do with 
life« and how to take up ouih) mim) the bunlens of 
their broken e^isteniH>« Ami the religious ))hili^>-\ 
phers must submit to tlie same tt^st that humanity > 
everywhere proposes to its religious* If one tries 
to regulate our diet by his theories^ he must have 
the one objeetk whatever his theory^ siniH^ he wants 
to tell us what is healthful for us. If he tells us to 
eat nothing but snow, that is his fault The true 
objeet of the theory of diet remains the same* And 
to if men have expressetl all sorts of ime-sidetU dis* 
heartening^ inatlequate views of rtJigiou, that iUhmi 
not make the objeet id religious thiH>ry k^ss oatholii\ 
ktts comprehensive, less tletlnitely human. A man 
who propounds a religious svstem must have a moral 
€ode» an emotional life, aiul stuue thet>ry of things to 
offer iia» With less we cannot be content lie need 


not, indeed, know or pretend to know very much 
about our wonderful world, but he must know some- 
thing, and that something must be of definite value. 
To state the whole otherwise. Purely theoretic 
philosophy tries to find out what it can about the 
real world. When it makes this effort, it has to be 
perfectly indifferent to consequences. It may not 
shudder or murmur if it comes upon unspeakably 
dreadful truths. If it finds nothing in the world but 
evil, it must still accept the truth, and must calmly 
state it without praise and without condemnation. 
Theoretic philosophy knows no passion save the pas- 
sion for truth, has no fear save the fear of error, 
cherishes no hope save the hope of theoretic success. 
But religious philosophy has other objects in addi- 
tion to these. Religious philosophy is indeed neither 
the foe nor the mistress of theoretic philosophy. Re- 
ligious philosophy dare not be in opposition to the 
truths that theory may have established. But over 
and above these truths it seeks something else. It 
seeks to know their value. It comes to the world 
with other interests, in addition to the purely tlioo- 
retio ones. It wants to know what in the world is 
worthy of worship as the good. It seeks not merely 
the truth, but the inspiring truth. It defines for it- 
self goodness, moral worth, and then it asks, What 
in thin world in worth anything t Its demands in 
this regard are boundless. It will bo content only 
with the best it can find. Having formulated for 
itself its ideal of worth, it asks at the outset: Ib 
there then^ anyvfhere in the univerne^ any real thing 
iif Infinite Worth t If this cannot be found, then 

tHTlOIHmiOM. 8 

wil IhMi only will itligiotti philotopliy hft fMmtait 
wilkkM. Tbi^ii il wiU ilill Mk : Wlk^miAUwodd 
U «rorCA mo$t t li cmnnol ttuJt« Kttlilm^ bul ii is 
dttMnniiMil to jadg« Ib^ni* li ctniioi b« oouleiil 
wilib btittd hxth^ and d«itiAiid» the Mluud tmUi M 
ittttfck M llMfOt^lie phikMoph^T detnundt ii ; but i«Ugw 
iM» phikM^pht Iraiite ihitt truth only m the nuUiertaL 
for iu iAml judgmeiitft. It •eeki the id«id among 

Cpoii Mich m qoe«t m thw* wo Mk the ioi(dor to m^ 
oomiMitiir 00 m the (oUowing pig«iu Wo hovo not 
ifiMO to be oaduMutttt!^^ nor in tmd to offer much 
Moro thin «ogg«»tion» : but we wont the tugg«i4ions 
to be oxpliciu wad we hope thol they moy ctimubto 
oowe reifdei"* ond mor perhop« help him in oiKuplel* 
bg ha own troini of thought 

BMipIo oome to tuch queotion« o» theoe with oer* 
loin prejudiceo obout the method ond spirit of in- 
quirir : and oil their in(Mrk moy be hompere^l by theoe 
pt ojo d i eog k Let n» »oy v^t o little more of whot wo 
think tu to thin matter* There oi>^ two osctremeo to 
loor in loligiottff philooi^phy : indifiorenoe that artseo 
tiom a dogmatic di«pii«ition to deny* and tunklity 
thai aruKO tiom an oxtomve «how of reverence kvr 
the objecto of religious faith* Both of theoe extremo 
moods havo their defective methods in dealing with 
religious philosophy* The over^«kep(icol man looks 
with impatience on all lengthy discussions of theoe 
topfea. Theio can be nothing in it alU ho mj%^ 


nothing but what Hume, in an eloquent passage, 
called sophistry and delusion. Why spend time to 
puzzle over these insoluble mysteries? Henoe his 
method is: swift work, clear statement of known 
difficulties, keen ridicule of hasty assumptions, and 
then a burning of the old deserted Moscow of the- 
ology, and a bewildering flight into the inaccessible 
wintry wastes, where no army of religious philoso- 
phers shall follow him. Now for our part we want 
to be as skeptical as anybody ; and we personally al- 
ways admire the freedom of motion that pure skepti- 
cism gives. Our trouble with it all, however, is that, 
after we have enjoyed the freedom and the frosty air 
of pure philosophic skepticism for a while, we find 
ourselves unexpectedly in the midst of philosophic 
truth that needs closer examination. The short and 
easy agnostic method is not enough. You must sup- 
plement skepticism by philosophy ; and when you 
do so, you find yourself forced to accept, not indeed 
the old theology of your childhood, but something 
that satisfies, oddly enough, certain religious long- 
ings, that, as skeptic, you had carefully tried to for- 
get. Then you find yourself with what you may 
have to call a religious doctrine ; and then you may 
have to state it as we are here going to do, not in an 
easy or fascinating way, such as the pure skeptic can 
so well follow, but at all events with some approach to 
a serious and sustained effort to consider hard ques- 
tions from many sides. The skeptical method is not 
only a good, but also a necessary beginning of relig- 
■ ious philosophy. But we are bound to go deeper 
than mere superficial agnosticism. If, however, any 


ftudw it dmdy tuii> thiit ^m cHumot jgc^ d^por^ Mid 
Ihiil mtMbi'n populiir A){utMitimMU him t^lmutt^l nil 
llmt et^Xk be «^d ou rt>ligiou«i qut^titui«« tht>u we kid 
him Ml imuieilitite imd jo\Hm« fMi>wt>]l« It we hud 
not wuuethiii); to miy in tJii« kctak tlmt «it>eiu« to u« 
Uith foreign to the )H>)iular lumleru «i)j;tuMtie miige 
of dU^c^UMUiiiu Mitl tlee)>er thmi the hiiiiitht tif )io}nd«ir 
modern tkeptieiMiu we «thould my iioUiiii^. The uti« 
deii4d(iii(;^ of thin Innik in uot to wrmi|3^1e in ttie tdd 
wny over the weiUkiiowu iirtiiiiM^y delmte« of t^nlnyi 
Uut to turn Uie Hank iif tlie iHiuiiniui }Hi)iular Uion|(ht 
on Uie)H> t^i)iie« tdU»|^^Uieri, hy ^nwg im^k U\ n type 
of )diUiimi)iiue invei^ti^tioiu ttmt in niiwadtiyn f^ 
milinr iiuieeil to ^ tn^rtuin m^iund of M)HHUtdiifttA« but 
for^totten by the ((enertd pulilii\ In tliin ty)ie of in« 
Ye«tigiitiiui« wt^ hnve fnrttierniore tonietliing t^i offer 
thcit «eem» to \w no niert^ rt^|H>tiUon tif Uie viewt of 
other thinkt^rm but an efft^rt tti nmke at lemit one lit- 
tle «tep in mlvanoe of Uie tht)U|rhhi that tlie frreat 
ma«ter« tif philodopliy have i;i\^>n to uii« Vet we 
know indeed tliat tlie ran^te of miy useful iiu)e)Hm< 
dent thtmntht in )diiliv«t>phy niunt l^e^ in oane tif any 
one inilivitlual% very narrow* 

The other nuHHl and itti inethtHl remmn« It iit the 
mood of exeeiMMve rtn'erenee* It wa<*ti>«i eapllal let- 
ters on all the pronounii antl atijeetivtm Uiat ha\*e to 
do with the tibjtH^tti of reli|Hou« faith ; but it feam to 
do tliene obje<^t)i the htinor U> jf^i elear idt^ii alnuit 
them« Now we reHjH>et thin niowl when it apiieam in 
men who do well their life-wtirk, who ntHni their re* 
li|[iouii fiiith for tlieir wt^rk« and who i)o nt^t ftn^l any 
Mdlinf at truth««eeker«u No man ha« any butineiui 

ttMii (or wbow tmib U uM^fiil it> bU iMetunl UIW«^ 
iM ii«» i»#trfrMii4mf r«#¥«NU««i Up Mm mdy iu UmUng^ U 

I^MMi wtM4#( yodMdi^m U pUiUmi^ihy^ immI #bAU imH Um 
Umfmutml Uy imr »|M<ftib(biM/ l(i9 U mf$tfui mid 
lr«ml#M mIm^H mmui)^ iMuffi^ $ IIm w^I4 mnmUi Ulm^ 
mA iMUmt^A^y iUmt$ mfi, Wt^ imly Uiy uMm to m^f 
awfi rijiftilttff «ui4 <!/# uM wiuii to iutorl^ra wi(b bt## 
Our ri^bi to <;b<*r lAmug^ii^ wt* mu^ Imhil uinm* 
UiPT Umkml Mi phiUm^ipUUmllyf Mul nfMri frmn lim mm^ 
mmiry lUnllMiUnm of ^m \mfA wtpfimf^ nJI ibU AmuU 

ff/HM «lM»g«tr#, Y«Hi (»rii r<tv4rr«»ii« W4i« mift)r my to tb# 
hmmi wb4> r«i^4# |>bibMM/|^bi«f <fri(tiifUi«i im » Aim^mm 
ti4Hi»{; wiib «to|M^uib>MM imib^^ you mw iwv#iwiife» 
btifc wbAi tUp ytm ravtmmm^f llnyi* * miw bMfc wb«t 
yiw rtftvi»r»tfMM 4mll turn mii to Im ytmr uwu vufgm 
\imd $mifi$Mml m^iUpm^ mid mti Urn mmU Ai¥i9m Truth 
I At *ll, Tnhi inml \mi y*mr obj««(Ht<^ worwbi|^ Im mdy 
ytmr ^/wii liub< |^ iuAuiin^ Umi U MibtbiM to yfM 
nmUily Immwm U U ytmru^ u^ud iimi U In truth idnrnt^ 
MM «li viiMf mui UMniUi m ytmr imi, Vur UiU U Um 
ibiiMt;^^ i\mi \mmit^ i\mm ynjimt imd Uffiy mn^iimm^lM* 
IJurattmlmi ii|M/i^ mu'riiU^tmd^ dumhly $tf^imfimuml^ 
dmuhly drtmUaif limm^ ytmr rullgUmf* iphjm^^ umy 
lm'4H$m hmm fmlUtign^ ^tmra yW^mnl mmmiUnm i4 
ytmm^ i\mi ytm imvt* tm Hu$uUy immdnutt^ m wbiffi 
ytm \pm,y. Of t'^mrm^ if ymi fuw a mfr)mr^ ytm 
limy m':itmtty nmlim ilmm ¥Hjg*m Uhum^ in mp fur im 
ClM^y imtiAra ytm Up Wiprk, If lAmy dtp^ iimy f^lmll \m 
limi((iid by iJMr UtuiiM, Othiirwim^ d^p imH trwti Urn 


eoiifid«iitly ^tmt r«ligioui >mlu«« Yoo^ mdividuidly 
rigMti<Ml^ AM but n mAM of thought and fideling. 
Whal is only yours snd iu you« is not divine at sll« I 
Uidsss you lift it up into tho light of thought and 
smttiitt« it ofleu^ how do you Imow into what your 
ebmshsd n^ligious ideal may not have rottetl in tho 
darknois of your emotions ? Onoe in a whiles there 
does eome to a man some tumble revelation of him* 
self in a great sorrow. Then in the tumult of an* 
gttish he looks for his religious faith to clothe his 
nakedness against the tempest; and he finds per^ 
haps some mothnsiten old garment that profits him 
nothings so that his soul misembly {perishes in tlie 
frost of doubt Suoh a man has ex)M»cUHl (}od to 
«ome to hui help in every time of need; but the 
only god he has aotually and consciously hadi. has 
been his own little contcniiitiUe^ private notion and 
dim feeling of a god, which he has never dannl fairly 
id look at Any resi>ectaUc wo^hUui idol would have 
done him better service : for then a man could know 
where and what his idol tm 8uch is only too apt 
id be the real state of tlie man who reganls it as 
profanity to tliink clearly and sensibly on religious 

We claim* then, the right to critlciiie as fearlessly, 
as thoroughly, and as skeptically as may W. the 
foundations of conduct and faith. For what we crit> 
ioise are, at the outset^ our own notions, which we 
want to have conform to the truth, if so l>c tlmt tliere 
is any truth. As for doubt on rcligtou?( questions^ 
tkU is for a truth-s<vker uot only a privilege but a 
duty ; andt as we shall ex|)erience all through tliis 

14 THK tiKLmtow AiincoT or pn\itm>v\\r. 

Ntiuly, AmxH him n anrtotm utiil vory viduiitfb pliioe 
in philomi|ilty. I*hUaMi|flti0 iniih, m nikiIi, datniw to 
UM flmt istMlnr iltn form of iloiiht \ und wo tiovor (tun 
Ym vnry tionr it in our Mtiir<ilt isnlniM, for it longer or 
Nhorti^r tinin, wo Imvo mnno to ilofi|mir of it iilto- 
ipttlinr. Kiriit« Uiimu tlio iloMimir of n ttiorouifh-Koing 
(loiilit, mkI tlion tlio <liM*ovory tlmt tliiM doulit iH>n- 
tftinM in ItM iNwoni tltii trutli tlmt wo nr<i Mworn to 
(limiovor« liowitvor wn niin« — tliii« \n tlio typioul pliilo- 
Mopliio ox|Hiriono<f. Mny tlin mnntory of tliU Mnggon- 
tion iin|i|Mirt tlio fniling |mtinnc«o of tlio kin<lly iliii- 
|mhmh1 n^nilor through Minio of tho longi^r unit mom 
wimrimimo Mtr<it<*lM«M of ilry iiko|>tioiil iiniilyi«lM ovor 
whtoh wo nnmt try to joumny togothor. Wlmtovor 
ttiiiy bo tlw trutli, it muMt Ho lioyond thoso donorto. 




*^Oiit«itt »pirtt9» bjr ptniiii>»iQii« ftw«iHl«d (h«i Ml* uA 9M to hm^ 

tlimi «»,' I T«|ai«d« * What »h4ai I writ«?' Th^y mOO^ 'Writ* thai 
•Y«fY »piHt, wh«ttM»r h<» b« i^mhI or evU« b in hb own d«li|jtht« -- tlM 
9!ood in th« d^i^t ot hi^ |^KHi» nud tb« «vil in tli« d<)iight o( hw •viK* 
I nsk^a th«w« ' Whnt nu^v \^>ur Uoli^t t>» V * TVy 9nid that U w«» tlM 
Miisht of committing nUuU«rY» »ttM)in^« d<»fmudin^» nuU tvii^. . « « 
I Midk ' TliMi yon nr« iik<» xh» unckMU) b«n»t».* * * • Th»y luwwwwii 
*ll ir« nr«t w« nr^' '* ^ Swiu^is^nunOt l>iWii« Prvmiimcif* 

**TlMrt *• no4hinc« ^xhw giood or lMd> but thinking wnktM it «>»** <— I 

With which of the two oonaideTatiana mentioned 
in our introduotion ahull a religious pfailoaophy be- 
gin ? Of its two chief otmaideratiiuis, the moral codoi 
and the relation of this chhIo to reality^ which ia the 
one that jmiperly stands first in order? We have 
alreaily indicated onr opinion* The philosophy of ^ 
religion is distinguished from theoretic philost^phy 
precisely by its relation to an ideal* If )H^lJe« 
therefore, it shoxild early be clear as to what ideal 
it has« The ideal oxight, if possible^ to be stmlied 
firsts since it is this ideal that is to give character to 
our whole quest among the realities* And so the 
first part of religious philosophy is properly the dis* 

ouasioii of ethical problems* 




The theoretic philosopher might interpose just 
here, and iuHist that aa one can be moral only in a 
real world, the philosopher has a theoretical right 
and duty to point out, first of all, wherein consists 
the reality of the world and whereon is based our 
assurance of this reality. Yet this strictly logical 
order we must decline, in the present discussion, to 
follow. Our interest is, first of all, with the ideal 
in its relation to human life. So nmch of the world 
of commonplace reality as we have to assume in any 
and every discussion of the ideal, we accept in this 
first book whoUy witliout theoretical question. For 
such questions, in their relation to religious philoso- 
phy, the proper place will come later. But at the 
outset we will suppose a moral agent in the presence 
of this concrete world of human life in which we all 
believe ourselves to exist. Beyond the bright circle 
of tliese commonplace human relations, all shall for 
the present remain dark to this moral agent. His 
origin, his destiny, his whole relation to nature and 
to (}od, if there be a God, he shall not at the outset 
know. But he shall be conceived as knowing that 
he is alive in the midst of a multitude of living fel- 
lows. With them he is to have and to define and 
to develop certain moral relations. For his life, or 
for human life in general, he is to form his ideal. 
Then later, after forming and striving to realize tliis 
ideal of his, he is to come to the real physical world, 
and to ask of it how it stands related to these, his 
moral needs. In the answer to this question he is 


to fincU if ml »llt the completkkn ci his religious phi- 
kisQfihy* When he oomes to this sDeooml sUge» which 
o«ur seeond book is to treaty he mnY find himsdf 
obliged to Mudyae nfressth loid skeptic^y the iia^re 
^MCHretio notions that he has possesssed oonoeraing n»> 
tarc^ and so even tiNooMNBtniing his own f eUow^nion« But 
for his analysis itaelf he will have a f rosdu>r ooiurage» 
because he will have filled himself with the love of 
an ideal) whose realinition he w^ill he hoping some- 
bow to find all through all the tedious wanderii^ 
of his theoretio stud>\ If the onler of his whcde 
tiioug^t is thus not the order of the truth itself « still 
his little inconsequence in beginning his religious 
philosophj with assumptions that he pn>ves only 
after he has gone some distance iu his investigation, 
may be a useful tHmcessiim both to his own human 
weakness and to the needs of his practical natiure. 

With the search for the ideals then^ we l^in^ ex« 
pressly assuming^ in this )>art i^ the first hoidc^ with* 
oat proofs as much of the wiwld i^ daily life as may 
be necessary to a study i^ the mivral law in ita ap- 
plieation to this daily life, Yet^ with this ex)dana- 
tion« we are only at the Wginning of the tnuiUes 
that arise in examining the relation between the 
basis of ethii's ami tht^ real woild« These trt>ubles 
tonn a great part of the obscurity of moral doe- 


In treating of ethical diX'trim\ it is common to 
avoid by all sorts of deviivs the main and most diffi« 
wh problem of alL Men like to fill half a volume 

W ThF/ nmAffWtm A&rnfjr uV rmWH&rnii 

i¥Hi* A pMH^plH^ Urn ^^ M^ftkt pfim4i^ in Hnm/^ m- 
in iinm ^%.# mfmAniif^ #H:b » ^^^ 4^ ^/f Mttt 

mhm/' tiiH/Uiji ^mm^A^i fiff ttmhf pHj^ in mrt^m- 
iit^nSfiHi ftijttmnkm^f #tM^ tfc^ (^ftm^ it iimif ^^' 4h 

Wf¥iA (ii^m^fm ¥4miM^^ pHt^tf m mk^U^ t9ik4i 
mii^'f^ im^i^ m Htm Uf fh mf¥t^ ^m Ui ^^ppm^ in 

m^'^jfti^m fft tim *^ M^ff'i^ tmntt^ ^' in (ki^ nmn ^' to 
HM^ iff'- A f^y/^y iff mttni mA itttnHf^tA HiHi^tm m^ 
pfm^tikm «# timjf tm^f^ i^nm np mitimjf fmn in ifc^ 
^>W iff ^f4ftt,iifti^ ?# m fH4t^^ » ** HHH'ni t^HimtpUif/^ 
in Hm pf'ifpM' mtim^ tima j# » 44^nH'ip(^m nf Hm wyte-- 

i^ tft' af iim pwiHHtA iff Mtf iifftiHti^ iff i4 ^ #^M 

# ym i^pimmtiifh iff tfm Ai^^Mtm tf^fkwmH mm-- 
im^iM mfUi^mf mni ifmA^MH^.- 

W« fiff itHf pHfi fihntt >^ iAfii^^ hmtf^^i^) iff <w#- 
iifHiU^i ffpfm^ Uf ^M tif^ihu^itih Mi iim hm^i iif fim 
p^ifhU^ff iff fi ph^UfmfpUh^i i^^hi. ^tfni h tia^ iw4 

mi/tm iff liii^ ii}Mi^ffi^iyfh ifi^M^ fif^u mM mifnal 
tVfe#t ^ii^ii h frW^ \ii ^ifh AMJ^fH^fHl U «W# 
i*>rffc ^^<#tt^^ Uf pHffVk^iUif i^fhitmftf^^ iff >«4#pw4. 
mi ih^i^ffy WifHi hUa iff iit4f fmiUff'/ 'Pimm 
iUfifi^nm mM Uf UtfifW; mai ^^ iUf tufi ^mti in 
f^ini ifiit ^fffp, ffiiftt^ ^imu m niff^W \ff^ ifUtia^l Uf iUf 

iu itti^imfiifi iU^if}p^:^ffm iff tfm fffMfi^i ^^Mi^^ iff tifi^ 

iff iha^i ftffiif, A ii nH^iif^i f^fiU^ fiif^ }fff^i^H m iftiif 
hi ^f fnt fm ^^ ft^W. *#^ i^fini iiffiU^i ifNtfVtfi i^if 
fMif hn^i^ npifti imt' pt'iAAmt: W« niinti im^& W d#. 

C3D3DtAL mrSRSAL H0BU9L 21. 

9nA»msi«i <inLKitt Aa* mak uriOD knPo^Mhrite 

mfidk «HW asfKirtte i^i mm Mi sftl «Am iwglwtoA 
iii> Atnit tife f qp Bi wladtwtt WT <«^'$ Monl iAmI t» 

amml tdhwrr <fcftfiiJwrtt in tbraiSi mn a AMffr «( 

»Dlii»>:i0»if <m[ridkidl»i«dlwidl? Mms^ m4 mtdMr 
«iiir UnJl W ImndML im tdke i)«^ KUtw^ ^ ttlk^iQKiew 

mWfanfar? £k a rattwndl swinsll «£s^^ 

saidhnr ImMr ^T : "^IVb^ andi Ass it » vn traitk 

nil tdkHK&m^ 1 an mlot 1 an?^ 

ait tdkcai^ sfwisitwa^ : IKmt tto» aBt$:«w dbeon a2r%:hir S$^ 1^ 
amFW'n' lAi^ fanjAMnamtaJ <9pa«itMiit$ t^T aB eidiianiJl p^- 

T«i» maiflrstand idma nM^ jossdlT icb^ isiitiaa^ hmT !&» 
dBBraAhr^ l«it ik <{vi&$Siieir mcvvr dt(?i$ieitT At tf(v» ]>id$»i- 

M fffiMft who iimiMt^M iff 9^\i\U» iff ftll M^Mm ft^Auft Ut itll4 
fftftl wfit'Mi Ut iUu\ iJiKCK ill Mitim wfty IIm4 ini1«< IimU 
fill" UU U\iin\ i\Uii\miUim ttistWK^tt ((<»oil mikI «<vil, mt 
k(IiI<(|i1 t'KMrlUi^, h^i UM Oft Ut«i oUi^r Umh\ m\\ Mm 
wIhi wouI^I mohikImiw ilf<iftoimtmt4< If Im^ «ohM mtim 
U\m\ nA i\m in^ Mu\ only imm\ idKud wiiltoMfc in utty 
wiMf< tfrnkiny HilKitKiul \i\um [lUyt^Umi rmWiy^tauaml 
i<I^Mli4i l^^i UM Mt4>ti Ik(. tliK iwu pnHi^M (limM«i4M« Ih 
tMf o|i|«4mi(iK wft^^Mi UiK <|Mi<i«(i<tti ftt i^KUA, lifi( on 
li^ftr iiMr vIkwm liriKdy 4M4i<l utiil tirn\m\i V\ri^i i\m 
vi^w of ilw linir^im i^iMmi ri^niHui **Oo (o r^niU 
Hy,** tli*«y »tty, " mu\ Ui w\mU^ii»r rmWi^ yoo umnl to 
iMOiNMitf. HiKoitK <lis('iv^ ymv tiotioo of <lofcyi Mo« 
m\hy HiHKfc ooi his iMfili io (hi<« liofc 00 n noIM 
fmoolii.Uoo of oit.(.oml tm*i» Yoof oioml (hNtlfitio 
omy lmvi< (4^ dis|Nio<l o|>oo ii.ll fclmfc yoo «»^o (iod <hi1 
utioofc ili^ oolvKf^/' ()o tliK oUii^f (mod wo lmv§ 
(}m4 tilfsnlUMo <lo(<(t'ioi< I *' Momlil^yi" fiiiy ilot mi\u 
IHiriPfti of fliU vIkw, ** In for (.lo< (IcAt. mt i<li<Ml. I^rofit 
fftMrlUy 0011 \mruH i\m MtiiiUtui^ timi N.ri< io \m jiiulftml 
hy i\m hiKMl, hiiii MMOOoi liy miy mnifitUUiis (tod Urn 
idi<iil iinislf. Kfooi r^t^Wiy am mu l^firo Uii^ ioi^mom i 
ilo< Kod of m*i\nu \n t^u \i\m\^ Uu\^\mui\piii of nil vi^tiU 
hy MMVA lJo< huf'ii ii«iM(4<o<<ii of oor olioioii of Udn Kodi 
Am Vrmmi\miii iMM 'A^m. m^ Uo< oioml inroMttoM^- 
oiiM iMtold Mod oomi di^fy Uo< fofoi^M of omMo'I' io mmm^ 
(lii<y oomIi< Mto idiiN.I forMviii' ho|fi<li<Ai4f If Mm (jood 
hi< ooN.flMrioMhK Umi omkMA h oo Imam Mi^ ^^lod* If 
Uo< ii«iM(4io(r world wi<ri< Mo< wof4 world iom($ioMdi<« 
H woold ooi Im JoAMlli<d hy Mo^ oo^ri^ fM*i UiM^i li ¥fm 
ilo< fi^iil wot'ldi Idi^NlM oMiAi l»i< t'Mft,lii^d io fio hr MN 
tvo omt ffiiiliMo iUmu toil wtiirt omt tw fi^Miiiimd ami 


Qol therefore turn out to be the idenl. The judg* 
nenta : 7%U i^s mud, T%is is ffood^ lure onee for all 
differeiit ; and they have to be reached by widely dif« 
f»reiit methods of inveetigation/* — Sueh are the two 
e^po«iiig riewa* We oaimot yet repeat in detail the 
argiimenta for eaeh^ bat we can suggest a few of 

^ SeOi** says the supporter of the first view, ^^ how 
absurd it is to evolve moral theories out of one*s 
inner eonaeiousness. What happens to sueh theories? 
Either nature favors them« and then they survive in 
the straggle for life, or they are unequal to the tasks 
of the real world, ami then their supporters go matt« 
or diew But in the first ease they are merely suoh 
tiieories as eoukt have been much better reached by 
a process, not of guessing at truth, but of study* 
ing natore^s laws* In the second case, the result is 
eiioa^ for common sense people* The moral theory 
that is destined to die out for want of supporters can 
hardly triumph over more useful opinions* If we 
want a moral theory, we must therefore consider what 
kind of action, what rule of life, wins in the battle 
ffi existence, and tends most to outlive its rivals. 
That rule is the one destined to become imiversal.** 

The maintainers of the second view are readv with 
their answer. ^^ What sort of morality is this?** they 
aay* ^ Is this the morality of the martyrs? Is this 
an ideal that can satisfy us? The preaervatitm of 
truly valuable life may indeetl be an end in itself, 
and therefore an action that tends, on the whole, to 
destroy rather than to save such life may be bad from 
any point of view ; but the moral thinker is not« on 

itiAt mH^muU hnttui Ut (i\uHfm » tmUt i\mi will nm\m 
it# ti«fll#tyrfrM W4ryiv<^# ^rii^ imlUffm'H ur^ tuti M wli^ 
HfM ii/f<t«ft«t«l 1^ ot^lliffiif^ i<^ IIm if^^litf mnI ii fnnj^ \m 

h\n \\f^ Im mffih Unm tlmii h\n Uimi^ itr \m%wm ih» 
t»til^liivy<^M nmy mmm\um \m Si^i^^ iUfim^h h\» 
ib^lif hnA^ iti fffit\m%\^ wliAi wi^il^l W th« Mmm' 
i\w^um iA i\m mmnkniMiii followiti^ mii of ili^ {irrifi' 
dj^k ilmi ilt«« ir«<^ f(«ml U inmUmnhy to r^litjr? 

tilfito lii^ fKfii^rfM Mf^kflj^ M<fi5^^iliti^ Ui i\w AmuamU 

l/f Itif* \Amm ilf tll#« M^fittl ifffiMiS^UU Mui illMi tlHrfdUty 

ilitiM pf%\iftm^ n\it%\Ay i\m fm\\i\tmiumi^ tlmi tin* ifi« 
diyi^lfi^l inMAi fii4^ if \m iM {<^ r^^fidiii % nmnmidi^ 
tmtn\^f iA i\An mm\n\ (rf%%ti\mih 't\\m^ to ^^ yitm 
numiX ^hhU^ pm tit^ to ^«iifiiifi#f tli#« fMiH^ i^ mn^ki 
lilW/ Y^^i fim t<^ mtt^ htt mmnpU^ whtii itM^fli tfuifi 
tnmi tummhyn ih if im \n Ut )m UfUttniiU to hU 
l44Umn, Ymt will Ami mmtHMttft iff iU\n mtrii U 
will tufi iUt tm \%Un to kill lii^ t^\Umtk^ itt to ^rt#fil 
ffifin i\mn^ iit if\mii\y Ut \i%mi\i ihmn, Ii will \m m^ 
\mA\U^\Api f$rf liitri Uf )m mnnhi Ut n\u^Ht\ttn iUmn^ or 
ill \y\ttf( Ui ihmn, f (#« will iUt w^ll Uf Mp i\uttn «# 
tnt m U\n tnmm n,tUm^ ntui mf Ui k^ «i rff\mUiiUm 
lift UtuUhmrimimim titui \mh\U^ Mfririi^ m wifll m htf 
Mri^ti \nUmf\iy, Vitr tkmh^ ni li^ iit (mf mn<li^^ 
AfM Mf^iKi ^if ifi^ fw\nU\Ui iff imAn\ \i\tuU nt iMlJiMi- 
%nmii Ut m%f miSfimmmi, On i\mm U fmwM mf 
tiuffn\ imiU^ if ii U to 1^ fmttu\^\ im rmWiy nSfnuni 
^^ \hii i\mm fm\i%\fmttm{A %r^ tud m{im\ly fiffiHi \n 

XBB tammjki. EUDCAL f 1011111 35 


AiKfntfaaiaB inr ieaurfessDmais for prow^essw far ■siE- 
itsnr «fc£IL inr a CHtuii kiad ol <«Biiing^ far fietkat 
wSBaagmum to tmbe yvnt weahet (eoewr s pivpcxthr : 
al das was a put ol Ik naoMeuy adjnstiMDtt; «» 
tme s (BBwiirauHBt. W» all tkis dn ior dour mo- 

«iT trmt — Ji iiB^ ? If HunJiiT v«9« die bodr laf 

• •- « • 

wviieB gofVBaamg «eoeBsfail adtjsstMcut Id dieMKn] 

Sftl vmld TUT vidi il. So ev%& iM^'m' 
SBCsk idbfi Tuy vitik «np"s Mni pwaftuA. MiBisii- 
tacB 4f idS^im u« oonadiexvil to be b«« adjvstodl «» 
doie teaiiwewl if dirr u« oodtirudlT laedt. siTe 
ndiCB dMendb^ dkcirerMidb 3f£:amst 1wkCk&. Bift 
peffisnuK u« h«t; ad jqssIk^ mhok dker u^ m^gvasr- 
sm aftl ■HR!iles& A poet «r utist is best ad jssttHl 
if ht kw a icpattadon ior t«t idkal and impemonKil 
maa^ ami be can Aea ewn affioml to lesTe bis JM^ite 
■wfiwi : boot a bnsbiesis Ban most W war t^csaanesit 
in hekftTMKv fieivrehr definile in bis AeaKags widi Isis 
ieUiyw ' L . Jknl so rmis dv wnrU annj. Fnipd ^mmt 
pbnu aftl fium it clervidT^ for daat is tike iirkoie 

unmJd fae^** «j oar ileaKste, "^die <«»Hie- 
f kMAiag: ssrapir to realitT for a defiaiiaca 
«ff life Boral ciode. Hieare nwmU »o kn^^ be a ^M- 
faneaee hrtviMB iMnalitT and dei^eniess. PmfiDfal 
dkiH ia dK ait fif firisg: is mkat sarTrnes ia lihis 
««U: aftdif it is taaiTiTaL or tesMlenrr to ssTrirmL 
dbtft disdagaisiaes a trae fHum a filfie SEMwal ^vtdkw 
diea — iiv B ia al <leT<e9ifte9s as a ixMnl ^ode irooild ^sa 
Ike wkok tail to anriwu mtk its adkarants." 


But ft reftllniio opponent in not thui illenoed* 
^ Huoh (tartiffttitruii/* hn inntiitii, ** do not fftirly repre- 
Mont my dootrtno/* Ho, too, htm ftn idaftl but it b 
wholly (lotMsndisnt on rtsality. Whftt h« meftn« by 
oonformity to roaltty ftn the foundation of ft moral 
oodo in prot^rly oxproiMod by tho more thoughtful 
a<lvocfttoii of tbo dootrino of ovolution. **Adju«t- 
mant to ono*« roal nurroundinKM i« alwftyi,'* they iwy, 
**one very important element in morality. Dut 
there are higher anil lower formn of adjuntment. 
(/annihahi, or eon(|uerorfi, or Imd politioiann, may be 
■uffieiently a<ljuiite<l to their environment to be mo- 
mentarily muuHSMiful; but true philanthropintii and 
truly great utateiimen are better than they, ninee the 
■tatenmen and philanthropintii liave a higher form of 
adjuMtment tlum have the othem, and are thuN higher 
in the Neale of progrenn. Tliere i« in tlie world a 
constant evolution of higher out of lower forms of 
life. This applies almi to so<!iety. And on this fact 
of evolution defHsuds the inm morality. The ideal 
morality is that form of ailjustment of the social 
man to his environment towards whieh mKnety in its 
progress forever tends/* How then sliall we define 
our moral code ? ** Why, onee more,** says the evo- 
lutionist, ** by the faints. Do not nuike your code 
flrst anil thint judge the world. You will do well 
to accept tlie universe) even if you did not make it 
But examine the world to see in what way it is tend- 
ing. Then conform yourself to that tendency ; try 
to hasten the realixatiim of the coming ideal perfeo- 
tbn. Progress does not depend on you, but you will 
do well to assist progress. Bo^ by experience, we 


U9 to find Ibe duwdiixi in which wtumij ui moTiiig^ 
m ar« to dkei>Yi»r the godl lomynl which IhU mavis 
mmk tuffod^ ind IhU obji^el of Ufe^ once foraiiihil«Mlt 
ii li> giie iM oor moml cud«».** 

A]$ftiii» hawi»Yi»r> the iili»li«t objects^ This.» he 
adttilis is a raw hi^^r, no ilottbl^ than the preeeil* 
iBif^ ; hut i» it a clear and eoo^Msitent raw ? Will it 
War cfiticiintt f In txie rvE»peet^ as appears to him, 
it fiiils baiily. However certain and valuable the 
facts abiNit evohttion maj be, the theory that founds 
moralit]r whoUy upon these facts of evolution is de* 
fcctive, because it confuses the notion of evohttion 
with the notion of pro^:ress, the conception of growth 
in complexity and de&iiteness with the conception 
af growth in moral worth. The two ideas are not 
Bicessariljr identical Yet their iilentity is azssumeil 
in this theory* How does it follow that the state 
toward which a physical progress, namely, evolution, 
lends, must be the state that is to meet with moral 
approval ? This is not to be proveil unless you have 
already done the very thlug that the doctrine of evo> 
hrtioo wishes to teach you to do« that is, unless yon 
have already formed a moral coile, and that inde> 
pemlently of what you know of the facts of natural 
•vohition. lil*liv is the last state in an evolution 
better than the former states ? Surelv not because 
it b the last stage, sorely not because it is physically 
more complex, more definite, ixt even more perma- 
nent ; but sok*ly because it corresponds to some 
ideal that we imlependentlv form. Whv should mv 
ideal necessarily correspond with reality? Why 
thonld irimt I approve turn out to be that which ex« 


ists ? And why, if any correspondence is to exist, 
should that particular bit of reality that comes at the 
end of a physical process called evolution be just 
the one bit that is to answer my ideal demands ? It 
will be very satisfactory if such correspondence be- 
tween the real and the ideal is found to result ; but 
how can I know beforehand that it must result ? 

Evolution and progress: what do the terms re- 
spectively mean ? Evolution, we learn, is an increase 
in the complexity, definiteness, individuality and 
organic connection of phenomena. But progress is 
any series of changes that meets with the constantly 
increasing approval of somebody. The growth of a 
tree or of a thistle is an evolution. The climbing of 
a hill for some purpose may throughout be a prog- 
ress. Evolution may or may not meet with the ap- 
proval of anybody; and a pessimist might fully 
accept some proposed law of evolution. But miless 
there is some approval from some source, we have 
no progress. How thoughtless then it is, our idealist 
insists, to confound such different notions. But is 
a case of evolution ever a process of degeneration ? 
Certainly. You want to eat asparagus before it is 
full grown. Hence eveiy moment of its evolution 
after a certain point is for you distinctly a degenera- 
don. You want the potatoes in your cellar to keep 
fresh. If. they sprout, a process of evolution has be- 
gun, but every moment of it is for you the reverse 
of progress. The egg that begins to incubate is in 
full course of evolution; but what if it is wanted 
for market? Might. not the evolution of the whole 
world conceivably be for the moral consciousness 


what sttoli oaaes ci evulutiou ar^ for the purposes o{ 
ordinary life? 

^BuC* the realist may say, **in faot the wi>rld 
doeKS ST^w better* The ooorse of evolutiiui is tm the 
whole a progress*'^ ^^ fie it so^'' the idealist aus\\-ers« 
**but how can we know it? Ouly by first setting 
up our moral ideal, and then ooiu^^aring: the fact^ 
with this ideal* If we know what we mean by bet- 
ter, we can jiulge whether the Wi>rld is growinjj 
bett«ar* But we may not pretend U> determine what 
is better by simply observing how the world grows* 
Growth and improvement are not identii^al ideas* 
One may grow while growing ever worse*" 

Ami thus a moral iHxle, a<vonling to our idealist, 
does not, as a oo^le, de}>end on phy^i^al faets ; telb 
us nothing of what does e^ist, but tells us solely 
what ought to e^ist. If the idt^ either does e^ist, 
or some day will e^ist^ si) much the Wtter; but 
through aU the changes of fate the terrilde OMyA^ 
remains, and juilges fearh'^ssly the w\>rld, whether it 
be good or whether it be eviL Uut here the realist, 
to whom the moral ixnle that is not built on natural 
faet is just a dream, interposes what shall just hero 
be his final objection. ** Be it Si\" he sa\"s, ** judge 
after your hearths desire ; but nnnember this, that 
some other idealist beside you will be judging the 
world in his own wav, after what will seem to vou 
the foUy of his heart, and his jmlgment and yours 
wiU differ, as the dreams of anv two dreamers must 
differ* Did Plato^s ideal agree with I\iul^s ? or did 
Biyron jmlge the world after the same fashitm as 
Wordsworth? £ven so in the present day tho 

'^/ rt^?#; i^^ ^m^ 0^ \Am\H mMi/H^' y f fhijj/^ if Mt 
4^'i^ i^'¥fi:^^ iiW/y AUnt' ti^ fUi*^}^pm U t^ 

^4l4 4M^'f/ i^JA^J #^//A:<y Jm^^^^a; f ««;^ ^f ^VHtyM/' 

fm ^i^U #?/Ja: j ^>/f- ?^* w/^1/f fmk*^ hif^trt^ M^^ mi^Him 
W¥m^^ IW^f !#jw*# j« fH*4 m fiH' m4j/ m m^yiPH-- 


td dbtxnetioii. This h1««I or tihal is Ibe bighesk Imn 
caa» somebodr efaaiKHes lo eliouse it for liis» or be- 
caa» dbe pbTsknl world ebaiK>» lo nsftliae it Tbis 
ii SL pcffMlr empiT disdiK^noo. 

But diffieahks masl nol discourage tdb so earlr in 
die daT. Tbe world bas todked of tbese matters be- 
&}iKe. Let IB turn to tbe bistory of some of tbe spee- 
ahtWuw about tbe ideaL Tbej ma j suggest some- 
tbing toisk 

PiH¥i^i il i nmi Mm( ^n\f hmi Ut^if, 

i»i4 mmm'mI ilfH'MhMi U Ui \m uutvn i\mn m mt^rti hit ttt 
MMMiml Ui^Utrjfr lU wmii^ Ui ttml m^i w\mitmfihi, 
it! \m^ n^isH if i\mi wl*i«<l» tmgUi Ut \m U mii, Vh^ ¥f\mn 
mmw mmi mjffi Ut UUtn ''Thy UU^t^l U Uium Imfc iUy 

UfiMjl^ti/' Uti thmfi Wd WMMi l^» M<»M«iMi:. 11^ WMMtM t«l 

r<«j4y } ♦• My I4<«ttl ii* iUtt trm mmr Nn ttiUt^r miimm\ 

rmfiiii'ti mtmn miiUtnii^f \mt^4 mttm fm*i*ii Itti mmi 

titmin¥f\miti iUiii Uu Uimi \H iUn wtH'itl ttf imi\h ^^' 

^rml Ut Uifi nwH pfivMM< i(«#iiti«({fHit}HMti«}, Ih mmi 

im nUUi Ui Mijf i '' Lmi lm¥t$ iM ilm UUmll^^ IU$ wuMfi 


ke aJbfe to shi>v it to us^ so tfaat w«^ sbajl see it to be 
Boce dbuL iii& w{iimL Bat dus^ lie i& in dbuger o£ 
fiicsikxD^ his^ iiieaJibitL. lib poeitioa so faut Iia& there- 
foie seemed to us aua ttxtt^ertuji one. We baxe £eit 
dbe focee o£ bis oeed^ : but we bave not been abJe to 
see at^ xet ]ii:>t bow tbev ayre to be satits&d. Tbe 
sactsfinetuMi of tbeia wooM in lEaiet be a complete 
etbicdL iioetnne. And tbe inundation o£ suKrb. a doc- 
tnne b jo^ wbat we bere auce seeking. 

It b incumbent npon us yet further to show ht>w 
Am search for a nionl idesil has in the past been 
Kindeired bj the wei^t of this doobt aboot the exaiet 
ndbtxon of the real and the ideaL The controTersj 
Attt tibe last chapter considered is a controxer^ end- 
IkssIt repeated in the history of moral doctrtnetk 
£¥erTwhere we find a moral ideal maintained by some 
dȴo<ied idealist ;is the one per&ctly obvious aini &r 
Efe. fiTerywhere there stands orer :i@:ainst 
ideal some critic who sar^: "* The choice of thb 
fur £[& b an accident. I reject thb boastful 
ideaL For where in reaUtv is fenrnd the &rm basis 
e£ fset on which dee ideal is founded? ^ Then po6- 
sSUt tibe idealists relaxing the rx^r of his idealism^ 
yomts oat in the external world some real ^nt myth- 
ieal support iow hi& ideaL And thereupon either his 
ccfti(» reject the creed about the external world thus 
effered to theou or ther denv the moral force of the 
supposed realities^ or. ;igaLDu. themsebres :issuimno: an 
idealisstif attittade« they reproach the idealist with his 
nnwordiT desertion of his own hi^h faiths in that he 
kas yielded to realistic demands and has founded 
the kftf Oit^A^ on tibe paltry /^ And thus the coiib^ 

84 YiiK nnuiwvn AM*mr ok ymumornr* 

trovitrNy ii<yritiriii4fN. OtUm it imimH Ut im tluit tbo 
nirHimiiUi riniMt Ims mi(lU«Ni«« At fiU isvmitM w<i ttiutft 

ItDfil llKlk lit MUIII4I of ItM plutMtfM. 

In tlMt ihyn of this HopliUtM, (hmk thought Iui4 
iwfMtlinil itM iirMt f(r<iiit urn of 4ftlil<fttl MkitptiifUrii* TbU 
Nk<i|rti<fiMm wiiM dlriKfUxl M)(fiiiiMt tltii iditfiU of {lotmliir 
tttomlity. '^^Tliity nm not mAN^vUlmi muI tmmmmry 
Ulmln^'* HnUl \n milmUttm tltii HopliUtM. ^^^lliity iir# 
<MHtvi^iitioiiM. TiMty (irii |)i'lvfit<i Jtt4l)(tiMintM/' 'Htii 
jMipulitr IdiiitiN witrii of immu'wi popiikriy ditfinuUMl 
i(((Miimt Ntt4flt lUMMiiltM liy tlm um^ of ttm rmtloiml r<i- 
l'n;Uttu ^^T\w fftnU mtuUi i\um^ <UMiitt4ttloiM/* It U 
ritpliiMl. ** 1*1mi (((nIm iirii mIiUi t<i mtform iimu ; tliitrd- 
fons Umr tint (((nIm/* 

Hki^ptii^Niii liM^l two liimwiirM to tlito diifmiNii. TIm 
mm ttHMWftr wiiM Mifiipki { ** WImi kiiowM wlMttlmr tlii»r<9 
Mi'ii uny f(fNlMt or what tlm k^mIm, if tluty nxiMt* rniiy 
(flMNmii to flo ** TImi ifilu^r (iiiMwur wuk iitoni Mulrtl^, 
iNinaiiMi it I'liftlly ii%\mit^mul in Nkii|ftiml f(uiM4t n tiaw 
fonn of niomi iiliiMJiMfn. It m \mni \mm^rvm\ to m 
in It iinii |MMMiiKii in tiiii muunul lio<ik of IMntoV l(<i- 
|fulilii). llitMi tlm y<Min)( nntfi, HUauum uiu\ Ad^iU 
iniinUn^, iumti^im tlntt r^trtain MopliiMti^f oliJmttionM to 
thii rimlity of nioml diMtlnidiofm itm diiitply pujis'/linf; to 
tliitniMtlviiM. 'rin^y a^k HoremUiM to <liM<fMM tlin nntttiir 
in mnm^ mwh fuNliion tin U$ iitinovn tlniMn iloiilitM* 
Tlmy mtm up tlio iloiiiitn in MnlmUniui um foilowMf 
(imnt tliat tins p^oiIm nm of iri'ii»iMUIil«i ini;(lii, fuiil 
tlmt tluty fir0 diM|NM4Ml to «3nforoi» mnna nMiml kw > 


dl does tliat £»ct giTe any true distinetian betireai 
good andeTil as siidi? For wlioeTer uges us to do 
i^it in»^^ to get the faiTor of the gods» uges us 
in realitjr just to do what is prudent. Such doctrines 
■abe JQstioe not desiraUe in itself, bat desirable 
sok^r for what it brings in its train. And thus there 
would be no difference between good and erilassach, 
but onljr betweei what brings upward and what 
brings panishment. ^ Tberefore, O Socrates,'^'' the j 
in effect saj* *^ do thoa defend for os justice in itself^ 
and show ns what it is worth in itseU^ and how it is 
differoit frun injustice* Bat pat as not otf with 
stories aboat reward and panishment.^ Sach is a 
brief sommaiT of their two speeches. 

No better coald either the need or the diflBcalty 
of tlfee task of moral idealism be set forth than in 
these eloquent statements. How does Plato lay the 
ptosis that he has thos raised ? How does he give 
an independent foundation to the ideal of justice ? 
He sorely felt how hard a problem he was under* 
taking. He has, in (sum., attempted seTeral answers 
to it. Bat the main answer, given in the Bepub- 
lie itself is insufficient, though noble. This answer 
is* in effect^ diat the properly balanced, fully and 
Innnonionsly dcTeloped si>ul» absorbed in the oon- 
tnnplatioa of eternal tmtlu cannot possibly desire 
injostice; that only the tyrannical souL in which 
the desires have the upper IuukU where nothing is 
aecnre, whose life is like the life of an iltgovemed 
or eren anairhic community* tumuhuouss wretched^ 
helpless before passion, only such a soul can desire 
injostiee. Injustice, then, means desire for discord^ 

86 TfiK UMAdioim Anvmr or pnu/momr, 

it mimnM i\m ywUtry of itii) ihmirw^ ov»r thi) roaffOtif 
it iM iiti?mmtMt(fnt witti tlio lifo of ttiu miuI tlmt iw 
givitii to IfloMMDil (jontDmplattoii of tbi9 otonud id^mit. 
For mu'h a liliMmKl mouI Hh hUmmHUumn in^ in tlii) iitM? 
ptimmt Unit H|fiiio%tt lotif( afU^rwardn crisfttiMl, not Uid 
rMWfird of virtit<s but virtuo itnolf ; mo thiit mwh a 
mml will not <lo ttio ri^tit m a tm^tinn hy wiiiith it 
nuiy \mH*Mm ttio IiIommxI contDniplntimi of thi» otor- 
nul, l;ut, iNiin^ (tn^ii^ml in tliiw bk^MMal (jonti^mpk- 
tion, it in tliifniby oniil>liMl to do right. 

Hut Ui till) wirkiKl Moul of till) unjuMt man llato 
mumutt^ly Ii»m no indur^mufnt to ofTor in ordor to per' 
mttuU^ it Ut lMf(!onM) juMt, muvi) tho oliNiuifnt Mtftt<5mwtt 
of tlin piiiuM tliat lu'^^unpany injuMti<^, tlio jm^ura of 
till) wiit'faro of diiMiriiM, tlui jiroof of tlio wroUjtioil iti- 
Mtfihility »n(l of tlii) |NmMilily otonml niifN^ry in wbhsh 
ttm tymnnif^iil mhiI numt liv<f. And ttnm Hato him- 
niAf would 1x1 in mo far ofMfn t«> tlii) objcMdion ttiat bi« 
(Hfiufuin and Adi^itniintoM liiul iniulo to all iirovlooN 
niomliMtM, niinndy, that tluiy noviir gnvo n roiimm 
wliy JuMtiro in itMi^lf wiim U) \m <!hoMmi, hut ftlwayN 
tniulii juMtiiHi diinimldfi l^y rmMon of tlni rciwardM that 
r«Mult ffoni it. For VUiUt^n vinw, an for that of hnn 
Ulm\ nioraliMtM, thti unJuMt man Nhould mwU to Inv 
conm juMt l>iMiaMHi% until Imi dooM hiKumio jUMt, ho will 
hii wri'tf'lii'd. (*an no oihnr l^aNiN for Umi virtue of 
JuMtii'd till found Mavi) thiM onn? If nonn can l»o 
found Mav«i tluM, tliiMi wlipnuviir a mouI nxiMtM that 
]imU*rH thn tumult of diiMirn, witti aviira^i^n mwvi^HH in 
inJuMii(u% to tint M(»li*nui \h^uw of tlm (^ont.ifmplation 
of idiial |i^o(»d apart from thn NatiMfmition of mumuouM 
doMiroN, fur that «oul Plato** argument will bq wurtlt- 


kssk Such a tyraunioul mun will dolight to remuiu 
a tynuit^ «aul tlmt will Ih> Uh> oiul K\i li&> for him* 

Th« »\igg^>8U\*i?iu\s8^ thn> <KH^iH>r «MguiHomio<i^ ot this 
Pkumic doctriiii\ m> do not diHiy« lUiU »i<^ it stmu^ 
ltH> doctrint^ i;» not oixiuidoti' nor oixn^sKnit^ For 
H^lo him;$td[f h;i;ft giwn us h.s tli<t> s^upiH^rt for hi^ 
id^« «i h^U <^ ft ;s^up[H>!^iHl f^ot> of luunan natun\ 
A iiHuid «4u>pUc will di>^ with it ;i8 Itkuotni mid 
Adt^iiiantos hud dt^t witli tXvo, [H>(Hd»r niondity* 
Th«^ «u|>[H);sihI fftot, tlioy will s»j% nmy l>o douUtoiL 
P^^Ka[)«» $oni<^ tyrant will aotually fiH>l Imp(ui>r tlmn 
«onii> strnggiini^ and n^spirin^ ^>ul far lii^itlnf^ up in 
IW hti>a\tm«. Unt, louvin^s:: tlmt douUt a^^idis tlwri^ i« 
ting odu>4r objivtion* Tho ido»l jCistiiv ha« iHWino to 
ha foundcil on a Inin* jdix^ioal faot, naint4\% on tlii> 
ei»i$titntimi of tlio ^t>nK whiok nii^hti. for all \w oan 
»^(^ ha\^ Ikh>ii different^ 

Im)H>rtant as lu> is in t^mcreU^ I'thioal qm^^tions, 
Aristotle doi>s notliini;: of innH^rtaniH^ tK> nmiow tliis 
fundaini^ntal difliouIty% siutiv his |HKsition as h> Uiisi 
mattt^ is tiH> noar U> rbh>\s. Still h\ss do tho Kpi- 
eur^an^ for whom in f»ot Just this diftloulty d<H\s not 
exist Plainly thoy divlaro tlmt tlu^v moroly st»U* 
phy^cal faots* tJimor\>sity,» fitU4ity U> frii^iuK «Jul 
fdlher itl^istio aotivitiivs thi\v indinnl roj[»rtl »s tho 
part of thtft wisi> nuuu but tho ond of «U is xx^ry 
frankly divlannl U> Ih^ his sottish mh^uitajiv. As 
Ciwro o^pressivs thoir viow : ^ *nVm vSoHtudo ot 
vita «in<& aiuiois itisidiurum ot mot us plotia sit, ratio 
ipsa numot amicitias ot>U4>;imr\s quihus |vj\rtis txwi* 


flrmatur animus et a spe pariendarum voluptatum 
sejungi non potest." 

The Stoics have a new thought to offer, one that 
would have been as revolutionary as Christianity it- 
Helf, if they oould but have grasped and taught its 
full meaning. But that was for them impossible. 
Their now thought, which gave foundation to their 
moral ideals, was the thought of the perfect equality 
of all men in the presence of the univcntal Reason, 
to which all alike ought to conform. Everyone, they 
said, ought to bo rational ; everyone ought to try to 
toxtcnd the empire of reason. If one*s neighbor is 
W rational being, one can and must try to realize the 
rational in him almoHt as mwsh as in one's own self, 
ilencc one's duty to do good to men. This duty, to 
be sure, commonly did not for the Stoics extend to 
the {)oint of very great practi(*>al self-sacrifloe. But 
at any rate they gave a new foundation for justice. 
/ One works not only to confonn one's self to the 
ideal, but also to realize the ideal here in this world 
in others as well as in himself. The ideal Reason 
can be realized in yonder man through my efforts, 
much as, through my acsts, it can bo realized in me. 
All men are in so far brothers, members of one fam- 
ily, children of one Father, and so all alike objects 
of moral effort for every cme of their tmmber.^ 

* For a collection of the pnNHn^efi ill uNt rail ve of thin doctrine, 
•eo the quotations in Zvller'i Philo§. d. Urifchm, Tli. 3, Abth. L 
p. 285, Mfff/. (.3(1 ed.)' Marcufi AurnliuN In prominent In the list. 
KpictetuH In n*N|H)nNible for the dcdnt^tion of human brotherhood 
from the common fatherliood of (Uxl. Kencca hiiN frequent expreN« 
Nioniof Nimilar thout^htN. Yrt for all that the wInc man In lo be 
independent and leparate. In hlf respect for humanity, he ia not 
(0 loie himielf. 




Has tdio^glit v;fes indhwd a deep cn^ «nl if ttlM 
SlNMcts g9iTie butt »i iuq^erfect pnwtioal i^atliisadidii of 
h Ito tdbe inMrUU tkey pre|Ktf«d ttk^reby tbe ^k^j for 
Ife rwi^liiiMi of tke lugber ttkiMi^glil of J(dStts,» when 
Iknl; dMMif^l; »ppewre<dL \V« may tberelKdre mofid 
nttdBbr s^ggiidsl tke $bepikal mtktsiii of ike Slwikai 
llHMt^hl; % firsi Idokm^ at ike midl known coniple- 
IMH of IIm noliiNi of God's fatkeikdod in ike doi^- 

J«$tt$ fidonded his monJity in kb Ikeolo^^ ipel; kft 
dftl nol nidte nnoorad di$lUMMions dei^Hendent on ika 
■Kve f»ct ^ divine rew^urd or xtens^fiUfeiciew An ;»ec 

is Cmt lum wnMi^^,. not btvansii^ onl^e ike kin^i^iott 
«( keoiTien ikene k; wieejuii]^ and gnashing of tieielli ; 
nidwr skoold mv say ttkal h^cui^e ike ate*! i^; <v|>{iiic^isied 
Ito tdie Ti»T nature of ike relatiiw of 9K»skip to lix^ 
us J«$«i5i <(^i«M!ieixv« this relaiKHu tkerefiMre the doers 
of «neli afcts tnumKut ke in the king<iloni of he«jixvn« all 
wiMKie eitiiiensi are :sioin$ of the Kin*?- And out;$ide 
Ike Idi^gdom there i$ darkne5:$ anul wee{Hng« dimply 
Vemnsie outside i$ outvie. T1ief^>fore^ if JTe^us giveis 
«s a tkeokntcinJ view of the nature <i^ unMraditr^ he 
doiets not make morality dej^endiHit on the bare dei^ 
pDtie win of God. Kit on a poeidiar ann) ntvossary 
veblion between (lod and hi$ eranturei^ So» loi^^ 
us God is what he is. ami ther remain hi^;^ ertxa- 
IwMis,, »» kng must this; relation tcvxntinoe. Jeisus in 
CadU as we know. giw>s ik^ a higher an«tl uniTersJ 
Wm of the nK>ral55y of tW prv^phi^tK Tht\v had 
wUl^ JakTiek has sat^ed his (w j4e^ has chosen them 

from nil Um' i^firUf, Imn fnt flif^fn wlili liin lioiiniy, 
liHA (rr^HMwl Mf^rrt ha liin fir»»ll liMlirVf^t vifif^ynMl, liHff 
ink^'ri Uf<» rmfifyn am if. f9^vp> Ui wiff*. AihI fH», if \\uh 
|rM«r|flf* ofTi^rMl A^MifiHf. \hh Ihw frf rf^lifi^vriinrioflfl fhiifc 
in YirtiU^u in Ui^if- Ih'hH.h hiiiI kfiowri Uffoif|r|i f|fi» 
wohIm of |rro|ilHW'y, Uif^y m.N' K'f^l'y '>"'' h'^'M* of ilnfi- 
^i^roim rovohr H^HifiMt. ir-r'«*niRfiM<t rni^lit., Ifiitf aImo of 
HOftii'Miiff^ far worA#<, fmrtiiJy, of Mi«4 Imnf^nf. iffffrnH- 
\Mi\tK 'Mif'ir nih in tirilf^Hr-ft of in nil Uim pftrili. TliA 
li^nflii^n forrtH.lii4 nof. Mioir y9rhUAm\ ^imIa, (.Imt; Ari4 
y). no f^oflfl, ArMJ nlffill Urnfl hirn A|/Hinnfr Uir* wilt 
of \\m living, Hlmi^lfty lov^r / 'Mio wiirAt^t vinp- 
yHTfl, Ui«» nnfHfMifiil wifo, flioAo am^ Hm* ty|M>A /rf Um 
ini#|Mify of Mm* |rf*o|rl#>. 'Mirir nin in a niiMfrHMif 
nfiAM* of MfM^r "of-f-iipffon. VVIiiit. flif vor-y lrf*A<«M i|/p, 
t/ff briffW t'lio niAMf'f'fM \\\u\, ff>M| t'lM>ni, iMrnol ff»r|/f't>fi, 
wlf<rAf* rnANM>r Ia not. only fin* nniliM- fff fill tliinf^A, 
Irnt. hIm«» IIio l#fvin^ npoimf* of Iha flioMon nrifi/m. 

'MfiA AfMif'Mon for nionilif.y, not. Hif* nii(/li(/ no mti^li 
An Mm' h^nJ/'r l/iv^ of (iofi, Im hy «ff*nnn «'«M>rMl«>fl in 
rMn(£f» riri'l ilf>f>|r«'rM"l in tn«Minin^. lOvi^ry umu nfHnJn 
li^foM> Ofirl im lM'|iiv«>fl son. If Im* WHrMl«*rn, Mn< 
KiiMif^r woiiM fMJri M«>f|: liirri fm Mi/* Hlif»|»lM*rfl womM 
A Ioa), Hli/>f>|i : w/iitl/l ffiin, WUi- tlt^ |rrofli^nrM'r, 
f)ill U]tuu hU n/w If nri/l \<U*\ liini, if lif> will luft. r^ 
f.if rn ; w/ml/l fiiio f/>^fl uut\ floflt/' liirn wiftt flM' Im'a). * 
wonl'l not. for(/ft. Kirii ffrni/l nil lii^ M)n>^. Ami Mif4 
KHfifor'n ruin iinfl miri-:lifh«' hm* for jih;|. iomI on 
jn^^i. tyfwi|Ntr Hn'l t^rnl'^M-r i^ tlii^ flMMi^rlif Mmoi tlio 
pro|ilif»tif' ifl^n, ir^MOHf' Mi<> rf-lfiliifn i^ n/r p"|il)fH| 
on#s lull. A /'lom» iH^r^oofil oh/'. '\n li** /-oo^irioiK of it 
Irmnnn, N4'^or«lin^ fi«f Jf^nnn, lio winii Ut liv«* in fo>f<#rrfl- 


whh itk SO as to f^^tuni to Uie Father love &4r 
lk>Y^« Uenee^ in knowing this rekiUon» one has Uie 
b^rbtftst sanodon ^mt all good aols^ The ultimaio 
HM4iY« that Jesus givies to men for doing right i$ 
theiv&c^ the wish to be in harmonv with God's 
lk>T«. So the father in hb hi^iae:ss wills for each of 
ttSs and so eaeh son» ecaisoious of the love of the 
Father; also desin^ as soon as he i» awaro of the 
Father s wilL One cannot know of this infinite love 
widioat wishing to be in union with it. £Ten with- 
nod knowing of the love, the Terr consciousness of 
^ wretchedness of the loQeh% separate life of selfish 
wickedness must lead one to want to fixrsake the 
husks and find the Father^ even if he shouM be but 
^ angiT Father* Muoh more then if one has 
foond the Father^ has f ounil him caring for the spar- 
rows^ and for the lilies, and for the least and the 
worst of his children, must one« thus knowing the 
Father, desire to submit to him. One is lost in the 
ocean of divine Iove« Separate existence there is no 
laore. One is anxious to k>se his life, to hate all 
selfish jovs. to sell all that one ha^ to be despised 
and rejected of all the worlds if so be that thereby 
one can come into accor\l with the universal life of 
God's loTe> in which everything of lesser worth dis- 

DtttT to one's neissrhbor is but a coroUarv to all 
this. In the first place one's neighbor is no k>nger 
a mere fact of experience^ a rival, a helper^ an 
enmnv ; but he is. instea^l of all this, a child of GoiL 
EvetT other aspect of his life is K>st in this one. As 
ddld then he repretsents the Father. The highest 


messenger of God will say in Ood's name at the last t 
Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least qf these my 
brethren^ ye did it unto tne. And so each brother 
is the ambassador of God. When Job had spoken 
of his duty towanls the lowly, ho liad given the sane- 
tion for it in the thought : Did not one fashion us f 
Jesus gives a liigher sanction : Does not one Father 
love you all? In the presence of the Father the 
children are to Ioho their neparateness. They are to 
fei^l the onenesH of their life. There is no longer 
any rival or enemy, any master or slave, any debtor 
or creditor here, for all are in infinite debt to the 
Infinite One, and all in his Might brethren. 

The HtoicH had conceived of a common Father. 
But tlu^y regarded him iih an im])ersonal, all-ixsrvad- 
ing lieaHon. The thought of Jesus gave to his idea 
of the fatherhooil of God a warmth and life unknown 
to any previous thought. And in this warmth and 
lif(^ ho intende<l the idea of Duty to grow. Thehigh- 
cHt ])rin(^iple of the dw^trine iH : Act as one receiv- 
ing an<l trying to rt^turn an Infinite Love. To 
thy niMi^hbor a(*t oh it l>cfItH one ho beloved to act 
t^wardH hiH brother in love. And thus is Duty 

For our prow»nt Hke))ti(*al inquirioK this d(M^trino of 
Josun in itM original fonn ih no longer enough. For 
one thing, Jchuh himm^lf did not int^'nd it oh a ])hilos- 
I ophy, but always exprcsHeH it an an inHiglit. And in 
our time thin insight \h clouded by many doubtH that 
(*annot be lightly bruHlied away. TIuh idea of 0(mI 
OH a Father, — it is exactly the idea that our ])Iu1oh- 
ophy finds most difficulty, nowadays, in establishing. 


For many in mil die future histoiy of our mce this 
ilem will be harder to establish than will be the 
■onl doctrine that was deduced br Jesis from it. 
For many who with steadfast faith accept the do<s 
trine of God's fatherhoods their ultimate reason will 
ladier be that> first accepting the monditr of JesiKSs 
they find it most natural to accept therewith what 
^T understand to be his theolofinr* His moral docs' 
trine will be to them the insist, the theology will 
be taken on trust. Many others will accept indeed 
d» mondily* but be unable to accept the theology. 
In ethical faith they will be Christians, in theology 
Agnostics. And theref ore« to the philosc^)hio stu- 
dent, who must prove all things^ and hold fikst only 
what he finds sure^ it is impotssiUe to take the the* 
okgy of Jesus on simple faitlu and not profitable to 
postpone die discussion of the moral problems until 
he first shall hare established a theology. Morality 
is &r us the slardng-point of our inquiry. Theol- 
ogy comes later* if at aU. And« as we shall presently 
see« the theology* if accepted, would not satisfy all 
&e q[iKstions of the ethical inquirer. 

Yet if the doctrine of Jesus does not belonsr 
aaKMD^ the purely idealistic theories of duty* since it 
giies duty die £9k.*t of God's fatherhood as its foun> 
dadon* it has one aspect that woukl make the rvcapit- 
'^^tw* of it necesssarv even in the course of a study 
of puieh* ideal ethics. For. while this doctrine 
founds dutr ultimatclv on the con5^»iou<noss that 
God k a Father* and >o on a Wliot' in a phy>>io:il or 
metapliysical truth* still the imuio\liate ground of 
Aft idoa of duty to oneV neighbor is the conseious* 


ness in each man that his neighbor is his brother. 
In the teachings of Jesus this latter insight follows 
from the sense of common sonship that Jesus wants 
to give to men. But, apart from the theology, the be- 
lief in the brotherhocxl of men, in case it can be made 
clear and definite, may have just the relation to the 
idea of duty that Jesus, in his theological ethics, 
wished the idea of the common sonship to have. 

But it is our present purpose to see how doubt 
follows the track of the moral idealists. And to 
carry out even here this purpose, it is very important 
to note that however much the morality of Jesus 
seems to rest upon his theology, and did, for him, rest 
upon that theology, for us that basis would be of it- 
self insufficient, even if we could unhesitatingly ac- 
cept the theology. For the skeptical question might 
arise in the inquiries of the philosopher, to whom all 
questions are allowed. Why is it evident that one 
ought to return the Father's love? Oranting the 
fact of this love, how does it establish the ideal ? 
And this question, easy as seems the answer of it 
to a believer, is just the question that the " almost 
persuaded " of all times have been disposed to ask. 
Any particular individual may believe in the iheoU 
ogy of Jesus, and yet fail to feel the force of the 
moral doctrine. Why does this love constrain me ? 
he may say. In fact the chnr(;h has always found 
it necessary t<j constnujt for itseJf a procjcss, or even 
a series of processes, through which the unbeliever 
must go, in order to rea(jh the jioint of development 
where he could begin U) feel the constraining force 
of the divine love. It has been recognized as a fact 


diat the uurc^uerate ooiild boliev^ axid oven trem* 
ble aud vet reiuaiu \mregeiH>rHte« The saviujc ^th 
WAS seen to be not identii'al with the mere belief in 
God fts Father* For the saving faiths divine grace' 
was neeessan\ adding to the unregenerate reoogni* 
tion of the bare truth the devotion i^ the loving 
child of iiod« And therefore the ohureh has never 
been content with the doctrine of Jesus in its unde- 
Teloped simj\licity« 

But if all this is so« then for us the morality of 
Jesns^ considereil as morality^ is fmuHletU not on the 
theologii'al theory alone« but also im a [¥H.HUiar insight 
that each man is to have into the duty of returning 
the divine love« That the divine lo\*e is ival« gi\*es a 
basis for all dutv in case and onlv in case one first 
sees that it is one*s dutv tt> return the divine love* 
And wherein is this insight as sm'h any clearer than 
Ae direct insight into the duty of loving one*s neigh- 
bor? If a man lows not his brother whom he has 
8»en« how shall he lov^^ 0<xl wIh^u he has ni>t seen ? 
Is not the dutj* irf gratitude first evident, if at all* in 
man^s relations to his fellows ? Is not love given first 
as a duty to om>'s ciiau)>anions* and tmly sectuHlarily 
as a dutv to Goil* and then onlv in case <me belic>»s 
in God ? In other wi^nls* are we not here* as in the 
disimssion with the realist at the outs^^t. hnl ti> the 
view that not a ph\-sioal dtx^trine* nor yet even the 
sublimest metajJivsical doi'^trine* as such* but only an 
ethical doi^trine* can W at tht* W^> of a s>-stcm of 
ethics ? The dtx*trinc that (nxl loves us is a foun- 
dation for dut\- imlv bv virtue of the reiH^snution irf 
MM jel mora fundamental moral principle^ th^ doo- 

46 TIIK WlAQlOVi$ Ail'KOT 0¥ miLOMmY. 

tritio thut titiimriUMl lovo ouKitt to 1>» gmt»f uUy ro- 
ttmtml. Attil for thtM prtncfipli) tboology nn Muoh 
IfivoM no foiittilntioii. Hut oti tho otluir hjinil, tt|Km 
wtiut nlumhl tho iiloiU pritiaipli) itmiK Imi fottniUNl? 
Why in mtmmiHl lovo to \m Kmtiffully rittunioil? U 
tliiM pritioipli) fotm<lo(l ottoo ttioro on Nonio d<Nitritio 
of tli4f (lotmttttitton iff Imntun nttturo ? T\w mumio o1>- 
Jwttion wottlil fi^iiin apfioiir. A ]>hyMl(!iil fnot Im no 
Ulml Ho, thon, tlitM itmiKlit in JtMt nn in^iKht, tlio 
fio()4t|)tiin(so of an iiliial wholly for ItM own Makii ? Itut 
thifO rotttnm tho old ohjiuttion. Wluit U mtoh M 
iinfotindiMl ulml but tho individual (tapricn) of Moni0- 
luNly ? Lift tlio faithful )m nnvor no di)|roU)il i Mtlll 
thnro aro thn unni^iuutraUs who aro Nonudiow to bo 
<!onvin(e(id of a truth that tlmy do tufi r(m9f(ttlmu And 
how am tluiy <?ouvin(Miil, if at all ? Not by Mbowing 
thimt tho fiuttM, whioh tlmy havo alniaily known with- 
imt (fonviction ; but by arou^iuK in thmn a now fool- 
ing, nanudy, ^ratitudi). 1'lum tlu) Ohrintian idnal 
mnmiH to havo for itN mtU) thoori)ti(tal foundation thu 
)di.yMiral fm^t that tnan oftim tmU Kratitudo. It i^ tru0 
tluit no onn mu tuui\m^ Jomum of oxproMly nMttif thin 
or any oilmr thnorotitMil foundation to hiM dcNitrino* 
I In waM niu'iiMHarily wholly frnn from tho thmirotioiil 
aim in bin d<ialin^:H with thn piioplu. Hut for nn now 
tho (Nunt Im thn tlHioriiti(uil ))oint. If thn foundation 
of ( !hriMtian othiifM an |N>pularly undnrMtiMid bo not 
thii phyMii^al fiu^t of tho Vnilwr^H hm% tiMin Im it not 
jurtt tho phyMi<Mil ffM^t of thn friupmnt oxiMf^fUi'^) of 
l^rutitudn? And !m niihiM' of thiiMn a Ma(/iMfm'.tory foutt- 
dation for an ntirM^al ih«*ory an mwU ? Nay, if (!hri>*- 
tian aiUm \m tho liiKlumt from tho pra4ttioal {Niint of 

m WAiTAtK or rat moial muu. 47 

vk»w« utill tttniKt wt» not dig mxwh d^fH^r to ftml tlM 
tb^inrKi^^ foumlttttoti on wydi thi» glortoun «tiiMy 

W« bttti^ h/ftm Making to iUuntniti^ our fumli^ 
tt^mtiJ dtficully in ^thtcnu — on^^ th^t in too tn^ 
quMtljr ronr^ikdi bv rb<»tort<^ dc^vioMu Thp un» 
tSttrtiunty b<»r« iUu»ltiit«d n^uh« from th« dtttirnlty 
of giving any tt^iMon for ih^ clittioc^ of m nKuml u1<mi1. 
Single ktUi tti^ jmig^ br tb^^ itl<Mil ; but wbo MhaU 
jttdg^ tbf» jndg«» hitttiu'lf ? Sotn^ oni'^ m Plaito^ or 
iMtti^ 8totc^ or J^WK givfi« nil « monU t«l<Mil. If wo 
in* of hit foUowt^rm tbo p<*r«onid tntlu<»noi» %4 tbo 
Mftrti^r i« enough. Tk<»n wt» wir : ^' I tMk%> ibin U> bo 
ttjr gnidis."' and o^tr mond dortrtn^^ i« foundml. Ititt 
it w<^ ar^ not of tbo faiibfnl. tln^n w^ «i44( for proof. 
Ttio doctrine? wiv* : ** IVboltl tb«* p«»rf«H*t Lifi** or \h^ 
oMtuJ Idottik or th^ oounii' of Katur««« or tbo will of 
Otnl. or tb^ lov^ of tbo Fntb^r. To look on tbo*E^ 
rMililk« iife to umlc^mUintl our idtuiL If vou r^m^m* 


bor tboao trutbin* vou will iHHUtAtii* not to do an wii 
iay/^ But ntill th^ doubt^^r may \^ unwilling to 
wbmit It^ may miv to Plato : '* Tk<« tyrant in fHiny 
to And wbo will laugh at you wh^n you tnlk of th«« 
IMMM^ of {diiloaophio oontx«m|datittn. who will inniH 
that hin lif^ of conflict and of dang^^r in fullc^r and 
•w«oli^r in ttn lurid ootitrantn and in itn fvntanicn of 
«Minitoun blinn. than arc all your palc« ntupid j«\v« of 
bbtik eontcm|dalion. And if the tyrant nayn no. 
wbo aball decide againnt him? I Ian not many a 
ttaii luniod with cag^moMi from the duU life of tho 


thinker, once for a while endured, to the richer joyi 
and HorrowM of the nian of the world? I lave not 
fsueh men actually held the pleaxurcH of life, however 
dearly Ixiught, to lie better tlian the Kuiierhuman 
calm of your philoHophic ideal ? ** Even ho to the 
St^iic, the objector may Hay : ^^ (Granted that your 
eternal lieaM^iU doefl jiervade all thingH and in our 
common Father, why Hhould that caune me, who am 
one of hift creatures, to do otherwise than I like? 
Who can ewrd\Hi from hin presence ? Even if I live 
irrationally, am I not still psirt of the Universal 
IteasTin? Tlie hare fact that tliere is an Eternal 
Wisdom does not make clear to me that I must 
needs l>e very wisi5. My destiny may lie tlie destiny 
of a lieing made sr>lely to enjoy himself/' And, to 
the Christian doctrine, the skeptic may oppose the 
objection tliat if the truth does not at oncji spiritu- 
ally convert all who know it, the profif is still hulking 
that the Christian Ideal actually appeals to all pos- 
sible natures. ^^ If I feel not the love of G^xl/' the 
obji^^-tor will say, " how prove Ut me that I ought to 
feel it?" Or, as human nature w> otUtn questions: 
" Why must I l>e loving and unselfish ? " 

Now, the simple, practii^l way of dealing with all 
such object/^rs is to anathematize; them at onoAt, ()i 
course, from the [Kiint of view of any assumed id<;ah 
the anathema may \Hi well founded. ^Mf you do not 
as I command,'' so says any moral ideal, ^^ I con- 
demn you as an evil-doer." ^^ lie that lielieveth not 
shall be damnecL" But anathemas are not argu- 
ments. To resort to them is to give up theon:ti'; 
ethics. We who aie considering, not whom we sliall 


pmetiemllY cckmlemn^ but what wo can say iu favor 
of any moral tiieorv^ must bt^ uuwilliu^^ to W put off 
with mere oratorical pcrsuasiim^ or to mistake prao- 
tktti atlbcsion for theoretical iMmvictioi). We want ^ 
a code that shall seem not only ailmirahle^ but, if ao - 
it mav be, demonstraMe« 

Soeh objections, then, hloi'king the )nith of our 
idealist^ what is he to do with them ? Is there any 
direction in which he can successf lUIv seek a foun- 
dalion for his ideals ? 

We havet^ imleed, much seeking yet to do ere we 

c«n find the right direction* For, in the ne^t )dace, 

we shall have to sIh^w how just such objectitms as 

we have applietl to otht^r ethii'al diwtrines will apply 

to all tlM»e doctrines that put the basis of monds in 

the oftoMiaetl mass of instincts calhnl Oonsineuee, 

Conscience undoubtedly expresses the results of civ- 

iKwd ancestry and training. It no doubt must al- 

ways prove an indis))ensalde aid in making practii'al 

moral decisions ; but if it be usetl to give a theo- 

lelical basis to ethii^», one can sav of it what has 

h^en already said of other realities. Its universal 

ami uniform presemv among men can l^e doubtetl, 

ami its value where it is present can l^e calltnl in 

question whenever it is employetl t^^ give a l>asis for 

«thiea; sim'e as a mere physical fact of the cimstitu* 

tion of human nature, conscnence is not yet an ideal, 

nor an obvious foundation for an ideal. l^)th of 

these objections have been fretpiently urged. Let 

it Tenture to repeat the old stor^\ 



tnntUwit* in gmmrnl urn fi^fiil^ utti \)mmim t\my 
I urit ififttllil^^ tmwh Um \mmum i\t$^ am fAiUmii 
(for t\my um miilwt)^ \mi \mmiim i)my work qukUly 
Mui Am Itiim m{ffUiUpim it^fi am imr him tmMi«Ml 
lm\m\mm^ Mul mp^ \u mmmum lifi^i arti mir mi\mi\tHim 
iof f^nmnu Ittti, \n iSwovy^ mo mi U f^imX ui^^\y 

\i \ tutr iiimn mnm^lmum Ui Miy ttitin mIwm^i^ itirtfm^ 
tlv«ly ti\t\mf\ti oi (j^wwJ ii4et«, ^V\mf^ov^ ^Mnm^Smum 
1mi for Ui#i \n%v\Hmi ol tmuifiUig Mt tfihU^ni i^mtry^ im 

foutuhiUm Ittr tttoml iWntiw^iUmn, 

imm tufi Ut Um mom\ t^mm^UmnMim ift tmu \n ito 
hlgimni miimml omuU^UiiUmn \ htr timi ilmr^ Im a 

- imrml^m tit^nlrt^ Ui niutWi 'Vim mnmA^mm ilmt w^ 

my ifmi mt Mui mf U i\m r\^H irn'mtm i\m Unttmiinit^ 
fUf'hmiUm of tumm'lmt't^ f*\ut¥ft^ If Ut \m tim r\ghl^ 
ilMiy it^mumWy utmu i)mi ^^ hut\ mt U rijjtii \mmum 
h f*<*<|p» ri^fUis Am#I wli*ti» utornlUia footui t\i^\r ^t- 

MM^flf fM^r^ tmlUt^f i^MM only ^iv«i im \fro\fU*ott* \ H mn' 
ntti mihti imthit^im, To Itlimimf^ Iry mi Uftiti\tU f*.mmi 
WImo Ittiil^r, Wt Mm\yv,\o^ iin^ iIm^ of root4«'i«t|i4f^| 
in U\n •• ni«w*^H.tttJoo of Um N«.tMr« of Vlifii^/* «<#rfo#M 
n\Hm U»** fm'i ihtti h>th^vol*toi'>t, or il«tf ♦rffiif'f, t^; )f|4 
wmm ilm ((^if^ml lmtr|/io^M, lf<, for oMr tmnnurtt \Htp> 


liar eooscieiice, only a part of Tirtne, not in any Mvt 
the whole of it, he really diacovers nothing poaitiTO 
about the nature of virtue, but only gives us a very 
interesting problem about the nature of virtue* If 
hsnevolenee were the sole basis of virtue, then, says 
fintler, for our conscience treaeheiy and violence 
would be *^no otherwise vicious than as foreseen 
likely to produce an overbalance of misery to society.** 
Tlierefore, he continues, ^*if in any case a man could 
procure to himself as great advantage by an act of 
injortice as the whole foreseen inconvenience likely to 
he brou^t upon others by it would amount to, such 
a piece of injustice would not be faully or vicious at 
aD.** Even so, it would not be wrong, he points 
out, to take A*s property away and give it to B, if 
ffa happineas in getting it overbalanced A's incon- 
venience and vejEation in losing it But since con- 
•deuce disapproves of such actions, therefore, con* 
tinoes Butler, ^ the fact appears to be that we are 
constituted so as to condemn falsehood, unprovoked 
violence, injustice, and to approve of benevolence to 
aonie preferably to others, abstracted from aU con- 
aderation, which conduct is likely to produce an 
omtialance of happiness or misery/* Were God*s 
^WMval character merely that of benevolence, yet 
oon is not so.** AU this now shows how full of 
pvohlems our uncriticised conscience is. It is the 
ilartiii^-point, not the guide, of moral controversies. 
Conmence approves benevolence, and it also ap- 
pvores the repression of benevolence in cases where 
justice, distributive or retributive, seems to the pop- 
«br Bind to be opposed to benevolence. And whoi 

iUm m^*mn ((ii^^l Ut id. ^tui if iimufiUitHi fitmmAmum 
U Hf(fiUt HpimnM Uff nuti U Hi liuri \frtmf(hl, Uf rnimH 
iUni imtmf(f\4m4m i/i« ntUft m1I| tmiiy iim hi^Wt mA^ 
ntui imuMtm4iUi tfitiy h tmnun^ iinm iMn n^ffmi in 
lAwpiy A f^Uiuft 4ft fiiffmmiim nt(HUifd iUmif, Tim 
pfffmUr t'^rtimii^um in^ hm hu UMift4ti.^ 4fi$4m Ifff ktl 
4'4ffitum4i Mui tifi4'4^tUi)u nitimi iim irm r^lnii/m^/yf 
yiHi'm^ Mt4i imft*^ftt\HU'4i. Id U uim\4^m Uf fmU ihit^ 
UmiUi4'i Ut i|// whftf Um) uHiurni 4*4fff4iHUffm iimi mMl# 
H U4^f4ir irtf'ftfifMi h Uf tUt, fiMfif^lyt Uf imIim h nyrt/tmi 
4ft ni/ffftk A iiiUiiii^r lik^ Ihiii^f wiUi hU fmri4fm' 
mm HU4i /l^|ff,i« tfl imifjtHt 4M4^uU iim 4iitiifm 4f1 i^fn^ 
fki^4>^t4*M (fftiy hy Hft^iym^n with'U ifrUiff h//m^ Uf m 
iitHi 4ffif (*4rtmi4»tw4' k M fify^ry, Mfi/1 iimi \U^ mmmt- 
i\4fitn Hintiii mII iit4>i (U't^H'M. HiiUmi 4ffmitiUftin ifm^fftm 
fitui^rinUt Iff 4s4fuUm*A n^ nftfm m wi« ^rf/m^-^jtM^i/^ H* 
Alt itin^Uitr^. K iu nhtfti, UUf^ Mty tfiimt iinifit Y4m 
ttu9 tnni tiffWfi h ttifft'iUnr (li^hft 4ft ttinitn n4t |//^tf; m 
yfffi th, wd ih'itiU ^hfii yfffit tf^. «f« thAffff, fd^fN* 
fifHfft ytrtit ttiuiiitiif, Htiti U'fi f'hittwi^n Ut #/f»« y4fii nimH 
f^,uffthU*. Vi-ft^u mt 4'4mn4'ti*tii'4t U ft pt*tU*4*iiy 4'4ffitUiHni 
f f^tiUif^ Hn Uftifi^ M ytftt t4nU h tto ftUiUf^f\fUh'fii nti4'niUftin4 
llm 4tif]i4»4'i)4ffm iM'r<» ift tfUfniufU i»«v*^ i^'^^fi mt 
h4*4fU4*tiity Mf^^wl ihtii h in hnttUy wmiii wWI« f4fr 
I,htm4* wii4t vnu U*4A f)»#fif f/ff/'^ Ut /Iwi-ll nu iitMit ft^ry 

hffti(. ti in 4»ftffiiiifh ttft ihf^ jftf^ni^tti frtltfHrm^ Uf ImW 
wimf. nil Um* W4fr».i nUi^itfjfn tttmi ih** firrM* (ft iim 
tUfpiiii^ imf4i UmittUi4i fip4fti^ UMtmly, ttiAi iim Mrti' 


Ki M Mi w <oif TmriowB nieii^ oailiMMi^ and mi>^ ar^ e(»* 
iiietu^ in their judgnnents of ael& Tbis objj«elioii» 

•Ctli^mwml eiMisi»aosiieisss is fifttal tosnytdwoiy that 
«db» mwalilT^ d^pMMknt upon m parlieiilar emo- 
tiMttl ^NT inldketaad ^C'liMiistitutMMii'^ of huniaii iiailure>» 
tAodi: dediNft momlilT to be known bj men tbronigb 
«n» fMuhj w "^ si»9e " cf » peeiili^ If 

fltfi^ ni« nmny eonseiene^i^ eaeb dadminj^ imnk as 
lli» tnw ciMSinene^ mml 9JI eonflieling; tinni the 
dhow^ nmon^ thiMi^ <nui oiil j be uunle on the ground 
•C snmething else than a eonseieneew 

The ettpriees of moaniil instinol are not exhausted 
mhen coe has enamexate^L as nowa^lavs men often 
^ as manr iwaHtiees as one ean fiml apforored 
«r demanded bv the eon;st>M'nees of filihv ^sarages^ 
Amflag eiriliied men« yeif^ in oar own hearlss eaoh 
«f n» «nn find nnmberierss eonttii:4ing ami capriei^His 
intimiteii of aetions^ and it has ^unly a fisyeholo^nd 
inlenal to stndv them in deiaiL oar to trr to reduee 
to anr semblance of prinoiple. Sneh eon- 
as we hare about eomnKui matters is too eas- 
ihr qnieled : ami. as a mere feelings the eonsk^ienee 
tkit ean be ealle^l moral is not rea^lily distingxiish- 
aUe in 1diis> or in any other res^^eet^ from a mere 
wnse of pm^pnety^ from a reverence fvior enst^Mu^ or 
fRNDa thi» fear cf eommitting an offence against eti- 
fwtew That eextain blimders hurt us nn^re than 
<Mr leaser enmets^ ami that our reim^rse for them is 
Ske our lemoise ior renial immorality^ only more 
latencww is nowadays a matter of frequent remark. 
Ton nin nsiii^ another man's season-tieket> or yon 

M'iMlM'M, if >^ liMlp llAMfl !<«» flMf'l* U*iM|$A« tlMV^I' wilMtMMi 
Ilia ,VIH» IfMW Ut fJfM WI'MM^ iMHfl )M Ul^ MfM^I., Of jTIMI 
IM)f9|M«fMiHMII<M M t^Mhl, Ml' ,yMM l.)|» l)VM»' A ((Iftf^M oC Wit-* 

Hiu'h AM ififpftiiy mimI ifMlM|iMiHlf^tit JMil(tn Im ih^ 

^iU\m \m fiMMtilml oil fMp|iii|$« wliiifli I^imImj^ Ia niiil lii.- 
iiifM'i'MW in (*t^ii iiilii fliM mm '( 
II1M l^iHiliUMiml Himwi^i' of Urn mIviimh^I^^m iiC imiim 

m'iMllI'M, wIlPlI illMftM flt44(^ H^I'M tll'l^^ll H|^Hiiml< Um^IIIi Im 

wmII kiiMWii. 'riipy ^H/^i vnriiiim Ii^aa ili({iiUii^l iiii^iil^l 
<4s|iilMtii<iiiA limy ti\) UiiiM4 Im tiiiAf^kii|i foi' MiiiiM^iMiiittf ) 

llllf. fJiM IIHiml fiMllAM JA l'^l|.| l^llll (<l'll4WMl'Uiy IMll^Witlt^ 

i4iii.iMl)ii^ nil iliMf4i4 tiiMiii.kMi9. MlmiiiM, iir \ni^ ut 
fimi^M, nr ^mii^m ttt \mt\iv\f^\iy iimy iihaa fliMiii^lv^M iiff 

MA fi|lM«f(ip|tl<M } iMli f.IlM iJMlMlillM |i||||AI<iM||f'M| Wll^ll 

yiMi linil \U i^ iiifMllihk lliiff WI4 limy mUII i-mJiijii 
Mmf , if l.liM ilinifMili.y U iif fliici imiurti^ ilmiiMiit^i|fiiiiMtM 

iMfiql. IfM VMl'y llfUl'll t.lm AHMiM MA wIlMi WM Ml'^ lllAiAl^ 

)m{/ m|imm. Kmi if Urn i|MMq|.iiiM f<Mii mi'Iam wimfliiii' m 

IjlVMIt itlt|fMlAM ill IMM, «ylltl<lf t Ink^ Ul h^ IMIIIMii^lMM^i 

I'MMlly )a l.lm VfilMM of Mm liifMlMMM i>itimi<iMiii>M nr luti^, 
flmii f.ltlA f|«mAUiiii iiMiiiMff. Iip i|0iiiilM<l hy m|i|immI Ut 
iMiiitM>iMiiiiM if/AMlfi AJiMiM f4m VM^y |fi«ilflMiii flmii iAi 

'* ( )f iWfl illllMllAMA, \uiiU |f|-Mf.0lMliM|/ f«4f I'MllI'MAMllf^ imll< 
AltiM|||iM, wlfifll iA flm |/MMMiim iWflfAfiiNM'MV" Alul 

i|(iMAliiMtA i»r f.liiA Aoi'f< iiuit^i \m m|i)immIm(| fit Aiiiim 
lii^lmf fi ilffiiml llmii llm «oMlli<<Hii{j iiif)HiUi«A fJmiii- 
amIvma. If. will Uni\m MiMHi|/lH'<t A|r)ily MVMM Allii|j' 

i^im^A AMiiliiim Uitii Ul i\m wMritiifj iiiipi(li>^A, mimI Ui 


•IT : Tliw impiibe m iwl of U^^d^v iwr of v<«u^i\Uv. 

^ • ^ « ^ ^ 

m^l IH) nuin cmn iiell wIkmico it caiiH\ tlMMx^fiux^ it is 
ibe wuci^ of in£ftlliUi« coii^iouco, For« 6no «i^ tiiai 
ttvingr U whoii mp|4i<(Hl U> m fs^xinxw oU'rii»l initK 
ikp to«t i* m^ a »uftioJo4il ono for u« in our v(XHiknoss 
U^ ap|4T lu rfio iitt|nil:)«?« tluit wi? AihI in our |hhv 
•p1v«^ FW w<» »iHm forg^^t whoiii>^ c«inio our proju- 
Jii«* and ov\*ii oar Ivid IviUits^ mhI w\* i^an f^mov xh^t 
lo 1^ of tmittouHmal anuquiiy which lui» Unniu to 
be in oar own |vm»h« aiut within the memory of Uio 
oU nielli A child U^m in one of tmr far western 
«eMWiiient» grow^ up Mtiid ai txvmmunity tluit i* » 
few T^MU^ ^Uder tiuui himsn^lf. mhI m>t a* iJd ;wi his 
«UkMt hn>ilier. Yet Ik* sli^iU K^Jt ui^m adl tlH^s»e 
rick»(T« wxHHlen lumiss^ii!^ cuul luilf-gnide<ii stivets^ full 
of mbbish^ us th«* ^mtennue t>f mi immense i^ist : lie 
tbeUl hMur of the settlement of the t\^wii ;iis 1h> he«irs 
of aneiiHil historv« and Ik* shall r^^veremv the oldesl 
j fcflSf rtyd ^ weather^UHiten« noting K^nmhin of ihe 
)ibtf«. with its mud chimney cnuuldtn^ to dusu «)uite 
M ttach as a nu^lem AtlKniian child mav ix^v^^ixmkv 
Ike ruins of the I\irthenon« A time when all these 
lUi^ were nt>t% sliall U* hey\>nd his c^mcepti^Mi. 
Exyh sOk if moral truth Ik> eternal* we vet dare m>i 
nnderlnke to jiKlpi^ whai it is by meix'ly examining; 
oar»elv«s to soe what cust^Mus or tastrs or moral 
jn d gments feel t^> our pre^^nt s«*hvs as if ihey must 
hav!^ Wetietemal* SiK^h alvsudute x-aliditvone micht 
pMisibly (eel as U^hm^us; lo his mot Wr*s way of mak* 
in;; plauh}HKldin||:r« Snow, to usx^ a wm{\arisiui of 
ArislolleV i» as white afler one dav as if it had 
been tying nnUHiched and umneltod fi^ a thousand 


yean. And high judicial authority lately exprosMd 
tho opinion, a propon of a ohango in itandard timoi 
that uiMge may alter itm^lf in a day as well as in a 
oentury, and be as authoritative in one ease as in the 
other. Nothing finds older tlian a well-established 
oustom, however recent it may be. 

Ccmscience then cannot be recognised as infallible 
merely thnmgh the test of antiquity as judged by 
our fiH)ling. Conscience furthermore, or emotions 
that ])retend to the autliority of conscience, may be 
found counm^ling or approving contradictory ways 
of action. Therefore conscience is no sufficient 
moral guide. 

lint oven if all tliis were waived, if conscience 
were in a<^tuid agrcemc^nt among fdl men, and if 
tlicre were no difficulty in diMtinguiMhing the voice 
of conMcience from the voice of juission, or from 
other ])rcjiuliceH or sentimcntH, it would remain true 
tlmt no ultimate theory of the differtmco between 
right ami wrong (unild be founded on the assertions 
of any inHiinct. Why an individuid should ol>ey his 
conmucncn uuhms ho wiHlirM to do ho, cannot be made 
chuir by conwnouce itHolf alone. Nor cim the neees- 
sity and reid truth of a dmiini^tion Ik) miule clear by 
the HHHertionH of a faculty that, however dignified it 
may be, a])p(<arH in the individuid as a ])erHonid emo- 
tion, a ])r(^judicn or choi(*e, determined by an im^ 
])idHe in him. Kven if otlu^r ])eo])ln lu^tiuUly have 
this Maine impidm^ that docH not nuikt^ their common 
])reju<lice n<u*eHHary or rniional. ('OUHcience, if uni- 
versal, woidd Hiill be only a ])hyHical fiu*t. If there 
are actually no difTcrences among various consciences, 


il is still impossiUe to see why tWe might not be» 
And the pot»ihility is as f mtnl to the authority of hare 
coniwienee as the reality wookl be. In oonseieace 
akiie» without sooie hij^ier rational test> there is no 
ground evident wherefore its decisions might not 
have been other than they are« But what the mor- 
ahsl wants is sueh a distinction between right and 
wrong as does not depend upon any mere accident of 
ieality> eren upon the accidental existence of a moral 
teiisew He wants to fiml the eternal ethical truth. 
We insist then that one of the first questions of the 
maraKst must be« iicAy eoH^ci^Hct in an^ jr^rejn rose 
if rigiin Oty to put the ease otherwise, ethical doc- 
trine must tell us why> if the devil's conscience ap- 
poves of the devil^s actss as it well may do> the 
devil V eonseienee is nevertheless in the wrong. 

The discussion has« we imagine^ after all« a practi- 
lal importance in a way not always sufficiently re- 
menbered. In the name of consilience many crimes 
have been doiie. In the name of conscience men 
Mndemn whatever tends towar\ls tr\ie moral prog- 
less^ so loQg as this new element is opposeil to popu- 
hur pvejudicew In the name of consilience they kill 
the pvophetss and stone every one that is sent unto 
thnn. In the name of conscience wars are wageiU 
whole tribes are destroyeiU whole peoples are op- 
piessed. If cc«isciem'>e i» the great practii'al guide 
in eoounon life, conscience is also^ in many great 
cffisess the enemy of the new light. It is the si'usi- 
tive and penetrating eye of tht^ hearts but it is often 
bhnd before the coming day« even bei'ause it has 
bs«n so useful to us in finding our way in the night. 

h trtit(id Ui \i^ ft Hfftiffifffiplfliti^ tit ttHtPI^ iiM timH 

tolt^ ihfit, ptiffp^pf f^i ffii^*U hUfi4^ ftf#( Hpt, Ui amiii^^ iAt^ 

pUf fft MfA tfMytti \fhttfth i9ppi)4*fi Uf iin^ f^fUy^^^fttf ^4 

rtr#» fftfftfii itiHtU. Ifffil ffihk4^ H ^MhtH^Mi \0t^ptMi 

uHy (4 H pthtHpi^, ytm fMw^P, tfpN^^fti iiuftft\ jwifi-- 
rwM^M rtH-t*^ttfftu. tifit, rtr/*rr /wffrtA MtP, f^nkn ym Ui¥ 
kiiy tfftittArtiyfti htt fIrA \ft)u^^)p\^, if^yfrtu^ yfftit mn 
^*nptfH^. ^ttfi \y^tMiptffi a^^fc Ui pftniw^^ nn wlHWfftte 
tt^!f^w^ tut ^tmt Uikh. \u*) ytmt iiW^umiif^ fH^fti 

fmi ti^4^ ^f'tf- )tmi, \vlr«fr ^ffff w«f»fy»/l Ut n-^tAfl, ^M 
hfiA wi/1 rttni fiif uV^ftt mu*ff. fr^v/* trtity nit ?/lHrl f^ttifi- 
/IrfW/fff. Aff/1 ff'r^ yffit ^ny rtr^f fir/* uV-nWy rt^M 

rtr?rfg /|^^r/*fr/1•^ tm hnt)\ tiriUttf^ fftt f>i/* /»<5«rf^f^*^ fit 
hht" Uf1hf*f■'i'r^^ f?/*«*«//fr, Uf tm f1f/» n^^^-tVvfitA /^ (Ufh- 
f^t^fMtt*^. f>ny ffrfH wfrif y/rrr will, >rJi7/* y/rf^ iVfm 
w(wf 7/<f* ?rrf/'fr/l/*rt ^ n«v/* ^ffti ftiH^h- f^'/tfh-fth ri*^ 

^H^wwrtty tit ytffit ?/WI / (^ //#ff lmpftAfi)h}h, pm 

XU-Fj^Smt <JKU^>iMi Ids uuimL «&d <tutt^ ^ liate kk 
tAuliiyoi. <!»r if« per m^/^^sW^^ tii^ IVxil triiuaplMU 

univeirsftl RM^k\& )!ie«caufee XKauiMk or t^ OcvDt$icaetto«s 

3t !to 1^ )d«J if ^ril i$ triiimpluAt in 1^ ^kv«U ? 
"^FVoil. I 4«fv tii^ widi a ^oJm^ &»kl Bd»f tibe 

iiloftiBsct will sav^ after ti^ mjumear of SbcU^T^s Ptvv 
]iK<(dieqB<s and tiut kom^xyiir u»>cii t^ iv^ worid 
mrr lii^Mdyn lum. Tb^:i^i<\r^ bow ojui tb^ Is pt^ 
«AcilHnndiie tie Ouph to hr ? Bat if tlw i.hi.pi;t f^ 
he ht UiAfspfsckifSDX of tiie /^ bow i)oet$ 4li<icta<;$ioin 
mb»it 1^ }<iowcr of Crotl, or bi<^ pcK-^dDo^t^s aK^oat tiift 
lOOTwrsaiEtT of ocais««aoo^ or its; iuuoT stJwniTii a$ a 
{m£x^« affect ooar pd^rn^esit of t^ ideal di^cdzK^taoB 

Tl»s w^ a» t^ivvwn Wi and f <>rtih beitwwsn tbe 
iMOiAicttuur d«nuuEid$ of criti^i^on. ^ CiixY" xi$ a moral 
irrs^bfini that is no oajwioc of tiino*^ say tie oritioj; 
«( «ne sort. Iluit swans lyiasonai^ 'Diopeft.M^ we 
aJ&niL "^ T^is svi^icgcn of oiors is f oiondod on a iwk of 
dftemal tratbi.^ nantolv^ on G<«f}'s will. <yr on tie intai- 
iMoi of nniv^^Tsal oons^noew <>r on some like fa^ of 
die wiorloL Bat tlieTWi|v«i otbex mtios sav to us : 
"^Wiewin do ron diffor frc«n tiose wbo sav that 
«dj;)i^ is iigbt, oar that sao(y«s detscrminos tbe Ti^rbtn 
«r tiot wlialeTw exists onxrbt to ojtist *!* For aiteT 
all vftm saT, swrneoiinir tliat is. oiocbt to K^, naeiy^lv 
it i&^ And alwavs stall osier ont^cs ai« 


proiiont, to doubt whether we are right about QoA 
or (sotiHoionce a« phyHieal facts. Buch critie« very 
plauHibly itay, ** Why found moral trutlii which ought 
to Im) mo Hecure and clear, on physical or metaphys- 
ical doctrines that are so often doubted and so hard 
to establish ? '* 

Buch is the general difficulty illustrated in the 
warfare of the moral ideals. They want some high- 
est judge to decide among them. If tliey seek Uib 
judge in the real world, they seem to endanger their 
iilealism. If they seek their judge among them- 
selves, the warfare iMigins afresh. For what one of 
them C4in be the sole judge, when they are all jt 
one of another? 


Amuim AND Kooiax in ckstain esodtt d» 


B«l if IM U«la Ihat ki ia tiMM btt tUriuMM, Ikov gmA h Ihat dark* 

Not eT«A yet have we exhuiuited the perplexiiHW 
iBTolved in ihU fumUaHmUl diffieully of uorml 
theorj* Some one may «ay: '^Let the itleaU in 
genexml tike oare of theniaelvea. We are eoneerued 
in thli world with individual and eonerete duties. 
Thete at least are plain." But theee akio involve 
qpMtftian« eonoeming the ideal. Let u« see then how 
the same difficulty that has beset the more general 
moral doetrines^ returns to plague us in ease of the 
theoretical treatment of one of these plain duties. 
Our discussion will here gain in deHniteness what it 
lose* in generality. Let us choose a concrete moral 
queation, namely, the problem of the true ground of 
tile moral distinctions and other moral relations be- 
tween what people nowadays like to call altruism 
and what they like to call egoism. 

Upon whatt then« if upon anything, is founded the 
moral precept : Thou sAa/l /otv My ntiifhbor as My- 
$tl/f Or is there any f uundatiuu for it at all ? To 
he quite familiar in discussing this problem, let us 
take it as it appears in recent discussion. Tbe 

02 THE u¥jJGiow ASPECT Of miimomY, 

MUMwen of «Qui« rxdceot morfliUto will illui^rate for 
iMf airenb tha fgrtut probk^m of eibiea, Wa vbM find 
two i:lMmm of dloiti^ wflude t(i tuAve tim dHHeulty, Ou 
tbiki (nm hflod moraliJ^ ai>|>eflir wiioife UmtUmey i§ 
DUiioly, ftltbougfa not tdwiiya quite wl^/Ily r<eali4(ti«« 
Tbey my tbaJ^ umuming ilui nfttUhAi aim mm from (ths 
beginoiog «$«lf-evidieot, tli« iiri>wlftdi fliiu soon umMmtm 
fui ft n«c«4H»ary coocoiuituit aud flUi>i4Uiiit of (tb« «elf* 
Uh ttiio, Hu/.'b wi-iterv, from ILibb^^ tri tb<e |>i«»ei}t 
djiiy, hnYis iuakUid uyou uuntUidiiUiiiii ^ a uu^fe or 
lB«tf refin«<l waliUihiUihii, i\m imMim^ of euUgbteuiu^nC 
To thU vuiw omt opi>o««« vary luitmtill/ tbe obj«0^ 
tion thsd, r^I uni)4^1Mj»bn«^ ia^ tbiu$ in fsuit reoderei 
ImptmiiihUi, Tiut luoral ideal retiultiug itt themfare^ 
wimtlukir I'ig^it or wrong in ilUj^t^lf , tU all eveulM at wtut 
with otltf^r w«U-known ixleaU. And bamie i\m expUk 
nation ^atisfie^ nobody, On/e t^till la/^ka a judgd (bo 
end titf:; warfarin. 

On tlm oiluir hand, however, tnn^re ixleali^tle mar- 
aliaU liave tribd Up muke un«elA][$hne4>s^ ditf{>endent on 
eonje iuii>uke, 6u/;h a« pity or i^yinpathy, wh<(>»e die- 
tate« fehall lie {iei-fe^-tly ihkiRniut tuul self-evident, and 
yet u//t, like ttie i»u|>{Xi«ed iVu^tnUta of o/HkiieUmee^ 
either aUtra/rt or myaUirym^. lint t/> sw.'h a fonn- 
ihaupu one opp<i«9e« very naturally a^^^ain tlie objec- 
tion that all bueh judgments of U^iling are eapij^ 
eious, that pity and «yui{>athy are tumfuaad and 
decseitf nl feelings^ wholly unfit tr> gi ve ni/>ral insight^ 
and that no ideal can lie {iHiwlkid on the s»hif ting i>and 
of nmtb realities. 

The results of suich miunama will on/^e nu/re lie 
•keptieal, but the skeptiieism ou whi/.'h we are here 


inaisting is so necosaary a fuumUtion for ethics^ that 
we make no apology for dwoUing \\\\o\\ it y<^t fartlior« 
devoting to the apocial prt>kleniH hhj^^m^hI by thone 
recent discuaaiona of aolHahuoaa and unacltlahneaa a 
separate chapter. 

In a collection of Servian })opular taloa may ho 
fooml one that nma aomcwhat aa foUowa : Omv there 
lived two brothcra^ of whom tlie elder waa very in- 
cautioiui and waati^ful^ but alwava luoky« ao that in 
spite of himaelf he grt^w conat^uitly richer^ while tlie 
younger, altlunigh very induatrioiia and oarefuK waa 
invariably unfortunaU\ ao tliut at laat he lost ever}*^ 
thing, and hatl to wander out into the wide world to 
heg^ The poor wreti^h, after much auffering, rt^ai>lveil 
^ to go to no leaa a |H^rai>n tluui Fate hiuuHolf. and to 
inquire wherefore he had Wn tliua tonnei)t4[Hl. T^mg 
and drt^mlful wildenieaaea >ven^ {uihshhU and tinally 
the wanderer n^achtnl the jfliM^iny lu>ust\ N\>w viait- 
ora at Fate*a dwi»llinj? dart* nt>t In^^jin to 8|H'nk when 
they come, but muat wait until Fate ahiUl addreaa 
thenu and meanwhile muat luunbly do afU^r Fate 
whatever he dt>ea. St> the waudert»r had to liw in 
the houae for aevenU days, silent, and b\iaily inutat^ 
ing Fkte'a In^havior. He fo\uuI that Fate lives not 
always in the aame way, but on aouu* days enjoN-a 
a golden l>ed, with a rich lmu(i\u't and untold heaps 
of treaaure acattertnl al>out : on sonu* days u^iin is 
snrroundetl witli silver, and oats dainty but st>nu^ 
what plainer ftHnl ; on some days has bnuen and 
eopper wealth tmlyi witli coarse fooil ; and on aomo 


dayn, ponuiloHH and ragifod, nloopi on tho floor, digi 
tlu) ground, and gnawH a oruit. Kaoh night bo is 
aiikod by a iuiiernatural voiao: **IIow fdmll tboio 
livo who havo thin day boon bom ? " Fate always 
roplioH : *' An I liavo farod tliiii day, lo may thoy 

Tluui our boggar found tlio Hoorot of Ium own mlt- 
foriunoM ; for liu Imd boon bom on a day of poverty. 
liwi whon at last Kate broke tho silenoo, the visitor 
boggod him te tell whotlior thore (K>uld bo any way 
whoroby ho might osoapo from tho (Mmsoquenoos of 
his unluoky biHh. '' I will tell thocs** said Fate. 
*' (hi thoo homo again, and ask thy l)rothor to lot 
thoo adopt his littlo daughtor. For sho was born on 
ono of tho gohh^n days. Adopting hor, tliou shalt 
tlionooforth oidl whHt«)vor thou rc^ooivost her own. 
But never oidl anytliing thine. And so shalt tliou 
1)0 rieh." The l)oggar joyfully left Fate's dreary 
houms with its sad round of days, imd went baek to 
the world of labor and hopt). There, by following the 
advi<in that ho hml rtuuuvu<l, ho beeame in faet very 
wtialthy ; sineo all that ho nndortook proH])eriHl. But 
tho woalth wiut his lulopted daughtitr's. For always 
Iio oallod his gahis httrs. Onn day he grew liowevor 
very woary of iliiM, and said to hinmc^lf : ^* These fields 
aiul floeks an<l iKiuHns and tn^aHurus are not really 
hers. In truth I havo tMinH^l thoin. They are mine.** 
No sooner hml ho spokon thtt fatal words tlian light- 
ning fell from heavnn and In^gan to burn hiH grain- 
ilolds, and tho fioodH nmo to drown Iuh iio<^kH. Ho 
that torror-strittken tho wrotcli foil on Ium fiu'o and 
cried : *^ Nay, nay, O Fato, I s|)oke no truth ; they 

ire not mines Imt h«»4Nk ben idoiM^'" Am) Uien^upcm 
Hiutte mmI Aoch) vmiidlMKlt Mid Um nuiu dwislt thttnois 
twih in {«4i«« mhI plenty* 


Ti» reaUy tWp thought ihut imperfectly ejcpref»ea 
ilaelf in ihi« little Servimi tide mny axi$$:ettt nituiy 
•(ttt» of refleetituuu Jxi»t now we »ludl bxisiy ouiv 
wlxea with tmly one kH the ipieatiima tluit are brought 
tD mind by the »h\ry. \I«uiy who nowndny^ hnve 
mneb to any aboxit whtit they eall idtrxii»m« aeliudly 
txpbdn all idtniiaiu A2A a kind of »elfisdi evasion of 
tike eon^nent^^a of oriuler !JM>lti!dmes»% »i) that at 
bottom thev really eminstel men nuieh as F^t«^ einrn* 
wibMl the wamlerer* Thev sav in eiftH>t : '' To make 
thyself happy« do tvrtain thin^ ealltnl dxitit^ to thy 
nin^bor* That we t>all altruism* Thrni shalt have 
ti^ rewanl* For what is nuuv ust^ful t^^ a man than 
a man? If therefore thou divit wt^ll to hiuu thim 
•halt make him in many wa)-s of j^reAt serviiv to 
thee* Am) S(\ to ^t luippimvts for th)'self« see that 
thou be mvt o^nmly mert^ly a siH^ker t^ thy hap^u* 
ne«» : but eall thnt whioh thou siH^kt^t his hup^uuess* 
dllinjir it his will ht^lp tt> make it thine. IW si^ltish 
by easttngr asiile grosser selfishness* IA\\^ for the 
others as the means i^ living fi^ thik'st^lf* In tH>- 
operation is safety* Aot therefort^ as a ginnl mem* 
her of the community^ aiul thou shalt pnvijH^r* Hut 
meh aetion retpiires altruism. As the mtui g«^v%^ his 
wealth to his adopter! dtiughter« st> that he might 
f^wn it himMlf am) outwit his destiny^ so must thou 


make thy interests into the interests of society, and 
by so doing be true to thyself." But now such al- 
truism, as one at once sees, has no right to parade 
itself as genuine altruism at all, and if it be the end 
of conduct, there is no moral conduct distinct from 
cleverness. But if this be true, it is at least incum- 
bent upon the moralist to explain why the popular 
ideal of unselfishness is thus so very far wrong. 

More or less disguised, the doctrine here generally 
stated appears in modem discussion since Hobbes. 
Let us follow it into some of its hiding-places, and 
to that end let us distinguish selfishness and unself- 
ishness as ideals or ends of conduct, from selfishness 
and unselfishness as means, accidentally useful to 
get an end. 


Altruism is the name of a tendency. Of what 
tendency ? Is it the result or the intent that makes 
a deed altruistic ? Was our hero an altruist when 
he gave to his adopted daughter the name and the 
enjoyment of a possessor of wealth ? Or would he 
have needed in addition to all this a particular dis- 
position of mind ere he could be called an altruist ? 

We need not dispute about mere names as such. 
Let everybody apply the name Altruism as he will ; 
but possibly we shall do well to recall to the reader's 
mind what ought nowadays to be the merest com- 
monplace of ethics, namely, that we cannot regard 
any quality as moral or the reverse, in so far as the 
expression of it is an external accident, with which 
the man himself and his deliberate aim have nothing 


Id da. Ediieal judgments deal with porpoaesu On 
iny theory of ligbt and wrong tlie man himself^ not 
tlie acndent of fortune^ determines the moral char- 
acter of his act ; and this view most be held equally 
whether one belicTes the man^s will to be free or to 
be bound. Hence the unforeseen or unintended out- 
eome, or any other accidental accompaniment of my 
wat^ does not make me egoistic or altruistic in case 
egoism and altruism are to be qualities that have 
any moral character at alL If my property is acci- 
dentally destroyed by fire, and if the loss causes great 
damage to my creditors or to people dependent on 
me, the k»s makes me no less or more an altruist, 
ahhoD^ I can no longer do good as before. If my 
purely selfish plan chances to do others good, I am 
no less an egoist, although I have made my fellows 
happy. In short, he who means anything^ and does 
what he can to reali^ his intention, must be judged 
avoiding to his intent. Circumstances control the 
outcome, and thev make of the chance discoverer of 
the first bit of gold in a California mill-race a 
greater altruist, to judge solely by consequences, 
dian a hero would be who sacrificed himself in a good 
eaase, and lost the battle. But no moral system 
eonld make genuine saintliness out of the deed of 
the man who by chance has found what the world 
needed. And to take one more example^ the power 
die 9tri* rf«r^ B^sf tri77. wm/ sM4t das GhiU schafl^ 
h not altruistic in the moral sense, howe\*er vast its 
creations may become. 

An this we maintain, Ix^causc^ if you are morally 
a diapoation, you must study what it is, 


not what aro iti aooidental iurroundingi. Moral 
diMtiiiotionM muHt a)))>ly to ainiM as luoh. Unlocw 
you aro judgiiif; men exactly aM you judge tlie north 
wind or the value of rain, not aM eonioiouiily good or 
bad, but an mere foroeii tliat ha))))en to produce luoh 
and Huoh rcHultii under Huch and Huoh conditions, 
you muHt study, not llrMt the accidental oircum- 
stancoH, but the men. And in fact all moralists, 
however much they may condenm the weighing of 
mere motives, however much they desire to take just 
the consequences into account, as Itentlmm did, are 
nevertheless forced to separate in their moral judg- 
ments accidcntid from expected consequences. We 
maintain tliat this abstraction of a disposition from 
its accidental cx])ressions must be rigidly carried 
out in order to get a moral doctrine of any sig- 
nilloance. Let others study natural forces. We 
here are studying men, and are considering what 
ideal of a man we can form. Whatever the aooi- 
dents of the outer world give him in the way of 
means, we want to know his real intent, and to judge 
that. Hut if the intent of the man does alone make 
him altruistic or the reverse, then what, for example, 
is the position, in ethical controversy, of any system 
that declares altniiHin to be morally good hecauHH tits 
individual fievdn the Hociul order to aHHint him^ and 
muHt therefore in all prudeiive try to further the «o- 
cial endn an a meam to the further inrj of hin own t 
Dom such a system say anything whattwer about 
altruism as such? Doc^h it not inakc^ (enlightened 
egoism the one rule of lifo? And if this is what is 
meant, why not say so plainly ? If tlie intent of the 

wbo li«l^ hU (ri<&tid^ or hU ^i^ighbor^ or ttociety^ Aud 
who i% bott««l^ ctud kitid^ titid puUUoHi(Urited dolely bo* 
QiMuiid ho WMilA to gist |[m>leoUoti ctud liolp t& rotum^ 
k tto (dlriuttl^ but i« ha egoi«Uc m ik %tudiiA or ha «^ 
TliomHM(^« Ho U otily okNM?or4iottded Uuui tk^y 
woro« On tlio othisr hatid^ it by cuiy po»«ibUi^v miy 
otto miiko« the gooil of otlior« )m aoIo otid^ ctud with 
tliw M Olid teUcod oaro of hU own hocdth^ or d<&VY^« 
0^ bid tnontid povn^ns or «aiiiiMidft widedth^ but «dl 
UM^r^ (or tho wiko of b^^ng tibio to beuofit oUiota^ 
Ibm i« «u«?k H m«ui not I'gowtioi, evou while working 
for hitu«oLf% but (dtrui»ti<c tliroughout For «ud[i h 
ttuui by hypotheM« cuiu»^ not «it iiis own per«onHl 
good« but ttoldy «it this good of otlior«k 

All tliitt itt oonsiHiuont upon tlio gi>iiorcd doi^trino 
^t tho di»tinoUoti Wtwt^n (dtrui^u tind i^gi^i^m^ m 
niond qiuditi^^ mu«t depi^nd on no <s.xto,rncU a^vi* 
dentil but on the ^^r^iHmcil deed of tlio man hinii^^lf% 
fW^ to nuiko «|[ieoM nu^iitioti of whnt nuuiy forget^ 
the meMiA tlmt yo\i hUce to get any eiid lire fi>r y\>u 
merely }>hy«ie«d iimdent»« If tliing» were other^^ 
wfaiei^ you would with tlie ^^tune intent do other tlutig« 
to get whHt you »eek« Not whtit you Imve to do in 
getting your end^ but wimt ^\'ou Hettmlly eumetl nt^ i« 
Momlly dgniAeMit Henee tlie cdtruiMu of ornis^i^ 
quettee« «m Aueh Ia momlly in^^tgniHiHinU tuid tlie id-^ 
truiMu of intn'ut i« alone mortdlv «^ignirtom\t But 
yet thi« obviou« mul wnnuingly very e<MumonpliUH> 
di«tineUon i!^ by tlie viewr^ that we are iHwulmtuig* 
wholly lo«t Mght of in iU furtlier applicHtiiui to lub 
iuoi lit^ Wo may hear in modem controvemiyi 


for tniUnoa, of a ^Stonfluit U^twei^n altruium and 
eK^iHin,** Hunh iim tliu ona timt Mr. Himnoor cUmouimoii 
in luM '* Data of KtliidH/* and wo may draw noar to 
loarn how tho nonfliot gooM. Wo nhall |KMiiiUy And 
tho quoMtion put tlum : If a man in trying to be 
altruintio wore ho far to forgot hinipiolf an to injure 
luH hoalth, or to iMHumio mo woak an to bavo no 
boaltliy nbildron ; if ho wore to bo oarolomi of bia 
proiHtrty, to hit bin mind go untrainod, or to narrow 
hiN own lifo t(N) mu(di« why tlion bin own objoots 
wcmUl Ih) dt«fcmtiHl, ho wouhl l)o unablo to bt^lp any- 
bcKly, ho ought do liarm, and he oouhl l)o no genuine 
altnuNt. Tlioroforo altruiNm muNt not op(HMio ego- 
iNm t(N) muesli, idntt altnuMni will dofoat itNolf. On 
tho otbor Imnd, wo hoar, if ogoiiim in extravagant, it 
will in itH turn fail to got iU own groat end, Hcdf-iiat* 
iiifa(«tion. For it U UMeful to ono to Imve bin follow- 
mond)orM in tho Ho<nal organiiim woU-oontentod, efii* 
oient, and moral. Ono numt try to make them so, 
that bt« hiniMidf may enjoy tho fruitM of their bappl- 
noMM. IIo payN moro taxoN, and alno highor prieoi 
for what ho IniyN, if tho oonununity aH a wbtdo 14 
not (U)nt(Uitinl and happy, tin woll an hoalthy and 
moral. KiilightriiiHl Mt*l(tMhnt«HH thon^foro moanii for 
him public Mpirit IIim nnighlMir*M dirtiMim^N are apt 
to infoot hiM own family ; Ikmioo, if onlightimod, hti 
will do what ho rcmvnniontly oan to luH«p Ium noigh- 
bor W(dl. ITiM iii«ighbor*H |Nm(*n of mind U^mU to 
mako bin own mind {N«aooful, limiro bo will ht<lp bin 
noigblMtr cmi of trtntblo. ( )tlii«rwiMM Ins would bavo 
to live in anxiety, loiit«littt«HM, wrtikiit«HM, and dangor. 
Ilhi life woubl be bard, and probably bin doath would 


be emrtf. So ^oism must not be too extrmTagant. 
Ahmism is ^ equallT imperatiTe.*^ Thus, perbjq»» 
«e shoaU bear tbe so-called ^ conflict *' diaensseiL 
If sadi Tiews were urged, wbat sboold we say about 
Am ? We should bave to say tbat they touch in 
no wise at an the true moral distinction and warfare 
be tween sdfisbness and ahmism. They show only 
ttaty whateTer the opposition in aim, the two prinei- 
pks haTe aftrar aD, in this world of limitation, to 
uae Teiy much the same mean& Surely it is no 
new thing to leam tbat in warfare both parties bave 
to bum tbe same quality of gunpowder, and tbat 
eien the cats when they fight aD ba^e to sciateh 
with daws tbat are very mudi alike. Do such re- 
wiitIi erplain or toid to diminish or to end die con- 
fficts in qnesti^Hi? 

