THE TENDER-MINDED

Rationalistic (going by ’principles’),
Intellectualistic,
Idealistic,
Optimistic,
Religious,
Free-willist,
Monistic,
Dogmatical.

THE TOUGH-MINDED

Empiricist (going by ’facts’),
Sensationalistic,
Materialistic,
Pessimistic,
Irreligious,
Fatalistic,
Pluralistic,
Sceptical.

Pray postpone for a moment the question whether the two contrasted mixtures which I have written down are each inwardly coherent and self-consistent or not—­I shall very soon have a good deal to say on that point.  It suffices for our immediate purpose that tender-minded and tough-minded people, characterized as I have written them down, do both exist.  Each of you probably knows some well-marked example of each type, and you know what each example thinks of the example on the other side of the line.  They have a low opinion of each other.  Their antagonism, whenever as individuals their temperaments have been intense, has formed in all ages a part of the philosophic atmosphere of the time.  It forms a part of the philosophic atmosphere to-day.  The tough think of the tender as sentimentalists and soft-heads.  The tender feel the tough to be unrefined, callous, or brutal.  Their mutual reaction is very much like that that takes place when Bostonian tourists mingle with a population like that of Cripple Creek.  Each type believes the other to be inferior to itself; but disdain in the one case is mingled with amusement, in the other it has a dash of fear.

Now, as I have already insisted, few of us are tender-foot Bostonians pure and simple, and few are typical Rocky Mountain toughs, in philosophy.  Most of us have a hankering for the good things on both sides of the line.  Facts are good, of course—­give us lots of facts.  Principles are good—­give us plenty of principles.  The world is indubitably one if you look at it in one way, but as indubitably is it many, if you look at it in another.  It is both one and many—­let us adopt a sort of pluralistic monism.  Everything of course is necessarily determined, and yet of course our wills are free:  a sort of free-will determinism is the true philosophy.  The evil of the parts is undeniable; but the whole can’t be evil:  so practical pessimism may be combined with metaphysical optimism.  And so forth—­your ordinary philosophic layman never being a radical, never straightening out his system, but living vaguely in one plausible compartment of it or another to suit the temptations of successive hours.

But some of us are more than mere laymen in philosophy.  We are worthy of the name of amateur athletes, and are vexed by too much inconsistency and vacillation in our creed.  We cannot preserve a good intellectual conscience so long as we keep mixing incompatibles from opposite sides of the line.