uld learn
to suspend judgment, and should be most wary in our acceptance of one
philosophical doctrine and our rejection of another.

On the other hand, philosophy is not a mere matter of intellectual
curiosity. It has an intimate connection with life. As a man thinks,
so is he, to a great extent, at least. How, then, can one afford to
remain critical and negative? To counsel this seems equivalent to
advising that one abandon the helm and consent to float at the mercy of
wind and tide.

The difficulty is a very real one. It presents itself insistently to
those who have attained to that degree of intellectual development at
which one begins to ask oneself questions and to reflect upon the worth
and meaning of life. An unreflective adherence to tradition no longer
satisfies such persons. They wish to know why they should believe in
this or that doctrine, and why they should rule their lives in harmony
with this or that maxim. Shall we advise them to lay hold without
delay of a set of philosophical tenets, as we might advise a disabled
man to aid himself with any staff that happens to come to hand? Or
shall we urge them to close their eyes to the light, and to go back
again to the old unreflective life?

Neither of these counsels seems satisfactory, for both assume tacitly
that it does not much matter what the _truth_ is, and that we can
afford to disregard it.

Perhaps we may take a suggestion from that prudent man and acute
philosopher, Descartes. Discontented with the teachings of the schools
as they had been presented to him, he resolved to set out upon an
independent voyage of discovery, and to look for a philosophy of his
own. It seemed necessary to him to doubt, provisionally at least, all
that he had received from the past. But in what house should he live
while he was reconstructing his old habitation? Without principles of
some sort he could not live, and without reasonable principles he could
not live well. So he framed a set of provisional rules, which should
guide his life until he had new ground beneath his feet.

When we examine these rules, we find that, on the whole, they are such
as the experience of mankind has found prudent and serviceable. In
other words, we discover that Descartes, until he was in a position to
see clearly for himself, was willing to be led by others. He was a
unit in the social order, and he recognized that truth.

It does not seem out of place to recall this f