hole of life.

A far more satisfactory theory is that of _Rationalism_. It
is a theory that admits that the human mind has some capacity for
working upon the data presented to it by the sense organs. Man is
no longer quite so helpless a creature as empiricism would make
him. He is able to weigh and consider the facts that are presented
to the mind. The method rationalism uses to arrive at truth is that
of logical deduction, and the test of truth is that the steps in the
process are logically sound. We may start from the data "All dogs
are animals" and "Carlo is a dog," and arrive very simply at the
conclusion "Carlo is an animal." The conclusion is correct because
we have reasoned in accordance with the laws of logic, with the laws
of valid thought. All logical reasoning is, of course, not so simple
as the example given, but it may be stated generally that when there
is no logical fallacy, a correct conclusion may be arrived at,
provided, too--and herein lies the difficulty--provided that the
premises are also true. These premises may be in themselves general
statements--how is their truth established? They may be, and often
are, the generalisations of the empirical sciences, and must then
possess the same degree of uncertainty that these generalisations
possess. Some philosophers have contended that certain general ideas
are innate, but few would be found nowadays to accept such a
contention. At other times mere definitions of terms may serve as
premises. One might state as a premise the definition "A straight
line is the shortest distance between two points," and the further
statement that "AB is a straight line between A and B," and conclude
that the line AB represents the shortest distance between two points A
and B. In a manner similar to this Euclid built his whole mathematical
system upon the basis of definitions and postulates, a system the
complexity and thoroughness of which has caused all students of
mathematics at one time or another to marvel and admire. But, of
course, a definition is little more than assigning a definite term to
a definite thing. It is when we begin to consider the premises that are
necessary for arriving at the profound truths of the universe that we
find the weakness of rationalism. How are we going to be provided with
premises for this end? Shall we begin by saying "There is a God" or
"There is no God"? How is the pure reasoning faculty to decide upon the
premises in the matter of the