discussing a definition is often but slightly represented in
the superior fitness of the formula that we ultimately adopt;
it consists chiefly in the greater clearness and fulness in
which the characteristics of the matter to which the formula
refers have been brought before the mind in the process of
seeking for it. While we are apparently aiming at definitions
of terms, our attention should be really fixed on distinctions
and relations of fact. These latter are what we are concerned
to know, contemplate, and as far as possible arrange and
systematise; and in subjects where we cannot present them to
the mind in ordinary fulness by the exercise of the organs of
sense, there is no way of surveying them so convenient as
that of reflecting on our use of common terms.... In comparing
different definitions our aim should be far less to decide
which we ought to adopt, than to apprehend and duly consider
the grounds on which each has commended itself to reflective
minds. We shall generally find that each writer has noted some
relation, some resemblance or difference, which others have
overlooked; and we shall gain in completeness, and often
in precision, of view by following him in his observations,
whether or not we follow him in his conclusions."[2]

Mr. Sidgwick's own discussions of _Wealth_, _Value_, and _Money_ are
models. A clue is often found to the meaning in examining startlingly
discrepant statements connected with the same leading word. Thus
we find some authorities declaring that "style" cannot be taught or
learnt, while others declare that it can. But on trying to ascertain
what they mean by "style," we find that those who say it cannot be
taught mean either a certain marked individual character or manner of
writing--as in Buffon's saying, _Le style c'est l'homme meme_--or a
certain felicity and dignity of expression, while those who say style
can be taught mean lucid method in the structure of sentences or in
the arrangement of a discourse. Again in discussions on the rank of
poets, we find different conceptions of what constitutes greatness in
poetry lying at the root of the inclusion of this or the other poet
among great poets. We find one poet excluded from the first rank of
greatness because his poetry was not serious; another because his
poetry was not widely popular; another because he wrote comparatively
little; another b