How insignificant is this way of studying tbe con- 
Cet of egoism and altruism, we shall see if we take 
yet other illustrations. In the sense of the fore- 
goii^ comparison of ^oism and altruism, even a 
pirate, in bis treatment of merchant vessds^ would 
ha¥e to be moderately altruistic ; namely, he bad 
better not try to do barm to a merchant Tessel tbat 
is too well armed for bis force to oTercome it. On 
tike contrary, bis egoism will in this case counsel him 
unad&hly to let it {nrosper in its own way. Nay, 
be may even tiy to speed it on its course^ if it ap- 
pears disposed to change roles and to attack him. 
He may say tbat in just this case he thinks tbat this 
merchantman ought to have peace, and to be pre- 
SBnred from injury. Tbe other alternative would 
|Bt here ineieaae bis own bill for repairs^ or mi^bt 

73 TtfK iixMOiouM Afii*KaT or t*iirLOK>raY. 

ttmkn IiIm own oxifiU^ffini! Ihmm Imppy* ^^ tniK^it nvmi 
hrlttg him tci ihn k^IIowm. Ttio ltii|»t)ift«)MM df tho 
(iN!W of ilm ttinrdlmnittmn Im thoniforo Jiim( now nn 
ohJfMtt of <mn(wm for him, am parhnpM fiirih<irin(( hin 
own. Ho hn mny hn willin(( to (umipromiMi) (hn dlf- 
iloiiliy, nvnn if it Mhould mni him n Inrfft) Mtim to tmr- 
miit<l«) tli<f l)iillig(9Nint (iftptiiin <rf tltti nrniml morohnnt- 
innn to lot him tiUnm Tlnm tt<i nii((ht i^vm tiAA 
quiUi A fortuno to wlmt ihn mMrnhiintnmn*M <iii|itfitn 
Mui (^rdw alrniidy hitvd of ginnl thinfpi, und thtfi 
would Miirnly hn vnry nmrkdil nliniiMm. ThiiM t^gO' 
\mu and altruifim may o)i|n>m«i nanh othnr, ami thtiMi 
hy naniful (lahiulatioti, i\w\r oppofiinK <*l<(ln>M may \Hi 
halannddl Or ynt a^ain, MiippoMii that a robbMf 
mmU mo in thn hlffhway, and i«K')lMti(ially domandu 
my \mrtm. If now 1 Mhould manaffii to diMarm him, 
to proMont a pifitol to IiIm hnad, and Ut mU him to 
amnrntpany mo Ut thn miaroMt town, ovidontly th« 
olaintM of aliruifim would for that man havn a oouMld* 
orahly Mtronffor omphiiMlM than Uuiy had thn numimt 
Imforo. Ho would now hn willing not mnrnly to 
livn and Int llvn In pna<*n for thn proMnnt) hn wotild 
not mnrnly hn dnllghind Ut rnno((tdKn my r\gUU of 
])ropnriy and in Inavn mn frnn Ui nnjoy thnm ) hut hn 
would undouhf^idly hn ((lad U) InnrnaNn my happinoMN 
hy Kivlng mn anyihln(( of valtin thiit hn mlKlit havit 
ahout him, or any information of valun Uf mn that I 
ut\ghi dnfiirn, if l>y Munh mnatiN hn noidd g^i tm Ut 
Int him gn frnn. A ((rnat alirulNt woidd my rohtmr 
now hn, hownvnr ((mat h\n t^gn\nu\ JuNt hnforn. 

Now do Munh dlMnuMNlouM of thn nlalnm of n)(<dMm 
and altruUm moan any thln(( for thn morallfit ? Ihxt 

Mfwmmcm xm PCBBSaL T3 

Hr aiSvQisite g!!9»d <£inBiiia^ lesit &»" BDamstfM bbiit kftufr 

at &<«»i;. <i£ tdh^ ;illtanii&9iii tAott psi^ (flute's <iefirffif^ liu» ttk» 
aii& tBiii tAott <aw' nanrgssir fiiarttbar ^sififflu <Af tdh^^sidh- 
IBnii' iiiiBdl&&iiifi» tAott ]Ddfa» a nooii <ai£Il «'««& to 

at cffifgwatDBflA^ miHW' lAnyiB Bsft^r^ lAifr Tisttius; jisilr oDbH^ 

nBg^iiSi to Qcsfvirtr <9iiar n^i^ibiMr ats^ :siiidk^ to bJbi«r isi 
fis UksDf lNieiiiB3» bf' ^snstts ami maok lod^:: lAit 

aimmiiBilt &r our pBEsonuJI pflsssiisre. Oshr tdh^ <&^ 
jnHJjftntnff as^ mck <{i«itf«nnii tAtf* mmraJEslL SmiKlir on 
jjimftinratell gtiha» wvaara* d&<nn»£is^ wftssfr wv 0ii|g:}Qtt 
to amn aiu. mfH horn wv eam i^ <raBr auonsL iut ftnuEC adit 
IflBitr a» w>» iCsmSaat ^msst^LV[^» to lAtf^ ^(anfiraiD firuiif£> 
fflffiL Af^iEuii minn&IEtnr moiT BDm^ne maiidk to sit <af 
iHfMiHffc. Sfait <af pBiiii;i^R[tf& tA&f bdJkHBifcni^ ^ mmnis^ 
ooi tfein nff iBodUmDE^. T^ mtfisnts^ ayre* nbtf* pbirwaJI atf«- 
gfifcirtttk. lu^i&nBg: mocw. Hftislt w^ wamlt to imsm h^ 
nAfftAfflT cscomniL as^ aon aamn ni^ oaoiraJIIlr tdbt wcnriAiDHft 
aonw «ir ntk^dkar aAtzmmnn u^ ai nuinrallhr drttor wsbl 

«aai nmatr smftftfssfiiQhr Bi^ ivI!t&A;» bixtr d^afr nrftAitJiAir 
CDK'li; amiKSiight to W 5«(iitit<&«. ajiii v/74 ^jowf'ffr^ Xi?^ taeQ 
us tfloir if !««> aucff wm^fbHtf* aoni -$«; !!&<& wv' iUDU aTtjol 
Ikancnig: toflMnndk tDr«niLbftf wTt!& (jorfiflllb^KSw i$> m^ to t^IH 
Off tfloit <aiinr akoms^ tj n^rftir to W aJlfimasttnf^ bnrtr i^nbr n&sstr 
awnoMU sdU&dk BDfioi aj!T( m^ fiwibw X^ 1»]0! m^^ tt&sitt 
SmsaKiRne aB&i aJkcraoSttviRft dksil anponl naeBBnug: 


our own powom profitlemily, and iihall try to preserre 
our own health, and to cultivate our own wits in use- 
ful wayH, all thin in to tell un that unnelflsh wi«e men 
are not fanatics. It may be useful to say this, but 
it is not useful to the diMJUHnion of fundamental 
moral doctrines. We want to know, for the first, 
not how successfully to be altruistic, or selflsh, but 
why the effort to be altruistic or to be selfish is mor- 
ally right or wrong. 


If now su(;h comparisons of the claims of altru- 
ism and egoism tlmiw no light on the fundamental 
moral questions, what shall we say of the chance that 
the *^ conflict ** may be explained or diminished by 
any proof that the evolution of our race will tend in 
time to diminish, or even to extinguish, the opposi- 
tion ? If some one shows us that by and by the most 
selfish being in the social order will find it his own 
bliss to give as much bliss as he can to everybody 
else, so that men shall all \m even as the people at a 
siiccfcssftil party, getting ))leasure as freely as they 
give it, and giving it Umixm^ they get it: and if 
such predictions seem to anyb(Hly to help us to know 
what duty is, thi*n what (;an we say in reply, save to 
wonder at the insight that mtcs the connection be- 
tween all these facts and our present duty? If a 
society ever does grow up in which there are no 
moral conflicts, nothing but a tedious cooing of bliss 
from everybiMly, then in that so(!iety there will be 
no moral questions asked. But none the less we 
ask such. If the people of that day no longer dis* 


tmgniifch ^^quvh froui ulirulmu thej may nil be 
UttHwd : but wluil isi thnl to un ? We luk. What 
QQghl we to do ? We leani in aasiweT that the peo- 
ple of the future will feel uo neetl to aak that quea- 
tion* We denire that duty be defined. We leani 
in anawer that if wen ever ^t |)erfeei» the aenae of 
obUgalian will vaniah^ ao that noboily will queatiiui : 
What ia duty ? at all. Thia may be magnifii<>ent, but 
ilia not ethiea. 

For what do we really learn by hearing about the 
aoeiety of the future ? Only that» in the time eom* 
iag« there will be «iK^h and »ueh f reetlom f nun moral 
piohlema ? />o ire M«^i* alsth learn Ma/ ft4f amyht 
la do omt &rji/ to brintj uAdm/ that tifiifiH of jiMHice t 
Kol at alU tor we are i»ure that we «haU never live 
to aee that day ; and we oannot know why we ahoiUd 
woric for it ao long aa we are atill in doubt abimt the 
^ahie of aeliiahneaa. l\> we leani that we ought to 
eonform aa nearly aa ia poa^^ble to the ndea that will 
fOfem men in that ideal atate ? But how then do 
w<e \mm that ? Ia it WtrMjic* Mc» eomtHtf /arm of 
tomduH ttitt Ae tAe ** hiifAt^ft Jorm of ailJHstmemi of 
mttn io mn/ji«'* aa the moilem a}MMtlea of evolution 
Itaeh that it will be? Nay« though we do aeeept 
meat eonfidently all that theae apoatlea teaeh about 
the fiitiire« ainoe aurelv they muat know alniut it. we 
atiU miai anything of moral aignitioanee in theae 
|ihyaieal facta* For why ia thia ooming atate the 
hk^faeal ? Doea any one aav : /i*«t«^rMjte it iriV/ tome 
mi |A# 0md of tAe jiA^sif^il pnM^;»;fi of ifivoiniio'H t 
Nay then, if every more athiinoetl atate ia to be more 
aoMplaUai by aoeh reaaoning the sprouting potato 

iMi lunt^ ttr Mi mnttt vnmjilPii^ nr i«V4«m ma moMi ptffffM' 
fffffUt muiufi im Ut itH^ituUnc U\4iuiUm\ wiih iim miif' 
iillll hifilmnl \\mi wtt wMti iMUm\ tnr mmi Wa tmftU^ 

tnr mtmt* niititr tt^ft^iim limit UiIa \tUyn\m\ ittmi ihti 
uitim utttfn i\wut why ii h ittifil/f Aui\ wliy i#«i((lii w#f 
f^i ir-y f^i rfiM^I)/^ li '/ Ihiuunt* In ////// 4»////^i /*yf/>f)/ 
inU'th'nlunl mill Itr Inffif/ltfif. if ihilf Uf**M W« WW»i All 
know wUtti w<* how ^MM (^1 t\ii^ Mu\ WM ^^ U»Mi UiU 

fMflirn lM«r)r|r)lM((»il will In« Alfr |irM«i4<||f. fof ma Mimf/tnitM 

fi,\t\^. If WM wMM* ill hUtii M#u WM aImhiIiI In* impifjfi 

H« WA tt\m\\ unw Im Mmbtff|/ «rfirM«slvi>«i Miy l»M^f|riiff# 
AinI why aImhiM w^ tin MiyiMitit unmiUUU'f 

Kv«iImUom ihtu^ hA M iM«<rM |rf/rA|>^(i^ iUritwt^ fy$ 
l)(/h^ OM fhi* r«Ml AifMl fMfi^lM.fM4<nUl liMmiiiiii;; /rf fUtiy, 
If WM bfMiw wimi w^ tt-fti Ut iry Ut ihi, Ihs^u wk ^<lift 
JM^tj** wlM(Uf#ir w«» /rMj/h^, f^i h4<l|f tfr Ut UUitit^r ^fftUi^ 
i)nu Mi4 M MMi^iMti l^r ^lMl^ itMil. Iffii NMh<(9<i w^ kff/rw 
tfut ilniy M,lMtrwi«»«i. fJiuMi }ci uidUUitf Ut i\m i«w« 
|»hy«»l/<ttl ttui ttt t^vttUa'ufii iUtil UttUt*til4in whinl. In fwrf* 
wily Ii)j/Im«/- ttf low**/-, li«tM^'» /rr wo^«n«. Why aN/miM 
I wo^k for ttiUtrti t^^tm^ if i», U wd n\ttmi\y ^niU* 
\tUitt^ n,\Hiri trtrtit Mty UwtwUul^tft of i(V/ihifJofi| HtHi I 
oM|/hi f^i «lo wimi I utiit JMd^, MOW fof tity UrtfiUff 
Im*m» V 

Aff4jr nil, how#«¥<«r^ l>, Mno/rflMtr »«4|»««/<i of f<vohp 
UfTfi M(>«fii wh)«<h ifowii^lMyA fiioAt Al,r<:fAA Ia luhl lit 


ettiiics. It is said that^ the future aside, evolutioii 
lias made us what we now are, aniU in particular, has 
formed our society, and us for society. Hence not 
only is our welfare in fact best served by a wise al- 
truism, but this fact is plain to us in our very organ- 
iatioii and instincts. Therefore while throughout 
our aim is our happiness, our nature has been so or- 
ganised by generations of social evolution as to make 
pretty certain that our happiness is already depen- 
dent on ourgood character as social beings. There* 
fore the doctrine of evolution shows that selfishness 
must itself become even in our day altruistic if it 
would be successful. 

Is this aspect of evolution any more ethical than 
die other? That is, does it show us, not the means, 
bat the moral find ? We must deny that it does. To 
be sure, if we never actiudly felt any oonflict between 
^oism and altruism as dispositions* then indeed for 
as just that ethical problem would not exist. But 
we do feel a conflict. And since for us our selfish- 
ness is not altruistic in aim* it is quite useless to try 
to make the warring impidses one by declaring that 
a perfectly enlightened selfishness* even in our own 
aodetv, would be altruistic* not indeed in aim* but in 
consequences. For, in the first place* that would 
actually be a false statement for our present siHMal 
condition ; since it is still quite possible for a clever 
selfish man to live verv comfortablv* bv somehow 
kgal]!^ wronging and oppressing others. And. in the 
second place* if the statement were true* it would W 
ethically worthless. For if gooil treatment of others 
is mufcurmly the behavior that is, selfishly viewed, the 

mfM fnUnftUt^Mfftfi, ihf>i mhff in^hftfu^ nptm iliMi |vfak 
i^\f\pi \n «cif|l 9^\iu)u 1^^ n\ifni9^u^ ni Mi nnA )m him 

Uf^rn fi\t,fnUm *ft nim wtmUi \m gfpfffifmm hUU wAittft- 
mPT ih^ mltuh V4m^^\i^p!i^*4^n, U %\%m\im timiXti iff 
)m \\m\U^\ Mv Any may Sty m'M\%htmv^^ i\mn tli^ liffrfl^ 

fpi^th. AhfftUm ft4 ft rrf^ftn.9 ft/; wxiflftb mi/Ia w/^M 
h/rwAv^ lift *»/r ftirrp ftit ftll, Utf, fm)f Htt M/ntMifttkA 
Utffi. tt fi\tf'ttm^f9ff4*An ^ftri^l, H WfmM im «»4 
ft^f/K wkil*^ U#^ /k^lf'Hh ftJwf JM^If ffrmftin^l tifftfffUthi^ 
A, S. Mill, f/rll//wfrf^ fAU^n^ ftfWI t/f flmtiff^friftb 
ilM? mofjmp. hfmt i}tp inlpfd fff HU ft/jt* Afif'^ffdinff Up 
ffhh fittdftu^um^ ft np\tUh ft/dt w/mM if^ nrhmiftiUt hf 
i/nfp^i^ if i)H'fp> wfl^ iff in 4t)f#> ApWSmtnU^ prirf^^M l/> imImf 

ft/it. H/r ilt wmil#l t^ ftlftrriff^rrf ft/r (»a M\)mfn^\y mnA 
np\f\%h\y jrf^. ffcif^ ih\% f\\?^iw^ym^ ti^mpfffft fMMrfttl 
f//f ntmm fmritfff^^^ tn tm tmr \^^r\nim WfrribtMM/ 
T)»A /|ri#>4(f.i//rf iat: Whftf^ irr fth/i ft/^ >^l//»(^ iff i\m 

whftft^^v^ }tp\4m^^ ttffi Uf fit^' ni'^ff^ )m% iff i^Mj i^ttnAU 
i'umfi rM»/l#rf whi/'h >r#9 w/^rk^^ i« r/f/rrftlly ifli^j^lP 
/fftriit. F^/f fit U whftit wft hft^A /'^Ikf/I itm ffhfiiAmi 
Hd'4'Uipid fff hU ffntrfftittfifufin. thii tnUrni^ t^pn/rt 
fffrrn frt^ftmp^ m'mn^ Uf iff jwMt tffyh ft frhyfAf'Ht ftmi* 
fif^ti: tfff JnWfl^, ftjrftft fr/rfrt rrv/z^iv^, wiri.flHt fAlfti^^ |»/4 
*/f nh^ r^ftl ftirri ft<« wi/'>», Irfffl //rily ft/r f>»#^ yw^ftrt*!/ A 
fitntf i4\mn Ur irp f^UUih ff Wf^ im li^^<i wh^^ Ma 

i» will* if eiJishti^wetl* do j«\ auil ileliWratit>ly too* 
Am) he viU :^\v )u ihid «iot ju^l as uiuoh ajutl jiu^t aa 
lilUe c^luuritY ^ h^ xvimld havt^ ^liowu had h^ livtHi 
where stelHahut>sa ^ras l)e«i »ejrvtHl hv kUliug hisi 
^«i«4ii>\ aiul ha^l he kiUetl hiiu« The iutenU apart 
from the motive of the mau^ eau have reference imly 
to the meaua by whioh he ^H>ksi to i^et hisi^ ultimate 
aim« Ami s^ueh iutent rtJates to aoindental matt^^rsu 
If by a physit^ aooideni the selH^di maju grows* up 
irhei^ you must speak politely to ^x^mr autag^misi^ 
am) treat him with grt^t shi^w trf resj>e<^t> then the 
nelfish man will deliberately^ and with tnmsoious in- 
tenti,, do ao ; and if he gn^ws up whert^ you ohallen^ 
j«kar antagonist U> a duel« he will jxv^ldy txy that 
w^ of getting rid t^ an enemy i and if he lives 
aimmg the eannibals^ the st^ltish man« no more or 
)me» selfish than in the other t>ases« tmly by training 
more brutal in tastes^ will t^u^turt^ a:iul t^t his antag- 
oaist« And if the diM>trine of eviJutiim shows that 
Me of tht\»e forms kiS ^* a^laptatiou '' is uum^ tnunjdete 
than another^ lU" }m>v%^ to us that we jH^rsimally shall 
be most {urudent in adopting tme only of tht^ jxwgtsible 
eoiirsat»« aU this eau in no wise tell us what aim in 
(londuet is morally l^est^ but t\nlv what means most 
exhaustively mHHm^Jish tht^ seltish pur}H>sitV!i t^ a 
eiviliited man« Si> intent is morally valuaMe ludv 
in eonneetitm with nh>tive« 

It is hartUy worth while to dwell Uxng\>r im the 
eurioiis deviees by whioh ivrtaiu defenders ^\f the 
l^ptieation tvf the hyjxnht^s t\f evoluti^m to qmv^ 
tions of fundamental ethios have- tritnl to t>staMish 
thai the truths of evolution t^aeh us that vrat oug^t 


to do right. The whole undertaking resembles that 
of a man who nhouhl try to nhow us that the truth 
of the law of gravitation clearly indicates that we 
all ought to sit down. Wliat is evident or doubtful 
apart from the law of evolution, cannot, in this field, 
be proved or disproved by the law. Shall we say : 
*^ Do go<Ml to thy neighbor to-day, because evolution 
tends to bring into existence a race of future beings 
who will <lo go(Ml ? *' To say this is to say something 
utterly irrelevant. What do we care about remote 
{K)Ht(;rity, unlcHs we already care about our neigh- 
bors as ih<;y are? Or shall we say : ** Do good to 
thy nni^hbor b<;cause evolution has made thee a 
scMiiul being, whose instincts lead thee to desire thy 
neighbor's good ? '' To say this is to say what is 
only very imperfectly true. One's instin(;ts often 
lead him to take mu(;h selfish delight in thwarting 
his noiglibor. If it were true universally and 
strictly, it would not show us why to do right, nor 
yet what is ri^lit. For it is not obviously a funda- 
HK^nial cilii(Mil d(K;trin(; that we ought to follow an 
instincit as Hitch. And if we follow an instinct l)e- 
(^aiise we find it plnasing, our aim is still not to do 
any right save wliat plcascH us jMtrsonally. And the 
whole wisdom of the <lo(;trine of evolution would be 
r(;duc<Hl to the assurance that we ouglit to do as we 
like, with <lue reganl to pruden(;e. Shall we then 
say: *^ Do good, be(;ause the stMsial order that has 
evolv(id is too stnmg for tliee, and will liurt thee 
unless thou submittest to it?" Htill one has the 
mdfish motive infffsted u]>on, and morality is still 
only prudence. And the doctrine will still have to 


admit that whenever one can outwit society pro* 
denlly^ and can gain for himiiclf hiA nelfinh aima by 
and-«ocial but for him in thi^ catie itafe nieaniK then 
and there the tuAA^lx man may do thia anti-nocial 
thing if he likesu the doctrine* with all ita good mo- 
tiTe«t being unable to ahow why not. For it will not 
do to nwort to fiome auch subterfuge as this« and to 
ny : ^ A man V advantage deiK»nd8 upon the pros* 
perity of the whole, liut anti-aocial acta mitimatfig 
%md to weaken society. I lence they ultimately tend 
to diminish tlie pitK^i^erity of the whole« and rAere- 
f9re ttnJ to hnnn tlic scltisli individual/* All this 
it int^levant^ in case tlie scH'ial ct>nsequences ctwhoi 
ffhirm n/iofi the M^ltish indindualV liead during his 
lifetime. The wasteful owners of gn^at forests in 
oor we«tem mountains* the givat and oppn^ssive 
capitalists that cnisli rivals and outwit the public^ 
the successful speculators* the national leaders whose 
posaession of the biggi\Ht Ivittalions enables them to 
demand of weaker ncighUtrs unjust sacrifices* all 
these may listen in sconi to talk aUnit their prosper- 
ity as dependent u|>on that of mvicty* tlieir enemies 
and victims included. ** We eat the f ruit^^** they can 
my* ^ To be sure we consume it by eating* and we 
like to waste it so long an we oun«el\*es pn>fit by the 
waste, and we could neither eat it nor wa^tc it if 
there were no fniit : but thon^ is enough to la^t us 
and our child nm for our lifetimes. After us the 
•ocial famine* but for others* not for us." The now 
famous reply ascrilnHl to one of our gn^at railn^ad 
kings when* some time simv* he was askinl alx^ut the 
^ aooommodation of tlie public ** by a certain train, 


well iUustrates our point. ^ Damn the pablic,^ Mid 
the great servant and manter of the traveling world. 
If he really did not say that, very likely there are 
those who would have meant it. And may the evo- 
lutionist condemn them solely on his own gronnds? 
Or finally, shall the doctrine retreat behind an 
ancient maxim, and state itself thus: ^Evolutioa 
shows us what are the ultimate tendencies of acts ; 
but no act ought to be committed which behmgs to 
A class of acts whose general tendency is bad ^7 
Would not this be a lamentable surrender of the 
whole position? Yet such a surrender is found in 
one or two passages of the book that is nowadays 
supposed best to represent the doctrine that we have 
been criticising in the foregoing, namely, in Mr. Spen- 
cer's ^^ Data of £thics.'' The physical facts of evo- 
lution are to give us our ideal How? By telling 
us what in the long run, for the world at large, pro- 
duces happiness. But if my individual happiness in 
the concrete case is hindered by what happens to be 
known to help in the long run towards the produc- 
tion of general happiness, how shall the general rule 
be applicable to my case ? Mr. Spencer replies, in 
effect, that the concrete conmiquimces for individuals 
must not be juilged, but only the general tendenqr 
of the act. Happiness is the ultimate end ; but in 
practice the ^ general conditions of happiness ** must 
be the proximate end. But how is this clear ? If I 
know in a given case what will make me liappy, and 
if the means to my happiness are not the general 
ones at all, but, in this concn^te case, something con- 
flicting therewith, why should I not do as I pleasef 


W t BB tB d Imt die j^oMnl liw id Eixslotkn. Bat <b» 
iM»ewvk;r? TW <a]t jutsiwr is tiie |vizicipk^ wUek 
Me. Speotier scflMdxMs tMadr assames^ MOMdaei 

duB as kk pemlmr piropertT^ utfttelj^ tiie wdl- 

faM^KH K.Ml«m fffiDciple^ daa; moithimf iihcmU he 

«r dial li€ rvit of li<' asm^Jie aat ctrngli to ht a rvl<e 
mdtfOMl ti& ManPf as am uwinerMl rul't far all ra- 
li&mal ieimffK hat if tiiis muda is «taentiil tci tiie 
jwiwwfartiiflp of Jt xDcmJ sTsaxsnu iJxn kcnr poor 1^ 
|H«teDfle dsftt tiie liw of eTOthotSon giiies us mhj 
for «thifs li jJL Hie facts of «Tciln3aao 
l^ei«^ OMine daa^ veK^titts^ wh&ll\ wriSk^aat 
v^»^m«^S,6ieKvn^ tie mdiviJ«j »«iDes 
Ibb ««m SMTil priiMapk^. nftXDely« Lis iieal d<t«ini- 
t»J^ iMdaii^ tliii a parsKn oc«t5ad«riii|: tlie 
of die worid as a miicile aad desaiiD^ nniT^TRal 
Infifaftss ^(xmld oraid«mii. ircan iht praal of Tiew of 
&e j^mianl twndocK^ of art$w Gnat HsmX jwtdo- 
flft. aad rra biw an idfial aim for acQacaL TInsi 
a bwivrieidl^ of tiie ocmrsie of evolutaoiD will Ke use- 
idL josit as a knoirkdi:^ of af^svMDOBziT is ssirfol tic* a 
unr^sKUcr, Rot a5;trcMDasxiT does sictf tell ss wLt w^ 
are to fiiiil on tiie inter. Iriiit oelK bom- to find cor wav. 
With Kaal^s pnBciple assonMid, m^ alntadr biTie at> 
fainnd a|«rt iram aar phrsaoil dortnne of evcihitioiEu 
die eBMHtaals of an ethical Actctsine to start witL: 
aul w BeiMl xio d^v^TiBe of erolntaciii to f ocrad liiis 
mdocttl dortrizie« hat im^ it onlr to tell its tbt xdmlhs. 
Bflt if vie ka^r« not alreadr t^ Kanriin priiiciplc^ 

H4 TiiK uKiumvH AUPKOT or riiiuMorar. 

ilimi It Im liiini InilitiMl Ut mm wlmt tkn ilootrliM oi 
itvoliiilott luiti ilo Ut Imi1|> um t<> ifnt It. Mr. Himhumv 
mmtiiM to forKitt tlmt li <l(Hitrlit4i of Mdium In itot a 
diMftritiiY of ICikIm. 

Ill mini thiiti, nitlinr i\w fuiiiliimmitiil irMirnl diii- 
tiiidtiotiM UNI ulimr n|mrt from tlm pliyMiniil fnifl of 
dvoliitioti, or tlio |iiiyNiifiil tmi (iniiiiot UliiNtmto finf 
MM tiio iliNtiiMttloiiN tilut wo do not ]>nivioiiNly know* 
If tlinro In it rm\ tiionil (lotiflua iNitwomi i^Amn ntid 
itltruiNtii, Umii tiim (Yoitilldt ititiMt (toiiooni tlio litittM of 
tiioMt two dm|NiMitioiiM, not tito MiHfidontttl otitooriM 
tliiit wo tHHwlu nor tlio ntoro or low« vitriiililif tncNini 
tltiit WM fitnploy in following tito diM|M>filtionN. And 
litiy oiTort to ro<uiiHiilo tiio two tonditnoloM \ty lAumlng 
tlmt titi'on)(ii <ivolntion« or otiiorwlws It linn l)OOotn# 
noooNMiiry for nn iiltntlMtio iiiin to tio roiudiod lijr 
imoniinffly MtHlNit tnoiiiiM, or for n, m<UlMli piiqioMi to 
Imi KfiiniMl hy MooinliiKly idtnilNtlo dovlifOM, — Aiiy nmh 
ofTort ioiN no NiKiiIiktiiiKto for otiiloM. If tlio quoMtlon 
wnro: *' Hiiall wo Iniy mutton or lioof At tIto murk^ 
to dny ? ** it would Nuridy l)o a NtrAii^o AnMWor to ihii 
iliioMtion, or ** rMftonriliiUion '* of tIto AltoniAtlvoM, tf 
ono rM|)liod, " Hut wliif^liiivnr you do you miiMt ffo 
ovor tlio Niitno rofid to ((ot Ut tiio iitftrkot/' Mow 
titon Am wf^ Imlpod tiy knowing that, in our mMilitty, 
AltruiMiii And of(olMtii, tlioMo two mo Idttorly 0|f|NiM4td 
morAl AittiN, liAvo ^$*ry oftoit to liido tliolr o<»ndiotN 
iindor A um% of yi^ry muoli tiio maiiio outwArd nIiow of 
Noifinl iNmformity. 

'riiorii In IndiMKl no doubt tkAt aII tiio knowlodffo 
wo niAy Kot ftliout tiio fmttM of ovolution will iiol|} m 
to Jmlffo of tiio moAtm by wliioii wo OAti roAllwt tint 


Mond kiMb Uiat we independently forau But tiie 
iieftls tkemsdved we Apply to the course of eTohitioii 
«i liests of its wortli^ or bold as aims to be rettHmd 
tbroQgb knowledge of nature* We do not get tbem 
firom studying tbe course of nature as a mere pro> 
cess^ There is no doubt of the reaHtv and of the 
irasl importance of the physical fact of evolution. 
Ita ethical importance^ however^ has been« we hold« 
misiinderstooil. Evolution is for ethics a doctrine 
Bol of ends» but of the means that we can use. In 
iKt« there is an applied ethic of evolution^ but no 
finidamental ethical doctrine based upon evolution. 
Tkee who investigate evolution are doing much to 
farther the realiiation of ethical ideaK but thev 
eannol make or find for us our ethical ideals. Thev 
ikow us where lies the path to an alreaily desiretl 
foaL For them to trv to define the soal merelv by 
means of their physical discoveries^ is a great mis- 
lake. It can lead onlv to such kboretl efforts as we 
kave here been criticisiug« efforts to prove some 
lodi i^pdnion as that altruism is a form of selfish- 
Mss^ or that selfishness is the only possible altruism. 
Wketker we are just in fancying that these latter 
ellorto are reallv identical with the actual efforts of 
any recent evolutiimists^ the reader must judge for 
kimself. Altruism we must« at all events^ justify in 
another way. 

But now let us turn from those who define unsetf- 
ishness as a useful means to a selfish end. and let us 
eoDsider the effort to make pure unselfishness a self> 

HO THK UKMQIOim Aftl'Kc^T 0¥ l*llll/)SOPHr. 

ttvklttiit upml of i^niciiici, by foutidiiig uniwlfliihiMiS 
on Uu» clirntfi rt»vitljitit>ii of ilu» miuoUou of Vliy. 
IIt»rtf, an Utfonf, wm Hlmll iiiim*! with ilu» uk^iHiml 
rriUfium tliiii Ui» tiinn^ |)hy«iciU fii«*t of ilia tfxUUtmw 
of tutrtiiiii c*oticlitioii« \H no |)nH>f of ili« valiiiity of aii 
iileiU iiioml chanuntl. iluMt un Um pbyHictil fiusi UuU 
a c'lovMr nulfnittitkctr tiiiiHt pivu^iiti Ut bo uiiiMHUh, Mid 
tiiiut oiitwunlly prtNltnut 4*lTitc*U tbut Utiittfit oUiitn^ 
IH no fountli&tion ft»r n ^ennint^ly unnAilfinli UUml^ 
junl ito tb«f |»ntiwncw t»f n pitiful ini|mliw, a nittiti fstft 
of buniiin nututt), in nt) f(»iuitbilion fi»r uu iilcml ruin 
of rontiucrl. Tbo fmtling in rttpricfioiin, jimt an tha 
iMHiiil cM^nclitionH tlmt nmdi^r |Hiblio npirit and gun* 
ctnwily tb«) Umt m4llHb |H>lit!y aro caprictioim. An 
tb«* iu*UUb man would In^Iiavm witli o|H«n nAtllinliMMM 
in <*aiM \m w«tra wliuro unmdll«linoiM in outwanl oon^ 
liuift no longttr wan worili to bini iImi tnaibltt, atyen m 
tlu» latiful man woubl, m«^ndy an pitiful, Im «»rui»Uy 
MllUb if t;ru«)l KAtllUbnt^iM, inntoail of g4»n»rouii clntMbit 
iMMibl iHitiiify bin im|mliun In fai»t, bo i»ftHn bi em- 
itUy mdlUb ; ami if Hym|»atby wen« alwayn uni»t«liblit 
atill, an a fcMtling, it in a mfr» aiu*i(l»ntal fai*t of biip 
nmn nature. Hit a^^nin, tbf effort Ut fcaiml a nu^nJ 
bleal on a natural fiu*t will fail. Hut bft im b>ok 

K4'ho|Ntnbau4^r inUut U*Ht ni(Hic*rn re|»rtHM»ntativ«of 
tb«f vi»w tlmt Pity m Hyn(|mtb<'ti(* (»mt»tion in Um 
foumiation of rigbt cumilud. In pity be llncU tlm 
only unntfllbJi |>rim>i|)l» in man, an<l btt innintu tbal 
pity in a ti»niiffm*y not n*(lu(*iblt4 Ut any ollu^r mom 
latlllnb ctmotion of mir natuns 1 It* ilniin it ntM*4»Hnary 
to rt»f uUi an an error tlu* oft iv|Nfat4Hl opinion tluit ^ 

I Untntiiityt Jtr Moral, p 91 1 {U td ). 


^pilj aprings ttom % momentaiy illiisioQ ci iiuagi- 
ttilioi^ ao that wi^ first put ourselv^ in the sufferer^'a 
phM»S and now^ in ima^nation^ fiuicy that we 8u£Eer 
IU4 pangs in o«fr pen»iui." Thisk replies Sohopen- 
haner^ is a Uunder. ^^ It remains t^> us all the time 
dMur and immediately certain^ that A<» is the suf- 
f»er^ not ir<» ; and it is in his peraon^ not in ours^ 
tbat we feel the |vgdn« ami are troulded. We suffer 
wilA him^ so in him ; we feel his (tain as his« and do 
BOl £aney that it is ours : Yes« the happier our own 
state ist and the more the consciousness of it con- 
timsts in consequence with the situation of our neig^ 
Wii so much the more sensitive are we to l^ty«^* 
And of this wimdrous feeling no complete psvcholog* 
ioal exjdanation can be given ; the true ejtplanation^ 
thinks Schoi>enhauer« must l>e meta|dijsical. In 
a man cimies ti> a sense of the real oneness in 
of himself and his neighlKU". 
Tliis pity is« therefore^ Uvt 8cho|)enhauer« the only 
mnral motive^ firsts because it is the only non-egois- 
tie motive, and secondly. Iwecause it is tlH> ejtpni^on 
of a higher insiglit. TW first character of pity is 
illostiated by SchoiHmhauer in an ingeniinis (lassage, 
by means of a com|VMrison of (uty and other motives 
as exhibited in a sup{Hv^H1 concrete instance^ We 
shall find it well to quote the mi^t of the (massage in 
foU: — 

** I will take at pleasure a case as an example to famish 
tor this iavesligatioti an iNrf^me$^htm ctnch. To make 
the natter the harxicr f >r mt", I will take no case of char* 
ihr% but an injustice, and one. tnHK of the most tlagrant 
Sappoae two young people, Cains and Titus, both 



immUmnUily Iti lov^t iit»<l ciiutli with a diffnrimt maidML 
Ix>i Miufh m»A fiml In h\n way a rivttl, Ut wliotn •xt^rnal dr- 
oumNUiuiiiM hAVM KivAH A vitry ilmtiilml iulv»nUf(«. Both 
N^uill hnvii tiiiulii up ilMiir tiiltulN ii> put ifiu!|i bU own rivtl 
mii of Uio worlil i Anil both nUidl \m imeuvtt ngftlnMi Mijr 
iliMifovitry» or itvmt miNpbtbm. liui wbon oiusb for birtuMlf 
nmU About tbit prnpArAtionM for tbti inurdor, boUi of ttumii 
Aftitr Notnn inniir itonHi(it» Nlmll ^ivn up tbit HiUim\ti» lli#jr 
nIiaH ritndor Ai'(;ount Ut um, plAb»ly And tmtbfully» of why 
ih»y bAvo tbuN (Ifirblnd. Now wbAt trnwrnui (/aIun iihAU 
rMndor, tlm rntuU^r nUM (btc.bbi am bit plnAMiiM. IM CaIua b« 
pritviintud by riili)(iouM NrruplitN, by tbo will of (UhI, by iim 
futurn puiiiMbitiiiiiL, by tbn i^otninK juil^nimit, or by Any- 
ibbi^ of tlmt Nort. Or bit bim | wltb KAut] NAy ; * I ro- 
fbiittml tlmt tbit mAxbn of my prorniliirit In tbiii hamii would 
not luivn biitiii i\i U» Nitrvti am m\ unlvtirNid rttln for aII ptHh 
iiiblit rAtlooAl bnin^N, Mini'o 1 Mboiibl Iiavh unhiI my rival am 
initAnM And not At tbii naoiii thnn am Knil In biniMiilf.* (h 
litt blni MAy wltb Kbtbtn : * Kvnry buniAii llfn In MoAnn or 
luMtruniunt for tbn rnAlixAtion of tbn MorAl Lawi i\wrth 
for« I i!Annot, witboiit \mu^ indifl'Mrimt to tbo tnorAl IaWi 
diiNtroy ono wbo \n dtiNtinnd to itontributn to tliAt iind.' 
Or Int bini nay, Mfti*r WolliMton : * 1 Iiavii I'.onMblitrod tlwt 
tbn tU^ml woiibl bn tbn iiKprnMHion of An untrun profMNil- 
tion.' Or Int bim Nity, afU^r tlutifbiiNon : * TImi inorAl 
NnnNn, wIionh m^hmiiinuHf liltn tlioHo of f^vnry otbor NiiniMt, 
Am not furtlmr Ut bii nxplAimnl, Iian d<*ii^t'mlniid mo Uf 
rofrAin/ Or bit bim Hay, itfU^r A<bim Hmitb : * 1 fornNAW 
tliAt my ilnndf if 1 did it, would AroiiMti no Nympatby with 
mn in ttui NpmttAtorN of tbn Ai't.' Or, Aftnr (ybrUtlAii 
Wolff: *l rii<!o|(ni/iid tlmt I nboubl tbnrnby blndnr nty 
own t(rowtb t^fWAnU pnrfni^tlon without bnlpln^ tbn growth 
of Anybo<ly nUn.' Or bit him Nay, aftnr Hpino/a: * lltmi^ 
irU nifUl uiUiuM homiius ; nryn^ homintifn mitiriimrn iwIaU! 


b iiiorl% lei bun my what be will. Bat Tititi* wboie m^ 
eoonl of bittiMlf t rpeerve (or my ciioice. lei bim My ^ 
* Wben I began to prepare^ and ao for tbe moment was 
btt»ir no longer witb mj paiaion. but with my rival, then 
tl beeame (or Ibe firvt time quite clear to me wbat now 
wa» really to be bin fate. But ju»t bere pity and compaa- 
non overcame me« t grieved (or bim : my beari would 
Mt be put down : I could not do it' t a^k now every 
honevl and unprejudiceil reader, wbicb of tbe two w the 
better man ? To wbicb of tbe two would be rather in- 
lni»t bia (ate? Which o( them wan restrained by the 
purer motive F Where, therefore, liei tbe principle of 
OMMral action ? ** ^ 

What shall we imv of tht* foundation for altm- 
iim ? Are pity nnd iinm'lfiHltnewi tbun shown to be^ 
for the puqHNtes of etiiii>s, ideutioal ? Schoiwnhau- 
trV Ktigpestion .^eoms attractive, but from the outsel 
doabtfuL Let us examine it more carefully. 

Thia Pity iik at all events, for tbe first jttst an im- 
pulse* no more : so at least., as we learn, it appears 
in tbe unreflertive man.* ^^ Nature,'* Sebopenbauer 
feells tis« has ^' plant^nl in the human heart that won* 
ditKis disposition throug:h which the sorrows of one 
are felt bt tbe other, and from which comes the \n[^ii^ 
that* areordinf:: to the emerjrency, calls to one * S|iare,* 
lo anolben * Hel|),* and calls urgently and with au- 
diorttjr. Surely there was to be expecteil from the 
aid thtia originating: more for tbe prosperity of all 

90 rwc munmw asfeot ow ymuo^onr. 

timn could have been «j(|M»etod from • i^tviot arnxkn 
id duty, getmndf uifnirm^^ iMid deduced from ceitufn 
nUiouiiJ coutfidi^mUi/fiif mjid l/igioal eouibiniUionv of 
ideiM. For fnnu iim luiter tt^airoe otm wigfat (Im leiMi 
kiL\mL^ i»u/(Xi«iM, Im^^uim; Ujy^ luiuw ^/f lueo uuu^t r^ 
iMniii wLunt i\uty always imv«^ Imm^u, rude laeu, uiuil^le^ 
by r4Mu^;fi of ihtAr \imsiiM\A» bodily Uudbt, to g«t 
tiiuye to ouUiv«tt$ tbc^ir miud#| fMid ihereiiprep \)emg 
nuiM umu^ mu»i tiuA ffiiutrui \mmAi)\m imd nhnbrwut 
truiha uuiuteiiigibli;, m tli«i only ih^ vAHmrtt/Ut liM 
UMMuaug fi;r Ujtf^m. liui f^^r ihtt iAr^/ui^iug of tiiiv 
pity, wlji<;li we have i^b(;wu tr; Im^ tke ouly mmra^ of 
uiMeliiidj ftU5ti4;jM, luid fM> Uu; trim \)mm of fuyr^miity^ 
OM iiee<l« im; iil>i»tnu^, l>ut only |>er^;e)Hive kii/>wlr 
edge (.hedwff en k4fin4yr ahnt/ralUe/n^ injfulem fi/u/r iUf 
mi^miluiue/fulMi, J£fiJce//i7it/fdini)j tmly iim mere uiid«r- 
eUiUbding id tlie <M>fM;rete <»um$, tr> wbix^li pity at qom 
layy i;biiiii, wiUi<f>ut furtljyer rette<iive uuuiisUiaii**' 
Aii/i, tr> make bii^ view clearer, H<;li<r;{>euljauer fur- 
tber a|>|>eali^ to i>ae4^agetf huhAM by bim witb ap- 
proval fnHjii iUMummu : ' ^ il ei^t dr/uf; bieu certain^ 
Hu/a la piii/{ e^t un ik^iitimeut miturel, ^ui, uuA6nud 
duim cbarjue iiA^lividu Vuiwmr dtt n^/i-m^me, iiomsmiH 
k la I'/HiueyvuiA/im mutuelle <le tr/ute rewjMst^. . • , 
lymif eu un m/ot, da/nf m i^e/fdvnw/id ruii/u/rd pluldtf 
yue dtrnn Uh tiryv/numH imhiUtiy fjuHlpmi clw/rrjutrla 
iumne ih la r^j/uf/n^rt/'e tjv! ij^rt/u/Diyrtdt Umt It/mmu 
d nujU fai/reP i^ty, tbe«, ii* W) al>Htra(;t priiicipLe^ 
but a tejAileiicy tr; <b; m} aiid m \u a e/nu'^rtiUi mm^ 
For tlii'. uatural au^l u»leai7ut<l maii it u a mam 
eeutimeut, a feeXituj vnih \iV^ fcll/;w, li/; MU}Tt^. 


BhI dm does tfiis sentimeiit exhanst far SAqpgaH 
die wlioleiiieiniiigof pity? InnoirisMew Not 
for tliis sole reison is pitr the whole bssis of monlify^ 
iMsd^« bseanse it is the only non-egoistic impulse in 
is; fanl besides tfiis leftson, there is the second reft- 
son nsed bj Schopenhaner to give special dignitr to 
pihr. Tliis other reason is in fact the deeper basis 
far bim of pitr as the principle of conduct Pitv is 
aamely a revelation in concrete fonn of a great fan> 
damental truth* die one above referred to» the great 
fad of die nitiniate and metaphysical Oneness of all 
HBtmit beings. Because pity reveals Uiis» therefore 
has this sentiment an authority, a depth and a sig> 
■ifieanee that a sentiment* mexidy as soeb« could 

About this aspect of the matter^ Scbopmhau»' in* 
dracts us more than <Mace in his writings. A few 
quotations from one discussion will serve for presmit 

'^ The dilfer«ice b^ween my own and anolher^s person 
lor experience an absolute diffeieiMMw The differ 
of <|iace that separates me from my neighbor. sep-> 
me abo from lus joy and pain. But on tiie other 
fandL it must still he remari^ed. that the knoidedge that we 
have of ourai^ves b no complete am! clear knowledge.^ ^ 
* * * ^ Whereon is foamietl all variety and aD multiplicity 
eC benigs ? On space and time : through these alone i$ va* 
dely or multiplicity po««ible« since what i$ w«iJt|f can onhr 
fa conteived as coexblent or as sncce^ve* Because the 
■any Hke things aie calico! tJkf «V«V»«9/j^ I thereloie call 
qpaee and time, as making possible the existence of a wiii* 

^ Gnmtiu^ Jtir iloru.', p« SiS7. 


tUude of individualif the pririeipium individuaiumi§^*^ ^ 
. . . **1( anjrthing is ondoubtedlj iroe in the cspUuuilknMi 
thai Kant's wonderful insight hns given to the worldi then 
•orelj it is the Transcendental .^Ssthetiee.** • • « '^Ao- 
eording to this doctrine, space and time • • • belong only 
to the phenomena, • . • But if the world in itsell knows 
not space or time, then of necessity the world in itself 
knows nothing of midtUiule" . • . '* Hence only one idm^ 
lioal Being manifests itself in all the numberless phenom- 
ena of this world of sense. And conversely, what appean 
as a multitude^ in s]>ace or in time, is not a real thing in It- 
self, Init only a phenomenon.** ..." Consequently thai 
Tiew is n(yt false that abolishes the distinction between 
Self and Not^self ; rather is the ofyposed riew the false 
one.** ..." But the former is the riew that we hare found 
as tlie real basis of the ])henomenon of jyity, so that in i^Msi 
pity is the expression of it. This view then is the meta- 
physical basis of ethics, and consists in this : that one ti»> 
dhiduiU diredly recogniMee in another hi$ own very eel^f^ 
hln own tme Msenee/' • 

Theso pAAsa^eji from Schopenhauer are, as one seen, 
int<^rofttinpr not only l>o<*anM^ they defend the emotion 
of pity aA the foundation of morals, but also becanae 
th<»y ofTor an int4>rofttin^ sn^^ostion of an aapect of 
tho matter not lie fore noticed in our study. Like 
fto many of Sehojyenhauer's supr^estions, this one ia 
neither wholly orijirinal, nor very complete in itaelf« 
I)ut it is so expresse<l aa to attract atttmtion ; it is 
helpful to us by its very incompleteness. It is stim- 
ulating, althouprh it proves nothing. This modem 
Auddhism brinp^ to our minds tlie query (which goes 

i Grundhgr, p. 267. • Grundlage, p. 270. 


bi^jtMkl the preseiit aco{>6 of Uu« chapter)^ whether 
the «ltrui3tio moUves^ whatever tliey are^ might not 
tmmehow be made of evident and genend validity as 
ellnoal principles^ \f lef t^ntd skoH^ that in tAt^ m<h 
mmU ^ pUjf <Mr in jhmm« other altrniMic mi>meHt 
l4ere U iNtprt^Mted tAe naj^ctM di^co^^ery K^f <t»i ///m* 
9bm^ nattiel}% tlie Illusion of Selfishness* That is 
what Sehopenhauer suppose^l himself to liave found 
eat. In pity he found an unselfisli impulse* Ikit Uiis 
ttttselftsh impulse was^ for tlie firsts just an impulse^ 
a sentiment^ l^eloved of Rousseau^ remote from Uie 
abstract principles that the philosophers had been 
«(<elciug* Here was unselfishness, but still seeming 
Id need reflectiw development and deeper founda* 
U«m« 8cho))enhauer tliought tliat he had fi>und such 
a deeper basis for pity when he suggeshxl Uiat it was 
an imperfect metaphysical insight. In effect one 
might sum up his views thus : In dtv|>er truth* he 
s»ys, you and I are one IV^iug* muuchs M«» One gri>at 
Being, the Alw^ute WilK which wi>rks in us Iwth* 
But Iwvwise we Wh ihmvciw in time and s|iace^ 
therefoi^ you and I stvm t^> oursi>lvcs to W differont 
and perha^vft warring individuals, like tlie two hal\'es 
of a divided x^>mi. Only the si>ntiment of pity sees 
through tlie temiH>ral wil of illusion, and st> siviug, 
in ita own intuitiw, unn^fici^tiw Nvay, it whis^n^rs to 
us that the |>ain of each is in truth the other s i^iiu. 
And when we n>ally fvHxl thus, wv^ forgt^t the illusion 
of sense, and act as if Nve w\w one. S> acting w fol 
low the higher insight and when metaphysic c^uiuvs 
it will justify us in our view. Such^ in our own 
woidii are Sehoiienhauer's ideas* 

04 TNK HMAmom Anpmt or pmumopnr, 

W«f urA Mtlll fuH^ mmmmm\ for H«tiitp«9nh«uim'*M 
fnittiipliyMiis wlilntii (tiNl ktiowMi wfM n rirHim Afiittigh 
(fill firr M wiim rnAfi bf ((o down to itiA mhi lfi« Idii 
ifi IiIm ifhnriKif^r mm ki^iN^r irf hifniiiifiil <fiirlimiitiNi| 
Hoti/rffi^ftliiiimr MtiowM iim in liU WU^tMy muMum^ ihHi 
In Ifiillt (rft Uii9 dry inniK nmny ¥^ry um^Utl i\uniffhU i 
Mill w<f ni«4Nl nirt' follow iilni ittti ouUt Uiif ((Nfiii diNvp 
Mi pr(^m^i\it itni wii niH^^ wiUt UtU^r^ni iMn miguw^ 
iUm itmi till tuMn Ut h\n ihwtry of p\iy, U Umt Mtu» 
H^iUm worUi AnyitilnK ? U pliy in fM<i n di^tiMtilon 
of An illoHiim 7 And Amn iidM lllnNimi (MmNtiinftif iim 
ImMiH of M«<l(Ulini<NM ? i'^rimim ilmt Mn((tfi*Miimi will 
1n9 oi^IimI in A fittMrn i<im|H^r. MimnwtdlA, lurw- 
^ft^r^ wif huvA nf/ ^m^mui (o do irtdy with |dty m ii 
tn^vrif mn/dJim. Hiir^ly If pity do<<M dlMoirvAr for m 
Miy illoHiim in MiiKlHltnifM, ilii^n it ninwt \m a \mri\niu 
hr form of |dty Ui wld<<li thin fnn«timi \mUmitn» V(rr 
tnmh of |dty dimply illoHtrAt^AN tldH lllnHiim. Wn 
muiufi timn do Ir^ttur iimn (IrMt U^ dlNtintfniiilt tin* 
mU\nU frmn ilin AlfrniHil<f f/rrnm irf wliAt wif |KftMi« 
Uriy ln«litdii iindMr flmoni« nAin«f IMty^ itr^ Untm thu 
.niori^ l(timm\ word^ HynipAiliy. Wa mIiaII Iiava t<f go 
ovAr old And (f«minion|dA44A f^rrnind^ hot wa nAAil to | 

for UlA llltlMimi of AAlfUlinAAAf to IrA dAtA<H4Ht| nAAilA 
AlMir f««> liA lllftAtrAt^^l. 


WttAO irfiA AAAN IdA nAl({tdrirr in |>Ain, lUmn onA of 
nAAAMify <f«rtriit to knirw ttiAt |mln am ntMilt, Mf rAAllKA 
ItA troA nAtnrA aa It Ia In IiIm n«(|((hhor? Or d/rAM 
tfiA irftAn fAll Into An IIJiiAiim Ationt tliAt (lAin^ rA^fAril^ 

anm^ hlS^ iaits^ ^ :Wffis of £IibiB$iiM& ^ibiMiti hu^ a^%ybiiMr« 

wtaM W ftiU' <iwm pom. Ritt nfe pcttifidl maa;^ nfe 
qdhr <jpAi» nmtwl&fti luiaiL — W pi»vviTw tW ir^dStiT 

Wh pftuBtott »dfifiriiiig:^ Wtt 4^Ti» «nk']k pum ;». Bub v>«m 

W«r iKaoDi tK^ tot lAdu^ iJkti is ^ pffUMdCMiJl v^t« Sot 

S an di <nftsvtf' wi^ o£vy oW <£Msiiiw> of ^mutpiitdbr? 

fiwr i&> 3TBiyiiig&irty or pSofetll aaaaxby rvmaMrtaittgrtt^ 

m tBrni?' P^^- ^''''''^ '^^ ^*^ pttbs*. oioit :fe5^ h:&^ s^wiau. boA 
«|i idb^ iftibflrV pom. To> fofLo^w itW (J&i&tiUft^ of tt&i^ 
nanftttdkr wqqM of owvvisifitsT lifUkJL oor^ m%bt :»t« 

lAtfiD (Ajii» Illicit Htbtt^ vSiep^Qyl TVinr otiaidk qqpH'tt tbe* v;it 
fin wftndk piittT ifoosMt^ iso* W jui oI>^]ae^it of sifdia^ioft fiiNr 
i&r nun tdkitt Sae Itf it 'f Pitrr i» ofhvix of cUsvtf ^m in- 
isKtKma£ntt$ti» inrpocW. tbsiA msxr W <fii^bik' of tikt 
namniis^ fiul(eirpi:tf(s;iKQnk>tt by ttbe :$Ttbtfe«{tiiifiiti i^H&vttit;>tt 
q£ tAir pAoiTiiIl mljsd. Otsie wiay chrvut^tt pttnr cv^nubr t^ 
nwAMt tdkoA Itftj^ feetrnrg ^sisiiDiJi^ &>r :ii c^ piua ux nW 

ladk qyiMi loBDHjiflf . For m»:>i$t peo(^ nlW lErsit v^ 


ono at oil. It ui vory Mimply the prooopt : ** Get rid 
of tlii) ]Nun tluit your neighbor eaimeM you to feeL** 
Hyinpathy with ])ain itwy make you tremble^ grow 
f aiiitf feel ehoke<l, weep ; and all tliems Mudden eino- 
tiouM are followed {lerliaiMi by long-enduring melan- 
elioly. All thin eauMeM you to forget the reality of 
the other's pain. Thiji {lenKmal trouble of yours, 
felt in stronger eases in your body as a physieal dia- 
turbanee, as sonietliing unnerving, prostrating, over- 
whelming, tunis your refleistion uinm yourself, and 
you are very apt to ask : What am I to do to be free 
from it ? Ko to ask is alreoily to begin to forgot 
your neighbor, 'flie pain that his pain caused has 
simply become your puin. You are, even through 
your pity, bound fast in an illusicm. For tliere are 
tliree ways of removing tliis pain, and of satisfying 
for you the sympatliy tlmt oaumxl it. One way, and 
often a very luml one, puKseling to follow, full of re- 
spcmsibility and of blunders, would Iks taken if you 
did your best, |)ersevoringly and calmly, to get your 
neighbor out of his trouble, lliat would doubtless 
take a long time, you woukl never l)e adequately 
tlmnked for your tnmble, and you might very easily 
blunder and do liann iiisttmd of g(M)d to him, thus 
causing in tlie end yet more sympathetic pain for 
you, couphnl this time with remorse. The sec^md 
way is to get used to the sight of pain, so that you 
no hmger feel any symimthetic suffering. Tlie third 
way is generally the easiest of all. Tliat is to go 
away from the place, and forget all alniut the sad 
business as soon as |M)ssible. That is the way tlmt 
most sensitive people take in dealing with most of 


ikft MAering tliat they meet The first wmy gives 
von tbe most of hard work to do. The second wmv. 
fcjr dulling roar sensibiUtiefs makes vou leiss mlive to 
the pkttsnres that an? to W gaiiuni in the company 
«{ happy men. The stem man« who has seen dO 
much soffiering as to be indifforvnt to xU may be less 
aliTie to the bliss of synij^thy that gentler natures 
eame to know« in reiined and {H^aceiul society. By 
far tbe most inviting way is the diiixL It pn^vents 
jon ttook growing callous* cold* and harsh. It leaveis 
yon flimsitiTe^ a)>preciative^ teiuler • hearte^L freshly 
sympathetic^ an admirable and humane l^ing. But 
it also savciS you from the {vuigs that to refined na- 
luvis must be the most atrvxMous. the {ving^ of con- 
iplating a world of si>rrv>w which your Ix^ efforts 
but very im|x»rftvtJy help, l\\>ple with a deli- 
sens^ of the Ivautif ul surclv cannot endure to 
go about seeing all siirt.< of tilthy and ugly miseries* 
and if thev can eiulufx^ it^ will thov not Ix^ much 
happier* as well as more rctinctt* more delicate in 
tast«* much higher in the si\ilc of Wautiful cultiva- 
tion^ if thev do not trv to enduix^ \U but ktx»p them- 
selves well surrounded! by happy and ennobling com- 
panions? For tlie sight of |\ain is apt ti> make 
TOO coarse : it mi^ht dcsrrade vou even to the level 
of the peevish sufferer hiuis*^lf, I\x»s a tx^fine^l sind 
desine that ? No one is a duller, a U>ss stimulating* 
a less ennobling com)mnion. than the a^^rage man 
when he is suffering atrvxnously, l\iin bring? out 
his native brutishness. He is abject* he curses, he 
behaves [XMhaps like a wild lx\%st-. iV he lies mute 

and helpless* showing no interctst in ^Lit you do for 


him, hating you possibly, just because yon ace the 
nearent creature to him* IIii» gratitude i« apt to be 
a myth« Ho long aM he yet nufferH, he does not ap- 
preciate what you are doing for him, for why should 
he thank you while you make him no better ? And 
if you can cure him, what then ? Nobody can re- 
member very clearly a very sharp pain once over. 
Hence he will underrate your services. You can 
much better appreciate your moderate trouble in 
helping him than he can afterwards appreciate the 
very great and agonizing trouble from which yon 
saved him. One forgets in part one*s greatest an- 
guish, one*s most dangerous diseases. The worst 
troubles are not favorable to clear memory. Above 
all, however, his memory will be weak for what you 
did in his case. He will shock you afterwards by 
having failed to notice that you took any serious 
trouble in his behalf at all. But, if he was sick and 
you nursed him, he will remember very well how 
you harassed him as you nursed him. He wiU re- 
member a creaking door or an ill-cooked steak, when 
he forgets your cups of cold water, your sleepless 
nights, your toil to secure silence when he needed it, 
your patience when he complained, your sacrifice of 
all other present aims in life on his account. All 
that he will forget, not because he is a bad man, but 
because he is an ordinary creature whom pain de- 
based and corrupted, so that he became hardly a fit 
companion for an elevated and refined soul like 
yours. He is only human. If you were an average 
man yourself, you would treat your friends that 
aided yon in your worst su£Fering after much the 


fcdiWt It IS weU if die sofferer mud his 
keeper da not bi^iii m quaun^l that will last m life- 
tinfi. dD bccwue of the meddle;w«iie self -«aerific« cf 
Ae ailidoi» he^r. For to the wretched mnr help 
is lyt to seem offickMis« because no help is imme- 
dSafedr mud nneonditioiudlT suecessfaL 

So thou if TOQ mie tender-hemrted. does tender* 
henrtedneas diclmie mil this wmste of svminthT? 
IUdIt not. Tender-hemnedness need not smr : Jfy 
mdykbar muM &r ntlietyftL Tendei^Jiemrtedness;. ms 
m perwTiiml mffection of your^ smvs onbr : .^siftVy me; 
And Toa omn smtisfy this affection if tou forget mboot 
mil dMMe degnded wretches that are doomed to suf- 
fer, and mssociate with those blesscil ones whose in- 
nocent joT shall make tout tender heart glad of it» 
•vn teiidexnes&. Let us rejoice with those that do 
Rjoiee, and those that weep« let them take car^ of 
in everlasting ohliTion. Such is the dic- 
of tender-hearted selfishness : and our present 
point is the not at all novel thought* so often elab- 
anted in George Eliot*s novels, the thought that« 
the tmderer the heart* the more exdusivelv sel&h 
bceooies this dictate of tender*heartednes& Verr 
seiHtive people* who cannot ovenxune their sensi- 
tmiies&» are perforce selfish in this world of pain. 
Thev must forget that there is suffering. Their 
pitT makes them cruel. They cannot bear the sight 
of suffering : they must shut the door upon it* If 
be is a Dives« such a man must first of all insist that 
die police shall prevent people like Laiarus* covered 
with soress from lying in plain sight at the gate. 
Soch men must treat pain as. in these days of 


pluinbiii;^, wo tntat filth. Wo f^ot tho plitmbor and 
tilt) oar|MM)t«)r to liuh^ it ho wull that uvoii our civ- 
iIixcmI noritrilH hIiiUI not Ih) offoiiclcMl. That wu call 
iiKKlorn improvouioiit in houHu-buihlinj;. Kvun no 
wo f(ot tlio iM)li(*.«) to hi(l«i HufTorinj; tunn iim ; anil, 
whou tlmt hol|> failn, or in inapplioahlo, wo apiHsal 
to the natural houho of (l«H!onry in tho HuffororM, and 
doniaml, on tho f^nnind of c^inunon oourtoNy, that 
tliey HhfUl not intrudo thoir niimsrioH u|Nm um. Thua 
wo oultivato a tiuidnr nynipathy for tho nioHt dolicate 
einotiouM of tho human lioart, hh wo novor could do 
if wo lot HufToring, um our fon^fathon* UHod to lot fUtli, 
lio alN>ut in phiin Might. Ignoro anothorV Huffortug, 
and thon it practically l)ocomoH non - oxiiitout. So 
gayH HolflMlinoMM. 


If wo ouriM'lvoH aro vory happy, our lai^k of wlU- 
ingnoHri to ooiiHidor HufToring may Ihmsouus greater and 
groat«)r oh wo got happier. NolnMly in (Mildor in 
Hhutting out tho thought of ininory than a joyouM 
nuiii in a joyouM r^nnpany. ** If thons Ik) anywhoro 
any wrott^hod poopht (whi(^li wo douht) lot thorn ktH!p 
woll away from tluH phii*o.** That in tho voio«) of 
tlio Hpirit of ovoHlowing Hynipathotio joy, aM Kchillor 
MO finely oxproHHOH it in tho hymn an die. Frcude:-^ 

" III) wild, proving, Imth illMuivorcct, 

Wlitti it l« It friftiiil Ut own, 
O'isr wlidiii wommi'it lovo hntli hnynrtul, 

I^t liliii Ur.rn liin tiilnn innko knuwn : 
Yiitt, if liiit ohii )iviiit( lidlfiK, 

Ott tlio Muriit in hit tO'<i»/, — 


Asnl «6u iw^ic hak km^wn mch, iitxiaig, 
LifG bun w<wp hjtf .fxini Awikv.'' '- 

A» thUwwtr^ *" Jot wu^ bescowted oa cbe wofizL." 
*^A££ brings drink ^t ;&( Mocher N;iCur«'s brtf&stL** 
IV]%ta£zI giefiiMDisliT o£ the h^ppy uuui ! Buc wbu 
A» fibl^ tfcuaiiBfti wvnxtss thtnk abouc ic .' ** Wlkhso luch 
ft fisnoidL** — baft whsfi oi die poor wr^^tciues in cbie 
dbii» of gnnfcft cltietk beacien* :scarv«iL Loiprijonied, 
dhntSKd, aod chtfofiin^. :$€ajrv^ ;ijui Lniprt:soaied ^ig^un, 
aS tdktua^ iifatfir litVcinw:^ ' How quuit iooLs do 
tbttStt poor Liliixuielice:^ cjH cfaeir own '.' Bos of wbjoL 
afittU cftif ^>jfiil nuuL chink, ot' whom d<>*:» he or c;kn he 
tAmk? 0£ chaese ? No. Lc U chie t;eadtea*:v of :selti:sii 
piy isi> bizild ap ins own pnecty wncld «jf t'-Anoy. Every- 
t&m^ in tfaats world, from chierub lo worm, his joy '5 
ajmpni&fiy* bat only :a <«.' fir as :c Is al<*i ji.woosi. 

gaofUDKTh Wtflt! Ban in tV-c '.iitf.'*tfr fC'i.<^* U intended 
only for thie happy worl.L whi«:h La nh** illasi^n, beaor 
tzfizL bat Tec crrwL ot nae Lnn<.vt»n5lv fi-^voo* nuux, 
wenizf to be the wb;Ie wt.icUL Miii.'h ^.tixl wQI jocli 
k&3«» do to the JTklLLiT'n.ttn thi&t -.^.nin ami writhe ! 
Jot iOT.ore* theou v.*ann«.ic belie Te them resiL 

Soeii then ;ire some of che di'.'Cates of svmptf4ihTf 

Wi-r -iia 'lui :k!* Wij*) 4mryu:<9a 

M'tfciH! wintfn JiSi!! fin ! 
Ja. — ▼'Jr JJ«::) 11: a m >mus 

>f!i ai^sj: 4.1* inm BTr-iuamaii! 

Widnifliu flL'ii .wtf iiuiisia BuniL 

102 THK RELiaiOU8 A8PK0T OF PHIL080rar. 

whi(?h oft4)ti In^ar to our oonduot Nunh n^lation m, In 
a Maying of Knii^riioirM, tbo dcmiro to go to lioiitou 
buam to tbo i)OMMibl» wayn of getting tbore. ** Whon 
I want to got to KoMton/* MayM in Mubiitanoo Emermm, 
*^ 1 do not Mwim tbo (ybat'b)ii Kivi^r, but prefer orcMH- 
ing tbo briilgo/* KmurMon*ii Maying wa» iutondod to 
tUuntrate biM own preforonoo for reading trannbitioiiii 
of foreign autborn ratber tban tlie originaLi. It 
doeM iUuMtrate very well tbe preference tbat we aU 
Imve for tbe nborteMt way out of our Nympathetio 
troubbm. To belp your MuiTering neigbl)or U bard 
Nwininiing, perbapM luniil iee-bloelcM ; to go on and 
ilnd 4)lMewbere merry eonipany im to take tlie bridge 
direet to BoMton. Kynipatby leiuU tberefore often 
to tlie ignoring of anotber nian*M Mtate fin real. And 
tbbi in tlie very IlluNion of Ki^HlMbneMM itNelf. 

Pity may tlieii turn to MelflMli batred of tbe Higbt 
of Mtiffering. it iM liardly niuteKKary to dwell at length 
upcm tbe diMlieartening ri)yi^rm) aMjieet of tlie picture, 
namely, on tbe fact tbat, wlien pity doeM not lead um 
to dntad tbe Muffering of oilierM, it may lead um to 
take Mueb credit for our very |M)wer to Mympatbijce 
witb )miii, tbat we come to f4M)l an ac^tual dcligbt In 
tbe exiMtence of tbe cveiitH tbat mean MtifTering to 
otberM, Our lieartM may mo mwcII witb pride at our 
own importiuicit aM ])itiful perMoiiM, tbat we may even 
long to bave Mimieboily of our a(*(|uaititani^e in trou- 
ble, MO tbat we can go and |M)Me, in tbe ])reMence of 
tbe MuiTererM, aM liumane (tommeiitiitorM on tlie occur- 
r(*iice, aM beroic cndurerM of MorrowM tbat we do not 
really Mbare. TIiIm im tbe Mecond Mtage of mcHImIi pity. 
It b even more enduring and inourable tban the 

trat Thd (InMil of tho Hi^ht \\( \mx\ inny Ih« iiimlo 
Itt |iftM awAV by Diuuii^h \\( inovitHhlo o\|H«rioiuv. 
But Uw^ M>ltUh lovt^ of tlio ortliv of iHunfortor ^rowji 
vilh %h» ^^u^ of our |H>nuiual iiu|HirtMiuH\ mul with 
llwk QUiuWr of tiiut>ji whoii wo urt' t^aiUnl ii|hiu to ox* 
0fV!W our {Hiwonu Thoit« tiro |hh)|\Io who ttiv alwuvn 
fiviful uml (liiteHUi!HJ»to uuK\h,s Uioy know of mtiutw 
httdv who Vt^rv Imillv iuhhIh (HtnstUiiii;:. Thou tiu^v 
Mw mUiu iuuI h»ppYft for tJiov ari« Huro thtit thoy un^ 
•dminUdo un o«uufortoni« thov UhA thouisolvo.^ tho 
tf«iiilr» of mi Hilmiriu}? uoi^^hUu^htHnl, thoy mv plyiu^ 
UiMr noklo nvoinittou iu u ^niooful I^iaIuou. Thin 
^]w U «uri\ly iu\ vory uuoouuutui ouo. Suoii |hh)|Uo 
MV upt tit Ih^ iutoh^nihlo iHMU|kiUUoUH for \ou uuloHH 
you luivi> A hn^kou K^j;:, or ti fovor, or ji ijrt^ni U»rt»AViv* 
iiii»4iU Thou thov lluil v«)u iutoroNtiu:*:, UviiuHt^ you 
lUn^ wrt^tohinl. Thov uurno you liko ^\'\\\X^ ; thov 
tfMk oomfortahly to you liko tiui;^'!^. Thoy hnto to 
|pv«» tho littJo iHuufort i\\M caw U« i;i\ou fr%»ui tltiy 
Ui ilnv to tluvHtt who urt^ ouihuiut' tho «mliutirv vov 
aUouji of h«^thy auil |mv<«uio lil'o. Fhoy rojoiiv to 
flu%l «iMUo ouo ovorwhohuotl with WiH\ Tho hAp)\v 
mnax lA to thtMu A worthh'SA follow. Mii;h toui|H«rti- 
lur«> iit utHHloil to mtftou thoir honrtn, Thov wouKl 
h» nii««^ruhh« iu I^anuliM\ nt tho si^ifht of «ki uuioh 
UhIioua tHUitoucuiout ; lutt tlioy wtuiKl loiip fttr j«»y if 
Uk^V iHUilil hut hcuir of u Unt ittuil to whiuu u drop of 
W)it«>r iHuihl W oarritsl. To tiioui tho uuMt IdoHstnl 
truth of Soripturi^ in fouuti iu tiko (vasAii^^^ : " For 
tho |HHtr yo h^iYo tilwtiy:« with you.** Yon, hhvHStnl 
im> tho monnful, for Uu\v ithull uovor IiU'k work. 
Thoy Ahall Iw lik«) Uie rtoulptiU*. tlolightiug iu Uio 

104 tffie ummim AHprni" op pwtAnmnY, 

rmiffh hUmUn ot mfirhUi itmt it^nitnift hU \m\mm\ 
MtMt/MKM. Vttr i\mn i\m worlil will iliHilttliniM hfivif ni' 
WfiyM fi \flmtiy itt hUmUn, 

V\mm Mf^ iuA i\m viil^fni'ly timli«vok<fiti Yiii itt^jr 
wmil^l tm iliMfmiMilntii Mli«>M^lM4f if ^vil ¥/^r^ U$ 
mnim, limy r^ift^rA m\mry m iiuAr n\m^\9i\ \mtp» 

Ui Im^i' ilmi PiimliMi* \m\ i^nm t^nUu mu\ timi t»fM* 
Pity Um\ \Hmu ti>\m\Mm\» Atu\ w^ m^ uppMnu tioWf 
Uiti irf Urn imfhim\ttim\ iiu\ihm\mm i\m^ ttmi^ti itmU^ 
iim pUynMMt \h{4$r^i^UH\ \u tim ii\m^fymn Umt fm nUui* 
{km, \mi Iff Mm iMU'^ fi^lif(iti Im i^it;)^ timi ili^ift(fuif«fi«Ni 

nUiumi uiU^fly t^tupiy ttt M j^tty fft^r^ iUt^\r m\Kh\um 

ilti^ mtri iff phy iimi u^^mitmn i\m illMKtirti irf mAU 
UUiwM» Ht^iim flouM mu^U \fhy ftM WUin^mUi tftut 


l^Mis iiui tm\mui\y v*«ry ^Klwli. U Jo*«« wrt nlwuyn 

mf (|«iiifi)t,ff«| nil ^friot.lirfi mnniri h» (niMt^l wiiti itm 
irflli^i iif giving twtml hittl^liii l« n» fur m jrlty «vw 
il<f**« liivolvft flm <l*»f^<«flon irf fi^rt Jlliwlmi /rf ^IflMhfMiMMi 
wi< irmy littv^ mmt^Uth Uf ti\tmU of it |i«r*«iiftWi Kw 
/m f imi nhlit, Hi*hn\fftu\muN''n ihmnUi niill l^^ikM At* 
U'hHlvti. Uui If wtt vl*iw |fl^y wJMi rtttttmum wit toi 
lMAl(f|ff. \tui Ut Nwiihtu^ If w^ ft,Ak wti^Jmrnj^ivitfi Miit 


■MMraJhr^ tbe pitiful ehanK^ter of mn ael does 
ant insure its unselfisliness^ and lieiKv not its monditT. 
SdM>peiilaiier*s own tjpical exuuple, quoted aboTe^ 
ii indeed interesting^ but not conducive as to this 
f oeis tiiML. ** I pitied him/* say^ the lover who has 
ie£rmiiied ffom slaving his rivaL ^ Had he not re- 
ae»kled mj father as he slept^ I had done it/* says 
Lttdr Maebeth. Possibly Laily Maobeth*s pity was 
good in itself, bat not quite sufficient in quantity. 
Bod her words remind us of w^hat the lover might di\ 
if onlr pitv stood in the wav of the munler that he 
desired to commit. He mii^ht i::et sonh^boilv else to 
eare of the whole business^ preparations and alU 
so ave his own temler emotions. In fact* how- 
•▼er, Schopenhauer's yoimg lover has somechiug 
move than a mere emotion of pity in him. 

But so far as we have oou^iJereil sympiithy, we 
have had but another illustration of the didioiiltv 
with which we are dealiuc. Kven if svmpathv were 
always unselHsh, never capriv-iou^s perfectly clear in 
ito dictates^ there would rt^main the other objection. 
Sympathy is a mere f:wt of a mans emotional nature. 
To an ims}"mjxithccio uuin, how studl you Jemonstrjte 
the ideals that you fouud ujvn the ftvliug of symj\i- 
thv? And Si.> one returns lo the old JitEcultv. You 
have an ivieal whert^^v vou desire to judce the world. 
But this ideal vou fouud iu its turn on che fa«.-t that 
« has a certain sort of emotion. Auv one 
who has not ihls ouioriou vou declare to Iv an in- 
com ;v tout juvlc-'. Aud s<.> vour last foimdatiou for 
the ideal is s^>iue:hiiii: whiv^e worth is ti.> be demon- 
strated solelv bv the fact that it exists. 


Thus in this aiid in tbe buii cfayMiier* in cwMiil 
and in psjrtioiilflr dineuMioni, w« have Cound tfa* aom 
problem reeurring. The ideal in to have an ideal 
foundation, yet we neeui alwayv to give it a founda- 
tion in iKHne reality. And if we then look about ua^ 
we always find some skeptio saying, either that he 
does not feel sure of the existence of any sudb 
reality, or that he doubts whether it means viiat we 
say that it means, or, again, that iuanyoaae there axe 
other people, who have found otlier realities, and 
whose moral principles, founded on these other real- 
ities, are in deadly opix>siti^>n to ours. The idealist 
of our preliminary discussion on the methods of eth- 
ical iD<|uiry has so far met with numerous misfor- 
tunes^. lie has continually been enticed over to a 
sort of realistic position, and then just the same 
arguments that he used against the realist are used 
against him. If, however, true to himself, he aa> 
saults the realism of the unodem descendants of 
IhMym with the argument that all their physioal 
hyi>otheses are worthless withr>ut ideals, then he 
liears the challenge to show an ideal that is not 
his whim, and ttuit is not founded on a physical doc- 
trine. There seems no refuge for him as yet but to 
turn skeptic himself. 



Lnair » tiw ni|:^t to hrai wlw in awmkf ; km^r » t^ nflt to bun vte 
li th«d : koaiK a» lift to Uw fw4bih wbt^ do &o( know tlw tnw Uw. « 

>;<;u iK» 

To turn fikepdo himftelf, we saud^ aeemed the only 
wmv ojieii before our idealist. If only he had placed 
his ftandard a little lowex! If only he had not 
inftistod on getting his iileal bv ideal nn^thods! 
Then he might have remained safe in some one of 
die positions that he temixirarilv assumed. But al- 
vajv be droTe himself out of them. Some stupen* 
doQS external realitv« si^me Ix^autifid mental state, 
would sug^pp^t its^elf to hinu and he would say : ^^ Lo« 
k«re is the ideal that I seek." But forthwith his 
own doubt would arise.* accu^ng him of faithlessness. 
** What hast thou found save that this or that hap- 
pens to exist ? ** the doubt would say« and our ideal- 
ut would be constrained to answer* ^^ Not because it 
exista« but because I have f reelv chosen it for mv 
guide^ is it the Ideal." And then woidd ci>me the 
repeated accusation that caprice is the sole gn^und 
Cor die choice of this ideal. Skej^ticism* then* total 
skepticism as to the foundation of ethics* seems to 
be the result that threatens us. We must face this 
skepticism and consider its outcome* 



It is in fact in suoh akeptioiam as this that one 
flnda tlie real power and meaning of most gunuiue 
modem Pesiiimiam. Not so much in the hopeleas- 
neiitt of our efforts to reach our ideahi once chosen as 
in our perpetual hesitation or unsteadiness in the 
choice of ideals, we most frequently find the deei>est 
ground for pessimistic despair. Choose an ideal, 
and you liave at least your part to play in the world. 
The game may seem wortli tlie trouble ; for far off 
as may be wlmt you seek, there is tlie delight and 
the earnestness of free self-surrender to a great aim* 
But i>essimiHm is almost inevitable if you have been 
long trying to find an ideal to which you can devote 
yourself, and if you have failed in your quest 
Therefore tliose ailvocates of i)essimism are most 
formidable who dwell less upon the ills of life, as 
bare facts, and more uiwn the aimlessness of life. 
Von Ilartmann, therefore, to whom pessimism is 
more the supposeil result of a process of summation, 
and thus is a l)elief tliat the sum of pains in life 
overbalances the sum of pleasures, produces little 
effect u)M>n us by his balance-sheet. But Schopen- 
hauer, who dwelt not only upon the balance-sheet, 
but still more upon the fundamental fact that life is 
restless and aimless, — he is nearer to success in his 
pessimistic efforts. It is here that one finds also 
the true stnmgtii of Scho])enhauer*s model, tlie 
Buddhistic despair of life. Choose your aim in life, 
says in effect Buddhism, let it be wife or child, 
wealth or fame or power, and still your aim is only 


«Be wmnmg mixiT. lost in tht etemil stxif «« at mr 
inx^ an die ree^ and nerer alile to prove its xiglit to 
in i2ie vorld. Frcon life w life toq paasi^ 

a Bkmhinaii. now a king, now a worm, now a 
t^ier, mam a be^ggar* now in helL now among tlie 
^— fcn»» of die air : tout aims ahex eTerlassiniilT 
wiib emA new birtki and nowhexe do tou £nd life 
WByQaSmg bat a caMioesskin of aims, no one of which 
IB sBtrinaeaDr mcwe sdgnificant thim the others^ 
The w<QiU of aims is a world of strife, and no life 
kaa asT read sgnificanoe. Xo desire is of anj es- 
BBDiial wxirdi. Therefore, sieeing all this, give np 
desre. Haxe it as tout one aim to hare no aim. 
SddIl is die ototocane of the insiirhi int^^ the eiconal 
of aims. The Buddhist parables try lo 

plain this insigni^caineie of life both bv dv-ell- 
die fact thai men must finallv fail to tret their 

and br. insisting that, if men tempc^raiilj sno- 

liieir oondition is no less insdirninc^ani than it is 
wivni tker faiL The f ailirne is nsied to show a man 
not so mnch the diffioulrr of £retiin<: his aim in this 
bad world, as the worthlessaefis of his aim. The 
■nwMiffl wiien it oomes is embineivd for the snooess- 
fill iBaa br x>emindin<: him that all desdre is tran- 
id thax what he now lores will oome to seem 
to him- In K'lh ^^ases the ifss^.-^n. "wheibeT of 
lie saneas or of the failure, is. i:.*": ih.i: :Lr it^itt of 
dnngs is diaK^lii-aL and ihrrtf-^r*. ari tUtniv of maa- 
kind. but thai the desires TbenistZves are boptlesflv 
coBfnsed and worthless. If Buj.ihism viweh ohIt 
CB liie hopelessness of v^nr e5or:> to peT the gv»l 
lixax we want, the dLVnine would z>gsiili in a 

^rf#t« nptm ti ihni w^ Utum tufi wbut uri* iim ffft^ffi 
ih\ftf(n iimi wif pr^4mui U$ WAiii, Our ^imArm imii$ff 

Uf htf\m Uff Mmmm, 'V\u^ twitni tff iiuAf nUtfUm U 

n ({WMffnU ^f^ifMkitiMtiiii^rfi «rf ihi^ fniu niiim Umt «iri9 

]Mt$*ftti Ut mwh 4ft tfiif iWHUru r^nhMtiU^ inrntty, 
I im^ U| Uff iim um\Mmhh\y ttmtMtiUi |^iMf iim fff^ 

llirr«9 iM iim ftrt^fii fiit^iriHAititimui ftt lilW| iimi W# 

ihni w^ <fiifM«/rlt frmhii fi|^ «^ir miml^ fi«; nmUniMim 
MtyiitUt^i itpff^ U ih49 fgfMii mnttiifrnm^ timi w# 
tMV^ tufiiiittfg Ut Mi, A tut iitm iim ^itUmi nU4fftii' 
(4mn iimi itim mt fur immi tmr imiit \n iim prMmni 
inf**M,if(fiii4m imt^fiimn^ iKfimtt w^ ^Iwf^ll ttptm ii Mui 
fuiiy fft^H^ iin timnuUtu^ Mt ^itUmi ^mtmitftimni W«» 
^tiftll iimtt iiifmif%Ui nfrwih tmr ^mtifimtt If iKf^ w^ 
^i^l^ iym ilii^ tiSnu^iiiy trt iim f^imim i4 nn SA^ 
him nXlt^iU^i iim tmn.rt'h /rf ^mrUAn Mwrnff 4mr nyHhtm 
f^mmhiU^ ptmii* fm wimi iimy mmUi mil tim iAmi 


(>f nil iim miryu^ frt r44t4^4Ufh itt rwnMtiU^ ptmiry^ 
lUftm U tturf^ iMuilinr iimu iim ^tmtniUm fff iim nmim' 
ittf( Mul Wffriit fft ituttmu lif#< tm a wimUi, 'Vim Hti4 
uihd tmliurtA mmwfff iA iim nunUtm im^ to iiik i^m^ 

imOAt MirriCllUi ANU KrittCAt flUUtMIAM, 111 

liiNi U w«U known. Huuuui lift^ uimum fur him Um 
»m%lkwi>l lUiln uf lift». 'rht» higlioat piml, whon 
fnuml, munt Ut mi i^iiiutiiuiiU i^hL Ttti^ ntiiuuiUd 
fn»U ^titMMhxfi lifts iiiUMt niiu Ui uiiikv olt^m* wlmt 
lunil uf vniutiuiiiU iHiutlitiuu i* thi> ukmI nutiAfiuitory 
ooi». In thiA virw wt« Irnvt* no nii^m truinui. Mnnv 
Ikmmk of HiMiuniikin wmUil o|i|HM«t Uio tltH'trinn thnt 
in ihv lnt«nM»r rmotiouri vm\ tir foiiittl t)t«« iilool 

UlnllM of inntiioiuUMUrm. Tho iHilitlltolt m>%\w of litrli 

uf tho worlil MHMi ill thr niorr ntmlrruto iilt^itiiurvK of 
pnUli» WUuns in tint uttuitiuiriit of |irmairiU knowl- 
•«lgv« in tk rtUiHH^Mfitl iinifrnnioiml or ttuntnru oiir«H»r, 
IKp «unrv<Mi of iH^'ttmnritt niiti<ifitrtton. Srvrrid 
«phauU of Aninmt plitlomiphy rr);nr%ltnl truii(|uiUity 

nil IHillJititUtih}; iUv r<i<i«*lirr of n tilrnntnl lilV. lUtt to 

nU ihiik Un» ii|»irU of luiHlmi |HHarv witn ft-oiu tlio 

Q|||lN»| violontlv t>|>|H»MHl. 'ri-uh(|uillitv» lUtro ol- 
VihnngiH! for utornt uiul ntit^nn, ii imt ti^niu rt^^urtliiil 
n* ltu» goiil. Aotivr ritiotioii, ititotino tn i|ut%litv, mi- 
Umllml in i|iii»ntity, ii ^hut tho ihh^a of tlio rovolu- 
Ibkn ilrrtiri). On«f itml onlv uo^utioit ** WvrUu'r,'* 

'*T1h) UoMtrm." '*Thn UrViilt iif l»luti),'* "MilU 

ffinlt** " Fmitit," to nti^^tmt %<rliut in nivuitt ti) tiitit 
•piril of Ui0 rrvtiluttoimi V |Mmtry. 

Liftft tht^n, onn Ui of ivorth only it» m» fur lui it ivi 

full of tho ilr«irulilo fonn<i of {HH^tir nnotioii. Hut 

U Uttoh fullllrn* of lifn |H)itiil4n * U tlio \\v\\ timt 

mnki>A it t\\v itlriil n tmulilo \'\t^s% * Must not thtf 
t)un]aiiti»nt following; «if thin viow h'iiit ultinmtrly to 
|iMiimii*nr.* Tho uuii^or to thii prol4ntu in tho hi«- 
lory of thr nhoh' I'oouiotio loo^rnirut. llc^ri^ munt 
•uIHdo n Mkntrh of ji«iuui uf thtf )ii-ttiot)uU rt^iiultii i>f 
tlio innvi»in0nt 

118 t«fc nM^uwtm Anppm ftp PtM/mmifi 

Tim f^fir tfl MtHUtfi )U^, iimi, htm imniimmi tmrni- 
WHy, nuU^U4»m^) (imitt^^ M'tfumii iim pmA^m tm htm- 
tVmu fi)nl4itifMi oUi hfiu)Ufiiffm. AUtft^ mII, tim ilmif- 
UtfiUmi UimU iff M^ hutif impiu^ tm tim t^fftiMtM^^ ptml,^ 

}m mmaH hi hU fmu tyfii\. WtiMi U iim f^mmnimnm 1 
¥)tti^,, 4ft 4'4mtm, fi imftm^ tfl t^imuM \u4l0tp$^i4UiHm^ » 
l^fftf i^At)iii*^i \rtUh, 'tim jtfy 4 ft ttmii tiiwttiwt U 
MfrnM Iff fmr iMiffM^ tm t^tih. Tim tmiUi^iftnh)p ift 

fth#*ll^y, i'h}tA4iUipf >fi hin ^.tw»j{M^ nMitiK ** *Pim N# 
imt^iy tft Ai\m)mfu'' mh) tht^th^Huft, iff Mil \fftHtmwm 
tfl t^^U, n4hiUMty mu) Uw4*M,, li m KtHni ^nMffff;!^ 4ft ilm 
nnptM^hffi tri ihm i^phH. iMfniHf'n m^^fhu^ 4ft iht 
imf/fifM tft tiMtUm )4 MUfih^t )fitfAff/'#< : *^ An th^ Hppiy- 
f1U//ri4 *ft MffthU fh tvd mtfiH^ huh fttf4 ptf^mtti^ 4Vf Wfi 
f(4f ftWMf, ifiii AtM (i4ffi4*, tm Mm'v f^,f)U4^ Hm }ftfH9fm/f#i 
tfttiffifW, hftimt^m Uy limit UiifWfti/n\Hy lim imfn4trl4ii 
ill umu, fHitUit Hiui y^-i fi^Mi )unimu4*4^, li^fitiv ift^MnA 
iimm nifp^p^, MfiM/l/l^fhif/ Mui Umfn 4ft {s^tttft, nnui 4fh 
iim 4*tftifil4^iiMW4^ pnU'i ]*fy, mt tim /r|^<Mf)/m 4ft fi4^uimt 
I ff^^rUft^ ffHthit* tm yifu w)M, uMfm )i ttuMtuitmtim 4ft 
mtfiU tnUii, iuffrt*, htvf*, iiw^ iwUititfi4Ui, iim wtimtfi- 
nitU*, Mr^ )uhii\iii,itUi, iim 4Uif)im, iimi in ((4^iimt 
"f )n hi^ffitfiiitffi, thft^ifiivffi, iimi tfmy im f#«M,^ ifitl ff/4 
w}ll#«/l 4fr ti4^rMi ; 'i U tifi Hifftfffi Hti, Ua wny in Him 
tr«y 4ft iim iif^Uuhi^:' < W^ 4mHfUfl, ttfi4fi4^ h imtHh 
fftifi 4ft iiiU tim^fmniy, wimrhUi iim tmH.n4hfiif'nt/i4m 
Mff/t iim tfufiimi mitfihuiUftt 4ft Hit*, ytffWfg m4*fi Hif4tHi 
(itt44im, )fi iim yfifitn Jjunl. fr^f/rfi* nmi Hll4*t ilWf^ t4^ 
4*4*t^4t n. t'Ufi.tft^'h^tt'^'U' tiftfrt$*n^Utti. 

fin tlMi4iihhfm. NnmnHlUhMttttt M If., p, M, //f *^ M fUlH* 


Tlus prid« ImnLi direi'dy to the effort to biukt up 
1 vbtiilj new set of ulesUs. The psitieuce of the 
of the student i>f Si'ioiuv, i^' the busiiie^ 
is unknown to the^^e foreef ul youug men. 
TWer mu5l make a world of their owu« and in a ilav 
toix. Al the same time thev are without auv definite 
bifJtu In faet« deiinite faith would emian^r for 
tkeni the fnMhness of their emotiiUis. Thev fear anv 
«fe«d bat one ;self-uukle. And thev can wore ea;[sdlv 
tear down than build ujv One of the uuvst interest- 
SBig of the Toun^ geniuses of the a^^ i^' the lit>nuan 
ffooiantie deTelopuient ^ i$ the early kv^t Nox'alis 
(^Friedrieh vim Hai\Ienlvnr^, a representative^ like 
SheUer after hiui« of the emotional or rvHuantio (kv 
ccrr in its pristine iuniveniv. A truly noble soid« 
joined to a weak Uxly, oppresseil by n\aiiy tivniMes, 
imaUe to ^^w to full manly spiritual stature, he 
OS the Ivauty and imjvrfeotiou of the omotiixual 

ftTement in olivse imiou. He writes ^vi^'s of \*airue 
phihwophy* which afterwar\ls iuipr^^ssevl the youuir 
Cariyle as an emlKxliuiout of a s«:*n!k^ of the dtvp 
Mvsterv of life- You tiud doliijht in wanderiusr 
through the flowery labyrinths of such s^xvidativui ; 
TOO learn much bv the wav, but vou c\nue nowhere- 
Chihr this is clear : the youusr l^vt [vrsists that the 
world must in s^nue wav ivutorm to the emotional 
mmU of man. And he }vrsists« tKV\ that a harmo- 
nioQS seheme of lite can Iv foruuxl ^m a purely n^ 
BAntie plan« and only ou such a plan. He actually 

* T6» a^^f in ^iu^^v.'v. e\:^v..l5 frt*::: :TT.* :o 1SA\ No *:vv'i a! 
tfim B» hsfw niA«*.e :v* :o'.*v'w .■h^.".:.*Iv>:•^.'xi onier. Our pur^viw U 


114 Tfffe npshmmm Anpim or pmi/mpniti 

9inph\m ffo rmWiy ntiil mttttpi^^ no mhmt^ of ]ifi9« 
1(19 hlffiM, At Ii4ff);th, Umi Uia (!iiitioliif (4lf(tN<b In ttin 

Itfft midM Ifi iimihi thit iff whui iffrffM it IfHtA mtilinl 
tfiMl llfi4 i^AtniUitmi 1 

J^fimfm 1ft wimi wam itnilifd (ly ilfA iflifM friivffil frf 
NinrAllM, Kfiifilflnli H<«li)«4f;Ml« ftm roffiAttfl^t inrftjr. 
Thl» Im ihif fmxi Mlftf;i4 )ft Uim f^rrrwUi, rrf, }f jr^rfi llk<>f 
iff Urn <liHmy irf Urn fofriAtit/iif Mplrlf. KffMrilfrfi )m frfif 
({ffiilif Afid (riff |{oaI. Ihifr wliAi \n i>friiH/lofi ? HimtA- 
tliifiK <4iAfiK^Alrlf4 Afifl try fiAfjiM^ \mHmn\p\muit Vm^h 
muii\iu\ m\m up a r^lAlffi Ui WW Uiif wlioli^ of Dffi. K^rf 
iHUth fii4W miff, flii4 f^AffiMr froMf/lff mrfil f^i^lM wlll)ff(( to 
iliif* Yi^f AA^^Ii Im (lflrf«fi AWAy try ItM followi^r* 'Hie 

fi^Kti frf fliMffi iliAi ^IiaII ImAf if/ ifffi Aflf hlffirflf t}l# 
llmrf «4Vi*fi wtiilif iliM ff'iffffi|fhAfii f^ffifrilmf iff ti4lftffiffl|f 

frtiiir fhi4 hmti wiflilfi. Kiillffi^Mi of mfi^tf llfA fiiMfifi 
ft^'kl^fifMMi. NovaIIm, Mfffrff Ww AmWt trt h\n h^intihrni^ 
lutuh A mrri ttt flirlfiliy trt Hmtypntid^tU ftod iiHUni « 
fii^w ^fA frirffi f/lm ilAy iff hi^r iliHiitf. IIIm iIIai^ wam 
for A wlill#9 fffll fff ^riflMiAl f^ni^ti^\mn^ mf((((iHilm1 lijr 
IiIm nttUMtfiu Km riHi/rlv^<l to ffillow \t^t to ilfAf{fAti» 
ifi ttm ymr. W/UhUt flilM yi^At tii^ waa (mttiritf(Nl 
Afmw. (f mu^h \n N^rtAllM, wffAi will )m A \4mmr 
t^rU/l tUrtm^tmn nt ihU Ifntrltolfl^ Ammy fft mt^h 
f9rrfliif/1frfi| Krlmlrliili Hr<lil«4f;Kl mtngf^Mm fiiAt im^ fitfOfiM 
fnAkA A tlf^/ii<9 <ff imHmnUiy^ Afid limhr^ ihni ifte 
tilf(W llfii f^rfiMlwf/M Ifi A mrri, of i^ftflfffMlAfttl^f fti<lili9» 
fifHiM. Tii/^ f;«4filim ffffiMf/ WAfKlf*f likit a bifffifftlffK-MNl 
Iff flf#9 KurtUu of HtvifM* rmi/rfJ/ffm. Afiil Im frtoftt tm 
«f;fiM4lfrfiM Afid proud of h\n WAfKic^rlfigft^ Ai4)vit/t 

SBDPnasai jixd kthbcjll psssonsaL 115 

ki» eMolsioak Ad mobler the 

tarni Tla» eooBeioo^ izsioii of zK>btIiFr aosi fickii^^ 

a^ tOKJk »av fettAttSBitfm wick ;» nKrrv pirihk. T wa^ 
OH* A[» ficslu aoi will iioc be Tihi^ I&^c. We see 
Anq^ ilU emett while we submit lio iiu We are 
xl k^ amd will surviYe in. Li>c^ live King 
wh» s£h>wer$ apoa uts new 6fe]in^ ! 
So" Hrae&i for ;iii xn^nkMjs^ :uid iih!v>rvHighIy decesiah 
Ur Tiev o£ Ii£^ in whicii there u> fi>r ;ui esiirtset^t nuui 
mm^ KBiSi. Ths in?iiy« what i» it but the I^iu^ter of 
iftiMimii €>iTer the mbert&ble wetlb3et$t> of huaum ohu^ 
astar? Ike eoDOCioa w;iis to be our ^xL It tun» 
to be a wretched fecieh.* :uid we know it ;3^ suvfiL 
■one^ tb his^ ;iud h^ibs been slive to thoct- 
It k ssoiie% thou:^ we trustevl in it. It w:» 
slBiT^ aod it hAS liowed ;iw:iv like wTi^ter. T!m 
£albe!$»« but hoUownet!^ ^^t lite. And how 
aUd the roQcuitzc irouy 5up(.^Iy nhe T;wiinik7'? Thit$ 
B but the word ox Mepjhi2>topheIet$ about the 
of Greteheu : >6if ij^ •iif* 'fr^tsif mk'ki. Not the 
ge of emotion i> thi> prei>eiit one : not the 
ing up of the toauTOfcrn.s of the great Jeep 
is» : but what misery iu that thought ! Thea 
i» nothing sure, nothing siguitik'aat. In our 
hmurts were we to tind Iife« and there i» no true 
tibne : onlv nxasks wiiih nothing beneath them : 
«QdIes:s and niean:T^glei$t> chan^. 
Th» eocuseiocbsnetsi^ of thii> ret>uit &» pretsent in aoh 
£am of the romantivr spirtt. The coesseijtiefliiM 


is what Ilogol, in tlie PhUnomenologie de$ Oei$te$^ 
doiKsribed under the name of Duh UnglUcJelklie 
JiewuBnttiein^ and wliat in more familiarly known to 
UA aH the Byronio frame of mind. The very utrength 
of the previoim emotion renders this oonsoiou«nesii 
of the IiollowneiM of emotion the more insupport- 
able: — 

** Whon tho Ump ImihAtuinid 
Tbo light ill tlM duit liM dMuL" 

The brighter the lamp, the deei)er the darkness that 
followM itM breaking. •» 

The romantic denpair Uium deioribed took many 
formH in the )>oetry of the early ))art of tho oentury. 
To dencribe them all were to go far beyond our lim* 
its. A few forum Huggeiit thenwelves. i If we are 
condemned to fleeting emotiouM, we are still not de- 
prived of the hoiM) that dome day we may by ohanoe 
find an abiding emotion. Thim, then, we And many 
poetH living in a wholly problematio utate of mind, 
expeoting tho r/od Mtrtmffar than they^ who^ coming^ 
b/uiII rule over them, tinvh a man in tlio dramatist 
and writer of taloH, Heinrieh von Kleiitt. ^^It can 
be,*' wriUm thin {NMst to a friend, December, 1806, 
** it can I)e no evil Hpirit that rulcH the world, only a 
spirit not underHtood.** In Huch a tone of restless 
search for the ideal of action, KleiHt remains through- 
out hiH life. No ]K)et of the romantic school had a 
keener love of life-probleniM ]iurely an problems. 
Kach of hiH workH in the Htatcnicnt of a question. 
In HO far Klcint rcHcmblcH that more recent repre- 
Hentativc of the ))r()blcmutic w'hcN)! of )K)etry, Ar- 
thur Hugh Clough. Kleint aniiwered liiH own ques- 

STiQCAt anrriom and ktiiuwi. n\^<isi»3ii. 117 

ikuu at but hv Hiiioiilo. (>thtn>i luivo ollwr wnvsi of 

^jtiffi «hal«« nniUil of rttiiiniicio «}UONiioii!i, riiU hitnjkJf 
of hU ili:>iuoUH bv lurniuk; IiLh accriitiou U\ oilior lit* 
«nurv wurk« ami toln tuoMt t^f ciio oKI iMiuiuitit' iiloiUn 
ak\lK\ or |ilHvfullv vrriCo.H tiiiuisin^; ^iiuirH nUntt 
iWiu. KriiHlriol) Si^hlo};;^'! tlu»llv om-!IIv:4 fi\nu him- 
tM h\ luotuiH %>f a m'tiolarlv toil aiul i'uthoHo tuifh. 
Ihxlilrrliii uXvik tviwy^yy iit a tuad houso. ShoUoy 
mauiJi^A to riuluft' \\\s brtrf Ut(\ l\\ tUni of rhiUUiko 
Aul^uiatakivolioxH Co hi.H rmolions, joiiusl \^ilh oiiruost 
ho|v for \vt lvfc«*i* things. SoliilK^r \\i\A joUll^l \utii 
iuvllio ill It M'ni>-li lor )wtcvfioii in i\w nui-iout 
i«rv«*k >hoi'Ul. I'liiMv iuv iuiiu\ t'iiNhions of i|ui(*ciiii; 
%k» ivskClosVMirvi lliiif lvlini;:x\l to l\\c x'\x\u\ \r( \\hat 
«li<» of thrill rt*2iU\ nnN\^«'rs I hi* |MoMt*m> ot llio i\v. 
nuuitio »|urit ' rUnv i> >(iU (ho ^tv:it ipirstion : 
HoMk iimv luiinkiiul li\«^ (ho hanuonuui^ ouiotivMial 
lif<»» vthoii iiioii iiiv ihixtMi lor ihrir iiU'als biu-k uihui 
lKrUi!k-Ut^H, wWii iriulilioiijil Uith i> ivuum«\1, \Oii*u 
tlk«« a4*\> iH full ol \^ IV (r hi' J III' OS Axu\ ot \A\\u\ s(ri\iu^:, 
vhrli flio \fr\ Ntivn^lh ot jHvtu* oiuofioii tiiii'Iir:i 
lluiC it i^ triin*ttrnt iiiul I'haii^tMhlc * Vlw \^Mls\*ious 
failili^^ to »n>^\rr ihi-* ^lurstioii i> luoiv or K'x> Ji*- 
rkliH) iwHiiiiiiiii. 

i\»iiKl iiunliMti ^Hvir\ trtv itsoli fixuu th:it ivtUvti^o 
triuli*tu'\ ill \%liii*h \*i' \\i\\v fontul il.i !uo%t oi>nuiiirut 
ohaiiirlrrisiii*, thr jH*>"«:miMii i'^nihl ilivij^^viir \\\i\\ 
tho rrisii'i^m ol \\iv. l»iit this In lunH^oNihlo. l^imt 
Iviri ol oiw U:u- jsM*?i\, soiiic' 1^1 our i*oiUi'tl\ iiUil \^t 
our !<altu\ :iii,l i\\c if"«t i»t our Wsi U-.lU'tiVUlll \VU- 

tur\ |Hto(ii* \«vu'k 1.1 A iiiotv or K\vi iVU?koi\nis stru;;[);le 

«« «»^ "';*"*^.ltf ^^ 1^ ti»« ♦♦^ 

KmciL si L iyrmsM axd ErmcAL pessdhsx. 119 

*^MauEi£R«L** **Cadiu'* and ^ IX>ii Juaxu** represents an 
■KfependtMit pbase of the romantio moTem«»it% wkctse 
faaabs are as instnKMiTe as hs beauties^ This pe> 
nad of Bnon's poetrr is of coarse but verv roa^rhbr 
dcKxibed br the word oritioaL vet that word is at 
awr rale sojigestiTe. A sensitive man« and vet he- 
iQiKi^ sfcroE^ in spirits but without fixed ideals of life, 
a rebel br nature who ret finds no sreater sool to 
lead hinu no faithfol baml to follow him in anv defi- 
nibe effort fiiNr mankind, Bvron is a modem likeness 
of him diat in the le^nd afterwards became St. 
Clir^to[)jier. Only BTrv>n seeks the strongest with- 
Mitfiiiding hiuu learns to despise the deviL and never 
meet» dfee devil's master. Worn out with the search, 
tike poet flings himself down in the woods of doubt 
and dreams ^^IVn Joan/* We look in vain for 
tibe right adjective with which to qualify this poem : 
it is so full of strength, so lavish of splendid re- 
and yet in sum so disappoinring. It has no 
ending, and never could have had one. It is a 
itain stream, plunging down drea^lful chasms, 
sb^ing thrv^ugh grand forests, anvl losing itself in a 
EEeless st^t alkali desert. Here is romantic self- 
ciitidsm pusheii to its farthest consequences. Here 
is die self-confessiou of an herv>ic soul that has made 
too hi^ demands on life, anvl that has found in its 
vwn experience and iu the wv>rld nothing worthy of 
tme heroism. We feel the magnitude of the blun- 
. we despise i^with the author, as must be noticed, 
in opposition to him^ the miserable petty round 
of detestable experiences — intrigues^ amours^ din- 
— in briefy the Tulgarity to which human life 

120 TnK UKMoioui AirieoT or tmiMOinir. 

U nHlmml \ htii ihit iniKifdy U iivctrywIiDn) to \m 
runil iNiiwiniit tint litt«4M, not in wluii in hiUiI. Tlitt 
roitittttitd Miiirii Iihn mmi^IiI itt viiiti fur iltci MtlMfiu)- 
iiiry uiiiotiotial MiitUs liiid for tlm worthy ilmxl to |wr- 
fontt, Mul tiow ruNU, wtorttfiil lutil yitt lorriflMcl, In 
ilixxy <uHitiiiii|iliiiioti of tint lumUtmul aiul mniittiiig- 

llIMM ItUiKIt of NilllMitioilM Ittto wIlUlll ilui WOtUl lUM rO* 

im)Iv4m1 iU4«lf. **'rii«mt Im ttoihitiK tlutnt t«) fcmr or 
lii>|Mi/* tliiM M|Mrii mnitiiM to imy. 

'' WliMti 1SImIiii]» ll<«rk«i«iy miIiI ttiitrii wm no rimiUfi 

()r ttifiutt : — 

" ' To \m Of mil ut \m 1 ' Knt 1 ilttrldn 
1 ulioulil \m kIhiI III kiMiw tliHl wUU-U U Muff { 
'T U iruM w<t ii|HW'uliiu InHh fur mid wUtu, 

¥itr my |iitri, I '11 ci»lii»i oti i*«itlM!r tAtUt, 
Until 1 M^n lititli iililfM tor ttm*tt NKr(t<*lii|(. 
l^or tii«i 1 iKiiii(Htii)Mi think tlmi lifu In «1«iii||, 
Hm^ifr ilwn life, « nutrn nfTnlr of Urtt»iU,** 

In *^ Mittifn*il ** tliii NIMIK1 Mpirii mwIcm luu^liDr, and 
iicyi <|iil(4) NO Mii(*i*4mMfiil, li form of lupritiMiim. Hm 
only \mtuH^ ilint i*un I'onui to iliin workl-wi^iu'y M|>irtt| 
Miinfr<i<l <tx|)r«Miu*M ut ili<t Mif^lii of n quiiti MiituM^t. 
TIhi only fr<^<Kloni frtini i*Umm\ Miilf-«txiuuiniiti(m U 
tmiuil in un ocvrmtionttl Klamui nt imitifitful nniun). 

" It will iMit llUi, 

IImI U f« wrll til Imvi* known it iUtmnU Imi om^ ; 
li liiUli nuUryMl n»y tlioMtftitu with « iMtw MnM», 
An<l 1 within my tnhUtu wouM imiU (h/wn 
ThMi th«nt i« «iu<-h m f<Milini(" 

1*Imi fntnoiiN Ittui wonU of Munfrnd, -^ 

" U14 HiMi, '( i4 nut fla «iun«ttk lo dk/* — 


;>u: : i (-t. 


imc OfT id^ skkfr oi: pwii^^j: wiiiiin. in jlH :^ <:nr«f c.i:m» 
i&iui£& bolt ]br Ji nn'*natfc.3> luiie Drr^'if i^f caz>:tf :.c ibe 

I'3ur»j 3IJC iiiHai la/ ii:;ii. luv i.n -i/ ic^-' — 
Btu Tpa» 3I-' ;nra jfair*: "ir vjii t*1_ :« 

mg win m}Q «i.v iLiZLrrfo ii:nr.i.:'';> f«:c:i«rciii:ij: '-/ a*:- 

icy, 2ii;c lie 5dieiLl fififiiz^ .' Tii* s;ii5?:s:n.«:jci jlki 
tie FAa<3 •:£ Cr.-ircl^:. 

122 tn% npA^MwvA Anrmt m pnttAmftmti 

Mfintum 4fl ** Vnmi^'' mmh m ihni wWcrwHIi f f«pf. 
fffUffft ihitnm htm tnntttfA^ M w)ih n Ak^fffMi> fi** 

pwitnytt Hf A fTfAfHl Afi^l pffft4mn4i ^ in tmm^ \t /m 
tfn^mpi (\iff,timymt^^ \% k rnhHiff^ly tAtttyUa mnA ffM#- 

wWfrfff irfAff, frf ibft Mmi« ilftfffA ^\mUmt^ i# krft in 
diirkfMM mh\ i^mlnpi^tn, 'Dm Afif^^fK wkfy lAm^ 

tbiifk. Mnn \n Uf mii. % h\n miihifn h^ U ftmif U9 

nml/ftfK Ttmi M, Mn l)f a m itt )m*4ni^ n/n tmrtmmkfm 
iKfytU. Tk^ ptffdninUi fft iim ijfmt in ihni tfrf# U 

Tk^ ffnpM>i4m in Uf im mtU^i iff i)M ^<«ii^ firf VnmL 

Vn^tni in h m$M in wb/^m ntn t^frnMrn^A ntl Him 
n^4mt(^h Hwi i^fmknmn ffl ih#9 tmnnnii^ npifk, H(f 
0fn4^iUmm )m (immn tft i^fffih ntf imtft im mtf Mk 
miimim in liAj^rml hin gtnnp, Thffrii^4fr$f M# ^ 
flfMir Ai tfM nif(hi 4fl iffA f(f^i w//fM 4ft Itfo/ liiifi^ 


grov great OMyogli to gnsp ih» wlioikv or any 
fiute put of ik» wliole* Yet tiieie reoudns tiie 
kopriiffg^ desire for this niMdeness. Nothing but the 
infinile can be satisfying. Hence the despair of die 
evd^ scenes of the first pait. like Brrosi's Man- 
fited^ Fanst seeks d«adi; bat Fanst is kept from it 
br no fear of woise things beyond, onl j b j an aeei- 
dental reawakening of old childish emotions. He 
ttnreafter feels that he has no business with life, and 
is m creature of accident. He is clearly conscious 
anJ^cf a longing for a fun experience. But this ex- 
he conceiTes as mainly a passive one. He 
not wish as yet to do anything^ only to get 
g iierjlh ing.^ But at the same time with this desire 
a tempest of tew feelings* Faust has the con- 
that there never can be a satisfaetonr feel- 
]lephistopheles« stating the case of the con- 
tented man of the world, assures him that the time 
win come for enjoying good things in peace. Faust 
indignantly replies that pleasure can never deceive 
die tolerable moment never come. In making 
Tery assertion, however^ and in concluding his 
pact with Mephistopheles upon the basis of this asser- 
Fanst rises above his first position, and assumes 
one. The satisfactorr pleasant can never be 
pran to hinu and why? Because he wiU always 
active. Satisfaction would mean repose, re- 
woold mean death. Life is activity. The 
of the pact is of course that, for good or 

> CL tke In^T dtfeossMW of clib potat in Ftwiiziclk ViKher. 

iHi wpr uwm^wt^ APfMt^n ftp' mt/mmfi 

im M'?^; i^W iitfi f^i^iM^iH^ f^ H mmt )# Wfffk^ mi4 find 
Mih^ iftitr iff tU^U: tl^ mtt'Ui i# ^^f^< if m mn 

pmii }i4^it. ^fJf^ ^^m^H^ til t'tHmfttri^i^tt ># rfwf 4#-- 
til ^^iU m^ ^tn U ff^ ^^#^w^ Ui m^mtpii^ 

iih tit MftiU^ f^iKm^fitu*4i: tiU ptmimitfm (fm Ut 

w^l- tffm^i1tii9t^U4i pUtt^'f Mf t( Umtw ifm ^t4i ttm 

44^ttf fm- MmittM pm^^t^ t^^pMit^fHrn^^ i# m^t iim 

mM fit iH^^ ^f^f^ty^if^i^. JT/^^ ^ f^ ^ ^ j# /^4 
ki4i^i^ ^ ii^itt^f fli^ *^^ Ht4i^i^ i hU ^itii^ }# 4ttm fey 

Hiftnh- i mi*\ frit^ m^^ifiipiUUiH^h ^/^ ^m mtl^ Utf 

?# Mi mti'Mpi^yitii fHii M> tt^iU'jif; tfi iht f'mi mHi4 
(h^ f^i^m^Ui^jf mtfU ?# ttp^t^ UthtiA: Ami tf*tf# tim 

¥i\m4ih tit f^ pttfhU^Hi ?# tit4 hiijif ffi^t^^ ^itif^ 

^ piM, ^iMti mi^^i^^fi^ n^ U^ titifi4i ftttif^ ^iim 
imjjf t4;tt^f uifHUt'ti ptM: *t\i*i fHftitttl^m im4 ft^f^- 


Hie nno cauuKX wboUv be luomonuDed. The 
^ogbasi fcmiis of activinr imply 5^1f-^auMiii«.v« dnidg- 
csnr<« nwLQne^ ivxd-hesaded calculaiioD. The hig^he^ 
farms ol emodcou pursued by thexaselveis^ intoxicate 
aoid eaaarafie. It is the purpose of Gwtho to lead 
^ hexv> thixMigfa the various stages of emotional life, 
ior i]fee sake of making him preier in the end a mode 
«f jmoQ «> all fonus of simple emotion. The xvisult 
is ao he a man above the deadnesss of oniinarv work- 
a^T realisnu yet as devoted to toil as the stupidetst 
ivalis^. Tliere is to be a free surrender of a full 
self to the ^rvic^ of some hi^h eniL Nothing is 
'^^Arog to the ivnquest over pessiuiisuu exivpt the 
ckar ssatement of that for whioh the ivuivened 
FaK3 is to work. The cv>^ of aoiivitv oniv founil« 
piohlem will be solvenl* aud the devil's wager 
But the dim allecv^rioal sus:w>siions of the s^'^ 
part will not suffivv to give us the a».vount of 
is wanted. Faust is to work for human pro- 
l^sessw and pivxriess means the exisrenee of a whole 
of hard-laK>rin£r» tearless men wbi^ liirht for- 
for their freeilom. To have Iven the father of 
a people is the highest IJesseilness. Goixl. in* 
re sav : but to have wivnicht bv the devil's 
thioogh magio and oppression, is this the high- 
est ? Is this the tyjx^ of the Ivst aoiivirr ? And is the 
pioMeni after all really solvoii ? For wlia: is 
vhhnaie goixl of the eternal warfare with nanire 
m widA mankind are thus left ? Faust lea\-es be- 
lofei him a nation of toilers, whv^se business it will 
W to build dikes to keep the sea out. A worthy 
of ranantie hoivs. trulv ! That Goethe 


tmlt ifi not wholly CH)iitefit therewith Ia proven by tho 
epilofpte iti heaveti, which ineanA, if it ineanA any 
thitif;, that the highent end erf human activity ll 
something very fine, tnit alt<igether inexpreAAihle, In^ 
vlflible, incHineelvahle, indefinite, a thing irt ether 
and dreatnn. One longn in thin lafit neene for the 
presence of MepliintopheleA, who nurely hafi as mtieh 
right there an in the prologue, and who would lie 
Aure U} Aay, In hiA terAe atid Ainewy faAhion, juAt th$ 
right and the laAt word about the whole buAineAA. 
\ The inc(mipletetieAA of ** FauAt *' Ia the incomplete^ 
ffieAA of modern th(;ught. ^flie poet Ia Ailent about 
the flnal probletii, beeauAe iiioderti thmight Ia AtiU 
toiling away on the deflniiimi of the higheAt human 

ThtiA we have found that (rur moral {n'oblem in 
Ahare<1 by otherA thati the ni(7ral phll(rA0]iherA. Al- 
moAt at random we have takefi a few AuggeAtive 
IHuAtratiouA irt UiIa Aame moral problem aA it a]?- 
pearA to the jioetA. 1 Ia<l we tna<1e uac of the poetA 
(jf the preAetit day, we cindd have illuAtrated AtlU 
other aA}9ecf/A of the (jueAtion. ^flie rcAtlcAA dramatlo 
g(!tiiuA of Drowning, for iuAtance, alwayA giving ua 
glimpACA (jf tiew idealA that men of Atrange faAhlotiA 
have or may have, unwearied ly warnA ua not to pre- 
tend to narrow the poAAible objectA of life down to 
(n le, however Aacre<l we may think that one to l>e. 
I/ife, thuA viewe<1, AcemA a grand everlasting war- 
fare of idealA, among whi(fh }ieace 1a imiMiAAllile. 
And with this innight into the actual and Aeemingly 
ii reconcilable warfare of human aimA, ethical d<Mv 
trine muAt begin. The outlook Ia gloomy, but tli« 
pi oblem mu«it be faced. 

mscjkL sumcisM axd ethical nssnnsaL 19T 


Sttrli M^ some of IW iuoIiyvs: thai givi^ giMimiii^ 
■wmiiy lio modern pei$sMuil»iu T1ii» iuslabUily of 
dD UtMib i» tki^ jn^^iMk^l dMi^r to whioh M<Ndl»tt 
<«a W 9ttb]«et. And Iki^ )w»Uetti is no4 i»iie of luer^ 
tlMM«T« iHvr wt <»veii of poelio oiuolkui jiIoue« The 
|tol)ifetti i» one of iUiilY life« We dhKn^e $^Mne f^isb- 
iMi of life in Uie momiu^^ ^mt we rejeol id Wfv>re 
w$|^ OKir devoli^mdl UKUueut» demand th»t all 
lifi^ ^siall be devoliiuud : our merrv momenta thai aU 
lifi^ dhaU he merrv : our her\^o miMuents that all life 
dhadl be Uve^l in deliaiKV ^>f ;$^>me olK>0en enemv^ 
BttI we are false to all tlK^ik> our UU^K even while 
we yflretahl to have them. Aud i1k> iu\>ist \Ushe«uv 
iMiiB^ a»peet of the wlnde matter Iuns iu the faol 
tdkrt we etuinot |Mr\>ve ev\ui ^mr faithU\!t&ait\:ta( lo K*» uu* 
WMtihnr« aniens we I'an Imtiu^ our^^^lvv^^ steadfastly lo 
we^ wnie i^Ieal by which ^mr faithltN^suess^ itsu'lf 
<«n be jnd^L And this wv>uld im|Jy that we wer^ 
no» liMQgser faithles:»« 

We have thus reaohtxl tlK> rvv^t of moral skepti* 
mHu The wvurst that moral skeptics can say is that 
nD eiwoee of ideals is an accidental ca|>ric«^ that 
iihpli have no basis but tlus capruv, aiul that a 
MMwl eo^Ie dei^nds tW its suv\vs^\il prv^(>a^uon 
iri^Ul^' on the p^^rsuasive |vrsoual t\>rvv v^f x1k> man 
tdkrt happens to have it auvl to te>ai*h tt« 

Far the firsts then^ we prvnisioitally a^wj^t jhis 
tb^ptical view. AVo shall rt^rvl the moral ulcals iu 
tdhi»)^l« We shiAll s^vk uo iiu|KvtadMo prvKxt t\ur 
anj ef them. But we shall try to ;see whither the 
dnptmJ view itself lea^ls mk 

It V7^ Uftfk fttm Uft a ftfiftl rn^'i p^f i^ftf (^M- 

tfft'fft f/W/ fihnU iH fw fi^A erti^t^ Uft n]\ Hji HfMtfiHf(, Ha 
UmuAn^a^ff^, hihI Ha f^t^rp^, ttrA pti^f^frf, fttrthtrt ktf<f^n 

tit tftf hA*f/Af ^tpttumtftt til H flrttff flf^ ^JtiA *liwf *M t^tff- 

« ^^fA/rf^^ ^^ ^'frH/r^^^WA f /^mMr/' ' ttfttkt^t ^ht^ mV^ 

^fftf hff< A^tfSfrtj nn \fy fliA frfifflt ?f? tfn^itrtf fhnff hts 
hnn h 9f^ty ni^t^fn} tift\t*t- m ph\\tmf\^\t-. tVm*wmtrtt>, 
httti WA t^ntt tmiy fhnfrk hftfi ftrt htvMg ttmth ptm- 
fht^ nt}vi^ftf'f* hi f*fhft*n ^«f41^f, fry frM t4t-itt Mnf^fttt^trt 
tft fht^ tVrtftt^rtHiM ihni in fh^ fr?W* ^mv^ ^fJ^fl^^/1 th^ 

Wry« Mf. thWmt, *' Wfflf Mf^^frttnlly fYifft^t<^iii nrth- 
jt^i- f/r«f.f/»M." S^i/'rrMfk» pttfptmfitftti^ M/riiit^ ^' tft^t^lA 
tft t^vt-ffh, tt-n) tft hyfrtffht^fiont/" PAhft*nt pttfptm- 
fhtfh^ tVf fftd " nnnfftttrt^t* ntt ^v^frf/' fitrt y^t tVf fht^f 
M} ntty " fnt4 trf fht^ t^ttt-tfini tft tMit^ttfUi ^trtVt/' 
VAh'tor^) ^tift^M Ufh tfff4*tt HrmfHtlt-t f^A ^^ pf^t^htrUtfty 
ttf fV tntVtvuhw) fKrf/lirrg fV^ ttit/tn) te^.'^ thrh f^ 
w r»^r ^r»f»ff^f f^ft ^f^f^!<, frrrf, ^mly ttrt pnft^htrUiffit^ 
n^T^n^^. fn fjt/*f, " rf «. ^^^rjriH<rri ntffitmtft^itffi tAt- 
iJgnfi/iTr tt^fmtt* pthtil ni «||, /itrA fAf/rt /^ ftr«t pttitil 
ttYTtM, jtfwnyK fp^ ft pttfptf^fitftf nntitmfft*itif( tAftiftntitftfi 
wVf^h fff<6lf tt^tftntt^n rttf frrfrtrt/' " ''hrA^^ h fftt Arts 
fi^^ fry wW^h «fr ^f>ri^n^ pterfytt^iitfti t*nfi tftf ^v/rlvNl 
ff^'rm rt «^7^rff,7fi^ trr ttit-f,nphy^v*ni pttffytt^iitm, tft ntry 
t*tftff\ririnihfti trf f<Tf/'h." " '^h^ tftiff'itt tif ntr /r1ft^fr*M 
^>f?/*«l ^r^lf^f ^nrr rr/'VAt pm^j^fy « tt^Atrti ftrt it^th^htg 

ik aiK>? tho ivrigin of this; lvlu< ;%$ of *ay oUwir 
SMtiiaJ i^hoiKWHMuw. is ;ji uvutror tx> K^ do*lt with br 
«miK^ : wkI iwy ih<>sJs is ihxx {x\%^^xx\yi\ s|y\ikiiu;^> 
firkttti^ truth »lono osuinot sorw *s ;ii foxuuUlion 
ii«r a inond svsumu : or ^to put it ix^sitiwly"^* if w 
kftxifr a uond sY^4i»n ;iit ^L tliooro must Iv oi^ntsuiHsl 
m it^ ^jt{4ioitly t^r iui|^lioitly« ;jit loAst on^^ ethical 
pKfiiMitiom t\f which uo piVH\f C9UI Iv giwn or rv- 

IW T^Mklor nuv ;ii$k : Is a11 this tho loftiost iJoaI- 
isBik or is it siiii)Jy phiKv<k>phio skt^i^ioisni ;iily>ut tho 
bfesi$ of othios? Wo lujiv h\iw tho ro«Jor t<> ox* 
for hiin3^>lf Mr, IVidfourV wry ingonuMis dis- 
Wt ouo or two >vrY obviiMis ;uitl siniplo 
<iQK«i)UOiioois nwy Iv qu%>tx\l f t\\m tho n>st of tho os- 
«iT« and thoso >^iU ?^^rw >^vU oiioiich to sh^^w horo 
flbe drift of tho disoussion. 

