profess them believe them, taking the word 'believe' in its real and
deep meaning? No; they often do mischief which they do not mean to do,
and do not see that they do. They are intoxicated with a bad philosophy,
and intoxication renders blind. It is easy to prove that these
optimists, who in theory find that everything is right, are perpetually
contradicting themselves in practice. Address yourselves to one of them,
and say to him: "Your doctrine is big with immorality. You do not
yourself believe it; and when you pretend to believe it, you lie." This
man who tolerates everything will not tolerate your freedom of speech.
He will get angry, and, according to the old doctrines, he will have the
right to be so, for insult is an evil. Then say to him: "Here you are,
it seems to me, in contradiction with your system. Everything is right;
the vivacity of my speech therefore is good. All that is has the right
to be; my indignation is therefore a legitimate fact, and it appears to
me that yours cannot be so unless you allow (an admission which would be
contrary to your system) that mine is not so." If you have to do with a
sensible man, he will begin to laugh. If you have met with a blockhead,
he will be more angry than ever. This contradiction comes out in every
page, and in a more serious manner, in the writings of our optimists.
One cannot read them with attention, without meeting incessantly with
the protest of their moral nature against the despotism of a false mode
of reasoning. The man is at every moment making himself heard, the man
who has a heart, a conscience, a reason, and who contradicts the
philosopher without being aware of it. Contradictions these, honorable
to the writer, but dangerous for the reader, because they serve to
invest with brilliant colors doctrines which in themselves are hideous.

No, Gentlemen, it is impossible to succeed in adoring humanity,
preserving the while the least consistency of reasoning. In vain men
wish to accept everything, to tolerate everything; in vain they wish to