Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1890-02-06
'ssos.,s Other Thouehls. >.

''sesps otissr Thoughts
1t vas not the intention of the writer
of Thoughts by the Way" to get into
controversy. nor 10 it now, but since
"Amicns'' has paid ~ the compliment
of . two column article to our little more
than half column paragraph. q kindly.
but brief reply will be given.
'Amicus'' misapprehends the way in
which mind and matter are used.
They are used ~ the names Of two en-
titles, two existences. The mind can
CONCEIVE of one infinite entity, or exis-
tence. possessing or dwelling in an in
, finite universe. But for two infinite en-
titles to dwell In one infinite universe is
unthinkable; or in other words the in
finite universe must be doubled. which is
q contradiction of terms. Hence, instead
of stumbling over an elementary pridci-
pie of physicus--impenetrability.
'.Amicus" has stumbled over our second
proposition, and it was a hypothesis.
"Amicus" says True il mind is
eternal it IS Infinite in duration. but not
necessarily infinite in Osher respects"
A ''sOiicisn'' sure enough Il mind be-
Infinite in duration it must he eternal
and self existent. If self existent then il
must be complete and perfect; il perfect.
then necessarily infinite and eternal in all
the attributes Il mind Az eternal. in
finite IDIOT IS nnthinkabla Agaosiics as
rule are ma,erialisis. They conceive
of nothing eternal bu; matter The Oh
lee, was 20 show that 81 VA entities
mind. and not matter ilust N the nsfnrr
III the s.ss,. be etern-. and ~ III ID NJ
showed Thai "A,n;cus" hen dsyorcs
ahou' a column srd q i-aif "a The ones
ton PLAYED assnu - mach now f.r-
..isgi NV oaisinn jus. - good "a gonrsf'
TGa, depends: FIRST rpon-ihe amount If
Information one has upon given SID
jert: second upno the manner and .netioi
Of gaining and using that Information
A man might be an excellent autbOrit,
upon light" (TyadalD. OF biology"
IinXievl. ~. ''e-n.utinn" DARWIN. ar
.log;t.' {Mll and 80, b. opinion ho
worth u"thing upon 'iia Antiquities If
Egypt"
Lastly ..Amirus'' says: if after pro
found investigation mat; "omrs 10 the
conclusion that a e - Question - ~
determinahip hr nat; concludes that
ne don know wh-i ,h ruth may he
For the same reaS'n und - fnn-
..lude that 20 % ,."'e- iat' - o. y.
another Wa 80 sas in- VAST | don I
know upon that subjtc; i, not worth
knowing. or can't be discovered" We
have no patent right upon the terms
.-egotist. or "bigot,' the latter OF which
was not used in Thoughts by the Way"
and especially so. in view of the epifhe:s
and misrepresentation used by many OF
the aOuOatic wrifprS
j. NJ WRIGHT.
If the mind (souD is immortal it is inf
mite in duration and as there are many
minds we can conceive of many entities
infinite in duration existing in the uni
verse, This is not ''unthinkable." 1t
does not follow that because mind is in
finite in duration it is eternal. Eternal
means without beginning and without
end" Infinite means with begin
ming but without end The mind (souD
of man is infinite in duration but God
alone is eternal. Neither is mind perfect,
for if perfect it is infinitely developed
possessing ommisciencc and the other at
tributes when belong to the Deity alone.
The writer. SO far from devOting one
and one half columns to the question.
Isn't my opinion just rs good as yours,
did not SO much AS allude to it. The
real question in this connection was
whether man has a right to form and
entertain an opinion of his own. Rev.
Wright in his first article says inferenti-
ally that he has no such right unless that
opioion is orthodox.
The introduction of such names as Tyn
dali, Huxley, Darwin, Mill is objected to
on the ground that they are specialists.
They were mentioned to off set other
specialists-Kelper, Newton. Agassiz.
Why were these last named by Rev.
Wright! They were named for the sake
of the pristige which there greatness
gave to their orthodox opinions. although
they themselves were not authority no
the Antiquities Of egypt or in other
words upon theology. Huxley and the
rest were instanced as eminent men ar
rayed on the side of agnosticism. So far
q weight of names is concerned, REV.
Wright could to say the least, well afford
to exchange lists.
What is more automatic than to say
that NO one knows what the truth of an
Understandable matter may be! A man
may be grossly mistaken in his conclu-
sion that a given question is indeter-
minable, but if he does SO conclude he
must also conclude that no
one knows what the truth of the
matter may be otherwise he could not re-
gard the question as Understandable. In
deed he must conclude that no one can
solve the question before he can conclude
that it is inde'srmi nable. This being
true. it does not foi"w that. This is only
another way of saying what l don't
know upon that subject is not
worth, or cant be discovered"
The man whoregurds a given question
as indeterminble may be the
one who above all other
desires its solution. He regards it as
worth knowing. Certainly he does not
think the truth of the matter can be dis
covered. But this is not because of his
own inability to discover it. There are
many things which he can not discover
which he knows can be determined by
other men. He regards given question
as Understandable because of its inherent
nature. 1t is absurd to say or believe
that any one can determine an indeter
minable matter. We may deplore the
agn0sticism Of man but we can not
think it strange that he should regard no
one as knowing what he deems intdeter-
minable.
ANGUS.