* An ^ioAl pn^jvvMtiott is ouo thjit pn^soril^os im 
WiMi with iv-foixMuv to iui oiui," Kvx>ry suoh pT\>|v 
mtioii ** Ivlt^nc* to ;ji s\-stoui/* ** Tho f uud;uno.ut^ 
fm^^li^Mi of OTx>r>* suoh s\-sunu switx>s au oud, x^hlv^h 
tb^ pors^'m who n\vn\>s th^t sx'stoau n^^nis as tiual 
— ms ohoiitm for iT5i!<\lf a.loiu\** ** \Yhou two suoh 
iTS^iMiis <vwtiioti. thoir riv^U v-'Uuus o^u oul\ Iv J<^ 
<idiNl by ;ji jutij^J^oul or prv'^^vvMtiou not t\>ui5^.hu\i in 
mliM' <rf th*uu» x^hioh shAll asK<*>rt xxhJxh of vhos<^ rt^ 
4{i«<tiT^ fundAiuoutH-il * oiuls ' sh;%ll h^w prxxw^Muv/* 
**K ri?voiii:o a^iust a |VAr:.vul:vr iu*i5\uluAl is lor 
Vtt^ »n oiid-in.ils<^h\ a 'j^rk^ivvsJv.i^u \Ouoh pn^s^^rily^s 
ilK^^tiiu; huu fr^Mii K V.iu*? a h«\3j:v iua\ K^ or.o of \ho 
d^pMido^t pn^^v^sinous Ivlonciu^C to thA: }\^rl^ v,lAr 
iq^Amil'^ ** ThiHi^h uuvlor tho luuuo othu^al 3u\^ iu* 

180 THK unumotm Mfwt or rmwiKmir. 

imUAtU WwiMm i\mm nnUWyUUmn urit tuA mmttti\$i\^ 

wiirM mmtm tHmti%i\n\\y v\%mAUu Km^h mu\^ M dutmnt^ 
\um ti# i/wn w»y of ifi<»rMlmliii(( n^dii mm fpHH\ n,tu\ \m\, 
Ittii mi49 Mu\ ifttfffM/i iwiftlilUh iA«Mtlf UM9^/r«di^;iilljr 
49^w HjunSmi ttfi/;iW, 'Hm WMrfur^ mwmfi i\mtn U 
f/rMi$iiiM»l« hit Im fMii rMtimmlly io t^^ \w\nm\ or mulmU 
Kfiuih myt^f *Mia tfM U iim iniib hIm/iiI ri((bi htmI 
wri/riK. I Mil i\m Way.** Ittit f#/r tptui ututiimr iimy 
liMviff ii/;l HrffmsuftiiMf \mi hUHilufmim, ^Fiuiy tfi¥» w» 
\mH4^ im\y lumnriUm %m\ v4rtu\pnmtHiUm, It \n i\m 

Uiiii \An>um\tUi mu\ yt4 Arttmlfnl inmAmUm i/f wbti^h 
nuptUtm iiumn^ii imn hml mt imwh Ut my^ Mul of 
wliii;h \i\\n dfUfitor luui iriiNl to j||:iv« iMiiti4» uoiioti* 

Wk )mw iitHHUnI U\ \\\sv^\\ WW our oUUtuU iikt^)>tl« 

<^wn^ tt^ t;vx|H>rioiuv x\\%^ v%^ nXw\\ff{\\ of lu \(tHlhtl^ 
in mibr Umt w^ ithodUl W aMo tt» ^^t ut^w m\\\ In^t* 
Imc ittiolhtHU of tHiuMi'uot ion for our owu iUn'triuo, 
1^\\ M U ili«^ i^'uth UiAt lioM At th«) IuimU of iuu4iy 
i^UhU «W(4^uoii now oithor ttouhtiHl tu' nlmiutouiHl. 
mit^ Uiiuif tUwAyn mnrntntloftH^tivo aImm\( (lioir ftiAhlou 
i)f ImUtUuir. TliU ouo ttv^fiH^t Imn \\\tk\\t^ ua t|u«»ittlou 
tli«»tr wx^rtli \M \\\\H\v\^^ \\\\\ our UuHir^^tionl tloul^f^ 
M wt» (twi4i u|Hui it^ ImA UHHnu«« |trAot(otU« Wo 
)mv^ vki^u how thin othioul nkoptioinui lomU to tho 
((ItMmiioi^t IhWuuIimu. Itoth tho nkopiiotAUt tuul ilio 
)H^MihulMu \vo n\UAi utooi (m\\y m\\\ foArh^wtly, Au«t 
w^ wwxni u*k thoui how ovx>u t-hov thimim^U^^ aiv 

0\\t ikkopUotU oritioi««m of otht^^nl t-hoorii^n htui 
biMM\ m* frtr oithor iutv^ruti^l or o)(toru.iU NVo h»\*o 
tMI^Uoimv^l t^Aoh thn'triuo tu itnolf, ^u«^N(iouiu|i^ fMthor 
itn tCKMudii(i;>uoY \u* i(^ luuor «hmu)Uo(«^u«^»ii i oi^ Am> \w 


liave oritieimNl it with n^fonmce to othor dootrinoii. 
In tlio ilrHt oiiMo our i^riticiiuii led to no {(ont^ml 
HkopticiMni, and hod iiiiiMirtantto only in thu H]NH4nl 
com). Hut tho otlior kind of criticiHin Wiis of more 
ini|)orttuuHS and tcK)k anothor tuni. Wo Haid to 
tho dtMftrino : ** Porfoot aH your HyMtoni may In) in 
itsolf, your aHHunii>tion of your highoHt ond always 
ihuU ovor ligainnt itMolf an equally MtuhlNim aiwunip- 
tion of an oxa(*tly oppoHing ond. And you Imvo no 
proof to oiTor for your rojootion of that ond. You 
Hiniply iuHiMt uixui t^jdling it a dialN)li(Mil ond ; you 
Iiurl at it your anathoina. Now wo, who have 
wanti^d pnN)f, not nioro onthuHiasm, wo, who Mtand 
critically In^foro your (lootrino, and viow it from 
without, and <loMiro to know why wo aro to aooopt 
it, wo fool a Hkopti<Md indifToronoo about your ond, 
as soon lut wo (M)inparo it with tho opiMMing ond, 
and as himhi tut <M)inparing, wo ilnd tho difforonoe be- 
twoon th(«ni to Ih3 ono that roHts, not on domonstrar 
bio tnith, but on a nn^ro kin<l of oapricH). I'raoti- 
oally wt) may agnM) with you in ohooMing, as nion 
of action, your aim. Our )M)rmmal (Miprioo may 
agrcM) with yourH. Hut tluion^ticMiUy wo cannot jus- 
tify tluM aim. Wo find, in all tliat you say, no ol)- 
joctivc moral truth, but only HonudNMly^s capricious 
rcHolution. And oven if wo chanco to lUM^jit your 
nmohition, who knowM when wo Hhall chango our 
mindM, and Iwgin acting in Homc now way, so that 
what wo now cidl go<Ml hIuUI In) called ovil? In 
brit^f, if there iH to \h\ iKiMHiblo anything more tlian 
moral pr(Mu*hing, if there ih to 1h) anything woitliy 
of tho namo of demonstrated moral dootriuo, thou 

THE MORAL nc§;ioiiT« 1S3 

all TiMT <ii»n»9(ion must Io«ki U> jomothiiifr not d«^ 
pwdknl on tk^ kuv oln^ico of indivuliud tiH>nd 
agiAls. But in tniih wluii vxni ^w lis is just tln^ 
iKt ^ TOOT cIk^v. And honoo it is Uuit wi^ ar^ 

Whsnt dowt Uiis our sb:>|>tioisiu mojui ? l'nrol!^»*s 
tiTiK «elf-«»tistie^l skopiioisiu al>v;!iy^ uiojuts woui^ 
deatli: but in s^Jf-critioal skoptioisiu^ olv>)i>rv;uit of 
itelf 9» of eT^r\thms: oliv, mo\*w iho wrv Uft^lxKxHi 
of pliiki$o)Jir« And of this tho whole of the prxisi'iit 
W>k will tnr t^^ ho 5in illustration. Just hi^tw thoiv- 
ferid^ w^ w;uil tk> Iv as \i^tohnil of o\ir skoptioisin »;!( 
wi^ wwn? of tho sYst^nus wluvj<> thtvn^ti^'^ wtvukuos* 
fel OS hilhor. What is tho s<ni:^^ of this thtvn^tioAl 
Cbquioisni of our |m\<<n\t anitxulo ? l>n our t\>ply 
ill eW t^inis. And o\ir n^ixly is : Tins skoptioisxu 
tKqp«iMiW>is an iutlitForoniv that \iv f<v.) when wx^ i\us 
tampbUi^ tWK> opjH^siiur aiu^s in suoh a w^v as uhw 
nMiiarilv lk> sharo thorn K>th. For tho momont vr>> 
Wdliiio o^fxially thtvw warrinc aims. Thoy aw ours. 
Tlio contliot is in us. Tho t^ro w ills hor\^ n^pn^Mmxl 
sr^ out will. And for this iwiamu and for this onlv. 
<tui w^* fool tho skoptioal ind^vision. Had w^> tho 
will lk> ohiH^so tho ouo ouvl alono* wo should unhosi- 
taotingly oh^Hvsio it* and shouUl not s^v onoxisrh of tho 
oppn^n^ will tx^ Iv skopiii^ Ha*l wx* only tho will 
Uiaf ohoi>sois tho op^HViinc ond* ti\* shi>\dd t\vl ts^xially 
indifforoni tx> tln^ tirst. Had wx* noith^^r will at all 
ill mind« did wx* rt^ali*x^ noithor ouo of tho opj^vsinsj 
t»d5k wo should Iv fwliuc no hesitation Ivtwvon 
diom. I'h^r doubt aris^^s fnuu tho faot thai monioxb 
Urily and |xr\>visi\xually wx> an? in tho atiiimdo of w* 

184 TiiK NKiJOioui Affi'ieoT Of PHiumovm, 

iuining lM>tlt« Our inillftDrMiUH) U ttot tbn iiidiffor- 
MUHs of iKttonuiiMs but of ktiowliHlgu i not of fnilutD 
to unilonitniiil intlutr «ii(l, but of romliiuiMM t«> nmllxo 
hiiU oiuIn. i loiMUf it foUowN Umt titoriil MkiiptiiaNin 
In itmtlf tlu) nmult of nu niit, iiiutialy, of tho not by 
wklisli wo mtok to ruiUlxo in ourmtlvoM op|NMlng nitnM 
nt tlio imm tlnut. TIiIm obm^rvation In of Um groat- 
out ini|K>rtiino4f to uni und wo niu»t dwoU u|K)n It. It 
nIiown UN tlmt iiInivo lUl our Nko|H«ioiNnt In tlui nu- 
primu) Vau\ tluit ntnkim tlio NkoptioiNnt itNolf {MmNiblo. 

Tlio otltiffiil liiutN tlutniNolvoN aro all of tlioni tlio 
oxproNNion of NontolHHly*N will. Utoir oonHlot In tlio 
oonHiid of wiIIn. Doubt alniut tlumi doiNfiulN uiNin 
tlio roalixiition of tlioir oxiNUtniu) and of tlnilr i9\f\H^ 
Nltion. Tlu)roforo tliiN iloulit doiNUMlN for ItN vory 
oxiNtonoo on tlio oonilitiouN of tlilN roalixation. Wo 
havo trloil to Ntatit what tho omtilitloiiN aro. To 
roallxo opiKwlng omU no rontplittoly that mto fooU a 
gonnlno doubt whUdt of thoni to atHnipt, ini|dliw, wo 
nay* tho NlniultanmrnN provlNional aiHwptanoo of iKitli. 
And thiN may \m nIiowu in a nioro tnipular imyoholog- 
iiial way, aN woU aN in a nioro gonoral tdtihMo|)hioal 
way. Wo iako tho |my(thologioal way iirNt. 

How oan I know that ihoro In anywlutro a will, W, 
titat ohiKWON for itrndf Nonio ond, K ? Itoally to know 
thiN IniplioN Notoothing nioro than nioro mitor olmor- 
yation of tho fnolN. ( )no niuNt ro|Hiat in ono*N own 
mind nioro or hiNN rapidly or im|»orfitotly thiN will, 
W| tliat ono (^moolvoN to oxiNt in mmtolKNly oIno. 
And thiN nitoil of ro|Mitition In a woll-known |myoho- 
litgioal truth, vory oaNily illuNtratod by all NortN of 
aommonphioo frn^tN. iM un rofor to Noino of tlioNo. 

•» « 

THE MORAL iK:§;iQirr. 1S5 

T)» t^Uiik «( a K-MflUy »iM i$ u> |VTf^>na due' ;»ci^ or 
St Ittst iiiiMiiaJlv tk> initiAio tlio )H'r(\\nii;jui<v of iW 
MiU Aim«mnUii$ u> IV^fo^s^^r IWu's now g^>nojniUy 
iffoef fc eA pniieipl<i\ iho iuoiukmtv or tlio i\MKvpui\n i^ 
w JWt isi ]!iliY$iol<i^ir»Uy i\umivu\i with tho f»iuu>r 
<BPett>tiiMi of just iho $auuo iiorw^x;jk^i;$: »;$ vrxnild W 
iMMie inteasaelT oxoiuxl iu the ixvU {vrfomiaitco i\f 
Att iKtk T1iiM>eiliw ii i$ inu^ ilvii u> ihiuk of v^xnn- 
tt to uuUsme' » v;jiwn. lo think of w^kiuar is to 
$l«^ : aihU in oasii* of Any oJioit^Wo jvrsKUU 
4«r m (cmsift of any lu^muuuarv prwiisi^^sdni^ii tx> |vj> 
Cmvh tl» *«* tlio iwn^vption iw^v imuH\liAU>ly K^ 
<eiMiii^ tin? *rt^ Kvsiu5>i> iho w:i.^v«t oxdiatim) iuw^lwKl 
m tin? <\HK>i^j>titMi of iho iiot uu^iv ;%t on\v jvus* owr 
iMO tiit^ Oiuwjjot^rr o.\oitaiiitn\» JWi^J ilw i*it>ail dtv^i 
■AT bi«\Mtto :ii vi:siWo f^ot. Thu-i tlH> C\oiUN\ U^.AIU 
if WDt tclkvkxsi 1\y i\xuij>iu\>\ n>»y m aiuv talk :di^iul 
t» himsielL hi^^ tluMici^ij^ U\\wvli\c >Kv>Tvi^ If >vrY 
■i«db wi^iu\i» ho u\*v iM«ttii\r i<^ buu^n^'lf o\v« in tlu> 
ywiy i KV ^>f \\w^|>:un\ Ho is iv.uoh mory^ ii^^t to do 
dds if ho think>^ not o«l> of ;ht^ \ko.t\U thoiu^stJYVi^ 
Kit of iho *ot of :i}y>cikiiu: thoiw^ iiAiuoiy, if ho iiu- 
3i^iK^ hiiu5>i^lf talking to i^Mwolvvlv^ aita omphjitis 
mlhr Winjniic hi* th^n^chts Kxwo t\> th*; oth«>r, lu 
a vycuk *t3ito of Kviw thi:; t<uMoivy to n^jx^^i iu> ;»ot 
whieaiOYi^T ono Kvu^vix^x^s it wwv U\\m«o ai5»« 
txvis&siuc* To think of \\xnuti«c «^^v uuna» tv> vomit* 
Or ;ji^u« tv^ think t>f Unchtor or of tx\MS u\jiy iu 
«ioh ;j| \*5i<«t^ wAkx> ono Uuch ororv. Hoiuv thi^x^v^k 
nuui n^i^v tiisiikx^ to K^'^in Unchinc^ tVVAni*> ho 
kxK^vvs thjis* o:h*>r owitin^r OAn:^\< AjvAn* th^> nvro 
ttottKxrv ituit ho hA$ hi)i^\l iiuy k^eop him Ui^gth 


ing afresh long after tbe Bonse of the ridiculous has 
passed away, bo that to begin laughing may mean 
total exhaustion before he oan stop. 

Imitation rests at least in part upon this tendency. 
An aot is performed, we witness it, we see or know 
how it is done, we oonoeive the effort that would 
lead to the performance of it, and forthwith this con- 
ception becomes the performance. We imitate the 
gesture of the actor or of the story-teller before us, 
and we feel an inner imitation of many acts, even 
though we suppress the outward signs. In general, 
for us to realize an act means that we shall do it, 
either in outward fact, or through a nascent perform- 
ance that is not outwardly visible. Much of the 
recently so-called ** mind-reading," more accurately 
named by some psychologists ** muscle - reading,'* 
rests upon this foundation. For the conception of 
acts that are not outwardly performed is often indi- 
cated by slight motions or tensions of arm or of fin- 
gers, or of the whole body, and the muscle-reader, 
getting some close contact with his subject, amuses a 
company by interpreting these unseen, but readily felt 
signs of the thoughts of his subject. Very deeply do 
such facets enter into the structure of our mental life. 
Mr. Galton, investigating word-associations, found in 
many cases that the idea immediately aroused by a 
word was a sort of dramatic reproduction of the act 
expressed by the word. This dramatic reproduction 
consisted, at least in ))art, in the feeling of effort in 
tliose muscles that would be concerned in performing 
the act itself. If the momentary association first 
aroused by tbe sudden and tmexpected sight of the 


inm) invulviMt thb dnuii»tio iiuii^tiiui of th«^ m:"! 
imuimkU hoxr mui'h iihu\^ \^*\>uM tlu^ thoii^rht iuvwlw 
llw» dmiiuitio n^)¥Mitiou of Uio not^ if \uio woit^ to dw«^ll 
u{HUi Um» ii»tuvt> v^ thi« noU «uul \ir^^it^ fiillv to it^in^ 
ila luituit^ ill hi« own uiiiul« S\> luuoh tlioii ftxr |Vjky< 
cKi^lopofld iUiistmtitui of tW viow thut wv ar«^ ht>n> 
MlYiUHniijir^ If tw\^ op|Hvuii^ fiisdiituist of aoti^ui nxt^ 
fonxM'iil U> ^nir uiiiuK «uul if uioiitiillv wo an^ trviii); 
li> riNilixie thoiu UuK thou iiioiitallY wo aro :KH'l(iii^ 
to royoro^liuv thoui UhIu i^ur ^dcoptii^al hoautiiti^m 
Wlwoeu thoiii o^pit^i^k^ our offorl to uttmii iiioiitidlY 
bolh UkViko oii\U at iuuv. For wimi wo hnw sukl 
about UhUIv aotsi will apjUv tH)ually woll to what wo 
usMiaUy i^all uiontal a^'ts^ aiul ovoii to ^nioral rxv»olii* 
Imi^ all of whioh havo a (Jiy^oal suUo« aiul an^ apt 
to ho »yuiUJixftHl hv ^uuo UhUIv ^\<turt> that wo 
moulaUyi^ oiitwanlly rx>|H^t whoii wo think of tho 
l«i or of tho rt^Uutitui in ^lU'etiion^ 

But all thi:^ i» not a Ivin^ aooiUont of tht> |v»YohoU^ 
mU »tmotnro of our niindn : it is a phiKv^^phi^vil nt^ 
tmttity* What n^jm^^nts a Will hut a Will? WIk> 
would know whdt it is to h»YO tin oiui unloss ho aot* 
ually had oiuU hinisu'lf ? W ho oan n^ali^^ a ^vri^vii 
aim Mvx> hys^nnohow rt^^i^oatiu): it in hinis««lf ? Ami 
•o it i« rationiillv aiul uuivorsallv ntn^v^^rv thtit tuio 
akall nsUiv^^ tho oiul of a mora) systoin hy n^piN^lm^ 
iu^ in hims^'lf tho will that aiHvptsi this ond. lUit, 
ou tho othor haiuU in si^ far f\%rth a^ ho ri'piNHhu'OA 
lht« will aloiu\ ho \^nnot ri^frain fr^mi aiwptin^ tho 
ouil« 111 M>far forth a.^ lio ri')\nHlm\H» this wilU it i^i 
hlfi wilh Aiul tho ouil is his oml, Thort*fort> our 
ikiq4idj»ui its»('df wa» a ht^tati^ui^ nMultin^; f ivou thu 

f^im^4m tit m^^n\ (ipp^nAufi ^^^ Mf4 fi'mn » ^ 

Umii A p¥tf^)fA*mn\ m^^m^ tff M iim mmnUHiufi 

^th m it, ¥it^¥t^ m^mWji \^m^h\pi miWm^ m\U\^Hi^w^ 

Ui imf'iwmim ih f^m twmmht^ H>ii iim titmttU^ftfi tiittm 
ih Itf^ mftUi fft 1)^^. In mmUi wti im w^Mi ?i tmi 
impptm^i ilmU Ut \m: A itmAuUi fii^ptMrntt wmM il^^M 
im imiwM frt^ ^f^/l^li^ imtmitttU^i*^: tin mm itUn 

thitf (iUi mrt, i,im fpi'y pmAwimH //f m¥ tm^i f^hMf/t^f 

4^ iifp^ w)ii^ WM# in imti tim m^um ^4 \\m iu^\mmmm 
tff m¥ \mk 1 Whtti umU iSm Ui/nk mmtn ii4ffmUm'( 
A^f^l wimi w^ tf\f^ nA#k? 'ttm tmU wm# Urn fm'MH^ 
tJUm ttt m* imftwmym*9 UUmi //f iUp,- ^tiiU UmU 
m^ft^i ff//(^f^<Ki« im^ij^iim Wff Mtf U^Mi tim f^mi 

pt^^UfiUf^i wM Af f^^ Hti wd ¥fUH4, H mt^nmi Ui m Ut 
tm: H w^ w4f ifim imff* ¥^ium)nii4m ^ff nii nitMi 
in w^ tftm f4t4f¥tf Ui fHM^f iimm niU mtiiAM^^piA itjf 
iii4t j^im tfimi timf W46¥ti ih mtf^mUinijif ii4fp4iUm ^/m^ 

AwlMi4i 4impi$^¥ WA# itm fmifiitiki imUi^hm ^A mf nk^- 

TB MOftlL miQRT. 189 

tidnu ioldj benuueoar nkepticiiuii was itmlf a roal- 
uoOaon of Uie aimii witli wludi men lin^ mud of tho 
wirfire of thene aioui. 

From the world of dead fact«« we had Mud« too 
eaa get no ethical doctrine. Phviucal tmth never 
pve» moral doetrine. Therefore the world of facia 
•eeoied to stand on one mde- and the world of moral 
aims ffeemed to itend on the other, no lopcal connect 
tkm hting dincorerahle between them. Thin wan our 
tl teo r etical objection to the ethical doctrinen that wo 
examined. Separate an ther were fn^m the world 
of facta, they ffeemotl to dwell alone, unfrrounded and 
cmflictini^ actp of capriix*. Yet for them to pata 
orer to the world of fact8 was to lose their ethical 
eiiaracter. But now we neck to overcome our difB* 
eoltr bv consitlerinp. not the world of physical fact* 
tliemaelveft. but the wiirld of ends. And this world 
we cvmftider. not now in detail, but as a wht>Ie. 
What highest end is siif^rf^od. iht ask. to him who 
realiaM for himself this whole world of ends ? The 
v&ej end« we answer, that., as tirst dimly seen, forced 
upon us onr ske]itiivil ]^*ssimism. Whoso realises an 
end, hiik for the time U*infr. is that end. And since 
it iff his end. he mt*ntjillv wills X*^ realiisc it in idoftl 
perfection. But wh<^*H^ n»jilires t ho ^-arions eonflioting 
aims in the world, his are all t.h<>so aims at the mo- 
ment of insights w1u*ik s«i far as in him li«'s. he real* 
imem tbenu and montAlIy desirrs thtor smwss. In j^nv 
portion as his roalir-ation is or can Iv rathoHo and 
{[[eniiine. his will Kn^^nit'**. for the time. the<*o i^m- 
flicting wills. In him is now tho warfan^. He finals 
fai hii own {vrson the bitterness of the universal 


Btrif e. And therefore it is that, in the first moment 
of his new insight, the pessimism comes to him. 
^^This warfare cannot be ended," he despairingly 
says. But has he thus uttered the final word ? For 
he has not yet added the reflection that we are here 
insisting upon. Let him say : ^^ Then I too have an 
end, far-off and unattainable though it seems, and 
so my will is not aimless. I desire to realize these 
aims all at once. Therefore I desire their harmony. 
This is the one good that comes up before my fancy 
as above all the various conflicting individual goods 
of the various separate aims. This Higher Good 
would be attained in a world where the conflict 
ceased. That would be the Ideal World, where all 
possible aims were pursued in absolute harmony." 

Barren at first sight this reflection may appear. 
It may have been unexpected, but we shall certainly 
be disposed at first to call it fruitless. For here are 
the aims, and they do conflict. In the actual world 
there is ceaseless warfare. Only the wager of bat- 
tle can decide among the opposing ethical faiths. 
But now, if some idealist comes who says that his 
insight gives him the higher ideal of Harmony, then 
one may reply that his ideal is, in its confessed na- 
ture, a mere fantasy of his benevolent imagination. 
Such harmony never can be realized, unless indeed 
some day, by the aid of bigger battalions, some one 
of the ideals overcomes all the rest. Yet is our 
idealist so lightly to be answered ? Can he not at 
once reply : ^^ My Ideal is thus defined, and fantastic 
though it be, far-off though it seems, it is still an 
ideal towards which I can direct my efforts. For 


behold, made pncdcmL, bioaght down firam its koe- 
mtrnt kdght, my Ideml Terr simplv means the Will 
to direct; my acts ioftard^ the attainment of oniver- 
ml HaimoDy. It requires me to act with this my in* 
mgjbt alwajrs before me- It requires me to consider 
all the eonflicting aims that will be affected by each 
•ne of my acts« and to dispose my act with reference 
to them alL It sets up this new moral principle be- 
fove me* a principle perfectly catholic^ and abore all 
that skepticism which we have f eh with regard to 
the special moral aims. This Principle is: <So act 
mM tkam ^tamid^ trilJ to ad if all the confifqvrmces of 
tty ad for all the aims that art anywhere to be qf- 
feded by this arU C(*tild be realized by tJiee iiotr amd 
im iii* ome indirisille moment Or more brieily put : 
Ad o/irayK til the light of th< completest insight 
imio all the aims that thy act is to aJTed- This 
role is no capricious one. chosen for some individual 
iHtton* but an uniTersal maxim, since its choice de- 
pends on the general realization of all the conflicting 
urns of the world of life. And thus we have after 
ail foond, in the rery heart of our skepticism itself, 
a moral doctrine. In the midst of the warfare of in- 
diridoal wiUs, we hare caught sight of an Universal 


** But no." some one will say : ** All this is stiU 
mere caprice. Has it not in fact fallen already a 
prey to the same skepticism that pursued other moral 
aims ? For firsts you have tried to found it on a phys- 
ical £act| namely, on the fact that only by a given 

142 tm ffKLMWv§ Aururt or pmumrms 

Mfffi 4ft will 4rtm ihinkifift Mfig mn rmnim th« will 
erf Mudimr* thii ihmit ihU t«ll nm ihfU, I miglti ihtM 
to fMili/iA ilM^ wrtiHUiiug will^ iliAi Aff^ in ili« w«/f kl ? 
Afi^l if f iUf luAf whfti ftifffiifii^iifim biMi ihift pb/^ii^ 

tmUUtf in tufi yimr A^niiAim jfiAi /^/iir m\ff\i^nti^ il^4«rN 
fnimiiii/;ft i/i rMp^oiilM 0(;nffiMiAf{ nifnn ilifti cdii/»i in 
tlw wwW 7 ** 

"fbin iAf^tf^^Sim^ if fffi^K w^/nkl fiA hnmA^A im % 
mSmituU^n^jMuWufi (it wbut wa bAr^ diM;c/r«^«<L W«i 
Imt^ ^iM'yfrr^Mi M^rfMhiffff itiAi Imm » tftln^ f//r m 
qfilkr \tuU^mtu\m%\y nt itn imp^/rUirK^ M » ffMrrA P^/^ 
lofil f«k5i« Wa m4 r/fii t^; flml A ili/»iimfii//fi li^w««tt 
rifflfi »rf/i wr/mf(. Onr ilifN^friliy »lw»/n wm ilMiy 
irffi^ ihin diftiinMi/m ifirolrmi %h^ tu'4*sylimim iff ft 
liif(lM9^ aim tm iim nUifuintil r/f ^tulfftumif nmt fAtu'^ 
tW^ iirci nuumrmm fiimn pfmAhUt^ w« nlwuyn w«r€i 
#anfiiMfl l/)r il^ fftM iliAi ftfn/^if( ifM^m^F mMiifoM ftirmv 
t}Mrr# WM /(/fin/l m; gr^/fiml ^/f e^uAm* Viff Uf ntufW 
My rtm^fh why w^ tmr^ (itymm in » ^it<m wfty fi^ 
iwi^Mim iwo ^/f ilMfM nitm^ in t^^ bftrfy » third ftim ibiiii 
Im'JMd^n f/TMi M^l pf%4fhul4m iim (dhpff, Atul iIm 4ih4A4'49 
4ff iliiA third nittt mmttt4^l fiffkitt jti^ fl# ii4'4^UmUii M 
iim ttrni 4'hA4'49 wmil^l hfifti \f4^f with^jrfit thin third 
nim Pf iuniity it 'tltm 4mr //ri^iriftl itymnht 4ff nfi 
ftinif fl# thi9 f/rrindtttf/m //f an frtlii/^ftl ^l/irftrin^^^ hflwl 
\h^$ nhfttt^^l )fpil4n4i 4mr py4^n inUf ft M|rrft/ #/f M^ift* 
Iftto |y^;MiihlA /iT ft^^tiftl ftimn^ nwl WA MftW li/y Wftj 4ft 
Pj4fiU^^ittf( thin ftf/ray ft^ftiri iuUt tmiiy* If thftt wftw 
iim rpftmfti hfr 4ft$r nU^jfl/minfft^ iii#yfi //f 4'Aftifm Mty" 
thiri^ rn/fTA thftt wa mfty Miy H^Hftd PiiWum mm% f/r«^ 
Mt|ip(iM9 ft iM^rfrr wfa^i eftn f^^l nnoh iikiFfrtidMfi^ ft( 

IpMid <M^ wi» ctttt ^^ furtiKer^ Wit Hxxt h vis> s)hydK'%km 

Imhi: ** If Yvmdo>ttl>i ^jibsHtc tihi^ ^\v(«4;jUKv k>f ;» ufev^nU 
«an,, tAkb tkut wi^ tuiv^ iK>iLutiie\t v>uc co \v>u W ibf^ rvdl 

«WS«\l v>i 5l«> wnrtWciu^ aiitt^is your^It 5^5 >*:ir with 
inwr$i^tit\ :juuI thtfwtVjv uuvUvulvvl This *vxtftv v*f 
««i« iuK* whWh YvHir firsn jh.iw uW o.t ;a uiv^rtd aJiu 

ift^ ckHiht oi j»ur^\v?»i^ rv^^rv^uti:^^ tor you yvnir owu 
iMiWjJ }K»iiyltiiv>tx. lXvulti\l iu \v>ui^^lt\ vU*uui«ixU vvji^ 

tdUtf;^ YvHA :«y» 5h*5 lu trurh yv>u v\vui7 ihe ^wd^wix 

s^ ;» hi^hxNiiB *uu. You se^^k uiuiy, YvHi vl«!^«w tlu^ 
w;wrfeiw Ho*s^. YvH.1 havt? au Ue^Jl. All chU i*, 

tuw ** Yv>luu5ary Ivlu^ : buB it; U uo5 v:a1»iaH^ ;»,wls 
fbc xhAZ w;*Aui *lsui^,. Ki: tVr tihe DtfAA^ii t;hA5* lu d»- 
<N>xvnu$ ibis i^ftcfi^ y\>u hyiYv dlft,VYvir^ >vh»l yvu 


wtiro iMMkinu; '^^« ^'^^ '^^^^ found tlmt you aro in 
{M)MM4)MMion i4 an Icli^al. You (nuiuot ^mI awuy from 
tluit UUml Mttvo by i'o|Kmtinf{ tho vMry proctuMH tlmt 
IiAN brouK'^t you to it. Your moral iuMifflit Im at- 
taiuiHl, auil tim foundation of your dmttriuu iM no 
lonifitr a partioular aim tliat iM acMfoptml by a nii^vu 
m]mm of on» hidiviilual, but it iM tito nmuiMMary aim 
tliat ariMiiM in tlio mind of any onu who aistually rtiaU 
lum tlu) warfaro of tlui [mrtloular alniM. It Im tlm 
idoal of idt^alM. It iM tint abMoluU) id»al tliat ariMUH 
for you out of tlio oonMid»ration of tins Miiparato 
iiloalM. Kaidi of tinmi waM ridativu U> tlio uumnI of 
tlio man wlio liapptimul to cfliiumo it i tluM Idoal In 
rttlativo only to tho inMi^ht that oomprdumdM tlia 
wboU) moral worbl. llnaidd aM wo mon ar» fully to 
roalixo JuMt tlio autual naturo of uviiry Minglo aim In 
tlu) worbl of lifo, Mtill w» arci ablo fully to iitaliKti cmr- 
tain oontlicftinK alniM ( and, rtmliKlnff tluM ctonilictt, wo 
can form for ourMolvoM tint notion of tliat abMoluto 
roalixation that moauM, aM wo havo Moon, flrMt tlui 
Hk«ptioal di^Mpair of cnir laMt idiaptor, and tlum, by a 
dmipor miliuitlon, tho idoal that wo havo JuMt Mot 
forth abovo. ThuM wo no htn^or aro oapriubuiMly do» 
oblin^ upon tho worth of phyMioal faittM an Mm4i. 
Wo aro paMMini; a mtooMMary jud|;mont u|)on IdoalM aM 

And wo Imvo triod to mIiow that thiM cmr roHultini; 
idoal Im not a barron ono. At ilrMt Might it MOimiM mo. 
At ilrMt Mif(ht ono MayM : *^ ThiM hannony In a Midf* 
oontradiotory droam." Ibit no, not Molf-itontradiotory 
Im tho droam ( for, if wo oannot i^orfiustly roalixo UiIm 
now idoaly if abMoluto luurmony in uuattaiuabla, ono 


can slOl inJk in the light ckf the idedL Onecanssj: 
^ I will anA ms if all ihesie conflioting aims were mine. 
I will Kispect them alL 1 will act in Uie li^t that 
has loKiug^t me mv moral insight. And to that end 
I will aet at 4»Mh moment as ooe woaU act who 
saw himself about to suffer in his own pers^^ and 
at one time all the consequences of his act for all 
the aims that axe to be affected bv what he doe&'^ * 
But now the ideal beccttnes practical now it ceases 
to be barTCn. It is no longer the mere wish that 
was at the heart of our skeptioisnu a wish gkuMuy^ in- 
aedx^^ terrified at the warfan^ that is in the woiUL 
It is a cool determination* It $avs : ^ Ttiis disease 
of conflicting aims cannot now be cuied^ but it shall 
be dealt with* The^ aims ax^ as mv own, I will 
deal with them as such* I will work for their bar- 
monv*'' If one doubts this ideaL, then he doubts 
the very foundation of ethical dvHibt it^^lf * But this 
is not all that our absolute ideal acocmiplishes. Not 
meieihr for the UKunent of insight divs this ideal give 
an aim ; but it extends itself to the other moments 
of life* It savs : ^ The highest g^xxl would be ivalia* 
aUe only in case not meivlv the aim of this moment 
of insight it$elf« but the aims of all the conflicting 
wiUs in the world* wit>re bn>ught int^^ conformity to 
dus insughu The highest gixxl wi>uld be attainable 
if all the fxaiflicting wills ivalijxxl fully one another. 
For then* not abandoning each it$ own aim* each 
WKNild have added thereto* thtxHigh insights the aims 
of the others And all the world of individuals 
would act as one Being* having a ^ngle Universal 
WiU* Harmony would in bet be attained." Thei«» 

146 THE WLiQioim ABi'KCT OF yHiio§omr. 

f4>n» our idnal Ium uiwilmr premitt U) give um. It 
myi$ I ^^ Aiii in nikjIi wijM» an to tixUiud iUli$ moral in* 
dighi to iAimi%,** iloru iit a <lijiitiite pnu^tiiml aiiUi 
atwl it jiiiftiMi^if iM iu paying to all i\m <)otifliatitig 
willii: *^ Vou ulumUl vm\Hwi oiMt aii^H^lu^r/' if or uo in 
£a(5t tlu»y all would do if tlu^y liad tlio moral Insight 
Ami to hav<9 it, an we m>w m^u i*f tl^e preraiiuiNite 
to tliu attainment of tlie liiglM^t good, namely, tbia 
ideal Harmony tlmt we matk at tlie moment of moral 


We fear that nuc;1i gem^ral dincuJMion of what we 
have <'/alie<l the nii>ral insight may iM^em, at fimt aigbti 
too alMtrafjt to Im^ real. We Imeten to a more coii* 
erete Ntudy of tbiit iiMiglit* Jji^aving iluma Uiore al>- 
atraet aimn tlmt bave Inmi uimil hm tlie foundation of 
mi;ral uyuUmiH^ btt uh Ntiiily our nu>ral imtigbt ae it 
appliitu to the N)>e<;ial aimi« tbat oAntm into inmHUfit 
wben a man lu <bmling witli biM miigbl>or. Ijet ua 
mi^ 1m>w jiji^t tlie (''Onnlfb^ratiouM tbat we Imve applied 
to tlu) <'>oiiili(!t of etlmal aimn in general apply di* 
re<$tly to ilu^ miMu*X \Htiwmn mMHlnmtm ami unfielf* 
MnumH^ wbii'Ji we mo long and ko vainly i^im^i^lere^l 
in tliif laet <;liapUer. Tliii^ warfare of HelflitbneiM anil 
umN^lfljibm^iM Ih UuhH^l not ilu^ diM^jM^t tft nrnml 
problemn, aiMl to wolve Hm problem li4$re involves! In 
mH', aa mmwi bave HiipiHmtHl^ to deflm^ fortbwitb ilie 
lligbiei^t Ooo<l. Vet we Mball do well to flx our mimla 
for tlu9 t!ni<{ on tbin Mi>e<;ial probb«m. 

Wby Ih HiiliUhnmH eaeier to me tluin mhm]f\H]^timHl 
lim*M,uuii it itf i^ai^ier for me t<; realbce my own f uturai 


ladmyoimdesii^mhoiat h« dum to naIik die desms 
«f mv neighbor, MTwiUistbe JiifirMc hkUiedimhr* 
eoDMtTedLi«iiwie£Mt. Henc^itsaeiemstomeobTioos 
ikHl; liis will must be to me ktsss si$:iiificant dum m j 
««m. lli»«£iiH>^ he mud I mz« afoen in d«edtallT hiun 
&ie» just beeaose I i^aline his will not in its inner 
natoi^ bat as a fora^n power^ and becan^ be deals 
ei«n » widi me. We stand o\^r against eacb 
odfecr like two moral syst^ms^ condemning and %bt> 
n^ eadi the other, Now« however^ thei^ often ap- 
pear disintenested moralists^ who try to pateh up oar 
diffa«Deie!& We have ;$teen how and whv thev haxe 
so o&Mi failed. Thev tell me that mv nei^rhbor and 
I shall give eaeh other much more selfish delight if 
stop fighting anil begin cooperating* But diat 
advice in no wav touches the root of the diffi- 
cnhjr bHween u& If we did cooperale for this r>Mi* 
SHk wi^ should stiU be two foivign powers virtuallr 
disMvdant. And whenever it happen^ that either 
of us could do better by oppivssing or by cnishing 
Ihe odier than by oiuitininng u> coi^peiate widi hinu 
he not onlv would do si\ Init. so iar as we have seen* 
must do 5^x Another moralist hopes that if we 
kc^p <Hi cooperating long enough, we may evolve 
into puwbr unselfish beings some day. The hope is 
a pioos one^ but gives us no sufficient ivason why we 
CHi^t to cooperate un«lfishly now, when in fact we 
aie adfish. Yet another moralist asks us to ivfieot 
<A the nature of our emoti^uis of pity and symj^athy 
for each other. We reply that these feelings an? in- 
detanninaie in character, and may lead us to do any- 
thing or nothing for each other. So all these mor* 


aliMtN loAVo ttiy n»i|;tilNir Mul ma jtiMt whctro wo wero. 
If it iM U9 our pDrwinal fulvdiitogo to il^htf wo mIioII 
do MO ; otliftrwiMo wo itiny l)y (etianc/O rottiaiii for a 
wtiilo in pnuttioal liarmmiy ; but, throughout, imr 
moral aimn will roniain wliat tlioy w<9ro, MolfUh and 

KorMiking thoMo uiiMatiMfacjtory attotn{>tM Uf fintml 
a moral (hMttritio (Mm(M)niifi|; ono*M duty to ono*i» 
noighl»or, h)t un try Ut do what Hchofiotthauor no 
haltingly MuggoMtoil, nanioly, to moo what moral in* 
night m moral iuHight, and not ah pity or an far- 
nightod ogoiMui, tolln um alniut tlio moral rolationn of 
ffolflnhnoMM and unMoHUhnoMM. If a man not moroly 
pitioM hut known hin noighl)or*M will, what moral 
idoal dooM ho got? Wo aflinn that innight into the 
roality of tho noighlnir^n will, innight that (Mmnidom 
hin will an it in in itnolf, and that aiM^irdingly ropoatn 
it in un, givon un a {Nmition alnivo tho ntrugglo of 
nolf and noighlior, and lotn un m^ tho highor idoal of 
I lannony, whono pnxwpt in : A vi an a hmitj wtmld act 
wht irwlufhd thy will ami ilvy nmtjhbfrr^n will in the 
wnlty of (ma I'lfr^ ami who had thnrr/frra to nnffer 
ihn rnri'H('fiut'.m'JiH for thn airnn of both that wUlfoU 
hmfrorn thv. art of either. Thin innight in not tho 
moro omotion of pity nor y<»t nymfiathy, but nomo- 
thing diiToront from thono, namoly, nomothing that 
involvon tho roalimtimi, and thoroforo tlio rqmMluo- 
tion in un, of tho opfHming will of tho noighlior. Thin 
innight thoroforo doprivon oacdi will in itn m^fmrato- 
tionn of itn atimduf^) nignifloanceo, and oommandn that 
wo nhould tu*i with an oqual roforonoo to Inith, It 
nayn not moroly, *'Lovo thy uoighbor an ihymM/* 


lial% ** fn so j\fr as in f^<v lifs^ act as if ihofi wvrH 
0t tm<v fAjf n^iifhfh^r ami fAt/,Wf •" ** IWai th^s^ rf/N> 

Wo mi»t try tx> show how tins insijjht U^^ls tx> this 
wiMilt Wo nmsl try 5*i> to hriuj* hoiuo tho insight 
lk> iho roflidor {\\M ho shall in his )vrs«\n :i«\\\iu)\lish 
iho Jiot of which wo sjHVik, aiwl si> ivmo t*> a^^vpt 
iho ulood u{HMi whivrh wv an' insist iui^:* It i:^ i^) him- 
*elf ihat ho is tx> oxin^rioiuv this i\loHU or olst* ho 
will not W ahlo or willinjj tx> a^wpt it^ Wo oaii 
«ily suggest tho way* And si> wo shall try forthwith 
t^ si^^^^'^t wh^it is tho n:Uuro of xhM k\\\\\\\\x\\\ \\\\\m>x^ 
foot itsftlix^ition of our noijjhlH>r*s Hfo which iUhv^ not 
ktjkl U> tho nu>r:il insi^^ht^ anv) thon tx> d\\x\ll n)Hni 
ihb insiglit its^>If. 

Tho Oxnnmon sonsi\ in\jvrffvt nH>^nition of vnir 
imijI^U^r implies nuhor roaliwition \>( tho oxtornal 
%K|¥(vt x>f his Ivini::, ,r< thjit jvirt of him which aflf^vt?* 
Wk than nnUi^uion of his inner an^l |HV\ili:ir worUl 
of i>o.r3»i>nal oxi^rion^Vv l^^t ns slunv this l\v example* 
FSfst%tAho my n^aliwiti\>n of the ]><H>ple wIumu I i>Mn- 
iiH>nIv imvt but *lo not ivrson^Uv x-orv well know, 
f* ff^ tho tHMuluctor on the nulwav train when I 
lnvx>l. Ho is for me just the Ivin^who takes my 
tiofe*t% the oftieial tx> whom 1 e;u\ ,np}H\il for vvrtain 
anlvio^^ or help if 1 t\iMHl it> V\\i\X this \vnilnctor h:is 
mn inner life, like mine, this 1 jun apt newr to n^aliax^ 
Hi alL He ha^ to excito my pity or some other s|h^ 
cial human inteivst in n\e on^ 1 sh»ll ovon Ivjjin tx^ 
liy to tliiuk x>f him as n>ally Uko uu\ On (ho whoks 


Ii<) \H for tn» ruttliasod itn an aut»inat«m. Kut Htill fro* 
quDtitly I do rualisu) htm in unoilti^r way, hut liow ? 
I noil) viiry liki^ly iliai 1m) ih cMiuriooun or Murly, and 
I liki) or iliMliki) hhn acxsonlin^ly. Now (^uriwiiy and 
diNcourtDMy aro qiialittoM thai iNtlong not to automata 
at alK lienc!!) I niunt Komifbow rocsofpiisso him in thin 
oaiM) an iummnonu. Hut wlmi aN)M)ot of hin iHmmiumih 
mnm do I (MinHid»r ? Not Uio inner aN)N9et of it an 
Mudi, hut Htill tiM) outitr tmimii of hU eomuiiouM lifo, 
BH a |Hiwur aiTmaing mo ; that In wlmt I csouHidnr. IIo 
tnmtN mi) no and no, and ho dooN tliiN didlilMsraUdy ; 
ilusroforc) I judgo him. Ihit what I roalisM hi hin do- 
lilxfratc aitt, an Mmiothing imiNirtant to min It noU 
dom cMMUirN to mo to roalixo fully how his foolN ; Imt 
I vmi tiixivh moro lUMiily V4mm to note liow lio iN diN- 
IkmmmI. T1u4 diNiMiNition iN IiIn Ntato vIdwimI aN a {Miwor 
afff^ftiuff mo. 

Now lot ono hM>k ovor Uio ranf{o ift hiN bare ao- 
quaintan<M*Nhi|>, lot him hmvo out hiN friondN, and Uie 
)K)op]o in whom lio takoN a NixHsial iMnMmal intoroNt ; 
hi him ro((ard for tho flrNt tho ri^t of hiN worhl of 
f<tllow-mon : hiN hut^thor, hiN ((rcKtor, Uio )M>li(!oman 
that imtrolN Iun Ntroot, tho nowNlniy, tlio Norvant in 
hi*» kitcfhon, hiN huNinoNN rivaiN whom ho iMsitaNionally 
talkN to, tho mon whoNo jKditioal nin)(m*Jion \ui haN 
hoard or roa<l, and for whom ho haN votod, with Nomo 
notion of thoir )mrNonal ohanuttctrN, — and tlion all 
tho roNt of tlic outNido world, tho TurkN or Uio In- 
iliauN, tho mon of luNtorio famo, Na)K>loon, (yi<M9ro, 
Oamar, tho imaginary {Ntoplo in fliTtiotiN tluit havo 
oxi^itod litilo of hiN Niron^itr omotional intoroNt ; luiw 
dooN lie coucoive of all tlu3No {MKiplo ? Aro th«y not 

ra£ VOftja XKSTGHT, 151 

me JOid all to him ide$l at rMJ fpo^ of heJurriar 
tcvwmrds liioifwdf or odier peopikk (mtwardly ^ffieddve 
bcdsKjT!^ nu^T tiuuQ roaluKMl nui$t$ies ^ 4*enmTie iniMir 
Bf <\« of nesitdnicait, ci love« or ^ folt <)«;ire ? IVcis he 
not ntttnnJlr t^ink ci eatch of th<4m mtber Jis « iraT 
ft ciatwxrd acdon th«n Jis « '«i':iit of inTK^r volition ? 
Hw Katv'iM'T^ hiii newsibov* his sj^r^-unt. — jik» thev not 
for him induftrioos or 1m:}\ hiwost or iJoc^ithil* )>>lit;e 
or nficiTil^ ii5«ofaI or i»ie]o$$ people, nah<>T thjoi jxJlf* 
«aiiMoas p<y^ple ? 1$ axiv one of tho$ie aliw for him 
m 1^ fall w*3i5ie« — ^icntieTiti emotii-^^. mk) othc^r^ 
«isie like him^iolf ; »$ ivrhA)^ his omn $k>vu or his 
€*wii mother i*r wife seoms to him to ho ? Is it not 
nohex the kind of holwvior of thoso hoinirsi towjuvls 
hSaxx m-hich he roali»(>s ? Is it not r^thor in i^^norjd 
their hein^ fi>r him* not for thomsolvos* tlw^t he oi>n- 
foders in all his onlinarv Iift\ own >Ahon ho oaIIs 
diem oonsck^ns ? And this Wine for him is >»-h^t he 
Cttlls their dispositions. Thoy aiv all 4^xvl follows 
«r hjid feilo^-s* p>xvl-hnmort\l or sxnlw h^n^fnl or 3ul- 
airahle. Thoy may iip|»A.r own snhlimo or idwd 
heinin^ as a C«^sar mi<ht to « stndont of historr. 
Ye* their inner life ncxvl i^ot thexvforo he nNiliMHl. 
TlieT remain jx^wers, >«-a>^ of aotii\jr* dis}x>sitions„ 
^iWDdeTfiil examples of onor^^^*, Thoy arx* still seen 
frNn withoiiu Not thoir innon volitional n*tnrt^ is 
waliBeid^ b^it their nwumor of ont^^-i^r^l aotixity : not 
what thev are for thomsol\\*s. hut whiit thov art^ for 

Sneh then is our n^itural ni>ali«ition of our fc^llovnss 
exwi when wx^ <v!ill thorn i\u\Sirious, The im]vrfeot 
t^duation in question ext^Mids even to the oa$e of 

162 THK Muaiovn AiiracT or PHiuworar* 

(iUmisr ntlmduftt, IjMit ntsdizim in htn tUujKbtent, or 
tbiiiku tbat Im» rtml'mm^ (tuly tlii$ dM|i«Miti#ifM tlint tli^ 
i;xpr<$Mi« I(4$iil itffort Up miinr ifiU> tli4$ iuiKfr Hfi^ #/f 
thi^ir imi/Hi/itM \n Uptttiyfli to km »ifri|ik$ tuui \m\Htruftm 
mituL Kviffi wliifti I <lifli|(kt in fuuii\mi% li>v», I am 
utill afit t'^ tauliwi fui\uir iUa ilM|irMitUm Uuui i\m 
imutr wnA uumt \mrmni$i\ i^inotiotsul Yilt$ tlutt m U115 
amim id tbU way ^#f \m\m^Uff. 'V\m msi m wlwt I 
want*' t^»i5 ¥#;f/^9 tlM» Wkf Ui« (pft^ or tb$ tdlter ii#» 
»unitii;4$ of ati tnmrpff in hartiufuy with itiy wilL l*lm 
itrdUmry itnutiutn of ifruilimla iu iuu9t\mr vtsry yjinA 
illuntrtiiimi of i\th \ut\mrl$Hti ritt$!i\mJCum id tmr tuAy^ 
liorM i\mi tU'A'Anti\fti%%u*M awitn tlu$ pUineMt vi^ImI tm^ 
o^iftti^m <#f ttiinr <$o»tiM;i/m« itxinUtiuuu A# I writi$ 
ilii5M« vfim\%^ my lutari U jiM wtw K'^i^^K <^^ '^^ ^ 
mirsiii#;n ami r^MiN^r;!^ tMit i^i n^y tit[$*HufU^ Uf a nuui 
whirtn I hut iin|Mfff<f<dtly k»i/m« I fml a ikf»iri$ to 
iUf him a favor, if it wttra iftnm\hU% Why? I>o I 
mttiufi tm hiH irtm UAinrH ami tuHnlu su$ a W»(; Hki) 
myw^flf ? Do I fM*l our tununum wtmkmtm^ imr a^tm^ 
fiUfti Umi(UiKH*f lltivii I diM|>4tllif<I i\m lllimum id mAU 
lAnutm that ni'^mmU^M mm ? No, — - 1 ^frufVi*. ami am 
aMtiam^^l Uf iumUmt it, — tluM ImUt^ tn U$ ttw alm^Mt 
fm wlii>lly i^xUm^l hm my |iltimli<?r, tuft muah \HgtUfr 
TMil\7Atil tliari my walkin^f'^iUtk. I am dirdlin^; tutt 
tm hm own inmrr WUi at all. In my mimr» «yi9 I 
mm jiiMt hU 4mUtr Utrtn. Vid \m \%tm writt^m mn a 
ffrtU'Adnl and itlntrniuif UtiUtr^ axifrmmn^ Imm int4frift»t 
in mtmn <d my plan^, and liiii dt*mrti Ut liislp mi$, I 
am N^fUUIily d<fli^lit4f<l Ut fiml nuah li/flp« I ha¥« an 

I " I M ^|y*j nil my Ut*''ffti*t fr^rtft 4r««nil«fi4 


iii«tttirttti» feeling tknt it doiuaiulH (Hiiu|H>niuitiou. I 
foi^l Ml anitnal tloli^lit in Ihmii^ in frioiuUy iH)iii|uuiy. 
Mr gnititiulo is kon» no iiit^ral ('motion at all. 

Tito ouiotion of Hyn))mtliy Akh^h intUvil ofton Uuul 
to tnako mo roalixt« tho «)tiitT luul nion^ iMunplotoly 
intorniJ iiii|HH?t of my noi>;lilmr*8 roality : Init sym- 
|Midiy iliH'n tJiiH in tlio hnltin^ luul unoortjiin way lU^ 
vcribiHi in a provitmn olmptt'r. Anil at all ovontM« 
whutovor i«ym|wthy \%^\\iU to. it in ntU by itwif tho 
iuMght. Antl w). t4) H\uu \ip onr |m\s«Mit way of 
rtiulying tlio iUnnionH <»f soItishnt'SH, wo \\\\\\ l\v thosi^ 
examplos that by n»tnro tuir noij^bluir's oons\'iouH 
lifo \* roalir.iMl for us rathor a.s an uotivo {ipMu\v that 
affoi^t^ our fortuuoK, than :i,s tui innor o\))orionoo, or 
M it \n in it-solf. namolv. as a Will: and lionoo it i^ 
Uuit wi^ an* ilis|H»sod to tnnU it with ooUlnoss. rathor 
iluui U\ rt^njMvt itH tnu* natun\ Kosistanoo. i^m- 
qno9«t^ Ottipb\vnu»nt of this ap^^oy. sihmu to us a\i- 
oniMt-io aims of prmlonoo : unsi'lltsh ix's|Hvt for itn 
innor aot^innjv'inyin^j o\|>iM'ionoos sooms to us a haril 
if not a nn\nninj;rh'*?* task. Suoh is tho natuiv ami 
gronml of tho illusion of soltishnoss. 

If now our aotivitv of nnUiy^tion won» oontinoil to 


tho ranpi* o{ tHuumon^<ouso on\otions. thon* wouhl In* 
no owa(>o fnuu all thi^. It is our oritioal n^thn'tion 
tiiat a|>]><Nirs on tho s*vuo» siniug : ** O \hmuuiou 
nonw*, what tho\i hast n\'vli?<Hl oautiot Ih^ all. \\ o 
mxxnt rosvlvo to nH^\irui70 moiv, olso will our n^s^>- 
lut4ons novi^r loso thoir iuoouMstouov an«l ilavkuoss. 
IV* honost, O v^Muuion souso. U not tin noighln^r 
•ftor all juM a *loa*l faot of tiatutx\ an automaton 
with oortain |H?cuUar onorjjio* ? " And oonuuou 

mmm utmwifni ; ** No, lift \n ho nnl ftiiMi mmtnMy • 
mmncioiM MKmiii wUtnm m^Um t rmUm't** ^l)mt 
iUim i\um ktum i\mi \m willM, mmI md fmd\im wlmt 
thU will rmtniM f<ir liitri, nrnmly^ ihni hit i9X{itfri4imMM 
it? ** ** No/* tttiMwimi <)imitfMm mnm^ ** if hit willn mi 
f ilof hif tfitiMt <9X|mriitiiiw MM I do/* ** ItmliMy U 
thitn, ttnil MID whiii i\um titm wilt <lo with hittt*** 
Ami (umttium mmm mtini, wit ttfHmii m> mulixififd 
n\m\t\y rt^fly^ ** Am hif i^ rmU Im in fin ttitiDh utt ol>- 
J«r?t for my itffi^ fin I mywilf imii« in <mii« I itMi ftf- 
fmd him< Onm in irmi lifif/* ^Hiin common mmm 
mtint Mils if it fully rimliMiM tliit tiiyiKhtior. Ami if 
it rimlixiiM hill mfiivity* tm it nlwnyM iii mmw fimhiofi 
Atnm^ thoii it mtmt atmm io nrnliMi hiw tfXjmrimumf 
Ami f^i t'l rimliMf him fully, mo moou am it tttulerUikm 
Up i^imiphttn i\m Uu^mi\tUtUi nitt hy whii^h it lum lm« 
gtm Ut r»*iilixii hill will. Thin (wmiphttiim mny Imi 
hiiMiitmiil hy piiy^ or utny \m himhtrml tiy iim wifnk* 
mMM thut i^iy fiftitit iuvolvuM ( hut wliim it mtrnm^ it 
muMt till no met of itUmr iuniKht, mmln |ioiwihl« tiy 
tlm mti'mnl unturif of tmr mituinl lifin Wlmtirvifr 
in tfitr thought in ilofiit iu finrt, wd urn ritmly irithm* 
io tthnndon wholly, or io fiuinh Hlio^itihur, mo MO<iti mi 
wo rimli/ii ihnt wo hnvo hoon iloiu^ it iu fnirt* Our 
roMfilutiou to rooo^iiixo nu itxiMtouifo omim/t romiiin 
oimfuMiMl or Miflf-oouirmliiriory whou wo i^omo io ro« 
ulixo wlutro tlio ifoufuMiou muI Mulfweoutrmliivtiofi lio« 
Ami HM wo Mimply i^ouu^it ^ivo u|i riMfOf(uirJuK mtr 
mti^hlifir, wo miiMt of uorowiiiy roM^ilvo, wlioii wo moo 
thiM irMtouMiMtitu^fy of tmr uniuritl ronlimiioUi to ro«tl* 
ixo hifu wholly. 
Hui;h Im tmr rdhfHivo mioouut of tlio {iroooMM thjity in 

T8E »»UL CSSKSr. 156 

caoi&dunsw Ixl tht» pcueet» w« sim tfai( biigauim 
tihe r«al koowktigv ^ ^iotr ti> othersw Tbie pctKvas 
» oa» t&at ftixT eUU tnui ami dmatk axuiiur pc«rpiar 

WkftTior tn ifOQier^fttt oksietk We tnr to gift pi^oplie li> 
iwEh^ wimt thtx :u^ dom^ wbifn tbey tnjurv oiiitfni. 
B^ ti> dibstingixissli titb pnxre$i^ &um tbe merv te nuiiMr 
«Dut&Mi a£ snumtiiT^ with all tt» ilii&>aMi2Sv i» wtiait 
■tt»aE$t» iiaw m>t ctiri^falhr «noa^ dane^. Oar ex- 
pcMOttoja fiae» trikni ti> tiike thL^ tmiTenallj nn^)^ 
Kwd prueet^ik to viistin^:ui^ it frooL sratpoxhj i» 
s«e&^ ajDui to :$et it ap before the ^tes a£ ethical dwe^ 
tExne as^ the g:retit producer of in;>%ht. 

Bdt when we sar that to thb^ ixi2»^t eommoa 
sense most eome^ aader the g:tveii coaditioctsN we do 
wt BKetiJi to sSiT : ^ So the xaaai^ ooee h^ftvin^ aitt;iined 
iHB%hC mast aiet thenceforth.'* The rettJiz^ition of 
cne's neighbor* in the full :$en;$e o£ the word reiili- 
syioa^ is indeed the ret^ohttion to tretit him &:> if he 
were retiL chat is^ to tretit him onzsellis^hbr. Bat thib 
resolution expresi>et» :uad belong to the mocDent ol 
tiiE»^t. Pjk$i>i«.>n nuiy clocxd the insist in the Terr 
aext moment. It alw^vs does doad the in:»i^ht aiter 
BO Terr lon^ time. It &> :k^ impossible for U2» to 
ftToid the Qlusion o£ selfishness in oar d^iilr lives^ as 
ti> eso&pe seeing throa^h the illusion at the moment 
rf insist. We see the retilitr o£ oar nei^hbt.>r* that 
is.^ we determine to treat him as we do oorselves.. 
Bat then we ^> back to dailr aietion^ and we feel the 
knt ol bereditanr ptfessioos^ and we straightway &i^ 


({lit wimt wn ImvM Mmit. < )mi' iiniKltlNir It^miiiiitu oIh 
wmriMl. IIm Im oitmt itturn fi forMiifii iNiwur. flu Im 
uiirMMl. Wm urn ii((filii iIhIimIhiI miil MiliUlt. Tltlit 
iM)ttHi(«t ((<HiM on Mu\ will ({II III! MM Umg MM wn livn 
MfUir tltn iiiMttiiMr of ittitti. MimuttiU of liiMl({ht, wiili 
ilinir MiH<oiiipMityiii({ rnMoltitlotiM i Umy; MifMiifh^M of 
doltiMioti Miiil mhUImIuiumm t TltMi Im our llfn. 


To l>riii({ Itoiitn UiIm viim iit yi«t Mtiotltitr WMy tii i\m 
t^Milnr, wn MMk IiImi Ut miMMiilnr vitry itMrnfttUy JtiMt 

wItMt l«X|Ntrili|tl'l1 III* ItMM wIlMII lilt triltM iO mMliNn IiIn 
ltlllf(llllor ill illl* full M0IIN41 tllMt wit llMVit illMiMt4t|| |||Mltl. 

Not |iity MM miikIi Im wlmt wit ilitMirit Itim to fititl. For 
wlintlinr or tio fity hMt>t>ittiM to work iti liitti mm Mulf' 
iMlily mimI lilliiilly mm wit Imvit fimiiil tlmt it oftitii 
iliHtM work, MtiU not tint nniotion, Imt itM i<imMiti|iMttn<itM, 
inuMt in tint moMt fMVorMlikt itMMit ({ivit m wlmt wn 
Mitnk. All tint forniM of Mytn|iMtliy Mm innnt iinimlMitM, 
It Im tint iiiMi^lit to wliiiili tinty lirinif iim tlmt Iimm 
inoriU vMliiit, Ami ngnUu tint rttMliMMtioii of onr 
inti((lil)or'M ittdMtittntit Im not Mt m11 tint iliMiiovitry tlmt 
Int Im inorit or 1i«mm iiMnfnl to iim intrMotmlly. All tlmt 
wimlil iMiiitrilniUt to MnliiMltnitMM. In Mn nntiri^ly ilif- 
fitritnt WMy wit niimt ritMlixit IiIm itxiMtitni^, if wn Mrn to 
tm ritMlly MitrniMtiit. Wlmt tlinn Im onr nitif(lilMir ? 

Wit liinl tlmt out liy trnMtinif liini in tlnMi({lit jiiMt 
MM wit ilo onrMitlvnM. Wlmt Mrt tinm? Thon Mrt tniw 
jiiMt M iirnMnnt MtMtn, with itM it»|HtriitintitM, tliotiKlitM, 
Mini ilitMirnM, lint wlmt Im thy fntnrit Hi«lf V Hlniply 
fiitnrn MtMUtM, futum (tx|wriiiti4HiM, futum Unni({ktM 

9an» iMidll TKiaaistL tt<> i&t piKt$«aA S<M. Wftas J^kum 
jiBneiiriWw lAirau^itfw 48ii£ «A<tfcatWw pn^it ;»> skuJI ;»> n&uiii 
«iiw mtm vSkam h^ idiT diiinism' S^iihL Urf' ^ xi^ '^akatt 

«iBiir ««f mnitf T^. T*?* lif ioovL i^inzi *dn$c ^cidiKai itibDiik 

n^Aiftiflr i$^ mettkl i^'ttu:^ liib- m-<ttsi:i;i:f ik t^c ii;r<- i^x 
9sik ^ nihM' its- 3i:> ivmiiixiMm^ n.'^ ro^ ^^ jcnr^ mc^ 


fbs 'WW «a^rf : ~ A2 li» hkv{ 1 S.Tiif frkitt mr 
wSS^ law rexib.ifii ix iif f^TXTUtJiT, hint >iMct irSiK 

tDKVid W iif (TCsLx^.-iXl**. Jill DtT iSf £■.. Alii T»;a 1 iuivf> 

^ * « •« 


muMfii wii \4fif$t h\m^ mimnm ihfm i\\A$A l4frf(fd wW 
im Wft#/ 'th^m AiAfd 1imiU>(fn in hint Mtmtfflh Ut fmt 
UWi Uf hiiil4* him^ iff fff(bi wiib h\m^ Ut f^ffmtff/H ihy* 
mil npfm hUn^ Uf wm hU wh m# ihy UfffU ^^ i*4fi 
MMf(ii Uf ifmi him m tmi^ ^m m ^fH ^ym\f «ri 
mmI/ f (#r mmtm Uf ihm % \\UU Um \U\nfi ifciM ihmi, 
f (U Wipi U AStn^ \% U mhif h U » |^ fir# hmi^Ut ihy 
nwn %mm\nf^ iUdtm, WhUh f^yntUfi iA ptmA^th Up 
%hm^ Hfu\ iittfmr1$itfiiy^ 4'4f)4tty^ with ^intl nmmtti^ wHI»' 
fffti ffill tftmhififi Uf ihy w/rr^^ ih4ff$ 4Uft4 iwUmA my^ 
wb^ M^f^lf (tfMi iim nymiftfi f^Htuif^ fm ttffM44iAnf( 
tmif M» rmi «# ihymlt iini whM ihftm mmiU imimt^ 

ilf/it< Ain4 f^miim ihy Mpmiiy nnUffwii 1nU$rn iMt7 

Ji({bif ft# WAirni u ttrtf^ Uf him^ nt* Uhitm Up ihm i hU 
will i# ft# frill /^ f^ntftfiiinfi fU^irm^ ffl hnfA pffAfUffm^ 
4A ffHUdfti 4Ut4fifii4ftm i hin imIma Hfi^ «# hitUAnh hh 
^fyn m fUmt, TAk#r whfiUfffKr ih^ftt UwfWf^ 4A 4Umifm 
Mf4i /iff f^fififtg^ /ff tft$rttiftf( hfff^ Htni fff tU^4m hn^f^U 
fmiiM* MA frilly ma tiuftt mftf4, whM iimi tmrnfm^ nm/l 
ih/^ wiih 4^Uffif 4*4vrUiiit%y mM i Hn/th m ihtU, is fttf 
fMi^ Hit i/$ Uft/T hi/rn^ mdltmff Unn, If ^m A*4 iliMit 
m^ bA f4m^n Uf fh4m whni Im IfMi l^^urr^^ * fi444tr4^^ n 
l^lnyiblfi/^ M funmAy^ m % ifM^A/ly^ !#» Iifrl#rf * m#rf# 
Hh4fw7 ihhiff4i M ibMlt ^b/ifw ib/i^ri ImH IimIavwI 
dimly f#flit Itbiiid ih^irrfy Ia n4ftmflhifff(, KiUfW ihiU 
imih ih4ff4ft$fihiy, Tlimi b^iMt r4^f(i4i4i hU ih4mf/^ 
hU t4^Vmf(^ m n4frt^ii4fw fhttpFffmi itt mfti ffffm Ihifm, 
Th4fu bMvi mUl i ** A fmin in him }# n44 IIIm * puin 


wmnW o( him ;% |;;)|^«t^ sw^ Uio uu)muloi\t lUMt in;%k«« 

tMMT^ hi» MHxni« his h:^tx\ his \\Mit^u))>t« thou hm^l 
not (uUy nwi^to hiiu (\\r (Ihh' a8 tvaI »s ihy^lf. His 
iMIfghl^r M; Ui<^ hAs uiA^io thv (^iv tWl ho(^ his 
(tv^wns Mi\t clowoho\l list* hai>» <s^>^xHi th<H\ his suwrs 
Wnx^ m»do U\v thixvjit fwl ohoktnl* \\\\t \\kM yr9i» 
<wiiiy Uio sivi^ iust4uot in thtH\ It vms not si (\\\\ 
%fm» of his ixvUitv* V^x>u s\> th<> litU<> Ixihv sinilos 
lMK<k III \u\o tknf siuiU^s M \u hut not Ihh^uso it 
rMdiM« |1h» Appixninjr jo> of tho othor, only Ihh^;iusi> 
it by instinot onjoy^ a snulin^r tA^v : s^nJ f>vxMi si> tho 
h*hy is fri^htxMuni At h:irsh sjhw^x, hut not Unvins^ 
it ftsidiix'^ tW othor's AUjix^tv St\ \iiml\ anJ hv in- 
«liih:^% tluui hjk'i Uvxh) x^ith thv noi^hl^^r. ,^ml )uist 
km^wn him not^ Wine hUu^l. Vh^Mi h,i,<t own \lo- 
mmhI his jvjiJn. hnt thou h^st not tully waliyxsi tho 
{miin fl\iit thou ji^iwst. It hrts Nvn to th<H\ n\4 
pMn in it3Sf^|f» hut tho si^ht ^^t his suhmissiou* of his 
liMink or of his iv^lo tovi>M\ i^t thv noijihlvxr thou 
ImusI ni;iith^ SI thine* u^> S^lf ;it M. 

Whon thou h;ist K>\x\i. h,ist jMti<\l. or hii*t rowr- 
««K^1 thy noijihlv>r» thou th\ f<vUuc h:is |Hv^Mhly 
nii^ fv^r A uuxmont tho \x^il of illusi^MU Thou thou 
h»st known \\h,it ho t\ul\ i^^ a S<^lf liko th> jxr^^s^MU 
S«ftlf» Uut th> soltish tWliuji is txv^ stixuxjt for tho<^ 
TlhMt hiist for>:>>ttou s.s>u Aj:-:iiu \\h,it thou h;i^lst so*MK 
Mhl h;iist w;i^lo own of th\ Wlox^si ouoonh tho iustint- 
m^nt of thy ^>\xu }\lorts\v,v. Kxxmx out of th\ j>*>\wr 
to pty thou h:isi lurt^lo ;u\ oVvvt of th\ \,iiujiWy* 
Tliy wwnnuv Ixas tunu\l ;i^in tojwi^hs TlhutliA*! 

n4HH*\iUH\ iluf lllimliitt otM*n iitiirn. No wiimW itint in 
iliifi ilMrkitfWM iliiMt llttiliiHi fHiUlHltti«wN UtK mtlj rtflif of 
M\y ittniinlti^ for thy iMitMliN<i. Tltoit forfpitUwi ittttt 
wlilifMii mitllMiiloti of iliy ffiittriY mifl ha ytit titirtfiil 
iN«lf, nv^ii rM«lliMliftiHiM ttii*Ktm itiritiiti((< IImmi forgtHr* 
Uwi itmi If Ufoii Kf^vofit iliy jir^fMiiit itMiiiKki fivfftt mo 
t<» Ui«i iiuik f>f rfmliftlitK itiy tmiKlilNtr^N lifci, mUUUumm 
woiilil M^tti no inirrn pliiln t4» Un«n itmn ittit lovn of 
thy nnlKlilHtr. 

llMvn ilonit Uiifn with UiIm lUufilon Umt thy Hnlf 
Im mII In nil. Intnltion U^\U i\\m no niortf iilNntt thy 
fniiirn Hi«lf thiin It tnllfi ttnni filNnit thy m\ifMH$m, 
lliiMlr»s hf'*«l in tlimt l>y Kun^mtlonN of niruffnUi Utv 
iiiiiMtf^ncii, m%\\A\wAw^n tlin if)i|M^«ttitii»n of tliy own 
iMNllly fittnn*, tin* hivn for tliy own iNntily wiflfnritf 
mnl %%mV^n (liy iNNlyV llfn Mi«ini nhnii^ n<iil. Ihit Nitn^ 
}tty try to tinow tlm tritth. Tltn troth in tlmt nil UiIm 
worhl of llffi ftlNMit tltmi \n am roH.1 mm tlion nrt. All 
fvniMnlfMiM llfit Im iHtoMi'loMM In ItM own nmiiMnrvf. Piiin 
Im iHiln, Joy Im joy, f^vi^rywlmrn t^^^%% am In thmi. Tin* 
rftMolt of thy loMlKht will Iky lnifvltAhli«. Thu UlnMion 
VAninhin^, thn ((lorlonM proM|»«t|it tf\mun tmforn thy 
vUlon, Hnnln^ ttiM oniMmMM of thU tifn nviirywtti«nf, 
thu m|nAl ritAllty of aII ItM nioni«iniM« thint wilt tm 
f^t^\y to tri^At It aU with tbn r^v^n*nf*<i ttiAt ]rrnih<niin 
wmikl liAvif tttiw mIiow t<» thy own llttli^ lilt of fntnm 
llfif. WliAt pfnih'nmt In IfM nArrow NiM]MNitAhillty 
<ioiniMi'liiit, thon wilt \h^ VPwXy to fh> nnlvnrMAtly. Am 
thn prMfhint ntAn, Mitnln^ th«4 r««Allty of hiM fntnr«< 
M««lf, InnvltAhly workM for It ) mo thf« i<nll^ht««n«Hl niAn« 
M«*i«ln^ tlio r««»lity of ull f<onMi*ioiiM lif^, rnAllKlnit tlmt 
U Im im> MliAiloWf lint fA«jtf At oihmi Atiil in^yltAhly A» 


tf oaljr fiNT tkftft OD0 mkMMent of iaaq^ to 
tBtar ntodfee aMrrke of ihe whole 4^ hu 

So die SfasMQ ^ sel&iuM^ Tayeuislfees for tidj 
fTOWBl r tk»^it i,db$ ! doc for thj fotnure e«>Ddadu 
O A3d ml p&s»oii!X wlieii tboa iookt$t ;ftlr wbod: 
sielfiskMiss lia» so kmg hidden irooi thee. Thoa seetst 
mam Ae uiiTiHRsal Irk ss ;& whoIe« jasst ^ reftl ss thoa 
wast, idenlkttl in joy snd sorow* The eonttict ol 
wlfifTihiirTTrT %m\ mt ii'tfrThnifrrr Tiniiihfff Sel&hiwt»is 
ink a hfldf renfixidoii of ihe tnxfth expretssed in mfe- 

sel^kMSfr sars: 7^ (MAer Z^V k^ as Jfy Zii/i^ 
To Nfliiae soother's pcun ;is psun ^ tft> i:if&se to deisiie 

it in iteeif. Hatred & ilhirsiion. Cow;irdlT sroipdh 
At; AoiI hides h» heiid &Mr feiur of readizzng dfee neigh^ 
hor s pabi. is ilhssion. Bat im^iti&Em!e:s& is the r«t 
iafeioB ol Kfe. Uoseifehztess leads thee oat of the 

wst» of blind self-sidoritiuxu and show^ iifaee« in all 
Ife Ir&fr of namre aboat thee* the one omnipresent* 
cnmeiocis stmggle for the u:ettiin^ of the desired. In 
dQ Ae soQ^ of the &rest bints : in all the mes of 
Ife woosded and dyin^^ stroggting in the eapcor's 
powr : in the boondless seok where the niTnads of 
water-ereatores strive and die : azoid all the eoantless 
kcdes of <aTa^ men : in the hearts of all dfee good 
aad loTin^ : in the doIL throbbing hearts of all pris» 
MKTS and vapttTes : in all sk'kness and sorrow : in 
aU exaltation and hope : in all oar deTocion : in aQ 
Qvr fcnowledo^e* — ererrwhere from the lowest to the 
aoUest creatures antl experiences on oar earth, A* 
suae eonsoioos^ boming* willfal life is foand. end* 

ludriBani&Id as the fixas of dw Irring eresksn^ 



unquenchable as the fires of the sun, real as those im- 
pulses that oven now throb in thy own little selfish 
heart Lift up thy eyes, behold that life, and tl&on 
turn away and forget it as thou oanst ; but if thou 
hast known that, thou hast begun to know thy duty. 


But this unity that the moral insight has found 
for us in life must not l)e falsely inteq)roted. 
Kightly interpreted, the moral insight will solve for 
lis many very diflluult problems ; but we must not 
imagine that it sliows us all this individual life as 
in any mystical scmse already actually in the har- 
mony that wo seek. Not InHMiuse these aims are al- 
ready in thomselvos one, but because we, as moral 
soers, unite in one moment of insight the realisation 
of all these aims, for tliat reason alone is tliis life 
one for us. It is in this sense alone tliat tlio moral 
insight gives us a solution of the problem of egoism 
and altruism, as well as a foundation for a general 
doctrine of tlie Highest (}ood. The moral insight 
does not cnablo us to say : These beings have always 
actually but blindly sought wliat was in itself the 
Highest (}<mm1. We can only say : Each one has 
sought in his blindness only what was to him desir- 
able. And not, save by the rtudixation of the con- 
flict of dosirt), can the tndy highest good be oon- 
(Msivtnl. The monU insight discovers harmtmy not 
as olrtioily iinpliiMi in the nature of these blind, c^m- 
flictiun^ wills, but as an ideal to be attained by liard 


W« point lUt out in ot6» to dionr tibal we do 
fft& nito the hackngned error of tboce nunJuAfi wiio 
^WBOt doil: titer meivly tell dmsi what oDe ^taiig it it 
dot MOB liaTe all keen blindlT iieekinjr. Soch mor- 
afirts <AeB saj : ^ Oar srstieni is but an expraiaan 
jf the tendencT tiiat was ahraTf tliere, latent in 
anen. It telk them in plain voixls what tbej al> 
vaj* vantedL and then it taeJUs them how to f^en tfaia 
.*^ Has ipenoias pretense of «o many moral sv!». 
hare implicitlT ocmdemned in the pxvTi<Nis 
part of our JiMKvorsie. It ocmstitates in many caoet 
tihat appeal to the physical facts which we have Mi 
Male as always useless and often nngi^vonded. If 
<me looks the pretense fairly in the fac«. how flat 
jBid stale it seems ! Yonder raft woalih of oonflict- 
mg aims amonjr men, base and noble, devilish and 
firine* — what morali$:t has been able to sum all of 
&em np in any formula, save in \hc wholly abstract 
iormnla that we have aK^Te veii'md ux namdr. 
Aat all tiiese beinp^ seels what seems to them desir- 
aUe. How presumptuous to say to them : ** In fart 
^m all desire this thai 1 formulate in mx ten-book 
«f mcvrals.'* In fan ihev do not. And it is absurd 
to wateh die tumisi> and twisunp^ of haurnajT^ by 
vhieii a moralist rrit^ to make out that they do. 
For imdanoe, let the inoralisi be J. S. Mill, and let 
Idm deriaiv, as he dcn^ ihai happiness is the one 
goal of all meJi. If hAppint^ss includes iIm* atTAiD- 
It of anr nossiblt' i»bi<vn of ajiTK>lT'f dt^iw, tbx^n 
the tbt»orr i« a truism. Bui with this iruism. 
of cvmrse^ no f^orl of proirross would havt* lioen m»ilt' 
m adaoa. Mill miisi tell us something aboot what 

m»fU ^4 \m\f\i^tmm iimrtt unt^ m$4 nt^wi wimi m^rU 

bfM/W| iimi i\mr^ ^^ ^ U\0mr ** uuA ^^ U^^ttr *' |/|4mmm 
urm^ mM iimi Uiff^mr \tUmm$rm tmn^ U* \m mmif^ 
iu \fr*4Mrmii'M u$ iim iHimm^ iim jpUmmr^ ^4 iim i$iU(U 
l^dt| iff j(^$mrimhy^ tiUi,^ l$m^0ml i4 iim mm»mid ipUm^ 
urm, Wimi ^m^ Sm ttm |;rW? 'Vlmi imjpfiUmm 
w«M iim i(*mi W44 ynttrn Uf Umrt$^ \imiMm nil $$mu 4m> 
iAuMy mmh it, i^i iimi Urn ^ hii(^mr *^ \m\^A$4Mm U 
Urn K*mi^ fuHimr Umii * Utv^t^r Umut hm Ai$ w# I^Miir/> 
UiniV liMmt^m 9i4i^$ uiwuytt i'\ii$i$m H? In imA iimy 
il* tuA, hM/ Mill \mM Up Mti iim tgnmtHi * liuj^ 
'V\^y Aif iM/i nil ^4 iAmm UA'U$itA\y mmh h, imi Um^ 
w/wi/J UMiU it if iimy Utumf \i, M^mi i4 iimM nr*^, i%- 
$^mmi t4 wbiii Um^jt mmU\ \9r\m $$$^mi^ uuiumly^ ^4 

mM*4M « 4Ui$mriMt$Uif( fmii, M/M $$m$$^ if iimy sx^My 

Um^m fWH^t4 im » ytU\U \u iAm UUmi m$lhwA$m$$ ^4 
jfm$ii$ ii$ii4$ iMl^r ill iim iH'tfimU'y /ImIIiiammi ^4 mUUiU 
Mm, Mi^ii wtii/ h^ftt biM/wii iim ^Ui0mr^* imf^A' 
iM'4M iU^ ii^r$$ ilifMt^rHUfly U$m uwny fnmi ii/ 't*UU 
U n ri%uULr im'i *4 Mm^ w^^U h$$ff¥/u^ h4u\ i4im$ iu^ 
$$^tuijfA\, ifi/w iUf^M iiiU i^fM$ wiili Miir« iUn'irUml 
A\fm\ it iUtm wA nj^r^H^ mui *m\y t/y mrt^lmn iU^ 
fU*Am i'M4$ im i'^ft$d'4ml irmn tiiii^^A^lf i\m 1mA, 'V\m 
ffMffpU wti/# M$$jt^ iim hi^mr bii^/w iim Umnr m^\ rH' 
y^H it, 'l*im imt^flM wli// ^ij'/y ili^ U^wmt Asf 9pA 
biM/w t4 iim Uiifjmr^ ar^ U iimy Mf^r h$mw iif iimy 
Uityi*, 1»fryi/iii^^^ ii, or if iimy Uta*^ iM/i i\H\iM im^^^AMU 
iim Uii^imr^ iimy i*ttv« ** UM im\mi\iy fw il/" An if 
M Uii# iffHiUl mA JM#i m y\mMih\y Sm mM tfitm iim 


sUfe of line ^kkWiH' ** pkttsareiSK Just »$ if it ^syx^ 
Btftt «nEBtuithr skU fncwi tlut sid^ in er^iy j^^id 
Jriniing-««ig^ with a ivt$ult {vkm^^Iv i>}>}vi§^ to 
MOTs. In fiNCt Mill is drixvxi in thi5; <>i>ntrx>TW$y 
widi iBHsinaoT <^Hvieiiisi ti> th« wnxrst s^itynerfoj;:^ 
yossihk! for 50 skilkd a thinker, when ho at U$t 
«LTS tlal; the pledisore which $)e«Mn$ the hi^>r of two 
ploMiii^ to the ^ nK>$t of thi\$^^ wIk> luiTe eji)vri- 
«»ei«l bokdi'" is acnudiT the hi^::faer. For thiif;. tn> 
fctfiep vqp the fJK> w of meivlv mu>r)>T>Hdni: to men their 
aKtnal wilL Mill h»$ to ap}^\U tii> the opinii'oi \\f th^t 
mjoritr^ has to ii^^ a }>«urvlT pnur^ieal hahit of de- 
Skex^tftaTie assiemhlies fi>r the j>*irjy\s«t^ of deeJ^linf a 
%WiSllioQ of thoiMT. 9uh1 then ha$ mo^t ahs;iiTvlly to 
fcirltre that a nianV ex}v.rieihx' alvMit his own 
fkosove is wx^nh noihins; as a tvst of its: >^i)e nn- 
fesis tlie maji^ritv of his fellows a^i^ve with him in 

In iaet all this is Ivnerolent trillini:. Men deelaw 
al; one time one jJoasiiw* to W ** hiirhost^" that is* 
■Mst d«tsintble^ aiul at aiK^her time thev deelaix^ an- 
fitlier pleasaiv to Iv the only dt>siriiWe i\ne, Diffw- 
fnt men persist in havinij diffeivnt aims. To Je- 
their dwtv bv telling them that thev all haTx> 
aim is wrvwir* Fivxm tln^ jv^int of view i^ the 
^MMral insiirht all this st.nii5:linir lifi^ Kwhuos one : 
fcot that is not K\^«se it as xvt oodiA^s to strtii::g:U\ 
liwit be^mse the IviiiiT |v>ssiossr\l of the moral insii:[ht 
•WDftos to ivalije it all at v*.uoi\ For him it is one^ 
liecaiase he iilentitii>s himsi^lf with the stTiii:5:lini:^ 
aims. He seeks their harmonv. ami must do sh> if 
fe hare the insight. Bat they an not in harmony 


M yet at all ; else would he hare no work to da 
Let him then not deceive himBelf . The conflict itself 
is real and not illusory. The illusion lies in the fact 
that no one of the fighters realizes the inner life of 
the others. But to overcome that illusion in any 
soul is not to show that all the fighters have been 
desiring the same thing. 

J. 8. Mill is by no means our only case of the ef- 
fort to convince people that they always have had 
one object of search, which the moralist has but to 
name in order to bring peace on the earth. Ben- 
tham undertook the same task, and showed in his 
blunt way as much skill in subterfuge as he ever ac- 
cused his opponents of showing, while he tried to 
make out that all men always have been Bentham- 
ites, to whom pleasure was the only good. Mr. 
Spencer in his turn tries to define the Good so that 
it shall agree not only with the popular usage of the 
word good, but also with the Spencerian notion of 
what constitutes the Good. If anywhere a usage of 
the word appears that does not agree with the Spen^ 
cerian usage, Mr. Spencer insists, sometimes, that, 
jf croHH-questioned, the man who so uses it would 
have to come over to the Spencerian usage, and 
sometimes that the usage in question is a survival 
in culture of a savage notion, or that it is in some 
other way insignificant. Thus the proof of Mr. 
Spencer's view about the nature of the ideal be- 
comes so simple and easy tnat when, a little further 
on, it is necessary to recognize the existence of pes* 
simists, Mr. Spencer finds no difficulty in regarding 
It as perfectly phun that a man can become a pes- 


^Anist Ckniy in case he believes that the Spenoeriaa 
ideal of the GoihI is uuattaiuahle. Thiis axioius aro 
mauufai^tureil \^'heuever \ii'e iuhhI them. 

All this is mere m^Uvt of whatever ideals do not 
at ouiH> tit into one^s own ideal. Suoh ne^Uvt is un- 
worthy of an ethii^ im}uirer. Yet it has Uvn fre- 
quently oommitteil in rtHHuit tiuuvs, and it is ihuu- 
mitted whenever a man endeavoi's or pretends^ as 
Professor Cliifonl also very skillfidly endeaviutnl 
and pretendeil, to fomul etiiioal sinemv whoUy u)xm 
the basis and bv tlie methixls of natural siuem^. 
Suoh attempts art> like the eftort^ i>f a man trying to 
build a steamlH>at, who should iirst dn^p the st^^un- 
engine inti^ tl\e water, ami then stvk to build the 
boat up alnrnt the engine so as ti^ iUuit it and W 
driven by it« For natural sinem>e will indotnl give 
us the engine of our applitnl etiiios, as indis)H>nsa- 
Ue as the steaniH>ngine to the In^at, But iirst we 
must lay the kiH^U ami we must gi^t the In^t rt^aity 
for the engine, the ideal rt^ady for tlu^ si^iemv that 
is to apply it All suoh atttnupts as tlu>se that put 
the *• seientitio Wsis " tiwt, lauu^v strive to iHuuH>al 
their helplessness Ivliiud a show of ap}H>aliug to the 
^^ faints of human uatun^ axul of the sivial struoturt\ 
as seiemv disiwors them/* Hut thest^ facts iweal 
a iHMifus^Hl warfart> of aims among mei\, no one aim 
btnng su'tutUly oIuksou by the whole of men. And 
then the "soieutitio moralist" trios to show bv idl 
aorts of deviiH^s that all uuni rt^allv have the same 
ainu But ho omuiot show that, Un^ause it is not 
true. AVhat aim is oouuuon to the whole life of any 
»ne of us ? Muoh less then is any aim common to 
all men* 


1)ut thm TuiHtako in not Rpooially modern. Not 
mly tho rtuNluni Hci»iitiile rnoraliMtM have Imscii guilty 
of it, buj; moral proacslutrM of all mlunyU hiiioo Hoc- 
ratoH have Imsoii proiio to iuMiMt on oc3ca»ion, for pur* 
{M)HOM of prMiuution, that Honiobow or otlior all evU 
Donduot ariMOM from more i|pu>ranoo of what one 
wantM. Thin view in a miMtake. One may want 
anything, an<l may know it vory well. There in no 
known limit to the eapriee an<l to the iiiMtability of 
the human will. If you fiml anylMNly deniring any- 
thing, the only tolerably Hure and fairly univerNal 
comment Ih, that he will Htop doHiring it by and by. 
iTou eau seldom got any ultinmte analyHiH of the 
motive of Hueh a demre. 

Dut we do not foun<l our moral Rystem on any 
Rueh analyMiN. We do not way even that it iB phy»- 
ioally iK>HHible for any of un to get and to keep the 
moral innight long together. What we afiinn can 
onoe more briefly be Hummed up aM followR : — 

1. Moral inidght, whenever, however, to whomMO- 
ever it oomoM, oonHiMtM in the realization of the true 
inner nature of (sertain (sonflieting wilb that are ac- 
tual in the world. 

2. An abMoliite moral insight, which we can con* 
ceive, but which wo never fully attain ounielveH, 
would realize the triu) inner nature of all the con* 
flicting willM in the world. 

S. The moral inidght involves from itH very na- 
ture, for thoMC who have it, the will to hannonize, 
HO far aM may be poHnible, the conflicting willn that 
there are in the world, and that are realized at the 
moment of innight. 

4« If Uio iiitmU iudi^lit Ih^ (HuuH^rnod tliriH^Uy wttli 
tw\> (Hmtltotiii^ wilU, niv noi^hlHir'M tuul luy tuvtu 
liioii UitM thHipfht invxtlvoM tho \\iU (it not um if my 
not)fhU»r tuul iiiVHt^lf woix^ oiio U^iu^ tlmt )HV!CH««MtHl 
Mi oiuv tho uiitiH of Uttii (if iiH. 

A, If tho moral iuAi};[ht \\o tHUuvnuHl with «hui- 
tlioliii);; pvm^ral aim^t, m\o\\ um inmUl o\|ux»ss thorn* 
«k«lv«^ III MN^toniM of (Hmthiot, thou tho moral iiiHi**ht 
uivtJv\»M tito will to not, ho far an max \h\ an if oiio 
iuoJutliHl ill oiio*!( own Uuiiij: tho lifo of all thoMt^ 
whtMt^ oimtliotiiij^ aimn ouo roali^oM, 

i\^ AhAoliito moral iusitvht woiiKl iiivolvo tho will 
U> aot hoiuvforth with ntriot ix^^^fartl U\ tho total of 
tho iHm!UH|uoiuH^A of oiio'h aot for all tho momoutM 
mitt ainiM that aiv i%\ Ih^ alTtnUotl hv ihis aot. 

7« Tho mortil inrti};ht Htaiuln in all itn forniM ii|s 
|>o«iHt to othioal tlo^inatism, whioh aooopt.s ouo soi^a- 
rato otul only. *Vl\o insight aiiHOH fi^m tho %\m 
tunoUAiit^'* that this ono aim in not (ho tmlv ono that 
lA aotnal. lm|H« aiul hlinillv othioal «loi*ma 
tiiUii alAo rt^ali^oM thi;* truth, and ho hat oh or ovon 
imathomatitfOH tho opimnitt:*; aitnn. Unt (ho hati^ul 
i« im|Hvrfoot ivahf^ation. Tho nuu'al insi^tht thoiv- 
fort) nayn to tluMo who ihwhosh tho (loi*niatio H|»int : 
** III Ai> far an yimi hooK a ixuison for tho faith that in 
i\\ yon, yon oan thul nono short o( tho ansuntption ot 
my iHMition.*' Tho moral iuNi^ht navs (o it^^lf, ** I 
iUl^ht not tti r^^tnrn to tho ilot*matio (Hunt of viow." 
So tho moral inHi;*ht iuHistH nptm >;ivin»;; it^olf tho 
rwlo, " IKt^'matinnt in wnm^.*' 

8, Tho only altiM-natixon to tho moral innii^ht aix» j 
{ti) othioal (l(»|;inatiHni, whioh onoo for all ^\\%>^ \\\% 


tbe effort to get any baftU for ethics save its own iiw 
rational caprice ; and (6) ethical skepticism, which, 
as we have seen, is only a preliminary form of the 
moral insight, and passes over into the latter upon 

9. There is no other distinction between right and 
wrong save what the dogmatic systems on the one 
hand give as their capricious determinations, and 
what the moral insight on the other hand shows as 
the expression of what it involves. 

Our conclusion so far is therefore this : Remain 
blind if you vrill ; we have no means of preventing 
you. But if you want to know the whole ethical 
truth, you can find it only in the moral insight. All 
else is caprice. To get the moral insight, you must 
indeed have the will to get the truth as between the 
conflicting claims of two or more doctrines. This 
will being given, the moral insight is the necessary 
outcome even of skepticism itself. 

Yet now, after all our argument and enthusiasm, 
the reader must know that what we have so far por- 
trayed is only the most elementary aspect of the 
moral insight. The unity that we have insisted upon 
is so far an empty unity, a negative freedom from 
conflict. To show the real worth of this whole view, 
we must pass from the beggarly elements of duty to 
more advanced conceptions. The moral insight must 
be so developed as to tell us about the Organization 
of Life. The empty unity must be filled with con^ 
tent. We must discuss more in concreto what men 
possessed of the moral insight will do. 


UxKxrKi^ian.Y wv Iwivv W» 5«wd fn«ft vnir ^4h» 

t^ tra^ W to W vt^clM^U uoitlH'r bv Un^ikKu^ iu>r by 

niiie$i^« whI tibcMorluu^ tlH" iUmbu uuuk as «m ^ln^ 
it in our UH>\^t^ it bt^mn^ ;U^> ^mi i^lt^tii^iii in 
rikJ^^r truth. NNV Jo Ui4 «iy^ thort^fxurv^ to wwib 
mfmA oiur unvrtd |uriuoi(Jt\ »^ it h«i;» jiu^t Uwn )uf\v 
lonmkd^ that it i^ iiuuH^)i;jit«^lY acw)4^lxl«^ to all 
Imdtlqr wnA''it^iK>Mk ^xr th^t ii i^ a |ukhi^ \^ a n^i^ntH^t^ 
ibli^ «Nr a )H«)mUjurly r^x^xivixl )xrittoi)xK\ \» ;j«iy 
Qiil^tld^: IXhiU rativuudly »Kiut UHMral ^Uvtriu^Ms 
«nl wwr iloul^ it:M»lt\ if rx^id^ th\>rvH^lv^viu^, all^u^ 
WMii^% itt^mli^^c^ will iuY\Jvt^ ibi$ Yvrv ^\riiH^i(Jt» v^f 
«iU9k W<f» tiu\l tlv^ (xruKU(x)^ by umvuu^ of tb^ uuiyv'JS 
99d double mhI it U tbU itM»tlKHl \iif (>nH>^luvv ibat 
di«lin^i4M«(S tlH^ fv>rv^xiu^ Ui:ii.''u«si\iu \xf tb^ Ivji;^ i>f 
■MNrtib: fv\iiiu luatxy vxf ib\v^ tbat baYt^ )xrt>YkHi:Uy l^i^ii 
9<MMie»ni^ with tbU ))a\>lxl^Jui« To )Kuut oat tb»t tbi> 
amni^ matt> or ^ tvputi^d ^aivit^ or tb(i> ii 


prophet, or the great poet, or the reader himself, 
whenever he is enthusiastic has or has had a given 
ideal, is not to justify this ideaL Yet of such a na- 
ture are the justifications that most moralists have 
given for their ideals. If we have gained our re- 
sult by any better method, that was because we were 
free to doubt all those pretended defenses of the 
good. We have found the nature of the absolute 
and universal will, by rigidly questioning the signifi- 
cance of all the individual wills. 

But our ideal must be ma<le to do work in the 
world. It must accomplish something, by solving 
for us a few concrete moral problems, such as actu- 
ally trouble men. Even the present discussion must 
consider some of these consequences of our general 
principle; for religious philosophy, in seeking an 
ideal for life, does not want a barren abstraction, 
but such an ideal as can also be our guide. What 
does our principle tell a man to do ? 

The principle, as is plain, may be viewed in two 
ways. If by moral insight we mean what the last 
chapter defined, namely, insight into the fact of the 
existence of other conscious wills besides our own, 
coupled with f idl r%fional appreciation of this truth, 
then our principle may be viewed as saying to each 
of us : Oet and keep the moral insight as an escpe' 
riencBj and do all that thou canst to extend among 
men this experience. On the other hand, the prin- 
ciple may be equally well viewed as saying : Act 
out in each case what the moral insight bids thee 
do ; that is, as before ex)>lained. Having made thy- 
9dfj in so far as thou art able^ one with all the conr 


Jlktmy %tith bf^fofp Mr«s act o¥t M4* tt^^ithg hhi^ 
tH^rW H^iff a9 it tht*H ffri\'t«»;t in Mf»<?% Tw\> cltUMi>8 of 
hummi duties ar^^ Uui8 dotliunl^ oiio dermal aiul [mv 
viHioual^ tlio oUicr [H'Tiuaiuuit Wt> iiuint ixxiUuiu in 
ttoim> tut)a«aro cadi of tluniu iu oixlcr tlmt \v\> may 
allow Uio practical apiiiicatioti^ of our moral priu* 


The first daaa of dhtics coiiipriiw>a tluiso tliat liavo 
most «^{>ccially U> do wiUi Uio moral tHlucatimi of our 
race* Wc an\ juid iiuunt loujj^ r\niiaiii« cxcoctliii^ly 
im{H.>rfoi't aiid hliiid cr^uitimvH. If then* is posnihlo 
any state of liumaiiitv in whidi all sliull Ih> nnidv ti> 
act ill accortlaiUH) witli Uio moral iusi^hK that st<ah> 
must bc^ morally s{Hnikiii^vr« Wttor tliau tuiy oUior« 
Therefore the tlrst demand that the moral insight 
makes of us so s^hui as \w jjx^t it is : <Sf> firf fi.'« ^> 
mcretwr thr www/ht of^tho^^t^ ^rho po^st^sii thit> in^ujht^ 
Htftrt>* of eourst\ is a prtHH^pt of a >vry formal char- 
acter^ and plainly pn>visioual in its naturt\ It is as 
if one were to W among hliud meu« himself hliiuU 
and were hv some mav:ical act, sav hv aividenhUlv 
washing in a mimculous fountain* to get at one stn>ke 
and for tlie first time the )H>\wr of sights in all its 
maturity and jH^rfwtion, Such twi one \\*\>uld jn^r- 
haivK say: **llow nohle is this new sense! \\\\X U^ 
wKat end sliall I use it ? For the first I nuist use 
it ti> hring thest> other men to the fountain* to \^*ash 
their eyi^s* that thev nmv minieulouslv U^arn in one 
instant to sw this glorious worUh" Uut sonu* one 
might object : '' In tliis way^ if the only use to bo 

174 7HIA WUMiiOVIi Al^fCCT OT 9miU)HWHr. 

wk«i gf></<i W4Miiil >'4MMiH ti; Miiy mmy if nil fi>ili;W4dd 
youi- i^ruiiieyi'f** Tim Miii^wer w^/uiil t>« ifluini 
*^ Wijbui> mU i;r iiui M^mi ^4 u» g43i tiuA {>i;W4»is tljyL«i) 

U ilm \h^ id p/WAji-i fi;r lUl Ummm; <;Um»»' ^^imU, UM^rc- 
fi/ie Um; Imm^ i;i'f;vi«ii;iMJ uiM.* Ui mnkM af \i u^ tu^i Up 
»|MMi^l Miu^h iiuui m^m (iiAMMj LniilMf l;iii i<; i^iHind iiuiM 

iJiM U iUpiuiy iAii^n fi^ui will l>egjii iim r^d uim ^4 Ui4» 
|x;wci' fi;i' iu i;wii iMdJke/' Ai^ iii U)ii» imm i4 Um^ nui;- 
j>f>«4sil luiim'ul^/ujt «uL'xjuii'4dUM.*i)i 4>f » ijyew mum %u lUI 
iU iiiMiurity i4 iHPVfL^r nX mu^ i^<;luf, m> \i U in <H«iM$ 
i4 Um; miu'k m4;i'e gi'«uiuiU mu^uir^^nuiui i4 (Uu im4;i'iU 
iiMlglii. 'i o Im) iMiie, tijyu lilUiiMii.* niin i4 lifu cm)iM 
l>tt ^nuyely ilm tiniA^MUm of Urn |><;wei' in; fiM\\m IIm^ 
wiU# U)Hi iM'4i «uL)Uve d)!;!!! ui«, l;iii mwti iki ImmI I^ 
f«;uii4i l>y iiMuin^ i\m i^mrm of iwiAAm ihui iMtiti Imu*- 
utAmi'/Ast^ iimm wiU#. itut, |;i'<;vi#i(;iMJiy, W4» Imve » 
UMk U*fi;i'4j u» Umi iu tmuily <lu<iii4^1, t>ei3iMMM elmuM- 
Wy. iliu'iiM/iiy i'4UMX4;i i>e ev45ii |MirtiiiJly lAUMJiMftd, 
Um; IhmI Uuinmi uHiviiy ajm^m^/I i>e 4»voii imimflmily 
4luvcl4;|H!il, until a V017 g)'e«i i)iiii)tM3r of imod Im^vi^ 
il)ii», Uie very flint, iia^M eluiiientiykry reA|uMitu of luni- 
M<L^ir;u¥ iiX4;riUity, niuiiely, tJjyu |><;wer t(; m46 iim fnjuU of 
kuiniii» life im iimy tt^n.^. H^; Unig B4 h Mun U l^f/uiid 
up iu hu UuiivUiuni will, lie m»y l>e im^Uiietively ui>- 
ri|(lit, lie i'4M)iiot Im.* cA}imi'UPUiily Mui witii I'lefM' intent 
n^iUumit. S<; ^;ng tJuMofi/ie im iUiu in true <;f iiini, 
Im mil l>e de^>enilent on triuiiti«;nii tlutt mm often |mm> 


4wtt ^TiL tk iwkvier fifi«|wiD;sibld Att la^ dMul^ will 
««l W 91 Iraljr Bkonl imiMikift. To js^^ ^ Whwil 
«Kdb «f IranwilT^ tkft uiilis|Mtt»Jble prawniukiiie » 
tket^MN" llie ittoffml itt^i^l in its uerelT £Mmad ;»»- 

WIkH 91 |^WHl WUIT aVM^ WMI kftTI^ nMMJltfd tk f>iMk« 

SMSHtt «f dib {Miviefv dfe^Q iiitiM^ ^ Ui^ will be laiwa 
«f» villi ranfl^Ht^ daliM;. Unnl iluoi tune fMOMSs. iW 
CKttft «Uii niiKt W dii;$ lEoiniud ui4 |w\^Tis*Mui <mi» : 

fout^ iW v;iiT CtMr ilie fovthier kiK^^vieHl^ ^itf tlie IusIk 
<wt J^WllL M w pat iW Dttjini^r oitlier«r»^ «^ nuir 
sftv : Tk UfuMtml msi^u in^^iu^ uivvti ibie n^^l ^Mf 

<Mr kr auftT <rlikii»^ oi 0$ ^xjur»]|ieJy« Either tKe iiu;!:li- 
4Mt tV^ i^ f'^v hniDuiii&rv uavamiuuaMe^ otr the kuiiMun- 
kr <i]f tk futuTv^ ttuu>4 i^Ht it im vwyv/yvi^^A. T1iexvJv4r^ 
ihe jviirsie oi <vKumtiu&:tY^ the |>o wr tk> viiMrii tn^^her^ 
with cledur in^i^t ibtk^ ^Kir netikivMit^ fv^ ^v^ wv^arkuiar* 
i^Andjfrft w»i <^ huuumiiY. N«tVt vkut ^^^ixi :!h:u^ 
HMi nuiT kMWjdtie'r A?ii»e tv* ^nv. kit ix^^r thev ^hdill 
aomuiniii the xuaiv ^ieai5^ wbeirv^v tfen^v or* evv^r i^'-t tv> 
«eie the g>vxiK is the iZirvttt jvfw»cr,t humaw:^, <vv!>.virta. 

SoauTtici): viih tik:^ %i»3Y« w «caa ik'^v exiAumie 
what nule of Ufe t^:;s^ auiv will ^v^ us.. £o^/nn3 r^i^ 
imfiff-%S aannw'MQ^ WMTJk MtrmJl im ti$- n^m iiffkz 

hUhmlff m-f in vUtw of iUin inttrnthi i»iM(Ui $ff Umitnh 
tifiif Uf mnUu tfil^*4' iHUf^fU$ t^l^t^yr Mi Uin^ im may 
\mUuui \m ih mnuu imtmnvu rm^nSruA Ui tU^f imi i^ii^ 
\h i\m \i^'umui i^iMUi of iiut woiUi^ m ah umi, Uui mMy 
an n intmni^ io an unsi, TUU lU nil tt^mlM U im^ ilm 
tiny for fumiAthUmihii hni fm' ¥iork \ am\ y^y U now 
n ^H'tfiHtr im% of Umnan tifi< aUUttty in mi fm hm id 
U^ntin Uf innmii'^Uf Ui U^'-r^m^t^ or Ui fsmUtr i\nt n^nnl 
iii«i^l«d. lU'4'u Wit lmvi< tint ^numni ipraniiaai m4n 
iion mii^^tmUui ftn' m)I Umj nmmiionn ainmi i\^t ri^Ui 
Mi^l wion^i iff «M/^!Mllii^l imiUf$^i»*nh UusUfnimn Im Um4 
\n'ihit$i'i iff an innnofM'i Miiitifi'MUiiiiliii|; //f ilm nnnnl 
iimight iUtmtvtfUtni imtUn$imn M);/'{i«gM fnnn iii** in 
uiiiUi iUiii nmn liktt Uf ittt lm|/|/y. lUtuMng ihitt, Um 
itttiiitii/tti' in nnivtti'Hul huUniimn MM^yM! Mu/tfi mim 
hiijiliil nn fitf iiH Ihnu vmit^L Kfid U«iM \Hi\w\[A^ of 
Sm\imi^n\ i^ moktSy noi \Snt in\n\M\ia\M imiU for iUii^ 
fnvHttni iinnty y^UnUf^to' may or may mti torn oni Ui 
\Ht i\m nmt in fnUmt. Vor Ui \aUor Ut int'ruHMit lm)/|;i~ 
ntiim nniy for iUu [irumtni nn*.an io iiwnmmt i\m nun'nl 
SAimUn^MH of mt^n honns mriM of Ua\i\i\nuim Utmi Ui 
maUn Mtn I/IjimI; fm Um in fiwi Smm nl^mif in a f^^r- 
nmr rUa^iU'r, i'iili'(«)< a man uuiHtriitm'4iH sury Siiit- 
Utriy iUt* naWiy //f I 1m: foniMfi of *Hi\U in UiU vforUi^ 
\Un monii ini^iyUi Va a\ii Ui formU^i Uim. \\ni nniii 
iUi' morui )nA\iUi ifttttmt'H itrtwiii'hlly nniv^rml^ iim 
itil/inM. ysfin\ ftn Utunttniiy funnoi Utt |^«/i. 'llmrtt- 
forr fill fttnm^ of Imi|/|/Jim?hi« ihai iiiniUtr raiimr iUan 
h'lif iim moral inninUi am «vil, ami wi* ^^til Up do 


vktt vi^ <csui U> $et rid of tln'iu out i\f iIm' wvwM. 
And all «x}VTt«MKV5s iK^wvwr |vuunil« Umi cenadtdy 
l«nl *»> iko inoiv\!k5)0 ot ilio jvvtvr i\f morsd in$u::hn 
M« ^xxl fivr mott : aiul it >trx^ :i^v no oihor ex}vn« 
«tt^^ hkwo $uiml\lo for this puriv\$K\ w o^urht tx> do 
^isu ^KV csui iK^ iuo.TVA5)0 Aiuous; uiott tko nuiulvr 

Wd Ul^ doimit<^llOSS of tlH>5ai' |VUQS. 

Y<^ of OMir^^ it ^ iU at oiuv ap^vMir^ vhen w ox* 
mitto kunum oimMioiv^d oxivrio^HX^ in the lii:lit of 
mlfett w^ kni^w of won. that thoiv is ji d«vklt\l limit 
*i> tii^ nK^radly t\ino*ti\v jv>>»x>r of jviiuful ivsuvri- 
MKVt^ ;iUKl thaii^ on tho oti>or h^nd^ \v.n nvmy j^lcdij^ 
jttt e\jvrionco> ai\^ ni^si^iul to tho nioral insii^ht^ oithor 
Vr diiVHcoly ^tudin^: it^ or In pTx^jvwinc :i niiui to iil« 
tMn itn In o»iMisidori«c this hraiuh of tho snVJKVti^ 
^K^ M U$9 TWA^h tW ^\>int \>how i^ <kion:ilio jv^v- 
ckok^ o*n pxv us ;ji pT^^At dojd of holjv Wo ro> 
JM'9^1 tho 5»cwo4ilU\l ** s^^iontiftv- K-45.:s " for n^orals Iv- 
<«a^ it founds tho .'>i/ir :. ,V u^\>:i bninal ph\^ioAl 
iftd^ Noxi\ K^>»xnx>r, \xx^ TAu turn ro sk^oauv ro holp 
wi in *Mir pros^^nt tAsk, Kv,^us<\ hAvinp; do.nn«\i onr 
imfh *,■» hf^ vix^ *rt^ dt\Jiuc ^^^^^^ i»pplii\l othi*."s, And 
«i^ **kini: how vhis niv>r^l ;ns:cht is to W Att;ftiiH\l, 
I^sychfl^lt>J:J^ ninst txO*l v.s wh,-^t it 0H^^\ as to this m^t- 
tw* An^i hor«^ suoV. suJ;^J:v^l.ions as thi^tf^o in Mr, 
^v^Ky^r's ** I'^t;;^ of F.rhiv-^ '* a.:\^ :;^di\\i a :;<>c>fv,l Aid 
to Applkvl mv>rAl d.v:n:u\ Wo tx^'^^x t xfcho.i4\ tho n^v 
lion thAt Mr, SjV^^vvr or av.v liko toA* hor hAs own 

Mr. S}XMiiVr stvr/.s :o iv :n iho inv\st chii.iiikt^ ij:^.^*^- 
nooo thAt rhort^ is av,\ suvh i>r^^V*or.i a: aU, Uv.j vio 

^ 4 

glad to finvi thAt Mr. Sjx^noor ^>noo hAvinj: \vjnf 



illogioally aooepted a partially oorreot fundamental 
notion about the ideal of life, does suggest a good 
deal about this problem of applied ethics with which 
we are now dealing. He does tell us some very sen- 
sible things about the attainment of this ideal. 

Among these sensible suggestions is the insistence 
upon the value of pleasure as an indication of the 
increase of healthy life in the man who has tlie pleas- 
ure; and the furtlior insistence upon the tliought 
that, since pleasure thus indicates in some wise 
health and efficiency, and since efficiency is an indis- 
pensable prere<]uisite to sound practical morality, 
there must always be a certain moral presumption 
in favor of happiness, and in favor of whatever tends 
to increase happiness. Properly understood and 
limited, tliis doctrine of Mr. Spencer*s is an obvious 
and useful consequence from what we know of psy- 
chology. Mr. Spencer dwells on it at tedious and 
wholly unnecessary lengUi, but ho is surely justified 
when he protests, against the ascH3tics, that their 
ideal man must be in general a puny, inefficient, and 
perhaps wholly bunlensome man, whose ill -health 
may make him, at last, ho{H)lesHly selflsh. This we 
know (m gcNnl scientific grounds, and it is well to 
have said tlie thing plainly in an ethical treatise. 

But what is the result? Is happiness tlie only 
tsim of life because the permanently unhappy man is 
apt to bo a poor dimMiscil creature, useless, or even 
dangi>rous ? No ; tlic consequence of all tliis is that 
the first moral aim muMt be to make a man efficient 
in i)ossi^HHing and cxt<«uding the moral insight. Ef- 
ficiency for moral ends is still our proximate goal 


IIappiiiea» U» aft ktist for the ptrefiwut, oiily a »atM»di« 
nate ttUMmti. Theref otre we say : % all Dueau» luako 
men bappy* ^o far at* their happiueeui teuds to give 
Ihem and to pretH;>rve iu them moral imdght. Trud 
it i», aA ncieutitic p^yvhology 8how$» ua» that a man, 
in order to be as gooil as pi>«tauhlo« must geuerally be 
poweiwed of ret»pei*table health, of what he thiuks a 
good place iu the world, of f riemls, aud of uumerous 
pleasurea. He miut digest well, he must euji>y the 
enteem of his fellows, he umst Ih> strong, aud he must 
be frei^ueutly amiuknl. All this is true, aud is iu 
fai*t a \H)mmou|ilaiv, When au as^vtie deuitvi this, 
he maiutaius a |H^ruieious heri'sy, tliat tends to de- 
stroy moral insight by depriving men of the )>hys- 
ieal pi>wer to gi^t it. But thest^ faets uuist not l>e 
miiuutt^rprt^t^HL Whatovor might Ih^ true of a stvioty 
in whioh moral insight had Innni attaiutnl, notliiug is 
plaiuer tinui that happiuoss at the prtvHiuit time can- 
not be n^gtmUnl fnuu our )H>iut of view as mort) 
than a uumuis to the prestnit grt^it end. If wo try 
to aiuust^ our noighlH^rs, to rt^liovo thoir wihvh, to im- 
prove thoir worldly esUiU\ wo nuist do so not as if 
this wert« tlio end of tlio prt^sont life, but as workers 
in a very vast dnuua of human life, whaso far-off 
pur)H^> umst ginern every detail. The ginnl Sa- 
maritan nuist say to himself, as he holps the (HH^r 
wrt^ti»h by the wayside : ** In so far as 1 ivalixo only 
tills num^s utHHl, niy purpane is indetHl simply to rt>- 
Seve hiuK But my pur|H>so umst Ih^ higher than that 
This man is not alone, but one of a multitude. My 
highest aim in helping him is not to mako him iudi* 
vidually lia]>py, but to inoretise by tiiis, sis by all my 

IHO TtiK uMAiUovn MVMT or ftuimnvnY, 

luiU, ihn Imrttidtiy of ttmtiklml. Not iilotin timt tin 
ttmy l»y nml tiy |{ii MWHy mul ntijoy lilttiii««lf do I hdip 
ttltti now, Imi iMinfttiPMt liy mi flolh(( I Iio|hi iliroiiKli 
lihtt to lMi*rn»MM Mtumft itinti ittorHl liiMlKiti/* Tlipni- 
hmu noiwIitiMtnttilltiK Hf<lio|NUiliiiiiMr*M riillinilis Kli<lit4i 
wriM rlffltt III MnyiiiK ilmt wn oiiKlii to irnni ilin liiilii 
vidiinl iimii not rliintly im nti IimIIvIiIuhI, hut hm mi 
ItiNtriiitiniit for nktiiitilliiK miil it^rvhiK ilin tiiornl Inw. 
DtinnoNit Aimriiilti kitiil of ImppliioM iihihiim nfliiflnitry, 
Mini Mnii<lnit(*y iiiomlliy, ilum^tnrt* niiil ili«ir»iforn nlotrn 
linvn WM iliM I'l^tii Hiiil (litiy, In iliU |irnM«ini (fnnnrii* 
tl<iii, io klNii* for itiU kliiil of liHpplii^M. 

Ktpmlly, ilinritforti, It iHHioniuM our iltiiy (41 Intnir 
tfi InnrMMPMi piilii, wlmiinvnr |mln Im Urn iMwi mnrum of 
|iMi<irlii(( ilm tiiornt ltiMl((hi. 'rtitirnforn, In tliU prtiM- 
Dht (Uy, It nniinoi \m our (tiiiy io InlKir io illmlnUk 
)min In ilin worlil, ulniply hm pnln. A((iiln w« tntiMi 
iiptMiitl io pMy('liolo((y io (fiililn UM ftrlKlii. Tlui pftltm 
timi foMi^r inoml lnMl((lii, mHIioukIi llinlitMl In ntitn- 
Imr Mini IniiiiiMliy, Mm nuimirotm, Mnil nUII Imper- 
fin'ily il»«llnnfl. ti would tin m uM«iful iMnk io Ntmly 
tiiorn In ilniMll iliMit pMyrlioloKlMiM liMVn yni cloiiti, ilio 
tnoriill/InK pownr of pMlti. TIiIn U m iMMk for ilm 
tMy(«liolo^y of ilin fuiurn. In ((««iiiirMl, of mninin, wn 
fiMii MMy ilmi ilin rMii^n of Murli fmlim Iimm Wn munli 
^ntkglt^miM liy Mniutilim. Iknllly pMlti, If mivnm, Im 
tff^nnrMlly liruiMllxliiK, Mi lnMNi for tnoMi iMiopIn, miiiI 
tlin niorMi ttiMlKlii Im In li only In no fMr mm ilm pMMi 
iiNptirlnnoii of iMHilly pMin ImlpN un i<i know ilin mI((- 
nlflnMtiro of ilin MufTnrliiK of oilinrM, noi by K'^'**i( 
UM iliMi Mind ntnoilon of Mytn|>Miliy Imforn nrliiidM^di 
bui by tflviiiK iiM ilio tn^MiiM io form m (mmiI MlmtnMit 


iinftiMiliii €if die Taiae ijt iAS^ erO ijt phrsKal pum. 
For tdkB$ we eaoDi rmliie die ste«Dgtli ^ tihe wiD llal 
se«fe lo» esimpe itu aund iraoDi a^t whk dha» i«rsfiNt to 
Idkis: wilL But luunure §*mmallT ^tik^ as «w>Qg:li «s- 
fmente ^ pam ti> furaubli exvielki&lt iwilmrtal for A» 

ae: fQaufedhm^ilts., aur^ s^Uooi osifjul £BkstraaBWAlt& Car 
9mat gpftkt ]NU|wi5e. Not tlu» <«aiL 2»lf be dhgir auir- 

It i» dilSefeiitr witdi eerfeauoi mmlaJ pauKN. AU 
ttfii$e tdkilr tsenl tft> make die iniiTiiladl fwl Us o^m 
Bwvtstsanr Ibiiihatioifes.. anl tfamebr 1t<i> appvuMrk Ae 
ndEziickxi of due §:r^at wvrivt otf Efe akwt Itink are 
a0«fiwsarT erOk Hi» wiLI maitst be oTerwrbieli&MNL dot 
dbe UaiT^rsal WiU mar baTe plaire itv> «>tsablL>b ilk 
self in buDBL lli»v&«e« wxtbooit eoe^tmn^ wbedinr 
we are dnereby usBeneasuo^ or ^lilmmH^fiTg- tibie sm 
«f iMamam lui^err^ we all of tt> rziibesctntituKJ^T set 
ahoodr die w^wk of eontecKlm^ widt btuKt seM-eoa- 
fiinHfe ashi :$eM-abi$off|Kiiioci wbeceTvr in mar appear. 
Tknefiiwe iii k r%bt dialr we mtknale aQ preiieainHNK 
mg J i o egttnr ibs%t h imKroQ:5ekHx> ox hs $tnaipidSltw& 
Tk»e£we« in fikft^ h ^ r^bt tbalt we ^ImmbU mltwise 
VKpami^rtT all pce^neohkinsv bowerer Mmcb dier mT 
be paibwJ br oor (»tt;uf£5xsL Tbh»rei[ore h h well diair 
w« dkiMfiLd 6eel oot a $ei&b bat a rt^teoot^ j^or w Widk 
eier pride ba^ a hSJL wb^z&eTvr tbe man wbo tbioiks 
Aat be &» soeaedLiB!^ db$i^i>TerT^ of a tmxk tbat he i$ 
B0tbm^. Tb«eloiw* alAV A.> w^ pat down e.xvfei$»iTe 
fatwardbaess and Tanttr m ^:r\>wta^ eiLLkfcvcu altboagb 
so tii> do brtrt> tiiwir ^seccsttiive Yoontc ^fi4>bi»«» Twnr 
bMBbp . In all iso^ifc wajs we nukst ask aai we 

188 TiiK RKUUioiJN ANPKOT oy nillXMIOI'lir. 

nIiow no ntisrciy, nuvcs wlimi iluam Icmtii imitM of 
wouiulwl viuiliy urn no ((Ivtiii hn to litfliuitii muI lit« 
cn^ium UiIm viutiiy Itmilf. All lMfiUiliy« irtiiliful orliU 
oUitt of ItMllviduul lliitlUlloitH In m dtilyi ^vmi If It U n 
imimitti ti>riiirM to ilict itiillvhhml nrlllolmMl. For UiU 
imliviiltml U bllitil to oi\wr lifo iMmuumi Itn U wm|i|NHl 
up 111 lilittMnlf. If by hIiowIiik hint hU InHliritlfktitnoo 
you Miin o|Hin liU iiytfi** you itro iMiund l4» do no, oviui 
Uiou((lt you iniiko Itlni wrlilut to mm ItU worihlnNN- 
UiiNN. For wimi wu Itum ihifttn<l In not Uml lU-uttiutHHl 
orltldiNui wlioM«t only ulni U to irmilfy tint inlNnmhlcs 
N«lf of ilm rrltiis but llio orltloiNut wltoMi 4Hl)pt In 
turnml In imrnimi liKiiluMl nvory form of N<slf-NiillNfiui- 
tlon iimi liltulorN litMlKlti. I^di m nmn tnt m«lf-NiiilN- 
flml wluiit Itii In nl rtiNi, itfUtr cUniutr, or In nmrry 
aoin|iiuiy. It In » ImrntloNN lutit tivtin m uN«iful nmuNo- 
ni0nt. Hut wliitn Im In lit work ilolnif ipnmI ho ouifht 
to liMto Nolf-NUtlNfiuttlon, whioh lilnilnrN thn ntomi In- 
Niifht, whioh i^xiiltN IiIn will lilntvo thn unlvurNiil will, 
whkih tnkiiN Urn hiilf-<lontt tiiNk for tho wholo titNk, 
finil iilti»f(othitr kIoHIIhn tho vanity of viuiIU<«n. If 
now my orltio rkU mo of nuoIi Milf-NntUfNotlon, tio 
nmy hurt mo koonly, but ho In my boNt frionil. My 
llfo nmy ofton bo mlNornblo In itonm^iuonoo, but tlion 
I Mm liu liiNtruinnnt, whimo |Hir|MiNo It In Ut ntUiln, to 
foNtor, to oxtonil, nnil to omploy tlto moml luNlKht. 
My nilNory In M drop, ovil no doubt In ItNolf (nIuoo 
my |NM)r llttlo will nnrnt writho itnd Ntruinrlo whon it 
mmn ItN own vanity and tho ho|NdoNNnoNN of ItN Nopn^ 
riito NUtUfnotlouH), but li rolatlvo k<nn1, nIiioo thnMiifh 
it t nmy nttiiln to tlto moml hmlKht. All nuoIi |iiilnN 
muNt \m doidt with in thu Nnuitt wity. Uttntm tlio 


Bui lui» ll# )Mriiii^i|)4i^ i4 Ki^tik^dsMii wiqr tf^di ^v^tt 
in ite ^^^^ikntMii t» <i >KV4rM wKimi^ inU html <itl»Ui^ 

mli^r tk^ hi^ji^JT kuuMitt ^'^ivil W% wWm^ warlli i» imA 

Wmi wU) CMTVY \)itt wWtt tWv WHY^ llf^^ lWlttM4xiM 

TWin^ M^ <^\U|^mI tdr^cviHlY tuuv^yii^ U¥^tt ^^uitW 
dwil ti4M^( K> ^|^«w xkl^rv 9ie»lfi«h ^iHtV Ik v^(4tjb 

fiNrWKiiKWwiuj::^ k4 iW lii^ vxit xh^ ikh^IhW (future k^ 

Art* «Ai»www |»JUUv^*iAY^ ^Mf^ tW lyi^KH* irf ^wK^h UltV. 

i ^ fywpiilKft xvvvrk \^' ui^u« «^»sl ;a^ it luu^ K^ W ; y^ 

MDi^ ;ttiHiii^ tW hi^lh^c iu vHir )i\^wk t^( us^^v^ wr^ 

ttttnl thf^x otiusM^ ixr f\xr A»*u<i^ oth^pr rvviw^u^ ^ IV ju^l^ 
^ lhi« w^ luv^l ^^KukIy t)H» ^Wtmilku^ ixf xhto ;m\\mi4» 

iHij»>|H»««* I Ww xltfjkX xi^ txx^X JMui i»*\*>f i^ivxtwJ ;Aiw s>t 


possessed the moral insight, what would this insight 
then lead them to do ? Here the hedonist will expect 
to have his revenge for our previous n^lect of his 
advice. ^^ My precepts have been set aside so far," 
he may say, ^^ as having no immediate application to 
the moral needs of the moment. To get this merely 
formal condition of harmony among men, tlie moral 
man has been advised to subordinate all direct efforts 
towards making people happy, to the end of making 
them fii'st possess what you have called the moral 
mood. But now at last, in the supposed case, the 
great end has been attained, and men are formally 
moral. Now surely they have nothing to do but to 
be as happy as possible. So at last my plan will be 
vindicate<l, and the ideal man will come to be a 
seeker of ideal pleasures." 

