Hedoesnotreallyliveinthethinairofabstractspeculation。Onthecontrary，hestartsgenerally，andsurelyisrightinstarting，withkeeninterestinthegreatreligious，ethical，andsocialproblemsofthetime。Hewishes——honestlyandeagerly——totrythembytheseveresttests，andtoholdfastonlywhatisclearlyvalid。Thedesiretoapplyhisprinciplesinfactjustifieshispursuit，andredeemshimfromthechargethatheisdelightinginbarrenintellectualsubtleties。Buttoanoutsiderhisproceduremayappearinadifferentlight。Hisrealproblemcomestobe：howtheconclusionswhichareagreeabletohisemotionscanbeconnectedwiththepostulateswhicharecongenialtohisintellect?Hemaybeabsolutelyhonestandquiteunconsciousthathisconclusionswereprearrangedbyhissympathies。Nophilosophiccreedofanyimportancehaseverbeenconstructed，wemaywellbelieve，withoutsuchsincerityandwithoutsuchplausibilityasresultsfromitscorrespondencetoatleastsomeaspectsofthetruth。Buttheresultissufficientlyshownbytheperplexedcontroversieswhicharise。Menagreeintheirconclusions，thoughstartingfromoppositepremises；orfromthesamepremisesreachthemostdivergingconclusions。Thesamecodeofpracticalmorality，itisoftensaid，isacceptedbythinkerswhodenyeachother’sfirstprinciples；dogmatismoftenappearstoitsopponentstobethorough-goingscepticismindisguise，andmenestablishvictoriouslyresultswhichturnoutintheendtobereallyastrongholdfortheirantagonists。
HencethereisadistinctionbetweensuchahistoryofasectasIcontemplateandahistoryofscientificinquiryorofpurephilosophy。Ahistoryofmathematicalorphysicalsciencewoulddifferfromadirectexpositionofthescience，butonlyinsofarasitwouldstatetruthsintheorderofdiscovery，notintheordermostconvenientfordisplayingthemasasystem。Itwouldshowwhatweretheprocessesbywhichtheywereoriginallyfoundout，andhowtheyhavebeenafterwardsannexedorabsorbedinsomewidergeneralisation。
Thesefactsmightbestatedwithoutanyreferencetothehistoryofthediscoverersorofthesocietytowhichtheybelonged。Theywouldindeedsuggestveryinterestingtopicstothegeneralhistorianor’sociologist。’Hemightbeledtoinquireunderwhatconditionsmencametoinquirescientificallyatall；whytheyceasedforcenturiestocareforscience；whytheytookupspecialdepartmentsofinvestigation；andwhatwastheeffectofscientificdiscoveriesuponsocialrelationsingeneral。Butthetwoinquirieswouldbedistinctforobviousreasons。Ifmenstudymathematicstheycanonlycometooneconclusion。Theywillfindoutthesamepropositionsofgeometryiftheyonlythinkclearlyenoughandlongenough，ascertainlyasColumbuswoulddiscoverAmericaifheonlysailedfarenough。Americawasthere，andsoinasensearethepropositions。Wemaythereforeinthiscaseentirelyseparatethetwoquestions：whatleadsmentothink?andwhatconclusionswilltheyreach?Thereasonswhichguidedthefirstdiscoverersarejustasvalidnow，thoughtheycanbemoresystematicallystated。Butinthe’moralsciences’thisdistinctionisnotequallypossible。Theintellectualandthesocialevolutionarecloselyandintricatelyconnected，andeachreactsupontheother。Inthelastresortnodoubtadefinitivesystemofbeliefonceelaboratedwouldreposeuponuniversallyvalidtruthsanddetermine，insteadofbeingdeterminedby，thecorrespondingsocialorder。Butintheconcreteevolutionwhich，wemayhope，isapproximatingtowardsthisresult，thecreedscurrentamongmankindhavebeendeterminedbythesocialconditionsaswellashelpedtodeterminethem。Togiveanaccountofthatprocessitisnecessarytospecifythevariouscircumstanceswhichmayleadtothesurvivaloferror，andtothepartialviewsoftruthtakenbymenofdifferentidiosyncrasiesworkingupondifferentdataandmovedbydifferentpassionsandprepossessions。
Ahistorywrittenuponthesetermswouldshowprimarilywhat，asafact，werethedominantbeliefsduringagivenperiod，andstatewhichsurvived，whichdisappeared，andwhichweretransformedorengrafteduponothersystemsofthought。Thiswouldofcourseraisethequestionofthetruthorfalsehoodofthedoctrinesaswellasoftheirvitality：forthetruthisatleastoneessentialconditionofpermanentvitality。Thedifferencewouldbethattheproblemwouldbeapproachedfromadifferentside。Weshouldaskfirstwhatbeliefshaveflourished，andafterwardsaskwhytheyflourished，andhowfartheirvitalitywasduetotheirpartialorcompletetruth。TowritesuchahistorywouldperhapsrequireanimpartialitywhichfewpeoplepossessandwhichIdonotventuretoclaim。Ihavemyownopinionsforwhichotherpeoplemayaccountbyprejudice，assumption，ordownrightincapacity。IamquiteawarethatIshallbeimplicitlycriticisingmyselfincriticisingothers。AllthatIcanprofessisthatbytakingthequestionsinthisorder，Ishallhopetofixattentionupononesetofconsiderationswhichareapt，asIfancy，tobeundulyneglected。Theresultofreadingsomehistoriesistoraisethequestion：howpeopleontheothersidecametobesuchunmitigatedfools?Whyweretheyimposeduponbysuchobviousfallacies?Thatmaybeansweredbyconsideringmorefullytheconditionsunderwhichtheopinionswereactuallyadopted，andoneresultmaybetoshowthatthoseopinionshadaconsiderableelementoftruth，andwereheldbymenwhoweretheveryoppositeoffools。AtanyrateIshalldowhatIcantowriteanaccountofthisphaseofthought，soastobringoutwhatwereitsrealtenets；towhatintellectualtypetheywerenaturallycongenial；whatwerethelimitationsofviewwhichaffectedtheUtilitarians’conceptionoftheproblemstobesolved；andwhatwerethepassionsandprepossessionsduetothecontemporarystateofsocietyandtotheirownclassposition，whichtosomedegreeunconsciouslydictatedtheirconclusions。SofarasIcandothissatisfactorily，IhopethatImaythrowsomelightupontheintrinsicvalueofthecreed，andtheplacewhichitshouldoccupyinadefinitivesystem。
NOTES：