Because though we may get rid of religion in its pure form 83

There is much that we have not got rid of, embodied still in the moral end 84

To test the intrinsic value of the end, we must sublimate this religion out of it 86

For this purpose we will consider, first, the three general characteristics of the moral end, viz. 88

Its inwardness 88

Its importance 89

And its absolute character 91

Now all these three characteristics can be explained by religion 93

And cannot be explained without it 96

The positive moral end must therefore be completely divested of them 100

The next question is, will it be equally attractive then? 100

CHAPTER V.

Love as A test of goodness.

The positivists represent love as a thing whose value is self-dependent 101

And which gives to life a positive and incalculable worth 103

But this is supposed to be true of one form of love only 104

And the very opposite is supposed to hold good of all other forms 105

The right form depends on the conformity of each of the lovers to a certain inward standard 105

As we can see exemplified in the case of Othello and Desdemona, etc. 107

The kind and not the degree of the love is what gives love its special value 108

And the selection of this kind can be neither made nor justified on positive principles 109

As the following quotations from Theophile Gautier will show us 110

Which are supposed by many to embody the true view of love 110

According to this view, purity is simply a disease both in man and woman, or at any rate no merit 116

If love is to be a moral end, this view must be absolutely condemned 117

But positivism cannot condemn it, or support the opposite view 117

As we shall see by recurring to Professor Huxley’s argument 118