THE DEFENCE 205 



which is the bane of philosophic and political discussion : I 

 mean that which results from accentuating one aspect of a 

 doctrine to the neglect or at the expense of others. In this 

 respect the political theory which flows from Idealism 

 stands in sharp contrast with that which follows from the 

 Utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham. The latter theory 

 took so simple a view of the individual, his relation to the 

 State, and his "happiness," that its good intentions were 

 plain to the plain man. Its very abstractions helped it. 

 But Idealism is complex. It is a double-edged weapon, 

 not safe in all hands. This matter is important, and I shall 

 try to make it clear. 



This form of Idealism is a strenuous and uncompro- 

 mising Monism. It would derive all things, as Mr. 

 Hobhouse says, from a spiritual principle. Nevertheless, 

 it appears to be compacted together of elements ordinarily 

 regarded as irreconcilable. It is distinguished from all 

 other systems of philosophy by the resistance it offers to 

 the suppression of opposition ; it would maintain con- 

 traries in all their right, and it even asserts that they are 

 necessary to each other and to the unity in virtue of which 

 they conflict. In all that it attempts to do it would 

 show that differences are as original and significant as 

 unity. 



Hence, it repudiates the starting point, and rejects the 

 whole process and method of other theories. It will begin 

 neither from an atomic hypothesis whether these be 

 "atoms," or "monads," or "persons" nor from its op- 

 posite. Neither particulars nor universals, neither the One 

 nor the Many will serve its purpose. Its starting point, 

 as^ well as its final goal, is the conceptionojP^' system," that 

 isto jayjjjf. .Unity of differences, or a^)nejg_the Many. 