The hedonist is too sanguine. His ideas of the 
highest state may have their value, but they are in- 
definite in at least one resiiect. When he says that 
he wants all his ideal m^n, in the ideal state, to be 
happy together, he never tells us what he means by 
the individual man at all, nor what inner relation 
tliat individual's happiness is to have to th^ happi- 
ness of other men. All men, in the ideal state, are 
to be harmonious and liappy together : this the he- 
donist tells us ; but he does not see how many dif- 
ficulties are involved in the definition of this ideal 
state. He plainly means and says that in this ideal 
state the good of the whole society is to be an aggre- 
gate of a great number of individual happy states, 
which the various men of the blessed society are to 
feeL He assumes then that in the ideal state each 


mm would bo ahl« to say : ^ I« aepcumtely r^arded, 
am kapp}% and so are all my fellows^'^ Now pos* 
sibly the very motion of an ideal state, in w^hieli ibe 
separate selves are as such happy, and in which 
the blessedness of the whole is an aggregate of the 
bless^nlness of the separate individuals^ is a contra- 
dictory notion. At all events it is a notion whose 
meaning and validity every heilonist coolly ami un- 
questioningly assumes* Yet it is an assumption that 
we must examine with care« 

If a man sets before himself ami lus fellows the 
goal of indivitlual happiness, as the heilonist wants 
him to do in the supposeil itteal state^ can he con* 
ceivahly attain that goal? The hedonist supposes 
that the only moral limitation ti> the pursuit of pe«^ 
sonal happiness is the moral ret)uirvment of altra- 
km, aecortling to which no one ought to seek his 
own pleasiue at the cost of a greater misery to an- 
other. In the iileal state^ as all wimkl be in the 
moral moixU ami all disjx^seil to help one another, 
ami to g^'t happiness only together^ this one limita* 
tion winUd be remov^nl. Then, thinks the hedonist^ 
the highest law wihiUI be : Gri iAe masi hfppiness^ 
M of^m. This happiness the hedonist com^eives as 
an aggregate i\f states that wiuUil exist in the various 
separate indiviiluals. So each imlividual will strive 
i^ter his own ji>y« but in siK^h wise as tti> himler the 
joy of ni>body else. But we oppose to this the que^^ 
tion : Is there not some other limitation than this to 
inilividiial search fi>r happiness ? Is not the iileal 
cf imlividual hapjum^'ss as such an impossible ideals 
not because the individuak in the imperfsct state 


lack hannony, bat becaose, even in the rappoeed hut* 
monioQfl state, there would be an inner, hindrance to 
the pnrsait of this ideal by any individual ? Would 
not the moral insight detect the hindrance, and so re- 
ject this ideal? There are at least some veiy famil- 
iar reasons for thinking this to be the case. These 
reasons do not of themselves prove, but they certainly 
cmgg^ that the notion of a progressive individual 
happiness has in it some strange contradiction. 

First, then, we have the old empirical truth that 
individual happiness is never very nearly approached 
by any one, so long as he is thinking about it. The 
happy man ought to be able to say, ^ I am happy." 
He can much more easily say, ** I was happy ; " for 
present reflection upon happiness interferes in most 
eases with happiness. So here is an inner difficulty, 
very well known, in the way of making individual 
happiness the goal of life. We have no desire to 
dwell here upon this difficulty, which has so often 
been discussed. We do not exaggerate its impor- 
tance. We consider it only the first suggestion that 
the hedonistic ideal of life has some inner contradic- 
tion in its very nature, so that there is some deeper 
conflict here going on than that between selfishness 
and altruism. 

In the second place, we notice that, if anybody 
tries to sketch for us the ideal state of human life 
as the hedonist conceives it, we are struck with a 
sense of the tameness and insignificance of the whole 
picture. The result is strange. Here we have been 
making peace and harmony among men the proxi- 
mate goal of life, yet when this harmony has to be 

THE osqanhation of life. 187 

oonoeiTed in bedonistio finshion^ when the hedonist 
gives us his picture of a peaceful society^ where^ in 
the midst of universal good huiuor^ his ideal^ the hi^ 
piness of everyboily concernedly is steadfastly pursued, 
we find ourselves disappointed and contemptuous* 
That harmless company of jolly good fellows is un* 
speakably dull. One listens to the account of tlieir 
hap[uness as one might listen to tlie laughter and 
merry voice® of some evening club of jovial strangers^ 
who had been dining at the hotel in which one hap- 
pened himself to be eating a late and frugal supjier, 
in sobriety and weariness. Those imknown crea- 
tures whose chatter in the ne^t room the traveler 
dimly hears at such a timo^ — a cinif used babble of 
stupid noises ; how insiguitioaut tlieir joys seem to 
him ! Who cares whether that really wretched set 
of animals ^\>ndeA with their full stomachs and tlieir 
misty brains^ tliink tlicmselves happy or not ? To be 
sure^ among them the harmony seems in si>me sort 

to have Wn momentarilv realiiteil. One would no 


doubt seem to enjoy it all just as well as they^ if he 
were one of them. But one is viewing it at a dis- 
tance^ from outside ; and so kx^kiug at it he }>ossibly 
sees that a mass of individual liappiness is not just 
the ideal of ideals aft\^r all. 

Just such, howcNvr, is the fettling that c*>mes to one 
in cimsidering Mr. S|H»ucer*s dcsi>ription of his ideal 
society. And similar fivHugs ha\*e Ihh>u awakened 
in many ivflivtin^ |Hvple when they have c^msiderod 
traditional notions of hoaunu and have trieil t\> esti- 
mate tlie \*;Uue of the life of individual bliss therein 
pictured. IVafe^^^r William James has recently so 


well stated these objections in a few brilliant sen* 
tences, that we cannot do better than to quote from 
bis recent article on ^^ The Dilemma of Determin- 
ism : * — 

" Every one must at some time have wondered at that 
strange paradox of our moral nature, that, though the 
pursuit of outward good is the breath of its nostrils, the 
attainment of outward good would seem to be its suffoca- 
tion and death. Why does the painting of any paradise 
or Utopia, in heaven or on earth, awaken such yawnings 
for Nirvana and escape ? The white-robed, harp-playing 
heaven of our Sabbath-schools, and the ladylike teartable 
elysium represented in Mr. Spencer's ^ Data of Ethics,' as 
the final consummation of prog^ss, are exactly on a par 
in this respect, — lubberlands, pure and simple, one and 
alL We look upon them from this delicious mess of in- 
sanities and realities, strivings and deadnesses, hopes and 
fears, and agonies and exultations, which form our pres- 
ent state ; and tedium vitce is the only sentiment they 
awaken in our breasts. To our crepuscular natures, bom 
for the conflict, the Rembrandtesque moral chiaroscuro, 
the shifting struggle of the sunbeam in the gloom, such 
pictures of light upon light are vacuous and expression- 
less, and neither to be enjoyed nor understood. If this 
be the whole fruit of the victory, we say ; if the genera- 
tions of mankind suffered and laid down their lives ; if 
prophets confessed and mart3rrs sang in the fire, and all 
the sacred tears were shed for no other end than that a 
race of creatures of such unexampled insipidity should suc- 
ceed, and protract in scecula scecularum their contented 
and inoffensive lives, — why, at such a rate, better lose 
than win the battle, or at all events better ring down the 
curtain before the last act of the play, so that a 
1 Unitarian Review for September, 1884. 


tlyil bfgmn so impoiiuiUv may be sarvd from «o m^ 

Now not only does all this seem true in such cases^ 
bat we have similar feelings about even so ideal a 
picture of happy future life as is Shelley 's« in the last 
act of the ** Prometheus." There are indeed nianv 
deeper elements in that noble ideal of Shelley's, for 
he distinctly savs that his true ideal is ^ Man — Oh ! 
Ml men '* ; or« as he ajcrain expreisses it : — 

^ One undirid^Ml iMil oC maiir a «oii) 
Wbo*f luuurie b it* own diTioe <roiiuv4. 
Wb«fv mil thmjfT!^ tfov to All »» riTYf9 to the »ra.** 

And when he say^ this, he gets far beyond mere he- 
donism. But vet there are other elements in his 
account that are not so satisfactonr^ and that are 
decidedly hedonistic. Their ejcprecssion is indeed 
perfect. Surely if tln^ noblest hedonism could ever 
succeed with us through the noblest of statements^ 
such an advocate as SWllev would convince us. But 
when the }H>et glorifies mere individual pleasure^ as 
he di^es in j^art of his juctun\ our dearesst reflection 
is that, after all. the end i^ the trageily is petty when 
oompareil with the beginning. 

For consider what a world it is in which we begin 
the poem. At first glance it is a gloomy and terri- 
We world of brutal wn>ng. But soon the picture 
gfvws brighter, even while the wix^ng is depicted. 
Theie is the glorious figtire of the suffering Titan^ 
there is the sweetness of the tender love that watches 
him : and abi>ve the tvrant himself one feels that 
theie is somehow a heavenlv misrht^ that does not 
suffer him to do his worst* The world in which 

100 TffK moMwvn Mnurr w rutiMorm, 

thtm tiitftfpi llr« in mil inUpUsniph. Ittst tlum ooiii# 
tim n\AriiM thui mnif Uf Vrmtusihmmf In hU luijpsUbf 
(if iffitmiHid diHNU ck;tU9 <m Umi mrih^ iA fffemi 
atum^hU Mu\ hflty itmmUmn. All thiM«5 ura Upm id 
ilm iftmiVusif mul lwr« ihmr \minf/i in Umi ffii4»t id tlm 
Ufrrifm id i\m tymtit^M ihmAnUm, \i \n \nAmii tut 
pmi$ii^ wf/rklf ihii*; Mid mm tua^U mnm highcrr 
lighit n%w\% fl# PnmMfiin^M Itntft tii ^ii\p\wmy thui tlt« 
gofi^l will i^^iff triiifiipb ; hit mi«9 mm fi/rihwiih that 
ffy/fii ilM9 \ptrri*ii^ wi/rl^l, if ii ffrm* mpmrn^ i\mm fgnmJt 
MiriyUtKti Utr (fii^Nl, ibiM MiitiliifM^ flDr^Hi^m mmI k/vn 
Mil him^iMin, iiitiMt tnHt wImiUjt rmii^h* TIum« tbifi|pi 
mtMi tuA \m \hm\ uiM^ \\\u% oM ff^mtmiM wlnmifrifr 
Pnifft4dh4ffM wifiM mu\ U inm ; tlnfir n\nf{i muiA bn 
pr«5M5nr<^l sm wn niUntunti in tbi5 bifflmr life i>£ tb# 
ftiiun)* If thAjr lira wi/ftb ttnytbing, tlidr Uvm lUk 

Ami iM fi;r tlf« fiml wiirih i/f tbi^ wiirM in which 
tfa« mril i» M> tut triumplinni^ w<» bt»m MmiHhing 
of i\mi tnrm DimufKitrnim, 'Vitln mynUffUmn Iming 
hftM imliiMl wi ritry ddinito ntliKi/nM philowijibjr to 
#/ff4rr, ili9 ttu^sln pluin qtimtiimii with YiifpM mi- 
«wirrMf wlimi Amih mill PMiiln^n i;iiU9<?hiMi him ; mmI 
imi5 fiMil^ ii til Im) wi)11 fi/r biM ntfmUiiiim tm » pro- 
Ifiunil timifliifr ilmi lim ntumiumitm ura mtitlufr nmn 
nor Hoi^miii; ifii|iiiriTrM. Itfii Miill whui ho ii^lU i;f tho 
dofffi iniih ilint {m ** imnKifliiffM/* im iTfiim)(h to nmko 
nn fool ilint oriTii thin wttrUl iff lunripm \n tupl wiUiinit 
» divini} tAf(uUUmtw4% #f i;vi5 roi^ii^ \mi^ whmtoror tho 
riMibb) wi^rlil rrmy Uu ilto irtiih i/f ibin^M im » WiprU id 
iuf\fii Mill lovi% wliorif tlio rifftl (iml im Moniobiyw uliovo 
idl Mul thrini((b $dU » Hpirii of Ktom«l UoodiMMNk 


To have found this out in the midst of all the evil 
is surely not to have found life whoUy vain. 

But then what happens ? By the accident that, 
according to Shelley, rules the world, the revolution 
is accomplished, and Zeus is hurled headlong into the 
abyss. AMiat glorious life shall now begin? When 
the deep and magnificent truth that was felt to be be- 
neath all the horror of the tyrant's reign, comes out 
into f idl light, what tongue shall be able to sing the 
glories of Uiat beatific >'ision? We listen eagerly — 
and ^h:" are disap|Hiinted. Prometheus arises grandly 
from his beil of torture, and then — he forthwith 
beUiinks himself of a >*orj* pretty cave, where one 
might W oouUnit to rest a long time in the refined 
com|)aiiy of agnxmUe women. There one will lie, 
and wreatlie flowers, and tell tales, and sing simgs, 
and laugh and weep ; and the hours will fly swiftly 
by. And then what will Ikhhuuc of the rest of the 
world ? Oh, this world simply Innnnues a tlu>atre of 
like individual enjoyments. KveryUnly to his cave 
and his flowers and liis agroe;iUe eimij>anions. And 
tliat will then W all. No orgiuiiiation ; just good 
fellowship and fragmeutary amusement;^. 

No, that cannot W all. Slielley felt as much, 
and a^UUnl the last act of the jJay. There we are 
tK> have depietvHl grandly and vaguely the life of or- 
ganixe^l lon\ The w\>rld sliall W all ali\^\ and the 
uniwvisal life shall join in Uie hymn of praise. All 
the iH>w\^rs of reality sliall feel the new impulse of 
jH^rfivt hjvrmoiiy, aud what sliall spring fn>m their 
union sliall W si>me higher kind of existx>neo, in 
which thejK^ is no liuigt>r to bo any talk of thine and 

192 TffK MLtmov» Amiurr or mtumnmr. 

tnitm ; )mi ihsi ^* (ma utuliruli^l mm) iA tmaty » Mwl^^ 

i^ball «?riWr u|y^/ri a ljf«? tff if%nmi4stuUjtti m^^i&sttfi^f 
o|i«/n a Ui»k r/f f;U;rrMl iloraii/m^ an^l iff n niMftitif( 

wdl t^> fi4nti\frii\wtuU Jhii ihM m m> hmffur purn 
ImUmiMfi^ altli#;ti|(h i)M5 yitrmm iu7r4s$iiHmii$ turn mt /oil 
of tin? yrymM imi\mmU arid r/f Um^ anii/dpnii^ifM iif 
rafftori^ In titut^ iIm^ f/nUj^/tni; m tup \H^tii^ ami liar' 
mofiiz/tM f'JrtU'j^fium at alL We fiml ibe jz/jr <if tlie 
ff^ anil hfrin^^ yid Miill m\nifnUi mUtm^ umi iiw 
hif(iu^ Ijfi; 4ft ihtt siiUjmrfsuVmn nnirimw] ^riiy haih 
aJjk^; l(l//riri«9«l $ ami we nerer gid fnmi the poet mny 
eleanMM aUmi tWir a«4tial relaii/m. U IIm^ wcrrid 
hlmm\ jiM W?aiiM$ the tyrant tuf hm^tsr inUfHerm 
with eai^li nian'n fl/nrer'Wreatbin^ ami other amtuw^ 
Mentis? (>r M the mph mmrejt iA hWm the (Ih^MHrf* 
tion /rf ^4^\nn\y ttf jjire every Uiily eh<e ererything? 
<>r M tlie real mmrm id tlie \mrt4i4^um i\A»i tl»rt 
theiM? M^mltff m; hmger 4f\f\itt^mt^\ )fy hatred, hare at 
laet 4i4ftn49 Uf feel m/t mily tlieir freedimi, bttt tim 
mmui higher aim 4ft nni rerwal life ? Hhelley hifitw^ 
hnt (hfi^ mit i^/m>iMtently make tm feel, what hi« real 
result in. Hurrti wa« in fai?t idway^ uiMmt HheUejr 
that ehikli#h tntUffmwM 4ft )f4fner4fhni hope. Up whidi 
the f/nly eril i^eemerl ti# l;e the hatre^l ^/f men for one 
ttm/ther^ ami the higher |(oo«l the ootlmnA of unU 
verbal kimllineM». N</w that i» the lieginning of 
nufTSil in^i^, Imt f^anm/t be idl 44 it. Am if the he* 
neyolem'^e wmihl n//t torn oot iff be otter emptineiit 
onle^ tWe i« ntfttuiihinff l>ey//nd it! A# if there 
eould be any raloe in thii^ onity of life, tudeie tlMW 



19 aomething to l>o dcme by the tuio lifo after it is 
uuiUhI ! xVh if tlu> moral iu^i^fht must uot reveal 
fH>mo tIoe)H>r truUi thau oau be soeu iu it^ drst mo- 
menta ! 

One exiHH^ta what we an^ eimuug to. In disousa- 
iiig tins pix>blom of Sht^lloy's wo are reai^biug the 
sense that Uie moral insight must Ih^ yet further 
eom|)leteiU or else it will be all in vain. The mm^ 
insight says to us all : Act <i^ one Mntf. AVe nmst 
oome to that |H>int; but we must also go beyond. 
We must ask : AVhat is tliis one l>eing U> do> after •' 
the insight has made iUl the imtividuals of one will? 
And we already begin to set\ in op)Hvation to htHltm* 
iaiUt tliat it oannot be tlie em) of tins universal will 
simply to make of us so and so many new sepai^ate 
individuals onoe more. The m^uw of ttnliously happy 
selves stHnns insipid to our innnnuui se4isi\ just l>e* 
oause we all dimly ftnd the truU) that we must now 
oome to understand liotU^r, nmuely* tlnU M^ univt^t- 
ml will of the mon^l h^sitjht must tfim at the tie- 
sttuctioH o/* all which sepattitcs ua into a hciip of 
iti^Went selceSs tiM</ <i/ the i$tti9iHmeht of :fome hiijhet\ 
jHmtic^ otifanic aim. The **one undividtHi soul" 
>vt> are Innind to make our idt^d. And the idi>al of 
that soul oannot l)e the so{mrato happiness of >ini 
aiul of nu\ nor tlio nogi4tive faot of our frtHnlom 
frtun hatrtnU but must Ih) something alH>ve us all« 
and yet very in^sitivo. 

Had wo dinhuHHl our prinoiple in any other way 
than the one we olu>so^ wo should W unable to take 
this, our pivsont niHHVHSi^ry stop forwartls. The ftH>b 
ing of symiu4th}'« for instanee, is oonoerneil with the 

MividuiU ol;Jii<H' ifl Qur #yw|Miiby* To i^ymp$Ai$m 
wiili idl tmn U to wi«li #vi«rylx/<ly UuiPipy^ m^sh uSimf 
liU own imiUUm. iiut w# r«J4td4^ liMii i^uui^wd 
itymimtiiy im i^ui^li* W# imUi t Tim fmilM id \\U #bow 
iM li eouflii^i iA wiiU* To r#idi>sM UiU iumfiUA U U> 
iMMi UiMi fio will U iiM>r# Jui»ii<Wl in iU aM^fMiriitoiMiw 
tiMMi U imy ifiimr, Tlii# riMUiMitWii U idhUml #k#(>- 
ti^Uniy li lii^ciMMNiiry t^Uigt$ on i\m way to tim trij# 
iM4;riil iiMi|j:tit. "i^tiii i^^Uitil ddpuU mmm mul U iim 
rtmlimium ^A i\m iumWU^i, iiut iliU vtmHHmliiAm 
ummiHf iM wMiM^ on I'dli^siiiiii, n r^^iU will in im tiMit 
uniiiM^ Um^im r4$iUi;fiA^l wilU in oni^, anil iiMtiimuU iim 
m^il tff iimlr tupiMUti. J*tii# U our r^idi^fiMiii^n id mh 
IJnivi^riMl Will. Tliii nmi id ipur iUn^im inu«t Im 
Hm iU$yiiUnpumui id ilm nuinrii id Um uuivi$rmd will, 
'Jtii# will hriti my It to immi;Ii id Um i$ul\vUUmi wUk t 
^Hulmiit tliyiM^lf to im»^' Or idimrwUm {lut^ U( 
iNU^li will iHi mp miM ont «# if by Oim filing who 
ai/fMmd in hknue/f nil tlii» iptlmr wilU. Ifi^nis^ tli# 
univ^driMl will niiMt iUimnmlt n/H* tln« iniliiflniti^ly ium^ 
mivisil or dimly Miiil tM^ntinM^ntJIy lU^irod aM^iMUHto 
iMiii«fii<'iii;n <;/ i^vi^ryl^o^ly, l/ui iaii orgnnix; unii^n of 
life ; Mii/fli Mil tmUm im tiii# our worM wouM try to 
mtUm id iiMiilf if it warn klnnuly in «ni{;irfiwl fn^^ 
wliMi tliid univi^riMil will iUmm^U it t^; Im^ umnMly^ 
inm H^lf. ^'Iiiw inm Keif, lii;wever, c<;ulil ni; liing#r 
will U; out itN^elf u{> Mgain intt; tlii^ iM^iHimUi lanipir- 
iirnl Melvei^, Miiy ini/re tliiui it o^/uM in miy MMtnm^ 
(/riggitfli fM#lii/;n itet iUMjf up for n now •|Mi<;innin id 
n Udiy inilivi/luttl, Up Im olA^yeil im iaii fiH;itriM^y Inw- 
giver. It woul/1 ileniMiiil all tli^ wedtli of li£v timlk 
Um imimi^uUi nelvini ni>w luiv#; miil nil tli* unity Ait 


any one indiridail now seidks Cor hinkselL It vonU 
aim aot the fuUest and most oiganined liCe cmoeiT- 
ablew And fids its aim wioold becKume no loii$;«r 
modr a n<e:s:atiTie fteekins: for liannonT* but a Tosi- 
tiv^ aim. demanding die perfect Org:aniiatian <d 


Bat die postolaie of all hedonism, odlitarian or 
odier« thi$ pcismlate of the ahs^iote wmdi «^ indi> 
Tidoal satisfaction, finds its prMrdeal nefotation for 
evoT growing character in yet another fonn. Ereir- 
bodr has tried to realise the ideal of indiTidoalisnv 
this ideal of a happj or satisfied self, either for him> 
fidf or for siMue loved one : and eTerrKwlT finds, if 
he tries die thing loixg enough, what a hoUow and 
urarthless business it all is. If there is. or is jx«silJe 
annrhere^ a reallr satisfied seU. if oertiinlr has do 
plac^e in aoT fieshly Ixxly : azni the reai«cHD is not 
akme what di<ap}>oiziieiJ {>ao}4e csJl the "" disagree 
able order of thini:^ in this mieteii world.*" l^t the 
innm* oontrakiiotioiis of this nodon of a perfected hu- 
man fielf. Ltei us remind oorseires of SKime of these 

Hedonism has no meaning, unless the sadsfied hn> 
man self is logioaUy pebble. The ideal of hedon- 
ism, widi all its ragneness. has at least one essential 
dement, in that it demands the satisfaction of hu- 
man selves by the five s^apply of all that they desiie 
for themselTes. Hedonism therefore must and does 
assert that what a man desiivts is his own eiHitent- 
BMesat; so that* if you could, physically spealdiigi 


givo him all that ha iinIcm for hiinwolf, you would liavo 
roaishud ilio ^oiU for liiiii. liut itow, if all Uun in a 
duluMion, if iit foot a umn douN not really want Mm 
own Natinfaotion alone, but dooN ootuolly want moiuo- 
tidnff more, tltat in not Ium individimi NatiNfaetion, and 
tlmt in not to \m attainml through Iun MatiNfaotioUy 
thou the hodoniNtio ideal doew not exproMN tlie tnith 
of life. And tluN paradoxieid experienee we all gety 
Nooner or later. We find tlmt our littb nelf dooN 
denire Montething tlmt, if gained, would be not itn 
own NatiNfacttioit at all, but itN own deNtruetion in it« 
Meparate life ax thin Melf. Ho the aim of life eauuot 
be ultinmtely hedoniNtie. For, if poMMONMed of tho 
moral iuMight, we eannot will that eaeh Nelf nliould 
get the greatoMt {NiNMible aggregate of separate iiatb- 
foetionN, when in truth no one of the nelveN Heelw 
merely tut aggregate of Melf-MatiMfiustiouN aN Nueh, but 
when eaeh doeN musk Montething elmi tlmt U unattain- 
able in the fornt of Meparate Melf-NatiNfoetion. 

])ut poNMibly a reader may inere<lulouMly denmnd 
where the pnM>f In of thiN rndf-eontradietory doNire 
tlmt all the MelveM are dtx^lared to have. The proof 
lieM in tlu) general faet that to be fully eouHeiouM of 
one*M own individual life an Nueh in to be eouMeioun 
of a (liMtreNMing linutation. TIum limitation every one 
very nhrewdly notieen for the flrnt in otlier people. 
The knowleilge of it expreNMOM itnelf in pergonal erit- 
ioiMm. (hu) i\rut putN the nmtter very imYvely thun, 
that, whereaM the rule of life for one*H own perMon in 
Mimply to get all the natiMfiu^tion that one ean, the 
appearancHs of anybody eUe who pretttndN to Im) eon- 
tent with fUmnolt muMt be the nignal not for admira* 

THE iMtQAKlIATlOM OT lift. 197 

Iton lit tho si^il of hU suci^«^ but for a^ |^Md d«4d 
of KxmUuupU One $e^ nt ouoe tli^t h^ i$ ;ji (^im^jnmi 
of ^^^rious limitsitivm$« One »o<lv» aiul fooU )>0Tfeetioas 
tluit dio otWr lias m>l;. One despi^'ts tJttoxk the otber 
lull's coiu^dnioimoy^ beoau^^ it is so pl^uuly founded 
in illu^on. ^^ If he conkl imly see himself ;m otlieM 
s»ee him," iwe sjiy^ ** he cinild not W self«^Hjitist)ed/' 
Critioism thus seems ti> imiieate vrhy he might to bo 
discontentedly and why he woidd, if he knew moits 
^1 a oimtempt for himself^ AU such eittieism is 
nvidly an alviiidonmeiit of tlie hedmiistie )utnei(de. 
If an imiividual ou^it to W dissatistie^U although he 
is actually satisfitnU aiul if lu> migtit t^i be dissatisfied 
merely Inxrause he has not siune |H>rfeetion tliat ex* 
ists in someUniv else^ then tlu> dvK^trine tliat a self 
noaches its goal in si> far as it reaeluK^ iniu>r <xuitent- 
ment is given ujv No benewdeiit luxlouist lias any 
business to oritioise a happy man wIk> is harming 
iii>boily by his happiness* He is at tlH> gxvU^ or aji* 
proximately siv I^i^t him alone. To do i>tlierwisis 
by eritiei^ng hiuu is a crime* 

I^it no : ewry one (etJs that the triK* gv>al is m>t 
attaine^l f\>r this nian« Ami this feeling, though in 
itself as fei>ling it pn>ves nv>tliing, is tln^ first sug- 
gestiftUi tx> many of si^me deejvr truth* This truth, 
hi>w^^ver, entn^w like inui intx> his smiU when siuiie* 
KhIv else aWv and justlv and sewrelv criticises him 
in his turn* Here, for exani}4t\ l ha\» been f\^r a 
time ciuitent with niN^self, and have Kvn saying lo 
my siuil : ** S^uiK take tliy easi\** and In^re c^une^ mie 
w1k> saj^ U> UHv >vry justly, ** TIhiu find,** and }iiunts 
out dome great lack in my conduct^ or in u^ chanM» 

in^M^/^i tUmt^ H*ikimH!i/ ^i^M ftt¥ hi*i; ^mi ^mimim i m^i-- 
mh Uitimi4i f$. ¥f^-^U:U i^mi f^ ffttii 5 mtl hm fi\m\i I 

Ui^umuwiti uMima ^Hft^Ujf ^fhiiin^, h H^iiimHy mUU miuih 
m^H Ui Ui^^a U\i \Ut^ nUi^^iihi ^n/I y^i \m\ H \^kt 


sppeaxvid 9ii to discerning peo]\Io. auiil yot know it 
not. Ami tborofore now, Un»u|rh all the {^an<: of 
the disoi>von\ runs the foelinsr that I would not if I 
ooakl« no, ni^t for any dolig'ht of oiMnplacvnoy, return 
to tliat stato of hollow, delicious, deU^tstahle iinHv 
ranee. It ^-as a foi^Fs {lanulise : but I have o^^{)ed 
from it^ 1 know my nake^lnef^s, and 1 {^reier the fruit 
of the tree of knowkxli:>\ with hitt<»r ej^ile^ ti> the 
whole of the delig^hts of that wretc^hod place. It is 
a oontradiotorv stalo, this. Mv knowKxii:>? is torture 
to mv foolish, sensitive self : wt while I iRTithe with 
the vainest of }^anp^ I dt>spisc utterly the tlK>ught 
of escaping it by illusion, or by fon^:»t fulness, or by 
any means saw the ai^tual rt^mo\"ul or oi>ntpiest of 
the deiect. And this I fet^l even wln^n the defect is 
«^n to be uttcrlv irrtn«o\-ablo withiMit the di^true- 
tiiui of myst^lf, rH'tt<^r g\> on despising myself, and 
feeling the ix>n tempt of others, than return to the 
delights of fix>lishness : or, if the j\ain of knowing 
what I am is insupjx^rtaWe, then it were better 
to die, than to live in dt^picable ignorance. Oh* 
wretohcil man that 1 am ! Who shall deliver me ? 

Is all this mert^ emotion \* or is it insight? In 
fict it is a gn>^-ing, though still imjvrfect insights 
a form of the moral insight. The j>angs of this 
woundoil selMove ari^ themselves in truth also van- 
ity, like the ix^mpla^vnt self Jove that they mourn : 
but only thn>ugh the gate^^y of this |viin can nu^st 
people gvt lx\vond tht>si^ \Tuiitit>s of individtialism. 
For this woundtxl st^lfdo\>\ that refusers to W 4X«i- 
fort<xl bv anv deliWrate return to it* old illusii^ns, 
i& as Adam Smith long sinoe pointed out^ an emo* 


tional expression of the result of putting ourselves 
at the point of view of our critics. We see our 
limitations as they see them. Our will conforms 
itself, therefore, to their contemptuous will concern- 
ing us, because we realize the existence of that will. 
In recognizing and sharing their contempt, we there- 
fore realize in part the universal will that must con- 
demn all individual limitations as such. We prac- 
tically experience the truth that a perfectly fair judge 
of us all would not be satisfied merely with our indi- 
vidual contentments as such, but would also demand 
the destruction of all our individual limitations! We 
thus get practically far beyond hedonism. We see 
that as we are weak and wretched in the eyes of one 
another, we should aU be far more so in the eyes of 
a god Our ideal of life must then be the notion of 
a life where no one being could fairly criticise any 
other at all. But such a life would be no longer a 
life of separate individuals, each limited to his petty 
sphere of work. It would be a life in which self was 
lost in a higher unity of all the conscious selves. 

Singular may appear this conception even now, 
after all that we have said ; but it is a practical con- 
ception in our every-day human life. That we criti- 
cise the limitations of others, and desire them to sac- 
rifice their pleasures for the sake of removing these 
limitations, may be regarded at first as our cruel ca- 
price, if you will so regard it. But when the edge 
of the sword is turned against us, when we, feeling 
the4)ittemess of criticism and seeing our limitations, 
long to be beyond them, hate ourselves for them, and 
yet refuse to escape from the pain of all this by 


iorg<>tf ulne«!i of thi» d«>liH>U we })m« from oupriokmt 
i?4ritioiAU) ip muui>Uiin|; hi^ht»r. We iiiHH>|>l with i^^^ 
ouy t))t» }H)iui of y\^yt uf the one who nUuul^i outdde 
ef u*. And* m> iioing* we jm^ in effwt to the ikH^}w 
tiint)e uf ih^ deiniind^i uf the universal will* If tliere 
were A will Unit indnded in <uie ooniH'ionAneM all our 
•i>|HMrtit4> wilK it vow\i\ not will onr imlividnal de- 
tt^^U «« «neh« It wonld be Al^mdnte eritii",. m well 
M nkmdut^) harnuniiiten of nil of ua. It wonlil tenr 
down tlitvie individnal Wrii>4rfi of onr |^tty Uvem 
M tl^t* iH>rjH»mtion of a givAt eity nmy tear down 
wret^^lnnl old nH>ki*riivik It wonld ileinAnd tlmt we 
be ont> in !*jnrit, aiul tlmt onr oin^nww be |H>rfiH>t, 
lint if wi> ox)H'riinuv tliijn nniwrsud wilK we exj»eri* 
eniH^ tlmt InnloniHin* whtvH^ lifo-blootl i.^ tln> insM^itt^nce 
n})on individnal ntnt^vt »« ^nch* cnnnot W nphold bv 
the wortU in!ii|;ht, oitbor now« or At aiiy fntnre «ltA|^> 
of onr hnnmn lift> on tliisi wirtb. We |H^rwivo too 
tlmt wi* aII Imvo a dwp do*ire for mdfnltvitmotion* in 
AO f AT aju wi' riH^ignine tlmt onr »idf4ove un^AM^k Ab- 
aeiK'e of jn^rfwtitm* 


We hAve ikvn in j^eneml tbe moml ont^nune of in- 

dividimli.4tn. I-n^t n^i jitntlv mmn* of itji fornm aiuI for- 


tnniMi nion> in di^tAil IndividnAliiun* vio^^-^l a* tim 
ti^ndonoy to hold tlmt tlu^ idt^ of lifo Iji tht^ m^|mrAti* 
lmp)\Y mA4u ij* iti^df vrry nAtnrAlly tlio norniAl ton- 
donoy of nnn^tlwtinjj jitronjj nAtnr^\'^ to whom Impjn- 
iio!t<t liAjt Un^n in A fAtr hnmrni nn^^nro Alnmdy |{^vvn, 
l^hildnni »nd rhild-liko mon, fnll of vigt»r» An* inni>- 
oently neltUli ; or« when tliey Act nnnellUhl^s their 


whole ideal is the making of others like themselves. 
They fall into a notion about life that the author 
not long since heard well-expressed by a cheerful 
young friend, a former fellow-student, who, having 
early plimged into a busy life, has already won both 
influence and property. This man, full of the enthu- 
siasm of first success, was talking over his life with 
the writer, and fell to defining his opinions on vari- 
ous subjects, such as young men like to discuss. At 
last he was asked about the view of life that he had 
already formed in his little experience. He was 
quick, honest, and definite in his answer, as he al- 
ways lias been. " My notion of a good life is," he 
said, ^^ that you ought to help your friends and whack 
your enemies." The notion was older than the 
speaker remembered ; for Socratio dialogues on the 
Just, with their ingenious Sophists making bold as- 
sertions, form no part of his present stock of sub- 
jects for contemplation. But what was interesting 
in the fresh and frank manner of the speech was 
the clearness of the conviction that a world of suc- 
cessful and friendly selves, whose enemies chanced 
to be all recently " whacjked," would be at the goal 
of bliss. Such indeed is and must be the individ- 
ualism of the successful and unreflecting man, by 
whom all the world is classified as being either his 
or not his, as to a cow all is either cow feed or not 
cow feed. A man in this position has never yet 
known the burden of Faust's soul when he says. 
Cursed he what as poaaesAion charma ua. If such 
a man gets any moral insight, it will be on this stage 
imperfect. He will seek only to multiply himself 


in th^ fi.ia:ttt$ v^f otht^r luou. Tht'^^ he will osdl hU 
frieiulsv Tluit ill whioh Ih> iK>o* uot nw^iiie him- 
self* 1h> will ** whaok/* 

Biit m^iKSt luoii i'^iuu^t k^vp this form of tho illu* 
sivm inf iiuliviJuAlisuu Th^^y ji>»ss miv^ of their live* 
in the midst of dis^p(KUUtmeiit. The s<>lf oauuot ^»t 
its object!^ rho i\lo;il iiulejviKioiKv is )uau{H'rx\L 
The stuhU^ni workl ASss^^rts its^^lf ii^ust us* We 
fwl the little«osii of our jK>wers ;ui\l inf our )xUms« 
The lxrv>keu aiul d^^^Kiiriu^ s^^lf h»s tK> seek ivfu§» 
elsewhere Aud s^> iuiUviilu^ilisiu mvust ixuumimlv 
mssMUues another slu^v, lu iuuer s^^ifHieveh^jmieut 
we s^vk whjit tiie world rx^fxises us in outer s<^if-re;di« 
ttiUiUi. TlH>u^hts »t least 5ur\* frxw i^ir em^uious 
are our owu. The world diK^s not uuderstaud them : 
hut the world is vxxKl aud uujippr^vintive. l^^^t us 
be within our^*l\>\ii what we oaunot i:\^t in the outer 
wwUK l^^^t us W inwarvUv vxMtiplete* even if we ar\* 
outwanllv failures. Then we sliall outwit tlH>oniel 
wwld* aud prvnliKV the suwvssful s<^h\ in spite of 

The reailer net\l not K> r^nuiudtxl of what v^isl 
dewli>jmunit iudivuhialisju lias uuder^^nie in this di- 
re\*tioiu Literature^ is full of aevvuuts of stru^r^rles 
fiur iuNvtirvl s^^lf-r^^i/ratiou* made bv men wluvse outer 
jrtvAvth is imjH\U\l. The Hamlets and the Kausts 
of |Kvtrk\ tlit^ saiuts and the s^^UVvn^i^nous martyrs 
of $»Te^t r^^lii^fivHis movements^ ar^'^ familiar exampU^ji. 
We have alrt ady in a former oliapter studitnl the out- 
ev^ie of thi> rvnuaxitio iudividualisju iu a few cas^v;;. 
TlK*re is no time tv^ dwell her\^ afrv^sh at anv length 
•a so faiuiliar a theme^ but for the pretsent we mar 


point out that all illuatrationH of tli» tendenoy fall 
into two olaiwoB, reproiMmting respeotively the Benti^ 
mental and the heroic individualiHm. Thefie are the 
formM of that Nobler HelflHhneHH which lienevolent 
hedonimn defends. They are eifortu to And the (ton- 
tented and perfected fielf. Their failure In the fail- 
ure of individualism, and therewith of hedonism. 

Ab for the sentimental individualism, we have seen 
already how unstable are its criteria of perfection, 
how full of ficikleness is its life. The sentimental self 
admits that the world c^annot understand it, and will 
not receive it ; but it insists that tliis neglect comes 
becaum) tlie world does not appreciate the strength 
and I)eauty of the inner emotional life. The ideal^ 
then, is devoticm to a culture of the beautiful soul^ 
and to a separation of this soul from all other life. 
Let other souls lie saved in like fashion. One does 
not object to their salvation ; but one insists that 
each saved soul dwells apart in its own sensitive feel- 
ings, in the world of higher artistic pleasures. Now 
in fiu*t such lives may l)e not uninteresting to the 
moralist ; but no moralist can lie really content with 
their ideal. Its I)est direct refutation is after all a 
sense of humor strong enough to let the sensitive and 
beautiful soul see once in a while how comical is its 
demure pursuit of these subjective phantoms. This 
miserable life of deep inward excitements and long- 
ings, how absurd it seems to any critic who, standing 
outside, sees that there is nothing more than froth 
and illusion and hyi>ocrisy in it. Heine's anecdote 
of the monkey Iniiling his own tail so as to get an 
inward sense of the nature and worth of the art of 

cookery* U whsil Ar«l comi^ to tntiHl wln^ti w^ MMt 
such A mMi M thtik mib|i?clit« uIumJiH o( |K« tMiMW 
Ikmik Vou hav^ imly lo g^l him k> bugh h«Arliljr 
mioi) or twiol^ luid hi« Philuiliti^ murowii^ws omi tto 
longer oi^mt^nt hitii« ^^ Wl^t ift ju»l tti v fiH>ltiig wtMrth 
•0 much?'' ht^ will m^« Ami Ui«ii ln^ will wi^ up 
ki oWtti^ thai hill idoftl wm idl a IkiJ dn^«im : ami 
ihttt All cxiH^muo^ hM tio more or li««ii w\%nh licc«uiiid 
il h8ip|i«Mi9 in <HmiicclJ\m with tlte dc<HUii|¥Miiti\m o( 
hill ivMrticukr bmiti^ttuff. F^m^t di»ooven^l that^ m 
w^ hATi^ t^i^n : imd ch> iti lim« will miv Mher cioiiiabtd 
mau^ The i>^ ro<i!^m after idl why Me|4ii»ti^>[%hiS 
k« <H>uM ti^%l |;;et F^u»t'tt mml wa» thsit F^uitl <Hmld 
umWuOaiiid the Mephii^tx^plielesui wit^ whieh wm 
thrr^ugtiout destructive of imlivtdualiMtu The i^n^ 
timeulsdiM wIh> hasi no humor U om^ for all given 
over ti^> the deviU and nee^l wgn no oiuitraetn He 
Klares int\> every mim%r th:it he )vij«««em and, eurj^ing 
the Uioh thait maheii him move !^> fatt in thi^i wx%rld« 
he murmurs inee»»sintly« l>rwv»7*» «/<vA, f/w fttJtf jio 
*cA<Vff, And *^> in the pre^nee of the moral imughl 
he i» forthwith and eternally d»mne%l« unlesii wmte 
miracle of grace idiall wive him. It i?i noteworthy 
that one or tw\> of our recent and yoimgest noveli*t?» 
in thi» c^nmtry hsive gaine^l a certain reputation by 
«entimental »tiorieii of c\dlegi:ite and |Mvit-gTadu:ite 
life that {uvcim^ly illuntriite thi^ Mm|de<minde<il but 
aUntiinalde ^lurit^ Msiy these young 5iuth\^w rej^i^nt 
while there i* time, if indee^l they can r<^|M[»nt. 

Lesit dangenni^i U^ genuine momlity, «ind far 
higher in the mnde of wxirth, in the Titjinic fonu of 
iudividualiMUi the form thai ban given birtli lo such 

ink,'' TtiA UMtu^ iff iV'/ffMritM^i^ Hi, //om A)/rfrf^4 f>i 

rM^rfJi^^liai \n 9,it fully Mf^f M'|rN-,f;4',ffM|ifjV4Y t^ 'I'iUvuUtu^ 

iUhi iU^^ti% \% hit itidU't wiiy «ft r.Ufttiw.U'yu'itiit iN 
wl*/fl4f kifirh IfUttu Ut ci»ll k UfM I^^Nfuy //f iV'/r/K*. 

Tli^f WfrM will wA yi^mui you OH\,^i%.ff\ ttM'4ht$i$^nu4 
ytrti M^f UMf lf/rll//wiM'.M //f iliMifr MiwttrJ lif^'- ot i/U'^^^'A 

Ums fff/rr-ftl Wi4»{/lit ruttmf^, Mpfrr//^^ A»i/^lf Ai h/rrri ot 
|ll44^U^l tt4'irtir$i,liott itt yott iti in ihi'.uti Vmi Um'.mi im 
Airf//fJf''r fz/frn '/f 4^ If tU'n'\n\tu%i'tti. Ytrti mtt^l, \m 
ktrtui'rlit'ittpr. Wir/ Wfi 1/^-, Ui-vtu ' \'if'\A\\f\*^ Umy mI*^Hi1 
\% ttr w//rl/l o\ I'^ftuitiftouA '■^•)-/fA, Mi*fct lifi/l iMr imr- 
U'MUffi in iin'.ir \titU',ift-wU'W*' ot ttj Uou. l'ttf$tt$dU*^tin 
ptfiV*^ IfhU UUtnl u ift^f'itlUtr tittit\iiiAh hy tt'i%«i*ftt tfl liti^ 
ftu*.i iUuA, ln^ ittut H y^rttA Ut tU'fy I'ml Dti; mtutt^ i/l/rAtl^ 
iu ti, fwrn^ tittHU^titU', i'm/tt'A'Atiftt, 14 i\it uU it\ tft ntfut^ 
ti '|fiM^.f f$iPi.lU^r fft ttU'.l luttti, 'ffSih li;»^ \\SX\i \t',%\t\r\ni^^^^ 

hi'u\lUy Ut \ii' mruWuwui^S^ wli/» Uuh-f/A liMj/ /,f j///«iry, 
v/lio l»iu fti'.vir lM',^r/| iU*' fiufut", *ff l't*,ti>t U»/ n^, \fiti 
wl»/f kii//Wsi whiil, il U Ut h/J/| Ipi4 fiftu th Mi/ h^fUi 
whU Mm? yffrrUii *Hth ttttttt y*fii t-AttutA. j^nK '(////n ; 
his **.iir^*^ liUli? htr ^Sii'. n\t\mttit^ tft '/JJi//-t 'III/ /<• 14 
o/* JM'lj/'^ ftlK/y*^ liir/i *ftv<i O'wl /rr liu: "rfi.y i' f#" I U'. 
huhHiiitili hiti Ui'.'tn ttl, U^itjui ui§ u/himii\>\t UUnr/. 
U*^ \ffUrtt^^^ Ut Uii'r tiU'A'. nt A/I»ill' 4 , \tt Iw J»/ /^ ■: ir« 
Mm-, prtftiiti'l tft t^U'tnu.1 wt^itu.rt^ ft^^ittuAf. f/St^tU f* 1 -'.* * tn^ 
Ut U'uti #vyil. n*» f t'.<^it*'t'lA tfl)i*tA , \t*. y/iii,U I', '{/# 
$ftftHi Ut I114 wfiy, I'/fit liii Mffifk4 U»;iK ^hi K< --x ^n,i^\ 

ht idkcmks like* id-r'jJ 177^ *c<if jvifanS.xsL Tec lk£zD ilae 
«wAi lEiKe ;># i^ds. ii».il«£2i:4C^T zciLhipilSeil. 

fiiBa^ tiMCM' SBCdiT ta>i f;^rl .&:l ■■:<::i*:<:ir>:i A5 iLt f-.'Goiv- 

Bmnonc: amr 'Cid sihifiza. ^Q n:> ecyt ^irisL foe a fiNL. ti.':>c± Vtw 

iiiir a tfuniifiiizi.'ffi : IfC lisi 'vrjiiniSfr ^jrof Hk-f a ;'liZf:i(tf.7tM.. 

•*-Iai ^»^^ w*oi ls» 3r»7'^:c^»* v>ii :cii*!r*., ^4i:C3:ct5 

amir aft* hcmxtt i^utS i^r^lriiiSi* izi iffwni:.-!:* jfC ciw 'W"ij> 

aAimr lEbc a v^£=»fiw*r:i».. 

gbfl OB <mdi •Mtfttfir. io!^ iif lib; r-hzt .ca Ihikf -vr'i^ :-!£ji:?*;c 
mat wHitz Infl Ek* ib* f^xfl :: lie "rajriri;!: -•:5 jlir^J::^ 

mrwmUff ii\trtm )ili« » riAmMimrm* , » , 

hmtmhifUUfmf AwMinff in tumtmi l#i mm^ curing HuU 
iibmii <HJi#r p0Opl«'» «hikli«ti^ wuniw idntMr Uk« » rMiMie- 

'' If iffMf fl«/|iiirM » ffk^iv e<if»tMtikmf mi iiMO($kl« rfglti« 
•MM utul wimif kri biffi, ^ffTMnning nil diiiig«ra^ wiMdirr 
i^/iii wiili biffi gliMl Mt^l UfottiKbiftiL 

«iiil« rigbUM/tM mui wim, Umm im » king uimiidtming bk 

• » , ** iMing brif^i |(«>bbm briWy^kfiMf wriWr^vu^ bjr 
Um Kf/blMittiit>« ^ktfig nf^niMi MMfb 4!Hb#r wb«m tlMrrtf iur« 
Uro f/n im^f iirmi ki inm wniMkrr iibm# UIm » rbifMW#f%M# 

^ TbiMf if 1 ji/ift tn/Mtf wiib MM/tbiyff I »biiJl »w#iir err 
iMKibl ^ ¥AmM»Ang tbi/v ^lim^crr iii ftiliHf«« l#i mi« wmid^r 

0,** fl^iib «^/bl mmI b«ftif \mng(t^ «ml tbinA^ wiful «ftil 
m\mm\n% mn^wnA yi;tA9Xm mi^I ahhImw^— b*yin|^ m^' 
i^mm utt Ummm ibiifg/Vf hi tnm mmu\we ul^fn^ Vk^ % iMnm- 

** An iim fiUrphMtif itm nirmtg^ Hm i*{Mfit«rl« iim Usrgitf 
MtUir )mifing Um \wrtl wntbM ni pUmmtt^ in Hm tifr&nif ^im 
m bfi mm ^mmUr tAsnm Ului m Mwmmm* , , , 

** Stfi miifming htmmlti wAhnfMng mi titt npnti^ mtmm' 
fiMTtfif Mi/I Urn AMgiti til il»#f \$\mmnf*i in ib^ mttM i tm 
ikm wminay, h«ing bmlti fff » lSf« i/f ArmtAngf itpMiking 
iim imibf bd #/fi« w«»/lw ftb;rt« tili« * rhimir^rffM* # # # 

' « « '* 'rbi# in » iii9, in ilii<> Hmrt* in liUbi bi^ipifMWfff 
liiibf mtitfytnmti^ Uti nutrtt i/f i^irff HAn in » fUblMM^bf m» 
li*tin(( tiff/brr«rfU/^/^l^ bri » ili/;tigitifiit innyn wwnAtsr idanm 


^ HaTXBg torn tlie lies, kaTiiig Ivokea tlie iMi m m fiah 
in die water, being like m fire nol retaming to tbe bust 
plnoe, let one vaiider akMie Eke m riunocHos. • • • 

• • . ** Not dhnndoning »chMion >nd mwiitatinn, •hrays 
wm&daing in aeeoitlancie widi tbe Dh a mm as, se^ng wS mxj 
in tbe existenoeft, let one wander aloiie like tbe ibinoo 

for tbe destmedon al desire, being careful^ 
DO fooL learned, strennoos, considerato, restrained, ener* 
gedc let one wander alone like a ibinoceroft. 

^ Like a lion not trembling at noiMsi, like tbe wind not 
eangbt in a nei, like a lotss not stained b j water, let one 
wander alone like a ibinocnos. 

^ As a lion strong br bis teedu after orerooming all an- 
imabn wanders Tictorioos as tbe king of tbe animalnu and 
baimtft distant dwelling^filaoes, even so let one wander 
alone like a rbinoeoxKu*^ 

• • . ^ HftPT cohiTate die sodetr of odiav, and serro 
tbem for tbe sake of adrantage ; friends witboot a modre 
are now difficult to get, men know tbcdr own profit and 
are impure ; tberefoiv lei one wander alone like a rbinoe- 

Wben one ocvntemplates tbe ideal of tlie ImtMe in* 
diTidaalism in tliis its purest fomu rugged, empty of 
sensuous comforts, vet noMe and inspiring in all but 
tbe highest de$:iTe, one feels bow haid the decisioQ 
as to its worth will he« unless the moral insight gives 
Terr definitely mnd mnthoritadTely its rulii^ in ^b» 
matter. But fortunately, in trying to judge of eTOi 
fio splendid a caprice as this, we aie not left to oor 
indTvidual opinion. Tbe will of the Titan as to ^tm 
world of life is simply, by hypothesis, not the univer- 
sal wilL The one being that indnded in his life all 


tnii Hit ovM^llffW front i\m (/rfml^ nfr^iifM <»f iiitivi^fMttl 
lifif, n. P00I4 ilmU l#tf(. Ut hmAt Uy mium Atilfftidlfif; 
ihunl^ f^lfiwly (IiIiia Mwiiy Ift Ha f^lmllow Aiftft'*^ft<'yf 
tllfiil U \m*tmwf^ ft MMf<l-|Mt4l4ll0 7 Am«1 fift tnr i\m 
proof of ili}fl« Mf\mi UuHtitwf* of your lii^ro if yoti tftk«< 
liiitt Hi lilfl worfl, fttnl UifivM ItiiM Ui MumAt WUt^ H rlii- 

tl(H>f«rOfl? 'Hlfift lflllfH«(l lift MHMt ftlfihA f^f ilif^ lr(vfsl of 

A {mMviflli Hhliimli II Ift M^lffiirftlflfi v\mrm*i4^r In wlmt 
ii in \fy rmmm of liin coMfllf'iA wlfli liln ff^llowfi, Mu\ 
hy r««MflOfi of ilm rf^Ap^ri UtHl< lut f^i'H^A in oUmrAi 
Hi«i|i I.Hlliln(/ nlfoni lilni, tn^t^t^f* iMlnilrln^ liini« do tu4i 
«vmi ll^lii wlili ttini, l^norM him nM^^ily ( aim! wiUt 
iht^m i^nU^iim\ ftn|r)»orfft t^t* liU Inn^r li#iroiftnf vnnlfiht 
]|0 ffAJfttft Aft lt#<ro, in fAct., only li^^'Anfti^ Im Im in nf' 
({AttiM rMlAfion Ut iUf^ worhl Alioni Itlnt. I lift iN^Aftii^l 
l4^ff«lifn«ftft ift nn lllnftloni Tonld not. Mf>plfiftiopl»«k9M 
tiAvn Itift hin^lt Imrfs i<»o? 

I^it. i\w Tif An ift ofUtn properly Urn l»*«ro tuti only 
irf A ^'oinMily, ImiI. Alfto of a irA^ffily j An«l a frAj5i*i1y, 
AH wr* hnow4 AlwMyn <liftiM»vf^rft i4t m Umtsloonty worilp 
lf«^.t,ni«ftft of fliift MMllviilnAl llfA aa ftn^lh MoriAl inAn^ 
uiwtt In-on^hi/ Uf poftft^ftft \,\m uutm\ inftif^lti, (IfMlft liift 
(lf<ftiiny noi in lf}fnftf>lf, \mi in Mim tiff* nl»oni liini, nr 
In l^lm h\m\ llf^ of Uoil. A nil ittA irAf^^ly AHpr^ftftMft 
niiA wAy of ^MiUnf/ fJilft infti|jltii 

In ftliori, jnftfc wIiaI. Uiw ll*«rf<fty of IVoniHlmtift Aft- 
ft»«rift Ut \m i\m p^rff^^t.^ nAniply« U10 i'onipli<trf« AtMJ aII^ 
fiuUi(\ (|0Vft|M|nfn>nt. of IUp^ jnfti i\mi cAft UA^m only 
f^i t.li0 K^^nMiAl, noi to i\w tniDviflnAl lifr*i llpuvd 
TiiAnlftni AlwAyft iionirA^lnfift iiftf'lf. U ftAyft Utttt If 

(lie nwrrow^ limited ;wlf « wlio mu dt^j^iideiit fico^ <^pen^ 
qxialiiy of my lifii> on ixniistauii Kvin^ inu^nxmrsio with 
\>llH>r jHH>tJ<t\ must Wiximo j^oH^vf^ iihk'iH>iiiiU>ii^ 
prsiolicAlly iutiniUK Bat K> m^ thi:^ i$ K> 4sk thM I 
dcsiix^y mpiolf^ »ih1 my Titamisiu with nnv Unqui^ 
is ainl must W the li(\^ that ^looks {vrfivtii^ iu Miy 
pvnip of ^^Iv^essw And ^> tko iiK\»l camuol hei« bd 

SonK'vkjit hastily^ ;ii:^ \Hir limits knxv roqniivd^ ^we 
kuw iHifsuod tko dotiniiH^n of ^Hir i^ioad thixHi^ Um 
imivrfocl filwms of iiHiividiuUi:»iu Aihl ik^sc vhait 
mu;^ it l>o tlut tko moral iu:%fat^ xciili its ruiwx^sd 
Will« domainls of iho {hv^Mo funiro monl humaiuly^ 
iK>t as tko no^pniiw ta^v of pivj^ariwir tin* vay for 
g^xxlnosix but as tht^ ixvsiii>v idt>al l*sk of flh> com* 
munity in wkioh iiH> UH^ral insist is aitmiHHl ? This 
doinaiul is: ihrjitmir 4iJ7 /.ffK Aiki this nnxuis: 
Kind >Kx>rk fv>r tho Ufo of iIh* <y>miiur UK^ral kuuum* 
ity whioh shall Iv so comprvhott-dw ainl dotiniu* that 
oaoh UH>mont of owtv uvui's lifo in that jH^rfoet 
stati\ lH>wx>>v.r rioh ainl luanifokl nK>n's liv«i mav 
thon Ih\ can W aiul will Iv s^^^nt in tho a<v\>injdish- 
mont of that ono hJ^\st iniivr^^uU w^vrfe* If snoh 
work is fvHuul and aocoptK\l. iIh^ gxvd of kunviui pn^ 
iv>ss >KiU W in si> far nxaohotL Thorv \i-ill thon W 
hamuMu\ tho n<^ii>v ojtprvssii^n of tho nn^ral in- 
sight : and thoro will Iv wx^rk* and on::ani«ation of 
vrv^rk. And this vcvrk >»ill Iv no morx^ tln^ wx^rk of 
^> and s^^ many sojviratx^ nun\^ bnt it will Iv th^^ x^\>rk 
of man as mau« And tho sejvMraito mon will Ut4 

Y.* ','''"■ "'' 


know or care whether they separately are happy; 
for they nhall have no longer individual wilk, but 
the UniverHal Will nhall work in and through them, 
an the one will of two lovero finds itself in tlie united 
life of these twain, so that neitlier of them asks, as 
lover, whether this is his perfection or the other's 
that he experiences. For their love makes them 
one. In such wise we must figure to ourselves the 
ideal state of humanity. And anything short of 
that we are required by the moral insight to alter in 
the direction of that end. 

The reader may ask, What work can be found 
that can thus realize the universal will ? It is not 
for us to know the whole nature of that work« We 
set before us the ideal task to discover such forms 
of activity as shall tend to organize life. The coniF 
plete organization we cannot now foresee. But we 
can foresee in what general direction that human 
activity will tend, if it is ever discovered. For we 
have certain human activities that do now already 
tend to the impersonal organization of the life of 
thr>He engaged in them. Such activities are found 
in the work of art, in the pursuit of truth, and in a 
genuine [mblic spirit. Beauty, Knowledge, and the 
State, are three ideal objects that do actually claim 
from those who serve them harmony, freedom from 
selfishness, and a wholly impersonal devotion. Both 
in art and in the service of the state, the weakness 
of human nature makes men too often put personal 
ambition )>efore tlie true service of their chosen 
ideal. The fatiltincHH of all such individualism is, 
however, generally recognized. The dignity and 


Terdj impenonal relmtionAips and language of offi* 
eial life are intended to exjxresa ike sense that no in- 
diridoal has as sueK the right to recognition at the 
UKMnent when he exeroises an official function. He 
lives at the time whoUj in his office. The state is 
just then everything. Even so all higher criticism 
professes to disn^;ard the personal pleasure of the 
artist> and the personal whim of the critic The 
production and the criticism of Art are no amuse* 
ments of two individuals. They are work done 
in the service of the one mistress^ the divine art i^ 
self. But stilL notwithstanding the recognitico of 
this ideal devotKMd to one^s country or to one^s art» 
our typical politician and our tyjucal ambitious ai^ 
tist show us that these activities still but imperfectly 
overcome individualism^ or lead men to the higher 
plane of moral life. B^ter success, in ofgamiing life 
one findss when one passes to the activity of truth* 
seeking^ especiaUy in fields where human thought 
is best master of itself, and best conscious of its 
powers. When one considers the wori^ of a company 
of scientific specialists, — how each one lives for hb 
science, and how, when the specialty is advanced 
and well orgauiied, no one in official expressions 
of his purely scientific purposes dares either to give 
himself airs of importance as an UKlividual, or to 
show any benevolence or favoritism or fear in con* 
sidering ami testing the work of anybody else ; when 
one sees how impersonal is this iilea of the scientifio 
life, how no self of them all is supposeil to have a 
tlK>ught about his science because it pleases him, 
but solely because it is true, — when one consid 

214 THic HMMmvH AHvmr uft v\uumm\r, 

K^M fill UiIm, mii^ ^^m ffiiiiUy wimi iii«> i<I^H.I rt$hiUm 
uf iMiiiikiiMi woiilfi IfM, if iUi$ id^nl work fur itU iimii 

W^rn foiMMJ. TIiIm lii«V0Ul<l MifiMllUllo Mpirit U iU«<lf 

only liii iiKmi tivMit iif-dfiy t ftnil fill NiirU of \mrmmtil 
iiMfUvi^M MfJII Ifil/ni'fMi'M to flUl/io'b iu ifiirliy. I(fii 
i»«ii'^, fit fill itVMiilM, oft» M«i«iM fiiiifly ill fi mMiftf^Ui iiM 
MtfiiM^*! wtifit ttiii oi'iffiiiiKfitiofi of iifM iiifiy yoi Ihh 

Now mi\t\umi fi wofkl in wliioti iii^ii iifi<i noiiii* oiih 

<«ImI of Mittlvliy ttlfit lllli(4i(i M4llimtlOW fill illl4 fiilfMI** 

«*iii MirlviiigM of otir iifitiii'^, fiif^Mml/io, mu^nU ti^^ 
fKtiitfil. Hn\i\uim ilmt in (Jim |Mii'Miit nt UiIm «im1 liU 

tim |HlUy, M4l|liMtl fillllM of IlKllvillllfilM lllill ll«4««ll fof- 
{(iH^Ufll, Hll|»|»OM«« tllfit IIIMIt Miili 110 lollgliM ** I llliV<l 

won iliirt ({oinI Uliiiif for inyMMtf fiini my trimuW^ 
)mi only, ^^TIiIm gntni U liUfiifnul/' no imiUtr by 

WliOin. HllppOMM illfit itlllM fill lifM WfiN Oflffillif^l 111 

mimI Uirongli UiIm fi^tivlty, mi lUui a iniin r^mti np 
Mini Ifiy flown ifi vtmi^ iiU$ mu\ ilfiink, anuMm^l Mul 
Munmul IiIm MfiiiMMM, iiiMt IiIm ffillowM, UilUtui with tlN^in, 
livfwl fififl |flfinniu| with thi«ni, hnilt IiIm i^ti^M, wfiii* 
il<ii'M<l ovMi' tint oKMfiim, MMfii'itliMii iUt$ InifiVMiiM with 
IiIm UiUmu$\Hiii^ UilUul in IiIm hihfn'iif«f»rii% Miiiii; hii^ 
f«onf{M, wf'oMi IiIm iioMfoM, lovMii fififl ilifiil, fill for tint 
mtrviftn of UiIm fifin giMfit work, fiinl kiiMW IiIn lifn 
only liM thn nimifiM to i^avvt* thfit on«i f<inl, th^n WfMihl 
tint i<hifil fff thn inoi'fil in»i((ht \m fittfilnnfl. 'V\m 
worhl of lifft wfHihl l»M tm ofuf will, wofkinif thffnigh 
fill fiinl in fill, »is»ik!fi^ th«< itinlM of no nun inilivhiiifil, 
iffii'lnif fiot for fifiy Mtn|fnl fiiiil nntfinin|j:lnMM ** fifflfff^* 
((fiU« " of iinliviilnfil ^tfil4% Ifift ^/itting whiit liM ill' 

Mi|{ht it fIfiinfiiniM, tlu4 filfMfiluUi Unity of I Ah, T\mn 

izid^y^ ^w^ 5ihcvQld liBTe TRftolie^ tii^ id^tal : and 1^ 
beizur tb^ iiiiUkL jJl is ir^iod liuit Leilps^ n;; is tii^ <B- 
i^ocitian tberfH'vf!. xoi jJl is evil titttt dnT^ ns in tiie 
oppofdnjr dirwnaoiiL 

TW impeirfarDim and t^ r^bttiTe jof^tzfiotttiaD in 
its ph^^ of Iriesieviikait iK^onism &re t^ns indiottc^ 
Tbe moixiQ inisur^ Wizur ai^aiziod br all men as an 
«p<>ri«)<^, this^insurii ^W not ^ for indiT^chals 
f^cih painfnl expexk^oes as irvvnld de^^'ade i^ <ciil- 
fereTS below i^ level of tbe infdxr^t itfielf, back to 
libe iOTTXg^Ies and tiie ilhifaons of indirsdrialisia. It 
womld be tbebofdnofVi of men i3M3i as now, tK> resnox^ 
iifielefis pain out of tbe world, nest bow^Tw for anr 
citbeT raaiton tban t^iax pain implifs f«epanaion of 
tie snffewa* from lie oonfvaomKZK^iis of nnivexsal Efeu 
and ooniioqneni disbarmoDT of bis will in its relation 
to ctfcber wills. Pain tbaJ sprinirs from sielfish disap- 
pcwntments we must oftien ttfrnporarDr incwuise, tba* 
we max load a man ofnt of bimseif , But for tie 
rest, tbe moral insiiibt rej^^ot^ pain, tboiurii cmh" be- 
caiif^ h moans disbajmonr of tie wills tiat are in 
tbe wcwld. 

Thns we baT^ oomplestiesd tbe exprKtsaon of omr jjfai- 
eral idoaL We must add a few Mmcreitse pnwwpte 
tbat this idoal bas to pxie ns wmoKminir tie oondii^ 
of ciDT daih* life, Pbdnlr, if snei a c^ial as ibis is 
wbai we aim at from afar, tbe arts of onar Eros mixKt 
W infhjenood bx it. Wbat relation betwoen me and 
mx neirbboT t^-v-dax does this naoiral law osttiblish ? 

Tbon and 1, noizbbor, baxe in this world no licbts 
as indixidnals. We are infJtmmentf;. Tbe infi*::bt 
that be<:[ins in me wbcn 1 £nd tbee^ must <^'^ fulier 



I find not only thee, but also Life Univeraal. In- 
asmuch as I do anything for thee, I do it also to 
the life univeraal; but, even so, it \a only becauM 
I serve the life univeraal that I dare serve thee. 
Thy happiness, however near and dear thou art to 
me, is but a drop in this vast ocean of life. And 
we must be ready to sacrifice ourselves to the Whole. 
But while we live together, and while we may with- 
out sin enjoy each other's presence, how shall we treat 
each other? As mere masses of happy or miserable 
states? As selves to be made separately perfect I 
No, that cannot be. We must live united with each 
other and the world. Therefore must we do our 
part to find work vast enough to bring us all in so 
far as may be into unity, without cramping the tal- 
ent of any of us. Each then is to do his work, but 
so as to unite with the work of othera. How may 
we accomplish this ? By seeking to develop every 
form of life that does bring men into such onenestt. 
Our vocation, whatever it be, must not end simply 
in increasing what people call the aggregate happi- 
ness of mankind, but in giving human life more 
interconnection, closer relationship. Therefore we 
must serve as we can art, science, truth, the state, 
not as if these were machines for giving people pleas- 
ant feelings, but because they make men more united. 
When we urge or seek independence of character, 
we must do so only because such independence is a 
temporary means, whose ultimate aim is liarmony and 
unity of all men on a higher plane. In all this yre 
must keep before us very often the high ideal that 
we are trying to approach. And when we judge of 


A gwid Motimi w« itiuvt Miy« not thttt thia wm good be> , 
0A4tm» it ttimlo mntio imo kappy« but that it wna good 
UvuufH* it U^ndtnl diivoUy or nmiotdiy to itMiliie the 
riit\*i»rwil Will* 

AtuI ms kowi^vi^r mucli iitoit> kanitotty may bo oiir 
ditiu wi> tttunt W ndttdy x'x'ry oftoit toiu|)omrily to tight 
wilh dti«orgiuii«itig luid »i«|uutitittg Uuulo4icies« ftut^^ 
or ition. Who'll wi> tlglit w\« munt do »o for tho ^ndm 
of ovuiqumtig tk |HMiK^ in tlio n«am> t^ th« Higln^t. 
And m> wt(> niuitt tlgltt ^mdutviy* fiMMrKv^dy* mom* 
loiMily. For wt(> oiuv not how niiuiy Atubliornly di»or> 
gtiniiung (i|urtt» luro oni»hiHl im tlie wiiy« Tlio One 
Will n\mX I'^mquor. lUit im tho othor »ido wv must 
Ih* wry txm»fiJ of owry s^ud* and of owry t^nidottcy 
th;it nia>\ wttlumt do«tmot4mt% U^ nioukUHl int\) tho 
iM?rvioo of tlio Tnix-x^r^d WilK Tho nuutd in^dght 
doiaro« that no liair fall fnuu tho hoad of any living 
oroaturo ninnoo^^^aarilv. Tho wio aim i« *tom t^> its 
»toadfa»t onoinio^i^ Imt it i« intinitoly n^s^ardful of all 
tlio liinglo ainix'k how\*vor tlH\v may s»oom waywanU 
that oan at last And thoni;^^lvo« »uIhUuhI and v^t 
vtHUiiRHl in it:» (inv^no^ and a> o^mf^iniKHl t^i its wiU« 
All tlu^^ rivnU^s^ of )Hir)Hi»i\ Ihixrvwr tiny> all thoc!^ 
^tr^\n^ iI^hhU of )>as^on« lu^jrxn-vr angry« it dosuros U> 
gathor into tlw :^urging tid^^ of its intiniu> tH>i>an* 
that m>thing may W Uv^t that o^m^^uts t\> onuvr* Its 
unity is no aWtraotiou. Tlu> Ouo Will is not a ono- 
Md^nl will. It dosiros tho nvUixati^m of all (xvs^bk^ 
Ufi\ lh>\^vvor riolu iitnuig* anlonu c«i>uragoous^ rnani^ 
fold sxioh Ufo mav l^ if ^wlv this lift* oan o.nt<».r int\> 
tliat higlu>st unity. All that lia;;^ will is saonnl tK> it^ 
saw in »L> far a$ ai^ will rdu^cts to join with the 

218 TiiK KKLtcjiotm AMi'Kx;r or rnfLOHot'iir. 

(itliorM in Uh) miti^ ati<l Mhotit of ilio HotiN of God. 
ItM warffint im iiovt^r ititoli^ratuMs itn (hsttitttul for Hub- 
ttiiMMion iH tioviir iyraiiiiy, iin m)tiM49 of ilio ox(M;llotiC49 
of ilM own unity im novijr arrogancM) ; for iU warfaro 
in ainiixl at Umi intoloranc^^ of tlio m^jmmUi Molvim, 
itM yok<4 iH tlio yoko of (Mmiplotu organic; fnxMlonif 
itM jiritlo IM in Um) ]N9rf(M9t dnvolopniont of all lifo. 
Wlii'n wo M)rvo it, wd nniMi nUiruly cnit off all that 
jifif in ourNiilvoM or in (fiharn that cannot tiltiniaU^ly 
(Minforni to tho univt^rHal will ; hut wo liavo nothing 
hut lovi) for ()Vi9ry form of MiMitii^nt oxiMtoncM) that can 
in any nioaMuro oxprimn thiw Will. 


Wo havo (lono for the proMont with tho ifhMil, ami 
tnuMt turn to reality. Our roligiouM (eonrnjiounncMM 
wantH Mup|Hirt for um in our ]HH)r cffortM to* do right, 
Im thiM real world that we have mo na'ively aMMinncKl 
thuM far, in any wine luuKM^nieil Ut help um in realizing 
idealM, or to Mup]Mirt um hy any fonn of approval in 
our Mi;an;li for the right? We niUMt fa(M9 tluM prob- 
lem r-oolly and Mkepti<;ally, if we want any roMult. 
We nniMt not fear the thunderM of any angry dog- 
tnatii; thinker, nor the pain that Much roMearchoM muMt 
eauMo UM if they are iinMiiiMMmMfid. It Im M<iniething 
very pre4;iouM that we MiM;k, and we niuMt run groat 
riMkM, if mml Ins to get it. 

ljt*i UM begin to defhie a little Ix^ttf^r what thiM ii 
that we M4M*k. Hy a Mup|Hirt for moral a<;tM in out<9r 
n^ality, we do not mean merely or mainly a |Niwer 
that will reward goo<lncMM. Tlui moral iuMight ear0» 


not for individual rewmrdk Onlj the good intentioii 
u truly uiond. Good mei» done for paj are aelfiah 
«ii>l». So the outer support that we want in our mt^ 
rality Is not reward aa such. We want to know that» 
when we try to do ri^t« we are not alone ; that there 
is something outside of us that harmonises with our 
own moral efforts by being itself in some way moraL 
TIus something may be a person or a tendency. Let 
us exemplify what we mean by some familiar cases. 
Job seeks> in his consciousness of moral integrity, 
for outer support in the midst of his sufferings. 
Now whatever he may think about rewards* they are 
not onlv rcwanls that he seeks. He wants a vindi* 
cator« a ri^htei^us« all-kmrning judge, to arise, that 
cain bear witness how upright he hais been ; such a 
vindicator he wants to see face to face, that he may 
call upon him as a beholder of what has actually 
happened. ^* Oh that I knew where I might find 
him, that I might come even to his seat. I would 
order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with 
arguments. I woidd know the words which he 
would answer me, and umlerstand what he would 
Say unto me. . . . There the righteous might dis- 
pute with him ; so should I be delivered forever from 
my judge. Beludd I go forward, but he b not there ; 
and backwanl, but I cannot perceive him : C>n the 
left hamt where he doth work, but I cannot behold 
him: he hidcth himself on the right hand, that I 
cannot see him: But he knoweth the way that I 
take : when he hath tried me I shall come forth as 

So again in the great parable of the judgment da^ 


in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, the moral 
foreo of the Mtory in not exprenHod by the rewardii 
and ininiiihmentH deHcriliod, any more than in Elijah*s 
vivion on Iloreb, — the Lord wan in the thunder and 
in the fire. But the moral force of the Moene liea in 
the concluding wordii that the judge in made to iipeak 
to the multitudeH of juMt and unjuiit ^ Inaamuch aa 
ye did it unto the leant of thene, ye did it unto me.** 
That il^ if we may imraphnuie the wordii of the judge : 
^ I/* he HayHt ^^ repreitent all beingH. Their good is 
mine. If they are hunf^ or naked or nick or im- 
priHonefl, mo am I. We are brethren ; ours is all 
one univental life. That I nit in thin neat, arbiter 
of heaven and hell, niaki!H me no other than the rep- 
renentative of univenial life. Such reverence as ye 
now bear to me in duf% and alwayn wan due, to the 
least of thene my brethren.'* The infinite nacredness 
of all coiiJM^iouH life, that in the semie of the iitory ; 
the rent in the noenic accom|yanimcnt, which, whether 
literally or nymliolically true, liaH no direct moral 
significance. Now the knowli!<ige Hiich an Job nought, 
the knowh^lge that there in in tlie univerae Home mm- 
HciouMUCMM tliat fMHsM and known all reality, including 
ourMclvcH, for whii;h therefore all the gocxi and evil 
of our liven in plain fact, — thin knowledge Would be 
a religioun nup{Kirt to the moral conwfiounnenn. The 
knowledge that there in a lieing that in no renpecter 
of pemonn, that connidem all liven an e<iual, and that 
entiniaten our a<;tn tu^mVing to their true value, — * 
thin would 1h; a genuine nupport to the religioun need 
in un, quiti; apart from all notionn atKJut reward 
and puninhment. A thinking being, a seer of all 

I^hhI unci «tUi, i« UiUfS <(l«siu^ Tli» ttfainkinjir Wii^^ 
\Y(.% <^;b«Jr Atmbui^ Uvui itntudi^ Sh^Ud wi^ find il 

n^ ov^ytkiiijt ^^ itlva k kuiiMai satv^ kuowk^)^; 
It^ Um W ;» |^«ji^<imk«^ Mid (¥»f$ol knowkdigiss 
Ml ^^4ulii% hat jiidgiiM^l <tf <iHir Wfdnd ;M4t»Mi^ 
Mid f lKi^n> wvHikl ^lUl l^ in tW ^ividrld ^nMnHhii^g dE 
M^li^KHi^ v;Uu<^ If b iMl 9dfKniii»d tluift >v« <iHi;g)it 
U> ix'i^t <^Miti^4il with ;siieh A 4i>Miii?i^|4»iui ^ Uii^ but 

di>4icT iu \hf^ \cwiiA tixskt, Winjt "^ ^ i^^o^MT iKM <mi^ 

;!;$ Mn M;jinlH^w ArtnUd h^ ^> xr^ll ^»(ni ii:j^ w^tmld 
tuivt^ ;ji n>li^ms xthUiow SMiMMhin^ t\f tliU kind Uioiii,, 
woTv «>r Kx$:» dt^tiniln^ mhI t\\\\ <st Ufi\ U wluif. xk\^ $«(»<t4u 
Wtuil iihlk^ti<iMi i^ ihi^x^ tluit ^loh ^ii^ivli i^ ih>I 

owT jrltrt^Mwy twr ^^)>ii<Md« U^ whioh W U k»d by jtptt* 
uiiit^ d^vx^^ikm u> ilh^ uitxm^M:!^ %\i kiiuiMi llnm^t ;jia 

^ndd iu;jife^ dtvur t*^ tMirsiolvxxsi w)Mf jiw tlvi^ mlx>r* 

f?!!^!:^ ttrf ilH^ll^^hU 5MVil tiuit >KX^ 4hHlkl iVti* XrWtln^T t-lH*y 

d«> l<i^l 11$ t^ }Nt$\}lts xhAt wt^ iV(>t >A h((4ly ^k^ptWU 

y^m^r *Hir own xrin^^ ft^r fcvwr l«»t xci? skinikl <fHji«M)^ 
hf\m\ wir own <w|vs Mid rty owr iIk* (vUiiur^ initt 
oar oxru gMxloii. Lol u» g^M ;sdl iIk' ^li^;Mioii ttom 


philofiophy that wo can. In truth wo shall noyer get 
toil much. 

Duty for tho rout, the roailor muMt bo reminded of 
one thing that wan Haid in the ojiening chapter aliout 
the magnitude and iMildnismi of the demands that ro- 
ligious philosophy makes in coming to the study of 
tlie world. We siiid that we will be satisfie<l only 
with the very best that we can get. We want to 
find some reality tluit our ideal aims can lead us to 
regard as of Infinites Worth. If we cannot find that, 
then the best iNissible as]H$ct of reality must bo 
ehoMm instoail. We will not lie satisfied with little, 
if we can get mucjh. Our religious demands are 
boundless. We will not falsify the truth ; nor yet 
will we dreail any disaster to our ideal aims, how- 
ever great the disapfHiintment that would result from 
failure. But, while pursuing the truth with rever- 
ence, we will not withdraw our demands until we see 
that we (san get no (^srtain success in them. 

We insist, therefore, that the religiously valuable 
reality in the world shall be, if so we can find it, a 
Huprcme IWlity, no mere chamjo outcome of special 
eirciimstancsos, but an ultimate aspect of things. 

Furthermore, the s|iecial fonn that our ideal has 
taken dianands another ciharacter in our object of 
religious satisfa<;tion. It must be such as to supp<irt 
the realization of our jiartiiiular ideal. If a jKiwer, 
it must aim at the unity of our lives ; if in some 
other way a/pprove<l as the deeiH)st truth of things, it 
must show us how our ideal either can be realized 
by us, or else is already realized at the heart of this 


Such U Uio work of our soooiul IhhJc. Wo ii|>» 
|mmoh it not lui if w\« ox|h«oUhI luty iu^*HtioiU n^vi^liii^ 
tion« hut mlAy im having for our ouo lUmiro to Ami 
out wlmt n mMiHiUo uiiui ought roHmiiuiUy to think of 
tlio workl whcroin ho tlndH himm^f. 



Whes: w« tnni tx^gm oar wwld of idoib to Idbs 
VQcid aeteilhr abool vs^ «nr posikwn is BolatoBCift 
a li^pfgr poextioB. Th«» yokk ibodt w« love agRcd 
vqpoB^ in so £ar i& ldi«T aie ovr oivb, do bo* naJbe Idbft 
BixUL and pwfik- differ endletialT abool wlal Idbft 
world k and mnuGk Terr mfeonJDhr* dben^ w also 

For if w« want n^^d»«t»n. d^ 
can slandw in ^pod s^Md. w« must fearnodiine^ 
and WDBt ram dteiiskof all die dss&stiHs €i( tlwogbL 
TW war£ue of £ud» is so am^rr and aneiiHil^ iLhafc 
m noBt W emtent iJL widi oar best effiMrtSy mget 
anrldhittsfoiiitaf it at aD. As ndQ&xks of IsaiBts soBBfe 
taiL dodbdeasy for ccntixries hdfiovifr anj auKmnt of 
ideal agKcnwnt anon^ nwn is attained or eivn mp- 
praoiBBated^ w« must W eontoent if w« do ivxy fittfe 
and Bock tot boid. We ean Ve tukablT eextBun 

m m 

Aot in a world vliere nmlT all k daik tht Koek 
of onr labor will le waoted. Bat diis k natmaL 
There is diedeli^ht of airdTitT in tnorick-CKekiflig: ; bnl 
wImiu at die ovteeiu Toa eoa^aie jovr Infiets and 
daims widi the slttdoiWTand doohtlnl resnlt» Aajit 
j^NOL mar Kaelk dK> eonpaKon eanno* 3««m odier- 
wise tiian melaneluljr. Tkiwg^ die fiihiKft of nul- 

(»tu/ly, ki«i/w ihni it will 'M^iiaiiily) Im« l^i Ui «i ^mii^l 
Mi/i^'4f«Mf 'V\A^ iar-^M AiyUm t^stHii Up whU^U, Un- all 
yfti UmpWf imr fmig$umii of arakium may im imMng^ 
hut whU'.h Hi M^y rain wa rtmurd with Upuging mmI 
iltflighty iunmiiiuUm i\m immd nim of our ithlUm^iUUi 

III i\m iprMmnt «;tui|>(U»f, tlmrt^fipni^ w» lAiM lUvifU* 
mrmlvm for ti^ immt imrt Up imfsaiivi* iiHlti/^iiHii of 
o^ftoiii viawH iimt am or iwiy \m \m\A nhnmi Um wmX 

t\mi ukBipiUAmi iii ii(tu/lyiii(( r<i«lit;y in to M/Him «i> 
toiit umtn\^ Humi \mp\p\ti will ailiuit Ifcit oofc ovmy 
fOfii^ will foil//w iM ait i^i^'^ iiiOi (tii^ tlwrouifh^oiog 
Mill uii/'^/iii|^r</iiii(i»iiig iikii»|>ti<;ii»iii Uiat w«i mIuUI bavo 
to y^timni in Uia^ fi/llowiiig an i\m yary Iwaia ^/f 'mr 
IHmhivn iidH'^Uina, it in imr|>ii«iiij[; li//w i^aaily tho 
{>tiiloii</|itii/; iii^l U HuiUlUul ill tli4« iniii^ln of in/iat 
|Mfi'i^/ii4, i^y^i ill ttu^ mimU tpt tnuny impfmtmA {i)iiio» 
mpiiliUi t^iu^ii^iiti^, A Imw vary iii/iii|/la^setit numHsnm^ 
ri^a^lily if uiiiiii«lli{;iMy mPHWitrnA^ {mt Up rmt iim 
¥flupiM iUinirii tliat mu*U ihupipIm faal Up impHtHtumuUm 
ft^uMiPU. In tiwii tti^y ^titim Up \up\A ttiat a ^jt^rtaiu 
ili«r^^|M^;t w'Kii/1 \p^ nhpwn hy 'jii^ti//iiiii(; rmmpti 
any wpm t^liarply ; aii/1 tap tti^tir |itiiliM/^|^t»y U Wm a 
(UphgrmHUpHHl iHytiHiigniUpii of tim il>/iiigi^ of a {Kiliti- 
i;iaii» tup9idlm'.U*A by liii^ f«ll//W'|iaiii(i»ai»i«. tUit wa fmtt^ 
In wi'itiog tiiiti \i*pipkf tliat amiU a |itiil/Mii|itiy^ wlupm 
mAy \pwAiuimk it UUp^ wliiti^wiMli '* r^Maon^ ia an in* 

nE wwLD w wxxt. 239 

8Qh;loi«K9(»L SiMsoD'smTesligmlioiisofilsoini 
tore »re not pwtisaui affmirs condiMtied fortlie smbe 
of effect ; nor does reassmi seclu like a dtfiittgogaiev to 
1^ a pQfmfaur ^ rindfiealKM^'** but soMhr to i>eacli tlie 
4J«epesl possibk insaght into its own absolute tmtlu 
H(ence nie refose ntteify to liare llie foUowin;^ re- 
garded as in anr narrower sei&si^ an "^apologjr "'' far 
anj religioas tmtdi^ since the defensive or apologelio 
atdtode in presence of religions firobknis is onc^^ for ' 
all an insnh; to genuine leligion* If dieie is trulii * 
aksMoJute^ we desire to know tlie $anie« and if we CTinr 
g^ a glimpise of it, doubtless it will need Tenr fitde 
apok^ from u& But meanwkile wie propo^ie tot 
doubt feariesshr and tbonowghlv^ If our limits pre- < 
T»it here the proper exhausriTe search ^mt all the 
actual diflScuhies of the view^ that we }v«isent^ still 
we want to haxe^ and as far as mav be tK> s1k>w. the 
spirit of honest, determinedly con^ientKHis skepti- 
cism. A clerical friexKl of the autk^r's imi^rvissed 
him Terr much in eariv vouth bv the wonis : ** Gtod 
Kkes to have us doubt his existence^ if we do sio sin- 
ceielv and eamesthr.'^ These woids axe almost a 
truism : they surely ought to be a tniisni* Yet they 
have been fon^>tten in manv a controversv* Snielv 
if God exists^ he knows at Iea;st as much aKnit phi- 
losophy as any of us do : he has at least as much ap- 
preciation ffft a philosophic pn.>bkHu as we can have* 
And if his own existence }>rvtsent$ a tine |JiilosiL>{Aie 
proUem« he delights therein at least as much as we 
do. And he then does not like to see that |^i\>hlem 
half-hcartetilly handW by timid« whium^« trembling 
men, who oonstanlly apologiie to God because the 

280 rm HKMOioim Annor or raiUMorar. 

tncUimuMi (ft tmriM\n fiioU imtttnl tUhninU f<mMNi them 
t<i imimttt \n vitry frfi^tM 1iui)(iiih{i) mrUi\n tradiiimuil 
prtHtln itt bin tixUUftuw, N<i« mtroly ttiit in thin f»|rfrit 
wmilil A milmifil IIuhI^ if Iid nxinUi, Iwrfl um At^mmah 
tho qiiimiiiiti. Itiit wiilt Hi litttui iM tnui)h nwAtmrn mid 
olmniitM irf Ititml am wd try ic) Imvo wliim wo t<rfl orcrr 
A imthlmn in tnAilinrnAiiiM ; witli At Umnt ah mi»roil4NM 
AH AnAlyMiM (ft aII tlmt iM olimmri) Attil (limlitful Anil 
ocmtrA<li<!i«iry in mir own mmftiiMKl iiloAM ah wo n)umUi 
um in nimlyUtif m!iim<fii) with At limnt am m\mh $mfp9r' 
mm in flnilin;; out tlio wnAknitMM Ami tlm uniMtrtAinty 
of mm*n WAVitrin(( ntul UlHrAiniKl JiiilfpnontM ah wo 
nhtmUl \mnf( to tliM oxAminAtion irf An ImtKniAnt 
oomnionriAl invimtni^ntf— with At loAot no mtiob of 
OAutiint, of diliKmiiMs And <if dmiH wo MiMnilil op- 
pr«mi!li tbo rAtimiAl Mtmly of tito IliKboMt For wbAt 
CAn iniinlt (il<Ml morv) tliAn immUm blnnilorin)(? Jt 
in MbAniiTful tliAt rnon mIiohIiI $iViir bAVo troAtml tbU 
niAttifr AM if it witro tbo Aim of ri)li|(iotiM pbiloMot>by 
to bAVo A Mtoro-lioiiMo 9tl fonmilAto<l trAilitiimAl ah* 
MWOTM roAily wbitrowitli to Milomio isorUin trmibloMomo 
iwofilo vMllfal i\fm\tUtm, In tliDMo nnittorM tbo tndy 
)ibiloM#7tibii; iloiilrt Im no oxtonml ofiinimi of tbiM im* 
ttiAt WAy WArd fNfrMon ; tlitM tnily pbiloMot)bi<5 <loubt 
Im iff tbn viffy t^mumm of otir tlMrtif(lit. It Im mH to 
bo ** amm^tnl ** or ** MilitmMtd *' by mo And mo muob 
A)Kilof(<itio t>lDA4lin)(. Tbo fbmbt iM inboront in tbo 
NubJoiH^mAtUfr am wm muMt in tbi) iNt|(innin)( ro)(Ard 
ttio MAmo. 'HiiM ilmil^t Im to bo Mi)oo|tto<l am it oomoM^ 
Ami tbitn Ui \m iUivuhfjml in aII ito fullnoMM Ami in aII 
itM intitoMiiy. AV/r thn truth i{f tli^ mattar U c//n- 
r«/iW in thai dt/uU^ am tlio flro Im oonooAlod in tbo 

. <, . ' •(/'*..•• 

TBS WOftLD or DOUBT. 281 

tton J ooftL You oaa no tnoni reject the doubt and 
keep the inncrmoit trutb, than you can toaii away the 
coal and hope to retain its fire. 7%m doubt in iA§ 
iiMf jfAf parfitttly aiUiinifd. 

8iich miutt be our iipirit And now, to apply it 
at once to the proUe^nii before an, where ahall we be- 
gin our iiearch for a religious truth ? We are to find,; 
if powible, pome element in Reality that ahall have 
religious signiBcance. But how shall we do this un* 
less we have made clear to ourselves in what sense 
we know Reality at all ? It would seem that our re> 
ligious philosophy must begin with the problem of all 
theoretical philosophy : What can be our knowledge 
of this world, and whereon can this knowledge be 
founded ? 

A dark and dismal toptc^ one may say. But re> 
member, here and here only can our beloved treas- 
ure be found buried. Either there is no religious 
philosophy possible^ or it is here ; and here we must 
delve for it Nor lot one be too much tcrriflcd at 
once by the forbidding aspect of the question. It is 
indeed no easy one : yet to answer it is but to know 
the real meaning of our own thoughts. This truth 
that we seek is not in the heavens, nor in the depths % 
it is nigh us, even in our hearts. Only inaltentiaa 
can be hiding it from us. Let us look closer. 

This real world that popular thought declares to 
exist outside of us — we have so far taken it on 
trust. But now, what right have we so to take it? 
What do we mean bv it ? When we sav that we 
itan know it, do wo not moan that it is in some way 
bound to conform to some of our thoughts ? Or, if 

ym wiU iml iim ffintdrr in iim tmtmm ^mUr^ mA 
will my^ wiili mmmSnfi tmtAm^^ ttuit mw th/MiKttt l# 

hy^ tlo ytm tmWy muk^ ih^ tmMMf ^UmtM^I TIm 

whui U fi/i ik/^i((ti( ^/f imrn rmniAm^ Hm\ wn Imvh iif 
fimkif ^'Jm^ ^^ir nMMfimtMfM iA ikmi, 'VUU nmnrmim 
\Um\i^ if W4f K^ii it| w^^ilil mmm Uf \m \n \nfii Um mutm 
pm\i\9m tm U t>M» mmUmnSiy i4 wlii^ti it U Up mimfn 
wk, \im\i miffAn mtm\t\ \m tmiMSiU ttl ih^ HnUmtni rmi 
WfffhU M$4l iu tmt ^um^S^, V«d UiIm nmnfmum l# to 
t#fll fiM mmt^Stiufi nSnmi iSmi ^UmtiA mttf\A^ mutmSy^ 
U« ivmUmnhy Uf imrUAn tA tmr IhsmffitiMs Wimi 
mti w*f iiiim Uwfw niftmi miy irxWiml 4pUjmfl ni nll7 
^Vtm tMfUii$liy U mt oM tftrn. Our mfiutUm i4 tt^ 
ff w« K^d mty^ mmi A^^^MrtuUm \Sm ^thttU i4 tmt t^ 
WfH^nnk ^um^hi, f /Ml m mmniiA\ H^mU^ wltw# ikm 
A^^i^im\iy n.f\mm^ nnA why, WitM^mr 4tr fu$ \kmfn U 
\fttm\UU %ny mAniitm^ ^m l\\^f^inMy i^lniitly li^M in « 

A 11 i\m tumtuum u^*^\AtytAim\ mu\ rtASfi^nm i\sH^f\nm 
\h^\u \ry m^i\uy^ n. iUSnU^r 4f¥ttr nfpiimt mi pfnUtrfuii 
WfrrM^ whi/fli U div^lftkfMl Uul*nmtul$mi i4 hU iSunt^i^ti^ 
jnfi/l whi/flf SiU iSumy)ti U i\m% r*^\H\rm\ to finmp n,fu\ 
Utufw, ThU mnf\f^fm4l rt^lnihrn ttt Huh\t¥il mui ohJMii 
f(;ift*n mt^phynUm iis m*f$$iUiK\y UmpUthU* ffrhhUtftms 
HiIm iUUtUttr^ wiiftm Humfchi U tftm im^^ wliil^t ibut 
wtffM tmi iStt^fp^ U Mi^/iimr ityi^ if/fW tmt Im» hmrtt Sty 
wiiMi UikA*% \t\tu*^^ \u UU iSumyf^ti^ iSmi U^ \u i\m inm 
of tlMffi^ tw/i HuiffttmMi MtiH\^^ whtti f(49^ tm in Urn 
tfihirr tft U»«rM5 t^fiiUii^n^ iimttu^iy^ iu iim w//fW? Onm 
hff n\\^ iU\n murftiUfun mlHii^m iA \frHMM\t\iiAmA Juir' 

^r ■'•' 

f f 


manT between Uiese suf^po^ed sepanle entities de^ 
uuuMis philoscfliie deduetioQ. Ttie rebtiiMiu to be 
sure^ max be itself a metaphTsieal figment* We 
bold Uimt it is. We sbaJl tnr to sbow kneafter tbe 
btisektssnetss of tbis notion of a nvarM of external 
£Mt on one side^ in tbe harr^ft isolation of it» tran- 
seendental reaIitT« witb an equalhr lonesome thinker 
on Uie other sidev somehow masiealhr bound to fol» 
low after Uie faets of diat wi>rld* We boUU to pat 
it in plain langua^* that neither Uie external worid 
n<Mr Uie indivHtual thinker has anr ;^iidl realitr as 
traditional popular beliefs, together with most mel* 
iqpihysieal sehooK hare desired us to assume* But» 
frar the first, we eannot yet undertake to trouble the 
reader with tins our phikisophie speinilation* Thai 
will eome in its good time« we hope not too unintet 
Kgibhr, and it will have its place in our religious 

We begin, howeTer* with the popular metaphTS> 
ieal concepts of a separate external wvoliU and of a 
thinker bound somehow to repeat the facts of it in 
his thought* We ask* with popular metaphysics: 
How can we be sure Uiat he does tlus? And from 
metaphysical systems* both popular and unpopular^ 
we get an amaiing jargon of answers. 

The most popular answer* after alL is a threats a 
threat repeateil endletssly in all sorts of apok^tio 
books* but stiU a mere base* abject^ wboUy unphih>* 
sofiJiical threat* It is said to us that we must be- 
fieve our human thinker to be capable of thinking 
correctly the facts of this supposed external worlds 
because^ if he does not, the result will be disastrous 


I to the whole common sense conception of the world. 
If this thinker does not somehow magically repro- 
duce external facts in his private mind, then is our 
faith vain, and we are all very miserable. It is as- 
tonishing how this, the most helpless abandonment 
of all philosophic thought, is constantly reiterated 
by certain of those who pretend to be philosophers. 
Can a threat scare us from philosophy? To get a 
sure foundation for our religion, we begin by addng 
how a man can really know the external world at 
' alL We get as reply the threat that, unless we ad- 
mit the knowledge of the external world, we must 
be in eternal doubt, and therefore wretched. To 
doubt this knowledge, we are told, would be to 
doubt all that makes life worth living. But it is 
just because we want to find a sure basis for what 
makes life worth living that we begin with this 
doubt. We are determined to get at the root of 
this matter, however bitter may be the evil that will 
befall us if our skepticism does not succeed in get- 
ting past this guarded gateway of philosophy. We 
persist in asking, all threats to the contrary notwith- 
standing, just how and why and in what sense the 
external world can be known to us, if indeed this 
conception itself of an external world is justly 
formed at all. 

Yet we grant that the full force and need and 
bitterness of our problem may not be plain to the 
reader, unless he has first undertaken to examine 
with us at some length the philosophic character 
and consequences of this popular metaphysical con- 
ception of the external world. To get him to share 


wdl <mr d<mbt) we muat first provisioiuJly acoept 
tkia notion of popular metaphyma itself* We must 
waive for the moment our di£Beulty, that it may re> 
cur to us with greater impoctanoe by and by« Let 
the reader once eome to see that this popular notion 
of an external world is an utterly vague conception, 
capable of numberless forms« and religiously unsat* 
ishu>toiy in all of them, and then we shall expect 
him to feel the force of the deeper philosophic prob- 
lems involved* This present chapter will therefore 
proceed directly to an examination of the popular 
notions about Uie external world* We shall exam* 
ine them, namely, to find whether they offer any 
religious aspect We shall find that they do not 
offer any such aspect in any satisfactory sense. 
That the good is supreme in the external world as 
popularly conceived, nobody can establish. This 
supposed extenial world is once for all a ^y orkl of 
Doubt, and in it there is no abiding place* When 
the reader has come to feel with us this truth, then 
he will be ready to look deeper into the matter. 
Then some other more genuinely philosophic con* 
ception of Reality will have its place* Hence in 
the rest of this cJiapter we shall be accepting pro- 
visionally notions that we are hereafter to reject, 
and assuming much on trust that is at best very 
doubtfuL We shall show that, even so aided, the 
popular notions about the religious aspect of this 
world cannot bear criticism* This visible world of 
popular faith will lose its worth for us. We shall 
have to look elsewhere. 
The religious significance once removed from the 


popiilnr roAllHtio pbiloMojihy, with itn onidoly matio 
phyMioiil iiotiim of things, wo NhiUl be randy to llntaii 
to Mktii)ti()iMm nlHrnt tha fcmndntionH of thin notion \ 
And wa mIiaU ba randy for noma naw aonoaption. 
TbU naw amimtiition will indaail not f nbiify tlia trua 
moriil inimuiiijif of tbnt innoaant fnith in n rani workl 
uiH)n wbictli wa luiva mo fur da)Mindad in our raHaarah. 
Tlia |M)puliir notion of nn axtonml worbl, praatlanJly 
UHaful for iniiny purjioMHi, nnd miillaiant for nmny 
fiaiantifla andM, will ba rafutad find rajaatad in ita 
aontriuUationi nnd in itM nliMtirditioM, but tha nouI of 
truth tliAt ilk in it will l)a nliMorbad into A hijjfhar 
aonoaption lMrt;h of tha atomnl Itaiility mu\ of our 
raktion tliarato. Our Maaniing hmn will baaoma our 
gain. TImt biul ilramn, tlu$ ilaad nnd worthlani 
World of Doubt in whiah moMt of our modam teaah- 
wn ratimin Mtuak fiMit, will ba trnnHformad for un. 
Wa Mhiill Mao that tha truth of it In a highar Worldi 
of gh)rtouii raligiouM MigniflaAuaa. 

Bo for tha (IrMt wa turn to tlmt Nuppbuad world of 
IHipuliu* uiatAphyMiaM, to toNt itM raligiouM VAlua. It in 
<mna4tivad am a world axiMtont in n\mm And titna, And 
AM A world of raAl thiiigM whiah Aot And intarAat. For 
aonviuiioncm maIco, wa mIiaU in tlia following UMa Um 
word i^)wor to niaan Any ona of tlioMa tliingM, or Any 
group of thnui, tlmt in thiM axtomAl worhl mAy ba 
MuppoMod to produaa aifoatM upon Any otlutr thing or 
group of thliigM. I lowavar thnMo PowarN gat tluiir af- 
floiiHUfy, tho mliglouM MigtilHaAnm) of tha NUp)K)Mad ax> 
toriiiil world, if it liAM any, niuMt lia in tha Mupranuiay 
of thn (iood ill tluN world of tho I'owarM. Ona muMt 
tlusn viaw thiM axtoriml world hlMtorioAlly am a mtm 


of PbwcrSy wUdi work togeilwr in luunMxiy or in 
diacord, and wliiA giTe joa IVud nc i t k The rriighwf 
idemk most find m&imc&m bere, if at aU, in eon- 
tpinpbith^ die goodness of diese poireis and of Arir 
wQric& If the rdigiooe ideals here fail, time will 
be the odmr aspect iqpen. Begardcd in a tmljr {diil- 
osopjiical war, and in its eternal nature, the world, 
as we shall hereafter come to see, cannot he s u ppose d 
to be either a power or a heap of powers^ For po«> 
ers hare their beii^ onljr in time, and onljr in rd»> 
tkni to one another. If Aen all fub whm we eon- 
sider this external wf»Id of powejrs, this ^ment of 
popular metaphrsies, the eternal nature of reafity in 
some deeper riew of that nature ma j still be fbond 
of infinite rahie to us^ In fmei we «Aaff find As 
sean^h f&t a reKgioos truth, among the powers of dus 
populailj eonceiTed external world, Terr dishearta^- 
ing. The jargon of their contending Toices wiH not 
unite into anj religioos hamMxij. We shall find 
these powers Eke tiie thunder and the fire. The still 
smaU Toiee is not in them. We shall be diiTen to 
some other aspect of the world. We shall ajqproadi 
that aspect in ways that imph* no disrespect to those 
who hare been so loog scientifieaDj studying the 
historr and fwces of the assumed external world. 
Their results^ with the practical consequences in daily 
life^ and with all that Agnosticism about the nature 
and purposes of the powers of this visible wvM 
which such men nowadays feel bound to prodaim, 
we shall on tiie whole accept. We too shall be Ag- 
tics« namely, as to the powers Uiat role the visible 
world. But we shall find a naj different way, un- 

// ,' y / / . . / f 

' • 'I 


trodden hy scieutifk; research, and yet, we hope, not 
a way of mere dreamN, not a way into a world of 
fancy, but a way that leadu us to a point whence we 
get a glimiNie into that other asiMM;t of things. This 
way Modem IdealiMm nince Kant has been busy in 
ihiding and cbaring. I low wearisome some of the 
exploring ex{>editionM have been, we well know. Our 
search aUo may end in a wildemens ; but we fancy 
ourHelveii to have found an ojien {lath that to Mome 
readenf will deem at lea«t in part new. And some 
of tlie pro«{iects on that road may not be wholly dis- 
heartening, even to tlie mo«t exacting religious 
seeker. But all thi» in anticiimtion. First then: 
The World as a theatre for the display of power, 
physical or metaphysical This is the World of 


Let us beg^ our study of the powers that work io 
gether in the Mupponed external reality, by accepting 
for a moment, witliout criticinm, the notion of this 
supi>oNed external world from which Mcientijlc ejupe- 
riertce mtn out. Jjtst us Hay : there it is, an objective 
world of moving nmtter, subject to certain lawM. All 
the {Kiweni are but nmnifetttatbnM or forms of mat- 
ter in motion. I%netii revolve, comets come and go, 
tides swell and fall, chnids rine and rivem flow to the 
sea, lightning fiashcM, volcanoes are active, living be- 
ings are bi>m, live, and die, all exemplifying certain 
univerwal prini;iplcH, tliat are diiicoverTible by experi^ 
ence, that are cafmble of being wied to predict the 
future, and that are related to one Au/ither in suob m 

)ti\v« tm> ulUm^U^ ifivt^^ tniih^^ AW kXM not lutik^ 
thtMiu t^Mu\oi MH) why ju»( tht^y «uul luw^ othor w^i^ 

im>. Th0 whtj0 wtn^M U «i vii*t lunohint^ A *uJml 

0i)^ ihtit ]4)i lMti«Hs MuK in m^r own tl^iomiimu lV»f« 
D\) IV^ti KoynumtU luivt> m> tintvly t)t>)H>HbtH) ^ ih« 
iK>ionUt)o U)oWI« 8nt>h ^ xnlwA \\\\^h% )mYt)i «u\ univ^T- 
$»X (tmnul^ in \U \^\$miMiKW\^ t^ k^y to ih^ my^tt^rii^ 
of tho MUHH>^t^i t\f )^i<^nmnt>nti« Sut>h ii Wini; otnUt) 
th<^n» n^in^^ Uua ftmnnltit t^onUtt> tUl 0vt>nK ^ ti»* 
irtmmnt^ni now imnUot iH^li\vN>*, At <>wry in»t^i«l 
nuUUtoiU^ of tUr jnUaAtim^M tjniN'tir tilnnit u«« Tht^tM^ 
in tUi iht^ir ftmn^ onv niim) )HWk«itvuHH) K\t iixW univi>is 
mU ftmnniti% wtniiti Imvo Wn «iMo t%> jmniiot t^^ 
i^\ ju«t «Uk iH^rUUnly ^ ;^H>n now iHM\ i^ivtiiot tlmt tht» 
»nn will x\m tt>anwrt>w niornii\);. All U i^rtnlt^U^t* 
n\in«Hl ; tlH> stlUtii>r trf owry iot* orynUU tvn y\mr f ihmmmi 
winiiow-)HU\«v« m^ ii wintt^r mtmiinnti^ tht» qnivt^r of 
^\^ry \\\\\m>h In th^ tiwith (it^>ny trf tho fi*li thiit you 
}\\\\\ ont ivf ti monnUiin^tivMOt th^ tudWwg tvf ^Y^i^y 
yt>ilow \t^ \\\ tho mitnmn wtHni** — om^h trf ih^«o 
t^wntii wnW h»w Wn ftrnwun^n* nnitht^nmtii^ly wU* 
oulttttnU Wi\\\ fully tioiH^rilnni* by m\0 »Wt^ t%^ n*i> th^ 
nnlvt^iWl fovnnil^ tuul )hmum>)iii«h1« n\Yrimi» ii tinmA 
*^^\ tvf (u\ t^x»ot knowltHljtti trf tJn> ^H^Utw* tvf tho 
nUuuA tvf tht^ ori|ti^^^ nt^lmin fn\in whloh onr ifnnit 
tt^Mlw *y*ti^n\ tHuuiwi*tHi, Snoh i* tho ntitnml wtn^W* 
AVhtit rt^iintituiti )Mi)HH^t tHu\ thi« Yn»t nmohint^ pod^ 
tMMM y AVhftt room U Htm^ for «^ hiig^ nA^^mmi to 

240 TifK RKMcifotm Afii*K(rr ov rm/momr. 

\m \ninHUuHH\ itiUi UiIm minHi of ilimil tttiiUtinttfiilcQil 
flMtU ? TIhi miMWur irf mmm rii|»rMMi|iiiiilvitM of pmiU 
iitMfn in our lUy U wkII ktiowit Uf um. WlmUivnr nlun 
U iloiiltifiil, Mfty Mtii^li itiMii, ilt«tr«i mImhIm fnni ilm ((nuit 
lnw of proiffuM. Kvoltiiloit III ilm |iliyMli<iU worlil 
Inhkiiiium MdiiiiU |iro|(niMM In ilio workl of liiinmn llfn. 
Ilin world, tiiidor ilm liiflmmi^t of nil iliitiMt fiir-r»ifMili« 
\uu InwM, U niiiimlly K^tmUiu for^vfir iKiiinr. 'Ilitm 
nniiirnl kw nKruMM wiih iiiorMlliy. TIium ilmrii U a mi- 
liKioim ii^|Ntiii t4i ilio tiMuilmninfil Ihwm of Ut<t unlvnrMif 

l^ii 1IM iiimMldnr otM*«i nioro ilin luw of proffmiM. 
Wii M|Nikii of It In M pruvloim (ilmtiinr. Tlmro li 41(1 
not liiilp MM. For wo wftnl^Kl to t^rm u\H$n ilin tw- 
tiiro of titorfili(.y. Wn wuro not IimIinhI iowftrdu mu^h 
MKriuitnoni hy ilto knowlmlKo ilmi Uii«rM U In tli^ 
world n piiyMli^nl nvoliiiion. I<^>r wo iionlit not UiU 
whMi oti|(iti i<i Ins nioriily liy oonMiilorln|( wlmt U, 
Wt^ \m\ HrMi to t^^rm ti|)on n inorMl litw, Imforn wo 
oinilit (litoldo wlNiiltiir Kvoliiilon Im ni^itiHlly |»ro|(riiMM. 
Kilt now, iNirliapM, wo mn iimko iimo of ilio kw of 
ovoliiilon to iiid otir ini|iilry into Uim rnllKlotiM imiHtot 
of rniilliy. Kor now, liHvln|( iloHniKl wlint ilio ((innI 
Im, wo niMy onilnmUi wlioilior Uto world Im ^rowInK to- 
wftrd Uio ^ood. And If Uio world U inoritlly pro- 
IfrfiMMJnf^, Umn ono f^rimi doniitiid of Uio rullffloim oon« 
;mflotiMiM<M Im fiiHIllod. Tlton ilioro U n |Niwor tuti 
oiirMolvoM tJmt workM for rl|(li(4ioiimiiiMM. Or Im tliU 
rimlly Uto oiMiM04|uotM*o of Uto lnw of ovoliiUirti ? 

1*iio ilrMi miMwor U Unit If Uioro Im M\y tondonoy 
Mi work In tlio world Uiiti itM Unio ((oom on nnn'o mimI 
nioro liidpM nion In Uioir Mirof^^lo UiwurdM niomllty, 
tlilM titndonoy Im lndoo<l, itM far mm li gooM, what Wtf 


/.. ■. .f (. ., 


THE W(ttLD or DOUBT. 241 


want to find. And if suck a tendency 13 found, as : 
we are told, in evolution, the result is in just so 
far encouraging. Although the external world stiU 
often hindeis moral growth, yet, we are told, as evo- 
lution leaches higher and higher stages^ the world 
conies to hannoniae more and more with man^s mond 
growth. This also seems to be what we seek. In 
time morality will become a natural product of eaily 
childhood. Men will be bom with characters that ' 
we now seek in vain to develop by a life-time of la- 
bor. Natural evolution, then, does help moral prog^ 
resss and the world is more moral tonlay than ever 
bef ore. This then is to be the religious aspect of 
the outer world. Does it contain enough of the truth 
of things to content us ? 

We are far from doubting the scientific worth of 
the natural laws that have been discovered of late 
years« and that have made so clear to us the gr^eat 
truth of far-reaching physical evolution. But let us 
reflect before we accept these facts as fiumi^^hing any 
deeply important contribution to our present prob* 
lem. We thoroughly believe in evolution ; but wo 
must take« in these matters, a veiy high position. 
If the world of powers apart from man is to have a 
religious aspects then this aspeci must belong to tlus 
world as a whole. A minor power for good is not 
enough. It will not suffice to find that one bit of 
reality fights for our moral needs while another bit 
of reah^ fights against them« unless we can in some 
way harm«miie these conflicting aspects* or unless 
we can show that they that be with us are not only 
more important or significant than they that be 


against uh, but are really the d()epe9t truth of things. 
£I»o we shall bo loft f aoe to face with a gloomy world 
of oonfliotf whore the good and bad are mingled in 
hopeless confusion. If such a world is the fact, we 
must acoept that fact ; Imt we cannot then say that 
we have ma<le sure of an answer to our religious 
needs. Now sup|)ose that in examining the world 
we found two tendencies at work, equally fundamen- 
talf equally active, fairly balance<l in power, produc- 
ing in the long run equally permanent, equally tran- 
sient results, but always in deadly antagonism to each 
other, the one making for moral goo<]ness, the other 
for moral evil. Huppose that the world appeared as 
the theatre and the result of this struggle of the good 
and of the evil principles, could wo say that we had 
found in these facts a religious aspect of reality ? 
We should hardly answer in the affirmative. So 
jlong as wo must fix our minds on this struggle of 
lequally balan(*.od ])owors, we could not And the world 
a religiously encouraging vision. Wo should either 
have to regard the world in some other and higher 
aspe(d;, or wo should have to give up regarding it as 
religiously interesting. An answer to our moral 
nee<]s that is drowned by a hubbub of opposing 
noises can be no harmonious song. Now wo affirm 
that so long as ymi look upon the world as a growth 
in time, as a product of natural forces, as an histor- 
ical development, you can never make it certain, or 
even probable, that this world is not such a scene of 
endless warfare. Hence the progress that you may 
observe can never overbalance the probability that 
this progress is a transient and insignificant fact, in 


fVvr^ |v^1$nMd lUDi dib {Jiumm for a 1^ v iKiimwinJ* or 
huUkmi* of viNM« ukdk«iliM noiliiing dUwii aiqr Uv* 
kiuniKUDiT betwv>iMi narnn^ and niondilY^ 

L^ u» oUl alliMilioB to om^ «d^|wiiM« v^lMmowo^ 
VH of UMi iMfi^Wkiti^l in ni'^e'onl diM»ikMion» of n few 
fmmUuur fim"^ Moslem tM*NM« » jueoIy «an» of 
phY^icnl ^YolttiMik but i» no Iom mu^ UmU ^Yohb 
Ikw on ikb pluM^ » a pKv«^«iM» Uial Wgnn nl n 
pimod Jbinni bv a finili^ and in fiiN^ b\ a not wry 
I^Tvai tiuM ffow tbd priM^nt mouMtnt^ Tbai our 
(Janet wa5 a nebokmu nia«» at a datif at wotrt ;MniRS 
vhef«» bplwwn iwv^ix millions an^l om^ bnndn^ mil* 
Iiou« of vean a$^\ w^ baw aU biNU\t ami v^ bavi» 
abo bail eJL|JaiM»d lo i» ^um^ of tbi^ proofs of tbii 
fifeirtL iXir |4an«^ i» ^ill imi^rf^lv <f\H4«ML At a 
<>oni|>araiiY^lY ntni'iMii |¥fri«iHl in tbd bUtonr of tb» 
»teUar uniY\^^w^ tbi« littk» |Hxiui of it wa« a ^jtf^n^l 
t>f jclowin^ Ya)K>r« fnnn wbicb tbi^ nn^w ba^l ni4 v^ 
kf^n w^ivurait^t TW ivrvtiieut beat t^ tbe eanb i» an 
in^iicatiott t>f it^iL v\hiiK Kurtbennoro^ wbai our 
(Janif^ i:^ to ItenN^ne in tinMs tbe ukhvi itsw^If ti^lb ua^ 
bavin^ coixki\U bv nm«im txf it» :»iiaU «iai\ nnwi^ nip> 
iiihr tban w^ bave tU^no. i\J«l and dead« watN^oM, 
va)KvrliMik tbat little fum^wv^^i nia«» t>f voek «bMO> 
tatelv r^Ub tbnm^b it» ^>w dav^ik lo^Jiin^ witb pa»» 
«k«nW«» ^oare at tmr ^Ok^miv^ ar^Wnt eartK fuU of uhv 
lk>n ami K>t snffeni^. Wbat tbat maM ik onr eaftb 
»baU IwviiMne. And |Mv^:TVt«» ber^ will eiNwe witb 
tbe tiiW. AU tboM^ an^ tbe <^MnttKUDi|dai!v» x^ |^op> 
ubur A^ieney^ 1 V>^tvfM tben« a;iL w«» km^w it ben\ i» 
a faet of transient «ignific«uieo. l^l^pMeal natnra 

Vttf^tf'f^ ?* Mi hi^'i^Uiii> fff ft f^tinih iiH^mni pPtHmmi^ 
A Uhui (ft ^fr)<K^t^ hi 0^ h\^ft^ (ft iU^ (iifM^fm^m 

thiii^, hi mi hf m #^ ft4 Uwm^ h ptpmiit fHrnitt^^Hm 
jw^ hi wif miti^iifftthnni, H Uftmi iU^M hi if^ mmn (4 
iAi¥ iiiih^tm. ^tm iiipm ftt^ f >^ iMttiUHf tn/titi* WUmtf 
thmahifi #^ WAftd Ui t^itfttm ht hh fflii4^n n^ff^imUsA 

ihii., tffip fmyn, ftll ihin Um in^n Mi^U4pi44^i hnt^ 
(ttpi^U ^ft ihiip^f^. If ?.<! f^lly fifihh Uf hit^M, npm 

pttifftp^. I A iif4 iUh ftll ifUhi ^^ fiH^Vf Mnf #« 

ffttmiU flwf tMiit^hi Ui ttiit fft^^ htft^f^ friw* mi'ih 
fft^mt^ Hth)'f Ift H ii4Hf thtiUfih Ut hniU hiUi taUifiif 
mi Hithfiif^iy ? W Iwf inHii4^tf^ H wlw*f(w»^ t4itym (t^ium* 

HfiUhi hi httftt ftgM ? 

yMr rttfintiiy, ihni ihp ^tttM nimU Hii*^wpi' Ui mf 

ftUttrti UhhtU lud h^ t^H'hinii, iiti\, \iif f>M» ^«t* '»'^ ^'^ 

r^tf ft^f lifwf pvh^Hd ptif^rPM h rt^» J^N()^ftM/f^» fit fl#« 
fmfi^f''* 'rf *Jff» uii)fprf^h, i\mi iUp ^fi'hf^id U ft t^myii 
(If ft ft|.rM*hM#*rf ^rf ^f^r ffjfy, ^^ ftfiflll ^^ (^tm\iPiA Ifiit 
if f>»?« )fl iui\, mi, )t pthfH^fii prn^ppfm h ftf*i»f» Ui \h^ a 

iiiPPP t^4^0h\Hd, ftfi ^*l/lt )m flM* flf^^ftm /rf ftf.^^f«ft, flf^tl 

^ith^Hd ppn^fh^f^ U rt, iiipn*irtM fft^f io Nni^Piu\^ihU^ 


giiv anpport totdkf iwnl BMd» soko^is &» 
pMalntK 4xf tibtT Mortdk enast » h%h «wagk to pigna i t. 

disuLli hmt of tWsna k given trafc m saffiviaii 
tzfiuft to kwp tKkw wam. WlnHi tW oexl stsi^ » 
ivoieWiL I iMri>|MW» to b9(emt aoid to dij tkf fur 

hjoiie aai aU tkj iwnl M«dHv witxl A«« skill W 
atiCiim^ firaal «» dij fihift byvefier Aoa A» rvoKd 
en^ 4xf tibcT btlitt w tibqr g^woKr m tihi^ bat Nd 
isjs of Si tocpii aoB. Wlol » tkf prog^vw to b»?*^ 
Nock*« tim wIk£« Mr iwi dilikiihjr Iml Tk» »»> 
pveli of titat £iL-t» tkU w» BMT iHttA » thk. It i» 
man heauitx ptognMs is to «Biiitr« on tki» fihift for 
Si sfioct or for 3i loo^ tUBie* bat 5«cix«uw £4# aroridT m. 
mkick 6kU prfHp^9i§^ U tto to muL mvmsjk. thmi^ r^ 
yv^ad^ icAoOy imiiferfmi to proyT^:u^ — this i» tih» 
^booiT aspiet. To^t^ «v«ii wiiik progrvss » so 
mift kmi saK. st tkb wuwalu we arv EYisg in m 
world for whk'iu 9& sciientfe d&$pIatTS tt to ask tki» 
{N.*ogTe»» iti^ aB» indifEtfraili aitti nnnftsisentBiI a» tih» 
tfwting hiii» of an ^▼a{H>r;ftfti]i^ soap-bobbltf. Is th» 
pimieal fiict of pcogrvss.^ than rvgao^kii. s luxal 
kitp toi&f? 

Y«t mm tam aiwaj fiEom tbRwe phia aunl 4xEkn»> 
■tfnfiiuiiMid fac%s to aH sorts of fuitaestiit linnuBia of a 
toming goUien a^. Tlitfj make of fatore tumuuufij 
ai saintlT peopLe* IiTin^ in dj^Tocioiu or ai merrr pieo^ 
pitfv alwaiTs tfaini'fng to waltSKs ¥«t iiii»in«imt oC or ai 
seientxlur people* oalLiiLitm^ Inr soow hi^^r algefarm 
tile relative pmsctioas and motions of the moleenlw 
in the rucks on the other side of the moocL. E^reij 
iEWBLof progress is to be ledtiwd in thai: blessed 


246 T«i5 KKLioiou^ Mvum ov rm/momr. 

i\miu ft"<l w^^ ^^^ irtviiiMl t#» tmii^ n iminm thai 
i^milil prixltii'>45 ftll ihU hhnmHimtm \py \mrti phynuml 
hiw, Sffw wo ifiiMt iit4l<9i)<l winh well Urr ih« imm of 
th« yi?iif A, u, 1^000,000^ Imt w» uan nmnre no re- 
lif;i/yiM ftfit^iri hiftn iho kiiowl49<lf(i9 thui if all f;o<9» 
rif(ht ftit^l if tho mm Ici^m w^^ll at wi;rk, ih« tnmi <;f 
thai iUtm will lio tii^Ujf itian wi) iif«« F«;r Miill ibo 
mrrhl iim h wh/ili9 fpvitM no nnppipri to otir r^l ttutml 
mmln^ Uir im\y hy % hupjiy vuw\Am\i will thin hhrnmh 
it4t^ tx5 fKHMilih^ Or, in Autri^ two ti^h^ii^i^ ura 
i^m iwyforii fiM in th« wwhl^ i>ni5 wwking for <jvo- 
Ititi^m, fi/f f'^mi'^mtmtion «;f imi^gy in livinf; b^^in^^ 
^(tr mm*.nm^ iff ihnlr powww^ htr \rroffr0m ; tho <ii}wr 
|for diftniiMiiimi of mti^rffy^ Utr doaiht f^/r tho (l^truo- 
hm ill all that \n valtiahlo im imt mrih, W<9 \mm 
hni thi) latt45r UmAmu*.y han triiimphiMl qnito noar 
My i/n tho ni/Km« W(5 iM^ar that it in (^miain in 
tiini) i«i tritiniph im tbo itarih^ an^l that thi) f^hirr t^m* 
iWM?y in Uf Iw <mly irf tmnniimt niiinfriority, Wi> 
know that itn yrtmmi im^^lominanc.!) hi^i9 in^ phyn* 
h^ally n)Mfttkhi^« a hairfiy ai'/dihmt^ whi^^h a oonntiml 
r.ataniro)ilM) nii^ht at any numtmit \tf\u% t#> an mi\. 
Atu\ now w« ar« anki^il to n**/4$ in thin C/^mihinatiim <if 
fm?f/n a tit\\\f;umn m]fm^. For tho writ<n'*n part, Iw 
ri5ffini;n i^i r<?^ard it an anythin|( Jmt an intm'wtinf; 
ntfiily in phynii?n« Km Ji^li^htn in it an m'hmwA^ )mi 
it han notliitt^ t^t (h> with ri5li^i/m« Yitt nomi) \fm\i\M 
talk i;f a l{4tli^ion nl Kvoliiiiim. 

