You are in:
Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1866 > February > “How did we hear about Spiritism?
“How did we hear about Spiritism?
The article about Spiritism published in our December 31st issue raised many inquiries as to whether we intend to deal with this issue in a later date and if we became part of the organization. A categorical response is necessary to avoid misunderstandings. Here is the answer:
The Discussion is a journal open to every progressive idea. Now, progress can only be achieved through new ideas that, from time to time, change the course of the pre-established ideas. Rejecting them by the fact that they destroy others previously fostered is illogical from our point of view. Without a broad apology to all elucubrations of the human mind, we believe to be a duty of impartiality to allow the public to judge them. To achieve that it is necessary to show them as they are, without a prior position in favor or against, because if they are false they will not become true because we support them, and if they are true our disapproval will not make them false. As with everything else, it is the public opinion and the future that will pronounce the last sentence. But to get to know the strength and the weakness of a given idea it is necessary to present it in its essence, and not in the way its adversaries would like to have it presented, frequently truncated and altered. Therefore, if we expose the principles of a given doctrine, we do not wish to have its authors or followers criticizing us for saying the opposite of what they say. That is not responsible; the correct is to say what it is and allow the opinion of everybody else.
We place the idea in evidence in its fullest extent. If it is good, it will follow its path and we would have opened the door; if it is bad, we would have provided the means for an informed judgement.
That is how we shall proceed with respect to Spiritism. Irrespective of the way one may see it, nobody can deny the influence it has achieved in a few years. Given the number and quality of its followers, it has conquered a stablished position among the accepted ideas. The storms that it provokes, the bloodthirsty fights it faces in certain sectors, are to the simplest observer an indication of its serious contents, since it moves so many people. Think of it as you will, it is unarguably one of the top stories of the day. Thus, we would not be consistent with our program if we had let it pass quietly. Our readers have all the right to ask us to help them to get to know this doctrine that provokes such a great noise. Our interest is in satisfying them and our duty is to do it impartially. They couldn’t care less about our personal opinion about something; they expect a strict report of the facts from us and about the attitudes of the followers, so that they can form their own opinion.
How shall we proceed in this case? Very simple: we will seek the source; we will do with Spiritism what we do with matters of politics, finances, science, art or literature, that is, we will assign it to the experts. The matters of Spiritism will therefore be handled by Spiritists, as the matters of architecture are handled by architects, so that we are not classified as blind people reasoning about colors and that these words of Figaro do not apply to us: “They needed a mathematician and took a dancer.”
In short, “The Discussion” is not a branch or apostle of Spiritism; it open up its columns, as it does with all new ideas, without the intention of imposing such ideas to the readers, who are always free to control, accept or reject them. It gives its special editors the freedom to discuss the principles, for which they take personal responsibility. But what it will always repel, in the interest of its own dignity, is the personal and aggressive controversy.”
The Discussion is a journal open to every progressive idea. Now, progress can only be achieved through new ideas that, from time to time, change the course of the pre-established ideas. Rejecting them by the fact that they destroy others previously fostered is illogical from our point of view. Without a broad apology to all elucubrations of the human mind, we believe to be a duty of impartiality to allow the public to judge them. To achieve that it is necessary to show them as they are, without a prior position in favor or against, because if they are false they will not become true because we support them, and if they are true our disapproval will not make them false. As with everything else, it is the public opinion and the future that will pronounce the last sentence. But to get to know the strength and the weakness of a given idea it is necessary to present it in its essence, and not in the way its adversaries would like to have it presented, frequently truncated and altered. Therefore, if we expose the principles of a given doctrine, we do not wish to have its authors or followers criticizing us for saying the opposite of what they say. That is not responsible; the correct is to say what it is and allow the opinion of everybody else.
We place the idea in evidence in its fullest extent. If it is good, it will follow its path and we would have opened the door; if it is bad, we would have provided the means for an informed judgement.
That is how we shall proceed with respect to Spiritism. Irrespective of the way one may see it, nobody can deny the influence it has achieved in a few years. Given the number and quality of its followers, it has conquered a stablished position among the accepted ideas. The storms that it provokes, the bloodthirsty fights it faces in certain sectors, are to the simplest observer an indication of its serious contents, since it moves so many people. Think of it as you will, it is unarguably one of the top stories of the day. Thus, we would not be consistent with our program if we had let it pass quietly. Our readers have all the right to ask us to help them to get to know this doctrine that provokes such a great noise. Our interest is in satisfying them and our duty is to do it impartially. They couldn’t care less about our personal opinion about something; they expect a strict report of the facts from us and about the attitudes of the followers, so that they can form their own opinion.
How shall we proceed in this case? Very simple: we will seek the source; we will do with Spiritism what we do with matters of politics, finances, science, art or literature, that is, we will assign it to the experts. The matters of Spiritism will therefore be handled by Spiritists, as the matters of architecture are handled by architects, so that we are not classified as blind people reasoning about colors and that these words of Figaro do not apply to us: “They needed a mathematician and took a dancer.”
In short, “The Discussion” is not a branch or apostle of Spiritism; it open up its columns, as it does with all new ideas, without the intention of imposing such ideas to the readers, who are always free to control, accept or reject them. It gives its special editors the freedom to discuss the principles, for which they take personal responsibility. But what it will always repel, in the interest of its own dignity, is the personal and aggressive controversy.”