author - "George Stuart Fullerton"
perhaps, but littleenlightening, for they can have little bearing upon our conception ofwhat we ought to do.
A presumption against this arbitrary assumption that we have the one andonly desirable code is suggested the unthinking acceptance of thetraditional by those who are lacking in enlightenment and in the capacityreflection. Is it not significant that a contact with new ways ofthinking has a tendency, at least, to make men broaden their horizon andto revise some of their views?
In other fields, we hope to attain to a capacity for self-criticism. Weexpect to learn from other men. Why should we, in the sphere of morals,lay claim to the possession of the truth, the whole truth, and nothingbut the truth? Why should we refuse to learn from anyone? Such a positionseems unreasoning. It puts moral judgments beyond the pale of argumentand intelligent discussion. It is an assumption of infallibility littlein harmony with the spirit of science. The fact that a given standard ofconduct is in harmo
explains the coming into being offire, wind, clouds, water, and earth, as due to a condensation andexpansion of the universal principle, air. The boldness of theirspeculations we may explain as due to a courage born of ignorance, butthe explanations they offer are scientific in spirit, at least.
Moreover, these men do not stand alone. They are the advance guard ofan army whose latest representatives are the men who are enlighteningthe world at the present day. The evolution of science--taking thatword in the broad sense to mean organized and systematizedknowledge--must be traced in the works of the Greek philosophers fromThales down. Here we have the source and the rivulet to which we cantrace back the mighty stream which is flowing past our own doors.Apparently insignificant in its beginnings, it must still for a whileseem insignificant to the man who follows with an unreflective eye thecourse of the current.
It would take me too far afield to give an account of the Greek schoolswhic
perhaps, but littleenlightening, for they can have little bearing upon our conception ofwhat we ought to do.
A presumption against this arbitrary assumption that we have the one andonly desirable code is suggested the unthinking acceptance of thetraditional by those who are lacking in enlightenment and in the capacityreflection. Is it not significant that a contact with new ways ofthinking has a tendency, at least, to make men broaden their horizon andto revise some of their views?
In other fields, we hope to attain to a capacity for self-criticism. Weexpect to learn from other men. Why should we, in the sphere of morals,lay claim to the possession of the truth, the whole truth, and nothingbut the truth? Why should we refuse to learn from anyone? Such a positionseems unreasoning. It puts moral judgments beyond the pale of argumentand intelligent discussion. It is an assumption of infallibility littlein harmony with the spirit of science. The fact that a given standard ofconduct is in harmo
explains the coming into being offire, wind, clouds, water, and earth, as due to a condensation andexpansion of the universal principle, air. The boldness of theirspeculations we may explain as due to a courage born of ignorance, butthe explanations they offer are scientific in spirit, at least.
Moreover, these men do not stand alone. They are the advance guard ofan army whose latest representatives are the men who are enlighteningthe world at the present day. The evolution of science--taking thatword in the broad sense to mean organized and systematizedknowledge--must be traced in the works of the Greek philosophers fromThales down. Here we have the source and the rivulet to which we cantrace back the mighty stream which is flowing past our own doors.Apparently insignificant in its beginnings, it must still for a whileseem insignificant to the man who follows with an unreflective eye thecourse of the current.
It would take me too far afield to give an account of the Greek schoolswhic