Ihit no i\tm\fi lN?li«vi?rn in nniv^tmal jwijfronn aro 
rpsm\y with hyf^H^lM^Mtn that nball nh/nr Iwnr nij^nifl' 
«ant a fa/ft pr/>j(ri?nn ritally in, A worhl that han 
pro^^nn^l m; many niilli^mn nt ymrn <hmhtlonn han 

THE wotLD or DOrST. 847 

reeoarces of wkieh we know nolhiiig. Tlieire are all 
the stus with their xwsk stores of energy. PoesiUy 
they are infinite in nomber. Prun^rew eettsing just 
here may fiaaih out in reneweil brilliancy elsewhere. 
Who knows what is in store for the future, when 
the present seemingly chaotic arrangement of the 
stars gives way to iraslly higher organiaed systems 
of interacting bodies^ in whose l^t life shall floors 
ish etemallv ? 

Well, all this we can all fancy as well as our 
scientific neighbors. Nobody would call such dreams 
scientific, but they are logically possible dreamsi 
and they are very beautifuL But they hare one 
terrible n^iatire consideration against them. This 
progress is either conceived as having gone on 
through infinite past time, or else it has no genmne 
significance for the true nature of the universe. A 
world that has now grown, now decayetl. that has 
sometimes progressed, sometimes become wor^, is a 
world in which progress is an accklent, not an essen- 
tial feature. But now, if progress has gone on 
through infinite time, it has so gone on as to make 
possible, after all this infinito time, just the misery 
and imperfection that we see about us. Let us re^ 
member that fact. This poor life of ours is in the 
supposed case the outcome of infinite ages of growth. 
That must be our hypothesis, if we are to cling to 
progress as an essential truth about the workL Very 
well then, all our temptations, all our weakness, our 
misery, our ignorance — the infinite past ages have 
ended in fashioning them. Our diseases, our fears^ 
and our sins — are they perfect? If not, then what 

U Um* iiMifining of mulUmH ])rogrmn iowurA {MfHWo* 
tiim ? For wai am an ouUupuui of UiIm iiifiiiiUi i>r<>i;* 
rtiim. AiufiUtir infinity of prograiM i^ not ifartiiin 
iiu«ii to roumvn mmh U$iimHmiUnm, llt$ri$ in \)rog* 
ftmn jmi Ui Um Miiiipln taut In it iiiii - riiiiiiiviil of 
nvil ? lliiiii iMin iiiiiiiiUf pi'ogriNM, im fatsUi Mbow m^ 
\mm by witli «»vil ytii Hnvhmovtul, AimI if pn^riMM 
in iiiHt tiMi i'»iiiovttl of nvil, ilmii wimt timntm proy- 
r<«MM? N iM^t ttui Uiiii|>omry rmmtvul of iivil imirn 
|>rolml)ly a iiu^ni (H$<;ii«Loiml i*vi*nt in i\m hlnttpry of 
tlm worlil ? 

It iM Miii'priMin^ tlmt wii <«v»r ttiinic of tiillcing 
ttlxMit univifi'Mttl jirogri^MM im an tmmuiltil fu/ft of tlM 
IN^pulfirly mnwAtivml nuUmml woi'lii. If notliin^ ifur* 
tain <{iin Im« niuiln out uibout it, Mtill Um^ woi'lil an a 
wliolii Miutnm, ttM fur im wi^ lenn jn^lgt^ by tlia aUiva 
<s<mMiiiitmtionM, mt in<liiYi^ritnt Up jn'ograM, tlmt it in 
umrynUmH to lH<liiil<l ilm mWifUnm iMinifort tlmt, in 
ilu*\v Mimllow o|»t!nnt«tii? fHitli, mo nmny aniiiililii \mih 
pli4 talii:), wliilif iUtty wMix fi^rvAtnt ovi^r tlio tlioiiglit of 
pi'ogi'itMti. l^ift im liiiVM <'limi' i<lt$HM ttlioiit tlu^ nmtU»r. 
Wliiit iti in iUii tnji$ nuturH of ri^uility in un niMnml 
HM nmliiy it/tM^lf. TlMtn |n'o^miM iw Htltitr an unm» 
iHtntiiil, utH\y;n\iU'.tiui hm\h*H of n^iility, or it in i^tur- 
nul* If i^rogrtftfti Imm bi^^n aUtniulf iium A^itliitr ttio 
world WHH in IIm^ lM^|^inninj< iniiniU'ly liad, or <iliM 
iniiniUf |irogrtfHt4 l^m imtm unuiblif t<^ ntnu^vi^ from tlia 
worl<l tb<t iiniUf <|Miintity of itvil thfit vviut ulwuyn in 
it. I^'or lMtr« in tli« <{nipiri<'iil world in avll now- if 
iiiiliM'd lb«r« in iiny itnipiri<^fil worlil lit liU — plitnty 
of «vil inuvniovi'^l. 

if you fouiiil n man nl^tvaliun numi on tlm nbu^ 


THE irOUD or MfdBT* St9 

slKNrev and iriwdiiig: il awar t» ittak» an «nhnk« 
meiiK and if jioa b^;an tto> aidbam Ids indhoBtiy) sm> 
bkg hfom eonsideimUe a mass of sand lie Iiad m l w eb d 
airar^ and 1m>w VMi» raBained in tihe sand-lull on 
wlaeli lie was iraildn^, jwoi mig^t sitQl eheck your- 
self to ask Idm : *^ How long; O iiii»d« liasi thoa 
l)««en al wotk?"* And if lie answ»«d tliat lie kad 
l)««»i w hg g l iDg awar tdieve from all ^^gxidkj^ and 
was in faiet an essmnlial feature of tike uniTiHK«» jon 
woold not onlr inwardhr marrd al kis nwndaieilf i» 
Imt Toa wooM he nioT«d to ssT : *^Sokeil^Ofmnd« 
knt tkoa mi»t tken kaTo Iwen firom all etenitjr anin- 
finitelirlaiT fellow*^ Mig^twenol Tientafetto>8ns|wct 
tke saune of oar law of nnivmsal pkrsieal progress? 

Bat let us already lunt br antietpation one fiouN 
tker tkoagkt.. Wkv is not any panely kisslorieal Tiew 
of tke world cfien lo tke same objeelioin ? If tke kisK 
tonr began by suNne arbitxaiy airtt; of wiQ at some 
time not Teiy lomg sinee^ iken tkb kistary^ Tiewiad 
by itself apart from tke ereative aiHU may be intelli- 
gible enoagk in its inner onity and signifieanee^ al* 
tkoogk an arbitxaiy act of will ean be no trae expfah 
natioa. Bat tke wkole pkysieal wmM cannot be 
Hoarded at onee as a eonqpiletia^ setf^jdstent wlicilo» 
witk an eternity of past Bfe« and as« in its deepest 
tratk an kUtorieal proeie«s» of any sorti. For it is of 
tke ossenee of an intelligible kis^orieal pioee!SS to 
kave« like a tragedy io Aris^toileV famous aeeoont of 
tragedy^ a beginnings a minkUew ami an end. An in* 
liniie saeriei^ of sonves^ve a^ts eannot be one oiganio 
kistorical piv^nvc!^ J^iker tkis eTeriasting smes of 
fnets kas no s^gmfieanee at aU> or ebe it most kara 

nUimy^, H^/t i' ^'^' w^/rkl in i»flfiiU5 in iiff^tt it ^Mfi^ 

'11^5 Umffmi t'jmiiitm^i inUtry tu i\ui ttumi iSmWmy^ i4 

AHmiMui^ SI 4*4nu*\mum ui mftms iitttt^, U$m(ifitm mi 
intUtiih 4'^miium^l nUrtj^ with iim \ptnfr Ufft^m tfUff* 
fiftlly ¥fm\nn^ mu\ ^ifiArr^rlifi^f sifi/1 ymh will t^tm wbiii 
Hit ifififiiUf Ifiaii^/ri/;^ \frtH*Mm in IIm) w^/rl/1 w^mi4 
fu^fMi. It wmil^l iA tumrm*, \m %n ^dU^rti^l riffiHtiii/m 
#;f ili45 muim; tlfit^Kf '^^ ^f^/i'y sit mIL If Um} w#frl/l^ t^ 
p^rtU'A ill iiifi4% «'.MituA im a wli//k$ tiiivi; iiiiy ^iTfiniiii^ 
liiAlz/ry Hi ftllf it in ili/ni \ut\H'\^im Ut Utttk in Umi 
m4ffUVn UtnUfry^ ha /liniin/d fr^/in i\m mtrUVn uttlU^fH^ 
iiff MiyiUmyi ol fnn/lHiiMniUil r^li^iz/iM nip^tiUUmiU'49^ 

An/1 m m^ $im iUrtmu \m'k Up tmt nliHftin^'ii^/itii, 
Tbin M|/km/li/l iUftu*M\^um iA m^^u*M^ iWm w^/rkl i4 
ntm\Umi\pU iiM'.^?liHni/^l law^ in wki/^li hU Uiiii((ii ilMi 
hmiffiwi Hf^ \m*4U^trtuuu^\ trtmt nil nUfruiiy^ iliin 
msUlMnnftiti/^l t$i$u'hi$m^ Uhm h r^^iil lii»U/r)r n// fn/fr#^ 
iliAn Um; i;h(/in|( sin/l Hz/win^ m^ftAUU^ w^mUi Imr^ 
fr//in /Iny 0* /lay mny itUUfry^ H|^ri fr//in Um? fnwd 
iliAi ifiiry //n/54{ /li/1 n/^ «<// /;hh i^n/l tUm tii tilU VAmt^ 

WHfitn^ iftiU'hstuU'Ml /fliHif^4{4( Ifffi'^ftrr; 1/iii wp ^dUTniinl 
jfr4fi(rmn^ wp hUt/fri^rtil m^tm Ut tlM? wli//^ — thini 
iM'.<nnii Um; 4'Jftir4^tiUft$ tft ifi^ |/hyt»i/7iil w/zrl/l im m 
wl»/f|/; t/; wlii/rfi w<? iir/? /lriv<rn. It i*» ;i niriHly tt$P»ii$^ 
4^t$Silmt\^ H pfiy^i/fiilly ini^rllij/itjir^ r^fttfArffiifftt^ \fi$% 
wUfii r/;lij(i//fj4 %i^u\\\titiUf'A'. hst^, \i ? V<rt t(M/;fi i$« Umi 
4'AftwMjfiiffft iliAi W4» niiMi liar^; 4tf M$y ^^niiil |/liyii» 

. ^ . ' ^ ^ ■* * \ 


W^ kaye gone tlinMig^h this thoray path of parob> 
I<^ui$« because wi^ w«uiit idr«<ady to imiitfate one thing 
as the r^iUt of it all« nameh\ that not vrhat thd 
{ure^nt world has ix^me f roni« not what it is becom* 
in^« not what it will he bv ami b\\ bat what it eter- ^ 
nallv iss mnst famish as with the deepesst religioas ! 
aspect of realit\\ All else is sobordinatew We do 
not eare so moeh to know what stovy anybody has 
t^> tell as aboat what has happened in the wor)d> as 
to know what iil mitral worth always is in the worlds \ 
so that whatever has happened or will haf^n may * 
possess a religions signitWanee dependent on its rela* 
tiioi t^> this reality* That whioh changes not« wherein 
is no variableness^ neither shallow of taming^ that 
most giN'e as the real rt^ligioos truth apon whieh all 
else will de)H>nd« A i^artiindar e>-ent in the world' 
may have a religions signitk'anoei bat that signifi* . 
cam>^ will de)^ml on the relatiim of this event to 
eternal truth* And the eternal truth is what W0 
want t\> know* 

Therefiu^ our search will become somewhat nar» 
rowed, wheno-er at least we gn^w fully convim^l of 
this truth* The ^^ iM>wer that makes for righteoos- 
ness ^^ will beinune a ciOH'^ptiAm of doubtfid religious 
value* An et^^rnal )H>wer« that with all its past 
eternity i^ work I'annot yet quite vindii^te right- 
eousness ? Perha^v) we shall have to fiml the religw 
ious as)M>ct of things elsewhere* But let us lea>'ei at ' 
all events, the wi^rld nl )Hire seiem^^ 

As we do so some objector may interpose the as* 
nertiiui that we ha>v generaliied too hastily in s}i<KSik« 
mg of the insignificance of the historical aspiM>t of 


thitigM ; for, tJtMP all, wo )mv(9 tuion ifilkitig of niit* 
iirnl W)ioti(f<). I^ei tiM turti then to tlio moro ]ihilo- 
(»ophi(ial i\w(frm of ttie inmi^rn thai are nt work in 
ih\n nnppotmi dxitirtial worlil of imttaphyMioM. Tbern 
uro ptiiloMo]ihi(tal DuHjrim i\uii try t4) Mhow UM of wlmt 
hiddoti riialiiy thiii moohatiutnl worl4l of oum in the 
moni ApfHiarafU'^s or plKmomotml MyttiboL Let tM 
MH) if any <H^ itiotn mn glvo a mliffiinM ititerpretntiati 
to the }>oworM iliat rule the world. 


, » / ' ' 

We jHMM, then, from the Moientiflo to the tnort 
iiietfi|»hyMi(;iil viow of the world. What eoti we hopo 
front realiMiio nietaphyMioM ? lAjt m flrxt oonnider 
the valti4) (ft that philomi])hio view nowadays moet 
frequently held, natnely, what in general in eolled 
M(m\nuh We hear nowo^layM, with almost weari- 
mnm^ re|ietiti(m, of MatU^r and Hpirit, of V(fr(^ and 
InUdligmii'^i, (ft Motion and HeuMaiiott, m being op- 
poMiU) oMpeeiM, or ttuwn^ or nmnifeMtati^niM, erf one ul* 
tiniaf/e llealiiy, unii) we wonder wk^lier elmr think- 
ing in not in danger (ft liming itself alt^igether in 
the r^onf^irriplaiion (ft a mere emf^y fonn (ft wordM. 
From wliiMperM end low muiieringM with tmteil trreath 
alK^iii the inmfniiahle myMtiTry of the uliimaie unity 
(ft Itiiing, one ttiruM wiUi ntiitntsu^Ufti to effortit Uf* 
wardM mmu) inUYlligihle a4U!i»unt (tt the mytmy in whieh 
all iliingM ean he regarded om fnanifeMiaiiouM of (me 
J'ower or mutual KxiMf^mi. Yi»t In tniih even the/<e 
effort ifi mt far tin they emiMider the world of the 
VowerM, have thuM far failed to Matinfy the demandi 

THE W(ttU> W DODBT, 253 

of criticisiii. Where thejmre deail J stated diey lie 
inadequate. Wlieie die j resort to figures of speedi 
and tell ns about the two sides of tiie shield, or the 
ocmTexitjr and concayity of the same cure, as iUus^ 
tmtionsof the ultimate on^aess of nature amid the 
various manifestations of experience, there these ef- 
forts merely sink back into dieprimitiTeinooheraMsy 
so dear to all pre-Eantian metaphysics. The same 
cur?e is, indeed, convex and concaTe; but matter 
and spirit are amply not the two faces of a curve, 
and the relcTant dreumstance on which this mete- 
jdior turns will never be dear to us untQ we leam, 
quite UteraUy^ wholly apart from faUes about shieUs, 
just how, in what sense, and by what evidence, mat- 
ter and mind are known to be of like substance. : 
And that we must do, ere this hypothesis can have 
for us a religious value. The failure of dogmatio 
Monism, if it should take place, ought, indeed, not 
to throw us over into die arms of an equally dog- 
matic Dualism; but we must refuse to accept the 
monistic hypothesis until it has been freed from all 
trace of mysticism. We shall here follow die plan 
announced at the outset of the duqpter, and confine 
our attention to Uie realistie Monism^ diat regards 
die events in the external world as the results of the 
action of the one Power. A verv different form of 
monism we shall oursdves hereafter maintain. But 
just now we deal in negations. 

Let us begin with the attempts that have been 
made to interpret the results of modem physical sd- 
ence in a monistic sense^ by regarding the ultimate 
physical or chemical units as endowed with some 


form of actual or potential conHciouime»M. Orgaxk 
iMtnM of the highest sort are combinationM of atoms* 
The whole is the sum of its parts. Why may not 
the mental possessions of these highest organisms 
be the sum of the in<leflnitely small mental powers 
of the atoms? An atom in motion may be a thought, 
or, if that bo saying far too nivuiii of so simple a 
thing, an atom in motion may be, or may be endowed 
with, an infinitesimal ccmsciousness. JMUions of 
atoms in interaction may have as their resultant quite 
a respectable little <;onsciousness. Huflficiently com- 
plex groups of these atoms of Mind-8tuff (to use 
Professor Clifford's ingenious terminology) might 
produce a great man. One shudders to think of the 
base uses to which the noble mind-stuff of Shake- 
speare might return ; but the theory tries to 1m9 an 
expression of natural phenomena, not merely an ass- 
thetic <*.reation, an<l must not ))ause before such con- 
sequences. And, if it 1>e the tntth, might it not 
somehow, no matter in what way, l)e made of relig- 
ious value ? Or otherwise, if true, might it not end 
our vain searcsh for a religion ? 

Huch is an outline that will suggest to the initiated 
thoughts (soinmon to m3veral mo<lem theories of be- 
ing. Are these theories in a fair way to satisfy mt- 
ical needs ? The writer is not satisfied that they 
are. Time does not permit any lengthy discussion 
of the tuHiUiV here, but let us retnind ourselves of the 
eonsideratiims that will most remlily occur to any 
one that is dis{M)sed for a moment to acci5pt one of 
these modem forms of monism. Even if they ))rom« 
ised us the religious aspect that we seek, we could 
mot accept them. As it is, we need not fear them. 


Gm our eonseioisness be regarded as an aggre- 
gate of elemeiitaiT facts^ soeli as s^Ksations or as 
atoms of pieasore and pain? If sc^ wbat aggr^ato 
erf sensadoiis foims a jodgnwnt soe^ as, - This man 
is my &tlier ? ^ Evidently Iiere is indeed an aggre- 
gate of sensations represented, but also something 
mo^e. TVhat is this moce ? A psodoeiy it may be 
said, formed through association from innumerable 
past experiences^ Granted fordie moment; but the 
question is not as to the <i»rigin of this conseionsness^ 
but as to its analysis. This judgment, whereby a 
present s4»isation is regarded as in di^nite relatioii 
to real past experiences* as a symbid* not merely of 
aetnal simsations now remembered* not merely of fa- 
tore sensations not yet experienced, bot of a reality 
whoOr outside of the indiridual c<»)seiousiiess* this 
fact of acknowledging something not directly pre- 
sented as neTertheless real — is this act possibly to 
be regarded as a mere aggr^ate of elementary mei^ 
tal states? Suielv« at best, the act can be so re- 
garded only in the sense in which a word is an ag- 
gregate of lettersw Fi»r and in the one simple mo- 
mentary conscioosness, all these el^aoi^its exist as 
an aggregate, bat as an aggregate f onned into <Mie 
whole« as the matter of a single act. But in thenn 
selves* vrithout the verv act ot unitr in which they 

«■ «■ m 

are one« these elements vroold be mereh* an aggre- 
gate« iw, in Mr. Gtimey^s apt wi»ds*^ ""a n^ of 
sand.^ Our mental Hfe then, as a union of innum* 
erable elements into the one Self of anr momenta is 
more thiui an aggregate* and can never be explained 
as an aggregate of elementary atoms of sensation. 

I Matd &>r Aprils ISSt. ftrtklft^ "■ Mi 

J ^ ■ f 

Hor umy w# my iimi Urn uJUidhIm lU/mUi i^iMtm of 
mmmiUHMmm iiMiy Im» m« ii W4^r«i» i^lmmUmily uulUid 

Uml iii<>m# ill #|MUMi» if iMidt/wnd witli mifliiiii^iitl/ 
uuimriHM iilliiiiiiii«y umy uttiU iiiU^ wlmt wbpliM y^u 
will) IM n M^niMl tm'i U n iiMwUii tmiif m^ imi 
Iii4>i'4a, All liliiiimii^ UuU^iHiiuUi^i unit of <^>iiim4ouii» 
iMMw, 4M/iiiu^ivii<l mIiui' Ui^ imi^Upgy of a iMiiMM«ii4;ii, <miii 
linvAi t<i mii^hJu^i* liku Miiit only oimi ^if UiriMi ri^lirfif/iM t 
h mi^y vAmaUi wiUi Q^U 'Hli^i' uiiii» or it mny |iiv^ 
AUMii5 <;r foJJiiw ii In iiiiiis. 'i'lii^rii i« $i*^ iAimr v^Uitiim 
IHmiASpUi. AMIiiity, or iiiii'iit'ti/;iit or ii|;|>r'MU9li ^/f imm 
\min or );liiM«ur*), of oim^ mHimtH^Am t4 i^r^mmrit or of 
uui^m Ui muA\m'^ U n $m!mAn\^U^m Jiii|{:(ii </f wor4iif 
uuiiw, UuUiAiA^ #M4'li iMi i5X|iri3M»i4iii U umi to mimii# 
fl|fun«iivi/ly Um^ r<^liiiiiiii« UiMi in immI U>r n vAHu\mf' 
tug* ^lutrM^iiiii;! uiiitiiii;, imi^I m^imruJ^im n^fttvn oom^ 
iiifii/ii«iM^, two iiliHiM lii'ii iiiimIa) Ui Imhm'. 'i'iiui^, tlii«ii| 
tlii« Mi<;iiiii; iMi;oiiMii l;riiigi^ m^ ii^i tmu'i$r UiiMi liM{<>r# 

if; Um^ r«djMiii/ll iMWiM^II Umj illlin 'if it<;||iM'ii;ii»l|MiM imj4 

Uh' fM^tlM of i^liyitii'Mj i/Miiii'A*. Kor Uii< riH^i^ liiiw urn* 
L'Um^U'mi iM'ii*iM'4j i^ttij \m MAiUftiwl it/ ri^iii'4 ii# mnJ^ 
liiil j/'/ioiM Hit iiiit'hiii|f liui iiiili^jH'iMli^iiiJy «»iii#i1iig 
frMgiiM*iii»» <;f mUitiy v/\h^m^ wli^/lij l>i«j|i|^ ij« \niMm\s*i\ 
h>vi/f out of Uii^M' }nU*imiyii nniis, mmi'rivlkiUnm m'H 

for ilM3 |;i-A5Mi'iii iii5|fliMi. AUiiiiii' iiM/oiitiii, n uyniiu^ 
#!**, or, iiMlwr, ia yimUh <if );l<y»jii;|i>|(ii^l imyi'hfUpgy 
wiili ili;i'iriiM'M ilmi im'<' iiii'i/iiijmiil/li' witli m^y iK!l' 

i^liiU' wlmi(*V4*|', IlliM IlI'Vi*!' li|4l»WorAl<l tili^iM^ '|U0#til|||#^ 

iMiil tUm^fiU'M iM'Vi-r will. 

J$ut lot UH iM liM ov«9r )Mi#ty. 'i'Ji4iro urii otJbf 


{onus of monism now extant. The por^ mstariak 

istk monisnu fcur niueh Uie haid and exli»feded atoms 

of naive realism ai« abready and in tlwmsdTes po> 

tentiallT mind« the dd-fashioned materialism of dajs 

when Mind-Smff and physiological psrvhology w«re 

alike undneamed of « may indeed be negleeted. 

That doctrine needed notcrilical philosi^y^ of moi« 

than a Tm^ undeTekqped soit« to do away with it 

onoe for alL Modem monism knows of soppo^d 

atoms that ai« in th»r nltimatB natore psydiieal; 

and of supposed psyehioal (oreesor agents that« when 

seen from withont, behare mnch likeext»ided atoms. 

Bat the old fragment of matter that, being no more 

than what every blaeksmith knows as matter^ was 

yet to be with all its impenetrability and its inertia 

a piece of the souU has been banished from the talk 

of serioos philosophex^ There remaiiu th«[i« the 

nnmeroas etikwts that s«ee in the worM theexprvssion 

of psychical powers as sndu not mere mind-stnff 

atonkSs bat ort^aniaed whcJe^ relate^l in nature to 

what we know by internal experience as mind« yi^ 

higher or lower« subtler or mightier^ wi^aer or imve 

£dolislk than the human intell^nce. These views 

mav be divided into two dassies : those that $»eie in 

nature the manifestations of a logical or intelligent 

power« aiHl those that ^^eie in it the manifestations of 

an alogical or Uind« though still psychical power* 

Each of these classes again may be subdivided ai&» 

cording as the power is conceived as conscious or as 

anconscious in itsi working* How do these ontolog* 

ical efforts stand related to critical thou^t ? 

first 1^ us eonsid^ logioal monisBk Sinoe kDh 



man intcUigenco in itMelf an activity, a working to- 
wards an end, and Hinco tho logical monist thinks 
the external univerHO after the analogy of the human 
reason, the conntant tendency is for him to conceive 
the world vlh a procesM whereby his World Spirit 
makcM actual what wan jKitential. Modern iiciencei 
in fa(;t, when viewed 8))eculatively, though it does not 
confirm, yet lendM itnelf easily to Buch efforts, and 
we can always, if we chooiKs imagine the evolution 
of the organic kingdom an iM)HHibly the process of 
self -manifestation of one eternal rational Power. 
Only in this way we are very far from a satisfactory 
ontology. A world, the work or the child of the uni- 
versal reason, developing in time, how can any re- 
flective mind be content with this account of things? 
The universal reason surely means something by its 
process, surely lacks something when it seeks for 
higher forms. Now, on a lower stage the universal 
reason has not yet what it seeks, on the higher stage 
it attains what it had not. Whence or how does it 
obtain this something? What hindered the possible 
from being forthwith actual at the outset? If there 
was any hindrance, was this of the same nature with 
tho universal reason, or was it other? If other, 
then we are plunged into a Dualism, and the good 
and evil principles ap]>ear on(H3 more. But if there 
was no external hindrance, no illogical evil principle 
in existence, then the universal reason has irration- 
ally gone without the possible ])erf<H;tion that it 
might ])(mscss, until, after great labor, it has made 
actual what it nevcir ought to have la(;ked. The in» 
finite Logos thus bc(K)mes no more than the '^ child 

• * 


pfatTii^ widi Inbhles'^ o£ die oU pliflaBoiikex^ 
ETcsydm^ dbcMri; die prooosB o£ evolntKHi WnH&es 
intelligible and fall ol pupow — esMf^^^ die £Mi 
dot diere skooU be any proeess at; all ^^ki^ all was 
in« and of^ and Cmt die univmsftl raason at tiie oirtsietL 
TWe infinite pov^H* bas been plajii^ widi p«te«dan 
as a cat; witb a moose;, ktdi^ it ran amiT a £eir 
SMtts in tinie^ tbat it mi;^ be eaii^:iit once nMae in a 
fitde dttse^ inTolrii^ tiie bistoiy ol doaie wiillifiins ol 
w^cntUs ol life. Is this a mxtbT oonciqitiQn ? Xaj; 
n it not a seU-oMitnidietoiiy one ? ETolndon and 
ereadTe ReasMo — aie tlMT oompatible? Yess in- 
deed* wben tbe eTedution is «»kdL tiie harbr-bmly 
done^ tlic battle kis^ and won : but meanwbile — ? 
In shorts eadier exxdution is a neoessitr* one of tbe 
tmelre labors of tbis Hemles-Absicdiite^ or else it is 
inationaL In tbe one «kse tbe Absvdnte miast be 
ecMKeiTed as in bonds, in tbe odier case tbe Ia^^is 
most he <«nceiTed as bhindmng:« Botb ooneiefvrions 
are rank noBsense. Tbis kind of Monism will not 
satisfr erideal demands. 

And tben tbete is d>e objection* stated br Sebo- 
fenbaoer^ and by we know not bow manr hefcvte 
bim^and tbat we have alxetadr insisatied npMu namehr* 
tbat eTV9T bistorical oi^iicepdon of tbe incwU as a 
^rficde^ ereiT attempt to look opon Bein^r as a ra> 
tional Jewess in time« as a perpetual exicdntaon from 
a lower to a kii^ber, is Kesset bv tbe diffi^^ohr tbat 
after an infinite time tbe infinite prooess is still in 
a TeiT earfy sxa^. Infinitely pnc^riessinf^, always 
{^rcvwin^r better* and yet retacbinjT afler all tbis eter- 
aity of ^nxk only tbe inoobeaenC troobloiis^^ blind 


imperfection that we feel in ourselves, and that we 
Boe in every dung-heap and sick-room and g#vem« 
roent on the earth, in every scattered mass of nebu* 
lous matter, in every train of meteor-fragments in 
atie heavens — what is this but progress without a 
goal, blind toil? The world would be, one might 
think, after an infinity of growth, intensively infi- 
nite at every point of its extent. We mortals see 
no one point in the physical universe where one 
viewing things as wo in this chapter have chosen to 
do, namely, from outside, might lay his hand and 
say : Here the ideal is attained. 

Yet we should be very far from dreaming of ao* 
cepting the opposing dogmatic theorem, the antith* 
esis of this sublitne Antinomy, namely, '^ The world 
is the product of an irrational force. The One is 
blind." Schopenhauer undertook the defense of 
this antithesis, and, in bad logic, as we all know, he 
somewhat surpassed even that arch blunderer, the 
imiversal Will of his own system. This Will, after 
all, desired a good deal of trouble, and got his wish. 
But Schopenhauer desired a consistent statement, 
and, with all his admirable ingenuity and learning, 
he produced a statement whose inconsistencies have 
been exposed too often to need much more discus- 
sion. No ; to the defenders of the alogical hj^oth- 
csis, as a dogmatic do(*irine, it has not yet been 
given to make out more than the ])urely negative 
case that we have stated above. Dogmatic panlo- 
gism can be assaulted, with much show of success. 
The opposite doctrine has not yet been dogmatically 
maintained without even worse confusion. 


Ptologiam and Alog^am luro dU&eult enough in 
th^iumJv^m but bow muob woind beoc4»«« tb«ir eon^ 
lUtion wb0«« lui in tb^ ^^ Pbilo»oi>hy of ih» Uneon« 
w)iou(k** of Von Hiu*tumnn« ^itbor on^ of tb«iin» or a 
b)'bru) t4 tb0 two« it burd^n^i witb pt anotber by« 
poth^^it namt>)y« tbat tb^ On^ Bimkg i» u«iH>nw^ioua« 
nut) yt>t in nature payobioal« Foumiing biinm>if on 
(HMlain pbyaiologioal fai>tim v^ry lioubtfuUy int«ir* 
pn>UH)« on a monntroiw piMrv^TMon of tbo waib^uiat- 
ioal th^ry of probiibiHti<>m tui an ing«niouii view of 
ib0 biHlory of pbiIo«opby« on a lik^ ing^tnioua oriti« 
oiiun of Kautt Von Ilartnuum baa oxpound^ti an on- 
toli^ioal i)t>0trin0 of wbiob« aflM" alU m>riou)i tbougbt 
oan niako notbin)ir« TbU untHuxnoioun Xmn^f^ t^xiat- 
0«t not for itttt^lft for it ia tnuiac^ioua of notlung^ nor 
for otbt^r^ b0Oii)iiit> all olao ia a )vart of it (aiuU for 
tbv n^tt nolnnly ewr tboiij^bt of it b»*fort> \\n\ Hart- 
niaiin )« ahall bo tlu^ niakt>r aiu) u)d\iJt)or of tho uui- 
Y^i>H>« SunJy all tliia ia a pbiloao)>hy of rouml 
aqnar^a^ aiu) ia ni»t U^ \m> taikon %t>ry m^rioualy. 

Of oouraD tho pn>viona oritioiain ia abaurtUy inad- 
tH)imto to tho nia|*iiitiu)o i4 tbt> problt^ma involv^U 
ant) ia inU^utltn) only aa tbo nu^ivat akt>ti>b« t)o|irwat- 
ii>ally atatiH)« of oritical objtH^Uima to wrtain onUJo- 
jfU^a, 8tH>inin|i^ iri^wrenw, in thia baaty atylo of 
«)oin)i: batUt\ muat bo ))art)on«H)« Only iigainnt ini- 
|H»rfwt nu^taphj'aio aa anob do wt^ wur* (Vitiind 
jdiilivmtphv btdila no U)«H»i^tit^ iipiniiui auortnU jnat 
an it n^piinla no oarniv«4t pmotiiuU fniUi m otbor thun 
attortnl, Tho quontion ia hon* not yot wb^t wt* an* 
to Ih'Iiovo, but what \v«> oan in Hrgunu^nt maintain^ 
and wbat our method of aoarob ou^^bt to bo. AImio^ 

202 TiiK ttKuatoim Anncm* or trnturnvm. 

luUi unit Ittiiniin, Iw>((«»i4 uttil not Iw)kon, Mitul-Htttff 
uttil Hplrii - wlmi uro ihi^y nil for oriiidnl |iltil4M<»« 
|ihy, but, ill ihn firMi pliMtis murM liitiitM, iMitMMt|»il<mii 
(if rimMitt, Ut Im ftiitrttilnNNly ntmlyKud wiiliiMti r«i|{iM*<t 
fur (*ofiMm|tutttiH<M ? 

Onit wity n«itiiiitti4 whi«r(«liy ihii4 rtiiUUilii mimiimt 
nfiti Miill Imi|mi ill vtm^U M NftiiMfnitiffry NtMinttititii of itm 
worlii |irolilititt. HitptNiiNi ilmi, oimw for mU, ib^ hU- 
ioriiml fortti of MiaUtftimii Im (tlmttilitti^Kl, wliili< ih^ no- 
tion of tlio \U^imm liM ti {NiWMr In rotitinnd Thin mny 
Iwilono in MitltMr of two wtiyM. Tho univi^rMftl nmmm 
nmy Im (MiniMiivml mm niiinifiititinK itiH^f in tinn^, but 
not in II iNirii^M of itvnntM timt nm unitml mi tlm {mrtM 
of M Mln^ld priN'itM. Ttii^ worlil-lifii lufty tm (vinmiiviMl 
not MM M Min^ln ltiMt<iry, but itM un oUiniMlly ro]iiiM(iNl 
}inNbi4*t of tliii ( hm r«MMon, n |iriNiiiNM dvtir r(Uutwo4 
MM mnm mm ibiiMluKl, mu inilnitu M^irinM of ffrowinif Mml 
itiM*MylnK worbiM >» worblM tlmt Mro lilcii tbo Uimv^m 
of Urn forMMt, tliMt M|irinK t^'*'' witlM^r tltrou^b mu <iUtr- 
nity of iibMn^inK mi^mmoum. 11im rMtiouMlity of itt4» 
worbl^priMmMM Im tluiM MMvmt for our tliouKitt by tlt# 
by|NrtbiiMlM tliMt roMMon Im not lilcn m lN<lMt(«(l trMVi^btri 
WMuiliirluK tltrouM:b tlm nlKltt of tintis Mm«l(inf( for 
M Milf ri«MlI/MtIon tliMt iM niwur rt^Mcb^il, but, rMtlmr, 
\\Ui% tliM Nun tluit Miii'li ilay bo^iuM MfrnNti liiM obi 
tMMlt, ri*joirin(( MM m M:iMnt in tlm fullnoMM of biM Mt* 
tMiniMl |Miwiir. WltoKvor rn^MnlM tbo worbl mm it now 
iM MM piMinly m Mudb'iitnt t<«|>rMMMion of inflnitn rM- 
tioniil |)owi«r, iM Mt liliirty to M4w*ii|it tltlM lty|Nitli»MiM| 
iMtt lin niUMt |in<|)Mro to MUMWor tlioMi of IiIm objmft- 
iit'M to wlioni roMMon uimmum pi<i'fi«i'tion, Mn<l Ut wbom 
tlui worbl of M^uMit will not M|t|Mmr mm JuMt Mt itnuMnt 
tnorii |Htrf«Kit tlinn tlui worbl of (hmlMn ^tidri' 

J «;>«•>•% \ V ^ >i 

Tfic woitLD or wen. S6S 

«D<>MU For <^wnr ono biit the blind optimi^ theioci 
i» difldoulty in ix^Epyfxiin^ this wind-$xno|4 Imtll^fiold 
of hunuui Action as obviously and mltogi^th<^T a drmma 
of unhind<^r^ infiniti^ roason^ to l¥^ i^i^tm^ with 
unwi»min{^ taxit^Jo^ through an unonding future* 
Thus« then, we are tos»ed haeh and forth l^olweeii 
the i^oMuhilities suggested by our hypothesis. *^ Th4 
w<!trid M Mr m^mft^siatHm <^ mlriiiVe rta^tom ; ** 
good. then, but how ? ** THr ^tortd is <t m/ioiui/ 
yroiffA /Vwn /oHvr fo AiykerJ^* How. theiu is this 
possilde if the infinite n«ason rtUes all and desinos 
the higher ? Was it m4 always at the goal ? So« 
then : ** T%r n^^rttt h m4 tme ptott^ mi^iWy. bml 
<ffi f»#rrw<i/ ttfwtitiom of* Mr dr%fma qfinjtmi^ re«rsoiit 
ntAiirA^ as if^^mtf^ is tA^ts aln^^s actirt amd ii/««yty* 
at Mr 5^K?//* Rut this hy|)othesis is seemingly orer* 
thrown by the ap|Hvuranee of the least imi^Heetion 
or irratkmality in nature^ The tir^ starving fam* 
ily. or singed moth, or bn>ken tnuh. or wiisuhI et 
fort« or wounde^l binl. is an imliotmeut of tlie \ini» 
versal ivasrni. that% always at the goal, has wrought 
this irrational wrong* The otln^r |His^Me hypotbo- 
sis leaves us. ;iifter all. in the same qiuuHlary. Time 
may W a mere ^^mirage.*"" F^v the eternal Ona 
there is. tln^u. no {ut^^e^s ; only fact. This notion 
of a timeles!^ Being is. no doubt, very w\*ll wkwUi 
study. Ruu tlieu. the eternal One is thus always at 
the goal. j\ist as in the other eaae. The i>ne. we 
should think, caniux )v infinite and ratKmal and yet 
productive of Uh> least traee of wrong, al^sainlity^ 
error, falsehinnt Again our Monism fails. Fiu^^ 
after all. the world has been view«il by us only from 
without ; and so remains dark. 



Our monigm fails, namely, to establish itself on 
any ground of experience. Absolute refutation is 
indeed not yet thus attained, for the defender of 
the hypothesis of an infinite reason always has at 
his disposal the suggestions of the ancient theodicy, 
modified to suit his needs. He can say : ^' The par^ 
tial evil is, somehow, we cannot see how, universal 
good." Or, again, ^' Evil results from the free-will 
of moral agents, who have to suffer for their own 
chosen sins." The latter answer, a very plausible one 
in its own sphere, is for the general problem insig- 
nificant. That there is free-will we do not dispute, 
and that free-will, if it exists, is a cause of much 
mischief is undoubted. Yet if the universe is so 
I made that the free-will of the slave-driver, or of the 
murderer, or of the seducer, or of the conqueror, 
works untold ill to innocent victims, then the fault 
of the suffering of the victims rests not wholly with 
the evil-doer, but partly with the order of the world, 
which has given him so much power, such a wide 
freedom to do the mischief that he desires. The 
\ world in which such things happen must justify its 
, religiously inspiring nature in some other way. 

The other answer, that partial evil ia universal 
good^ we have to regard as a much deeper answer, ; 
shallow as have been the uses often made of it in the 
past. But if it is to be a valid answer, it must take 
a particular form. The words are usually spoken 
too glibly. Their meaning, if they are to have any, 
we must vety carefully consider, ere we can dare to 

THE \rOiaj> OF I>0I7BT« S65 

iM'cept theiu^ Only from a higher point of view 
shall w^ iu fact be able to a)>ply them« In ^ 
wtu'kl of the Powers thev iUul no re«$tiug<^place« 

How can a partial evil be an universal gooil? 
Only in certain ca$e3« The notion plainly is that 
the evil in the external world of popular thouj^t 
is« aa known to us^ only a part of the whole^ and 
the whtde^ it is said« may be in character oppots^l to 
the part This must indee<l be the case^ if the world 
as a whole is to be the woi^ of an Infinite Keason* 
Fiu^ if so» the evil must be« not merely a ba^l lesser 
part that is overbalancenl by the giHHlneses of the 
larger half of the worlds but non-existent^ save as a 
separate as|>ect of reality^ so that it Wi>ald vanish 
if we knew nuure about the truth. This is what the 
saying asserts : mvt th»t evil is overhalancetl by good 
(^fur that woidd leave the irrational still real\ but 
that evil is only a deceitful appearance^ whose true 
nature^ if seen in its entirety^ wimld turn out t\> be 
gooiL One c^nUd nivt say of a netting «p)de^ htnvever 
small t)H> n4ten s)H>t as yet is. that the )virti»l rot- 
tenness is the universal smmdness t\f the ap)de. If 
I have but luie slight disonler in but ime of my 
organs^ still you cannot say that my ))arti»l disimler 
must U> universal health. The t4d optimists did not 
mean anything si> tnuitra^lict^^ry as that. They nu^ant 
that there is no real evil «t all ; that what stnnns to 
me to be eviU say t^¥>thacht^s^ and bn^en househ^dds^ 
ami pestilenivs^ and treasims. aiul wars, all that t^v 
gether is but a graiul illusion of my (partial view. 
As one hndcing ovt^r the surfaiv of a statxu> with a 
ttucroseopes and finding nothing but a stoiQ'* surfacidi 


iitiKht.imy, how ntjly I hut on NcHiiiig Uu) wbola at A 
f^liinau woulil know iU hoatity ; ovun mo uiio mwing 
tliti world by biU fiuirion it uvil, but would know it 
to bo |{ocm1 if ho Miw it im a wholo. And tho Moem- 
ing but unrual ovil of tho partii nuiy Iw nooonnary In 
order that tho rotil wholo Mhould \w ko<mI. Huoh U 
tho imMition of our optiniintn. Thin in tho Platcmlo- 
AuffUMtiniiui (hMitrino of tho unroality of ovil. 

Tho h)|{ioal pimMibility of all thin wo do not for tho 
ilmt oithor dinputo or afllrtn. Hut wo aro doaling 
with a world of difHoultioM, and wo oan only {Kdnt 
out tho antooodtuit diftlcndty of thin thoory. I if tho 
worhl of (ixiH^rii^nno Niniply huikod horo and thoro in- 
toroMt, or {Kwitivo iiiKnii of rational |M)rfoation, tlioti 
ono mi|{ht woU oi>niparo it to tlio Mtatuo, that im)oii 
only piooonioal, and through a nuoroMcu)|K) appliod 
to itM Murfaoo, woidd wholly laak tlio Imauty that ap- 
poam whon all in viowod at oncm. Thon ono nuKht 
Mty, with f^roat plauMibility, that if imrooptiblo har- 
mony in Mimply laiikinK to our partiid viow, tho groat 
whfdo may Mtill Im a i^rand harnuiny. Ihit tho 
trouble lioM in tho Moomingly |Mmitivo olutraotor of 
ovil. Not Nimplo liiok of harmony, but horriblo dim 
oord, in horo. I low tho torturoM of tho woundod on 
a ilold of battlo nan anyhow iintc^r tnt(» a whcdo in 
whioh, ai4 NiMUi by an almoluto jud|(o, thoro in aotually 
no traoo of ovil at all, thin in what wo oannot undor- 
utand. It MOfinm vory improbable. Only abnoluto 
proof will Natirtfy um. And of oourms an haii boon 
\ndtcatiul, by Nonm of our oxamploN alK>vo, it in not 
thn (pumtity of any ovil (if an ovil Im a cpmntity at 
all), but tho (ptality of it, that makoM un ur||;o It in 


oppofldtickn to the eUuioa of reason to be the mier o( 
all thingsk Any evU wUl dcs if it aeema to be a real 
and poaiiive evil. For then it aeema poadtiYelj at 
irar with reason^ 

ActaaUy« however, theodieiea and kindred efforts^ 
whether monistio or not, in trying to vintlioate the 
rational in the world have aeldom eonsisitently main- 
tained thia high and slippery ground of the theory 
of Plato and of St Augu;»tinew Fi^r f rcooa deelaring 
that all physical evil i» and muat be apparent, the 
popular theoilioiea have often consented to aeeepi 
the reality of this positive evil, and to minimiie its 
significance by certain well-woni, and, for the pur* 
poses of this argument, contemptible devices* They 
have pointed out that the evil in the world, though 
a reality separate from the good, exists as a means to 
good* Or, again, they have said that evil is neces- 
sary as something outside of the good, setting it off 
by way of contrast Both devices, if applicil to a 
world in which good and evil are conceived as sepa» 
rate entities, are unworthy of philosophic thinkers. 

For consider the first device* ** Evil is a reali^, 
not an illusion^ but it is a means to good. There- 
fore in the world as a whole, good triumphs. There- 
fore reason, which desires the good, is the One^ 
Kuler.** But first, to mention a lesser objection, 
the basis in experience for this view is surely very 
narrow. Much evil exists whose use as a means we 
eannot even faintly conceive. But grant this point. 
Then the real evil is a means to a separate and ex- ; 
temal good end. But if the end was good, why was \ 
h not got without the evil means ? Only two answers • 

i\ui liititil, Khimr iiui (Um \Unmm whm ilHvmi Up 
UiUii ymi UiiM way^ muI ^utnUl ukit no U^tm ^^%\HmHiyt$ 
him\ ttv Umi Omi lU^tuutu^ luti InAuif Unitul Ui iU\H 
nml^ mUII lirhhmAly ^'iumi Up Uk^f ii iiml^tn^l of ii, 

imiUiPi Hut iikti«il' miMWMI' U ffiUlf W«M< ili#<()fm 

it^iiMm HtHiUUi Uf ilo IwiUti' ? Timt k U i»oi Umi nnly 
\Htwiir Hi wtprUi 'Vlui MmiUiit Mlt^, Tim Idtn^m 
WMM hfHtul, \hii hti w\ut )4im1m ihit i4lyroii|( iimii U 

^f^fOI|((M|' U»N.II liM, If, iMlWltVftff Umi ( )tMl IflMWIt ihb 

Wfi^y mUM^f Uii4i» ft UtiUtr, Uutii tli#< ( )mi i*lu$m »vU fi^r 
liM own m\u% TImi ilikthiiim U imtviUblit. 

To ii%i^m\fl\fy I If |iMiiii U fto (tvll, fihil If i\m ^vll 
^^ Mmi i^ifi mnfmi ymi by fi Iimi'm, or mi^ or limlM^ 
U Jui^iiik^l \$y my\uff ilmi filUwUt tmium umUtm yimr 
Nkio mtimlUvfi Up i\m ^imI Uifii y^^i tmy I^m ImlfK^l in 
kiuit^iojK \i whuUi i i\um Umi obvioiiM mmwi^r Ui (hut 
If tmUm^ U ii\Uw\m^ muI fill powfU'fiil muI \mtm¥oUmt 
Upwnrtln yttu, h wtm \wr iHmitMiM U$ lUu\ h, Wfty i/f 
kiuitilftj^ y^ftir nUUt Ut ^^nmil wlioK wklioiifc «ti»toiU 
lfi|^ u\um ytm Urn UfrUimt* of UiIm pt'ftM^Mi iftjar^* If 
fi lOfMflilofi tlifit w» oifikfi nom poorly, wfi fifft tuti iIIm^ 

iNlMrd to hkuilO OIO'^mIvmM, III <tfMM1 WM lirM MMt'O illflt 

Wfi ttftiv^ <looo ttiip vt^ry Wii^i wlUi U* Hoi iliit ffifi- 

^ftlioMM of flU wUt OfitOm tOMMt »MHy niO wiUl llnNtflMf- 

iivo friifiloo, omI«<m(4 mIUwUm (mtio'M loUifiiU d^iMiroif- 
iivM frkfl/iofi, 1'lMt Mfioiii fMoifuk N.|r|illf'M t^f fill iltit 

i4o«|flfiOt MpMMldlMM fiiil^lly tllfl fullf^efiUVM Vfiloft of ffOf 

nuff^Mu^^f^, If (iiitMf'«i ^'offkl (ofikft tf^ intHmi wHlumi 
mfft^rUtp^^ fififl if miffiMu^f U ooi JiM^ilf fio oi'iffiitlo 
\n%ri ttl oMi' imvUu'lUm^ hui only fif» itKUmifil ttififitm 
ilmmUff tk^fi It WfiM imimv*i^ ffitloiifil ImnlmM to d^ 


v^lop u« diflfcit>ntly» Bui if naliire could not perfect 
our chaructcr^ ^ve tlirough tliis iiujH>rfect uic«iiis^ 
thou nature's mea^is were limited* Nature was not I 
cUl-iH»verfid« Ueii8i>n Imd siune irrational |K>wer l>e« 
j^>nd it that it ci>uld not conquer* Even 8i> we can- 
not \»t run certain engines without sinoke* Wlien 
we are more civiliieil^ we sJiall abolish smoke^ be* 
cause w^ diall get more j>ower over tlie processes of 
ciunbustion* At present^ by tliis hyi>otliesis^ nature 
can oidy make diaracters perfect through sufferings 
tliis smoke of tlie engine of life* 80 much the worse 
for nat\iri\ unless indinn)^ in some tmknown way^ 
suffering is really no true evil at alU but itself a 
perfection tliat, if seen from above^ w\>uld l^ecome 
plaudy universal ginxL And does that as yet look 
prol>able ? 

Even worse is tlie other devici^ ofhni s\iggested\ 
for explaining eviL ** Evil is a reality* but it is use* ! 
fid as a fi>il to giKxt The tw\> se)>arate facts* j>H)d 
and evil* si^t each otlier off* By its contrasts evil 
increases the imiK>rtance of gtHxl*" When this re- 
mark is made about us i>ersiHially witli our limits^ 
lions of iKxly and circumstance^ witli our relativity 
of finding and of atU'ntion, tlie remark has some 
ps\-ehoK>55:ical luU^rest Made U> justify tlie sup)H>scil 
universal reasi>n* the remark is childish* Always 
indeeiU it is )K>ssible that evil as a s^^i^arate entity 
may l>e made out h> Ih' an ill\isi\ui : and that gxKxl 
aiul evil hav\^ siune higher unity tliat inndnvft the 
perfection of the \n>rld. Itut if evil is redi,^ mid sei>* 
arate from gooilni\ss* then the Ulk alnnit explaining 
it as a use{ul contrast b of no worth in the pit3*ml 

£70 tm sRuoiouii AiiPKOT ov PRiLOiorair. 

! iir{(m»antt For wa iMtk t (>ould not tba Ona aro§lt$ 
1 li |mrfm)t goiHl tmytt by iiuikinff {(oml iiM>ro uttraotlva 
' AM Mtit off ii|{ttiiMt tlu) foil ttvil? Hlmll wo My tbut 
ItiiuMOH oouUl do Imttor tbnii to dapoiul u\Hm tliU 
iMmti'iuit? Tlwii why tho ovU? If, bowavar, tba 
Out) Ittittnoii (M)tilil iM)t do battier, but hml to una tba 
(u)utriMt, tbun th» Oiu) wom b»MM (Hiwarful in ita da> 
viimM tiiiin iM tb«) nmkar of n oonoart - profp'amma, 
who biiM no noiul to introducto into liU oonoort (iny 
HiiW'filin^ or tin-truni)uitiniy; or iHitHMtrapinK to »at off 
ti)o ))»aiity of bin mou^m and MynipboniaM, Itut aa n 
ftuit of oxpariMnfU), ia niiiat avil Muindngly avan tbua 
umtfid? Ara tba Niok niuulail to nuika tba baaltliy 
JoyouM? Wiia tludtta naoaiMary in orckr tbat Jaaua 
alioiibl hIu)w bimMidf wlu)lly {(ood? Traditbn, In 
tbiM latti^r noati, aaya y«ia, and mhU tlia myatiaal 
a{)aaab alnnit tba muul tiiat tlia offanaa aboukl aoma. 
Kut wlmt anli^btiniad man nowadaya will hava It 
tbat, HU|)poMinK K'hhI and avil to \h) aaparata faota, 
tluira <tttn \m biKit^ally poMMibla notbin^ tborougbly 
good, in (faaa aonta of tida avil wara ramovad? Could 
Dot ,fmm luiva luutn wlmt ba waa witbout Judaa? 
()i)H doiibta Iiara tlia ttu^t of tlm naaaaaity of tba avil, 
aym in our own littla livaa; and ona ia indii|;nant 
at ilia triHiug tliat auppoaoM ao waak a daviaa aa 
n)»ra axtiU'nal i^ontraHt to ba tba aola davb)a at tba 
diMpoMal of tim Oua Itt^aaon. Vot tIdM waak by)HK;h- 
aMiM of good and avil aa iixUirnally ctontraMting aapa^ 
vhUi antitiaM Im, afUu* all, provoklngly naar in fonn 
to what wa Mball bold to ba tba trua aolutbm of tlia 
grimt prolibnn. Hut that aolution la atiU far nwa^y 
from ua and from tbiM world of aanaa. a 


Urns bat^ dien, mooinB aeeiitt. if 
sable* sdU a deddedfy doiiblfiiL» view of the woddL 
ItBTmlnems fomiAing rdigioos taypott neemi mmJL 
We omnnol; jet by eiperien ce pioxe that Ibe mtiooal 
power is gqpieme in tbe wodd ; mud ne fMH to make 
clear toouraelTeBa/yrJari bov itabouldbe saprameu 
So £arire remain agnoslioa. Our onfy escape would 
seem to be throogb tiK> still doobtfnl doetrine of ti» 
mrealitf of EtiL And tbal way seems tnj dadc 

DoaKstic Tbdsm bere eonfroolB us. tbe doctrine 
in wbieb ibe wise of so many ages bsTe found so 
mneb saf^Mxt. ibe doelzine of a Fatber, separate 
from Ibe worid of created finite bongs, wbodiieets 
all tbinga. pities and Iotcs bis diiUien, and judges 
wilb sopreoke tmlbfolness all bmnan acts. The re* 
figXNis Table of tbis doctrine* on one sde at Inst^ 
nobody can poasihiy question. The Falber« as Jesos 
eonerires bim. has in a Tenr bigb sense tbe diarae- 
tor tbat we desiie te find in leality. To be sore, 
dwre is tbe other ade. Tins God of the dnalistie 
Tiew is seeminghr limited. As a Father |Htietb bis 
ddldren^ so this God {Mtietb. But tbis pi^ seems te 

be tbe lo^e of one who vet cannot or will not sare 


US from all oar eriL And if tbe evil is a lealitr* 
and is meant %o work for our good, still there is the 
onansweraUe objection tbat if the Fatho' is not 
bound by an irrational power beyond bim. be need 
not bare put us inte so eril a state, but might bai« 
wiwi j ^bt OS our good in some lesspainfid and dan- 


272 THK KKMOiouii Mvvm otf mnmovHY. 

Ifm'oiM wtiy. Ill fiM^t, tiiu only pliiiiMiblM itxpliumtlon 
of I'diil iwil, ill 1*11144) itu^ro U >4«)|)iimio mvU in tlia 
worlil, mi Mxpliiimtioii wiiink Mlmll yi^t bo ooitMiMUnit 
with iim Kiiiiior*M powor litul ^oihIiiomm, ix tho pro- 
vlotiMly inoiitioiuMl oxpliumtioii, Uiai, if boiii^M woro 
oriMitod, iM wet tiro, fi*oo, thoy itiiml iiooiIn ho mImo 
frm to oiuH)»4o tho ovih Ihit thiM oxpliutiition only 
Moi'voM to oxphiin tho ovil thitt hiM ilirootly roMiiltt^l 
from froo ohoioo, that dirootly tiffoittM tlioMo who 
liiiulo tlio olioitus and tltiit wiin iliMtini^tly foroMoon 
by thoin wlioii tlioy c^Iioho it. No otitor ovil ix JiiMti- 
ilal)lo iM a roMult of froo-will ( all otiior ovil Mooiim 
aimolutoly inyMUiriotiM, whon viowoil witli roforonoo 
to (10(1*14 ^innIiiomm ( and vory littlo of tho ovil that 
wo ox|Hirioni!o in UiIm world \h tho ilir<«i*t roMtilt of 
tho dolil»orato ohoimt of thoMo who HiilTor it. It Im 
hardly noooMary to ilhiMtrato tloiMo fiu^tn, whioh, liko 
tho inoHt of tho proHont (Jtaptiir, boloni; to tho boMt- 
kiiown and inoMt froipiontly tniMrojiroMonUul of tho 
inattorn of human oontrovori4y. Tho poor of p;rmi 
oitioM, tho mon who inhorit loaiiiMomo di»4oiM4oi«, tho 
naturally woak of will, tho iimano, tho HiiffororM in 
fiiM'idontH, tho Holdioi'M iod U) Mlaughtiu', tho MlavoM, 
tho 4h)wn4roddon poawintM and laborot'M of tho world i 
all thoMo, whoMo ilU aro Mimjdy inoonooivablo in 
iniH;ht, havo no moro brou|{ht all UiIm on thoiuMolvoM 
of thoir own frt^^will, than havo tho hoalthy and 
Iiappy, tho hoii'H of W4ialth, tlio ovor-joyoiiM, imrnoil 
for thonmolvoH tho ^;ood fortuno to whit^h thoy aro 
born. A man oan do mto^h with and for hiniMolf ; 
but tho boMt part of him, and oommonly of IiIm onvi« 
roumont, U UoU^rmlnuil by birth. Ami for luoHt af 

• ' • < / . I •' f . , , t A ^ . f f 

* 1 

rn^nt in ^ roai lii$lK»- pMfeH aciithr ^ tlie wnMrldL «Mr 
«l5^ Ib^^vill k ttd «!aq4auiait»(?«i <Mr jifeslil&cfttlb^ Smt its 

Bat imllr^ tln^ uili^iS«iil fVttdtfr me^dk vlveii w^ 
IgH tot llik ittd^ jEaumUbr |)aii ^ nmjt discnstsicia^ im 
vwr k«i^T r^p^tiiiTiii <dir tk^ <dl(l «itonr. Itis mind 
k <dk?iabll<0$$ umkW up ;dn!tMlT^ ;uftd k^ will <l««if^ <oiihr 
^n bmlT nMiiiiiHkMr <>i ikt^ <hk^t pMiitb$ llttit kftxi^ tv^ <(ld 

ttMurlv rel3ilie<il llM^rHkv 

W rd^MoiE^lT ttdelul lid UBJs. m^ muESt uttk^ up <Mir 
MUk^ wlnellii^ir ihf^ ¥4k%k&t lliait w :$k^ b tte^ ke' tln^ 
<daiiiipi(?4i«iil RiU«r Kut lliui^ <Mr hmiIt ;ii UmilkKl IVwr^ 

<wttsiidkMraitiiiMk It tln^ F^fttlier b ;» IV^kimt. tlK>n m^ 
all knu^w tk^ iM knt «tK^niaJtT (ro5sh dlkwuna ^hmit 
kk naihur^ I{<^ k <6ttWr inl&nili^ <Mr KmiliML If ke 
is infinities w find ;ui^n$ ;U1 tk^^ dilK<titli^ just $ii^ 
Igicistieii in <cmr <iMi^Wr»tikHi <^ ik^^ kji^^kidsk dF mi 
Infiniihe RtM^sx^u :ukI <mi^ ^^ik^ir difiSonhr^ wmt^i^. if 
anrlkii^. tdk*n ik^^T ;jdt TK^it difiktihr wit^ $kiill 
MHMlUiAn :SK»i?)n ;j|^ins But if. on lk<» <oilk«r kamnl. lk<» 
F^kih&t is tw W cv^<KvitVHl ;sks ;» Kmilk^l j^^wvir* if w> 
;ii^ U> 4M?tc<ept $io«no ^^ ^ tuoA^Jttk \l:iaMchi&3kmimu 
tken n«i> ^9 pirinvrS d\<\ytK\^ ^ th^ ftcn^sihiAiir ^ ike 
l||pQlkidsi« 4»tffc ke <diflK»^ $inci^ « /wrifdri» nny finilte 

274 TffK MUQwtm A»rmt w rmtMonr. 

foww ytm pUmm U » inmAhttity ; \mt mtr grmnb 
tnmhh will ihim lUi in tlM9 Imfi thni imly wipirrUmm 
tmn mUiiplMi ntuih mt hypifthmU^ whU'h \ty iU fmj 
nuifif^ tumdH a poMt^/rU/ri ynnA. Aiu\ tfxptitUmmf 
fl# i^ttftifft^^l up in mhtftui^^ \uim in fuM iAnt\Ay no nmA 
4pI thui hy]Hfi\umiH, flmu^ w^ n\u$il \m Mi iilto- 
(fifiim in tl4m\fi^ Hi Umni wbil^ wtt ittmiy ihti Warl4 

Hfji;b in iim Hrffnnmtti in iU nupni gmrnml #tiil«- 

mmti, Sifw «M Up iti4^ p4tiniM in ifr^mim' iUfUdU Tb# 

((rmi (iiMimliy umniUftml uinff^t «m lying in tim wiiy 

iff iim UyfHiiiumiH i4 Mt ittttttiia ifrimiif0 \HPwm^ ii » 

' ,[ ditlUniliy in itiii iuptwA^iiUm ipl ifrtmiism iimU» Cnm^ 

',!f .' /' ^^^f ''^ ^^ }>^;twliir I'/f/m^/ii^m^ if^frUAhly infoUm 

^[i ',-' . priHUu^nif 1^ thing id mntm kitul ipy i^ (frmMf^ tad^ 

* \ ^ tiling \mH\tum\ ^i#ting f^/rttiwitii <mt#id« of iJio 

I isnmitrr. 'Tip giv«9 np tiii« m\mfniUtn iA pir^iiitit mid 

I prm\tu*i in Up \pm^4rtnt^ \ptkni\u^KiU% An^l witii mtmimn 

■ w^ »r^ n/H liitfi) i$fifM'/^rm#9fl. Ittit n//w tim i<U^ of 

nn iuiiniim immii^^ Vtpwtrr it^^UiiUi ipt lii« iPttpAuftin 

infolnm nupns i\$hn iptm (VittUmliy, W$9 niwil n//t 

ilw^ll tm iiM9 ot/l diffiifMlty tiiAt tiii^ infinite) P(pWifr 

WiPtiUl iHi4'4mm finite m mnm nm tli^r^ w«i# in i»xi«Ufn#5« 

MmiMhSng mtUAii^ til it W«9 ^btill \pfiH'mA ni itw^h 

Up % nuffpi fftiiifMl ami mt\tnm AinUmiiy^ w}ii^;ii w^ 

fiml in tti^ f«udt ilmi i\u\ i*4tnt*Ai\A (pI jpr4Hltu^nf( »n tfx^ 

Umtfil iUinn iyi^ohfM^ of ncAf'Mt^lf/y^ a rdatifm Ut a 

/jO/i/i^ alfffiifi, both jpfftdw^/r mi4l fftodwJ,^ whkh dfi- 

a jfTodwJ, at fdL 'IImi #fN?*iijv« \Hmt^r mmi i\um 
mtrU muU^f t*4nu\\iUfti%^ lM/w<TV^r ningi/'/ftl fin^l mynU^ 
fUnM it# m^ tnay ip^. AnA w^/rlcing muUf aooii^ 


h —at be fiaifeft. No dmet for Mmnuiii^ 
tk Mwiiiii^cf Ikk svpumfeiott cf craykm poiror and 
cx«alifid tkm^ will f«dtl j eiiCi|w tk diffievlkjr Tuantt 
iBg. Ani tkb doffinillf wiQ appnr in iH cmm 
of siippogwd enatkMi. It attj W sanuwd op ooee 
MMn^tn the .limteiipnt Ifatti aoBijcfwdTepoTO m«et^ 
jwt a» Boeli Biwd» wtphnMition in snxne lu|^wr iiw 
anl power a» dkw» tiio tlub^ cnated itatM^wo tlol 
wiKite¥iHr cnaateft a prodnet exiiHnul lo bssM bceonai 
tkorebf aas tnxtj d/epmiteok m power a* we ooomiTtt 
ate. Let as eauBaaqpIifjr. 

^L€t tktrt h$ lights aUU repieMBl a ereaftiTe. 
art. H die C^il tbafe riMizIl» » supply a faet m 
tdbm (Mur diffieuhr i» an)«ikd» bol tdie t»j eaawp> 
tioa of a power ereatin^ aajtikm}^ exteraal lo bssdl 
is abaadkineiL Tlken ooe beci»H» {rankhr ]iaaiftiii«»*^ 
tir» anl iiientx&» all thin^ witk the orealdTe power. 
AiBk if the tigiit i» not tiie eteatiTe aL% bat septt- 
lale firom ic tbes joix bare an lEuaniiimntaJble di& 
cwkj in idle cuoeeptioa. For tdfaw power tbalt maJces 
A^Jiat » TotA tt&seif tbe created Ibbig. bolu a» it were> 
Ai» fom^Jimds tbe pcodaet a» a reissh of tbe jlkitf. 
God sayiti^^ Fiai fiur^findb Ibal Ibk adu Ibk word* 
cr wbateTer pcoeetsft it :m&boitaKs a» admallT bappei»- 
ia^ m the dtTtae buomL i» foUowed bj the external 
appearamre of :sooiN^tbiDij^» ixauaadxr K^bt. Now a^ 
creator of ^:bt^ God » not jet conceived a» the 
creator of tboee coodxtioo^ under wbk'b jotsi this 
amt cooid be followed hr jotft tbase coosje^ucnceek 
B^ tbe external saccet» of tbe^'o^ pretffxppoift» ex* 
teraal cooditioixd under which tbe^*a^ can iocceedu 
fast aas when I skj^ ^ let there be Kg^^ and pio^ 

$imt44 h 1^ my tmu JtfU \AH*k i\m fmmmtrfy phytM^ 

li^l^t/ 1^4 JM#i m my mmt4m in mnking M^k irn^k 
$im4mH^Um hy in^t* fff mi t^U^fml wttM^ ^^ 

iiiM tim^ iUat^ tutii4mi¥MU HhhmfiU Mt* nm^m Mt4 mp=^ 
^nm^i Ui \mit^ Im^n U^ ^ttm^iU^^ \\mH m\m (mv# Uf 
Sm, \\^ Uttf U ^mi Uy i.UU t^tmm^f^m \h a wwW ^4 
\f^ tt%\Mrm\ Ui h\m^\i^ i\m hm ttf iUU mtrUi hdnjf 

'tiitii^ tt^wti *mHi¥^ U\m *Hmt*m^ \h \\m mi[^Hmm\ mm^ 
umi*tr JHtti i\iu*m tidttMii^mt^, 'VSmJtni mi^ \^\i \m 
^\mU*¥tit¥ \mHi4im ytm will, 
\\iii hfW ii^H tM M*4«^ tt4tii4iiiAmm mitm^ tUm 

¥i\Mi UU [H'ti^Hi mm^4i^ lU^^m^U mf^y \mUm\ 1^^^ 
\m*(H M^NJN tiytm44ui ify Uim^if, k/v^N mf M mmi MmUi 

^Hml^i^ti of Uii^^fi^Hiti4 H^mi wUfi4f i^jt^ ytm wiii^ mp hm 
Uf ifM H^ifitt iff ^iiiUi M vi/itJtU^ UiiMUig hy Urn im^mi^ 
^^^^^/^/Im/^I Sty^fim iiiff tiUhi4*i m^i; tf: (/.^ Uy ^\m^\hfi^ 

i\m mum tiiflimMi^: A*^ itm mmi^^ hm*4muimi Mii 
¥f*hM imply H, rjmhfrmUy Ut l<*w<^ ^^ ut^Uim \ffmm\- 
JMg hU prt^^hh pttif^r Ut mak^ W^Ui \ty i\m wtmi t4 

1ms; jtKsiBSitjilisxiU lAie SiBtf'<qpesi&iw wiodUL um akni; 

tfviBii ttiae jjinlinmihy «eDws loC arte nmniM in^JNr^ alt evvsr 
sttqp <of liip ]ws^;iNtfBb, G<nd[ uranfciii^ n^m a ■udtnone ex- 
ifaecBEBll «» UiiuiebL ami iui Gol a^ a jfioiittie fvwnv «A^ 
jaeit to ttiae liws; tdkait Ictt Mam. wwtk. 

fidt ttban maTune matt besiraqpain aeioe^ ttftieJlMtDciBe 
fH GfodTs niiitfiwimii, andl ianr tdoatt itftos ^^fiw^ft^ pamwir u 
idBDSafdlwis&L i&s fBwiliitf^ SfcaJB nwc matt he ju ua a the s 

traaie «£ GfoadTs Faitfti«riboiod? Tke anan^pc » hsjpc^ 
less. AaI nfe AlEKflBBitoe^ ia tAtf* vaT «£ tthe inftK£[ii(nts 
asp h£ At jmasAatstmt Inrpodkesies: b&i^ alKiadhr Iw«bl 
cooiQAeraidL FumtlieDaiusne^ ukudt ttihe&sttne idhiabeirs 
have Sd\tt At iotpce «C am ^cM licit <fflf ainsiminflBa^c: tiSudL 
ift lAmi; ifuiiDaitinr ami iraifiaDsIhr. mradesaar Romnntf. im las; 
*^ litBai^ftnrw»v'" loff mtstpt ttftooB tasiee set ictA as: 
IflngnftL muDelhr, idtf' Amcsbtt ttftsuu if G^oJ in&m W as^ 
Csmssssnt nAfflRffiifiiJl wSsSq la$ loAflr tflKattoomSk. W ^dUBUDOQ: 
ai^ a PomPiHr undl W ilflDitaaJl witdi ibisw wbot lEwl «iiar- 
adhnes to W aku) ^flpaittiiTie' pomnBr&aml mstt mgjpt &«■» 
or airts im aiB&T <olckar pomnar. fistft if m^e aiv aie^pnsane 
finmi GoiJL tth«D im tiMsi dkftss 4f csasies^ Boos tnraanDoiBL *a£ 
as iiiiTOilhnes aM idiC' <£ffiflo!l!Cus l»jjio<ne pomd&al ««alL 
HbBD lie noi^ iBBw bffi^ 1^^ wss; inifw^stsfdl Wncisdl 
Imiiiieitf. Tht iotfviafic' su«i$ a fB««aLS5itiflm7 Is^. ««-« if 
jvm urillL a pDicSxasttiHciit jpiovvwr ^lonssaJ^ *c£ MmL iti^ <ex- 
Vilbim iit : wsit csaifidhr as^ nnr pcfmHr Tti^ zikO<T>f nnr lamdl 
«r tto visik BIT €T<e imfi&tf^ a vSacfle icaii^i^Hrsie (of hong: 
tfm&ab^ iCif lEK' 5=1 •cciiz lw> ^5^"^ miy ^w3 jbbjt tdki$ pasiK 
tun tff aolduHatnr. lilodtr awnnwy ia joor ithigM 

iimm mrtumf^mitf fmumly^ a p$9Wt$r iimi m^ Mui 
#»WrM«l im4mti rmmMuf( fn^m iiM mHM ^ Mul ui ^mtm 

Up iim tlmi |^/w#r, Uf tfUpMn (i^/w iim tlrtii \ftf¥fi^^ 
H/i^Hfi \h jM#i UiU wM/i MmUi mUU^H J^M Uii# #iit#r' 
mmI ¥tmAii Wimm ^iSmf iM ^ftmkm miikAtm ^uUtf' 
uhI Up U\mm\t^ #/r ^Am^ \n mmMufi^ \m mtfUn muUf 

m\t^ mu\ t$%UtruH!i Up UUpmAi, Up Umi \ppM*^ Un^m i 
AMm UmiI i^^^Im^ tfriifUinml P'^pPi4Pjitm \m\pSy n^lJMMi' 
ni^ii ^/f pppim4pn Up p^pApp, 'VSptp p^fPrnHh^ppp p4 ppnUmppiX 
ikpUpffp \pp muAp HPP pp^'i, \)pp\mip pmp p^^Upt U UimplUml 
wJUi iipip iPfpppUppfi iUmiff ipH ppptpppi tippitrpfUprPt ippp ppuhjpmt 
Up iippp ppppUfrpppii PiPpppiUiiippppp ppf p^ijiPPiUppmpif i. a,^ Sm 

iPPPPPii \pp* tippiUt, 

(Wf#iii iUippU^tp PUP* p^*4*uPPUpppppui Up mfppppppp* ihPilt 
iipipy Uppppppt iifppi \py ipp^fUpK pp\ppppiurpp Pippsi ppptUimpirpi' 
AUiupry UU^pp PiipPHpi UUpp^ HpfP$^'M iipppy Pi¥tpUi ppil pA 
i\pp* fipfp^tffMpfi p\\Wipm\i\m Sty p'mWUp^^ Um ppftmiUpp pwi 
p^ p$pyp^Mry, Nppw iippprpp pp^pp pppyipUtrUm Pippdi pppyipU$pim, 
W«i pU» p^A Uppppw ipppw ifpptm %f*P¥f^ ppipf why i\pp* piPiPPPtUp 
t^my Uii( \ppm Pit tirPp>i\Upi\drtPi Ifoit ¥/pp p^rpp PPurpp iippti 
iitpty iUh Oil Um< i^Spttf \ppipu\^ WPP pUp ppppi Uppppw Uppw 
piP{iPPip'pm pmpp \m r^/iiii/i $ l/iid W19 Uphpjppppp Up iUU P'mm 
Up \pmP'M\st^ iUpii m\\pp^¥Pm pmippppi U r*nppppi, Stpw if 
ppppppp*p\ppHiy U*\Ipp ppph iUpti ihfpi in Pi r^rtppppi h^ppp^p^pp^ Pipppi 
tilp^ppm^tp Up ppph U» p'4mn'uUtr rpp^pprp^ppiiy wttp*itp*$r lAptiy 
ppiispWH ppm Ui MiHMtii| ill fUw pft iipp$ pptyipiPtry ppf UphVip 
ti^iii^i iUppi (if 4 U ppjfi Pi rtrtpppdi m^upiftt^ ppiy Hppppwpff in 
¥Pfry |iliiiii/ 1 My Pii mp*'M iUppi id pppiPtii \p^ ppm WfptiP^r- 
^iit U9 i'M\\ ip*pt\ piSmipM immI p^\f P'4hiifPPd\U^fry in bii» 
^fpl^Pfpp PP0P Up p%\\ \p\ppp P^pyiU\ppj^ i«J^ p\\pm¥P^ViUApUp \ 


and that I, for my par^ lieaitate not to declare Tei]f 
franklj that thouj^ I know veiy little about God^ I 
am sure that he is no round square^ Now even so^ 
an absurd and aelf-contradictory account of the act 
of creation must not be allowed to es^cape us by 
pleading that creation is a mystery^ and that nobody 
can see haw God makoa things* For^ mysterious as 
creation may be> we can be sure that if creation is of 
sucli a nature as to involve an external power and an 
external law, outside of God^s creative power itself, 
tiien God is himself not infinite. And we can be 
equally sure that unless Cn)d as creator is identical 
with his products, the idea of a creative act does in* 
Tolve just such a power preceding the act and out> 
aide of G\h1 himself « The device then bv which so 
many thinkers seek to escape from this well-known 
and ancient net of dialectics^ seems for us necesstsarily 

onsuccetSGsiul* There are mvsteries that we have rev- 


erently to accept^ and before long we ourselves shall 
find such, and we shall be glail to bow beforv them« 
But if creation is imleed such a mvsterv, at all events 
a self-contradiction alxmt creation is not such a mys* 


We have dwelt at length on one of Uie altema> 
tives of Theism. Dishearteneil^ ami widHuit any en* 
thusiasm^ we turn to the other, ^[ust we after all 
rnnain content in our religion wiUnnit any assure 
ance of the supremacy of the g\Hxl ? Must we W ihmi- 
tent with this halting half Thiusm of the empirical 
Design* Argument? If we must be, we must be« But 

280 TiiK BKMoiotm AHVKcr oit vnu/mopnr. 

wtmi If thut Urn Miumld fnil tin? tM m ni htu^t try 
it Thin unmitntmiUiry vww nnyMi ♦♦ Wlmt }iow<tni 
ihiiro iitny Iw in ttui wcirM wo (tnti tiovMf wholly ktum, 
hut wn think ihiii ilioro in oviihmim ihni ilioy Umt 
1h) for iho ntoml lnw nro nMiro Umn ihoy ihut bit 
n^niiMt it. And ihiit dviihiniHi in givon im by tlio om- 
tiiri()iilly dimfomwl nmrlcM of hmiovolmit ihtMlKti ulicmt 
m in iho worhl/* ThiM viim, wlmiitvor iU ro%- 
iiMM worth, \h Hi aU ov^mtn 0A|mhhi only of onipiriiml 
imnrff iinil pn^uuU only to Muoh n rank. And it in 
in iliM!UMMin^ thiM hyimihmi^^ in tho ilim lif(ht of tb« 
W(tfiry oonturi^iM of diMputo nl^ont it, thiit ono inrnwH 
at Imtt fully to tm] tho httUmn^HH of tho <h;nl;t thut, 
liko a tormontin^ dimtniN), fiMMaiU and ot<mially mmt 
lUMiiil ono who trioM to 1h) conUtnt with thiit ilronry viii- 
Ihlo wirrhl in whi(th wo havo \mm mi tar vainly Moolc* 
Utff Utr oomfort* Wranf(lo \\\nn\ wran^lo, ooaiN^lofM 
Imlanitin^ of prohahiliiiiiM thii^ way and that, opinionit 
and ridiitnlo and ahiiMo f<mivor, and no ro^nlt! Mnoh 
U i\m ontpiriftal tiih^olo^y that itookit a worht^manU' 
fm^tnror, and vMuuti dimtovor hitn« IM um tako np 
tho mi^raldo \nm\wnn junt whoro wo hapfn^n to 
find it. 

Tlioro \n no donlit about thi«, that tho dot^trino of 
ovotution han rondnr^d tlio |K?t>u1ar ofn|iirioat proof 
of a MfNx^ial doMif(niti|^ powor niiti^h hardor than wo 
UM14I Ui MuptHMo. And whon wo paMM to thiM m\nH^ 
of our quoMtion, wo niunt le^mfoM at ontto that wo havo 
nothini; t^> nay whii^h ran ho ftow Ui any rooilor of 
tnodoni diMMiMion. TImm onipirioal toh«<di^y will al- 
ways roniain a doubtful itubj<«ot for human inipiiry. 
Any dogttiatio disproof of intoUigont flnito powofi 

THK WORLD or vomr. S81 

or i)a€4ttOQS »bo\t^ us musi be legard^l ^ impoesi> ' 
Ue^ The only quet^kni to be here solv^i k the * 
()a$sibiIitY of porelv UHloetiYe pi\H^ of the exi$teiM>e 
of such higher iDteUigeut ageuoies. Ami here» as 
we hoid« ju$t the aneieut diffioulties as to the proof 
of soiY empirkidi teleokigical theory survive^ and are^ 
in sopite i^ all that recent writer:^ have done« rather 
inoroaseit by our knowkilge of the fai't$ i>f evolution^ 
£i$peeiaUy doee$ erolutiou make the empirieal hypoth- 
ec$b of the existence of any finite and good daemonie 
power» intelligently and UKvrally working in the 
woi4iU eontinuallv mi^re ami more obscure* For 
first, as to the intelBgemv irf the higher powers, what 
the theory of eY\J[iuiim has di>ne fear ns in this re- 
spect is sim)>ly U> make us f ^vl that we know not, 
ami canmvt yet even g\iess« how much what we em- 
pirically call bare me^'hanism i'an do to simulate the 
effects of what, in an equally empirical ami blind 
way* men call intelligence* Therefv^re no empirical 
desigtt-argument has linger anywhere nearly the 
same amount of persuasive jx^wer that it once seemed 
to have* The matter stamls thus : An em)urical de- 
sdgtv-argument might \-er\' plausibly reas^m that, if I 
find a child^s blivks arrangeil to make a house or to 
spell wvmls, I can assume that some designing hxuuan 
l»mi has so placeil th«^* But the imluctive fierce 
of the argximent rests on my previo^is faiowle^lge 
tiiat nothing is so apt to put blocks in that onler, 
in this present visible wvurld, as just a designing 
human hand. But if I disci^vercd iH^rtain physical 
conditiinxs that did very frequently work, ami that 
did often »> arrange bloeks^ thtti I should no kogw 


oonMuler the (fiv<m arranKoiment good proof of hnnuui 
dtmign. Kvim mtf until I mm that natural n^lDOtum 
can simulate the dianif^ning jKiwer of hutfuw boingfi 
I may be dinpoffed to regard a given eaue of ai>par- 
ent denign in nature an a fair induetive proof of 
dome great <$art>enter or watcjh-maki^r working there* 
Itut the imltUv'tion, never <iverwhelming, UHsonum very 
weak when I learn that there are No-ealled pbynicai 
conilitiiniM nueh an we or ehanee can produee, wbicht 
however, do nevertheleMi result in thingN tlmt my eye 
wouhi tiave called full of design. For then I am led 
to feid an if I c<nihl imtm no juilgment at all upon 
concrete camm. Yet only hy concrete csuwn can an 
empirical hy|HitIu)Miii lie proved. Therefore unleiM a 
jiebble proven d4$Mign an eye <loeM not prove deiign* 
])ut dcMign, we hear, in not itu'/OmiNitible with evo- 
lutiim. Of lumrm not. And if tlu^re in a deMigner^ 
i who workn through evolutiim, then itidee<l he mIiow» 
wonderful forenight anil maMtery. Itut tlie <}ueiition 
in, not wlmt in compatible with evolution, but what 
can l>e ifvovtm from bare exi>eriem;i5« Anil what the 
miKleni man Iian very juntly come to nee in tliat mere 
exiHiriiitwAi muni leave him in utter doubt about 
what |KmerM, intelligent or not int^^lligimt, are tlie 
li(mrMm id all our cxi)eriems<5« We <;an find lawM ; 
but they take \\n only a Mliort way. Ami tlie nuire 
we kiuiw about nature, the iann iiuilineil we feel to 
dogmati;se on tlie \nmn of mere exiHsriiiUce alnmt 
wliut |Kiw()rM are iMshitul the icencM. They may be 
Uit4iIIigcnt, and tlu^y may be what we call in thi« 
world of M45nMe mcclmnii;aL But ai» finite [loweni, 
given in experience, we men know them Molely by 

Tm woiw or wmt. S88 

iindr «ffo9lik And ih<^ efl^ta wt iwj itoM^e 
Kbti of Un^r iml naliutk It it n^idJly piUiifiU to 
r^ ih« i4iUHmU0 WMktei of <)iffori 1111^0 hi our di^ 
to proY^ Ihut tamo U¥^Q|[ivvU dogma nbout mmho 
poww Wytuiii «acp«ri04MH» i» not n^lutad by «x)¥^ 
ritMie<^ A« if »uoh proof 1111^0 luvjrboiljr'* (^itN^d 
«iilMMr moro or hm tioubtfuL A r^idlj w«U«fouiid«tl 
T1i«i«iu would not Wft in thi» Unliou* w«^« 0tMrn«d^ 
on th» dofMitiy^. 

But thwo i» the oth«ar Mp«H>t of tW nuUtor« An 
int^lUgwt poirar» w«r« it iulmittiMi« would not n«^ to 
bo nionU« If th^ro i« dontign^ li th^ do«ignor domon* 
•tmbljr good ? iM m puM ox^ to tluU quoitkou 

If OToluUon hua dono m^vtbiug for u»« it hm 
tonti^d to inor«»iM^ our »^ns^ i\S tho m^rntory of tbo 
world of tioi)H>rit4)iHS mul th<^ri>f%ur0 th^ phil%)«oph« 
ionUy niimit>d n^igiou« »tml^nt i» in truths for yt>t 
tki« oihor n>fi»on« wt>»ry k^ all tbi« ^nipiriiml TlMa«ni« 
niuno)y« UH>auiH> ho d«>«)^r« i\t Amling outi by »Ui>h 
on owpiricol priHHv^ onytbiog oUmt tbo ootuol pwN 
potMMk i^ ony doMgnor^ OYt>n if Uioro bo o doodgnor* 
To »tmly KogliAh litoroturo in tbo rubbiah hoo)« of 
o book4undor'« work>«ho)\ w\nUd »oom to o wi^ num 
o niui>h nioro )H^)>of ul undortakiug Umn to $^H^k ony 
ono notion i\t tbo rool yiwsk tui whioh this world i» 
nuulo fnun o moroly oiupirit^ Mxk\\y i\S our littlo 
ftrogmout of noturo. SinoniH^ ist ri^hi in ob^uhuuug 
•uoh undortokiug^ wh^dly tind ftu^ nil it» now )u\)b- 
oblo futuro work« KoUgion niu«t find tho roligiouA 


aspect of reality in a totally differont dirootion. The 
higher the realities that we study, the harder the 
task. The heavens declare very many things not 
wlioUy clear to us ; but the earth and man deolaro, 
as natural facts, very many more and more confusing 
tilings. Only a poetical abstraction can show us any 
one plan of religious value in the world of sense, 
any one declaration of anybody's glory therein. An 
equally strong o])posing interest would find just as 
good evidence for wluit it sought if it shotdd hold 
another view of what is designed. Nature is, so re- 
garded, a confused hum of voices. *' Nature/* sajrs 
one voice, " is meant to provide bountifully for the 
wants of sentient life." " Therefore," says another 
voice, '^ all the weak, the sick, the old, must starve, 
and all the carnivorous destroy their neighbors." 
*' Nature aims at the evolution of the highest typo of 
life," says the first voice. *' Therefore," it is replied, 
*' she bountifully provides swarms of ])arasites of all 
sorts to feed on higher life." ** Nature desires or- 
der and imity," says tlie voice from the heavens. 
*' Tliercfore she makes meteors and comets," replies 
the (Halloing voice. — And if now the Fiend appears, 
and suggests, as the only satisfac^tory design-hypoth- 
esis, somc^tliing of this sort, how could experience 
answer him ? — " Nature," he says, '* is designed by 
a being who delights in manifold activity of all sorts, 
in variety of organization throughout the world, in 
the iliie contrasts of the numberless forms of sentient 
life, and in whatever nunins vigor, lie likes to see 
many living cn^atunm, and he likes to see them fight. 
He likes the sight of suffering, as well as of joy ] 

writhing k>S a I^hxt Wjii»I UviI <ilkvi^ iu UMrh\i>\ m ^ 
mmXwix^ ^^1^^ for ^Mtfeu^ttx^ th^^l tl¥(^ AW#k«»^ 
<^ry \w^ iu ^^ WjK^i^M« wg*» th^t nis^^^ *0A^d \\j> to 
hitti iu tl\^ar wii<^ wkI iu Uh> MwU ini)^\¥^ whI 
^miix» \i| v'^iutsk Mfti^K wh4 k^vi^w. All tiii«?«*i^ Ihiu)!:^ 
1h^ lilwsk ln^^^^Uv^' tJH\v Wfv ju?4 *^ wwy <vwii^* ^ ^?x- 
i«lK^«o^K n^ \wu4l* ja^^utY ^ life whI vig\w to o^\ft* 
toii^)^h\ ** » Wy x^Mife^ *Utt *(i^j>^ihU to uw^lw 
j\ivHy Wl>Wo* twt \kU (d<^>^ur^ ** W li'^^ i<lK Thb 
Wii^ i* <iUmUU<\^ ttuih* ^lilw hi* lm^Jl^r. tlH> 8^>to* 
W \^ tlvo iuimil^M<e^ uu4Kd\>^i«> tJuil l^^xrtuug h^ 
jnu ittto tVlilwi'?* uu>uUO« IWt Jw?^t ih>w W r^ij^tw 
ln'ntiVmK o\v^4 <i* C^ilvM^* Si^toW vt'i^^uHl iu Uw 
i^MuU A^ul hi« <iUv^^^?^ wv *> <4>vi<im?4y .^h>wu iu 
u^tur^ tluit w^yUnly o^i^ht to Mi^w iu hiu\ wW 

Of this^ h^^rriWo d^H^triuo vfx^ «i)^)\r^lh>utl that wt- 
l^wiiw <i«^ *uoh <i^w m> <iU*')mm(. ¥\%r tuXX tkil 
*i>ii>iKv iviu ?^\\ wv migl^l W iu Uh? KmhI!^ irf ju*l 

such » U<imU>IU Il^^^UH^ il Wh^H^VxVk lvJ|i^^>u;j( ^UhK^i^^i 

to \H^3^^ l\H\kiu|;^ (\vt tW liviuj^ (KhI Mm^v^ ^^^ *^^^^ 
f»<*t5* Kit )4\y^^nU *^nt^«ot\ wul h* In^hikx* tWiu?^vl\^v* 
to X\mt owu jm^iH^t^ tWKt Snwu^ !tim)Jy Uviv^^ *tt 
?^uoJ\ l\Y{H>tK\<*v^ uttorlv ^UniUtfuK ("^ur \\xx\x^ \>^rui^r 
\\( tiu^ \v\\rUl u\5iv h^w lvtH\Muo wh»i it i* iu wuv kxu<> 
of uuuiWrlos!^ ixl\v>^i<nUly ^U^ftu^Wt^ \^y>^ Au^i^ if 
tUvM^iiiuni^ its* iu\uuHli»to inirjHv^v lu^y W »uy kwxk^ of 
uuuUHvHtK^ inirjHv^v^ It is uot i>i^4^Wf> th»t wt|H>- 
miM^ tcmu toU usi iuu«^ iJmuI tluit mkV^ts ^i^of^ 

$iitt4ipMii i^Utm^ $iMtt4iijf^ htf Mm* tmk^ ttf muUpttUi4i4iihti 

mpi^hU^ iff ty^^ffhpiUUihn jiM fum Mi^i tmrtt iu tm¥ 
^/fM^^li^ i\m\\u^fk w)Mf U«)^i^/ A^mI if mt\^^Hm^ \u 

m^^[A iS^uum ti^MSu Mm^n my^U tt^H\u ii^m^^ k itmiU 
Ui4\¥4^\ II i\Mi\m¥ Ufim\ti,i\4m^ U ni \mii^ ti4tt, UU^iM4mi 

Uf ptml4ti^i4*i frfi^ Uf pt*f¥$^ it^pffui ti4tii\fi,^ f/^^li^f/l# Up 

tftm mffUi nmUiif^ti piMm tio ^^n« wHU mf p\im^i 

mUtt^ M^\ fuifM, (timpfytU^f-it^iti Uttm wIm«» h t^ppmwn 
m Umfittp fm m tiMtnUm ihf^itiH,Uffi \M ptmm m# iim 

tmmmfp^ lim ifi$ttUtu fff pHfttt^ Mf4i irfMM<^ A^Mrw U Ut tm 
ti4tpf4tUtiy Uim, iff ti\m n^^^p^f H hff Mm* mi^*^ ttf pp^f^ 


W*« U^fhM\ Ut Mm* mip\HfmtA fift^0tfuti\ WfftM tff 

ftUMi Uf thfU MI4) thfii^flhti itfHi4i4iUiiU, '11m* VtfWtttn 
tfm^ ifitiiiMt i0 nffftihUtfW tft i^m U)^hi*^, w^f^M^ thd 
Utii'i.t^^Mt )t wn H4i4i4^if^, fiffipt*ii^,)*ffi)uifi<if Mm* thUfitt/t^Mi 
^f^UiHihi wtfthi, iiiii ¥fttfih tft n hit m^ium tIfmtflfhiU 
itfui iWfHi 0f M*^ Uffi^fif' i^fi fiiii4\f l,hft Wf$l44*p, Ttm 


m this external world aee how, nor ooold we find 
proof of the fact What a Power causes, that the 
power seems responsible f or« And so the Powers 
that cause the inestiniable mij^t of evil in the world 
aeeni of very doubtful religious worth. 

We have already suggested in outline why this 
doubtful result was to be expected* These Powers 
were assm»^ to exist apart from our thought, in 
time and space, and to work in time. They have, 
as workers in time, no certain and etemal signifi- 
cance, A single Infinite Power is« properly speak- 
ings a misnomer. If a power produces something 
that is external to itself, then the very idea of such 
an occurrence implies another power« separate from 
the first, and therefore limiting it If however the 
power is identical with its own products^ then the 
name power no longer properly belongs to it For, 
as we shall see when we come to speak of the world 
in its other aspect, namely, as eternal^ the conceptions 
of power and product, of cause and effect, and of 
all like existences^ are found to be only subordinate 
to the highest conception of the world as Thought. 
For the Etemal Thought are all these po¥rers ; but 
in themselves they belong to the flux of things* 
Each one of them says« Sot in tme^ when you ask it 
for the significance of the world as a whole. Each 
power says : ^^ I work here along with the others, 
I fight, I strive, I conquer^ I obey« I seek my ends 
as I can. But beyond me are the conditions that 
limit me,'' And these conditions are the other 
powers. The world of powers is the world of the 
children of the dragon's teeth. Their struggles are 


oiidleHM. The only religion that they can teacsh id tho 
religion of enduranee and of courage. Or one may 
eoin])are them to the warriorH in king Atli'H houHe. 
Otdy the all-Meeing Etenial Thought can poHsibly 
diHcovcr their Hignifliiance. Of themHelves they are 
juHt the fighterH in the blood and duHt of the ban- 
queting hall. 

All thiH we juHt now affirm without full proof. 
But our proviouM diMcuHMion IiaH been one long illufi- 
. tration of it. You find or think you And in the 
worid a religiounly valuable power or tendency at 
work, liut at on(ie there HtandH bcHide it itH Hworn 
foe. I H it Evolution that you luive found? There 
dtandH bcHide it DiMHolution. Is it the tender care of 
a fatherly nature for tlie very HparrowH ? Then ap- 
pearH bcMide it the cruelty and deceit of nature. Is 
it the beauty of the world that BuggcHtM a power- 
loving beauty? Nay, but the rottenncHH and tho 
horror of natural diMcaMe and decay aHHcrt aH boldly 
the workings of a power that hates beauty. Are 
all th(3Hc Hcetning poworH juHt mere phantomH, whoge 
truth if4 in the lawM of phyHicH ? Then the world iH 
a vaHt wre(!k of colliding molcjcjulcH. Are thew3 pow- 
orH real tendencicH ? Then their fight ii4 Moemingly 
endlcHH. The world of the powerH iH indeed full of 
phyHical law, becauHC and only because its facts are 
found, by meauH of thought that has a deeper foun- 
dation, to be caHCM of (;ertain general rulcH. But 
for our religiouH pur])OHe, this world of the powers 
seems a chaos. 

^^ But,*' says some one, ^^ all this is no dis})roof of 
the existence of a real but to us not perfectly clear 


luurmoDy of ill tlie powiers. This is sunpty absence 
uf proof *'^ Yes ; but if proof is whit we wmtu and 
if every single power sends us beyond itself for the 
inteipietoion of the meaning of the whole, we can- 
not hope to grasp that meaning so long is we avoid 
studying the world in its eternal aspeok The pow* 
ers themselves make and unmake. We understaoid 
them not. They remind us of the nightrseene of 
Faust: — 

FmaL Was v«lMm <ii» doit «m dhn RiWttafeeui ! 

F^mtt, Schmidben ami »c)iw«Iimi aK ne^gta acK l«eajg:«a sk^ 
Jf«|iiAuiif!iif)rfs« ESiM H«3miikaMt« 
fawt $ie jtKaea oDii vttben. 
Jlt|nliftyjWi.Vrr. VortMi ! VoriKt ! 

And if we will hear the wisdkwn of MefdiistojiJides 
ibout lU this« he his elsewhere given his view« which* 
IS an <^idnion ibout the world of powers by one of 
Ihe mofe luthoritaitive powers in it« is worthy of 
as much respect as any other suggestion from an 
eq[ually limited being : — 

** Was 9on aas dana da$ <^wi^ S<4ialf«a ! 

G«ichaAm«« la aie)it» Mavi^^rtarafl^B ! 
*Pa ut> timM ; * Wa$ i^ daraa la leMa ! 

^ t$i so inut al» vir*^ aichi ^w«si»a. 

Fad tr^ibt sieh doch im Kiv»« aU vma w wii«. 

Icib liable mir dafi&r da» Kwi^Le«i«w** 

And po^My it would W haid for us to be suie of 
much mofe meaning in this world of powers as sudu 
than MephisU>phe]es his found* 

For us, we tium* not with despiir. but with hope* • 
elsewhero. We gK> to seek the EtemiL not in ex* ; 
perienoe« but in die thought thit thinks experience. | 

■■€■■■ . -. ' 

( hr \i4$im Im mil Um \m$mium wm bnvM Umml in Um 
tAiii|H#i'iil M workl of iliHil^di Our wiiik U itU^ply 
i\m ♦• (Juifdhy jtfitud wnrld^ I *m |/////i|/ humj^ nl 
Um r^ttnUmii uiimU of tM nfgtm, 'Vim truly rMi^$m 
tiluumuiM Iff (li4«iNiii um iioi iiiirt hy Um ik«»ini4«iioii 
Iff trMilidiiniM hIhimI UiKii^iif nrKMiiMtiitMi U Im imly mh 
Kjiiiii»|il«* of uliiilli^w tliiiM|{lii wliKii i*iilii«r i\m ikMiriM' 
Uvu or tint iioiiMtrMitiivff iliiiiiMrN ioiM|{iiiK Umt Um« Uh^ 
U^ In iliMfiiliMl if tim worlil irf ilM« |»ifwitr/i U Juil((iiil 
ill OIII9 wny or ill iftiioilMr« l(4ili|{ioii U mm iiiil4»|iituil' 
i«iii of fill tliMl M HiriiM in iiiil4t|miiil4iiit Iff Um Miffib 



iMMld a( didabt ^vift Mift oiilr gl^ Anudl 

^ik m g^Diiuiiift plukfesio^j^ m man usht inl^wd go 
Wit to tliaat wwlidU and find in it an <NqMids$k«i of 
ideal tnoddk in «mpincal form. W« kopi^ to liaxi^ 
sneli a right oursi^TVis in tuttft : bat, vitkoat a vdl 
tlKMi^t oot pbilosiCfkkT^ ;a man Timtaring into thft 
m^orid of (MttpiriiMj facts to find tkef^ anT i^JSgioos 
s^nifiiKHii^eaietxxaUTdi;^!^^ inantst 

of lionMtsi : and lii^ deisi^xTiMi a$i mwelu TT^ desirod 
lo bring tln^ raid«r to £m1 tliis villi u$: «1m our 
own pnidt>nt fiigbt fMMn tbal vorid to anolliisruuglit 
a«Hn tto him unne^ciMssaurw Now wi» ai^ mdr to 
iconii^ n«ai«r to our fonn^r q[UOstioa« What rigbt 
k» an J oni^ to asssonn^ that om juriinid «3ctiMtial world 
al aU as kaTing any absoluti^ tniili? ^ O ibou tbat 
liaist trdnbl^d us,."' w^ mav ^v« ^ what an tbon at 
bottom mom than our own assumjvtiion?'^ What 
t^l^ bas that oadk>mal it^Mrld to b^ ibtt sok region 

n imih Hi (ill ( IM Mt^ t'dmnUUti' mum mtn't^ *mr nU^m, 
|W<;lmiM«tt iim n^lgUninly iiK^i^i^nt; rmliiy U in mH$m 
M^lmr wi^rUL If w«f urti mdy Hki^ifiU%i muHifgh^ imr^ 
ii\mu'M w«t t^lmll liiiil iliiid lUmlliy, Timi^ U^dimlf 
tim iM HmumifiUm </f un ttf^U^nml wiM of Mi»|rfr- 
Umi fmtU umy rmnuin a \m,ti of our faiurtt thH^htf 
Imi U will is^i H mw m$itm^ mhI tui^mity a mw iplmm, 
'nm iirni Mmwttr ilmi oiUHir^ U^ ilii«» mir ^umlkm 
»lA<^«t tlMf $$mfio\hti of iim ti%i4imii\ ¥/orUl itmA ImM 
mi far ifimhUA h^^ U tki<^; 'V\m m^uiii^I w<^I4 hk 
iU9 liiut<l dnl4wi^ Ui wliiith wti h,m \HHOui Uf mUnll Mt 
lill litt^f<l«»i \mi ti jHmtulaU'^ wbiifk U nmi*i io mb^ 
\Ufy mrUiUi fmiAWfir Unnmn i^tmU, If ItliU |^t»ikto 

#M|>t>li^iMtiit iim iUM\^ Horn firMofg ipy rmtmulmfinfi 
timi w«t whi \HmUiitiUul tnuw Imyti i\m I'iglii Uf inmi^^ 
liitM tijifiUh Our rMgionnly iMUt^fMifif/ry imih umy 
\m y^iu'iuuif iM/i Uy Uy\HfilmHtm tiinmi |^/w<tri» in i\m 
muiArUttil mprUl^ imi Uy a «|i^|Mtr fttiih in mmu^Mng 
Umd iti d/ittnml, hiimI \mUUul or uin^^ti iim worUl of iim 

' 'VUU iUyf givA<i« m tt lutw w«/flil, ilMt w'/flil «/f (Imi 
VmiH\ti.U^M. \Nvi i^miiuA \m i^Ami^ni Ui miimiii \n iUU 

' worlili l/tit w«« inui^i |wiM iUrtmy^U it <w ^mr wfliy n\h 
¥fiiriU, IM UM lu^r id iUm'.rWmA, 

'T\m ¥/orUi oi \hm\ii Um \m¥m\ imfma nn^ » hugf^ 


a oMmediciii : >v« kc^ tk»t >v« 4udl $^w find UKvrd 
coiiiKietioa ; but $tiU tho >nft$t pLuu if ukI^^I thfei« 
be a i4au(u ^v« ^vu\^k for in >nuiu But ik>v« stnuigdhr 
^iKHiglu all tki$ doul^t affects in no wisie the vUlii^ 
trttstfttlnoss o£ our dev<oliiHi u> thfe iiitiej:>a$ts^ not i^ulv 
o£ <>iMimioii li£ek but akM> of ^ieiK>ow Tke ik^ibt con- 
fosi^ us only wb^n >k« taJk o£ religion, Tbat tbe 
irorM as a wbok is dailu noUxlv admits nwre cbo<er- 
fully tban does ibe modem ^icnufie man« oT^en wben 
be looks; to bis $ieienc« for all bis rel^:iotts <con»i)la- 
tion. For be $ie<eks no con^4ation $av« wbat ibe 
pbenomena as sueb fumisb. But bis pbilosofibioal 
doubt about the ultimate foundation of science b 
BO ebe<^ ti> bis ^ientifie ambition. He beUeveis in 
Menoe just as ardently as if be did not in tbe tint 
first bi^Mitb of etaeb new i4iik^>|4iieal dis{>ut^ de- 
ebr^ tbat tbe n^ work! is unknowal4e. His failb 
in tbe methods of bis s|>eeialtT is as firm as bis in- 
diftewttoe t»> all extm - ^ientifie sf^oeulatiiMi, His 
iviorii is in faet dt^ne with a kiml of insiinenve eon- 
fidenc^ in bim$df antl bis fellows Tbe instinct is 
wi doubt bui^y tnunoiU but it ivmains an instincts 
and a deli^ibtful one it is to bim, Tbe untnuned 
in^^tnets of tbe unsiciennfie man must indeed W crit- 
iet$ed and altnxxl in many vy^i^vt;^ e^r^t" tbey cam 
serw tbe purpiwes of «»ienoe : but. afWr all tbe crit- 
icisms and alterations, tbe instinct iv^mains witb al- 
Vfeost all men an instincts — u^fid^ l^leasinir. xw;. in- 
dispensable: but its }^hilt>sii>{4ii<i»l ]\«stifioati<m few 
pMfile oaw* to know, wbile its 5ai>lf-oiHifidence evefx 
«n«ntafie eesftv. or lect^in^. ivr instnictor will att)»4i. 
Wky BOW is it tbaU trustins as w^e all do tbis j«ieB* 

I! J 

iiflo ittMiiiMti, wn fUl 1m\ it tinrd Uf )(iv(i n Uk(i tniifl 
i(» iim riillKi<iiiM IttMiitMti, wiiomi tiuMt f(mmr«U tottdrnKiy 
U Uf hiivii MitiMi iMiri of fiiiih ill Umi ({<mn1ii<iiim gI 
jihltiKM? Why U it iUni i\M AmhilnhMHn mimI ibn 
(HHtiffuliitilotm of Utn riml worl<l mmtu Uf itvitrytNHly 
t4i throw n <iloit(l u|Nm riill((i<m« iivdti wi|<iti it U tuft 
Mtttii*rtmttiml riillf(ioti, iMit to ituvn no MiKttiftimtUMi 
wliiitiiviir for tlio tiitMiM of m^mm'f T\\\n m^luniiflQ 
rtotiott of n world of law, nil <^ wlioMit fiuftM CMHtlil 
<tofUMiival»ly Im pr<t<lii!t4i<l try oimi forititiiii« wtty iUnm 
tiiiit miimln ill our utUuU tititotuiliiKl liy tiin dotttito 
of tiiii Ml«i|H4<fal pliiloMo|»li<<rN, wliiln tiMi mttw Mlc«t]i- 
iMnui lit otKm Niiiitim to rutnovn from um tlmt tniMt in 
i\m inoml K^iodnuM of UiIokm wliii^h r<ill((ion tmn 
irlnd to imUUfliMJi in our luiiirtM? Hltult tint worlil 
Imi in<lifTiirnnt Ut ono m^i of our UUmU^ mu\ tutt to 
fui«tli<ir ? HImll tiio nioriil viilu«i of titiuKM \m ilark^ 
Mu\ not tilmt tiiiiir valuii for thn \mr\um^n of Moimnm? 
Wliy In tint onu (l<Nftrln«i ModifTurnnt. front tint otli^r? 
You am \AimMl in a world of iMrnfuMlon, and you a^- 
N«rt titat in ItM ulUniaUt and nUirnal natum ItanMwttrM 
your moral tumU, Thai mmnm |iriiMum|ituouM. Y<m 
did not nuiko that world, i low do you know wltittimr 
it vnvi^H for your tnoral idnalN? \/t^ry widl tlmn, \m 
impartial. You am pliu'^id In a worhl of (^mfuNioni 
an<l you liHm^ri that It auMWurN y<Hir inUilhKftual 
niMidM, nanmly, that It Im a w<n'hl of orditr, wImhmi 
fiu^tM rouhl Ihi rnduiunl to Monui rational and intollif(i« 
Idii unity. What lumlniiM havii you Ut do titat? In 
hoth <^amiM you trauM^'^md iix|Hirliin<f4i. Natum f(ivim 
you In iix|Nirhinmi partial «ivll that you iiannot in all 
namiM |Hir<Mdvn U) \m unlvorNal ko<n1. Naturn idm 


giTes yoa in experience partial chaos that you can- 
not in all cases perceive to be universal order. Bat 
unwaveringly you insist that nature is orderly^ that 
the chaos is an illusion ; and still you do not feel 
ready to insist that the partial evil is universal good. 
Why is this so ? Is the ethical side of reality less 
important than the other? Or is it the very im-l 
portance of the religious aspect of things that makeaf 
us more ready to doubt the truth of this aspect? ( 

Such questions occur to us as suggesting a possi-' 
Ue way out of our difficulties. It is not exactly our 
desired way, but is it not possibly a good way ? Sd- 
ence. namely, uses a certain kind of faiths whenever ' ^ , 

such faith is practically necessary. This seientifio ^./ 
faith is indeed no faith in particular miinvestigatod ^ 
&cts^ but it is a faith in general mothixls and princi* 
pies. The creed of science knows of no dogmas 
about unexjK^rienced single facts^ as such : but it does 
know of dogmas alnnit tlie general form of the laws 
that must be assununl to govern all exjieTienoe. Now ' 
why may not religion l>e reduced to certain essential | 
general and fundamental moral demaiuls. that vro 
must make in tlie presence of reality ? Why are not 
these a legitimate, ycs^ a morally necessary object of 
faith? Why^ as tlie scientific man j>ostulates a the- 
oretical rationality in the wi>rld. may not we jx>sti>- 
late a moral rationality in the world ? These ques- '. 
tions stand in our jvath. Might not the ansx^vr to 
them transform our barren doubts into sometliing 
less disheartening ? 

We see what all this suppose<l religious fisuth 
would mean. It would not be a faith in any paxtio- 

« y 

, A 

f f 


fiWfl TUK RKMuioim AMi'KOT ov vmummir. 

iilur Itu^U of iix|H$riMiMMi iliiii iiii|{hi hiivii for im |Mti^ 
MoiiiUly li mliUU vulius wlutilinr gi'MiiUir or Iumm. U 
woiilil Im), lilut tlut M(fii4iitiil4i fniili, wholly guituriil. It 
would cl»iiiiui(l Unit tint worlil in iU iiiiiirMiy mIiouIiI 
\m riigfirdtui mm in Monio liiKlmr ^luim nioriUly v^ 
iioniU. U woulil MMy { T\u^ rMul worki nniMi Im, wluilr 
tiviir iU iriui niiiurM, lii liitMi mm high in ilui nioral 
mumIu mm my liiKluiMi IcIumIm of ifiMHlnuMM. IImvh wm m 
right to Miiifh M fMiih ? l^ti um cMUiiouMly cMinMUkir 
UiIm |H)ini. 

Hut Mi on<'ti WM niUMt liiMiinguiMh tluf pro|MMiMl rn- 
ligiouM fMilh from wliMi wu Mhoukl mil nmrM bliml 
fMitli. Hliml fuith in wimi wm itMunoi uMlMliliMh U 
iniliHul inu4lmiNMil)hn Hut ilum, Im tht«rM not Mnotlmr 
kind of fMiih, Um kind tlmt ivMnt UM4«d in hiM prMit- 
ii(*Ml phihiMophy/ To thiM nmy w» not now turn? 
J^irhMfM thtt world of Um {Hiw^rM, Mppnmitlmd in Um 
umumI WMy, Im dMrk, lint tlitt world for tim prMAftiifMl 
rt*MM<m nmy \w n\HmM in Mnotlmr WMy. KMnt MMid, in 
itfTtM't; ^^Hnrh Mod hui'Ii Mn|KtriM4nMUMl rtmlitiiiM, of ruh 

I ligioiiM Mignili<*Mn('i% I'Munot Iim tlmonttiitMlly provnn \ 
hut wn tnm Miin why wm ought to |H>NtulMt«» Umir MX* 

I iMtitnci*, that Ih, wn run Min! t/)/f// i/m niifihl to art an 
{ftht'if rrlnfrd, Ikihind thn Viill of mmm^^ w« muMt 

> {NHttulMtit tiiMt timrit iM MU inU^lligildn worhl, in whinh 
mU Im liMrmony, and in whifh Uiu higlmMt ginnl Im 
ri«Mli/4Kl.'' MMy Wii not mImo try with Kant to do 
thiM ? 

W(i hIimII in Muy otuu^ iUu\ thin nITort, Mn ttfTort 
that hiiM \HH*n mo ofl^^n niiuin hUwh Kant, m Muhjtmi 
widl worUi our Mtudy and I'Mntful i^KanduMtion. In 
truUi it Im not liy itMidf MMtiMfaifUiry i hut wn nlmll 


•M Uial it «iiliM« M one nKWwni inte tlie hii^Hr 
Tiew that w« sludl henaiiter hmmIl Skk in oar own 
vaj« vift shaJl now txy te nnswi»r die queiiion <vig> 
IpHftnl u» tt» by Kmnt'$ methoiL I>m$ nol dwn iIm 
tvligioiis ns|«M4 of die world lie in Uie fnct lh«u do- 
i^lie the conmdiotions of Um worU of a»»ew w« 
UAT^ and indeed* mondlv sfiedking* ma5t pastaht)e» 
that ibe Et^maL of which thi« world i« the mex^i^ 
show* is in itaelf ahMlolvlT rif^lvous? We shall 
not be able U> answer this qiK«tion with a simple 
affinnative : but stilL postulateA must enter in some 
wise into enenr moment of our livos* and must thete> 
fere bans wime value in 


In the last chapter we sMijrht for a demonstration 
of religious truth* and fouml nonow But perhai^ it 
was not demonstration that w« sbiHiU have sottg:hu 
.SkMsiblv religion may be content to rost on postu- 

A postulate is a mental way of behavior* In so 
Cmt it is like all other thou$:hu In generad« to beJ 
lieve that a thinj; ej^kts is to act as if it existeo. 
But the act may be (V^it^l upon one* or it may W 
fvedy chosen. One canm^ fail to art u}Hm the {vrin- 
eiple that 2 + :2 = 4* si> si^hi as he peitviv«« it* IWt 
one may voluntarily determine to act in a given way* 
not being rationally f\>n\Hl so k> di\ ami wvU km^w- 
ing the rtsk« In such cases one VKJuntarily takos 
to himself the fonu of Ivlicf calU\l a {H^uUtcw 
Thus^ ai^urt from any [diilosoidiic theory* we all pos* 


tulate a oertain kind of unifonnity in nature. We 
do M), whenever we reflect upon the matter, yolnn^ 
tarily. For we then say that surpriiieB are always 
poMible, and that any law may have exceptions, but 
that we must act as if we knew certain laws to have 
no possible exceptions. Postulates, however, are not 
blind faith. Postulates are voluntary assumptions 
of a risk, for the sake of a higher end. Passive faith 
dares not face doubt. The postulate faces doubt, 
and says : ** So long as thou canst not make thyself 
an absolute and certain negative, I propose to act as 
if thou wort worthless, although I do well see thy 
force.** Blind faitli is emotion, and often cowardly 
emotion. The ])OHtulate is deliberate and courageous 
volition. Blind faith sayH : ^^ I dare not question.** 
The postulate says : ** I dare be resi)onsible for as- 
suming.** Examples of Ixith are very common. 
Blind faith the f(md parent has, who says of his 
wicked son : *^ I know that he muHt be good, hence 
I will not suspect him, nor train him ; I will not 
watch him, nor warn others against him.** A pos- 
tulate the wiHc parent makes, who sends his full- 
grown son lM)ldly out into the world, with the best 
attainable safoguards, saying : ^^ It iH useless to keep 
him longer in leading-HtringH, or to ])rotoct him from 
tlio world. It is now his place to iight his own bat- 
tles, sin(;6 I have done what I could to get him ready. 
I postulate that he will win the fight ; I treat him, 
and muHt treat him, as if he were Huro to win, al- 
though I well know the riHks.** The Hca-captain 
iHiginning his voyage iMmtulates tliat he can get 
tlirough. The general postulates that he will be 


Ittltei dat kd coui do his c^Mmtrr bHMr »r(m tkun 
fWoU dfeo OfifiasitkNDu W« all postofai^ diat o«r 
Kt^s ai« ^w^ordi tlie tmabli^ ¥<«; ^K>ft all know pSN 
feethr wdl dat uanT jost snek postulates miut in 
Uie nalxire ol tlungs W blund^p^ Bat Uiev imphr 
]KA blind faitli. but aetiw bilk WithUind&ilk 
little good is <jkNBie in tlie woiU : witlKMit aetix^ £udit 
«xpNis»d in poslnlatesk t^»T littk pmednal g^md 
can W done frcMii dav to day* Blind iulli k tlie 
ostrick bddnd ike bosk Tke poslnlate stands out 
like die Bon against Ike knnttts. Tke wise skall Kxa 
ky p«tnhtih<i.> 

But kow is tkis postablinjer aetiTitT actnalhr i«> 
bled to oar knowledge of MaKtr? Mock uiot^ 
Ciksefy tkan one uigkt siqppose. Wit mock ol oar 
tfmo^t natniaUr k«I$ upon a blind faitku or upon 
wkit uanT take to be a blind (aitk; but tkis, wken 
ii<e rsAeet upon it vitk due atl)»ition to tke offiicie it 
filK is tiansiomied beficn^^ our ejids into practiealhr 
onaToidable post^dateis. Sock ai« tke asssumplions 
npon wkiek our ^ience i^Hsts^ in fanning its ideal of 
an "^ unirersal formula.'' Tkei^ mar indeed be some 
dev^p^* basis for tkese postulatess of scienoew But 
■Hist men know nothing of tlus basis. And s(^ when 
we aoeiepted in our last clnpter tkeise posmlatiois, w>e 
kad to admit tkat tkev ai« a kind of faith. If w^e 
dien neTerlkeleiss objected! ti> eerlain ivligious doic^ 
trines tkat tker ivsl on insufiioioni evidence^ we did 
Ais baoniKse tkej «^ tkemselres up as dogmaa 

' .f 


800 THK nRUOiotm k%vmt ov vmio§omr. 

With furtlMff C/^mNidDraiion, wo ttiiKhi mm& to acoept 
Noini) on« of tliotti a^niti in tlio fonti, not of a drnnoti- 
Mtmblo (lo^na, but of a praidic^ally unavoidablo ]km« 
tulato, un<'.ortain of vAmrm^, but takon and to Im) takim 
on rink ; juMt an evory onn of um gmm throu^fh tlte 
worlil taking all moHm of rinkii day by day. Any- 
thing not r/ontradi(ft4iry may In) a ]M>MNtblD objeot of 
)Nmtulaf4)N { although, again, ovnry {Hmtulato in to lie 
UMHuunul only aftor caroful critidnni, and only be- 
(!auMo wo (tannot do bifttor. 

To do juntioo thon Ut tho prqwr office of ponttt* 
lat4)N in our ridigiouM thitory, wo niuMt Mnmor or later 
iumnuU^r in what camm thoy naturally ari^e, what i« 
tho prqH)r oxtont of thiiir umo, wlmt in the ImniM upon 
whi(di thoy can bo niailc, in any Mt)0(;ial oano, to reift; 
and, finally, whifthor, in viow of all thiM, we can give 
thmn any ini)Nirtant ]dai!o in our roligioun doctrine* 
Wo c^mfimN at onco that wo want something mtieh 
t>itttor than a [nrntulato aN tho baidM of mir religion, 
in cam) wo can get it. If ]MmtulatoM arc to have any 
}>art in our religion, wo want tli4)rn to l>e juntifled trf 
Moino ultinuito rcligiouM c^trtainty that in more than 
a ))ONtulato. Wo nhall invcntigato all that in time. 
Wo Mhall Mco what wo nhall mnu Meanwhile, what 
U the work of pontulateM in the a<!tual daily life of 
human thought ? 

Popuhir belief about an external world \h Urv the 
firMt an aittive aMMumt^tion or ai'/knowledgment of 
mimeihing more than the data of ccmm;ioimneM»* 
What U dirifcily given in our mindM in not external. 
All d!re({t data are inf^^rnal factM; and in the Mtrict- 
ofit mnm all data arc direct. Buii])oiie a merely pae- 

tn woKLD ca!^ ins POsrmjiTis* 801 

h^T^ no l^ii>l in nui ^aWm^J wirld« An tidditimi to 
^ A^iJ^ of c^on^iousno^ a morv> or Kvs» cl<(^«aly vok 
unlary^r^iiolioiu is^ involvtdd in ^^Hir id^ia of oxk>nud 
i«8di^« T\\» truth of thi;s prinoiplo iipiH'^ur^ xrhi>n 
yonr boli^f in wv p«urticid«ur obji>ot i» cdHixl in quess- 
tion« You hold th«it jvhi ^steo yundi^T a snowy moun- 
taun« YiHir oonipMiion in»i^ thnt Wy\>nd the wido 
mis^ v«dl<oy tlnore i» to W ^nm only a |flnr«^ clomL 
You r««^»»KMrt your bolii^f ^ mhI in th«^ itmssoTliim find 
ino¥« ddinitoly thim «it Hr«t tho «iot4vt> mtdition of 
your own Udiof to th^ miv!!^^ d«il^ of ;^n^\ Tho 
uddition tojtistKHt^ lK>wi^v\>r^ in y\Hir Hrst ci$siiojrtton« 
Or «jQ[din^ on<o nuin is tryin^« )Hm>Iuuit>i> in $)>ort, to 
make «inolh^>r dmd4 tlH> i>xisUHKiH> of nuiteml ob- 
jects. ** There is iw exti^mal matter/" «iys the fiwt 
•* There *re hut tiuvs^^ sM\xs i^f eiuisoimisne^ in mir 
XLinds. Nothing Wyxunl theni eiUttxs)HHHts K> theni/^ 
Tlie seeiunl^ ttiMnt«dniu|;t the (H^sit^ui of the nuoi of 
oottmon seiisis ivKut» sluuridy : ^^ IXndaless I cannot 
i\)tute «dU^^ther yinir tine-^iuiu «urgtuuent» ; Imt they 
«ur« ttev^rtliele$s mms«n;MV FVur I )H>mst in helievin^ii^ 
in this w\>rkl of sense. I live in it^ I w\>rk {\ur it^ my 
fidlloxrs believe in iu mir hearts mv kniiul up in i^ 
our suoeetss de^^emls uihui mir fsiith. Only dnvuiu^r^ 
do^ibt it I Mu m>t ;ii dnvuner. Hew* is ;ii su^ne ; 
I hit it Here is ii preeijuee ; I fear »nil slum it 
My strMi|:;efst. eoiwieti^m is ooiwvnuHl with tlH> exists 
«iiee of this x(\\rM of si^nso^ IX> vxnir xirwn^ ; I <ui\ 
not ;itfndd of tsdk/* Thus then bv evvnr deviee ti>f 
the ^letive spirit by renuiuliitg himsiJf o( his nn^ 
dierished intervxslas of his ;jdl^Uons mini hutieds by 

HfiHmiuif hU lUHsitd mntlnmntM^ \fy bodily ii4»to, ^ 
inrmitUnd umn liramrvm Mmmlt trmn U,nUuitlml ipoo- 
uhtlan, Wliitii ImtUir-'tfuUmA tbiiilatni onU tba tMU4»f 
In fin «»xU»rniil mMty ^^ n tminrid omivUitUm^ toYm v^ 
iMUwA until w^ urti lumiimlUul U^ nlmiuUm it«*' or ^ a 
lumymilmnt worl(in{{ hyiKHtlMUMiMi to bo roooivod an t\m 
toMtinii>ny of lummtU^imtmim^ iAmtUmmy mmuuuid to bo 
truMtwoHtliy until tlio o|»|K>Mito In provon/* wlmt Aro 
tiu^i but Miniikr itrtuttUMil o<inMiibu'iitbnM| nifinmU to 
tbo will V ^ }oni{Atrnin£( ilntM, of ininuMiiiito ooniioiauM- 
niMM nnah rtiumrkn woubl b«i wli/>lly <mt of {^buio, 
Tlmt I MOO a im*ttiln mlar at tbii^ UMiinont U not a 
^ iiiinvoniont woikin^ by)>otboMii»/' U oofUM^»ioui»noMi 
nioroly » ^^ proMutnably tru^twoKby witnofM*' wbon ft 
t<tMtiiioM to tlio |mn|{ii of to<»tluiiobo? Nol>o<iy ooul4 
\mhim*Ai oviJonito hm to tlio roiility of bU MoniHition 
qud Monwitiini wlion lumm^UnmmiM In flllod witb tbo 
mmml of a »itro<^t-or^an. Hound, <M»liirf {Min{{i t\mm 
Aro data, iMit niondy tliin^H b<4i<wo<l in. J)ut tbo 
oxtornal worM — tliat i« n^iii vt4y ojmu^^UmI hm l^oing 
Myntl>oli'/o<l or iiuliieatoil by tlu^ imimmi lummAimt^ 
iu*,tM^ not uM haintf ((ivon ii} tl}/^ |ii'<^tnt <MinMi?i/nnino«M, 
In Mlii>rt, tlio |io{Milar iMiiitrtion of an oytomiil 
worlil, l><^in^ an aiM^rtion of ti^nin^tliinj; boyoinl tlio 
data of vAmtu^Umnnmn^ niiitit Ix^f^in in an aretivity id 
jud^inont that iUmh nioro than miiri^]y nuhuui profnont 
data to orditr, Kiiidi an aMtM^rtion iiiuMt \m an a/ftivo 
t'^nmtniiftion of lunMiatat Wo di> not rmeidvo in (mr 
tumat^M^ but wii {lotiit tiifou{;b our juilf^niont, wbatovor 
oxUirnal worbl tlii^r«i may for uti \m. If tlioro Im 
roally a iU*M\Hir ItujnU for tiiin jKwtulato of ourM| MtiU, 
at tbo outMot, it \n juni a {io»tulate. 

