where the imposing and charming image always represents the
practical, the repulsive the theoretical, form of philosophy. By
this play he carries away the great mass of people, who, like
children, always run after images. Practical philosophy is not so
much a conviction with him, but it serves him to make a point;
whereas theoretical philosophy serves as an easy butt. Thus the
contrast between the two acquires a certain dramatic charm. The
reader feels moved and excited by the subject before him, and
forgets the scientific question. His fancy is caught by a kind of
metaphorical imagery, and his understanding surrenders what is due
to it.... What is Mr. Macaulay's meaning in rejecting theoretical
philosophy, because philosophy is here the object, and man the
means; whereas he adopts practical philosophy, because man is here
the object, and philosophy the means? What do we gain by such
comparisons, as when he says that practical and theoretical
philosophy are like works and words, fruits and thorns, a
high-road and a treadmill? Such phrases always remind us of the
remark of Socrates: They are said indeed, but are they well and
truly said? According to the strict meaning of Mr. Macaulay's
words, there never was a practical philosophy; for there never was
a philosophy which owed its origin to practical considerations
only. And there never was a theoretical philosophy, for there
never was a philosophy which did not receive its impulse from a
human want, that is to say, from a practical motive. This shows
where playing with words must always lead. He defines theoretical
and practical philosophy in such a manner that his definition is
inapplicable to any kind of philosophy. His antithesis is entirely
empty. But if we drop the antithesis, and only keep to what it
means in sober and intelligible language, it would come to
this,--that the value of a theory depends on its usefulness, on its
practical influence on human life, on the advantage which we
derive from it. Utility alone is to decide on the value of a
theory. Be it so. But who is to decide on utility? If all things
are useful which serve to satisfy human wants, who is to decide on
our wants? We take Mr. Macaulay's own point of view. Philosophy
should be practical; it should serve man, satisfy his wants, or
help to satisfy them