288 
the supposition that they are singularly logical. They look from their 
vn s Endpoint, with all their experience at their disposal, and then 
f “; is f- tad a blind beginning, nk n s if a person 
t V ^ ‘ Paul S should faac y tllat Jt began to be constructed at the 
p, and was gradually built downwards to the foundation. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
PROFESSOR MORRIS’S REPLY. 
There is scarcely occasion for me to add anything to the foregoing discus- 
sion, except to express my grateful appreciation of the courteous reception 
accorded to my paper. I will simply offer a few remarks on one or two 
points raised in the course of the discussion. 
The phraseology of metaphysical discussioii is of necessity in a measure 
technical It would be as unfair to demand that its terms should all be 
amihar to every one, as to require that (for example) Prof. Huxley, as a 
o ogist, should in a scientific discussion avoid the use of technical terms 
unfannharto those who have no knowledge of zoology, or that the chemist 
hould abandon his exact terminology, and employ instead inexact circumlocu- 
ons 01 periphrases, which should involve only words included in the vocabu- 
ary ot the romancer or journalist. I think it would not be difficult to show 
that one reason why England has not become a greater power in philosophy 
m the attempt of many of her best thinkers, from Locke’s time till to- 
day to gain m popular intelligibleness at the expense of scientific accuracy. 
lilosophical investigation, properly carried on, is serious work, and not for 
mere display or for popular entertainment, and those who would engage in 
it must not shirk the labour of mastering the ideas which it involves, .and the 
echnieal words which exactly express those ideas. Thus much, not in my 
own defence, but for the correction of the impatient prejudice which all of 
us, perhaps at times feel aga.nst metaphysical discussions carried on in the 
deXhT ih ™ ai f yS1 Y , ° n thc ° tber band ’ ,Tmst be admitt « d a « extremely 
desirable that fundamental truth in philosophy should be presented in as simple 
a garb as possible, on account of the all-important bearing of such truth 
no only upon opinion, but also upon life and conduct. He who, having the 
truth at heart, errs through needless obscurity in the presentation of it will 
be thankful for any admonition or suggestion that may tend to the correction 
of his error, and will seek to profit thereby 
°“ e , 0f th 1 S f ak “ S for “ "V representation 
o f the „e« o Descartes. A, far, however, a, I can judge from the few 
remarks offered in support of the criticism, my fault must consist rather in the 