TBB immjb or the postituites. aos 

AH theories^ all kjpodieses as to Uie extenal 
woridi ought to £aoe this £act of tboaght. Ifdieliis* 
toiT of popular specaLadoii oo dieae topics coold be 
written^ how much of oowaidke and shoffling would 
be found in the beharior of the natural mind beioio 
die question : ^ How dost thou know of an external 
raality?'^ Instead of simply and ^ainly answer- 
ing: ^ I mean b J the eztenial worid in the first plaee 
something that I aceept or d»nand, dat I posit, 
postulate^ acliTehr oonstmct on the basis of sense- 
data^'^ the natural man gtxes us all kinds of Tague 
compromise answers : ^ I belieTe in die external re- 
altor with a reascoiahle degree of confidence; the 
experienoe of mankind renders the exist»ice of ex* 
temal reality ever more and mone probaMe: the 
Croator cannot haTe intended to deeeixe us ; it is un> 
natural to doubt as to external Nality : only young 
peo|^ and fantastie persnins doubt the existence of 
die external world : no man in his senses doubts the 
external Nality of the world ; science would be im« 
possible were thei^e no extomal world : monUty is 
undermined bv doubts as to the extomal world ; the 
immoTable confidence that we all have in the prin- 
eifde of causality implies the fixity of our belief in 
an eiLtemal cause of our sensations.'** Whei>e shall 
these endless turnings and twistings have an end? 
The habits of the law-<\Hirt$a$ condenseil into ^ rules 
of evidence^** the traditional nilets of delate,, the 
fashion of appealing to the ^ good sense '* of honor* 
aUe gentlemen opposite^ the motiveis of shame and 
fear, the dread of Iving calle^l ** fantasticaL'* Philis- 
tine desii« to think with the majority, Philistine 


Urn m^uttr of a mfin at lUulUm mmm fimU^iAijft^Uim 
iryUig Uf nimtiiUm wimt mmin Up im itm UmfuiiUMnm 
ii\mi whUiU mm*9i iffMul wUm\nfg ih\mmi$^^ -nil iirnm 
Ui^mmr Mipi\¥t$^ urn 9i\p\Hmhul Up^ mul i,\m mm uiilnmlti^ 
iimHLIvi^ U malm^^U Ttm nliUntiUi ii«/Hivi» wHU tim 
man i4 tivtiry-iUy lif^ U ilm will Up Iiuva mj» wtof' 
iml Wih'Ul, WlmUivi^f tunmiUmmmm iumUUM^ rmmm 
will imrnUi \n ninmU^mHiniy mUlUifg i\m l\umghi$ 
** Hui Hmm t^liiill \m mmmiUing \mymul iUU,*' 'V\m 
$iitUimiU rtMlky tm mmh Cu, y, iim ti\mm \mytmA iim 

U Wfi Mi mty Hummni ((iv^M \n m$ ftir im H U vimi^iNl 
trtmi ilmi nummnU Im imriUmlur t^ynry \Hmi ^¥mi) (i» 

lim t^^Uinmi rmliiy, T\m ^^ U$muP¥fiUUi imiisiniy ** U 
tufi mmh n t\*^ml \mml¥t$ iu^rUiiuiy im ilini wiib whUih 
w<« rM'nivti a |HiiM or mi t$Uu'.irU^ i^\umk, 'V\m lupfh 
ukr ii/nnHmni**i tpf an t^%Uirtml wttrUi U iim ti%mi Aa^ 
UtrmUmiUm Ui mtika trnti, iupw mul imfu**itipriUf 

I M ih«t i^itimrtil \ptt\tHUr iupiw^npiUmi^ of rmliiy w<v 
liMil iUit$i Uiii lirtii mm of inmiultiiMt^, W^ im¥» m ynt 
Hit JHtiiUU'MiUni for iUmH» \Soi *«v*iM iUn^ wt* ((i4 fu$ 
tultmonUi Uiutt, of i\u4r ntui mhI of i\mlr Hmnlmr, W« 
iiMiiii Untk at i^m ftu'Ui Iff t<v«ry-<liiy itmnUil lif«« n> UU 
iUi imprti tiUmaly, Vitr ilmni lt$ a iHirUmn Unuknmy 
of umoy Ut iMMtk^^ iimttn ^nmioUu^ti tnnmur mmmihUig 
ttl*w iUan wlmi i\itiy «ir«. OfUtu iUay wrw UiUirifrtiiml 
UM if limy ¥fttm wt \HH9itiUUin ni Mill, \mi ilHt4^ id 
mmtiti, OfU^M, u^uiu^ ih^r twiivt^ tmiort^ \n AUn^ 
{^urilMl io ytti tmoiUi*r wmy, uoil llM<y uiPimur im hlin4 
l^fM<»iv«» fiiiUi. HiU'U Ih ftt^'i iimy mmi nitimnif It w§ 


icAect upon diar mere conteat. and not upon did 
processes by idiieh ve get diem. Bat if ve inta^ 
prot diem li^thr^ ire shall see diat they ov^t to be 
i«gaided as belie£s^ taken for die fiist on risk, and 
beeaase die lisk is iroidi taking. 


Sometimes we hear men asserdi^ diat dior be> 
]ie£s are indepaidi»it of dior wilL Soeh a man 
win express hinwplf in some sodi way as die follow- 

^I tiy to conquer fotejodice: bot having done 
dii&. I can do no more. My belief* whatever it is, 
fonns itself in me. I look on. Mt will has nodi* 
iag to do widi die matter. I can will to walk or 
eat : bat I cannot will to beKeve. I mi^bt as well 
win diat mx Uood shoold cinmlate,*^ 

Bat is diis expreission a fair cme ? IVies aidi a 
man really remain passave in die stno^^gle diat goes 
on widiin him ? We think not. These beliefs in 
SQcli a man have lesohed. we hcdd. from a sort of 
straggle b^ween him and die sontHomding woiU. 
Hie world has tried sometimes to ched^ his thoog^ 
and to confine it to one channel : sometimes to con- 
fuse his thooght* and to scatter it into spray befone 
llie qoick. heaTT blows of innameraMei, disccmnerted 
fcsise apparitictts. Bat the man, if he is a man of 
energy, has contitiDed the coitent of his thoaght. 
He has f oagfat hand, now for freedom from ojqures- 
sre narrowness of thov^t. now for wholeness and 
unity of thoaght : and peihj^ he has in so &r con- 

^\%m¥m\ fm U^ \m Skm mmikMf ^4 » f9mAf miA mmf^ 

Uff tliU nyti^n \ nm\ wt* luM iimi mii/ mis4$ $mm 

^r«/ tiUuljf iprUtHy iim nuU$m ^4 iim \mHmm SmttU^ 
\n n\\ mu^U immn will im U$$f¥nim$i htr 4mr wU*fh 
iUn^Um, Wt* WmII mm iimrt-iipy Sum mm^U ^mr tb% 
frtj ttf iim wz/rl^l $$$w^ iiimif t^^l Up full umUff tim 

nU^p itm iU$piudUpt^i$ $4 PtniUppiry iipip^^^pi^ muX ikm 
nim\ i4 mptpm M^s^mf UUm\ ti^u\$i^p\ Up rmPfm m ifipm 
ilMt \piim miSt'jf^'iMi^ t4 nmtp^ \ppppiiii\$dm* Sm\ w# 
#IimII U p*4ptPir\\pppii9P^ Spy i\m may Up Pi p\mpi^m ipf Mf^ 
f/lWI p^UU*M^ ilM< nipmiUptp p4 iim tpppprppiiiy p4 \ptAU4* 

Vdip$ry iptPM rm*4pyi,fp\'/4^ ilmi «ii Umni ppur tmpim «t^ 
Mt/fM/^ ktup¥i\m\iffi iU^tmppU Uru,*^\y u\p4m 0mr tmn 
npmpUi\ pu^y\iy, HtupwUpff U puA fprnr** |MtiMiv# r#» 
pmjplA^ppp t4 fp^'U PPT t4 ifiPiSm, i^mnpUpye, U wpi mpMy 
MP ftlfpiir t4 Umi pppmppipry, 'IIm^ pppppsp iliMi wlU^^ f^^ 
tUu'iSim P'jpp$ppppiu$ iitUti/t^ti Up pppmppipry U j«M(tl/ mm^ 
iPtUP^A Up a \ppp,rrtii^ «mmI ppp\u}^i yH ppppptp* J^y 1^ 
p'4rtpt\ppirt^\ Uf iim tuptpfp^Pi p4 Hpi^9pU^\ 1iti;pprp$i ^ ti U 
\mi ^t^iPt^Ahiyi^ ytm^ M^^l, t^PPpPPiiP^f ypp^p ^ImII I^ 4ry 

P^K^ipp/' So kf|i/w|i^l|/Af iipMPP^ whitPPiPi PP4iiUpi \pipp^ 

\AUp\\iy Up Hph pp^UA Uim4 rt^'^iy^n i\p^ ktpppwimiff^, 
It^ii pm mptpPi PPM w^ ptfA*A^pAm \p^ pppt^pUi^ lif^ iU\pp 4pp$p 
\ptp^pitr Up pppsuWiy tpipr fc^M/wJi'>l(f« l/y ppppm$PMP4 pmrppwu 
PiA'iiyiiy, \t$pd mp ntum pUp mII i\m nhi t'4P9PP\pPifi>pppUPP p4 
ill*? pppUai Up Pi tfPiH UiSfU^^ U$ Pi i»)m<H t4 \pp^p*^^ PPT Up 
Pfitu^r lit/; i/ttA^Jv**. itui/fi^'iM of j>«|/r*'^l^/**, Upppp* hpf «l# 
i\Mr ppu'Ufthnp. Mi^fiiftil lifi* ifM'4rtp$Mtt for m#* Up ^Uw 
«4 iippm^ fpi4*U^ Pi ^UU\ of t'AmnUiPPi p^^\iUy» 'YUtp mm^ 

oc iLiMiwlBofgc sc^pnore n 

XWo kinds of j g Ufily >re«»ee p aed in Ae 

of kuywkd^ Out Had cnusiste iu aiqpfy 
ii^ ii^vesHSKttS boat widumt, foeli sis shua^ 
or, qa J^ fc^w phae. lUkiMiiiliv <rf tpaA; tks 

Tke neeftiiv avtiritT is inrtly a pk]P9- 
inl acdrity^ sinoe die <■» "mho rwcsms infioEBatmi 
MBSt «se Ids cyss snl esrss vast; Izeiep ambe, vou* 
idt l2BK mo^v slMot; snl dds rMcptm Miivii} is 
dbo pardv maie iqiof tbe mhriiini<al praoeBBBSof 
&e iMMKT. AssKMudon K ooniigwtr^ or Ip a rniag 
1i^ rote* is in die main a rawpd^v pnxiess.* tikov^ 
ttas pt o wiss of iviHfrtaan i^qpocb^as some aiedTe effioit 
on the put of tiie rowiTcr. Commitdng irardb and 
■eateMies U> memoiT is oftra latrl labor^ as ^«« all 
«f ns kamed wlien we first ws« tortairfid -mrlh iQ- 
w iungld. g e n ^ gia phies and grammars^ or wxtli sfeerai- 
Ibbb Latin deidaiaons and oomixtgadQDS. Bat of tka 
Pilule of tiiis rectepdre actiritT we shall maloe no 

iiig« lowping TOiOT mind in a ssEihmiaa^Y aUit*i i l ei» 
iMining Toor eros in tbe }«^cififr diiyxtioQ. afai^ toot 
cais« wfidng: down tout noftes. memorinng: whatei'vr 
naeds memraiixi^ — all this is ossenlsal to knowl- 
edge, but has no i^artare eJwt. does not modify the 

or the mal^T of ixmr knowl«id<r^. Seocmdlv^ 
\ knowlodgc" is der«rminod for oa^ of ns 
ky Ids own reason npon what he reioeiT^s : and 
405 secMmd mentjoneid kind of mental artaTTtx. thai; 

foRns 0iir tx^oc ai piressent. omsists in a modi* 

808 TttR Mimom ampkot or rttfLOAorar. 

ilonilott hm wnll hm itt nti orfffittiKniicm c)f wlmt wo Imya 
rooitlvwl from wiiliotit. All prcKHiNMON of roiuMmingy 
fittil Ml all ori((ltml cUmfuvorioN In Miintuio tttiil In ]ihU 
loMiphy, nil NtimiulniionN, iliwirloN, (lo|{niiM, (Mmtrovor- 
nIon, nnd not only ihoiMi ooniplnx tinNHiMMM, 1m(, mi 
wn Nimll iMMf, Mvnn filntplit JnilKnimiU, cHmintonplttiMi 
iHilioffi, nioninniary min of Hiiiinilon, Involvo iuah 
indiftNfnddni rtiiuiilon upon ilin nmiDrinl furnUliml to 
tm from wliliotti. 11im nnitiro of thiii ronation wo 
urn fnrilmr to (ixamlnin 

iM UM ootmldnr Nimplnr fortnM of knowlndgo. 
HmimvimproMMiotiM iMMmianily NU^(((<Mt io un ihougtit«| 
In fiuif, w(i Imvn fow iliou^liU ilmi am not oHhor itn* 
tn«Mliat4ily miffyn^nUnl hy mmmi - imprMMlonn, of oIm 
mtNialndil In ilmlr nourM) hy a (KmilnuoiM Ntroam of 
miiiaMn MimmvlniprdNNlonN. Tn narry on oven a train 
of atmtraiit r(iaMoninK< iMinMo^mproNMionN olitior pvtn^ 
ont or rii|Mmi<ift Nnom nmniMary aN Nup|H»rtM. Hut 
wItMn mimMt-impriiMMlomi iiomo to on, what trannformn 
tliinn into iliouKht ? 

II111 aoKwor U, Kir^t of all, aitimtlim, an aotivo 
niMtttal prM(<i«M. Tltn m^nMii'^ImprnMlon U Itmilf not 
yot kitowliMl^n. A KonmvimprnMMion to whioh wo 
^Ivn no attention KlIpN tliron^li (lomtniouNnoNM an II 
nian*M ImumI iliroii^lt waf^iir. Nothing f^raitpN anil ro« 
talnM it. iiltUn iilTfMit \n prodnoMfl hy it. it U un- 
known. Yon nannot ovnn I41II what it In. For to 
know what mii«h an unnotlnnd ImpriiMion In wonkl 
h(i Ui pay atiMoiion to h. Hot h^t om now oonfihlof 
mmu) fainlliiM' nttaniplMH of thn workln|< of ationticm* 
A fthnpin ioHtitncM will ImIo^ homo to om how tito 
houmlariiiM of oiirnoimohMmnoM aro orowdod with ttfl* 

to: Indt yet in iiOBe inexpliedkle waiT a put e( onr 

cnuKMBsnessw :«Bieieaai «lEMt ad atttMBtMn jMcme &lto 
hoBs: tkoB^ jufiT <aBe lof tkoB^ dknutlr into la-j-i^l 

tohml At dub iKtaaHlt Tvn aune Wkm^ at iSnnB^^ 

kovIt ^xASieaJiaBtg: to tqv tssqeiI ihimksssum&Sw to sit 
ndat ib wmr ia due field ^tb^oidl aumdi wino^ is due 
iMMBdujlme lof dfe^ fi^ tof tosmkil Tlie espen^ 
moBt isi ai fiitde kundL WeaiB^^ ^raor tf^viss. (randkssiol 

fadhciiinflntts ats; dKX ai« <olf diwltftss c«riNKilhr« are aL 
waws iNiSt&ess^, and ivhdl ndkea irani tnr tokoU dvsi 

Cmt.. Bat ci«K|iiBa' dneai IEmt an imi^tant^ and notoh 

fimUr Ifixifd t&sqoI fieM. timii will ait firsts ind^d. W 
coniBBSied Wdae x:fe«:iiKaietss <of all halt tdw (^SDlbr^ : Imdt: 
9Mn TWO mill find, to xvnoar iQcir|Mri<)ft. ttbat ttlbesne are 
IMSD^ diffiesysnt iiB|p«nes$a>i«&s in tdbe fieM dion jvia at 
first i^an dostiinK^iTaudk. Onue afiher ainwtliier« imanT xa- 
lioss iiii|w^$sskwk$^ wM affiour* Booir owMtifie : Tknn <an 
laMp yomjr aintieniCMxn find ^ooi amhr a fioffit&MBL <(Rlf tke 
field at a tDBBne. TW mast lof due ifidUl k alhraTS los$ 
in a draft kisie. YW min^t W reioeflTii^ inqpv«ss&MBi$^ 
aD dhe WMBie finoon aM ]pic>fint&5^ ^ai dae i&dUL Booir all <cf 
dwtse^ t»o(«eft d&e iew itKo wftikb jvoi paj attttienititnL 
nssurlr ^mt lonirae ni&aiipmtiur in d&e ^ibl dud^&ei&s doait 
gg i oui to $3oannctisamd due ^ktAe icftnesti'^i&umts: nsadke W 
unar amnenitiT^ (^ciffik<t(^i«si<m>fts$w A Hk^ (expairiBBient <flftn 
W tDTOied mi A dae «2Kie *trf l^fiamair* wfeem tcibi are in 
a faur^ TVH^fliD fmH 'ci |>iac»;<xi<e mb(> are T.&ilkiiBtg' aU arovsuBhl 
jHm in sauuDT is* j^^inniTiciir i::ro<Q^ A inasi^ ^ -5«c«Bnd 
toK^Moresir* 0«&d^flinsBessintoEl6erfis tosafae 


yoit |>i(tk out onu or luiothnr of tint MtrioN of Noimdii 
lui luil whioh In ituhMMl ttimb {nimmUiIo by tlut imtund 
luiiilyllo t4iit(totuty of tlut hutniiit nudltory MtiiNo, but 
whioh (tooM not tnko pliuHi without a iiotiooiiblo offort 
of littiintion. VVltuti yan mihi l«mrtiiti(( a foroiffn laii- 
IfuaKo, atut ant for a whiln uiucih aiiioti|f tltonit who 
Npoalc it| tlutro ooituiN a tiino wlinn your oar atid 
uiiuit aro woU uuouKh traiuod to follow and uiulur- 
Ntaud ordinary N|»oalcnrM with only a littlo offort of 
attontion \ but ynt, at tidii Ntaips you aro ablo, by 
Hinipiy witlidrawioff your attention a tuuru triHe« to 
lot vory oonunoM pliraMoM nui tlirouKh your imwtm 
witlioiit your undorMtaitdiuff tlutui ouo whit. You 
oan tItuM, liy a MliKlit oliauKo of attontion, oonvort 
tlto fortiiifn lauKuaKo from a Jargon into a fandllar 
M|NMtoh, ami li'aolc aifain into a Jargon, JuMt aM, lu tho 
flxud vlMual Hold, you oan nutlco yourmdf mio an ob- 
JiMst |M*otty piainiy, <ir Iomo it alt<iKotlior, by ooaidng 
to ifivo attontion. 

All thoMo iuMtanooM, wliloli lundd lio indoflnitoly 
niidtipiiod, provo, llrMt, tliat wimt wo oall attontion 
niodiftiiM tlio IcMowliulKn tluit wo at any nioniont ((itt \ 
and Mnnondiy, tlott tIdM niodiitnation, iJirouKli atton- 
tion, may taicn pliuio witliout any (fliaoKo in tim ini- 
pri^MiotiM tloit at any momnnt oomo from withiMttf 
'Vlus ttvni Mta^o in KottInK ItnowindKit from liaroiMmMO- 
impnmMionM iM tlioroforo tlm modiltnation of m^\\m^ liy 
attontion a pronoHM liolooKln^ wlioliy to tlio muI)- 
Jootivo Kido ; i, ri. to our own mindM. 

Hut wliat iM attiMiUon ? and liow dotm it modify 
MmHation ? Apparnntly, aUnntion in tlio prnviouN 
loMtanooM liaM boon moroly a powitr to InoroaMo or to 



diminiHih tibn intraiaitj of impreeBSiaBs* But is this 
all that attdntkoi does ? No : there ara many i^aaoa 
in which atlentkai direetly affeeta the quali^% at 
kast of oor complex imjuressionsu This direot modU 
fioation is commonly attended by aome aheiation of 
oar emotional state* It is a familiar fiM>t» that in 
Katening to a aeriee of rc^ruhur and eTen beats^ siieh 
as the strokes of an engine^ or of a pendulum^ or the 
tiddng of a watch, we have a tendency to modify 
Ae impressions by introducing into their series the 
more dlaborate regularity of r^-thm« In paying at> 
tmtion to th(»n« we increase^ at our pleasure^ the in- 
taosi^ of every thinl or fourth beat as heard^ and 
ao make a rhythnu or series of measures, out of the 
actually monotuntHis impressions* Now attention, 
which here first acts by modifying the intensity of 
impresaiouSk soim produces the effect of qiuditatively 
modifying our total impression of the whole series* 

If I have taken the fancy to listen to the even 


strokes in quadruple time, intensifying by my ovm 
aioi every fourth stroke, the charai'ter of the series is 
changed for mew The impressions are less monoto- 
nous, and thev arouse new assciciations* They setnn 

to be cause^l by some f\\ree that rhythmically in« 

* * * 

careaaes ami decreases* Pcrhap^t a melody, or some 
phrase of a few w\mK arises iu my mimU and )k>r- 
aists in associating itself with the strokes* lVi>baMy 
aome vag\^ feeling, as of rhythmic unction thnnigh 
the air« or of plt^asure or of dis)Jeasure in the (ut's- 
e%ee of some rhythmically moving living Wing^ is 
awakened* Qualitatively, my conaeiousnes» is thus 
ah»od through my attention* I seem to be experi- 

ti ¥ff^U^U Mui ti f<Utt'Ui Mui iiM4th it$ inHii Mi mum Hit 
lim fiif^imum iff Ml hw Umtuifii Hrf^, imrimpn^ tiUfpifihg 

tA^m U«Mi jftm fM¥^ frtfiu i^m mmwi, If ^^m tw§ 

\u\4irin\ tff ffti^ ffUtm ytrti t^ piUn\t\p. mtmW nm\^\pU fd 
^\^ ^/iW'A \uUit^t^\^ jftm tiu,u tf4rtuitiim iim iwf^ mrim 
UiUt tm^ rUj/iSmtf, mM i\mt iSmrt^ U hH UnfmASnl^ 
\M\tfti^\4m MA U Um< ftwo t^rU^ mttft$ fmWji \mi ikm 
t^ttnpUti^ ii^'Uiua tff tftm ^mrtm tff Mti$U4i, IWiH if tim 
mffim wiU Wfi Hffftt^^ iimtti U mt tftiA f^tm tff mnm* 
^UUt^ wrtfifiii h, tiit^ifftttUtUiti tsfftfti Ut fiiffniAmf 
pAfi^i^ ^mtimim^ wHU n, UtU4i4xit4tjf Ui UmUta tffm t4 ib^ 
pitsfS^. mt m Uf i$tiiU*i H M^^^ ¥fhU i\t4t tfiimr, An* 

Uttifttx^tfUfiiti^ Mt4 wfi ut^tttiijf M^ Uti4tfmhf 4ff my 

\if^tUim^^A, iU^if)SHi4\ fry Wm^mH Ut U\i^ ^ \^iytA4f\4t^ 
^i^Mt*^ \%iftf\^t\it\lU/* \\^r^^ Uft Mm« m\m tff 4U44^r 
UtUtUt^f M«^ fiJdimi iifti4^ U$,U*tu fry Mt M/<^ tff MM^I^^f 
Mt ttUti^tf^t U Ut w^Uf^ Mff tiiMfifU ffifftmi tm mmi m 
fM* SfM'4mtf^^ f<4tuf^')frtm tff M t^rUtiu Uttifftt^m^ wUiUf 

iim )wifttn^hfu \Ia4sU U ltftftiw4sf\ ifjf Mi M##i#li#Mi Hik A 

^ttfu ^nt^iitf ti*iUsHtihiMi, 'htis f^fimm tff iim impw^ 
fiUftt U Ui4t tUtifUm tft h f^ltf i^tm UftAh tff Mi 4^Ui4ft/ri§ 
^lft4,p^Ui tff m^tMUUtfi tff irim UUui ^armi Hpmi M tfa# 


iulseli. To di^tiiigmsli fnwi one mnotker tlie twiimb 
ma§iei$ of the debr of the signtiaJ* the iMiidilkiiis of 
mqpmmieiit are twoqsIt modi&eiL In one siet of 
experinientsv tbe okserrer doiets not know befocvliauDid 
wliellier be is to experiesMV a flatsli of li^t» or a 
socukL or some senistttion of tooek. nor how intensse 
tlie stenssition will be« nor wken it will ivme : but he 
know^ that he is to be on the kiokout for one of the 
tkiee kinds of sensation. He wait^ with attentioii 
all arottsed. In this ca;§e« it alwavs takes him Ions<«r 
to signal than if he knew belonejiand the kind and 
the strength of the ixumlDg ^sensation. Moreover^ h» 
attention now makes him uneasr : the eoming simk 
sation is ejcpected* with signs of excitements, and » 
oftiMi nevreiTvd with a start Hei^ the feelii^ of ef- 
fiMt that aic^irampaniies aitentkMi aff^vts br its strength 
the character of the impivssion leceived. Morev^rer, 
in manj of these experiments there a|^var pheni^n- 
€sna that show that attention ahers our penvption 
of tirne^ not merely as to length, but al^i» as to si^- 
qpenee : so that umler eirvnmistanc^Ss. an uii)vession 
that neallr prevWes another can appear in conscioos^ 
Bieiss; as snuMve^llng it. Yet move: attention some- 
timieis serves to combine two sets of simidtaneo^K^ un- 
pietsaonss anil to make them seem as if pfoeee^ting 
firom one soanv. 

So mneh for the inAiience of attention akoe. Bat 
what 15^ attention ? We reply, eri^lently an active 
ptociessw AVben impfetssions axe moditkxl by atten- 
tim. ther an^ accivelr nKKlitWvt. An^l if tvki ask 
ahoot the nature of this active process^, the reply is. 
atttention* in its most ekmentarv f onns^ is the same 


Aotivity that in a moro devoloped aluipc wo oommonlj 
call will. We attend to one thing rather than to 
anoUier, bociauMo we will to do tio, and our will it 
liaro tlio elementary iinpuliie to know. Our attention 
leadN UN at tinieii into error. Hut thi« error in merely 
an aeeom|)aninutnt, the nmult of our will aotivity. 
We want to inteuHify an improHNion, to bring it 
within the Hphert^ of knowledge. Hut in oarrying 
out our iuipulms we do more tliiui we meant. We not 
only I)ring Hometlung into eleart^r eouMoiouMneM that 
WttM lH)fore otit of eleiu* eouHeiotmneiiii, Imt we quail* 
tatively nuKlify Uiim thing in attending to it. I want 
to olmerve a HerieH of Utatii, and in obHerving it| I 
make one Imat in three or four Neem lutavier than the 
otlierH, or I even alter the apparent lengtli of one in- 
terval in three or four, by making it fieom longer 
tlian the others. I obrterve a iieriim of viiiual im- 
])reHHionH, and at the »iame iUnvt a HerieN of auditory 
imprtmHiouM ; if there iH a eeriaiu agri^ement between 
tlu^m, I irreMiAtibly unite tliene two HerieH I)y my aot 
of attontion into one MerioH, luid reft^r them to a com- 
mon 0IUIMI1. And ho in tlie othi^r otinen. Attention 
Het^niH to dofuat, in part, itn (»wn objmtt. Bringing 
fMUuetliing into tlie ilidd of knowletlgo neenm to be 
a nuNJifying, if not a trauHforming, prcKioHH. 

We all know h(»w tliiH name law workn on a higher 
plane, (living our wludn attimtion for a time to a 
])artieular Hubjoet neemn ueeimHary for the growth of 
our knowledgo. Yi^t Hudi attention, if h>ng kept up« 
alwayn nuHliflnH our |k)Wct to kiu)w, afTentn our whole 
mental eondition, ami thtm injun^H our i>ower to ap» 
preoiato the relationn between tlie Nubjeot of our 


atodj and the other things in the world. Constftnt 
attention to one thing narrows our minds» until wo 
£ul to see the very thing we are looking at. Oar 
]ivo» are thu» really ))iai»ed in a constant flitting 
from one more or le«» partial and distorted view of 
things to another^ from this one-sided jmigment to 
that Change the book you are readings and your 
whole notion of the universe soGEers some momentaiy 
ehange also. Think this week in the fashion ci 
Carlyle^ attending to things as he brings them to 
your attention, and human life — in faet» the whole 
world of being as you thought of it last week, when 
jou were following some other guide — becomes mo> 
mentarily elomled. This truth seems out of relation 
to that. Your ohangt> of attention qualitatively alten 
your apprehension of truth. Attending now even to 
Ao same things, you view them in new lights. The 
alteration of men^ attitmle becomes confusing to 
yourself. But ref \ise to make any such changes, set- 
tle down stea^lfastly to some one way of regarding 
aU things, and your wiiorld becomes yet more misty. 
You see only a (ew things, and those in such a bad 
ligfat that }-ou are in danger of utter darkness. Fre> 
quent change of mental view (we of course do not 
mean constant chancre of creed or of occupation, but 
only frequent alteration of the diivction of our 
thought) is essential to mental health. Yet this 
alteration implies at least some temporaxy change in 
our knowing powers and so some change in our ap 
preciation of truth. 

Before going on to speak of the effect of our own 
activity upon our knowletlge, when attention is com- 


IiIikmI with iu;iiv(4 nMMif^tiiiioii of impri^iMion*, ir# 
want U) fortiiiilai4) tho law thai govwrtin ilio iU5tioti 
of atUnitioii upon Hotmn-itiiprimHioiiH apart from r«0> 
ognitioii. 'Y\\\H hiw h«m)iiih prutty woll (^Htablinliod by 
ex|M*rioii(Ms aiul Im, at all ovinitM, qiiiU» MitiipU). It U 
thiH : Any mi of attcnition tiMulM, iirtit, to Mtronfftiian 
th<) partiiMilar H(?t of iniproMHionH to whhih it hi nt the 
tnonu^nt lulaptiMl ; an<l HO(M>n(lly, to modify tlAoiM» ito* 
pnmHionH in liiidi a way an nhall mako tlu) total im» 
pnmMion dorivixl from tiiMm all an nimph) an improd- 
Hion an ixmHiblo. I'Im^ho two Htatomimtn (vmLJ ba 
vi^AwvMii to ono, tlniM: Atti^ntion ocmHtantly totuLi 
to mak(4 our (tonH<?iouHn<fHH moro dMilnitu and Umh 
i}ompl»x ; that Ih, K^hh confuHiMl and moro united* 
Mon) doiiniUs h^HH <*^>nfuMiMl atUuition toiulu to make 
conM(UouHn<)HH ; Hin<M% out of many vaguit impreiMi/>nN| 
attiuition Wxm upon om^ or a f^w, and iMdpM tliem 
to (^rowd out tho otiMU'H. hi^H (*^>mph)x ami mora 
unitiul or inU^f^rattMl atU^ntion nuikim Um) imprt^MMiiiiM 
att44nd<*'d to ; mh wIkmi, for tliM indoilnito multiplicity 
of iho Hurfu^Hivo (}von boatH of a waU^h or of an an- 
gin<% attiuiiioii HulmtitutiM tho Himplor form of a rill- 
ing and falling rhythm of moro and h^MH omphatie 
hiMitH, or iM whi^n two paralhd m^riifH of imprafNiionN 
aro nMlu('4{d to onn, l>y comhinaiion. If improMMiomi 
an; ho ('.oniphtx and ho imjxu'aiivo in thiur dmnamU 
an to ini|)<'.do greatly thn Him|)lifying and clarifying 
ciToriH of attontion, tho rcHult in a dinagriiaabla feel- 
ing of <M>nfuHion, that may incn^ano to violent jmin. 

Thin law, that our <'.onH(;iouHn<mH i^onntantly titmU 
to tlio minimum of ('/om|)h^xity and to tlu) maximum 
of deilnitencHH, im of great im|K>rtance for aU j»ur 

m woKLD or THE rcmrLATBS. SIT 

knowledge. Here we hiive ii HtniUiUon Uuit raanol 
be oTerieM|ied. Wkatever we come \0 know. wh»t> 
eter opinions we couio to hold, our attention il in 
that tnaken all our knowing antl all our Wliering 
poMible : and the lawn foUowe^l bt thin, our own ao* 
tiritT of attention will thun determtne what we are 
%o know and what we are to belie\-e. If thingn have 
nmre than a certnin otwnplexity. not onlt will our 
Uttitt«d |iowen« of attention forbid un to unrarel thin 
omnpleutT. but we Khali utronglr doiure to lieliete 
the thihgiK aetuaUv muoh nimpler than thet are. For 
our tlKMi|:htji aUmt thorn will have a ronntant ten* 
lienor to Un^uno a^ niniplo and doAnito a^ |iONuble« 
Put a man int4» a |iiTf<ivt ohat^ of phonomona, nif^hta. 
KHtnd^. ftH^liu^ : an«l if tlio man t»ntunio«l to okirf, 
and to W rational at all. hii« att^ontiou would d«Hibt- 
lean anon find for him a way to make up f«muo kind 
of rhythmio n^darity. whioh ho would imputo to the 
ikingiK aUmt him. 9*^ a^ t«» ima^no that ho had di^ 
ocivennl aomo law of mnpiono^^ in thifi matl now world. 
Ami thttf*. in ov^tt oano where wo fanov our^olve* 
rare of a MUiplo law of Nature. w«t muM remomWr 
that a fsooil deal of tho fanoio^l MUiplioity may W due 
in tho pv^»n oaao not to Nature, but to tho inoni«li» 
caldo pn*jmli«v of our own mindn in fav\M* of repilar* 
itr and nimplioity. All our th«Might in dotemiinod, 
in great moanure. by thin law of loaat effort-, an it in 
foimd oxom|difio«l in our aetivity of attention. 

lUit attention in not tho \v\\r intlui^noe that gnen 
to trannform nenMMmprenni^Min into knowle«lge. At- 
tiontion never workn al^mo. but alwayn in com|HUijr 
with the active proeesn of ree«igninng the protenl 

818 7tt% mAGiOftjfi Mnof op Ptttvoaoittf* 

M in mtMi WHj tnmthnt^ mnI (A tttrntil/mislitig in Hm 
{yr<4:f«ftii KlfHA fft whAd in lufi ptMmnL Ai Umvm tfW0 
fMmt m^ttfn pt4n'4v9«mi wf^ fniHd yfrjr htwHy j^imoir^ 

K<^wi^fifif</n in intoU(i4l in nil knmrl«ilff«(« ll«6^ 
niiimi ikyf«» m4 ftlwiiyft nnmn n (Ufdniib nmnmj (4 » 
jmtiioftlHf jmni ^rxp^rri^rm^ ihfti fffMrmbkifPi * prmiftti 
ime. (>n ih^ (^fmirnry^ r««wyf(nflimi i^ (r6iffn<rftlly 
only A MvnM^ firf fftmiliArily wilh nmn$fihing mm ptm^ 
etti^ i^tpM with ft m^yro or k>wi /liAiinf^ ft{y|il)rinft of 
ftomff |)rrMlf/^ftlA 1^9 IhfA fifffr^ifrni ihin^. I rtKHfgniMf * 
hor^tf", ft lftmlMfft|i«4^ ft Atftr, ft f ri^rmK A piff^ ^ im»f^ 
ft )rf)iryk« whfrn I ff^l morf) m hm (ftmiliftr wilb tlfo 
ifnivfmni4m (ft ih^ /yKj^fl in qm^Alfont ftn<l wficm^ fti 
ib^ fiftmA ifnif(^ I {irriwliffftl^^ m/yr^ m hm Ainiin^^tf 
mftiH^hiufi (it i%, ThiA, I mty^ in tnj tfUftnU ^ ^ 
north «tftr, m MVfi)f!fU^'n l^iHumMj^ m HfftHlf*ii» 
hfftnK*. Or^ |i«yrhft)y<i^ in tP4*4y^nmtif^^ I r6^)Of(niMy« not 
ni«rr^ly ilff> wh/rlA fylr|f^it^ tmt /m<) iA On ({mAiiSmi 
oi' firf iM rf^lfttf/m to fiihfrr thin^A. 'Thmt I M/^ tfaitf 
iii Iftr^A iit fvmftll^ f('Ki<l firr Wl, w|fiftl c/r nn«f<|iMl to 
ftn<ji)i^r thin^^ ftn/l ^y f/n. In ftll thewf i^ftMm^ foonff' 
niti/m inv<ylvf*<(ft lively rf^ft/'li^iti firf mj minA npon Ml- 
t^nftl \m\fft^9inutn^. Mf^'^if^mium ia n/ii f/itin<l ftfwftft 
tunu hiUt^^\\inu tlwrn^h ftt**^Hf/m mftjr foiifli mor^f or 
k^ i^nn\fU^\y wifth/mt rf^/^^y^niti/m. Kfioofrnitioii 
C'^rmpl^t^^ whftt H\^U^^ium \ipfpTin, 'Thfi^ ftll«fntito 
mftn wftniA I/9 ktum^ i\^ rf«<t<y^ni/fnf( mftn know»f or 
thinks thftt )u\ kn/rwft. fi^v»^nftf/m inipli«A ftooofnM 
fi^tnym^ ftM^^ff//ri. Adft^^ntion Wflth/mt r«iOOj^itioA 
irn|>li^'f( w/iti/If»r, ^firi/r<;Hy, (»f»r|»krtffry^ |mrhftp» t^rrroTr 
l^flt whftfc i« fh^ I AW (it i\m ffr(^'Pi^ (4 tmagp\i\tm'! 
l)(r^ the poc«flA fttteci tlie imiirrffjiAions tlM»Mlf€iV 


tiuil are Hie basis of tbe recognition ? Tlie answer 
is: Veiy distinctlyi, ruH^oji^ition does aSeol the im- 
pressions* The activity involved in i^eognition ak 
ters the data of sense^ and that in almost everr case. 
Two of the ways in whicli this alteration occurs 
an» the^ : (^l.> In xiHoognixiii^^ we complete ))re(Sient 
data by remem Wred past data« ami so seem k> expe« 
rience moi^ than is actually given to our senses* 
Tlius^ then^ in readingi, we read over misprints (^even 
against our own will\ thinking that we see words 
wben we do not see them^ or w^>n we see only parte 
of them« Again : in listening to an indistinct 
apeaker xre often supply what is lacking in the soiukIs 
liM^ makes, and seem to hear whole woxds when w« 
really hear but fragments of woitis* Or« merely 
whistling a few notes, we recall to ourselves^ and 
aeem to have pros^>ntit the c^nuplex instnummtal har> 
mony of some music that we haw ht\iu\i )Jayed« 
Or, in dim twilights xre imagine the fiuiu of a man, 
and seem tiL> si^e it {Jainly in detaiU when^ in fact, a 
mass of shrubWry, or a coat on a chair, is the one 
aouvce of our impressiivns. In all these cases, the 
activity of rec^^gnition alters the data of sense, by 
adding ti> thenu by tilling out the sketch made by 
them. (^±> However, ewu the qiuJities of s^ynse^m- 
pit^ssions are alterixl acc^^nliug to tlK> way in w^hich 
we recogniie their objects; The c^Jors of a landsi^ape 
are dimnH>r, and less signitlcant as c^Jors, Si> kmg 
as we recogtume the objivts in the Iandsca)>e. I^^tik 
onder your arm. with Iu\ihI tuvert^iHl, and tht^ c^Jors 
flash out with unwonted brilliancv. For wht>n w>u 
ao look, you lose sight of the objects as suoIh and 


give your attention solely to the colors. Mistake a 
few brown leaves in some dark comer of a garden 
for some little animal, and the leaves take on for the 
moment the distinctive familiar color of the animal ; 
and when you discover your blunder, you can catch 
the colors in the very act of fading into their dull, 
dry-leaf insignificance. Many facts of this sort are 
recorded by psychologists and by artists, and can be 
observed by any of us if we choose. To separate a 
sensation from its modifications that are produced 
by re(^>gnitiou is not a little diiiicult. 

Now, in both these kinds of alteration a law is 
obwirved, very simihir to the one previously noted. 
The alt(;ratioiis of the data of sense in the moment of 
recognition are alterations in the direction of simplic- 
ity and deflniteness of consciousness. The present 
is assilnilated to the jmst ; the new is made to seem 
as familiar as possible. This reaction of the mind 
upon new impressions is easily seen in our thoughts 
and words in the first moment of great surprise or 
fright. When Mac^lxith turns from his door to the 
table, and sees the ghost of liancjuo in his chair, his 
first words are not the ^^ A vaunts and quit my 
sight I " wherewith he greets the second api>earance 
of the ghost, nor yet even the " Wfiich of you have 
done thin f " that he utt(;rs as soon as he recovers 
himself. No : his first (conscious rea(;tion, in pres- 
eniut of the horrible inii)ression, is a quiet remark, 
" The table '/* full.^^ And when they tell him that 
there is a place res<5rv(Ml, he persists with a 
" Where ? " In this scene, Sliakesi)eare's instinct 
is perfectly accurate. Our effort always is to make 


Uie new as fmmiliar as possible, even when this new 
is inconceivably strange. It takes us some time to 
realise^ as we say« a git^ cliange of any sort Reo> 
ognition« however^ is yet further modified by the in- 
ierest with which we at any moment attend to thingf. 
But when we 8))eak of interest^ we are led to the 
third kind of active modification by which our minds 
determine for us what we know* 

At every moment we are not merely receivings at- 
tendings and reciigniiing* but we are constructing* 
Out of what from moment to moment comes to us, 
we are building up our ideas of past and future, and 
of the world of reality. Mere dead impressions are 
given. We turn them by our own act into symbols 
of a real universe. We thus constantly react u|)on 
what is given, and not only mixlify it. but even give 
it whatever significani'e it comes to |K>ssess. Now 
this reaction takes a multitude of forms« and cannot 
be fully discussed witliout far more than our presi^nt 
•pace. But we can name one or two prominent 
modes of reaction of mind u|Kni sense-<lata in this 
province of mental life. 

1. Definite memory is |x)ssible only through pres- 
ent acti%*e construction from the data of fiH'ling. 
Nothing can wmo to us certifjnng for itself that it 
fomietl a jHirt of our previous ex|H»rience. When 
we know a thing as j^ast, we actiwly projwt our 
iflea of It into a wniceivcil j^ast time. Without this 
acti%i» interferemv of our own mimK c%*erj-thing 
woidd Iv but a prcsiMit, aiul there wiuild W no time 
for us« only fleeting life from moment to moment. 

2. Definite lielief in external reality is possible 

tm)y ihrtmgh thin mt^irti n4Miium fft urmMrtMng <rf 
tmr fmn Ut ihi9 im]rrmnifmn ihut nr^ nminMilj 0f0n 
itf nn. No ivxt^rmal ri^ftlitjr m ^tiri9n t<i nn in th« nMnr» 

At th#» wimi» tirn^ wiihiri iim. Ihii rmt of whfti it fai 
tMf WA r)</n^m/4 An i<l^ 4ft An «9xi^mAl world. To 
tm mife th'm li^li^ n#9f9rU hi^h#9f jmriifW^Ati^m^ Hkn All 
othifr M\49tn. thd At iho mjtiN9t it iff jnut All A6tif^ 
jtjr of /mM. 

ft. All AfmtfAM idffAH, All ^mi^Al trnitifff aH knnwU 
«<l/(#9 //f nfKf^HfiAfy lawfi, a11 Ar)/j#rptAno#» <rf ikMSftriiMMiy 
}mf(itt in lik#) fuMhi^m, thn/n^h An nHirti prftmm eom- 
in^ fr/mi within. (/1iAn^#9 the fAffhi//nff of fmr AMU* 
tAl AT'tivfty, An<l no\ftft\y r;An titll h/fW rrnVtmlly Jtm 
wm\t\ <5hAn^i9 mif wh/fl«9 vAmvA^tium iA thi9 tmiteme* 

4. All iim n4dh4i f^mnirtu'ium trinn mnfm-imff0ih 
ffir/nff DxpTi^MffAff r^eriAin frjn/lAmimtAl intiirMitA tiiAi 
mtr hnwhtt njfirti Uikm in r^Ality. W«» WAni to hATd 
A w</f kl rrf A f^ftimilAf vh^tu'tt^ ; Ami no^ from 
m'jmi-iutjfrt^imumnj w/» Ar« f'/mfitAntly trying to btfild 
riff nwh A w/nrl<l. W#j Afft |ff/4JfjJi/!wl in fATor of 
f^^gfjlarity, ti4'i4'4mnity^ Hwl nitfiplu'Mj in th^^ worM j 
Mul nt9 wft /'./fritinriAlly niAnifiiilAt#4 the <lAtA //f MmM 
f/nr the Hake <rf ^itjil/lin^ tifi a n<Hti/m /rf A ref(nlAr^ 
ne/ieMAfy, An<l fttniffle riniverMe. An/| ff^y, thongfa it 
iff tnie that imr kn/mh^/l^e /rf the w//rKI iff rleter- 
niin#9/l )fj what iff ^iven t/» tmr mitm:n^ it iff e<|flAll)r 
true that fmr i<leA /rf the w/rrl<l iff /let^^rmine^l <fifit<i 
Aff forieh \ry tmr //wn A/?tive /'/miMnati/m^ e//rnpleti<m^ 
AntieijfAtf//ri r/f munt^ exjKirieri/fe. Thrm All kn/iwing 
iff, in A very <leep m*.tm^^ twiiuK ; it iff^ in fA/?t, reAe^ 
rnf( An4 C5reAtimi. 71ie m/ifft inffignifi<$Ant knowladg^ 


ia in some aeiiae an origiiMd prodoot of tlie num wlio 
knows. In it ia expreiaaed hia diapoaition^ hia power 
of attention» hia skill in recognition, hia interest in 
reslity, hia oreative might. £xsot knowledge ia, in 
fset, best illustrated by ceaes where we ourselves 
make what we know. So only ia mathematioal 
knowledge poaaiUe; mathematioal ideaa are all prod- 
oota of a construotive imagination. And so it ia in 
all other thoughtJif e. Mentally produce, and thou 
shalt know thy product. But we must remember, 
for what we produce we are in some sense morally 
respouaihle; and thus, in discussing the nature qS, 
knowledge, we are treapaaaing on the borderland of 

To sum up all in a few words : Plainly, since ao- 
tire inner processes are forever modifying and build- 
ing our ideaa ; since our interest in what we wish to 
find does so much to determine what we do find ; 
since we co\dd not if we would reduce ourselves to 
mere r^stering machines^ but remain always builds 
ers of our own little worlils* — it becomes ua to con- 
siiler well, and to choose the spirit in which we shall 
e^camine our experience. Every one is certidn to be 
prejudiced, simply because he does not merely re- 
ceive experience^ but himself acts, himself makes ex- 
perience. One great question for every truth-seeker 
is : In what senses to what dt^pree^ with what motive, 
for what end, may I and should I be prejuiUced ? 
Most of us get our prejudices wholly from the fash- 
ions of other men. This ia cowardly* We are re- 
sponsible for our own creed, and must make it by 
sur own hard work. Therefore, the deepest and 


mtmt imiwrtant of all qiie»tionii U the one, ^ F'ar 
wJi/it wri ihm at work V^ It U \mAm% to reply^ ^ i 
iww merely tudiny df/t/m wIuU I find in tfie world* 
I mn not rewponwihU far Out fatttB.^^ The aiiMwer b, 
^ A mere note-book tliou art uot^ but a man* Theiie 
are uidyaT niinply noteM; thy thoughts are always 
traniifoniied reality, never mere copie* of reality. 
For tliy tranHfonning aetivity, m well an for thy 
•kill in copying, thou art annwerable/' 


It is not tlum tliat postulates occur here and 
there in our thr>ughts, but tliat, without postulatea, 
both practical life and the commonest results of the- 
ory, from the simplest impressions to the most valu- 
able beliefs, would 1x3 for most if not all of us ut- 
terly imjiosKible ; this it is which makes active faith 
so prominent a subje(;t for philosophical considera- 
tif>n. An miimrlMsi reflection makes that appear aa 
blind faith which ought to api)ear as postulate* In- 
stead of saying that he takes all these things on 
risk, and l>e<;ause they are worth the risk, the natu- 
ral man is i>erHuaded by such imjierfect reflection to 
say tliat lie trusts ynry ardently tliat lie is running 
no risk at all. Or again : the natural man is moved 
U) {ear any examination into the bases of his thought* 
because lie does m^t wish U) discover that there is 
any risk there. And m) we live dishonestly with 
our tlif>ughts. Wliere tliere is a deeper l>asis, that 
involves mr>re than mere risk, let us And it if we can* 
But where we have nothing better than active faiths 


let US disooTer the fiict, and see clearly just why it 
is worth ^diile to act in this way. 

To speak more particolaily of the postolates of 
developed science. The ancient discussions about 
the basis of physical knowledge of all soits have 
had at least this as outcome, that it is useless to pre- 
tend to make scioice of any sort do without assump- 
tions, and equaUy useless to undertake the demon- 
stration of these assumptions by experience alone. 
No one has ever succeeded in accomplishing such a 
things and the only difference among thinkers about 
these assumptions is that some think it worth while 
to seek a transqindental basis for them all^ while 
others insist that a transcendental basis is as impos- 
sible as a purely experimental basis is inadequate, 
and that in consequence we can only use the form of 
threat and say : Unless you make these assumptions, 
the spirit of science is not in you. As for the exact 
form that in more elaborate scientific work ought 
to be taken by these postulates, opinion differs very 
much^ but an approximation to their sense may be 
attempted very briefly as follows. 

In addition to those postulates that« as we have 
seen, accompany and condition all thinking alike, 
science may be considered as making a more special 
assumption. This assumption has been well defined 
by Professor Avenarius« in his well-known essay on 
^ Die Philosophic als Denken der Welt Gemass dem 
Princip des kleinsten Kraftmasses." He regards it 
as an outcome of the general law of parsimony that 
governs all mental work. The world of phenomena 
is conceived at any stage in the simplest form, and 



8S0 run MtAmmm Mmm m rmtMOfur. 

Urn rmiiiy iimi wa m^mpl h hrr m Mi nny iitm ihf 
lAittphiti iUmifripiUm 4if iim phmumwM^ m Uiumn Up 
m* T(y pnt ihk fUm in imr imn wny^ wiy m\f(^i 
my tffAi iim wmUl it* m44miHUmny fUrwmi m h fmr* 
imii\y ntAim\ wb^^^ whi^fh wnM^ if fnlly kfi^/wrt^ 
y I fully Miikty ^mr hi^fMwi fymftinl ^l4^rA f^/r ifr/nliftriiiy 

I §ih4t fmrf49(ft fffgnUifiiy tft iifftHmpii4m, 'nmr^iff^ h 

h H iUftumjfiUm ihni m^jfrmmm iim m^imiiUUs Ul4^U 
With Umti jmH^fi^Umf hHmumyfMui unity 4ft iiymffH 
ninnti iim WftM^ m44^u'4^ will imfpit rmi wmlwii mt 
htnn M nim 4i4miinn4m iff im m44>ftu'^, thii Urr ihi^ 
^my tmrnm Md#fm« \Hni^t\H^4m tlM4 itii^ \mrt$i4^ fftiUtr 
mwd )m fAtmAy rm\\im\ in i\m iufwhU h in wfi 
nurfiAy ifMi ihU tmhr U ilm prmiUmiiy nrniMninHlth 
tmt ^ill m^mmnry i^Umi hft tmr tmrnnn bnl w^ 
fmi#t ptiA/nhliA tlMii tItU imUtr in %]fmAy prmmi in 
i\Anfff4^ hf 4ftf nn mr ihrnfihi in Irtm ii ThU pftth 
tnUitA ffjifm lifi« Uf 4mr m^iifi^i Hymtthi, Y/iitumi 
H imt mufi^h hff mt imUtr ihA nmA wA t^im in 
numtAniiUm^ \AHy, 

'DiU \fffnin\nl^\ w^W^ hfmt^m^ it ttmm}^ w</fiM 
m^Arf tiff nn t^Anii^^^ nimpMt^iy mu\ t^^nunny t4 i'Am- 
m\i^ufn* ^rh#» iniiniu^ mnm f4 ph^ftumiimH wmikl ti^ 
4Ufn4f$AfMi fm 4fn$t wli/^ki. ^rh#» mHnimnm iA WMilith 
#yf tm^ mtmhi )n^ f^rMfi^l wHIi i\m minimmn iA ntmt-^ 
tni fAlfffii Wiv firmifilAlA htiM' ihin tnnhUm ihni iim 
wwW imf^n jmrpiiwfny^ frtwi m w^ fUh 

mn^U^ tA ni4u*hMti4'fi.\ nf4pfw*4^ hnn /fAll/f/l ii iim mfi4mm 
irlfi^^h ff}^pm iim ninipi4>iffi ii^mniU*^ dpmt^riptUm (A %\m 
nuAS^mn ill %\m m(rM» U w^ nm^ iUin mmmni iA 


fuoAamB^ we are aft onee pmiled bj the fMft Aat 
mosft mediaiiieal tkeories make assompdons about 
the foams aft in»k in the woiU, and that aUof dieni 
predict coming facts. Baft foorccs form no part of 
the expeiiaice or of the mere deso^lion of modoii. 
And the future is not yet g^^en to be desianbed. 
How then does all this agree witb die deBniftioD in 
question? Yeacy wdl indeed. For those wbo as- 
some forees to erplain giren motions^ ahra js assome 
just those fnces that will direedy exphin, not any 
descziption at random of tbe motions giren in e^qpe- 
rience^ but the sbnjdest possible desoqition. Ajoj 
modcoi being lebdre^ nerer for our expeiienoe abao- 
late^ we can assome at pleasore any point in Ae 
world as die origin or pcnnt of reference that shall 
be regarded as at rest, and so we can get an infinitd 
nomber of descriptioins of any giTen motions We 
can make any object in die world more at any de- 
sired speed or in any desired direction, dmply by 
altering the origin to which we shall chooee to refear 
its motMm in oor description thereof. Bot all tbeae 
possible descriptions are not eqoaDy osefol for die 
porposes of the science. Some one of them is die 
simpkst for all the motions of die system in qoes- 
tion; and this we r^egard as best expressing theao- 
toal natoral troth in the matter. The assomption 
»f jost SQch farces as woold explain this sim{dest 
STStem of motions as described* satisfies as. We 


sav. these forees are the real ones at woi^ Bot 


stiQ we know that the forces assomed only express 
in another form the fact that the descriptian in ques- 
tion is the simqpkst Is this» howeTar, rea% all diat 


the science does with the given motions ? No, one 
thing more the science assumes, namely, that if the 
system of motions in question is not subject to any 
external influence, it will remain fundamentally and 
in deepest truth the same in future, that is : The 
simplest description of the given motions in a sys- 
tem of bodies that is wholly independent of the ao- 
Hon of bodies without the system^ this description 
is permanent for all states of the system. This 
assumption is needed before mechanical science can 
venture on any prediction, or beyond mere descrip- 
I tion of past and present motions. This is the pos- 
l tulate of the uniformity of nature in its mechanical 
shape.^ The complete present description of the 
world would reveal the whole future of the world. 
What, however, does this postulate of uniformity 
^jy express for our thought? What is the philosoph- 
ical outcome of it? It expresses for our thought the 
demand that nature shall answer our highest intel- 
lectual needs, namely, the need for simplicity and 
absolute unity of conception. Mechanical science 
can no more do without this assumption than can 
any other science. 

The ground that we have here very briefly passed 
over is known to all readers of modem controversy. 
We can only add our conviction that, as far as it 
goes, the foregoing view is a perfectly fair one. 
Whether or no there be any deeper basis for this 

* Professor Cliffonl, in his estiay on Thwrita of the Phytical 
FofTces, in his Lfetum and EssaifSt vol. i., p. 109 #77., has under- 
taken to reduce this postulate to the general one of Continuitj 
The philosophical outcome would bo the lame. 


Mul diH^ nol giw any d«H£^)>«r lm^« for it« For uat^ 
uml ^M'iit'iio^ il i» % fmth% 
Now thU 6iith^ uot Uiud MtJ\ Iml {Hv»tiikH\ nol 

to it^ but l>oldly »»»uimHl lv$<cnMi^ wi^ thiuk it w^^Mrth 
th^ ri^dc^ whi^mu dmv"^ it Axth^t f ix>in wh^ onr fuud«b 
nK^At^ rt^ligiom f^th w\nikl Imo if w^ m«idt> of tluKt 
id^ no iu<vn> doginatlo cit^U but a gim<md <i8»uiiip» 
^mu uo uioi^^ {uiAsav^ tm»^ but «in tic^tiv^ {M>»tid«itie ? 
li^^iu'atli «Ul th<^ U^lit^Jhi tluit wi> cKvuld not dtoiuoik^ 
fttrnk" in our l^^^t cJ\apti^r^ Uy th^ d^>t^nnin^on not 
i»o nuioJ\ tt) provt> mit> <Nii2^t4r<[m «\^ti^iu k^S dogmnj^ 
HA to find muno dtuniMit t^ rtsUity that ^oidd havid 
nn intiiiih^ wtu'th. Tho vrorld d^tudd Ih> at KniAt as 
hi^h a» our lii^^^htix^t o^mtvptitui i>S |^HHtno»8. And 
to thi;ft i^iid tho i>»rti^l t>vil sditmld Ih> in dtn^iv^^t 
n^ity uniwr5«d }?o<Hi^ own thoujtb our inijH>rfoot 
<?yiv» wuld nowr jihow 1^^ U5» how tlun ^^tudd Ih\ ^ 
could nowr j^v rimn\^h Uu^ iUusuon txi rtio ** inia^ 
losw trutli " Inuu^tJu Tlu^rt>f\m\ although w^^ vainly 
j^wjrht aiuon^s? ilw Powor^k of tlu* wx^rld twt jmnrf of 
all tlii^ may wt^ not i^till Iio)h> to apim^ac'lx tho 
Kl^^rnal Ri^ity witl\ tluvn^ {HK^tuUHvik and h^ say ; 
** Though thou itn'\vjUi>*t t^> U5^ notliinis.. yx^t w\* l^ 
liow tluH> jynHnU And wx^ do !^> Ihh^Uv%> thi.^ faith of 
o\ir?^ i5^ a wiwthy tuu^" IVvwiWy tlwn our Koli|9^m 
will Ih> jujftt tho hi^h<(^t fnu^ni of our <^wdu«»t xtmAt^ 
mr doWnuinatit^i ti> niaki^ ihio w^rld jjttnnl fnu* our- 
*H>l\t\^ wlmh^wr l>a%^ntv« c:x|HvriontH> !Jh>w« us* in it% 
Thon w^> i>an ?*ay : Ju!*t asi woionw i« undtmntuHl by 
^ vidou of tho world of oonf umoiI) do »1miU ow ro» 


Ugioui faith be undaunted by the vinion of the evil 
of the world. We ihall war againut thiw evil in the 
trunt that the higheMt reality ii not againit uni but 
with UM, juHt a« we try to oomprehend tlie world with 
the faith that tlie highent reality in in eonformity 
with our private reaiion. In both catiei we take tlie 
riiiki but we take tlie riik beoaune it iM worth taking, 
beoauMe to take it in the highest form of activity. 
Ah tlie faitli of teience helpn to make life rati(mal| 
I §0 tlu) religiouM faitli helpw to make life in the high- 
eit «enMe moral, by iiiMiMting that the ideal labors of 
our moral life are undertaken not alone, but in luir- 
mony with the world as known to the infinite. 

To make tlie parallel a little clearer, we may nay 
that (Kiienee pOMtulaten the truth of the denoription 
of tlie world tliat, among all the poMnible deMorip- 
tiouN, at onoe inoludeM the given phenomena and at- 
tains the greatest simplicity ; while religion assumes 
the truth of the description of the world tliat, with- 
out falsifying the given facts, arouses tlie highest 
moral interest and satisfies the highest moral needs. 
All this lias often Imm said, bilt it lias not always 
bei^n clearly enough joined with the practical sug- 
gestion that if one gives up one of these two faitlis, 
he ought consistently to give up the other. If one 
is weary of the religious postuhites, let him by all 
means throw them liside. Jtut if he does this, why 
does he not throw asitle the scientific ])ostulates, and 
give up insiMiiiig upon it that the worhl is and must 
be rational? Yea, hit him be thoniitgh-going, and, 
since the very pcnu*pii<in of the walls of his room 
contains [Mistuktes, let him throw away all these 


portnktea Ickk «nd dwdl in tlie oliAoa of a en sn tk ins 
unf riemliHi There is no itm»aa why he should not 
do this unless he sees a deeper foundi^on for his 
poslulntes^ We huve no mere dognms to urj*e here% 
Let one abiuidim idl mere postulates it he hi^ not 
the ooura^^ to muke them, but then let one oonsisi- 
ently jifive them idl up« The religious )H)stiJiites 
are not indeeti pirtioiJar ereetls. One may abiuidon 
creeds of many sorts, luid yet keep the f imdionental 
postulate* But if he abandons the fundamental pos» 
tulate i4 reli^iui, namely, that universal goodness 
is somehow at the heart of things, then he ou|^t 
consistently to oease from the f imdamental postu- 
late of seieniw namely, that imiversal^ onlerJovi^g 
reasim is somehow the truth i>f things* And to do 
both is to laek the iH>urage of ratiiuial and of mond 

Sueh is the way of the ))ostidates. And yet wo 
desire to find, if we luuu a nuu^ t>xoellent wiq»\ 
These post-dates must be iHuiftrmed if (possible, and 
then suln^nlinatiHl tt> hi^^er resxdts. It was tho 
skeptii>al wturk i>f the last chapter to turn attention 
away fnuu false or inconclusive metlKHls of estab* 
lishing religious faith* There we saw how much 
must seem, aciHmling t^> all the lM^linary a)Hdi^^tio 
metlKHK UuH^rt^tiindly doubtful* lu tliis chaptt^r we 
have setni how ^H>stidat%^ tbeixn^iii^ally muvrtain, 
but practically wi\rUi the risk« art^ at tlH> foundation) 
of our whiJe lives* llcr^^t^^r we shall s^n^k to dig 
beneath tlu>st^ foundations to that tether ju^rt of thtnv 
retical ivrtaiuty whor^nxf we have mmle mention* If 
we get it« then all our work will have been worth 

882 TBK WBUiQioi's A»nct or rauiMorar. 

while. Our nlbeptioiMtu will hm^ iMveil a» frooi aa* 
tii|mitoJ UMfUjuiMltf, hiiaI fruiu woru-out du|{iiuw* Our 
£aiUi will Imiv^; beeu |>uiiliail by beiiiK n»Ju«Md U> 
cerUiu «iiii|>Le |>u«UilAtiM timi an» mil itLmtiuMi wiUa 
tlia imditiouAl ore«Mi»» iiltliougb Ummm cnMMl» Uiad to 
«x|>reiM llMfw« AimI boUi our nkefidyeiiuu mmI our 
£aiUi will Uieu fiuMlly 1m»ooiim ^ImumhU of m bru«d«r 
lieliljfiouii luiMglit. 

lliA dmd enierwd riNUity, iulo wboiM darknetn w« 
luul to |)eer in viiiii for ligiiiy 1mu» iudiMMl tmutffontiiMl 
iUelf. It ii» uo wore Uioraly cUmmI, or Uior«»ly exti^r* 
iml. It i» oun» mid for un. It wan s world of doubt 
ill ihh lust eliii|>ter, juHt iMwaimo wo uimU it doHid 
ftuil exUdrual. Now Unit wo liavo ifoeii liow it wm 
tko ox|>rtHMii>ii of |NMituliit(M, it aeoum to li«vo booouio 
pliMtio aud ifiAiol. Yot wliat it ium gaiiiuil in iilm- 
tieity, it ha« liMt iu luitiiority. Aftur lUI, in not tliiii 
butfiiioiM of postulating into tiio void a dangoroim 
one? Im it not a iiollow and oinpty activity tliin, if 
we really roHeist ii|Hm it? Oouragu indued we inuat 
liave ; hut in religion no inore tluui eourage 7 Nay i 
we nuiHt have if {HUMible Monie eternal Tnitii, tiiat 
in not our inrntulaUi, to rest u|H)n. (^aii we not get 
Home Hueh csonifort? And may tluire not Im noiuu 
higher relation of our livei» to that truth, — iitu)h a 
rehition that the truth nliall Ihi neitluir tlie arbitrary 
priNluct of our mibjeetive |HmtulateH, nnv a dead ex- 
ternal reality Hueh liH wan the worhi of (hmbt ? We 
are hound atill to Hearch* 


Stu.i. vri? an^ booking ttH> Rlom«d« PiwhilnliM 
ulnmt it \^v mu^t imU^^l ni<ik^\ or oW v(v »k»ll do 
m>Uimj(, Itut oMi xiv m>t gi> W\\md tho mor\^ [H^hi>| 
l«ili?9)? t^ UH^ro no othor nvid o^vkmi tx> tho lii>«ui ot 
tlihii:;^ ? In fiiol many oUh>t vniy» lm\» l>oon sng- 
giMfthnL TIh> tt>Hgiou«Uy int\^itviiUn|f c<t\>rl» t\>wa«\l» 
A »n{Kg«i8tion of suoli waj'?^ haw Innni Ui<> »i¥H.nal vr\>rk 
o{ [Uiilo!^>phioal Ulc<%li$4ii in tlio [vnAt I^ot U8 thou 
9eo to wliat i>c«ult» phiIv>^>phiciiJ Idealism oflKers to 
kad i»k 

\ ^^Tho xi\>rld of doad faot» i^ an iUu»iiui« Tho\ 
\tmtk of it lit a spiritual lifo.'^ That i» what phikvl 
»ophical idi>ali»in »ay». This spirittial lifi^ may l>o 
dofimnl in manv vra\^ Rut (ho multittuto of tho 
xray» of dortninjj it do not alu^^thor ol^«»uro tho 
»on!^ of tJio divtrino, l^iaU> ainl 8k Awgn^^tino and 
IV>.rki>K\v a^iul KoJito a^nd Uogol jjiw us vory various 
accounts of tho s^nritxial life Uiat is t\> Ih> at the 
Msiurt of tliiixgs^ but thoy agroc aK>ut tho gonoral 
UMMghk As lo iho proof of ihodoctrinos vi^ many 

Wff torn \m,w yvrnmiiMA tliU bl^iiilUm mm n, mwi tif ]ifoih 
iliit of |HMitii(MJ ffiiituMyi himI tiii¥i4 i\mrt$Uy \ml\iml U$ 

(/vluMm. If WM iir» t<i f^v» miy fiHiiMlntiiHi for oiii' 

)MmMllliiMM liy IfMHIim of All iillNiliMiiit <lo<(iHlM4, Until 

tliU fmiinifitiim iiiiiMt Im mo iiium {lo^iiii fniMty, liiii m 
¥/till'frmtuHl |iliil4HMi|itiii( il^HttfiiiM* fillip i'l Mtniiil itritr 
iifUiiii liinl to miMy ¥wy uii4iOMitii#iml Mi him, mm waiU 
MM UiM lii|;liiir iiiiiml mIiiim UM«mMMivMM. lUii if iil<«Mi-' 
(Mfii iM to rmrnivn rigid Dmtn'^UtfA UiniM^ wm iiiMy Mtilii 

lU vImW of our {iriiM^Ilt diMfllMMiilll MImI ItM IM^1M| \m 

lml\mtl oil our WMy iimh'M iliraoily if w«i tii'Mt <f^HiMiili«f 
¥Mry gioi«irMlly mimI UrMiy wtmt iiii^MiiMiii tumUl tU$ 

(or IIM if it WMrM MMtMllliMtl4iil, ttM<ri«Mft*4r going Oil U$ 

(liM tiii«orMti4(Ml mHnUli$mii4m of itM <flMiiiiMt 
lliMt ttiM ICtMriiMl iM M worl^i of M|iiritiiMl lifii Im 

WllMt i\m iiWliMtM t$t i\m |IMMt llMVM IIIMilltMiOMll, M^mI 

OiM rMligioiiM foroM of tlntir iliMitriini iMy not m^i iiiinfti 

ill ttiM illMigtit ttlMt WMM tllOM off«irM4i IMHlimrilillg ttiM 

iiMturM of ttiM |iowi«rM tiiMt Mm in tin* worl^i, mm In mii^^ 
itiUttf iimigtitt ffoMt iMirn iilMMliMti^i ilimtriim Mini itM 
tmititmm Iimm imtsn MMl^liiin it^nniiritiMiiniii^l, nyttn Uy 
t\m i<l<iMliMtM tliitiiiMitlvaMt ^rtiii worl^ii nntrMly viitw^i 
MM M lniM|i of wMrring l^#wltrM| oMnnot Iim m worlii of 

M{liHtMMl lifttt if tlii< rMMl WOrlil iM IMiVMrtili^l^MM M 

worlil of Mintti M|iiritMMl lifit, it noiMt \m mt li^MiOMMi 
tMiyoinl Mini mIiovh tlni i^mi^rM, tli^rM iM tliiM liigti^r 
Mi^iritMMl l^ifi* ttiMt iintln^ii^ tlii«ni Mini WMtf4n<M ovi^r 
itlniin MM tln$ M|ia<ttMt4#r wMU'lntM tln« ti'Mgnily, — m iJfM 
liii wliiitli tinty livn Mini uut^ts uml Imvn tli^ir liiting/ 
'I'lin iiUurtuiUiiit in m ti'M^t^ly dii in^t <{^niMtitntn mm wmiv 
ring {lownrMi in tln«ir M«^|iMrMtn t$k\iiU$ium^ tint MigniA^ / 


«UfeC« ot libfe Infgdhp; Hue «pedtetPM; libfe owrsttm^j 
tkcN^tU lor vlikli and in vlikli tlid» £uKiMl p0i^j 
<»rs ciNitHid) dits il k doot si^tos diem nnhy and s^ 

! dte iJioJis t finds indifeiWMtM is jto^ Jto W m £^ 
} Mttcoy <idiMr poiwapSn bul m dm irito; far ^lAiA <e 3dslai '• 
; f ^^ itot ft H«M!ie die tAeq^dSl asaefdon ot idi0^^ ^( 

is wA doot dtioT« all die «Til p0«p«rs in die wkntWI i ^''\ j 
dieit^ is al; WKNtk siMne ^dod powier wi^i^ider dnn 1. v'**!!" 
diey^ but vftdier diaot duNM^ dl die povwsn ^ood 1 A ''" 
and evil^ and in dient alL» dis^etts die hii^Mr spntil ■ 
dot; does n<A ^ mocli erattte as ctonsd^^ ^ 

dier ai^ and ^ indvide diem alL 

How all diis is td be ttore folfy eaqpihined^ and 
Imw it is %d be jasdfied,. if al; all^ by idkalisin^ wis 
shall dee foidier on. Bot tor die pnesent m^ may 
ss^^ duat ««icli ijtn&m as diis bas a peculiar ad* 
Tanti$>e in dealu^ widi die problems duot m^ found 
insc^ble in die disicwistsMA <tf die woild o£ die I^ 
TVere ve foand a worid ot contiendaig eleoMntaiy 
faraies^ A^ R 0> e<iCk As oontmdiiig pd^tvrs diey 
most nMds a{^«Mur finiti6. I£ <ine was sood« anedKr 
was or nugbt be ^xiL And as w» bad %o deal onfy 
widi die warring elements,, die dion^t dial; paidal 
exil mar^ afW alL be iiniT«f«il so<^ sMtned not 
TiMT pbttsiUoi, and qaitie indMnonslmblo. Hie woild 
bein^ die ocilk<doai of die lowers dial; are in iu t^ 
j^ocnI and exil of die wbole SMWiiod ti> be die sum o£ 
die s^^MalK" gw^ and exil elements. Bat now w<e 
have a dioQgbt that mar make possible dieeaistcnoe 
of uniwrsal g^xxlnoss. If die tia^jedy as a whole is 
good) aldfeOQgb its ekments are evfl, do like tke tnij^ 


mfiU of ^'A^lidy, UUm ilm i^ihi^Ui im^iM t^f iim Un^i^ly^ 
Mft$ tiUi$9Hi$^iM in a wh^Ut iUni i««j#i# fm' m^ ail-um- 

h1«/m^ im/Uut$ HM a ¥/i^fUi U Hif*^' 'I'Umi^ ilmUf if ¥/i$ 

^A in i\^ «iU'iiM^|«i#iyi« mi^kA^ w«« vm^ vAv^y^ fr^nn 
ti^ mimi Hi Umi^f fmuty iUni ii mH,y mt \m> 'l\m Mi- 
Vn^fiMin^ nmy \m ti*^4 ^^^n <ilil^/Mgl^ </f tuuiutmiiy 
a^m avii aUihmniM ih i^in mnUl nf iniiniUt u)^\m^iM^ium 
tl^Mii m\mfmiMiy mnmUiuruA^ umy im ^v)l. Ho idUmi- 
im$^ offm% m iU ilM^/^iiiiy iM/i iUi^ Um^ i^orUi ^miMi^ 
H, m^r^fUm of ffMHi \^^^u^%^ o¥ iUiii Mm^ u^-kmiist^ ^a^/wa^^, 

\mi i\m UM^^iii-7 of yUmHimH m^^n^mUk h, w<^>' io ^hUUhU \ 
mfi\ nmy im^ niU^^ hW^ ti \mihii\ y)*^ of m^ Hii-mn.- 

llit^um tim imi^HiMi^i^ fm' tmf in't^moi dim^miii^mf 
i4 m^ iiff^Hfi (U; i¥mi im!im\y mA mihmWy i\m mi^H 
iUmirifm of \}UiUm^MUi iAmAimH, Hum Mi Umni i# 
mmm m^ggtmli^m of m ^Umu^m iUui ynti ma^y^ in iiim^ 
mnm Ui ^im mJa^/vi^ ow^ \Hi*A4AHkm^ mA $$my f*mi^ 
Uf inmiiiiti ^'iili^Hm ilmHfy, I^W Urn iMmU^hUm m^^ ^ 
U^U^if i9t ilmomivm^ mti m^nm^^- Wt^ wmi^ if ' 
^^mih^^, U^ gM Smyomi timm^ ihnmU w^i nkv ¥imAy (U; 
mmt^A i\mo M VioiA if ¥/i* m4^ ^/ f^f iniii^y^ Yt^t 
Htui H*'ii i^iW fo^'uiui Uf iu^iiin ooy mmmni of iAm^i^ 

I. //. //.-' 7.7 .- 



The imperfectian of the antlior^s privAle ium1<»^ 
slaiDding of deeper truth hai» foroed him to come to 
idealUm in the fint in^stanoe bj m Teiy straight and 
easy path« that most deeper idealists wouM deride. 
After he had bj that road reached the definite eon* 
ception of one form of idealism* he found a further 
thought bj whieh this idealism seemed to be trans- 
f onned into a dootrine of greater philosophical and 
religious significance* At the same time, the proof 
of the doctrine first seemed to him to become clear 
and aU-embraeing. Now a leader cares little for 
the contents of an author*s not«>-boolu or for a his> 
torj of his opinions ; but sometimes the exposition 
of a view is a little helped bv presenting it in suo> 
cessive parts that follow in their order somewhat 
the line of the author*s own development. Hence .. ^ ^^ 
the present chapter shall suggest phtloso|diic ideal- 
ism as a mere hypothesis, that still only tries to ex- 
press our fumlamental postulates^ Then we shall 
go on to see what deeper foumlation for it we can ; 
find. And furthermore, our first suggestion of ideal- ^ 
ism shall be a purely theoretical conception, not 
assumetl to satisfy directly an ethical postulate^ but 
merely to express theoretical postulates about the 
world. Then we shall be able to see what religious 
doctrine can be built upon this foundation. This 
way commends itself as avoiding the greatest dan- 
ger of idealism* namely* fantastic speculation with 
noble purposes* but with merely poetical methods. 
Our present method shall be coldly theoretical, how* 

. ♦ > ■ . . . V 

w. '\- 


ever deeply our religious philosophy is concerned in 
the outcome. 

For the first then we shall suppose our whole task 
to be the suggestion of a plausible, i, e. of a simple, * 
adequate, and consistent hypothesis about the nature 
I of external reality. Hereafter we shall consider 
more critically the foundation of such hypotheses. 
Provisionally, then, we shall suppose that, by a per- 
fect theory of knowledge, the following result has 
been reached : Human beings are able to form ideas 
that correspond in some way with a real world, out- 
side of themselves. That is, the sequence of human 
ideas corresponds to sequences of external events, or 
to relations of coexistence among external things. 
The necessary or uniform connections of human 
ideas correspond to regular or to universal connec- 
tions among external things. Or, in the brief form 
of Mr. Herbert Spencer's phraseology, to each nec- 
essary relation a .* & in human consciousness there 
corresponds a relation A : B in the external world. 
Suppose, then, that all this has been established. No 
'one will admit more readily than the writer that this 
supposition is at this point merely tentative. Our 
theory of knowledge is yet to be completed, and be- 
tween its conception and its realization there are still 
wide oceanB of doubt. We shall, in fact, deal with 
the problems of this theory in the next chapter. But 
for the moment suppose admitted what scientific 
thought generally takes for granted, namely, the cor- 
respondence of inner and outer relations in such 
wise that the former are naturally copies of the lat- 
ter. And, on this foundation, suppose that we in- 

tend to onuider wbat h y po U icm as to die natore of 
the idited tsnos A and Bin die extanal voddisi 
on die niiole^ die most planaMe, 

For die smke of mToiding oontioTersjr we ma j for 
die moment leaxe oat of acooont two old questions. 
Weeannot roaUy escape eidier, and bodiwfll stemlj 
confront ns before we get in at tlie door of tlie tem> 
pie of oertaintT. Bat here at tlie oataet we are 
playing with hypodieMs, and maj be absolTed from 
the reqionsihility of secoiing oare^Tes beforehand 
from all possible ittarVs The first is the qaesdon 
of die idealists : How ean any reality be conoeiTed 
unless as implying or indoding states of oonsooos- 
ness ? For the moment we will wuTe this pait of 
the Beiheleyaneontaitionaltoigcdier; for we are not 
jet oonoemed to prove by metaphysioal analysis the 
oniTersal ooineidencte of oonseioasness and reali^. 
We wish mereiy a plaosible hypothesis to be ad- 
Tanced as to the nature of what more popular thooght 
means by reality. The semnd question that at the 
outset; we aTcod is the one OMK»mibg the ground 
of the assumed agreement between the external and 
the intmud orders of f^ts. Whether this ground 
Hesin a clausal detexmination of our oonseiousness bj 
the external woiU« or in a preestabKshed harmony 
of both* matters not. We first take our stuid« then, 
upon the facts admitted by popular belieL Here are 
feelings^ sequences of fedings^ thoughts, tnins of 
thought, systems of scientific belief: all internal 
facts. Bevond the consciousness of these internal 
facts stretches (^so we now assume^ and only assume) 
another woiU of facts, in which something oqivs> 


sponds to each one of these feelings, some order o£ 
facts to each sequence of feeling, some system of 
facts and of laws to each properly constituted system 
of beliefs. The external order of the world beyond 
corresponds to the order of this internal world of 
our consciousness, but is not this order. A plausi- 
ble hypothesis is required as to the nature of this 
corresponding external order. 

Let us examine Berkeley's familiar hypothesis, 
which, as a mere hypothesis, we can examine apart 
from any study of Berkeley's philosophical argu- 
ments for his idealism. According to Berkeley there 
exist conscious beings, more or less like ourselves, of 
whom the head and father is Ood. Now external to 
all beings besides Ood there is a real world. This 
real world is made up of the eternal system of God's 

** When I deny sensible things an existence out ol the 
mind, I do not mean my mind in particular, bat all minds. 
Now it is plain they have an existence exterior to my 
mind, since I find them by experience to be independent 
of it. There is some other mind wherein they exist, dar- 
ing the intervals between the times of my perceiving 
them ; as likewise they did before my birth, and would 
do after my supposed annihilation. And as the same is 
true with regard to all other finite created spirits, it nee- 
essarily follows, there is an Omnipresent Eternal Mind^ 
which knows and comprehends all things, and exhibits 
them to our view in such a manner, and according to such 
rales as he himself hath ordained, and are by as termed 
the law ofnaiure" ^ 

1 I>ialogti€$ betwun IIyla$ and PhiUmous, UL 

IDKAUStf« 841 

This so fmniliar hypoih<»sua of Berkeley is in part 
founded upon a tliought that for the present we have 
aj<:reed to neglect^ i\ r * ui>on the notion of the exter> 
n;d world as tlie mn^tf of our internal impressions. 
Not lH>ing caused by myself^ my ideas> reasims IWke* 
lew must have an external cause* And the only 
intelligible cause is an active spirits Yet for our 
present purpi^se tliis thought is not iuij)ortant We 
are not asking about tlie cause of our conscious 
states^ but about the way in whioh we can most (dau* 
sibly conceive of an external wi>rld corresjnmding to 
tliese states* The corresfiondence is assumed* Into 
it9 gn>und^ be it preestablisluHl harmony or physical 
influence^ we do not just now inquire* Our only 
criteria of plausibility^ if causal ex[danation is 
dn>piH.Hl^ are tliercfore atlequacy^ simplicity, and con- 
sistency* Is Kerkeley^s hj-[H>thesis cmisistent with 
itself, and is it tlu> simplest hy[H>thesis [Kvssible? 
StripiHHl of non-esstmtial ftmtures, the hy^wthms is 
that tlicre ci>rres)Hmds to our cimsciousness another 
higher and fartWr^readiing ci>usciousness^ containing 
all tliat is abiding in our consciousness, and much 
nK>re Invnides, This consciousness is in form and 
matter a nitional spirits having dcAnite pur^nvses in 
the creation and eiluoation of the >*arious finite spir- 
its* Thesi^ puriHvses nnpiire for their ac(H>mplishment 
that our ci>n8inous states slu>uld witliin ct^rtain limibst 
agree with this higher inmsciousuess* — sliould iH>rre- 
siHUid to it in forn\ and to a wrtiun extent This iH>rnv \ \ 
s(>ondence iH>nstitutos what we mean by trutli* There 
is no externtU wi>rld but tliis otlier consinousuess* 

. To Berkeley, aa we know, the essential part of 

/l 4i:i 


this doctrine was the teleological part. That Ood's 
thoughts and our correspondence thereto result from 
and express God's purposes in creating the world, 
this was for Berkeley the main point tp be proven* 
But if the teleological element of the doctrine be for 
this first left out of account, there is another part 
that we just now wish to hold fast. Our thought 
18 true by reason of its correspondence to the fads 
\of an actual consciousness^ external to our ovm : 
this hypothesis has an interest apart from its origin 
and from its original use. Why in philosophy should 
we be afraid of doctrines because they have an as- 
sociation with some dreaded theological dogma, or 
with some enthusiastic and over-confident system of 
the past ? About the nature of the external world 
we have at the outset nothing but hypotheses. Be- 
fore we test them in any very exact way, we may 
with safety try to understand them. Perhaps what 
seemed the wildest of them all may turn out to be 
the very best. Because a certain hypothesis was 
put forward rather as a demonstrable and eternal 
truth than as a hypothesis, shall we reject it without 
further examination ? Perhaps it may in fact turn 
out to be part of the eternal truth. 

The hypothesis now before us is Berkeley's with 
the teleological element omitted, along with the 
causal. How this external consciousness comes to 
afifect us, and why it takes just such forms as it does, 
we say not. This we ask : What is this supposed 
external consciousness ? How does it correspond to 
our own ? We shall not call the supposed conscious- 
ness by question-begging names. It is not for us 

ji»l now <^ithor ^ibMlutft <^t diviiM^ tt is ^mplv <k«i« 
<tciiHi$ii<»s <^^ «xtdrtMJ« Tb^ h>r)¥dUi«m U thai 
trtith ((>cm;^$l» in ^Mind kind of «(>ri^poiKl«iio« h^ 
t>0r«<cii onr ihou^l loid Uiis outer rMJit^r. WImiI 
kiml of <x>nw»iKttKloiioi? ? 

Tvro c^m^iiHM l^ngs <Mai kiiv« <!on>Mkpoiiding 
$tait)&s of CKUi^iott^iioss wiihoul knving Ufe^ ^Mjim. 
The iK>t«i» of ;ii melodj couM knvt^ <!ort>0spoiM)i^g to 
Ukmu tho YMtAlioiis in inlens^tir of »Mne «Kmrc« of 
light Thi& Iighl4ia»he« or befits wonM <>(fft>o$|H)nd 
to tlio noloA of mn;»e by hniving the Uk» rh^rthm ; 
ytt't thoK« xcKHiM Iv no Kt^emUmio^ in the eontent. 
C<Mn>»»)Hmdeiicid nMy he 5^ more ohnctii^d* Ttie 
d»»he(» on ;ii |uo<» of )V^>eT th^it h»a^ |viA»^it under the 
point of ;ii U?le$:TU(Jiie )>en« the »orie« of ehaunicto^ 
(irinte^l front the pre«ift in ;ii ^h^me^i IsingUiJigK^ the 
soundt^ of the moe of ;ii M>»«ler« the ^riei$ of ^^ij^^Miib 
fU^dioil fn>m ^\i« to ;ii disOiuit vt^s^l^ ndl thocM' di^ 
umilM' ^rio» of evxmt^ mi^t <>^n>o«iH^ e.x;jicllv Mid 
throu^HxK if it WMoo their )nirtH%i^ tii> e^mx^y in v;ii» 
riouA x(ii>n< the ;Rune meMiiuj^r* In onler^ then« thai! 
my <\^n^ioi»inoM 4iouId eorre^i^omt to «M»e other 
eon^i«Ht;Mie«^ e.xtK>m;jd u> mino, it i^ only neee^Mry 
th;»t f^^r i\jieh ewtnt or finot in my e^m^c'i^HU^ne^^ there 
«lKHild oxist ^H)^ exvnt or ^t in the olher con- 
^eikmsnei^ Mid tluit ^Hiie ix^hitiim oxi^^ting mivihi^ 
my eon^iou^ «tA(iM^ ;4ioukt he like or pMnUlol to iKo 
f^l;»t4\m existing: Mn^uig the con^^oi^Mis st^ntiois ej^k" nud 
to nune« The mow^ nunier^Mis the innnts of rosem- 
Mjmic^ lH>twwn the t>Kv^ ^rio« of st3ih?is^ the ekuser 
the c^^rrosjHMideiio^* IWt <\>rreisi>ondenee in the *b* 
«tnict imflios only Mme one deJUiitK^ Mid perauitt^t 
wiwtt ibhnee found thrdughout tlM two Mmi» 


Socfi being the nature of correspondence in gen* 
eral, let us consider our hypothesis more in detaiL 
Suppose the clock yonder has some such reality as 
this hypothesis supposes. There is the clock, with 
its pendulum beating. For me now that clock is a 
combination of sensations, joined with a belief in 
certain possible sensations. f]or one in the same 
room with me, the clock has a like existence. But 
suppose that the clock has, apart from my conscious- 
ness, apart from the consciousness of any other hu- 
man being or animal, an existence for some other, as 
yet undefined, consciousness. Suppose that for this 
consciousness the clock in its whole present condi- 
tion exists, not at all as a ^^ possibility of sensations," 
but solely and in all its parts as a present group of 
sensible facts, standing in definite relations. Sup- 
pose that the sensible facts that constitute this clock 
as it is given to this hypothetical consciousness are 
in quality unlike the sensations that for me consti- 
tute the clock ; but that in their relations, in their 
number, in their grou])ing, in their differences from 
one another, these sensible facts as they are for the 
hypothetical consciousness agree with the sensations 
and with the ^^ possibilities of sensation " that for 
me constitute the dock. Suppose that the clock as 
it is in the hypothetical consciousness endures for 
a considerable time, and is called the real clock. 
Then wh(»n I shut my eyes or go away or die, there 
exists still the real clock, /. e, the clock in the hy- 
pothetical ('onscaousncAfl. Though all my fellows die, 
there is still the real clock, independent of our con- 
sciousness. The clock may for a time go on ruiv 

nmg ; Alt is^ itt Afr hypoflielioal coiisc^^ 
mny be a iliytlim ci sensiblQ eYontsi^ oonrospondiiig 
to vhal for lues. were I present, wwiM be tiie riijrthm 
of Um pettdulom -beats and tbe moTement of the 

Nov suppot^e Um bypotbetkal conseioasiiess «x- 
tended^ so that it ooutaina fa^ eorraspoDduig to m j 
ideas <tf tbe etber^vibratioiis that fall upon or that 
are rdleeted from tiie face of tlus elod^^ Sui^mma 
that it further contains faets eoffresponding to e«eli 
of m Y ideas of the relative position of this eloek and 
of other objects* Suppose at last that the hypothet- 
ical conseiousnetss is e:xtendetl to all the fa^ ot iriiat 
I call mj uniTeT«M» of actual and of possible sensa- 
tion« Suppose that each possible or actual experi- 
ence of each moment in my life or in the life of any 
other animal is representee! by some actual momen- 
tarily present fact in the hypothetical conseioasness« 
Then consider the hy)iiOlhelicad consciousness at any 
momenta, and see what it will contain* Every mate- 
rial atonu every wave of ether« every pcont of space» 
every conli^i^uration of material boiiies^ every possible 
geometrical relation^ will be representetl in the hypo> 
theticad consciousness bv some d«£uite fact« The 
relations of these iai^t» will be in nature and in com- 
plexity similar to the relations annuoi^ the facts of 
my actual or pi^lde sensations, i^ the other 
hamU the limits of my )Mwsible consciousness at any 
moment will be dclermimni bv the actual cousi.'ious- 
ncsss of ihis supposetl imiversal Knowing l>nc. What 
it actually knows, 1 ci^nccivaWy mi^t now know« 
If it is conscious of a certain series of &M?ts» then I 


ini)(ltt ho (HmMiiottM, witro I now on tito othor tiida 
of tlio nioon, of living onmtunM ihoro. If tlio ltytM>- 
tliotl(fnl oonMolottMnoMM (HniiainN ttnoihor Mtt of fiiotM, 
tlutn I ntighi 1)0 tuiablo (o (hut nuoIi living ImingH 
woro I ilt4)ro. Anil mo with uU fiuttN of poMnililo ox- 

Wo oiui oiinily Mm how, tindor Uiim MtiptNwitioni 
oonfortniiy to iho mipiNiMoit itnivorMiil oonMoiintNtiOM 
will l)ooonto on my pari a goal of oiTort. Knowlixlgo 
of poNNihloox|NirionooM In UM^ftil i<i nto. Bui all )N)h- 
Mihlo oxporionooN aro or will ho a<fiuiil in iho hytN>- 
ihoiioal oouNoiouMnoNN. If I ant Mianding noar a oon- 
(Htahnl piifall, or ain in dangor of a Idow, or in (Uin* 
gor of doaih from |M)iNon, ihai faoi, iranidaiod into 
uliimaio iorniN, nioann, wo may mipiMims ihai in tlio 
UnivorNal oonMoiouNnoMN ilioro in now iho know lodge 
of (Miriain rolaiivo |MmiiionN ami ntoilonit of aiomN. 
Tito Mupt(tnm) of nUiUm in iho univorwil oonMoicntNnoNM 
ntUMi ho Nup|MimNl i<i ho a rogitlar Noquonoo, mthjoot 
io iixfut law. Hui NO(|uon(Mi dooN noi now oupiMiially 
oonrnrn tiM ; winoo wo Npoak only of iho naittro <if 
iliiN oxiornal iHinMiiouMnoNM. ti tn onougli, ihoroforo, 
Ui |N)ihi oiii ihai ihiM Mup|M)Mod univorMal knowing 
oohNifioiiNiioNM, ihiM '' Noi-( )iirM<ilvoM/* liaM, undor iho 
<mnd!ii(»nM Miaiod, all iho oMMontial ohariM^ioriMiioM of 
a roal world. li !m hoyond on ; ii \h indopondont of 
UM ; iiM fuoiM liavo a ooriain oorroMpondonoo io our 
MOhMitiifuiM. Undor ihn MuppoMiiion ihai hy naiuro 
jwo (4Htd io hn in agroonioni with iltiN <MMiM(UouMnoMM, 
progi'MNH in ihn doilniionoMN and nxtnni of our agroo- 
tnoni wiih ii may l»o IhiMi poHhildo and prtu'iioally 
UMoful. TIiIm agroontoni wouhl oottHiiiuio irutL 


Xo odfecr Rfll vwU nael W sqppQfwl WUbl or 
aJlNiii^ tUs «0tt5iaoasBds&. Biqo0tiMB<of am oUL dwnr 
auni iMMfttUfeae <if a »?«;« Jbs mliiaBi sfa^ CopescDKan 

doKtcraiv Kfilboes sfa^ PitAiiift. will neui aiket 
j:8v«irdk <Qf a beliel ikit she nrvr s^rstaB ><!i idLeois i»r- 
Ktsfundk iMM« Bflttrihr Amjbl At Ml mot widi deftl 
scttntfr« hodt vitih sfa^ seiqaenoe <of states in sfa^ moumr- 
sal cvttsCMBSttess^ Ute uumrsal tMatiXAMnHts it- 
^stM will W iN» iDlnsiMT tMiKsidNMBSBessw It viU not 
sMd a iaiviKr icvttdeiHwsafedsisi 1&0 SB[>p«t it. It wiSk 
BMii BAtdLeadHUdCneroaiBsUetof it;. Char BaftoK kads 
tts !»» ImAl np :&c» it as 9d <«Dr awMld. hsa^ is sfa^ 
patt&eni. ]kM!ikiiK«: ap itu^ ba cttber BK^iAeL Ute ponposie 
<Qf tifeM^^ win he oanfonaiar vitih ddspoiSMt^ «a- 
tmaiaeladl tfaragiit. For us tikere is a link laage 
«f amail MtjaiMi. in tbe msdbt «f a irM Masai<^ 
pASNyhle nesBKuifliL. For idie icauwrsal cvttsioknsDMfis 
tikere ai« at aar iw»Kmt <miT aiftnnl idbaau We nae 
tbe iclw^k-faKif : aiai f-ov sis ibe isisSiie h?^ "sht ^itvlL is 
pAaahle ^mtsiaikvn ivalhr. F-ont xke fOfipAsiMl ocvafifMis- 
BASS ii»e iatside viE iiie as mmh jmsKam as de coat- 
iadk. Fhw ns ocJkvrs asadl *oidk«rs iqt£^!«^ pASsi34e «fla- 
jautiiii>tts. mbadbi fiCMSM^e ia&aierpKfljs as Iwiikg: iii she last 
aaaihras ii»e ]pioisHiihk ji«ft5autik>iiBs kiwwm as a&MEis.. im^ 
nioofts. ivImims. id&^aaMies. F^m* ibe mauTvarsaul <vo> 
MMHoiftsis. t3Mi5ie aaicMBUw BKHitiMiis.. xvlM93Se<w aaui JBtS- 
tanftM^. or xke iLhaonase faces Ki^ vlnidi tibesie SKuidctts 
<MR«asjpflDdL ai^ ZK« ptKnJak bat artaaH -dlasa. Xlxse 
ttwd 1« libflo. 332 idbe iast aauulr»5w 3k» d«al lasftMB- 

ikelftst anatras oblIt a oattnoosaes of faesBseHv^- 


" • ;) • y I,' 


aponding to what we moan by motion, volooity, ex- 
tenuion, distance, impenetrability. CorreB]>onding 
to the relation a: b in our conHciouiinoHH there will 
then be the external fact A : B, whereof ho nuieh Ib 
8upi>0Bed to be known : flrHt, that the relation a: b 
is somewhat like the relation A : B ; seoondlyi that 
the terms A and B, whatever their particular ohar- 
aoter, are facts for a consciousness, and nothing 
I but facts for a consciousness. And the hy)>othetioal 
consciousness for which these facts are all presenti 
togetlier with their manifold relations, this we may 
call a World -Consciousness. An illusion in my 
consciousness will mean a failure to correspond with 
the world-consciousness. A truth for my oonscious- 
ness will be a relation a: b that corresponds with 
some relation A : B in the world -consciousness. 
But for the world-consciousness itself there will be 
no question of its own truth or falsity. It will be 
for and in itself. It will not have to create a real 
world ; it will be a real world. It will not have a 
Nature as its own Otherness, over against itself. 
It will be in its own facets and in their sequence a 
nature. As to the individual intelligences, its rela- 
tion to IIh^iu is so fur viewed as one of iiulependenoe. 
Whether hereafter we shall be forced to modify our 
view or not, so far we treat the individual intelli- 
gences as Hc^parate from the world consciousness. 
They are neither its ** emanations '* nor its " modes.** 
But their whole business and purjmse will be to carry 
out and to make full and definite that correspondence 
with this universal conseiousneKK u])on which their 
existence and their peace de])end. A certain lack 


II>EAUS)t« 819 

ci£ oKMrnespwdeacft with the uiuTersdl cohscioiisimm 
ou the pourt of Miy «aiimal':» idea^ will be followed 
by the ce«»itioii of that )>iMticuUr grouping of fiM^ts 
iu the uuivertnJ ooadciou;uie«si tlmt b known to uft 
»» thb imiiiMd'd body* >\1th the disstolution of this 
animtd's body will cenae hi» eoik;»oiousiiew« his chaiH^o 
of di^ftgfot^ng in hli states with the sIhIm of the 
uuiveraad eoiissciousiiessk luid thexi>{or« hL» \mck of 
eorre»|¥>iideiM2e« Au ultim;iite kw of eeqaencoi. with 
whteh^ «is with mil c«uisflil eouiiectioii^ we kuve heie 
nothinjt to do^ thus binds the individual beings to 
the World<\msciousness« The whole universe ex« 
hibtts the phenomenoni, firsts of one great conscious^ 
ness« enibmeing an infinitude of geiunetrtoal^ P^y^ 
kaL chemicals physiidogical fiiets ; and* soeoinUyi, of a 
vast niultitxide of individual conscious beings* whose 
nunibe-r and scurts we shall never W aide U> tell* wIk^s^ 
destiny* Wwever* demands of all of them a more or 
less im^^urfeet likeness between their states aiul the 
relatiiuis thereof on the ^uie hand* ainl the facts of 
the universal ciuisciiHisness tm the other hand* The 
universal c^msciousness* Ih> it note<l* is so called thus 
fjKt as including in its ken all ultimate mathematical 
and (diYsical facts* Of its natxi^e beyond this wo 
(ut'teml U> supiH^se nothing* And we have not sui^ 
piV9iod it tK> include the individual c^ui^nous Wings* 
Our hypothesis is not yet (vinthcistic* nor theisticwj 
We sim[dy sup)H]ise a ** Not-Ourseh-es** that in* 
clude« all natural knowledge* This is tlie External \ 

AVe have ou\itte\l* more^^wr* all reference t^> the 
t<^eological element that b generally introduced into 

\m nSUf^'^S^f in* ff^u, ^Sy^i ftmh wt Ui^i*tr mmtm* 
S% \tif \\^ \iAW\*\un\ f^fffiffUm^ i^iufc^i ii 4Um$ m^ 

i\*ftin 71^1^ i^ffftff^ iff*^. Mf^t vHii iit^$t fi^i itpii^UU 

fihUhifU- iftfji tfftrjf^ftU-tthU' *i<tV|#/it^/^A. i^$i itm f$P$i- 

If, //t)#i7 'iitittU . Vmf'U uu)$uft\ )t*t'\y U fi^yfftxt^^Mi 


exisil Mid bo r^ for itself* With the group <»f fiicts 
in tho uiiiverssd c<ni;s«4ousiift9» to whidu us ^^ wkj^ 
corrcsjHUids our id<Nii o( the bcMiv^ the independent 
group o( fiMtsi ccJled the Animal's mind lives and 
diei»« The uni vexsal einisMioasnesa and the individual \ 
mindd make up together the sum total of itality* 
So feur and so feur only do ^^ as yet go. The sequel ^ 
will show whether we <<an rost oonti^it with this« 

Continuing to menti^m the consequences of our 
hvpothesis,. we see that the well-known questions so 
often asked of idealists are no hmger punling when 
we accept such an idea as the for^eniMng. Sudi 
questions are : ^Vhat existed befii^re there was any 
conscious life on the planet? In what sense was 
there light or heat^ matter or motion^ before there 
were eyes ti> see* tactile organs to feel% animal Intel* 
ligeiice to uuderstaml these e^ctemal facts? The 
question of Kant toi> alnnit the subjectivity of sjvfioo 
would seem to have lHH>n answered* IVofon^ theio 
were c^>nsoious Wings on this (Janets this |Janet ex« \ 
isted only in and for the universal consciousness. \ 
In that c^>nsciousne«» were fact» corres(Kmdii|g to all 
the phenomena^ or [nubilities t^^ ex[¥erience« that 
geological scientv may declare lo have really existent 
at such a time. When the earth InHNune AUoi^i with' 
life« there ap[¥>are«l in the universal consi'iousness 
the data known as organisms* Ami at the same 
tiuHS, l^cside the universal consckmsncss* siuuehow ; 
relatei.1 1^> it« there arose individual c^^nscitnis beings^ ! 
whose states were more w K^as imi¥>rfect cojues of 
the universal cons^nousncss iu certain of its facts* 
£ven so,^ empty space is now existent beyond the 


bordorn of flnito observation only m a group ol 
fltatoB iu the world-conHoiouHness. Bpaoo is subjeo- 
tivo, belonging to the states of the universal ooii- 
sciotisness ; and yet to us objective, since in think- 
ing it we merely oonform ourselves to the universal 
conseiousness. Hut the consequences of our hypoth- 
esis are ntunberless. Enough has been said of them 
for the present puqmse. 

Wild and airy indee<l I But why so? The ordl- 
nary tin(*.ritical Atomism is a worse hypothesis, be- 
cause we never get from it the least notion of how 
this eternally existent matter may look and feel when 
nobody sees or feels it. The mystical **one sub* 
stan<M) with two faces *' is worse, because that is no 
hy])otliesis, only a heap of words. Hehopenhauer's 
**Wille*' is worse, because it is only a metaphor. 
The hyi>othesis that ascribes to the atoms independ- 
ent life and volition is no more luUxpiate than our 
hy|)otheHis, and much less simple. The old-fashioned 
pantheistic ** Wclt-Cicist *' of Hchelling, and of the 
romantic philosophy generally, is more i)oetical than 
our hypothesis, but that Wclt-Ocist is a Power ; and 
no one ever comes to understand how this One Hpirity 
who iifU^v all is rcprcscnt^ul as a sort of big half-con- 
scious Daemon, a gigantic worker, is related to the 
many individual minds. They are parts of him, or 
else apart from him. In the one (Mihc their c<mfidence 
that thry really exist as {Kiwers and are not ** things 
in his dream,** is unfounded ; in the other case his 
all-embra(*ing unity is destroyed, in our hypothesis 
nothing is as yet wcmderful btit the one miracle of the 
series of orderly conscious states, following through 

«11 liiiii^ ;M!iMMKliiBijt ^ tb»i bw^ IWwmI (dttt mil 

l^nin^r iilMi$ h>( all wnMrttl wlftliMi^.. «s no ktrAer 
tw>» U^i^x^ tliMi it «s IK^ Wlii^>(^ itt tW tiw^intrr unitt^ 
tielli^l4o mvivid h>( ;Mmii^ TVaul kmul^ iKb <iMi«( 
«iow«i«$«.. mmI itt t&x^ wiblMii lK% il» i»c<»i, l ih ew 
«bM>MM ffxtsi; ;» jtrMt; ttiMiiK«r ^ (filB«Nttt «m6ft ^ 

UfftL tl:i» » iK> litwrdkr lo Wli^x^ tkun m^ tW tdrli^ 

lijitibkN. (w All tW fiM*tte Mud faim« ^ fhjrAoK ^ tt«r- 

fittml <tii«^ I V^tctftfuw CtiffHTirl « mvlllnM^mii ^aoMnple M 
iW mMi kv'ikiiur ^ tW <«m1I^ In iW mvwM^iMi- 

Tkftt i^ iW rMd tCTUfedl^ In iW ^'irl(Wo«fesicdk>i«i$m^ 
lliM^ k ;ftlwH die $w«q% of 5«ii«io« k. l'^ i'\ . . . Tlwut 
ift dfee ^ tciM^^Urail im;j^iK^ ""^ <!i( ilie <tMii{K ;» (iKv^vktp^ 
mJ fftot^ Mnadly^ 4ii(y\iirliii$t tn^^ die bm^ <>il rMdil^,. 
tdie «xi59|iMio^ in due ^f(v«M«<^MHici>iHit$;iMiM <i due iiM4» 
A^ i\ ii\ ^ ^ . $roiii|^ n«: diev m^ bas <iMixii4iMil; 
widi it die ^Hip <oil iilM« C in die wimi''^ mimdk 
Tlii^i ^"Mp O oMtvijfNMMb wi>iMr^ <<ir feiwi <v<iwi|4eli^lT tto 
die levx'Mp A. r' ^'\ . ^ . JkSi tl^t $nK<«ip «xi$«j^ bevMnA 
die wMiV niin4« in die >irHvrM<<^\nm<m«xw>«$w TW 
jinK^> C ii!( die mMi':j^ idem <«( die <«Mllew SiMili tt 
<<^r KTi^H'tdi^dRj^ in ;» nnt-«lielL We ni^ (w die m^ 
nuent tiHilv lliif^ in it» Cawmt: dviU it i» «ini|4e^ in(«llh> 
pl<kK fibtt5al4ev. Ai^tmr aIL it i^ l>«it «n KvfKidiMb. 
We mn^t ik^w f(^ill^w it nndl >kv «1i*11 timd it. by xii^ 
toe <d( «ne nMMMitiMi$ oAn«hlenilMik MRM«n|f mn*- 


fortiMMl from an hyiMithofiifi into a tliooryf ami from 
a (liNiirino of an (^iitrnal normal thought into a doo- 
trino of an all-omhnuunK Hpirit. 


In imvoral nmiNNitM our hy[M>thoMiii tnHnU oxplaiMF 
tion iNfforo it nan wdll phiam) a philoMophlo Htudont. 
ThiN explanation will noxt load um into a dwiidodljr 
tiMtlinioal diM'UNMion, ami thiN a romlor not NiNxiialljr 
acuMHitomod to philoMophin diMouNNionN, if mioh a 
roiulftr wo yot ltav(% will <lo woll to ondt. Wo mniit 
in faot, in tlio pnmnni Nootion, moro jiartioularly not 
forth tho motivoM thai havo dotornnnod uh to try Ju«t 
thiM hyiM>thoNiN about Unality. 

KirNt, thon, wo am rononrnod to fihow why wo havo 
htft out of vinw tho oauHal olomont that )Mi)mlar 
thought nuikoM mo prominont in itM oomMtption of 
Iloality. For popular thought, tho world in a lN)Wor 
that lUiumm our |HtrooptionM, Hut wo, both hero and 
in our Hulmmputnt roligiouN diMMiMNion, whall ooji^ijlor 
thn nti^rnal not an Powor, hut an Thought. Why in 
thiM ? Wo Mhall hi^ro try t<) oxphun, utill roganling 
tho roal world moroly uh NontoUiing {MiNtulat^Ml to 
moot tho innnr nooiU of our thought, iiot un auk, 
without m ^nt going hoyond tliiH point of viow, what 
In tho do4i}Hwt motivo of our puroly thcorotio {Hmtu- 
hitim about roality ? In it not to havo NiittM^thing that 
vurrvHponih to our IdviiH^ and ho givoM thoni truth ? 
I'horoforo \n not tho iK)Htulat4) that roality (M)rro- 
Npon<lM to our idnaH, d(Mtpor than tho |Mmtulat4i that a 
roal worlil oauNoii our idoai? And mo Im not tlio 


onsal postulate in &ct hat a sabordEiiiifte fonn in 
oortlieoiTol die ntKU? To exenqJiiy. Wlwii I 
SIT tlot my dioaglit d^uuids seme cauose^ C« for a 
sensttdoiu «« does not my dKNi^t eTen liere actmJbr 
demand domedung prior to tbe prindple ol eansa- 
tion« and deeper dian tliat ? IXoes not my tlKMa^:lit 
liere demand diat my idea r of eanse in generaL and 
my idea r ol tbe eaosid rdation K between C and «« 
shall a priori somdiow eoireispond to die tmdi of 
diings ? Can I ooneeiTie ol a leal eanse sare by Tir- 
tne ol a postulate diat my CKmeepcion ol a leal eaose 
is like tbe leal eaoae itsdf ? Tliep^ne^ viien men 
say : ^ We know extemal Be«lity because w>e know 
diat oar smsations need acanse, and diat Ibb eansa 
most be external to n&** do tbey say moie tban diis : 
^ We know (or postolate^ Ibat to one ol oar ideas^ 
namely* tbe idea of a ne^ei^ssunr eausad relation, tboe 
eonesponds a leality extenial to tbe idea ? ** For 
soiely I do not know tbe yalidity of my idea ol a 
eansal rdaiion merely on tbe snNmnd tbat I know 
that Ibis idea ol eansftl rdadon most its^ haye 
been eansed by tbe leal existaice ol eansid idations 
In the world. Socli an attempt to jn^^xfy my idea 
woold mean endless i^e^^ress. Hie deeper notion 
that w>e baye of tbe world is tbeie£in>e fbanded on 
the insight co* on die postulate diat tb»>^ most be« 
not merely a sufficient cause for our dKvugbt. bat a 
sufficient counteipart tbeietix 

We can easily illnsitmse diis yiew by considering 
the nature of oar dioagbt about pasr lime. Hie 
jndgment or assertion that there has actually been 
a series ol past eyents^ is not a judgm^Eit ol eaasat 

866 THK UMAmi)V% Anvmt or iniiiMomY. 

Ity. I fMflUfVif ill A \mMt tm I tiiJUfVi^ in n fiituns ru^t 
Ut mlMy my tn\iU in Urn \$rUui\\iUi of mumiliyf Imt 
fai miMy tuy i4$tuUnuiy Up inmiuluUi nn ifuli^iniUi 
tUtm^irMiuu lil(49 in tmiiifn to tny |»rifM«ini MiMH9«tiMi4if* 
id UnumWAiMly f(iv<in mU^m* 1 li4fli49V0 in n riMil 
tiuuf, Hifi iiritnurily fM tlm <5iiUM49 l;ui im llm mtmUir* 
imri of my luiiion of tiniif* I low (tilmr¥/\mi mIihII I 
form tlM9 iilim of it mnm nt nil, unl4$iN« 1 imvo ulntnily 
lUMiiin^iil ilui rmliiy of iinio ? A miif^t for my Im»- 
liiif in iiiif |MM«i iM to Im mmwluitl^ if fit nil, only m 
idnmly n |iiMt fnift. TImi tfioiMf<t|;tion that it Im U9 <?n$- 
At«5 {m fi <M;nilition of itM own ti%\nUnmu uuU^hh in<lif4)<l 
0IM1 liuM MdniitUf^l wimt wo wImIi fMlniitUxl, tliat, Imiw- 
4$V4ir tlio vum may \m with tlio \MlUit in iiny onu |MiMt 
fiuft, tiMf iNiliiff in |mMt nmlity im mioli U \prUfr Ui our 
\mlUit tlmt onr pmrnmi nUii^ Iium iN^mi immnl hy i\m 
}MMt« Hut tiM5 mum tirii;rity of tliii lM4i4$f ifi Notno 
n^rmmimi \mi¥fmit my UUm Mul Um) iiuUmml riffilityi 
U foMiMl in dl tU*i9u.riitumin of tlioiif(iit« A nnititrifil 
imim^ of my t^%imrmim Im h tmnm in Mfm^ti^ Iff it, 
]ufwtiyt^r I itaniif liy tiMi UUm of f»|MU'/«9, my |iritMtnt Ih9- 
liitf in tlfo nmlity of mmu^ pnuunU^H any imriUmUit 
}mlU^t in a mafifriiti itaoM^i for n imriUmht M4tnMatii;n, 
iin<l rt^iuU*>rti Umi laiUtr \n^lmt i^MMiliio, 'Iliif miuunt' 
iUfU Iff n^iiiity fiirniwliiiil hy tliD mmraU for tmmiu In 
tlnm aiwiiyM MiilMmliniiUf to tint ('/om$it|ition of ri^ality 
fiirniwIiiKl liy our lirwt |Hmtiihitii« TUU ttrui |KMtn- 
hiU'. JM, that our UUmn liavM N^mnttliinif liityonil tln^ni 
ami lik<t tliitrn* Ho at i^twU monntnt of my lif<5 I 
)Mmtulat<f a paMt an<l futunt of my own, likii my pn^M- 
«tnt t'ttum'hhmti'Mt^^ hut 'rxtifrnal thitrift^i. Ho my mh 
tltil lumm'UmMumti^ my ori|(inal unrolhu^tivo UmiUumy 

to irask vidi wd Cor <>A6r hmi^ wplws^ lli^ pwh 
tnhte of tl^ e3Etenttl esEktoao^ <rf mj feUgy MWi^.^ 
Eb^ mvsielf mud lil» hit idets <rf theHu Sd to the 

at my fii^ier t^ I joun tiie postdblie <il mi m&dtoly 
extondieid wMt perMtTidl «fvM«^ libe tiie perMt^pied 
sfOM^i, aund fibe m v 5fRfe(4^-idlMi& 

The esteniaJ reafity ocomTiod W us b tlMaNfcn^,) 
so £ftr as mie ktve vet seen^ oMioeivMl Aron^ m ^pMi^ 
tauftMos rMMtioQ of the retmru^ <«(«id(iMi5aMSs; ift 
piE^smioe of tbe sensendblat reoe^Tied. The loraiis of 
this reoMrtioQ it miis the poiposie of the Ontical Phi^ 
IctsK^T to define. The task $i^ by Kant his not y«t 
ham auMXMnplished. Bat the f aet of 9MMe reactioa 
seiNDis established. Aiid the j:;iHi«ral kw of the prcie^ 
ess seems to he that the external raafitr is octtoeived 
aftier the pattern of the pivtsent data*, with siKh mod- 
i&atKHi as is neiciessaiT to bring the odnoef^ion into 
haraihWLT with ab^ady ostaMished habits <tf thcxight;^ 
and with the eonoeiv^ results of j^reTit^ns oxporienoew 
The aim of the whole juvviess secerns to be to nesMh 
as <\implet]e and united a <\HKV)>iit\n <4 msulity as is 
possible^ a <\uioepti<«i wbenein the greatest fuUne«s 
of data shall be combinexl with the givatost simfJie- 
ity of <x«K>e|^m. The eifcut of con^iousneiss sxvms 
to be to oT«nbine the groateist riohiKsss of content 
with the greatest detinitt^noss of organixation^ 

This charaoti^r of our activity in fonning oxir no- 
tion of ivaliTy imiJu>s the suK^nlination of the oiwi* 
sal postulati" tx> other uu^tiwi^ In the seientitv tield 
the postulate" i>f causality is piwUHuinant.. Ivcau^ 
there the notion of a >rorld of causal ^e^iuenods in 


tima Ami In MpflitD him Unm ulready built up, and 
wtmt ri)niairm Im to fill out tlio pii^tury t)y (llm^ovoring 
tho pitrtiimliir mHtmuiwn. Ihii if 1 try to btuiiMh aU 
toKitthfir from my riotioti of ifxtonml rcmlity tlio Ulen 
thfit it U ttfi fuliMiuiito oount<)r)mrt of my Mubjuotivo 
MtntoM of ()ofiM?iouMiioM| wtuit wUl rytitiitn ? Himtily 
ttio noticm of nn utti^rly uiiknowabli) ($xU)nuil onumi 
of my imtimiU)m. Of tliU notititiK will Ih) MaUl, t)ut 
that it \n, Hdmum^ oxiNirionoo, mrriouM roiiiiotiim 
ftbtfmt r<Hilityi will utterly mmmu I nludl Imvo ro- 
mfiinifiK n kind of I)iN<if(uro<l ItofiliMm, wborii tbo 
ronl will tm an unknowablis hm unreal m jM^Mibl^* 
Uut r(iintriMlu4M) tho omitti)d poMtulatOt lulmit tlmt 
reality in ootUMtivml m i\m ()ounUir)>art of my wm^ 
aoiouMKmM, and ttu$n tlio (M'inifiplo of oauMality can 
be fruitfully af^ilieil. Then imliHHl ex)Nfriem)e may 
leail m to oonoeivo the extiimal reality an unlike 
tlii^ or ttutt piUKifeNtive NenNaiioUi unlike thlN or tlmt 
proviMional idea. Ihii we Nlmll In) IimI to new mntrnp- 
timiM, ami Nhall lie abk) to ntake deiinite proffreM, no 
loft^ an we (NrntuUite Notm) Nort of likiftieNN lietween 
innor and outer. 

In brief, tm eauNality meauN unifomi m!qmmee, tlie 
mmi]fUmm of any mnml relation aM real invidveN 
A mtuw]tiUm of tlu) unifortn mu\iumm that In Uf be 
muw\tUHl, VVlMtn fiitally lueeepU'd, the mH{ium(H$ in 
<{u<$Ntion In ifoneifiv^d $m a real hwU wholly or |far- 
tially exU$mal to preNi^ni eoumtiouNneNN, but like cnir 
present idea of itNelf. ( !aMNal NequeiiiM) (cannot ther($- 
fore be phute^l flrNi, ttn ^ivio^ uh a ioUdly Ufideilned 
notion of mi external maliiy ; but mmmtl^ aN ena« 
blinif UN Ui devek)p in detail the icb^a that reality In 

like our own stales cl oonsciousnees. Of coone to^ 
prove by seiise experience that the extenud reoditj 
is like oar slates of conseiousiieas^ thU we can nerar 
accomplish. But from the outset we have seen that 
Terification thioogfa experience is in this field impos> > 
sible. The whole of this s^nsuoos leality , past» pre^ ' 
ent^ fntuie^ all that is outside of what one now sees 
and f eels> all space, time> matter, motion, life bejrond 
this immediate experience, — all that is so £ur only 
a postulated experience^ and therefore never a da- 
tum, never in detail verifiable for sense. Since we 
believe in this external reality, if experience suggests 
with sufficient force the idea that some causal se-* 
quence is real, our postulate that such suggestions 
have their counterpart in an external vrorid leads us 
to regard the conceived causal sequence as an exti»^ 
nally real fact. Not however do we first cc»iceive of 
the external reality as cause^ and then in the second 
place only find it to be or not to be the counterpart 
of present consciousness. All our thinking is based 
on the postulate that the external reality is a coun- 
terpart and not merely a cause. If with time, we 
drop mytholi^oal conceptions of external reality, 
we do so only because^ in the presence of a larger 
and fuller experience, we no longer find old concep- 
tionss founded largely on lower forms of emotion and 
on narrower experience, adequate to our notion of 
the external coimterpart of consciousness* For de- 
mons and entities we substitute atoi|is and ethereal 
media, not because we abamlon the position that ex- 
temal reality resembles our ideas, but because wider 
experience is found to be best reduced to unity by 


the latter, not by the former ideas. The atoms and 
the media are themselves only provisional notions, 
since more experience may be better reduced to unity, 
for all we yet know, by some other ideas. But 
throughout remains the postulate : external reality ia 
somewhat like our ideas of its nature. 

We have been betrayed by the doctrine that we 
have combated into forms of speech that do not ade* 
quately express the Critical notion of reality. We 
hasten to complete our conception by adding the 
omitted elements. External reality is like our con- 
ceptions of it ; so much, we have seen, is tmiversally 
postulated (postulated, be it noticed, not directly ex- 
perienced, not forced upon us from without). But 
the kind of likeness still remains to be defined. Can 
the external reality be conceived as being, although 
in nature like our conscious states, yet in no neces- 
sary relation to consciousness, as being neither a con- 
sciousness nor for a consciousness? The answer is 
the whole struggle of idealistic thought, the whole 
progress of philosophical analysis in modem times. 
One cannot go over the field again and again for- 
ever. The state of the controversy can be roughly 
stated thus: When the notion of external reality 
is based solely upon the application of the notion of 
causality, all degrees of likeness or unlikeness be- 
tween thought and things arc assumed, according to 
the tastes of individual thinkers. External reality 
is once for all -absolved from the condition of being 
intelligible, and becomes capable of being anything 
you i)lease, a dead atom, an electric fluid, a ghost, a 
devil, an Unknowable. But if the subordinate char- 

uuuusM. 861 

aeter of this postulate of oausiJit}' is onoe under- 
8t^KHl« tho oouoeption of reidity is altereiL What is 
real must be not ouly vagtiely oorrespondeut to au 
illHlettutHl postulate* but in a definite relaUou of like- 
ness to my present oonsoiousness« That this is the 
actual postulate of human thoufi^t is shown by those 
s>-stems thoms^'h-es that ignore the postulate of like- 
ness« and has been illustrated in the fbr^^>ing* liut 
what forms does this postulated likeness take ? For 
the first, the postidated likeness between mj. idea 
and the external reality may be a likeness between 
my present iH^nsiuous state and a past or future state 
of my owiu or betwetm this present state and the 
eonseious state of another Wing* The whole social 
coiuHuousness implies the postidate of a likeness be- 
twetm mv ideas and an actual eonsoiousness external 
to mim\ fashioneil in my own image« But the sec- 
ond generally reiH^gniiiHl form in which the postu- 
late of the likeness of intt^mad and extenial ap^H^ars 
is the form aeiH>nUng to which I postidate that a 
present idea of my own is not like one of my own 
past or future stat^va^, not like any actmil |iast or 
future state in another being of my own kind« but 
like a possible expt^rience« That our ideas can ade- 
quately express }H)ssibilities of sensation that are 
actually never n^iietU either in ours^^xt^ or in any 
other known creatun\ this is a familiar }H>stuIate of 
natural science^ The laws of natun> are generally^ 
as is admittetl by alU what I^ewtv) calKnl ^^ idt^ con- 
structions,** expn^ssing cxjH^ricniH^ for us never real- 
ihhU but }H>rmaneutly possilJe* And so exttuuletl is 
the use of the concept of possible experience, that, as 


we know, Mill in one of his most interesting chap- 
ters gave *^ permanent possibility of sensation " as 
an adequate definition of matter. 

Now the position of modem phenomenism is, that 
by these two postulates, or forms of the one postu- 
late of Likeness, the whole notion of external reality 
is exhausted. 

