DOGMA AND DOUBT
Custom does not breed understanding, but takes its place, teaching
people to make their way contentedly through the world without knowing
what the world is, nor what they think of it, nor what they are. When
their attention is attracted to some remarkable thing, say to the
rainbow, this thing is not analysed nor examined from various points of
view, but all the casual resources of the fancy are called forth in
conceiving it, and this total reaction of the mind precipitates a dogma;
the rainbow is taken for an omen of fair weather, or for a trace left in
the sky by the passage of some beautiful and elusive goddess. Such a
dogma, far from being an interpenetration or identification of thought
with the truth of the object, is a fresh and additional object in
itself. The original passive perception remains unchanged; the thing
remains unfathomed; and as its diffuse influence has by chance bred one
dogma to-day, it may breed a different dogma to-morrow. We have
therefore, as we progress in our acquaintance with the world, an always
greater confusion. Besides the original fantastic inadequacy of our
perceptions, we have now rival clarifications of them, and a new
uncertainty as to whether these dogmas are relevant to the original
object, or are themselves really clear, or if so, which of them is true.
A prosperous dogmatism is indeed not impossible. We may have such
determinate minds that the suggestions of experience always issue there
in the same dogmas; and these orthodox dogmas, perpetually revived by
the stimulus of things, may become our dominant or even our sole
apprehension of them. We shall really have moved to another level of
mental discourse; we shall be living on ideas. In the gardens of Seville
I once heard, coming through the tangle of palms and orange trees, the
treble voice of a pupil in the theological seminary, crying to his
playmate: “You booby! of course angels have a more perfect nature than
men.” With his black and red cassock that child had put on dialectic; he
was playing the game of dogma and dreaming in words, and was insensible
to the scent of violets that filled the air. How long would that last?
Hardly, I suspect, until the next spring; and the troubled awakening
which puberty would presently bring to that little dogmatist, sooner or
later overtakes all elder dogmatists in the press of the world. The more
perfect the dogmatism, the more insecure. A great high topsail that can
never be reefed nor furled is the first carried away by the gale.
To me the opinions of mankind, taken without any contrary prejudice
(since I have no rival opinions to propose) but simply contrasted with
the course of nature, seem surprising fictions; and the marvel is how
they can be maintained. What strange religions, what ferocious
moralities, what slavish fashions, what sham interests! I can explain it
all only by saying to myself that intelligence is naturally forthright;
it forges ahead; it piles fiction on fiction; and the fact that the
dogmatic structure, for the time being, stands and grows, passes for a
proof of its rightness. Right indeed it is in one sense, as vegetation
is right; it is vital; it has plasticity and warmth, and a certain
indirect correspondence with its soil and climate. Many obviously
fabulous dogmas, like those of religion, might for ever dominate the
most active minds, except for one circumstance. In the jungle one tree
strangles another, and luxuriance itself is murderous. So is luxuriance
in the human mind. What kills spontaneous fictions, what recalls the
impassioned fancy from its improvisation, is the angry voice of some
contrary fancy. Nature, silently making fools of us all our lives, never
would bring us to our senses; but the maddest assertions of the mind may
do so, when they challenge one another. Criticism arises out of the
conflict of dogmas.
May I escape this predicament and criticise without a dogmatic
criterion? Hardly; for though the criticism may be expressed
hypothetically, as for instance in saying that if any child knew his own
father he would be a wise child, yet the point on which doubt is thrown
is a point of fact, and that there are fathers and children is assumed
dogmatically. If not, however obscure the essential relation between
fathers and children might be ideally, no one could be wise or foolish
in assigning it in any particular instance, since no such terms would
exist in nature at all. Scepticism is a suspicion of error about facts,
and to suspect error about facts is to share the enterprise of
knowledge, in which facts are presupposed and error is possible. The
sceptic thinks himself shrewd, and often is so; his intellect, like the
intellect he criticises, may have some inkling of the true hang and
connection of things; he may have pierced to a truth of nature behind
current illusions. Since his criticism may thus be true and his doubt
well grounded, they are certainly assertions; and if he is sincerely a
sceptic, they are assertions which he is ready to maintain stoutly.
Scepticism is accordingly a form of belief. Dogma cannot be abandoned;
it can only be revised in view of some more elementary dogma which it
has not yet occurred to the sceptic to doubt; and he may be right in
every point of his criticism, except in fancying that his criticism is
radical and that he is altogether a sceptic.
This vital compulsion to posit and to believe something, even in the act
of doubting, would nevertheless be ignominious, if the beliefs which
life and intelligence forced upon me were always false. I should then be
obliged to honour the sceptic for his heroic though hopeless effort to
eschew belief, and I should despise the dogmatist for his willing
subservience to illusion. The sequel will show, I trust, that this is
not the case; that intelligence is by nature veridical, and that its
ambition to reach the truth is sane and capable of satisfaction, even if
each of its efforts actually fails. To convince me of this fact,
however, I must first justify my faith in many subsidiary beliefs
concerning animal economy and the human mind and the world they flourish
in.
That scepticism should intervene in philosophy at all is an accident of
human history, due to much unhappy experience of perplexity and error.
If all had gone well, assertions would be made spontaneously in dogmatic
innocence, and the very notion of a _right_ to make them would seem as
gratuitous as in fact it is; because all the realms of being lie open to
a spirit plastic enough to conceive them, and those that have ears to
hear, may hear. Nevertheless, in the confused state of human speculation
this embarrassment obtrudes itself automatically, and a philosopher
to-day would be ridiculous and negligible who had not strained his
dogmas through the utmost rigours of scepticism, and who did not
approach every opinion, whatever his own ultimate faith, with the
courtesy and smile of the sceptic.
The brute necessity of believing something so long as life lasts does
not justify any belief in particular; nor does it assure me that not to
live would not, for this very reason, be far safer and saner. To be dead
and have no opinions would certainly not be to discover the truth; but
if all opinions are necessarily false, it would at least be not to sin
against intellectual honour. Let me then push scepticism as far as I
logically can, and endeavour to clear my mind of illusion, even at the
price of intellectual suicide.