If one would learn the views of some of our most thoughtful New-England
men and women, he will find their fullest and freshest expression in
the discussions of the Radical Club. Almost every extreme of Liberalism
is there represented, and its manners and methods are as various as
the several members who take part in the readings and conversations.
It is assumed that all subjects proposed for discussion are open to
the freest consideration, and that each is entitled to have the
widest scope and hospitality allowed it. Truth is spherical, and seen
differently according to the culture, temperament, and disposition of
those who survey it from their individual standpoint. Of two or more
sides, none can be absolutely right, and conversation fails if it
find not the central truth from which all radiate. Debate is angular,
conversation circular and radiant of the underlying unity. Who speaks
deeply excludes all possibility of controversy. His affirmation is
self-sufficient: his assumption final, absolute.
Yes, yes, I see it must be so,
The Yes alone resolves the No.
Thus holding himself above the arena of dispute, he gracefully settles
a question by speaking so home to the core of the matter as to
undermine the premise upon which an issue had been taken. For whoso
speaks to the Personality drives beneath the grounds of difference, and
deals face to face with principles and ideas.[4]
[Footnote 4: "Dialectics treat of pure thought and of the method of
arriving at it. A current misapprehension on the subject of dialectics
here presents itself. Most people understand it to mean argument, and
they believe that truths may be arrived at and held by such argument
placed in due logical form. They demand the proof of an assertion,
and imply something of weakness in the reasoning power in those who
fail to give this. It is well to understand what proof means. Kant
has shown us in his Critique of Pure Reason, that the course of all
such ratiocination is a movement in a circle. One assumes in his
premises what he wishes to prove, and then unfolds it as the result.
The assumptions are in all cases mere sides of antinomies or opposite
theses, each of which has validity and may be demonstrated against the
other. Thus the debater moves round and round and presupposes one-sided
premises which must be annulled before he can be in a state to perceive
the truth. Argument of this kind the accomplished dialectician never
engages in; it is simply egotism when reduced to its lowest terms. The
question assumed premises that were utterly inadmissible.
"The process of true proof does not proceed in the manner of
argumentation; it does not assume its whole result in its premises,
which are propositions of reflection, and then draw them out
syllogistically. Speculative truth is never contained analytically in
any one or in all of such propositions of reflection. It is rather the
negative of them, and hence is transcendent in its entire procedure.
It rises step by step, synthetically, through the negation of the
principle assumed at the beginning, until, finally, the presupposition
of all is reached. It is essentially a going from the part to the
whole. Whatever is seized by the dialectic is turned on its varied
sides, and careful note is made of its defects, _i. e._ what it lacks
within itself to make it possible. That which it implies is added to
it, as belonging to its totality, and thus onward progress is made
until the entire comprehension of its various phases is attained.
The ordinary analytic proof is seen to be shallow after more or less
experience in it. The man of insight sees that it is a 'child's
play,--a mere placing of the inevitable dogmatism a step or two
back--that is all. _Real speculation proceeds synthetically beyond what
it finds inadequate, until it reaches the adequate._'"