The external world means, according to this posi- 
tion, the possible and actual present, past, and fut- 
ure content of consciousness for all beings. And 
this result of modem phenomenism we regard, thus 
far, as the most acceptable postulate about the world* 
Either as postulate or as demonstrable theory the 
position is maintained by all the modem idealists. 
You can find it, for example, stated in Fichte's **Bes- 
timmung des Menschen" and other shorter philo- 
sophic essays (less succefl^fully, we think, though 
much more at length, in Uie two larger expositions 
of the " Wissenschaftslehre), in the Hegelian "PhSr 
nomenologie," in Schopenhauer's *^Welt als Wille 
und Vorstellimg," in Ferrier's " Institutes of Meta- 
physic," in J. S. Mill's ^* Examination of Hamilton," 
in Mr. Shadworth Hodgson's ^^Time and Space" 
and ^^ Philosophy of Beflection," in M. Benouvier's 
^^Logique G^n^rale,*' in lesser books innumerable, 
for example, in Professor Batunann's ^^ Philosophie 
als Orientirung iiber die Welt" (in the first chapter), 
in Professor Schuppe's ^^ Erkenntnisstheoretische 
Logik," in Professor Bergmann's ^^ Beine Logik." 
Not of course that all this multitude of thinkers, dif- 
ferent in method, in ability, in aim, in everything 
but in the fact that they are post-Kantian idealists, 

19<MlM lieOi^pt ^ fomftiMilg «labMMIlt M 4 fillip 

>^1k>ii it iuquiriM imo iia ^wn uMuiinfr^ oah mt^t 
r(^ «iMti»ii«d wiUi loiy Mm ^ ^xttenud wodilx UmI 

»«»»,, md M m^ti^ml £i)r ibiwight ^wswilbtti Mid 
lli« modi tmn^w'i^^^mt <i fwium «|i«iinibakiii »gt«ift Ui 
tMittinj^ 4t hsl lo flc^ in tMMdhdM uufidsl f nmi ^v&tj 
m^ffoH fxvt 4u «ixt«nidi i^i^ Uunl hm^t M«tt to 

pliemwi^iii^Mii of i^Ml^miluiii «|^i^uktioii xv« iMOi^ 
u «l all «T«iila Und »iiii|d^Ml and lidaM <iMnU«didMy 

S^ ttin<cK llM^n^ (or ow^ moUw of «Hir hYi^ilk««M 
akoiil Und iKt^dM(HMi^i^Mi«n<^(Mk KKvUiiy a|>|wMNi a» 
tk0 ol>j<^ iiti¥C^T of an aolnal or ^tf a |^%MtiMo <^mi- 
)M«M»tnoMk l^it iKi^ri^ r«main« in lki« doAnilion 
of Iho iw«lnlato »IjU1 on« oWnit^ point Whal is 
m^nl by poMiiMo <^m^i«Hw^noM ? \Mial <»in Ui«i« 
h0 tivt o^m^fci^m^snoM Wyv^nd iIh^ ^[naid total of all 
aK^liial ]M$t ami funtr^ «^i>m of <^m^i«H»noM in all 
Win^ ? >W what )mr|HW ami fey what right ^kall 
"Wi bnikl a x<wld ^rf )H«iEMbility aK>xv or l^t^fe th« 
>iir\>rhl of actual 03t|wrioiKy> ? Ttii* qw^fion »di»n« 
too liulo ai^trnK^iati^l ami u^ mnoh ovanl^^l by nhMt 
tkink^^r^k WWn Mill calk^l maUit^r a '' in^rtnamitnt 
po«ftibilily of ^^i^atkui/' Im^ kit n^m o{»m (\>r tk« 
iputtling quiMtion : But wliat ii Una craitttc^ oalMl 

lUli w% munmm Aupmr iff imtumfpur. 

% ^Hm\\ii\hy'f Im h Mt M^<ifml tty^i'f TlNTfi wfiiil 

hmiff Max MmIW in mi fifiUiU^ iu ''Mifd/* fff.' 

mhAh^lh or )f^iU^r iMUmi iMim Utr uMn\u% \\m 
MMim t^\fM^ til UiA |y/mfrtikl^ ^ff #i]iiAnml rmWiy, \n 
tm^f^ if WA nu\f\iifm fJmi /nm fnirti^yM ifN« m\ufU timfffl 
^rf iMtMml ^^rffA/ti/rfmrf#)M« \nmU \ff(*f^tU mu\ ftifriir a^ mi^I 
\Hn^u\i%\4m U49 tfu^iM iimi i^rt^ turi hrr mM in tummfUnif^ 
umH^ H \n diffWffiU Ut m*^ wimi will im i\m iitmn\nif 
ifl Mty ndUM ** \Hffmih\4^ ratify/* Vimnihit^^ htt i\m 
fir^'f \n huyihiu^ \,)mi /m#f tMnu*p>Ut%n^ in m^ ffif M /mn 
if/m^idt^ i(t Af filK f if/rfil/l ivfiMiitfly fi^t^ win^n mu\ 
H l/ffff( f^iK nn lMin/lri(/l i^y^^^ ^n/l ^ ni/rfiniMin <rf /{iikL 
All frfiMfc iM |i/iMiM#), Irfff. in wimfr ^iWfAA? In itii# 
«i#<nMA4 iJmf f /I/9 M/^Mmlly iniMf^iniv rny^lf imi \Hfm^m* 
\u^ i\mm \,W\u^n, ** Kfn|rf,y (>/»Milfilif,iim/* ^rf ** iinii((- 

inHii/rnn ^ /rff#f W/rfll/l/* fif^ ffM'M /rf ^</rfiM<i/rf|^#MMl iff 

^» fttf f/ AbA UM»y ^f*4 lrnflt^in#«il \ mu\ Ui#>y httr*» no 
t^Su^r t^tUu^uv$\. 'Mm w/rfl/l /rf trnUi i* n/ri ^nri^th^l 
fry f.lM»«#i |r<mAiifilif.iim« wli^m^ wl»/»l#* t^tUimum U in 
tli#* M/titml /wff»«/ii/ffm i/l#ifi /rf MM»rri. IViif, ut^ in U»i* 

' I*. nH. *' It nt^fhffrtt^ Mill Mff/! M< f/ffl/rWMM lffr*«JW» Mr** hf 

^ffl^y /r^ Knffr* tUfu/ mt ih'fi, Mt#»r ii^/» WrfjitnkAfi '^h^lf ^(^ni^iwr 
Ky 'rf «iff«fif|/rff, If ^f^/rff^fl/ Afml//A/I, ffiMfr* Milfitf* /rf iiffMfiifr/^4 
Wlil^ff ^fiff },4^Hftuh hh\(^fM hi 44*tinnf.U(tt." Vtfffhrm*ff M»ll/'f*n ^Mfill 
M n/ri <rfiA Mmft fTM ^(«ff Wh/rll/ */«<^|f* > M« 6^W^I>W| //f IM WW/I 

TwrAUSH, S65 

sense is matter to be a '^petmaiiait poasifalfiiT of 
9eii;satiaii.*' Tlie icebergs in tbe polar seas are to be 
reaL not in so far as I now imagine diem, but in so 
far as tbere exists or kdds good tbe law, that were 
I present I shoold see diem, were I to tooek tbem I 
should feel dioiu and that bodi seeing and feeling 
would be detennined in certain wars boTond tbe 
eontrcd ol my wilL Tbe pages ol diat doaed book, 
die bones inside die bodb^ ol diat cat» mr own brain, 
die molecoles ol die oo^fgen that I am breathings all 
diese, in so far as dier are not now actoaDy in my 
conscioasness« are to be still leal as *^ possible expe- 
imicesL'* Bot what kind ol unreal reafitr is diis 
potential aetaalitr ? 

If we inqoiie into the modve diat leads ns to 
postnlale these possiUe e^qpeiimces* we shall find it 
to be the familiar and miiTersal wish to affJr the 
postulate of nnifi>rmitT to oor confused actual ex- 
pefience* Oor actual experience is not always goi^ 
emed by obYioos laws of regular sequence* But in 
postulating consciousnesss beyond our own immediate 
datau we are led« by our known prejudice in faror of 
unity and simplicity, to postulate that the leal sue- 
cessiims of fisM^ are uniform, whatever mav be the 
ease with the fragments of reality diat fall within 
our indiTidual experience. I see an apfJe falL and 
no more than that. But I postulate that if I could 
hare had experience of all the factss I should have 
obserred a series of material changes in the twig en 
which the apple hung, that would have sufficed to 
restore the broken unif ormirr and CKmtinuitT of mr 
caqpttieneea. In this way it is dial; as ranarked 


filKive, thtf ccnusefitum of catuial «iM|ii4mc6 doet not 
en^ate, Imt orgauizeM atid perfeetM, our notion of ex* 
torual n^ality. Tlusr^t in Moiiu^thin^ beyond our expe- 
ruituui^ nauu^ly, anothar experience ; tluU in the ftrrt 
{KiNtulate. Kx|)eriem5eM f^irm an uniform and regnhir 
wliole of lawM of Ne^iuenoe. That in the other jxMtu- 
late, Nulxmlifiate Uf tlie iimt Thiii jxMtulate bel|Ni 
to fortu for uh our idea of the material world beyond 
individual anmsumHtuimi an idea tliat neienee ao- 
cqitH for iiM uniformity, with^mt inquiring further 
into itM nature, while a uutm critieal reflection de* 
clarcM tliat tlie facto aiwumed bh exintent beyond the 
range of individual mmmioun beings are ^ poiwible 

Thill aiwumiitirm of *^ [XMnible exjierienceti/' an an* 
mnn]ftum made Up Matiiffy the jKintulate of uniform- 
ity, wan cxpreMned, in our hyi>oth<Miii of a world- 
cfmm;iouimefM, by tlie MupiKMiiion of an univeraal 
actual ex[Meriem$i$. Why? We annwer, becauio 
the HtmmtuHl ^^iKMMble exiM$riem5e»'' tliemitelv6», liy 
iilcally flUing up tlie gajm of a^;tual ex|>erience, are 
iuUindiHl to Umd tin U) tlu^ c^>iu$eiition lA one uniform 
vAmAxxUt exi>ericfi/'/4^ Thin al>Holute exfierience, to 
which all far.'tM would exhibit tlufniHelven in their 
conrie<diori an uniformly Mubje(;t to flxi^ law, in 
vAfiu'AtivitA HH ^*i>oMMiblie/* Jtut once again, what doen 
that nu^an ? In th<$ meaning only tlie emjity tautoU 
ogy tliat if all tlu; gajM and irregularities iff indl* 
vifliial tix\Hir\iinoAi were g<;t rid of by meann of con- 
m^^ing linkii an<l additional ex|x;riimceM, tliene gapn 
ami irrcgiilaritii^ woiil/1 dinapfH^r? In tlie mean- 
ing only thin, that if tliere were an al>Holute expe- 


lienoe of lui aboolately regular series of facts, this 
experienod would be absolute and umtonu? Ot 
again, is it enough to say that any possible experi- 
ence, an ioeberg in the polar sea, my brain, the in* 
side of yonder book, exists tor me only as ^^ my rep- 
resentation '' ? Of course, 1 know of it only what I 
conceive of it, yet I postulate that it has some real- 
ity beyond my representation. This i>osUdate is for 
us in this preliminary discussion a fact, of which we 
want to know, not the justification {tw we still seek 
none hi|j(her than the fact itself of the postukte), 
but the meaning. I know of my fellow only what 
I conceive of him. Yet I |>ostulate that my eon*' 
ception of him is like hinu whereas I do not ^xistur 
late that my conception of a dragim is like any real 
animal. Just so I |K>stulato that my conception of 
the ^^iKwsible exi>cricnce '' calknl an atom« or the 
North Polc^ is valid l>eyimd my ex{H>ricncc, and l>e* 
yond tlie actual ex{H>riencc of any known animaL 
Itut I do not postulate that my conception of the 
possibility that future men might have wings and 
tails is like any future reality whatever, or in any 
way valid Wyimd my conception. 

Here, then, is our dilemma^ Matter as a mere 
possibility of ex|)erieuce is more than any auimal*s 
known actual exj^ierience. And yet tliis matter is to 
be real for consciousness. Nor is it to l>c real for 
oonsciousm^ss simply in so far as tlie {>ossiblo cxpe- 
ricnw IS represent^nl or ctmcinved. The reality con- 
sists not merely in Uie representation in prostnit con« 
sciousness of a ftossiMc cx^ierience, but in the added 
postulate that this conception is valid beyond the 


pn^mmi (Mmm^UnmumH, Haw ii thiii poMtukto to bo 
MttiiMficxl tinloMM by aMMittnhig an miwd world-oon- 
MoioiMtioiM ? 

Lot UM Mtim tip tho omulitiotiM to wliioh wo have 
horo mibjootiul our thoory of roality. Kxtonial roal* 
ity wiM to bo poMtttlatoilf not givon ; oxiMtont for um 
booatiiu) wo wilbul it to 1m3. To a portion of our oon- 
ioiiniN MtatoM wo amjrib^Kl a validity lioyond tho pron- 
ont. ThiM iiMori]ition of validity wan to oonntituto 
our wliolo knowlodgo of tho oxtortial w<irld ; for ox- 
aniplo, our iM^liof in our own ])aMt and futuro NtatoNt 
in our n(^iK:lihor*M oxiMtoncn, and in tho oxiittimoo of 
N])fuui, of nuittiir, and of motion. Huoh an oxtonial 
roality waN always ooncnuvod aM moro or Iom oom- 
ph)t4dy tho (unnit<irt)art of our idoa of it^ an<l honoo, 
an in natur(% liico tho faotM of our ooniMuoufineNfi. 
Tito idoa tluit wo at any niotnont fonn of tho roal- 
ity l)oyond ourM(*lv(*M waM tho oxproMion of tho offort 
to roduoo to tinity tho ])roMmt muiMHlata an<l the 
proMont oonoo])tion of otir own pant oxporionoo. Thin 
roduoiion to unity took p1a<u) in oortain fortuM. ThttN 
wo oon(Miivo<l ilio oxt<imal roality a^ in Npa<M) and in 
tinio, and, in tlio Mioond jdaoo, tin in i^attMal rolation 
to ourH<^lvoM. Tlio ooitoo])tion of <faitMal rolatiotiM 
thttM projootml into tho oxtonial roality boootnoN, 
whon ooinplof4id, tho oonooptioti of a aoin]dotoly 
ttnit<Ml and unifortn wholo of faotn. Wo oonooivod 
tho oxtornal roality aM Mubjoot to ilxod lawn of mo- 
/|uono<% (^ortainly oxiMt^^it, ovon though, in our litn- 
itod oxporlon(Ms thoy bo undiMoovorablo. An Nttbjoot 
to Nu<'.h lawN tho oxtortial roality waM a wholo, poM- 
loMing organic unity, liut the external reality wii 


mko (lonoemd ms Wnis nal lor rwwiwim,iihj, wd 
ml <Mihf fior o(»5«iMiaaBds& IW esatKxmil RdEfcj'^ 
Keb^ an iH^saie mlMfe^ smst tlwre£(w^ be cxnoeml 
»s tiie ofcjMt ol an ahsofacbe expeneMie^ te mUek aU 
ffects »rfr kifeowii, jund £or wfcicb all £mIs juw snbJMf 
to vnixHersal law« But tkes« dns kfts aiisien an ob- 
smuitv in iwr tdiMrr <o£ i«aIitT* IW i«l k Ixi l»e 
«df for cicMiscicNiSB6s& CcttfieMMBsness^ koiwTier^ is 
popnbiibr l^o«^^ as tscistent in <w CeUow-bm^s. 
Afti T«t tiie pcKtelatel naJitv is Ixi be an wganie 
mifeciki, OMBlaiiun^ demsi <al inctsi dout; to did» heii^^s 
ai« kxKvmn <«i1t as p(!is9iUe^ w^ 

We ane dfeen in das positKHL To cvH^kte <oar 
Ikaorr^ K^ "^ want a k«^^ X<»t, to be su^ a ]>on 
Jnn^ bid; a liTpc4ifeeCMal sobjaet <iil die ^pcisabk 
«aKperieneie&^ lids b^pcvtifeedcal sabjact i(^ loiTe pos^ 
tafatod onhr as a brpMbesis. Tkat is^ ite extatenoe 
is not T^ seen to be a neoessirr vesaah; eT«n of tbe 
pMsateblie doU; dieiie is an extenad roftHtr, One otn 
ionn odier IiT;vidfee90$w Rat diis bypodftesas bas tbe 
adi:uitii^ o£ bein^r siiajde azid ndeqnito. Morcoper, 
to asfqDEBEie a OM^nonsness for urbiob die **p ^ble 
e ^giett c ies^are prosent fartss is to do no bmw« dooi 
OQT Amy jiMBis to need: mbereas anTodwr bvpodi^ 
esas <^BiexiaeleT> tbeicdcj^ml bjpdi^etsis^ £« e3caBtipkw 
2n ite oiiginal foR&> SMms to assume in«>e don 
is «» £ur demandod by oar dieorettxcsl oaneep^aon 
o£ iMlhr* For die sate dien of eaqpvKtssang one as- 
pect of our fandasicntsl pcistabto. ire jaog^^ets^^ wbsx 
of oncorse ine baTe ik* jy* jwoTen* dutt all die oon- 
««iT^ ** pc«sihlo expejikaioes "^ are acitaal in a Oon- 
ariowsnOTs of urbiob ine » iw aq^ose Mtbi^s ^^ 

» f . ■ ' ■ m ^■. Zr • ^'^ *-r ~ ^ -w 

* AJ -* • 


that it knows these experiences, or knows facts oone- 
gponding in number and in other relations to these 
experiences. Thus our idealistic doctrine in this its 
first form is explained and defended. 


But all this hypothesis needs the deeper confirmar 
tion that we are here seeking for our philosophic 
doctrines. How is any such idealism to be estab- 
lished ? And then, if established, how is this notion 
of a passionless eternal thought to be transformed 
into anything that can have a religious value ? What 
we have advanced as hypothesis, expressing the posr 
tulates of popular thought, is to receive such ad- 
ditions and such foundation as shall fit it to rank 
as a reasonable philosophic theory of reality. So 
far it has been a wish of ours, and we have not even 
shown that it is a pious wish. Can we make of this 
All-Knower a religiously interesting Spirit? And 
what shall we do with his still vague relation to the 
single conscious lives that are to get truth by agree- 
ing with him ? If he is not in deepest truth a power 
that makes them, then so far there is a strange, dark, 
inexplicable necessity, determining somehow their 
harmony with him. Plainly, though we find it best 
to approach our doctrine by this road, we have not 
yet reached the heart of the mystery. 

There is one haunting thought that now must be 
permitted to come for a time out of its hiding- 
place and to confront us. It says : " All this postu- 
lating how vain and worthless, this hope for a proof 

mEAUSM. 871 

of your doctrine how ah»urd> when your Teiy hy» 
pulhetti» shuts up your human thought as it were in 
a cage. As you state the relation of the UniToraal 
Consciousness in which exists the physical world, 
and the indiviilual consciousness of the particular 
thinker^ )*ou make indeed the truth of this individ- 
ual thou{i^ht dependent on its agreement with thai 
all^seeing thought* but as you so far utterly separate 
the individual thought from the all^^ieeing thou^t» 
j'ou make impossible any sort of transition from one 
to the other. This individual can never go out of 
himself, to meet that Intinite thou^i» and to see if i 
he agrees with it* You put the model all-embracing \ 
thought M in a relation to the poor human thou^t 
hy in which no transfer of thought really takes place* 
but still yim give to h the iH>mmand that it shall; 
copy M. Then you (postulate that which is by your 
hypothesis unknowable, namely, that this correspond* 
enw has been attainetU and this empty postulate you 
call a philosophy. After all, say what you will of 
the iM'auty and nobility and ciHirage of postulates, 
all this stvms a rather wearisinne business. For 
the |H)stulates ap{)ear the vainest of all things when 
viewed in the light of the very theory that they are 
to establish.** 

This objet^tion is a iHMumon-sense one, and formitU 
able. But, like all philosophic skepticism, rightly 
understiHHl it will Ih> our U^t friend. Possibly, in* 
tletnl, w^^ shall haw to iH>m)dete simiehow our notion 
of the notation of the individual mimls to the all-em* 
braiding mind ; but meanwhile let us take the td>jtHS 
tion in its worst form. What does it lead to when 

fmnUul Uf \iM tulU$fii t$%im$i7 H U^n4n Up n^mtUfU^ 

imr \HmiuU^Um, 'V\my %fn lUI in Um n,\r, Kv^ryUiiiijK 
U iUm\fiiu\, W« tnny \m \n ^rri$r ^^tfrywimm* (*w* 
toifiiy ahrni iim rtml m^rM \pttymul in utmiUiUmUUt,** 
An ihU i^/iiii ilmn w«i iirt$ tmm Up tmm wiUi i\m uiU^f' 
numi iimfftfiUiid nkMi$iMmn, W\mi nimii ¥ft$ tUt witb 

ill an mi'lU^r aUh^ifUtr, W» iiiiiMi rmmlf^ h In n 
frUtiMlly M|rfriif MtiMt ifiMMi HimI ^mi wUn^i \i ummm Mid 
mmmimn, h wiU« in ftati^ irMmUmn iliiM furw/flF »x« 
t#nml wi^l^l (ft iim inmUiUiUm UiUf n irm w^l4 td 
Hl$ir\Uml l/if«t, 

Oim Uiiit({ UiiM filar|fii^fiMifi iifi|4i4iM,'^i/iMi tiling m$ 
nU$HpU$ m i/^Mmrnliy Up t^mmim mriU'4$ mmmK ilm m#- 
mmnpiUmn of onr i\^m^iUi, U hnplUn thai im turn ht^ 

Itfii iM/w wliini \n involv^l \%% my\\\yi^ Umi % nU(Am%un%i 
U «tiiii#tf ifiMf Of f^ln^f ? '1 o iiffirifii i4; /l#iiyi Ui A^niiA^ 
%\\ \u\\Ay fli f^Mil 4iMiiiMdii/ii li«rtw^n imUi miimI ^fitf s 
¥X\ i\\nM^ iii4Tn involve in vAmmuhi i\u% nm\%%%\\A\4n\ 

i\\%i iSu^fVi iM MIMflf ft iWniSpwii^PW, 'X\\^i wlfi^'Jl iM ill' 

¥olv^l MiliiMt Ua\\ ill Umy if\\i\\ mill ill ili4« fmlnidy //f 

H ^Mni^^lfM^lli ifiMni it^if ||«t /e^tHlMillly iMUti iiimI miiii//( 

liM Aim\AAu\, SSsii wiiiti iti Uiit« iMMiiiiii|iiii/ii iiii|iliifil ill 
ili^ si^vy piia^v\Sii\% iimi m iiiMif^iii#tni Mil^/md M\ ^%U^r\\i^\ 

Worlil it| Ol' iWPiy liA fmiiKf? ^riliM ilMJIli^y wit IIIIMt 

nmlM if wn nm ii/ Mii^WfitiiiMi <mr i/wii iik#|iii4[ii#fii# 


B ire begin thk mqaiiy* ire are mel at once bja 
T«[y TexadoiKS paxadox. Thmre sieeoBs to be an as* 
pect in idiich all sinceie jodgmenls aie trae. Let 
IKS nan^Hnber tbe faUe nd tbe knigbfts and tbe sbidd. 
Eaeb aceuaed tbe odwr of Ipng« To eacb tbe otb- 
er's aocoont seemed ddibeiate fahehood> Yet e>icb 
spK^ tbe tratb. Only neilbar eaqpiesaed bimsdf 
fatty. Eaeb sbooU baTe said* "* Tbe sbield as it iqp* 
peais from mj side is golden ** or '^ is siker*^ Bat 
eadi left oat tbe qoaKftration, EadisaidlAe^Ustd^ 
simply. And benoe tbe battle. 

Bat tbis commonphMce about die kni^its and tiie 
abield begins to wonr ns^ nben ire reflect iqpon it» 
bj becoming altogetber too gi»ieral in so«qpe. I>o 
we^in £M?t» ever make sinceie assertions aboat tbings 
save as tbey appear to OS? If I say, ^Sn^ar is pleas- 
ant to tbe taste**' and my neigbbor says« ** Sn^ar is . u* 
batefal to tbe taste>** is tbis a conflict of xeracitT? « >^; 
May we not botb frf os be sinceie and tratbfal in 
wbat we say? And are color-Uind moi lying wben 
tiiey say tbat tbeie is no diffidence in cokor between 
strawbenies and tbe leaves of tbe strawbeny plant 
iriien seen in ourlain ligbts? Bat wby is it not jost 
80 witb aU tbe rest of tbe tbings tbat people say? 
If yoa are sincere in wbat voa sav« aie voa not at 
ways in your assertions simjdy relating bow yoar 
ideas iqpqpear to yoa and aie gioaped ? If yoa say 
tiiat moiiimg kappet^ tritAomt a cams^^ do yoa not 
mean tbat wbat voa conceive bv tbe word cmi^e is 
conceived br ^\s in eom>eeti:» with eT«nr e^t 
tiiat voa now bave in mind? If voa sav tbat a 
atrmglU lim» u (Ae akoitat distmict bttitem fieo 



paints^ do you not meaxi that what you now oonoeive 
under the name straight line agrees with what you 
now mean by shortest distance ? Very well then, 
how can Oiere be any clirn^ opposition between two 
sincere statements ? Your neighbor says that Dar^ 
winiam is absurd. You say that Darwinism is true. 
Where now is in fact the controversy? He says 
that he has two ideas in mind ; namely, an idea of 
what he chooses to call Darwinism, and an idea of 
what he chooses to call absurdity. He says that 
these two ideas agree, just as the knight said that 
his shield (i. e. the shield as seen by him) was silver* 
You say that your idea of Darwinism agrees with 
your idea of truth, as the other knight said that the 
shield as seen by him was golden. Why fight about 
it ? Thus all statements appear to be narratives of 
what goes on in our own minds. If they are sincere, 
if we mean them, who shall doubt that they are all 
true ? Can any of us make assertions that are more 
than clear accounts of how we put our own ideas 
together ? Why may not the thief before the judge 
sincerely say : ^^ O judge, my idea of what I call 
chicken-stealing agrees with my idea of what I call 
virtue " And the judge may truthfully reply : " O 
rascal, my idea of what I call your chicken-stealing 
agrees with my idea of what I call detestable petty 
larceny." Are these two opinions really opposed, so 
that one is true, the other erroneous? Are these 
not rather different aspects of the universe ? What 
is truth, moral or physical ? Is not every investiga- 
tion, every argument, every story, every anticipation, 
every axiom, every delusion, every creed, every de» 


BiaL josl a mere «qpnssioii of a fnamk unSkm of 
ideas in 9o«Bdbodhr? Wha» jk> two aaseartioiis mw l 
QDeoDuiMMi groaiid, sotdkHl one can be leaDh^ tiue^ 
die odii»' loaihr faJae ? Hare diffiearaiil jod^nenls^ 
in different mimls or mado at; diiSiexieiil times,, anj 
loal common object at all? If tbey bare not» horn 
can tbeie be any tndli or falsitT at all? 

Hus paiadox is wild csmmd^ if jon look at it 
CkdIt* And jret manr lAdnkns actnallj bare main- 
tained it unAor xarioos d»gids«8 as tbe doctrine of 
iriat is called idie Told BeialiiitT of Tkvdtk Bxv- 
ii^bunself passed tbiOQg^ and loi^ tried to bold 
and to lationaKie tbis doctrine of Be]atratjr« tdm 
antbor bas soene i^:bt to isajr sometbiiig in cffMnsiliQn 
to iL Wbat be bas to sar can be tcxt brieflr mA* 
In its iMuradcixitfal fonn as aboTe stated, tbe dodtrino 
mar be made plaasibkw and i» a soggestire paiados, 
bat it is cintaialT meaniii^<|ie6& If tbexe is no leal 
disdndbMNi between tratb and enor« Idien the state* 
ment tbat tbeie k soeb a diSeve«« IS not leattr £^ 
but onhr stemimptf iakew And Idien m trmti tbero 
k the dbtinrtion onre more. Tit as Toa wilL yon 
come not bexond tbe htal cirde. If it k wrong to 
sar that there is Absvifaite Tradu tdm die statement 
that there is absohite tradi i» itself fake. Is it how- 
erer £&!» onhr relatiTclr^ or i» it fake aksuifaitelT? 
If it is £ftke onbr relatiTclr. dien it is mio4 £ftke abso* 
hrtehr. Henee the statement that it is fake akso* 
faitehr is itself fjJse. Bat &ke ak»4atelT« or tike 
rebtiTtielT? And tbitsToa most at last eome tosonie 
statement that is ahsvihilelT fake or aksioiatelT tracv 
or ^ae dm infinite regieas into wbieh yoa aio drivai 

870 TiiK nimom aapkot of ptutAnomr. 

mukim thu very diMtifuttimi Imtwcxm aIukiIuIo uml rel« 
»iivo truth Um) all itn iitDatiiiif{, und ymir <liM)triti« of 
t<^ttl Ititltttlvity will aIko 1<>im) iiumnitiK. ** No hImio* 
lut«) truth oxiMtn/* — oun you ^ay thin if ytm want to ? 
At iDtmt you tuunt itild, ** No nliMiluti) truth Dxifft« 
not;/) ^Aiii i(r7/i(A ii(ii/^//', that fiAi ahnoluin truth mlMtn,^^ 
OthorwiMD ymir Ntiit4!tii<uit htm no mmm). Ihit if you 
iMlifiit thiM truth, thou ilumt in iu fiu^t an alMoluto 
dintim^tiou \miwmn truth attd itrror. 

Att<l whim wo horo tallc of an ^^nlmoluto** dintino- 
tion iNftwoou truth and orror, wo ntoiin moroly m 
** roal ** diMtinotion Indwoon truth and orror. Ami 
thiM roal dintinotion tho (lorooMt partinan of rolatir- 
ity ailniitM ; for dooM ho not afti^r all arffuo for rola- 
tivity a((ainiit ** almolutiMtN/* holdInf( that ho in roally 
right, and thoy roally wronf(. 

Yot, Muro thouf(h wo fool of tho diNtlnotiim, tho 
parailox and itn plauiiibility roniain. lUm hare 
difToront JudguiontM, tnailo at difToront tImoN, any 
roal ooninion objoot at all? If thoy havo tutM^ 
thon whoro In tho |Mmtulat4Ml diNtinotion of truth atul 
orror? What Mhall wo do with inir para<lox? In 
what MouMo oan a private) opinion of imo man lio a 
f(onuino orror? l^horo niimt 1h) muoIi a thing an roal 
gonuino orror, or oImo ovon our vory MkoptioiMtn failn 
U) liavo tho htant moumo, and wo fall hiutk int<i tho 
uttorly irrational <;ha4m of not Ixiing alilo with truth 
iti May whothor wo d(Milit that wo aro douliting. Ihit 
yot how Mhall wo oxplain tlio {HmMiliility of orror? 
For horo in an uniipio and fundaniontal p^mtulato. 

Tho noxtohapiorHhall liodovot<'d to a nioro ii|NH)ial 
ami dotailod ntudy of thin problow. But alroady 

«e shall Venturis to siiiggieol our soludoiu It k one 
that ueeiU jM^Uy some littk^ oonsid^jrmlioii, and thA 
re4iil«ar will pardon us if ir« ali^ady staW it» ak)iott|^ 
w^ sludl repeat it in anoUier fonu KeriMif tiMr* In 
l)iet> it is m eriUcnl mmlter for onr wliok> diaeussion* 
Hex^ in fact, will bd the point wKerd we shall pass 
from itkaUsni as a bare hvpoUiesis^ expressing poa* 
t^dales» to idealism as a philosc^Aie doctrine^ rest^ 
ing upon the deepest possible fonndatMNU nanMfy« 
on the xeiy diffejrenee between truth and entMr it»etf • 
Our lo^^al problem will beeome for us a treasure* 
house of iileal trutk But just now we make only a 
suggestion^ to whieh as yet we ean compel no agree- 

When one says eren the perfeetly eommonplaee 
thing that not all assertions are equally truew that is« 
that not all of them agree with the objeets with whioh 
they mean to agree, he really makes an a«»umpiioQ 
upon which aU thinkings aU controversy^ all the 
postulates that we previously studie^L all science. aU 
morality de)¥>nd : amU as we maintain^ this assump* 
tion is: That tkif ajrivr«i<«Ml or tAe di;siaynmmemt 
i^'khjmfymifimts iriVA tktir imtitmiieii olf^s furisis 
iine/ ka^ mn^miHit fi>r tm ocfiitif /JU>wjrAl% & con^ 
M'^ioM^iK'^'e^i^ to icA iVA hoik M(t^ tetat^i tifrms am ^ 
prt^atmt^ mam^jf^ hoik ike juii^w^^rmi ami ike ohfeti 
iirA^mriM ii is io agree. 80 that« if my thou^t 
has objects outsitle of it with which it can agree or 
disagree^ those objects and that agreement can have 
meanings can be possible^ only if there is a thtnight 
that ini'ludcs both my thought and the object where*^ 
with my thov^t is to agrei^ This imduaive thov^t 

H1H 7n% umAaiovB Anncr or mtummir. 

mwA }m rttUuM Uf my iiumffht unil it# olrj^^^ i# 
my ihimnhi U rtAnUftl Uf iim fi^rUnm imriUd ib/ni/(hto 
iimtf it Uu4wlm ntui rmlium^ Ut unity in my tfm td 
my wtm\Atii% mmriUmik, Vitt tmiy tiy mntm ntm\i 
unity «# thin mn thin hifftMrr ik/^ighi ivmt|iftri» mjr 
JnilffniMit wiih it# ot;Ji»<$i| uml m/i i'//;n»iiiiito th« 
fifkiimt ihiit Im ini|ilii»il in i\m truih /if in i\m mmrr 
4pI my ihimnhU Ho^ in ihi9 i$/inimmf|ilii/'/i» iMMfimp- 
iUm i\uU «i nUiUtinmii /;f mhm mn n^rm in mn iiXi 
Uf Hjfrm wiili ii# fpml o}f^tH^^ w^Min ibin obJMrt U 
wti/iily mii#i449 nijr ib//tif(hif in thin nrnitmffiUmf with^ 
i;fii whUih ym% vmu mnk$^ lUf rniUmnl niMUmumi^ U 
wmUihmi ifn|yli/fi(lly iim nmumifihm ihni n\\ rtmHiy^ 
nifiriUmi Mui mHit^rihU i^ \frtm3Ui in it# inm nftttim 
U» fin h\\ ' Mu\frmfUtf(^ \nU^\\\f(mti iiumf(hi^ iit wbi/?h 
tnin^ U fAm\f\y /m^ Miil^mlinnU \mri iff iAimumt 
In inithf im wif Mbull r^/mM Uf mm^ rtn^nrfM in it#^lf, 
my niinil nHtt \m v^ftuufrntul mily with ii# /mn iilir«#« 
^rtini iM itnf viitw /;f nil titH'M\M nnhjit^tih^ i/lMli#m# 
Iftit if tuy mUul fmt \m fitftumnml fm\y wiUi it# (mn 
iiliYMn, iiMTfi MSn/f4rriiy iiffil initli nriy i^i^iti/snl^ iniih 
nnil iirf/#r will \m nlikif inifKiMtii/li}. Whnt I tolk 
«iU;fit will t;if my Mi^tm \ iim\r ol;jivft# will im iirnm^ 
m^Ut^n (fiUisr UUmn iti uut^^ %tu\ m^^tiu^n^^ tm\y i\mm 
U\^m wiMTfi I rrink^ mm^riUmn^ 1 mnn/Ht fnil Uf mfiAm 
vAffft^'i Mm^ri!umn tiSfimi i\mm^ i\m h\t\pi*^ ihni I 
n%t%Mu Itfii tliiM muiftf^t^ny^ irrfff(r^m ttrWHrtU 
iruiiu Whir^ t^/ ^H^ tniili^ irrr/ff^ r^fffiinii/ffi^ jrwi, 
il^;til;i iiM4;lff will Mil mMM#f i/; linvif imy fn#9iininf( 
whMi(iii#;iTV<Tf, l^ii if nty ib/#iif(lti Im riflnt^l Uf n 
lii(;lim' Ui//ii|(ht, i^vi^n tm iU^ \rtiriM //f ^nm fft my 
Ui4/tiglft# iir<» f^lnt^i/l Uf Um wb^/k iiKiUjiflitf tbMi 

IfgAMSlt, ST9 

varolii and cnor, as objeethre tmdi and obJeotiiB 
error, are powsiMis ainee m j tboiiglit and its objeei» 
bolk as I tiunk tiiis object and as h k, are togediet 
in die uniraraal tbou^it, of iriudi tiiej fonn ele^ 
ments^ and in wbidi ^bej fire and more and baTO 
tiwir b»i^. As m J Aoio^xkB bare a unhj more or 
less eompkte in tbemsehrea» so all tiMM^btB and ob> 
je^s most be postulated as in nnitf in tbat tiMm^it f 
for iriiieb is die wbok imrretse* As I can sa j to 
m jaetf widi aokij sobjeetiTe tmdi* l%is lime ikai 
Itmemtfdlypktmrt is im tnUk siiiHer Jbr m^ tkam 
tkaiy amd io 9ay oikentUe is to speak JciMfy; OTen 
80 mj statement. All siraigki limes are m oU cotes 
skcHesi limes heiwreem tkeir eaEtretmiiieSy is tme ob* 
jeeAyfij^ and ils contradietQiy false only in case 
botb tbe ivorld ol possible straigbt fines and mj 
dioa^ils about tbis worid are known to a bigbor 
dMN^bt, are in fact members ol a bi^ier tbongbt^ 
iriiicb, comparii^ wbat I cannot compare** making 
a syntbesis ol wbat is to me separate, unifying wbat 
is for me dixerse, finds mj tbougbt reaify tme or 

Tbis is tbe barest outline ol a proof by wbieb, in 
tbe next cb^it^ « we sball try to readb tbe positioQ 
iriiicb some call absolute or objeedre idealism. We 
sball find tbis die<tty as just set foitb a necessary 
assumptkNu wiiicb we sbidl make because we want 
to diink clearly, and because we find notbing dse 
diat eren suggests an answer to the critical questioDs 
diat trouble us as to the nature of tbougbt. We 
shall not substitute tbis conception of reality for tbe 
wientifift omception. On tbe oontrary^diis conoep 

880 TiiK mimom aii^kot oy iniiLOioraY. 

tlon will Mi»i'i)ly uiHlMt*tH.kt«, prdMupitoNitiK (Im fidm" 
Ulln Hpirlt, t(i innlutlt) tlitt mtimiiliiit mmiH^ptbu id 
tlm world In onu timt will, hh m. w1m)1», bottor Mitiufy 
tlw nmulM uf tliiH Mtti^nliHd Nplril ItMtlf. Our tiieoty 
will t(iv(« UN uo a prluri mnuiuul of fiuttN uf DXjid- 
rlMUui^, but n tluiury of tlmt wliiuh umkuM ttximriuudOf 
Wik A wholu, poHHibli). TliiN ihu(u*y, wliiuU wu oflfor as 
(liu oud mtiouiil muumul of tlto unUiru of (ruili, U 
tliu doniriuu tlmi ihu world In iu liutl for n thuu{{ht| 
lUl-uuibrmtiutf, iilbkuowiu)(, uulvdrNAl, for wliiuli iiro 
nil rukiiouN liud h.11 irulli, n thought tlm( ^NUmiit§i 
{Mtrfuiitly our iutpMrfuMi nutl luUUu|{ thouifbtNi ft 
thouKlit in wliiuh Autl for wUImIi Aru wu nil. Na 
itihor viuw, H.N wu Nlmll Hdirui, offurN m\y ulmuud uf 
ft pliiloNotihy, uor uuy Uo|m of uvun ft rftUottftl Noi- 
mi\i\is notion of UiIukm. 

Tliu rumbir nmy bu ini{mtiunti tu nuu, in dutftll, Iho 
ftrtfutuont by wliioli wu uniinrtfiku io uNiftbliNk Nuuh ft 
thuNlN ftN thu foru({oin|{. Of tlmt ftr((uniunt liu nIuUI 
Ifut onou^fh in ftuotluir olmptur. Jiufc wh unU liitn to 
wiUi ynt ft nionuint, wltilu wo hint io liini Wu^ uouNCh 
(|uim(uiN, for our riill|{louN thucu'y, tlmt will How front 
our liypothnNlN whou wu Imvu got It luoru uurtftlnly 
in our uiindN. 

1'hu ftuibiKiMuiN rulution of tl)u uounuIoun individ- 
uiUn to thu uulvorNM.1 tlioit^ht iu thu fomifoiuK llrNt 
Ntatonuutt of oiM' idutillNut, will Im d^tiidml in tint 
NouNo of thuir iunluNJou, un idouumtN, iu thu unlvurNftl 
tliouiflit. Thi^ will ludmid not bmuuuu ** thlu((N in 
tlio drimui *' of uuy otluu' porNou tluui tluuuNnlvuNi 
but tluilr wholn rMullty, JuMt nxuotly m it In iu thuni, 
wUl bu foi4nd to bu but ft frftgniunt of ft higUuf 

mlhy. lliis ledilj wOl be no IVvra, nor will it 
prodocie ike indiTidnls bj dmniii^ id ttiem, bul 
it will complete ike existawe doit in llieat. as sq^ 
ante bdngs, kas no lalionil oonqildteness. Tlus 
will be our first msalt. 

Tk^i will &1U0W oliier tboii^ite. In so tar as 
di»« is any objeetiTe> tnotdi in obm»1 CMMieptions^ 
liiis tmdi is ebonally known to tkis altembnMiiqf 
tkoogkt. If tbei^ be mond <«' unmoiml aets« ikey 
aiY foi>eT«r known and jodged in and by tibis all- 
embradi^ condcioas tboo^t. And llins w^ sball 
loiTe ioond Job's knji^-ficir^ p«4iMt, all^knowii^ 
jodireu ^ lie knowetb Uie way doit I take."^ U«ra 
is an absolute esdmate^ objecdTebr prosmit in tlio 
worlds an estimate of all yonr good and eril deeds. 
Ton ax« a part of ike nniyersal life. Yoor iboagfats 
are parts of tbe wbole. Yoor acts foim an dbment 
in ike universie that tke grat Jndge knows. All of 
yon tlKn is known and josdy osUmated by ike ab- 
aofaite tkooglit tbat embraofts all possible tratb^ and 
for wkom ai^ all relations^ pNisent. past« and fatore 
of all possible beings, acts, and tboogbts in all places. 
If tbere be anv Tiitne. tkis Tiitne is known to tlie 
infinite tboogkt of tke nniTersew If tkere be any 
Tioe, tkat Tioe is estimated^ in all its infinite base^ 
ness« br tbe infinite Mm^ieioasness. Inasmncb as ve 
do good ante tke least of tkose. ye do it witk tlie 
nniTKsrsftl oonsickHisnoss as onlooker: voor work is 
all acioompliskod in tbe presenoe of tke Absohitiew 

With tbis tratb before us. we skall be mdy te 
kaT>e unsolved our prciblems about this or that 
Pbwer^ about tkis or tkat future state, about tko 


fallen angek, or about tho hiHtorioal justifloation of 
Ood*ii ways. The world of Divine Life will be in 
deepest truth not a Power at all, but the Inflnito 
Knowing One, for whom are all the powers, but who 
' is above them all, beyond them all, -* no striving 
good principle tliat cannot get realissed in a wicked 
world, but an abHoluto Judge that i)erfectly eMtimates 
the world. In tlie contemplation of this truth we 
may And a rcligiouH comfort. 

And tlien, by all thiH, we shall make the poHtu^ 
latcM of our previous chapter appear in a new light. 
Tho j)OMtulatcM, we Maid, express the conditions 
under which we are dctcnnined to do our work. 
They are exproHMions of tho Hpirit of courageous 
devotion to the highcHt. They find and can find no 
perfect verification in experience. They dwell in 
part on the unHcen. I)ut they do not resist verifl^ 
cation, if any can be offered from a higher source. 
I)ut thiH, our new doctrine, if we truly get to it, 
will offer them their higher verification. Their 
office will not thereby be vacated or aboliHhed. 
Tiicy will forever remain tiie maximn of our work. 
Itut iiicy will no longer be junt lea))H in the dark. 
We Miiall Mcc that when ncueiice aMHiimefi rationality, 
and religion aHHumcH goodncMM, aH at the heart of 
thingH, they Iiave neitlier of tiiem fU)ted vainly. We 
Hhall then have reaHon to go on aMHuining both, and 
to regulate our liven acifordingly. Faith of Home 
sort will (ioniinue to be our meat and drink ; but it 
will be faiili with a ])iiiIoHophical foundaticm. 

The reader will ])ar(lou uh for Imving detained 
him so long in the Htudy of idealism as a bare postOi 

bte^ ^fa n ipi^ litT^ m iMW «amft <iM«riBi» Imkhii, 
v&Aek Umi&qm' til^MriM» Mil pwr^ thnasAi iMpt «3De«w 
«( SAaiImi » JiHKitt pdii&iilbtoi Kdlwe foia^ «aft to 



Vn nfl Mrt dlKnement la philoHophie qu'avM le mOmfl fta qu'on Nnt 
^0tfi' une inaitr«8M. — IIouimkau, NoufftU* JitUfite, 

Wk have before uh our thoorein, and an outline 
of itH proof. We are here to exj)and this argument. 
We have Home notion of the magnitude of the is- 
BueM that are at Htake. We had found ourselves 
baffled in our Bean;h for a certainty by numerous 
difflcultioH. We had found only (me way remaining 
so far (piite clear. That was the way of postulat- 
ing what the morid conHeiousneHs seems to demand 
about the world beyond experience. For many 
thinkers since Kant, tliat way has seemed in foot 
the oidy one. They live in a world of action. 
*M)oubt/' they say, ''clouds all tlieory. One must 
act (18 if the world were the supporter of our moral 
demands. One must have faith. One must make 
the gnmd eiTort, one must risk all for the sake of 
the great \)v\7A. If the world is against us, still we 
will not admit the fa<!t until we are cruslied. If the 
cold reality cares naught for (mr moral efforts, so be 
it whon we come to know the fact, but meanwhile 
we will act as if legions of angels were ready to sup- 
I)ort oiur demand for whatever not our selfish inter- 
est, but the great interest of the Good, requires.** 

TBE rassmutT or m«u 985 

W«s, ln^ f^ tdHKl swell fiutli M ivl%[iiMi». \r<» 
>irvf^ >9riUui$ U> »(<ic^ it. if mdliliiiijt Wnwr omiU W 
fMUHt. But >ir^ w^nrifr ik4 <NwiliMit wilb it. life kft» 
hs!i uiiliiNr«k» di^ wbMi uwii^ piMttthlm fiul Wk At 
«iiicli tUKiMi >ir^ frmw ^KiMnr ol IimKii$s 4^vil «Mi»» »i^ 
toaJhr triuiii|4iflMiU mmI,. ^irw«^ iKmi dL tlm^ »mi9« 

tiuiiie«)« tdbat llii»>^ b aiiT ^prwtli <Mr r«wiMi in <Mir 
%ht (^v j^¥oiliii^i$ti^ «^iMtt$ toi ^^MiMt uesk And ^tiMi it 
^iriU iiiiilit><>d W ^Ki^U if ^«n^ <>atii ||ii^ fiw tMrsKtriMi w m e 
lluii^ nKMry" ;mh1 Ve^tl^r iKmi miM^ (vi^stebliMk If ^in^ 
«Muii>i^ >ir^ «ludl not ^iKik li^ hidii^ lln^ fi^^ IMl«r 
i^d^mal diK^v^HHl^tncy ihaui ;ii d^li Wmli^ Ui^ dkcmt oar 
4idii>)^05t lib^^^t^ ;jai^l llM'ir ukmuiui^^ If >ir^ mv niVt 
lvi%no$l% M Imi^I in ^nir |)ikikvA^4iT« iIumi »r» >ir^ wlii4]|y 

S> v^ ti^l wdb^ iIm" t^ftivt; «n^U in th^ Iai«l <>)kii|^ 

onr wttclk An nn«x{%iMi^ rMsnh tdii^ Wmkii^ it 
»]mn^ fnwn th^ yimt KMXt of «l»»|4ikiMn it^^f^ 
A\> d^Hibli^l U^ tW U*t <!Xtw»wiilT. \W IrttfxwT* 
tiling Sii\ «n^l iWn »U of ;ii $nd«k>tt >ir^ »o«^nM»d U^ find 
Ikut ^«n^ <>icmkl not k^tdx^ om^ prkvlom triM5wn\ tnr m 
ir^ vonkl^ l>ar wikto^ ^Wbt ;MwinMH| tlii^k naun^xv 
lliail onw t» poMiblo. And jm onr xrild^: donbt nd^ 
corned tW Aclttid oxisli^no^ of lliMi^ <>iiHidilion« tdiait 

IJl^r hyfi<ial |«NV«i#W?ft)^ k^'^ <prfor •ni*^ iJUwu^r** A^ 
iot^J^tif trmtK iKait wn» lli« tNoiMii^ dKUt i^Mwidni^ 
Vd itt nnud nil <0nr dMilM». And Imv tMi tkit 


ore iSf we dimly saw in the last ditouMion. That 
dim insight we must now try to make clearer. Per- 
haps our previous disoussion has shown us that the 
effort is worth making. 

Yet of one thing the reader shall be warned. The 
path that we travel is hereabouts very thorny and 
stony. It is a path of difficult philosophical inves* 
tigation. Nobody ought to follow it who does not 
desire to. We hope that the reader will skip the 
whole of this chapter unless he wants to find even 
more of dullness than the rest of this sleepy book 
has discovered to him. For us, too, the arid way 
would seem hard, were it not for the precious priae 
at the end of it. 


The story of the following investigation shall first 
be very briefly told. The author had long sought, es* 
pecially in the discussions of Kant*H ^^ Kritik,** and 
in the books of the post-Kantians, for help in see- 
ing the ultimate principles that lie at the basis of 
knowledge. Ho had found the old and well-known 
troubles. Ex])crionce of itself can give no certain^ 
about general principles. We must therefore, said 
Kant, bring our own principles with us to experi- 
ence. We know then of causation, because causa- 
tion is a fundamental principle of our thought, 
whereby we set our exiKsrienoo to rights. And so 
long as we think, we shall think into experience the 
oonn(K^tion of (^auso and effoi^t, which otherwise would 
not bo there. But hereupon the questions arose that 
have so often been asked of Kant and the ffftrtia'*^ 

m possiBiLnT or hhml S8T 

msj JQSl tliesie prineipks wd no odiers? ""Thttt 
is inexpIkdbldH^ replies Kant. V«iy widL thru, 
SDQipose we giTe op apphing to expme&w tiboM ar> 
liitaunr prindpks o£ oursu Svqppose iDe clioose to 
flby Ainking o£ expmenoe as cowsdObr coniiMtodL 
Wbat dien ? ^ But Ton cannot stop^^ sits Eant^ 
^Toar llKNKgfat^ beins what it is^ mi^ follow tids 
one fadiion feienN'."* Xav^ we lephr^ bow knowest 
Aon tiiat^Masta*? WIit mar not onr tiboi^ get 
a new fashion seme day? And then what is now 
a neodssaiy pxindple^ for exaanpk^ that eT«y erent 
hsas Ji eaoseu would beocme nnnooassaiy or ei^n non- 
aensieaL Do we then know a jwi<wi that oar a 
jmort principles most alwa\^ lemain soeh? If so^ 
how come we bj* this new knowkdj^? 

So fijunt kaTOS ns stall unoertain abcmt any fnn* 
^^■^it^l principles npon which a sue knowledge 
of the WHotld can be founded. 

Let ns^ thesu examine a litde deeps** Aie thero 
an J oertain jndgments postsible at all? If one is 
akqptioal in a thonM^-going wav^ as the audior 
tried to be^ he is apt to i>mic1u thivMigh an ^BcMt; to 
leTise fijunt's riew^ a position something Eke the fot 
lofwii^, — a proTisional posxtion of c^MCursew bat one 
Aat lesolts from the effort to aM^ept nothing with* 
OH* critieism : ^ Kant*s retsnlt is that our jndgmentsl 
aboot the leal worid aie foonded on an union of 
ikoD^it and sense« thought giving the appearance of 
nw. i easitji to our judgment, sense giring the materiaL 
The neodssitT of any judgment amounts then onhr to 
what may be summed up in the woids : &> ti^ jweth^ 
cat aaioii <^ tkom^M am3 aease ma2«;$ tHrngs <gr 

fl8H TtiK UKiumm AM*mr or vmwmmtY. 

pmr. If (liUiMr itioutftti or n(iiii4<i lilinrMil iU (<lmt*iui« 
Uir, truitt WMtild alUn'. llMiiofi MVni'y Ninoitrtt Jmlff* 
iiuifit In lfi<l(i(i(l inin fur Urn iiioinnfti hi whi<th It in 
iiiimIii, but iiui lUKHiMMiirlly inm for oittiit* tttotttmtiM. 
Wnoiily |Mmiiiliit«t (hiti li U inm for oUittr itioMi«ft»tM/' 
^^Atul no/* to <foiiUituii iliU vlnw, **ll U only by 
itmditM of |Hmiulat44N Utiii our ilioutflii dvmt Ni^dtitN to 
tmvtt fifty unity from nioinf^nt t<» nionmnt. Wn llvtt 
In Um priimuit. If our MiouKlit Iuim otlmr truth or 
fdlNlty timn tliU, wn <lo not know It. Vmi m\A fit- 
turn iixUt not for UiU \m^m^^^U lli^y urn only \Hm» 
tutitt«iil. Hmvm itN iHrntulatnd, timy Imvft no proiHiftfe 

Wluin hn hnhl utiil nxpruMMiiil UiU viitw, tint fiutlnrr 
In fr«iii (4) iMlnilt ttuit Im waN not ittwuyN <ihiiir wlntttmr 
Int ouifht to <ui.ll It tliM (looU'lnn of thn r«itativity id 
truth or not. It nil^lit Imvn itvohhul ttm nhNurilitiiffi 
of UiUi\ r4<hiUvlly hy Ukln^ form mm h lioiftrinn thfit 
tho priiNMiit inomMtil/N JuilKmnnt U rMitlly trim <^ 
falMis for n rMivl piiMt it.n<l futurn, hut thitt wn, hiiinff 
IIiiiIUmI («o pniMMiii nioiiHiniM, \m\ nnvnr nompnrn our 
Jinl^nuinU wlUi nmllty to IIimI wliMthnr our Ju<l((- 
nintitN lii'M trim or fitlMn. thit lUthou^h thU Intnr- 
priiUiUon U poMMlhhs MiU vlnw ofUm <lhl oxprnMM It- 
mM for Mm auMior it.N Uin doctrhm of tim totitl rftlfi* 
tlvlly of U'[\\\\, Tim hitUir donirlim t«o ho Niirn hiM 
no riml nmit.iiln^, hut tIm author umikI with iimny 
otImrM U> faimy that it IumI. 

To apply tIm vImw to tIm (^aNo of oauMal rnlathmN. 
** Wo roiitinually poHtuhitis** thu author UM«i(i t(l 
point out, ** wo ihitnanil, without hniiiK ahlo Ut prov« 
% that naturo in futuro MJiall Im uniform.** Hci^ 


oarryinj;^ out thk tboughti the imUiar uaed to wy x 
'' lu f^i't future uature U not given to usk joat »» the 
}>H2tt i.^ uot giviM) to ua. 8€«Msi^Uta^ «a)d Unn^ht 
uuiU) at every in^Uiut afreah to fonu ii new jmlgment 
«uu) a new {Hvitxikitew Only in the }]ureaent haa miy 
j\u)gment evii|ent vidiiUty« Ami o\ur )H>atu)ate of 
omi!»U relatitui i;* j\ut a way of looking at thia world 
mS iHuuHnvetl paat anil future ihUt* 8m>h poatulatoa 
avtud being al»unl efforts^ to regulate imlepenilent 
fa^^tH of steuiiei, Iveeaivie^ anil on^ beeau^ we have in 
ex)HmeaHv no oiunplete series of faet» ivf ss^tnae at alU 
only fnun nuunent to moment single fai^t»» about 
which we make ^gte jutlginenta* All the reat ¥ro 
iHMji^ }Hv»tulate tu" eW ito without them/* Thiv) tme 
reaches a ^eptioisim a^i nearly iH^mj^lete aa i« po»- 
ailJe to any ime with earnest aetivity t>f thiuight in 
him« From nuunent to nuunent one ean U^ sure of 
ea4^h miuuent* All else is )HVit\Uate, 

Fn>n» the depths t>f this imJH^rftH^tly defimnl skep> 
tioism^ whioh st^emeil to him |m)visionally the tuily 
view he iH)\Ud adopts the author esi^a^HMl tmly by aak« 
ing the one questiim mtu^s^ : ** If everything iM^yond 
the prtvsinU is do\ibtl\iU then lu^w ean even that doubt 
W jHvssiMe?** AVith this questitm that Ivart^ n>lativ* 
ity of the pnvHuU momeaU is given ujv AVhat are 
the iHmditions that make doubt logii>ally intt^UigilJe ? 
Thtv»e etmdititms really transiH^nd the |u\v^nt miVi 
meut. Plainly doubt im)Uitv» that the stattuiKoitl 
doubttnl mav W falst\ S^> here we have at least one 
»up|H\s«Hl g\^neral truth* namely* ** All b\it the im- \ 
nunliate iHuitent of the present moment^s judgmenti. 
being doubtf ul« we may be in error about it«** fiat • 


what then is an error? This becomes at onoe a 
problem of exciting interest. Attacking it, the au- 
thor was led through the wilderness of the following 


Yet before we undertake this special examination 
of the nature of error, the reader must pardon ui 
for adding yet another explanatory word. The diffi- 
culty of the whole discussion will lie in the fact that 
we shall be studying the possibility of the plainest 
and most familiar of commonpkccs. Common sense 
hates to do such things, because common sense thinks 
that the whole matter is sure from the outset. Com- 
mon sense is willing to ask whether God exists, but 
unwilling to inquire how it is possible that there can 
exist an error about anything. But foreseeing that 
something is to follow from all this, we must beg 
^nnmon sense to be patient. We have not the 
sladow of doubt ourselves about the possibility of 
%.Tor. That is the st(;adf ast rock on which we build. 
Our inquiry, ultra-skeptical as it may at momenta 
seem, is into the question : Iff/uo is the error possi- 
ble ? Or, in other words : What is an error f Now 
there can be little doubt that common sense is not 
ruady with any general answer to such a question* 
En*or is a word with many senses. By error we 
otUm mean just a statement that arouses our antipa- 
tky. Yet we all admit upon nsflection, that our an- 
tipathy can neither make nor Im used to define real 
error. Adam Smith de<;lares, with common sense on 
bis side, in his '^ Theory of the Moral Sentiments^** ^ 
^ Part t, Met L, cb*p. Wi, DMur (b« Uginniog. 

w nwML 891 

aumtt vitili nwr o«&.^ Y<rt »> <mm^ w««U aNficvpH atf^ a 
«iel&iutiiiMi «tf mrnMr iW itttewwol tkit : ,£mw j» my 
vpimH?)^ f&ai I jfiiantiom^dliy Jtt)> mu4 SiJhf^ Enur lass 
liicks 3 T1MT piwiHwy rbefeitidMr* Fimt iraHMMi «fflM» 
will rn»lilT dfanh llttl if m^staM»mmSi u i»TionM«k 
h nittst 3pfiMrif fw ittw<a tf to^TiwT'^i^^ llttl 

» in pMtfiMttwn «tf iW £iir«»w ll«»n^ iW pwsiMattI 
Ia5ti^ of o«»^ attB b aiA «ttiMi^ ti> dkHfine it.. Ek» 

oundts;. Il k (iTdhr ijbie ** li^ winMl "^ wlhMi^ pMwml 

caBSV". Bnl vlttt llwn b a MMnwd nini f W^ k iW 

(fiMiniiiMi «HWie 4iEtU nui ^t thSss^ poittl utthi^ an infimli^ 

doi I BwaMf IX> I HMttD nhssA I Ao^ wA ltk» iIkiI 
«>|Mak«i ? XaiT« I nwttn hmivl I ihaui tkit / h?mffii 

mof ^ libf Qtr Su 'MxrpJS i6» ^Vlij «m:lBl I not T B^ 

Bun vIk> m dn^ UmftLlr r^ht-mittiiNl {wrswn? WtelL 
t» our iiffiil ijbie ln»e idkdl 5 Btficunbiff I liJhf ii ? — 


senae does not know what an error is, and needs 
more light upon the subject. Let common sense not 
disturb us, then, in our further search, by the con- 
stant and indignant protest that error must some- 
how exist, and that doubt on that subject is nonsense. 
Nobody has any doubts on that subject We ask 
only how error exists and how it can exist. 

F6r the rest, what foUows is not any effort to 
demonstrate in fair and orderly array, from any one 
principle or axiom, what must be the nature of er- 
ror, but to use every and any device that may offer 
itself, general analysis, special example, comparison 
and contrast of cases, — anything that shall lead us 
to the insight into what an error is and implies. 
For at last, immediate insight must decide. 

We shall study our problem thus. We shall 
take either some accepted definition of error, or 
some special class of cases, and we shall ask : How 
is error in that case, or in accordance with that defi- 
nition, possible ? Since error plainly is possible in 
some way, we shall have only to inquire : What are 
the logical conditionM that make it possible ? We 
shall take up the ordinary suppositions that com- 
mon sense seems to make about what here deter- 
mines the possibility of error. We shall show that 
these suppositions are inadequate. Then the result 
will 1x5 that, on the ordinary suppositions, error 
would l>e impossible. But that result would be 
absurd, if these were the only possible suppositions. 
Hence the ordinary suppositions must somehow be 
supplemented. When, therefore, we seem to say in 
the following that error is impossible, we shall mean 


Ci4T« inpossibli^ unilwr ih» oidiiiaary smfiiMwiitiMift of 
(•amnMNi «Miww AVluit mppkuiiMit wi» nwd to Uiwe 
im|>|)a»tkai»,, our aigiuiiiiMii will ssliow usw In sum 
w^ shall find ih» ^M^ cf tln^ ««»» to W l)ii» : Com- 
mon sena^ i^gaurdft an nssMition n» true orn» fiibe 
apami from nnrolliinr ns6«rlion or tboog^tk and wMjr 
in i^f iNnMie«» to its own objiwii. For oommon sMnae 
tmeh jnil(i:miMit» as a si^pavali^ invalmBu 8tanil» out 
aloni\ kM^Lins at it» objiM)|« and trpaag lo agroe ^th 
it. If it SQii'^iwdss in» liaTi» tratlL If tln^ jndfe^mmt 
faiK wie» liaTi» error. Bnt^ a» we shall find% this view 
of «:<ommon sen^ i» unintelUgiblew A judgment oan->| 
not have an objeet and fail to agree tlierewitlk nn-^l 
liw;» tliU judgment is {Miit of an ofganism of tlMoghli. I 
Alono, as a sepaiate faei» a judgment has no intelli- 
gible objeet bejond it^lf. And tbearefove the pn^ 
supfMsitions of eommon sense must be supplemented 
or else abandonetL Eiiker then there i» no enror^ 
or else jmlgmente are true or false only in lefeieneo) 
to a higher inehisiYe thooght. which ther pve«nppiiweit , 
ami whk^ mu^ti^ in the last analvsis^ be asimmed as 
Infinite ami all4nelasive. This lesult we shall nMMeli . 
by no mpliiivd insjght^^ br no revelation,, nor yet by 
any mere postulate sueh as we tt»ed in fonner dis- 
eik^nns^ but by a simplew dry analysis of the mean- 
ing of tHir own thought. 

The most f\muidahle opponent of our argument 
will be. after alL however^ not eommon sense,, but 
that thdHigfat menti<iuied in the last chapter^ — the 
tlHHigfat that may try to content itself with some- 
what (Jausible jargon^ ami to say that : ^ Tkunf is 
no nfof ii^ifnmci$ ietireiMi tmA mmi «rror nt nB^ 

8M THIS ntimmm Anrr/rr or rmt/mmr. 

onfy a himt t\f ffjtw/ifm frr c/mMmMUn qf mm ahmtt 
a non/iim>tUmal diufdri^i/ifm hpf/imp>n whit they rJi4Httifi 
Uf mil i/rulh mt^l what thy chftfua Ut cMl MTfir,** 
TIiIm vimr, mm itm fuiih/ir htm (Hmt^mm\^ hn imm U^»A 
Ui \ui\A, Hiill ih\n mmt\\n%U^m AiniiAtUi ill rol«iir' 
lijr U mrt ihii fmm tm i\m vimr thai (miimU \\m\l 
with itm |KMifiUi<5M tMrf/Ff^ (liM^iiiMNKK ^rtiai riirw 
fni((ht tnkiif an/l fiir ih#i auihiFf ni impi i\tm A\A tokn^ 
ihi9 )K9#Milil«9 ami ini4)ltif(ilil«9 f/mri ihm p(%\iTtmAhh s 
♦♦ TVw^A ft/nd p/rrtrr^ thmyk rmlly dUtjimyulntf^ihh^ 
(i/ffi ftrr un dlnt/mgidnhfd mily tit/rffugh irwr pontM^ 
latfiMf m Mo/ff/r an rdatm to pant fmtl fut/ii/m (Mm!^ 
Hti^;h vimirMf wliiii) wA il^Tfiyiii^ itiai ih^o in fMl 
imihfihiMfyfiir irf ilm niininAMtiiy Urr tin frf fmrr« ihim 
fmmtmiifirjr iniih, ftiii Urn il/K^.rifiD irf Tifinl K«1a- 
iiviiy, ihiM vi^iw uliirv^ iTX|FfAMmHl, diffiTTM fnmi ffiiV' 
uiftn Mk«r|iiidMfn, li iri^M t^i {ifii ^vcm Mk^fiidnm to 
fwii, fry (l«54;lArifi^ ih^? o|;lnimf, that thc/rvi in p/rrftr^ to 
\m \\mM an irrr/rr, 'HiiM \n niri iri^ir^vty a iruKl^rrfttn 
^\fT^mAtm (fl hiimaii lifnif/aiimiMf fnii jarK^ifi^ ami 
ilnrriff/m) f/frrn!(lal»K t^^^'afiM^ 'p^W^^ '^ always tinan- 
MW^Tral»l#i« Whmi ih#9 faimnm (V^^n (I#}^;lan9<l all 
nUk\A^tum\M tum\pi Iry (Virf^arm U^ Im In all ^/ai^fM Mtm^ 
hSn (Ii54{|araiimi wan hard Ui mffif^s t»#T<?afiM#9 U wan 
mwh Urttt^ni-mmu\t%f^ tt^mnmim. Kv^i mi with thu 
MtaUfTrimii that il^^hir^M th#5 Vfrry ^xUUTiii'^y irf wror 
Ui \f^ an «iTmi#5/iiwly tifjISirv^vl fariiry. No fwmnmntfM 
iff ffimi (?ari iriak/t art ^rrr^ff fTfr/itMi/iim, Wft <?an otily 
flmi /Ff vAfiuuth an ♦rrr/ff, n/rt, i?rwif^ it* Wh#m wn 
f'^/mmiit an ivrrm, w« wiy what wa^ an t^rriff alr#)a<1y# 
Jf ^Ffir nUtf\fiwM\ vii5W in frr^vi/nm (;ha|rt4TrM nmitmi Ut 
regard tnith and mrtrr a# ffurro ol/jM;t# i/f <mr yitnUh 

ras FOssnmiTT op cukmu S95 

litiei$H tiiat wms only bemtsi^. lo our slwplMtsBu die 
i>»J tradi^ die naI eircNr^ dbcwt any naI past and 
fatuTCk $ieie«ned W^tmd oor readi^ w diat ^w«d liad 
to oontant oorsidTids widi postubliets;. But diat nal 
enw exk^ is absic4atdj uidubitaAikw 

Tlik being die oasie^ it is eTid«iit diat eTi»i die 
most diOKHigli^goi]^ sbeptkisin is faill of assaaunih 
tions. If I saj^ ^ Hmt^ may be no money in diat 
porw' yonder^" I astsome die existenoe of die pam 
yonder in oiKkar to make jnsl diat pailkiilar doabt 
postsibkw Of OMirstfk^ liomieT«r^ just diat doubt may 
be n>ndeivd mcaningkists by die disiooTexy of die 
actual non^Jcist»H>e of diat pardcular pnrsie. If 
tbere is no purse yonder^ dKA it is nonswnsioal ddi« 
to affirm or to douT diat it oontftins moneT* And 
M if die pursie of wkic^ I ^peak is an kaUncuiadon 
of mine^, dien die doubt about wbedw^^ as an aoto- 
ally existent purs«k it has money in it. is d^mred 
of sense. Mt ml enor in diat oa$ie would lie in 
supposing die purse itsdf to exist. If^ liom>^T«r^ I 
abandtw the first doubt, and go on to doubt die nal 
existmoe of die purse^ I equally assume a roont» or 
j«ome odier environmentnor at all eTtents die uniTea^ 
as existc4it. in order to give 5iense to my question 
whedier die pursie has any be^i^c: in diis enxironment 
or in diis uniwrse. But if I go yet furdmr^ and 
doubt wbedier dierc" is any universe at all outsside of 
my diought. wbat does my doubt yet mean ? If it 
is to be a doubt widi any real sen^ it must be a 
do«ibt still widi an object before it. It fieems tlien 
to imply an assumed order of beings in which theix^ 
are at kast two ekanents, my lonely dKvogfat about 


an universe, and an empty environment of this 
thought, in which there is, in fact, no universe. 
But this empty environment, whose nature is such 
that my thought does wrong to suppose it to be an 
universe, what is that ? Surely if the doubt is to 
have meaning, this idea needs further examination. 
The absolute skepticism is thus fuU of assumptions. 

The first European thinker who seems to have 
discussed our present problem was Plato, in a too- 
much-neglected passage of the " TheaBtetus,'* ^ where 
Socrates, replying to the second definition of knowl- 
edge given by Thea5tetus, namely, knowledge is 
True Opinif/rij answers that his great difficulty has 

[ten been to see how any opinion can possibly be 
False. The conclusion reached by Plato is no very 
definite one, but the discussion is deeply suggestive. 
And we cannot do better here than to pray that the 
shade of the mighty Greek may deign to save us 
now in our distress, and to show us the true nature 
of error. 


Logicians are agreed that single ideas, thoughts 
viewed apart from judgments, are neither true nor 
false. Only a judgment can be false. And if a 
reasoning process is said to be false, the real error 
lies still in an a<;tual or suppressed assertion. A 
falla(5y is a false assertion that a certain conclusion 
follows from certain premises. Error is therefore 
generally defined as a judgment that does not agree 
with its object. In the erroneous judgment, sub- 

1 Plato, Th., p. 187 8qq. 


]M»t Mid {ar<HUe«U« am »o combiiietl hs^ in the object^ 
tho iHurn^poiHUug «l«aii«kuta am not oombiiHMl^ And 
ihiisi thd jiKlftui^Ait earner to bo ftd^e^ Kow» in this 
dotinition« ni>Uiing ia doubttiU or obacnro anvo tbo 
ono ihin)!r« nconolyt tho twmm^f iWd^ion 6(»l«f<vii M<t 
jmtffma^Ht anil iUt ti^f^H* TKo dolinition a^uinoa a» 
quiU> cdivir that a judf^uiont haa an objoct^ wht>i\^\iriih 
it can a^rroo or not agn^ And vrhat i» mtMnt by 
tho a^H>niont would not bo obsiourot if wo oonld aeo 
what i» meant by tho objoot« ami by tho )Hv»»iM!idon of 
this objwt ini)dliod in tho pronoun «V^« What thon 
is moaut by it^t o^furt f Tho diflioultio$ inv^Jvoil in 
this phraao U^n to ap)H>ar aa soon as you look 
olosor« First thon tho objoot of tho ass^vrtitm is as 
sm^h sup)H>MHl U> bo noitlior tho suhjivt nor tho )>nHU 
UNito thortHif« It is oxtornal to Uio jml^nonl^ It 
has a natun^ of its own* Furthonmm^ not all jud)^ 
monts havo tho saino objtvt% so that objtH^ts aro Yt>ry 
numon^us* But fnuu tho intlnity t^ rt>al or i^ )H)s« 
siblo objivtjii tho juil^nont s^mu>how pioks out ita 
own* Thus thon for a jmlgtnont U^ havo an objoi< 
thoro must W siuuothiufi: alnnit tlu^^ jmlgtmmt that 
s1k^w9 what iU)o t^ tho tvxtontal objoots that an^ Ih^ 
y\md it^Uf Uus jutl^nont diHv» )uok out as its own* 
But this siuuothiu^ that |jfi\-os tht^ jml^uont its olv 
jtvt can only W tho intontiim whonnvitli tho jud)^ 
mont is aiHHun)uuutHl* A jml^n^^^^^t has as objtH^tl 
only what it iutonds to havx^ as objtH't* It has to| 

otuifiutu only to tliat to whioh it wants t^^ tnuifimn* 


lUit tlio tv^^^hv of an iutontion is tho kuowUnl^^ of 
wlirtt ouo Jutouds, Ouo oaiu for iustauiH>% iutond a 
dooil or an)- 1^ its oons^Hjuonoos only in so far as ho 


foreseen them. I cannot be ftaid to intend the aoei- 
dental or the remote or even the immediate oonse- 
quonces of anything that I do, unless I foresaw that 
they would follow ; and thin i» true however much 
the lawyern and judgen may find it practically neces- 
sary to hold me rcHixinMible for thetie consequences. 
Even HO we all find it i)ractically useful to regard 
one of our fellowM as in error in case his assertions, 
as we understand thorn, seem to us to lead to conse- 
quences that we do not approve. But our criticisms 
of his opinions, just like legal judgments of hb acts, 
are not intende<l to l>e exact. Common sense will 
admit that, unless a man is thinking of the object of 
which I sui)iK>se him to be thinking, he makes no 
real error by merely failing to agree with the object 
that I have in mind. If the knights in the fable 
judge each other to be wrong, tliat is because each 
knight takes the oth(;r's shield to be ulentical with 
the shield as he himself has it in mind. In fact 
neither of them is in error, unless his assertion is 
false for the shield as he intended to make it his 

Ho then judgments err only by disagreeing with 
^their intended objects, and they can intend an object 
i only in so far forth as this obj(3ct is known to the 
thought that makes the judgment. Such, it would 
seem, is the consequence of the c^>mmon-sense view. 
But in this case a judgment can be in error only 
if it is knowingly in error. Tliat also, as it seems, 
follows from the commcm-sense sui)positions. Or, if 
we will have it in syllogistic form : — 

Everything intended is something known. The 


object even ot an ontmeons judgtnent is intendttd. 
«\ The object eTen of an entMr is something known* 

Or: Only what is known can be emed about 
Nor can we vet be content with what common sense 
will at once feplr, namely^ that our syllogtam uses 
kmȴ^H ambiguiHislr^ and that the object <^ an enro- 
neotts judgment is known enough to constitute it the 
object ami not enough to pietent the error about it 
This must no doul>t be the fact but it is not of itself 
dear; on the contrarr« just here is the ))roldem« As 
common sense conceives the malter« the object of a 
jutlgment is not as such the whole outside world of 
common sense« with all it» intimate interdependence 
of facts« with all it» unify in the midst of diversitjr* 
On the contrarT% the object of any judgment is just 
that (wrtion of the then conceived world* just that 
fragment that asiH'ct that element of a supposed 
reality* which is soiled tt|>on for the pur^ioses of just 
this judgment Only such a momentarily grasped 
fragment of the tnith can (wssibly be )w«sent in any 
one numient of thiMight as the object of a Mngle as- 
sertion* Now it is hard t^i say how within this arbi* 
trarily chosen fragment itself there can still be room 
for the i^ariial km>wledge that is sufficient to give to 
the judgment its object but insufficient to secure to 
the jmlgment its accuracy* If I aim at a mark with 
my gxm* I can fail tK> hit it l^ecausc clioosing and 
hitting a nutrk are tK>tally distinct acts* IWt in the 
judgment choosing ami knowing tlie object seem in* 
separable* No doubt si^mehow our difficidty is solu* 
ble* but we are hcn^ trying tirst to show that it is a 


To illuntrate here by a familiar ca«e, when we 
speak of thingM that are solely matton of personal 
preference, •ucb bh the pleamire of a •leigb-ride, ibe 
ta«te of olives, or the comfort of a given room, and 
when we only try to tell how thene things appear to 
UN, then plainly our judgments, if sincere, cannot be 
in error. As these things are to us, so they are. 
We are their measure. To doubt our truthfulness 
in these cases is to doubt after the fashion of the 
student who wondered whether the star that the as- 
tronomers call Uranus may not be something else 
after all, and not really Uranus. Surely science does 
not progress very far or run into great danger of 
error so Ir/ng as it employs itself in discovering such 
occult mysteries as tlie names of the stars. But our 
present question is. How do judgments that can be 
and that are erronijous differ in nature from these 
that cannot t>e errfmef>us ? If astronomers would be 
equally right in case they should agree to call Ura- 
nus llumiity Dumi^ty, why are not all judgments 
equally fa vonxl ? Binc5e the judgment chooses its 
own obj<M5t, and has it only in mt far as it chooses it, 
how iinn it )h5 in tliat [mrtial relation to its object 
whjf;h is implied in the supiKisition of an erroneous 
WMU'Hion ? 

Yet again, to illustrate the difficulty in another 
BM\HHit^ we can noUi that lutt only is error impossible 
about the \HirfiHtily wi;!!- known, but that error is 
Cfjually iniiKiMMibh;, save in the form of direct self- 
<M;ntra^lif;tion, aUiiit wluit is abs^dutely unknown. 
HpiU; of th<5 rr'ligiouH awe of s^>me [K5'iple in pres- 
ence of the Unknowable, it is safe to say, somewhal 


iw©vwe»%» thut about a nuMy Uiikm^waWe nobody 
eould make any aivioen^ «aid aelfHMuii^ak^nt asu^^iaiia 
that oould be error«u For a^^Huiaisttent asaertiona 
alHiut the Unknovrablo woiUd of wewasdty be mean- 
iuglo^ Am) being meaning}e»9ktheY oould not well 
be falae« For inatanee^ one eoiUi) imlee<) not »ay 
that the UnknowaUe oontempbte» war with Fram^ 
or makes »\mai>ot^ or will be the next Preaiilential 
eandidate^ beeau»e that wonh) be oontradiotinj;: ime^a 
aelf « Ft\r if the Unknowable dii) any of these things^ 
it wo\Ud no logger be the Unknowable^ but would 
beixune either the known or the tUaeoYerable. But 
avoid aiH>h aelf - eontnidiotion^ and you cannot eirr 
about the Unknowable^ For the Unknowable is aim« 
ply our old friend Al^nHHJiiiabnh a word that has no 
meanings and by hypothesis never can get any« So 
if I say that the Unknowable dines m tsMcuo with 
the chimera^ or is llumpty Dumpty^ I talk mmsensei 
and am thereftu^ unable to make a mistake^ Non« 
aense is error only when it invt Jves selfHxmtrailiction* 
Avtud tbat.» and nimseuse i>annot blmuler^ having no 
objei^t outside of itself with which it must agree« 
But all this illustrates fn^m the other side our difB« 
culty. Is not the objei^t of a judguientk in st^ far as 
it is unknown to tlxat jmlgmentk like the Unknowa* 
bltv* for that jutlgment ? To be in ew^r aWut the 
ap)Jit>ation i\f a symlnJ^you must have a symln^l that 
symlHJi»vs siunething« But in so far as the thing 
symlx^liie^l is not known thr\n^h the symlH>l« how 
is it svmlnJixeil bv that svmK^l? Is it not^ like the 
UukuowaUts tmtH> for all out i^ the tlun^htn so that 
one cannot just then be thinking about it at all» and 


80 cannot, in tbi» thought at least, be making blun^ 
dero about it ? But in so far as the thing symbolized 
is, through the symbol, in one's thought, why is it 
not known, and so correctly judged ? All this iii- 
volves that old question of tiia nature of symbols. 
They are to mean for us more than we know that 
they mean. How can that be ? No doubt all that 
is really possible, but how ? 


We follow our difficulty into another department 
Let us attempt a sort of jirovisional psychologies} 

.description of a judgment as a state of mind. So 
regarded, a judgment is simply a fact that occurs in 
somebody's thought If we try to describe it as an 
occurrence, without asking wiience it came, we shall 
perhaps find in it three elements, — elements which 
,are in some fashion desc/ribed in Ueberweg's welU 
known definition of a judgment as the ^^ Conscious- 
ness alH>ut the objective validity of a subjective 

'union of ideas." Our inteq)retation of them shall bo 
this : Ttie elements are : The Hulj^act^ with the ac- 
companying sliade of curiosity about it ; the Pred- 
icate^ with the ac(;ompanying sense of its worth in 
satisfying a part of our curiosity about the subje^*t ; 
and the Senne of Dependence^ whereby we feel the 
value of this act to lie, not in itself, but in its agree- 
ment with a vaguely felt lk5yond, tliat stands out 
there as Obje<?t. 

Now this aualynis of ilie cdemenis of a judgi;.ont is 
no explanation of our difficulties; and in i^et tor 

THE raaaiBiuTT op UROiu 408 

the mament only embfumiaMa ua more* But the nfv- 
tura of the diffieulty mey oome home to ui iomewh«t 
more olefurly« if we try to foUow the thread of thia 
tmalyaia a UtUe further* Even if it is a very imper* 
feet aeeounti it mtiy aerve to lead ua up to the true 
iuaight that we aedc into the niU^ure of error« Let 
ua make the aualyaia % little more detailed. 

lu ita lypioal form theu^ the judgment aa a mental 
atate aeema to ua to begin with a relatively ineom- 
plete or unatahle or diaeonneoted maaa of oonaoioua- 
neaa» whioh we have ealled the Suhjeett aa it llrat be- 
gina to be preaent to ua, Thia aubjeet4dea ia at- 
tended by aome degree of effort, namely^ of atte^i- 
tion, whoae tendency ia to cMunplete thia incomplete 
aubjeot by bringing it into eloaer connection with 
more familiar mental life« Thia more familiar life ia 
repreaented by the jmnlicate-idea. If the effort ia 
aucceaaful« the aubject haa new elcmenta unitei) to iti 
aaaumea in conaciouaneaa a detiniteneaa. a coherency 
with other atatea. a familiarity, which it lacked at the 
outaet of the act of judgment ; and thia coherency it 
geta through ita union with the predii^te« All thia 
ia accompanied further by what one for abort may 
call a aenae of de))endence« The judgment feela it- 
at\lf not altme« but looka to a aomewhat indefinite ob- 
ject aa the model after which the lureaent union of 
ideaa ia to be faahitmetl. And in thia way we ex« 
jdain how the judgment ia« in thoae wtmla t^ Ueber- 
weg*a dcHnitioUi ** the tHmaoiouHueaa alHMit the objec- 
tive validity of a subjective uuiim of ideaa,'" 

Now aa a mere oom)dctiou of aubjci^t-idea through 
the addition of a preiUoate-idea, the jiulgment ia aim» 


ply a mental ])henomonon, having interest only to 
the {)erson tliat exporienoeii it, and to a psychologist 
But as true or as false the judgment must be viewed 
in res{)eot to the indefinite object of what we have 
called the sense of dependence, whereby the judg- 
ment is accompanied. Seldom in any ordinary judg- 
ment does tliis object become perfectly full and 
clear ; for to make it so would often require many, 
perhn])s an infinite, series of judgments. Yet, for the 
one judgment, the object, whether full and clear or 
not, oxiMts as object only in so far forth as the sense 
of dependence has definiHl it And the judgment is 
true or false only with reference to this undefined ob- 
jci^t. The intention to agree with the object is con- 
taine<l in the sense of de|)endence ujion the object, 
and remains for this judgment incomplete, like the 
object itself. Somewhat vaguely this single act in- 
tends to agree with this vague object. 

Such Inung the ease, how can the judgment, as 
tlitiN dcHcrilwd, fairly Ih) called false? As mere psy- 
chological combination of ideas it is neither true nor 
falno. As accompanied by the mmse of de{)endenco 
upon an object, it would Iw false if it disagreed with 
itM im]H^rfccily defimnl object. But, as described, 
the only object that the judgment has is this imper- 
fectly defined one. With thi:4, in so far as it is for 
the moment flefincfl, the judgment must needs agree. 
In HO far as it is not defined, it is however not object 
for this judgment at all, but for Home other olie. 
What i\w imperfiM^t scnHc of dcpcntU^nce would fur- 
ther imply if it oxiMttMl in a (uunplcte insteiul of in 
an incomplete state, nobody con tell, any more than 

rassmnr op iwMifc> 4A5 

tan-pML it itt; ii(«»^ no pQwl^ hit a ii:^^ Tte 

«kjeirt irf a »^ jnig rn g m ^ ^ K«^ mfcilt k k, VMMJbjr, 
a v^ffladhr <Jli H(iiwt «gJtyirtt faftH fl a ft tto tthSs j« dU! i tJ i i» is 

«MHis <«M« fnr dU %» Wtnkft, iai tcAsie it is jmMvift. 
Smm^ <0b» auT IwK 9tt Mfmic» 9msmet tint; m«e ■ielg^ 

icuw» jajgfftft, Tlwiag:!!. «Awe iomt mmr skt. is 
m <0iij!Maie vaiftT. Scfountteil iBMit dU ebe faii; ibte 

tcouuMit; Ibie «nrattMK&. CMhr in l&ie iMjifiBnic vaiftr <«[ 
a 4Km$ <ct jajgiftoi, ktiiiBi^ a wiiwi «Jb^e«ti« is 
l&if «ni0r Wf iMiie <«[ iIkhi pMiaMft. W« reflr tint 
aU tdhis mM ttvnik 40«t ito W jw* <ov TCi^^ Binittdbe 
«5qal 5«|fiMiitim at die <oiaS2!idt is dut anr jiiidi;$:nMat 
kfts W isssieM it&s «wm <cikje«ti« «o» dut ttilm^T dlon«^ 
a|KUtr firvMi ifAtar jmi^jmeaotSK h ^stbutAs^ ««r £&lDk. Anl 
idkttSi far m«e Iat^ tmd tto dbowitftat lias lutmunJl inp- 
fKftsiBAcm lemis^ «s intto i£ffinaIklT. We <i«uip<A iiM 
horn a soB^ «nc«fe jad t g o a nt fftiodU pMs&MNr £ttl 

•raur psviUenL in i^inMsmL We must iMiwadkr <ieiibun 
tcJbssias ^ <envMrs aKM^ m <dktauQL Liet «s we koi^^ in 
ttlift$i^«|<ia»aldbfeStfifts%iif <tt^^ KDCMie«i in wr^ 

ifvin^ ttlie ncaiaml pBvtsiqppotfaXMn ^ icvouBkan iiauiAii 
vliicb ire^::3u^eairvff'9isficiS5a^ mlifn •raur <>A)jatt 

Hs mnA TKhcShr fiPtstfm ^ aiidii«i. :smi y^HA «»«HBifts 
iduot a jndjraMsit •osn ksTe juq otojfa^ "Assx is yeit <>ahr 
paaitia% }«wfieDajr ttv» imiii^ In <Jkcio$azu:i^<^ji£)$ietS4Kf 
<»$ie)5K we sUO &rsir £(?ilIlov ^vhbhhnvbi woife sis ^ tdbeir 
deafind&MBL We «kill take j«8t ife nil— |itfiii<wni «f 

40n tti% nmmmm Anmn up prnt^mpniti 

At^Wy lifi^i mil tiimW tiium Umi Umy \pimi an \nUi diffl- 
ittilf/yi Wi* UfA fiM< ^r^ (rtm n^fl(} InimniI Ut pinp\ti,iti 
iKfhy iU^^ MmuupiiUmn ntn inmh* 'Mmi mmtftHm 

fH^flAA IMUklHI illl^ffl IM I*ff0ll((lt4 

ml^ ntKuumtd Uf^n iff lU pf«ff^<<fc ftm^mWiyi llfrw- 
lftf»^ ffiiff^li w« (\wpi\\ (lit pthHUmht i^Mfmn frf nrffrM^i 
WA <*fitft fffrf/tilff^ f<rf i\m ptiutt Mffit Jiffit UtffM^ pimtrti 

Hfff Iflf^tplif^fllfK lNf(i frfiijr Utp ihpi tm^h tltui tlflf^ il- 
Iff/ii/ffif'ff IhiWi wiUtiMff mrfftA m{<\rp\y fi^w hj^^fft/lfi^tifif 
nlfAffliffrf^ly nil f^tthp hmHtimn http(m\h\t^t 'HflA frr 
ihniif t^\m^ ftt J(fi1((fft^ft((M imy hf^ mtt^ Iff wlflftlt fill i)m 
Jfffl^fftfiftM fitf^ ^f>lffMv^ Irfft tim Uiitt^t rpihMky (it 
mtr ihftiiithh ifftpllf^A fift iftf<irffipff«hf4ffA)Mf^ fittfl iHiffti'l^ 
dU'i{4tty Mi^it^ frf {iUUtjtnt Auy hyp(tiht^t^\n 9^\umi piffiif 
iilffii ffffiltfiM ifrlrfil fiAnkiMkiy fitf! m\\y nflfftimiiM^ tfifWf 
ftffffii} ilf^ffvfoffi ^Itf! p\Mm Ut mnm fif^w tfypirtlffifiiii 
A fill itiit lllMAftffflfrffA Iff fJi^ fffllfrwlffj^ fitf* ift(>^fif1i9f1 
(fl Altfrw \\m\t jiffti Wltfti f^frffM.lffflr^ft flff4 fllftllMlli)^ iff 
ff<A[ff»f*fj Iff iltf*Af4 lllff^ttfliifrftA^ fffflkf^A ftiM f<«)/i(«^fffHf frf 

M\y Piftdt \upiiip\\mh\¥i wiriffrfft mnm mat hypiMmlint 

'Hif* f«lfiM Iff p^mn'n Uifit wi^ ^liftll flf^r frfiltf* fifif<fftiii| 

(fl f'frfftffMrn AHfA^ ftOfMffflrft f*fHrff^lf. If, )ft iltl4 f<|f|MI 
ItflfrWfl m Wtff»f« tthfMlf frHf ftf«)|^lflffrf> ^rftf,i»« frf ffflffft 

lif<i fiA flN^ff, fiM' fif'^Mffff(fflf> ftfiltf*, mm\u\pi wiftiiMit 

In*N^ Nrf|M*^f|H| fo flflWW^^ H^fllpwlMfM, IrMf fflf^ff*ly iff 
Pt^^U\p\\\y flm fl)flW4MM')M4 ultOMfr MfM flfffMf'f^ fff f«fffrff 

roL rasssnauiT or nKHL 4QT 

IKVUiM {NtVlSaMll dhttkWt <MQ»(dT iW «UM^ JlffiKdfaMk 

Ia iW firs* yifaw<i^ IIka: Wbi> b wjr a«$j:^dM«r? 

40f kiwi i^T^NT wr pft^ loi wkx Aim^t. 1I<» i» mMt wjr 
^jfM4t« bulk in 1 VxfiwtsiiW Cliifio^ pluram^ w '^<e]«du'^ 

lliNBi ahMl WMk. Atti vImbi 1 wdk^ jtt4$wMnl» ;ftKMait 

^yim idie«fe» Attt^ ;dllMMei^ »i4 lanvMlf « dii> T<et^ a» I 
saiT« i^^tfiwimt hiHL A kunl of iliuMttr^ ;i $inMil>idL ;ii 
g^RHTwa imoi^ of mt <i>wn tlhM^r$ trtiMrtMBk a pktt^ 
iMii of ittin^ $l»db lliM^ in ift^ a» iW r^fiKiMHlaK 
ttiTi^ of lub wdnul : «m1 dU 1 issinr ^iKmiI nqr nw^gi^dW^ 

S^v41ub4i yIdkwiofliT IttSi Inl wupdi Io»«»tIo»iW^«o«U 
nbottt wlttil it <radb olirMt or prMmHtaUiiti^. »si of<poisi^ 
th> i^pr^>ti«>nl;jiliTi^ knii>wkii|^ of o)>ji^fft$w BMt $iu«l]r 
did woi$* otwtiwftfte Se«i»4«i$li pKikiwfilwr tAttl <^TiNr al» 
otttattMi icnnwor ImM :$ii> tiNKMrnulT br lub nailiioindl 
<lo«<txine 915^ tu> :»iy llKSilt I Iuiti^ ;fefv<o«^lin$ H» icumumffik 
rs^ois^ ^uxyshins: bm ;ii i«|wvtfiMilaritiY^ knii>vliK^ of 
WT niN^KNrV ttbo>a$bl» sukI fiwlin^ Tkil » tdbd 
(Mibr «Mt of kno»vlie4$^ tdittt owMMMi wmm wU i^ 


gard M poggiblo to me, if bo much an that is possible. 
But how I can know al)out this outside being is not 
now our concern. We notice only that our difficulty 
about error comes back to us in a new form. For 
how can I err at>out my neighl>or, since, for this com- 
mon-sense view, he is not even partly in my thoughts ? 
How can I intend that as the object of my thought 
which never can be object for me at all ? 

But not everylxxly will at once feel the force of 
this question. We must be more explicit. Let us 
take the now so familiar suggesti^^n of our great hu- 
morist about the six people that take part in every 
conversation between two persons. If John and 
Thomas are talking together, them the real John and 
Thomas, their respective ideas of themselves, and 
their ideas of each other, are all parties to the com 
versation. Let us consider four of these persons, 
namely, the real John, the nsal Thomas, John as 
Thomas conceives him, and Thomas as John con- 
ceives him. When John judges, of whom does he 
think? Plainly of that which can be an object to 
his tlioughts, namely, of Iiin Thomas. About whom 
then can he err? About hin Thomas? No, for he 
knows liim Uh) well. His conception of Thomas is 
his conc(q>tion, and what he ass<;rts it to l)e, that it 
is for him. About the real Thomas ? No, for it 
should se<?m, acMxirding to (K>inmon s(ense, that he has 
nothing to do with the real Tliomas in his thought, 
sinc*^ that Thomas never becsomes any part of his 
thought at all. *' But," says one, " there must be 
some falla(5y here, since we are sure that John can 
err about the real Thomas." Indeed he can, say 


tmnXt^ it IN^nimm tkoii^^t^ Km mu( : ^^ TIkwui^^ n^v^ 
ill iu «K>hnV tK«>ii|;rhlk muI y^% J«4m ynmi MumW 
^iIhuiI TlH^m«iJ^'' How aUaU xtr^ immYtd th<^ knot ? 

hKi n«uTt>w in mir «l<(Mliiilitm of i»^^« Coiniii«m 
^Vkm miit4y inM«t» lluil obj(^t» Mr« mitM^dt^ of our 
thonji^ht lU ti^vi^ \ twiw «i j\H)|{m«^Dt« mhI MiottHiir 
Winia: MM^ h\th my jxhIi^io^^iI muI »(mi<$ onl^i^W olw 
j^t th«il WM not in my ihoxiji^ht «m<A «$«w how tK«ii; 
lho\ij2fht i« nnlikt^ iho objtH'l in «om«^ oiilit^ i^)m^ 
thiA \m%\g oimhl ^Y Uuil my «iMi>«ii«m xm* mi <Miror% 
$(> Uhvu wiih John mu( Thom«iJ^ {f' 7%oiii4t4i ttrnt^i 
h^t^ Jic^hns iAitmjfh* ttftoMi him, th^n ThomnA oihi1«) 
(MMcuiUly $it^ J«4inV tm^U". Th«it i« xrh)it ii mt^Mit 
by lh0 ^rx\\f in J«4mV ih«Mi|;:hf^ 

thit moit^ <U)H^;tv^[H>mo4U of « th«>nj;:ht with Any nuH 
«)tmi ohj«H^t iltHNi not m«ih«« tho iht^iifhl om^utHnin^ 
Th(> ju^tgnM^^it mn^l «U9ki|n^) with its rA(k»r# ^^(^jh^M\ 
If John nov^^r h«iA Th«mi«|jk in thon|;^ht At tUK how 
<^ri* JiJm oho^^^ th^ ivtU ThtmuiA «m hi« oUj«H>t ? If 
t jnt)^> AUmt A )H^Mh«^l«>r ihAl i* in thi* nnmu mi4 
if tho noxl nkun i« in tUl n^|M>ot3* lik^ thi^ 9mvtt> for 
A (H^iUuJtlor in iti^ with whioh my AA^.ii4<im ^Uh^ n^vl 
Hl^rivo. whtv l(H4(inj^ At thAt )Hmh«4«lor in thAt «^ih«>r 
ro^mu <^\ i»Ay thAt my jn«l|::in<>nt i* f aI*«* ? b\u* I 
nitHinf not tliAt {VMihtJ^l^r whoii t aynxkw luit thiii 
im<\ I know )k>rhA|M nothin^r AUmt ihAt tm«\ hA«l 
it not in min«K aiuI iik^ oonUI not orr aUuii it. Kvt^n 
)^\ ;*ui^l>iv^^ thAt onl:M«lo wi %tohn tWiv iii a ri^ 
Th^noA^ ^milAr« a« it hA|)|H>n«« \\\ %K4mV ith>A) 
ThomA^ Imt Uching Aom«^ iho^ight or AAWUon thAl 


John ftttributen to hU uhtH Thomtm^ Vhm tluU 
niiik<5 John^M mitioii ati error ? No, for he upoke ftiid 
oouU upeak only of ^iw ideal Thomai. The real 
ThofiUM wa» the other rootn, that he knew not of, 
the other aide id the ahiekl, that he never coulil c5oti« 
oeive. Ilia Thomaa waa hia phantcmt TIjotnaa. Thia 
phantom it ia that he juilgea and thinka atxmt, and 
hia thoughta may hare tlieir own <M;naiatency or in* 
oonaiaten<;y. IKit with the real other permm they 
have mHhing to do. The real other ia not hia ob- 
ject, and how can he err about what ia not object 
for him ? 

AlMurd, inileed, aome ^me will reply to ua. John 
and Thomaa have to deal with repreaentative phan- 
toma of each other, to be aure ; but that only makea 
M(;h more a|;t to isrr tAnmi the real either. And the 
teat that they can err ia a very aimple one. Huppoae 
a apectatcir, a third ptfrmm^ to wlu^m John and 
Ttn/maa were l^ith aomifliow dire<;tly pn^aent, ao that 
he aa it were inclu4leil IxHh of iiu9in. 'Hum John'a 
ju4]gment of hia phantrnn Tli^miaa wmiUl 1m9 liy thia 
aper^tator at iptuw iUftnjmriA with tlM9 real Thijrmaa, 
aiMl even mt wouhl Th/>maa'a judgmi?nt of John be 
treateiL if n^iw John*a pliantom Th^miaa agreed 
with the real Tlioniaa, then John'a iileaa would be 
<lei5lared in mf far tnithf ul ; iitlierwiae they w<Hild be 
erroneoiia* Ami thia explaina what ia meant by 
John'a )K;wer Up err atioijt Tlimnaa. 

The explanati/;fi ia fair emnigh for ita own pur- 
pi>ae, and we atiall fie<Ml it again )Hsf(mi hmg, Dut 
|uat now w<! f^antiot tje content with it. For what 
we want Uf know ia not what the judgment of a 


Uiird dimker wmild be in eue dwse two wexe some- 
liow not independent bongs aft all, but diii^ in 
this third being^s thooght. For we have started onl 
irith the siq^iosition of common sense that John 
and Thomas are not dreams or thoij^ts of soumi 
higher thiid being, but that tiiej aie indqiendent 
beings bj themselTesL Oar safipofiition mar ha^e 
to be giTen np hearMkfIn; but for the piesent we 
want to hold £abst to it. And so John's jndgment» 
which we had sofqposed to be about the indqpoid* 
entlT existing Thomas, has now tamed oat to be 
only a jodgnMOit aboat John's idea ol Thomas. Bat 
jodgments are £adse onhr in case tiier disagree with 
thnr intended objectsw What.. howvTer, is the ob- 
ject of John's jodgment when he thinks aboat 
Thomas? Not die real Thomas,, who coold not pes- 
siUr be an object in another man's thoaghts. John's 
real object being an ideal Thomas^ he cannot if sin- 
cere^ and if folbr conseioos of what he means by 
Thomas, fail to agiee in his statements with his own 
ideaL In shoort^ <» this oar onginal saj^positiQii, 
John and Thoinas are independent entities^ each of 
which cannot porssihlT enter in real person into the 
thoughts of the odier. Eadi may be somehow rep- 
resented in the odwr's thoaghts by a phantom, and 
cnly this phantom can be intended by the oth»r 
when he judges aboat the first. Fco- aniens one talks 
nonsense^ it should seem as if one OMiId mean only 
what one has in nund. 

Thus, like the eharacters in a certain Bab ballad, 
real John, real Thomas, the pe«f4e in this simple 
lale, are total stiangias to each otho^. Ton might 


OH well iimIc II blind ttmn to makii trttn or fnliMi Jii(1|(- 
motitM abont tho riml (iffm^iN of odrinlti c*otiiblnatiottM 
of (U)lorN, hm to nnU riih(«r ilohti or lliontiiM, ddlttyil 
ftM (lotnttioti mitiMo (l(iflti(«N thotii, to ttmko any jmlff- 
mmitM alNiut uA(ih othdr. (common Miinmi will tutiMirt 
tlmt II blind nmn (^nn bmm and repnat verbally CKir- 
MK^ Mtat«inu)ntM atNutt oolor, or verbally falmi Ntate- 
tnentM alnntt oolor, but, aeeordinff to the eoinmon- 
nenM) view, in no eai^e nan lie err about eolor-ideaM 
AN mteli, whieli are itnver present to bitn. You will 
be quite ready to ftay that a dof{ ean make niifitakeift 
alNiut the mlom of the nunilwrleMN traekM on the 
highway. Ycm will aieture i«m, however, that you 
eannot make miMtakeN alNutt them beeatine theno 
odom do not oxiMt for you. Aecording to the eom- 
mon-fienm) view, a ntathematieian oan make blundem 
in demomitrating the propertieN of eqtuttionM. A 
DuMhman eannot, for he ean have no ideaM eorreNt)ond- 
ing to equatiouM. Hut how then ean John or Thomaii 
make errom about eaidt other, when neither in more 
present t<i the other than \n eolor to tho blind man^ 
thn mlor of thn trai^kit on tho highway to the dog*i 
master, or the idea of an eciuation to a HuMhman ? 
Hern nonunon MeuMe forMaknM um, aMuring \\n that 
tltern in Mtinh nrror, but rnfuMtng to dellnn it. 

Thn inncmMiMtiUK^ involvetl in all thlM nommotl" 
Memte view, and the nouMHiunnnnN of thn incHUiNiNteneyf 
will appear yet beitnr with yet furthnr ilUmtraticm. 
A dream \n falMn in mo far aM it nontaiuM thn Judgment 
that Munh and Munh thingM exiMt apart from nn \ but 
at loaMt in ko far aM wn mnrely aMMnrt in otir dreamn 
abcmt the objeetn aN we nonnnlvn tlietn, we make tfM 

nK fossBBBumr w muL €13 

assKtSnaek Rair i? miA gimr airinBil Kfe ^ mai MMtiw a a 
aJbuMdr artnaal Mtbrn^-Jb^iDEp; msdk WL» a Aneiutt to 
nHbndb di^ir^ :$bMaM kaqpfwn to <MMnMSfi«Bhi :siMBe innl 

unniM Boir ndb^ tdbe dbraauDi veoMr "^^tsraiC^ mm" tiHT 
iEike. Iir wqqM W ai maKslniMv :iii?'MiifciM» far ao^ 

W dUrakiDB^ m h» Arviutt Bot adwodlr «xtondl «bjj«frits;». 
Imfir dbeaitr life idkmg» iiift las. <l^^ B^r i» Bot««r 

Jiiokm m W wvoU W if J^diki (tfaaaml to dbraan <9t 

a Hmmdess trkut waeiw to an eHMndil :s]piKttto«v liki^ A» 
Ka£oa»'! Is Boir tiktn life plboMtKiaft TluaKK^ J^ 

odtr Jfiniftr ot^JKviL aM^^ 

I» lAum lAn^ iB»fep<»farir XlMnuBt an tfftjpKit fixr J<Oikii 

Y^ aigvauboL L«eir ik smpfoeifr Aak itwo^ nm sb^ isknft 
iq^ «aiA in n dk»ieil iroiim W IdsbuvIiL awl iBMr h» 
wbdleM^: awl lirtriBSi siqpfiJKi^ dkaot W n tun torn eiMK 
tmrawf^ teotfik of domft iK$.aJbk atir iDbiift^ topsi^dBi^^ <oa 
Hfe waJU «f idb^ <jAlB«sr'$ i«wm n smrw> <«f pirttnarww 

prvdiaiM» in idlbie' oofaHrV inMnL awl mMftbnr ^isn kmam 
aunTtdmns: «f tdbe iddbnrV t^mnul ass. smdk. Imfir «dtr «f 
Hfe pofttnur^tsi. Jjgt ith^ im^ jumam ix^x^at im ttUos. i^ 
ladCKM9L Ott^ 4ixf idbnoiw A« jie<«» on U» wdQI poftamMy 

omm irovMm sir odki»^ insnfeKi. Y^ fe pnwhretsi Am^ to 

W (flftllr pktiBarvtSw aotol fesap]wif» tftmn to i«fim»at 
wian ^iw» (ixn m ^aaniH^bteit wmul, whiA ht OMBDi£vii>iw. as 

WpNifiidt» tdbeir fiidtaBi^ tdhsttagiflfi^ k^ fa uam 

4t4 rf(K UKiAQWim a^'kot or rmtjommiY. 

Ju<l((tmtf ti ii|Mm ilumi* I In miiy, if ymi llkii U) cmhi* 
titiiMi Umi liyiNH^lMtMU, ttiul mmm wny of ftflTwH^luK 
t\mtu l^y i»ii»N«ilf fUfiittif it» n wny iiiyNif^riiniN W hiiii« 
mlt m) HM Uf imnUum nlmnntiH \n Wn iM^iiinl rmm^ 
whiiilt tiffiiUi ntfmt t\M \fUiiumH iltui i\M r^fil H |mv 
Amnm ifi A*n fixmi. TIhim A iniifht liiitil whiii tin 
WimUl mil immtmuU'ii^iUm with kU \ihMiUm rwnn, 
KvMt» M>, H livMN with piifiiirnN Imfi^n liitit ikiii nvnt 
\miiUuml twm A'n nHtuu Now ohm ttiimi MU|^NiMi' 
iUftt^ tmtiti^ly, ilmi A himI H Imvn nliMiliiinly nii iH^ltnr 
iminim of <e4MotiiMttl<;filii>i>, Umi lioili urn Nhiii tip ult^v 
((ftiluti' himI lilwityN hiivn Umt^ iUni nitiUinr Imim ntiy 
ohjnitiM Iwfoni liiiM Inii IiIn own ilMHiiflitn uml tlin 
i^\muy;\uy; \tU^HmH on Urn wmII of IiIm riNiiii, In tliii* 
i^tim^ wlilii JifTnmiMtii tUmn it omlin wlu^linr or fiii tlin 
pU'MtmH ill A*N rtHPtu tim iMftimlly lllcn tlin tliiiiifM 
tlmt tmM \m tmm in IVh room? Will ttmt niiikn 
A*N jfMt((nMintM itltlmr trim or fiil^i? ICvmi if A, 
meting: liy iimihiin timt lio lilniMiilf leiinnot iiiMlnrNtiiinli 
In uliln to control tlio piiftnrniii on IiIn wiill liy mmm 
nlMiriition tImt lio utmmm*UmH\y |iro<lii<fiiN in lVi$ 
rtHHu Mitl \iM pliftnritN, NtiU A i^nniiot \m miUl Ui linvn 
uny linowliKli^M of tlin r^iil H himI IiIm nioni nt nil* 
Aim!, for tlin mum^ i'mmimmii A <tiiiinot iniilin niintnknn 
iil>oMt tlin rtml room of l(, for lio will iinvitr itvmi 
tliinii of tlmt vml rtntm, I In will, likn n inun in n 
ilrnfim, think imkI \m tilila Ui think only of thn \Aiu 
iurtm on hiM witlh An<l whnir hn rnfnrM tlinin Uf lift 
out««iiln i'nuHi% liM iloitM not tmmu hy iUU iHum^ tlin rnul 
l( liiMl hm I'MiU room, for Imi Uhh nnvitr ilrniiiin^l of tlin 
rniil l(, hot only at tliM pU'Umm mu\ of hi^ own intni^ 
|ir(ttittion of thniih I In mn tiMtrnforn niiikn tm fiUiin 

FQ^nnifiT OP if**'^ 415 

caniidbfriiliejiA g M MJttte dbww^ 

If tsu cnar fmesmt nucU itkore 4dk»» cvnwfNnd m 

nafa^ alMMdt oar iraoU sne aot astaillhr tnae oriEilw 
midi TCfereMW «» tdkilt iRwJdL Car iin^ j^^ AisipntUL 

Hrt tckiB) oMu vim we ]a4scL Wlnr ai^ sot J«alaf s 
IImmus aoMl tdk^ ndl lka» Ksl^^ fikaMftBumU 
aunl tdkilt »«nBil wdU m (dEktta^ Wlnraift 

Mt Iwdi Ebe Hfe idiitiaB <rf A*s (ranevivifidl phaaMtK» 
HKmand BTs real iwm? X^^tiUmg: «£ cstdher jksI 
UNm K ei«r pntsioilt t» A» <0llkflr. Eaich fsistfaflr 
cauB waakit tme or lEil» jiadksiflKntts if at alL Aea^ 
oalr akonat tdk^ pBaDooivs mm Us; wall; hidt atfAha 
kft$ «Tm At m^gftstAom doait cwmM kdid luin «» nafa^ 
a UnBDider wham tfe toidlKr j; ml iv«aa« «of wUeb W 
hu aad «aa kiiv aotr idk^ lEumtttsir Uoil 

Ob» Natsvn wlnr we £iil ii» «« at «bi» Ais; Jbct 
lies; ia ib^ <«nKsttuit IrndLflanr ito ng^ud tdke ■atter 
£roiai tifttf* fwissit «[( Tiew of a tUid penooi. iwaeadl nl 
isKfOk ib^ porat irf WW tdkot we«KiD inpBettlr alttraliK 
ate ID A amil B lAiflBisielwiesL If A cvmll ^ «adi3saie 
•f Ub iwm (MKse aoul we BT^s; Nvaa. tdm li^ <vaU 
anr : *" Ht fartBoe was a jsvud «OBe«*" «r ib^ sewene. 
Bb!L ht ttb^ soqrfMMel cacM. Ii^ mot mai\ aeTiBr jim» BTs 
ronft. hoot be imeTer ^ims aars&disKp Inmr kos^ mmm jic^ 
taR& ikeiviir ;2;ms; «QBir «f lof inwnB air aM iw amiT poor- 
pAHt. H«Diii£ie« Ms: svJle tfJbjiMt&s; <otf a3isi»itK«n hnoKjr bos; 
fJMoiKS^ ht iis; iaiMMWBiit <ci aar pK^wu- «» enr ahMdt 

BTs iwna w k k ia ilsifilt^ <e««BL w tdh^ 


is innocent of any power to err about the relations 
of colors. 

Now this relation of A and B, as they were sup- 
posed to dwell in their perpetual imprisonment, is 
essentially like the relation that we previously pos- 
tulated between two independent subjects. If I can- 
not have you in my thought at all, but only a picture 
produced by you, I am in respect to you like A con- 
fined to the pictures produced from B's roonu How- 
ever much I may fancy that I am talking of you, I 
am really talking about my idea of you, which for 
me can have no relation whatever to the real you. 
And so John and Thomas remain dhut up in their 
prisons. Each thinks of his phantom of the other. 
Only a third person, who included them both, who 
in fact treated them as, in the Faust-Epilogue, the 
Pater Seraphicus treats the selige Knahen (^Er 
nimmt «ie in sich^ says the stage direction) — only 
such an incluHive thought could compare the phan- 
toms with the real, and only in him, not in them- 
selves, would John and Thomas have any ideas of 
each other at all, true or false. 

This result is foreign to our every-day thought, be- 
cause this every-day thought really makes innocent 
use of two contradictory views of the relations of 
conscious beings. On the one hand we regard them 
as utterly remote from one another, as what Pro- 
fessor CliflFord called ejects ; and then we speak of 
tliem as if the thoughts of one could as such become 
thoughts of the otlujr, or even as if one of them 
could as an iiid(;peiident being still become object 
in the thought of the other. No wonder that^ with 


luoh oontrmllt^tory MiuttipUoti« mm to the imtureiof 
our rt^kUoiM fo> our nolgkbor«^ ym find it ymty oMiy 
to mnko nlwurtl «tttt«^uout» About tho miHUilng t^ 
i^ror. Tho ciMitnuUoUou k^ ootutitou iotino hM» In 
(not jUMt hon> uuiok t^> do wltli tlio otlilottl Uluidon 
Unit wt> oalliHl Uu) lUu«lou df ttclfl^htuMUit To ideur 
up tliin {H^hit will bo UMoful to ui| thortifbrO) in moro 
wti|y« thtui imo« 


DiiiiipiH)luttHl ouoo nioro In ourd9brt» to undor^i 
utatid how i>rror In |Km«tbl<>« w\« turn ^\ luiotlior olwM 
o( cumoi^ wkiok Ho In i^ dirtn^tion whons i^t Itnuit (or 
tlil« ontH\ tUl will Kuroly W plidn. firronn t^liout 
nuitt^^m of ftu>t or oxiH!triotuH« iut> oortcUnly o1om^> 
enough In nuturo. And n« UiU oImm of orrorm U^ 
prtu^tloidly nuxit tmiH>rUuit, tko nubtlotion of our pro* 
vioun hn*i>iiU|{titton nmy Ik« dlmnlMtHl wlUi light luHUi 
io iHHUi AA wi> hnvo Kt>lton rid of tlio fow lltilo quo** 
timiM Umt win now Wmi un« It In to Ih> nottnl timt 
idl oriH>ni dUnit nmtorlnl objoot^i^ AlH>ut tlio liiw« 
of UAturot iilH>ut hlntory, Mul nlnnit tim futuro, ato 
lUlko orrt>ni Alnntt our ni'tunl or |hnwIUo ox|H>rlonoo«» 
AVo i>x|H>ot or {HintulAto mi i>xiH>rliMUH> Umt At tho 
(Hwn iluKS or undor tlio glvon ootidltlonm turnn out 
ti> Ih« oihor ihAii It ^iim {HMiuUtiHl or i>xiH>ot(Hl to bo« 
Now ntuw our ox|H»ruuuH>i« not now pronont iMt> objoo- 
tl\^ fftoUt And oAimblo of oloAr doflultlon% It would 
nwui oliHvr thAt orror otuuMornlug tlu»ni l» au oamUjt 
iHuuim^houMiblo tldug« 

U\li alun t AgAtU N^*^ ATO dlMA|>|H>lntlHl. ThAt f»r^ 

l^Mn In niAttor« of i>x|H}rlonoo ato ooiuuion enough ii 


influbitable, but equally ovidont beoomen the diffi- 
culty of deflning what they are and how they are 
poHsible. Take the oane of error about an expected 
future. What do we mean by a future time ? How 
do we identify a particular time ? Both these ques- 
tions plunge us into the sea of problems about the 
nature of time itself. When I say, Thus and $o 
urUl it be at such and such a future momenty I pos- 
tulate certain realities not now given to my con- 
sciousness. And singular realities they are. For 
they have now no existence at all. Yet I postulate 
that I can err about tliem. This tlieir non-existence 
is a {)eculiar kind of non-existence, and requires me 
to make just such and such affirmations about it. 
If I fail to correspond to the true nature of this 
non-existent reality, I make an error ; and it is pos- 
tulated not merely that my ])reseiit statement will 
in that case hereafter turn out false or become false, 
but also that it is now false, is at this moment an 
error, even though the reality with whic^h it is to 
agree is centuries ofp in the f utun^ But this is not 
all the difficulty. 1 postulate also that an error in 
])redicti(m can Ih) diHcovcrcNl when the time comes 
by the failure of the prediction to verify itself. I 
postulate then that I can look biu'.k and say : Thus 
and thus I predicted about this moment, and thus 
and thus it has (unne to pass, and this event con- 
triuli(!ts that ex])e(*.tation. But can 1 in fact ever 
accomplish this comparison at all? And is the com- 
parison vciry easily intelligible? For when the event 
comes to ])ass, the ex])ectatioii no longer exists. The 
two thoughts, namely, expectation and actual expe* 

THE rossiBiLiTr or SlMMt 419 

riiBfir^ are sepa^rmto Uioa^tsk fmr qMurl in iuMw 
How ean I boring Umui log^Uittr to coiii{Mun» tlwiiift so 
us to !we if tlh^Y halve Uie mue object ? It will not 
do to «ppe4il to memory for the purpoee ; for tbe 
ttuiie 4iM6lioii woukt reoor iibout the memorv in its 
relaUon to the origimd tliought. How ccm « ptt»t 
thou^t^ being p«i3t% beiH>m|^ured lo« pnMent thought 
to see whether they stand related ? The past thought 
lived in itself^ had it» own ideas of what it then 
ealled future^ and it» own interpretation thereof* 
How ean you show« or intelligently affirm* that the 
eonoe}^ion which the past ex})eetation had of its 
future nnvnent is so iitentioal with the eoac^^p4ion 
which this present thought has of this pn»ent mo- 
ment« as to make thc($e two c^itneeivett moments one 
and the same? Here in short we have sa|^[iosi^t two 
different itleas* one of an expecleit fxiture* the other 
of an ex})eriemW present^ and we have supposed 
the twi^ ideas to be wiilely se})aratett in tiuie^ ami by 
hy{KHheeus they aiv m^ t%>gether in ime consci\HisniMa 
at all. Now Ik^w can luie sav that in fact thev relate 
to the same moment at all? How is it intelligible 
to say that they do ? How« in &h\ can a not-given 
future be a real object i^ any UhH^t; and how, 
when it is once the object thereof* can any suhse-^ 
qm^nt moment be identified with this object ? 

A }>resent UhHight ami a past thought are in fact 
Sv^jKirate* even as were John ami Thomas* Kach 
iuie mt^aus the objei^t that it thinks^ How can they 
have a ci^muKui obje^^t ? Are they not once for all 
liiffcrcnt thoughts* each with its own iutiHAt ? But 
in onler to rentier intel%ihle the eaustence of error 

420 Ttite NKUUtotm ampkut or vmiAmmiY. 

utmut itmttorN of fncit, wo tiiuMt ttiiiko ilui uiiliitolll)(i* 
)»ln aNMuiitptioti, m) it would mmtu tlmi itioMo two dlf- 
forotit iliouKhto linvii tito Muttut Itiintti, fitul nro but 
otio. And MUidt \h i\m AlttUmlty tlmt wo find itt our 
M»i)ond gvmi okMN of oumim. 


Ho iiiu<di for tlio protdntn, both In )(mtoriil uml In 
iotno piirihuikt' inNinnnoN. Hut now uiny not tlui 
minlor InnUt, afUir nil, tlmi thtirn mu bo in thU wIno 
ti4i orrofN wimtovoi* ? ( !onii*ii4lloiory am It mooum, tmvo 
wo not, nfior nil, put our JudKUioniM into u, ]N)Mlttoii 
wlionoo oMoiit»o foi* UN U InipoMlbb? Jf ovory ju<l((- 
ittont U thuM by ItM naiuro bound up In n oloiod olr- 
olo of thought, with no outliNik, oan any ono iumiu 
nftorwardN and kIvo It an oxtornal objo<!i? lWlm|My 
tlion, tlioro U a way out of our difllouliy t)y frankly 
Maying tlmi our tliou^hiN nmy \m noliluu* iruihn nor 
orrorN boyond ihoniMolvoN, but Jtmt o($ourronottM, with 
a moaning wholly mtbjootlvo. 

Wo doMlrn iho roaitor to try to roallxo ihU vtow of 
total rolatlvlty oniwi nioro In tho fonn In whhfh, with 
all ItM Inhoront alwurdltloN, it now mnum baok to UN 
for tho laNt tinio. It Nays ** Kvory Jud^tnont, A U 
//, In fiMit dooN a^roo and oan a^roo otdy with ItN 
imu objoot, widoh In proNont In ndnd whon It In niailo. 
IWIth no oxt4*rnal objoot oan It a((roo or fall i(»a((roo» 
It NtandN alono, with Um own objoot. It haN noltlmr 
truth nororror boyond ItNolf. It fullillN all ItN Inton- 
tlotm, and In truo, if It a((rooN with what waN proNont 
to It whon It wiiN thou^iUt. Only In thU nouno In 
tlioro any truth or faUity poNNlblo fur imr thimgkt.*' 


But onoe more, this invitmg vay out of the difiU 
eulty needs only to be tried to reveal its own oontn^ 
diotions* The thought that says, ^^ No judgment is 
true beyond itself,^' is that thought true beyond it- 
self or not ? If it is true beyond itself, then we have 
the possibiUty of other truth than the merely sub jeo> 
tive or relative truth. If it is false, then equally we 
have objective falsity. If it is neither true nor false, 
then the doctrine of relativity has not been affirmed 
at all as a truth. One sets up an idea of a world of 
separate^ disorganiieil thoughts, and then says, ^^ Each 
of them deals only with its own object, and they have 
no unity that could make them true or false«^^ But 
still this world that one thus sets up must be the 
true world. Else is there no meaning in the doo> 
trine of relativity. Twist as one wiU« one gets not 
out of the whirlpool of thought. Error must be real, 
and yet, as common sense arranges these judgments 
and thoir relations to one another, error cannot be 
real. There is so far no escape. 

The perfectly general character of the argument 
must be understood. One might escape it if it ap- 
plied to any one class of errors only. Then one 
would say : ^ In fact, the class of cases in question 
may be cases that exclude the possibility of both 
truth and error,'" But no, that cannot be urged 
against us, for our argument applies equally tci all 
possible errors. In shorts either no error at all is 
possible^ or else there must be possible an infinite 
mass of error. For the }iDssibilities of thought l)eing 
infinite^ either all thinight is excluded once for all 
from the possibility of error, or else to every possi- 


ble truth there can be opposed an infinite mass of 
error* All this infinite mass is at stake upon the 
issue of our investigation. Total relativity, or else 
an infinite possibility of truth and error; that is 
the alternative before us. And total relativity of 
thought involves self-contradiction. 

