xxii HUMANISM 



in the rich variety of human thought and sentiment, 

 and unwilling to ignore the actual facts for the sake of 

 bolstering up the narrow abstractions of some a priori 

 theory of what all men must think and feel under penalty 

 of scientific reprobation. The humanist, accordingly, will 

 tend to grow humane, and tolerant of the divergences of 

 attitude which must inevitably spring from the divergent 

 idiosyncrasies of men. Humanism, therefore, will still 

 remain opposed to Barbarism. But Barbarism may show 

 itself in philosophy in a double guise, as barbarism of 

 temper and as barbarism of style. Both are human 

 defects which to this day remain too common among 

 philosophers. The former displays itself in the inveterate 

 tendency to sectarianism and intolerance, in spite of the 

 discredit which the history of philosophy heaps upon it. 

 For what could be more ludicrous than to keep up the 

 pretence that all must own the sway of some absolute 

 and unquestionable creed ? Does not every page of 

 every philosophic history teem with illustrations that a 

 philosophic system is an unique and personal achievement 

 of which not even the servilest discipleship can transfuse 

 the full flavour into another s soul ? Why should we 

 therefore blind ourselves to the invincible individuality of 

 philosophy, and deny each other the precious right to 

 behold reality each at the peculiar angle whence he sees 

 it ? Why, when others cannot and will not see as we 

 do, should we lose our temper and the faith that the 

 heavenly harmony can only be achieved by a multi 

 tudinous symphony in which each of the myriad centres 

 of experience sounds its own concordant note ? 



As for barbarism of style, that too is ever rampant, 

 even though it no longer reaches the colossal heights 

 attained by Kant and Hegel. If Humanism can restore 

 against such forces the lucid writing of the older English 

 style, it will make Philosophy once more a subject gentle- 



