He is at perfect liberty to scuttle his boat, drive it on the rocks or do any other irrational thing; but if he would have freedom, he must follow his star.
IV This leads us to track a certain error that has confused modern debate.
A man in assumed impartiality tells you he will stand away from his own viewpoint and consider a case from yours.

Now, if he does honestly hold by his own view and thinks he can put it by and judge from his opponent's, he is deceiving both himself and his opponent.

He can do so _apparently,_ but, whatever assumption is made, he is governed subconsciously by his own firm conviction.

His belief is around him like an atmosphere; it goes with him wherever he goes; he can only stand free of it by altogether abandoning it.

If his case is such that he can come absolutely to the other side to view it uninfluenced by his own, then he has abandoned his own.