Talking abstractly, the
quality 'true' may thus be said to grow absolutely precious, and the
quality 'untrue' absolutely damnable: the one may be called good,
the other bad, unconditionally. We ought to think the true, we ought
to shun the false, imperatively.
But if we treat all this abstraction literally and oppose it to its
mother soil in experience, see what a preposterous position we work
ourselves into.
We cannot then take a step forward in our actual thinking. When
shall I acknowledge this truth and when that? Shall the
acknowledgment be loud?--or silent? If sometimes loud, sometimes
silent, which NOW? When may a truth go into cold-storage in the
encyclopedia? and when shall it come out for battle? Must I
constantly be repeating the truth 'twice two are four' because of
its eternal claim on recognition? or is it sometimes irrelevant?
Must my thoughts dwell night and day on my personal sins and
blemishes, because I truly have them?--or may I sink and ignore them
in order to be a decent social unit, and not a mass of morbid
melancholy and apology?
It is quite evident that our obligation to acknowledge truth, so far
from being unconditional, is tremendously conditioned. Truth with a
big T, and in the singular, claims abstractly to be recognized, of
course; but concrete truths in the plural need be recognized only
when their recognition is expedient.
Pages:
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194