2009Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

OF POSITIVISM: AND THE RELATION OF SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY

James Hinton Hinton

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Assailed, but not enthralled. STILL it may be asked, why should we not rest in the natural idea of a real existence, of which the properties are inertness and resistance, with a capacity for motion, such as we think of under the name of matter, and which we seem to understand so well until we are called upon to put the opinion to the test? Why should we not believe that such an existence has been created, even though we cannot conceive how it can be, and find ourselves driven into contradictions when we argue respecting it? Is it not better to remain in such an assurance as that acceptance of our natural ideas may give us, and to adjust our conceptions of spiritual things, and our belief respecting a higher existence, to that view of the world; pursuing rather questions of a practical bearing, in respect to which we can attain definite results? Why should our thoughts be unsettled: if these things are not truly as we feel them to be, is it not better, nevertheless, that we should believe them to be so? A fatal objection lies against this compromise. It cannot be carried out. Men refuse to be bound by it. Nor can any means be found of giving it a practical effect. He who argues against the unflinching pursuit of truth cuts awav the basis of all argument, and man's best instincts take part against him. Whatever the truth may be, it must be better to know it than to be in error; it must be a sacred and preeminent duty to accept it.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Assailed, but not enthralled. STILL it may be asked, why should we not rest in the natural idea of a real existence, of which the properties are inertness and resistance, with a capacity for motion, such as we think of under the name of matter, and which we seem to understand so well until we are called upon to put the opinion to the test? Why should we not believe that such an existence has been created, even though we cannot conceive how it can be, and find ourselves driven into contradictions when we argue respecting it? Is it not better to remain in such an assurance as that acceptance of our natural ideas may give us, and to adjust our conceptions of spiritual things, and our belief respecting a higher existence, to that view of the world; pursuing rather questions of a practical bearing, in respect to which we can attain definite results? Why should our thoughts be unsettled: if these things are not truly as we feel them to be, is it not better, nevertheless, that we should believe them to be so? A fatal objection lies against this compromise. It cannot be carried out. Men refuse to be bound by it. Nor can any means be found of giving it a practical effect. He who argues against the unflinching pursuit of truth cuts awav the basis of all argument, and man's best instincts take part against him. Whatever the truth may be, it must be better to know it than to be in error; it must be a sacred and preeminent duty to accept it.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Assailed, but not enthralled. STILL it may be asked, why should we not rest in the natural idea of a real existence, of which the properties are inertness and resistance, with a capacity for motion, such as we think of under the name of matter, and which we seem to understand so well until we are called upon to put the opinion to the test? Why should we not believe that such an existence has been created, even though we cannot conceive how it can be, and find ourselves driven into contradictions when we argue respecting it? Is it not better to remain in such an assurance as that acceptance of our natural ideas may give us, and to adjust our conceptions of spiritual things, and our belief respecting a higher existence, to that view of the world; pursuing rather questions of a practical bearing, in respect to which we can attain definite results? Why should our thoughts be unsettled: if these things are not truly as we feel them to be, is it not better, nevertheless, that we should believe them to be so? A fatal objection lies against this compromise. It cannot be carried out. Men refuse to be bound by it. Nor can any means be found of giving it a practical effect. He who argues against the unflinching pursuit of truth cuts awav the basis of all argument, and man's best instincts take part against him. Whatever the truth may be, it must be better to know it than to be in error; it must be a sacred and preeminent duty to accept it.

Key concepts: Relation (database), Positivism, Epistemology, Philosophy of science, Philosophy, Social science, Sociology, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
OF POSITIVISM: AND THE RELATION OF SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY — Research Paper | ScholarLens