3658925934

deeds of ruin. Let us say a word now with regard to verbal discussion, pure and simple. This, too,
when it develops—for there are any number of little private discussions which, fortunately, do not
develop, but die on the spot—develops in the way just described, though here the process is far less
obvious. It is only after the mental discussion between contradictory ideas within the same mind has
ended (this should not be forgotten), that any verbal discussion is possible between two men who
have solved the question differently. Similarly, if verbal, written, or printed discussions between
groups of men, and groups that are ever widening, takes the place of verbal discussion between two
men, it is because the more limited discussion has been brought to an end by some relative and
temporary agreement, or some sort of unanimity. These groups are first split up into an endless
multitude of little coteries, clans, churches, forums, and schools, which combat one another; but at
length, after many polemics, they are welded into a very small number of great parties, religions,
parliamentary groups, schools of philosophy, and schools of art, which engage one another in mortal
combat. . . .
To sum up. The strife of opposition in human society, in its three principal forms—war,
competition, and discussion—proves obedient to one and the same law of development, through ever
widening areas of temporary pacification, alternating with renewals of discord more centrally
organized and on a larger scale, and leading up to a final, at least partial, agreement. It would appear
from this—and we have many other reasons for the conclusion—that the strife of opposition fulfils the
role of a middle term in the social, as it does in the organic and inorganic, worlds, and that it is
destined gradually to fade away, exhaust itself, and disappear, as a result of its own growth, which is
merely a progress toward its own destruction. . . .