THREE:I now come to note a matter in connection with draughting to which the attention of learners is earnestly called, and which, if neglected, all else will be useless. I allude to indigestion, and its resultant evils. All sedentary pursuits more or less give rise to this trouble, but none of them so much as draughting. Every condition to promote this derangement exists. When the muscles are at rest, circulation is slow, the mind is intensely occupied, robbing the stomach of its blood and vitality, and, worse than all, the mechanical action of the stomach is usually arrested by leaning over the edge of a board. It is regretted that no good rule can be given to avoid this danger. One who understands the evil may in a degree avert it by applying some of the logic which has been recommended in the study of mechanics. If anything tends to induce indigestion, its opposite tends the other way, and may arrest it; if stooping over a board interferes with the action of the digestive organs, leaning back does the opposite; it is therefore best to have a desk as high as possible, stand when at work, and cultivate a constant habit of straightening up and throwing the shoulders back, and if possible, take brief intervals of vigorous exercise. Like rating the horse-power of a steam-engine, by multiplying the force into the velocity, the capacity of a man can be estimated by multiplying his mental acquirements into his vitality.Whatever may have been the errors into which Socrates fell, he did not commit the fatal mistake of compromising his ethical doctrine by associating it indissolubly with his metaphysical opinions. Religion, with him, instead of being the source and sanction of all duty, simply brought in an additional dutythat of gratitude to the gods for their goodness. We shall presently see where he sought for the ultimate foundation of morality, after completing our survey of the dialectic method with which it was so closely connected. The induction of Socrates, when it went beyond that kind of analogical reasoning which we have just been considering, was mainly abstraction, the process by which he obtained those general conceptions or definitions which played so great a part in his philosophy. Thus, on comparing the different virtues, as commonly distinguished, he found that they all agreed in requiring knowledge, which he accordingly concluded to be the essence of virtue. So other moralists have been led to conclude that right actions resemble one another in their felicific quality, and In that alone. Similarly, political economists find, or formerly found (for we do not wish to be positive on the matter), that a common characteristic of all industrial employments is the desire to secure the maximum of profit with the minimum of trouble. Another comparison shows that value depends on the relation between supply and demand. Aesthetic enjoyments of every kind resemble one another by including an element of ideal emotion. It is a common characteristic of all cognitions that they are151 constructed by association out of elementary feelings. All societies are marked by a more or less developed division of labour. These are given as typical generalisations which have been reached by the Socratic method. They are all taken from the philosophic sciencesthat is, the sciences dealing with phenomena which are partly determined by mind, and the systematic treatment of which is so similar that they are frequently studied in combination by a single thinker, and invariably so by the greatest thinkers of any. But were we to examine the history of the physical sciences, we should find that this method of wide comparison and rapid abstraction cannot, as Francis Bacon imagined, be successfully applied to them. The facts with which they deal are not transparent, not directly penetrable by thought; hence they must be treated deductively. Instead of a front attack, we must, so to speak, take them in the rear. Bacon never made a more unfortunate observation than when he said that the syllogism falls far short of the subtlety of Nature. Nature is even simpler than the syllogism, for she accomplishes her results by advancing from equation to equation. That which really does fall far short of her subtlety is precisely the Baconian induction with its superficial comparison of instances. No amount of observation could detect any resemblance between the bursting of a thunderstorm and the attraction of a loadstone, or between the burning of charcoal and the rusting a nail.
