Chapter LXXIX: Section III: Mill's Philosophical Method

You are truly French, he answered; you ignore facts, and all at once find yourself settled in a theory. I assure you that there are thinkers amongst us, and not far from hence, at Christ Church, for instance. One of them, the professor of Greek, has spoken so deeply on inspiration, the creation and final causes, that he is out of favor. Look at this little collection which has recently appeared, "Essays and Reviews;" your philosophic freedom of the last century, the latest conclusions of geology and cosmogony, the boldness of German exegesis, are here in abstract. Some things are wanting, amongst others the waggeries of Voltaire, the misty jargon of Germany, and the prosaic coarseness of Comte; to my mind, the loss is small. Wait twenty years, and you will find in London the ideas of Paris and Berlin.--But they will still be the ideas of Paris and Berlin. Whom have you that is original?--Stuart Mill.--Who is he?--A political writer. His little book "On Liberty" is as admirable as Rousseau's "Contrat Social" is bad.--That is a bold assertion.--No, for Mill decides as strongly for the independence of the individual as Rousseau for the despotism of the State.--Very well, but that is not enough to make a philosopher. What besides is he?--An economist who goes beyond his science, and subordinates production to man, instead of man to production.--Well, but this is not enough to make a philosopher. Is he anything else?--A logician.--Very good; but of what school?--Of his own. I told you he was original.--Is he Hegelian?--By no means; he is too fond of facts and proofs.--Does he follow Port-Royal?--Still less; he is too well acquainted with modern sciences.--Does he imitate Condillac?--Certainly not; Condillac has only taught him to write well.--Who, then, are his friends?--Locke and Comte in the first rank; then Hume and Newton.--Is he a system-monger, a speculative reformer?--He has too much sense for that; he only arranges the best theories, and explains the best methods. He does not attitudinize majestically in the character of a restorer of science; he does not declare, like your Germans, that his book will open up a new era for humanity. He proceeds gradually, somewhat slowly, often creepingly, through a multitude of particular facts. He excels in giving precision to an idea, in disentangling a principle, in discovering it amongst a number of different facts; in refuting, distinguishing, arguing. He has the astuteness, patience, method, and sagacity of a lawyer.--Very well, you admit that I was right. A lawyer, an ally of Locke, Newton, Comte, and Hume; we have here only English philosophy; but no matter. Has he reached a grand conception of the universe?--Yes.--Has he an individual and complete idea of nature and the mind?--Yes.--Has he combined the operations and discoveries of the intellect under a single principle which puts them all in a new light?--Yes; but we have to discover this principle.--That is your business, and I hope you will undertake it.--But I shall fall into abstract generalities.--There is no harm in that?--But this close reasoning will be like a quick-set hedge. We will prick our fingers with it.--But three men out of four would cast aside such speculations as idle.--So much the worse for them. For in what does the life of a nation or a century consist, except in the formation of such theories? We are not thoroughly men unless so engaged. If some dweller in another planet were to come down here to ask us the nature of our race, we should have to show him the five or six great ideas which we have formed of the mind and the world. That alone would give him the measure of our intelligence. Expound to me your theory, and I shall go away better instructed than after having seen the masses of brick, which you call London and Manchester.