ABSTRACT
No problem appears more perplexing in systematic logic than that of method. Insofar as systematic logic investigates valid thinking, any methodological orientation seems self-defeating. Systematic logic can hardly presuppose how thought should be developed without begging the question, yet any employment of a determinate method seems to do just that. By conforming to any given procedure, systematic logic risks forfeiting the autonomy that reason must retain to examine itself without yielding to unquestioned dogma. Yet if systematic logic must proceed without any given, preconceived method, can its advance escape arbitrariness?
