222 THE EEV. A. R. WHATELY^ M.A., D.D., ON 



comprehend the incomprehensible are, in raising this objection, 

 only doing what the philosopher does, namely, making an assertion 

 about the boundaries of human knowledge. The main differ- 

 ence is that the philosopher makes his assertions with reflection, 

 the objector without reflection. If he does reflect he becomes 

 thereby a philosopher, however bad a one, and therefore cannot 

 consistently attack philosophy as such. Philosophy, then, is 

 simply Thought. We all reflect upon our naive impressions, 

 more or less, and the philosopher simply reflects upon this 

 reflection. He thinks about Thought. If he were to announce 

 the discovery that Thought — or Being, which is its object — 

 could not as such be understood by reflecting upon it, he would 

 — like Herbert Spencer — be making an assertion about that 

 which he has declared unknowable. 



So much for our first question about Philosophy. Now let 

 us ask : " What is its Procedure ? " Certainly, if it understands 

 its quest, and walks with a firm tread, it will not proceed by 

 vague surmise and nebulous hypothesis, but by careful analysis 

 of our fundamental ideas ; and the object of this analysis is the 

 Unification of Thought. To understand is to bring ideas into 

 relation with one another. To understand a writing in a foreign 

 language is to be able to relate the particular combination of 

 letters before us with the corresponding combinations in our 

 own language, and with the particular objects and principles 

 that they refer to. 



Some of us come to find Philosophy a necessity of our being, 

 because, without our asking, it has already begun its analytic 

 work, its disintegration of our naive assumptions, its scrutiny 

 of our working-hypotheses : and we cannot allow it to stop half- 

 way ; we cannot allow it to leave us stranded on scepticism, or 

 to show us mere distant visions of the higher level without 

 guiding us up the path, both steep and winding, that leads 

 there. I call it the higher level, for such it is for all who need 

 to seek it. Simple religious faith, with or without Philosophy, 

 is the highest level upon which our feet can rest ; and reflection 

 upon first principles has its dangers and weaknesses as well as 

 its strength and resources. But at least it must be admitted 

 that chaos and scepticism at the very root of our thoughts 

 cannot be safely cured by an attempted return to the old 

 naivete : we must work through to the other side. 



So this unification of which I have spoken is simply the 

 re-ordering of our thoughts when the discrepancies and incoher- 

 ences they contain become no longer latent and unconscious, 

 but really threaten our faith in the ground of things. Perhaps 