Every way but one has been tried to lead us out 
of our difficulty. Shall we now give up the whole 
matter, and say that error plainly exists, but baffles 
definition ? This way may please most people, but 
the critical philosophy knows of no unanswerable 
problem affecting the work of thought in itself con- 
sidered. Here we need only patience and reflection, 
and we are sure to be some day rewarded. And in- 
deed our solution is not far off, but very nigh us. 
We have indicated it all along. To explain how 
one could be in error about his neighbor's thoughts, 
we Huggested the case whore John and Thomas 
should be present to a third thinker whose thought 
should include them both. We objected to this sug- 
geHtion that thus the natural preHuppoflition that John 
and Thomas are separate self-oxistent beings would 
be contradicted. But on this natural presupposition 
neither of those two subjects coidd become object to 
tho other at all, and error would here be impossible. 
Suppose then that we drop the natural presuppo- 
sition, aAd say that John and Thomas are both actu- 
ally present to and included in a third and higher 
j thought. To explain tho possibility of error about 
matters of fact seemed hard, because of the natural 
postulate that time is a pure succession of separate 
moments, so that the future is now as future non-ex^ 


rm fimmujx or hrroiu 


intent, Md no that juilgiu^iita About tb^ futuni Uok 
riMil obj^tis OAfHiblo of idwtifloation, L^t xm then 
dfpp tbiii nuturfd |HMtulMo« und (leokm» timo o»co 
(or all pr0iM>»t iu all iln wumonU to an univemal 
all4iioluiiivo thought. Aud to Hutu u|^ bt un ovor* 
ootUD all our diHioultiiMi by deolaring that all tho 
ttiauy U^yomlm whi^h ninglo aigniMoaut judgnimitii 
ioom vagutily aud iN^paraUdy to puntulatis aro prea- 
ent an fully riMiliiKHl iuWudml obj<H^U to tbo unity 
of au all-luoluMv^ abnolutviy oli»ar« uuiv^raalt and 
OMUitoiouii thought, of whbh all judgturatis truo or 
falm>% ar0 but fragui^utn, tho wholo b0mg at onoo 
Abiiolut<> TruUi and Abnoluto Knowlmlge. Th^n all 
our pumUon will di«iap|H)ar at a HtrokiH and ^rror will 
bo poMibW, U^muiko any ono llnito thought, vi^w^d 
in rtdation to it^i own inti^nt, nmy or may not bo noon 
by tliiii highor Uiought an nuootWul and a4lot]uato in 
thin intout^ 

How thin abnoluto Uiought in to bo rolatod to in- 
dividual thoughtn, wo oan in gonoral vory nim|dy do- 
fino. Wh^tt ono nayn: *'Thin oolor now U^foro nio 
in rod, and to nay Umt it in bluo would bo to niako a 
blundor/* ono ropronontn an inoluding oonnciounnona. 
Ono inoludon iu ono'n pronont thought throo dintinot 
olouu^nln, and ban Uioni pronont iu Uio unity of a nin- 
glo moniout of innight Thono olfuiontn aro%timt« 
tho jHJro^^ption of rwl ; noinnidly, tlio rolUvtivo judg* 
niont whono objoi't in thin |H»rooption, and whono 
agroonti^nt with Uii^ objtvt oountituti^n itn own truth i 
and« thinlly, tlio orroutM>un rotUH>tiou, 7%m i» Wm^ 
whirh in iit tho muwv thought iHini|Hiroil witti tho por- 
ooption and roji^otod an orror. Now^ viowod an nop- 




arato acts of thought, apart from the unity of an in- 
cluding thought, thoHo three elements would give rise 
to the same puzzleH that we have been considering. 
It is their presence in a higher and inclusive thought 
that makes their relationn ])lain. Even so we must 
conceive the relation of John's thought to the united 
total of thought that includen him and Thomas. 
Iteal John and hin ])hantom Thomas, real Thomas 
and hiff ])hantom John, are all present as elements in 
the including conHciousncHH, which completes the in- 
complete intentions of both the individuals, oon- 
stitutcH their true relaticmH, and gives the thought 
of each about the oihcr whatever of truth or of 
error it pohhchhch. In Hhort, error becomes possible 
as one moment or element in a higher truth, that 
is, in a couHciouHneHH that makes the error a part of 
itself, while recognizing it as error. 

Bo far then we ])r()[K>He thin as a possible solution 
for our puz/JcH. But now we may insist upon it as 
the only possible solution. Either there ia no such 
thing as err or ^ v)hich ntatement ia a flat Helf^contrO' 
diction^ tyrehe there in an infinite unity of conacious 
thmyht to which in prenent all poaaible truth. For 
su])iM>He tliat there is error. Then there must be an 
infinite mass of error possible. If error is possible 
at all, then as many errors are ])ossible as you please, 
sin(M3, to every truth, an indefinite mass of error may 
be op[)osed. Nor is this mere possibility enough. 
An error is j)osHible for us when we are able to make 
a false judgment. But in order that the judgment 
should l>e fals<5 when made, it must have been false 
before it was made. An error is possible only when 


ilvmj» was &lse. Enror^ if pofisShfev i» tiiai cter- 
■mD^actnaL Eaek cxnir sd poesilife inplies a jad^ 
■HBt wliose inteiided object k iMgroadi itedC^ sad is 
also the object of die eacnsfonSaag tmt jadgmBuL 
Bat two jiidlgmeiitecaM»otliaL¥ediea a»B object aaTo 
aa tbej are bodi pigaqit to ooe Aoi^ghl. For aa 
aefasale tfaoiigte» thej- woaJii kiTe sqwrate sdk- 
jecta^ pndieatesy iBteirtinatSy aad obfectsy ef«a aa wo 
baTe paerioady seen ia detaiL So tbat eveij enor 
iaqplics a tbongbfe tbat Jnrfotifff it aaii Ae cono- 
ipoodiE^ tmdi ia A^iodkj ot one tboii^ wilb Ae 
object oi bodi of AeB. (Xolf aa fRsent toaana- 
clndbig tboogbt aie diej eitber tiae or fabcL Tkaa 
tibea we aie dbnieii to ■iiiihim aa iafi a ile Aoi^gbt. 
jaipag tmA aad error. Bat tbat Ak iafiaile 
Aoag bt mast ako be a larinnal aaaitj, not a BCte 
aggregate of tratbsk i» eridaEt froaa At faet diot 
enor » possible not ooljr as to objecta^ bat as to Aa 
lelatioos of objecta^ so tbat aU Ae possible lehtMB 
of aE tbe objects in apaee^ ia tuBe, or ia Aa woiid 
of tbe barelf possible^ aiDast abo be present to Aa 
altmelodh^ tboogbL And to kaoar aU fdalions at 
once is to know tbem m abeokte rational 
^m ti^wkjenesa ooesiagW AooglT^ 
tbeiuisaaenor? An oior^ we replr. b 
iplete Aoogbt tint to a b^ber Aoa^*^ 
wbieb inefaaks it and its intended object^ is known 
as ba¥XQg failed in Ae pozpose Aat it Bore or less 
dearir bad. aztd Aat is fnOr reaibed in Ais k^er 
tbocigfaiL AiidwiAnxt saebb%beriDeIasrieAoagbt» I 

426 THK MUQtom A§rwi ov inuKmnmY. 


woiiUl tw hitmUmU an inUirrtt]iiUm f nmt mntu^ im* 
fifttiimt ThniMyifiiu;hiM (>r (vftllu$l45M or J^iltM, who 
wouUl havM tH)on wat^'.htng nn, tbn)at<min^ and muU 
Uirintt^ iUtrinif all (;f i\M latter fiart <;f our dlmmmUnL 

At Ittitt, {M^rhatw, (fV(rrfti\l/wi iavr^/y &<rwiff Oriptttv^ ba 

W(rtil4l H\mx\% ujxm iw, ami woiiM wy ? " Why, you 
tummmm^monyn^tn^ liavo you rw^t iM^bouf^bt y<m of 
tlM) alt4tniaitv«) tliat r^^\m^mH\\M i\ui riialtty in thin 
quDMiiori ^rf y^^ir^* ? Nariiifly, an i^mtr \n an errofi 
%mi\u^r to thi) thou/(lit tliat thinlcM it, nor i4 n4^;i$iMity 
t^> any ht^lM^r imjliMivi) tlu/ti^lit, hut mtly Ui a /;(>/i/ii* 
hhiiv\\Am\ thought that mIi^miIiI unilortalo) afti^rwanhi 
to vAftn\fVi.n^ it with \\m ohjo<;t* An ^^mtv U a thou^ 
n\wh that if a (;ritU$al thought dUl iuntm anil i*Ann\m,v^ 
it with iiit ohjiMft, it wtmld Im mnnx to 1m) falito. And 
it haM an ohji)<?t for Muifh a criti(;al tlK/u^ht ^Fhiii 
(;ritii?al i\utu%\%i tum\ tuA 1m) r<)al and aidually inolud<9 
it, hut may \m only a jfOHHthla jud^<) iA iU tmth« 
Ih^fM'^f your Infinite all-knowi5r in no rifality, ^mly a 
lof^if^al fHrnMihility ; ami your innif^ht amounts to thin, 
that if all vw/rn krun^n Ut an all>'knowi?r, 1m9 wtmld 
jndf/fi «?rror Ut Iw5 miMtakmi* And mp orror tn what 
ho would tH5n'/45ivi) to \h} irrron What di>i^ all tltat 
amount Ut hut worthh^MN tautolo|(y?** 

Htm $irp;iiuuuii of our ^niranymai^hun tn tlto imly 
mi twar^lly j^lauMihlo ohj^f^tti^m that wd fi;ar to tlm 
forit^oin|( analyMiM, \mv4iumi it Im tho mdy ohj<9<^ion 
that fully t',x\m*Mm*M iho oldw^MtahliMlutil vii^w of (Uftn^ 
uum mmm) tiUmi muih jm/hh5nM* ^Iliough cinntnan 

TttK rommuTY or kmkmu 4S7 

mon (Mmm^ nUll dimly h^h tliAl to iom« {hmmIUi^ 
(ttol iiolutU) jutl^o of truths 9k\\\¥6»l U muhd whtm 
wt» wiy UiAl A ihinit U ftdni) nol mtM^ 6i>r uis but 
tn viMry tniih. Ami tliin |MMMiibli^ jml|{i^ of cmtimouj 
mnm wi^ Imvi) now unhoditiitinitly it^dolMrdl to W an 
Inftnito Aol\itUi^\% tilmolutoly iKiKH^MMry to eoh^tiMa 
lh« n4iiU<m of inith luid oritur. Wiihoul tl tht^ro 
U for our view no irtith or «iTor otmooivAbl<i» Tho 
wonlm T^M j^ (rM«« or TAtV Ujhhf>% moiin nothinit^ 
w« il^oltuv^ unlt»M ihero in the induidvo thought (6r 
whii'h ttie trtitti in tnus ttie ftdnehood ttidm. No 
lMMn4y |HMiiiil4o jml|;ei who iroiiM m^ tho orror (/ ho 
wero tti<^r«s will do for mu IIo munt l>o thons thin 
jml|(e^ to <?omitituto tho orror. Wittiout him nottdng 
but total mibjeoUvtty would Ih» {HmHiUot tuid thought 
woukl then Ihhhuuo {nm^ly a |mtht4«^iHU i^lienmm^ 
noiu im ooeurrenoe without trtittifulniHMi or ftUiiity^ 
an fKH«urrenoo ttmt woidd intor^s^t tuiybmly if it 
inould Ih> oWrve<h but ttmt^ unfortunately^ Mug 
only a momentary {^hanttun^ eould not Ive olMerve<l 
at all friMU without-^ b\it munt W dimly felt fn>m 
within* Our thought nee^tn tlie Inflnito Thought in 
onler tlmt it mny get^ through tldn tnflnito ju«lge^ 
the privilege of l>eiug no mueh an even an ern^r* 

Thin« it will Ive naid« in Imt rennneriion* Hut how 
do we maintain thin view Agninnt our Thrtinvmaehun ? 
Our annwer in onl^v a re)^^Ution of thingn thnt we 
have nlnnid^v hnd to nd^v^ in Uie nrgtmient for what 
we here n^dnnert^ If the ju«lgment exinte^l alone^ 
without the inelunive thought to judge it, tlien, an it 
vdntK^ alonoi it either had an objeeti or had nono% 


But if it had none, it was no error. If it had one, 
then either it knew what its object actually was, or it 
did not know what its object was, or it partially knew 
and partially did not know what its object actually 
was. In the first case the judgment must have been 
an identical one, like the judgment A pain ia a pain. 
Such a judgment knows its own object, therefore can- 
not fail to agree with it, and cannot be an error. If 
the judgment knew not its own object at all, then it 
had no meaning, and so could not have failed to agree 
with the object that it had not. If, however, this 
separate judgment knew its object enough to intend 
just that object, but not enough to insure agreement 
with it, all our difficulties return. The possible 
judge cannot give the judgment its complete object 
until he becomes its actual judge. Yet as fair judge 
he must then give it the object that it already had 
without him. Meanwhile, however, the judgment re- 
mains in the unintelligible attitude previously stud- 
ied at length. It is somehow possessed of just the 
object it intends, but yet does not know in reality 
what it does intend, else it would avoid error. Its 
object, in so far as unknown to it, is no object for 
it ; and yet only in so far as the object is thus un- 
known can it be crre<l about. What helps in all 
this the barely possible judge? The actual judge 
must Im) there ; and for him the incomplete intention 
must 1)0 complete. He knows what is really this 
judgment's object, for ho knows what is imperfecdy 
meant in it. He knows the dream, and the inter- 
pretation tliereof. lie knows both the goal and the 
way thither. But all this is, to the separate judgment 
as such, a mystery. 


In Hioix the separate judgments^ iratang for the 
possible judge to test them« are like a foolish man 
wandering in a wood, who is asked whether he has 
lost his way« ^^I may have lost it«'* he answers* 
^^But whither are you going?'* ^^That I cannot 
teU ? ** ** Have you no goal ? ** ** I may have, but 
I have no notion what it is«'* ^^ What then do you 
mean by saying that you may have lost the way to 
this place that you are not seeking? For you senn 
to be seeking no plaoe ; how then can you have lost 
the way thither?*' ^^I mean that some possible 
other man, who was wise enough to find whither I 
am trying to go, might possibly, in his wisdom, also 
perceive that I am not on the way to that plaoe« So 
I may be going away from my elM)sen goal, although 
I am unaware what gt\al it is that I have chosen*** 
Such a dementet) man as this would fairly repre- 
sent the meaningless claim of the separate judgment, 
either to trutlif ulness, or to the chance of error* 

In short, tlH>ugh the partial thought may be, as 
such, unconscious of its own aim, it can be so uncon- 
scious only in case it is contained in a total thought 
as one moment thereof* 

It will be seen that wherever we have dealt in the 
previous argument with the possilulity of error as a 
mere possibility, we have had to use the result of the 
previous chapter concerning the natiure of possibil« 
ity itself* The idea of the l^arcly jH^ssihle, in which 
there is no actuality, is an empty idea* If anything 
is possiMe, then, when we say si\ wt^ (postulate siune* 
thing as actually existent in or^ler to cimstitute this 
possibility* The conditions of possible error must 

4S0 Tifff KKLiaiouM Anvmr or raiu)iK)iifr. 

1m ADttifil. Hah) iKMMibiliiy U blank fi<»lti!fiKfiiiNM. If 
ttu) naiuH) of DtTor nitcM^Miarily ati<l with )NfrfiiDt Kini* 
urnlity lUmmtMlM (Mtrtnin omiilitKmMi ilMtii ttu9M9 ooit- 
(lltimm are mm iiUmml urn tiM) i^rrotmmHumH ot (irror 
itM4)lf U iftonial. And ttitiM tluf inoliiMivD thoiiffht, 
which (fotmiitutDM i\m nmiri ntUMt In* iNMitilaiiMl iai« 
DxiMtmit. ' 

Ho, finally, IM (mo try to affirm that tlto infinito 
omitmtt of Um) all-imtliMlinK niin<l iUnm tufi oxiMt, and 
that thi) for^KoinK idoaliMni \n a niDnt illusion of otirM* 
III) will find that ho U involvod in a ointlo trom 
whioh thoro in no iMnafw. For lot him roturn to tho 
jNmttifHt (ft tiH^al rolativtty and mo May: ^^Tlio Infl- 
nito thmiKht \n nnroal for mo, and honoo yon aro 
wrmiif.*' Hut thon alMo Ito admits that wo aro ri^ht, 
titr in affirming; thiM inflnito wo affirm, tUHumlUxff to 
thiM d(N$trino of total rolativity itmdf, i4omi»thin(( titat 
Im JuMt aM trno aM it mooiom to um to ho trno. Tlio of^ 
{Hminif ar^nmont \n thiiM at oaoh niomont of itM pro^« 
roMM involvixl in a oontriuliotion. Or fif(ain, litt him 
hiMiMi that our dootrino in not only rolativoly, Imt 
roaily falno. 1'hon howovor ho wiii fail to mIiow m 
wliat tiiiM roai faiMiiy iM. In fai^t lio MayM what ail our 
' provioim oxaminaiion mIiowm to moan, tltiM, namoly, 
' titat an inflnilo tliou((lii dooM oxiiit, and dooM oxtN»- 
rioiMti* tiio truUi, and (MunparoM our tliou|fiit wiili tlio 
tniiii, and Uion ol>NorvoM iiiJM tliou^lit of ourM U) l)0 
falMo, iiiai iH, ii diMifovorH iiiat itNoif in non-oxiMtonL 
Wlioovor lilcoH tliiM nmuli may hohl it if ho imu 


Now tiuit oar MgiuiM»it i» eooqpl^ed as mi iiiT«»- 
ligiitHMU kt ns r^Tiew it in MKidber irmj. We sbirt^d } 
from the fiiet of £rTor% TImI; there is eitw is in- \ 
dahibJ?kfew What is, however^ an enor? The sab> ^ 
sIsuMe cf our whiide reasMMiing ahoat Ae nature of 
eiTor amounted ti> the n^i^t that in and of itself 
akunew no sin|i*)e jndj^n^^t is or «<an he an enror% 
Only as aif<l^)att}r inolnded in a higher thoiij^t» tiiat ^ 
giTiKi to Ae fii^ its eoaq)kk4ed objei^ and eompares 
it therewith^ i$ the first thought an eiTor« It re- 
mains otherwise a mere mental f ragment^ a torsos, a 
pieee of drif^wood,» neither true nor falsi\ objeetless^ 
no complete aet of Unnight at aU. But Ae hi$^ii»r 
thon^t mnst inehnle the op)¥Ok$ed tratK to whieh 
tiie error is eom)viatHl in that hi^>r thoughts The 
higher thought is the whuJe truths of xrhioh the eiror 
is hy itself an ineomplete fragment. 

Now« as we $aw with this as a starting-point, there 
i» no stopping-place shiwt of an Infinite Thou^tw 
The possibilities of error are infinite* Infinite then 
must he the iiH>lttSiive tlnn^t Here is this stiolu • 
this briekhat., this snow-fiake: there is an infinite 
mass of error jH^Ue about any ^^ne of thenu ami 
notieek not n^relv i^os^siible is it. but aot^ial. All the 
infinite serios of blumler$ that you eouM make ak>ut 
tlwm not only woukl W bhuulersk but in very truth 
now are blunders* though you personally eoid^l never 
e^Hiunit them all* Vou eannot in faet maht: «i truth \ 
or a falsehooi.1 by y\>ur tln^ught* Y^>u <«olyjSmi one% \ 
fVom all eternity that truth was true^ that fabi^iood ' 

482 TnK miiaxovn aapkct or rmumomr. 

falMe. V<)ry Wftll ttirni, ilmt in(lnii<9 thoti((ht iniint 
mmioliow havi) hml nil iltat in it from tlu) iHiKirining. 
If A iiittii (li>ii1>tM itf kit kirn tumwor (mr iinsvioiiM (lif« 
fkmltioM. Ii<)t birn mIuiw iim how ho oari tnako an 
error Mave thrfiiiffli ttio proNDtuM) iff an Mutual inolu- 
»iye ihtmifht for wkUsh tlu) orror always wan Drror 
and nover beoanio Nuoh at all. If he nan do tliatt 
1^ him try. Wo Nhimld willingly 9unHt]tt Uia nmiilt 
if Ito oouhl mIiow it to un. Hut Iia (sannr»t. Wo 
haro ramhhMl ovor thoMo Imrrim hillN alroa<ly too 
l<mg. Haro for lliought tlutro iM no truth, no 4$rror* 
Havo for ini^luMivo I'hought, tlioro in no truth, no 
orr(nf| in NOfmrato thmtghtn. Hi^jmrato tlioughtii an 
mioh ($annot i\um know or haro tho diMtincttimi lio- 
twooti tlioir own tnith and thoir own falnity in thofn- 
NolvoM, and ajmrt from tho imduMivo th/mght. Ilujro 
in thon n/»thing (ft tnith m <ft orror to \m found in 
th<i workl of fN)parato tkoiigktM an Muoh. All tho 
tliouffhtM aro thitmforo in tlto lant analy^iM a<!tually 
tnio (fv falno, only for tho all-inoluding I'liought, tho 

Wo (soidd havo roaohixl tho nanio roMult IumI wo 
mjt out from tho pnddom, iVhat U 7hilhf Wo 
ohiMio mrt to do m) txMsauiio our MkofrtioiMm ha<l tho 
plaoid ariMWor romly : *^ No matUsr vi/uU truth Im, for 
yory likoly thoro tn littlo or no tnitli at all U) Ins ha<L 
Why trouhlo ono*N mind to dofino wkat a fairy or a 
brownio \n ? " " Vory widl, thon/* wo nakl to our 
Nkoi>tii$iMm, ** if that in thy play, wo know a movo that 
thou thinkoMt not of. Wo will not mk thoo of truth, 
if thou thiiikoMt thoro in nono. Wo will auk thoo of 
orror, whoroin thou rovoloNt/' Aiid our »koi»tioiiiiii 


Uu^ "^ if Uwor^ be Utile or no tradi liare biefew^ tho^ 
xs at kast any aunoaat of eiT^»v whieh as sk^plies w« 
laTe all been deteedngr eTiar sinee ire fizst wimt to 
sebooL*' "^ We tbaiik tbee &r tbat vwl, ob friieiid, 
bvct now, wbat is an enror?" Bkssed be iSocxates 
for diat qnestion. Upon tbat loi^ pbiksopbj can, 
if it wants^ build we know not jet bow mw^ 

It is «noogb for tbe moonent lo smn up die tmfcb 
tiiat we bare foond. It is tbis: "^Att rfftMtity mm;^ 
h$ fHnt^stmi to tA€ Umitjf ^' tAit Imjimitf Th&mffiiS* 
Ibeie is no ebanee of esea^. For all leafitr k re- 
alilT because true judCTHdnts ean be made about it. 
And an realitT, for die same neason, ean be die ob- 
jiKi of filse jodgmentsw Tbeie£iNre« sinee die false 
and die tme judgments are all tme or false as pie»> 
ent to tbe infinite tboogbt^ aloi^ widi tbeir objeetsy 
no n»ditT ean eseaqpH^. Yoa and I and all of nss all 
good^ all eTxL aU trutlu aU £ilsebood» aU tbii^ ae- 
toal and potssible^ exist as diej exi$t^ and are known 
for wbat diej are« in and to tbe absdote tbongbt ; 
are diere&»re all judged a^ to tbeir leal diaiaeter at 
tbk eTeilastzi:^ dirone of judgment. 

Tbis we baTe fwmd to be true^ beeause we tried 
to donbt eTerrtbii^* We sball try to exjMxmd in 
tbe eoBung ebaqpter tbe religious Taloe of tbe eooeep- 
tion. We ean bowerer at onee see tbis in it : Tbe 
Infinite Tboug^t must^ knowing all trotb* inehaie ako 
a knowledge of aU wills, and of tbeir eondiei* For 
bim all tbis eoni&t. and all tbe otber facts of tbe 
moral worid^ take piaee. He tben must know die 
tuteome of tbe eonfiiet* tbat MonJ Insist of our 

484 TMK nKLfOfotm A&pt^n op pmtjOBOPUt* 

flfAt limilt* tti tilm thiFfi we liiite the JtKlfje df mtf 
IdeulA, AtKl ilie tUulgfi erf mir <Hnid(ioi 1 le tniifit kmnr 
tlie exiMii tiilim <vf iheOofnl Willi whi<)h for lilttif 
like all <riher ]HFflA}tyle truili, tridAt Im nn noitiiilly re- 
hHmnI KiMft« A M<1 my we oantHrt }iii(iAe with a alt npljr 
thecifeilenl hlenllArri. Our (hnstrlue \n priM^ileftl Unu 
We have tmtml rnit mily nn Ititinlie Heer ot phyAleiil 
faeifijMit All Irifltflie Heer of the lUnnl aa well aa erf 
tlie KvlL tie kiiowA wliAt we Imre mh\ what we 
Im^k. tfi hHykifift f<yr ginnUiMn we Are In tio wine 
hNikirif; f^rf wliAt the reAl worhl (hreft luii <HrfitAln. 

TIiIa, we Miy, we hAre f<niii<l aa a truth, lieeAtme 
we trle<l Uj (Untlfi ererythltiff. We hAre tAketi tlie 
wlriftA (if tlte uwruUig, aihI we hAre flefl ; \mi lie- 
hold, we Are In the niidftt (rf the Hpirlt. Truly the 
mmin tlmt mmie |iefF)ile liAte th<»iif;ht mi fAntAethf 
tntffht hefieeforth Ui tm pnt In the textrtiookn aa mrtth- 
rmm|vlAeeA (it logh^Al AnAlynlfl : 

" Th^y WK'kmi ill llmf Iwitft mft tmt j 
f Rffi fch** <1/fffMi»r «»!/! fhft d/niM." — 

. Kirerjrthing tiuUp we <'An (hmht, but tuii, the Infinite. 
'lliAt ehfdeA eren onr ftlie|rt.j<'ififn. Tlie W(rrhMmiht- 
erA, Afiil the theo<lh«iefl thftt were Ui juftflfy them, we 
(Nnthl well ihmhi. The tnuihiffHU* devh^en weeried 
tiA. All the <mUAo^u*fi (it the reHlfnf.le aoIiooIa were 
jiiftt |ri<'tnreA, tliAf. we <'<nihl mH^]ri, (it rejwt aa we 
eho«H» liy rneAOA of |HrAf,fflAt^A. We tried frO eA<*ft|re 
theifi hII. We forfwrok ttll fhosft gmU thftt were yet 
no fftnU : tfiit l^^re we Imve f^ntnd myrnethinf; thftt 
fthfdeA, And wftxf>A not old, mmiethinf; in whi<'h there 
)a no vftriHideneAA, neither Ahft<low (rf ttirninf;. No 

TBI P068IBaiTT W OWMU 486 

power it is to be raunted, no phuHDukor to be foiled 
by fiUlen ttigeLii nothing finite, nothing itnTing, 
aeeking, keing, idtering« growing we^iy ; the AU- 
Enfolder it Li, and we know its name. Not IIevt|| 
nor LoTe» though theee mLio mre in it and of it; 
Thoo^t it Li, and all things are for ThoQ^t, and in| 
il we lite and mofo. 



U tbMi btUim tbyMtf to cIm •v«r-Uviiig m)4 Abiding Tnilli» tim ^ 
MTti/Hi or 4mUi oi a (ri«n4 Nball iu>t iuaIm Um« 0«d. — fmiiaUdm qf 

Cum ctmtr% ati^iUm§p <|u«i«i)im ui UiU iiootidArAUify vis aoUno mo* 
r«iuf, ««<1 »ui dt l>«) «t r«ruia «idU»raft quiuiwn utt£«MiUt« contciiMi 

Ahmoxa, Kthica, 

Wis are in a lu^w world of DWirm lAU, Tba dark 
world of tl)« iK>wi$rN hm paM^d away from our 
thought Ilero itf tha Eternal, for whleh all tbe^a 
power* aidtft, in wlm'^h thay dwelL Ihivti we are in 
the preiteuije of ttie Idi^al Judge who km>WM all Good 
and Evil. From ttie other Mide the world as we ap- 
prr>a(;tie<l it luid neeme^l «m> restl^tM, no dudieartening, 
mi deaf. Ttie world of our jiostulateti wa« a brighter 
one only W;autte we determined Ui make it 00. But 
tliere waw Hona^thiiig lr>ne«iome in tlte tlu>ught that 
tlie jMMtulateti got, hja answer from tlie real world, 
only their own ecliy, and m>t alwayti that. Tlieir 
world yiWA rattier tlieir own creation tlian an exter- 
nal s'/niething tlmt gave tliem inde|>endent i$upport* 
Hoiiiittiuiei} tliere iii*Amu*A\ to Xnt m/thing liolid tliat 
could e<dio l>ai;k anything at all. Now we seem to 
k>ok u|>ou a trutli tliat t^is&^s iiuleed no BeUUh 
kmgingii of ours, no whims of theologieal traditioui 


no demands «F oar perMiud naurrow Hresu We skaJl 
nol leam in tliis wmv who is first in the kingdom of 
heftven^ nor how the de«d ai« nd»d« nor any answer 
to anv other special demand of any set of men. Wo 
kanu howeve^r^ this at least : AO Irtirt is kmmm to 
Om^ Hon j^iU; amJ ihu /n/jiile. What does tiiat 
inqplv? Let ns see. 

Oar aij^nment is somewhat near to the thoogfat 
diat pardallr satisfied St. Augustine when he found 
it in his Plalo. That thei>^ should be a trudi at all 
unplietsk w« have j«ii»u that thei>^ should be an Infi- 
mte Truths known to an Infinite Thought; or« in 
other woids« that all is for thought, and without 
thought is nothing that is. We also ai^ a part of 
this infinite thought. We know not vet more of the 
JuUnre of this thought. sav« that it must be eternal^ 
all^embmcudg; ami One. ^Vhat then shall we be 
aUe further to sav aKmt it? 

To answer would W to expoimd a svstNn of pin- 
loaofJiT. But we must limit oursielveis here to the 
neeessaiT. Ami si\ for the firsst. we shall tnr to 
pmnt out what this ideal and infinit^^ lifi^ of thought 
that we have f^Himl as the eternal truth of things 
mmmot be ex)Hvt^\i to aivom)dish for the jHirjH^^eis 
ot our religion* ami then tK> e^uisider what we may 
nererthelesss dan^ to hojv f nwi it. 

It cannot bo exjvoted to furnish us an a priori 
knowMge of any fa**t of exivrion^w of any partiou-; 
lar law of nature^ of the destinv of anv one finite be> ; 
ing. All that ix»nain$ just as dark as it was befiu^ 

Wi< iii^iUmr ri^JoiiMf In iUU ri^mih^ mir Imtimit it* Viv 
\HH\y wlio WMiMliifM ini4> i\m U\ml worbl iimy MX{MMlt 
Ui iUul \i «mlKi'Mi| foi' liU iiMliviiltml Milv«iMiiif(«< i nor 
iinMil Im try io IIimI Ui<4I'm ((«nhI inv»NiiiM4i»tM for bi# 
iiMomy. Tim lMilMil4i ilimN ii«/l wmH Uir hU liiillWd^ 
iml ii|»|»rovitl I MHlM/M({h iiMimlly N|mitkliiK l»o iimy do 
woll i</K^tt Uio u\p\mivtil III ilio 1o(IhI1o. Tko Itift* 
iiiUt WMN not mImmU<4| Ui i$nUm hy hU vo(o, mu\ b# 
limy iM/i liiiimmtli It for «llNi'M((itr«l of IiIm ImiiiiIiIo p#> 
tlUooM for Html Uiio((M, nor tlin^nioii It with wmit of 
iH$uMmum \mm^m It iUmn utpi moimii'o |ni#mi»((o fi^r bii 
prlvnto hllU. In 110 hr mm to Nny tlilN U io o/oulotim 
tlio ItMMlf w« nnlotMitiitin|(ly do iio* lint tlion« nm w# 
liitw in onr MthlKiil iliMiM«MMlon« tho inoritl lnNl((ht U not 
mi innnh iMnimirno^l with |iriviito hillM, mm with itortoin 
Krontor iintttMrN, If tint inorul inMl((ht witntM fMg' 
UnM NopiMO't, |>imMihly thn fitilnro of nil tlioiw imf» 
m$uti\ mimmm of nm% Ut (inil nny hint of rtminnm 
from tho AhiMilntti, nmy not rMinlur lin|ioMMlhlo Um 
^thi<tiil Minho'tiikin^M nf tlm Unnmu M|»irlt* If mm in« 
diviilniilM w«< nniMt Imitr tlm iliMMilfnl woriU from tb# 
M|iirit of iiMtni'M t />ir/ f/Mr/tttt, dnn (hint dm flu 
htifift^ynt^ ti^hht mir / Mtill It In poMMihhi thitt with A 
hi|jli4tr inMi|{lit, UniUUm h\hpu thiM HMim Mpiril in ito 
ifUirniil Mini innnrnt iiMtni'M, wo nmy y<4t mmm with 
I f nil rmmiu Mt iMMt t4i MMy i lirhuhnt'r f/t'Ut^ Uu yahnl 
' fnlr^ f/ahnt mlr nlhn^ wtmim Mi< hitL For tlmm Mrit 
iloinMinlM Mini ihnnMinlM, Mmii, mm hiVMr, ih^niMinlM mmo- 
noMM in h^VM, mimI tint roniMo at tlm woihl limy IhwMrt 
hini ) MM UA\»v^ Ini floniMinlM for hiniMtdf |MirM<mMl iin* 
inortMlity, Mini tim I'nni'Mn of tim worhl niMy OMr# 
iiMn((ht fnr IiIm iinllvhliiMl lifii \ mm huroMVudf 

IHE KEUOIOIjS iksiq&t« 4S9 

moaner OTer his ddMl^ he mmy d^uand f cvr his loTed 
ones mbo this immcvrtalitT^ and the coarsie ci the 
ivwid may leave the fate of all his loved ones mys- 
terkios forever; as lover of mankinds he may de- 
mand an infinite fatore of Messed progress fcvr his 
laice^ and the law of the dissipation of energy may 
ffive him the only discoveraMe phvsioal answer to 
his demand; as just man« he may eiy alood that evil 
diall cease from among men« and the wicked may 
still langh in triumph unpunished* And yet for all 
diis he may find some higher compensation* Agnos- 
tic as he will remain about all the' ^wers of this 
worlds about the outNime of all finite processes^ he 
will take comfort in the assodrance that an Infinite 
Beason is aK>ve all and through alU embracing 
evearything^ judging everything^ infUliUe, perfect 
To tlus Thought he may look up^ saying: ^ Thoa 
All-Knowing One seest us« what we arc^ and how we 
strive. Thou knowest our f rame^ and renwmbei^est 
that we ai^ as dust. In thy perfection is our IdeaL 
That thou arU is enoi^ for our moral comfort 
That thou knowost our evil and our good« that gives 
us our support in our little striving for the good* 
Not worthless would we be in thy sight : not of the 
vikst the basek the devilish paitv in the waifu^ of 
this worid* Thoa thst judgest shalt say that we^ 
even in our poor individual* lives^ are bcttier than 
naught Thou shalt know that in our weakness and 
blindness^ in our pain and sottx^w* in our little days« 
in our dark worUU ignorant as to the future con- 
fused with many doubts^ beset with endle^is tanplsi^ 
tions« full of dread, of hesitation^ of sloth, we yet 

MitiKlit, Ntidh MM wit witrit, U) \m in our own fiMliiim 
liktt Ititm I Ut ktiow tbn ttntth liM ituni knowriMl it, (o 
li<< f»«U (rf hi((b«f tif^ liN ilium lirt full, ((I Im lihov^ 
Mtrlfo IM tluni lirt lihovo it, (<) Im of mm HpiHt mm 
llMm nrt Otut, (olio t^t*f«Htt mm tli4t»i mH |wrf«mt. Thid 
Ummi mIimH mm in tui, Mnd iliiM rmnml Ntmll b^ <ikirnMl, 
iiku our knowl<Kt)ftii In tlt^^ w1im( w^ y^gmly Mim 
to (fotUHtivo 1m obMr li)fht. In tlii<« tlut iwm«« tlmt w« 
Mtt*iv» to (tnil iM (<x|wHmuH»(l. Atul wh^n wo try to (b 
ri^ltt, w^ know tlmt tttou tm^ni Iniih our Mtrivin)f Mtul 
our Mumt«iMMi4M Mud our fMilurt^M. And heroin wo Imvo 
itontfort. Wo iMiriMh, hut titou ondtiroMt. OurM Im 
not thy olornity. Hut in ttiy otornlty wo woukl bo 
ronioniliorod, ttot mm roliolM M^MiuMt tito k^nmI, but mm 
<b)orM of tbo ifood i not mm bbitM on tbo tmm of thiM 
tmrt of tliy infinito roMlity, but mm boMltby Iomvom tliMt 
ilourlMliod for m tinto on tbo brMUoboM (tf tlio otoruAl 
troo of llfM, Mud tbMt bMvo fMllon, tbou|fb not int<i 
fftrifoifulnoMN. For io titoo notblnu; Im for^otton/* 

TU\h ibouKibt, of tbo dudifo Umt novor oommom to 
tbink of uH Mu\ of m11 ibInifM, novor olmnu^oM, novor 
ndMtMkoN, Mud Uutt knuwM tbo(tood Nlntply booMUMO 

tbMi ( iood In mu olontottt of ibo 1Vutb porlmpM tbiM 

mu MUMtMin UM wbon mII oImo fMllN. NoUdnif but tbiM 
ntMy bo («ortMlfi t but tIdM, If It l»o not m11 tlmt Moni# 
pooplo bN.vo MiMt^lit', ntMy Ito m ludp t^) um. TIdM Ito* 
il^liMi nmy ItMvo nn Munb hot lltilo ilroN on ItM MitMrN 
OM wo Mt llf'fti loni^od f(M' t but tbon It Im m vory obi 
objof<tli)fi to ibo Mtiu'M to NMy tbot tlioy bMko un no 
t»roo4l, Mod only ^llttor up tlioro In tbo dMrk to bo 
b»okMd Mt. Yot ovon tbo MtMrN Mro wortit Moniotbing 
to m, 

iHE Kusncs nsnra. 4U 


Bodt if ipie kst^ie tdiade HwJtaatioBfcs at our Tie<ir^ wai. "" Jj^ 
pfess to its posid^te relii£;i<Mis ^^mliie^ our first saue is 
one of JQtjr aifel frdddkn^ tofiftl tkat tosr loi^ soi^it 
idkoA of a perfect uiitf of life is l^^e JtiKIa^^ Let ^'/^&^ 
ms hwik aroy fer m moiciit feoit or fiMteqnsteaee^ 
witk its doubts jumI its proUoKs^ to tiw <MMMqMtmi 
of tkat infinite Ii£6. In tlurit life is jJl trad^ fnUy 
present in tbe nniihr of one «t«ml nw ent. TVe 
^Rodd is nonttssof defourate jb«ts^ stock one toMH 
odMT in an esEtemal vaj^ bat, fer tbe infiniliei, oaek 
fact is wlutit it is onbr W rsftson of its plaeie in tbe 
infiiute nuitT. Hue K>oiU of life is tlien wkat ipie 
desii^ it to beu an oij;anic totsJ : and tlie indfiTidU 
«ftl selTies are drops in tl^ ocean of tbe ahdofaite 

Urns tiien^ :sieien in tbe %lit of lids onr re9nlt» 
Ike homan tasks tbal ipie sketeked in oar tedikal 
dbmssfton find tlieir pboe in tbe ohjeictiK^ kvmUL 
Xow. and in fisMt fer tbe first tunes wt oui see wbttt 
^(^ wiere .really trrii^ to ao(X»iplisk tkroi^ onr 
ideaL We KV9^ tnrii^ in a prMtkal may to rad- 
iae wbat mv now p»^x^ to be tlie fnlbirtiss of tke 
life of God. So tiaat die one b^^ieist actaxitT^ in 
vlik^ all homan actaTidds v^»^ to join, is known to 
US now as die p/rcpfrrfiSisifne redlisuxticm fey m^m isf th^e 
fffermiol lifi> Chf am Injfimitf Sji^rk^ So wbowas wv 

fermerfr bad to stv to awsn : IVw4« TonraelT^es to 

« « « 

art^».to ficSes>4Vs t<> diie sJatew or to anv Hkse wvak tixtt 
does teiad to orcianiae toot Exnas into one lifes wie 
niaiy now sabsdtate one absoliite expresMn lior all 



those aocidental expressions, and may say : Devote 
yourselves to losing your lives in the divine Itfe. 
For all these special aims that we have mentioned 
are but means of accomplishing the knowledge of 
the fullness of the truth. And Truth is God. 

Now this precept is no barren abstraction. It 
means to take hold of every act of life, however 
humble and simple. ^* Where art thou, O man ? '* 
our ideal says to us. ** Art thou not in God ? To 
whom dost thou speak? With whom dost thou walk? 
What life is this in whose midst thou livest ? What 
are all these things that thou seemest to touch? 
Whose is all this beauty that thou enjoyest in art, 
this unity that thou seekest to produce in thy state, 
this truth that thou pursuest in thy thought ? All 
this is in God and of God. Thou hast never seen, 
or heard, or touched, or handled, or loved anything 
but God. Know this truth, and thy life must be 
transformed to thee in all its significance. Serve 
the whole Grod, not the irrationally separate part 
that thy delusions have made thee suppose to be an 
independent thing. Live out thy life .in its full 
meaning ; for behold, it is God's life." 

So, as it seems, the best that we coidd have wished 
from the purely moral side is attained. The Di- 
vine Thought it is that actually accomplishes what 
we imperfectly sought to attain, when we defined 
for ourselves Duty. In the Divine Thought is per- 
fectly and finally realized the Moral Insight and the 
Universal Will of our ethical discusaion. And this 
insight and will are not realized as by some Power, 
that then should set about to accomplish their ful« 

/ r ' 


fiUment extenudly. But in the infinite, where a11 ia 
eternally complete, the insight is both present and! 
fulfilled ; the universal will gets what it 8eeks| 
There is no lack there, nor hesitation, nor striving, 
nor doubt, nor weariness ; but all is eternally per- 
fect triumph. 

Now this, though it isounds mystical enough to *. ,^4 
our untrained common sense, is no mere poetry of .^^ ^)' 
thought. It is the direct philosophical outcome of 
what we have found by a purely logical process. 
The driest thought^ the simplest fragment of ration* 
ality, involves this absolute, infinite, and perfect 
thought. And this it involves because it involves 
the possibility of error, and because, as separate from 
the infinite, this possibility of error in a single thought 
becomes unintelligible and contradictory. We did 
all that we could to escape this conclusion. We 
wamleretl in the thickets of confusion and contra- 
diction, until there was no chance of finding there a 
further pathway. And then we tumeil to see, and 
behold, Cf od was in this place, though we had known 
it not. The genuine Gotl that we thus found was no 
incomplete, struggling God, whom we might pity in 
his conflict with evil, but the all-embracing thought, 
in which the truth is eternally finished. And this 
God it is that we now see as the complete realiiation 
of our own ideal, as of all worthv ideals. 

For iH>nsider if vou wiU this element in our con* 
ception of this Thought. Can this infinite know it* 
self as imperfect, or as not possessing some object 
that it knows to be good ? This is impossible, and 
doubly so. Not only does the conception of an In* 


finite, in whioh and for wliioh are all thingN, wholly 
exolttde the poMftibility of any ^m1 thing beyond 
the Infinite itself, but almi in Ntill another way doeif 
the name trttth appear. For if you iup)Kim9 that thin 
inflnite thought denireii nome perfection (i, that it 
han not, then eitlier it in right in Nup]Kniing thin per* 
feotion to Ih) truly desirable, or it in wrong. In 
eitlier eaue the previous argument of (yha)iter XI. 
ihowN UM that the tntth or the falidty of thin judg- 
ment of denire about (i mufit exiitt an known truth 
or falnity for a higlier thought, whioh, including the 
thought tlmt deniren, and ititelf actually having thin 
denired goo<l thing, comparoM the dcftired object with 
the conc!i)pti(m of the thought that deniren it, and 
judgen of them both. AlM)ve the denire, then, munt 
in every cane exint the fiatiMfa<$tion of the denire in a 
higher thought. Ho that for the Inflnite there can 
Ih) no unnatiNfliMl dcMtrc. lJnNatif(fle<l desire exiiittf 
only in the flnite iNjingn, not in the incjlunive Inflnite. 
Tlie world then, an a whole, in and munt l)e ab- 
mdutely gcKNl, Ntnce the inflnite thottght mtMt know 
what iff deitirable, and knowing it, munt have prenent 
in itMclf the tnte objectn of denire. The existence 
of any amount of pain or of other evil, of crime or 
of bfimmcMM in the world an we nee it, in, thun viewed, 
no evidence againnt the absolute go<KlneMH of thingM, 
rattier a guaranty thereof. For all evil viewml ex- 
\ ternally in junt an evidi^nce to un flnite l>eingM that 
'' there exiMtn Momeihing dcMirable, which we have not, 
and which we juMt now cannot gfft. However Ntuln 
lH)ni thin evil \h for um, that han natight to do with 
the jierfection of tlie Inflnite. For tlie inflnite did 

Ml Mfe His «nl,Vit Ife «^ ^eig^^l^ wM tibe 
mMmgi isf k^ nAiA irfegd nwtt db^ in its sqpHndl^ 
wfis^TiL, — dH Ifcis k m fihfBiMiM far Ite wthiii 
dM«f^ mUok, in kMwias tdbis ^tO., Mmhr knows 

W« lam wwl kM «n wt^gmmtmk iSkA «mU Mt W 

m wImIa, wie CNMJMmdL doyt n W^ 
imU wonll yet dktsm 90nw«l^ Agtwlnii 

m^nllAisiniphr? It i^piiM doA Ab Wi^ wmll 
dasire n 9tnl» ^ tilan^ <J Mici i flnt firam Ikie ^esxaSmg 
nB^ ind 'iPvdU 4dk» ^ iM&xii^ 1^ 
tittn tfe esiitbi^ <Mn^ Bnl ^iwnUI W Irabr Iomw 
tlub deai^ staiti^ tto be Wtlier^ <^ 
M? W1m!» trnlr knd'w^ tlife xalne «l a 5*ilie siT« 1^ 
nne tkitpdssessiasil? En^i^irleid^ k tctf Ikie pMsent 
HmmEm^K^ kein^ ^i(>iMAd n«* rHihr Idmiiw Ikie Wil- 
iw Mn;^ nnlass k iip«i^ mbyn^T n(it^ IkHk 

in Aaat <tt9e W ^K>iMAd indnd^ n^ tonhr Ikie prK«ni; 
vwidL Iwt die p«rfe«*/ wMidL, md kk ttKi^ftl ^tite 
<v«U[ n^ be «Mie ai SsamHumSL Sa i1)^ todier altera 
udTie reHKjan& Our $«q<)po»ii beuwr ^K>tMAd «nhr 
bdpe tfe^ktaml sinlie «ci be betstor tkan ^irlalfc ^(ns 

ivnl dbyindk fai^ ki>>^ Bnl ^iwnUI bk b<?fie be n trne 
<tte? II s«k tben k <«c<)nM <wIt W tbrne in <tt9e tl^ 
perfecttaon k ah«Mhr ivnliaiei in a kii^iier iIm^cuhIa. 
For tfe Infinite tim tlie s|ne5<t»<in. "^ \^ tSm^ sny- 
tkiBur beit;tier tkin wltji$^ exkt$t? "^ »n<4t be XKoiJiensiew 
For Idm tiie nctoal az^d d>e poisssabie j^ ti^^:^(<lM«' in 
M»e trcetk; nnd i&k <«>e tnalKmnncA; be«enL 


Nup|M>rt* 'V\m iiti|mrfo4ttlan ii1 tltn |mr«)ly mwnl riitw 
lny in tmrt in tint fiml ilmi tlMtrci wm nn innirr inborn* 
pliititmiMM lilMitit tliD rmy dudnlti^m of oar i4(iiil« m 
woll itM n dmilit ubiiut lU ttiUtinnbilliy* Tiiiii inn#r 
iii<3oni|il4»t<tiiDHM muMi liiiw<sv(»r 1)0 r<itiii)r<iil in liml iar 
tbn InitniUi Mind. In dtiiillntr with tli4) work of lifni 
wo ontno to li |Hiint wlioro wo nnUU tbuM far wo oiin 
fwo (mr wiiy, Imt boyimd timt our idoul roniainn in* 
o<mi|iloto* Wo muMt Imvo fnith, no wo impliodf timt 
H wo attttinofl MO niiujti id tlio i<loiil mooIhI oonUi* 
tion, tlio way froin timt |M4nt ofiwurd woul4 booomo 
olofir* Hut now wo moo wliy tiio wny wimlil of noooM- 
wity Imoimio oliiar to ono wImino I(nowl4$<l|;o of lifo 
woro hroftil Mumtgh Mul 44«o|) onimKli* Fin* in tbo 
Inilniio ttuit inoluiloM nil llfo, timt roMtM ulioro i^ 
Hn\Ui Mtrifo in ttio nliMoluio uttiiinmont of tlio iiloil, 
tlioro oan \m no in<}innplot4tnoMM, no iorMo of an i4oalt 
Imt n fNirfoot ktumUulnii of what Im nioMt oxitollont* 
^diOMo faint f(rroMlia4lowin((M of a |iorfo<tt lifo titat art 
anil m*Umm mul mmhl work mIiow Ut um, niuMt lio tiff 
tlu) Inflniio no faint foroMhailowin^fM, hut ahMoluto 
oitrtainty ami fmrfoiH^ oloarnoMM, llonoo hy our ro- 
liKimiM (li>iH.rino wo ((ot not uwn^ly tho aMMuranoo tItat 
MUi'li UUmU m wo havo aro roali//4i<l for tho Indnitof 
trut, iHttti^r than UiIm, wo ^<tt our firMt full aMMuram^ 
that our huMUupbto hloaU havo an mutual lunnplotion 
aM hlitalM. For wo thuM ^itt our firMi full aMMuranoo 
that tlufro Im In tlio hi^ltoMt mmmi any <ldinito hloal 
at alh PoMMintiMU), aM wo havM Moim, hnplioM oithot 
(louht tiUmi what tlut Idoal Mtato Im, or unavohlahio 
Ituik of that Mtato. Aiul tlio Infinilo oan Uo no Tom* 
MimiMt in oitltor moiimo. 


The religicNda oomf art that a num can get from 
tiontemplating all this tmth is indeed reiy different 
from the consolation of the separate indiyidual as 
loeh that many people want their religion to give 
them. And this verj fact famishes us a good test 
of moral sinoertt j. The religions comfort that we 
find is no comfort saYe to the tralj religioas spirit in 
ns. It sajs to us : ^^ Yon that have declared joor 
willingness to serve moral ideals because they are 
sooh, does this help you to know« not of a goodly 
place where you personally and individually shall 
Uve without tears forever as a reward for your aer- 
Tices^ but of an etermd Judge that respects in no 
whit your person, before whom and in whom you are 
quite open and perfectly known» who now and for 
all eternity sees your good and your evil« and esti* 
mates you with absolute justice ? This blaie of in- 
finite light in which you standi does it cheer you ? 
If it does> then you are glad to learn that above all 
your strug^es there is the eternal Victory^ amid all 
jour doubts there is the eternal Insight^ and that 
jour highest triumph, your hi^^iest conception, is 
just an atom of the iniinite truth that all the time is 
there. But if all this is true of you« then you do love 
the ideal for its own sake. Then it is not your tri- 
umph that you seek« but the triumph of the Highest. 
And so it is that you rejoice to Icam how this that is 
beat in the world not only will triiuuph« but always 
has triiuupheil, since, as you now learn, for God the 
highest good is thus a matter of direct ex))ericnce/^ 

The writer remcuiWrs well, how some vears since, 


all this doctrine seemed to him shrouded in 

, , l,^*'^' 'i 

448 THte Ricuuioui A%noT or pitiLOiopitr. 

tlouht, ho honrd n vciry thoughtful und ]Ao\m friond 
nmintiihi that tlut Ki*oat<iHt outufort to bo got from » 
boliof in (iod 1m thu mouho thnt liowovor itntoh tho 
, world umy tnUJudgo um, howovor ttmcih ovon our bout 
nnd oloHiiMt frlomlM nmy luUundorMtiuul um, thoro in 
^.otui ))orfoot nil-knowing Thought tlmt oompridiendM 
juM fur bottor thnn wo o<mi|)rohond ourmdvoM. (iood- 
lioMM U, in thiit thought, oMtinmtod nt ItM full worth, 
^fotldng 1m htddon from tho Judgo. And whut wo 
iiro, Ho knowoth it nltogotluir. Tho proMont viow 
MnoniM to tho nuthor to numt tho oonditiouM tlmt hiii 
frinnd horo hml in mind. Thoinm hm n dooti*{no tlmt 
thnro iM fi big powor tlmt llglttM and boatM down 
othnr pownrM in ttio Horvino of tito good, In opon to nil 
tho obJontiouM iMiforo HuggoMto<l. Th\n warrior, why 
dooH ho not win? Thin fdayor of ovil thingM, thU 
bindnr of Hiitiut, who boiiMtM ttmt all ttiingM will yot 
bo )Hit undor IiIm fnni, -» haM ho not Imd all otornity 
In wlilnii to put all iiilngM undor hU foot, and han 
hn dono it yot? Ilo nmy l)o indood good, but Momo- 
how dUaMttir moouim to purxun him. HoligioUM oom- 
foi'i In cMuitiunplaUng Idm you <<an havo if you Im- 
linvn lu him, Imt always you fni^i ilutt i\\\n oomfort in 
fduidowtid l)y tlio old doul)t : ix Iim aft^u* all what wo 
want him to Im, tiio vlntoriouM rulnr of tito world ? 
Hut If wo inavo tliM oUu^naliy doulitful noniimiplation 
of ilin world aM a lioap of pownrx, and oonm to tho 
din<p(ir truth of tho world aM Thought, thon thoMa 
doid)tM muMt dlMapptmr. 

Ynt to mIiow thai iliiM Im inns wo muMi dwoil u))on 
doulH'M a iiitln lotigtir, and niUMt pomparo our proMont 
viow of tho Moiutlon of tlio probiom of ovil with tho 
viowM oondmnnitd in (Jimp. Vtll. 



So tut we haTe come in joyful coiili»iiphlioii 6t 
tibe DiTine Tmtlu But now is there not a serpent 
in this Eden also t We have beai taJking of the in- 
finite goodness ; bat after all, what shall we still sa j 
of that finite ^partial eril^^ of lifi^? We sean to 
have somehow pioxed a priori that it must be ^ uni- 
Tersal good.'^ For, as we have said^ in the Infinite 
life of our ideal theie can be no imperfei^ion. This, 
we have said^ is the demonstration that we missed 
all through our studv of the woild of the Powers. 
Since we approached that world from without^ and 
never felt the [ndise of its heart's bloody we had noth- 
ing but doubt afler doubt when we contanplated the 
evil that seemed to be in it^ Our efiorts to explain 
eril $e«»ned hollow and worthless. There might be 
some deeper truth involved in these efforts : but we 
knew it not Well« aYi> we right in declaring that we 
have altogether oveit^cone our diffifHdty now ? Ap- 
parently we are as far as ever from seeing hmt the 
partial evil can be the universad good: we onfy 
show^ fnim the conception of the infinite itsself « Mai 
the partial evil must W die univer^ good. God 
must see how ; and we know this because we know 
of God. Moi^ than this we seem to be unable to 

But will this do ? Have we not fergottod one ter- 
rible ciuiseqiwaice of our doctrine? The partial evil 
is universal gvxxU is it? There is no evil? All 
Apparent im}>erfection is an illusion of our partial 
view? So then irA4<y« £$ IA41 dUmoe lo i« m a yret 

in (/nith ntbt/ald bp, 1 U wA \^Hfi Mitt UiAi k riimd 
Ut tAf\k^ (Umn nnkUmimm p^tAynmA Sty i\m fifty 
iiuftiK^ ihni WM Uf ^ir<» H difim ttttmigth 1 TM« 
«til tbui f fl^i \mii \n ihU tin\Ui mtiid k * iUAth 
iA^m. H^f ihmt^ Knhy flgfti ii? If f tht f^fmA wc^rki^ 
ihti wwM U \ui\nSuAy if/mA imA pmimfti II i mmn 
to d4t ^il wfthf^^ iim WftM U in imifi iup n^mmi 
t^n\n% %(niA U tuA SnsMMt ttiufi mmti\h% ^\\^ tm H 
H w<rr^^ iimt iim mmnintt ^il mmM Sm * twii MiHfi 
in (>/>^lf in i^iuftm lif^ i# ^^ttii/i^ If I )iAt<» iMirt«r 

M^ iftti (ifpil li i# *11 uiiiMi (Uf^i iUnm lud M^ 
fwti m49, Or rmimr t mn/y my^ in mt fhr m im mt^ 
nm Ut i^myipsiM \tin iniSniiA ituih^ int n\fmAy htm wm 
Innn n\i t^U^niiy* \ hn,if^ m^infi Uf Ait wiili tlur 
hniAimm^ mf^ Uf H^mi^rnipiHU^ in Aimy ituUfi^nm iim 
nnitiriUtft tnif^,y ntntm^ ifl mmniuft, #til^ %nii Ut my 
wHh ft mrrif iff Mnnmii fffff^rmum Uini iimy hmU twy 
1)1 ftfi/l ffpH4im iff nm^ iftti ihni fff inmrm (iftd mm 
titrtfnfih iimn f')4^riy Mum^t mrtn^At^m* 't\m miiA ii 
in itnih /^y^llirm Wfti^f^ n/iui \m \tm^ mt i^niiM * 
tmittm HH iit l/^/k \my(rtu{ iim i\t(f\m M miAiy tm it iiwy 
w^rfA in iim mUn nniiy nl n numni/Mn ink^i Aim! 
m^ tny t^iifi't^fti in nimpiy » v4rttimn\AHium //f (innVn 
i(fimi4ftnf iffit fflii^twim Mt itiin Mnnm^fmni* 

H^t Miyn f^m tnnn miut fmt^ trtiiy iitin mt^mrti^tA 
tW tft imr fi4fffi,rin4^i tn t^t fur M^ M4inAinf( (mm 
nuffpi (m^jtAiU fff ntfin^ ^vil ffrJnj^t ^^ ^y ^ ** ^thni 
iim^ yffftAf^r i^HfUn >^(, imi (iffA mntti, nm ii itthif 
f(fKfA/' w^ iUp Jri/(^ tMnnin UtAotmd^ mui imr f(Ai^ 
Urn mtnpiy tnmnt^ h m/fi (A lAtfumi ini\\Vlm'm%m Uf ihm 


a|qp«r«it distiiiclioii of good and otiL lldsis in 
htok tho proper prmelkal «^tudo o£ eT^n the moat 
eunetst man in tho presNmee of evil that be eannot 
vnderslaiid and oannol affeek In sueli matters uro 
musi indeed be eonteiii with tbe passire knowledge^ 
Dealb and tbe unaTvodable pains of Kfev the down* 
bH of ehemhed pUns^ all tbe eiuehj of fita^ wo 
must kam to look at as things to us c^paque^ but to 
God« who knows them f ullj> somehow elear and ia> 
tionaL So regarding them« we must aim to get to 
tiie stage of stcdeal indifference about them. They 
are to us tbe aeeitlents of existeneew We bare no 
business to murmur about tbenu since we see thai 
God« experiencing tbem« somcliow must expimmeo 
tiiem as eIenM»its in an absolutely perfect life* F 
God we ne^^ard not as tbe mvsterious power who 
made tbenu and who tbcn msy bsive been limited to 
tiie use of imperfect mcans« but as tbe absc^to 
thought that knows tbem : so tbat« bowerer inexpIi-> 
eable they must now he to us« tbev are in themsehres 
nothing that God vaiulv wishes to have otberwisa» 
but tbej are organicall v jconed with tbe rest of tba 
glorious Wbide. 

Such i» indeetl tbe only present word for us finito 
minds about many of tbe shadows of seeming eril 
tiiat we kuve to behold in tbe worlil of tbe appar- 
txkify external facts. Such bi^wever is m4 tbe last 
word for us about tbe onlv evil that has any imme* 
diate moral signitHnuHW namch\ tbe evil that we see^ 
not as an externals sba^lowy mvi^t^ but as a prvsi^t 
faet^ experience^! iu us. Here it i$ that tbe objector 
just nwntioned seems really formidable to us» But 


just here it is that we find the aniiwer to him. For 
in the world of our own acts we have a wondrous ex* 
perienoe. Wo realiaEo evil, we fight it, and, at the 
same time, we realize our fragment of the perfect 
divine life in the moment itself of struggling with 
tlie evil. And in this wondrous experienoe lies the 
whole solution of the ancient problem of the existence 
of moral evil. For instance, I find in myself a self- 
ish impulse, trying to destroy the moral insight. 
I Now of this evil impulse I do not say, looking at it 
i objectively : ^* It is somehow a part of the universal 
good ; " but, in the moment of moral action I mcJke 
it, even in the very moment of its sinfulness, a part 
I of my good consciiousness, in overcoming it The 
imoral insight condemns tlie evil that it experiences ; 
\and in condemning and conquering this evil it forme 
\and isy together with the evil^ the organic toted that 
'.constitutes the good will. Only through this inner 
victory over the evil that is experienced as a con- 
quered tendenc^y does the gcKMl will have its being. 
Now since the perfect life of (itod must have the ab- 
sohitely good will, therefore it also must be conscious 
of HU(;h a vi(;tory. Thus the solution of our diffi- 
culty l>cginH to upi)ear. And thus we reap a new 
religiouH fniit from our ethical doctrine, to whose 
main principles we niust (mce more here refer the 

When I expericn(*.e tlie victory of the moral in- 
sight over the bad will, I experience in one indivis- 
ible moment lM)th the partial evil of the selfish im- 
pure (whieh in itself w^ a s(^])arate fact would be 
wholly bad) and the universal good of the moral 


TietMj^ which has its «xi$t«iic«e only in the OTier^ 
whdymin^ o( die eviL Sis in the gocnl aiet^ I expert^ 
ence die good »s my evil lost in goodne«a^ ms a rabel* 
lion a^nst die good conqnei^ in the moment of its 
hirdiK as a pea^ diat ari$ei$i in the midst of this tit- 
nmi^hant confliti^ as a satisfaiction that liros in this 
restless activity of inneor warfare This child of inner 
strife is the good^ and the only mond gocid^ we know^ 
What I here have {vneisent in me wh^i I do a good 
ad b an elenH^nt of InnVs lif^ / JUfy Jir^Hj^ Mr- 

ifo&tf ; for ^ it is a relatively universU good in me 
when^ overcoming mywlf, I choose the univi^rsal 
wilL The had imi^dse is still in me^ bnt is defeated^ 
In the choice against evil is the v^ry life of goodness^ 
which wouM Iv a )vide^ stxipid al%stractlon <4herwiji^ 
Even j^ to take anoUK>r view« in the overcoming of 
oar $ie)viiratencss as indiviihi;|ls lies, as we saw in the 
previous U^^k« onr sense of dn^ wordi of the nniver^ 
sal life. Ami what wx^ here ex}^rience in the single 
moment of time, and in the narri>WTioss of mir finite 
livets, (?oil must exj^rience, and eternally. In our 
single good acts we have thus the specim^i of the 
eternal lealixation of goi^ilncss. 

I^it now Ih>w simple bcdwios the answer to that 
lerriUle suggestiiw of a n^Huent since ! How sini}^ 
al^ the si^hiti^^u of die pT\>Ulcm of evil ! ** If I want 
to do eviU I oann\>t>^* sai\l the ol>jectK>r ; ** for God 
the jvrfect one inclwilt>s me xrith th*^ ie«st» and <^ 
cannot in his ]vrfivtion be hurt by me. Let me do 
what I wilK luv act can t^nlv seem l^« and cannot 
be bad« All evil is illusion^ hence there is no UKNtal 
difterenoe in action poasiU^^^ 


** Right indeed/' we answer, ** but al«o wrong, be- 
catuie half the truth. The half killH, the whole gives 
life. Why can»t thou not do any absolute evil? Be* 
cause thy evil intent, whichi in its separateness, 
would be unmixed evil, thy selfish will, thy struggle 
against the moral insight, this evil will of thine is no 
lonesome fact in the world, but is an element in the 
organic life of Uod. In him thy evil impvlee forme 
part of a total good will^ ae the evil impulse qf the 
good WfOn forme am, dement in hie realization qf 
goodneee. In (iod thy separatoness is destroyed^ 
and with it thy sin as evil. For good will in the in^ 
finite is what the goo<l man finds the good will to be 
in himself, namely, the organic total whose truth ii 
the dlecovery of the evil. Therefore is Uod*s life 
perfect, because it includes not only the knowledge 
of thy finite wicked will, but the insight into its truth 
as a moment in the real universal will. 

If tlien thou wert good, thou wouldst )>o good by 
including the evil impulse in a realization of its 
evil, and in an acceptance of the higher insight. If 
thou art evil, then in thyself, as separate l>eing, thou 
art condemned, and just because thy separate evil 
is cimdemncd, therefore is the t^)tal life of (iod, that 
includes thee with thy condemnation and with the 
triumph over thee, gcK)d. 

This is the ground for the solution of the problem. 
To go more into detail : Kvil is for us of two classes: 
the extenial seeming evil, suc^h as death, pain, or 
weakneMS of charac^ter; and internal evil, namely the 
bad will itself. J^C/ause we know so little, there* 
fore we can never tell whether those externally seen 


of aonie wicked diabcdical will-powitt at work aboult 
OS. Somehow tken, we never know exMcdj Iiow,; 
tiieoe aeeming great otiIb must be in God nnivennd 
good. But with regard to the only evil that we know 
as an inward ezperienoe, and so as a oertain realilj, 
namely, the Eril Will»we know both the ezistenoe of 
diat» and its true relation to uniTeraal goodnews bo> 
eanae and only beoanae we experience botii of diem 
first through the moral insight, and then in the good 
aot Goodness having its veiy htd in the inidght 
and in its exercise^ has as its elements the evil im- 
pulse amd its correction. The evil will as such may 
eitfier be conquered in our personal ezperimoe, and 
Aen we are ourselves good ; or it may be conquered 
not in our thought considered as a separate thon^t, 
but in the total thought to which oun is so related, 
as our single evil and good thoughts are rdated to 
tiie iriiole of us. The wicked man is no eiamplft of 
God^s delight in wickednen, just as the evil impube 
tiiat is an element in the good man^s goodness^ and 
a veiy real element too« is no proof that the good 
man delights in eviL As the evil impube is to the 
good man« so is the evil will of the wided man to 
the life of God. in which he is an dement. And 
just because the evil will is the only evil that we are 
sure of, this explanation is enough. 

Thus the distinction between good and evil ro- 
mains as clear as ever. Our difficulty about the 
matter is removed, not by any barren external the* 
odicy« such as were the forms of guess-work that we 
eritidsedin a previous chapter, but biy a plain refieo* 


tion on the moral experience itself. Ooodness ai • 
moral 6X{)erieuoe is for u« the overcoming of ezperi- 
enoed evil ; and in the eternal life of Ood the reali- 
sation of goodness must have the same sort of or- 
ganic relation to evil as it has in us. Ooodness is 
not mere innocence, but realized insight To the 
wicked man we say : Ood is good because in think- 
ing thee he damns thy evil impulse and overwhelms 
it in a higher thought of which thou art a part And 
in so far as thy will is truly evil, thou art in Ood 
just as the evil is in the good man ; thou art known 
only to be condemned and overcome. That is thy 
blessed mission ; and this mission of evil such as 
thine is indeed an eternal one. So that both things 
are true. The world is wholly good, and thou, such 
as thou individually art, mayest be damnably evil if 
so thou desirest 

We do not say then tliat evil must exist to set the 
good off by way of external contrast. That view we 
long since justly rejected. We say only that the 
jevil will is a conquered element in the good will, and 
is as such necessary to goodness. Our conception of 
the absolute unity of Ood's life, and that conception 
alone, enables us to apply this thought here. No 
fonn of dualistic Tlicism has any chance to apply 
this, the only satisfactory theodicy. If Ood were 
coueoived as external to his creatures, as a power 
that made them beyond Iiimself, tlie hoi)eless prob- 
lems and the unworthy subterfuges of the older the- 
Oilicies would come hswik to torment us. As it is, 
the solution of the problem of evil is given us in the 
direetest and yet in the most unexpected way. 


L^ US oompare this solatioii with othfira. Evil, 
said one tiiouj^t^ before expounded^ is an illusioii of 
the pixtial Tiew^ as the shapelessness of the ira^^ 
ment of a statue is no disproof of the real beauty of 
the whole. We replied in a previous chapter to this 
notion, by saying that evil seems so positive an ele- 
ment in the worM as to make very hard this concep- 
tion of the partial evil as good universally in the 
esthetic sense in which shapelessness of parts may 
coexist with a total beautv of die statue. For the 
fragment of the statue is merely an indifikrent bit of 
stone without character* But the evil in the world 
seems in positive crying opposition to all goodness. 
Yet nowi. in the moral experience^ we have found a 
wholly diflEevent relation of evil part to good whole. 
My good act is good just because of the evil that I 
exists in it as conquered elennnit. Witliout the evil * 
moment achud in it» the total act could be at best 
innocents not good. It is good by reai^ui of its 
structure. That structure includes the evil wilL but 
so induiles it that the whole act is gooiL Even so« 
as we declare^ (.tody's lifo includeis^ in the organic 
total of one conscious eternal instants, all lifo. and 
so all goodness and evil. To say that Inxl is never> 
theless perfectly good is to say. not that Itod is 
innocent^ knowing of no evil whatever, and includ- 
ing none ; but that he so inclinlcs tlie evil will in 
the strticture of his good will, as the gixxl man. in 
one indivisible moment, inclmlc^ his evil will in his 
good will : and that God is gixid only because he 
does so. 

Again, to pass to another explanation, it has been 



Mid that evil exbtU in tlie world m a meaiM to good* 
nofM. We objected to tliiii that it puts the evil and 
the good fint in «e])arate being^i in separate act« or 
momenii, and then niaken the attainment of the good 
result dependent on tlie prior attainment of the iep- 
arate and independently prenent eviL Now all that 
explanation could only explain and juntify the act* 
of a finite Power^ which^ not yet pouMMiing a given 
good things Meeki it through the mediation of fMima 
eviL In no wiiie can thin explanation apply to God 
a« infinite. lie Im no finite Power, nor does he make 
or get things external to himnelf. Hence he cannot 
be Miid to um meann for the attainment of end«« 
But our explanation doen not make evil a meami to 
get the separate oml, goodnew9. We nay that the con« 
nection i« one (ft organic part with organic whole ; 
that goodness has its life only in the instant of the 
discovery and inner overcoming of the evil will ; and 
that then9f(jrc any life is goo<l in which the evil will 
' is present only as over(^mie, ami so as lost in the 
I goo<l wilL Wc appeal to the moral experience to il^ 
lustrate how, when we do gcKKl, the evil will is pres- 
ent as a real fact in us, whi(;h yet does not make us 
as a whole bad, lint just W$ause it is jiresent as aa 
overcome element, is, even for that very reason, nec- 
essary to make us ffoixh And we go on to say that 
even so in (UhI the evil will of all who sin is pres- 
ent, a real fact in the Divine Life, no illusion in so 
far as cme sees that it exists in (hxl and nowhere 
else, Init for that very reamm an element, and a nec- 
essary element, in the tc/tal goodness of the Univer- 
sal Will, wliich, realized in God, is related to the 

vilb df th« «iiiti0r!!i A« Uk" trills o( lh« goixt iiii»i «m 

mhI mii«t iH> «m iUu^tum. Tht^ obj^ti\m« lo thi« 
vfew rtwit vm* pnn'um% urgKHl in Clvii>t«&r VI IL wttw 
iJl ttpi^iodMo k^ t\\^ >^\rM of (H)t(^«<s vrliioh >n^ 

iubj^t t^^ Uh?*i^ critioiMu^. Ami rtH> nvoml tp^xi^m- 

txnc^ vrf Ui« i^ily (Hurtisil ovil tluil xifv ol^rlj* know to 
b« t^wtt A )VMi4«il ii>viU tiMuoly^ Uh> ^?vil wUL Th(^ iftx- 
pbai^ili^m is tlmt tXw gxHHl ;iiot luis^ it» oxi^h>4io<> mhI 

This f^vil must n\X iH> «iu oxt^nnil t^viU Wvxmil llh^ 
gooit wilU l>nt mu!«t W ox)M>rion\>iHi in Uio winH> imti- 
Yi»iM<> nu^^iii^nt in xrhioJ) il is^ tmn^^onvtfiHL Tluil 
thi« wxMulixHis nni^Mi i«( )HVk»iUU\ wv ^inii^^r AihI «» 
ftiol in thp momU ox|vri^m>is Xo g^mnini^ moml |^HK^ 
IM^«» i« )HVM(iMo «!i>» in Uio nu\l»t oC snoli innt^r w^ir- 
fc«>\ Tho *lv^xiHM> of Uio ovil imiHil^ l^xv« n;iin|;^hl 
bnl inm¥£H*no<> or insUniH^ momlly insi(u^l »nit <vl\u^ 
lw«k (?\HHlno!W J* rtii* oi):[;ini»n\ of »tr\^q::lin|;: ol<w 
iM»it». Xow« 9Ih^ vtv \t«H^l9m\ in iW in(tnih> mhI uniUin) 
Ihon^t of Innt Uiis nnit>^ of |a>HHlno^^ i» otKMrtiiftUy 
piM^Q^it IuhI'a lifo is Uns intinitt^ nN$(t<« Hivf <rfHtH 
/rvHw hnt in (A^ if^^iU^^^ str{f^^ n^ in sub«l«mo<^ !!<«*►• 
olittts 90 w^ «ui<ii origin^idly Uinght 



Tho problom of tlio oxistonoo of ovil tliuii treated 
as our liiuitH allow, wo muHt return to a study of the 
visiblo world. Tliat wo foruiorly refused to find re- 
li(pous oomfort in that world, de{)ended u|X)n our 
previous manner of approaching it. It was, so 
approached, the world of doubt; but now it may 
prove no longer disheartening, so that we may be 
able to get in it a oonorete hold of useful trutli. We 
must briefly sketch tlie pnicess of return. Our Inflp 
nite, on(H3 known, is known not as an abstraotioUi 
but as an inunediately actual object of knowledge* 
His tlien is this visible world ; and, knowing the 
fact, we return (cheerfully and courageously among 
the facts that l>efore Hcemcd dead externalities, to 
find his trutli in them. For our general l)elief in tlie 
infinite rutionulity of things is uHch)Hs to su]H)rsede 
any jot or tittle of (uircful s(*icntiflo study of the com- 
mon world of ex|M'rience. Ik) this as]MHct of the mat- 
t4)r woU underMt<MHl. Sonic ohicr fonns of idealism 
have l(M>kcd ooldly on exju'riciuw. Ours <t(WH not. 
To UH, if you want to nMilixe your ideal you must 
know the means, you must study appliod ethics as 
well as the idoal itself ; and only fn)m soien(*e, from 
hanl, dry, (Mindful coll<M*tion and coHaboratton of 
facts, from cautious gcMicralizations, from endh»ss ex- 
perinu*nts, observations, cattMilations, can mankind 
ho|H) to learn the mciuis of realizing their ideals. 
Vet mens only fnnn ^^xm*t s<M<*n<*e <*an you get the 
l>est concrete examph's of tlmt unity of con<*<«ption, 
that mastery of complex details, tlmt exhaustive pe^ 

m uuGioiis TssKon. 461 

fcetxHi of inaii^t, that w« most attribute In an injB- 
nitely compkate form to our all • embratung Ideal 
Thoughtt now that w« baT« gol h before us aa our 
IdaaL Tbal all facts and idationa of faets should 
mppemr in one moment of insight to the all-knowing 
thought is our postulate, and, as wi& haTe shown, it is 
no mere pestulale, but a necesaaiy and afaatJute prin- 
ciple of philosophy. We must go lo exact setenee to 
find illustrations of how all this can be in particular 
cases realiJKd. As the equation of a curre expresses 
in one thought all the properties of the curve, as the 
law of a physical process includes all the cases of 
that process under any of the supposed conditions^ 
as a function of a TariaUe may be the sum of a long 
series of quantities, each one of which is a deriyed 
function of the first muki(died by a particular coeffi- 
cient, so that the one function b the united expres- 
sion of the numerous separate functions: eren in 
such wise must the Infinite thought comprehend in 
some supreme highest unity all the facts and rela- 
tions of fact» that are in the world of truth. For 
us then the highest achievements of science are the 
dim shadow of the perfection of the infinite thought. 
And to science, accordingly, we must go, not for the 
invention, but for the intellectual illustration of our 
ideal. And science we must treat as alMohite mis- 
tress of her own doiuain. Of the world as a whole, 
of the eternal as such, of infinite past time, of the 
inner truth of things, science pretemls to tell and 
can tell nothing. Nor does science invent, nor yet 
can she prove, her own postulates, as we previously 
defined them, fiut in the appKiaation of her postn* 

w^lfrri/'^ iff hhfiiftJidy. To iUfttH fiw <^ApA/<fiy m fri^ 

jyH iry m tf^fi,liy^\ in ih^ fH4flM (A nn^tt^, A jtrU/H 
'w^ /'^n ffHili/^ Fr/z^hifff; Aty<mt fini^ fA<<tA, mi^#if ihfti 

All ih^ WA krr//w %Un%% ih^^im. WhAi ih^ t^f^^ M* 

ih^r w^ft mif <mly i'4fnAmi \n ft^wlying f^nliiy Word 

Ir^, A^rrr^ f(Ai/ri^y tmt ffirr/lAfrr^ifAl inMfll#9<4fiAl ff#^l#f 

wr^n/'^ Hi^lf fhmn n^fff mitfAfU'UrtWy f^phin, IUt« 
w^ ri/r9r f^fi/'li/^/l ftny fmiri/lftfi//ri f4ft thin ih^/f^w<ftl 
j></<»iTilHM? Wft li»^^ in f«/'/fr fftft<'li^l /frm. ^f}m ptm^ 
tfil^M <rf «/K^ti/#^ mtumnfA Ur fJiift, tfliAf, ff»#5 f^l f'/^/fi- 
f»^f/>///rft Huumff fw,fA mtif^, )f^ mu'h ftn w/ml/l )m tf^ 
iifffitilly f'4ftnjrrt^h4rti<Kt}fl4^ if f,}}4^ wwft kri/rwn. IJ«t 
wft liA^^ f/mr»/l lf» fft/f, fl»»^, ftJI fft/?frft ri/)i //nly miiH 
)fp> rniufttMy f'4ftnjftfhpii<^'i}fhy imi ftfft rt^^umfiUy i^fm- 
jfr^lM*ri/l#«Yl, in An/I l/y fli#^ <j^i#* l/rviri^ Miri/l. Tl»#j 

An/I A« A N'Hfilf, fA fUtfumMtnt'um. 7')»a nni^y /rf tlrtF 
|/W)n^ Tlf/zn^hf, inffrli^A fliftf, «)l ffU'Uy if w^ kMW 
ilf^TTf well f^wmffU^ w/ml/1 Af^ftf fniiz/ff^ly inkFfdkh 

TBK KCUQiov$ ix$iQirr« 463 

(i««d(Mit; it^iw'iblii) to uttUv^ «i to4;U of nNJilie» «x« 
(MTi^hfe )i» oiM^ tir^iUu Jiis4 ^ ill ik» s>jei» ooih»)4 Ck( 
Un^ uahui^ of nuiiiWir i» uu^Ji^t ^ Uii^ iufiiiiW s^jthnsi 
€f |m^))i^jrtW th^t «! ocitti}JH>U> Tln^iarY ut NuiuWr» 
MToukl devi^K^)\ !^^ in tho ^inH^ i\)tiKV)U \xf t)M> uiiiv^rtji^iv 
^chioli ookU^tituUML t)M> IMviiu^ MiiuU ^U tW f)M>i» of 
^ piix$subl<> ^x)^rit^HV «jm> ooiii)ir^)M>ii\t<^l mmI tiurd n^ 
dnete^t to l^irl^H^t uuilv. Th^ne^ mu^t W then in twi a 
UAiv^ir«tU f^vruiuUu Wluit thi::^ foruiuUi i» w^ \W not 
SK^ mm) jii^ b^^iv^ ¥r^ ilo ih4 $if»4^ it% wo Ivj^yo to 
look Im>to Mui thero in t^xj^^rion^v W miy tJrtJK>^ of 
tlio unitv mhI rHti\)«i^ KXuuuvtiKHi ^>f tWt::^ N^>r 04Mi 
xro H>YOJr bo *un^ th^t » ^>>uiio^^ti\ui s^iivuiis^Hl by u* ia 
tiio rocdlv rtitioiud ixuiuooti^ui \xf t)iii\^ A Uiw iU»> 
ooYOJTOii bv u:ijk i$ ^>uK ^mt ^tti^ui)>t to iiuit^to tho l>i« 

YIUO TlKHIght. i^ir AttOlttJ^ lU^Y iu «! ^YOU C(^SI«» 

£jul: ^mr iiHhH>tiK>ii iuay W uils^Mkoiu But tlio 
iomnl^iiui \xf mir iiuliK'liYo trnK^^t^s^oo^ itsi^ tlio tlwm^t 
tknik ^iKV the real >iv\>rM i^ » |H^irtWtlY rtiti^uuil sukI 
unitovl KhIy ixf ixxxxK tkit hYtH>thee!d:!i^ which ro^tuooA 
to rehitiYoly rtiti^uuil iiuitY tho ^ro«itO!^ nuuibor \if 
£jiot» v» lu^m^ Apt to Y\^)>yos$«i^iit the tJTuth \>£ thin^ 
th»ii MiY hY|K4h«Vja« of lo!U!& Ax^i^o,. And of k^»» r«itioiuil 
si^tioAiHW Just Kx*^!!^^ ihisii luitunU ^liudlon with 
whioh wo *i[^t out is A Muinlor^ jns^t lHH*«nso in fav^i 
the w\>rUl is m^ ront in tw^in bY our ArbitrturY di»- 
tiiH'^tiiW irf vA^jeot aiul s^ubjtvt* but U in dt^jH^st tnith 
one nnitkHi wv>rUl« a siix^lo thvni^t ; iherofwfo it v» 
that when wo iXxusJiW thwi^n^ taots which wo haYo 
fnuu imuuont to uuuu^mt to rt^ijAixl a* oxtoriwd* wo 
^n bo Asfi$un^l that thojfo is a ^>>irtAiu mhI iu^ an 
arhitmxy bii^ for our Yiow;» about theni« Tho Yi»« 



ihlM worlil hiKi«iinoM imn\n Imrcl rttiiltiy, whtitli wa we* 
{H^Wtttuw Miil try U) mm\milmtHU J mm! iNHiniiMti w«i 
kiii»w Umi ill itiMlf UiIm worlil Im uiiim for lUl iwiiiiprt)- 

IVfUtitoHJly tlutii, ill lUmlini; with tlui worlil of miu 
^rt^U^ ffutta, w« iiiUMt Im rtinliMtict. It Im our cliiiy, for 
lmiiiiUitiy*M Miikit, to Miiuly mmI ii» iHiUttvti In UiIm ox^ 
tortiiil worhl, t(» huvti fniih in Uii^ i;r«iii |NmiuUt4»M of 
uotiiiiioii Mtitok^, to nm nil tli« thiii|;M of Uu» wt^rliL 
liiil ilui buMlM of UiIm fditli (toininoii MttiiMii imi uovnr 
iiiuL Aiul wn littvn foiinil it in Uw AliMirfuUi* 


lliivo WH ilMtn iltiMM^vtfrtMl ilmi Honmthini; of infl* 
nitu r«^liKiouM worili of wliiifli wtt w»ni in ijutiMt? Or 
mn wit Miiy ilmt our liftt Im tn vnin in Miufh h. worlil ? 
Truly (Mir rt^ligiouM longiuK l^*^** '**^^ ^'^1* ^ ^itnuinii 
rMM|HunMs but it wim not mucIi h r<4M|MHmii im wm nfc 
iirMt mk|m«'UhI, nor mucIi im numt MyK(4Mnti lipimtir to 
ilHMirH, l'i«r»ioniil nm^lM uiui Iio|kim ii\HU% numi nmn 
who niiiko nynUmiH to miUty tho ini|HU'iMuuil rMli((iouM 
longing, mmU to )u'ovo tlmt tho worM hm ti wImiIo 
|H'ogrt4MMaM towitnlM goiHluMHM, MO thiit, iti tint grtiiit 
MonHutnnnition of thi^ progrt^MH, ctvil mIihII lutrtnlnly 
nnd iiniilly illMii|)p«nr, limving tliti world iim inno<t«int 
iind lui^iplil IM in tiiM dityM of Kdiui, Now wm hiivo 
found li thougiit thiit iniilit^ti tiiiM ('oin'tipt of in'ogrniM 
not only wliidly liMipplii'iildn Ut tliM world of tlin ii^- 
flnlUi lifts Init wholly HUp<«HhMHm. If, im wh intiiMtod 
ul»ovM, nioml goodiM^dH i^ not tlui nlmdM^M, hut tint or* 
giiiiin Muhordiniition, of tho nvil willi itM ovorthrow ill 

THE uucrocs msKonr* i65 

dio good w3L» in which it is still aetoalfy jn^Mit 
ms sabdutid, th^»u whenever the wcurld ei>ntadns any 
mond goodness it abc^ and £cir that very reason, 
eontains^ in its co^anio unity, moral eviL The 
wodd is moiallj good in spite of the evil will, and 
yet beoanse of the evil will, sinoei,. as eveir mond ex« 
peri«ioe shows us^ the good will is jwst this trium* 
phant rest in strife aK>vie the evil wilL Tlierefond 
w« havid no sympathy with tk^se who expeet the fa- 
txu« ^ salvation '"* of the world as a whole in time 
thitragh any all^pervading j^rooess. The only de-j 
struetion of moral evil that ever takos plaoe or can 
take place is the txan^^^ondenee of the evil will by. 
the good will in the very moment of the life of the 
evil will« If moral evil were l)i> be, as the older 
systems often expect, absidutely destroyed, and the 
wwM 90 fre^l therefrom that the evil will was U>talhr 
£M|;otten« then what remained windd be no mvual 
good any moixv only the latinoss of an intinitdiy va- 
cant life. Not indeed to sot off the goixl by any ex« 
lexnal contrasts but tK> <i\\n$ut^iU> a moment in the or* 
ganie xmity of the goixl aet^^ is this evil in the world* 
And the whiile vast trvmble alxHit understanding its 
piviseneio artse$ because we usually sej\aiat)e> it f nc«n 
the wry unity with gxHxlneiss in which we £nd it 
whenever we oi>nsoiouslv do rirfit our^^lvos. Then 
when so sei>aratod« as we seixjirat<\l it in a fxmner 
chapt)or« UK^ral eviU viewe^l as an external o^vique 
fact is inexplii\!ibU\ disheart<»niuir, hi^rriWew Only 
when we do right oursjolves do we pmctioally get the 
^ution of the prv^Uem, C>uly the nn^rU man knoxrs 
how and why evil exists. For in him the evil will 


in an eHHontiol oloment of Iuh gocxInoHii. Tho oonfliots 
of morality are and niUHt bo utornal. 

Our proHont expbination of evil in tho world in, 
wo have noon, tho only ono that oan lioth give us 
tho abHoIuto religiouM comfort, an<l Have uh from the 
terrible moral paralyMJH involved in doMtroying, for 
the Inflnite, the diHtinetion between good and evil. 
The moral experic^noe itHolf oontaiiiH tho miracle of 
tluM Holution in tho Mini])leHt and clearest shape. 
And it relievcm tis of any need to long for an abso- 
lute iK3a(M). For in it the diHtinotion of go<Kl and 
ovil is tho sharpest, the signillcance of the strife is 
the most vivid, at the very instant when, in the strife, 
the evil will, ])rescnt ami real still, is yet conquered 
by the gcMMl will, and so lost in the universal good- 
ness of tho total good act. Tho distin<ition of good 
will and evil will becomes thus the greatest possible ; 
and yet only through the reality of this distinction in 
i the unity of tho moral life is goo<lness present and 
I triinnphant. Progress in this world as a whole is 
i therefore simply not nee<lcd. 1'he good is eternally 
I gained even in and through the evil. How far the 
mutual process of evohition may in our part of tho 
universe ext<*n<l is a nuitter for empirical science. 

Jtut our own ideal of hmnan life as a ** progres- 
sive realization of the goo<I,** — what of that? The 
answer is obvious. The good will that is in us as a 
temporal fiw^t, not being yet fully realized or trium- 
phant in us an ma arc in ffurHchcH an mere Jinitr. bd" 
mt/H^ musi aim at <M)mpl(*tn ex])reHHi<m of itself in 
time an<l in us, and through uh in those whom we 
seem to influence. For only in so seekinr/ to por- 

Tins RKLKStoins tKi^itr. 467 

tt^i uii tn whom tl o&Utm l« Uiti goiHl will In un gmd 
Mt <ilL til m> fiur Ml w^ vitowiHt niwirtioUy, lu our 
m^lHimti^tUHui fmtn QihI« ar^ k^hhU wi^ th<>u ()o tmtt^ 
Iry t:o t\^m Uml U(^ of CKhI tii whicli wi» Mr« idl 
Uh» time All ic>lom<^nt For ui Uit» U }m)||tt>iM% Tliln 
}m)gnMw U Uii> form tiiki>ii h^m}Hmirily tn u» by Um 
I^^hh) will. \\\\% twr IUhI Uim U no noal }mi((rt«ii« 
Thon^foro U it ImUM^l mii> Umt thto mortd tnMghl In 
UA muKt loMi) UA ht nim nt }>n>|]:nNW in g^HHim^M^ junl 
nm on Uio otlior m\U\ Uio mtlimcil i^li^monl in on U^U 
UA to aim nt pro(;r^M in knowliHlge* BnU miHUiwhil^^ 
our mornl }m>|2:nHMi \m\%\ our mtlmnU pn^n>M« moro 
minor faoU htip)ienin|r at n m«vmont of tittn«% imv Inil 
innigniHotMit olomonU in Un> inHniU> llfi> In whioh^ m 
A whok\ Uu^re \n mu) ihui )h> no )>ro|tnM!im but only 
Ml inAnito vtirioty of U10 formn of U10 g^HH) will And 
of tlio lii^^lior knowUnliJ^^ 

Am) m oonmnouHUow him f^\x>\\ ua in ooncit^ld 
form mvluti\uiA of our tw^i diH^)HH«t |i)iihMio|i)iio |mib» 
lonin. The inability of ernir» neoomiitAtlng <^ t^* 
cbmive t)iou)]:hU in illuAtmhHl for ua by our own oim- 
m'iouA thou^^hU whioh mn inobule true Atul fnliie eliv] 
montu in the unity of one e)e<^r urn) true tJhiU|}:)it At 
Any momenta Am) tlie {nubility Ami ntHXHMiity of 
moml evi)« deniAmlinis: a real dii^tlnotlon WtrnMcn 
I^mh) Am) evil, a hAteful o}i|iOAit4on thAt wi^uxi^ At Hr^t 
9\g\\i fAt4il t^i our religiouA nee^) f\ir the nupremAey 
of (]>HH)neiMi in the unites) w\>rk)» l« illuAtmte^l twt ua 
in A WA^v thAt iMih^eK thin whole tremble* UAinel^w in 
the unify of the tMumnouA moml Aeh There At the 
one nuuuent Are ^hh) And eviU WArrin^« im)i)AeAbh\ 
yet unites) In the |ire«ent momentAry trl\mi|ih of th« 



good will. A world in which this strife, this vic- 
torjTy this absolute rest above the real strife and in 
the midst of the real strife, is the supreme fact, is 
the perfect world that religion needs. It is a world 
of the true Life of Ood. 


And our insight appeab not only to our general 
religious needs. It comes with its truth home to the 
individual man. It demands that we consider what 
our individual life is really worth when it is lived in 
the presence of this Infinite Judge. O man, what 
is this thy daily life I Thou livest for the applause 
or in fear of the blame of thy neighbors. An unkind 
word cuts thee to the quick. A little public favor, 
or the approving word of a friend, is worth half thy 
soul to thee. And all the while thou knowest not 
that One infinitely greater than midtitudes of neigh- 
bors is here, not above thee only, nor afar in the 
heavens, but pervading thy every thought. And that 
all-pervading Thought judges thee as these neigh- 
bors never can. Myriads of* their blunders about 
thee are as nothing to an atom of this infinite Truth. 
That rain-drop yonder in the sunshine is not more 
filled with the light, than are all the most hidden re- 
cesses of thy heart filled with that Infinite Presence. 
No one of us is more famous than his neighbor ; for 
no one is known save by God, and to him all alike 
are known. To be sure, to know this is the same 
as understanding rightly, that thou art in truth what 
thou art. All truth is truth because it is known by 


a oonaeioiia Thought : therdf ore whutaoeyer thou iuri» 
whether it b oonsoioivUj- or unoouaeiouidy exbtont in 
thee^ i) known to the all^^ieeiug Uuiveraal Conaoioua- 
neaa* But oomiuoujxliioe as this aeema to the philo»- 
opher« 19 it not more thtin a mere oommonplaoe to 
thee, if thou loveat genuine righteouaneaa? For i» it 
not something to feel that thy life ia, all of it« in 
God and for God ? No one ebe know» thee« Alone 
thou wanderest in a dead worhU ^ve for thin Prea- 
enoe« These other men, how ean they know thee ? 
They love thee or aoorn thee or hate thee, but none 
of them love or aoom or hate thee for what thou art. 
AVhatever they hidd of thee« it ii» an acH^ident If 
they knew more of thet\ doubtless they woiUd think 
otherwise of thee« IX) they love thtH> ? Then they 
know thee not well enoi^h, nor do they see thy 
meanness and thy vileness^ thy seltishntviis and thy 
jealousy and thy maliot\ If they saw the^\ surely 
they woiUd hate thee. But do they hate thee? 
Then thou i>allest them unjust Doubtless they are 
ao. Siuue ivhaiuH) wonl of thine« a eareless loi>k or 
gesture, an acvident of fortuiu\ a trilling fault, these 
they have remenil^ereil ; aiul therefore do they hate 
thee« If they knew bt^tter things of thee, perhaps 
they would love tht^« 

Thus iHnitradietory is thy life with them. And yet 
thou must laU^r tlmt the gtHxl may trium))h near 
thee by thy effort Now iu all tlus work who shall 
be thy true friend? Whose appixn-al shall emxmr- 
age thee ? Thy neighln^r^s ? Nay, but it is thy duty 
always to sus^nvt thy noighlH>r\H opinion of thee. 
He is a eorrupt judge, or at best an ignorant judges 


Ill) NooM not thy hoart. llo im a roNiHxitor of poniona 
IIo iM t<M) oftoti a ImiikIIo of whittiM. If ho alio ]>ro- 
foMNON to bo trying to m^rvo righUuitiMnoMM, it in thy 
ilttty to havo roaily faith in hiM ^(nhI inU^nt, if tliat 
Ik) iM)M»iihh) for thiHi ; hut hy all nioanM <loubt hiii 
wimlotn al>out thoo, and thhio aiNMtt him. If lio 
]iraiN(«M thoo for thy rightmiuMnoNN, liMtiUi not willingly 
to hiM praiMo. It will doix^ivo tlioo. llo will niont 
])raiNo thoo whon thott inwardly art not righUuiini. 
If ho hlanioN thoo for ovil, lot it wani i\uH^\ for if 
ho in not right now, ho donhtloNM moou will Ih). But 
tako it not Um inuoh t<i lioaH. llo \n ignorant of 
thoo. lie tallcM of thoo aH ho might talk of tho other 
dido of tho moon, unloMM indoixl ho talkM of thoo juNt 
tin nuui in gonoral, and not ax to thy partioular aotM. 
TruMt him not in all thoMo thingM. Koalixo hiN nuoilH 
aM thou oauNt, Ntrivo to aid him in hoing rightoonN, 
UMo him aM an iuMtrumont for tho oxtouMion of g<MMU 
noMN; htit trtiMt not IiIm judgmont of tluu). Who 
thon Im, ax tho truo judgo of thy worth, thy only por- 
foot f rion<l ? 

Tho Divino Thottght. Thoro Im tho opinitm of 
I titoo to whioh thou oanxt took up. To \w Nttro it In 
rovoalod to thoo only in thy oouMoiotiMnoMM of what 
rightootiNUOMM \H and of what truth ix. Nowhoro o1n4i 
IiaNt thoti a guido that (nin do moro for thoo than to 
holp to qtdokon thy iuMight. Hut, thon, thy rolig- 
iouM oomfort Im to ho, not that tho moral law \h thun- 
doro<l down from mountain - topN an if nomo vaNt 
town-<irior woro talking, but that whon thou MookoNt 
to do right, tho Inllnito all-Mooing Ouo knowM and 
ftpprovoi thoo. If thou lovoMt rightoouMnoiN for it« 


1/ . m'i- ft 


own sake^ Aen this will comfort thee. Knot* if 
thoa sedcest sogar-phuns^ seek them not in the home 
of the Infinite. Go among thy fellow-men and be a 
snccessfal hrpociiie ami ehailatan« and thoa shalt 
have gaping and wondennent and sugar -plums 

Heiein then lies the invitalKHi of the Infinile to 
us« that it is, and that it knows u& No deeper saws 
ti<m is there for true ri^teousness than this knonl- 
edge that one is serring the EteinaL Yet when wo 
say all this. an& we simply doing that whicli we sptdoo 
of in the opening chapter of this work? Are wo 
but offering snow to appease the religious hunger? 
Is this docnrine too cokL too abstract, too faiMoff ? 
Cold ami aksiTact and fiuwiff is indeed the proof of 
it. But that was philosophy. That was not the re> 
ligious aspect of our doctrine^ but only the prepara- 
tion £ar showing the religious aspect of philosophy* 
Is the doctrine itself. howeTer« once gained, so re* 
mote from the natural religious emotion? What 
does a man want when he looks to the world for re- 
ligious supfiort? rK>es he want such applause as 
Uind crowds give men. such flattery as designing 
people shower upon them, such sympathy as even the 
cherished but prejudiced love of one's nearest friends 
pours out for him? Xay. if he seeks merely this« 
is he quite unselfishly righteous? Cam he not get 
all that if he wants it. wholly apart from religion? 
And if he looks for reward, can he not get that also 
otherwise ? But what his true devotion to the moral 
law ardently desires is not to be a!oHe. Approval 
tat what really deserves approval he needs» iqpproval 

472 THE RKLIQI0U8 ABPKOT or raitx)sorar. 

from ono who truly knows him. Well, our dootrine 
says that he gets it Junt an deep, an full, an richt 
an true approval an expronnen the full worth o£ his 
aot, — this ho has for all eternity from the Infinite. 
To feed upon that truth is to eat something better 
than snow, but as pure as the driven snow. To love 
that truth is to love Ood. 

We siKike in the former book of the boundless 
magnituile of human life as it impresses itself upon 
one who first gains the moral insight To many 
this first devotion to human life seems itself enough 
for a religion. But then one goes beyond this point, 
and says that human life has, after all, very muoh 
that is base and petty in it Here is not the ideal. 
*^ Would that tliere were a higher life I To that we 
would devote ourselves. We will serve humanity, 
but how can we worship it ? *' Huoh is the thought 
of many an ardent soul tlutt seeks no personal re- 
wards in serving the good, btit tltat does seek some 
great lieality that shall surely be worthy of sorvioe. 
To Nuoh, our religious insight {nnnts out this higher 
reality. You tliat have been willing to devote your* 
selves to humanity, here is a Life greater in infinite 
degree than htmtanity. And now is it not a help to 
know that tnily to serve humanity is jtist the same 
as to serve this Infinite? For whatever had seemed 
disheartening in the baseness and weakness of man 
loses its discouraging darkness now that all is trans- 
figured in this Infinite light. 

Ijet us then be enoournged in our work by this 
great Truth. Hut let us not spend Uh} mueh time 
in merely oontemplatiug tliis Truth. Wo, whoso 

A;$ ^K^ tUOm ^^ICQ^V tdkm CmT t^ tlMli^ <M0*<&Mv 

to iMMrw into llie |iviK«ktiJl ^^qfi^j&tiii^^ni ^ % t^ 

^K%7«)( to 4>d in tdke %t^ ^ tdk^ m$%!:tiiit 4i6$)^s )^ 

MNMrad m^titi. i$ Wf^t fttvili^jv^l Ihx- <A^xv4i^>«ft to <mm> 

iiKlixiilDwd xvytjin<ift^ <vva)4^1 >«(-ii^ :j4ff^. k^x^tiktv to 

^jiMT^ It ^A^ vy^AnW »(Vi^vt$ ^l ttJkijv rtn^'ft >^94i M 

^^l i^xvy^l^ in ih<' |vr>e«i(^f yx4i$i^vll^ <^ri^ iW tvinMil**- 

\Vln«H*>fvr w must |^w:«^ ;ji^«i in nMir >^^ (v^ 



I- ' 


TtiK MKiJOtoim Mvmv nf vmumomy. 

itiorii for A iliiiM III UiIn iMiiii4trii|)liitioii of tint ICtormil 
Ti'mUi. ////t /;rmm jdunf/Uur» Hut not no Im it In 
IIuhVi^ llfii. Our |M'ol»liiiiiN iiiiiy \m Imrd, but tlmro 
lUl In Nolvitil. Our IIvmn iiiny \m poor mtil Nmt<iiii|it- 
liilis hut tliiu'o all In wimltli mtil fulliuiNN of worth. 
Our offortN iniiy oft«fii provo valii, hut tlutro imuKlit 
AxlNtN tliiit In vniilty. For tlui liii|Ntrfit4ftlofi of tlio 
ftiilto In hut tlut friiKiniiitt of tint InHnltii Wlioln 
whiu'u th»ro In no truo lui|Mirfo<ttloit. In It not n lUh 
ll((loit to fitid thiN? Ami WM nIiiUI thifit tuni from 
Nuoh a (50ittoiMplatlou oum tmttUt m w» ilo iiow^ Up 
UhiU with fri^Nhiir murtm^^ ^^ '"'^'^ houitilhtNNi UmiAuif 
mm fit huiuiiii llfo ahout iin. 1*hlN In not ItNdlf tlui 
l)lvliM% hut ovor It all OiMrN wIimIn am hhiwliijif. 
Aiui to our <7MN It In houiMlluNN, iM m f(o dowtt 
into thiN ((mat N<ia anil toll, fmrlnf( no Nt<imt| hut 
NiNikhiM: t/o linil thurn tniiiNurMN that Nhall iw m\Amf 
howiivnr faint, of that whii'jr In Kt«trnah 


nuiT p(%SisdMT Kiu^. T<^ bim m^ dia^ <mi^ <«r nvv^ 

iKmt oi^r uMmii^. )\rii«|i» k^ will «$k tii^ v»y 
wa:aniL m. ^ift^T alL xk^ xv^ fraitbL qwisdoia, 

ti^aifsn? Hji$ it bM« xxwr pax|viei«^ to ^Sct^MMl liire 
<«$!M«tuJ pMtaoin$ of d)^ okW TWK^a^" <)<x«riiM^ or 
to jJt)»> tiMWi in f^nvor of ^w^ xiow^^ initii ? "*' TVk 
q)K«$tioa oxpxy^$j)<t$i ji diAWiolTT tiuit jnwtt^ pUin people 
ifttt$t f<yd m-lioii tkoy ronii not xm^iK^ tiii$ Kxiilu Hdt 

luiT^ nnd^^xtdiliY^n to ddV^ Tlidtsiuu Mid >ir)K> K*x^ ii^ 
tiudlv in ^ ^nomtr «nctiod for tiii^ no(«^«»atT of liire 
I'^niwxsiil Tkoiogl^n Ht^^ pUin p^^pl^ K*v^ nniwii 
to jOKifyv^ ^anc^ <^ tnrin^ to $nh$stinito ivv tli^ ^ God 
<k{ o«)r Fm^ts ^' jicvniotiunjr ol^xiv to W oidlod W tii^ 
$Mno nMwv^ mk) jK> t<i> W pdi$5iM off for 1^ suoMt 
tilings* Wo ilK^wrfoiK* Mi^vy'T \wr pUinlr tlwit w* 
dosing to do n^-A^iin^r of ibo ^^H. If in 1^ foT«4^'^nj^ 
wi? laiXT^ on ociMi^(\n ns<id tlK^ wvwd In^* no roftdor 
i$ t%Ui4rod t<> sopjHV*^ thw tMir iioji *jrroosi ^tJi hi« 
idodk for >Kv hjiw fnlly ovj^lAinod >Qi^j*t ^^nir i^ioA 
mo«n$. Wo rojyxjit : Aji my tJKnxjrHt *t *nT timo« 
and bowiexy^r «xu::Mj^d^ o(wiHno$ ^xv^ fn^::nM!ntai3T 



thoughts into the unity of one conscious moment, 80, 
' we affirm, does the Universal Thought combine the 
thoughts of all of us into an absolute unity of 
thought, together with all the objects and all the 
thoughts about these objects that are, or have been, 
or will be, or can be, in the Universe. This Uni- 
versal Thought is what we have ventured, for the 
sake of convenience, to call God. It is not the God 
of very much of the traditional theology. It is the 
God of the idealistic tradition from Plato down- 
wards. Our proof for it is wholly di£Eerent from 
those baseless figments of the apologetic books, the 
I design - argument, and the general argument from 
causality. Since Kant, those arguments must be 
abandoned by all critical philosophers, and we have 
; indicated something of their weakness. They have 
. been aptly compared to mediaeval artillery on a 
, modem battle-field. We accept the comparison. 
> Kant gave to modem philosophy new instruments, 
and these it is our duty to apply as we can to the 
old questions that the whole history of thought has 
been trying to understand. Our special proof for 
the existence of an Universal Thought has been 
based, in the foregoing, upon an analysis of the na- 
ture of truth and error as necessary conceptions. We 
do not regard the Universal Thought as in any com- 
monly recognized sense a Creator. A creator would 
. be finite, and his existence would have to be learned 
from experience. The Universal Thought is infinite, 
and its existence is proved independently of experi- 
ence. For the rest, we have insisted that experience 
furnishes no evidence of single creative powers thai; 

v^ 9k QMft iinBnildl and jpMdL W<» IdiT^ k^wvvitr 

CMts m Ibit InttuNtt TkMi;^:liElu and Ihomt^ ;iipiut Iraift 

tMB. IikiMnev<otti^biphiliMvfiliT. W^ldit^txwd 
villi iM iSBttll bAmr^ aunl mftwr linliMtti <(hwiMiip^ tlH» 
ndbfr it 4Mur <»««. W« Ioiti^ indk^fiHMliMitlr ^ximi 
oar owQ wttMtts fiMr it Ami vi» Ioiti^ mwarW tktti 

Ami iMV vi» uifest miA tk^l vi» aut« Hfoi!^ iindfilliMN 
«nt iriMtli«r «iitIk)m1t vaJk dU tdu» TkimiBfc «r Bui- 

ttmns of KMdL BcMdi UBmalhr vuMtfidier God «» ;ii 
IVwih; «mI ehlfeiNr Imvif Uni off on ott^ inli^ to |wdk 
lliiii$» ocicoiisiaDaJhr^ or to ssiet tAiMM $oui^ ml Ae oioil- 
«^ or «lse idtenlifjr kiw villi U» produ^ts^ TV lor^ 
nuer v«t o( <*oiimTui^ God i» lll^T«r miMci^ Ikm bait^ 
pbUosoiduo. TV bitiMr v«t »^ nipt lo Afffffot^t^ 
inlo wlKdlT iwaeliicdi rliai|«Mdio5w We teV mcilliflr 
of tliiw^ v«Y$;. For IKS OftiKsailioii k^ m timy «ahMh& 
iiaitie idtfdi in {diik^iwipliT. ll «x|Mm$s$i»^ ombr ow^ fiium 
of IV nOrioiiad anitr of thinsss^ ^Mftd iVt wa uupiMN 
i^ tonoL TV vovM of IV IVwrs i» ikOt tiHI aai 
oniYVirsi^. TVtt^l mitrt V litMr iVa IVv^^r.. <c*owi- 
pwVjmliii^ dU iV I\>vim«i. and mttirli more VtfidiMv 
in il» mimile unilr. God ;i» IVv^ar v^miM V nolli^ 
in^^ or finile. Inn^l ai» TVo^l cttii V mml W dU in 
dU. Awil if lids l^ )Jiikii$ik>pliT« tra^lili^Hiiftl TVbai 
cttn do whaifi it vi^Vt^ lo do aUhiI iV nvuller. 

In ^JkMTti. iV {vrvtf«nt iikvmne i» iV doictrtne iKiU 
in iV V^unin^ vm» iV WorvU ;uid IV W^mxI v^ji» 
villi God, »nd iV Woid v;i» God^ So fau^ «iid S%^ 


I Augustiue, Plato had gone. So far we have gone. 

/ Beyond that, said St. Augustine, the truth was not 
revealed to human wisdom, but only to humble faith. 
Beyond that, with the rational consequences that we 
have been able to draw from it in the foregoing, we 

I are frankly agnostic. If any man knows more about 
the Powers in the world than science has found out 
by patient examination of the facts, let him rejoice 
in his knowledge. We are not in possession of such 
knowledge. We believe in the Conservation of the 
physical forces, in the Law of Evolution as it is at 
present and for a limited past time found to express 
the facts of nature, and in the fact of the Dissipation 
of Energy. All this we believe as the scientifically 
probable view, and we do so on the authority of cer- 
tain students of physical science, who, having exam- 
ined the facts, seem to agree upon so much as capa- 
ble of popular exposition. We believe in such other 
results of science as are known to us. But beyond 
this nothing as to the Powers in the world is clear to 
us. We know nothing about individual immortal- 
ity, nothing about any endless future progress of our 
species, nothing about the certainty that what men 
call from without goodness must empirically triumph 
just here in this little world about us. All that is 
dark. We know only that the highest Truth is al- 
ready attained from all eternity in the Infinite 
Thought, and that in and for that Thought the vic- 
tory that overcometh the world is once for all won. 

■ Whatever happens to our poor selves, we know that 

,the Whole is perfect. And this knowledge gives 
us peace. We know that our moral Vindicator liv- 

<mK mhI dvnt in >ii» «ij;;^f ;iU di^ nMd ibil wi^ dt(^ tt 

of tho mmtitioiud ilw^4o^« W« do ni^ ^inuil to ox« 
^i^Zj^^mt^ o^tt qiuum4 w\tK Mi^bo^v^ Xi tlimbM^ >irlM 
;i«vi^{>t jimn^ tmiliti^HKiJ (ortn o( lli«ii4otg>r 6ttd ttMlk 
<iv th^lp in o^ir il^^otriii^ >kv ^kadl W j^^lbA^ A(^ter' 
;jJK ik<^ i^ligKHK inti(i«>(>«t ^inuUss^ not «^ miidli thk or « 
thM xi^>r About ^iMm^ niMi'd $|%ma1 orei^ Iml «^ 

fHiniUtHH\ (kMT tk^ (MtK tlKUt ^umiollOW rijH^I«O^IMI08fti 

i$ in <ko[%^ tmtk triumi^wint in tk^ >K\wkL If diovo ) 
i^ n«> l^HH^f^ tkon« A$ v(v ^l in OhA|Hi^r IX^ >k^ ni^is4 

n(?i^M tK^ tllO IVst^lUtKi^ I£ >K^ <SMI got {IMK^t^ M 

ttiuoli tk^ liottor. 

Ttni^ ko>Kvxi^4r« >k^ Imx^ ^i^^^I^hMimI to oni^x^M^ wi^ 
oikor qnoi^tion. TW^ IV$tt^ikiti<^ %\( CkA(^^^ IX^ 
wKut Kas^ boromo oC lliom now? Av^ tkoy wKoUy 
k^ in iHir in«^skt ? Xo iniW^t TWy ivttMdn just 
whAt tliOT >Me4>\ TAtihHKiJ fiMtn^ o( <iHit Ac<iivitT« not 
I^4r(t>ot in tlioit mtk^viditT^ Imt con^tMithr t^iihiAlblo 
to ^t^ in ont >prork. Ttio ^iontitW {nvf^iUtiMi m^ not 
$n}vr»i^loil« Imt mtkor only ^ktr^n^^tkon^U by tiM 
in^o^t inn^ tho uhinvMo nui^HiAlity ol tKin$^ TVy 
Ivcomo n«>w tho A«»nmnco tkut ikoi^ muM W » m^ 
tiondi ;j^>}ution to o>rory ^^ciontifW problom^ mhI tKsit 
tko ^m)4<^ ^^lution^ Wing tko mo^ nuJonAL i» tk^ 
nH%»t pTx^lvil^o. in o»5i^ it i$ AotxuUly *iioi|^Mto to aU 
tko finot:^ Jn^t A;!^ lvj\\i>\ it ivnMun^ trao i^ ^i« 
iinito Wing^ tlwit onr tinilo o^torml >kwKI i$ At <Miok 
\nM;imt tko {m>ilitot ^^ onr Aotm^« V(x\rkin$r ^tK Iho 
(^<>$tnUte», u|N» tlK^ ttiAlemi of onr »^^ Ajid 

480 Tfiff UKUQiom AuraOT or vmummir. 

tkftt ttiH^ivlty nttruiiim mm \mUprt^ ttm |mi|i«iriihJo6fc ^f a 
ftM»ml jMii((tii4tf»tt Ofily rum w«« Nfw tliitt Uui liijifliifMt 
fiirin of tmr tmiWliy U lik«*ly iii )m itin miM titiMt itfMi« 
limninu Up tim imiU, WImi nttimiiM inm iti tim 
m^niUU$ \HmtuUUm^ rmtmim inm of ttut ¥Miifii$m 
\umUihUm, lliMjr firri lurt MUimrwMUitil. For wliMt ilmy 
f)iM» Miill ilo for tM Im to Uinlni tlMtoiir lilini of (Im Iti^ 
fIniUf mImUI tiot rtmiulu m iutUl, )mrrmi nlmtrmtiUm^ 
Imi i\mi WM mIuUI fi|i|KtfU to mir M)i|MtrUtfiif<« for mvU 
ilitiKMi of w\mi U truly hijifliitMt ntul \mnt^ Mui tlwt W9 
Mimll Ui4fti NMy { *^ Him Mt(\timi iunuw\^Urtm tUnl I ifMt 
frotn ^%imrimum id wimt (fiNMloMMM Mint iMmuty MrM^ 

tllM flohktNi Uf«l UlMi I MM»I ifflM(fi»IM, tllM liOtOplMtMMt 

tiliHMMi|fi4)MM Umi I mn Uiiiik of, m11 Uimnm tMnign MrM 
Init fftitii MUKKMMtiimM of M tniik ilwi Im iiiflnit4tly rt^" 
Miml In i\m DiviuM, tlmi kiiowM mU iritik WliMt- 
MVMT |MtrfA<tiioo tlutrM U tmnnmUul \n t\mm tMujfi^^ 
tlwt Ili5 iiMiMt fully ktiow mimI <tt»|MtrUtU4tM.** HutrM- 
forM Umi mli^ioiiM |HmiiilMi<iM mn m^unnimny um MVMry* 
wlutrn, ftiMkitiK m11 our «t»|Mtriitii4t«4 M|i|mMr to um mm nn 
AVur-fritMh lifMMm iMUM^^tniitiK iltn mUul i$t Ciod, 

'IImi iMmiiiUinM, tlMtiif WM rttinio, with Umi luNiKht 
Wm MlmtMiofi, liowovAtr, Urn urn of tlutNO |MMitilMtMM 
to linffiooMtmto ftirtlMtr NfmitiMl MrtiitkiM of fMith mm 
Uf Mti|»itrtmturMl {Kiw^rM or <ivmitM of Moy M^^rt. Wo 
know of no m\rtu'.lti mmv<i i\m liiliiiii«i UlnmAt, Ami 
MO w<i Imivii fio itiUtrMMt In oiMity of tlio fortim of |>o|>- 
tikr lilnMliMoi. 'lo |irovii tlmi tliiM worlil U i\m lioiiio 
of M Hpiritiml Lifi^ fiiMiiy k^hkI |i«Kr|il4i Iimvh \Hum Mul 
Mm <wifto4iro«til to f^rovit tliMt imriMio |iluttioifiitfm wkiiib 

¥ftt mui Minrllt mm Uni \n Mul of tlMttOM«ilv«tM 4irM4$t «fvU 

iImiiomm of tliM Mj4HtuMl imturM of tliiiijfM* To nmh 

jt&tsom m Spiril tkidt is bqI ciHiESlbuiIfy prodncii^ 

WKMieworAij (effedts,, aunl dd geltiii^ lubnaelf into tht 

iiewspftpNRS^ woqU seem uhmaL llii»^elGdKs lo sim^ 

persNNis Rei^^iiioiis Idesdkm depends fior ilte life uid 

wmntttdi uifxm tke TiTidnd» aunl tke inqprdssi^ieiiidss 

of ttkese pbenonMinl indieailiMMfts of^tditt »ctioii of Iht 

gveaOt SpiriiL Swdb pursoas,, it tdn^y kftTi^ giTim iqp 

tRftdiiiMiBd sttfiMislilMiis^ sdll find tbeir <dM^glil in 

dm^dUuig on tditt u ptonr of ^ riinl tdroftn"* on tke o&- 

camHM«of dU 9Mt$ of wonderfol tlui^gis,. on tditt idio- 

omfi of oomk powi»^ or of edneredd os9«nieie& Tl^ 

them one of tke kest <eTid«Mieisi of tditt «fwirilnnl na^ 

tnre of thin^ k tke instbilitT of dn^ liiokigiifll In 

tell IKS onder Kial; condiltKMks life eonld be prodttml 

iivHn desawl mMb». Tke uTStemos naotare of n«r- 

KKMts aMtk)«u tdkft infinenci^ of ttke mind npon Iht 

bodv^ mndU dboTifr aJL. tditt oieicnrrienei^ of ceitun 

stimi^ ouKMtionad exfii^^ in oss swcIias dn^ tis- 

ictts of mysdcs. dietsie sure to them tditt UKun {xrAof 

thant tdkft mvwid is divinei nnd is foil of spiritwd lifec 

We do not srmpttluiie witli this nM^dnAl of idmlisaL 

We rospieict its ^imI intentionfs. hnt vi^ aur« nnviDu^ 

to kiok npon it a^s imkhuUt ^s^ini&nnt. For «ks il 

uaibeis aksa(4atielT no <dUlSenence in oar lautli ahood 

tke nltinttt^ ^fMritnal nutoi^ of tkin^r^ whetKer tke 

world tluUt we ^siee nd^kets oar ktir 5tftnd on end or 

not., iv wbether tbe Iwdo^^ists ever eonie to socv^ed 

in making liTin^r maitter or not., lluit we <tui nottke 

m Anew doiets not )^¥v>Te ibe wvirki ksts divine^ Xor 

woold tbe tratli of t&ii^ W ktsss 5!pirituaL if we 

^vmld abo mainnfaetnie not onhr protopbkssa. hat 

wlkde wlttks or SlyJodspeduras in oar bbdootonM. 


If w(< m\\U\ (III MS ttmtiirliilUftt im h philimopbiiiMl 
iliMfirlmt mmU\ rmmUt Jimi mh iilmuni im it now U* 
(l^tniilti^ iilMiiliNiit, likd Urn forM((oin((, U utUirly (fMr^ 
UiM wltnilHir UiU or ilmt tiiiriiiMilnr mirprlNliiff ihittff 
HfipmrN ill ilift plHiitottiitniil worlil, nUmi it oimi^ f(^ 
nil kiiowM ilmi t|i4i Wliolii ii« (livlti«i, Mi ^Ummi Mur- 
priMn. k MHikN no itonlirnmiion from ili<i bliomto- 
ri^N I hut only for illimtrft.tionN of riitionttlity \ nor 
for itM own {Mirt ilonN it vimtiirM to iliittiit^ to i\m 
npiKtiitl workurN in Mfi^niHi wlint thrty Nimll lindi It 
U not foriMnl to U^u NiiturM to oontnin mmm innmli 
iigmMiy, Noni0 VM((M» ittlwrml «tMM4iniui, or Nontii niy^t^ 
rioiiN mimI wonilrouN vImIIiIii Imin^, wIiono \mmmim 
lAmil \m H. u\mmuiy to tlw K^pin{( onlooker tlmt 
tlmro t^nlnis m U\m\» All tliiN niiinilioii.nt iihmliMm 
irtir vi^w rt^lmis liN unworthy of M\y i^lmr - ht^tulml 
Uilnkiir. It NfiyN, ** Look nt tlm fm^tN tM th^y nr^* 
Htufly tliiitn M^ itMpMriiinMii ((Ivmn tliMui. Know th^in 
in tliiiir nnkml iwifntnonplm'M rmlity. Hut know i^lmt 
ilmt tlio MmhI DIvitui liifM iIw^IIn in tlumi mill 
tlirou^liout tlmlr wliolit hounilli«MN riiii.lni«** 

In Pkto*M ** Pii.rinMnlilMM/* tim youn(( HiNtrnt^fN 
iMmfMMMuM timt Ut* NonnitlinitN ItiiNltittiiN t^i my tlmt 
tluirn In M^n lilnit for nviirytliln^i ifvun for inuil. Il» 
Im rMJMikwl for tlilM (mr timt iniui nui.y ln-u^h nt hini. 
I In In Infill timt ntml mIno Im rii.tlonM.1. Kvnn no wm 
intmt fmr nolHiily*N liiu^htur in nui^Ii I4 nmttur. Wn 
inurtt NI1M tlin Dlvlnii Mvurywliiu'iit Ami tlu<r«f<n*n w« 
tnUNt not \m ^nUt^ lihout fn^itlflnNNly looking for Nimtn« 
tiling timt Nimll \m womlrouN ttnini((lt to htm m to 
nny ** llitm In (IimI/* 

And Bow^ hal of mll^ i» ibe writier bkb hup«wdl 
lo ibin single lingmng feUow^mliHieut, be onmiol tn^ 
trmin from soggettinft lo m pUient it fmnd one lit^ 
lk» thought more ooneemtng the proof thai hM been 
given for the doctrine of thwe Uter pngei of our 
di«cumton« "^Pottsiibly it is mil 6Use^'' the fellow- 
itndont mity mt^ ^^ This fair picture of a Truth that 
is also l}oodn«is^ may be but another illusion/' Be 
it siK dear friend^ if we have said nothing to oon> ^ 
vince thee« P^iehance all this our later argument 
is illusiim. Only remember: If it is Error« then« 
as we have shown thee^ it is Krror because and only 1 
because the Inftnite knows it to W such. A|)art \ 
f i\mi that knowledge^ mir thinight would be no error* 
At leasts then« tlie Inftntte knows what we have 9X- 
tributed to it If it rejects our iileal^ then dtmbtless 
there is something im|^rfcct not alH>ut the Infinite^ 
but aUmt our Ideal. And si) at worst we are like . 
a child who has come U) the |vUace of the King on 
the day of his we«lding« iMMuriiig r\iscs as a gift to 
gnuH> Uie feast FW tlie diikU waiting inmK'ently 
U% see whetin^r the King will ni>t apjicar ainl |mdse 
tlie w^'UnutH^ Howers gn>ws at last weary with watch* 
ing all day and witli listening to harsli w\mls mitside 
the |KUa4H> gatc« amid the jtvHtliiig cr\>w\l. Ami so 
in tlie evening it falls fast asliH'p Uuieath the great 
dark walK unseen and fxirg^^tti^n ; ami the wither^ 
ing rosi^s by and by fall fnmi its la)K and are scat* 
tennl by the wind int^) the dusty highway^ there U\ 
U^ tr^Hlden under f\H>t ami destn^ve^l. Vet all that 
6ap)>ens tmly because there are infinitely fairer 

4H4 TNK IIKt.l(«tOUM Aflt*KOT iW rittt.ONOIMtY. 

intiMiirtM wltltlti Utn imlmm timit ih<i lifttornitt oltllii 
(Hiiihl lirliiK. T\w Kltt|{ ktiowN of UiIn, ytiH, immI of 
toil thoitMiuul otltnr profftirtMl ((IftM of loynl NultJ»(i(.H. 
Hiiti lin ittuMlii titntit not. iUtlinr lire nil ililttKH fwtu 
tittirtiltjr IiIm own.