or of that of his adversary; or sees the roots of the side of the question which he is either attacking or defending. The springs by which these disputatious puppets are worked, lie deep out of their own sight. Every doctrine which is either embraced or rejected, is embraced or rejected blindly, and without any insight into its merits;[1] and every blow which is struck, whether for truth or error, is struck ignorantly, and at hap-hazard.
First, How is this state to be explained? Secondly, How remedied?§ 13. This description is no exaggeration; it falls short of the truth. It will readily be believed, not perhaps by philosophers themselves, but by all who, without being philosophers, have endeavoured to obtain some acquaintance with the views of those coy custodiers of the truth. But the fact being certain that the condition of philosophy is such as has been described, or worse, the question is, first, How is this state of matters to be accounted for? and, secondly, How is it to be remedied?
§ 14. First, It is to be accounted for generally by that neglect of the chief requisition of philosophy which has been already pointed out—by the circum-- ↑ For example, the doctrine of "idealism and materialism," treated of under Prop. IV. (Epistem.); the doctrine of "the universal and the particular," treated of under Prop. VI. (Epistem.); the doctrine of "materiality and spirituality," treated of under Prop. VIII. (Epistem.); the doctrine of "innate ideas," treated of under Prop. IX. (Ontology).
