what is the meaning of these phrases?: "personal nobility of character" and "the actual philosophy"?

If he may venture his individual opinion, it is that the perfect recipient of spiritual teaching is the earnest man who has worked his way through all the orthodox creeds, and whose mind, eager and receptive, is a blank surface ready to register a new impression exactly as received. He becomes the true child and pupil of other-world teaching, and all other types of Spiritualist appear to be compromises. This does not alter the fact that personal nobility of character may make the honest compromiser a far higher type than the pure Spiritualist, but it applies only to the actual philosophy. The field of Spiritualism is infinitely broad, and on it every variety of Christian, as well as the Moslem, the Hindu or the Parsee, can dwell in brotherhood. But a mere acceptance of spirit return and communion is not enough. Many savages have that. We need a moral code as well, and whether we regard Christ as a benevolent teacher or as a divine ambassador, His actual ethical teaching in one form or another, even if not coupled with His name, is an essential thing for the upliftment of mankind. But always it must be checked by reason, and acted upon in the spirit and not according to the letter.

  • 1
    Your text is from The History of Spiritualism (Arthur Conan Doyle, 1926). It's not really a useful text for anyone wanting to learn English today (I'm sure much of his phrasing would have been considered "dated / antiquated" even when he wrote it). But personal nobility of character is simply a roundabout way of saying nobility / nobleness, virtue (as a personal character attribute). And the actual philosophy here is of course Spiritualism. Jan 1, 2020 at 17:24

1 Answer 1


I agree with @FumbleFingers definition of 'personal nobility of spirit' as nobleness/virtue and that using this text to learn English is probably not particularly relevant. However, I differ in regards to the definition of philosophy.

As I read it, the Author has asserted the following;

that a person who has worked through and transcended all orthodox religion is a pure Spiritualist,

anyone who hasn't transcended and still practices a formal religion is a compromiser,

it is possible for an honest compromiser to be superior to a pure Spiritualist based on their relative moral and ethical philosophies,

superiority of an honest compromiser over a pure Spiritualist depends upon the moral and ethical code followed by the honest compromiser.

The author goes on to explain in the remainder of the paragraph that "actual philosophy" means the individual's moral and ethical code and that a superior philosophy is one which is applied in the spirit of its religious intent and not dogmatically.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .