Wilhelm Windelband. An Introduction To Philosophy

AN INTRODUCTION
TO PHILOSOPHY
Translated
by
By
WILHELM WINDELBAND
JOSEPH
McCABE
T.
FISHER UNWIN LTD

:
LONDON
ADELPHI TERRACE
First published in English
31
76
(/I//
r;^/i/s
reserved]
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

THE
Introduction to Philosophy which
I
here offer to
the public gives a general view of philosophical problems and explains the tendencies of the various attempts to
solve them.
It
seeks to provoke the reader to think
over the great problems of life. It is in no sense an introduction to a special philosophical system, but it makes a very wide survey of all the possibilities in the
Naturally, it is based upon the author's personal view, as the student of philosophy will easily but this will not be pressed, or suffered to perceive
way
of solutions.
influence
the
author's
judgment
in
appraising
other
systems of thought. In view of the aim of the work

necessary to
have not found
it
with literary references to the historic systems to which reference is made in its pages.
it
burden
WILHELM WINDELBAND.
HEIDELBERG,
February 1914.
AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
By
RUDOLF EUCKEN
:
RUDOLF EUCKEN
Work
self.
His
Life.
and Travels.
By HimBy
SOCIALISM
T.
An
Analysis.
Rudolf Eucken.
FISHER UNWIN LTD.
LONDON
CONTENTS
PAGE
PROLEGOMENA
Aim
life
13
Craving for a philosophy of philosophy Presuppositions of philosophic thinking The problems and the solutions of them The history of philosophy Antinomianism Hisof
the Introduction
of
Difficulty
torical,
systematic, and critical methods Literature Knowledge and values Distribution of the problems.
PART
i.
I.
THEORETICAL
Knowledge)
PROBLEMS
(Questions
of
33 34
REALITY AND APPEARANCE

"True and apparent reality
Metaphysical and empirical, absolute and relative reality Objective and subjective appearance Positivism Metaphysics and religion Metaphysics as a hypostasis of ideals Philosophic methods "-The unconditioned The transcendental appearance.
CHAPTER
v
2.
I.
ONTIC PROBLEMS
47
47
SUBSTANCE The category of inherence The thing and its properties The identity of the thing Essential and unessential properties Identity of mass, form, and development
Elements Absolute qualities ideas Atoms, entelechies, and monads Universalism and Individualism Attributes and modi The ego Coherence of the properties.
:
'
3.
THE QUANTITY OF BEING Number and magnitude
72
Simplification of the world in
thought Henism and Singularism Monotheism Pantheism, Deism, Theism Immanence and transcendence Oneness, infinity, indefiniteness Acosmism Pluralism Measurement Finitism and Infinitism Monadology Space and time Recurrence of all things.
-
4.
*
THE QUALITATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF REALITY

Original
qualities
101
and derivative properties
Primary and secondary
Quantitative outlook of men of science The material world and consciousness The soul as vital force
CONTENTS
PAGE
and vehicle of consciousness Intellectualism, Voluntarism, The Unconscious and Emotionalism Psycho-physical and spiritualism (idealism) parallelism Materialism Theoretical and axiological duality Monism.
CHAPTER
5.
II.
GENETIC PROBLEMS
121
121
THE EVENT
Continuity and discontinuity of events Immanent and transgredient events The necessity of succession in time Causal and teleological dependence.
Succession in time
6.
CAUSALITY Four usual forms of causality Plurality of causesPrimary and incidental causes Postulate of the identity
126
Law of causality Conservation of energy elements in the psychic life Causal equation Incomprehensibility of the causal relation Experience of action Universality of the time-succession Conformity of nature to law.
of the world
New
7.
MECHANISM AND TELEOLOGY

Convertibility of natural laws The mechanical and the organic whole Originality of action Aim and purpose Sound and spurious teleology Unconscious teleology Teleology and vital capacity Development Causality in the service of teleology.
143
8.
THE PSYCHO-PHYSICAL EVENT

Psychic and corporeal events Psycho-physical causality Psycho-physical parallelism Conservation of energy Consciousness as an epiphenomenon The brain as an asylum ignorantice
152
Reflex
movements
Discontinuity of the psychic event Psycho-physical duality as appearance Panpsychism The unconscious.
CHAPTER
9.
III.
NOETIC PROBLEMS
of
166
166
TRUTH
and knowledge The judgment Transcendental, immanent, and formal truth Truth as value Pragmatism Opinion, belief, and knowTheories
knowledge
Science
ledge.
jo.
THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE

Thinking
176
and perceiving Rationalism and empiricism Hominism Apriorism and aposteriorism (sensualism)
182
Psychologism.
4
ii.
THE VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE

Psychological and logical validity Validity and being Consciousness in general Theory of knowledge as meta-
CONTENTS
realism The controversy naiive physics Dogmatism Realism and Nominalism Scepticism about universals
:
Q
PAGE
Problematicism and Probabilism Phenomenalism Mathematical Phenomenalism Semeiotics Ontological PhenoAbsolute menalism Idealism Solipsism Spiritualism
Phenomenalism
12.
Agnosticism
Conscientialism.
THE OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE

Transcendental method
sciousness
196
Function and content of con-
Being and consciousness Synthesis of the Objectivity as real necessity Abstraction sciences of nature Selective synthesis Rational sciences and culture The position of Psychology Knowledge without and with value Autonomy of the various sciences.
manifold
:
PART
13.
II.
AXIOLOGICAL
Value)
.
.
PROBLEMS
(Questions
of
208
. .
.
VALUE
Primary
209
Psychological
axiology
Valuation
will
feeling
Primary
feeling or will Reciprocity of values
as
Conversion
aesthetics.
Morality Valuation of values Conscience Postulate of the normal consciousness Logic, ethics, and
CHAPTER
14.
I.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
218 219
THE PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY Imperativistic and descriptive morality Many meanings Universal moral law Teleological of the moral principle Hedonism fundamental law Eudaemonism Egoism
Epicureanism
Morality
of of
soul-salvation
perfectibility
Emotional morality man Morality and legality The categorical imperative Moral order of the world Morality of personality.
Empirical and rational morality Morality of feeling Intuitionalism Morality of authority God, the State, and custom as legislators Heteronomy and autonomy.
Utilitarianism Morality Definition of morality
Altruism Rational
Reward and punishment Altruistic impulses Sympathy and fellow-feeling The beautiful soul Strata of
morality.
The freedom of the will Freedom of action and choice Determinism and indeterminism Responsibility Metaphysical freedom as causelessness Practical responsibility.
15.
COMMUNAL WILL Individual and common

unions
253
will
Voluntary and pre-existing
Natural and historical unions The family, nation, economic community, State, and Church Custom, morals, and law End of voluntary communities Civilization
10
CONTENTS
PAGE
Sociology Natural law and jurisprudence The definition of law Legal duty, legal claims, legal rights Law as the ethical minimum Purpose of the State and law Liberalism and Socialism The national State Object of the State Real rationality of the legal order.
1
6.
HISTORY The philosophy
277
of
higher research What happens in and around man Individuality and personality Self-consciousness Emancipation of the personality History of language Collectivist and individualist history Superpersonality of values Unity of the human race Concept and idea of humanity Historical unification Moral order
of the world
Progress in history
Indefinite perfectibility
Intellectual, moral, and hedonistic progress and death of humanity Life as the greatest
Old age good
Reality with and without time.
CHAPTER
17.
II.
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
CONCEPT OF THE ESTHETIC " " Disinterested pleasure aesthetics History of the word Freedom of wish and will Toward a system of values Beauty in nature and art Esthetics from above and
below.
301
18.
THE BEAUTIFUL
Differences of taste
306
Play of the feelings and moods sympathy Importance The sensuous and suprasensuous The beautiful as a symbol of the good The sublime Freedom in the appearance Illusion The
Majority and Formalistic aesthetics
Criticism of the idea of equal diffusion authority Play of the intellectual forces
Emotional
aesthetic object
19.
Sensuous appearance of the idea.
ART
Imitation Entertainment, education, improvement Play and the impulse to play Aimless self-presentation Genius The unconscious-conscious in art.
316
CHAPTER
20.
III.
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
323
324
THB
as
SACRF.D
The sacred not a

an
Conscience special province of values otherworldly phenomenon The superempirical union of persons God as a suprasensuous reality Ejection of the mythical from religious philosophy Relation of religion to the other provinces of culture The classification of religions Pious sentiment and its influence on ideas Two meanings of the suprasensuous.
CONTENTS
21.
11
THE TRUTH OF RELIGION

Faith
religion of souls
334
and
knowledge
Natural
religion
and
rational
The immortality of the soul The transmigration The substance of souls The postulate of freedom Posthumous justice The Faust-like impulse to live on Soul and spirit The philosophical Personalistic pluralism idea of God Proofs of the existence of God The ontoThe cosmological proof and logical proof and Pantheism Deism The teleological proof and Theism.
REALITY AND VALUE
Subjective and objective Antinomianism Optimism and pessimism The problems of theodicy Physical evil Moral evil Dualism of value and unity of the world The will as the principle of the temporal.
351
22.
INDEX
361
PROLEGOMENA
Aim
of the
Introduction Craving for a philosophy of life Difficulty philosophy Presuppositions of philosophic thinking The problems and the solutions of them The history of philosophy
of
Antinomianism Historical, systematic, and critical methods Literature Knowledge and values Distribution of the problems.
Introduction to Philosophy to-day find the words as the title of a book more frequently than we used to do. This assuredly means that there is a growing demand
for philosophy,
WE
"
'
and we see
this reflected
more and more
distinctly in our
booksellers, This plainly implies a craving for a philosophy of life. feeling, which Schopenhauer has, with his customary " the metaphysical craving," lives inexfelicity, called
whole literature, in the experience of and in our academic life. The demand
tinguishably in
human
nature, though
it
assumes different
their
spiritual
forms
in
different
ages,
according
to
character.
in
There are ages in which it almost entirely fades from view ages which seem to be almost absorbed
:
the definite tasks set them by their own pressing problems, either of the politico-social, the artistic, the These are times which religious, or the scientific life.
vigorously pursue such special aims,
for
work unswervingly
a
their
accomplishment,
and
find
complete
"
satis-
faction in their task.
ages." of the nineteenth century, which has been characterised with equal justice as the scientific or the technical or the
political age. It is evident that a
positive They may be entitled Such a period, certainly, was the second half
change has taken place. Our life by a multitude of tasks that go right down to its roots. Our people betray something of a desire to get beyond themselves, to strain out toward
to-day
is
assailed
13
14
PROLEGOMENA
We
live
the undefined and unknown.

forces that
is,
in
a ferment of
like all periods of
deep human
emotion,
permeated with religious elements. We see the fact in literature and art, where there is, though unhealthy excesses mingle with sound impulses, a seeking and groping of vigorous originality and compelling pressure. We feel that we live in an age of transition, and the poet " transvaluation of has devised a formula for it in his
all
values."
It is
Romanticism,
for
not so much as it was in the time of we have more hope. It is more like
We find the same craving the period of the Renaissance. then was for a philosophy of life in which a new as there In Germany there is creative power may strike root.
for
generation the additional incentive, forces itself into recognition, that it is which gradually time to reconsider the spiritual foundations of our national
the
younger
life,
in
the appreciation of which threatens to disappear the intoxication of material success or under the hard pressure of secular labours. Hence it is that people turn to philosophy for a new
creed of life. It is true that each brings with him such a creed already made. No one approaches such a task with an entirely open mind ; for every man needs, and has
in
some form, an expansion of his knowledge which amounts to a view of the world as a whole, and generally of the place which man occupies, or ought to occupy, Thus there is a metaphysic of the nursery and in it.
the fairy-tale, a metaphysic of practical life, a philosophy of religious doctrine, a conception of life which we enjoy in the work of the poet or artist and seek to assimilate.
All these varieties of a creed of
life
have grown up and
its
them has natural, personal, assumptions, and its It is the task of ph usefulness is accordingly limited. sophy to determine whether there is in them anythin of absolute value, which may be held intellectually, and
hardened more or
less involuntarily.
Each
of
historical
need not merely be an object of desire, affection, or faith. In accordance with the demand which has always been made of philosophy, and is made to-day with greater emphasis than ever, it must always be a metaphysic or
PROLEGOMENA
at least a criticism of metaphysics. of our time meet this imperious
15
Will the philosophy
events, endeavours to meet it. covered itself with the name of Kant, the narrow conception of its task which we inherited from preceding
demand ? It, at all The resignation which
The generations, have given place to a new resolution. courage of truth, which Hegel preached when he mounted his chair at Heidelberg, is once more awake.
wish to know something about this work, and ask for a special introduction to it an introduction they more lengthy than is customary in the other sciences and of a different character. Philosophy has long had the reputation of being a particularly difficult study, an abstract and abstruse science for which one needs a special equipment. This is certainly true in regard to the great creative achievements of philosophers and it is more true than in the case of other sciences. For here there is question, not merely of severe mental operations, but of Yet artistic originality in the conception of the whole. such equipment is not needed by the man who asks only As to understand and assimilate these achievements. Kant said of Newton, there is in the highest productions of the scientific spirit nothing that any man cannot understand and make his own. The truth is that it is not so much the difficulty of philosophy as the poor literary standard of philosophical writers which perplexes the student. They cannot liberate themselves from academic formulae and attain a free and living contact with the thought of their time. Their obscurity is, it is true, not without excuse, in a certain
Many
sense.
often an excessive use which is in itself quite justified. It is certainly necessary in some circumstances to adopt a special terminology to express scientific ideas and keep them distinct from the vague phrases of daily life and popular speech, and so protect them from confusion and abuse and, as experience teaches and psychology can easily explain, words taken from the dead languages, which stand out as something independent and fixed from the
of a right
;
They have made use
current of
modern speech,
are the best for this purpose.
16
PROLEGOMENA
coin
allow the chemist, the anatomist, or the biologist such terms habitually, yet would forbid the philosopher to do the same, and we express annoyance
to
We
when he makes any extensive use of the right. That is inconvenient for philosophy, but it is, if you regard it It seems to mean that the properly, not unflattering. things with which the philosopher has to deal concern everybody, and ought therefore to be accessible to everybody and expressed in terms that can at once be understood by all. This is, however, not entirely true. Indeed, it is particularly incumbent on the philosopher, precisely because he deals with things of universal interest, to rid his ideas of the common crudity and looseness and give
them
both
scientific
his
results
form and expression and it is accordingly and his right to stamp his name upon the duty This lays upon any Introduction to of his work.
;
philosophy the task of initiating the student to this difficult and inevitable terminology. Yet the finer quality of the artistic expression can only be mastered by entering intimately into the problems from the study of which the leading ideas have arisen. We have, therefore, to deal here especially with the sympathetic approach to the problems and the scientific treatment of them. The student does not, however, need any special equipment for this. He needs only a strict
and conscientious thought, and, above The man who asks, all, the avoidance of prejudices. of philosophy that it shall tell him or even expects, something of which he was already convinced had better not waste his time over it. The man who has a creed of life already formed, and is determined to retain it in any circumstances, has no need whatever of philosophy. For him it would mean merely the luxury of finding
discipline, earnest
proof that his beliefs were true. This applies not only to religious ideas, which are usually regarded in this connection, but even more particularly to the attitude of those who trust to find in philosophy a confirmation It is of the views they form in the course of daily life. but not very honourable, to win the kind of quite easy, popularity which people express
when they say
"
The
PROLEGOMENA
man
is
17
That
is,
right
that
is
what
always said."
as
the poet says, a ware that always finds a large public. The man who wishes to make a serious study of philosophy must be prepared to find that in its light the world and
life
will present
;
saw previously
to
a different aspect from that which he sacrifice, if it prove necessary, the
preconceived ideas with which he approached it. It is quite possible, perhaps inevitable, that the results of philosophy will diverge considerably from the conclusions that one had in advance, but the things which philosophy discusses are not remote and obscure objects that need some skill to discover them. On the contrary, are precisely the things which life itself and the they work of the various sciences force upon a man's attention. It is the very essence of philosophy to examine thoroughly what lies at hand and all round us. In the whole of our
intellectual life
ideas lightly borrowed from tical life of man is pervaded
assumptions and and science. The pracand dominated by pre-scientific ideas, naively developed, which usage has incorporated in our speech. These ideas, it is true, are modified and
there
are
uncriticised
life
clarified in the special sciences as far as it is necessary for their particular purpose of arranging and controlling
their material
but they still demand consideration in connection with the problems and inquiries of philosophy. Just as life affords material to the scientific worker in its pre-scientific ideas, so life and the sciences together
;
provide, in their pre-scientific and pre-philosophic ideas, material for the operations of the philosopher. Hence it is that the frontier between the special sciences and
philosophy is not a definite line, but depends in each age on the state of knowledge. In common life we conceive a body as a thing that occupies space and is endowed with all sorts of properties. Out of this pre-scientific notion physics and chemistry form their ideas of atoms, molecules, and elements. They were first formed in the general impulse to acquire knowledge which the Greeks
called
"
philosophy."
pre-philosophic concepts,
To-day these scientific ideas are and they suggest to us so many

2
problems of philosophy.
18
PROLEGOMENA
These assumptions which have not been thoroughly examined have a legitimate use in the field for which life manages very well they are intended. Practical and the pre-philoof bodies with its pre-scientific ideas are just as satisfactory for sophical ideas of atoms, etc., the special needs of physics and chemistry. While,
;
however, they are thus suited to the demands of empirical serious problems theory, it may be that they will present in which philosophy has to in the more general aspects consider them. The idea of natural law is an indispensable and for scientific life requirement both for practical has to discover the several laws of nature. research, which But what a natural law is, and what is the nature of the
dependence
concrete experiences upon are difficult problems which must be this general idea, but by approached, not by empirical investigation,
of
our various
philosophical reflection. In the special sciences and in
common life, therefore, are justified by success these fundamental assumptions but the moment they are considered more deeply, the moment a man asks himself whether these things which
;
are naively taken for granted are really sound, philosophy It is, as Aristotle says, the Qav^d^Lv, the hour is born. It the mind is puzzled and turns upon itself. in which
is
eeTaeti>, the demand of proof, with which Socrates disturbed the illusory self-complacency of .himself and his fellow-citizens. It is 'complete honesty of the
the
intellect
We can never reflect on things which must be taken for granted without assumptions but we must not leave them indefinitely without investo abandon them if tigation, and we must be prepared This testing of one's assumpare found to be wrong. they
with
itself.
;
tions
is
philosophy.
Every great philosopher has passed through this phase of examining what had been taken for granted, and it is the same impulse which directs a man to the study
of philosophy.
In the
life
of every thoughtful
man
there
comes a time when everything that had been assumed, and on which we had confidently built, collapses like a house of cards, and, as during an earthquake, even the
PROLEGOMENA
most solid-looking structure
totters.
19
Descartes has very
vividly described this, with the most exquisite simplicity and fineness, in his first Meditation. He experiences, as which is, Socrates did, the real mission of scepticism both in history and in the very nature of human thought, to lead us onward to a final security through the dis;
Herbart has solution of our unreflecting assumptions. the same idea when, in his Introduction to Philosophy, usual dry way, discusses the nature of his he, in
scepticism.
Our Introduction to philosophy has, therefore, to formulate the fundamental problems which emerge from this disturbance of the nai've assumptions of daily life and of the sciences. It begins with current and apparIn these things we, ently quite intelligible phrases. taught by the lessons of history, find the starting-point
of our
problems
they arise out of the vigorous tion of the assumptions of our
and we have to show how necessarily and dispassionate examina-
mental life. When that is understood, we see clearly from moment to moment the nature of the connection between the leading ideas whose relation to each other constitutes our problem, and we understand the divergences of the attempts which have been made to solve each problem. We may thus hope
that, as we realise the inevitability of the problems, we shall understand and appreciate the lines along which efforts have been made, and can and must be made, to
solve them.
Once we have conceived the task

this point of view, we of criticisms which are
of philosophy from the best answer to a number find
commonly urged
against
it.
These prejudices arise not unnaturally from the impression which a history of philosophy makes upon an outsider. But and this should arouse one's suspicions they tend The history of to take two quite contradictory forms.
philosophy does, in fact, present a totally different aspect from the history of any of the other sciences. The latter have a more or less clearly defined subject, and the history Take, of each of them represents a gradual mastery of it. of physics or of Greek philology. for instance, the history
20
PROLEGOMENA
In each such case we see a gradual expansion of the knowledge acquired and a clearer understanding of the subject extensively and intensively there is an unmis;
takable,
kind
if not a continuous, A history of this progress. able to describe achievements which are recognised as permanent, and it can regard even errors as partial
is
truths.
It is
otherwise in philosophy.
The moment you
attempt to define its subject-matter, you find the philosophers themselves failing you. There is no such thing
as a generally received definition of philosophy, and it would be useless to reproduce here the innumerable
attempts that have been made to provide one. The outsider, therefore, gets the impression that in philosophy there is question de omnibus rebus et de quibusdam aliis. Each philosopher seems to work as if no others had
existed before him,
in the case of the
the history of something disconnected,
and this is particularly noticeable most distinguished. Hence it is that philosophy gives one an impression of
something that
is
constantly
changing, something wanton and moody. Nothing in it seems to be beyond dispute. There seems to be nothing
that one can point to as definitely established. There is no science of philosophy in the sense that there is a science of mathematics or law, and so on. It looks therefore
as
of
if
people are right

efforts
when they
see in this fruitless series
mental
only a history of
human weakness
or
human folly. On the other hand, however, one

when one compares the
"
especially history of philosophy critically with each other, that, in spite of all the changes of view, it is always the same thing.
gets the impression, great figures of the
questions, the same tormenting riddles of recur in each age. They merely change the existence," garment of their verbal expression, the outer aspect of their features, from one age to another. The substantial
The same
content is always the same unanswered question. And even the attempts to answer it have something stereotyped about them. Certain antithetic views about the world and life recur over and over again, and they attack and destroy each other with their mutual dialectic. Here
PROLEGOMENA
quate resources, an impression of
repetition.
21
again, therefore, though for quite other reasons, one gets the impression that something is attempted with inadesterility
and
senseless
not the place to show how this not unnatural impression may be disarmed, and how, in spite of all, an extremely valuable meaning may be read in the history of philosophy. But we may draw attention to one point in connection with these criticisms. This undeniable vacillation from one side to another clearly shows that the problems of philosophy, in their entirety and their connections, are not so plainly indicated as problems are in the other sciences that the totality and the system of the problems themselves have first to be discovered, and that this may perhaps be the last and highest problem of philosophy. However, the discontinuity in the emerof the questions is best understood when we reflect gence that the various elements of those assumptions about life and science, to the disturbance of which we trace the birth of philosophy, are only called into question and awake reflection successively in the course of time, from various historical circumstances that are due partly to the features of personal, and partly to the characteristics of general, intellectual life. Hence the problems
This
is
brought forward from different points and the energy with which now one question and now another forces itself upon our attention is not so much determined by the systematic
of philosophy are
of view at different times,
connections
as
by the
historical
constellations
of
the
fundamental
ideas.
it
And
if,
in the end,
is
always the same problems
and the same general
lines of solution that
we
find,
we may
see in this precisely the best title of philosophy to recognition. The fact proves that its problems are inevitable ;
that they are real and unescapable problems which no thoughtful intellect, once it is awakened, can succeed in ignoring. The perpetual recurrence of the same
solutions of problems, which
seemed at
first
sight to be
a reproach, really shows that there are certain inevitable relations of thought to the subject-matter, and that,
22
PROLEGOMENA
in spite of the constant change of the historical stimuTo explain these essenlation, they are bound to return.
elements in the questions and answers is the chief It has to show task of an Introduction to philosophy. that philosophy is no idle play of the imagination, no hopeless tangle of arbitrarily conceived difficulties; but that it concerns itself with very real things and very
tial
serious questions,
its irrepressible
and explains
this intrinsic pressure of
subject.
Thus both the problems and the solutions of them become intelligible as a necessary correlation of the mind and the objects it desires to know. This relation itself is, it is true, one of those assumptions we have described a pre-philosophic way of looking at things which certainly must not pass without scrutiny, but from which the introductory consideration is bound to start. And in regard to this relation between the intellect and its object we must at once put a point of view which cannot be
;
justified, but merely stated, here, because the entire contents of this book, as a whole and in detail, go to prove it. It is the point of view which we call Antinomianism. All our knowledge is an interpretation of facts by reflection and for reflection we need an intellect of a certain character. It is of the innermost essence of this
;
intellect to
call, in
have certain assumptions which we usually " the scientific sense of the word, prejudices," or that is to say, judgments which form pre-judgments the foundation and starting-point of all reflection. In so far as these serve us as norms we call them axioms but in so far as they are supposed to hold also for objects, and we expect that these will conform to them, we name them postulates. In virtue of this relation we may, to use a modern way of looking at things, regard the intellectual process as an adaptation of our assumptions to the facts and of the facts to the assumptions. In the choice and schematisation of the facts, which we accom;
;
plish by means of our axioms and postulates, we always But it is clear get this double process of adaptation. that, besides the substantial conformity of the two The elements, there is also a certain unconformity.
PROLEGOMENA
23
conformity is, as Kant and Lotze have pointed out, the fortunate fact which makes it possible for us to receive the material which we experience into the forms of our
comparative and relating activities. The on the other hand, which we find between the two elements affords a starting-point for that revision of our assumptions which is the essence of
reflection,
its
partial unconformity,
philosophy.
The
result of this revision
may
either lead to a recon-
and removal of the differences, or at least indicate ways in which the work may be pursued with some prospect of success, or it may end in a recognition that
ciliation
Which of these lines the the problems are insoluble. inquiry will take cannot, of course, be determined in advance we must, in fact, stress from the first the fact that we cannot expect the inquiry to have the same
;
problems. It is, on the contrary, not only quite possible, but even probable, that many of the problems will be found to have been already solved, or at least proved to be clearly soluble, while in the case of others, perhaps, we may see that all efforts to solve
success in regard to
all
them
to
For if there are in fact definite limits are hopeless. the possibilities of scientific knowledge, we must
suppose that, while many of the questions with which the metaphysical craving assails philosophy lie beyond
those limits, yet at least a certain number which are capable of a satisfactory answer will be found within them.
In any case, our task is to take this element of adaptation and understand the necessity with which the various attempts at solution, together with the problem itself and the antithesis of mental attitudes, arise therefrom. In doing so we must not overlook the fact that the actual form in which these solutions appear in history is due to the personal work of distinguished individuals. This element must be fully appreciated and it is especially in the complication of various problems, which makes their solution more difficult, that the historical and personal element comes chiefly into consideration. The difficulties, however, are chiefly due to the relations themselves, and we shall direct our attention mainly to these,
;
24
in order to
PROLEGOMENA
understand and appreciate both the problems to solve them. In sum, our task is to expound, establish, and comment on the chief problems of philosophy, and the lines on which the solution is to be sought, with a full account of their historical appearIn this way an Introduction to philosophy becomes ance. a critical inquiry into the possible forms of a philosophic view of life.
and the attempts
In meeting such a task we may adopt either a predominantly historical or a predominantly systematic method. The former would, in view of what we have already said, be open to the objection that the philosophers
themselves, at least in their purely historical succession, seem to be a confusing and conflicting group, in the study
which one is apt to lose the real thread or to miss the most important points. The danger is least if one begins with Greek philosophy, especially in its earliest developof
ments.
It
is
of a highly instructive character, because
of the splendid simplicity
and
resolute onesidedness with
which these gifted founders of science, not yet distracted by an abundance of material, conceived their intellectual
work and naively accomplished

didactic
it.
Great
as
is
this
value, however, the grandiose and primitive schemes of these pioneers do not meet the more com-
modern times. Their simple, strong cannot provide an expression of the finer structure of modern thought, which goes deep into the multiplicity
plicated problems of
lines
of the individual.
The systematic method of solution has appealed chiefly to philosophers because it could be used as an introduction to their philosophies. Fichte conceived his two Introductions to the Theory of Knowledge rather in this sense. For him the theory of knowledge is what is generally
called philosophy, and of his two Introductions, one is intended to teach those who know nothing about
philosophy, and the other to educate those who have a philosophy, from Fichte's point of view. Herbart also, the only one of the more eminent philosophers to write an Introduction to Philosophy under precisely that title,
PROLEGOMENA
chiefly concerned to introduce his readers to his philosophy, to the obscurities of his ontology.
25
was
own
Treatment of this kind is more to the taste of the author than of the reader, for the reader, as a rule, desires an introduction to philosophy in general, not to a parIt is true that any man who ticular system. will find it difficult to exclude his attempt
makes the
own views
in constructing his sections of it.
work and in dealing with the various do not anticipate any objection to the following sketch on that ground. One cannot speak about these things, which stir the thoughtful mind to its But depths, without betraying one's own point of view. that must not be our goal, and it shall not be our chief
We
concern. An Introduction to philosophy must be neither a mere historical survey nor an apology for some special system. It must rather introduce the reader to the science of
philosophising, to the living work of reflection, to the direct understanding of its themes, its intellectual stresses,
and the various attempts to relieve them. It is only in this sense that it must take up a position in regard to the systematic development of that inner necessity which
is
at the root of the problems, in the historical forms of philosophy which often, indeed, contain a clue to their The Introduction, solution, if not the solution itself.
;
therefore, proceeds from the standpoint of immanent criticism in face of the systematic and historical material,
and
it must, in the forms of modern thought, what Hegel once attempted in his Phenoaccomplish menology of the Mind. It must point out the necessity
in this
way
by which human thought
is driven, from the standpoint of philosophy, from its naive ideas of the world and life on account of the contradictions which they involve.
We should not, it is true, imitate to-day the way in which Hegel pursued his task. Neither his confusion of
logical, psychological, historical, and philosophical movements, nor the mysterious explanations by which he covers the change of his point of view, would be tolerated to-day the less so as the broad historical knowledge which such a method implies, both in author and
the
26
PROLEGOMENA
Moreover, we can no longer reader, is no longer possible. share the confidence with which Hegel, at least in principle, believed, in his historical
of
optimism, in the identity the historical and the logical necessity of progress. We must rather admit, as has been said previously, that the order in which history unfolds the problems of
is
philosophy
immaterial to their systematic connected-
ness f and that therefore this systematic connection of the problems cannot be deduced from history, but is,
on the contrary, the last and highest problem of philosophy. Yet it is the imperishable merit of Hegel that he recog-
To him we owe
nised the organon of philosophy in the history of concepts. the perception that the shaping of the
problems and concepts, as the evolution of the human mind in history has brought it about, is for us the only satisfactory form in which we can arrange the tasks
of
philosophy for systematic treatment.
This historical
equipment alone will save us from discovering afresh truths which were known long ago or from attempting
alone is fitted to orientate us securely the problem-content of philosophic thought. For man cannot deduce out of his own self, but must learn from the interpretation of his nature by history, the proper attitude to take up in regard to the necessary contents of rational consciousness in general, which is the ultimate object of philosophy. The literature which might be quoted for the purpose of an Introduction to philosophy in this sense is very extensive when one considers that, in substance, the whole literature of philosophy is relevant to it but it is extraordinarily scanty if we confine ourselves to special treatments of this theme. Hardly one of the older encyclopaedic works which call themselves Introductions to philosophy need be rescued from its oblivion. Of the works actually in circulation which bear the title, the
the impossible.
It
and
fully
as
to
least fortunate is that of
Wilhelm Wundt.
The
distin-
guished psychologist obviously intended in this work to expound his not very profound views on the history of philosophy, and he has added to these only a few schematic
observations, which are surprisingly inadequate, on general
PROLEGOMENA
27
The most attractive of such philosophical tendencies. works is that of Friedrich Paulsen. He confines himself, on the whole, to the theoretical problems, and completes
his
work by a study
of ethics
are written in an easy them suitable for any

far
and both his volumes and graceful style which makes

;
man
of
average education.
By
most scientific and instructive work is that but this also is rather valuable for of Oswald Kiilpe
the
;
its
distribution
of
the
various philosophical disciplines
than as an organic development from the standpoint Less important of a formative fundamental principle. attempts, such as that of Cornelius, which is mainly concerned with the theory of knowledge, and the purely psychological work of Jerusalem, need only be mentioned. On the whole, one finds this scantiness of material The more profound for our purpose quite intelligible.
is, the less are pioneers in teaching and writing disposed to venture to deal with it for the task demands not only a most extensive knowledge of the historical forms of philosophy, but also a great deal of work of one's own in elaborating the whole material and formulating afresh the problems and their solutions in a living philosophy. In this sense we may recommend, rather
the subject
than any of the books already mentioned, several works which are really Introductions to philosophy without bearing that title. To this class I especially assign Otto Liebmann's Zur Analysis der Wirklichkeit (4th ed., Strassburg, 1911) and its continuation, Gedanken und
Tatsachen (2 vols., Strassburg, 1904), and the Esquisse doctrines d'une philosystematique des classification sophiques (Paris, 1885) of Charles Renouvier.
As the science of a creed of life philosophy has to meet two needs. Men expect of it a comprehensive, securely
based, and, as far as possible, complete structure of all knowledge, and at the same time a definite conviction which will prove a support in life. This indicates the
and the practical importance of philosophy. must be both wisdom about the world and wisdom about life, and any form of philosophy which confines
theoretical
It
28
itself
PROLEGOMENA
to only one of these tasks would now seem to us one-sided and undesirable. The union of the two elements is so characteristic of philosophy that the division of its historical details into really distinct periods can best be derived from the changes of the relations between the two. We see what we call philosophy arise in Greece from a purely theoretical interest and gradually come under the power of a practical need and we follow the triumph
;
the latter through the long centuries during which philosophy is essentially a doctrine about the salvation of man. With the Renaissance a predominantly theoof
are used
;
retical interest again gets the upper hand, and its results by the Aufkldrung in the service of its practical
aims until at last the intimate connection between the two aspects of philosophy is clearly impressed upon the mind by the works of Kant. This relation is, as we now clearly see, based really
not only a perceptive, he is an organism moved by judgments, not merely a machine moved by impulses. The judgment itself, in which all knowledge is found, is an act in which presentation and will are both active. All our views pass spontaneously into conceptions of value and motives and, on the other hand, our will requires views or impressions as its basis of action. Knowing and willing are not two powers casually bound up together in us, but they are inseparably connected aspects of one and the same indivisible being and life, which can only be distinguished in psychological reflection.
upon the nature but a willing and
of
man.
He
is
acting, being
Hence
life
all
knowledge tends to become a power
in
the
of the will, to affect our appreciation of things, to alter, create, satisfy, or repel our cravings. Hence, on
the other hand, the tendency of the will to determine the goal or direction of our knowledge. It is true that in some men we find extreme developments of one or the
The other, according as thought or will predominates. solitary thinker, who is content with the bliss of deojpia,
estranged from the mass of men, who lead practical The separation is right, as it is only an application of the principle of division of labour, in accordance with
is
lives.
PROLEGOMENA
29
which really fruitful knowledge comes only to the entirely But in the general life of man disinterested inquirer. the two elements, the theoretical and the practical, are
interwoven. The results of knowledge are at once converted into appreciations of value, and the need to appraise things furnishes the objects of inquiry. And not only the objects. The general lines of the solution of problems and the answers to questions are for the most part determined by ideas of value. We
may deplore and criticise this, or we may approve and confirm it to that we return later but it is a fact which we must note here, and a fact which will be explained and critically considered throughout this work. If the views of the individual, the direction of his attention, the sphere of his intellectual interests, the choice and connection of subjects and the appreciation of them, are determined by the special needs of his profession or his position in a word, by the personal will can it be otherwise with the whole human race in its historical development ? Are these motives of the will likely to be entirely eliminated in the mutual adjustment of the individual's ideas, or is it not more likely that the more closely related of such motives will strengthen each other and thus increase their control of the judgment ? We cannot keep the will clear of our thoughts. Indeed, from the psychological point of view the whole energy of thought depends upon such values. It is a source of error it is also the powei of truth. This relation between thinking and willing, between intellect and character, is plainly seen even in the case of the greatest philosophers. It is, in a sense, peculiarly characteristic of philosophy for, as we shall see in a later section, in philosophy knowledge without value and knowledge with value have a quite special relation to each other. Philosophy is science it is, like other sciences, a process of thought, the arrangement of the data of
; ;
;
experience in concepts. But it is also distinguished by an impulse to turn back from the abstract and conceptual to life, to views and actions. It needs to work up its material into a comprehensive view of reality, which is
30
equivalent
ethical
to
PROLEGOMENA
an inspiring conviction.
;
Philosophy can
never be mere knowledge

life.
it
must
;
also be artistic
and
Philosophical systems have been called though not in the capconceptual poems. They are tious sense that the conceptual construction is characterised by unreality, but in the higher sense ihat genuine
poetry always is moulded and moulding life. The aestheticethical element in philosophy is at the same time the personal, j It determines the importance and the active
influence of the great personalities in its history. This intimate unity of the theoretical and the practical had especially to be stressed here because the distinction
between the two will be the basis of the following work on problems and theories. The division of philosophy into theoretical and practical, which Aristotle initiated, has proved up to the present time the most permanent, and we will therefore find it best to divide the subjects with which we have to deal into problems of knowledge and problems of life, questions of being and questions of value, theoretical and practical or, as is now said,
axiological
problems.
But it is only the problems, the subjects, the questions which may be thus divided. In our attempts to find a
solution
always discover that, in the actual, of thinking, the results of which will be critically reviewed in this book, the division has not been That is apparent on both sides. The practical sustained.
shall
we
historical
work
or axiological problems,
all ethical, aesthetic,
under which head we include

religious questions
and
or questions
about value generally cannot be scientifically solved without regard to theoretical views. The solution cannot, of course, and ought not to, be determined by any purely rational knowledge of reality in the end there is always Yet the solution cannot, a stat pro rations voluntas. on the other hand, be reached without a scientific knowNo knowledge of duty can be put ledge of the data. into action without a knowledge of being. Hence our theoretical judgments become motives, if not the exclusive
;
on
But, motives, in the practical problems of philosophy. the other hand, our practical interest constantly
PROLEGOMENA
31
invades our purely theoretical reflection for the purpose of decision. We need only recall the many historical deviations which the purely intellectual process of thought has suffered, as Lotze points out in the Introduction to his Microcosm, from the pressure of the heart. There is in philosophy a special and frequent case of this the case in which the practical postulate gives the decision when there
:
is
sibilities
theoretical uncertainty, in which theoretically equal posin opinion leave the decision dependent upon
the purpose, so that once more stat pro rations voluntas. We have a conspicuous illustration of this in the case of Kant. It constitutes the most intimate connecting-
even the decisive and characteristic point of his teaching and he has given us an explicit treatment of interest of it, in which his teaching is justified by an
link,
;
the reason.
must therefore be prepared to find these amalgamations of theoretical and practical elements in the
solution of problems of both sorts. They are, in fact, a incentive to inquiry. And precisely on that account special
We
two groups.
this unfailing relation points to a final connection of the It positively requires a binding link between
questions of being and questions of value. This must be expressed in the sense that the highest of all philosophical problems concern the relation of being to values, and of value to being. Hence, as we shall see more fully at a
later stage,
we
get religious problems as the last of the
axiological group.
*o
;:
Uttn
PART
THEORETICAL PROBLEMS
(QUESTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE)
may make a preliminary survey of the range of questions of being by reflecting upon the ideas we use in daily life. In our experience we believe that we perceive things between which something happens, and thus, to use the brief form of a catechism, we may reduce
the theoretical problems to the three questions What is that ? How does that happen ? How do we know that ? We have therefore to deal with being, happening, and the possibility of a knowledge of the world and the questions take the form of three 'sorts of problems, which we may, without doing violence to their inter:
WE
connections,
distinguish
as
ontic,
genetic,
and noetic
problems.
But before we approach them

an inquiry which
is
in detail,
we must make
These elemen-
common
we have
to
them
all.
stated them, already imply a disturbance of those common ideas which we derive from simple perception and the views which spontaneously
tary questions, as
develop therefrom. Without such an unsettlement our common experience would never become a problem to us.
We have these ideas of things and of the processes which take place between them, and this is supposed to be our knowledge of them. The questions, therefore, mean that it has occurred to us to doubt if things and events are behind the really such as we naively represented them is a suspicion that we may be questions wrong, and that our supposed knowledge may have to be replaced by something better. This feeling of misgiving opens out
;
33
34
the possibility that behind what we first thought we had perceived as reality there may be another reality which we have yet to discover. This problem we describe as the conceptual relation of being and appearance.
Reality
and Appearance. True and apparent reality Metaphysical and empirical, absolute and relative reality Objective and subPositivism Metaphysics and religion Metajective appearance physics as a hypostasis of ideals Philosophic methods The unconditioned The transcendental appearance.
is
distinction which is indicated in these categories the fundamental assumption of all scientific and therefore of all philosophic thought the most general form in which it finds expression. It means that a man is not
:
The
satisfied
with his prima facie view of the world and life may be able to get behind it and learn what it stands for. There is in it a vague idea, a sceptical really surmise, that reality may be something quite different
;
that he
imagines in his naive perceptions and Possibly reality is not what it appears to be. The superficial ideas formed from our daily experience " " have merely the value of appearance. Things seem so. This fundamental consideration pervades all philosophic All our research may be characterised in the thinking. words which Mephistopheles applies to Faust
from what
opinions.
man
Far removed from all that seems, Into being's depths he peers.
" the thingsearch for but this phrase, which has been used since inîtself"] the time of Wolff and Kant, indicates something that has been known for ages. The thing-in-itself has had at With the ancient~Ionians, the least sixteen ancestors.
It is
customary to
call this the'
Eleatics,
the world. world, the
when
it meant the innermost essence of the Milclians seek the essence "of" the o.pxn, and find it in matter, in the arreLpov the seeming reality of the~senses~ is replaced by
and Plato
When

the
"
"
35
of Empedocles and Anaxagoras, the elements of the Pythagoreans, the atoms of Leucippus numbers and Democritus, the ideas of Plato, or the entelechies of what is all this but a search for the reality Aristotle behin9~appearances ? The mind is ever seeking to con-
ceive the genuinely real, as Democritus said (the trefj 6V), or the truly real, as Plato called it (the oVroj? 6V).
This antithesis of true and apparent reality implies a differentiation of value in the concept of reality itself. The apparent multiplicity of things must not be regarded
as non-existent, as a
mere seeming. Appearance must be considered a secondary reality, a reality of the second " Modern class, or even a merely apparent reality. men of science, for instance, tell us that the real nature of things, the primary reality, is in the atoms, and that what seems to our simple perception the real thing is only a phenomenon or appearance it presents to us. For the truly real in this sense Plato has given us the term ovaia, which corresponds to the concept of " In the Latin terminology of the Middle essence." it is called the essentia, and is opposed to existentia. Ages " Wolff and Kant change these terms into thing-in-itself and appearance, while Hegel draws the distinction between We shall learn the various shades being and existence. of meaning of these expressions more fully at a later The commonelfirnp.nt_oj[jthem_is the divisioiL of stage. reality irjtp" a. tme"""self -existent realty nnrl an inferior. apparent^ reality on^ Qrig-jpa.T a^rifl gpnnjrjp, the other
'
'
The latter expression dexivecl jind only ja^half^rgjil reality. is occasionally to be taken quite literally in philosophers,
when
they, as Plato does to some extent, regard appearance as a mixture of being and non-being. As opposed " to this the genuine reality is called pure 1! being. From the first, thinkers were aware that this distinction is due to a psychological difference that the appearance is in perception and the opinions formed therefrom by the spontaneous play of the imagination, whilst the essencs.
;
reveals
itself
only
to .jieliberate
conceptual ^^^*^*îjt~^
reflection. _
Thus the
antithesis of essence and appearance corresponds to the antithesis of thinking and perceiving. The essences
36
by reason
the appearances In accordance perception.
;
are the voov^va. conceived are the (âivoêva given in
with
this,
the general aim of philosophy
is,
by means
of
thought, to get behind the appearances which are presented in perception to real being. In this we find the genuine meaning of the word "metaphysics." It arose, as is known, accidentally and from an extrinsic reason,
the books after the through Aristotle calling his work TO. /zero. TO. (f>vau<a. j3t/3At'a. The inquiry into Physics the ultimate principles of being and thought, which is undertaken under various aspects in these books, does in reality go behind the sensible presentation, or pera
'
"
TO.
(f)v^.Ka.
to
call
" therefore give the name metaphysics the philosophic science of genuine reality and we
We
'
the effort to reach a conceptual view of life the metaphysical craving." In this sense we also, when there is a question of essence and appearance, speak of metaphysical reality, which belongs to the essence, as compared with the inferior, derivative reality which suffices for the appearances; and in the same connection the latter is described as empirical reality that is to say, the reality or half-reality
of existence
'
given in experience and perception. terminology, which opposes the metaphysical and empirical to each other in the same sense as essence and appearance, there is, it is true, a certain noetic tinge of a fundamental assumption which we will examine more fully later. For the present we have to deal with another form of the same categories, which describes
which
is
In
this
them
absolute and relative reality. The primary, seji-ejd&ting_reah'ty. true being, theessence, or genuine, metaphysical reality, is called the absolutely real, or even
as
the secondary, dejpj^njiejiLxealLty, ejdslence, is only relative that is to say, a reality wlTtcnrnerely owes its form of being to a relation of the genuinely real. This relation may be conceived in
t.hftÂbsohitQ
;
or empirical
reality-,
two different ways. The appearances, beyond which we must penetrate to the truly real, are either themselves real experiences and events of the originally real, though of a derivative and secondary class, or they are simply

the ideas with which the
in
37
reality
mind conceives the true
accordance with
its
own
nature.
We
cannot very
well express this distinction except by the use of the " " " and subjective," though the abuses words objective which have crept into the use of these terms would make
it
advisable to avoid
then.'
In the present case they
can, however, scarcely giw T ise to a misunderstanding. The antithesis which they convey is easily explained by
a reference to metaphysical theories which are widely known. In Spinoza's system the râl being is the Deity or Nature as the one jjubstance relative being, or modi, are objective _nppp.axajices thereof. In Schopenhauer's the real being is the_\Vill.; relative being is the system empirical world_as a subjective appearance in consciousThis ires3~slTapetHiccording to space, time, and causality. double relativity, in which the appearance is conceived either objectively, as an outcome, a real self-expression exprimcre, Spinoza says of the primary and essential real, or subjectively, as a mental presentation of the genuinely real, prepares us for the division of ontic
;
problems
questions concerning real being

;
into genetic
and noetic that is to say, questions as to the possibility of events and questions as to the possibility of knowledge. The very multiplicity of the terms in which the antithesis of being and appearance is expressed, in spite of
the various shades of meaning of each, apprises us that it is one of the permanent aims of philosophy to seek a What is the foundatrue reality behind apparent reality.
tion of this persistent effort of our ideas leads to it ?
?
What
sort of unsettlement
It certainly does not pass unchallenged. There is a strain of thought which regards it as the highest principle
of
wisdom
to be content with
what we
perceive.
To-day
the positive point of view. We use the word " " to regard in the same sense as when we call it positive a thing as settled without criticism. Positive religion, for instance, is a given religion which, without challenge, is recognised, or claims to be recognised, as dominant. We speak of positive law as existing law in contradistinc-
we
call this
tion to an ideally
and
critically desirable law.
Again, by
38
positive theology and jurisprudence we mean disciplines which are simply expository and remain within the sphere of the actually existing ; and in them we recognise as positive tendencies those which in principle put forward the actual as legitimate. In a general way, in fact, we
those which have no other aim or In fine, we give the name of positive philosophy, or Positivism, to a system which is based upon a combination of the positive sciences, and holds that all thought and knowledge can and ought
call positive sciences
desire than to establish facts.
to
it
is
these to a
is
have as their object only the facts we perceive and that therefore illusory and morbid to try to get beyond "
;
truly real."
its claim upon the conviction that there no such being behind appearances. It is a fiction, a phantom. In this we have, as will be more fully ex-
Positivism bases
plained later,
when we come
to deal with noetical ques-
tions, the radical difference
critical or agnostic school and the positivistic. The former equally denies that we can know the thing-in-itself, the Absolute, but only to affirm more emphatically its real existence beyond appearances ; the latter declares that the Unknowable is an illusion. As its chief representative says " Tout est There is nothing relatif, voila le seul principe absolu."
:
between the
behind appearances not only nothing for us, but nothing This view, of which we seem to find traces all. in antiquity, and certainly find in modern times before Auguste Comte, is in our days also upheld by what is called the immanent philosophy. It has had this name since
;
there at
Avenarius, and it purports, as Berkeley did in his way, to bring us back to the simplest and most natural theory To it, therefore, all forms of metaphysics of reality. are vain struggles, condemned in advance, of artificial and transcendental thinking to discover another and more genuine nature behind the facts. The positive or immaour right to describe the nent school thus challenge
facts as appearances in the sense of our category for this at once implies a relation to a being that appears in them,
;
a trr'ng-in-itself. 1
1
Jacobi, for instance, contended against
Kant, though not in the

all
39
Immanent Positivism of this kind is, in the light of that we have said, nothing less than a denial of the
possibility of philosophy, for it rejects our essential stimulus to research. As history shows, our irrepressible
impulse is to seek the metaphysical reality, and in this sense philosophy is necessarily a process of transcendental If it were true that this is only a continual thinking. aberration, a self-deception of tfie scientific mind, philo-
sophy
is
name with
no absolutely real, there is no such thing as philosophy, which is supposed to deal with it. In that case we should have only the various empirical sciences and philos< ,y ought to be too proud to give its name to a synthesi? n which we might gather together the most important facts of these sciences. When Positivism, which on that account calls itself
If
impossible, and the reality.
we might
there
as well give
is
up the
>
philosophy, disowns the search after a real essence of things, it appeals with some success to the fact that the motives which have induced the mind to
scientific
"
'
facts are not of a theoretical the lines of the doctrine which Turgot and Comte developed as the law of the three stages, it stresses the fact that the human mind, as it gradually advances, passes from the theological and the meta-
strive to pass
beyond the
character.
On
physical to the positive stage, and that it was detained in the earlier stages by the persistent force of transcencannot dental impulses. That is certainly true.
We
more correctly describe +he fundamental religious sentias we trace the metaphysical ment than by tracing it to the dissatL .tio.n of the mind with facts, craving,
.
with the things of the world. We recognize in it, as in metaphysics, the fundamental impulse toward the higher and deeper, the supramundane. Religion is a mood of discontent with the world, a search for something purer, better, more lasting, for things above space and time. This affinity between religion and metaphysics is clear As an instance we need only quote and unmistakable.
sense, that it is a petitio pvincipil to call the contents of experience "appearance," and to conclude from this that there must " be a corresponding thing-in-itself."
Positivist
40
the deepest elements of Plato's philosophy, and we at once find that the vigour with which he proves the reality of the suprasensible world is certainly due to a religious The mood of discontent with the given facts feeling. inspires the assumption that there is another and a
higher world, which lies mysteriously behind the world Plato calls this religious-metaphysical impulse the epcos, the yearning of the soul for a better home. And many other metaphysical systems are just as deeply rooted in religious feeling and familiarity with religious ideas as is that of Plato. We need only recall how
of sense.
Descartes, in his Meditations, even when he is building up his purely theoretical doctrine, without any intrinsic
religious
interest,
reconciles
himself
with
the
current
further.
implications of the idea of God.
But we may go
powerful elements of metaphysical thought there the aesthetic impulse to conceive the world as a harmonious whole, a living organism, a single work The philosophy of the Renaissance and that of of art
are in
!
What
German idealism afford instances in every phase. How clearly we see imagination helping to round out the facts
fragments of the whole, to think things out from beginning to end, to soar above the confines of the empirical and the unsatisfactory into the broad realm of infinite
as
and true reality But why need we heap up instances ? This religious, ethical, aesthetic woof in the tissue of philosophical systems is the most conspicuous of facts. Philosophy is never from ideas of value it is always strongly and detached
!
consciously influenced by them.

itself to
It
has never restricted
what
is
supposed
It
to be established in
what we
elements
call
the exact sciences.

of
has always taken
its
life
from the entire province of culture, from

the
and the
artistic appeals religious, moral, political, It has always claimed the consciousness and aspiration. right to conceive the world in such fashion that beyond all the unsatisfactoriness of its phenomena, in its deepest depths, the appreciations of value are the living reality of the mind. Metaphysics is the hypostatisation of
and
ideals.
41
Possibly the philosopher himself is often unaware of It may be that the course of his critical search this.
will
of
what extent his convictions, his judgments value, have influenced him in the enlargement and
show
to
completion of his knowledge. This correlation of elements was very clearly brought out by Kant. He found that theoretical reason threatened to call into question, not only the knowableness, but even the thinkableness that
to say, the metaphysical reality of the suprasensible, then his or at least to make it entirely problematical " " the suprasensible, and inspires realises reason practical
is
;
a conviction of the higher world of ethical-religious metaphysics lurking behind the appearances. Thus practical elements are seen to be at work even in the general statement of our problems, and these deter" The right to mine the search for reality. genuine seek this may be affirmed with Kant or denied with the We have not to decide that here, as it is Positivists. We will a noetic problem of the first importance. clearly be content here to grant the fact that this transcendence beyond the facts has really often been inspired and
'
by practical impulses of this kind. But we deny that Positivism has the right to say that these elements, which it regards as scientifically unjustified, are the only
influenced
ones at the basis of metaphysical thought. We cannot concede that this fact vitiates the impulse in its root. We must rather ask whether there are not purely theoretical reasons indisputable and unassailable reasons for this search for a truly real. This question must be answered emphatically in the There is, in the first place, a strong hisaffirmative. It is the ancient torical presumption in favour of it. lonians, the founders of philosophy, who point the way for us and they are certainly above all suspicion of emotional Victorious assailants of religious fancy on the prejudice.
;
intellectual side, coldly indifferent to men's ideas of values, they are the true types of pure theoreticism. Undis-
turbed by religious, ethical, or aesthetic interests, they That is follow only the impulse to acquire knowledge. the strength of their their boast and their strength
42
They oppose
;
narrowness.
all dogmatic tendencies they they ask nothing about beauty. Yet these ancient lonians are pronounced metaphysicians seekers of the real being behind appearances. What else was it when Thales said that all the variety of nature meant changes of the one Proteus water ? Or when his friend Anaximander said that water could not be the real
;
have no ethic
essence, the original thing, since
it
is
finite
and would
be exhausted in the combinations, and we must therefore imagine an eternal, infinite matter (TO aneipov), which produces temporary things out of itself by ever new There you have, literally, an advance of creations ?
thought juera ra tfrvaiKa, beyond things physical yet it was due to purely theoretical reasons. What was the reason ? Because the facts given in appearances do not
;
the scientific demands of conceptual reflection, and therefore something has to be "thought out," conceptually constructed, which may be regarded as the genuine and true reality. It was thq jiypostatisation of a logical ideal7\ and it is entirely wrong to call these hyposatisfy
theses
fictions." Philosophers consider that in these Hence things they have a knowledge of true reality. metaphysical thought shows in its very origin that it is
"
logically compelled to assume something that will satisfy the claim of the interpretative reflection, and it is not
when the actual world of perception furnishes nothing of this kind, to set forth the conceptual postulate Much the same was done as the true reality behind it. by the Eleatics with their concept of being. They insist and here again the impulse is purely logical there is no ethical or aesthetic or other axiological impulse that there must be in existence some being (ecm yap elvai) while what that is enduring, and not merely relative facts does not exist in this seems to be in the world of There was a time when it was not, and a time sense. it is therefore only will come when it will be no more the senses. Thought reapparent, only a deception of quires something more the one true absolute being though it cannot go further and discover what it is. In this first dialectic, though so hampered by poorness
afraid,
:

is
43
of language, the concept (of being) is so strong that it affirmed, while the entire perceptual world opposed
it
to
is
denied.
Thought
is
braced to such a degree of
self-consciousness as to regard itself as real knowledge In these experiences of the in opposition to perception.
thinker we see the origin of the belief that knowledge of the imperceptible true being must be a quite distinct activity of thought, and so we need a special method in philosophy, which shall be quite different from the method of the empirical sciences. Plato himself regards
of philosophic knowledge opinion based upon experience (Sofa) and from that time to Herbart's elaboration of concepts by the method of relations and Hegel's dialectical method we get all sorts of attempts to accomplish this, with a more or less enduring success. In this we may distinguish two main tendencies, which correspond to the double relation of being and experience. On the one side, being is assumed to be something other than the appearances and any man who places decisive emphasis on this, ami therefore brings out most strongly the dualism of true and apparent reality, will always be disposed to seek in pure thought the means of knowing being, and will use some sort of constructive method for that purpose. On the other side, however, it is held that the essence is precisely that which appears in appearances and any man who bears in mind this positive " So much aspect of the relation, who says with Herbart, appearance, so much indication of being," will have to strive to get beyond the appearance, in the ways which are used in the special sciences or ways analogous to
his
dialectic
as
the method
(emcm^ny)
as distinct
;
from
to real being much as Democritus formulated the principle of conceiving true being in such a way that the appearances remain (Stao-c6eii> ra âwo/iem) The one school is in some danger, in reaching the essence, those,
;
.
it alone is concerned, of losing sight of the explanation of the appearances, on account of which it is really necessary to conceive the essence. The other school, devoting its attention mainly to the appearances, is exposed to the opposite danger of not getting beyond
with which
44
we must
the appearances themselves and the ideas of the special

sciences.
In any case
insist that
metaphysics
is
a hypo-
statisation of ideals, and, in the purer cases, of logical Pure and true being is, either in virtue of appreideals.
ciations of value or the postulates of conceptual thought,
yet is no part of empirical reality, and must be, conceived as the metaphysical therefore is, and Amongst these elements of the theoreality behind it. retical postulates we must lay special emphasis on one,
what ought
to be,
because, recurring as it does in various forms, it is well calculated to show at once the irrepressibility and the This fundamental metainsolubility of the problems. is the infinity which we find in all aspects physical element
of the given facts. Every experience we and it points to something beyond with
have is limited, which it is con-
nected, and with which it forms some sort of unity. This is due to the fundamental synthetic character of the
always gives some sort of unity to any and in this sense all multiplicity which it embraces knowledge is directed only to think such conceptual interconnections as are based upon the actual coherences of the contents of presentation. But each of these forms points most pressingly in its applications toward infinity.
itself,
mind
as
it
We see this clearly in the conception of space. Every shape which we perceptually experience is limited, and, with whatever limits it, forms an overlapping unity in the space which is common to them and their surroundWe come to no limit. Beyond every limit which ings. we try to assign there are always wider and more comprehensive unities. In the same way every thing that we try to conceive as a separate reality is related to others, and these again to others, and so on to infinity. Every
it
event, in the same way, points back to another, of which is the continuation and modification, and onward to
;
another in which it will be continued and modified and these lines in turn lead in both directions to infinite time. This infinity of the finite, of what cannot be defined and conditioned except as finite, does not allow the intellect, which would completely embrace this definiteness and

conditionedness, to
45
come
to
of appearances, as far as it the aid of imagination. It
can measure
within the world this even with does not rest until it has
any
rest
reached the idea of an infinite, which is something different from the individual conditioned thing or even the sum
one
total of all individual conditioned appearances. infinite space is something quite different
Thus the
from the
experience, or even of all the infinite It is connection with experience. spaces imagined not an object of perception. It is unknown to the naive consciousness it is an outcome of metaphysical thought. It is the same with the concepts of the absolute thing, absolute causality, and so on. In every case the logical the facts to the construction of postulate passes beyond absolute reality. Thus precisely in this intractability of the illimitable facts we get the Antinomianism which entails that the demands of the intellect, since they cannot be realised in experience, shall lead to the construction of a supratotality of all that
in
;
we
metaphysical reality. Kant showed this in metaphysics which was at the same time a proof of the necessity of metaphysics. In the Introduction to his transcendental dialectic he pointed out " this relation and called it transcendental appearance." The phenomenal world of sense points to endless chains of the conditioned, and the understanding, with its craving for definiteness, demands for the totality of the conditions a limit of these series which we can never find in the
empirical,
his criticism of
;
sensory perception of appearances. It has, therefore, to think out such a limit but it can never know it, just because neither a single one of the experiences nor the sum total of them provides such a knowledge. Hence the unconditioned is never given in experience, though
;
The problems of of real necessity. are unavoidable, but ever insoluble, tasks metaphysics of reason. So we have in Kant's Criticism of Puye Reason " the new concept of " the idea " and the transcendental
it
'
is
conceded
'
appearance," which at once explains the actuality of metaphysics and is fatal to its claims, due to a confusion by which the necessity which compels the formation of the
46
idea
and the
definition of the task
of the task
is
retained for the
accomplishment the true of an object

transcendental
and
for acquiring
fact,
knowledge
appearance
reality. in is,
Kant's conception of
the
key to an
understanding the undeniable

irresistibly
It implies of the history of metaphysics. fact that our thought is on all sides pressed
beyond our actual experience

as
reality
yet
problems ...
that in the
empirical solving the regards possibility At all events, we need no further proof
of
the
of
work
of philosophy
we have no cobwebs
of
the brain, but very real and solidly grounded tasks.
CHAPTER
ONTIC
THE path
PROBLEMS
scientific
to being leads philosophic thought from preand pre-philosophical ideas, beyond appearfrom the plain man's ideas of ances, to metaphysics the world, through the special sciences which have the first task of modifying and correcting them, to the problems which they leave untouched.
:
What we conceive as being are things that are variously conditioned in time and space, and are distinguished from each other by different properties. Every thing is
something
somewhere
some when.
In
our
conception
of it this multiplicity of properties and relations is brought into some sort of unity, and this unity we call a thing.
But in practice this idea of a thing is subject to much change. We find that the things which are empirically perceived or supposed are superficial ideas, with which the matter does not end/' and so the question of seeking
'
the real things arises. of substance.
We
speak of this as the concept
2
Substance.
The category of inherence The thing and its properties The identity of the thing Essential and unessential properties Identity of mass, form, and development Elements Absolute Atoms, entelechies, and monads Universalism qualities: ideas and Individualism Attributes and modi The ego Coherence
of the properties.
The form of thought which lies at the root of the formation of concepts of things, and therefore of the search for substances as the real things, is in logic called the category of inherence. It is the first of all the
47
48
ONTIC PROBLEMS
categories in the sense that it is the fundamental constituent form of our whole view of reality. It is this which first and above all others objectifies, projects, or
that is to say, gives the form of an existing the content of presentation. For a long reality time, under the influence of Schopenhauer's teaching, to which the physiologists subscribed under the lead of Helmholtz, this primary function of objectivisation was attributed to the other fundamental constituent category,
externalises
to
That is, however, a mistake, due to the fact that the idea easily occurs to the inquiring mind when a doubt has been started. It is only when we reflect what right we have to regard our states of consciousness as a knowledge, or at all events the elements of a knowledge, of a world that exists independently of us that we perceive that the cause of these states is not
causality.
in ourselves, but must be sought in the objects. Such a reflection is very far removed from the unthinking
" tion of green, and I say I perceive something green that is to say, a green thing, or something of which green is a property. Lotze has pointed out in the begin:
mind. Without the aid of such a thought it the impression, which is at first (as Lotze says) but a sort of feeling, into the idea of a thing in the of all ways, as speech enables us to see. I have
converts
nothing
simplest a sensa"
ning of his Logic that this is the first logical work of the The words themselves show this, as the adjective is converted into a substantive. The substantive is the verbal expression for the conceptual form of the But once we have thus elaborated thing, the substance. our experience into the object, we ask further what sort of properties green has where it is, how large, what shape,
intellect.
:
whether smooth or rough, hard or soft, and so on. We only attain a complete idea of the thing by a synthesis of many properties, which in the long run we receive through different senses but this union of the various
;
conditions into the unity of the idea of the thing already includes the logical assumption that all these different
elements belong to one and the same thing, and that they together represent a coherent unity.
SUBSTANCE
Each
49
All reality given in experience consists of such things. of them signifies a number of conditions linked
together in a unity, and these conditions belong to it and are called its properties. We can only think of or define a thing by its properties we can only distinguish
;
from each other by their different properties. From this it seems at once to follow that we can only
things
speak of a thing as the same at different times as long as it has the same properties and, on the other hand, that we have to do with different things when we find different properties and combinations of properties. But this assumption is not consonant with empirical On the one hand, we do not find it surprising reality. that one and the same thing changes that is to say, has different properties at different times. On the other hand, it does not trouble us to imagine two different We find things with precisely the same properties. such things, perhaps, not so much in nature as in the
; ;
products of
human
it
or needles of the
and we
find
in
industry (for instance, two steel pens same pattern from the same works), its most pronounced form in the con-
theory, as in the case of atoms. " " the metaphysical of the identity with itself is not the same as the permanent identity thing of its properties. We must neither infer at once an of things from a similarity of two impressions identity nor make a mistake as to identity because of different
ceptions This shows
of scientific
that
impressions.
perfectly different
Two
to
it
is
different
us,
billiard
balls
may seem
seems to us
clean.
alike
when
and the same dusty from when
ball
it
is
What
we
really perceive only the similarity or dissimilarity of impressions. An inference from this to metaphysical identity is justified only by arguments which are based upon general assumptions and habits and often very
is
intricate
and far-reaching considerations. If I find my writing-desk in the morning just as I left it the night before, I assume that it is the same, provided I have only one and there was no possibility of an entirely
it during the night. In thus assuming identity on the ground of similarity
similar desk being substituted for
50
of impressions
OXTIC PROBLEMS
we
mistakes.
We
need
are, notoriously, very liable to make only recall the part played in
Goethe's Elective Affinities, in the case of Edward, by the superstitious delight in the treasured glass with interlaced names on it. Toward the close of the tragedy it appears that the old glass had been broken long before and secretly replaced by a new one. It shows how difficult it is to affirm the identity of things which are not continuously within our perception, such as lost or stolen All that we can swear to with complete conthings. fidence is the similarity of the impression. Identity is a deceptive assumption, though in certain circumstances it may be fully sustained. If I lose my watch, and some one puts before me another that is not only just like it, but has the numbers engraved in precisely the same place as they had been in my watch, it is extremely probable that I have here, not merely a watch from the same factory, but my own watch. But what justifies me in assuming this is not the sameness of the it is a series of considerations which are impression based upon a knowledge of the entire circumstances. This belief in the existence of things which are identical with themselves we may contrast with the change of It is an assumption either like or unlike impressions. means of which we interpret the facts of experience ; by a conceptual postulate which we think into the facts. Let us try how far we can do that, and whether there really are identical things of this kind amongst the apI have here parent things of our perceptual experience. a stone, a piece of chalk, a thing having a number of properties which distinguish it from all other things.
;
break
it
up,
and now
differing
from the others
and
size.
The same
I have two or more things, each in its properties, at least in shape reality presented itself first to me
as one thing, then as a number of things. Where, then, is the thing identical with itself which I look for and
assume
in this
same
reality
On
the other hand,
take
several lead
pencils,
fire,
clearly different
them
into the
and they become

Further,
I throw things. one thing of a definite
shape and
size.
the
wood which seemed
to
SUBSTANCE
me from
51
a distance a unity plainly marked off from the rest of the landscape becomes, on closer inspection, a collective mass consisting of a number of trees. Each
tree, in turn,
cuts
lie
it
seems to me a single thing until a woodman down, and then trunk, branches, twigs, and leaves
me as so many different things. Was the Now I take one the forest, a collectivity ? of these things, say a piece of wood, and throw it into It turns into ashes to my eye a number of the fire. minute things which have not the least resemblance to If I, in fine, see a chemist analysing the piece of wood.
before
like
tree,
:
something into two substances which are far removed from each other and from the object analysed, I find it quite impossible to say where the reality identical with itself is in all these changes. It follows, at all events, that our empirical notions of things are for the most part superficial, and do not
hold good, either in the empirical reality or in my thought, with the postulate of identity. The question arises, therefore, whether there are at all fixed and
unchanging concepts of things, and whether by means of these we know things which really are and remain identical with themselves. It seems quite possible that we might have here only a constitutional necessity of our mental processes. The category of inherence is, as we saw, the highest form of the intellect which works up our impressions. With its co-operation the sensory elements of our perception are arranged in thingunities and we should therefore be compelled to think of the world in things even if it did not consist of them. It is also undeniable that we often use the We should certainly concept of thing quite wrongly. not go so far as to say that, whenever we use a substantive, we wish to indicate a thing, yet it is incontestable that this form of speech disposes us to ascribe a certain sort of thing-like reality to such expressions, such as free;
'
'
dom
'
and
"
evil."
And
does not the Platonic theory
of ideas seek to give a higher reality to all generic con-
Or do not both language and psychology tend cepts ? to assign a thing-like reality as parts of the same to such
52
ONTIC PROBLEMS
If critical concepts as will, understanding, and so on ? consideration compels us to regard these expressions as superficial, with no serious claim to be things in the
proper sense of the word, does this apply also to other ideas of things which the ordinary mind takes for granted ? Is it possible that all our ideas of things are merely superficial forms, a scaffolding put together at one moment and after a longer or shorter period taken down again, by means of which we try to reach the structure of reality from without ? In any case, we cannot be content with this arbitrary use of the category of inherence. We must look for criteria which will enable us to attain
and permanent concepts of things. And if this cannot be done in the world of experience, there is nothing for it but to seek the reality of such things behind If it cannot be done physically, it must experience. In both cases we call these .be done metaphysically. real things, as distinct from the apparent, substances. All the paths which lead thought to this goal start with the familiar fact that, even in the case of apparent things, the properties are not all of the same value. They differ from each other, really and logically, in value,
stable as far as the identity of the thing
is
concerned.
Even
in
when we do not
to
use the words,
we
are all accustomed
distinguish
:
essential
and
unessential
properties
our things that is to say, those which may change or disappear without destroying the identity of the thing and those which cannot be removed without destroying or casting doubt upon the identity. Essential
properties are those which belong to the true, absolute unessential, those which belong to the appearbeing In ance, the relative reality, the existence of a thing.
;
concepts of things
dental
features.
we
also call these essential
and
acci-
when we thus distinguish Clearly, between the essential and unessential in a thing, we, even if not always consciously, make a selection amongst
the variety of elements which, under the category of inherence, are bound together in the unity of the conOn such a selection not only the notions cept of thing.
of things in
common
experience, but even
all
concepts
SUBSTANCE
of substance in science
this
53
and philosophy, are based. From we see that scientific and even philosophic thought moves more and more critically along the line marked out by pre-scientific thought. The concepts of substance arise from a progressive selection of the essential conditions, and at every step which knowledge makes we have to consider the reasons and the justification
of this selection.
In order to test
selection in daily
this, let
life
:
us
first
see
that
is
to say,
how we make this what we consider

things,
in
accidental
and what indispensable
in
con-
nection
with their empirical identity. The first thing we may take is the place in which the thing is the " where." A rolling billiard ball is the same wherever This indication of it is and no matter how it moves. in our impression is, it is true, bound up with the space but in most cases the position whole of our perception It is the same is immaterial as regards the object itself. wherever it is. It is, however, not always immaterial. In an aesthetic sense, for instance, it may be very material what position a thing has in a landscape or a picture. In the same way there are things, such as organisms, for which it is a most important matter where the plant, for instance, in relation to they may be the soil, and the animal in relation to its whole environment. These things, however, concern only the rela;
:
tions, the activities, or the
means
of development.
As
regards that which the thing essentially is, place seems to be a matter of indifference. This, as we saw, makes clear a great difficulty of
as
Each atom is supposed to differ from others a primordial and self-identical reality. But atoms of the same element and, according to hypothesis, of the fundamental matter are entirely alike in everything that can be used in defining them. They differ from each other only in difference of position. Yet this position is immaterial to each each remains the same atom
Atomism.
;
no matter how much it moves. An atom of oxygen remains the same whether it rushes along in a brook or is in a stagnant pond whether it rises in vapour and
;
54
is
ONTIC PROBLEMS
is taken in with the breath In each of these positions, which are quite immaterial to its nature, it could be replaced by an entirely similar atom. Yet we regard the two As a matter of fact, if we as two different realities. apply to Atomism what Leibnitz called the principium identitatis indisccrnibilium, we find that we can distinguish the atoms only by their position, and that this
carried through the air, or
and enters the blood.
is
not at
all
between
its
part of their essence. Atomism distinguishes substances only on the ground of their most
accidental features.
But
things.
is
let
us leave atoms and
come back
is
to apparent
just
The least essential thing the same in each stage of
position.
its
The ball movement. The
Let shape, colour, elasticity, etc., constitute the thing. a white ball is painted red. Is us suppose, then, that
it still
the same thing
At
first
we answer
this
ques-
In that case, theretion unreflectingly in the affirmative. is not material to the identity of the fore, the colour thing, however much we may like or dislike it, or however important
essential qualities of the thing,
mass and were if it were the same

if it
be in a game of billiards. The which remain, must be It would no longer be a billiard ball shape. cut into a die, and it would not be the same replaced by another, even one made out of In this case form and mass piece of ivory.
it
may
are equally essential. Well, let us take a ball
made
It
of
breadcrumbs.
of
We
can mould
this into
shape, or any other form.
wax, or of compressed an oval or cubical remains the same piece
wax and
It is
therefore, in this respect, the same thing. clear that the form is now immaterial to the identity
that remains is the mass. might, however, take it in the reverse way. Who does not at once think of the illustration of a river, which The river is, in our Heraclitus used so effectively ? a permanent figure of an identical being, impression, a permanent thing yet we know that the form alone
of the thing,
all
and
We
is
permanent,
while
the
volume
of
this
of
water
changes
of
unceasingly.
By
means
comparison
the
SUBSTANCE
55
mutually contradictory processes, this eVaimorpom'a, the sage of Ephesus explained the illusion by which we see a permanent thing in what is constantly changing. Permanence of form in certain circumstances suffices for us
the identity of the thing. A man has, perhaps, had a new handle put on an old walking-stick, renewed the ferrule many times, and possibly at some time broken the wood and had it replaced. It remains the same dear old stick, though not an atom of the The ancients used to illustrate original material remains. " of Theseus," which was for centuries vessel this by the sent by the Athenians to the annual festival at Delos.
to
constitute
masts, decks, oars, etc., had been successively still the same ancient and sacred ship. replaced, It seems, perhaps, trivial to quote such an instance in this connection, but have we not an illustration of a
Although
its
it
was
much more
case
of
subtle
our
own body
and gradual transformation in the Does not physiology teach ?
that the organism is perpetually renewed, giving off as much of its structure as it receives in the form of nourishment ? Even the solid frame of the bones, growing constantly from within, is renewed in its material, and after a number of years it does not matter to us
in this connection
is left
in our
what the number is not a single atom members of the stuff which once composed
them, apart from atrophied deposits which are not vital. Hence this thing, the organised body, has its identity, not in its mass as such, but in the permanent form in which this is moulded. But even constancy of form is not essential to identity. The organic being, at least as far as immediate and external observation goes, undergoes in certain circumstances
The of material changes of size and shape. one and the same, the same thing, from the acorn plant to the oak. It may be possible to speak of an identity of form throughout the whole development in a microscopic, scientific sense, but certainly not in the sense
a
number
is
ordinary observation. Further, the organism certainly remains identical when it has lost several members. The amputation of a finger, an arm, or a leg does
of
5C
not destroy
it.
ONTiC PROBLEMS
We
say at once that the identity
is
at
an end when the head is cut off, but is it not as if the organism were the same as before when an experimental Where is the limit biologist cuts off the head of a frog ? in this case ? What change of form is immaterial to the identity of the organism ? What type of form is
indispensable
?
:
If
we cared
we should say
whole after the
as such,
so,
it it
is
W hen
r
what remains
to put this in the abstract, as a connected
is
loss of various parts can go on living the same individual as before. If this is neither form nor mass, but continuity of life,
continuous sameness of function, in which we must find the identity of the living thing. When this remains, the matter and form may change without leading us into any error as regards the identity of the thing. We see the same in other connections, where verbal expres" " sion would, perhaps, not use the word as readily thing as in the preceding illustrations. Even in the case of man's psychic life we speak of the identity of the personality as a thing complete in itself, and we are not intimidated by the fact that such a being, in the course
changes its ideas, feelings, views, and convictions a very great extent. These changes may be quite radical transformations religious claims such as that of new birth " show how possible this is and even quite apart from pathological cases, the gradual replacement of the psychic contents in the course of life may be so great that here again we have only the continuity of life on which we may base an affirmation of identity. e have another conspicuous instance when we speak of the people or State as one being. Here again we have a constant coming and going of the individuals which compose the people or masses, so that at the end of a century hardly a single one of the earlier Besides this succession of component parts survives. the identity of the people is not affected generations, by the historical events by which some sections are detached from it and new sections are added to it. We take the continuity of language in this case as a criterion. It is the same in historical culture as regards the meaning
of
life,
to
'
SUBSTANCE
of the State.
57
undergoes
consurvives the change
it
State, as
It
an
has
;
historical unity,
its
considerable changes.
tract,
growth;
it
may
and then expand again
and
Yet in spite of of its inner life-form, its constitution. all these profound alterations we still in such cases speak
of the
same people
or State
and
this is not
merely a
the changes only occur in our experience, but we are really thinking, gradually though not strictly in the category of inherence, of an identical reality throughout all the changes. When we regard all these different attempts of our
retention of the
name because
ordinary
thinking
to
determine
the
essential,
which
constitutes the identity, it seems that this essential is always selected from the non-essential and accidental
from a definite point of view. And what may be essential from one point of view need not be essential from The elements which in each case lead to the another. determination of the identity, which is never perceived as such, differ according to our way of looking at them. The principle of the selection which enables us to distinguish between the essential and the accidental changes with the point of view of each science. This has been shown by the illustrations we have taken from ordinary life, as well as from the scientific procedure of physicists, chemists, biologists, psychologists, and historians, and we have found that three things are chiefly used in determass, form, and development. mining the essential that which directed us in forming the conThey explain cept of substance namely, the unchanging being which
:
the changes of experience. This the relation of the unchanging to temporal element, the changing, was the first criterion of even prepersists
throughout
thought for fixing its concepts of things. In the various sciences, however, this reflection on the permanent takes the deeper form of conceptual relations,
scientific
and One
of
in this
of
we find, in the main, two routes adopted. them runs on the line of the reflective category
;
the general in relation to the particular the other on the constitutive relation of causality. proceeds Upon these logical forms rests the general validity which
58
the
scientific
ONTIC PROBLEMS
concepts
of
substance
fact
and which as a matter
of
gives
seem to possess, them their pre-
philosophical significance. According to the first form the constant general element in the contents of experience is the truly real, of
appearances are merely fleeting This procedure of thought follows the actual connections which are constantly repeated in our experience and seem to be the permanent element amidst the changes. The earliest Greek thinkers occupied themselves in many ways with the problem of qualitative change (oAAotcoms), which seems to present to us the real from moment to moment, and sought to show that in this we should see only a fleeting appearance and disappearance of unchangeable elements of the true reality. More than one of these ancient thinkers pointed out to his fellows that they were wrong in speakIt ing of origin and end in the case of apparent things. was, they said, only a combination and division, a mingling or separation, of the truly real, and that the latter is an unchangeable reality, without beginning or end. If one sought in this sense the immutable elements, out of which we see that empirical things were composed when they dissolve, one discovered the important difference between unequal and equal conWhen one seemed, in the case of the latter, stituents. to have reached the limit of qualitative divisibility, one must suppose that one had come to something of the permanent nature of reality, some aspect of real being. was In this way the chemical idea of elements discovered, especially by Anaxagoras, and also the ideas
the
which
various
secondary
realities.
'
'
The of homoomeria, which we seem to owe to Aristotle. real things are those which, when one is able genuinely The to divide them at all, divide always into like parts.
qualitative general concepts which constitute substances
of the nature of the chemical elements according to this view, clearly depend upon the means of division which
are at the disposal of the student of science,
and we
cannot therefore be surprised that to Anaxagoras the number of elements seemed to be infinite. When modern
SUBSTANCE
chemistry
tells
59
us that there are more than seventy such elements, it makes it clear that this enumeration is our means temporary and determined by the limits of and it keeps in mind all the time of subdividing them, the idea of an ultimate and entirely simple primitive matter.
But what physical division cannot do may be attempted with more prospect of success in the way of logical The Greeks very soon saw the analogy between analysis. chemical structure in the material world and the gramJust as the multilanguage. be reduced to a limited plicity of apparent things may number of elements, so the whole immense variety of our language may be reduced to the comparatively small number of its constituents, the letters of the alphabet.
matical
structure
of
Plato we find the same word (aroixôv] elements of the material world and the letters used for the of the alphabet, and it seems that even in the Latin language elementum meant at first the letters with which the alphabet was learned in school. Plato, in fact, elaboand extended the comparison to the rated this analogy, unchanging elements of thought. The moment we reflect on this we notice that every word we utter has a general When I say " this green thing," it is not signification. " which might be said green merely the something of many other things, but the demonstrative pronoun
As
early as
'
supposed to refer directly to an individual be applied to countless other things. thing, may It is so with all qualities of things without exception. Each of them has a generic significance, and may be " absoThese verified in the case of many individuals. lute qualities," as Herbart called them, seem to represent the generally and immutably real, of which the indiitself,
which
is
also
viduals of appearance are compacted in much the same way as, from the chemical point of view, material individuals arise from the cohesion of general elements and disappear when they are separated. Herbart rightly
pointed out that this analogy is one of the foundations of the Platonic theory of ideals. According to Plato, a is beautiful because the idea of beauty is incorporated thing
CO
in
is
ONTIC PROBLEMS
it. A body becomes warm when the idea of warmth added to it, and it becomes cold when this idea departs and gives place to its contrary. In exactly the same way that Plato (in the Phcedo] speaks of the coming and
going of ideas as the true meaning of changes of properties, Anaxagoras also contended that each individual thing owes its properties to the elements which are in it that it acquires a new property when the corresponding element is added to it, and loses a property when We find the same idea, in a subtler this is removed. form, in the modern theory of the constitution of If from a certain molecule I extract an molecules. atom of bromine and replace it with an atom of iodine, I get a different substance with correspondingly different
;
qualities.
In
all
these
theories
of
elements,
is
in
spite
of
their
idea that the truly real, the substantial, consists in the general and homogeneously permanent, and that the apparent reality which we perceive in individuals owes its proFrom this perties to its participation in the general.
differences
arises
from each other, there
the
common
the
individual
the system of Universalism, according to which exists only in so far as the general
momentarily unites with it. These general substances, however,
whether matter
:
or ideas, are really only denaturalised concepts of things gold or radium or oxygen is not strictly what we call a
thing according to the original structure of the category. The danger of this use of the word is particularly clear in the case of the generic ideas with which we describe the fundamental forms or states of the psychic life. When we speak of the intelligence or the will, the substantive expression easily disposes us to conceive them as things, whereas critical consideration does not find this justiThis view of the psychic generalised ideas as real fied. "
'
faculties
must be extruded from

it
as quite mythological, though
scientific psychology remains useful in popular
thought and speech. In addition to this, the process of abstraction on which these generic concepts depend inevitably urges us to
SUBSTANCE
61
form higher and higher analogies and contrasts, and comes to rest only in the ultimate and simplest general reality. Thus we find chemistry, when what were thought to be elements prove, on closer examination, to be compound, leaning to the hypothesis of one fundamental and for a time it was believed that this was element found in hydrogen. It is true that this turned out to be erroneous, yet such facts as the series of atomic weights
;
compel us to continue to search for some absolutely simple element as the truly existent. The simpler these generic ideas become, however, the more they diverge from the original meaning of the category of things, which, as inherence, always implies the arrangement
manifold in a unity. Thus the Cartesian ideas extended and conscious substance, and to some extent " Herbart's reals," which are supposed to have only one simple quality, are in the end denaturalised concepts And the same applies to such generalised of things. " nature." It is sheer ideas as matter or spirit or even Universalism when we find Goethe in his well-known hymn to nature speaking of it bringing forth individuals
of the of It prodigally yet being quite indifferent to their fate. makes nothing for itself out of individuals it reabsorbs
;
gives them only a secondary reality. This Universalistic way of thinking is quite familiar even in scientific work when it regards matter, with its general forces, elements, and laws, as the true and enduring reality, and the individual as a
them
in itself
and creates
others.
It
temporary phenomenon. There is a certain religious attitude that coincides

with this metaphysical way of looking at things, namely, the attitude of those who regard the individual as sinful and unworthy of existence, and think the absorption of the individual in the whole the proper goal of all aspiThe mystic idea of deification, or the merging ration. of the individual in the divine whole, is the religious form of Universalism and this played a great part in medieval Realism. But, on the other hand, it is ideas of value which oppose this conception ideas of value which the personality, conscious of its freedom and by
;
:
62
responsibility,
ness.
OXTIC PROBLEMS
asserts
its
own
originality, its
Even
" " or self-containedproud sense of aseity from these feelings, however, there apart
feeling
of
reality
and
grave theoretical objections to Universalism. It cannot solve the problem of individuality it cannot how individual things proceed from intelligibly explain the general reality, or why the elements unite to form
;
are
the individual thing precisely at this spot, at this time, or in this particular way. If things are supposed to be products of change in the substances, why the change ? It has no foundation in the nature of substances. In an explanation we rather find ourselves driven seeking to other and earlier individual things, and thus get a The only thing for us to do seems regressus in infinitum. to be to assume that the true substances are originally Individualism of this kind existing individual things. take various forms, according to the different ways may in which it conceives the individual things. There is, in the first place, the Atomism of Democritus, which was much more Individualistic than the modern atomic
recognises only chemically differand, owing to the disintegration elements, of the atoms by cathode rays and their dissolution into electrons, is well on the way to complete Universalism. Democritus, on the contrary, conceived the atoms as
theory. entiated
The
latter
all
qualitatively
alike,
from each other in
size
but individually quite different and shape. He spoke of the
occupation of space or impenetrability, as we now say, as the one general quality of all reality, and then described " individual realities as differing in He, for shape."
instance, spoke of hook-shaped and sickle-shaped atoms, and he required such shapes in order to be able to explain the interlocking of the atoms. Each atom had not only
particular shape, but 'also its own original movement, In the corpuscular of a definite direction and velocity. of the Renaissance this view was for a time revived, theory
its
it is not retained in modern physics and chemistry. Our modern sciences have quite abandoned Individualism. The form of Individualism introduced by Aristotle, the biological form, has held its ground much more
but
SUBSTANCE
63
In his idea of Entelechy Aristotle has coneffectively. ceived the individual life-unity of the organism as the as the entity which realises its form true ovala The material elements used in association with matter.
;
purpose are no more than general possibilities they only attain to living reality in the individual existThat is a conception of thing which keeps very ence. close to the original category of thingness, and has therefore proved historically one of the best ideas for the Hence our common use interpretation of phenomena. " of the words individual and to-day individuality has lost the original sense, in which it meant the arojuov,
for this
;
'
the indivisible particle of matter, and usually implies the organic individual, if not the spiritual individual or personality. It is no longer the mass, but the form and function, which is indivisible, as the members cannot continue to live apart from the whole.
thus understand a third form of metaphysical which occurs in the case of Leibnitz's According to this the universe consists Monadology.
Individualism,
We
monads, all of which have but each develops it in a different way. Individuality here consists in the degree of intensity of the clearness and explicitness with which The chief the monad becomes a mirror of the world objection to this is seen when we ask the question, what it is that is to be differently mirrored in all these monads. If each of them reflects only itself and all the others, we have no absolute content in the whole
of spiritual individual elements,
the
same
life-content,
That is, in a certain sense, a concentration of all the dialectical difficulties which arise between Universalism and Individualism precisely when the conflict takes its highest form in the case of
system of mutual mirroring.
spiritual reality.
These
difficulties recall to
us that
it is,
as a fact, im-
possible to form a quite definite idea of individuality. All the properties which we use for this purpose are in their turn generic ideas that is to say, definitions which
:
apply to other individuals as well. The unique and special thing about the individual is its combination
will
64
of
OXTIC PROBLEMS
the
manifold.
But
what
this
constitutes
cannot
properly be expressed in words which, on account of their general significance, will always apply to someIndividnum est ineffabile. thing else. Individuality it is felt. This is true of great cannot be described
;
historical
personalities
like
Napoleon and Shakespeare,

nature
Goethe and Bismarck.
It is true also of the inner
of great characters in literature such as

less
Hamlet or Faust.
The more a personality can be described or defined, the is its individuality and originality. Each quality and achievement even of the greatest man can be exbut the prepondering element has pressed in words to be experienced. Hence the intimate nature of a personality is missed by those who try to express it in as that prince of dilettanti, analogies and comparisons
; ;
Houston S. Chamberlain, tries to do with Kant. Individuals and individual qualities can never be intellectually the reader must be made to experience them conceived
;
aesthetically, the description of their lives in each phase being so shaped that it will present to the mind a unity such as we have in the living reality.
These are matters of importance which it is for the methodology of the higher sciences to explain. But even as regards the metaphysical formulation of problems we have here very serious questions, and they imply
in
very marked limits of possible intellectual knowledge an individualistic metaphysics. We can conceive,
understand, and axiologically interpret the various elements of individual natures by means of the All that historical definiteness of all their phenomena.
genetically
pertains to this historical appearance of theirs is rational. But in the end their substantial individuality consists
in that inexpressible unity which can never be an object of thought and knowledge, but only a postulate of com-
Hence prehension, only irrationally felt by intuition. Individualism frequently assumes a mystical form, and from this arise questions which we will discuss later
notice
when we come to deal with problems of value. them here only in order to characterise the
We
ex-
tremes of Universalism and Individualism in this aspect
SUBSTANCE
also.
65
The contrast between them

life
to a philosophy of historical research.
is just as important as to the theory and practice of Fichte's saying, that the sort of
philosophy a man chooses depends upon the sort of man he is, is verified here in the fact that whoever is content to be an outcome of general states and conditions, and is guided by these in his conduct of life, differs fundamentally from the man who is convinced that
his
feeling
of
personality
is
something
personality
special,
and
is
determined
stances.
essential
stamp Thus we have
to
this
upon
circum-
in historical science the theory
of the milieu,
which regards general movements as the thing and the activity of the individual as
merely a secondary phenomenon in the total process, opposed to the older idea that it is the great personalities which make history and represent its meaning. The theory of the milieu is therefore close akin to Rationalism, whilst individualistic history neither can deny, nor
wishes to deny, that it contains irrationalistic elements. Considered from the purely logical point of view, the antithesis of Universalism and Individualism is directly due to the structure of the concept of things. The thing that we would definitely conceive consists of properties all of which have universal significance, and this particular thing differs from all others only in virtue of a special association of these properties. Universalism seeks the true substantial realities in the general properties which are necessary in order to give shape and
secondary reality to apparent things by some special combination of them. Individualism, on the contrary, regards the synthesis itself as the substantial in a sense
of value,
and the properties therein associated only as
of the possible. Thus, in respect of the question of substance, Universalism coincides with the chemical-mechanical, and Individualism with the organic, view of life. They differ in their selection of the elements combined in the empirical conception of the thing. We have similar antitheses of views when we follow up the difference between the enduringly essential and
mutable elements of a secondary reality
60
and
of
ONTIC PROBLEMS
the changeably unessential in the relation of the original A real inequality of this kind the derivative. is often expressed by the antithesis amongst properties
constitutive
it
and
derivative
characters.
Certain
pro-
belong to the thing only in so far as, perties, and because, it has certain other and original properties. The latter are supposed to be the permanent and essenis
said,
tial
as
and then sheds its leaves. None of these states, which give it very varied properties, belongs to its real and enduring The latter consists rather in its morphological nature. From these arise structure and physiological functions.
tree
fruit,
opposed to the mutable and develops leaves and flowers and
unessential.
the phenomenal derivative properties, as states conditioned by the changing relations of the environment the seasons, climate, etc. To the same difference we may trace the scholastic distinction between attributes and modi. The attributes constitute the nature the modi are the conditions of its appearof the thing ance which arise from the attributes or are made possible Thus Descartes, for instance, defined bodies by them. by the attribute of extension. All their other properties He were supposed to be derived from this as modi. gave thought, [cogitatio] as the attribute of the soul, and the various modifications of this are the psychic activities and states of the mind, feeling, and will. The modi, however, derive from the attributes only in virtue of
;
certain
relations
or
under
certain
conditions.
They
are therefore relative in regard to the nature of the thing, while the attributes represent the absolute properties which constitute the thing in itself. We constantly
think and speak in the sense of these categories.
The
constitutive nature of things is distinguished from the changing modi and states which it assumes in virtue of
certain relations to
its surroundings. Thus the chemical nature of a body consists in the fundamental properties of the substances which constitute it, whereas such
properties as colour, odour, and taste are modi, which are due to a relation to particular organs of sense, and so on. In the same way we speak of a man's character
SUBSTANCE
67
as his real nature, and, in opposition to these enduring qualities, we call his several activities and states deri-
vative and phenomenal things modi of his real being. It is evident that this distinction is fully justified as long as it keeps within the limits of empirical knowledge
of it. It is based upon real views of causal dependence, or at least (much the same as with a man's character) on views and assumptions about it. We are therefore dealing, not with matters of formal logic, but with real relations which are indis-
and the various divisions
putably based upon experience. They, however, have no more than a practical utility in this field for distinIf guishing between the essential and the unessential. are extended beyond it, they lead to insoluble metathey
The attributes are supposed to the essential nucleus in the plurality of perrepresent ceived properties, and to indicate something permanent which meets the postulate of identity ; and this nucleus is supposed to hold together in unity the whole cloud of its transitory modifications. We speak thus of the
physical
difficulties.
nature of a
man
as contrasted with his various states
and
and
activities.
thought
also
Not only in speech, however, but in we distinguish even these permanent

properties,
the has the thing itself, properties, essential as well as unessential, attributes as well as modi. The verbal expression in the predicative judgment A is b by no means implies an of subject and predicate, as was thought by identity Herbart, who derived the whole artificial construction
constitutive
the
and
we conceive
this
attributes, as what
from
'
'
theory of reality from this fundamental error. have no idea of saying that sugar is identical with white or with sweet. The copula, which may express very different categories as forms of combination of subject and predicate, and may in some cases, as in mathematical propositions, imply identity, has in this case the meaning of the category of inherence the words " " as well run, has sweet might just namely, sugar
of
his
We
as
a property.
To
aspects
of the copula
give a logical explanation of these would be a more worthy object
68
ONTIC PROBLEMS
of the zeal of the inventors of Esperanto,' Ido, and similar artificial languages. And the thing is no more identical with the sum of its qualities than with any one There remains always something that in particular.
possesses these qualities,
and
is
therefore distinct from

It
them, and
of course,
may
be distinguished from them.
would,
be quite impossible to describe the thing apart from all its properties. Every qualification would be itself a property, even if we take such a fundamental a property which the property as extension or thought as such must have, and from which it must be thing The thing therefore remains as an undedistinguished. finable substratum of properties, incapable of repre:
sentation
itself"
;
by any
in
which
quality, TO vTTOKei^vov, the thing in we state a problem, but do not imply
"
In this sense Locke speaks of subof the properties, of which we can only say that it is, not what it is. Have we then any sound reason to conceive this unknowable ? It has been denied indeed, this denial is not only the chief historical element, but a permanent source of strength, in Positivism. It began with the English idealist Berkeley. In the development of the problem of substance after Descartes the concept of thing
that
it is
insoluble.
stance as the
unknown bearer
had been more and more deprived

things
of its contents.
The
res
equipped
with
one
single
attribute,
the
had been taken over by Locke cogitantes as cogitative and non-cogitative substances, but he had gone on to the idea of unknowable substratum. When
res extensa,
and
we
strip a thing of all its properties there is nothing left,

;
and
that so Berkeley concluded that there was nothing the being of the thing is not to be distinguished from the sum of its properties, and that it is a mere fiction If being coincides with perof the schools, a phantom. esse substance is something we ception (if percipi), have not perceived, but merely imagined from habit. It is not real. If from a cherry I abstract all that I can In see, touch, taste and smell, there is nothing left.
this
way Berkeley
abolished
him they were merely complexes
material substances. For of sensations, bundles
SUBSTANCE
of ideas, as was then said has been called Idealism.
;
69
and for that reason his theory But he regarded these ideas
He allowed the res activities of spirit. remain. Then came his great successor Hume. He showed that what was true of the cherry was true of the self. It is a bundle of sensations. Hume expounded this in the work of genius of his youth, the Treatise, and then abandoned it in his later work, the Inquiry, apparently because it gave great scandal to his countrymen to find their beloved selves argued out In his first work he showed that the asof existence. sumption of identity or substance can be explained, on the lines of the association of ideas, by our being
as
states
or
cogitantes
to
accustomed to constant connections of ideas. The substance is not perceived, but merely gathered from of similar elements of the repeated connectedness
presentation.
This development of thought may be made clear the following way. Accustomed to distinguish, in the changing qualities of the empirical thing, between i nucleus of essential, permanent, and original qualities md the unessential, we fall into the error of supposing that we can make the same distinction in regard to the essential properties, and here also discover a nucleus This illusion is the transcendental within the nucleus. ippearance which leads thought pera TO. <f>vaui, to the problematic concept of the thing-in-itself. So far the Positivist claim seems to be justified in this case. But sve ask ourselves whether we can rest content here. Let us, for example, look more closely at the idea of the self. It is quite true that we cannot define it, and that in this sense the individual is certainly ineffabile. What can a man say when he is asked, or asks himself Who art thou ? He may give us his name and, if ive ask what that means, he may refer us to his bodily But this is not the frame, his physical individuality. self it belongs to it. Even quite apart from the question of immortality or the transmigration of souls, ^very unprejudiced mind distinguishes itself from the body which it possesses. In answer to further questions
in
:
' '
70
a
ONTIC PROBLEMS
gives his social position, his profession, and so But he must soon peras what constitutes his self. on, ceive that all these things are shells round the nucleus, relative determinations of the nature of the self.
man
We
then seek this in the psychic contents. But these also belong to the self as its presentations and ideas, feel-
and volitions and if in the end we say that the nucleus of our being is in our views and convictions, it is clear that these do not constitute an absolutely identical self from childhood to old age. We speak of an identity of personality even in conditions of mental disturbance in which it seems to be entirely replaced by another. Religious ideas and claims, such as that of being born again, certainly imply the possibility of
ings
;
a complete change of one's inmost being, yet assume an ultimate identity of the self throughout. We need
not inquire here how ideas of this kind in Schopenhauer, instance can be reconciled with the indestructibut it is at all events bility of man's nature in itself clear how we always distinguish the self from all tendencies and contents of the mind and will. It is not these things, but has them. It is, in fine, precisely this
for
;
fact
the liberum
which gives birth to so impracticable an idea as arbitrium indifferentice, in which it is asself decides,
its
sumed that the

nature, between
verdict
'
own
according to its mysterious motives, gives an unintelligible
when they
'
comes them.
free will
are equal, and even victoriously overthere really is in this so-called no one can tell, because an act of will is
What
always characterised by its object. The individual will must therefore always be determined by a definite object or group of objects, and so must, as regards its content, be empirically conceived as something else and this, is not the intelligible character, but has it. again, We thus cannot really say what the self is as Yet distinguished from all its properties and states. our feeling of personality strongly opposes the bundletheory and postulates that we have a real unity, even if it can never be And there is a theoretical expressed. element in addition to the emotional. The unity of
;
SUBSTANCE
71
the phenomena, which is supposed to indicate the thing or the substance, cannot be merely an accidental juxtafor the interposition, but is conceived as the reason connection of the manifold. This nucleus within the
nucleus
is
the containing or binding element, and
we
may apply to all concepts of things and substances what Lotze said of the meaning of the categories ; it has to
feel as a
connected whole what comes together in conThe thing is, therefore, always the connectedness of its properties, a synthetic unity, in virtue of which they are not merely found together, but are Thus we define chemical subnecessarily interwoven. stances as the molecular unity of atoms which do not The atom casually co-exist, but belong to this unity. itself is a unity of functions which are usually denned
sciousness.
a force-centre, much in the sense in which the Energetic school of physics gives a dynamic interpretation of matter. This applies also to the entelechies, the unities of the manifold in the living individual, except that here the necessity of the interconnection,
as forces
;
or the connectedness of the elements, is conceived teleoKant's theory of the organism, not logically, as in
mechanically. In science, therefore, the
thing or substance as the conceptual fundamental form for the interpretation of experience has the sense of establishing intellectually the associations of the manifold into a permanent being. All ideas of things or substances are outcomes or products of judgments about the enduring connectedness of
original elements of experience.
of this
that the further question arises,
coherence
only in philosophy is the real nature Popular, and to some extent even
It is
What
scientific,
thought treats
all
it
as
an independent
It
reality,
which possesses
must, with Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, be convinced that in such case it can affirm no property whatever in other words, nothing about the thing itself. We then have only two alternatives. Either the synthesis of properties in the thing is a merely psychological fact, a habit of experiencing such coherences, and therefore a merely
the properties.
72
ONTIC PROBLEMS
transformation of connected (" subjective ") psychic the hypostatisation into connected reality experiences of a synthetic form of thought, the category of inherence or we must be clear that this form of thought is of the nature of knowledge only when it has a real significance, when the connectedness presented in the category holds good for the object. That is precisely Kant's In either case, however, we must case against Hume. the idea that we can speak of the thing as a give up reality distinct from this interconnected complex of
its
The synthetic unity is, even in respect properties. of its formal nature, not really definable nor is it to
;
be conceived as something really separable from the complex of the manifold associated in accordance with For the practical work of acquiring knowledge, it. therefore, our business is to disengage from the connecgiven in experience the concepts of substances which, with their essential properties, lie at the root of the preliminary ideas of things in experience. In this search for the essential elements of being we have to distinguish between qualities and quantities, the intrinsic properties and the form-conditions of number and size. In this way we get further ontic problems, and these also belong to the category of substance.
tions
3
The Quantity Of Being.
Number and magnitude
Simplification
of
the world in thought
Henism and Singularism Monotheism Pantheism, Deism, Theism Immanence and transcendence Oneness, infinity, indefiniteness Acosmism Pluralism Monadology Measurement Finitism and Infinitism Space and time
Recurrence of
all things.
Quantity as a category represents a coherence of the In sort, and in two different ways. either case there is always question of a coherence of the manifold into the unity of the particular consciousand for the determination of quantity we have ness
most elementary
the
correlative
processes
of
distinguishing
and
com-
THE QUANTITY OF BEING
73
When we count, we have always to deal with paring. a plurality of contents, and these must in some sense be like each other or capable of being brought under
the same generic idea
;
they must be different from each
see this other, yet conceived together as a unity. in the case of the striking of a clock, where quite plainly we unite the strokes in a definite number. The things counted make a whole, of which each element in the
We
count
forms a part. But this quantitative relation of the whole to its parts has, in addition to the arithmetical form, a purely intellectual form of immediate forms in our appreciation application, or certain special so that number and of space and time of magnitudes the two relations with which we have now size are
;
to deal. to the numerical definition of reality, apparent reality presents itself to our experience as an For the limitation of the mind, uncountable plurality.
If
first
we turn
which can only embrace a part, and indeed a very small the endless manifoldpart, of the whole, contrasts with The selection which we thus ness of what we perceive. make depends not only on the limited nature of our experience, but also on apperception, which even amongst our experiences admits ônly aTlimited part according to what already exists in our memory. Even in the uncontrolled play of the psychic mechanism this linking of the new to the old leads to general ideas, and the deliberate direction of our thought tends always to simplify the world for us
The
simplification
in
by omitting what is strange. thought must always have the
form of a generic idea, which scientific men use for this but it may also consist in a general view, a purpose means adopted in the mental sciences. In either case we drop the unessential, and the conceptual simplification is brought about by a selection, the principles of which have to be determined by methodology for the various
;
sciences according to the diversities of their objects and In the case of philosophy this tendency aims at aims.
achieving a simplification of the whole. It is guided by the assumption that there is one world, to which
74
the
entire
resort
ONTIC PROBLEMS
immeasurable variety belongs. In the last of all being and all happening as unity. thus speak of the physical universe and the historical
we think
We
universe.
In regard to being, this search for the unity of the
world in the numerical aspect, and in connection with the concept of substance, discloses itself as an attempt, in face of the plurality of the ordinary ideas of things
of prescientific thought, and also in face of the plurality of the concepts of substance in pre-philosophic scientific
thought, to postulate the oneness of the real substance. At one time this was called Monism, or a Monistic tendency of thought, but these names have become repugnant in our time, as in recent literature a timid sort of Materialism, which we will consider later, has covered So we will choose the equivalent terms, itself with them. Henism or Singularism. In the Henistic sense the one true being, the original reality, the all-embracing existence, is also called himself gave the
God by philosophers. Anaximander name of the Divine (TO delov) to
the Infinite, in which he sought the ultimate principle of all things, and in recent philosophy we need only quote Spinoza, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schleiermacher, a use which, etc., as examples of this use of the word we must admit, has led to much misunderstanding on account of its confusion with the popular religious idea
;
of
we might
In justification of this custom of philosophers plead that the prescientific mythical ideas of God, and the pre-philosophical dogmatic ideas, differed considerably from each other in content, and in part were Positively speaking, flagrantly opposed to each other. however, this right is based upon the transcendental
God.
identity of religious and metaphysical thought, to which we referred in the first section of this work. In virtue
of this
affinity, religious Monotheism, which recognises one God, is an essential element and support of only though we must add that this metaphysical Henism Monotheism is itself a product of intellectual culture.
;
It
is
a sure
mark
of a civilised religion.
tive thought does not
Just as primiconceive the idea of worldyet

unity, so the primitive religious imagination
pluralistic in its
75
myths.
It
is thoroughly admits a multitude of divine,
It supra-mundane Powers. demonism. Even the great
Polytheism and Polyreligions, though in theory

is
thoroughly Monotheistic, in practice
made
considerable
;
polytheistic concessions amongst the mass of the people and even in religious metaphysics the monotheistic theory finds itself compelled at times, in the interest
of
the freedom and responsibility of personalities, to admit an amount of metaphysical originality which cannot very well be reconciled with the strict idea of Monotheism. We will not discuss these secondary motives here,
but will follow the purely theoretical arguments for the Henism of the theory of substances. All are based upon the fact that the numerous things of experience do not simply occur together in mutual exclusiveness, but, just as they have real affinities which enable us to unite them in thought, so they are involved in a common flux of things, they pass into each other in movement, they mingle and blend with each other. In the last resort everything that we experience or can imagine is, directly
or indirectly, related to everything else in these ways. Mechanics formulates this fact in the mutual attraction
Kant found this commercium submolecules. all stantiarum most important for the development of his ideas, and finely elucidated it, in his third Analogy of Experience, by means of the light which plays between Even the Stoics used to speak us and material things. of av^nvoLa Trdvra and, though according to this a
of
;
thing is where it works, in the end everything is in everything, as in the words of Anaxagoras (oôv iravra) omnia or the common phrase of the Renaissance,
ubique.
According to this view all things really form In whatever direction the thinker looks a single unity. about Xenophanes), (as Timon said in ancient times blend into the unity of all things seem to him to
nature,
alone therefore merits the the substance. name of the true thing Apparent things are not true substances. They lack permanence
JLUCX
<j)vms.
This
or
76
ONTIC PROBLEMS
;
they change, and come into and pass out of existence they are merely states or modi of the true substance, the Deity. The Deity is one, and as the modi all belong eV Kai TTO.V. to him, is also everything This form of Monotheism is known as Pantheism, and it is found in its purest form in Spinozism, the simplest and most instructive type of Pantheism. It is a theory of GodNature, in which plurality gives the appearance and unity and the conceptual relation between the the reality
:
unity and plurality is simply that of inherence. God as the primal reality has his attributes, and in these as limitations we have the individual things of experimuch as we may say that a piece of ence, his modi wax has an extended mass as an attribute, while the various shapes it assumes are its modi, or as, in common speech, the human soul has will as an attribute and the various acts of will as special modi. Applied to the universe, this means that all the special things of experience are in their nature and essence one and the same, or merely existing modi of it. The substance, the GodNature, is, as the poet has well said, the thing of all things;
;
The secondary reality of experience consists, theory, of modi of the one true thing.
But
this
on
this
is only one form in which we may conceive Besides the unity of the apparent many. category of inherence we have the second, and equally important, category of causality. When we apply this, the unity is the cause, the plurality represents its effects. This relation will, naturally, call for closer consideration when we come to deal with genetic problems. Here we need only observe that, in applying this category, God, as the productive being, is substance in a different sense from the things produced by him which constitute the world. In this sense some have spoken of the one original substance and the many derivative substances. Thus some amount of substantiality is left to the things of appearance though this, as the Occasionalist movement in the Cartesian school showed, is extraordinarily difficult to understand. On the other hand, full substantiality, metaphysical originality, the aseity of the
the
real
77
causa sui, is reserved for the one, the divine, substance. This is Monotheism in the Deistic or the Theistic form two shades of expression which cannot very well be distinguished historically, and must be understood from an axiological point of view. Individual things have, on this theory, only a lesser, derivative, debilitated substantiality. They are, in a sense, degraded substances. In this way we get two relations between the one primary being and the plurality of individual things the Pantheistic according to the category of inherence, the Deistic according to that of causality. In the one case God is the original thing in the other case the For these two positions we use the words original cause. immanence and transcendence. According to the first the individual things of "experience have no being of their own, and no other essence than the divine, of which they are the modi. From the second point of view individual things have a sort of being of their own not of themselves, however, but from the Deity, yet in such a way that they retain their substantiality, especially in relation to each other. According to the first theory, therefore, God and the world are not distinct from each other God is immanent in all appearances as their essence. According to the second, the things which make up the world have a being of their own, though it is not
:
original,
and
who transcends
in virtue of this they are distinct from God, all as their cause. It is clear that from
the point of view of the problem of substantiality, and exclusively from that point of view, Pantheism affords the simplest and most successful solution. The difficulty
was that the apparent things do not meet the postulate which holds good for true things, substances and they are therefore, according to Pantheism, not subDeistic stances, but modi of the one true substance. transcendence, on the other hand, would save a certain amount of substantiality for individual things, but without being able to say satisfactorily in what it consists. Hence in the controversies of the Cartesian school, which arose out of these problems, it frequently came to such a point that the antithesis seemed to be a mere
of identity,
;
78
ONTIC PROBLEMS
"
verbal quarrel as to what ought to be called substance," or whether we should say res or substantice. There are, of course, axiological as well as genetic elements at work
in this antithesis of
we
will consider
immanence and transcendence, and them later.
Here we are concerned only with the common element, both theories lay equal stress on the uniqueness On this account they have a second of the primal being.
that
point in
being.
of
common
in their characterisation of this
primary
The many apparent
our experience, limit
things, as definite contents each other they are finite.

:
it as primal thing or primal cause, cannot be subject to such definiit is infinite. Thus infinity is tions and limitations closely connected with uniqueness, as Spinoza showed
:
But the primary being, whether we regard
with classic lucidity in the early part of his Ethics. The one substance of Pantheism is infinite the modi are its finite appearances. The one world-cause of Deism is the infinite divine substance the individual things
; ;
the world, bodies and souls, are expressly opposed to it as finite substances. In the end these lines of thought always lead to the conclusion that the real unity
of of apparent things, in whatever way we conceive it, is one single infinite substance. We are led almost to the same conclusion by the different line of thought which starts from the affinities which we detect amongst the things of experience. We
refer
to
the
logically
Universalistic
It
line
of
thought
which led to the conception of elements,

in
forces, ideas
was a conceptual from differences constantly and concentrated on what was common. In this, howa word,
to generic concepts.
process
ever, to go
which
abstracted
discovered that the process is always forced beyond itself. Chemical substances postulate in the end an ultimate simple fundamental substance ; physical forces involve one fundamental force the
we
energy," as is now said, which may change into many forms (kinetic, potential, etc.) and the idea of psychic
;
'
powers points to a single consciousness as their simple common element. This simplification of the world in

thought, which,
the
it
79
of
further
it
carries
its
process
selection the
more
experience, clearly the more general concepts are, the richer they are in exIf we seek the true tension but the poorer in content. substance in this way, we end in the most general and
abandons the special contents of follows the law of formal logic that,
most empty concepts,
in
which the extension
<x>
corre-
sponds to the content o. The Eleatics, who reached the goal at one stride, were the first to find this. They arrived at their idea of being (emu) partly on dialecas a copula meant concluding that "to be In their ev, therefore, the same in all propositions. the concept of uniqueness is identical with that of The primary being excludes all multiplicity simplicity.
tical lines,
is
"
But this simple primary being because none of the predicates inexpressible, Thus of the reality we experience can be applied to it.
as well as all change.
then
in the writings of Plotinus, the father of NeoPlatonism and of the whole of medieval mysticism, this inexpressible One, raised above all differences, as the
we have
primal being of unknown character. And the negative thought has, in what is called taken the form of saying of God that, because theology," he is all things, he is nothing in particular, and no name he is the deos 0.77010$. Thus is applicable to him the primary being is raised above all the antitheses by
simple
same
'
line of
means
various
of
of
which our thought discriminates between the

of our experience
;
contents
it
is,
as Nicholas
Cusa and Giordano Bruno said, the coincidentia oppositorum. On the other hand, Spinoza's substantia sive deus (this empty category of inherence, which has an infinite number of attributes, but is itself nothing) is an illustration of how all individuals disappear in the thought of the One. On that account" the All-One is, " the Indefinite not merely to our mind, but in itself,
the Infinite." the ideas offered to us the two characters of the Infinite and the Indefinite are combined, as seems to have been the case in the teaching
(aopurrov)
,
and
this is the in
same thing
as
'
We
of
see here
how
Anaximander.
In any case
when
there
is
question
80
ONTIC PROBLEMS
to-day of an infinite God, as contrasted with the world as the conceptual whole of finite things, this implies God's illimitability, a quantitative predicate, on the one hand, and his inexpressibility, a qualitative preif one can give that name to the dicate, on the other denial of all qualitative predicates. This conception of the infinite Deity is found developed with special strength in all mystical doctrines as the sufficient object of religious emotion, to which this empty indefmiteness
;
is
particularly suited.
Thus Schleiermacher,
feeling of
for instance,
simple dependence with the Spinozistic All-One. Nevertheless, however congenial that may be to the emotions, it is very unsatisfactory to the cravings of the intelligence. Its emptiness makes this idea of the
relates the pietist's
world-substance useless for the purposes of thought. Its oneness makes it unsuitable to explain the plurality, its simplicity renders it unfit to explain the variety, of The Eleatics pointed this out with extreme experience. and almost grotesque indifference to the conplainness sequences. They deny the plurality and variety. They deny even that change and movement exist. The One cannot produce them. They are only an illusion though in the Eleatic doctrine there is not a trace of
an explanation where and how this illusion is possible. the world of experience This is what we call Acosmism vanishes in and before the truly real. It is the tragedy of this way of thinking that it denies what it ought to
:
Less explicitly, though it is not less difficult, explain. the insoluble question, how the primary being stands in regard to the varying plurality of its appearances
or its creations, lurks behind the other
of
and
later forms
his infinite
Henism.
tell
How
presents
can Spinoza explain

itself
why
substance
in
these
finite
modi
Can
transcendental world-cause has why theology this multitude and variety of finite created precisely It constantly tries to evade the difficulty by things ? talking about some inscrutable design of the divine will, some motiveless arbitrary act. But a problem is not solved by putting it out of sight with the word
the

"
of experience as this meant that
it.
81
freedom." When Fichte described the self-limitation of the All-One Self to the endless fullness of the contents
an arbitrary free act, he knew well that he abandoned the idea of explaining All the methods that philosophers have conceived
in order to
explain by logical operations, in which, of course, negation as the one pure formal kind of disjunction must play a leading part, this evolution of the one into
many whether it be the Neo-Platonist or the Hegelian dialectic have quite failed to accomplish their purpose of deriving the finite from the infinite, the definite from the indefinite. That is the limit of Henism, and at the same time the starting-point of its opposite, Pluralism. Most
the
in this respect is the contrast between ontology and the philosophy of identity. Herbart reminds us that, the moment we assume a single and simple entity as principle, we cannot derive plurality and events from it. Plurality cannot be got from unity On the condiversity cannot be got from simplicity. trary, even in empirical relations all apparent variety is based upon the plurality of the relations of each thing
instructive
Herbart's
to
many
others.
All
properties of things are relative
they always imply a relation of one thing to other things, and never mean something which pertains to the thing alone. Physical properties, such as colour, assume a relation to certain conditions, such
light and illumination psychic properties mean tendencies of the mind and the will to certain definite
in the sense that
as
contents,
telligible
and so
if
on.
The event
also
is
quite
unin-
happen to one thing alone. There would be no beginning, no direction, no object of activity
it
is
to
we think of relations to other things conceivable only as reaction. The world, with its varied things and their actions and reactions, is a network of relations between countless individuals. This opposition of Herbart to the philosophy of identity is clearly inspired by the idea of evolution, which the scientific theories of the first Greek investigators derived from the metaphysic of the Eleatics. The latter
to assign, unless
Every action
is
82
ONTIC PROBLEMS
excluded movement and plurality from their simple reality, but they were undeniable facts, and could not be banished from the world by logic. Hence it seemed
to
men
like
Empedocles,
Anaxagoras,
and Leucippus
that one could only retain the idea of identical being, with its qualities of eternity and immutability, by multiplying it. They gave up the numerical unity, the oneness, in order to be able to leave the simplicity to each
individual
being, and to explain phenomenal things with their changes as varying combinations of a plurality
of substances.
This led to the various shades of scientifically-minded It was possible to speak of the elements, the homoomeria, or the atoms, as really existing things, and these scientific ideas were for a long time satisfactory in science, even though they were not philosophically worked out to the end. Thus earlier chemistry was content with the idea of matter as a body that could be
Pluralism.
divided into equal parts. Physics, especially mechanics, was content with the idea of an atom that had the
sole properties of
inertia,
and perhaps attraction and
occupying space, impenetrability, and These repulsion.
things were satisfactory as long as physics wanted to study only those processes and relations of bodies which
independent of chemical constitution. Fechner however, pointed out in his work on the physical and philosophic theory of the atom that these Since various ideas of the atom were not satisfactory. then the problems of physical chemistry and the questions raised by electrical research have made their appearance, and to-day we cannot find any conception of the atom which is equally applicable in physical and Considered from the most general chemical problems. point of view, the constitution of matter cannot be inThis is an illustration terpreted by different theories.
were
himself,
of the relation of scientific hypotheses and research to the problems of philosophy. Special research does not
need to wait for the settlement of these ultimate questions. The man who is working on benzol-derivatives or hydrostatic laws is not bound to take up a position

The philosophic theory
to
of
83
on the question how we must conceive the primary atom. It is a problem that arises in philosophy.
substances has,
however,
meet other points of view than those of chemistry and physics. It therefore produces other pluralistic systems, though they are fewer in number and less impressive than the singularistic, which pay more attention
to the scientific impulse to simplify the world in thought.
But even
to
in the field of psychic experience it is possible
the world-reality, not under a single head, but in a few co-ordinated powers. Indeed, the theory
of the originality of the intellectual characters or that of the independence of individual ideas at times leads
sum up
in
metaphysical theories to a preponderance of the tendency, and this seems to be reconcilable with a vague Henistic background, just as the history of religions often shows us polytheistic systems with
pluralistic
an infusion
of
Henism.
That
applies, for instance,
to
metaphysic, and still more to many of his followers, such as Bahnsen. We see the fundamental type of pluralism best in Herbart's theory of the real. It considers the diversity and changes of experience to be intelligible only if the
Schopenhauer's
things-in-themselves, which are simple and unchangeThese unknowable able, furnish some reason for them.
have therefore to be conceived in relations by which we may understand the variety of their apparent properties and their changes. This implies " a coming and going" of the substances, as Anaxagoras said more or less clearly of his elements and Plato of his ideas. In the case of Herbart, however, these relarealities
means
of
tions are raised to the emptiest degree of abstraction, and precisely on that account this most tortuous and
unsuccessful and almost forgotten system of metaphysics shows us most plainly of all the inevitable difficulty of " " all pluralistic For this systems. coming and going of substances, which is supposed to be the real event, we have to find a reason in " intelligible space." What Herbart meant, or could mean, by that whether in the
end the relating mind alone remains as the
intelligible
84
ONTIC PROBLEMS
space in which realities are to attain their relations to each other, which otherwise remain accidental we do not attempt to say. In any case the idea is constructed on the analogy of the empirical space of appearance, which makes possible the combinations and separations We of physical things such as the elements or atoms. thus see that every pluralistic idea, precisely because it is invented for the explanation of the variety and changes of the data of experience, presupposes a comprehensive unity in which these conditions take place and change. In the case of physical substances this
is played by empty space, and therefore the atomists found themselves compelled to ascribe reality to empty
part
space (the to the empty
which we
Eleatics) as well as to being From as well as to the full (TrAeov). (KCVOV) to perceive that the fact of something begin
ov
;
of the
happening, the fact that things are related to each other or, as Lotze said, take notice of each other, shows that they all belong to a single whole. Atoms which whirled about in different spaces could not have anything to do with each other. This is one of the chief arguments against pure Pluralism and in favour of
Singularism.
These objections have given rise to a system which combines Singularism and Pluralism a system which undertakes to reconcile the cognate elements of Universalism and Pluralism, and which we have in its most The fundaperfect form in Leibnitz's Monadology. mental idea, it is true, goes back as far as Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno. It is an idea of impressive Abstract unity cannot engender the manisimplicity. fold. There is no parthenogenesis of plurality out of But a scattered and dissociated diversity is unity. equally unable to bring forth a unity. The two unity and plurality are reconciled only if they are both We must conceive the world as essentially a original.
;
unity in diversity. Of the many meanings of the word unity TO eV which were perilous to the Eleatic dialectic, and have haunted metaphysics ever since, we now get another.
85
In addition to "oneness" and "simplicity," we now " have the idea of unifiedness," which means that we must conceive the world as a unity in plurality, neither the unity engendering the plurality, nor vice versa. This condition corresponds best, indeed corresponds entirely, to the nature of our own intellect. Every state of consciousness, whether the apparently simplest perception or the most abstract thought, contains a plurality and, as it has different elements, a diversity of content and this is combined by a form into a real and indivisible Kant described the nature of this synthesis, unity. in which neither form produces content, nor content form. Indeed, this unification of the content by the form is the typical structure of consciousness. If we conceive the world as unity of the manifold according to this model of the synthesis in our own consciousness, as the Leibnitzian Monadology requires, we see the real
;
and profound
root
of
the
influence
It is the affinity of Leibnitz and Kant. of the Nouveaux Essais upon
criticism
which begins with the Inaugural Dissertation and extends over the Critique of Pure Reason.
In the
metaphysical development of this in Monad-
ology we get the relation of the part to the whole and the principle of the equality of the part to the whole. The universe is unity in plurality in the sense that-each
equal to the whole and therefore to all But equality does not mean identity. We get identity rather (as we saw above) in modern Atomism, since all the primary substances are qualitatively equal and indistinguishable, and differ only in position, which is quite immaterial and unessential to
of its parts the others.
is
them. Monadology, on each substantial being
the
they
contrary, represents are called monads
that
pre-
is a peculiar form, not cisely in this sense capable of repetition, of unification of the same for all equal con-
tents
of
the
world.
This
takes
equally into
account
the
and the individualistic element on the one hand, and the henistic and pluralistic on the other. The same life-content of the universe is supposed to be bound up in each of its parts in a peculiar
universalistic
86
and
all
ONTIC PROBLEMS
Hence original combination into a special unity. these parts are equal to the whole and to each other
;
The equality and unity the variety and multiplicity are in are in the content the form of combination. Each part is therefore a mirror of the world of special character and shade each indiand each has
its
own
;
being.
vidual
is
the
amongst modern thinkers who is nearest to Leibnitz, Lotze, gave this title, The Microcosm, to the most significant of his works.
characteristic
universe in that the one
little,
microcosm.
It
is
Leibnitz calls this system Pre-established Harmony," and it assumes that everything is present or " repre-
"
There is only one way of imagining this by means of an element of our experience one substance is represented in another " " when this presents it. The double meaning of representer and representation, which Leibnitz fully recogThe world, the nises, has a quite sound foundation. sum-total of the other monads, is contained and represented in each in the sense that it mirrors the world. Hence the monads must be conceived as psychic beings.
;
sented everywhere in everything. But stance be in, or represented in, others ?
"
how can a
sub-
The content of their presentation is everywhere the same the universe they differ in the intensity of pre;
sentation, on which depends the measure in which this content is in each case associated in a conscious unity.
which beset need only point out an element of our experience which is calculated to give us a concrete example of this abstract view. We often speak of the mind of the people, or the spirit of
will
We
not consider here the
difficulties
this
able
and ingenious theory.
We
the times, or the civilised consciousness.

reality
What
spiritual
do we mean by
"
this
On
reflection
we do not
that this spirit of the nation," etc., is a substantial reality, a being outside of and above the individuals. We mean a unified life-content which is common to a
mean
mass
of thinking
and
felt
willing individuals.
it
This
common
in
thing, however, his own way.
is
and understood by each only

in
his
He
experiences
consciousness
according as his profession, age, position, development,

etc.,
87
but especially his personal disposition, enables do so. Much of this general content is quite unknown to one individual, while another endeavours
him
to
Few have the heart of it. and even amongst these few some have more and some less. The whole is not completely represented in its full extent and strength in any one individual. Even great individuals, like Goethe and Bismarck, who represent their times in nuce, are only distinguished by the fact that what constitutes the really valuable common element of life comes to Yet full consciousness or conscious activity in them. all these individuals, whose minds represent restricted and separate segments of the common life-content, lead a common and unified life, which, in its continuous gradation and the interlacing of its various parts, forms a connected whole. That is a unity in plurality known to us all, in which we constantly experience the meaning of Monadology.
hali-consciously to get a full consciousness of
at
it,
Monadology leads us to conceive substances as perand thus helps us to understand the relations of being which we have to consider qualitative later. But before we do so, we have to deal with the
ceptive beings,
other aspect of quantitative problems of being, the question of the size of the real. Appreciation of the sizes of things in the phenomenal world is, firstly, a matter of
impressions in which
experiences.
The
fact
we always make a comparison of that we are restricted to making
is the most important element, both really and methodically. We pass confident judgments on largeness and smallness, and are quite able to say whether
comparisons
the differences in size are comparatively great or slight. But in order to have a quite definite and useful estimate
we need measurement, an act of enumeration, which expresses how often a certain unity of mass is contained as a part in a whole. Such a numerical determination of size has only one possible form comparison
of sizes
:
of space. In all laid down how indirectly,

of spans
measuring
it
is,
directly or
many
times the mass which
88
is
ONTIC PROBLEMS
selected for each special form of measuring is contained in a given whole. Thus we measure magnitudes of space, and even of time, by the motion of and, in the third place, we uniformly moving bodies measure magnitudes of intensity forces, etc. by the spans of space over which their action is distributed,
;
heat by the expansion of bodies, and so on. How we do this, and how it is justified, is an important subject of methodological consideration in the various sciences. In general one has to bear in mind that all this depends on definite and already acquired knowledge that our run more or less in a circle and that the assumptions unity of mass is in all cases arbitrary and conventional. We have to know the expansion of bodies by heat in order to measure heat by them. We have to know Ohm's law of electro-magnetic resistance in order to measure the magnetic-electric force by the movements on the dial. For the numerical determination of magnitudes of time we need bodies in uniform motion, and we cannot know that a body is in uniform motion except by comparison with another of which it holds good, and so on. Nothing but a complete uniformity of movement all such bodies (and we may notice incidentally that of our clocks go more uniformly than cosmic bodies, for instance, the earth round the sun) could guarantee the truth of these assumptions. Even in measurement of a foot or a yard, or some space the unit is arbitrary the metre, which is the tenscientific convention like millionth part of a quadrant of the earth between the Equator and the North Pole. For the measurement of intensive magnitudes, such as heat, light, sound, etc., the units have always to be determined on the strength
;
of previous knowledge. see that there are
We
really
many
small or
large
problems in this apparently simple matter of measuring, but we note especially that in the case of magnitudes the action of which cannot be represented by comparative stretches of space, no measurement no numerical expression
in
of
the
all
spite
of
magnitude is possible. This is true, the work of the psycho-physicists, of

psychic
89
The intensity of feelings and from measurable, even indirectly, that has no intelligible or useful meaning to use an it analogical expression (as we do in daily life) and say,
magnitudes.
volitions is so far
instance, that a particular pain, say a toothache, is It twice, three times, or ten times as great as another. follows that even in corporeal things there are further
for
that all measureno absolute determinations of size are relative, since they are related to an arbitrarily ments chosen standard. In recent natural philosophy the most desperate efforts are made to justify the unprovable assumptions which are made in determining the constancy of the speed of light and its position in regard to the relativity of all measurements of movements.
;
Hence when we speak of the magnitude of the genuinely not to a numerical and comparative real, we refer, determination that we reach by measurement, but to
the question, to be solved intellectually, whether the real, the magnitude of which plainly transcends all our or ability to measure and count, is in its totality finite
infinite.
In this respect human thought has, during the comparatively short time in which we can review historical development, experienced a very interits and axiological elements esting change, a reversal
;
have had just as much to do as theoretical with this change. That the primary reality, the substantial being of the world, must be infinite was very early seen by
purely theoretical thought. Thales was driven by the metaphysical impulse eV aTrdpova TTOVTOV to the infinite The chief point which urged him to seek the primary sea. matter in water was the thought, which coloured also his imagination, of the life-element of his people and race, the sea with its ceaseless movement, with its unlimited possibilities of change, upheaving and swallowing up the land, Anaximenes at a later date creating and destroying it.
similarly looked to the infinite ocean of air, about everything, for the primary matter.
which plays Between the
two Anaximander gave
intellectual expression to the fact that the world-stuff, the One, that must be all, must be conceived as infinite, as otherwise it would be ex-
90
haustcd in the
ONTIC PROBLEMS
infinite
transformations and generations. we call the theory of the infinity of the world) is necessarily connected with Singularism was recognised by one of the later Eleatics, Melissos, when he said that any limitation that is supposed to exist in the One would have to be due to a second being. A limited being cannot be the sole being. Melissos was in this more consistent than the founders of the Eleatic School, Xenophanes or Parmenides. When these as the rounded globe of the universe, represented being they were expressing a thoroughly Greek idea. All that is real has form and shape, so even the highest reality, the most perfect and true reality, must have a shape.
That
this Infinitism (as
Only something
definite
and complete
in this
way
is
real
the infinite, the unfinished or undefined, is never real. The infinite is not only inconceivable to us, undetachable to the mind's eye, but it is so in itself and an incom;
plete thing of this kind ought not to be called reality, least of all the true and highest reality. Hence for
the Eleatics and their followers infinite space was nonThe infinite in this sense is merely the possible, entity. the unfinished yet this indefinite possibility is the con;
phenomenal world. Thus the Pythagoconceived the universe as the drawing in or and pouring out of empty space by the world-force the Atomists represented infinite space as that in which The real itself always has an outline, things moved. whether t'Se'cu or axâra, forms or shapes. Hence the unlimited coincides once more with the indefinite, and we understand how the Greek word opos could mean both
dition
of
the
reans
limit
and conceptual
nothing. space, that
feature.
also belongs to unlimited space
Qualitative indefiniteness it means the dark, the

;
empty,
Thus Plato says

it
of
this
non-entity,
can be neither perceived nor thought, empty and is totally unimaginable, yet it must serve all things as the possibility of shaping (eVâyetoi/), the receiver because they, in their secondary reality, (SeâêV??) For are a mixture of the unlimited and limitation. as pure possibility, is the unAristotle, also, matter, limited and indefinite, whereas the truly real is to be
;

as
91
sought in the pure form, in God, and in the entelechies

All these definite and limited beings. which have rightly been regarded as a contheories, necting link between Greek science and Greek art, are undoubtedly due to the form-loving character of the Greek mind. The Greek is a creature of eye. He lives with the eye. All his knowledge is vision, the perception arts that His arts are those of the eye of a figure. in form, or in which the finite things of reality delight
individual
lead the
life
of the blessed.
Ancient
genuinely
existence
thought
real,
thus
regards
the
limited
as
the
and ascribes
to the infinite only a secondary
Since the of imperfect, incomplete reality. Alexandrian age all this has been changed. Religious motives had a good deal to do with this. The Greek went gods were compact, luminous shapes. As time
orr,
the
Deity
retreated
further
and
further.
What
more and lay beyond the world of experience became more remote, strange, mysterious, shapeless, and inex" negative theology," pressible, until at last the God of without properties, the unbounded and indefinite One, was reached. In addition to this, in the mystical school
in deep religious interest came to regard the will, both man and God, as the highest and last reality. The the will the unintellect is the limited and definite Hence absolute will was conlimited and indefinite.
:
ceived as the omnipotence of God, and man ascribed he had a feeling that a certain measure of it to himself A man can will or wish anyhis will was unrestricted.
;
That is what thing whatever. he says that the will, in its
Descartes means
indefiniteness
when
limitedness, is the God-like force, When in this standard form of

infinite
and unthe Divine, in man. modern metaphysics

of
substance
consists
;
is
opposed to
the
in their
finite
finiteness
in
limitation
substances, the extension or

will
consciousness
but
unbounded
spiritual
substances have a reflex of the divine infinity. We have thus become entirely familiar with thinking and speaking of infinity as the essential thing in God, the absolute reality, and of phenomenal things as the finite.
92
ONTIC PROBLEMS
Yet even in the time when the contrast of God and the world was most emphatic, it was possible to regard the totality of finite things as something infinite. The transcendental theory of Deism favoured this view. Even in Aristotle, who first expressly formulated the transmundane character of the Deity, the world, it is true, was supposed to be a limited sphere in point of space but he admitted no limit of time. It was in the dogmatic theories of a later age of monotheistic religion, in the form of ideas of a beginning and end of the world, creation and last judgment, that finiteness of time played a great part. The Pantheistic reaction of Neo-Platonism, on the other hand, emphasised the point, since the Renaissance, that if the All is infinite and God is identical with the universe, even this form of his appearance,
;
representation, or expression must also be infinite. Nicholas of Cusa, however, had already deduced from this that, if we pay attention to value in the distinction between essence and existence, being and appearance,
the infinity of the universe must be different from, and inferior to, that of the Deity. He therefore distinguished
between the Infinitum and the Interminatum, as others have since distinguished between positive and negative, or good and bad (Hegel), infinity. The infinity of God that he is raised above time and space, or at implies least outside of time and space, or that no space and but the infinity time predicates can be applied to him of the world means boundlessness in space and time, In this sense the divine predicate of timelessness and spacelessness, or eternity, must be carefully distinguished from the idea of a duration in time without beginning
;
and
Ordinary phraseology, when it contrasts time eternity, almost always means the wrong infinity, boundless duration the idea of eternity in the sense
or end.
;
of real infinity
is
very rarely understood.
In the
infinity
have so
singularistic idea of God the postulates of far come to be taken for granted that
we hardly see any problem in them at all. When, therefore, we speak of the antitheses of Finitism and Infinitism, we raise the question what we are to make oi
93
the limits of the world as the totality of finite things As is well known, these antitheses in time and space.
have been discussed by Kant in the Antinomies of Pure Reason from the point of view that the question is
wrongly put, or it is at least represented as lying beyond man's capacity, since the two contradictory answers of Finitism and Infinitism are equally demonstrable
and equally refutable. We must emphasise the fact that the problem here refers to the reality of time and space, and that the infinity of time and space is assumed
without contention. This infinity of time and space is not a fact of direct experience, but it is a natural presupposition of all the experiences by means of which we believe that we know
something of phenomenal reality. What we perceive The detail is always a limited portion of space. of space is not experienced, even in the vast infinity
in
The latter are immeasurably of astronomy. and inexpressibly large phenomena, yet they are always relative, and we can always imagine vaster spaces beyond them. The infinity of space itself, which we do not directly experience, goes with its unity or oneness, which on the is also an assumption developed in the mind
distances
strength of separate perceptions. and Infinitism coincide.
In this
Singularism
of all our fleeting perceptions of of space in one and the same field of vision, portions or the location of various perceptions of touch in one
The connectedness
and the same space-sphere of touch, is our first step toward the formation of the idea of the oneness and unity of space. The co-operation of vision and touch, which are the two constitutive senses for the idea of space,
leads us to identify the space of vision with the space of touch. The ordinary man regards this coincidence
as
earliest
an outcome of the experiences which he had in the and most instructive years of his life, when he
discovered the identity of surrounding objects and his own limbs which he touched with the same objects and limbs as he saw them. That no such identification
arises
spontaneously
is
seen in the case of those born
94
blind,
ONTIC PROBLEMS
who have
to
Then we locate all our here and there, yesterand to-day in one and the same general space day everything in the nature of space that we perceive is
learn
it.
successive experiences of space
a part of this. And in ordinary life we identify also the various experiences of space that different individuals have and in this identification of all as the same
;
one
infinite space, it loses the central point which individual space had in the perceiving personality,
each
thus
and Whatever experience of space anybody ever has belongs to the same one infinite space. But this oneness and identity are not directly perceived.
becomes
infinite.
They
are postulated
scious of the postulate,
though many men are never conand it is only perceived when
one remembers that every attempt to find a position or direction in space has at the base of it the assumption of relations to the whole. That is precisely what Kant meant when he spoke of the apriority of the idea of space.
It
if
does not mean a kind of psychological apriority, as we brought into the world with us an idea of some
unbounded giant box into which everything in the world was packed. It means this fact, that, when we speak
of contiguity, or of a limited span of space, or even of a limit which separates an enclosed space from what
encloses
of
it,
we must always assume
that these mutually
limiting things, or the enclosed
parts
and the enclosing, are one and the same infinite space. Thus this
assumption of one infinite space always includes the metaphysical postulate that the world is a unity. These observations apply also in part to time. The oneness and infinity of time is not a matter of direct perception, but a genuine assumption that lies at the root of our perceptions, and is due to the idea that all being and happening really belong to a single world.
What
the
individual
directly
experiences
is
always a
detached number of finite relations. For each person his individual (" subjective ") time consists in the sum-total of his states of consciousness, which differ from each other in their contents. These for instance, separate elements join on to each other
;
time-magnitudes and

the
95
of
moment
of
awakening and the moment
going
It is only by daily life and conversation that to sleep. we learn that between the several elements of our ex-
perience there was other time, and in some cases considerable intervals of time. Here again we have a
of the various directly experienced portions into one infinite time, of which all time-magnitudes and relations perceived by all persons are parts.
synthesis
of time
only because bodily movements, which are fundamentally determined by passage through continuous stretches of space, also belong to what is arranged in this common objective time, that the element of continuity is superimposed upon the discontinuous idea of time which we got from our original experience. It
It
is
most important to understand clearly that there is here an essential difference between the idea of space and the idea of time. The unity of space is in itself
is
one of continuous progress, but the experience of time one of separate acts of consciousness, the combination of which into the familiar course of time only assumes
is
analogous to that of in recent times space. for an opposite reason) found Bergson (though partly in the space-like conception of time the fundamental error of all naturalistic psychology and metaphysics. In any case we can now recognise that the completely parallel, twin-like treatment which time and space have had in philosophy since Leibnitz and Kant must not be regarded as beyond question. A further element of distinction between the two is the difference of their relation to the idea of the empty. Of empty space we all have a long-standand with this we picture to ourselves the ing idea, changes of position of things in space. This assumption, however, is not indispensable. Not only the scientific successors of the Eleatics, but Descartes and his school also, and especially certain theories of the latest natural
is
a character of continuity which
Hence
we understand
how
philosophy, have rejected empty space, and have thereto conceive each individual movement as a fragment of a total movement. But when Kant says (in
fore
96
ONTIC PROBLEMS
the proofs of his transcendental aesthetics) that we can think of everything out of time and space, but cannot " " think away time and space themselves, this necessity is true for space, but not for time. An entirely empty time is absolutely unthinkable. If we fill up the intervals between the separate elements of our individual time with the events given in the objective world by the motion of bodies if our estimate of time-lengths or of the speed of any movements, or of the shortness or length of a period of time, is always based upon comparisons
of
the
changes experienced in ourselves and
in other things,
was
fluit
defined
we have the idea of absolute time as it by Newton tempus est quod cequabiliter
united with the assumption that certain uniform
in it. If this movement and all happening were to cease, time would not be empty it would disappear. We cannot speak literally of empty time, but only, on the analogy of empty space, of time which we do not know to be filled with movements or other processes, but for which we tacitly assume some such processes. For ordinary purposes, however, space and time are, in an analogous way, presuppositions for existence
; ;
movements occur
and, as
all
and empty
sibilities,
reality occurs to us as full space or full time, space and time are at the base of it as posinfinite
finite.
for the
the one manifold
great nothing which is two great nothings without which we cannot for all conceive any reality. Quite apart from the naive ideas of space and time as two vast boxes which are partly
;
ever, the prerequisite space and time are a nevertheless required as a basis
is,
as
Empty
filled with the individual and finite, we often find this nothing not only turned into a reality, but even into a real power. In the mechanical theory it is the size
of the empty space between two atoms which determines the measure of their mutual attraction or repuland in this we have the motives for all the sion attempts to conceive this empty space as filled with
;
It is popularly supether or something of the kind. that time slows down the motion of a body, posed

whereas this
also
97
is due to friction or something similar. We speak of the destructive action of time, or the " healing hand of time," and so on, whereas it is reality alone which brings about these results in the course of The hand of time belongs really to the things time. which are in time. These reflections naturally lead to the question whether space and time as such that is to say, empty space and time as something to be rilled with beings and events have a metaphysical reality of their own. Opposed to the naive idea which finds expression in this
question
we
find
in
scientific
discussion
in
Aristotle,
a disposition to treat space and time as relations or aspects of the real, the existing, or the event. But that always leads to a feeling of scepticism about
for instance
our postulate of the unity and identity of the world, which are expressed in the idea of one infinite empty space and one infinite empty time. Hence Leibnitz and Kant saw no alternative but the philosophic theory that both are forms of perception, In favour not metaphysical realities in the naive sense.
of this
stage
is
to touch lightly on these noetic problems at this the fact that the problems of continuity and
emptiness seem to be antitheses of perception and its needs, not realities, and that infinity in particular, conceived in the nature of a function, seems to require no longer the idea of an unfinished or incomplete reality. On the other hand, however, one may well ask whether the problems have not been evaded rather than solved by relegating them to the subjective field. For individual magnitudes of space and time are certainly given as phenomenal reality, and indeed as different apparent realities. If we now assume that as such they have, not a metaphysical, but only a phenomenal reality, we have to ascribe to them in the true reality just so many and diverse relations and if we grant that we have no knowledge of such real relations, it follows that, as
;
every system of quantities, this unknowable multiof true relations also involves the problems of continuity and discontinuity, as well as the problems
in
plicity
98
of
finiteness
ONTIC PROBLEMS
and
infinity.
Hence by
this
duplication
in the sense
of the principles that are involved
we gain
that we can conceive analogous features in true reality to the phenomenal magnitudes of space and time, but we gain nothing in regard to the problems which prompted
this
other
phenomenological evasion. The problems are, in back into the words, not solved, but put
line of
unknown.
Anothei
thought amidst the mass of
difficulties
that arise in this field must be considered. menal nature of space has been affirmed
periods in
see
in
The phenoat
the history of philosophy, and
it
various has suited
the spiritualist
systems of metaphysics which we will On the other discussing qualitative problems. the phenomenal nature of time has rarety been hand,
affirmed
and
is
much more
difficult
to
sustain.
It
at once encounters the objection that the interconnection of the psychic states and activities has, though no spatial
a time-relation. It has then to difficulty that all the changes, in part into the opposite of the properties of things, changes which now seem to us natural enough when distributed over different periods of time, become explicit contradictions if we are to attribute them as properties to the same substance with no discontinuity of time. The coincidcntia oppositorum may suit a mystic view of the unity of the world, but it will not do for the intelaspect,
yet
certainly
meet the graver
lectual conception of the multiplicity of real existence. In fine, the metaphysical reality of time seems to lack
any proper
is
relation
to the to
will.
Since
all
action and
the future, it seems to become willing the moment the time-change is struck out of illusory A world without time would be the nature of things. one in which there would be nothing more to do a
directed
;
world from which the

satisfaction just
will,
with
all
its
effort,
with
its
as
much
as its restless unsatisf action,
would be excluded as quite meaningless. On the other hand, this attempt to conceive the metaphysical reality of time brings out, precisely in connection with the will, the whole difficulty of the antithesis
99
The idea of Finitism implies of Finitism and Irifinitism. an end of time, and therefore an end of happening, Infmitism, on the contrary, change, and volition. out a view of an infinite series of events in infinite opens time, and therefore implies that the will can never come These ideas will be, respectively, congenial to rest. to different men according to temperament. But if we look closely at them, we find it difficult to say which that of an absolute rest idea is the more intolerable or that of a never-ending restlessness of the will. Both elements have their emotional value in relation to the
:
time-aspects of empirical reality arid our varying experience of it. At one time rest is welcome after long unrest though it is tolerable only if it does not last too long. By others the struggle, even if it does not attain
finite
;
its
is
end,
is
gladly welcomed
conceived absolutely,
illusory.
it
itself
Thus we
yet if such a state of things threatens to make the will see that the things which are
;
certainly real in the finite world of experience become impossibilities the moment they are converted into
absolute realities
by metaphysical thought.
of
Another
in
form
the
antithesis
of
Finitism
and
Infinitism relates to the
mass or the number
of reality
whether we think of atoms, elements, monads, real entities, and so on. Here again the immeasurability and uncountability are facts, and the problem can therefore only be solved by theories
the
world,
entelechies,
or dialectical arguments. The ancients generally leaned toward Finitism in this matter. In modern times, for
the reasons
we have given
above, Infinitism
is
predo-
though there are theories, such as Diihring's metaphysics or Renouvier's Neocriticism, which run on the lines of Finitism.
;
minant
of space
The arguments oppose each other much as in the case and time, and here again we perceive the great
difficulties
mathematical
which
arise
definite infinity or of infinities differing
from the idea of from each other.
The layman can understand it by a simple illustration. If we imagine a line a b prolonged beyond b to infinity,
this infinite line is longer in
one direction than in the
100
other.
ONTIC PROBLEMS
In pure thought that seems to be an insoluble contradiction, yet it is quite inevitable. In this case succession in events is most important. Infinitism grants that it is possible for the series of causes to have a starting-point, though this is by no means
seems to be improbable. compelled by the mathematical principles of probability to say that the group of elements of reality which is regarded as the initial stage must, after an indefinitely great but always finite Hence the Finitist systems period of time, be repeated. " universal restoration," or the of antiquity taught and the poet Nietzsche return of every state of things gave an ethical turn to a reminiscence of this in his last Whether the impressive enforcement of responsiyears. bility which is involved in this attains its end must, when we examine the matter closely, be pronounced very improbable. For if the state of the will is to be repeated an infinite number of times, it must have already occurred an infinite number of times, and it thus assumes a fatalistic character, the dread of repetition being
necessary
on the contrary, Finitism, on the other hand,

;
it
is
neutralised
by the paralysing
feeling of inevitability.
Antinomies of this kind appear if, in this case, we conceive the number of the masses as finite and the and we get other antinomies according time as infinite to the various ways in which we may apply finiteness
;
and
infinity
to
space, time,
and number
of
realities.
Instead of going on with these, we will pass to another In order to clear up these antigeneral consideration. nomies we may, as Kant did, point to the mutual antagonism of our means of knowledge, the senses and the understanding. The difficulty is that this may be done with quite the opposite effect. On the one side it is pointed out that everything perceived by the senses represents, in its vast diversity, something indefinite, while the stretching out beyond itself on every side
;
understanding is the principle of conceptual determination, of a mind arranged and limited in itself according to the categories as the forms of its synthesis. On the other side it may be affirmed that the know-
DETERMINATIONS OF REALITY
101
ledge we get from the presentations of sense always gives us a finite arid definite shape, and that it is only the reflection of the intelligence upon this that, in its inde-
pendence
that
and
be,
may
we
However spontaneity, has no limits. see that the ontic problems lead us
on to the genetic on the one hand and to the noetic on

the other.
The
Qualitative
Determinations of Reality. Original and derivative properties Primary and secondary qualities Quantitative outlook of men of science The material world and consciousness The soul as vital force and vehicle of consciousness Intellectualism, Voluntarism,
and Emotionalism
The Unconscious
Psycho-
physical parallelism Materialism and spiritualism Theoretical and axiological duality Monism.
(idealism)
Apparent reality exhibits an infinite variety of properties by means of which things differ from each other, and which even in the same things are constantly It is just this latter fact, that one and changing. the same thing presents itself with one property at one time and another property at another, this fact of which gives rise to the question about the dAAotcuCTis-, and true qualities of the real. If we first congenuine sider the matter within the limits of experience, we have already frequently seen how our mind is accustomed
to distinguish the persistent properties of things as the original from the variable properties as derivative. The chemical correction of the naive idea of a thing, the
of the elements, was guided by this aim. which arise by the mixture or combination of Things elements have quite different properties from those of their constituents. We know that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen in a certain proportion, yet we find in water entirely different physical and chemical properties from those of the gases which compose it. In this we assume, and probably have a right to assume, that the properties of the compound bodies arise from
discovery
102
those
ONTIC PROBLEMS
of their constituents, and that the proportions which they are combined are of importance. But, however confident we are of this dependence in principle, it is extraordinarily difficult to grasp and explain in No one can say why combination gives us concrete. in
a body of this particular colour, taste, or smell.

;
We
can only establish the fact and this inability of the intelligence or of deduction applies also to such properties as crystallisation, atomic weight, melting-point, electrical behaviour, etc. Even our modern theories of atomic structure do not make these things clear, and we are, in principle, no further advanced than Empedocles was when he said that each single thing receives its properties from a combination of the four elements fire, air, water, and earth and that the blood, for instance, has the advantage of being the finest and most perfect of such mixtures yet Empedocles was quite unable to show how certain combinations led
;
to certain sets of properties.

is important, however, to have this reference to From quantitative conditions of the combination. this we get the constant effort of men of science to reduce even the qualitative differences of the properties of
It
the
things to quantitative. The tendency has even led to an attempt to explain the reality of the material properties of things by relating them to the variety of our organs
To each sense is allotted perception, our senses. a certain group of qualities, which belong exclusively to it and to which it is restricted. Thus colours belong to the eye in so far as no other sense can experience them, and, on the other hand, the sensation which is peculiar to the eye is called colour. The ear has the same relation to sounds, the nose to odours, and so on. This relation has been called the specific energy of the sense-organs,
of
lines,
and modern physiology partly explains it, on evolutionary by the adaptation of the peripheral endings of the sensory nerves to receive and conduct certain movements which provide the proper stimulation for those organs light-waves for the eye, sound-waves for the Even ancient thinkers drew a distinction ear, and so on.
between these
103
specific qualities of the various senses and the perceptions of spatial form, position, and corporeal movement, which are common to all. It is true that they
belong primarily to sight and touch, but in a secondary way they are connected also with the work of the other senses. Hence it was assumed that there was a " common sense sensus comnmnis), and to this was (KOIVOV alaQrirripiov attributed a higher value than to the qualities of the In regard to the latter it was early perspecial senses. ceived that they represented, not properties inherent in the things themselves, but their action upon the It was therefore necessary to correct perceiving mind.
'
,
popular language, which describes even pleasantness and unpleasantness as properties of things, whereas in
this case it is clear that
they are merely effects of things that can perceive and feel. The Pythagoupon beings reans seem to have been the first to see that it is the same with musical notes but since Protagoras, Democritus, and Plato the subjectivity of all specific sense;
has been generally recognised and, although the Middle Ages it was put aside in favour of Aristotle's contrary view, it was restored at the beginning of modern times by the leaders of science, Kepler,
qualities
in
;
Descartes, and Hobbes, and was formulated Locke and Robert Boyle as the distinction between by primary and secondary qualities.
Galilei,
theory is confirmed by our increasing acquaintance with the regular correlation between the movements that serve as stimuli and the sensations they provoke. The best known instance is the connection between musical notes and the period of vibration of the strings, or the waves in the air We must admit that these connections can only be established as facts; The they cannot be understood. dependence of the quality on the quantity is a synthetic, not an analytic, matter. No one can tell why the sensation of red is produced by 450 billion ether-vibrations per second, or the sensation of blue by 640 billion per second. This actual co-ordination is, however, the basis of the scientific theory that only quantitative deter-
This
104
ONTIC PROBLEMS
and primarily to the nature while the qualitative belong, being relative and secondary, to its appearance in consciousness. Objectively, for instance, the reality is a chord vibrating at a certain rate subjectively I can see, hear, and in a sense, with the finger-tip, feel the vibration. A colour is a real property of a body only in the sense that it indicates a certain configuration of the body's surface, in virtue of which it reflects predominantly a
ruinations belong absolutely
reality,
of
" According to this nightparticular kind of light-waves. (as Fechner called it) the physical world is in theory itself colourless and soundless, merely an empty moveall the varied vitality, with ment of atoms in space
'
which
speaks to us, means merely a phenomenon developing in the perceptive consciousness. If we seek the motives on which, especially in recent times, this choice between equal elements of perception and this difference in appreciating the qualitative arid quantitative are based, we find the chief in the requirements of mathematical theory, which needs measurable
it
therefore regards that as real which capable of being expressed in quantitative formulae. Kepler, Leonardo, and Galilei have expressly said this; and Descartes (in his sixth Meditation) has laid it down that, in the case of bodies, that is true which a man can conceive intellectually dare et distincte not in vague
is
magnitudes and
imagination obscure Thus the right to
et
confuse.
make the choice sends us back to scientific theory, and we understand that it will not be recognised by men who have not an exclusive
in this, or may not have any interest at all. Hence the above "night-theory" was opposed by Kant and Goethe, though for different reasons. Kant regarded space and time determinations only as modes of perception of the human mind, and therefore as mere phenomena. Goethe, in his theory of colour,
interest
pitted life against theory, attributing a? much reality to these qualities as to the quantitative properties which we learn by abstraction. The typical contrast is seen
in his detestation of
Newton, and
it
may
be traced in
105
the favour which his theory of colour found with such antipodal thinkers as Hegel and Schopenhauer, and even with natural philosophers of the Schelling school
such as Fechner.
presupposes on any appearance, there must not only be something that appears, but someone Thus the reality of consciousness, to whom it appears. the inner side of reality, is the completion of the various
The
whole
controversy,
however,
every side that, for there to be
views as to what
is
physical properties. sciousness there is a totally different qualification, and therefore a totally different reality, than in the material
being and what is appearance in In this it is assumed that in con-
and from this fact we get the chief questions world and antitheses in the philosophic theories of the quality
;
of the real.
called the soul, and the inquiry is consequently directed to a study of the relations of find the origin of the idea of soul soul and body.
is
In a realistic and matter consciousness
literally
substantive view
of
the
We
The distinction between the living and non-living is certainly, as one notices in the case of quite young children, original and extraordinarily It is based upon the fact that a thing seems vivid. to us to be alive when it moves, without this movement appearing to be a continuation of some other moveThe non-living and the dead move only when ment.
in the riddle of life.
the
is imparted by another. The living on the contrary, has the power of self-movement, thing, and the principle of this spontaneous movement is called the soul. Even in Plato's arguments in the Phcedro or the Laws, we plainly see this primitive connection. On them is based, amongst all peoples, the idea that the vital force may, as sleep and death indicate, leave
movement
is
the body, return to it, or definitely abandon therefore something quite distinct from
it
that
it
the
body,
which
with
is
merely
its
temporary residence.
But when
it,
this principle of life leaves the body, it takes apparently, its capacity for all such functions
feeling,
as presentation,
desire
in
a word,
all
mental
106
ONTIC PROBLEMS
The sleeping, and especially the dead, body opeiations. shows no further trace of the phenomena which we are
accustomed to regard as the expression or the consequence of states of consciousness. Hence the idea of the soul contains from the start the two characters of vital force and basis of consciousness two features which
;
are closely related as capacities for sense-directed, purThese two elements, however, which posive action. were originally combined in the thought of primitive
peoples, have diverged more and more from each other in the course of scientific research. Aristotle's three-
and human soul from the rnind, and the Neo-Platonists expressly distinguished between two souls, one (also called (f>vais) related to the physical
fold division of the vegetative, animal, cuts off the vital force as a lower level
the other, the soul proper, related to the hyperworld. In the Middle Ages this dualism, which regards the vital force as entirely belonging to the body and the true soul as pertaining to the supraworld,
physical
world, was held especially by the mystics of Victor and it later became a fixed custom in speech " to represent the soul (mens, spiraculum, the spark ") only as the possessor of consciousness, while the vital force, or rather vital forces (spiritus animates), stood for purely corporeal things or forces. This is familiar also in the philosophy of Descartes. But the vital force became in the course of time less and less necessary for the purposes of scientific research. Many of the apparently spontaneous movements turned out to be due to outside influence. This destruction " of the primitive Animism," the exclusion of the soul from nature by science, has often been complained of
sensible
St.
;
by poets
Where now, our

Revolves a ball
wiser
modern men
relate,
of flame
without a soul,
of state
Once Helios in tranquil pomp Drove o'er the sky his chariot
of gold.
So Schiller said in his Gods of Greece. The substitution of physical and chemical forces for souls has, in fact,
107
made continuous progress even in the science of the The more it succeeds, the more conorganic world. it is assumed that even in organic movements fidently we have no other forces and laws than those which we
find in the inorganic world. Although, however, there has been no lack of attempts to prove this as a general truth, it has never been accomplished, and we are not surprised that the vital force continues to haunt even It is all very well to talk about ions serious science. and electrons, dominants and determinants, but vitalistic theories are always returning to the old feeling that some peculiar principle accounts for the unity of The general tendency of science, the living organism. however, is to put the vital force more and more out At times, in fact, it has looked as if of the field. the same fate, a sentence of superfluousness, must fall upon the soul even in its second character, as bearer But even if it came to this we shall of consciousness. return to the point later we should have to admit that this psychic life of consciousness had a reality of its own, different from material reality. Here we have the second province of reality, and it exhibits just as innumerable a variety of qualities as the Whatever the thing or substance, physical world does. " the soul," may be, it certainly has countless properties and in this case they are rather in the nature of functions, or present themselves to us as capacities, In face of this variety powers, forces, activities, etc.
;
between essential and derivative properties, and to separate the substantiality of the soul from its relative and temporary expressions and effects. It is,
find attempts to distinguish
original
we again
and unessential,
as in the case of the outer world, a sort of simplification of the world in thought. In this connection we have
the antithesis of intellectualist and voluntarist psyThe old controversy of the Scholastics utra potentia major sit, intellectus an voluntas ? is always with us, and each side has a large number of arguments.
first
chology.
When
is
one reflects that each activity of consciousness directed to a content, which has to be presented, even
108
ONTIC PROBLEMS
if it is an object of feeling or will, we see that the presentations are fundamental functions, and the activities of feeling and will only strains or relations between the
presentations and therefore dependent on them. That the main idea of intellectualist psychology, which is Herbart introduced from the eighteenth century to the nineteenth. If, on the other hand, the fact is emphasised
that consciousness,
poreal
movement
as activity, differs from corin being willed, we get the will as the
fundamental function and presentation as the incidental method by which it objectifies itself. Voluntarist psychology of this kind was involved in the entire scheme of thought which developed in the German philosophy founded by Kant, and it found its typical expression In fine, we have an attempt in Schopenhauer's system.
to
reconcile
these
opposing theories in modern
Emo-
tionalism, which takes feeling to be the primary phenomenon and tries to show that will and presentation are equally implicit in this, and develop from it in continual That is pretty much the idea relation to each other. and it, perhaps, comes nearest of Herbert Spencer
;
to the truth
if
it
is
meant
are
in the sense that the three
fundamental
functions
strata of action,
not isolated activities or but different aspects of one and the

anti-intellectualist
same living being and activity. the this Without supposition theories of modern psychology lead lectic and to the self-destruction of
idea.
If,
to a peculiar diatheir fundamental
presentation is regarded as the a fundamental function of the will or of feeling, this fundamental function itself must be something unconscious. Now this theory of unconscious psychic states or activities, to which many other elefor instance,
outcome
of
ments of psychological science have pointed for more than a century, and which is now so strong that to-day the unconscious is often taken to be the very basis
of psychic life and the region of consciousness is regarded as merely a superstructure on this foundation, is in plain opposition with the results of historical development, which always regarded consciousness (cogitatio) as the
essential,
if
109
of the soul.
not the only essential, thing in the definition If we are to fiame a new definition of the we must bear in mind that the unconscious is, soul, from the nature of the case, never experienced, never given in thought, but merely assumed hypothetically for the explanation of processes and states of con-
seem otherwise quite incomprehensible. This hypothesis, therefore, ought to be used only when it is altogether impossible to assume psychic realities as the conditions of those conscious states which are In this supposed to be explained by unconscious. there are methodical and real difficulties, if not impossibilities, which are mainly responsible for the impersciousness which
fect condition of psychological science. They have also a metaphysical bearing in the sense that in the last resort
they impel us to set up a third province, the region of the unconscious, beside those of the physical and the a region which would coincide with neither psychical
;
but have a separate reality, although it, from the nature of the case not given in consciousbeing ness, can only be assumed, in regard to its contents, on the analogy of one of the other provinces, the psychical. Apart from these difficulties, which have as yet little to do with general ideas and have received very scant attention from empirical psychologists, consciousness
of the others,
people not psychic regarded " in the one-sided intellectualist sense which thought," is often given to it by inaccurate translation, but in the sense in which Descartes and Spinoza sufficiently indicated it, by enumeration and reflection, as the indefinable, ultimate, common element in all such activities
(cogitatio)
is
by the overwhelming majority

the
of
as
attribute
of
activity
etc.
as sensation, judgment, deduction, feeling, choice, desire, And this is something quite different from bodies
with their quantitative properties. Hence the Cartesian distinction, based upon the na'ive idea of individual substances, between res extensce and res cogitantes, bodies and souls or minds, is in complete agreement with the general belief, and there is no difficulty in thinking with
Spinoza that extension and consciousness, or with Neo-
110
ONTIC PROBLEMS
spirit,
Spinozism that matter and

attributes
of
Deity. They general concepts of abstraction working logically upon the multiplicity of qualities beyond them abstraction comes only to an empty something," the indefinite
;
the
are entirely separate represent the ultimate
'
substance,
the
mere
form
of
the
category.
In
our
knowledge of the world, however, the dualism remains, whether we put it as an antithesis of body and spirit,
sensible
terial.
and
These
suprasensible,
or
material
really
and and
immaand
conin
things
mean two
perceptible
different
;
distinct provinces of
reality
formity with them we have, in general usage, distinguished two formally different kinds of perception and perceptive knowledge, the outer and the inner sense. " " sensation and reflection Under the names of Locke thought that he had reduced the metaphysical dualism of the Cartesian theory of substances to an innocent psychological dualism, presumably based upon He calls the objects of knowthe nature of knowledge. " of the inner and outer sense the cogitative ledge
'
'
'
and non-cogitative Now, what is the
"
"
substances.
relation to each other of these
two
kinds of qualitatively defined reality ? Can the mind For the prescientific rest content with the dualism ? but in scientific a matter of course mind this dualism is
;
thought, and
still
is,
mental ideas
more in philosophy, one of the fundaas we have seen, that of the unity of
It has, naturally, to the world, the unifying impulse. this question, and this means be brought to bear upon that we must try to reduce the two kinds of reality This may be done either by reto some sort of unity. garding one of them as original and essential and the other as a phenomenon of it, or by tracing both to a
even if this has to remain unknown, unknowand inexpressible. The first alternative again able, either the spiritual reality may be divides into two regarded as a phenomenon of the corporeal, which is then supposed to be the genuine and original reality,
third,
:
or
vice
versa.
We
thus get the familiar antithesis of
Materialism and Spiritualism.
We may
One
ism.
is
111
take two of the chief arguments of Materialthe metaphysical argument, and it holds that all reality is identical on account of its existence To be real is, for the ordinary man, the same in space. thing as to be somewhere in space. That holds good for the psychic activities and states. They are somein his brain, his nervous where in this particular man, Even if the soul is regarded as imsystem, and so on. material and separable from the body, it is assumed that in the after-life it lives somewhere above in the
which are conjured by mediums have their distant abodes, and have to manifest themselves in material form at some point to in space, where they may be photographed by certain
stars.
The
spirits
be summoned from
The religious imagination, in gifted people. does not take even the supra-spatial nature of God fact, so seriously as to be prevented from fancying him as occupying the whole of space. Any man who seriously works out these ideas will see that, as Kant well pointed out in his Dreams of a Seer, anything which is in space For this reason the ancient fills it, and so is a body. Atomists were Materialists. So also were the Stoics, who expressly held that reality and materiality were the same thing. From them even the Church-Fathers Tertullian and Arnobius adopted Materialism, without it doing any prejudice to their religious dogmas. In recent times this Stoic Materialism has been represented chiefly by Hobbes, who indicated space as the phenomenal form of true substance (phantasma rei existcntis), and therefore regarded all philosophy as a science of bodies, including artificial bodies like the State, which have reality because they are in space. The second chief argument is anthropological. It is based upon the dependence of the "soul" upon the
especially
we are supposed to find in all its functions, normal and abnormal. All psychic states are, both permanently and temporarily, determined by age, sex,
body, which
or illness, and degree of bodily development. need no special soul as a distinct principle from the body to explain the activities, even the purposive
health
We
112
activities,
ONTIC PROBLEMS
of
the organism. This view has been particularly strengthened since the seventeenth century by the study of reflex movements. These show in a very high degree the marks, not merely of purpose, but
of adaptation
and improvability. phenomena upon Descartes and
The
influence of these
was so great that they regarded the organic movements in the animal body as entirely reflex movements. But if we can do " immortal soul," in the case of the this, without any not in the case of man ? That was the animal, why
his school
put in ironic reference to Descartes by Lamettrie in his L'homme machine, and worked out in favour of Materialism. He was followed in this by all later Materialists by the author of the Systeme de la the materialistic physicians of Fiance in the Nature, nineteenth century, Cabanis and Broussais, and by Vogt and Moleschott in Germany. Incidentally they replaced the mechanical vibrations of the nerves, of which the earlier physiologists had spoken, by chemical ideas, and
question
put the psychic activities on the same footing as other

secretions of the organs.
About the middle of the nineteenth century these metaphysical and anthropological arguments were combined in Feuerbach's dialectical Materialism, which turns inside out Hegel's theory that nature is the mind in its other being and its self-alienation, and represents the mind as nature alienated from itself. From this source came the whole stream of Materialistic literature which flooded the second half of the nineteenth century. Typical instances of it are Biichner's Force and Matter and on one side, and Diihring's works on the other the system assumed its finest and ablest form in David Friedrich Strauss's Old and New Faith. It is precisely these finer presentations of Materialism " so-called which make it clear that in the psychic activity we are supposed to have at least a special sort as when Strauss uses the of matter or of its functions
;
'
genuinely Hegelian expression, that in these spiritual " nature reaches beyond itself." Democritus activities Jong ago found the psychical in the atoms of fire, which
man
ible
113
were distinguished for their fineness and mobility. The Systeme de la Nature explained that what the ordinary
calls
activities of the soul consist in subtle, invis-
movements
heat,
of
atoms
and
is
maintains that consciousness

like
in recent times Ostwald a special form of energy,
motion, electricity, etc. Every such statement, however, that consciousness or psychic activity is merely some superior sort of material existence or movement, is a quite arbitrary pronouncement, and In face of tries to give unusual meanings to the words. our direct experience, which continually teaches us that
physical and psychic reality are fundamentally differOne ent, the Materialistic position remains a paradox. are a sort of pears, or, as well say Apples might just A dog is a sort of cat. There cannot be any reasonable
:
question of identity of the psychic and the physical. But it is just as impossible to derive one from the other to conceive psychic states as the outcome of material, or deduce them from some sort of subtle combination Movement and consciousness are of material elements.
:
in
No matter how much their nature heterogeneous. one seeks to bring them together by refining the one and simplifying the other, one always fails to bridge over the gap which, in principle, separates them. This
has been recognised by some of the most distinguished
Du Bois-Reymond in his " The saying about secretions Ignorabimus Speech." is nothing but a crude analogy, and cannot be taken
men
" of
science,
such
as
'
seriously.
in
All
to
that
the
empirical
regard
correlation of
research can establish the stimulus and the
sensation, or the perception and the purposive movement, is at the most, according to our way of thinking
and speaking, a causal relation

in
in
which certain states
one region are clearly co-ordinated to states in the If we proceed carefully, we shall scarcely venture other. even to speak of causality, and shall confine ourselves In no case to registering certain constant correlations. can we say that states of consciousness are themselves There is no question states of corporeal movement. whatever of identity, but merely of some connection
114
which
ONTIC PROBLEMS
is probably of a causal nature. But this causal connection is merely established in empirical research; it is not capable of logical analysis. No one can exhow it happens that a certain physico-chemical plain stimulation gives rise to a certain sensation of colour. In contesting Materialism we have to rely on these
and impossibilities, and in point of fact an end several decades ago to the domination they put
difficulties
of
Materialistic thought. It is quite foolish to attack Materialism as a theory with evil consequences. This, it is true, has often enough been done, and, unfortuBut nately, the practice was started by Plato himself.
Democritus, and even Epicurus, have sufficiently proved that theoretical Materialism is consistent with a high and pure moral culture and English of the eighteenth, and partly of the nineteenth, thought century shows us, in the typical personality of Priestley, for instance, a union of Materialism and religious
like
;
men
devotion.
However, this purely theoretical criticism, which shows that Materialism cannot sustain its thesis of the identity of consciousness and material states, has a counterpart, mutatis mutandis, in the insuperable difficulties of the theory at the opposite extreme, Spiritualism. By this we mean the theory which regards the material world as an appearance on or in a spiritual substance. It used
to be called, and is still called, Idealism, but this expression is so ambiguous that it is better to avoid it as far
in
The term Idealism as possible. the anti-Materialistic sense

or,
is,
in the first place, used
presentations ideas eighteenth centuries, of Berkeley and Malebranche, and there is no meaning But the word " idea objection to this use of the word. had formerly a different meaning, and it has a different meaning again in modern times. Plato's Idealism is a metaphysical theory of the higher reality of pure forms, which are conceived as immaterial, but not as conscious Kant's Idealism, and in part that states or activities. of his followers, is the theory that the meaning of the
'
'
as
was said
bodies are merely the seventeenth and of spirits. This was the
that
in
'
' '
115
ideas which are not world must be sought in those as objects of knowledge, but postulated as values given and aims of life. If, in fine, we take the secondary " " as a mental attitude which ideal meaning of the looks to the suprasensible, we have Idealism opposed to Positivism as a mental attitude which restricts itself This multiplicity and variety of shades of to facts.
meaning, mostly of an axiological character, which make word Idealism so ambiguous, compel us to avoid the word as far as possible in severe intellectual work,
the
and we must seek a more accurate and

substitute.
less
equivocal
In the first simple sense of the word, Berkeley's " contended that the being of the material Idealism world meant no more than that it was perceived (esse The unknown substantial basis of properties, percipi). which Locke had suffered to remain as the thing-in"
itself,
cherry
res
was supposed to be an academic fiction. The was merely the sum of its properties. These
"
ideas," are states or activities of the the spirits. These then the infinite divine spirit and the finite spirits, amongst which, on the ground of experience, we include the human are Hence it is better in metathe sole substantial realit}7
properties, these
cogitantes,
.
theory Spiritualism. Other forms of Spiritualism, apart from certain forms of theological dogmatism, are the Monadological Spiritualism of Leibnitz, the transcendental-philosophical of Fichte,
physics to
call
this
and the dialectical-metaphysical of Hegel. They differ especially on the question of the spiritual substance whether it is to be sought in individual spiritual beings,
in
consciousness generally," in the universal Self, or the world-spirit. To these Spiritualists, moreover, we must add the Voluntarist metaphysicians, who regard the will as the genuine reality and the material
in
"
merely as its phenomenon, as Schopenhauer, Maine de Biran, etc., do. The chief argument of all these forms of Spiritualism was formulated by Augustine and Descartes namely, that while all our knowledge of external things is un:
world
116
certain
ONTIC PROBLEMS
and changeable, we have an absolute and certain knowledge of our own existence as spiritual beings. It does not matter whether we are supposed to have this
primary experience of our spiritual being in the intellect it does not matter whether we use the or the will " " formula, Je pense, done je suis," or the words, Je veux, done je suis." In either case our experience of the psychic reality is held to be primary, and therefore
;
for
metaphysical theory
all
it
means the genuine and
true
reality.
Nevertheless
these forms of Spiritualism
are ex-
an objection analogous to, though the conWe verse of, that we found in the case of Materialism. How do come always to the unanswerable question
posed to
:
the spirits get these "ideas" of a totally different kind of reality, the material world ? The more, for instance, the Cartesian theory emphasises that the self-conscious substance has no trace of the attribute of extension in none of its possible modi, the more it, and therefore insoluble the problem becomes. No one can give an account of the origin of the idea of matter intelligible in a spiritual mind. Certainly not Berkeley, who thinks that finite spirits get these ideas from the Infinite, but has no rational answer to the question why the purely have such ideas of bodies. spiritual Deity should Neither can Leibnitz, for whom the lowest stages of consciousness of the Monads are physical states, just as the Materialist converts the subtlest movements into in both cases the neTafiams els aAAo yeVo? sensations Neither can Fichte, who treats the is quite arbitrary. sense-elements of experience as motiveless free selflimitations of the Self, and thus merely acknowledges
;
that the Self finds them in itself as an unintelligible a non-Self. Neither can Hegel, whose something else dialectical pulses of the mind in its otherness are quite unable to explain the appearance of nature in its various
:
shapes.
Thus the physical can neither be regarded

of
as a form
any way. psychical Materialism and Spiritualism are open to precisely the
it
the
nor
derived
from
in
same objection,
native
is
117
differently applied, and the only alterto recognise that the material and the spiritual As a matter are both primary contents of reality. of fact, that is the general way of looking at the matter,
is
But how, we must ask, it is usually called Dualism. such a Dualism conceivable without injury to the unity of reality which is an inalienable element of
and
thought
?
most
definite
Clearly Dualism is the most prominent and form of Pluralism, and it is open to all
the general objections which have been urged against This Dualism, however, is conthis in an earlier page. firmed when we go closely into the antitheses in the world and the theoretical relation of soul and body. We War see struggle and strife everywhere in the world.
was hailed by Heraclitus as the father of all things, and he taught us to regard the world as a divided unity. Thus Dualism is reinforced by an axiological experience, which is expressed in the ethico-religious duality of Good and evil, lawabidingness and lawlessvalues. and are found in every stratum of human life ness, in nature we find everywhere the senseless and even
;
aimless irrational
beside
the
purposeful rational.
The
simple candour of Greek thought never attempted to explain away these antagonisms by dogmatic theories. If we are correctly informed by Aristotle, Empedocles made the theoretical duality of world-forces, which he needed for his mixtures and separations of the
elements, correspond to an axiological duality, according to which love was the cause of the good and hatred the cause of evil. Everybody knows the classic
saying of Plato, that, since God as the good can only be the cause of good, he cannot be the cause of all things, and we must assume another cause, impera good and a bad world-soul fectness or badness
Aristotle in the
same way distinguished between form

the
principles,
and
matter
as
respectively,
of
pur-
So the process necessity. continues in ancient thought until it culminates in the Primitive dualistic religions, especially Manicheanism. and in which heaven and earth, light mythologies,
posiveness and unconscious
118
ONTIC PROBLEMS
darkness, are thus pitted against each other, are confirmed by the fact that scientific research (amongst the Pythagoreans and in Anaxagoras) found unity and
order, beauty and perfection, only in the heavens, while the life of man was full of strife and wickedness.
These
antitheses
of
values
were,
in
the
develop-
of religious ideas during the Alexandrian period, identified with the highest theoretical dualism of metaIt is one of the most important comphysical thought. binations of thought in human history that spirit and matter as good and evil, as the rational and the irraIt was an tional, were thus brought into antithesis.
ment
of the ascetic mood, which began to frown upon the flesh as sinful, to despise, abstain from, and repress the material, and to seek happiness in dread of and flight from nature, in a hatred of the material world. This
outcome
blending of theoretical and axiological Dualism, just dangerous as it is psychologically intelligible, was in principle dissolved and conquered by the Renaissance with its sound and comprehensive life, its art and science but it crops up occasionally and unpleasantly in our time, and we have to bear in mind constantly that the two dualities are not identical. In the spirit, the soul,
as
;
we have both good and bad

to each other
is
!
and how
is
close they are
In nature there
assuredly
much
that
irrational
and
is
rational, that
aimless, but how much also that is true and beautiful in the rational sense
!
the purely theoretical point of view, which we have here to disengage from axiological considerations, the two kinds or spheres of reality, the material and the spiritual worlds, remain distinct. To reduce them to a unity, or to derive them from a unity, is quite impossible. They remain an undeniable dualistic fact, even if we attempt to conceive the constant association, the inseparable connection, of the two aspects as a third thing which we cannot further define. Such an attempt
From
we have
in the
in Spinozism and, with certain modifications, Neo-Spinozism of German philosophy. In recent times it has assumed a specific form and adopted the name of Monism.
It
is
119
true that the Cartesian attempt to primary qualities of consciousness and materiality to two different kinds of substances went too far in some respects. There are neither formal nor real d priori reasons which forbid us to ascribe both attributes to one and the same thing. Why should not a conscious being have extension ? Why should
certainly
ascribe
the
not a material being think ? The rule of formal logic which declares the compredicability of disparate and heterogeneous features affirms that they may be united is rather in favour of than in one and the same concept either conagainst this supposition. The disjunction, since the time of Descartes scious or extended," which has been regarded as self-evident, is not contradicthe incompatibility has yet to be proved. In tory Spinozism the totality of reality, the one Nature or sub'
has the two attributes simultaneously. Recent thought has proceeded on much the same lines with its theory of the Unconscious, which, not given in experience itself, is assumed to be the third thing between the physical and the psychic. Hartmann's Philosophy it is a Monism of the Unconscious runs on these lines of the Unconscious. If this is true of God or the universe, it may very well be true of the several individual constituents of reality. Bacon said that atoms had perceptions, and in recent natural philosophy since Fechner the idea that all reality is at once material and spiritual has been very prominent. If we take Monism from this metaphysical point of view, there is nothing to be said against its tendency which, we find based in more than one respect upon indeed, the nature of our intellect. But the difficulties of this duplication of the real are not removed by this mere Some postulate of the unifying impulse of the mind. effort is made to meet them by saying that the duality belongs to the phenomenal world, and supposing that the one reality of things merely assumes in the human intellect this division into external and internal experience. Those who do this overlook the fact that this duality of the intellect then becomes a problem, and
stance,
;
120
that
ONTIC PROBLEMS
we
have
merely
put
back
the
metaphysical
difficulties.
The serious objections to modern Monism begin when the duality in which the primary being and all its original constituents express themselves is declared to be real. The difficulty then is, not so much in the association
of the
two attributes,
as in understanding
what happens
when ment
If the developthe attributes develop into modi. of the two attributes is supposed to proceed at equal pace, the simplest way to represent it is to assume that one series is a by-product, an epiphenomenon, of the other. Modern Monism is therefore disposed to regard the physical series as the original, and the
Then, however, psychical series as dependent thereon. whether it admits the fact or no, it is sheer Materialism. We shall therefore have to return to these questions and we thus see when we come to genetic problems
;
again that on tic problems always lead us either to genetic or noetic problems.
CHAPTER
II
GENETIC PROBLEMS
IN ontic questions the thing or substance is the central in genetic questions it is the category which is point " the event." This is the general expression best called This antithesis of the thing and for the Greek yiyveaQaa. the event is better than the earlier antithesis of being
;
and becoming;
is only one aspect of which means, not only that the process of happening, something appears which was not there previously, but also that something which was there previously ceases This opposite process to becoming was called to exist. by the older mystics by a word which we have no longer or perish(entwerderi) and must replace by "ceasing" becomes different In the event, therefore, something ing. from what it was before, and hence genetic problems may be resumed (as was done by Herbart) under the heading of change, the Greek /xerajSoA^, which may be
for
"becoming'
a change of place, a movement (nepiôpd or The word or a change of properties (aAAoiojat?) Kivqcris} " to the thing which change," however, points clearly changes, and thus we mean a thing which experiences
either
.
various
reality.
states
of
all
in
In this
we
succession, yet persists in its are either referred back to
own
the
problems
subject of
thingness
or
to the
universe
as
the one
changes.
5
The
Succession in time Continuity and discontinuity Event. events Immanent and transgredient events The necessity succession in time Causal and teleological dependence.
of of
fix
Amongst the general elements of all events we at once our attention upon two which are fundamental and
ui
122
GENETIC PROBLEMS
:
equally essential
(i)
the clear determination in time of a
series of states (of which, therefore, there must be at least two), one of which must succeed another, and (2) a con-
nection between these successive states, in virtue of which their plurality can be reduced to the unity to which we give the name of "event." In the category of the event, therefore, we have first
of all the feature of a definite succession in time.
There
in the category of inherence. The coexistence of properties in the thing is in itself apart from time it is only by a methodological relation that
;
was no such feature
to recognise, within our experience, substantial inherence by the clue of permanent simultaneity. In-
we seek
herence, as we may take this opportunity to observe, does not necessarily presuppose a spatial relation. It is true that we find this as the form of coexistence in our
conceptions of material things, but such conceptions as those of psychic or divine substance entirely exclude the element of space. The event, on the contrary, absolutely implies this element of time, that one is real after
first
the other and that the series is not interchangeable. This circumstance gives us, in our experience, for instance, the criterion by which we may decide whether a multiplicity successively perceived in consciousness is a real succession or a coexistence. Without this time-element the event is unthinkable, and therefore a reality without time would also be a reality without events. When we regard the world sub specie In this, clearly, there is a ceterni, nothing happens in it.
grave difficulty for the theory of the phenomenality of time. In a thing-in-itself which is raised above time nothing can happen. Religious ideas like that of being born again or of a total change in a man's intelligible character or innermost nature are irreconcilable with theoretical Phenomenalism, whether in the case of Kant
or of Schopenhauer.
Thus
also in the case of Herbart,
when, in order to explain the apparent event, he declares " the coming and going of substances in intelligible that " is the real event, we see that our mind, when it space deals with the event, cannot divest itself of the time-
THE EVENT
123
element. In addition, our will requires that we conceive the world as a sphere in which something is to be otherFor in other words, that something may happen. wise all these reasons it is clear that if we strike the timeelement out of the event, there is nothing left that We see therefore that if could be called a real event. we would remove the time-element from the causal rela;
tion,
which from the first overshadows every consideration the event, the residual dependence means, not the real relation of cause and effect, but merely a logical relation of antecedent and consequent just as, in the
of
;
case of Spinoza, consequi is a mathematical relation, but is as little a real relation as the equivalence of the
angles of a plane triangle with two right-angles

effect of the triangle.
is
an
However, the time-element in the event takes very two provinces of reality, with the distinction between which we closed our survey of ontic problems the external world and the inner world. Every event in space is movement, or change of position of bodies This is the ultimate type of all happening in in space. the chemical and even the organic world. To get from the point A to the point B, moreover, the body must traverse the entire continuity of the intermediate space, and
different forms in the
:
therefore the spatial event
is
also continuous in time.
On
the other hand, we noted previously that there never is a continuity of this kind in the psychic event, which gives that the successive us our experience of subjective time
;
acts of consciousness, of which the individual experience consists, are discrete or discontinuous elements. cannot therefore speak of a gradual transition in asso-
We
ciative imagination, logical deduction, or emotional transAs we pass from image to image, thought to thought, port.
motive to motive, in our inner experience, these various elements are definitely separated from each other, and there is nothing between them that has to be traversed from moment to moment. Still more pronouncedly
discontinuous
the psychological time-life of perception. The hearing of one noise after another, the seeing of moving pictures, the alternation of hearing and seeing,
is
124
GENETIC PROBLEMS
seeing and touching, etc., takes places without any conceivable transition from one to the other. There are no such intervals covered as when a ball rolls from A to B.
Experienced time is therefore discontinuous. It is only objective time that is assumed to be continuous, because it is taken from bodily movements which we measure at Here again, therefore, the condifferent points of space. is in space. In projecting time into space we make tinuity the continuum quod cequabiliter fluit out of the discontinuous experience. It follows from this that we shall find the ideas of the event differentiated in time, according as they relate to the inner or the outer event in its
typical form.
is not enough for the spoken in the house, followed by the whistle of a passing locomotive, does not make an " event," no matter how objectively the succession is determined. They lack any real connection, and therefore, in spite of the succession, they do not constitute If that unity of the manifold which we call an event. we ask in what this unity consists, we get various answers which partly depend upon relations to the category of subOne case is where the event occurs in one thing. stance. In one and the same thing A appear the states a^ and a 2
Yet a
definite succession in time
definition of the event.
A word
in a definite succession.
The
thing, in other words, passes
from one of its states to another. We will call this variety In our experience it is found chiefly the immanent event. in the psychic life, in which one presentation or emotion follows another in definite succession in one and the same
This immanent change of subject of consciousness. in one, for instance, state may, however, occur in a body
:
which continues to move in a given direction at a certain

speed
is
in virtue of inertia.
:
As a
rule the material event
it occurs between several different of the other type With state a of the thing A state b of the thing things.
we
connected in a clear and invariable sequence. If the transgredient event, because it passes from one thing to another, we must admit that we have no experience of such direct happening between different If an event is to pass from one soul to another, souls.
is
call this
THE EVENT
it
;
125
must be done by the mediation of bodies and we thus get two sorts of transgredient events the physical, between two bodies, and the psychological, between In such cases, where soul and body or body and soul. is the unity of the event, which in the immanent event
based upon the identity of the thing ? What in the case of transgredient events holds together the different We conceive this states of different things in a unity ? unity in the sense that the sequence is not merely a fact
is
(like the word and the whistle in our preceding example), but that the states, which together make up the event, The event are necessarily connected in this sequence. therefore implies the necessity of a clear and invariable In this we assume that the one state succession of states. is not real without the other which is correlative with it
in
the sequence, or, as Kant said in his Analogies of Experience, that the one determines the existence of the other in time. That is the real dependence, the temporal as distinguished from the ideal or logical, which is in itself
timeless.
This real dependence constitutes the problem of the The event, since it holds also of the immanent event. invariable sequence of states of one and the same thing
is
conceived either in the sense that one of these states necessarily determines the existence in time of the other, as happens in the succession of reflections, deductions, and conclusions, or in the sense that, as in the sequence of our perceptions, the varying states of one and the same conscious being become necessary through a transgredient
event that is to say, through changes of relations to other things. To these general remarks on the event and the problems connected therewith we have to add one more. This
and necessary sequence of states which constitutes the event is, from the nature of time, divisible The linear or into two different and opposite classes. one-dimensional character of time allows us, from any given point, to measure time only backwards and forplain, invariable
present we may proceed in either Thus the necesdirection, toward the past or the future.
wards.
From every
126
GENETIC PROBLEMS
be conceived either in the sense that the antecedent element determines the existence in time of the following or, conversely, that the antecedent In the former case we is determined by the following. If A is, B must follow. In the latter case In order say
sity of the sequence is to
: :
for
to exist,
A must
;
cause and B its effect A the means. The necessity therefore that exists between the elements of one and the same event is either conseand the dependence is either quence or indispensability We shall have occasion later to causal or ideological.
;
In the one case A is the precede. in the other case B is the end and
and protect ourselves Here we formally notify it against misunderstanding. as part of the nature of the event, and we will keep in mind in the following observations the various possibilities which There can be no question but that to the it suggests. more or less scientific mind the first of these forms of real dependence, consequence, is much the more familiar, and so from it we first develop the problems of the event.
go more closely into
this distinction
6
Causality.
Four usual forms of causality Plurality of causes Primary and incidental causes Postulate of the identity of the
world
Law
in the psychic causal relation
succession
Conservation of energy New elements Causal equation Incomprehensibility of the Experience of action Universality of the timeConformity of nature to law.
of causality
life
The categorical relation of cause and effect is one of the most familiar, but most ambiguous, in our thought and speech, and is precisely on that account a mass of
misunderstandings. It is the source of many difficult and very important, and also of many fictitious, problems. Almost everything is regarded as cause and effect in popular usage. The application of the category is especially complicated in part by its relation to the superficial ideas of things in experience, and above all by the circumstance that perception never gives us simple elements, but always complexes of them, which for the most part have already been formed and set in contrasted groups
CAUSALITY
by the category
ties in
127
of inherence. Hence all sorts of ambiguithe application of the causal relation on the one hand to the complexes, and on the other hand to the
If we try to make way through this confusion under the lead of the ideas which are commonly used for such orientation, we
several elements of which they consist.
our
have to take as our guide the very category of inherence which is chiefly responsible for the confusion. On this basis we distinguish, to begin with, between four types
of causal relation.
is the cause, and another thing is the That is the original form of the use of the causal The flower relation, and it is chiefly found in organic life. comes from the plant, the fruit from the tree, the ovum or the young from the mother. In such expressions as
i.
One thing
effect.
springing from, growing from, coming from, etc., in using " " from for the causal relation, language the preposition bears witness to trie impression which contained this first
of causality. But if we interrogate science it assures us that this relation holds only for phenomenal
form
for the momentary inherence-complexes of perThe true things, the substances, neither come ception. " into existence nor pass out of it. The Greeks say
things,
that things come into and go falsely," said Anaxagoras, out of existence in reality there are only mixture and
;
"
separation of incomplete and transitory elements." This idea has become such a truism in science, in much the same form as Kant formulated it as the law of the persistence of substance, the quantity of which can neither be increased nor lessened, that a
man would now
in scientific circles as negligible if
be regarded he talked about a sub-
stance originating or being produced by another. It is only in religious metaphysics that the old idea has held its ground, in the search (as we saw above) for the ulti-
mate cause or Creator of all things. We find this Deistic form of causality in Descartes's theory of an infinite substance which has created the finite, or in Leibnitz's idea of the Central Monad which created all the other
monads and originally reflection of the universe.
communicated
to
them
their
128
2.
GENETIC PROBLEMS
The thing
is
its activities.
regarded as the cause of its states and thus speak to some extent of man as the cause of his actions, of the soul as the common cause of its various functions, of the body especially the organic body as the cause of its movements. In developing these ideas we interpose, between the one thing and the multiplicity of its effects, the forces by means of which the substance exercises its causality. By this we understand certain general properties, capacities, or powers and in this sense the attributes are at times called the cause In the inner world the will is supposed to of the modi. of volitions, the intelligence the cause of be the cause opinions, and so on. In the external world we find gravity, Force is expressly inertia, and vital forces filling the gap. as the cause of movement, and is thus regarded defined as a property of the thing, the substratum, the matter, From the logical point of view all these the substance. forces are general concepts, assumed as the causes of the various functions. We easily see that this general thing, the force, is never the exclusive cause of the activity in In order to pass into such a special function, question. We therefore it always needs some occasion of action. causa between efficient and occasional causes distinguish causa occasionalis. It is clear that the two efficiens and together make up the entire "cause"; just as in the analogous case of a syllogism the full ground for the conclusion is in the combination of the two premisses, the " " " and the minor." This also is a very familiar major
We
way
of
of looking at things,
;
but it it which is the real cause, the both together.

3.
and there are many variations shows us from the start how uncertain it is
efficient or the occasional or
The converse
of the preceding
states
and
activities
are the causes of things.
It is often said, for instance,
that the wind (which is a state or mode of motion) causes clouds. Many people say that insects are produced by the rain, which we regard as essentially a process, without
A house is put inquiring into the thing that is moved. a number of activities who exercises them together by
;
is
immaterial, as the functions are the immediate causes
CAUSALITY
of the house.
If in this
129
way we come
to treat the functions,
detached from the things which discharge them, as independent causes of other things, we come in the end to the theory of the complete detachment of forces and functions. The dynamic view of nature, which Kant and Schelling
merely produced by them. The system is developed in a much more complicated form in Schelling's philosophy of nature, Dynamism of this kind seems to the ordinary mind thoroughly paradoxical. It demands things of which the forces shall be functions. These functions suspended in the air, which are supposed to produce things, have no meaning for the ordinary mind, however much philosophers might like to see the contrary, in order to teach people to think philosophically. No one desired this more strongly than Fichte and his followers, for whom action was the first thing, and reality the product of action. And in Fichte's case it is particularly clear how he came to this view from his experience of the inner event. If in the province of the inner world there is to be any real meaning in talk about a psychic substance, the Self is not from the start a persistent and rigidly self-identical thing, like an atom, but an organic and interconnected complex of ideas, feelings, and volitions, which function
in the processes of apperception that is to say, in the reception of everything new that enters this psychic
held, falls into this class. Attraction and repulsion are forces of the primary reality, and matter is
Every element of it has, however, been preby an activity, as the content of this remains persistent and alive, active and capable of assimilation. The Self is identical with its history. In this case we must admit that substance comes into existence, and it is formed by states and activities for which we can prove no original basis that can be given in experience. The relation of substance and function is therefore fundamentally different in the internal and the external event. What is physically
organism.
cipitated
unthinkable
is
a fact in the internal world

its causes.
substance
extends this causal scheme of internal experience to the external world. We find this in modern
originates, view of nature
and from functions as
The dynamic
130
GENETIC PROBLEMS
Energetics, which means that the atoms are dissolved into movements without there being question of anything behind which moves itself or is moved. These things
Heinrich Hertz's Principles of clearly seen in Mechanics. one is the 4. The causal relation is between states cause and the other the effect. This situation holds for the immanent as well as the transgredient event. In the hrst case it is psychic, as when we say that perception causes memory (by association), or the willing of the end is the cause of the willing of the means (resolution), or the knowledge of the reason is the psychic cause of the knowledge of the conclusion (deduction). But even in the case of the physical immanent event we have this form of causality, especially in such complex structures as
are
:
organisms. The digestion, for instance, is understood to be the cause of the formation of blood, or the peripheral stimulation of the nerves the cause of the central process in the brain. From the purely physical point of view, it is true, processes of this kind are resolved into transgredient events from member to member, and ultimately from atom to atom. It is in these mechanical transgredient events that we find this fourth form of causality the movement of the impelling body in its simplest shape is the cause and the movement of the impelled body is the effect. We may say that since Galilei this form of causality has been recognised as the only form of use in Since the substance is now, as it neither comes science. into nor goes out of existence, so far removed from the process of happening that this takes place independently
:
in substance or substances,
we have,
in regard to events
:
in the material world, only to deal with the question What modes of motion are the causes of what other modes
to this question constitute laws of nature. They give us the rhythm of all events, since they determine the sequence of states in the changes of substances, either transgredient for physical events or immanent for psychological. When we look back upon these four very different forms of application of the causal relation in our ordinary
of
?
motion
The answers
what we
call the
CAUSALITY
mental
life,
131
is
;
we
see
is
as the relation
how different the matter between things and states
according
and
if
we
further assume that our
experience has always to do with complexes, either of things or of changing

states,
common
we
perceive that the causal aspect of the
same
fact
may be very different according to differences in our direction and selection. When we clearly understand
this,
we
see the solution of all sorts of controversies in
regard to the problem of causality, a good deal of superfluous trouble.

:
which have occasioned There is, for instance,
the question, at one time much discussed, of the timewhether the cause ceases when the effect begins, element
It goes without sayour fourth type) the causes are conceived (on as states which condition other states, the time-element the is merely the moment of their mutual contact motion of the moving body ceases when that of the moved body begins. If, on the other hand (on our second type), the cause is sought in a force, it is clear that this force remains as a general capacity after a particular event has been produced by it. This is true also of the plurality of causes, which, inevitable as it is in the complexity of our experience, raises serious difficulties in modern methodology. In our ordinary way of thinking and speaking we select various elements out of the complex features in order to confine our attention to them, and it may be that, as this selection is at times influenced by quite other motives than the theoretical interest of causal explanation, we can no longer clearly trace in these incomplete parts the causal relation which in reality holds good for the whole or for the correlated parts. The difficulty is especially when we can consider an event simultaneously great The according to the second and the fourth form. entire cause is always merely the force together with the occasion for its action. But, just as Plato distinguished between the alnov and the ^wainov, the latter being the condition of the real cause, we now speak of In this distinction, principal and subsidiary causes.
or
whether
if
it
persists in the effect.
ing that
however,
it is
by no means always
certain
what we
shall
132
GENETIC PROBLEMS
;
the regard as principal cause and what as incidental matter is often determined by arbitrary interests of the dissecting intelligence, and the uncertainty is especially In an great when the cause is to be held responsible. we have the powder, the material with the force explosion and capacity to produce it, and the spark which lets loose Which of these is the principal, this formidable force. which the subsidiary, cause ? And is the man responsible who put the powder there, or the man who caused the spark ? Clearly, the answer may be given very differTake an inundation as in different circumstances. ently Someone has broken the dam, or left an illustration. open the sluices which were committed to his charge. He is the responsible cause of the damage which the water We thus take the two forms of causality together does.
one phrase, but we cannot ignore the fact that from the physical point of view the water is the principal cause and the release of it at a given point is a subsidiary but that from the legal point of view, which has cause to do with human acts, it is the breaking of the dam or neglect of the sluice which is the responsible and principal On the same lines run the historical controversies cause. as Thucydides, in the introin regard to great events
in
;
:
duction to his History of the Peloponnesian War, raised the question what was the cause of it and what the To this day we still dispute in the same way occasion. about Bismarck's Ems telegram. It is the same with the magnitude-relation of cause and effect. Descartes naively adopted the scholastic formula, that there must be at least as much reality in the cause as in the effect and in mechanics the principle of the equivalence of the two (causa cequat effectum) has been accepted since the time of Galilei. Yet in " small causes ordinary life we often hear people speak of or we regard a large apparatus of forces of great events," and activities as producing a very small effect nascetur These differences in appreciation of size ridiculus mus. depend upon what, in any given case, we call the cause These are merely superficial and what the effect. of the category of causality. The real applications
;
CAUSALITY
scientific
133
to be sought behind
conception of the event
is
them.
The most important step

the
in this direction is assuredly
of being or substance from the process of happening, which we first attain in our knowledge of the external world. Modern science thinks it meaning-
separation
less to
it is
ask about the origin of reality. to rid ourselves of the old ideas, by
things as effects, may the Scholastics to do so.

stance,
Yet how difficult which we imagine be realised from the attempts of
When
aseity
is
ascribed to sub-
and it is called causa sui, this is merely a form of words in which the idea of causedness is applied to something to which it is not applicable. Substance has no We say this in other words when we say that it cause. " of itself is and is its own cause. We have other when the original, which is not necessary through examples
'
described as adventitious. really necessary we see in the event, in so far as it is conditioned by another event. This feature is very seen in the transgredient event, in which the causing plainly and the caused movement seem to be directly connected
another,
is
The
with each other. What combines them into a unity seems to the ordinary observer to be the apparently visible transmission of movement from one body to another. The striking body gives up its movement to the body that is struck. When this view is followed, as Descartes follows it in his mechanics, the movement is supposed to be something independent, which belongs to none of
the three bodies, but is to another. Thus two
borrowed by one and passed on
make up an
event,
movements of different bodies when and because they are identical.
of this idea is, therefore, the assumption of the identity of the world with itself which we encountered in our analysis of the definition of substance.
The ultimate ground
same not only in come into and pass out

the
;
changes of appearances the world remains its substances, which do not really of existence, but also in movement, which constitutes the event within the province of appearance. The new movement, which we call an effect, is the old movement, the cause. This assumption really
all
In spite of
134
of identity
GENETIC PROBLEMS
is rooted in our craving for causality and in the general principle of causality, in which we assert the validity of the former every event has a cause. This assumption of identity applies, as far as time is
:
concerned,
both
backwards
and
forwards.
:
When we
it ?
experience something new, we ask
Whence comes
thus betray a belief that it must have been somewhere, in some form, previously. When something Where has it gone ? goes out of experience, we ask What has become of it ? Again we seem to think that it cannot have perished. In this sense we may even so far modify the idea of mechanical causality as to say The cause is the form of reality which the effect had previously the effect is that which the cause now assumes. If then both things and their movement persist, if we have to add to the principle of the persistence of substance (Kant) that of the persistence of movement (Descartes), and thus get the principle of the conservation of energy in its modern form, the real meaning of the principle of causality is seen to be that there is nothing new in the world, or that the apparently new is always really the old. When the Leibnitz- Wolff philosophy derived the principle of the reason from the principle of identity, it was no mere feat of formal dialectics, but in its real meaning a typical expression of all scientific metaphysics. Hence there is nil novi in natura ! But do we not in If this way take all rational meaning out of an event ? in all these changes, if the timeless nothing new appears primary reality remains always the same, why does
:
We
anything happen at all ? Why does not the matter end with this timeless identical being ? Why does this being have in itself an event which changes nothing in it ? Or
Has it to become complete the timeless incomplete ? These hypercritical questions seem to in time-events ?
is
be of a purely theoretical character, but when we remember that the reality of time seemed to us necessary in order to make possible the event which our will seeks, we recognise once more the axiological influence at work in these ultimate and insoluble problems of being and
happening.
CAUSALITY
tions,
135
Returning from these to purely theoretical considerathe meaning of the event from this point of view consists in the change of combination of something that remains identical in itself. We now ask further Whence the change, and what is the connection between the old and the new form ? These questions, which lie behind mechanical causality, are the more important because
:
we human beings
are
much more
interested
in
these
combinations and their changes than in the ultimate and always identical quantum of being and happening behind them. Our own psychic experience depends We might, in fact, say that essentially on new elements. it is here we have to seek the great and decisive difference between the internal and external event. In our
something new comes into reality that did not exist previously, and can only something mean a transformation of something previous. The psychic event is one in which something really new
simplest
sensation
:
and this character of it culminates in what we appears feel as freedom, though it means no more than the idea of a psychic event which was not already present in another form. Thus one of the most important antitheses in our philosophy of life, the antithesis of mechanism or freedom, determinism and indeterminism, arises from the nature of these fundamentally different types of the physical and the psychic event, and therefore we come to a parallel antithesis in genetic problems to that we found in ontic
;
problems. This assumption of the identity of cause and effect is, however, a postulate which is expressly opposed to what we know of the nature of our intellect. When we assume causal relations in ordinary life or in any special branch of knowledge, or when we speak of various causal laws in science, the states which are synthetically combined as events, the beginning and end of the process, seem to be very little like each other. They are most like each other in that purely mechanical event, the passage of movement from one body to another. They are very different in chemical changes or other processes, as when lightning seems to be the cause of thunder. Electric friction and
136
GENETIC PROBLEMS
little
the dancing of
ice or the
balls,
sunshine and the melting of
opening of a flower, a shot and the cry and defensive movement of any animal, the lifting of a stick and the running away of a dog these are cases of cause
and effect in which we find an increasing dissimilarity between the two. But the greater the dissimilarity, the more incomprehensible we find the relation between them. This incomprehensibility, of which so much is made in works on the problem of causality, consists essentially in the fact that no logical analysis w:ll enable
us to excogitate or construct the effect out of the cause or the cause out of the effect. Where, on the other hand, the two are similar, as push and counter-push, pressure and counter-pressure, the change from one to the other seems to offer no difficulty, and we therefore find the matter
In this sense we have a complicated which the beginning and end lie far apart, made more intelligible by resolving it into separate processes which, on account of the comparative similarity of like cause and effect, seem to offer no particular difficulty the transmission of movement from the wheels and cylinders of a machine to other parts of it. The causality of the dissimilar is more intelligible if it can be resolved into causalities of the similar. Hence science has an
comprehensible.
process, of
inevitable tendency to explain in mechanical terms everything that happens in the material world, or to reduce
everything to the transmission of movement from atom to atom. Heat is supposed to be understood when it is interpreted as molecular movement light and electricity when they are reduced to vibrations of ether, and so on. The craving to understand is the postulate of identity, and the phenomena of nature are intelligible to the extent to which they can be resolved into these simple forms of causal similarity. The whole problem of the mechanical interpretation of life or of organisms may be brought under this formula. It is the same with the psychic processes in relation to each other. How complex presentations combine the contents of their constituent elements seems so simple as to offer no problem at all. But as soon as we compare
:
CAUSALITY
137
the beginning with the end in a long sequence of reflections or a complicated process of motivation, they seem so different that we are compelled to ask how the issue was
brought about.
If,
however, we set out in detail the
various stages of the process, we cease to be surprised. " " Every psychological poem, novel, etc., poses the problem how the hero passed from the ordinary human
conditions of experience to
or emotional position
the
exceptional intellectual
which holds the interest of the Thus we treat all causal proreader and the author.
cesses of a complicated nature as intelligible if they can be reduced to familiar elementary functions of causal
similarity.
That is why complete causal similarity is in principle unintelligible ; and that was the problem of the Cartesian school. It did not call into question the comprehensithe psychical event, but it of the emphasised that is to say, the reciprocal psycho-physical event causality between states of the body and states of the
bility of the physical or of
all
the more the incomprehensibility
soul.
From
and
this point
it
serious,
onward the problem became more was Arnold Guelincx who further developed
the incomprehensibility of the causal relation. This incomprehensibility means, in the logical relation of cause
and
effect,
that the content of the one
is
not present in
But this analytic incomprehensibility holds also of movements transmitted from one body to another. It is not logically intelligible why one state must necessarily be followed by another which is really distinct from it, no matter how similar it may be. This is just as true of the immanent as of the transgredient event. The causal relation is in every case of a synthetic character, and therefore incomprehensible. It cannot be rationally
the other.
established or analytically proved, but only synthetically experienced. Only where in some way empirically known causal relations combine together can we foresee
and even and construct a priori an entirely new effect here only because and in so far as we know all the elements in advance. In the end, therefore, causality is analytically not comprehensible the identity which we assume in
; ;
138
it
GENETIC PROBLEMS
between cause and
effect is
as the link
not rationally
discoverable.
From
this point
we survey
the various positions which
modern thinkers have taken up in regard to the problem of causality. When we take away the rational element
which
always thought into the actual experience, remains but the time-relation, which we really nothing
is
What we perceive is the post hoc, and the experience. to turn it into a propter hoc is questionable. We right no more perceive the necessity of any issue from the sequence than we perceive the thing as a link that holds
the properties together.
known
it
Hence causality is not to be either rationally or empirically, and from this seems to follow that it cannot be known at all. Those
are the arguments we find in David Hume. Strict Positivism also holds that the determination of the sequence in time is all that we can legitimately do. Even our
in time are regularly confined to the synthetic relation. For if in repeated individual cases the time-sequence alone tells us nothing about its necessity, it cannot tell us anything, no matter how often it is repeated. Hence for strict Positivism the only thing that has any claim to scientific recognition
is
knowledge that such sequences
the registration of the detailed facts of the sequence " " of regularly repeated sequences. general facts is beyond question that we can distinguish amongst sequences in time some which claim to be causal in character and ascribe to them alone the feature of
is
and of the Yet it
necessity.
We may adjust ourselves to this fact in various ways, and thus give a different emphasis to different elements of our idea of cause. One of these lines was followed by Hume when he sought the origin of the idea
given neither in reason nor experience, comprehensible analytically nor sensuously, in the internal experience which arises from a repetition of similar sequences. The habit of passing in presentation from A to B makes it easier for the associative imagination to pass from A to B, so that when the impression of A is renewed we feel a sort of compulsion to pass on to the idea of B. This feeling of compulsion is the source
of cause,
is
which
neither
CAUSALITY
of the idea of the necessity
relation, not
139
now between
but between A and B ence is that one of our presentations necessarily brings the other into consciousness. We thus experience interthe action by means of which the cause determines nally the existence in time of the effect. This experience of action pointed out by Hume is later pushed aside by other experiences. A man seeks something in his memory, and what he seeks comes into being. Here my will is I do not know how it can accomthe cause of an idea Further, I wish plish this, but I experience it as a fact.
;
which we assume in the causal the presentations of A and B, themselves. What we really experi-
to raise
I
my arm
but
I
and
do so
it
do
it,
experience
will
again I do not know the action is a fact.
how
In
other cases
my
meets resistance, partly in
my own
;
body and partly

is
in other objects.
What
I
the other cause
it experience it In both cases I have in this experience of action an internal feeling of the necessity with which the cause produces the effect. This is, as a matter of fact, the real origin of the idea of force, and if we try to define it, in its significance for our knowledge of the external world, as the cause of movement, we have a real interpretation
of this resistance is I
know
not, but
a fact.
of external experience
by means
of internal.
The external
experience, taken strictly, gives us only sequences in time, some of which are repeated with more or less fre-
quency
in
Positivistic mechanics, as represented Kirchhoff and Mach, would confine itself Germany by to the description of these individual or general facts of succession in time. It would exclude the ideas of force and work from the science of the material world. In opposition to this the necessity asserts itself as the
;
and the
decisive element in the relation of cause

it
and
effect
for
alone combines the various elements into the unity of the event, and by it alone we select from the immense mass of time-sequences the particular connections which we describe as causal. This necessity is, as we saw,
primarily given psychologically in the feeling of work. But it has also a logical aspect, and this consists in the When I say that A universality of the time-sequence.
140
GENETIC PROBLEMS
;
and unambiguous and this involves the consequence that, wherever and however A may In this sense appear, B must appear as an effect of it. of the causal necessity it is quite immaterial whether A is active only once or several times, and whether the is or is not repeated. It is therefore no sequence
necessarily follows B, this implies a real connection between these two elements
AB
use objecting that the logical aspect of the causal relation would not be verified in cases where the processes cannot
be repeated.
Causal
The causal
if
necessity always involves the
assumption that,
relations
is
repeated,
B must inevitably follow.
therefore, those time-sequences which are special cases of general time-sequences. The methodological character of our knowledge justifies this
are,
Intuitive perception logical sense of the causal relation. often enables us to convert a single experience of a suc-
That happens, in cession directly into a causal relation. but, on the part, with a sort of instinctive correctness other hand, it is exposed to many illusions and mistakes.
;
To avoid these we have, in the last resort, no means except observing the repetition. The more frequently the same post hoc appears, the more confidently we may claim it as a propter hoc. Yet, we must repeat, we get
from
this repetition
no sort of analytic proof
of the causal
relation.
The regular
is itself
right to assume a fact for which, according to the general law of This may consist causality, a cause must be assumed.
in the causal relation
and a
repetition gives us an occasion a causal relation only because it
between the two phenomena which always appear in succession but it may have to be sought in more remote causal connections which are an indirect source of the combination in time. Hence the constant
;
succession of two events (a familiar example is day and night) is not eo ipso of a causal character, but merely one of the methodological reasons for assuming it and, on the other side, it is not indispensable in cases in which
;
gathering a causal relation The chemist, observation. for instance, unhesitatingly expects to find the same behaviour in the substances with which he is experimentfeel ourselves justified in
we
inductively
from
single
CAUSALITY
141
Hence the element of necessity ing in cases of repetition. in a single experience seems to us justified by a general and it is in this sense principle, a rule of succession that Kant defined the causal relation as such that " one
;
determines the existence in time of another according to a general rule." In this general principle we have the link which holds together the two elements of cause and effect in the unity of the event. A rule of this kind is called a law and therefore this special causal thesis points to a causal law, according to which certain states have other states connected with them as their consequences. In virtue of this connection the principle of causality, according to which every event must have a cause, takes the form of a
;
principle of the uniformity of nature, or the conformity of nature to laws. For modern scientific thought this
connection has in the course of time become so evident that the axioms of causality and uniformity are quite
interchangeable.
In
itself
that
is
not
necessary
it
depends on how we formulate the category of causality. In the sense of work, for instance, the causal relation is chiefly applicable to isolated cases which do not admit repetition, and which therefore entirely ignore or even deny the uniformity of nature. In such ideas as creation and miracle causality is not denied, as is generally said
in scientific circles.
They expressly involve a cause of the origin of the world or of some extraordinary process. All that is denied is that in the particular event there was conformity to law. In the same way the isolated events of the course of history are not calculated in their totality
to
this causal relation to uniformity. The individual structure of any such event in unrepeatable the world-process makes the idea that the world is ruled
bring out
by law seem meaningless

cases.
for the whole of these isolated do not find regular repetitions and similarities between the complex states which we experience as a whole, but only between the elements of which the com-
We
these exhibit comparable repetiJust in the same way as all the presentable properties of a thing are of a general character,
plexes are
tions
composed
and
similarities.
142
GENETIC PROBLEMS
combination
of
and the individual always

repeated
consists of a unique and uncertain number of these
generalities, so the event, in its experienced totality, is composed of various connections which may be repeated
other and very different complexes, and therefore have the significance of laws. As the individual properties have a permanent being as generic concepts or Platonic ideas, which we have to extract from the variety of phenomenal things, so the causal rules which, as general principles, express the necessity of the time-sequence between different states have to be elicited by abstract knowledge from the rich variety of the individual complexes of the It is only in such knowledge that the law in real event.
in
its
the reason why the individual accomplished. But this assumption is at the root of all our predictions of future phenomena, all our inductive thought, investigation, and proof. To this extent the postulate of causality coincides with that The necessity which makes a causal of uniformity. relation of the sequence in time consists mainly in the capacity for constant repetition, the uniformity. The dependence of the particular on the general, as it is conceived in the idea of law, is the logical shape of the principle of causality, and this must take the place of that analytic connection of cause and effect which we sought General synthesis is the essence of the necessity in vain. which must bind the elements of the event. Thus we find in the category of causality two elements which are the individual experience of work inseparably united and the logical assumption of a dependence of the particular on the general. It is the stronger or one-sided emphasis of one or the other of these elements that gives us the different ideas of cause in ordinary life and in the various sciences.
generality contains
is
event

7
Mechanism
143
and Teleology. Convertibility of natural laws The mechanical and the organic whole Originality of action Aim and purpose Sound and spurious teleology Unconscious teleology Teleology and vital capacity Development Causality in the
service of teleology.
The more carefully we consider the scientific application of the category of causality, the more emphatically
we must abandon the superficial ideas which look upon and self-evident data of experience. In particular we must rid ourselves of the assumption that there must be between cause and effect such simple relations as equivalence or similarity. One of the most
these things as direct
important witnesses to the inexpressible multiplicity of

reality is precisely the inexhaustible variety of the causal relation. Hence the more carefully we apply this causal
more convinced we are that we find in the the forms of ordered and purposive activity which we seem to experience constantly in our own rational life. The conception of the material world as the theatre of purposive forces is one of the oldest and most widespread of human ideas. The phenomena of life, of the organic world, with their evolution and building of frames, seem especially to the plain mind to be a field of purposive events. As to its relation, however, to the purposeless causality of movements, reflective thought has taken many different lines, some of which have been obscured by verbal misunderstandings. We
relation, the
outer world
all
have already, in considering the general features of the event, pointed out a fundamental difference in this respect though it by no means coincides with the idea of the distinction between mechanism and popular
;
teleology.
in time which is essential us free to choose two alternatives in the specification of work the beginning might determine the end, or the end might determine the beginning. The necessity, we said, is either consequence or indisto
The unambiguous succession

every event
left
:
pensability.
In the
first
case
we mean
that, given A,
144
GENETIC PROBLEMS
bound
to follow
is
produce B, thing, because B may be caused by pushing, pressure, heat, magnetism, or design. It is the same with real dependence as with
logical
A must
second case that, in order to That is not always the same precede. follow upon C or D. Motion might
;
in the
given the ground of it, the result always follows, but the ground is not always correlated with the result, as the same result may follow from various grounds. We might pursue this as far as the interesting problem of the convertibility of natural laws. We have clearly reason to assume that the same causes will always every produce the same effects. But it is quite different with the question whether the same effects must always have the same causes. Yet this is assumed as an integral part of the principle of the uniformity of nature, which
:
the fundamental presupposition of all inductive thought and reasoning. This clearly applies in the highest degree to the most general forms of the event and the most Hence this reciintricate complexes of our experience. has become most familiar in our ordinary life and procity In the provinces of physics and in scientific research.
is
chemistry we naturally express ourselves in mechanical terms in the province of biology in teleological language. When oxygen and hydrogen combine in the proportion but we may just as well say, if there i 2 we get water On the is to be water, oxygen and hydrogen must, etc. other hand, we say that if an organism is to have differentiated sensations of light, it must have a peripheral structure like the eye and in this case a converse mechanistic would not suit our purpose, at least unless expression
: :
we
express the invertibility of the causal relation by adding " the word only." Thus we may say Only at a moderate temperature are organisms produced, and therefore, if organisms are to be produced, a moderate temperature is
:
needed.
This
form
of
expression
is
most frequently
isolated events of
found
in connection with the
complex
history. Only where we have a spiritual atmosphere like that of Germany in the eighteenth century and a genius like Goethe is a Faust possible ; in order to
have a Faust we need,
etc.

When we
we must
145
inquire into the correctness of these expresLet first make their meaning quite clear. sions, us take the classical illustration of the organism. Its vital activity and its development are made possible
only
in
functions.
by these definite organs and their no less definite But these definite organs and functions are, Hence the whole, turn, only possible in this organism.
effect,
which causes the

required for
it.
determines the parts which are

it
;
They
are only in
and
it is
possible
only through them. In this reciprocal dependence of the whole and the parts Kant has given us the classic A watch is a whole that may definition of an organism. be put together out of pre-existing wheels, etc. But the organism must itself produce the parts of which it From this we get two fundamental types is to consist. the mechanical and the of the construction of a whole In the one the parts precede the whole and organic. produce it by being put together. In the organic whole, on the other hand, the parts themselves are conditioned by the whole and are only possible in it. In the organic whole, therefore, the end, which is to come out of it, determines the beginning. This latter formulation is at first sight too much for our ordinary views of causation. The determination of the beginning by the end seems paradoxical and impossible. That the pre-existing should determine the present seems natural enough, though it is not quite so self-evident as it seems at first sight but how can the future, which does not yet exist, do anything ? How can it itself determine the process of an event to which alone it will owe its existence ? It seems to be, not merely incomprehenWe may, however, at once weaken sible, but impossible. the force of these objections by a few general considerations. In the first place, it has already been shown that causal determination by something pre-existing is, though a very common idea, yet one that proves logically in:
is
comprehensible when it is closely studied. Then there another thing. If we, for instance, regard the timerelation
as
post-existence
phenomenal, we see that pre-existence or is merely a thought-form of our restricted
10
146
intellect,
GENETIC PROBLEMS
which ought not to make so much of the paradox
;
of teleological dependence the less so, as this way of at things is found to be impossible for certain looking
groups in the phenomenal world.
Both
Aristotle
and
Schelling laid stress on this principle of indispensability, and Fichte, when he so clearly grasped that what ought to be is the reason of all being, pointed out the source of
the prejudice against teleology it is based upon the conof substance and the assumption, connected therecept with, that something must exist if anything is to come
:
into
The opposite conception, which regards being. action as directed toward its achievement and original
therefore determined
by
it, is
the true, genuine, and pure
teleology of the organic view of the world.
But the whole problem has been perverted by a The problem of the future els aAAo yevos. /LterajSaori? which is to have some effect on the pre-existing reality
seems to be thrust aside when it is not the future reality when itself which acts and determines, but the idea of it effective thing is not the end, but the design. the When
the idea of the future, together with the corresponding act of will, determines the existence in time of its content, this seems to be the kind of action of the future which we know in our own experience in so far, that is to say,
;
preconceived and willed. It can then act because it is already there namely, as an idea and volition. But it is therefore a kind of this design precedes the effect of teleology merely means a form cause, and so this sort the causality of the design. of causality We must, in the interest of clearness, distinguish these
as
it is
;
things very carefully. The genuine and true teleology is that of the end and it affirms that this end, as the future reality, itself determines the means which precede
;
its realisation
and are necessary

is
thereto.
;
perverse teleology
that of the design
The and
false
it
and
affirms
nothing more than that amongst the causes which precede their effects there are some which consist in the idea of
the future reality and acts of will directed thereto. How difficult it is to keep these things apart, and how easily they run together, is best seen in Kant's position in the

Critique
147
His philosophy recognises only of Judgment. kind of scientific explanation of events that of mechanical causation. Now it has to be made clear that, not only in view of the actual implements of human knowledge, but as a matter of principle and from the nature of the case, the purposiveness of organic life cannot be understood on the lines of this mechanical causation. In this case, as a matter of fact, the future form, which it is to produce, conditions the apparatus which is to produce it the end conditions the means of The only way to understand this causally its realisation. would be to assume, on the analogy of man's technical activity, the existence of forces working with a purpose a form of causation which is familiar enough in human But nature, even organic nature, is the kingdom life. All the causes it has no designs. of the unconscious we know and can understand in it are mechanical. which If, therefore, we are forbidden to assume the existence in nature of technical forces working with a purpose, we have no alternative, in face of its purposive structures, but to give up the idea of knowledge and simply " " regard them as if nature worked according to design in them. Kant found himself driven to this transcendental view only because he could not fit into his system of categories the genuine teleology, the real determination of the pre-existing by the future because his system was based upon the philosophical substructure of the Newone
:
tonian theory of mechanics. Now if one is not prepared to recognise the teleological in the proper sense, as Aristotle and Schelling formulated it, yet is not satisfied with the problematic "as if" of
Kant's system, the only alternative is, as we see in modern Vitalism, to assume unconscious purposive activities in organic nature. We are thus driven once more into the
intermediate realm of the unconscious, which is supposed to be neither physical nor psychic, neither experienced nor perceived, but merely hypothetically introduced in Whether the unconorder to explain our experience. scious is brought in as a psychological or a metaphysical
hypothesis, according to the various shades of
meaning
148
GENETIC PROBLEMS
find
in
we
Leibnitz,
Fichte,
and Hartmann,
it
always
means that the explanation
of processes given in experi-
ence requires us to suppose that they are not conscious, yet cannot be regarded as physical. We are not lightly to suppose that everything that is not in consciousness For some time the physiology of senseis unconscious. worked fairly well, with the assumption of perceptions unconscious reasoning and similar phrases, which meant no more than that men were content with words. From the point of view of psychology I can see only two lines on which it seems necessary to assume the unconscious. On the one hand it is the condition of the mental contents that may be recalled to mind they are not conscious and cannot be nothing, yet cannot be conceived as a physical something in the brain which would explain the reproduction of impressions. On the other hand we have volitions and states of feeling without conscious motive, in the case of which we are very largely exposed to self-deception as to our own feelings and views. Hence, since there is a psychological basis for the assumption of an intermediate realm of the unconscious, it may be, with proper caution, extended to the provinces of natural
;
philosophy and metaphysics. If organic purposiveness compels us to assume conditions which we cannot satisfactorily regard as physical, yet they are not, as far as our knowledge goes, conscious processes, we seem to be justified in supposing that they are unconscious purposive
powers, whether we call them vital forces, entelechies, dominants, or anything else. But we must be quite clear that in either case the unconscious is only a name for something that is assumed on the analogy of the psychic, without anybody being able to say, apart from this analogous feature, what it really is in fact, only a name The causal-mechanical thought for an unsolved problem. of science must always endeavour to find a way out of this difficulty, and it therefore rejects the vital force and all such hypotheses. With Kant we may formulate the problem of teleology
in a different
many
way. The purposive is always one amongst That there is possible combinations of atoms.
149
such a combination at work is logically immaterial, and it can therefore be regarded as necessary only in the In this respect teleological sense of being indispensable. it had often been pointed out before Kant, and has often been pointed out since, that according to the principles of probability (particularly on the lines of Finitism) the purposive combination must arise at some time like all other combinations. Thus we have been referred to the
purposive regularity of the stellar world, and Empedocles long ago pointed it out in the organic world. We have, further, Fechner's theory of the tendency of nature, and and, in fine, especially of the organic, toward stability that is the meaning of the Darwinian theory of the survival To many it seems that in this way the of the fittest. teleological problem has been solved, or explained away, mechanically. It is a question, however, if this is not merely playing with words. What is the purposive in In astronomy purposiveness means this connection ? a regularity which leads to the stability of its merely in the biological theory of evolution the purcontents is only that by means of which the organism posive It is not overpreserves itself and its species fitness.
; ;
whelmingly astonishing that the fittest survive. These theories mean nothing but the survival of the fittest. The illusion of supposing that they give us some further meansynthetic knowledge is due to the fact that another " is put upon the word purposive." It is an idea of ing
value,
and means the realisation of something that, without respect to vital fitness, corresponds to an idea, an object, an ideal. It is now said that the discovery of the survival of the fittest has also proved that everything purposive in the wider sense of the word is an outcome of mechanical evolution and means a selection of the fittest. That is really not the case the purposive as an idea of value is not the same thing as the purposive
;
The processes as the biological principle of vital fitness. of biological necessity very often lead to the survival of
structures
fitted for the
which must be described as purposive as purposes of life in this sense, yet have no
of value. positive relation to purposiveness in the sense
150
GENETIC PROBLEMS
The predominant elements in modern biological theories evolution, and partly in the philosophical theories which depend upon them, seem to represent a surviving
of
fragment of the naturalistic optimism which regarded a natural event as eo ipso purposive and of value. In this respect a good deal of mischief is done with ambiguous terms. By evolution (apart from the mathematical idea of evolution, such as that of a fraction or of a sinus in a series) we understand chiefly two closely related types of event which must be clearly distinguished from each other. In the first place we call evolution the process by which all the possibilities in a given complex a process the purely are realised in their several forms causal nature of which is entirely independent of any
:
In this sense the original gaseous sphere evolves into a manifold planetary system ; and in this we have merely the distinction between the simple and the complex. But in our ordinary way of looking at these things we have a tendency to regard the more
ideas of value.
complex state as the higher, that is to say, of higher value, and thus to conceive the process of evolution as an advance from the simpler and lower to the more complex and higher. That is, in effect, the whole artificial structure of Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution. As
a matter of fact, if the unfolding of possibilities is thus to " be regarded as a progressive evolution," an idea of value must in some way be introduced to provide a standard. If, for instance, we say that the organic is something higher than the inorganic, and if, within the organic world, we distinguish between lower and higher forms of life,
idea of value in this theory of evolution in the gradual approximation to psychic life and to the human standard. If evolution is to be a process toward an end instead of a merely physical development, we are regarding the event from the point of view Causal changes are only of a judgment of values. advances, and in this sense evolution, when they are successfully adapted to the end which provides a standard
for judging
we have a pronounced
them.
That holds good
in politics, literature,
or agriculture just as
much
as in botany
and zoology.
151
The only thing needed is that one shall understand clearly what is to be regarded as end and standard of judgment. Not every change that means development is an advance Auguste Comte reached the acme of phraseo;
logical
vagueness when he indicated "progress' as the " aim of the historical life of society. The realisation of such an era of evolution is always accomplished by causal processes, and this opens out a We final consideration which we must now analyse.
"
;
invert the causal relation teleologically when we say that, and in this we imply if B is to occur, A must precede it In order therefore that A is the sole possible cause of B.
to express a teleological relation of this kind, we must know, or at least think we know, the reciprocal causal
All reflections on the means with which we would our ends work with known causal ideas. We assign A as the means for B because we know or assume that A is the cause of B is in general, and will be in
relation.
attain
any
particular
case.
All
purposive teleology therefore

causality.
;
implies conscious
and willed
thus place causality in the service of teleology and in practice machines are the familiar type of this Their functions are purposive because state of things. we are in a position to control with perfect confidence
the causal connectedness of their activities. This, as is known, seemed to the great naturalists of the seventeenth century, such as Boyle and Newton, to be the soluwell
tion
of
We
the
teleological
teleology of divine action true teleology which we
the problem of metaphysics was confused with the real and

;
defined above. Amongst the philosophers Leibnitz, and in recent times Lotze, adopted this idea, in order to reconcile a universal mechanism
in this
with an equally universal teleology. The decisive element is the contrast between the theory of nature which ascribes to it an indifferent causality, entirely devoid of value, as essential and the purposiveness of nature which we perceive, or think we perceive. It is true that this purposiveness of the natural order must not be assumed without good reason. To an impartial observer it must always seem to be restricted and hence the dysteleologi;
152
GENETIC PROBLEMS
We
cal facts of reality conflict, as we shall see later, with the are brought development of the problems of theodicy. back to the dualism to which we referred on an earlier
page
in this case
it
is
the antithesis of purposiveness
and determinism. The candour of the older thinkers led them in this matter to be content to say that the world is good within the limits of the possible (Kara TO and we have an echo of this dualism in all Swarov) those ideas of religious metaphysics which lay special stress on the need of amelioration by means of miracles. The world, it is true, is regarded as the most perfect of but even the best machine is more or less all machines thrown out of order at times and needs the hand of the
; ;
divine artificer.
8
The
Psycho-physical Event. Psychic and corporeal events Psychophysical causality Psycho-physical parallelism Conservation of energy Consciousness as an epiphenomenon Reflex movements The brain as an asylum ignorantics Discontinuity of the psychic event Psycho-physical duality as appearance Panpsychism The unconscious.
Amongst the dualistic elements of thought which are thus constantly recurring the most important, even in connection with problems of the event, is the antithesis There are, in point of fact, such proof body and soul. found differences between corporeal and psychic events that their union and their interaction form one of the most difficult problems that ever confronted, and will continue to confront, the philosophic mind. In recapitulating the more important of these differences we think first of all of that which relates to continuity. The material event as movement is always continuous, To pass from A since it is a change of place in space. to B a body must cover every part of the intermediate There is no such continuity of transition, space. apparently, in the psychic event. The successive acts of consciousness are discrete events, between which there it has no meaning for them. is no gradual transition
:

We
itself
153
hear one sound after another. Each is distinct in and not connected with the other, as is the case with the positions of a ball that rolls from right to left. Hence the time we personally experience is a sum of discrete points, and our idea of objective, continuously flowing time arises only from our need to understand the events which we are compelled by our external experience to interpolate between the elements of our personally experienced time. Hence our way of looking at these time does not stand still, nor do bodies in space, things but our consciousness stands still, for a longer or shorter time. On this are based all our ordinary estimates of time, in which we compare the proportion experienced by ourAn hour selves with that of continuous objective events. is short if we experience a good deal in it long if we
:
:
experience
or nothing in second main distinction

little
it.
is
that the
movement
of
whether we speak of visible bodies spatial substances or atoms is external and passes from them the moment it is over, whereas the content of the psychic event There is persists, whatever kind of experience we had. when we find a certain medium between these extremes in such material complexes as organisms something analogous to the psychic life a trace or a habit of the function remaining after the event. It has been called the memory of matter. The real material substance, however, the it remains the same atom, has nothing happening to it its movement is, and when it leaves the complex whatever to which it belonged for a time it is just the same as before, as if it had experienced no movement whatever. Hence the immutability, the persistency, of material reality, whereas what we call the substantial content of ideas, the spiritual existence, the apperception-masses of
;
and volitions, only come into being gradually in the course of our psychic experience. In the individual, and not less in the entirety of cultural development, there is a permanent deposit from the event. Hence
feelings,
souls, as
in the
of
we have seen several times, are not substances same sense as bodies, and, if we press the category
its
inherence explicitly in
physical application, psycho-
154
GENETIC PROBLEMS
logy has to be "without soul." For the external world we are bound to assume something in the nature of a thing, if we would have a clear idea of a function, an event. For the psychic life the fact is that the event is the primary experience, and the substantial reality is to be regarded as an outcome of it. This is very clear in the case of the
socio-psychological process, which in recent times has " again received the infelicitous name of folk-psychology." For the life of the individual soul ordinary thought easily
finds a substratum in the physical organism. For those general states and movements which we attribute to the spirit of the nation or of the times we do not, in these terms, indicate any substances that can be proved to exist or even be intellectually defined. In those cases
is notorious that the substantive expressions have only the value of functions. A further distinction between material and psychic events is found in the way in which we define progress. From the material point of view it depends entirely on the spatial features of position and movement. Chemically and physically, and in the end even organically, position and motion are the decisive factors whether there shall next be rest or movement, persistence or change. In psychic events, on the other hand, the consequent is determined by the antecedent according
it
to rational relations which have, in principle, nothing to do with spatial conditions. In the association of the dream the predominant elements are similarities and contrasts in judgment and reasoning, real connections between the contents of the mind in conviction and These will, the relation of means to end, and so on.
;
;
differences in the progress of the event enable us to understand how it is that from common points of departure, such as we have in sense-perception, the two series of
events, the physical
and the psychic, follow quite

directions.
different
and very divergent

In
in
fine, one of the greatest differences is the manner which the variety of simple or elementary impulses are connected in a complex event in the two cases. In the physical world we have the scheme which is expressed

in the
155
parallelogram of forces.
The components fade out
of recognition in the resultant. From the diagonal, which be the same for any number of pairs of cathetes, may
we can never
given case.
tell
what
their
components
will
be
in
In consciousness, on the contrary, the any elements which enter as parts into a complex idea remain unchanged, and they are only bound up in a new unity by some form of relation. This closely agrees with the feature of the psychic event in virtue of which all its ele-
ments persist as such, so that, if they enter into a further event, they do not lose their identity, but remain unchanged. This is, perhaps, the most important and most radical difference between the two kinds of event.
As we saw above, the causality of similar things is supposed by ordinary people to be intelligible and self-evident, and each of the two series of events, that of movements and that of states of consciousness, seems to offer no diffiIt is culty as long as each series is complete in itself. only when they cross each other, or disturb and interpene-
trate each other, that we get the great problem of the psycho-physical connection as, in the strict sense, an incomprehensible causality of dissimilar things. We must observe, first, that in point of fact we experience this
psycho-physical causality just as much others, the psychic and the physical. them in the same degree as facts which
in the
as
we do the
experience
We
we understand
same degree that is to say, they are no more capable of analysis. The change of stimuli in perceptions or of designs in purposive movements is just as certain to our perception as the transition from one form of material movement to another or the advance from one
but the real nature of the psychic state to another connection of cause and effect is incomprehensible in each case.
;
We
experience
psycho-physical
causality
mainly
in
and it is primarily an anthropological problem. So it seemed to Descartes and his immediate pupils, the Occasionalists. It seemed to them an exception to the general separation of the two worlds, that of consciousness and that of extension. It was soon found, however,
ourselves,
156
GENETIC PROBLEMS
that this relaxation of the exclusiveness of the two worlds was really a metaphysical problem of the first magnitude. On the one side, by means of psycho-physical causality
there
feeling,
enter
into
will
consciousness states
arise
of
presentation,
simply from the nature of consciousness itself. Descartes thinks it important to trace all that is obscure and confused, erroneous and sinful in the soul, to this disturbance of its pure
and
which would never
by influences of the material world. On the other hand, the purposive acts with which man reacts on the influences of the external world lead to these changes, which they could not do by the mechanism of
intellectuality
their
own movements alone. Would the elements unite, without the intervention of mind, to form houses and cities,
The bridges and ships, sewing-machines and airships ? world is changed wherever mind deals with it, just as the mind is changed whenever it takes the world into it. These facts are undeniable, and therefore we have to
adjust ourselves to the causality of dissimilar things, however incomprehensible or even impossible it may seem. Recent science has found a way out of the difficulty in a theory which was started by Guelincx and Spinoza, and was introduced by Fechner into modern psychology and metaphysics. It is the hypothesis that, as a matter of fact, each of these worlds, the psychic and the physical, is complete in itself, and there is no influence from one to the other, but that events in the two worlds proceed
step by step in complete agreement with each other, since the same primary reality evolves, expresses itself,
and appears
in each series.
it
This
we
call
psycho-physical
would have been better to call Perhaps parallelism. it psycho-physical correspondence. Many of our modern
men
'ft
of science cautiously regard it as merely a working hypothesis, useful in investigating the facts of the psycho-
physical connection and not implying anything further, but it naturally, in the course of research, becomes a metaphysical theory which makes the same claim to
This theory interpret the world as Spinozism once did. is that each of the two worlds, that of cogitatiu and that of
extensio,
the psychic and the corporeal, passes through

;
157
various stages, in accordance with its general laws, without being influenced by the other in other words, that it would develop just the same as it does even if the other world did not exist at all. The appearance of psychophysical causality, therefore, is merely due to the fact that each modus of one world is exactly correlated to a modus of the other. This is supposed to be true of the relation of soul and body from the point of view of reality, and the relation of consciousness and movement from the point of view of function. From the extensive discussions of this theory which
have taken place during the

that
it
last
few decades
so extensive
quote the main that has been used in favour of the metaphysical argument soundness of psycho-physical parallelism. It at the same time introduces us to the most general correlations, and leads from the anthropological impulses which lay, and
lie,
impossible to suggest any consideration it will suffice here to

is
new
philosophical
problem to the ultimate metaphysical on which it is to be decided whether the consequences hypothesis is to be accepted or rejected. It is a question
;
at the root of the
of its relation to that supreme postulate of modern science which goes by the name of the Conservation of Energy though its special scientific meaning is not always correctly understood. From the point of view of this principle the of ps3^cho-physical parallelism seems to be quite theory For if, according to the principle of the impossible. conservation of energy in the physical world as a selfcontained whole of material reality, the distribution of kinetic and potential energy is plainly determined from
according to the direction and intenis regulated by mechanical laws, it is unthinkable that these physical movements certainly should have other causes than physical movements, or that they could be caused by psychic states. And if the processes of organic life, in which, on the theory of psycho-physical causality, there seems to be a reciprocal
to
sity of
moment
moment
movements, and
change of designs into movements and movements into

sensations, constitute an infinitesimal part in proportion to the enormous mass of inorganic events, we should have
158
GENETIC PROBLEMS
here, if we admit psycho-physical causality, a transgression of the principle of the conservation of energy which Hence theoretical deprives it of its axiomatic validity.
have a strong bias for parallelism. do not get rid of these difficulties by pretending that there is no danger to the conservation of the quantum
physicists naturally
We
energy as long as we confine psycho-physical causality The sensory processes and the inner of the nervous system have, it is argued, stored processes a sum of energy in the brain, and this is converted by the motor processes into purposive movements. We must bear in mind that the psychic states which we call purposes, and which consist of ideas of the future and functions of the will directed thereto, decide in what direction this potential energy is guided in order to be converted into
of
to its distribution.
motor functions and therefore definite actions and, on the other hand, that the vital force which is released by the stimuli in the sensory nervous system is directed by psychic elements along the paths by which it accumuThe principle of the conlates in central nervous states.
;
servation of energy is not called into question if the distribution which they experience in the brain is But this is certainly not the ascribed to psychic causes. In its mathematical-physical sense the principle case.
of the conservation of energy applies plainly
and inexor-
abty to its distribution, its division into potential and kinetic energy, from moment to moment, arid it thereIt is only fore leaves no room for any other principle.
the vague popular idea or formulation of the principle that makes possible dilettante arguments of this sort. The exact mathematical-physical definition absolutely
excludes them.
more childish is the attempt at evasion cnce made the Robinet and repeated by many in recent times by is supposed to play the part of a special form of mind Just as movement is converted into heat and energy.
Still
:
heat into movement, so the energy of the stimulation of the sensory nerves is supposed to pass into consciousness,
and, as psychic energy, to undergo all sorts of changes until at last it is, in the final form of a purpose, recon-

verted into movement.
rebirth.
159
The organism
of
is
thus supposed
of its
to be really a grave of physical energy
and a cradle
organisms are distinguished from each other in the greater or less quantity of energy which undergoes this occasional conversion from the
loss
The various types
but in the last resort the physical form to the psychic and gain are always equal, so that the integrity of
;
the principle of the conservation of energy is preserved. We need, however, little penetration to see that in arguments of this sort we have, once mere, a metaphysical dilettantism playing with the various meanings of the " word energy." Psychic reality can never be described as substance or function in the same sense as physical
reality in our formulation of the principle of the conservation of energy.
The strict definition of the great physical principle forbids dialectical performances of this sort, and it is no less irreconcilable with the idea that consciousness is a
by-product of the physical process, an epiphenomenon, as is said. By this is meant that the conversion of the
sensory energy into motor, which is the chief performance of the organism, and especially of its nervous system, may very well take place in accordance with the principle that the peculiarity of of the conservation of energy the organic world is merely that these movements in the
;
brain have, besides their physical causal relations, states of consciousness, from sensation and perception to purpose and volition, as accessory phenomena. But from the
even this point of view of the conservation of energy means an unthinkable and impossible release of force and this weak compromise is not more fitted to meet the
;
need of a recognition of the psychic activity. An accoma cause, panying consciousness of this sort, not itself active arid indebut merely a continuous mirror of an pendent causal series of bodily states, is one of the most
superfluous
and tedious things in the world. It would be condemned to be a sinecure, in flat contradiction to the most valuable witness to the physical in our experience
of
;
movement
for the psychic is to us the active, the very principle wens agitat molem. What in the world
160
is
GENETIC PROBLEMS
Monism, which often tries to make capital out of epiphenomenal idea of consciousness, is merely
called
this
concealing with it its Materialistic tendency. None of these subterfuges helps us. We must grant that, if the principle of the conservation of energy is affirmed as a metaphysical principle of reality, if it is regarded as really valid for the world of material reality,
psycho-physical causality is inconsistent with it, and therefore psycho-physical parallelism is the simplest and best substitute for it. But, on the other hand, what monwhen one attempts to take this theory strosities arise In the first place, seriously and think it out in detail all the movements that the course of physical events,
!
occur in the body, must be regarded as entirely independent of any psychic cause, and the course of the psychic life must be equally independent of any causes in the and their complete and invariable material world in spite of their utter heterogeneity, has correspondence,
;
then to be explained in some way or other. In regard to the corporeal processes it is sought to make this view plausible and attractive by referring us
to reflex movements, which are well known as functions of all organisms, especially the human organism, and
shades of transition, either without " consciousness or with that epiphenomenon." To an astonishing, and sometimes alarming, extent we have
which occur, with
fine
the experience of processes, which properly and originally had the character of conscious, voluntary movements, and were therefore ascribed by the plain mind to psychophysical causes, so changing in certain circumstances
that they are no longer accompanied by consciousness, and could not possibly be attributed to psycho-physical
causality.
Purposive movements like writing, shooting, piano-playing, etc., which have been learned and practised, are accomplished in such a way that consciousness needs only to give the initial impulse and does nothing in some cases, indeed, it seems to be absolutely more
;
excluded as the cause. We know quite well that we can at times make quite coherent and satisfactory speeches while our mind is taken up with something quite different.

To many questions we
161
give, as we say, purely mechanical answers, the contents of which, however relevant to the question, do not seem to be in the least dictated by
Facts of this sort may be interpreted in consciousness. the sense of the general possibility that the physiological process which takes place between the states of stimulation of the sensory and motor nerves takes the same course, in the same sense and with the same results,
the psychic process which simultaneously goes on But that process does not help us out mind. On the one hand, we cannot the difficulty. of confidently show to what extent half-conscious, to
as
in the
say nothing of unconscious, psychic processes, which determine these physiological processes, may accompany those which are in the foreground of consciousIt is, on the ness and seem to occupy it exclusively. contrary, a fact that different ideas may be at work in different strata of consciousness at the same time, without We can simultaneously interfering with each other. the piano and listen to a dictate and read a letter, play It is not necessary to assume that we have conversation. here a jumping backward and forward of the mind from each train of thought goes its one activity to another own way, uninterrupted by the others. That may hold good for unconscious processes as well as conscious, and in the above cases it is always possible that we have the psycho-physical causality of conscious or half-conscious functions. Moreover, in all these instances there is
;
question of acquired movements which owe their appearance of reflection to laborious practice, and every such act of practice had to involve a conscious relation of Hence these automatic prostimulus and reaction.
cesses presuppose an initial performance in which there is no room for the theory of the accompanying action of
consciousness, and it is repeated in virtue of an idea of which we are conscious as a psychic act. All these argu-
ments, therefore, do not get over the fact that in these purposive bodily movements we have physical processes which, if not at the time they are performed, at all events in their remoter causes, compel us to assume conscious
11
162
GENETIC PROBLEMS
functions amongst their causal elements. Wherever in the material world organic beings, especially human beings, are at work, the purely mechanical-physical process is interrupted by psychic functions. It is all very well to urge against us the inexpressible
and the unimaginable intricacy of the structures which the organic elements exhibit, particularly in the brain, and say that these seem to make an explanation
fineness
of purposive movements as reflex actions not impossible. In this we are simply once more taking the intricate
structure of the brain as an asylum ignoranticB to which we can always retreat and bury ourselves under sugges-
man can get to the bottom remains, however, extremely probable that the bodily mechanism, in the sense-stimulations which need a psychic interpretation, accomplishes the purposively adapted movements only in virtue of its reflex habits,
tions of possibilities which no
of.
It
connections, and its differentiated reactions. All these intricate arrangements of the nervous system itself are best understood as an outcome of psycho" When, in the physical causes. telegram argument
its associative
'
which was
first
reaction to the reading of the words explained in the sense that this releases
in the brain
advanced by Albert Lange, the purposive is supposed to be

all
the connections
their corresponding psychic forms, meanings, recollections, considerations, and resolutions, it is unintelligible how all these states of the brain
which
are, in
themselves could come into being without the action of the psychic states, merely by spatial storing and in accordance with physico-chemical laws. But however
improbable the Materialistic interpretation may be, we have to admit that in view of the unlimited possibilities of the cerebral structure it can never be proved to be
wholly impossible. Much more grotesque are the demands on our credulity of the hypothesis of parallelism if we start from the consideration of the internal life and psychic causality. This internal life seems to proceed in its own inevitableness as if it were not accompanied by or dependent upon any bodily process. Our imagination, our thinking,

of purely
163
our practical reflections, go on with a certain continuity In this it is to be noted psychic causality. which are found in such a movethat the psychic elements ment are, as to their origin, only intelligible as a reaction
upon the external world. Apart from this, however, we When these processes are have the difficult question a pain, for instance, which the suddenly interrupted by plain mind traces to a knock or a blow as its cause, what is the psychic cause of the pain and the interruption ? The discontinuity which characterises the psychic event as distinguished from the spatial, the intermittence and recommencement of the course of the psychic life, is never it needs always to be explained by intelligible in itself from the external world that is to say, by influences
:
psycho-physical causes. This is at all events true of the inner life-process in the individual consciousness, and it is true of this especially in view of those influences which These it experiences from the mental life of other persons.
are always brought about by psycho-physical processes. Of any direct causal relation between different persons without corporeal mediation, of a psychic causality that
works purely internally and without a physical medium between soul and soul, of any telepathic possibilities of this kind, we may hear from poets and visionaries, but we learn nothing whatever from experience. This shows us that all the recommencements of which we are individually conscious are connected with influences of the
If, in spite of this, we regard the psychic physical world. as purely immanent and self-contained, we have, process in the case of those interruptions which naive thought attributes to psycho-physical causality, to assume un-
conscious
psychic
causes
corresponding
to
the
bodily
processes which psycho-physical causality regards as the
cause of the discontinuity.
The hypothesis of parallelism, therefore, would have to be developed, not merely as a psychological or anthropological theory, but, as in its original Spinozistic form, as
a metaphysical philosophy, universal Panpsychism. It must be assumed that to the entire system and course of
spatial-corporeal
states
there
corresponds
an
equally
164
GENETIC PROBLEMS
continuous system and an equally uninterrupted series of which our consciousness knows of psychic states That is making a very large demand whatever nothing on our credulity. A psychic causality of meanings, values, and purposes, and parallel with it a physical causality of position and direction, with their various and the two supposed to correspond forms of motion That is the strangest adventure we were at every step ever asked to believe indeed, to believe it would be an Hence it is the lesser evil, the smaller act of despair. miracle, to admit the common causality of the dissimilar in the action of body on soul and soul on body. The Monistic defenders of Parallelism cannot concede that for them the physical and psychic systems are two
! ;
!
separate
parallel
to each other.
some inexplicable correspondence They say that the two systems are merely phenomena of the primary reality, arid in this
realities,
in
are supposed to find precisely the reason for their In opposition to this we may invariable correspondence. that we by no means get rid of the paraobserve, first, dox of the hypothesis by removing it from the realm of
we
primary reality to derivative
reality,
from the essence to
On the contrary, we are now confronted the appearance. with the very serious question why the one reality develops
This entirely different modes of appearance. is for parallelistic Monism just as prejudicial and question " insoluble whether we take the idea of appearance
in
two
'
in
an objective or a subjective sense. If the two realms are conceived as two sorts of derived reality proceeding
which
is
from the one primary reality

hensible
all
then incompre;
the difficulties return which we saw preand if the in the discussion of ontic problems viously of the psycho-physical duality is restricted appearance to human consciousness it is not one whit more intelligible, as
is
we also saw previously. The most important point in these problems, however, that here again we find ourselves compelled to assume
unconscious states which are not physical, yet are not in the proper sense of the word of a psychic character in the sense in which the idea of the soul has come to be

identified with that of consciousness.
1C5
In modern thought
this has had the peculiar result of interpolating a third realm, the realm of the unconscious, between the realms
of cogitatio
and
extensio, into
which the Cartesian school

fact that all the argu-
distributed reality.
However, the
its
ments from psychology and
in favour of this intermediate
realm are derived
attempts to explain conscious
phenomena necessarily implies that this unconscious must be more closely related to the psychic world than
The hypothesis of psycho-physical physical. therefore combines the unconscious and the parallelism
to
the
conscious in a unity which is independent of the physical All these problems, in fine, are metaphysical world. problems, and the difficulties which were experienced by the hypothesis of parallelism that was based upon the older metaphysics merely show that the ultimate solution
depends upon the question how far human knowledge can be confident of passing beyond the two kinds of
experience, the external to the nature of reality.
and the
internal,
and attaining
CHAPTER
III
NOETIC PROBLEMS
THE obvious postulate for all ontic and genetic problems, from the simple assumptions of the untrained mind to the mature theories of science, is that our ideas must be knowledge, and at the same time true knowledge.
This postulate is so obvious that it does not always, especially in the beginning, come into consciousness at all, yet it is the driving force in the progress of thought. For the element of dissatisfaction in our first impressions, which is always the stimulus to the formulation of problems, is the feeling, or even the fear, that these immediate ideas, which we regard as knowledge, may not be true. From this we understand how it is that we have at first very inadequate and in part untenable ideas as to the meaning of that feeling, the meaning of the value of truth. Yet these ideas are amongst the last to be unRational reflection turns settled and called into question.
last
of all
upon
itself.
The Greeks
called this rational
reflection voelv, and we therefore which arise from the direction of
call
these problems,
its
knowledge to
own
task and the means of
fulfilling this task, noetic.
9
Truth.
Theories
ment
value
Transcendental,
knowledge Science and knowledge The judgimmanent, and formal truth Truth as Pragmatism Opinion, belief, and knowledge.
of
problems is the definition of truth itself. Unsettlement on this point occurs only in a mature stage of mental life, and the questions which it
first
The
of these
166
TRUTH
167
suggests are therefore the latest in historical development. At first we are content with the simple confidence, the " courage of truth," which accompanies our mental we simply think, ask, inquire, investigate. operations In the course of time the inevitable antitheses and failures
:
baffle
our mind, and we ask whether we can accomplish
the task of attaining real knowledge. As soon as this stage is reached, our intellectual conscience feels that it must settle the question of the possibility of knowledge before acquiring anything further. It is as well that the sciences have generally accomplished, and to-day accomplish, their work before asking this prelim-
inary question, as it is these sciences themselves which must provide the material for answering it. As a subsequent question, however, the noetic problem is quite
inevitable.
The
of things
necessity of that it
is
it is
so obviously based
upon the nature
what position
solution
of
quite independent of the question assigned in the system of sciences to the

is
these
it
noetic
is
problems.
As a
"
special
and
the theory of or Epistemology (or, sometimes, Noetics), knowledge and it is assuredly the final science in the sense that it
coherent inquiry "
now
often called
presupposes all the others. There must be knowledge before it can be the object of a theory. Thus, in the
history of philosophy noetic questions were first raised by the Sophists, and then by Socrates and Plato, and
they had been preceded by a long and fruitful development of scientific knowledge which had at length turned upon itself. This beginning led to the Aristotelic logic, which is the culmination of the self-consciousness of Greek science.
was the Platonic distinction between knowledge and opinion, eTrtonjfwj and So|a. It contains and a first glimpse of the various kinds of verification itself to opinion the more proudly knowledge opposed in this distinction, the more confident science became From that time as to its own nature and procedure. has been included in the inventory of every onward there
The
starting-point
complete philosophical theory a discussion of the nature
168
of
NOETIC PROBLEMS
;
its vindication, range, and limitations most cases the views on this subject were the final result, in a certain sense even the crowning test, of the whole philosophical system. The renewal of the
knowledge,
in
and
conflict
of
metaphysical systems
in
modern times has
thrust the question of the theory of knowledge into the Locke demanded that, before any discussion foreground. of the difficult problems of metaphysics, the range of
the instrument with which we hoped to solve them should be investigated that is to say, the human faculty of knowledge. Then Kant claimed that this inquiry into the possibility of knowledge should precede all
knowledge, at least metaphysical knowledge, and therefore be the first science. We will not go further into the question whether the theory of knowledge should be the test or the foundation of all metaphysics, but will select from the discussion of this matter a point which is of very great importance for the understanding of these things. Kant's claim, that an assurance of the possibility of knowledge ought to precede actual knowledge, seems at first sight extremely
open to the objection that it involves an objection that no less a person than Hegel urged against Kant. The theory of knowledge, it is said, is knowledge, and so it assumes the proof of that which it sets out to prove. To attempt very possibility it is much the same as the case of the man who wants to learn to swim before he goes into the water. This would be justified if the theory of knowledge objection
plausible, yet
it
is
a vicious
circle
wanted to make a tabula rasa of the mind and begin to think ab ovo, from an entirely new starting-point. That is impossible, because every thought is permeated with relations to others. Hence the theory of knowledge cannot be isolated from the contents of the sciences, which were acquired without it. The formal suspension which Kant required for the solution of the critical quesThe results of the tion referred only to metaphysics. other sciences have to be used by the theory of knowledge as the only available arguments for the solution of its
problems.
TRUTH
169
We can explain the situation best by examining an unsound defence which was put forward, against Hegel, on behalf of Kant's claim. It was said that knowledge is a fact and if science is to explain all facts, it must explain this fact also, if not before any others. The theory of knowledge has the same relation to science as physiology has to life. We will not inquire here whether that was Kant's view. It is, at all events, a bad defence of his position, because there is no room for an inquiry
;
into
the possibility of knowledge if you postulate in it is a fact. Whatever exists is possible the only question, then, is how it is possible. If the of knowledge, moreover, were something like a theory
advance that
physiology of knowledge, it would be neither psychology nor metaphysics, and would therefore be not the beginBut the question ning, but the end, of knowledge. ^precisely is whether there is such a thing as knowledge. The fact from which the theory starts is not the fact that we have knowledge, but that in our science we claim to have it and the task of the theory is to investigate whether the claim is sound. Theory, therefore, in this sense means, not an explanation of a given fact, but philosophical theory, a critical inquiry into the soundness of the claim. It means something quite different from
;
the explanatory theories which have to show the possibility of a reality. Physiology never raises a question
about the justification of life. The situation of the theory of knowledge is therefore this for a number of ideas which in science represent facts we make the claim that they are knowledge, and the question is whether this science of man is really knowledge. Formulated thus, the question presupposes that we define knowledge differently from science. Science is something that we have is a task actually knowledge which this actual science has to fulfil. Thus in noetic we have the fundamental antithesis of reality problems and value, the relation between being and the norm of and on judgment upon it, in a very pronounced form that account they are a transition from theoretical to Science is in this connection the axiological problems.
:
:
170
NOETIC PROBLEMS
of ideas to which,
historically given content
as distin-
guished from the opinions of individuals, we ascribe a and the general validity and normative necessity philosophical question which we here approach is merely whether this claim, which we implicitly grant, not only
;
scientific research, that these scientific is, sum, justified. ideas have the value of truth. Thus truth is the central idea round which all noetic problems turn.
in
ordinary
life
but in the course of

in
is
The claim
The
ideas
life
is
distinction
between truth and falseness
in
our
so familiar
and taken
that the great
for granted in our intellectual majority of men never reflect what
they really mean by it. It is certain it is " " tion on all sides that the predicate true
of value
beyond quesis
a predicate
which we grant to certain ideas in preference to others. But when we look closely into it, both the of the valuation and the form of the ideas to meaning which it is to be applied are very difficult to define. We shall come to an agreement first, perhaps, as to the form which the ideas must have in the strict sense for us to
receive
them as true or reject them as untrue. The untrained mind, it is true, speaks of the truth or falseness of particular ideas and concepts, as when we ask whether
the concept of the atom is true or not but we see, on more closely, that this use of the word is derivalooking as Descartes tive. Originally the predicate of truth
;
developed it for modern philosophy applies only to the connections of ideas which we verbally express in
As a psychoa highly characterlogical process, however, judgment istic structure, in which we have, perhaps, the clearest and most complete expression of the whole spiritual being with its two typical features, the theoretical and the practical. To judge means not merely to connect
propositions
and
logically call
judgments.
is
ideas with each other, but to affirm this connection as valid and true or, in negative judgments, to reject it as false. We have therefore in this dgicDpa, as the
;
Stoics very well called
it,
not only the intellectual element
of bringing various contents together in a certain relation, but also the voluntarist element of affirming or denying
TRUTH
this
171
The act of will which in judgment is with the action of the mind was called by the Stoics assent and we now ask (awyKardadeais) what this assent means. Naturally the untrained mind
relation.
'
associated
'
approaches
meaning
mination.
of
always be
question by taking for granted the assent namely, the sense of truth must the same and capable of definitive deter-
this
That is not the case, however, and it needs very little consideration to show that truth is taken in very different
senses.
The truth of a mathematical proposition, the truth of an historical hypothesis, the truth of a natural law can we describe these things in the same way ?
;
We shaD, perhaps, find this question answered by the untrained mind in the affirmative we shall be told that in every case truth is the correspondence of an idea with But it is easy to see that this is scarcely the reality. case even in the three examples we have just given. For an historical hypothesis we might be able to use this criterion of correspondence with reality, but if we want to apply it to mathematical propositions, or such intellectual constructions as laws of nature, we shall have to use very strained methods. As a matter of fact, this superficial meaning of truth is derived from ordinary empirical thought, and from this it has been extended to the idea of things and their activities. This definition of truth implies a relation of pictorial correspondence between man's idea and the reality which it regards as its object. In this we probably have the most complete expression of the naive view of things, which supposes a perceptive mind in the midst of a surrounding world that is somehow reproduced in it. All the sensory images with which we verbally express the process of knowledge
and which to reproduce, mirror, embrace, grasp, etc. of the various senses, show are taken from the action
only the many ways in which the reproduction may be imagined. Now the theory of sensitive perception has completely destroyed this supposition that external reality is reproduced internally, and the transcendental truth as this
172
first
NOETIC PROBLEMS
and naive conception
be
of truth may be called sustained in its original sense. Moreover, every attempt to prove seriously the correspondence of experience and reality shows only the agreement of presentations of different origin, and never shows the correspondence of the presentation with the thing. We can compare presentations in our immediate experience
cannot
with memories or with imaginative pictures, and refer them both to the same object but we can never compare a presentation with the object itself. However, the main idea of transcendental truth, as a relation of the thought to a reality which is supposed to be reproduced in it, is found in a more or less attenuated form in other ideas of truth, and it can never be wholly suppressed. When, for instance, we find offered to us an immanent
;
definition of truth, which affirms only the agreement of presentations with each other, this hope of finding them in agreement is always based upon the expectation that
they
will therefore be related to the same object. We have, in fact, the subtle influence of the feeling that the two magnitudes are equal to each other because they " are equal to an unknown third, or at least correspond to it. If the ideas which we form in scientific theory are to agree with those we gain in experience, the real reason for our seeking this is the thought, lurking in the back'
ground, that in both the same reality is presenting itself " Thus the is the most to the mind. picture theory
'
primitive and the most persistently active form in which truth is represented as a relation between the presentation
and the object which it signifies. This, however, by no means exhausts the realm of truths. There are some in which there can be no question whatever of an object in this original sense of the word the sense of a reality which is supposed to be reproduced in thought. To this class belong all mathematical, The only criterion logical, ethical, and aesthetic truths. of truth in those cases is the necessity and universal validity with which they present themselves in consciousness, and which in the case of the other truths seemed We must, however, to be due to the relation to the object.
TRUTH
173
very carefully define the two characters of this formal conception of truth, if we are to avoid misunderstanding. Universal validity, in the first place, which is related to the plurality of the knowing subjects, cannot be conceived as an actual fact it is quite impossible that concordant
;
recognition of
sapiens.
of
any statement could be empirically attained and proved even for all members of the species Homo
On the contrary, the actual validity of all truths must be very restricted, or they surfer the fate
being born as paradoxes and ending as trivialities. Moreover, universal validity, as far as it can be approximately attained empirically, does not guarantee a truth, because it is notoriously often attained in the case of a fact so well known that we need not trouble errors
heap up historical instances. Hence the universal validity of which there is question in the definition of formal truth is merely one that is desired one which ought to be found, in virtue of the necessity, in all normal thinking subjects. This necessity in turn, however, is not the same thing as the necessity of a law of nature. The processes of presentation which lead to error are
to
:
subject to the same necessities of the psychic laws as those which lead to a knowledge of truth. The necessity
which we speak in logic, is not but is rather the immanent and actual psychological, And in this necessity of the contents of presentation. element of actuality the conception of formal truth also returns to the relation to the object, even if it no longer conceives this relation in the crude form of an assumption of a reality outside the mind, but modified in a way
of thought, therefore, of
which we shall consider later. Thus the purely theoretical relation of knowledge to its object is by no means free from ambiguity. Even if we consider only the three forms of truth given here, we understand why it is that the later ancient philosophy had such an extensive and fruitless contest about the criterion of truth." The difficulties which were then
'
'
brought to light will always reappear if it is sought to give one single and quite universal definition of truth which shall be applicable in all cases. The only thing
174
NOETIC PROBLEMS
is
we can do
to say that truth
is
in all cases that
which
From this it will be understood ought to be affirmed. that in modern logic the theory of truth is treated as a part of the theories of value or duty. This, however,
leads to
probably a matter of temperament

'
least doubtful, and and character rather than of intellectual decision, whether this theoretical ought," which constitutes truth, is absolute. The duty
difficulties.
It
is
new
at
to affirm the truth

of
is not recognised by everybody as universal validity. The logical imperative is complete I can only expect a man hypothetical, not categorical.
to recognise the truth on the condition that he knows it, or ought to know it. And since knowledge means thought
deliberately
directed
to
truth,
we
find
ourselves
once
more
in a vicious circle.
An attempt is made to meet this by assigning to knowledge a different aim, so that the truth seems to be only a means for the attainment of this aim. Hence axiological theories of truth have in recent times shown the
tendency which goes by the name of Pragmatism. The chief idea on which it is based is that thought, to become
knowledge,
(77pay/Lta),
is
exercised
by man
for the sake of action
of presentations. true that originally a man thinks only in order to act, and that the psychological process which leads to judgment, to affirmation or denial, is entirely of an
It is
for
which he needs the lead
emotional character
processes of feeling
that
is
to say,
is
permeated with
of assent,
and
volition.
The element
the voluntary element in judgment, requires motives for the affirmation or denial and these motives, for the individual as for the masses, are feelings of desire and
;
aversion, hope and fear, and also the volitions which are But we have hitherto given at the root of these feelings.
the name of opinions to this natural process of finding a sanction in feelings and needs and, even in regard to and its mode of origin, we have considered that opinion its validity was merely relative and restricted to the Even when these emotional motives of assent individual. arise from the persistent and consciously fixed tendencies
;
of feeling
and
will
which we
call character,
and when we
TRUTH
of
175
therefore speak of the opinions as convictions a kind assent which is usually called belief they are still valid in the sphere of emotional verification. It is the
remarkable feature, and at the same time the moral

significance, of scientific
knowledge that it will acknowledge no other means of verification than the reasons which are contained in the object of presentation and Such an attitude, to desire truth the laws of thought.
for its
in
own sake and not for the advantages it may secure the struggle for life, is an outcome of psychological processes of transference which have developed in the course of human history, but have obtained influence as
yet over relatively few individuals. assent of this kind we call evidence,
of
Pure motivation
of
and
for this a theory
truth like the Pragmatist is wholly unsuitable and For, however clearly it may be shown inapplicable. that men are actually influenced in verifying then- opinions by their needs, and hold that to be true of which they
can make some use, even here the utility is not identical with the truth, but merely a feature which determines the appreciation of truth. From the logical point of view Pragmatism is a grotesque confusion of means and From the historical point of view it is an entirely end. different matter, as it represents a victory of noetic individualism which, in the decay of our intellectual culture, would release the elementary force of the will and let it pour itself over the realm of pure thought. It calls into question one of the greatest achievements of civilisation, the purity of the will to truth. Under the lead of the definition of truth the theory of knowledge has to understand human knowledge in its development and in regard to what it has done for the value of truth. It has therefore first to deal with the actual origin, and then with the validity and objective
relation, of
knowledge.
176
NOETIC PROBLEMS
10
The
Origin
of
Knowledge.
Thinking
and
perceiving
Rationalism
and
empiricism (sensualism) teriorism Psychologism.
Hominism
Apriorism
and apos-
The antithesis of knowledge and opinion has developed out of the self-consciousness of great intellectual personalities who opposed the results of their own reflections to the traditional views of the majority. Even when they diverged so widely from each other as did Heraclitus and Parmenides, they were always conscious that their scientific thought was due to some other source than the direct experience which they shared with the despised Hence in the earliest days of science the majority. Greeks opposed reason (vovs) and rational thought
and, however much this was weakened by psychological and metaphysical theories, and in the end destroyed, it remained unchallenged in methodology and the theory of know(voelv] to
perception (audhjcns}
antithesis
culmination in Plato's theory of In this the vision of memory knowledge ideals is, it is true, represented as a perception of the true incorporeal reality, but a perception raised above
ledge.
It
reached
as
its
(avdfjivrjaLs)
terrestrial
and fundamentally
In
their
different
from corporeal
psychological theory the Greeks experience. the intellect as passivity, or as a receptive always regarded activity, and to them the reception or mirroring of reality in the soul, not mingled with any disturbing or
distorting activity of one's own, was so peculiarly knowledge that this unresisting reception would find its religious completion in the vision of the mystic.
psychogenetic view of knowledge corresponds entirely to the picture-theory which is contained in the naive transcendental idea of truth. But it was partly However we corrected by the very nature of perception. this as an impression which the soul, like may imagine a wax tablet, receives from the environing world, never" " " and conceiving theless such expressions as grasping show that even in this sphere of sensory
This
'
177
knowledge of truth a certain activity of consciousness is not to be ignored. Indeed, quite early, in the Sophistic teaching, we find the theory that all perception arises from a double movement, of the object on the subject and the subject on the object. We further clearly see that in sensory perception we have rather an effect of the object and a subsequent reaction of the soul, whereas in thought the nature of the soul itself is active, and from the object it receives only the stimulus to concern itself with it. Hence the ancient and ever-new question, which Goethe thought the nucleus of Kant's criticism, whether
our knowledge comes more from without, from things, or from ourselves, from the ordered nature of the soul. The answers to this question are radical if they insist on the Either Or. On the one side we have Empiricism, which leans to the formula that all knowledge comes on the other side Rationalism, which from experience
;
finds all
knowledge based upon rational thought.
earlier centuries of
The modern philosophy, the movements
from Bacon and Descartes to about the end of the eighteenth century, were characterised by this contrast of Empiricism and Rationalism, and were filled with the " innate ideas." In the refined terminstruggle about " idea had ology of the later Scholastics the word become so vague in meaning as to be applicable to all sorts of presentations, and thus the noetic problem came to a point in the question whether there were ideas which did not come directly from experience, but belonged to the nature of the soul. Empiricism denies this, and it has therefore to explain all knowledge as originating in
'
perceptions. The classic form in which this is done is Locke's theory. It assigned two sources of empirical knowledge, internal and external experience, the soul's knowledge from its own activities and, on the other hand,
from the impressions which it receives through the body from the environing world in space. This is the theory of knowledge of the plain mind cleverly grafted on the dualistic metaphysic of the distinction between consciousness and extension, spirit and matter. Moreover, there were two main arguments in this rejection of innate 12
178
NOETIC PROBLEMS
knowledge. On the one hand, if there was such knowledge given in the very nature of the soul, it ought to be common which is certainly not true as regards the to all men
;
of the majority. On the other hand, we could not speak of an unconscious presence of these ideas as long as we regarded the idea of the soul as identical with that of consciousness (cogitatio). Even Empiricism, however, must take account of some elaboration of the data of perception in knowledge, and Locke had therefore to fall back upon the capacities, faculties, and forces of the soul, which develop in connection with the contents of the presentations and are supposed to reach consciousIn this way he thought ness in the inner perception. that he had taken sufficient account of the rational elebut some of his followers pointed ment of knowledge out that even this development of inner perception always presupposes the external perception, so that in the end the latter alone provides the contents of knowIf it is meant that in these contents we have all ledge. the elements which Locke traced to functions of the soul, Empiricism becomes Sensualism, or the theory that all knowledge conies from corporeal, sensory, external perSensualism would derive from the mere combinaception. tion of the elements in consciousness all those relations between them that we find in knowledge. It has to hold that it always depends on these contents themselves what relation between them can or ought to exist. But, however true this may be, we must urge against Sensualism that these relations for instance, the elementary relations of comparison and distinction are not given in any single datum, and therefore not in the sum of them but that they are something new and additional to these
conscious
life
contents.
We then have the contrary position of Rationalism, which derives these relations, which combine and work up the contents of experience, from an act of the soul, and therefore thinks that we have aboriginal knowledge and innate ideas in these forms of combination. The Neo-Platonists of the Renaissance, following the example of the Stoics, had regarded this aboriginal knowledge, as

;
179
belonging to the soul from its very nature and in virtue and Descartes and his school had of its divine origin adopted the view, although in the main body of the Cartesian philosophy innate ideas had passed as, not properly psychological, but logical, as self-evident truths. Now if these ideas were to be described, especially in the case of Descartes's followers, as psychogenetic, it was clear that they could not be given actually as conscious ideas, but functionally or virtually, as unconscious capacities, as Leibnitz afterwards fully developed in his Monadology and the criterion of knowledge in his Nouveaux Essais. In this, however, Empiricism and Rationalism had come so close to each other that the conflict between them had become almost meaningless. Empiricism must grant that the data of perception only become experience through a rational elaboration which is not contained in themselves and Rationalism cannot ignore the fact that the relating forms in the reason need a content that must be given in perception. The classic form given to this situation is when Leibnitz, taking the " Scholastic thesis which the Empiricists repeated, Nihil " est in intellects quod non fuerit in sensu," added, nisi
;
intellectus ipse."
In a sense
we might say
that this settles the psychological
question of the origin of knowledge, as far as the answer to it concerns the theoty of knowledge. But we must
not omit to notice a
modern
variation of this ancient
controversy. Empiricism cannot deny that in an advanced stage of civilisation there is for each civilised adult direct evidence of rational truths which can never be based
for instance, in the confidence upon his own experience with which, in accordance with the principle of causality, we assume a cause for every event. In this case the Empirical theory now calls in the aid of the evolutionary These interpretation of this virtually innate knowledge. truths, which have not been acquired by the individual, must have been acquired by the race in the course of its evolution, and implanted in the individual by heredity and custom, imitation and language. This is the more likely as, according to the Pragmatist principle, these
;
180
NOETIC PROBLEMS
habits of thought which have in time assumed a character self-evidence have a use for man's knowledge and conduct, and they thus owe their validity to a survival
of of the useful. as
it
Any
person
who adopts
this interpretation
divests rational truth of

it
and
real nature, and represents a useful intellectual habit of the empirical man ; is only in this sense that Pragmatism is also called
its
Humanism
though, in order to avoid confusion with

'
an older and better use of the term, it would be advisable " to say Hominism. truth is According to this all based upon human needs, and is merely a human value. Clearly this modern form of Relativism does not go beyond the saying which the ancient Sophist formulated much more clearly and forcibly Man is the measure
:
of all things.
The psychological antithesis of Empiricism and Rationalism is raised to a higher level when one bears in mind the logical meaning which is at the root of the contradictory positions. Experience, as the sum of presentations, consists in the long run of particular acts of knowledge, whereas the rational view, which pre-exists for the work of elaborating these, always contains more or less general Empiricism therefore formulates the statepropositions. ment that in the last resort all knowledge originates from particular experiences, whereas Rationalism seeks the final ground of all knowledge in aboriginally evident But it is clear that these extreme general principles. statements are at the most restricted in their value to a very small sphere. There is very little in our knowledge which indicates merely a particular experience and, on the other hand, there is just as little in the nature of In the a general principle not based upon experience. totality of human knowledge we always have the two the particular and the general are not found together In this logical respect we speak of the antisingly. These thesis as that of Apriorism and Aposteriorism. expressions are due to the changes which the Aristotelic terminology underwent amongst the Schoolmen. Greek logic distinguished between general being, the earlier in reality and later in knowledge, and the particular
; ;
181
appearances, which were later in reality and earlier in knowledge. But in Scholastic language the inductive course of thought, which rises from the particular to the general, was d posteriori, and the deductive process, from the general to the particular, d priori. Even in modern methodology we thus distinguish between d posteriori empirical reasoning and d priori rational reasonEmpiricism may, however, concede a relative ing.
For when we have d priori, while denying the absolute. once attained general principles by inductive methods, particular knowledge may be derived from them d priori.
Rationalism, on the other hand, cannot dispense with it needs them indispensably in order empirical elements to get from general to special knowledge. In this modification of the ancient antithesis we realise the uselessness of the psychogenetic point of view for It is clear that the the solution of noetic problems. in which a man actually arrives at a judgment, or way
;
at the assent
which
is
the essence of the judgment,
is
quite irrelevant to the justification of the judgment or Most of the statements which men make are assent.
imitative
and due to authority though they are often the opposite, and purely personal. Hence it is that quite the actual judgment is, as we have seen in other connections,
generally
;
emotional
and based on
feeling
and
these natural processes which result We give the name in judgment by no means justify it. of Psychologism to the artless notion that would determine by their origin the value, in either a logical or aesthetic or ethical sense, of psychic states. It was the
volition
and
all
main idea of the philosophy of the eighteenth century, and was typically expressed b}' Locke, the leader of this In sj^stematic elaboration it seemed essenphilosophy. " ideas tial in the theoretical field as an evolution of the from their sensory beginnings to their subtlest and highest developments, and therefore the narrowing of philosophy in virtue of this method in France was called Ideology a word which led to calling philosophers Ideologists, though it ought to have been confined to its original
'
meaning.
To-day Psychologism
still
lingers in a sort of
182
NOETIC PROBLEMS
it
has not been taken seriously in the time of Kant. In the theory of knowledge there is question, not of the causes, but of the justification, of judgment. The former is a
dilettante form, but
philosophical
circles
since
matter of fact which proceeds according to psychological laws the latter a matter of value, subject to logical norms. It was the essence of the Kantist development to advance from the psychogenetic (or, as he said, physiological) treatment of the problem of knowledge with increasing confidence to the logical (or, as he said, transcendental) treatment. The essential connecting link between the beginning and the end of the development was the influence of the Nouveaux Essais of Leibnitz, in which the conversion of the psychological antithesis of Empiricism and Rationalism into the logical antithesis
;
of Aposteriorism and Apriorism was accomplished. Hence in the mature form of the critical philosophy the familiar
phrase a priori never has the psychological, but always the All wrong versions of Kant's teaching logical, meaning. are due to a confusion of logical apriority with psychological
transferred
The noetic question was definitively the critical philosophy from the field of by It is psychological struggle to that of logical inquiry.
apriority.
of the origin of knowledge, but of
validity.
no longer a problem
its
The
Validity
of Knowledge. Psychological and logical validity Validity and being Consciousness in general Theory of knownaive realism The conledge as metaphysics Dogmatism Realism and Nominalism Scepticism troversy about universals Probabilism Problematicism and Phenomenalism Mathematical Phenomenalism Semeiotics Ontological Phenomenalism Idealism Solipsism Spiritualism Absolute Phenomenalism Agnosticism Conscien tialism.
:
:
be valid [gclteri], which occurs in but received at the hands of Lotze a ordinar}' language special meaning, has become of great importance in recent logic. We must not, however, suppose that by merely using this convenient word we can escape all the difficulties which it covers, We must, on the contrary,
to
The word
'
'
183
distinguish all the more carefully between the psychoIn the of the word. logical and the logical meaning
former sense to be valid means a recognition of a fact as when, for instance, we speak of a valid or existing law as distinguished from a desirable or conceivable In this sense it is always related to a particular law.
;
mind
for
which
it is
valid
as, psychologically, all
values
which they are values. But are related to a mind the meaning of truth demands a validity in itself, without
for
relation to a consciousness, or at least to a particular For the postulate of general empirical consciousness.
recognition
is
Thus mathematical and compel general recognition, valid, principles because they necessarily follow from the nature of mathematical conceptions. Hence this philosophical idea of validity always points beyond the process of knowledge in empirical subjects. The validity of truth is independent A of all behaviour of fallible and evolving subjects. mathematical truth was valid long before anybody conceived it, and it is valid even if an individual erroneFor this reason the meaning ously refuses his assent to it. of validity-in-itself has become one of the main problems of modern logic. In this there is especially a question of the relation of validity to being. The more we think of being as empirical or sensible reality, the more pronounced is the contrast between being and validity. Even a psychic reality does not suffice for the claim of
of
of validity that of the content
so surely at the root of the logical meaning it is based upon the actual condition
consciousness.
are
the other hand, the the psychic processes independence validit}' in which it is recognised is a measure of its own character, and for this there is no better word than highest reality. Hence it is paradoxical to speak of the valid as unreal, and that is why such inquiries can scarcely avoid regarding validity-in-itself as validity for an absolute consciousness, a ""Consciousness in general," and therefore interpreting it becomes the chief then, This, metaphysically. problem. What separate problems may be implied in it we shall see later. We have first to consider the various
the logical idea of validity.
of
On
of
all
184
NOETIC PROBLEMS
it is
methods by which
of knowledge.
sought to make clear the validity
The most original of these forms is the picture-theory involved in the transcendental idea of truth. On closer consideration, however, it proves to be only one of the possibilities which we find in the chief principle which We may, for instance, in is assumed for the purpose. of what we have already seen, formulate as follows virtue the task of the theory of knowledge. The sciences offer us in the sum of their results an objective picture of the world which we expect, and ought to expect, every
and we find it normal thoughtful person to recognise wherever there are not antagonistic influences recognised The theory of knowof other views and convictions. which does not in the least enfeeble the actual ledge, validity of the sciences, which adds nothing and subtracts nothing from them, has no other task than to
;
"
investigate the relation of this world-picture to the absolute that is to say, reality which it is supposed to signify
;
the relation of the objecIn other words, tive in our consciousness to the real. it is the relation of consciousness to being that constitutes The value this last problem of all scientific thought.
its
problem
is
to find out
what
is
of truth consists in
some
sort of relation of consciousness
in the theory of discover this relation. From this
to being,
and
it
knowledge we have to follows that we cannot
deal with knowledge without at the same time dealing with being and, if the science of the absolute reality is called metaphysics, the theory of knowledge neither
;
precedes nor follows it is neither the presupposition nor the criterion of metaphysics, but is metaphysics That is the consequence which Fichte's Theory of itself. Knowledge and Hegel's Logic deduced from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. There are therefore as many tendencies in the theory of knowledge, as many answers to the question of the
and being, as there are conceptual or categories, that are applicable to it, and we relations, may deduce the various points of view from the system
relation of consciousness
of
categories.
The fundamental category, which
is
up
185
to a certain point decisive for all the others, is identity ; and this in the present case gives us the transcendental Consciousness and being are opposed to idea of truth.
each other, according to

in their contents.
it, yet declared to be identical true idea is supposed to be one
the content of which is real extra mentem. We see at once the difficulty that is involved in this apparently Consciousness, presentation, judgment, plausible theory. and knowledge are themselves real, and this naive idea of truth supposes that something is repeated in consciousis
This other being ness that happens in another being. conceived in the naive view as originally the corporeal
reality which surrounds the knowing mind ; and from this it follows that such an idea of truth becomes useless
as
soon as knowledge extends to other than physical
realities.
Undisturbed by these considerations the naive mind

clings to its idea of truth, and, in view^ of its persistency, we may, with Kant, speak of a Dogmatist theory of
knowledge, which without further criticism affirms the validity of its ideas as a grasping or picturing of reality. We thus have in the first place the Dogmatism of sensenaive perception, which yields the world-theory of Realism." The world is as I perceive it. The various illusions of sense-perception ought not to lead us to make a mistake about this view, because these illusions are themselves corrected by other perceptions. More serious for naive Realism are the objections which we had to the consideranotice in connection with ontic problems tions which led us to see that all the content-determinations which in perception we ascribe to things belong, not to them, but to the perceiving consciousness. All these considerations, however, which seemed to justify us in running counter to the impression of our own experience, were based on the fact that we relied upon our conceptual
'
:
on which scientific knowledge depends, rather than upon our naive perception. In this we have the Dogmatism of conceptual thought which dominates our whole world-view in the axiomatic belief that the world is such as we necessarily think it.
reflection,
186
NOETIC PROBLEMS
This conceptual Dogmatism finds its most important development in the classical controversy as to the validity of general concepts, the struggle over Universals. The antithesis of thought and perception, to which the attention of the earliest Greek science was directed, came to a head in Plato's theory of ideas. In this the things of external perception were granted only the same fleeting and imperfect reality as the perceptions with which we reach them. On the other hand, the enduring and selfcontained results of conceptual thought were granted the validity of a higher and absolute reality. It is well not to be misled by ingenious modern misinterpretations into thinking that Plato did not wish to ascribe to the ideas as he and his school called the contents of the general concepts of scientific thought a validity in the sense of material reality, or that he taught anything about any other kind of validity. It is only in this way that we can understand that his theory brought out the critical inquiry how these contents of concepts can be real and indeed condition all other reality. From this, in antiquity and also in the Scholastic movement, there developed the antithesis of the two points of view on the theory of knowledge which we call Realism and
Nominalism. Realism (universalia sunt realia) affirms. in the terms of Plato, that, as our knowledge consists of concepts and must be a knowledge of reality, the
the concepts must be regarded as copies This Realism is maintained wherever our being. views recognise in reality a dependence of the particular on the general. Hence the knowledge of laws of nature is the chief form of Realism in this sense of the word. But from the time of Plato onward the serious difficulties of Realism arise from the fact that it is impossible to form a satisfactory conception of the sort of reality that ideas can have, or of the way in which they condition the other reality, that of the particular and corporeal. These difficulties have driven thought in the opposite direction, into the arms of Nominalism, which regards the concepts as intermediate and auxiliary constructions in the reflecting
contents
of
of
mind,
not as copies of something independent of the
187
mind and existing in itself. Their importance is still further reduced if they are supposed merely to be common names of similar objects (universalia sunt nomina}.
Nominalism will freely grant that the particular elements of our perceptive knowledge have a direct relation (either as copies or in some other way) to reality, but it declares
it
inconceivable that the results of conceptual reflection,
which is a purely internal process of the mind, should have an analogous truth-value. It must, however, concede that this purely internal reflection is actually determined by the contents which it combines in its entire movement and its outcome, and that, on the other hand, the process of thought with its concepts leads in turn to particular ideas which prove to be in agreement with therefore finds itself confronting the It perception. problem, how the forms of thought are related to those whether they, as belonging to the same total of reality system of reality, point to each other and are in the end
:
identical, or whether, since they belong to different worlds, nothing can be settled as to their identity or any other
thus see that in the last resort it is metaphysical motives which must pronounce in the controversy about universals. All the forms of world-view which we describe as Henistic or Singularistic are from
relation.
We
the logical point of view Realistic
whilst
all
forms
ot
Individualism must have a Nominalistic complexion.
The two forms

sense that
of
Dogmatism
differ generally in
the
that of perception belongs rather to the prescientific mind, while that of conceptual thought is found in science. Both have to be disturbed
naive Realism
and called into question in some way before the noetic " problems arise. We speak of this disturbance as doubt," and therefore the inquiry which issues from the doubt is the first and essential phase of the theory of knowledge. We give it the Greek name Skepsis, and we call Scepticism the attempt to remain at this point of view of doubting inquiry and to hold that it is not possible to get beyond it to any permanent results of knowledge. Scepticism of this nature is revealed even in prescientific thought by the numerous complaints about the narrowness of
188
NOETIC PROBLEMS
human
;
nature and the limitations of our knowledge. These limitations are first conceived in the quantitative sense they are the limits in space and time which confine our knowledge, in so far as it depends upon experience, within a very narrow circle. A simple scepticism of this kind is, it is true, quite reconcilable with a claim to em-
But it is quite otherwise when, after attained scientific knowledge, the question is raised whether this really fulfils its aim, and when the outcome of this query is a negative answer. Even in this case men of science usually mean that they have
pirical
knowledge.
we have
complete confidence in their knowledge, and merely regard every effort to pass beyond positive knowledge and solve As a systematic conviction, final problems as futile. therefore, Scepticism always refers to questions of general views in the philosophical aspect to metaphysics and in ordinary life the sceptic is first and foremost the man who will not accept at once the metaphysic of religious The phrases in which ancient Scepticism, with belief.
;
its
doctrinaire tendency and its rhetorical habit, asserted that there is no knowledge whatever that man cannot
or
of perception using both, and that by thought his mind and reality may be two completely separated worlds may not, in their general sense, have been meant for, if they are scientific statements, and not seriously mere rhetorical phrases, they must profess to have some foundation and must therefore contain some sort of knowledge. On that account, as we saw above in formulating the task of the theory of knowledge, the positive contents of the various sciences do not fall within the
attain
of
any
real
knowledge either by means

least of
all,
or,
province of the sceptic's plaint, which is directed rather to problems transcending the positive, such as are given, This philopartly in science, but chiefly in philosophy.
sophical
Scepticism
is
not only the necessary transition
from Dogmatism to any general view of things which has any scientific or extra-scientific confidence in itself, but it may in cases cease to be merely temporary and become an established conviction. More than once in our discussion of ontic and genetic problems and the solution

of
189
and eventuwith arguments and counterally contradictory, solutions, arguments, could be advanced. If we draw from this the antinomian inference that no conclusion is possible in such cases, we have Problematic Scepticism, or Problematicism; a position which one has a perfect right to
them we came
to a point where different,
maintain.
view there are again many shades to the various forms of prudent and inconclureaching sive statement. Naturally, where argument and counterare equal (laoaOeveia TO>V Aoywv), there can argument
From
this point of
from the purely theoretical point of view be no assent, and therefore no assertion, and judgment must be suspended (the 77-0x77 of the ancient Sceptics), but the will, in the shape of needs, wishes, and tendencies, may throw its weight into one of the scales. We have here a guarantee by interest, and the interest may be of many it may be a need of the individual or of different kinds an empirical community, or it may be an interest of the For the purely theoretical judgment all these reason. practical considerations have no justification whatever, and all are open to the same severe censure. They do indeed relieve the intellect from the discomfort of doubt, but they do this at the risk of leading it into error. This risk, however, has to be faced in commerce, which often requires a decision, and in many respects in practical life a man has to do it because it is the lesser of two evils but we must not infer from this that these substitutes are real knowledge, or behave as if they were. A certain measure of a theoretically sound means of dulling the edge of Scepticism may be found where the
;
relation of
arguments and counter-arguments
is
of
such
a nature that the one group is in its entirety decisively In these cases one proceeds, as stronger than the other. all knowledge (even philosophical) does, by way of probgive the name of Probabilism to the view ability.
We
which abandons the idea of attaining a full and complete solution of philosophical problems, but regards it as posIn ancient times sible to come to probable conclusions. what was called the Middle Academy, the Platonist
190
NOETIC PROBLEMS
;
school of the third and second centuries B.C., gave this Probabilistic turn to Scepticism and this is the character of the men-of-the-world philosophising adopted by the
Cicero, and in the Renaissance taken Academic Scepticism " by such a general thinker as Montaigne. It combines the positive knowledge of the special sciences with a smile and a shrug of the shoulders
up as
Romans through "
at the ultimate problems. It is the chief preparation for Positivism, as we find it in David Hume.
Problematicism as a general theory culminates in the we can tell nothing about the relation of knowto reality, and that, in particular, we cannot say ledge whether it is a relation of likeness. But it easily passes on to another position, which it dare not strictly appropriate, yet which seems to most people to be very like it, namely the statement that the relation is one of unlikeness. For if this unlikeness cannot be proved for the same reasons and in the same measure as likeness, the doubt about the likeness easily passes not with a logical, but with a psychological, necessity into a belief in unlikeness. Moreover, there is in favour of unlikeness, in regard to one's general view of things, the assumption of a difference between consciousness and the remainder of being, and we thus reach the attitude which is known as Phenothesis that
the theory, namely, that human knowledge indeed related to a reality independent of it, but it is not a copy of this, and must not be cited to serve as such. In this, however, the ordinary idea of truth is left so far behind that such an attitude seems always to be tinged with a certain resignation. The statement that our " " knowledge reaches appearance only," that it is merely presentation, easily carries the secondary meaning that it ought properly to grasp and contain reality, and that it is regrettable that man's faculty of knowing is unable
menalism
is
'
to do this.
But the
ledge
varies
basis of the Phenomenalistic theory of knowconsiderably according to the extension
which it claims to have. Partial Phenomenalism contains an appreciation of the value of the different strata of
human knowledge,
claiming the transcendental truth of

agreement with reality
distinction
for
of p>henomenality to the other.
191
one and assigning the character In view of our earlier
'
between percepts and concepts we may two forms of Phenomenalism. The first is the recognise sensualistic, according to which the contents of sensory
perception are real, while the concepts are regarded as mere ideas or names at all events, as something the This validity of which is restricted to consciousness. is a view that comes very close to the popular attitude
of
naive
recent
Realism,
it
but
is
it
also
belongs
to
medieval
Nominalism, and
in
repeated in
many
echoes of this
philosophy. As an example we need quote Materialism in the form in which it was expounded only Opposed to this sensualistic Phenoby Feuerbach.
which, on the contrary, sensory presentations as only appearances regards of reality in consciousness, and finds reality in the conThis form cepts, the contents of thought (voov^va). have either a mathematical or an ontological commay Its mathematical form is the view of scientific plexion. which takes all the sensory qualities of things theory,
rationalistic,
all
menalism we have the
to be appearances or phenomena, and grants real validity only to the quantitative relations which are amenable
to
it,
t\
mathematical treatment. We have fully expounded and considered it in its various aspects, in an earlier
In this the category of causality has gradually displaced that of likeness as the relation between consciousness and being. Presentations are supposed to be effects of things on consciousness, and physico-physiological theory shows the strict and graduated correlation
chapter.
that exists between the real arid the perceived, being and consciousness. As far as the theory of knowledge is concerned, the centre of gravity of this view of the relation of consciousness and reality is in the fact that,
according to it, the presentative forms in consciousness are not reflections of reality, but represent it, as a drawing Hence this form of Phenorepresents the thing drawn. " menalism has been called the Drawing Theory," or
Semeiotics.
Epicureans
In ancient times it was held chiefly by the in the Middle Ages by Occam and the
192
terministic
Condillac.
NOETIC PROBLEMS
and in logic It forms the
;
modern times by Locke and groundwork of the philoso-
phising of modern The other form

ontological physics, as
men
of
is
of science, such, as Helmholtz. rationalistic Phenomenalism, the
form,
it
the
attitude
of
conceptual
meta-
in Plato's theory of ideas and re-echoed in Leibnitz's Monadology or Herbart's theory

of reality. According to this the entire world of the senses, in its quantitative as well as its qualitative relations, and therefore including also its mathematical determina-
was founded
and space, is merely an appearance of an or supra-corporeal reality. A special imporincorporeal tance attaches in this shade of Phenomenalism to the
tions in time
determinations, given in experience, of inwardness, the The two forms of experience, qualities of consciousness. external and internal, are clearly not open in the same way to the Phenomenalist argument. This is best seen
in the history of the word Idealism, which, as we saw, The sensory proleads to so much misunderstanding. which perception shows us in things are supposed perties " " " not to be realities, but merely presentations or ideas." Hence Idealism originally meant this theory which reduces
the external reality to presentations.
But the ideas
as
such are something real real activities, real contents and this metaphysical aspect of the matter, in real spirits which really ought to have been called spiritualistic, has been called Idealism. That is the chief reason for the change of Phenomenalism, which we so often encounter For if anything in history, into spiritualistic metaphysics. is to appear, there must not only be a reality that appears, and that is conbut something to which it appears Thus of the two forms of experience the sciousness. internal is constantly predominating over the external. External perception, which is supposed to be merely a knowledge of the states into which the perceptive being is thrown by the action of the external world, thus appears to be only a province within the entire domain of internal
; ;
The originally and indubitably certain thing perception. is the reality of consciousness and its various states,
while,
on
this theory,
the reality of the external world

is
193
supposed to be believed only on the ground of various more or less unsafe deductions. On this chain of thought depend all the philosophic systems which regard any fundamental qualities of consciousness whether intellect as the true nature of things, and the entire or will The external world as merely a phenomenon of this. of the internal sense is a remarkable fact preponderance in the whole of modern metaphysics and theory of knowIn this the fact is expressed that the quality of ledge. truth as a copy of reality is refused to our knowledge of the external world on the lines of Phenomenalism or Serneiotics, but this quality is only affirmed the more emphatically in regard to the mind's knowledge of itself and its states of consciousness. In point of fact, the self-knowledge of the soul is, if we do not interpolate into it some metaphysical transcendence with the aid of the concept of substance, the only knowledge in which we can be convinced beyond doubt of the likeness between
is
knowledge and its object. All psychological knowledge based upon this self-perception, which in the long run means a knowledge by means of memory, and in this we confidently assume that in this memory of self-knowis
ledge the psychic experience

is
perceived precisely as
"
it
in reality.
We
in
scandal have thus come to what Kant called a that we could serithe history of human knowledge
:
'
question the reality of the external world as contrasted with that of consciousness and then reThe preaffirm it without any indubitable reasons. dominance which the internal life has thus, for purposes of theory, gained over corporeal reality led to the setously call into
ting
up
of another category,
that of inherence, between

'
consciousness
and that which, as a corporeal reality In this therefrom, was called being." distinguished Phenomenalistic (or, as was wrongly said, Idealistic)
metaphysic consciousness played the part of substance, and its states and activities were supposed to be the ideas, the presentations, to which the reality of the outer world was reduced. The fantastic form which this theory assumed is theoretical Egoism, or Solipsism, which would
13
194
NOETIC PROBLEMS
;
retain only the individual philosophising subject as substance. Certainly this was hardly ever seriously affirmed it was rather used as a piece of intimidation in the con-
arguments about consequences. To affirm it merely a monologue," which refutes itself strictly fact that it seeks to prove its position to other by the very knowing subjects. Far more plausible was this Phenomenalism when it disguised itself in the Berkeleyian form But we. have already clearly or in Leibnitz's Monadology. shown how even in this form it is quite unable to deduce a foreign content like the external world from the nature A last form of Phenomenalism is that of consciousness. which seeks reality in a super-individual consciousness, " consciousness in general," as has been attempted or in the metaphysical elaborations of Kant's teaching. These, however, no longer keep to the original and purely " conlogical sense in which Kant himself constructed
flicting
'
is
'
'
sciousness in general
in-itself
as the correlative of the validit vfor
which he claimed
knowledge attained by
reason.
upon the old idea of the antiand material thesis of the spiritual they regard the as appearance and the former as the reality which latter appears therein. This position can only be evaded by regarding both, the psychic and the corporeal, as appearand then we have behind them only an entirely ance unknowable (because inexpressible) being, the thing-inThis Absolute Phenomenalism, which later reitself.
; ;
All these views are based
ceived the
of Agnosticism, is partly found in Kant's theory of knowledge. It is, in fact, one of its characteristic features that the soul, as the substance of the pheno
name
must be just as unknowable as the substance of the phenomena of the exas bodies, But this holds only in so far as this theory ternal sense. is directed polemically against metaphysics, of knowledge
mena
of the internal sense,
and particularly against its spiritualistic forms (Berkeley and Leibnitz). In this respect it is quite true that in Kant even the mind's empirical knowledge of its own states, its presentations, feelings, and volitions, does not
grasp their absolute nature, but their phenomenal nature,

their self-appearance in consciousness.
195
With this developincomplete, Phenomenalism For since dulls its own edge and digs its own grave. everything we can present belongs in its content either to trie world of the external sense or the province of the inner sense, the thing-in-itself remains a postulated nothing,
ment, however,
if
it
is
left
to
which no real definition and no formal relation can be It is then an assumption of no use whatever applied. not the slightest explanation can be given to thought From the unknowable thing-in-itself we get no it. of meaning either of the appearances of the external world the very division of or of those of the internal world
;
;
appearing reality into the two profoundly separated, yet constantly related, realms of matter and spirit cannot be in the least understood from the unknowable thing-inThis agnosticistic thing-in-itself is merely a dark itself. chamber into which people cast their unsolved problems without obtaining any light whatever upon them. Hence in the metaphysical respect Kant has rounded his theory of knowledge by distinguishing between the theoretical insight of knowledge, which is supposed to be restricted " to phenomena, and the guarantee by an interest of for which the theoretically unknowable is now reason," supposed to present itself as the suprasensible world of He converted an absolute and the good and holy. agnostic Phenomenalism, of which the main lines were
given in his criticism of knowledge, into a spiritualistic
Phenomenalism.
it is true, by no means exhausts the significance Kantist theory of knowledge, but merely shows its relation to metaphysical problems. We shall deal later with other features of it. We have here still to point out a new ramification of absolute Phenomenalism in recent times. The ground of it is the uselessness of
This,
of the
the idea of thing-in-itself. When Kant declares that it could not be known, but must necessarily be thought, our perception of its uselessness raises the question whether
we really have we can think

the negative,
to think this unknowable, or even whether it. When this question was answered in
it
followed that the relation of reality and
196
NOETIC PROBLEMS
in principle
;
appearance could not

of being
be applied to the relation
all the other main inherence were inappliccategories likeness, causality, able, there remained only identity as the fundamental relation of consciousness and being, or the theory that all being must somehow represent a consciousness, and all consciousness must somehow represent a being. In the further " consciousness in general," evolution of the theories of which we mentioned amongst the forms of Phenomenalism, this theory of identity was developed as the standpoint of Conscientialism, which gives itself the name of the "immanent' philosophy, and which has in recent times " been decked out afresh and proclaimed as the new of reality." In its rejection of the idea of a philosophy thing-in-itself, its refusal to seek behind appearances any sort of being distinct from them, it is of a thoroughly Positivistic character but it incurs the very serious that an identification of consciousness and being difficulty makes it absolutely impossible for us to understand discriminations of value between knowledge and objectless presentation, between the true and the false. For the variations in actual recognition, the quantitative graduations of assent, to which alone we could look on this theory, do not suffice to give us a firm definition of truth, and therefore for the solution of the noetic problem. Hence the solution must be sought in another direction, and that is the direction which Kant took in his new conception of the object of knowledge.
;
and consciousness
and as
12
The Object of Knowledge.
tent of consciousness
Transcendental method
Function and conBeing and consciousness Synthesis of the

:
Objectivity as real necessity Abstraction Selective Rational sciences sciences of nature and culture synthesis The position of Psychology Knowledge without and with value Autonomy of the various sciences.
manifold
All the various conceptions of the theory of knowledge which we have as yet considered depend on the naive

assumption
of
197
truth,
the
transcendental
definition
of
according to which the knowing mind stands opposed to a reality which is its object. Whether this object is taken into consciousness, whether it is mirrored in it or represented by a drawing, are merely different shades of the same fundamental idea; and all the theories derived therefrom, no matter what category they seek to apply to the relation of consciousness and being, are doomed by the impossibility of restoring the connection between thought and its content once they have been metaphysiPhenomenalism tries to disguise this cally torn apart. unsolved fundamental problem under vague phrases " " such as and relating corresponding," but it always returns the moment we look closely into the words. To have delivered noetics from these assumptions and put it on its own basis is the merit of the critical or transcendental method which Kant opposed to the psychological and the metaphysical though he himself only gradually discovered it, and developed it out of earlier methods. Thus he found the formula for the problem of the theory of knowledge in the well-known question " What is the basis of the relation to the object of what we call in ourselves presentation ? Without adhering too closely to the academic forms of Kant's system, we can best explain its nature by a consideration which starts first from consciousness alone. In all consciousness we encounter the fundamental antithesis of the function, the activity or state, and the In the excontent, in which this function is discharged. perience of consciousness the two are inseparably connected function is impossible without content, and content is equally impossible without function. But
' ; :
'
psychological experience shows in the facts of memory that it is possible for the content of consciousness occasionally to have a reality without the function of consciousness entering into activity and on the other hand, the
;
false proves that many a content of consciousness has no other reality than that of being presented in the mind. A simple analysis, however, of what we mean by this shows us that we can
distinction
between true and
198
NOETIC PROBLEMS
only speak of any particular content as real in the sense that we relate it to some sort of consciousness as its content. From the empirical consciousness of the individual we rise to the collective consciousness of any historical
group of human beings, and beyond this to an ideal or normative culture-consciousness in the end, metaphysiThe final limit cally, to an absolute world-consciousness. of this series is a reality which needs no sort of consciousness for its reality. This being is reality in the sense of naive Realism, and ultimately also in the sense of the and that is what philosophical idea of the thing-in-itself we mean when we speak of the object to which knowledge is supposed to be related. From this point of view we then distinguish between those objects to which it is essential that they be contents of consciousness, and those for which entering into consciousness is something new. Psychic reality is one in which being and consciousness eo ipso coincide but to the extramental reality, we say, it is immaterial whether it be taken into consciousness, since it exists without any activity of consciousness. As a matter of fact, a reality of this sort without consciousness can never be thoroughly thought out, because when we attempt to do so when it is to be known at all it becomes a content of consciousness. It follows that in the long run we cannot conceive the objects of knowledge It is very otherwise than as contents of a consciousness. interesting to test this idea by the question in what consists the truth of our knowledge in regard to the past or the future. At first sight the past seems to be no longer a reality and if all knowledge is to mean an agreement of the idea with the reality, this criterion of truth in the ordinary sense of the word is inapplicable to all our historical knowledge. Yet something must be assumed " " that constitutes the even of this kind of knowobject ledge and decides as to its soundness or unsoundness. A past that forms no content in any way of any consciousAnd ness could never become an object of knowledge. that holds, mutatis mutandis, for our knowledge of the future. Indeed, it may be extended to all that is assumed to be real in space without being perceived anywhere
;
;

real in
199
or being perceptible. In fact, that which would pass as such conditions, which would exclude all relation to a perceiving or knowing mind, would have to be conall
sidered as not real at
for
consciousness.
It
could
is
neither be thought nor spoken of. We must therefore define an object otherwise than
usually done on the lines of na'ive Realism, and this was first done in the Critique of Pure Reason. In consciousness itself we always find, as soon as we ask what is given in and with it, a multiplicity of content bound up in a In this synthesis consists what we call the object unity.
for the multiplicity of elements thus ; into a unity becomes in this way something gathered independent, in which the movement of the presentations
of consciousness
further develop. These elements, however, which are gathered into a unity, never arise from the unity itself they are parts of the great whole of the real. They
may
only become objects of the mind when they are brought into a unity. Hence the object is not real as such outside
the mind, but merely in virtue of the form in which the mind brings together the various parts of its content
and the whole question is, in the long run, under what conditions this synthetic unity of the manifold has the value of knowledge. Here we must notice that in our inquiry it is a question of human knowledge we are dealing with the question under what conditions the objects which arise out of the synthetic unity in the empirical consciousness have a significance that goes
in a unity
;
beyond the play of presentations in the individual and in the species. Clearly they can have this only if the form of combination is really based upon the elements and is to be regarded as the norm for each individual form of the accomplishment of the synthesis. It is only when
to
of
we think the elements in a connection which really belongs them that the concept which a man has is a knowledge
an object.
necessity.
But
in
Objectivity of thought is therefore real what elements this will be done depends
always on the empirical movement of thought. It is " " we only in the latter sense that Kant meant that it is ourselves who produce the objects of knowledge.
200
the
NOETIC PROBLEMS
which the elements of the real form in empirical consciousness, excluding the empirical self-consciousness of the individual himself, are sections
All the groups
of the
whole immeasurable domain
of the real.
Whether
they are ideas of things or of events, they are always only a very restricted selection out of the total reality, and all the thousandfold relations, in which everything that can be an object of consciousness and knowledge finds itself, can never be presented together in an empirical consciousness. Even the mature mind of civilised man, in which the work of many generations is condensed into a unity, or the scientific conception, in which many potential pieces of knowledge are packed with all the economy of thought even these highest products of the theoretical mind can never embrace the totality of the real. The synthesis of the manifold is in the human mind, and therefore for human knowledge, inexorably limited. In perception itself there is always only a selection out of the possible sensations even of the empirical consciousness, and every advance from perceptions to concepts, and from
concepts to higher concepts, is won only by abandoning differences and concentrating upon common features. Logic calls this process abstraction. All the results that are based on it have the value of a selection from the immeasurable fullness of reality. This simplification of the world in the concept is, in fact, the one means by which a limited mind like that of man can become master of its own world of presentations. In this sense it is generally true that the mind produces its own objects, and creates its own world out of the elements of the real which it finds in itself as its contents. For the ethical and the aesthetic mind this fundamental feature is, as we shall see later, so obvious that it almost goes without saying. Its significance for the theoretical mind could only be discovered from the fact that, under the influence of the untrained mind, the idea arose that it is the aim of knowledge to picture a reality independent of itself. But the more clearly we realise that this knowledge is itself a part of reality, and indeed one of the most valuable parts, the more we see that the knowledge

itself is
201
nothing but a synthesis of the elements, which At reveals itself in their selection and arrangement. take place involunfirst this selection and arrangement
the case of perception, and the entire shaping of our objective presentation issues in the production of our world as a section of reality. What we call object, the even in simple perception, is never real as such
tarily, as in
;
which enter into our object as constituents have innumerable other relations which do not come within the narrow limits of our consciousness. To that extent we ourselves make the objects. But they are not on that account something other than the reality not the appearance, known to us, of an unknown thingelements
in-itself.
They
are just as
much
it
a part of reality
a part
can never stand for the whole though Not only its constituents, but also the forms of reality. in which these combine to form objects, have their roots In this, and in this alone, consists in the reality itself. the truth of our knowledge, that in it we produce objects which, as regards their content and form, do actually belong to reality, yet as regards their selectiveness and arrangement arise from it as new structures. Hence the production of these objects in knowledge itself is one of the valuable structures of reality, and if the formation and shaping of these objects in the process of human " " (but an appearappearance knowledge is to be called ance which in this case is quantitative, not qualitative, since it cannot represent reality, but only a selection from it), we may quote the saying of Lotze that, if our
that
is
real as such,
knowledge
is
supposed to contain only appearance, the
efflorescence of this appearance in consciousness must be regarded as one of the most valuable things that can happen
between the constituents

If
we thus conceive the
of reality generally. essence of knowledge
as
selective synthesis, which produces in the human mind a world of objects out of the immeasurable fullness of the
we shall be best able to orientate ourselves number of the ways in which this essence The simplest thing to do is is realised. knowledge
universe,
as
of
regards the
distinguish
to
first
between
prescientific
and
scientific
know-
202
ledge.
its
NOETIC PROBLEMS
The
first,
the simple and naive action of the impulse
to~acquire knowledge, is an unscientific production of world of objects. Not only in perception, but also in the opinions that are based thereon, the objects seem to take shape so much of themselves, so much without any action of our psychic powers, that they seem to be
foreign, introduced, seen, reproduced and It is only in scientific knowledge pictured in the soul. that the objects are consciously engendered, and therefore deliberately shaped. But the way of doing this differs according as it starts from the forms or the contents of consciousness. We therefore distinguish (not in the
something
psychogenetic, but in the logical sense) between rational and empirical sciences. The synthetic character of the which engenders the objects, is plainer in knowledge, the rational than in the empirical sciences. Hence the rational sciences it is especially matheamongst
has, since the time of Plato, been the star of the theory of knowledge. In the case guiding of mathematics it is quite clear that its objects are not as such taken over by consciousness, but are its
matics
that
own, and are engendered from within. That numbers in the same way as of space-forms.
is
true of
However
much experience gives the occasion of forming one or other arithmetical or geometrical idea, these ideas themselves are never objects of experience. Hence even in the naive view of things the mathematical mind is not
supposed to reproduce, embrace, or picture some existing Mathematical reality in the ordinary sense of the word. is entirely independent of the question whether knowledge
there is or is not something corresponding to it in natura rerum. And precisely for that reason it reflects the real nature of knowledge. For once the object appears, whether it be produced from an empirical stimulation
or
all
by
such as a
direction of the sensory imagination, a triangle, a logarithm, or an integral, circle, the knowledge that is derived from it is necessarily
deliberate
bound up with
as to
its
this self-engendered structure, and depends soundness or unsoundness upon the objective
this.
nature of

now
203
Apart from mathematics, the only rational science we recognise is logic, which is related to the forms of thought just as mathematics is related to the forms of perception. Here again we find the peculiar relation between
the self-production of objects and the dependence upon them which thought experiences. But the validity which we claim for the formal conceptions of mathematics and
logic
is
not restricted to the fact that, once conceived
and fixed in scientific definitions, they demand general and compulsory assent from every normal mind. They seem to us also to be conditioning powers in the totality of things. The regularity of numbers and spatial magnitudes, the knowledge of arithmetic and geometry, is confirmed in the texture of the material world, and is reproduced in the natural laws in which science represents The validity of logical forms has such real significance it. for us that we cannot imagine the world otherwise than To this extent the two entirely conditioned by them.
rational sciences are wholly parallel in their type of truth, and this analogy between them holds further in the sense
that both sciences, being restricted to the forms of reality, cannot deduce therefrom for our knowledge the contentdeterminations of reality. In regard to logical forms there is an illusory idea that they yield an interpretation This gave rise to the of the actual nature of reality. Rationalistic Dogmatism of metaphysics, the untenability of which was proved for all time by the Critical philosophy. Since then we may regard the homogeneity of the two rational sciences as a firm foundation for the theory of and in knowledge. Both relate to the forms of reality this respect the mathematical forms hold good for reality But metaphysics is, precisely just as much as the logical. on that account, only conceivable as a theory of know;
as, that is to say, a critical inquiry into the logical forms of the real, from which we cannot deduce its content -conditions. We halt at this distinction between the logical-mathematical form and the content of reality which depends on it as a final and insoluble dualism. We may hope and suspect that the two, which we always find
ledge
in relation,
have somewhere a common root
in
some
ulti-
204
NOETIC PROBLEMS
mate unity. But this would have to be sought in the absolute totality of universal reality, from which we can never do more than build up a fragment as the work of our own scientific knowledge. All the real perceptions of science or of daily life are based upon experience. Yet the empirical sciences themselves reveal in their own way this selective character of human knowledge in them it is a deliberate, if not always fully self-conscious, selection from the immeasurable richness of reality. While
;
we distinguish between rational and empirical sciences according to the difference in their starting-point, we divide the empirical sciences themselves according to the different purposes of the various branches. For some of the empirical sciences this purpose consists of a purely logical The logical values of generalisavalue, generalisation.
tion are represented by generic ideas of things or events, and the real " validity " of these ideas types or laws in regard to all that is grouped under them is the fundamental relation which we sum up in the word " nature," the totality of things and of whatever happens between them, the cosmos. All scientific investigation seeks in the long run to ascertain the forms of this cosmic uni;
formity, in so far as they are amenable to our knowledge with its limitations of space and time. The absolute
transcending subjective recognition, of mathematical and logical forms, under which the contents of experience are combined in synthetic structures, and ultimately as the cosmos, proves to us that here we have to deal with an order which goes beyond the specifically human conditions of presentations and raises their objective significance to the status of full reality.
validity,
Opposed to this study of nature, as that form of empirical knowledge which has to build up the cosmos out of the
chaos of our perceptions, are those scientific activities which have to establish and thoroughly study particular realities. But these particular things, since they lack the logical value of generalisation, can only be objects of knowledge when there is some other value inherent in them and all other values are known to us only in such structures as in their empirical appearance belong
;

to the
life
205
of
man, and
relate to
what man has elaborated
his experience of the surrounding world. These are the structures of civilised life, which, engendered and per-
from
fected in the course of

historical
human
history,
we regard
as the
cosmos as distinguished from the natural. It is true that there is in this historical cosmos the same universal rule of law, and in it, as a single part of the universal reality, we find the same broad feature, that the individual is subject to the general. But it is not on that account that historical events and institutions form
the object of a special investigation, differing in principle and method from that of natural science. The real reason is that we would interpret the sequence of the historical
life
as the realisation of values which, in their turn, transcend in their validity the life of man, in whose mind they The study of civilisation, or the science attain recognition. of history as it used to be called, is an appreciation of values, whereas natural science has in mind only the logical value of generalisation, and otherwise regards itself as indifferent to values. However, the appreciation of values in historical research does not consist in some feeble moralising over and evaluation of its objects, but in the fact that here again the objects only come into being in science by relating them to a standard of value. Certainly everything that happens is not his-
The object of historical science is always somethat stands out from accompanying events by reason thing of its relation to some high standard of value in life, and
torical.
is
thus converted into an historical object. Such an it is only event is never real in this outstandingness in science that it becomes a definite structure or instituThus both the natural cosmos and the historical tion. cosmos, as they are ultimately attained in empirical Their science, are new structures of scientific thought. truth does not consist in their agreement with something that is precisely such extra mentem, but in the fact that their contents belong to the immeasurable absolute not as the whole, but again as parts selected reality
;
and elaborated by human knowledge.

This
division
of
scientific
research
according
to
its
206
objects
is
NOETIC PROBLEMS
not entirely the same as the usual distinction
between natural and mental sciences, the best known and most established of the many attempts to classify the sciences. Such a distinction is based upon the metaphysical dualism of nature and spirit far more than on the psychological dualism of external and internal experience, and it therefore does not regard the objects of scientific
research in the critical sense of the modern theory of knowledge. Our theory is aware that from the same
groups of the absolutely real we may elaborate either objects of natural knowledge, which aims at emphasising the uniformity of nature, or historical objects, the shaping of which is based upon a selection of elements according But the distinction between the two branches to value.
is
The particularly important in regard to psychology. relation of psychology to the two branches is not simple ; it is complicated by the fact that their aims, as formulated
in
modern
times, range from the psycho-physical studies
of individual psychology to the most intricate structures of social psychology, the analysis of which touches the
frontiers of historical research.
In the middle between
these extremes we have the knowledge provided by the inner sense, the self-perception of consciousness, which is also the chief requisite in all auxiliary studies on the
part
of
both extremes.
Judged by
its
is
chief
material
and
its essential
character, psychology
natural research
It passes into historical in the ordinary scientific sense. science only in so far as it seeks, as a sort of characterstudy, to interpret psychic individuals as such, whether
in their individual occurrence or in their typical structure. On the other hand, if the sciences are divided into natural
and mental, psychology has some difficulty We often speak place amongst the latter.
in finding a
as
if
it
were
the chief of the mental sciences, because all of them, and particularly the historical, deal with processes which we recognise as belonging to the human mind. But realities phrases such as these have nothing to do with the
of research.
The
are
summed up
no consequence
results of scientific psychology, which in the formulation of general laws, are of The great historians to the historian.

had no need
of
207
and research The psychology they used was that of daily life. It was the knowledge of men, the experience of life, of the common man, coupled with the No one ever yet insight of the genius and the poet. succeeded in making a science of this psychology of intuiour
psycho-physicists.
tive understanding.
their objects,
to wait for the experiments
However we may try to divide the sciences according to we shall always encounter the difficulty that
these objects are not given simply as such, but are shaped by the scientific work of the concepts themselves. Hence
it is
impossible to make a clean division of sciences accordto what we call their objects. It can only be done ing on the basis of the scientific procedure itself. In the practical
off
work
of science
we
find the various branches
marked
from each other, and then (very much as in the rest of academic life) reunited in groups but in each branch, whichever we choose, we find scientific trains of thought crossing each other, in which ideas, types, or laws are sought, with investigations of an historical nature, which have the value of the individual as the principle of their Such elements are most finely interwoven objectivity. in establishing the causal relations of the indieverywhere vidual event of value. In this natural and historical research unite in seeking to determine the regular course of events in which the ultimate values of the world are realised. On the whole, however, we find that the theory of knowledge cannot go too far in recognising the autonomy of the different sciences. In methodology the illusion of a universal method, which might hold good for all the It was realised that sciences, was abandoned long ago.
;
the difference of objects demands a difference in scientific procedure. And while the theory of knowledge has grasped the fact that these objects themselves arise from a selective synthesis of scientific thought, we must not
refuse to recognise that all the elements of the conception of truth are conditioned for each science by its own
peculiarities,
and that here again we cannot compress

vitality
of
the richly varied abstract formula.
human thought
into
an
PART
II
AXIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
(QUESTIONS OF VALUE)
THE scientific form in which we most clearly conceive the meaning of the distinction between theoretical and axiological problems lies in the fact that the propositions which we enunciate, affirmatively and negatively, are either judgments or verdicts. In spite of an identity in
grammatical form, the two have very different meanings. In the one case the relation of subject and predicate is said to be a relation of two contents which are theoretically connected in the mind, the relation being either In the second assigned to such contents or denied them.
case the predicate does not represent any theoretical content of consciousness, but a relation to a purpose or a value, which is granted or refused to the subject. It is only a quite untrained mind that treats such purposive relations as the pleasant or the beautiful as properties that inhere in the subject as other properties do. The slightest shade of reflection discovers that these predicates of value do not belong to the things themselves as properties, but accrue to them by their being related to some standard in the mind. If, however, verdicts of this nature are to claim general validity like judgments, it can only be
because they express or presuppose a relation to some standard that is generally valid. But it is one of the natural necessities of psychic life that each empirical mind regards its own standard of values as independent and valid for all, and that here again experience of
208
VALUE
209
must disturb this naive confidence before valuations can become problems, first of practical life and then of Hence the idea of value is now the centre of science.
any further discussion
of problems.
13
Value.
Psychological
feeling
axiology
will
Primary
Morality
Valuation
Valuation as feeling or will Primary of values Conversion Reciprocity of values Conscience Postulate of the
Logic,
ethics,
normal consciousness
and
esthetics.
Axiology, or the science of values, has only been recognised in recent times as an independent and extensive " The frequent appearance of the word value science.
'
modern philosophical language began with Lotze, and has grown because theories of philosophy and national economy have been based upon it. This, however, has
in
it
many complications and misunderstandings, and we can only avoid these by endeavouring to understand how value or valuation may and did become a problem,
led to
and indeed a philosophical problem.

psychic process deproper study for There is so little to be said against psychologists. this that, as a matter of fact, axiology readily seeks a The Voluntarist and Emotionalist psychological basis. tendencies in recent philosophy lean toward a pre-
Valuation
appears
first
as
scribed
by
psychologists,
and
dominantly psychological treatment of their problems. The contents of the theoretical consciousness, with their
mainly objective features, only gradually and indirectly
betray their
relation
to
the
psychic
processes.
They
an appearance of transcending and pointing human mind, and this seems to demand that beyond the " functhey be treated purely as facts. The "practical tions of the mind, on the contrary, always show a predominant character of inwardness, of subjectivity. They are so intimately bound up with what is specifically human that they must necessarily be approached from That is true above all of the the psychological side.
have at
first
14
210
;
and our generic idea of these practical functions, value into it must start from the facts of valuation. inquiry
We
find the idea of value
so as to
mean anything
everywhere defined either that satisfies a need or anything
that evokes a feeling of pleasure. The latter, taken from the emotional side of consciousness, is the broader definiIt includes the narrower, which looks to the life tion. In view of this double relation, to the will of the will.
and the
feelings, the question arises whether one of these functions can claim to be original rather than the other.
The two
species
of
valuation are certainly intimately
connected psychogenetically, so that it is often difficult to say confidently in a particular case which was prior, the will or the feelings. From this we understand the one-sided claims of the Voluntarist and the Emotionalist psychologists. They have even, as we saw above, occasionally given a tinge to spiritualist metaphysics. must admit that it would be difficult to make out as good a case for feeling as is made out for the will as the essence
of reality.
We
This
is
the more remarkable as precisely in
recent psychology we notice a tendency to see in feeling the fundamental psychic activity or psychic state, and
regard
thought
and
will
as
derivative
functions.
If,
in spite of this, we scarcely ever find in metaphysical circles, which affect to take the typical contents of reality
from the psychic life and inner experience, the idea of seeking the primary reality in feeling, it may be that this is because in feeling we have always, and quite unmistakably, a reaction to something more fundamental. There are certainly very many emotional valuations which can be traced to the will or to needs. Hence pleasure is often defined as the satisfaction of the will, and displeasure as the dissatisfaction of the will. This But is particularly clear when the volition is conscious. even the unconscious volition, which we generally call an impulse or craving, is the origin of such feelings as
These (as displeasure) or satiety (as pleasure). observations have inspired the theory that all pleasure or not necessarily in displeasure presupposes a volition the shape of a deliberate purpose, but at least in that of
hunger
VALUE
211
cravings or impulses as forms of an unconscious will. Kant lent a certain sanction to this view when, in his
Critique of Judgment, he expressed the opinion that pleasure to the purposiveness or nonpurposiveness of their objects. Purpose is determined
and displeasure are related
by the
will,
whether conscious or unconscious, and
is
therefore
always something willed. Hence all feeling must be preceded by a volition which, according as it is
satisfied or no, gives rise to the reaction, pleasure or disBut against this Voluntarist theory of feeling pleasure.
we have, in the first place, the elementary sense-feelings, the sensations of colours, sounds, smells, tastes, etc. In
is often, not only no relation to any purpose of a conscious will, but none even to a craving or an unconscious impulse. The artificial hypotheses of physio-
their case there
We are bound to grant that there are primary feelings of a totally unintelligible nature and, as the relation of
;
normal state or middle purport to explain sensory feelings as the realisation or non-realisation of a purpose, entirely fail they break down before the facts of antipurposive pleasure, which is to them an insoluble problem.
;
logical psychology about some state of excitation, which
quality of sensations to the objective properties of the stimuli cannot possibly be deduced synthetically that is to say, logically so we can never understand from these qualities why they are partly characterised by
the
and partly by feelings of displeasure. Hence the opposite theory, the Emotionalist interpretation of the volition. Here again it is notorious that our desire or aversion arises from some past frequently pleasure or displeasure, some experience of pleasantness or unpleasantness. Hence the old question " How can
feelings of pleasure
:
man will anything that And how can he will this

a
enced a feeling of pleasure in it ? " Generalising in this way leads to the Eudaemonistic or Utilitarian theory, that all volition springs from an experienced feeling of Here we have a decisive counterpleasure or displeasure.
instance in instincts, in which there is undoubtedly in the individual an original volition, without any knowledge
he does not regard as good ? unless he has already experi-
212
by experience. There are even cases which this primary volition, directed
in spite of all experi-
of
of pleasure acquired bad disposition in
to acts
and objects, seeks fulfilment
unpleasantness arising therefrom. There are some who think that they evade the difficulty by the usual appeal to the unconscious, and try to explain the intensity of the instinctive volition by unconscious expectations of some pleasure which the subject promises himself or by the evolutionary theory, regarding the experience of feeling, which the individual cannot possibly have had in this case, as an experience of the species, and speaking of an inherited reaction of the will. In neither way can we escape the fact that there is in the individual a primitive will to act without any conscious regard to pleasure or unpleasantness in the future. Thus in our psychic experience there is the fundamental fact of a reciprocity of the two kinds of valuation, that of For each there are original feeling and that of will. functions as well as functions which are conditioned by the other kind. In particular states we may observe that they are completely separable. Just as there are states of the disinterested intellect in which border-cases, the content of consciousness -is merely presented without being subjected to an}' valuation states of imagination which are in part ingredients of the aesthetic life so there are on the other hand border-cases of temperament (the
of
;
ence
melancholic, for instance), more or less permanent states which our conscious experience of the environment is bound up with strong feelings of pleasure or displeasure, but no wishes or efforts to react voluntarily on these. In the average life, however, the valuations of feeling
in
always intermingled. In this there is no which does not entail a desire of pleasure or a feeling shrinking from disagreeableness, and no volition that does not become pleasure or displeasure according as it
will are
and
In the psychogenetic development played by the law that all that is firmly connected in any way with a thing of value in the mind passes under the same valuation in the course
is is
or is not satisfied. the chief part in this
of time.
VALUE
in the teleological relation of
213
This principle of transference is developed not only ends and means or the causal relation of causes and effects, but in every categorical connection of the contents of experience, particularly in the combinations of an association of contiguity. We need take as examples only two of the most familiar of these. On the one hand there is the psychogenetic explanation of greed or avarice by the fact that money, which in itself (as scraps of paper, for instance) has no value at all, becomes of value, and is highly esteemed, as the general means of securing valuable things and satisfying one's wants. On the other hand there is the well-known and basic fact of experience that things that are of no consequence in themselves are esteemed because of rewards attached to them or avoided because of penalties. Education can go so far, as everybody knows, as to completely invert the value of things, so that what was once esteemed
regarded with disgust, and what was hated may become From the same formal development we thus on the one hand, something so irrational and evil get, as unnatural passion, and on the other hand the creation of states of feeling and will to which we attach the greatest From this it follows that for a theory of value pleasure. which is to settle the question of the vindication or rationis
desirable.
ality of values the
value
is
entirely irrelevant
psychogenetic origin of any particular and can never afford a decisive
criterion.
To such a theory, transcending all psychological explanawe are driven irresistibly by all the experiences which we have in the development of our appreciations of value. The simple confidence with which at first we
tion,
ascribe to all others our

is
own way of appreciating things, very soon disturbed by our experience. We quickly notice that what is pleasant to us may be very unpleasant
what is good we get on in life, realise that even what we regard as good or evil, beautiful or ugly, is not judged by others in the same way. At first we are reconciled with this great diversity in ideas of value because in the circles to which we look
learn that
;
to others, and vice versa. for us is injurious to others
We
and we
later, as
214
there
is,
in spite of these individual variations,
a certain
amount of a generally recognised standard of values, which we usually call morals. In many forms of inner and outer experience, of our own and others, we grant
morals a sovereignty over the personal feelThe generally recognised standard the individual decision must be In this we may see subject to and in agreement with it. the psychological nature of conscience. It is the voice
this code of
ings of the individual. is the correct standard
of the general consciousness in the individual, and from it we derive the law of the subjection of the individual
to it. Here we already perceive the intricacy of the process of appreciating values. The primary processes of the individual cravings, feelings, and volitions, each of
which contains
appreciation,
its
own
selves subject to a higher
which and condemns another as unsound. The norms according to which this secondary appreciation is conducted will be considered later. We see at once, however, in what direction this consideration and the question of the validity of value take us. In the sphere of the pleasant and unpleasant, and also of the useful and harmful, there is no such higher appreciation. Here the question of the justification of our valuations has no meaning. In this case all the phenomena of valuation take place with the same
psychological necessity even the great diversity of individuals and individual states and conditions leaves no
;
appreciation of an object, are themand more deliberate type of approves one valuation as sound
for wonder whether what appears to one pleasant and desirable may be unpleasant and undesirable to another. Hence there is no philosophical hedonism as an inquiry into the validity of our ideas of pleasantness or usefulness. On the other hand, the two provinces of life which we find described in the predicates good or evil, and beautiful or ugly, are of such a nature that the validity of the primary valuations of will and feeling is called into question by the general consciousness and its claim to set up a universal standard of value. Thus the philosophical problem here is to studj' and establish the
room
value of values.
It
cannot simply be
satisfied
with this
VALUE
judgment
moral consciousness.
215
of the individual appreciations by the general Morality itself is, in the long run,
a fact, and the privilege which it claims in its validity over the individual feelings and volitions is not an obvious We know, in fact, that morality itself is just as right. Hence liable to err in its verdicts as the individual. in this first form of a relation between the conscience, actual individual mind and the actual general mind, is not something final. We have first to settle difficult questions about the soundness of our most treasured
appreciations. This is the commencement of the real problems of philo-
sophical axiology. At first every value meant something which satisfies a need or excites a feeling of pleasiire.
It
follows from this that valuableness (naturally, both
in the negative and the positive aspect) is never found in the object itself as a property. It consists in a relation
to
an appreciating mind, which
satisfies
the desires of
or reacts in feelings of pleasure upon the stimulations of the environment. Take away will and feeling,
its will
Now morality is a is no such thing as value. standard of appreciation of the general mind set over the
and there
individual appreciation, and from this arose new values beyond the original appreciations. These also, nevertheless, when they are examined by the historian and
ethnographer, show just as great diversities as individual appreciation did. Ethical and aesthetic judgments display, in the mind of any unprejudiced observer, an extremely great diversity when one surveys the various peoples of the earth in succession. Here again, however, we try to set up a final standard of values we speak of higher and lower stages of morality or of taste in different peoples and different ages. Where do we get the standard for this judgment ? And where is the mind for which If it is quite these ultimate criteria are the values ? inevitable to rise above the relativity in individual appreciations and the morals of various peoples to some standard of absolute values, it seems necessary to pass beyond the historical manifestations of the entire human mind
;
to
some normal consciousness,
for
which these values are
216
values.
There is just the same compulsion as we found connection with the theory of knowledge. As there are objects only for a presenting and knowing mind, the object which is to form the standard of truth points " " to a consciousness in general as to that for which it must be the object. It is just the same with value-initself as with the thing-in-itself. We have to seek it in order to get beyond the relativity of actual appreciations and, since there is value only in relation to a valuing consciousness, the value-in-itself points to the same normal consciousness which haunts the theory of knowledge as the correlate of the object-in-itself. In both cases this is at the most a postulate, not a implication thing metain
;
physically known.
This
analogy
has
far-reaching
significance.
This
normal consciousness to which the theory of knowledge leads us means, at the bottom, only that the truth of our knowledge and the guarantee that in our knowledge we perceive reality are based upon the fact that therein we see the emergence of an actual order which transcends in its validity the specifically human order. In the same
conviction that for human valuation there are absolute norms, beyond the empirical occasions of their appearance, is based upon the assumption that here also we have the sovereignty of a transcendent rational order. As long as we would conceive these orders as contents of an actual higher mind, on the analogy of the relation we experience of consciousness to its objects and values, they have to be considered contents of an absolute reason that is to say, God. These relations are in the long run based upon the fact that noetic problems themselves have something of the nature of the axiological in them, and they thus afford a transition from theoretical to For in the theory of knowledge practical problems. we deal with the truth-value of ideas, with its definition, with the question how it becomes psychically a value,
way our
and
it is
therefore, how, in what sense, and by In the affirmative and attained.
what method,
the
negative
judgment there are the same alternative elements as in the affirmations and denials of the ethical and aesthetic
VALUE
judgment, and thus to a certain extent
217
and
logical, ethical, aesthetic appreciations are co-ordinated, and we get
the three great philosophical sciences logic, ethics, and That is the division of universal values which aesthetics.
Kant made the

It
basis of the distribution of his critical
philosophy. proves, moreover, to be also a psychoas it starts from the division of psychic states logical guide, into presentation, volition, and feeling. This guarantees the completeness of the division, and the few attempts that have been made to replace it by some other systematic distribution always come to the same thing in the end.
However, the relation of the theoretical world-order

to the practical in the question
how
demands a final synthesis. It the two orders are related

:
consists
to each
other in the entire frame of things that is to say, how the world of things, which exist and are recognised as existing, is related to the world of values, which ought to be, and must be, valid for the things as well as for us. This is the question of the supreme unity of the world and if we find the solution in the idea of God, we get a
;
final
group
of
problems
those
of
the
philosophy
of
Our second part must therefore be divided into three sections, and these will successively deal with ethical, aesthetic, and religious problems.
religion.
CHAPTER
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
OF the two types of psychological attitude toward the idea of value we start first with the Voluntarist, when we approach the domain of moral philosophy or, as we In this province value just as commonly say, ethics.
appears essentially as end, the reAo?, the principle of conduct. The philosophical inquiry we make into it is not a science of the ends toward which the human will that is the work of psychology and is actually directed but a theory as to how the human will ought history to be directed. In accordance with the terminology invented by Aristotle we call this branch of philosophy ethics, because it has to show how human life, as a result of man's own activity, is to be shaped in virtue of the natural and customary ideas of morality. It is the science of what man can and ought to make of himself and his world the science of the values which he owes to the activity The ancient of his own reason (TO TTPCLKTOV dyadov). distributed these considerations in three philosophers In so far as values are the ends which must be parts.
:
attained by the activity of the human will, they are called The determination of the dispositions, actions, good. and rules needed for this gives us what we call a man's duties. And the qualities which guarantee the fulfilment
of
of the good are called virtues thus get the threefold division into (aper-q, virtus). the theory of the good, the theory of duties, and the theory of virtues. It is not entirely a good division, as
duty and attainment
We
it
the
really implies only three different same material. To-day much

218
methods of treating more importance is
attached to a division according to the subject of the
THE PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY
219
moral action. The entire problem of ethics, which has on that account been called practical philosophy, is man and it is in this sense in so far as he acts voluntarily that Aristotle occasionally calls it the science which has especially to deal with human affairs (77 Trepi rav9pa>7nva At all events no other branch of philosophy 7rpa.yna.Teia). is so intimately concerned with the sphere of man's life
;
is
and therefore the chief danger in that it may not be able to find the way from to the transcendent validities of the rational human life, moreover, the subject of moral
as ethics,
treating
it
this sphere order. In
conduct
is
partly the individual, partly the social community, and Hence we partly the species in its historical evolution. the three sections of practical philosophy which we get may distinguish as morality, social science, and the
philosophy of history.
14
The Principle of Morality. Imperativistic and descriptive morality Many meanings of the moral principle Universal moral law fundamental law Eudasmonism Egoism HedonTeleological ism Epicureanism Morality of soul-salvation Altruism UtiliMorality of perfectibility Rational morality DefiniEmotional morality Morality and legality The categorical imperative Moral order of the world Morality of
tarianism
tion
of
man
personality.
tionalism
Empirical and rational morality Morality of feeling IntuiMorality of authority God, the State, and custom as
Heteronomy and autonomy. Reward and punishment Altruistic impulses Sympathy and The beautiful soul Strata of morality. fellow-feeling The freedom of the will Freedom of action and choice Determinism and indeterminism Responsibility Metaphysical
legislators
freedom as causelessness
Practical responsibility.
The psychological assumption of the ethical problem, and one that runs counter to all parallelistic hypotheses,
is
that there are voluntary acts
that
is
to say, purposive
movements of the human body which are caused by will and are meant to produce something in the environment which the will pursues as a value or end. To this we must
add a second,
specifically ethical,
assumption
the basic
220
fact that
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
some
of these actions are liked
by
us,
either
because of their content, their causes, some are not liked. The former are " bad." This valuation, the latter more than that they respond or do
good," however, means no not respond to the of the acting subject. Hence as a norm expectations of ethical judgment one thing is desired, another forbidden, and a third is indifferent. In any case, even
in ordinary life, we set up a command for every actual event, in so far as it represents human conduct, which
considered
or their results, "
and
and on the fulfilment or non-fulfilment moral value depends. Wherever there is ethical judgment amongst men, the validity of such a command is assumed, even if its content is not quite clearly realised or one is far from clear as to the legal basis of the command. This command we call duty or the moral law. In view of the very various situations, however, in which men may be called upon to act, there are clearly numbers of such duties and moral laws, and the question may be raised whether they can all be reduced to a fundamental type which we may then call the moral law. From this we get a broad divergence in the treatment of ethical problems in the question, namely, whether the moral law and its various ramifications were established
it
has to
fulfil,
of
which
its
by the
scientific research of ethics and appointed over man's actual voluntary movements, or whether this moral law was merely discovered as the actual norm which determines the decisions of moral life. In the in former case we may speak of an imperativist ethic
;
in the long run, merely of a descriptive nature. But, however sharp this antithesis may appear, it is increasingly lessened in the development of ethical
the latter
it
is,
Very rarely has theory. rarely get the extremes. the ethicist set out to pose as the moral legislator, or to
represent himself as the founder of a new moral law in In modern times we find face of the existing moral life.
this claim of being a legislator in its most pronounced form in Nietzsche who, however, was quite conscious
;
We
that in this he was discharging a personal mission and

something of an imperativist
in
ethics, rightly or
221
rendering what he believed to be a service to civilisation There is rather than expounding a scientific theory.
the work
of
all
reformers.
And
precisely
wrongly, on that
account it is anything but scientific. Where ethics is found as a science in the imperativist form, as, particularly, It in the case of Kant, it does not lose sight of life. remains conscious that it has not to create the moral law, but to discover it and formulate it as the most
intimate principle of actual morality. Hence Kant himself was most careful in formulating his moral law to keep in sympathy with the ideas of the ordinary man. To that extent even the imperativist ethic has a descriptive character, since it establishes the laws of moral conduct and judgment. It seeks to develop the principles which On the other constitute the real moral consciousness.
hand, a descriptive ethic will never be satisfied with merely establishing descriptively that amongst all the possible
modes of human conduct and judgment there are some which we call moral. It seeks to test the interrelation and foundation of these modes of action, and it cannot avoid, while it justifies and reconciles them, making into a compact system what in reality comes from a number of different sources and is not always in perfect
It is much the same as the process known to the jurist in his science it has not to create a new law, but to describe and codify the existing law, and in doing this has to work up the law into a compact structure.
harmony.
But whether we lean more in ethical inquiry toward the imperativist or the descriptive side, it is the same basic problems which occupy the science with their comIt must be regarded as a considerable merit plications. of the great moral philosophers of England in the eighteenth
century that the structure of moral problems was clearly put together and the way prepared for their distribution. We may, for instance, speak of the moral principle in
First we have to define what we what it is that appeals to understand by moral really us as good, and what we avoid as evil. In view of the of duties and moral laws it may be asked great variety
four different senses.
222
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
:
whether they are all to be brought under one formula, under a general moral law whether there is any criterion by which in every case, under any conditions, we can
is morally prescribed. In this sense the moral law is the substance of the principle of morality. In the next case, we may ask on what our knowledge of the moral law in general and its application to particular cases is based what sort of knowledge
;
decide what
constitutes
conscience." In this sense the principle of morality is the source of our knowledge of the moral law. Thirdly, when we oppose this law as a command and demand to the natural impulses and
call
what we usually
"
movements of the human will, we have to ask what right we have to do this where in the world we must look for
;
the basis of such a claim. In this sense the principle of morality becomes the sanction of the moral law. Fourthly, in fine, the more closely we consider the antagonism between the natural will of man and the claims of the moral law, and the more secure we find its foundations, the more we are bound to make it clear how it is that a man is brought to will or to do, in obedience to the moral law, something that his will does not of itself desire. This question is all the more urgent in proportion as the demand of conscience is opposed to a man's natural
inclination.
indifferent, or as really
itself morally immoral, we have to show how induced to carry out the command he experiences.
If
man
regards this as in
he is In this sense the principle becomes the motive of morality. The first and greatest difficulties are connected with the contents of the principle of morals. Here it is a the question of the material definition of the moral formal definition is found by reflection on the fact that
;
amongst the great mass of human dispositions and acts some are approved as good, and others condemned as
evil,
with a claim of general validity for this secondary

is
valuation.
what
call
laid
tained in the moral.
What is affirmatively recognised in down as a rule or duty, and must be a general way in the material definition
In
this
con-
we
German
there are two expressions,

to dis-
Sittliche
and Moralische, and Hegel endeavoured
223
tinguish between the two, restricting the latter to the
province of motives of the personal life and claiming the higher value of the former for the realisation of the There practical reason in the entire life of the State. was good reason to maintain this distinction, but it has not been maintained and is not likely to be renewed. On the other hand, it is to be regretted that the practice has grown up in recent years of confining the meaning " " moral to sexual matters. It is not merely of the word in journalistic language that we find sexual conditions and crimes alone meant when there is a reference to
moral conditions and transgressions. That is a perversion of the word which ought not to be encouraged. 1 The material definition of morality touches one of the most difficult points at which the contradictions of life are converted into philosophical problems. Every man finds in time his untrained moral judgment called into question by the experience that the moral principles are not the same in various circles even of ordinary life. In different strata and classes and professions amongst
same people there is considerable difference as to what is forbidden and what is allowed. Certain general rules may seem to be independent of these variations, but even these have different shades in different circles. And our scepticism about the general validity of the standard we have adopted is enlarged and strengthened when we pass over our limits in time and space and survey the whole life of humanity. Different races and peoples have unquestionably their different codes of morality. Historical development, again, shows further variations. We need not here enter into a consideration of them. On one side we have the view that in all this we trace an advancing development, and that modern man is superior in his morals to primitive man. But on another side we
the
find
1
complaints
that
civilisation
deprives
man
of
his
We may add that there may be a different sort of ambiguity in the word "moral." In French and English "moral" sometimes means psychic or spiritual as opposed to material. This has led to many misunderstandings in translations. The same erroneous use of the
word crept into German
centuries, as
when
literature in the eighteenth writers spoke of " moral victories."
and nineteenth
224
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
primitive simplicity and purity, and that the complexity of the conditions of life is prejudicial to morals. However that may be, we can no more ignore the diversity of
moral principles in history than we can in ethnography. We may try to find a number of general elements which may serve in all cases as criteria of moral judgment, and draw up certain propositions which are recognised everywhere, such as the ten commandments of the Hebrew But even in the case of these, and supposing tradition. that we have actually proved the universal recognition of them, we find a multiplicity which leaves us very uncertain as to their real number. We thus see that we cannot by inductive research draw up any general moral law from the existing individual laws. In this we disregard the fact that an induction of this kind would have reference only to the actual validity of moral rules in Of an absolutely the great groups of historical humanity. universal validity in all individuals there can be no question whatever because immoral men contest the validity in of the rules which practice at least, and partly in theory
they transgress. We have next to consider that all the various duties and rules from which an inductive inquiry into the moral law could start are related to the endlessly diverse conditions of human life and are conditioned in their contents by this. But we cannot conceive anything that is, in respect of moral disposition and action, prescribed for every single occasion in life. Hence the moral law cannot be related to the various duties as a generic idea is to its species indeed, if there were such a relation of all moral precepts to a supreme principle, we should have to determine it, not by a logical, but by a teleological subordination a subordination of means to the common Thus in our first excursion into the province of end. practical problems we are confronted with the fundamental
;
It seemed to have only a doubtful teleological law. and restricted application in our theoretical interpretation of the world, and here we find it in the proper
sphere of
its
supremacy.
is
In the province of values the
chief relation
that of
means and end
and therefore
TPIE PRINCIPLE
the
highest
value, or
OF MORALITY
good,
as
225
older
all
the
highest
the
philosophers said,
can only be the
final
end to which
the elements in the various duties and rules are subordinated as means, and to which they all owe their value. In the psychological introduction to axiology we have referred to the teleological series which are evoked by the reciprocity in the origin of feelings and volitions, in such wise that one is always appreciated for the sake of another. We now ask if these chains have anywhere a last link, a value of all values, a value for the sake of
which all other values are values. If there is in the necessary process of the life of value such a link, which we might with equal justice call the last link or the first link, the determination and maintenance of this would make the contents of the moral law, and all particular duties would be only means of its realisation suited to
various conditions of
life.
Hence the next point
in
ethical theory
must be to
see that in the psychological mechanism this ultimate end of all volition has a recognised validity. There is a
very widespread belief that happiness has this significance. This psychological theory of morals is known as Eudaemonism. It seems to suit the general feeling, and it therefore dominated the ancient mind to a great extent. Its principle is expressed in the well-known Socratic-Platonist saying that nobody willingly does injustice. It means that every man of his own nature seeks happiness, and only at times makes a mistake as to the means of attaining the end. Hence the theory of virtue which was much
disputed in Platonist
different ways,
circles,
first
became the
and interpreted in many principle of Eudaemonism.
Morality may be taught, since it has only to point out the correct means for the attainment of an end which
every man spontaneously and entirely aims at. The Eudsemonistic principle is at the root of all ordinary in domestic moralising from ancient times until our own It education, in the school, the pulpit, or literature. is always an appeal to the desire of happiness, a recommendation of the right means to attain it, a warning Who against wrong means that might be adopted.
;
15
226
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
does not know Xenophon's superficial allegory of the Prodicos who represents Heracles at the crossways, equally beset by virtue and vice, each of which promises
From this point of view a system of prudence, the morality business of which it is to tell us how to attain happiness No one will underrate the in the best and safest way. human significance and the social value of these wellmeant disquisitions. Man is, when we reflect on the thousands of millions who pass over this planet in the course of ages, really a pitiable creature, and none will resent it if in the short span of existence he seeks whatever Whoever shows satisfaction of his desires he can attain. him the best way to do this is a benefactor of the race as is the man who warns him against the many errors in regard to this search for happiness with which nature
an abundance of happiness
is,
!
as
Kant
said,
and
in
life
are beset.
The
effort
is
to refute
Eudaemonism
not very successful. We must remember that in practical philosophy we have to deal with the living man, who cannot be imagined without and that no moral principle is conpleasure and pain It would, ceivable that would forbid men to be happy. moreover, be a contradictory state of things if the happiness of the individual were a value that all others had to respect, yet he himself were forbidden to cultivate it. Happiness has therefore an indisputable right to a place in the discussion of the values of which ethics treats. But it is another question whether it can take the dominating position of the highest and final end which Eudaemonism claims for it. There are many objections to this. In the first place the psychological assumption, which seems so plausible, is really wrong. Pleasure as the feeling of the satisfaction of a desire is undoubtedly always the result of a fulfilled
many
theories of morality
wish. But, as Aristotle rightly said, it by no means follows from this that the desire of the pleasure should be the general motive of willing. Happiness is the out-
come
its
motive or
of satisfaction of the will, but certainly not either have already seen that there its object.
We
are,
not only in the primary but even in the more complex
227
states of the will, purely actual forms by which it is directed immediately to its object without any presentation or any regard to expectation of pleasure or unpleasantness. To this extent it is impossible to say that happiness is
the final end, for the realisation of which all other volition We are the less entitled to do this as, is only a means.
if
we wish
to speak with psychological accuracy, no one
really wills happiness in the generic or abstract form. Every volition is related to some definite willed object
in
which a particular happiness will be found. From the desire of happiness we could never deduce how it is to be attained. Further, the psychological assumption in virtue of which happiness is set up as the principle of duty really shows of itself that this is impossible. On that view happiness would be the natural and general termination
of all teleological series and would be obvious in all actual But there would be no meaning in seeking volition.
an obvious thing of this nature and setting duty. According to the Eudsemonistic view
unnecessary to
it
it
up
is
as a
demand
of
happiness. The only thing we But even this appeal to his prudence means of attaining it us no test of value for the contents of the individual gives volition. Since every volition, no matter to what content it be directed, brings pleasure or happiness as soon as it is fulfilled, all objects of the will are in this respect of
quite that he shall seek can do is tell him the best
man
equal value. If one man prefers wine and oysters, and another devotes himself to social questions, each of them will be happy when he has attained his object Differences in value in objects of the will are, on this theory, not qualitative, but at the most quantitative. They consist in the intensity, the duration, and the attainability of the pleasure. In regard to intensity and duration the
moral competence or virtue consists in an art of weighing one thing against another (^rprjms) which the great
,
Sophist Protagoras system of morality this theory leads to some such quantitative morality as
;
made
the central point of his and the further development of

his
Bentham sketches
in
table
of
the good.
On
the
228
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
other hand, the test of attainability long ago led to the interesting result that the logical consequence of Eudae-
monism is the morality of having no desires. As things go in the world, a man can only expect the realisation of his wishes when they are confined to the most necessary and simplest things. The more a man wants, the more probable it is that he will be rendered unhappy by the
A man finds the surest to happiness in asking as little as possible of the world and of life. In ancient times Antisthenes deduced
non-fulfilment of his wishes.
way
this
consequence from
Socratic
Eudasmonism.
It
led
to the safest, but to the poorest and most pitiful of all moralities, the sour-grapes morality of cowardice, which does nothing from fear of failure and disillusion. On the
contrary, the natural impulse is to regard that life as of more value which is directed to great and important aims, even when it cannot attain them.
The question next arises whoso happiness is at stake, and the first answer we get is that the willing and acting individual must regard his own happiness as the supreme
end
of
of his efforts.
When
this side
we have the development

which
is
is particularly stressed, of Individualistic ethics ; part
the ancient ideal of the wise man the mature man who knows how to control his will and conduct in such wise that he will attain perfect happiness. It is a the morality of enlightened thoroughly Egoist ethic a man turns to his own profit all the interest, by which
:
conditions of
life
and
all his
that everything contributes is the morality of actual life majority of men have held in
:
to
relations to his fellows, so It his own happiness.

all
the theory that the great ages, and will continue

find
is
to hold.
of
The only
difference
we
in the degree
candour with which the fact is acknowledged and defended. This candour does not often rise to the height " " Selfish System of of coolness which it reaches in the Hobbes in the early days of modern philosophy, which has rightly been rejected by all schools.
Egoistic Eudsemonism has various shades, according to the nature of the object in which the individual seeks
his happiness.
In
its
simplest form,
it
is
sensuous en-

joyment or bodily pleasure that
is
229
raised to the position
of the highest good. This is the theory of Hedonism, the chief exponent of which in ancient times was Aristippus. In cases where the theory was revived in modern times,
was by Lamettrie, it lost the character of healthy naturalness, and was elaborated into an insipid coquetry which could only be tolerated as a reaction against the
as
it
equally unnatural ascetic theory. By the side of, or in place of, pleasure of the senses later and riper forms of the theory put mental enjoyment the enjoyment of
That
science, art, friendship, is the ethical

its
and
all
the finer things of
life.
tendency
In his
which
acknowledges
Epicurus as
elements
leader.
own
case,
and
in
the
school which was called after
sensuous and are combined, perhaps with a certain predominance of the In the eighteenth century there was a pronounced latter. Êsthetic Epicureanism, founded by Shaftesbury, in which the ideal was the artistic cultivation of personality.
In the case of Shaftesbury himself it, in virtue of the metaphysical background which he gave to it, approaches the morality of perfection, which we shall consider later. When the ideal was adopted in German poetry, it again assumed a psychological form, and eventually it was used by the Romanticists for the full development of their aristocratic and exclusive theory. The self-enjoyment of the spiritually developed personality is the finest and highest form that the moral life has taken, or can take, on the lines of the Eudsemonistic theory.
in antiquity, the intellectual enjoyment
him
two
The individualistic form of Eudaemonist ethics goes beyond both forms of enjoyment, sensuous and mental, when it takes on a religious complexion, and regards the salvation of the soul as the ultimate object of moral Sometimes it is now said that " felicity " is precepts. the aim rather than happiness, and this ethic of soulsalvation sometimes assails the other forms of enjoyment very vigorously. In its extreme forms (of which Plato gives some indication in the opening part of his Phcsdo) it not only despises pleasure of the senses, but it sees even in the enjoyment of the intellectual and aesthetic life
230
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
grave obstacles to the attainment of the highest good. In this case, especially as these ideas are generally connected with the belief in immortality and the hope of 'eternal life," we may call it otherworldly or transcendental Eudaemonism, or even Egoism in so far as duties toward other men and things are at times forgotten or
thrust
aside
in
the zeal for one's
own
salvation.
;
To
in
this theory corresponds practical asceticism
though
general nature has taken care that these interests of another life do not unduly preponderate. The extreme
form in which transcendental morality is often preached on the theological side has always tended to cause the other forms of Eudaemonism to emphasise more strongly
the this-worldliness of their ethic. true of Materialism and Socialism.
This
is
particularly
need quote only Saint-Simon, Diihring, and Feuerbach, and even Guyau and Nietzsche, as examples. The egoistic forms of Eudaemonism only include a concern for the happiness of one's fellows amongst the duties of the individual in so far as he actually needs the
others.
We
main principle this theory to the system which regards sharply opposed the community, not the individual, as entitled to the happiness which it is a duty to create. give to this
in regard to its
Hence
is
of morals
We
system the name Altruism, which was invented a century " " It regards as ago. good all intentions and acts which aim at promoting the happiness of one's fellows. As far as the principle is concerned, it is immaterial whether
the Altruism is based psychologically, as regards motives, on egoistic foundations or on the assumption that there are original social impulses. It is also immaterial whether it seeks the sanction of the altruistic command in the divine will or in the political and social order. For, since men become happy only by the satisfaction of their needs and desires, whatever be the burden of those desires, Altruism must, to be consistent, and unless it brings in other standards of value, come to the conclusion that every man is to be satisfied by the fulfilment of his wishes
;
and
in cases of conflict,
left
which necessarily
arise, there is
nothing
but the majority principle.
The conclusion

in this case
is
231
that that intention or action is moral and results in the greatest amount of pleasure In this formula, for the largest number of one's fellows. which was evolved in the course of the eighteenth century, altruistic Eudsemonism assumes the form of Utilitarianism. This also seems to the untrained mind a very plausible system of morals, and there is no doubt that its principle is quite justified in every application in which there is acceptable which
question of the good of the majority. The most impressive form of this Utilitarianism, indeed, that given us by Bentham, sprang from a legislator's modes of thought. Here again, however, the uselessness of the principle as a basis of ethics is made clear by a few comparatively simple questions. We have no need to ask to whom the
sum-total of happiness really falls, or who feels the general of individual felicity, which, while made up by the addition other mind than happinesses, cannot be perceived by any that of the individuals. The Utilitarian is reduced to silence by the pupil who objects that, if there is question only of a sum-total of felicity, and it is immaterial how it is distributed amongst the individuals, he thinks it best to begin with himself, since in that case he knows best
what
is
to be done.
It is
much more
serious objection
that Utilitarianism, precisely because it lays such stress on the quantity of happiness, must inevitably accommodate itself to the lower cravings of the masses, and so confine its moral interests to their good in the sense of the furtherance of pleasure and avoidance of the unpleasant. It purchases its democratic character by the abandonment of the higher advantages which lie beyond the vicissitudes of the pleasant and unpleasant, the useful and
injurious in Plato's words, mercial business of pleasures
beyond the entire comand desires and represent
a higher region of life. So much for the exposition and criticism of Eudsemonistic
Related to it in some ways, yet differing in This from it, is the morality of perfection. principle to have a metaphysical, not a psychological purports It regards improvement or increasing perfection basis. as the ultimate standard which determines the various
morality.
232
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
is
moral precepts. By perfection full development, on teleological
lines, of
generally meant the the resources of
nature ; and thus, corresponding to Egoism and Altruism, the morality of perfection has a singularist and a universalist form, since it may regard the perfection either of the individual or of the species. Psychologically this form of ethic is connected with Eudaemonism in that it maintains that what improves us gives us pleasure, and what
restricts us gives us displeasure.
So said Spinoza, Shaftesis
bury, and Christian Wolff.
This
generally true, apart
from abnormal cases of injurious pleasure or useful unBut when this side of the system is stressed, pleasantness. there is no need for any imperativist complexion of the Since it is obvious in the case of man, as in the ethic. case of all beings, that he seeks what promotes his development and avoids what restricts it, there is no need to impose this on him as a special task. Spinoza saw this most clearly. He is on that account the most pronounced representative of a purely descriptive ethic, and he has given the classic form to its method, that it must speak of human feelings and actions just as if it had to deal with lines, surfaces, and bodies. Its business in relation to the actual moral life is to understand it, not to detest or smile
at
(nee detestari nee ridere, scd intellegere). In the main, however, the principle of the perfectionit
is
a teleological theory, which assumes that there is in man a certain disposition for it that is realised through Since the realisation of this disposition his moral life. leads to happiness, the theory approaches Eudaemonism, even when it expressly rejects the psychology of Eudaemonism. This was so in the case of Aristotle, who regarded reason and rational conduct as man's disposition, and contended that in realising this disposition he would morality
become
his
as to
happy
as
it
own
make him.
development and resources. However varied these may be egoistic and altruistic moods, bodily and spiritual cravings, sensuous and suprasensuous forces the moral task is The fully deto bring them all into perfect harmony.
pulses
in the full
for any activity of also places morality Shaftesbury of human nature with all its im-
was possible
233
veloped personality must also develop its relations to the universe, in which again there is an infinite harmony of contrasts. The perfection-morality assumes a rather different form in Leibnitz's Monadology. Here the human soul is a being that pursues an end which it has to
to a clear
develop, from a primitive obscurity and unconsciousness, and conscious form. The monad is conceived as
essentially a presentative force, and its perfection is therefore intellectualistic, consisting in the evolution of a
clear
and
lucid vision, from which rational conduct will
In the case of Leibnitz's successor, inevitably ensue. Christian Wolff, who abandoned this metaphysical back-
ground, the perfection-morality sinks on that account an intellectual Eudsemonism, which, since it connects utility with the perfection of intimately
into
the intelligence, foundations.
returns
to
the
original
psychological
German Idealism has more profoundly developed the idea of a disposition on the part of man. Fichte and Schleiermacher, in their different ways, gave us the same formula, that man has to fulfil his disposition, and they
found this disposition in the incorporation of the individual
and humanity generHere again, it is true, the perfection-morality ally. (though more pronounced in these metaphysical types) sometimes loses the imperativist form. In many of these systems the moral life is supposed to be the spontaneously
developing completion of the natural disposition of man the moral law seems to be, as Schleiermacher expressly said, the completion of the natural law something that in the main is self-evident. If this is so, it is very difficult " " to understand the antithesis of the and the ought " natural must." Moreover, this idealist theory, with the disposition that it ascribes to individuals as well as to the whole race, dissolves into metaphysical and, in part, religious speculations which are matters of conviction
;
in a total structure of peoples, ages,
and faith, not intellectual knowledge. The total life of mankind is for scientific knowledge a final synthesis, beyond which conceptual thought can prove nothing
which might serve as a principle
of
morality.
Hence,
234
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
although in this form of ethical speculation we have a special effort to represent the moral order as a worldorder, in which man and humanity are a necessary link, nevertheless the special forms in which this situation
must be conceived are no longer of such a nature that they can lay claim to the general and necessary validity How easy it is for such ideas of scientific knowledge. to take a fantastic turn is best seen in the work of C. F.
Krause,
who
in his ethical philosophy of
to connect terrestrial
sun, and all in of the world-order.

All the answers
of
humanity tries humanity with a humanity on the a general community of spirits as a part
we have hitherto considered to the questhe substantial principle of morality agree in seeking it in the consequences of moral conduct ; whether these consequences be the happiness or the perfection of the individual or of the race. And precisely on that account they are incompetent to discover ai^ simple and general content for the principle. Even the perfection-morality gives us only the formal definition of fulfilment of a disposition, without giving us the least
tion
definite idea of the nature of this disposition, This to be the guide of will and conduct.
which ought
is
clear first
the prinreason in the case of Aristotle, who found in ciple for that reconciliation of extremes which constitutes the nature of virtue. It is from the lack of this that we understand the two features which distinguish Kant's The first is that he relates the ethical ethic from all others. judgment and the moral precept only to the disposition the second is that which lies at the root of the action he abandons the attempt to define the content of the
;
"
"
moral law, and he can therefore give only a formal definiIn the first respect Kant very vigorously tion of it. pointed out that the moral verdict, which even in ordinary conduct only bears upon actions in so far as they proceed from intentions, ought in the proper sense to be restricted " to the intentions. Nothing in the world is good except
This intention-morality stresses the disIt points out that tinction between morality and legality. there are actions which are entirely in conformity with
the good will."

the
235
moral law in their form and their consequences, although their motive is not the fulfilment of the moral Actions of this kind may be very useful and agreelaw. in the course of life and in view of their effects. able They may in this sense have anthropological value but, since to the they did not issue from an intention in conformity moral law, they are morally indifferent, and they can merely claim the value of legality. From the nature of the case Kant, in discussing this antithesis, was disposed to exclude this legality from the ethical sphere and depreciate its value although there was no reason in his philo;
sophy to reject
its
significance entirely.
It
was
left
to
his successors, especially Schiller, to mitigate the sharp contrast by the reflection that legality itself has a large moral significance as an important helpful element, not
but only in the education of the individual and the race, also in moulding the entire circumstances of common Even if many, perhaps most, of these actions by life. which the moral law is fulfilled are not done for their own sake out of regard for the moral law, as Kant says
but from other motives, in view of which they are merely chosen as the best means, there is precisely in this fact some recognition of the moral law, preparing the way for
and securing its sovereignty in life. The individual becomes accustomed to seeing his will obey the rational command, and this may be converted into a good disposition
reason.
;
the external features of the
life
of the
community
become more and more conformable
to
the claims of
the methodical point of view there is much more importance in the other special feature of the Kantian It is ethic, which we find in its formalist character.
From
based upon the idea, to which we have already referred, that, in view of the infinite complexity of the relations in which man's will and conduct are involved, it is impossible to find any common content that could be definitely indicated as the necessary object of the will. There is no generic concept of the content of duty. Ethical reflection,
is
however, finds significance in the fact that there no moral life without a consciousness of duty, no matter
236
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
the content of the duty in each particular In this sense the conformity all others. As of the will to duty is the general and supreme duty. is well known, it takes the form in the Critical philosophy The significance of this of the categorical imperative. is its express opposition to every other system of morals. These presuppose a will for the precepts and demands which are expressed in the various duties, and they merely teach what is to be done in order to attain the end of
case differs from
how much
Thus all moralising, as we have said, appeals this will. to the desire of happiness, which is assumed by Eudsemonistic ethics as the basis of its prudential theory. Thus,
again, the perfection-morality deduces from the natural craving for self-development the various means that are
necessary for its realisation. Hence all the imperatives which they lay down are hypothetical. They depend upon the condition that this will or desire is consciously
or unconsciously present, and they lose all meaning if In their dependence upon given this is not the case. But it is relations they are, Kant says, heteronomous.
the peculiarity and dignity of the moral law that its claims upon man are quite irrespective of his wishes. The moral precept demands obedience in all circumstances. It
creates
an entirely new
existing empirical volition.
volition, independent of any It is in this sense autonomous.

:
a precept, independent the categorical imperative circumstances, in which Kant finds the meaning any of the moral law. Since this formal moral principle is not conditioned by any given content, but of itself, it amounts to a prin-
This
of
is
the imperativeness of precepts without deterthe contents of the precepts themselves. The mining most remarkable and significant thing about the Kantist ethics is that this purely formal definition has to be completed by reference to a rational order that far transcends Kant discovered the catethe empirical human world. as the general definition of the conscience gorical imperative which teaches each individual to submit his will to a law,
ciple
of
command, and
of
tells
him that
this
command
is
entirely
indi-
independent
whatever tendencies and objects the
237
It was therefore vidual finds already present in his will. to conceive this law as valid quite independently necessary of all the variations of individual will and therefore equally valid for all individuals. This independence of
the categorical imperative of every empirically existing will gave it a universal validity for all rational beings. And although the Critical ethic sought the source of its
knowledge in the disposition and its sanction in the selfdetermination of the individual, nevertheless every duty thus learned and based had to be considered a constituent of a moral world-order which was equally binding for all. The world-law of morality had to be discovered in the individual mind without any empirical intermediaries. In Kant this was a direct relation of individual and universe, soul and world, which was characteristic of the whole period of the Aufkldrung. The fact that the individual gives himself the moral law, which is to be valid for all others, shows that he bears in his own personality the dignity of the moral law. In this enhancement of personality we have a common bond between the Kantian ethic and the earlier perfectionWhilst, however, Eudaemonism, whether in morality. Shaftesbury's or Leibnitz's form, regarded personality as that which had to be developed out of the natural
and given individuality, Kant puts personality in the sovereignty of the general law of reason over all individual For the former of these theories of personality volition. it was difficult to pass from empirical individuality to a generic legality, and they incurred the danger, as the Romanticists did to some extent, of regarding the survival of the natural individuality as the ultimate and supreme moral value. In the Critical theory of personality, on the contrary, individuality seemed to be in effect obliterated, and the moral essence of personality seemed
to
mean only
that in
its will
there ruled certain precepts
which ruled equally in the lives of all others. It was in the end the task of the morality of personality to fill the gap between the natural disposition of the individual and the universal moral law by connecting the personality with the general texture of historical life, which has to
238
realise
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
the moral law in the
The phenomenal world. moral philosophy of Fichte, Schleiermacher, and Hegel attempted to achieve this object, and it is only along these lines that ethics can hope to connect the empirical elements which arise from the real nature of man with the tasks which emerge from a transcendent rational order. Eudaemonist morality, with its interests of pleasure and pain, weal and woe, remains at the confines of the empirical life of man. Perfection-morality would build upon a metaphysical knowledge of man's nature, whether it be formulated in philosophical or theological
Idealist
terms.
Critical morality derives the consciousness of the
moral world-order from the conscience of the individual The Idealist or, as Kant says, from practical reason. morality of the historical theory tries to understand how the contents of the categorical imperative emerge from the
historical institutions of civilisation, collaboration in the construction of which constitutes the good disposition of
the individual.
The conception
to the source of our
of the principle of morality according knowledge of it has a good deal to
do with these differences. The question how we know what really is to be considered good and to serve as a norm of judgment may find an answer either in experience or in a direct pronouncement of the reason and
;
in this sense
we may speak
of empirical
and
rational or
apriorist morality. These antitheses themselves, however, If the ethical empiricist wishes are not sharply defined.
merely to decide what in point of fact

to sift
is
moral, he has
facts in order to get as near as he can to a general standard. If the ethical rationalist wishes to lay down the imperatives which are to hold, he has to confine himself essentially to the actual moral
and compare the
consciousness
of
humanity
otherwise
he
adopts
the
arbitrary position of the superman, who announces new values, yet has to wait and see if the rest of men will Moral theories are, therefore, once more only agree. predominantly either empirical or rational. Empiricism has either a psychological or an historical complexion,
239
and in either case, if it confines itself to a mere registration of the facts, leads to Relativism. In the former respect we saw this happen to all forms of Eudaemonism.
In the second form the Empirical ethic tries to evade Historism by a method of consequences, pointing out how the principles of moral precepts have been made clearer and stronger in the course of historical development. Hence in ancient times the Stoic theory of the consensus gentium. In modern times the same result is reached on the lines of biology it is sought to show, as was that what appears in the indiattempted by Spencer, vidual as a directly perceived and self-evident standard has been produced and established as a purposive habit in the evolution of the race by heredity and adaptation. On none of these lines, however, does one reach the absolute validity of the norms which the claims of the moral consciousness set up. If, on the other hand, a man chooses to start, rationalistically, from the general rational order itself, we see precisely from the example of Kant that one is thus restricted to the formal law, and can only get by devious ways from that to substantial imperatives by the idea of the dignity of personality in the progressive application to the empirical conditions of life. Far more important than this question of the method of scientific ethics is the actual problem, whence in daily life the plain conscience of man derives the knowledge of his duties as the norms of his judgment. Here it is clear in the first place that we do not in the practical reality of moral life consciously use that supreme principle which moral theory seeks otherwise the search would not be so difficult, as we saw above. In actual consciousness of duties, and especially in our continual verdicts upon each other's conduct, we apply the rules from case to case, In generally without being conscious of any definition. this sense it is true that the source of knowledge of the
; ;
various precepts or moral principles of ordinary

in feeling far
life
is
any sort of explicit knowledge. It is one of the most important distinctions certainly between men, considered in this respect, whether they
in
more than
have predominantly in their morality the rational element
240
and emotional
if
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
decision.
of intellectual control or the irrational force of instinctive
On
the whole,
we
shall not
go
ascribe the far greater predominance to the astray emotional element. We thus understand how the English
moralists, with Shaftesbury and Hutcheson at their head, treat feeling as the essence of conscience and the source of all moral consciousness, and leave to moral philosophy
we
only the task of enlightening these feelings as to their own content and meaning. As a matter of fact, it is, as David Hume and Adam Smith pointed out, only in complex situations of life that the intelligence is called upon to clear up the difficult}^. Even in those cases, however, the rational conviction must wait for the right
moral feeling in judgment or decision. We are quite aware that moral preaching is useless unless it can appeal to feelings that already exist, in however rudimentary a form otherwise it would be easy to make men moral
;
simply by giving them ideas. The theory that the principle of morality is to be sought in feeling, as far as our knowledge of it is concerned, is very closely connected with the assumption that in man's nature, whether in a rudimentary form or as a more or less conscious power, there is a knowledge of rules ready to rise directly into consciousness on every occasion that the varied circumstances of life produce. Our knowledge of the moral law is in this sense of an intuitive character, and not based upon either theoretical consideraBut if the moral tions or any sort of external influence. is thus ranged amongst our empirical states of feeling feeling generally, as the psychological ethic used to range it, we end once more in the relativity of all that is empiriOn that account Kant lifted the moral feeling into cal.
the region of the rational and universal by seeing in it " He was of fact of the purely practical reason." the that in this directness of the moral consciousness, opinion which shows itself in every man independently of the
measure of his intellectual cultivation and capacity, we have the emergence of a higher world-order. Intuitionism in this form leads to an emphasising of the direct emotional evidence with which the norms of con-

science enforce themselves
sion.
It
241
was
this
main
line of practical
upon the mind on every occaphilosophy which
induced Herbart to treat ethics as a part of general aesthetics. He started from the fact that all judgments may in the long run, when they are relieved of any intellectual accessions, be reduced to the original pleasantness of different situations. This original pleasantness, which is found in feeling, could not be grasped by or based upon any theoretical speculations. It is, he said, in each case a primary fact which makes itself felt as a reality in the mind as soon as the mind turns to such a relation as its content. Herbart was especially of opinion that psychogenetic speculations could not form a basis of this direct evidence. He thus came to his theory of the five moral ideas as the directly illuminative forms for the judgment of acts of the will and it must be added that he was unable to furnish any systematic justification of this
;
plurality of ultimate principles.
Thus theories of the source of our knowledge of morality lean to its emotional side, but the voluntary side becomes prominent as soon as we speak about the sanction of the
It is in any case clear that conscience not merely, retrospectively, a judgment of actual dispositions and acts, but, prospectively, a demand on the and this demand asserts existing decision of the will itself over against the will as a We ask thereprecept. fore what is the basis of this right to command what in the world has power to impose a command on our will which is different from its own natural contents. Naturally, a sanction of this sort is only requisite in so far as the moral law is opposed to the natural will. We need no sanction when the duty is regarded as the selfevident outcome of our own nature. Hence Eudaemonism properly speaking needs no sanction, for the impulse to happiness itself sanctions all its phenomenal forms, and the intelligence legitimises the moral precepts before
is
;
principle of morals.
the tribunal of this impulse to happiness as prudent and The perfectionnicely calculated ways of realising it. also needs no sanction, since the process of morality
16
242
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
;
it is
amelioration is natural and rational or, as Wolff said, the natural disposition and self-evident bias in the structure of man, who has merely to be instructed as to the correct development of this impulse. On the other hand, the more alien ethics makes the moral law to the natural will, the more urgently morality needs a principle of sanction. On what ground is something
demanded
of
me
that
origin of such a in another will.
demand on my
We
;
call
do not myself want ? The will can only be sought this alien will, which imposes
I
duties, authority tive ethics to the theory moral law in a will which
and so we give the name
of authorita-
over the will of man. may say that it also corresponds to a deep craving of human nature. Man, as he is, has a feeling of weakness from his constant experience of erring, and casts himself into the arms of a more powerful will in order to receive from that the direction which he cannot find in himself. On that is based the power, and in part the right, of
is
which seeks the sanction of the is higher than and authoritative Of this authoritative ethics we
authority for all time. Surrendering oneself to authority the best resource for the masses, perhaps for the over-
and we find it adopted whelming majority of men those who either remain sceptical in the precisely by failure of their efforts to come to decisions, or have allowed themselves to be driven by clearness of thought into some
;
mystic vagueness. We thus understand the craving for authority by a sense of weakness of intelligence and will, and we understand still better the profound immorality which results from the abuse of authority. Authoritative morality may, as Locke showed, assume
is
three different forms, according as the legislative power discovered in a divine command, in the claims of the State, or in the prescriptions of custom. Theological ethics, the first type, has often assumed very exaggerated forms, making an arbitrary command on the part of the
Deity the foundation of the force of moral rules. The spiritual Franciscans of the Middle Ages, such as Duns Scotus and Occam, taught that nothing is good or bad
of itself
;
it is
only
made
so
by a divine command.
God
243
could, they said, if he had so willed, have enacted entirely the opposite in moral acts. This naturally led to a belief
that there could be no rational morality, no intelligent basis of its contents, and that the sole source of our knowledge of morality is the divine revelation. And as for
the divine revelation only came through the followed in practice that we could not know by personal conscience, but only from the teaching of the Church, what was good or bad, allowed or forbidden.
these
men
it
Church,
Other ethical systems replaced
ecclesiastical authority
by the State, and derived the sanction of morality from The Egoistic ethic of enlightened interest granted this.
on its theory, the individual could of himself recogno other distinctions of value in his actions than such as were Eudaemonistic that is to say, such as were
that, nise
A different related to his own comfort or discomfort. kind of valuation could only arise from the circumstance that the acts of individuals might, through their consequences, have a significance for the weal or woe of others, of the whole community. Hence the sanction of the moral precept derives from the social authority, either in the definite form of a State-prescription or in the more or less indefinite form of a custom. With such a basis we lose for in the distinction between morality and legality such cases we are concerned with the action and its consequences for the general welfare and the disposition or character only indirectly and in so far as they have to bow and, in the course of time, adapt themselves to these claims which are imposed upon them from without. In all these types of authoritative morality there is a that is to say, the pronounced element of heteronomy a law enforced upon it from conditioning of the will by without. In opposition to this Kant stressed the autonomous character of conscience as a self-conditioning of the rational will. But Kant also, in seeking the content and the various precepts of this self-conditioning in a moral world-order, equally valid for all rational beings, did not really require any special sanction of this self-lawgiving. The most that one can say, in a certain sense, is that for the Critical ethic the dignity of the personality, which
;
:
244
identifies itself
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
with the moral law,
is
the true sanction
or, rather, that it
makes superfluous any other and external But this autonomy of the personality must sanction. not be quoted, as was done by some of the Romanticists,
It should as a sanction of the arbitrariness of a superman. be forgotten that according to Kant the autonomous never
sovereignty of conscience only holds as long as the individual gives himself a law which is suitable for becoming a universal precept. The theory of the motives of moral conduct also depends upon the extent to which the demands of the moral law are opposed to man's natural feelings and imThe psychology which is at the root of the pulses. Egoistic ethic, and professes that man can never in any circumstances desire anything but his own happiness or the avoidance of unhappiness, separates man so profoundly from nature that it must find it very difficult to understand how he ever comes to behave properly. It has often been observed that an alien spirit coming upon our planet and studying the impulses of men would be greatly astonished to see that they so often do things which are no use to them, even things which are contrary
to their own interests. Anybody who says this betrays and he has that he regards man, in the main, as a fool to speculate what the egoistic motives can be which induce a man to desire something other than his own interest as an individual requires. When we seek the motive or motives of moral conduct in this sense, the ethic of enlightened interest is quite ready with the answer that an action conformable to moral law can be based only upon either fear or hope. Authoritative morality adds that the subjection to an alien will is because this will It is the familiar has the power to reward and punish. of moralising theologians to point to the penalties practice
;
which God fixed for transgression of his commandments, and make a parade of the rewards that await the obedient. In the other forms of authoritative ethics the same part is played by the penal power of the State and the social influence of custom. The function of the State is restricted to palpable advantages and disadvantages of the external

life,
245
and authoritative ethics has in its appeal to the social custom a means of dealing with subtler and very The collective life interesting aspects of the internal life.
force of
gives rise psychologically to the very considerable values of public opinion, the psychological meaning of which was studied by the English moralists in their theory of the emotions of reflection. The praise and blame which our actions incur from other men do not merely mean
they influence the conduct of others toward us, and that they may thus lead to very positive advantages and disadvantages in our external lives by a sort of transference praise and blame, even when we merely conceive them as possible, become independent values or depreciations. They thus represent one of the values on which is based, psychogenetically, the self-judgment which is part of the nature of conscience. In this reof judgment and self- judgment ambition ciprocal play becomes a very powerful motive, and is much considered
;
that
the social forms of authoritative morality. In the eighteenth century the French moralists of this school, such as Lamettrie, Montesquieu, and Helvetius fully discussed the significance of ambition. It is quite clear that actions which are conformable to the moral law will, if they are based on such motives
in
as these, never have a moral value
they have merely proper sense of the word they have no moral significance, though, as we said above, they may have in many respects an anthropoWe may be confident that what logical and social value. seems to be morality in the case of the great majority
;
the value of legality.
Hence
in the
of men is no more than legality based on fear and hope with respect to various authorities. But it would be quite a mistake to say that the whole moral life of mankind may be understood in that sense. On the contrary, it cannot be doubted that this one-sided psychology of the
'
Selfish
System
in
show that
must be corrected by the facts, which the natural disposition of men there are
'
'
social impulses just as deeply as the egoistic impulses.
implanted and as effective are direct motives of moral conduct, and do not need to be induced by psychological
They
246
considerations.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Amongst the
states
of
the
will
which
influence with original force an action that presupposes as its motive no personal experience of pleasure or pain we must count, in the first place, these social or benevolent
and they are in point of fact the motives impulses which inspire a very large part of our moral actions. Biology explains the gradual development of these motives But it is, as far as we can historically survey in the race.
;
the evolution of humanity, very doubtful if the social indeed, it might be posimpulse has arisen in this way sible to defend the view that it began earlier. On the other hand, it is equally impossible to derive this altruistic disposition from egoistic motives on the lines of individual
;
psychology. Even Hume's theory of sympathy presupposes the existence of the general capacity for sympathy as a necessity of social life. In this case it is not suffering and joy, but the sharing of suffering and joy (sympathy), that is the motive of moral conduct. Whether it is participation in suffering or in joy that takes the foremost place is a psychological issue that
partly depends on differences of temperament, and is expressed theoretically in the antithesis of optimistic and
pessimistic
views of
life.
Schopenhauer regarded sym:
pathy
in the sense of sharing suffering as the principle Feuerbach said of morals as far as motive is concerned
that it was sympathy in sharing joy. Schopenhauer sought a metaphysical foundation and sanction for the motive in the supremacy of will Feuerbach, the antimetaphysician, was content with the social-psychological
:
sympathy. However, even this motivation of moral conduct by a natural social disposition was not secure against being claimed as leading to mere legality. No less a person than Kant wanted to regard it as a perhaps pleasant feature of nature, but devoid of any moral merit in the proper sense of the word. The more intensely he sought morality in the disposition alone, the more it seemed and if to him to be opposed to any natural impulses
;
significance of
at times the motives of natural social feeling, such as sym_ pathy, issue in acts such as are demanded by the moraj

law,
247
it seemed to him that these acts had no moral value whatever in the strict sense. He saw a danger to morality itself in the satisfaction of any natural craving, even when its end coincided with that of a moral precept. He feared that in such cases Eudaemonistic motives would
insinuate themselves amongst the causes of the volition. In point of fact, in the actual life of men the fine threads
for happiness is connected with the consciousness of duty are very numerous, and they leave all sorts of ways open to the sophistry of the human heart. We must admit that the close connection between the thirst for happiness and morality which has been brought about by the customary moralising, with
by which the natural craving
promises of mountains of gold to virtue, is responsible man's disposition, even when he has done his duty quite honourably and unselfishly, to stretch out his hand involuntarily and wonder if there is not some sort of " finds expresreward for him. This morality of tips sion in the feeling which demands that goodness shall be rewarded with happiness and evil shall be punished a demand that Kant himself did not hesitate to use as an
its
for
'
argument in deducing his postulate of immortality. The rigorism which would convert natural social feeling from morality into legality must regard as the sole " respect for the moral law spring of moral conduct and "a feeling for the dignity of personality." In this it incurs the risk of pride in virtue which appeared prominently enough in the Stoic morality. At the same time its self-satisfaction of the moral act has in it something of that very reward against which it most energetically Hence it is that Schiller attacked this rigorism protests. in his Ernst und Scherz though in Kant's ethic it is perhaps more in the strength of the language than a real
'
In opposition to it the rigorism. up the ideal of the beautiful soul,
poet-philosopher set
which has got so
far
in moral development that it feelings without any risk of being brought into conflict with moral
can trust its
own
law.
In
all
cases of conflict between duty
this secures the
domination
of the
moral maxims.
and inclination The
higher perfection consists in the fact that a
man
has
248
his will.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
we may
learned to think so nobly that he does not need to brace

In view of
of
all this
distinguish various strata
motivation in the moral life. The most primitive is that of natural social feeling, in which the adjustment of the individual will to the general will follows as a matter of course. Next above this is the stratum of legality, which is quite conscious of a contrast between the claims of the general will and the individual will, and finds its motives in the latter for its subjection to the former Above this is the most complex stratum psychologically, in which the command is recognised by the individual on its own merits and is adopted in his own will with the effect of overcoming its opposition the stratum of, in the strict sense, the morality of merit. Finally there is the stage in which experience of life has brought about an identification of the individual will with the general will the stratum of morality pure and simple.
are much discussed in a problem which in the course of human thought has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion, misunderstanding, and unfortunate blunderThis is the problem of the freedom of the will. The ing.
Amongst the questions which

is
this connection there
needless difficulties that have been created in this field are due to the complication of psychological questions
by questions of moral, legal, and religious responsibility and this confusion can only be avoided by stating clearly the different meanings of the word and the various prob;
lems to which they give

In the
first
rise.
is
it
place, there
of the will in cases
where
no problem of the freedom means freedom of action, or
the capacity to translate the decision of the will into a corresponding purposive movement of the body. Freedom of this sort is a fact, a universal condition of human nature, a power that can merely be restricted or destroyed in certain circumstances by disturbances in the bodily organism or by social or other external compulsion. The difficulties are more serious when we consider freedom of choice yet it is comparatively easy to get
;
249
over them as long as we confine ourselves to the province Choice means that, while there are different of psychology. and conflicting desires in consciousness, the action may be exclusively determined by one or other of them. In a conflict of motives, however, we have to consider, not only the stimulations of the moment and the desires they evoke, but also the constant tendencies of an individual's
will
call
which are due to his entire development. If we this a conflict between the momentary provocations
all are agreed in the psychological that the issue of the choice is determined by both theory together according to the respective strength of each. If we pay attention to the fact that it depends on diversities of character to what extent the stimulations of the moment will influence the will, and if we speak of these
and the character,
stimulations only as the motives, we come to the idea that a man as a character is, in the process of choice, independent in his decision of the motives he is free. This is usually called Indeterminism. If, on the other
hand, we emphasise the necessity with which the volition, according to psychological theory, results from the collated totality of elements, and we call them all motives without distinction, including the constant volitions which really constitute character,- we come to the conclusion that the will is inevitably determined by the motives. This view is known as Determinism. In the
end,
therefore,
Indeterminism
they
and
Determinism
"
are
psychologically at one ; which they give to the
differ
only in the extension
motive." meaning of the word Hence there would be no occasion whatever for the heat with which the controversy has been conducted if the of parties had not brought against each other the charge
destroying responsibility. In order to explain this
we must first clearly understand what we mean by responsibility. Any man who reflects dispassionately on the matter will easily perceive that it
a question of psycho-physical causal relations taken from the ordinary ideas of daily life. We must premise that there is no meaning in making something else responThere are certain sible, such as a cause for its effect.
is
250
foolish
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
and
irrational
ways
when one who brings us bad news is held responsible for the unhappy event which he announces, but certainly
as
of attributing responsibility,
can only be held responhe that is to say, his nature as a more or less settled character is the cause of his actions. But, on the other hand, there is the practical meaning of responsibility that in some way the unpleasant consequences of an action are visited upon the agent by making him suffer. Whether we see the practical
sible for his action in the sense that
did not cause.
Rationally a
man
meaning of responsibility in the punishment alone, or in intimidation, or in improvement, it always means that the doer of evil deeds is to have counter-motives implanted
shape of unpleasant feelings, the aim of to restore the due position of normal consciousness in the offender. The whole process is clear and simple in itself, yet it is the source of the whole complicated
in
him
in the
which
is
problem
that
freedom of the will. responsibility assumes that it

of the
;
It is
is
possible
generally put to act
otherwise and this conditional power is then described as freedom in the sense that the acts for which a man is " to be made responsible cannot be necessary." Hence the unfortunate idea of freedom as causelessness, the
metaphysical
the
difficulties
of
psychological inextricable confusion.
difficulties
which then combine with and form an almost
That a man might have acted differently from what he actually did obviously means, supposing that he were a
different person. In the end it comes down to the question whether a man can be held responsible for his own
If we begin with a consideration of causes, one aspect of responsibility, we have three alternatives. We may regard as the author of the man's nature either, on the lines of theological metaphysics, a divine creator or, on sociological lines, the social fabric or we in a metaphysical sense, regard the man's may, again individuality as one of the primary positions, the ultimate elements, of reality, in which case there is no longer any In the first case any impartial question about its cause.
nature.
which
is
person will ascribe the responsibility to the Deity, and
it

is
251
about permission,
responsibility falls and institutions ;
quite impossible to evade this conclusion by talking In the second alternative the etc.
upon the community, upon its conditions and in the modern theory of penal
is
very familiar. It is only in the any metaphysical originality and personal responsibility but no one will question that a theory of this kind opens the door to unthinkable metaphysical vagaries which could not be reconciled with any form of metaphysical or theological Henism. Thus the theoretical study of the question whether there is a freedom of the original volition in the sense that it is uncaused comes to an end when one follows the causal series of the volition beyond the individual into a field of
third case that there remains
;
legislation this idea
insoluble metaphysical difficulties.
The
identification of
causality with uniformity, which we saw in its main features in dealing with theoretical problems, led to ideas " such as we express in statements like, There is nothing " new in the world to the view that every event is neces-
based upon some preceding event. trary, the postulate of causal uniqueness
sarily
On
is
the cona need of
A man is conscious that in his responsible introduces into his surroundings something activity he new which would not be possible without that activity.
human
nature.
From this it seems to follow that human conduct must be in a position to inaugurate new causal series and incorporate them in the subsisting general causal process. It is interesting that this postulate was first expressed in history in a metaphysical form, being used to explain the origin of individual structures in the uniform mechanism of the world. It was Epicurus who put forward this typical conception of the freedom of the will as the arbitrary and uncaused initiation of causal series. He explained the origin of different worlds from the uniform fall of atoms by the occasional deviation, however slight, of some atoms from the general direction, and he expressly drew a parallel between these deviations and the arbitrary acts of men. The point of comparison between the two is the causal uniqueness of an uncaused The capacity for this in the psychic world is called event.
252
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
the libcrum arbitrium indiffer entice, and it is supposed to cover motiveless acts of will which are believed to be experienced as facts in the process of choice between " " indifferent alternatives. This idea of freeapparently dom as a volition which has no antecedent cause, but has endless consequences in later events, is the real difficulty which no
amount
this
Kant showed
freedom
is
most clearly
of theorising of
seems able to
all.
solve.
In his system
indispensable
theoretically quite unintelligible, but absolutely in of practice from the consciousness

of fact, the practical aspect of the problem can only be dealt with from the practical
responsibility.
As a matter
of responsibility
standpoint. Here there is question, on the one hand, of the share which falls to the individual in the division of labour of social life, and which the interest of the whole
requires that he shall fulfil and, on the other hand, of the observance of the rules which the conditions of com;
responsible merely
demand. And in this sense holding a man means that the proper motives will be strengthened in his mind by setting up rewards and
munity
life
cesses that
These are psycho-physical causal prohave their root in social life and their sanction in its collective interests. For if the individual were to turn upon this responsibility with the claim that he must act in his own way according to universal law, the answer would be that according to the same universal law the community is required to react in its own way. The appeal to mere causal necessities does not extricate us from the We must treat the matter as a practical prodifficulty. cess which we cannot in any way trace to general theoretipunishments.
cal considerations of a metaphysical nature. This is true also of the refined and intimate form of responsibility in
which a man makes himself responsible to

or
religious
his
own moral
In so far as this intimate responsibility does not belong to the province of advantages and disadvantages, the sphere of weal and woe, as
consciousness.
social
and legal responsibility does, it has the significance of a self-education in virtue of its analogous inspiration of counter-motives or its confirmation of positive elements.
COMMUNAL WILL
All
this,
253
ethically necessary,
however, as something justified in itself and is entirely independent of the metaphysical problems of the causelessness of the volition with which theory has unnecessarily complicated a comparatively simple situation.
15
Communal
Individual and common will Voluntary and preWill. existing unions Natural and historical unions The family, nation, economic community, State, and Church Custom, morals, and law Era of voluntary communities Civilisation Sociology
Natural law and jurisprudence The definition of law Legal duty, legal claims, legal rights Law as the ethical minimum Purpose of the State and law Liberalism and Socialism The national State Object of the State Real rationality of the legal
order.
In
all
forms of morality, although

dispositions and actions
it
has to be valid
individual, yet has to find a basis in his conscience, there is question in the long run of some relation between the individual and the general community. This community is opposed to the individual as a complex of willing, and harmoniously willing, other individuals, hence the centre of gravity of all ethical problems is in this relation of the individual to a community, or of the individual will to a universal will. Even where the personality appears in its most intimate
for the
of the
independence in conscience it shows its dependence upon a regard for the general will. On the other hand, where the life-forms of the community develop in their historical shapes as institutions, their significance is, in some measure at least, restricted to the value which they have or acquire for individuals. These are the poles in all voluntary life it is always a question how far the
;
will of the individual
or diverge,
and
in the
and that of the community coincide end the chief question is, what is
the nature of this whole that has the right to act as a counterpart to the natural will of the individual. Even in the most extreme cases to which this antagonism leads, the individual must not ignore the collective will,
254
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
nor the general will entirely sacrifice the individual. This fundamental relation is based upon the incomparable
man assumes in virtue of his remarkable combination of individuality and sociality, We know man only as a social being, and it is in view of this that Aristotle has described the whole of practical philosophy as But it is not this which specipolitical science." There are many animals which fically distinguishes man. not only have a social life, but a social life much more complex and perfect than that of man from the corals
position which
'
to the bees
and
ants.
In the case of these the height of
their sociality consists in the unqualified and complete absorption of the individual in the collective life, so that
we may
will differing case of man,
question the very existence of an individual from or opposed to the general will. In the on the contrary, a difference between the
two
is customary, and this power of the individual to oppose his will to that of the community is a characteristic feature of our species. It is on this selfishness of
the specifically human thing, history, does not consist merely in the cumulative change brought about by the addition of individual variations, which we find as a general biological fact in the case of all animals, but in spasmodic changes due to the strong wills of personalities. It has been well said that man comes into the world as the most helpless of creatures and is the most adapted for social life. That is certainly true on the other hand, he is even yet, better fitted, as a unique and incomparable reality, to attain an inner independence and from this standpoint to react upon the whole. The entire historical process is an accentuation of this strain between the individual and the whole, and therefore it is a misconception of the elementary features of history to conceive its end as a return to the animal sociality which may have suited the lowest prehistoric condition of our race.
individuals that
is
based.
It
The super-individual whole

incorporated purposes of the
is
in
which
man
finds himself
voluntary community, directed to Hence the principle of ethics requires more than the purely formal conception of something
will.
COMMUNAL WILL
255
an incorporation in the hierarchy of the organic structure, at which we glanced in dealing with the problems of It is a question of a whole that is full of lifeteleology. and this is values, and therefore of value as a whole found only in a compact totality of wills. We may of a common will, but we must say of this what speak
;
we we
has questions. been made to ascribe some substantial reality beyond the individual minds to this common spirit we hear of the
spirit of the nation, but in social etc.
occasionally said of a dealt with theoretical
common
consciousness
when
An attempt
the time-spirit, the spirit of commerce,
psychology even more than in indi-
vidual psychology it holds that the synthetic unity of consciousness is, as far as empirical knowledge goes, of a functional, not a substantive, character. In the case of the collective mind we lack the defmiteness of a bodily organ, which is certainly the empirical foundation of the
individual mind. or the time-spirit
In the case of the spirit of the people in a specific form. We have to have recourse to Fechner's idea of the spirit of a planet in order to find anything of the kind. Apart
we have no such thing
from metaphysical vagaries of this kind, and looking more closely into the relation of the collective spirit and the individual spirit, we have to admit that the collective mind has no other physical basis than the individuals, and that it merely indicates psychic processes which occur in the individuals, and occur in them because they live a common life. The measure of this biological connection determines in particular cases whether more influence comes from the totality or from the individuals which grow out of and in it. In any case the development is that the individual mind filled itself first and foremost with those contents which are common to it and its entire social environment, and that the peculiarities with which it at times opposes itself to the whole arise from this. We all know that our ideas, our whole theory of the world and of life, develop spontaneously as the theory of our living environment, and that only out of this in the course of time, when the circumstances are favourable, do we get individual thought and judgment that may differ
25G
from and
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
conflict
with the traditional.

forget,
is
we should never
the individual
;
the
collective
it
the
womb
Psychogenetically, mind precedes in which the latter is
moulded.
ethical problems
in order to state clearly the arise in this connection, we will first consider the various types of voluntary communities
From
this
standpoint,
which
which are within our actual knowledge. They have been called societies or federations, though these are superficial terms with a not very clearly defined significance. Perhaps the best term is that used chiefly by Giercke, We distinguish between them genetically in associations.
virtue of their relation to the individuals. Either the individuals pre-exist and form the associations, or the association comes first and determines the will of the
individual.
The
association
may
be, as far as the indi-
concerned, voluntary or involuntary. We may therefore speak of constructed or of pre-existing voluntary communities. Compare, for instance, a league I belong to the league, having been with a nation. invited to do so, by a declaration of my pleasure but I
vidual
is
;
belong to the nation without being invited and whether I will it or no. The league has as a whole no other element of will than that which its members give to it the nation has a will as a whole and expresses it in all the individuals who belong to it. The distinction, is best understood on the analogy of the difference between mechanical and organic development. In the one case the parts in the other case precede the whole and constitute it the whole precedes the parts and produces them by its We quite understand why we speak of vital action. an organic theory of the State when this association is regarded as a totality antecedent to the individuals " contract theory," which would attribute whereas the the State to an agreement of individuals, treated it as
; ;
an association like any other. In reality all theories of the nature of voluntary communities take one of two the universalistic-organic or the individualisticdirections mechanical. From these genetic differences between associations
:
COMMUNAL WILL
we
257
get at once important differences with regard to the To a league belongs position of individuals to them.
only so much of my will as is needed for the purpose of The I have no further obligation toward it. the union. individual member may will whatever he likes outside He may belong to other leagues provided that of it.
does not affect the aim of the first league. The main point is that my belonging to the league depends on my own will. When it no longer suits me, I leave it. But It embraces and determines I cannot leave my nation.
my
and
will
from youth onward.

connection with
It
is
it is
belong entirely to
it,
my
is
up to a
certain point indis-
soluble.
especially where Even in foreign lands a man did not cease to belong to his nation. And The individual internally that is in a sense still the case.
" more of must than of will ages the bond was almost absolute, State and nation were the same thing.
there
a totally different kind of " " "
membership
it.
in
In earlier
but in or alienate himself from his nation nature and character he cannot obliterate the main features of his nationality, and often does not wish to dd so. If in this example of so general an association as is that of a nation we see something vague about the relation between the individual and the whole, it is clear where our problems lie. The one extreme, that of arti-
may oppose
his
ficial
and voluntary
;
associations,
is
is
realised entirely in
not found in absolute purity in In this respect one might empirical conditions. Is there a reduce the ethical problem to the formula voluntary community which a man cannot leave, and which therefore still has a claim upon the will even when " In his the will is disposed to reject it ? Community " of Rational Beings generally Kant has, in his formulation of the categorical imperative, given us the idea of such an ideal voluntary community which a man cannot leave. For the claim of the moral law is positive
the league
the other
and independent
This
late
an individual. however, a postuof the moral consciousness, and not an actually

of
any pre-existing
will of
community
of rational beings
is,
existing association.
Amongst actual 17
associations, leagues
258
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
and all sorts of societies with a definite practical purpose have various degrees of value within the limits of the interest of our ordinary life. They must be appreciated to the values which they are framed to proaccording mote. They are only means in the mechanism of motives, and they therefore do not constitute an ethical problem.
It is quite otherwise with pre-existing associations. In regard to these the individual raises the question of the sanction of the claim which the common will, which
whereas he had no share in producing, makes upon him in the case of a league he supplies the sanction himself by becoming a member. Involuntary communities may be either natural or historical associations. This apparently sharp antithesis, however, proves to be anything but sharp when we consider the facts. We may take first the family as a purely natural association. On
;
looking closely into the matter,

ethical
we must grant that the which we respect under the name, community and regard as the very type of voluntary associations and the germ of civilisation, is in the last resort a product of history. The connection between mother and children, in the first place, is older than mankind and what we learn from sociologists as to the matriarchate and the associations of men dependent thereon shows quite clearly, however much one may contest details of the theory, that the family in the modern sense is an outcome of the time when the human herd ceased to be nomadic. When we consider also the innumerable forms of polygamy of which we read in history, we see that the monogamous family, with which ethics is concerned, We is really an evolutionary product of civilisation. owe it to the Caucasic race, while other races have remained
;
tions.
nearer to the natural condition of polygynous associaThis origin of the monogamous family does not prevent us from regarding it as the first and most sacred
of voluntary
communities and,
evils,
tions
ethical
and occasional
the
in spite of its imperfecabsolute type of the
life, adumbrating all social relations in a simple and admirable form. One may say, indeed, that in this
first
construction
of
totality
all
those
relations
of
COMMUNAL WILL
259
subordination and co-ordination, which are indispensable to a voluntary community, have their finest and firmest expression, and we therefore know what to think of the reactionary movements in which modern individualism
endeavours to destroy this great achievement of history. On the families is based the community of the people, in which we find the same relations between natural and historical origin on a larger scale. We may recognise
that, as
is
expressed in the meaning of the natio as the

;
totality of the cognati, community of descent is one of the conditions of the unity of the people but this can
never be taken absolutely. It cannot be controlled, and our modern peoples, who have passed through countless wars and are in constant commcrcium and connubium with each other, have ended with an indistinguishable confusion of blood in their veins. It is only in lower races without any history that we may find a unity or purity of race, though even in these cases it is diluted All peoples in the course of their developat the frontiers. take into their midst other peoples whom they ment have brought under their yoke, and, on the other hand, various sections are detached from their own body. Hence a people is never merely a physical community. is It psychic, produced in historical movement, a
community
of
mind, heart, and
will.
Even the country,

;
in spite of its importance in the popular mind as the home of the nation, is no indispensable element of a community
as
we
see in the case of
maintain their
country.
nomadic peoples or those which community independently of any particular

;
The decisive external expression of this psychic union is the language just as the Greeks distinguished themselves from all other peoples on the ground that " these were barbarians," or stammerers. In the language the spiritual community is expressed as the elaboration
of
a definite historical life-content, the finest shape of

is
which
literature
found in its literature. Thus language and form the essential characteristic and, at the
:
same time, the highest possession of a people outcome of its spiritual activity and the measure
contribution to civilisation.
the
of its
Whoever deprives a people
260
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
it,
of this possession, or destroys its love of
is
its
real
and most dangerous enemy. While the association of the people, being a half natural and half historical phenomenon, has not quite definite outlines, this is even more true of the forms of the economic community, to which it was long customary and least organised of all. Whatever shape it has, it owes partly to the unions which individuals form for definite purposes and partly to the co-operation of State-forces. It is itself, it is true, not bound up with any of these special unions, or with any particular people or State. In it we have an expression of the common will by means of usages, customs, and traditions which can only partly attain an organised form. It contains the mechanism of economic life, to meet and initiate fresh paths for which is the task partly of individuals and their various combinations, and partly of the State
or States. We need not inquire here how much is to be expected or desired from one side or the other. That is a matter of life and, as far as science is in harmony with it, of the national economy. But it is clear that this also, together with the establishment of aims, which must be assumed for economic communities, has its roots in the general principles of ethics. The State has quite a different position amongst the
to give the the loosest
name
'
'
society
in
a specific sense.
It
is
types of voluntary communities, in so far as they repreFor the individual it present pre-existing life-unities. its exists, and is only in a very slight degree natural
;
nature is, indeed, historically determined, since it is not the same thing as the people. The German people does not live entirely in the German Empire, but in Switzerand these States in turn include land and Austria also For the State the external others besides Germans. condition is the country, its territory, hence it has a Yet a precision of frontiers which a people never has. State is not merely a community confined within a definite
;
country its characteristic feature and its inner condition is a predominating will, which holds the physical and psychic power. When there is no such psychic power,
;
COMMUNAL WILL
the State the
is
261
it merely lives on decay power, which, moreover, is physical always based upon psychic power, upon authority. How this power came into existence, whether by usurpation in what persons it is or contract, by force or by law embodied what is the purpose of its exercise these
in a condition of
its
relics
of
are
all
qualitative differences between States which
may
be very considerable. There are similar differences in their quantitative aspects, the extent of a State varying from the ancient City-State to a structure like the United What is essential to the nature States of North America. of a State is the domination of will, which extends to every external function of the life of the subjects. Hence the State is a visible organisation by means of which a common will presses into its service the activity Out of this organised nature of the State of individuals. we get law, as the form in which it expresses and formuIt is, in respect of its tendency, the common lates its will. will developed from its primitive haziness to a definite form, and is therefore the highest shape in which such
a
common
will
can develop.
special position into which a man
The Church occupies a

pre-existing communities
amongst the
is
born.
We
of
must distinguish
it
from the more general idea

which embraces
common
religious will,
many
other forms.
These differ in virtue of the differences of religions, which may be either evolved or founded religions. In the case of evolved religions the religious community coincides in the main with the people, as we see in the classical
instance of Judaism. Membership of the people means also membership of the cult communion with the great
:
Here again large associaancestors, heroes, and gods. Thus there were tions do not exclude smaller ones.
cults for the
two sexes within the common
cult, or cults
along with the aesthetic national Vague intermediate forms religion, in ancient Greece. also arise in the shape of mysteries, and to some extent these assume the character of unions or founded associations (OiaaoC). They are fraternities for the purpose of
of particular City-States
salvation with
all
the features of leagues
they leave
it
to the individual will to enter or leave them.
262
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Of the founded religions Mohammedanism arises as and combines with a conquering and subjugating political power, so that, for a time at least,
a tribal religion,
the
of
first
community
the State.
it
of religion coincides
It
with the community
At Christianity. was one amongst many religious associations in the Roman Empire a founded association, which the individual was free to enter or leave, as is the case with
:
was otherwise with
recent sects such as the Quakers, Methodists, Memnonites, Mormons, Salvation Army, etc. But what are now called Churches are quite different. They are very far from
calling themselves
mere unions or associations. As they have historically developed, they are now for the individual
the State.
pre-existing associations, almost in the same sense as is A man belongs to them from birth, without
being invited, and the declaration of membership which one makes in childhood, at confirmation, is as a rule anything but an act of free will. In theory membership of the Church is as indissoluble as membership of the In certain historical periods, such as the Middle State.
no Ages, this indissolubility was asserted in practice one was free to leave, or could leave except by way of In modern times it is possible to break one's expulsion. connection with either Church or State, but it is [in Ger;
many]
are
usages and
in their
made difficult by social The result is that many legal regulations. counted as members of both Church and State who
rarely
done,
and
it
is
own
The Roman Church insists on the
hearts and convictions do not belong to them. principle that membership

' '
as cannot be surrendered, or regards the apostate still belonging to it. All this shows marked analogies between Church and State and as a matter of fact, although the Church has the aim of giving reality to the religious life on earth, it has one essential feature in common with the State;
domination.
cratic)
The
organised
will
of
the
ecclesiastical
regiment, assuming
in
different shapes (monarchic or
demo-
different
organisations,
always means power
over subjects, and sometimes it assumes the character The analogy with the State of an entirely worldly rule.
COMMUNAL WILL
is
263
own
to
further seen in the fact that the Churches create their law, which ought to be the prerogative of the State.
law, penal law, and even, civil law a marriage law,
They frame a constitutional some extent, parts of the
and for the purpose of seeing it carried out they have organised officials, institutions, and property. This is just the same as in the State yet the Churches are not, and do not wish to be, States. The power of the State is both physical and psychic that of the Church
for instance
;
:
is
of itself psychic only.
It
becomes physical only when
the State lends the Church its power. It is very difficult to assign the limits between the two in this respect, for the State's physical power rests ultimately on psychic
authority over subjects, on their convicobedience, subjection, and, where In the case of the Church the characnecessary, on fear. teristic thing is that its physical power depends always on the State. It is made up of concessions by the State, and is not really sovereign, but delegated. There is no
power
tions,
on
its
confidence,
valid
said.
Church-law
except
in
the
case
of
"
recognised
religious
associations," or Churches, as is commonly If a sect wished to lay down rules for its members
case of the
which conflicted with the law of the State take the Mormons they would be just as ineffective as the rules of any other society would be. This is the
situation as far as the facts go. Ecclesiastical theory, it is true, bases the power of the Church on a divine
institution
of the Church.
but this naturally holds only for the members It is from this character of the Church as a semi-State that it becomes involved in difficulties with the State. At times it appears as a political power
;
like
any State
is
aim
different
world.
of this
at times it emphasises the fact that its from the State, since it lies beyond this But this is not the place to discuss arguments nature and subject them to the test of history
;
and
fact.
This survey of the known types of associations, especially of the differences between voluntary communities which the individual finds pre-existing, was necessary if we are to understand the way in which they become ethical
264
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
problems. Each of us at first finds these associations, which precede our existence, set before us as something of self-evident validity indeed, in the strict sense they are not set before us or above us, but we experience them as elements of our conscious will in common with our fellows. Of the ground of their validity we have a very vague idea, in fact scarcely a conscious idea at all. They rule us by custom, the involuntary observance of inherited and traditional usages. They are a
;
mode of feeling, willing, and acting in which we find ourselves involved, and with which we co-operate, without
asking any questions about their basis, perhaps not even about their meaning. The main source of custom is in natural associations, even when these have only attained in the family, their full significance in the course of time the people, and the social community. Hence custom is, in its involuntariness and its vague influence, the primitive form of the spiritual community not only in feeling and It does not rely for will, but also in ideas and views. protection and sanction on any visible authority, but on public opinion or the general mind, which assumes a dominating position in each individual mind.
;
This primitive state of custom, however, undergoes historical development, and every people that passes into the historical phase inherits the process which we find with grandiose simplicity in the period of the Greek the emancipation of the individual. cultural advance It is partly based upon the energy with which the will of the individual resists the pressure of prevailing custom, but partly on a perception of the contradictions in which custom becomes involved owing to the fact that the individual belongs to many different associations with different aims. When the claims of the family, the State, and the people differ from each other, or are even antagonistic to each other, the individual has to decide
an
and he thus becomes partly freed from the semi-conscious tyranny of custom which had at first ruled him. By this process custom is divided into two On one side, the intimate side, custom becomes parts. on the other hand, the external personal morality
for himself,
;
COMMUNAL WILL
side or external
life, it
265
takes the form of State-regulations The more morality and law take in the shape the work of custom, in their different ways, the more over custom falls into decay. It becomes to some extent superfluous, and is confined to what is of no consequence
of law.
from the moral or the legal point of view. The relation between these three ethical powers custom, morals, and law determines the far-reaching variations of social life. How much law leaves to custom, and how much law and custom leave to individual morality, is characteristic in the highest degree of a people or an age. There is no rule by which this is determined. It has to be
studied historically in each case. The broader the rule of custom, the poorer personal morality is and the cruder
and more external the law. The broader, more subtle, and more intimate the law is, the more zealously individual morality, which grows stronger in opposition to it, guards its province against law and custom. In the end the two great developments of custom stand face to face with each other, and give us the main problem of civilisation What is the frontier between the province of moral personality and that of legal government ?
:
In such a situation the mind recalls the difference in value of the many voluntary communities into which the individual is born, and the inevitable question arises, whether there is a standard, by which we may appreciate these differences of value, that may claim universal and necessary validity. In the personal decision of the individual it is always his interests, partly his convictions,
which influence him in each case of conflict. But the distressing doubts into which he may or must be driven impel him to look for some such ultimate standard of judgment. It can be found only when a man bears clearly in mind the function which these communities have to discharge. In the case of deliberate associations, leagues or unions, the function may be any of the very varied purposes of daily life, amongst which the Eudaemonistic
or
Utilitarian
feature
is
common
element.
this is met, the tasks of these various pre-existing communities go further, and their claims on the individual
When
266
are sanctioned
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
by the duties they have
differ
to
discharge.
These duties, however, considerably in character, be asked whether we can bring them all and it may under one common formula. An attempt is made to do this by indicating the welfare or advancement of the individuals as the aim and task
In doing this, however, we put these associations. level of leagues, and there is no justification them on the for their assuming a dominion over the individual to which he does not consent. On the other hand, the
of
attempt may be made to seek the aim of these pre-existing communities, beyond the social fabric, in the higher nature of man. The solution which was obvious in the case of the Church seems to some to apply also to the But the State, and even to the people and the family.
solution lay beyond the limits principles involved in that in the ideas and claims of faith. of scientific knowledge,
alternative, if in explaining this task we may neither sink to individual utility nor rise to metaphysical is to seek in the nature of these communities
The only
hypotheses, themselves some immanent indication of their function we find some assistance in the and for this
;
purpose
evolution of custom into morals and law. This shows us that at the base of every existing community there is a psychic collective life, especially a collective will, in a form that is obscure, vague, and unconscious of its own must be fully undergrounds. This collective element stood and must have an external shape. This elaboration of the vital order for the purpose of collective activities
and
expressed they means that opposed to nature and natural powers, it out of his environwhich man makes with conscious power ment. In the work of these vital tasks the individual
as such,
for the construction of visible institutions in which is what we call civilisation. As are
independence as regards traditional customs, takes a part, and strives to bring on the common conscious improvement and life, in which he arises, to a
and
in his
external form. Thus the task of voluntary communities, and therefore of individuals, is the creation of these vital orders and therefore the production of civilised institu-
COMMUNAL WILL
tions
;
267
is
for the
work
of
each individual
to co-operate
in the realisation of the task in the position assigned to

all the elements and particular features which constitute individuality. must leave it to special discussions of practical to deduce from this the consequences for philosophy ethical theory and the philosophic science of society.
him by
We
'
'
All that
we had
to
do here was to indicate the philosophical
point of view from which alone these voluntary commuThose who are not clear on the nities must be treated.
matter remain in the sphere of social psychology and

Since the name Sociology genetic explanations. a good name in itself was introduced by Auguste Comte, it has generally been applied to inquiries which are of a social-psychological, or, as is sometimes said (just
its
as infelicitously), folk-psychological character
inquiries
which borrow all sorts of facts from ethnography, preThat is in itself a very worthy history, and history. of scientific research, but for philosophy it provides subject We can only the data from which the problems arise.
speak of a philosophical sociology only in the sense of a research into the value of the various types and strata of voluntary communities and the functions on the discharge of which such value
may
depend.
contrasts of scientific attitude toward the problems presented by associations are most clearly seen in the
The
treatment of the most advanced of vital orders namely, A philosophy of law is in dealing with theories of law. and that is easily greatly distrusted even by jurists understood, because they fear that there is question of some other law than theirs, a law that holds nowhere, " a Utopian law the so-called law of nature." Let us see first how the idea of a law of nature arose, and what sound and unsound elements there are in it. Antiquity did not expressly attempt to set up a philosophic or normal law, or, as has been said, a just law in face of the existing or positive law though there are approaches to this in the Sophistic distinction between what is valid by nature and what is valid by promulgation (tfrvaei TJ
:
'268
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Even the Roman jurists, in spite of their relations to the Stoics, took little notice of this distinction. Where they speak of a jus naturale, a lex naturae, a detiora naturalis, they mean either the positive consciousness
and feeling of law or the logical consistency in the series of legal propositions. For them the jus naturale is one of the sources of law or one of the motives of the positive
law with which they deal. The antithesis of natural and existing law comes later to some extent in medieval philosophy, but particularly during the Renaissance. Modern philosophy, which mainly took its conceptual apparatus from science, derived its knowledge from general conceptions and judgments with their timeless It therefore believed that it could deduce validity. law philosophically from general nature, or at least human
;
nature,
by a purely rational process, whilst historical knowledge was restricted to the various phenomena of
In this way there emerged the idea of a positive law. rational law which was, and ought to be, naturally general valid, as distinguished from positive law with its actual
Hence the difference validity within certain time-limits. in value which determined that in a case of disagreement
the higher validity should belong to the rational or natural law. The general concept becomes the judge of the individual phenomenon the natural becomes the standard for judging the historical the idea becomes an ideal. A distinction is drawn between the law that is and the law that ought to be. The science of actual law is jurisprudence the science of ideal law is the natural law. This antithesis is not convenient for the jurist. The law with which he deals is a fact, a tangible reality. The other, which does not exist, seems to him a creature of fancy or of wish. It is law as the professors, perhaps,
; ;
:
would like to see it. If that were true, all philosophy law would be in a sorry plight, and therefore we must at once remove this misunderstanding. It is not an ideal and artificially constructed law that is the subject
of
but actually existing law, the law with which jurisprudence deals. It is just the same as
of a philosophy of law,
COMMUNAL WILL
in all other sections of philosophy. does not speak about an ideal nature
269
Natural philosophy which it itself creates, but of the same nature with which physics and chemistry, physiology and psychology, are concerned. Logic is
;
it investinot expected to bring science into existence and science which come into being and gates knowledge work quite independently of logic. Moral philosophy is not imperativist in the sense that the philosopher underhe deals with the actual takes to create new values it moral life. /Esthetics has not to invent a new art
;
Above all, the philosophy of existing art. has no intention of thinking out a philosophic religion it has to deal with religion as we all experience religion
discusses
;
it.
not the object, but the mode of treatment, which distinguishes philosophical theory from that of
It
is
the other sciences.
When
this distinction is forgotten,
when philosophy attempts
to encroach
it
theories of the other sciences,
upon the genetic becomes superfluous and
meaningless. In this way the philosophy of law has to recognise jurisprudence in its entirety. It is the business of juris-
prudence to state the actual law and show its logical connectedness. That is its dogmatic function. It has That is to study the origin and development of law. It has to work out the system of its historical function.
its
tical
application function.
to
That is its pracparticular cases. Thus the interpretation, history, and
its
technique of law always presuppose an existing law in various historical manifestations. Philosophy does the same, but it regards the subject from an entirely and this is the sound element different point of view
;
It is an undoubted fact natural law. Do we not that we study the actually existing law. at times of an unjust law ? Every advance in speak in legislation, is based upon some such law, every change censure, which in some way recognises the unsatisfacIn practice these censures toriness of the positive law. in the old idea of
are very individual, very variable, and inspired by very In face of this we see in the principle different motives. of a natural law a desire to make these censures objective
270
and universal,
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
to give them a scientific basis. Hence here again the philosophic standpoint is that of an appreWe have not to ciation of values of universal validity. our knowledge of reality and its causal relations, enlarge
but to discover
how
it
is
This was the aim of natural law, but
possible to determine values. it was carried out
in quite a wrong way, as an ideal law which was valid without restriction of time was set up, and the value of every positive law was measured according to the measure Instead of this ideal we of its agreement therewith. must conceive our task as one for the fulfilment of which the law already exists, and for the sake of which it has been produced. Once we define our task and aim, the means of realising it cannot be deduced logically this was the error of the old natural law but the aim can merely be used as a standard to apply in considering
actual laws. Here again, however, we must guard against a certain confusion. We may consider whether the law is, having regard to its purpose, fitted to carry out
the intention of the legislator. This consideration of the technical satisfactoriness of legislation is in every Hence there is no case the business of jurisprudence. of empirical work of this kind when the question
for opinions philosophy of law discusses the aim of law on this subject may be sound or unsound, and even contraWe might say that in certain circumstances dictory. even an abuse of law may technical!}' be admirable.
;
From
to be
rules
these opinions we appeal to to the ethical end of law.
what opinion ought
In general
we may understand by law a system of which an organised voluntary community has laid
for its subjects as the indispensable minimum of it makes upon them for the realisation of its
;
down
the claims
cultural function and it has laid these down in the sense that an official executive will see that they are enforced, will punish transgressions, and will decide in
case of dispute about them. Amongst the characteristics which we include in this definition there are two which may be differently interpreted according to certain
individual or general tendencies.
The
value
of
legal
COMMUNAL WILL
clauses as
271
based upon the fact that the duties the State of the individual are settled by the whole that the claim upon law is merely and it follows from this the correlative of the duty to law. My claim upon law that my fellows have toward me consists of the duties In this it seems to individualistic in virtue of the law. that the originality of the claims which indithought viduals have upon the State is not sufficiently recognised.
norms
is
We may, however, meet this objection by observing that the ethical claim of the personality, which we may call a moral right, does not arise from the law itself, but is one of the antecedent sources of the law, whilst the claim upon law can only be something that arises from the
law
itself.
The same arguments
will suffice to settle the
controversy whether law is to be denned as the limitation A right in this original sense means of an original right. the sphere of those functions which are not regulated by law, and the free discharge of which is therefore protected by law though on the condition that they do not disturb
;
the legal order. In all these matters the Kantist principle holds that law represents the sum of the conditions in which the freedom of the individual can be adjusted to the freedom of his fellows under a general rational law.
law determines by means of a general enactment what have to do or to omit, it eo ipso determines what the others have to do or to omit in regard to me. My legal
If
I
at the same time as my legal duties. mutual limitation of the life-spheres of individuals extends only to those interests which fall within the province of law of State regulation. These
claims are laid
down
However,
this
And
are always only a part of the entire activity of the will. the settlement of the matter depends upon what
one regards as the end of the State, and therefore of its In our definition of law we have given legal regulation. this element a general formal expression which results from what we said previously about the evolution of
custom, morals, and law. We saw that custom is quantilaw. tatively, and morality qualitatively, greater than The fulfilment of his legal duties is the least that life asks of a man custom and morality demand far more.
:
272
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
If one does not comply with their demands, he is not held legally responsible, but he is all the more visited with the penalties of social life and the moral censure of his
makes demands which conflict with custom, or even with mature personal A man morality, but it never demands more than they.
be a scoundrel, yet legally unassailable the converse case, in which one might be in the grip of the law, yet morally right, is an exceptional happening in certain The claim of law, therefore, extends tragic conflicts. only to the indispensable minimum which the State must
fellows and his own conscience. there are cases in which the law
On
the
other hand,
may
have from everybody. Hence Jellinek's definition the law is the ethical minimum. This minimum, moreover, is not definitely fixed in relation to the whole of man's interests. The limits are
:
subject to considerable variations. The fact, has its own maximum and minimum.
of the legal regulation depends, both in tice, on what one conceives to be the end of the State.
minimum, in The content theory and prac-
The extreme
limit in this respect
was the theory that the
legal order of the State has nothing to do beyond protecting the lives and property of individuals. That was the
Liberalism, which from the originality and self-mastery of the individual, and regarded the State as a technical product
started
sentiment of modern individualistic
consent of the individuals. This is the is called the contract-theory, which, if it meant more than an explanation of the origin of the State, got into the vicious circle of maintaining that, while a valid contract is not possible until the State is formed, there was at least a regulative idea in the sense that the State had the right only to lay down things to which its subjects would agree if they were asked if they
of the
common
tendency of what
cared to be members of it. It follows plainly from this that the individual concedes to the legal order only as much as it finds absolutely necessary and that ought to be the protection, as far as external conditions are concerned, of the independent activity of the individuals. The historical weight of this theory comes of its connec;
COMMUNAL WILL
tion
of
for tolerance.
273
with the Protestant conscience and the agitation
The idea of religion as a private affair the individual rose in rebellion against the Stateorganisation of religious life in the Church, and the first sphere of life which claimed freedom from the State was Other spheres, such as trade that of personal religion.
and commerce, science and art, which are equally based upon the free activity of the individual, wished to be On these lines free from the State, yet protected by it.
the State
vidual.
evil
is
in itself a
matter of indifference to the indilie
All the
main
interests of personality, its external
and internal possessions, which a man keeps
outside
it.
It is
a necessary
at a distance as far as possible " the scavenger-State." When this extreme is devel-
oped, law and State have no positive roots in the indiFrom the theoretical there is no State-sentiment. vidual point of view it appears that even the discharge of this function of the State is a technical matter, and it may be essentially the same everywhere. That is a fundamental element of the old law of nature. In this the function of being a genuine inner voluntary community and an external ordering of life based thereon is most It is, as Schiller and Fichte said, imperfectly realised.
;
the
State
for
necessities
only.
All
cultural
resources
were to be sought
in religion, art,
all
with his self-expression in a word, science, industry, trade, etc.

in the individual
that we call civilisation. Now, ought the State and the law to be cut off from Here we have these and have no ethical inwardness ? the other extreme, which claims that they must have all
these things as the essential elements of their aim. This is the "organic" conception of the civilised State. It must be based upon a complete community of will, and
must be realised in the full extent of public life. In the long run this becomes the Socialist ideal. The practicable elements of this are suited only for small associathis
tions like the City-States of ancient Greece. It is true that even these were very far in their real features from
the ideal form which Plato gave to their principle in In developing the idea of a complete commuhis Politeia.
18
274
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
nity of will the philosopher found himself compelled, on the one hand, to underrate and reject the family, and,
on the other hand, to
restrict
government
to the aristo-
cratic section of ancient society, which was to leave the inferior and necessary work of daily life to an army of
slaves
much more numerous than
itself.
Far different
are the civilised States of our time, which have the basis of their community of will in the historical evolution of
In their case peoples, and are therefore National States. the adjustment of the interests of the whole to those of individuals has in principle succeeded so well that the individual can enter even with his most valuable work
into the activity of the State without any prejudice to his inner independence. In all these various forms the State and its legal order have become the vehicles of
civilisation to
such an extent that the State-institutions
sustain the progress of the collective spiritual work. The most important of these institutions is, as Plato perceived,
education,
by means
of
which the State ensures the
continuity of the of generations.
common will throughout the succession The moment the State relinquishes
education it ceases to be a civilised State, and sinks to the position of a State merely endowed with power and looking after the welfare of citizens. When we compare the two extremes, we see that they agree in placing the end of the legal order of the State somewhere in the field of cultural activities, and merely Individualism would restrict the differ as to the means. order to securing to the individual the possibility legal Universalism demands of exerting his cultural activity. that the legal order shall directly contribute thereto by an organisation of the common life. A way has been sought out of this formal contradiction, without going into their many ramifications, by the purely formal theory that the legal order must be regarded as an autonomous end, not as a means as if it were necessary that State and law must exist somehow, no matter in what form. Certainly the legal order has its ethical value, but it always derives this from the content which it has Hence the theory of the State and law as an to realise.
;
COMMUNAL WILL
autonomous end, which
of nature,
is is
;
275
really a relic of the old law
though it contains an element always worthy of consideration in connection with the question of the validity-in-itself which has to be claimed for the types of voluntary communities. As a matter of fact this question is one of the chief points in the philosophy of law, and, neglecting a number of special problems such as that of the sanction of the right to punish, which we touched in connection with All these vital responsibility, we turn to consider it.
is
unsatisfactory
that
and particularly law, are the work of men. Behind them is the living man with his interests, feelings, and desires, even his affections and passions. No one denies that. But in view of the emphasis which is sometimes put on it, we may ask whether these orders are really only the work of man whether, from the very fact that man develops the necessary activity from his
orders,
;
whether here again there is not something of what Hegel called " the cunning of the idea " namely, that higher contents emerge unsought from the play of the movements of earthly life, and develop in them of their own inner necessity. That certainly happens in other fields. also is the work of man, born Knowledge of human needs but it does not end there. In it the transcendental comes into consciousness realities of a higher order. That is the validity-principle of actual necessity, which is the real nucleus of the transcendental philosophy. We cannot think without combining valid contents in valid forms, and it is only a question of our
;
:
interests, realised ;
transcendental
orders
are
not
involuntarily
fully conscious of it. the same with the various orders of community of will. Wherever there is a voluntary communit}', and whatever its purpose, it is bound to have certain forms and rules, however scanty and loose they may be, as they are in the case of leagues, unions, etc. This element of indispensability, which is in the nature of things and
becoming
It is
is
essential in every
form of voluntary community, was
certainly part of what people aimed at in the law of nature. It corresponds, on the highest stage of abstrac-
276
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
is
tion, to the element which of jurisprudence, in part,
as
pursued by rational theories opposed to the historical
In both cases there is a conviction that in this the rule of necessities which are independent of the arbitrariness of individuals or the chance of circumstances, and are rooted in the reality itself in the reason From another side the comparative science of things. of law is on the track of these necessities in an empirical
schools.
we have
it attempts to discover by a collection of the what the general element is what law in general is. If in these ways we find that some community of will given by nature and history as an obscure rudiment seeks conscious and firm distinctness, self-comprehension, external shape in the legal order, the aim is still very
way, as
facts
imperfectly realised. All realisation of law in legislation, government, and executive is limited by the individuals whose business it is to take part therein. Even the meaning of the collective will of the State is a problem that constitutional law can never clearly solve, and that is, perhaps, best expressed, with Rousseau, in the formula, how the volonte generale is related to the volonte " can never be simply dc toiis. For the general will the will of all, otherwise all injustice ceases. The general will, therefore, is not a natural fact, but an historical task and it is a superstition that the modern method of securing it by adequate majorities has solved the problem. If we further consider the men employed in carrying out the law, how there must always be weak, fallible, and blundering officials in the government and executive, we see how little one can speak of a complete
'
realisation of the collective will

legal order.
But even
if
we
by any single historical flattered ourselves that we

even
if
had overcome these

development of
inimical relations
its
difficulties,
in
some fortunate
case the restrictions which a people experiences in the

legal
to
order, partly on account of other peoples and partly by the
division of parties at home, were removed, in the case of this most perfect phenomenal
even then, form of the
would
realm of morality (to speak with Hegel), the vital order still be bound up with the special historical features
HISTORY
277
None of these historical of a single people or State. special phenomena fully realises humanity as a community of will. Yet the life of peoples, States, and even of
individuals has no other meaning than this, to realise in the collective life and in outer form what is implanted in the nature of man as an unconscious and obscure collective will. That is the very meaning of the word
"civilisation" in its modern sense. We understand by not merely a cultivation of the mind, but the it, the rational germ, the conscious self-realisation of and elaboration of what a man finds comprehension given in himself. The living man makes himself in the course of time what he is according to the outline laid " down in him. " Become what thou art is the supreme law of the individual. It is the law also of peoples, which are summoned to realise their inmost being in the creation of their State and its legal order. But humanity as a whole is not realised in any single people
or State.
Its realisation is history.
16
History.
What happens in and around of higher research Individuality and personality Self-consciousness Emancipation of the personality History of language Collectivist and individualist history Superpersonality of values Unity of the human race Concept and idea of humanity Historical unification Moral order of the world Progress in history Indefinite Old Intellectual, moral, and hedonistic progress perfectibility age and death of humanity Life as the greatest good Reality with and without time.
The philosophy
man
The philosophy of history has, like the philosophy of law, to reckon with the special science which deals with the same subject, and it has to see that it incurs no risk
For historical or suspicion of encroaching upon it. research as a whole has to investigate and arrange the
historical
cosmos as thoroughly as natural science does

natural
with
point
the
is
cosmos.
What
philosophical
stand-
there, apart from this, from which this broad province of knowledge can and ought to be further con-
278
sidered
?
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Let us
first
lay
down
its
and
limitation.
The philosophy
a negative qualification of history has often
more or
its
been conceived, especially in less in Herder, and is
business was to sum up a survey of universal history.
beginnings, as we find often conceived, as if the results of research in

still
of this
kind
is
But a universal history and remains an historical science, and
philosophy must not attempt anything new in this line. Either it would have to be identical with the empirical science in which case it would be superfluous or it would have to teach something different from the historian about these ultimate truths of history and in that case it would be false. This, therefore, is not the task of the philosophy of history nor, on the other hand, is it restricted to being a mere theory of knowledge for the historical sciences. It would not, indeed, be wrong for it to seek the achievement of its aim by a kind of investigation that has frequently been attempted in modern times. Just as natural philosophy in its first stages may be construed as a philosophy of the sciences that is to say, a theory of knowledge for scientific research so one might make the philosophy of history a philosophy of historical science that is to say, a theory
;
of
knowledge
for historical science.
But
just as natural
philosophy has, after this preparatory work, to enter upon its proper problems in its own way, so the philosophy of history also may and must, from its special point of view, go on to a conceptual treatment of the actual problems of the evolution of civilisation.
is
far as the theory of knowledge for historical research concerned, the essential points have been considered when we discussed noetical problems. We saw that the
As
principle of selection
a relation of value.
and synthesis in the science is always An event becomes historical when,
in virtue of its individual significance, it is directly or Thus the empirical science indirectly related to values. of history creates its objects, since it gives prominence amongst the immense variety of events to those which
may
and
it
be of interest on account of their relations to value, then combines the separate elements in constructions
HISTORY
279
which in turn are related to values. But this relation we must constantly emphasise this in order to value to avoid very unfortunate and frequent misunderstandings is by no means a judgment of value. Moralising valuamore to do with historical than with tions have no Both are scientific presentations, without natural science. regard to value, of what is what ought to be or has
said that the theory of knowledge in ethics, we do not ethics as the theory of individual duty, but ethics mean as practical philosophy in its entirety, in which sense it includes the philosophy of history. This relation to
been.
Hence when
it is
of historical science
must be sought
value is found in every individual fable or story, and in the traditions of the family, the tribe, or the people, owing to the interests of the narrator. The tale is told and repeated not about the trivial things that occur but about something that has occurred once and daily,
;
awakened an
interest that
may
prove permanent.
That
these tales shall be true
that they shall describe the
event as it really happened is claimed by historical science as distinguished from fiction, which may merely tell how it might have been (ofa av ylvono, says ArisYet we must bear in mind that what any memory, totle).
in the form of historical a real event, was never a research, may in its actual form it was entangled in solitary reality and overgrown by a mass of trivial and familiar things from which it was extricated by historical selection and synthesis and made into a self-contained whole, that is
and therefore the

;
historical
contain
as
to
say,
an historical object.
And
if
the pre-scientific
elements of history, ordinary memory and tradition, are conditioned by the interests of the narrator and related to his particular valuation, it is clearly the duty of man's scientific memory that the selection and synthesis in it be conditioned by values of a universal character. The determination of these values is precisely the aim of
and in this sense, and this alone, we find in ethics the principles of the theory of of historical science.
ethics,
attempt to knowledge
always
Now
these
values
of
historical
science
are
280
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
values,
human
and therefore man

It
is
at the very centre
human event, the event in and about man. Physical processes are introduced into the historical selection and combination
of historical research.
deals with the
only in so far as they may be brought into relation in some way to the human life of values. Hence the empirical foundations of historical research are values in so far and the philosophy of history as these are psychic facts I goes so far in its character as theory of knowledge as to understand and determine the actual procedure of Ethical valuation, however, is not historical science.
;
content, as we have repeatedly seen, with a determinaIt further asks tion of the empirical validity of values. to what extent the actual valuations are well grounded in the case of the higher orders which transcend the It works out this postuempirical course of human life.
late first in personal morality,
then in the philosophy of voluntary communities, and lastly in the philosophy of It seeks to determine whether the orders in history.
civilised activity of the human race is embodied are similarly based upon higher orders of reason just as one regards as general necessities of reason the uniformities which are attained in the theoretical knowledge
which the
of
nature.
In
other
words,
the
ultimate
question
is
whether the logos, the world-reason, rules in the cosmos as it does in the natural cosmos.
historical
This proper task of the philosophy of history demands
above all things a conceptual analysis of what is characteristic and distinctive in the historical process. Auguste
1
that, as has often
But we must again emphasise that it by no means follows from this been said and still more often thoughtlessly repeated,
This is psychology is the foundational science of all historical culture. not at all true of scientific psychology, which as to its method belongs to the natural sciences, and in its content is an inquiry, apart from value, into Its theories are no the uniform movements of the psychic elements. nearer to the interest of historical research than those of other sciences The psychology which the historian uses is a very different thing. are. the practical psychology of a knowIt is the psychology of daily life and the great ledge and understanding of men, the psychology of the poet statesman the psychology that cannot be taught and learned, but is a its highest form a genius for judging gift of intuitive intelligence, and in not a contemporary life and posterity. This sort of psychology is an art,
:
science.
HISTORY
281
Comte called it sociological statistics. This leads us to the strain between individual and whole, to which we referred above. For the first basic principle here is that
individuality is far greater in the human race than amongst animals, and greater in civilised man than in savages. We may say, in the naturalistic sense, that each organic being is an unrepeated individuality, both in its physical
One wether is fatter than the one dog cleverer than others. Even midges certainly have differences of form as we do, but they do not interest us, and so we take no notice of them. If our attention is drawn to them, we perceive them. The shepherd knows each member of his flock. In a foreign people, where at first all seem to us alike, we soon learn to distinguish one individual from another. This natural individuality, however, which we share with all organic a beings, is as such only an objective individuality
and
its
psychic features.
others
peculiarity for another, for the comparative judgment of Thus plants and animals may another, not for itself. become individualities to us in virtue of the special value which we ascribe to their particular features even,
;
in fact, a house, a chair, a stone, or a
mountain.
All
however, are not individualities for themselves. It is only man who acquires this sort of individuality, and we then call him a person. Personality is, therefore, indiindividuality which has become objective to itself Hence all men are individuals, but viduality for itself.
these,
:
all are persons. We speak of people becoming and being persons, of the child and of the incurable lunatic. Personality again has various degrees. The great majority, who seem to be there merely for the propagation of the We respect race, have only a potential personality.
not
legally and morally, but in them we see only the beginning of the transition from individuality to personThis transition is brought about by consciousness, ality. though this is certainly not identical with personality. They, however, have the same gradations. Self-consciousness is the greatest marvel in psychology. We can establish the fact, but we cannot comprehend it. We can analyse the conditions and prerequisites
them
282
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
for its appearance. They consist, from the point of view of individual psychology, in apperceptions in which
memory and
ideas
character
;
are
precipitated
as
constant
from the point of view of social psychology, in language, which treats even organic beings as substantives and brings out the reflection of the self in the mutual play of the Thou and I. This eventual
and appreciations
is, however, not to be considered a product of the psychic mechanism. There is between self-consciousness and the other contents of consciousness no analytical, but only a synthetic, relation, just as between nervous
result
movement and consciousness, or between inorganic and organised matter. Psychological theories of self-consciousness leave it an entirely obscure problem in philosophy. And just as obscure is the content of the self, which distinguishes itself from every content that it can present as that which has this content, and precisely
on that account
tion
is
not
it.
Thus
this
synthetic func:
appears something self-producing something not there until it creates itself. The self is, as Fichte taught with great energy, not first there before it comes into consciousness it becomes through its own function. It is a new thing in the world of substances. We learned when discussing theories of causality
that
is
;
as
to recognise it as something that resists every attempt to clothe it in the doctrine of the conservation of energy.
This inexpressible element of personality, as individuand that is the only sense ality for itself, is freedom in which ethics can adopt this much-abused word. This of persons must not, it is true, be taken in the originality sense of a metaphysical power. On the contrary, the Henism of metaphysical thought, as well as of the religious mind (as we saw in dealing with problems of substance), inexorably removes the aseity of individuals. Yet the
;
feeling of moral responsibility and historical thought for this synthetic freedom just as inexorably require it
;
alone introduces new elements into history. This significance is only attained by personality by self-consciousness in the individual becoming self-criticism and creating the free position which the personality adopts
HISTORY
283
over against itself. As logical conscience it determines the value of one's own ideas, and as moral disposition it determines the value of one's own valuations. Man was once subtly denned as the being who deceives As a matter of fact, deception is only possible as an act of a mind that is able to weigh its own value in free judgment against those of others. But the self-criticism that is found even in this presupposes in every case a division in the consciousness and in the self-consciousness of the If in an animal or a child, as a becoming personality. and in the lower classes of every nation and personality, age some recollection of an injury suffered or a pleasure enjoyed is the motive of action or counter-motive, this is only the psycho-mechanical preparatory stage to the self-consciousness and self-orientation of a conscious In its self-criticism this divides itself into personality. the determining and the determined part and Fichte has profoundly explained this by supposing that in every personality there is a vital stratum of clear consciousness which is contrasted with a stratum of obscure a situation that is found in its most perfect form feeling in the genius. The stratum of obscure feeling is the of the general mind, and the stratum of background lucid consciousness is the sum of all contents in which the personality has comprehended its own peculiar nature.
;
Whenever it asserts this against the domination of the general mind and manifests itself in an external act,
enters into that antagonism to the whole on which the historical process is based. The essence of personality is, therefore, that the individual must be more than a
it
mere specimen
history.
of the species.
said that the Fall
This is but an allegorical description of the fact that legend, the emancipation of individuals is the essence of human history as so many repetitions of the Fall not as an hereditary sin, but as ever-new acts of personalities. Every advance in knowledge, in morals, in the life of the State, in art, or in religion is a fall from the previous state of things a fall which, through struggle and sacrifice,
:
In this sense Kant has was probably the beginning of human not only an interpretation of the Hebrew
284
alters the
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
mind and the collective life. This is the ultimate meaning of the fact that it is only by the initiative of personalities that the general mind evolves from its obscure, stupid, and subconscious rudiments to a clear and free spiritual form. And that is, in the last resort, the entire meaning of human history. As a natural species man, Homo sapiens, shows an infinite variety of possibilities of spiritual life and a high degree of sociality, which in the earliest and lowest stages of life is almost equal to what we find amongst such invertebrates as the But in the course of human history there bees and ants.
is
a rebellion against this sociality in the sense that the work of personalities has to give form and clearness to Of history as an objective the common content of life. process, therefore, we may speak wherever individual
functions of personalities bring about permanent changes in the general condition of the common life. We see this best in the development of the chief
natural function of
human
find
and
in this
we
sociality, speech. all developments of
Its
changes
as the
man
speaking animal on phonetic necessities, and they proceed on physiological laws like those of the permutation of consonants though from these alone no one could deduce the history of Individual literature or the entire history of language. It is not variations and personal acts have a part in it. the people as a whole that speaks, but the individuals. Every innovation was first uttered somewhere, then
;
are based as a natural process partly
repeated and established. That is true in detail and as a whole. The significant personality grows into the has received everything from it, and prevailing speech
;
shapes
it
afresh
for
new
generations.
That
is
what
for instance, in the case of Luther and Goethe Then we have in the history of the German language.
we
find,
the accumulation of small changes, all of which can be traced to an individual origin and have been shaped by adaptation in the course of time. Thus we see the historical change in the easy and gradual flow of accumulating small alterations and, at the same time, in the
abrupt action of new creations.
The common substratum
HISTORY
of
the entire
movement
is,
however, the mutual under-
standing of all individuals that and this is, perhaps, the most
in the whole of from expressing the full meaning of people when they speak. It conveys a good deal more meaning in its forms, in the secondary meanings of words, in tone and emphasis in this, in fact, we not only express most That of our meaning, but the most important part of it. we understand each other in this that what is not said is fully appreciated is the great mystery that we can only regard as possible in view of the half-conscious collective psychic life which forms the substratum for
phenomenon
very far
have the same language, remarkable and obscure For speech collective life.
is
the development of the complexes of the individual mind and the conscious activity of personalities.
All these features of linguistic life are typical of every other form of the historical development of humanity, and we thus understand what is sound and unsound in the onesided views which we call the collectivist and individualist conceptions of history. Collectivism rightly emphasises the fact that all history is a collective movement, and that its meaning is to be sought in the changes of the collective life. It affects to treat person-
however, as mere transitory phenomena in which the collective process incorporates itself and in time dissolves again. It admits the significance of the influences
alities,
of the not only because the energies of this are life, particularly incorporated in them, but also because they are thus combined for the realisation of a new and peculiar Collectivism treats personalities as if they impulse. were merely individualities. Individualism, on the other hand, rightly emphasises the creative elements which issue from the activity of the individual, especially the " But it runs some risk of hero." great individual, the the fact that in these influences the collective overlooking forces have a share, and that the extent and permanence of the influence of the deeds of heroes can only be understood on that account. Both conceptions, however, miss the most significant thing in human history the ever-
which proceed from these concentration-points
common
286
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
life
changing strains between personalities and the collective and they therefore fail to perceive the essential point in the construction of the vital orders which give
us the meaning of historical development. For the relation of the emancipation of personalities to the whole varies in an extraordinary degree. Often
enough
that
it
upon
Fall," in the sense a sort of running off the rails which depends individual variation or motives related only to the
it is
assumes the character of a
"
In this case it may, it is true, have for a time a far-reaching influence on the general life, but viewed in relation to the whole it is never more, in such circumThe influence can stances, than a temporary change. only be permanent and real in the historical sense when the elements which slumber in the general mind and are unconscious of their power awaken to clear consciousness in this insurgence of the individual. All great actions of historical personalities as Hegel has excellently said are based upon the fact that the passionate energy of their will is directed to precisely the same ends as the driving energies in the ferment of the collective life which have not yet become fully conscious. In the case of heroes the most valuable element of the collective life is at work, apparently in contradiction to itself. The solution of the great historical problems and conflicts is that this situation breaks out and determines the decisive
individual.
form of things. The end, it is true, is never fully attained, and there are all sorts of obstacles and difficulties provided on the way. It follows, nevertheless, that in the personal
element of historical development
of
it is not really a question the arbitrariness of individuals and their particular qualities, but of that part of them in which the most
valuable element of the collective life takes clear shape. It is not obscure singularities which make up the historiit is the achievements of personalities cally significant through which the general mind presses on to its fulfilment and realisation. Hence the more the personality attains to conscious clearness, the more it destroys in itself the merely individual element in which its natural endowment Thus the whole of this strain between the consisted.
;
HISTORY
personality
issue that all that
287
and the entirety comes to the dialectical is highest and most valuable that the
can attain has in it something impersonal If the outbreak of a new truth in the mind of the individual seems at first a fall from the current condition of thought, nevertheless the energy of its influence consists in this, that in its own nature it shall be valid for all, and shall be completely independent
individual
and superpersonal.
of the accidental features of the mind of its discoverer. This superpersonality belongs to all great deeds of heroes in every department of life, and thus the personality attains its historical significance from the fact that it is more than itself. What constitutes the power of the significant personality is that it develops superpersonal values in itself and externalises them. The independence of these values of the individual features of the man who bears them may also be expressed by saying that they are independent of the accidents of time they have an eternal validity. We may therefore say that eternal values emerge from every historical strain between the whole and the individual that is due to the action of In the conflict of the general in time and personalities. the personal the real necessity of the vital orders enforces its validity, and thus logical and ethical uniformities realise themselves as eternal values in the temporal For the personality, therestruggle of the historical life. " To sacrifice oneself is good." fore, the highest aim is, For the whole the ultimate gain is that its vital orders approach more and more maturely and perfectly to the rational orders which they are expected to realise in
time.
this point of view, we speak of the history race (which is often wrongly spoken of as the history of the world) as a self-contained whole, we have in our minds an idea of the unity of the species,
When, from
of the
human
the meaning and justice of which we have now to examine. It involves the assumption that humanity as a natural
entity
of
is
mankind
an organic unity. But this biological conception is by no means sufficient for a critical inquiry
into the nature of history.
Whether mankind
really
is
288
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
such an organic unity is a question that cannot be stated or answered either from the point of view of history or It is not historical, since of the philosophy of history. it cannot be decided by traditions which, in this case, cannot contain the matter itself, but merely myths and legends about it. Neither is it the business of pre-history The controversy about the or ethnography to decide it.
origin of races
and unity of the species belongs to natural philosophy, and can at the most be decided by scientific On the one hand the unity of the race is affirmed research. as probable on the ground that crossings between different races are fertile. Also, there seems to be some indication of such an original unity in the philological evidence of
relationship in space and time of different peoples, so that at one time an ideal primitive people was imagined. On the other side, however, philolog}' shows that its
material gives us no clue whatever to an original language. We have great intellectual diversities (which need not be diversities of value) between races, but we have also an extraordinary diversity of gradations between them in all their physical and psychic qualities, reaching from the heights of civilisation down to the depths of an almost
say that the lowest human tribes, everything considered, are nearer to animals than to civilised peoples, so that here again we have an argument against the unity of the species Homo sapiens. However that may be, the question of the natural and genetic unity of the human race is irrelevant in history. At the beginning of our history, as far as tradition takes us, we find the human race as a scattered group of tribes and peoples who knew nothing, and could know nothing, about their unity. These hordes and tribes fell fiercely upon each other, and upon the stranger they turned as if he were a wild beast. They killed and ate him. It an originally homogeneous race does not matter whether was scattered over the earth as a consequence of some " Fall" and its results, and so its members were estranged from each other, or whether, having had several different the beginnings of history origins, its division is natural know nothing of a unity of the human race. We cannot
animal existence.
We may
HISTORY
say that
it
289
All that
ever existed as a natural state.
The history teaches us is dispersion, conflict, struggle. modern idea of a unity, solidarity, and common evolution of the human race is rather itself a product of history ;
so essential a product that we may see in the chief meaning of the historical development. We might almost formulate it history proceeds from the conception of humanity to the idea of humanity. This idea is not something given and pre-existing, but something worked out in toil and misery. We can understand it best on the analogy of personality. This also is not given by nature and pre-existing. Only its elements are given in the scattered achievements and movements of the nervous system and the psycho-physical vitality. The personality makes itself out of them. Thus humanity also finds itself scattered over the planet in peoples and races, and out of these it makes itself as a self-conscious That is its history. Hence even if there had been unity. a biological unity of descent of the human race (as to which biology and ethnography must decide on scientific grounds), it was lost in the wanderings of the species which form the content of prehistoric development, and history has created it as something new. That is its
and indeed
it
deepest meaning. This is not the place to trace this process of unification. We need only recall the extensive minglings between conquering and conquered peoples, which, in the struggle for food, women, luxuries, domination, and freedom, have repeatedly combined in new forms and obliterated older tribal differences. If the various peoples or races are not autochthonous, but derived from a single stem, this was a prehistoric process that is reversed in history, since
it
more important element

:
The brings before us the physical mingling of races. in this is, however, the spiritual
the mingling of the spirits of peoples to adjustment form a common civilisation. This gives us the great
culture-groups of the course of history in the three main centres Central America, the Chino- Japanese Sea, and the Mediterranean. If we care to glance at the future, we are confident that the Mediterranean civilisation will
:
19
290
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
its
ultimately prevail, because
the culture a great of gives promise in the future. The most valuable Atlantic civilisation and decisive centre of crystallisation in this story of the unification of the human race has been the Mediterranean civilisation, which is based upon a fusion of Aryan and Semitic elements, and which seems destined, in its blend
chief offshoot
is
North America, and
this
of
Greek art and science with the political and legal organisation of the Roman Empire and Semitic religion,
of
to provide a foundation for the civilisation of the future. Here the unity of the species does not merely consist in the vast fusion of nations which migrations have brought
about as physical and psychic facts it reaches consciousness for the first time. The self-consciousness of humanity appears first in Greek science. Under its influence the
;
antagonism of Hellenes and barbarians,

slaves,
of masters
disappeared. revealed in the Stoic plan of a world-State of the wise, and it sought its realisation afterwards in the conception of the Church as the one salvation of the human race. All that we have to do here is to indicate the way in which mankind attains self-consciousness in the form of scientific conceptions and dogmatic theories. It is for universal history to expound in detail the varied fortunes of this idea in the course of its realisation. We would add only that the lines of this realisation, which point toward the
infinite,
Thus the idea
of
and was humanity
never point toward any abstract unity or singuof world-empires is over and no worldlarity. can ever again attain supreme rule. The dominareligion tion of any ultimate political or religious unity becomes less and less probable in historical movements, as far as we can survey them. Everything points rather to a of equilibrium of differentiated orders as the only system
The age
form of unity. A community of interests and normal consciousness ought ultimately to be created above the spirits of peoples and spirits of the times as the idea of an absolute collective mind of humanity, to which, as their highest good and final aim,
possible of the
all the special vital orders of the nations ought to be referred in their details as well as in their most compre-
HISTORY
all
291
hensive features. This idea of humanity is realised in who, scattered over the whole planet, entertain it and work for its fulfilment in the collective life and it is further realised in all institutions which give expression to the community of the tasks of civilisation. In the last resort we ought to say that individual peoples have the same relation to this idea of a single mind of humanity as personalities have to the various forms of the collective
;
spirit
which are found in nations, States, and
religious
thus get a picture of the construction of vital orders which we find realised by some inner necessity in the historical process, and in which we have to see the phenomenal appearance of what, with ideal insight into the spiritual cosmos, we call the moral order The growth of this construction of vital of the world. orders in the various systems of civilisation is one of the subjects that are on the frontier between the research of universal history and the philosophy of history. For the ideal of a life-unity of humanity extends to all In the province of intellect arises its rational activities. science, in the province of feeling art, in that of will morality, and in that of action the organisation of State and society. In all these forms of civilisation the various
communities.
We
peoples and ages create their special systems, all of which point beyond themselves to the general human, the It is precisely the mission of realisation of humanity.
personalities constantly to renovate this relation in the mind, and thus to improve and strengthen it. Thus
between the people and humanity, between the restricted and merely temporary form of the collective mind and
the idea of the unity of the human race, there interposes a new and important function of the personality, the position of which in the vital order of the whole can
only be fully understood from this point of view. Hence the self-forming of humanity is for us the mate meaning of historical progress and, if this
;
ultiself-
forming means also self-determination, we may adopt Hegel's formula that the history of progress is in the consciousness of freedom. In this idea we have the end without which it is impossible to speak of progress. The
292
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
in dealing
more we talk about progress

questions,
either
with historical
questions,
particular
or
general
the
more necessary it is to be quite clear as to the standards by which we measure the amount of progress or reaction in the changes which present themselves to a knowledge which is devoid of values. These standards naturally depend in detail upon the needs and views which hold sway in the historical conditions and forces themselves, and at times seek to realise themselves through a struggle.
Success or failure decides whether we are to speak of progress or reaction in the case of any particular movement. If we apply this to the whole of history it can only mean that in some way the idea of a task which the historical or that at least we have process had to fulfil has won in mind a number of such tasks in relation to which the various movements are to be judged successes or failures.
;
Of progress in itself, without indicating any goal to which tends, we cannot reasonably speak at all, as we saw above in dealing with the biological conception of evolution. Then we have to consider the variety of the interests There is, therefore, in which the historical life is involved. no such thing as a simple progress of humanity. History reveals rather a very tortuous movement backward and forward. Most of the opinions about the matter are falsified by assumptions as to what ought to be they On the one differ according to the individual tendency. hand we have enthusiastic theories of an indefinite perfectibility of man, such as were inspired about the time of the French Revolution by the feeling that some new On the other side we politico-social era was dawning. have the depressing idea, as in the preaching of Schopenhauer, of an eternal monotony of history, in which the same tragi-comedy of human misery is played over and over again with new costumes and scenery. The truth is in the middle between these extremes, and the question of progress in history cannot receive a uniform ans\ver in all cases, but must be considered according to the different directions in which development necessarily moves. These different lines of the historical movement are
it
;
HISTORY
293
dependent upon each other in various ways, and the question may be raised whether one of them has a decisive significance for the others, and therefore for progress in
general.
The philosophy
of history of the
Aujklarung
and the French Revolution give this position to the " ideas," the development of knowledge, development of and this ideological and especially knowledge of nature expressly intellectualist conception tried to show that the historical movement on all other lines depended upon changes of theories and convictions. In extreme contrast with this we have now what is called the Materialistic philosophy of history, which finds in the change of economic conditions the fundamental process which
;
other changes in the social, political, moral, In face of these religious, scientific, and artistic life. conflicting views we may recognise that there are ages in which one or the other interest stands out prominently in the foreground and determines the development of the others, but in general we must say that the various threads of the evolution of civilisation are interwoven in a net of reciprocal relations, and yet at times are in
all
determines
respects quite independent of each other. sometimes assumed that we cannot question intellectual progress in history, but we have to draw a
many
It
is
distinction. That in the course of time, and with tradition accumulating experiences and the results of research, we- have gained a considerable sum of knowledge with
react
which we orientate ourselves in the world, and in turn upon it in our various spheres of life, is clearly a fact that no one can dispute. It will also be granted by
everyone that in virtue of the same tradition the child of to-day easily acquires, by speech, custom, and education, the outcome of the thoughts of its ancestors. These,
But in part they relate only stratum of social life, and it is not so upper easy to decide whether in general there is a greater capacity for knowledge, a higher power of thinking, or, especially, a better average judgment. The great decisions of human history do not favour the ideological dreams of the
certainly, are to a very thin
advances.
philosophers
of
history.
They show the
insignificance
294
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
our thin upper stratum as
of the intellectual culture of
compared with the elementary passions of the masses. In regard to scientific knowledge we are accustomed to say that, by means of our inductive methods of natural research and the critical methods of history, there has been a marked advance but even this is true only of the very slight percentage of scientifically minded men. In the majority there is the same hasty generalisation and blind confidence in whatever is said and handed down
;
On
(particularly in the shape of a respect for print) as formerly. the whole, perhaps, the human view of things has
as a certain self-consciousness of
through the imagination but from judgment the eighteenth century onward it has been usual to follow reactionary movements in which man, stung by his own uncertainty, falls back into the mists of mysticism and
;
experienced some elaboration
fantasy or into the arms of authority. Right in the heart of civilised nations we see, as in the primitive days of the race, the spiritual flocks the}' are now called " more blindly than ever parties following authority
'
before.
The
race
is peculiar.
situation in regard to the moral progress of the In this connection a fact of great im-
portance is the circumstance that the idealising of the natural condition of man could give rise to an idea of his original goodness and of the degeneration he has suffered in his historical development. Such a statement as that man is naturally good is in this crude form as erroneous as the opposite opinion, that he is naturally bad. Good and bad are predicates which one can ascribe to particular actions and intentions, and to the predominant But no man tendencies in the value-life of individuals. is entirely good or entirely bad. One must be devoid of all psychological insight to be able to divide men into
"wise and fools' or "sheep and goats," as is done in As a the interest of moralising or theological theories. matter of fact, good and bad are mixed in an extraordinary degree both in the natural disposition and the develop-
ment
of
men
and
it
is
very
difficult to
is
the course of time the preponderance
say whether in on the one side
HISTORY
or on the other.
of a political
295
We may
grant that the establishment
promoted conduct in conformity with the moral law, and that therefore legality has been to some extent furthered in the course of time. But we have to realise on the other hand that the naive sociality which forms the natural disposition of man has been more or less enfeebled during the historical As opposed to these two forms of legality, it process. is true that in respect of inner morality a higher personal life has been developed, and this means higher stages of morals which go far beyond the primitive condition of the race but here again there is question of an extremely small minority. The moral character of the average human, with his strong tincture of legality, is very much
;
and
legal order has
the same in
refinement
all ages. We must, indeed, admit that the and complication of the conditions of life have led to a refinement and interiorisation of crime which at times express themselves in deeds that make
us shudder.
of the hedonistic progress of the race, for a time strongly affirmed, is in a very ambiguous position. Many take it for granted that men are better off because of civilisation and its technical achieve-
The question
which was
ments.
may, as a matter of fact, call this into question. It is true that in the course of time the general level of
life has been raised and improved, but our needs have increased at least in the same proportion, and thus personal satisfaction is by no means greater. One might on the contrary, that the contentment of the individual say, is much better provided for in simple and primitive
We
conditions of
civilisation
life
than in the complex struggle to which

led,
and will increasingly lead. The gain to individual comfort of our mastery of nature is, on the whole, very doubtful. Aristotle once said that if the weavers' shuttles would go of themselves, there
has
selves to-day
for slaves. They almost go of thembut are our workers better off for it ? Their legal and moral position has been greatly improved by the abolition of slavery, and they have won human but their feeling of contentment, their personal dignity
;
would be no need
296
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
It is only the condition comfort, have not been improved. of the whole that has been raised and ennobled. In the vital order, the aim and dignity of man have been But this has recognised and have won supremacy. been purchased in part at the cost of the simple content-
ment which accompanied the state of nature. Kant has emphasised precisely this fact as a decisive refutation If pleasure and of the Eudaemonistic theory of morals. the satisfaction of one's desires were the meaning of human life, the aim would be much better realised by Rousseau's state of nature than by the whole of the and from this it follows that the vital work of history orders which represent the achievement of history must be in themselves higher things than happiness, which history has not increased. Considerations of this kind, which might be extended for instance, in respect of the developin other directions ment of art and religion must make us sceptical about the claim of indefinite progress and distrustful of the
;
an illimitable perfectibility of man. The theory, no doubt, has its advantage, but it is rather a judgment We of value than a piece of theoretical knowledge. might, indeed, say that all analogy is against it. Peoples
belief in
grow old and die, just as individuals do. New blood may circulate, and the future seem to hold infinite possibilities, but it is certain that the planet, and man along with it, grow older. Is there to be no old age, no period beyond
the bloom, for
say
man before he dies whether we may not now be
certainly cannot in the ripest period, or
We
even have passed it. There is no longer any room for doubt that our civilisation in many respects shows signs of age, as the Roman once did. Who knows whether it has still the strength to strike new roots in peoples that are not yet used up ? And will not the supply of fresh exhausted ? In many respects it peoples at length be may be suspected that we have already passed our highest We need not think pessimistically about the point. possibility of new forms of art in order to realise that certain types of artistic achievement reached heights in the history of the past which, from the nature of
may
HISTORY
297
the case, can never be overtopped. Such creations as the Homeric poems, the sculptures of the Parthenon, the dialogues of Plato, the madonna of Raphael, Goethe's Faust or Beethoven's music, will never be surpassed, or even equalled. At the most they may be replaced different. If, on the other hand, we turn by something
our attention to public life, we see everywhere, and to an increasing extent, the overwhelming need of associative forms which in their cumulative effect destroy individuality and lead to the death of personality. There is not much said in our time about personality. People speak more about what they want, and have not got. Everybody complains that originality is dead or in decadence. Everything is aiming at bigness, but it is mere bigness in quantity. This depreciation of personality is, from the point of view of what constitutes the essential thing in history, the most dangerous of all reactions. It threatens to thrust us back into the primitive condition of sociality without personality. That is in part the effect of the all-round democratisation of life. It more restricts and more the influence of the essential factor in history, the personal element. Any man who studies the movements of our time from this point of view must be apprehensive about the future unless he consoles himself with the hope of unknown possibilities of which we have at present no conception. In this respect we may find some relief in the fact that the historical cosmos is the world of new and unexpected things. In the end we have always the painful fact that the entire rich world of forms is destined to pass into the We cannot get beyond this tormentnight of the infinite. ing idea of the death of mankind except by seeking in the temporal achievements of man's history the traces of eternal values which, independently of all time and duration, have a validity in themselves and therefore need not be regarded as final products of the historical
;
process
or
by seeing
in life itself, apart
from
its
contents,
and
in its constant affirmation the highest of all values. This is another way of formally defining the highest good
by placing
it
in
life
itself.
It
amounts to an idea
298
that the way and value of
of
life
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
itself is
;
the goal of the way that the end are to be sought, not in the realisation eternal contents, but in the restless affirmation of This is an axiological tendency that and of will.
life
it, perhaps, an element of decadence and exhaustion and ennui, and arises from these very features of our life by a sort of contrast. When life froths and flowers, it has contents which determine its value. It is only when
has in
itself is
these are languid, or lose their significance, that life in regarded as a value, even the greatest of all values. It is not therefore surprising that our age, on various
sides,
imagines that
it
has discovered the ethical principle
in life itself, for the sake of life
and
will.
it
mind
leans to this view in the form in which
The modern was expressed
by Nietzsche, who
is supposed to have transcended all the content-values of history and placed the new valuation of the superman in the supreme affirmation of the great personality, the unfolding of the power of the will, and the self-development of life. Even in the biological forms of modern ethics, as in that of Herbert Spencer, the quantitative principle of valuation is adopted,
and the
chief criterion of progress and improvement is the extent of the affirmation of life together with the
complexity of vital functions. Much more finely and delicately than Nietzsche, and with more ability than is usual on the biological side, Guyau has developed his enthusiastic optimism, which places the meaning
of life in the extensive
and intensive advancement
of
it
a doctrine which he preaches with glowing zeal. In contrast to all these theories we may quote the ethic of Schopenhauer, which, on metaphysical grounds, finds that is to say, the will its principle in the will to live of will, and the life of life and then perceives that this life itself has no meaning or value, precisely because it
is
not directed to any content of value in itself. The formal definition of this will for will's sake in Schopenhauer might be traced to the teaching of Fichte, in whose metaphysic action for action's sake takes the highest
rank, but we 'must not forget that in this conception Fichte refers to the Kantian autonomy, the self-legislation
HISTORY
299
of reason, and thus sets up as the content of the selfcontained will a world-law of the moral order and the timeless values of morality. Thus the ultimate problems of ethics bring us back to the metaphysical problems in which it is discussed what meaning the temporal course of the event has in relation to the timeless reality as the genuine being. It remains an unsolved problem why this timeless reality needs realisation in the temporal course of the event, or why it tolerates in itself an event in the temporal course of which there is something that differs from its own nature. We do not understand why that which is
and still less why something nevertheless has to happen different happens from that which is in itself without This is the case in metaphysics, and ethics reveals time.
;
the same unintelligibility in its special questions of the human will and conduct. If timeless values of higher orders of life are realised in them, how is it that they are not at once and absolutely real in their timelessness ?
And, on the other hand, if in all the restless pressure of our will throughout history we have only the temporal interests of a race that is doomed to extinction, how can
we speak
timeless
of values manifesting themselves therein

?
with
metaphysical theory helps us validity to this fundamental antithesis of the temporal in regard and the timeless ; nor does any ethical postulate. It is
the basic feature of the insoluble problems of the religious
No
mind.
CHAPTER
II
ESTHETIC PROBLEMS
HOWEVER
of life
true
it
ethical theories
may be that in the moral life and in we may catch a glimpse of higher orders
and timeless pronouncements of reason, nevertheless the moral life as a whole is always related to needs which matter whether shape our conduct through our will. No or in welfare or in we seek the end of life in happiness
of the timeco-operation in the cultural self-formation limits of human needs. within the spirit, we always keep essence of will and conduct that they It is of the
very
of incompleteness presuppose some craving, some state we strive to emerge. and dissatisfaction from which Hence there is always something anthropological, some even when earthly residue of the human, in ethical values, The power of desire they rise to a rational world-order. " Even rules in the entire realm of the practical." the part of the indiwhen there is no sensuous desire on vidual, and no quest of use or advantage, there is always
a straining after something that is to happen. We therefore ask finally whether valuation is to be confined to this region of the will, or whether there are kinds of
values that
may be
free
from
all desire
and expectation.
The new and higher province of axiology which is thus demanded must be a life of values that is not based upon
Pleasure and displeasure must now be complete in themselves, and must not point beyond It must be a pleasure that to the province of desire. satisfies the mind with its own contents, and the mind must neither wish nor expect anything from these contents.
the needs of the
will.
To
province belong the noblest of that Schiller meant when he spoke of

this
300
all
'
values
all
the
noble
in
CONCEPT OF THE ESTHETIC

the moral world
'
301
:
the objects of love without desires
persons, things, and relations the value of which does not depend upon what they do, but on what they are and " I know that they are mean. The saying of Goethe, eternal because they are," is true of these. Here at last we reach values in themselves, and therefore valuation is now raised above the region of specifically human needs and interests into the higher realm of the universally valid.
17
Concept
" " of the Esthetic. aesthetics History of the word Disinterested pleasure Freedom of wish and will Toward a system of values Beauty in nature and art /Esthetics from above and below.
their
The values without desire which, having no wish for motive and engendering no wish as their effect,
of the aesthetic
constitute this realm
name
of the
it
name
is
detached from needs, go by the Etymologically the meaning not obvious. The Greek word involved in
life.
else, and it is the vicissitudes originally of theory that have, in devious ways, given it the new meaning. The preoccupation of the mind with questions
meant something
about the nature of the beautiful and art has in the course of time been occasioned, sometimes by metaphysical interests, at other times by elements of the artistic life, and at others by psychological considerations; but for some time now it has been embodied in a special branch
of science or philosophy. Its development into a special discipline has, curiously, been due to the arid interests of scientific systematisation, which has scarcely anything
do with the subject in itself. About the middle of the eighteenth century a pupil of Christian Wolff, Alexander Baumgarten, found a gap in the well-arranged system
to
of the sciences that of the rational sciences
was then current. The whole group was preceded by an inquiry into
the right use of the intelligence in scientific knowledge. " This was called But besides the superior logic."
faculty of knowledge, which
was known as the
intelligence,
302
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
a
the
man had
provided
lower
facts
faculty, sensory perception, which for another group of sciences, the
Ought not these also to be preceded empirical sciences. a theory of the faculty of knowledge, of the comby
knowledge ? Being a theory of it would have to be called (cua&rjais), And while Baumgarten undertook to aesthetics." bring into the world and develop this younger sister of logic (as Lotze has called it), he was guided in regard to its contents and subject by a theory of Leibnitz. For Leibnitz beauty was the perfection of sensory presentation just as truth was the perfection of rational thought.
pleteness
of
sensory
sense-perception "
In his mind this means that in the beautiful there is a sensory preliminary stage of the true or the sensory suban idea to which we will return later. stitute for truth In accordance with this theory Baumgarten converted his aesthetics, which ought to have been a sort of methodology of sensory perception, into a theory of the beautiHence ful, of the enjoyment and production of beauty. " the word aesthetics" came to have the meaning which is now always attached to it and in the history of the reception of the term an interesting and decisive part
:
was played by Kant, who
at
first
hesitated and then
accepted it. Moreover, the framing of the problem, with which we have introduced aesthetic questions, was determined by In this as everyone will acknowKant's aesthetics. ledge, no matter how far he dissents from the theory we have the decisive element, which makes in detail aesthetics a special province of the realm of axiology, traced with all the confidence of genius. In order to
distinguish clearly between the beautiful
between the
ethical,
aesthetic
Kant
and the agreeable, faculty and the hedonistic or the formulated the criterion of disinterested
This does not say anything about the content pleasure. of the aesthetic object, but it very plainly indicates the formal element which enables us to mark off this province
from
" Kant's expression, disinterested," neighbours. was, perhaps, not as fortunate and as free from misunderstanding as he supposed. Schiller, and then Schopenhauer,
its
CONCEPT OF THE AESTHETIC
303
discovered a better expression which indicates the really the valuation from significant element as the freedom of wish and will. They succeeded in getting this definition so firmly established in general usage that Herbart's attempt to take the word "aesthetics" in a more general
sense and apply
this
it
enlarged philosophy, was unsuccessful.
aesthetics
to the whole of axiology, and make a second part after theoretical
The attitude which began
with Baumgarten remained in such general favour that we now use the name even for the objects of the new science,
and we speak
in this sense of the aesthetic

aesthetic
is
life,
aesthetic
temperament, and so on. There

given
rise to
enjoyment, aesthetic production, only one respect in which this has
and difficulties: Schopenhauer and perhaps Schiller had foreshadowed this put truth as well as beauty in the province of aesthetic valuation as will-less pleasure, and he therefore included science as well as art under the heading of the redemptive cultural
differences
functions of desirelessness.
Here we touch an essential problem of the theory of values generally. As a matter of fact, truth and beauty, as forms of valuation which are independent of the needs of the empirical consciousness, and are in virtue of their
peculiar
all
and
is
original nature far
from
all will
and conduct
that
hedonistic,
practical differ considerably not only from but also from ethical, values, which in the
long run are always related to weal and woe. Hence truth and beauty prove to be the higher values, which transcend the specifically human in a pronounced and obvious manner, whereas, though these higher manifestations are not entirely lacking in the province of ethics, they have to be detected as the ultimate foundation. The general mind in which the absolute validity of morality but truth has its roots is the mind of the human race and beauty presuppose a higher and more important
;
In the scheme of Hegel's philosophy this is expressed by treating morality, society, the State, and history as phenomena of the objective spirit, and art, In science, and religion as forms of the absolute spirit.
relation.
recent
times
theories
of
judgment,
which
emphasise
304
.ESTHETIC PROBLEMS
the axiological element in it, have led to the recognition that logical values form, with ethical and aesthetic values, a considerable problem, which plays, and must play, a part in these questions about the system of values which we seek. We must be content here merely to indicate these subtle questions of axiological systematics. They do not so much arise from the simple considerations of
prescientinc mind as from the ultimate needs of When we turn from these philosophical systematics. to the questions of aesthetic valuation which arise from
the
life itself
and artistic activity, we see that here, differently from in the case of ethical problems, which cover the whole of human life in all its heights and depths, we have to deal with a smaller sphere, which cannot claim the same general interest and understanding. Moreover, what we call the specifically aesthetic in the historical
reality is never pure, but always embedded in a multitude of other interests. In the living aesthetic judgment
there are always hedonistic and ethical elements at work. They give the aesthetic object the stimulation that we cannot avoid, the significance that holds us. Whether there
is
any
specifically
aesthetic
effect
depends upon
properties of the particular object, which may not appear Nevertheless, however narrow the circle may altogether. be in which this specific element comes to conscious realisation, the beautiful as a whole is, though rarely
pure form, yet distributed wherever the eye and there are effects of art, such can reach as great religious ceremonies, which fill all men, without distinction of social or intellectual condition, with elementary transports. Nay, one may say in this regard that,
found
of
in a
man
whilst the appreciation of the good is very general, the appreciation of the beautiful for its own sake is even more and how exclusive widely spread than that of truth truth is in its innermost nature is best seen by the pragmatical imitation of it. We call the object of the aesthetic attitude the realm
;
of the beautiful.
is
In this an unmistakabty distinct province distinguish between beauty in nature and beauty in art, the latter being produced by man.
that of art.
We
CONCEPT OF THE AESTHETIC

Hence
Either
aesthetics
it
305
starts
develops along two different lines. from natural beauty, and goes on to
understand artistic beauty, or it gathers its definition from an analysis of the beautiful in art and passes on from this to beauty in nature. In the one section we deal rather with the enjoyment, in the other with the production, of the beautiful, since the enjoyment of artistic beauty is in principle not different from that of natural beauty. We sometimes find it said that these two lines lead to different theories. Perhaps it is best for the
philosopher to start from the enjoyment he derives from beauty. He is himself no artist. Personal union between art and philosophy, such as we find in the case of Plato, is very rare and artists generally ignore aesthetics We then find that the enjoyment of artistic altogether. can only be understood on the analogy of its beauty production, and the principle may be extended to the enjoyment of the beautiful in general. If, however,
artistic
;
thought starts from artistic beauty, it will be tinged by the predominant interest which the philosopher takes in one or other branch of art. We can show
aesthetic
historically
how
;
the classical theory of aesthetics since

its
Winckelmann was influenced by a dominating regard

further development in the idealist philosophers, especially Schelling and Hegel, was influenced by regard for poetry and how, finally, certain tendencies of the Romanticist aesthetic were determined by the
for plastic art
;
how
predominance of musical interests. These differences are traversed by a second, which has been mainly characterised by Fechner's description of an aesthetics from above and an aesthetics from below. By the latter Fechner meant the purely empirical registration
of the pleasure felt in the several elements of aesthetic enjoyment, and he thus initiated the kind of treatment
which has gradually developed into

research
of
the
quantitative
As distinfrom this, the aesthetic from above is a conceptual guished Such an inquiry might be of a metaphysical inquiry. character, as was that of Schelling and Hegel, which Fechner rejected. But it may also be analytic-psycholo-
modern empirical psychology.
20
306
gical,
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
when
it
of
reflection
seeks merely to determine clearly by means on our experience in aesthetic enjoyment
what the characters of this are. establishment of the actual features
This
is
psychological
far
more important
for philosophical aesthetics than the facts of quantitative Even this analysis, however, does not suffice research. to meet the demands of a philosophical aesthetics, the
conceptual task of which

pleasure can be general.
aesthetic inquiry of values.
it is
of this material, the conditions
to understand, with the aid under which a disinterested
It is
only in this sense that the

of the philosophical theory
becomes part
18
The
Beautiful. diffusion
Criticism of the idea of equal of taste Majority and authority Play of the intellectual forces Formalistic aesthetics Play of the feelings and moods Emotional sympathy Importance The sensuous and suprasensuous The Freedom in beautiful as a symbol of the good The sublime the appearance Illusion The aesthetic object Sensuous appearance of the idea.
Differences
By the beautiful in the broader sense we understand the aesthetic object generally. If we attempt to draw up a definition of it" by comparing everything that comes " beautiful under the head of anywhere, our inductive will not be as fruitful as in the case of goodness. procedure Not only different nations and ages, but even different
same environment, vary so much in judgment that no consistent principle can be discovered in their ideas. The only result we can reach
individuals in the
aesthetic
way has been justly formulated in the trivial that a thing is beautiful if it pleases anybody phrase the bankruptcy of aesthetic investigation. We now frequently speak of the aesthetic faculty as " taste," and differences of taste are so proverbial that we say there is no disputing about such a matter. It
in
this
is
of
not a question of such deep feeling as in differences moral judgment. In that case it is a question of weal or woe, a question of vital interest but questions
;
THE BEAUTIFUL
life.
307
of taste refer precisely to things in which no interest is involved, and they are irrelevant to the great issues of
take contradictions on such matters with comparatively greater tranquillity. Yet we do not like them, and we try to impose our taste on others; and in doing this we distinguish the beautiful from the agreeable
We
and
useful.
There
are,
however, no firm limits in this

in the original
respect.
Even a
difference of "taste'
sensuous meaning of the word excites in the untrained mind a surprise that only gradually disappears with In the aesthetic field we seek to claim, as experience. far as possible, general validity for our taste. When, however, there is a quarrel about it, we cannot appeal
to definitions, norms, maxims, or principles. oppose can impression to impression, feeling to feeling. no proof or definition of aesthetic universal validity. give That is the logical difficulty of the aesthetic problem. We find particular judgments, which are valid only for
We We
the individual thing and person as emotional impressions ; yet the question arises where there is in this something that transcends the individual and his validity. In any case there is the consequence that Kant drew aesthetics is not a normative doctrine. There is no aesthetic imperative, as there is a moral or logical imperative and we can work out a critique of the aesthetic attitude only in the sense that we can draw up the possibilities and conditions of the general diffusibility of the aesthetic judgment. These,
:
For it has no rules. then, are the Limits of our science the various arts there are technical rules, and an observance of these is an indispensable condition of artistic
;
achievement.
are no
But
for aesthetic creation generally there
The
rules than there are for aesthetic enjoyment. proportion of universal validity in this field is thereit is
more
fore of the scantiest, and on that account department of life for personal activity.
the chief
From
all
this it is
intelligible
why
is
in this
province
psychology looms so large and there
so little left for
philosophy. Hence aesthetics is much nearer than the other two philosophical disciplines, logic and ethics, to the frontier between philosophy and psychology,
308
and
it
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
to this frontier.
must on that account pay all the more attention We must not suppose that we can pass from a registration of the facts of pleasantness to a normaAt the most we may reach a relatively tive science. normal a standard that is actually valid within the limits of a period or a nation or some even narrower From the range, and almost as changeable as fashion. of view there are only two ways of doing empirical point the way of majority and the way of authority. this The rule of the masses is, however, more brutal and
:
deadening in this field than in any other. In the masses, one may say, there is almost no specifically aesthetic element
it is
there only in so far as it assists the expression of some other content of value, and this may just as well be common pleasure as religious or ethical conviction. It is better on the side of authority. The sestheticist
must credit himself with good taste, and assume it on the part of those whom he addresses. We do not speak necessarily of what are called connoisseurs, who go ways of their own and follow certain tendencies (especially in technical matters) in the province of plastic art or of We are thinking rather of consulting men of music. considerable intellectual cultivation who have experienced this enjoyment without desire and found in it a new life though their judgments are in the first instance only psychological facts, and they are therefore part of the broadest and most extensive field of material to which the critical mind addresses itself. The task of this critical mind is to discover in aesthetic pleasure the special element which has a super-individual,
;
super-anthropological, super-empirical value. It is from the start clear that beauty as a predicate of value does
not
is
mean a property
in a thing or state or relation
which
to be described in theoretical knowledge, but it is something that arises in the judgment of an emotional
That, however, does not prevent us from asking in the theoretically determinable object in order that it shall excite the aesthetic judgment of value in a receptive mind. Kant did this, for instance, in the case of the sublime, but in his analysis
subject.
what properties must be present
THE BEAUTIFUL
309
of the beautiful he tried to confine himself almost entirely to the subjective world. Kant found the super-individual element in the play
of
the
two
faculties
intelligence. logic out of
knowledge, sensitiveness and This was an effect of the analogy with

of
which
aesthetics
the foundation of an It is a question mainly of the type of presentation, and this, Kant said, was conditioned by the All content, he thought, was forms of knowledge. related to interest, whether hedonist or moral, and thereThe fore disinterested pleasure pertained to the form. in this relation of the aesthetic attitude important point
laid
aesthetics.
historically arose, and it intellectual development of
to the
mere presentation and
its
form
is
its
indifference
It acts as regards the empirical reality of the object. in virtue of the way in which it is presented. only must not, however, suppose that it is necessary for the object to be unreal in the ordinary sense of the word ;
We
otherwise there could be no beauty in nature as such. What is meant in this respect is merely that we do not In popular psychology get as far as the empirical reality. we might express it in the sense that the aesthetic object is realised, not by perception, but by the imagination, and that in such case there is question of a purposive co-operation of the sensory perception and the intellectual
comprehension of its contents. this nature can only be found
if
But purposiveness of these two elements,
presentation and imagination, balance each other, or, as Kant said, are in harmony. Thus vitality and diversity of the sensory material and lightness and transparency of its arrangement would be equally necessary in all
beautiful things.
Another consequence of Kant's theory was the tendency toward a formal and formalistic aesthetics. From this point of view Herbart denned the aim of this general
aesthetics to
and
situations.
be a theory of the original pleasure in relations These in turn may certainly be divorced
in presentation from the realities in which they are found, and so here again the aesthetic pleasure is not necessarily The application of related to the reality of the object.
310
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
this general principle to the special questions which we call aesthetic in the usual sense of the word was made,
according to Herbart, by his pupil Zimmermann, and The latter to music in general literature by Hanslick. point brings us to a burning question in the development of modern music namely, whether the play of the airs has its aesthetic value solely in itself, or whether it acquires this, or increases it, by its relation to what it means. In Kant's theory the weakness in regard to its formal application was the meaninglessness which he had to ascribe to the real object of aesthetic pleasure on account and in this respect of the immateriality of the content was not altogether without justification. Herder's polemic Kant had found himself compelled to distinguish between free and dependent beauty, and to see free or pure beauty
:
only in flowers, arabesques, and similar meaningless structures in nature and art. How far this meaninglessness to the various arts music, for instance we applies determine here, but will be content to mention need not it as an important problem of modern aesthetics. Formalistic aesthetics can only be impugned when it claims
this meaninglessness in principle for all beauty and in all art. It will then encounter the difficulty, that Kant
free beauty,
himself was compelled to exclude from the province of and relegate to the category of dependent
beauty, precisely the beauty which is to us the most valuable of all, and particularly all that is connected with the life of man. This shows that the aesthetic object in the vast majority of cases acts, not only as such, but
content-elements, and these are in some way dependent upon the relation to reality. In this respect we can understand why we do not seek the super-individual element of the aesthetic effect on the intellectual side, but find the element of signiBut from ficance precisely in the connection of values. this field volitions are excluded because of the peculiar nature of the aesthetic state, and there remained only the province to which Kant had already relegated the
by
its
aesthetic
feeling.
the province of problem in his systematics For the play of the faculties of knowledge.
:
THE BEAUTIFUL
therefore,
311
must be substituted a play of feelings and That would, in fact, be the decisive direction, dispositions.
corresponding to the systematic position of aesthetics in regard to feeling as the third psychic function, after presentation and will. Kant had misplaced it because, in view of the rationalistic character of his teaching, he could not regard the irrational as the essential element But it is precisely this which in a rational function. recent psychological aesthetics aims at wherever it speaks
The object, we are told, becomes aesthetic of in-feeling. as soon as we read into it or out of it a certain movement
of our feelings
and
disposition.
Its theoretically deter-
minable properties must in some way be of such a character that they can excite in us these feelings and moods and
varying movements. Psychological theory distinguished between after-feeling and feeling at the time, but these are two elements which, though they may be
their
in different proportions in the
various aesthetic effects,
be present. There must be something in the object that excites after-feeling in us, although we have to trace this mood as feeling at the time to the object as the aesthetically significant thing. Hence the principle of in-feeling is fully justified as the psychological expression for the element of significance in the aesthetic object and in this psychological form we find an answer to the question which feelings and moods it is that are generally shareable, and therefore may be valuable in the aesthetic sense. The philosophy of art of Christiansen has recently attempted to answer this on the lines of the Critical method, but it meets a check in the relation between man's sensuous and suprasensuous systems of impulses and the moods and feelings that arise therefrom. From this four strata of the aesthetic the hedonistic, life develop in a very interesting way the comic, the beautiful, and the sublime. But in this construction the aesthetic disposition is always related to the antagonism between two impulses, which we may call the vital and the moral, the sensuous and the suprasensuous. Hence, though in the aesthetic life there must be question of the play of feelings and moods, yet
must
nevertheless
both
312
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
this theory is voluntaristic

it
is
on its psychological side, and foreshadowed to some extent in Schopenhauer's aesthetics of music, which purports to have explained music as the pure perception of the life of the will and
genuinely metaphysical art. Even however, leads to the opposition of the attempt, sensuous and suprasensuous elements in man's nature
therefore
this
as
the
Kant the basis of the antithesis of sense and intelligence, the harmony of which is the beautiful and the clash of which is the sublime. Both these theories rest upon the strain between the two natures in man. The aesthetic relation presupposes a being that reaches from sensuous existence up to a transcendent world of
as
it
was
for
reason.
is
In the case of Kant, however, the suprasensuous as it is the same in this latest essentially the moral It ends, as did Kant's at a philosophy of art. attempt in the conception of the beautiful as a symbol theory, of the good, and finds therein the guarantee of a super;
individual universal validity in the play of feelings and
moods.
In this reduction of the aesthetic to the ethical the sublime is conceived as a special type of aesthetic relation, not subordinate to, but co-ordinate with, the
beautiful.
Psychologically the way was prepared by Burke, and Kant followed on the lines of the If the sublime is explained by the Critical method. of the ethical-suprasensuous in man's being triumph over his sensuous nature, it seems no longer to be a purely aesthetic relation, but an ethical-aesthetic comor it is at least one of the most important bination For if this is to depend, of dependent beauty. types as Kant thinks, upon the presentation of an "idea," we have in the sublime the highest of ideas, the moral law.
Edmund
We
of
Kant
it
sought
raise
find a moralising tendency also in the chief pupil In his Kalliasbriefen he in this field, Schiller. standard of beauty, and tried to an
above
objective all that
is
specifically
human
whereas
at other times he proclaimed that, if not beauty in general, at least art was the characteristic property of man as
THE BEAUTIFUL
313
contrasted with higher as well as lower beings. In his objective theory, however, he again took the Kantian dualism of freedom and appearance as his starting-point. The autonomy or self-orientation which constitutes the
essence of the moral super-world is never in the appearance but there arises a " in the appearance whenever freedom itself to us as so complete shape presents tained that it seems to need nothing further
;
'
found as real semblance of the sensuous
and
self-con-
So
it is
with the aesthetic object
it is
for its reality. determined in itself,
and it looks as if all its categorical relations to its environment were broken off. Hence Schopenhauer also, for whom, as is well known, causality was the only category
of importance, characterised the aesthetic life as observation free from causality, and found the difference between
art
and science
in the fact that science
was observation
Self-sufficiency
from the point of

is
view of causality.
the essential feature of the beautiful. Here the idea of an analogy to ethical self-determination departs from The Schiller's formula of freedom in the appearance. aesthetic autonomy is no longer voluntarist or moral it is rather intellectual. This self-sufficiency, however, it is enjoyed in the appearance, and is not real as such thus we have again an emphasis of the unreality of the In the art-product the detachment aesthetic object.
; ;
from the rest of reality is particularly instructive ; in natural beauty the detachment is not real, but exists " beautiful semblance." merely for the This element of unreality has become very prominent It is quoted most in the modern theory of illusion. for the explanation of the enjoyment of artistic profitably beauty, particularly in regard to the plastic arts and the drama. Here, in fact, a conscious self-deception and a between deception and the consciousness of and it must be particularly deception play a great part noted that in all these cases the coarse as well as the refined imitation which gives a substitute for reality rather enfeebles or destroys than enhances the aesthetic
vacillation
;
effect.
Art shall never attain to reality": that applies particularly to certain excesses of the modern theatrical
"
314
world.
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
There are therefore
fields
of the very essence of aesthetic
in which illusion is enjoyment and can never

is
be entirely excluded.
But
it
this feature is indispensable to all beauty, or In architecture, for instance, illusion all art.
is no question whatever of vacillation between deception and the conFor beauty in general the only sciousness of deception.
have hardly any significance a fine tree or a noble cliff in nature, there
;
very questionable if even for seems to and when we admire
consequence of the independence of reality of the object that it arises, not so much in direct perception as in the imagination, as by the latter it is freed from all the associations which it would otherwise have for our knowledge and will. In this detachment the aesthetic object is, in fact, something new, something not real as such alone. It is just the same as with the object of scientific knowledge, the elements of which belong to reality, as we saw, though in its selection and new construction it must be taken as something independent. The only difference between the noetic and the aesthetic object is that what in the former is done by conceptions is done in the latter by the imagination. The reasons for this detachment of the aesthetic object from the great mass of experiences are often given by the elements of personal presentation. If they are to have general validity if the aesthetic object is to become an independent value -that which detaches the object from all others must be determined by the nature of the matter. Here again the transcendental element of necessity and universal validity is given only
is
in
conformity to reality.
The process
of
the aesthetic
construction
phenomenon
ours
to
passes from the casual to the true nature of the object and endeav-
and
enjoyment
this with luminous clearness. If this an intellectualist version, as if aesthetic contemplation were in the long run an act of knowledge, we must remember that in this we merely indicate a condi-
grasp
sounds
like
the universal validity of the aesthetic object ; can be reconciled with the fact that the aesthetic state itself is based upon a play of feelings and moods
tion
of
and
this
which
may
arise in connection
with such contemplation.
THE BEAUTIFUL
315
And in the second place we must emphasise the fact that the penetration into the nature of things which is achieved in the aesthetic contemplation is never a conceptual vision, but always an intuitive experience. If, however, we seek the decisive mark of the beautiful in a vision of the essence of things, we pass beyond experience into the realm of the metaphysical. There is already a tendency of this sort, to some extent, in Freedom is in the Kantist sense the Schiller's formula. and the beautiful is the appearance of suprasensuous, the suprasensuous in the sensuous. That was implied in the metaphysical theory of the beautiful which modern philosophy has borrowed from antiquity. It was merely indicated by Plato, and developed with great energy by Plotinus the beautiful is the sensuous appearance of the idea. This translucence of the suprasensuous in the sensible object was so strongly held by the Neo-Platonists of the Renaissance and by Shaftesbury that it persisted, enriched by the Kantist critique, in German idealists
:
such as Schelling, Hegel, Solger, Weisse, Vischer, etc. We find this metaphysical aesthetics in its most characteristic form in Schelling, for whom art thus becomes the organon of philosophy. Science, he shows, in its ceaseless progress seeks the idea in the appearance without ever attaining the moral life in its similar ceaseless advance forms to it the idea in the appearance without ever bringing it to full
;
It is only in the vision of the beautiful that the idea is entirely present in its sensory appearHere the infinite has passed wholly into the finite, ance. and the finite is wholly filled with the infinite. Thus every work of art exhibits what is otherwise given only
realisation.
in the totality of the real namely, the realisation of the Hence for Schelling infinite idea in finite appearances.
:
the universe is God's work of art, the incorporation of his and beauty in nature idea in the sensory appearance is the art fashioned by God. And if the fact is emphasised that in all man's creations the infinite idea must struggle with the inadequacy of the sensory finite in which it has to manifest itself, this is the basis of Solger's theory of tragic and romantic irony. In all these specula;
316
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
tions, especially in Schelling and Hegel, the metaphysical theory of the beautiful was directed to art, particularly
to poetry as the art in which the manifestation of the In these circumidea can be most visibly accomplished.
stances, however, aesthetic
enjoyment can only be underthe stood by an analogy with artistic constructions of the aesthetic object in the imagination of the man origin who enjoys it must proceed in the same way as the creation of a work of art. When, in order to enjoy a landscape, we
:
look for a point from which it is best seen, we compose lines and colours just as the artist does in painting a There is the same selection, picture of the landscape. the same new-forming synthesis, in both cases. We can only enjoy the beautiful as such in so far as there is something of the artist in us.
19
Art.
Imitation Entertainment, education, improvement Play the impulse to play Aimless self-presentation Genius unconscious-conscious in art.
and The
Art, as we discuss it here, is generally distinguished as fine art from the other arts which have useful functions.
Here again the essential feature is the absence of purbut fine art does Every artistic activity creates pose.
;
not, like the others, create objects for use in daily life. There are, however, intermediate developments in which
as when we compare ordinary the frontiers disappear and architecture, or a political or forensic house-building speech with an aesthetic oration. Every manual work Art in respect of art, in particular, is near these frontiers. of its quality of not being needed is, like science, the offAristotle finely described this cultural spring of leisure. value of leisure. Free from the pressure of daily needs, man creates for himself the new world of the beautiful and true. And precisely on that account the work of which the artist has no value for the needs of daily life marks off the fine arts in general clearly from all other
:
artistic activity
and
its
products.
It is
remarkable that
ART
scientific
317
thought
seems
to
have found the essential
feature of creation (TO TTOL-^TIKOV) in a higher degree in the It could not resist useful arts than in the arts of leisure.
the impression of inventiveness in face of the technical production of useful objects, and it regarded fine art It is, in fact, astounding that chiefly as imitative art. the Greek theory of art never got beyond this point of view, and that it never learned to appreciate the creative element which was just as abundant in the plastic art
of the Greeks as in their poetry
and music.
It is
more
surprising than that Greek philosophy missed the creative or, as Kant says, spontaneous element in the object of knowledge, in which it is more difficult to detect. The
peculiar subjection of the mind to what is presented, which the Greeks show in their theory of knowledge, is seen also in their conception of art as imitation. It was
with this that Plato forged his weapons against the artists his depreciatory judgment on art it was to imitate objects which are themselves mere supposed imitations of higher types, the ideas. What we know of Aristotle's theory of art, from the surviving fragment of his Poetics, shows that he also held the theory that art The whole of the critique and theory of is imitation. art in modern times followed this path at first, and the final result of it was the Positivist conception of art formulated by Diderot. This naturalist theory expects of " " true art, as of science, only a description in harmony with reality, and it thus obliterates the frontiers between
and formed
and science. As a matter of fact, imitation is indispensable to fine art. Even what is called the productive power of imagination is productive only in the sense of giving new comart
binations, but reproductive in regard to the elements of the inner and outer life, which as such cannot be created
by the imagination, but must be experienced.

extent, therefore, there
itself
is
other hand we a selection and re-combination, and that this is The material precisely the essential aesthetic element in it. is imitated, but the aesthetic shaping of it is never mere
To that imitation in all art. On the must not forget that all imitation means
318
imitation.
is
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
Moreover, imitation is a natural impulse and one of the fundamental features of all animal sociality, but the carrying as modern mass-psychology has shown out of this impulse excites only a feeling of pleasure like
;
the satisfaction of any other impulse. In that, therefore, we have not the specifically aesthetic element. Joy in the capacity for imitation and its purely technical and often very difficult use means something in which the feeling of pleasure is neither more nor less than in the case of any other capacity. To paint cherries so well that the sparrows will peck at them to carve marble so well that the spectator will try to take the lace from the lady's
shoulders or feel the velvet of her dress to compose music so that one seems to hear the blood drip from the head
which has been cut

art
off
all
this
may
it is
very well be an
rather a piece of
object of technical ambition, but
than
art.
is
In no case
in itself.
tion.
If therefore art
imitation a value of universal validity were merely imitation, its value
could not be in itself, but in what it does with the imitaAs a matter of fact, that is the idea of the theories of imitation. First entertainment is taken as a fitting
and for many men this is occupation of one's leisure still the whole meaning and value of their interest in art. What people seek and find in the theatre and concert,
;
in picture-galleries
is
and
exhibitions, or in reading novels,
pleasant way of passing the time than an enjoyment of art as such. Somewhat higher aims have been assigned to imitative art in education and moral improvement. The idea of the Aufklarung was that art and the aesthetic life generally should be pressed into the
service of intellectual or moral
much more a
improvement, and aims
rules of a pedantic educational nature and a moralising tendency were to be assigned to it. To this corresponded
and
the psychological theory of the aesthetic life generally, which regarded it as a happy transition from a state of sensuous impulses to one of rational activity. The enjoyment of the beautiful tames the savagery of the sensual
It teaches him to observe without desires, and thus makes him free for the higher values of truth and
man.
ART
morality.
It agrees
life
319
with this that art and the aesthetic generally appeal only to the two higher senses, the senses concerned with things at a distance, vision and one's own hearing, which remove the stimulation from and are far from a sensuous enjoyment of the object. body In this is correctly indicated the aesthetic distance by which, in every case, the enjoyment of the beautiful In the imitative shall be removed from its object. theories this was considered only a negative and preparatory element. The positive value of art was supposed to consist in what it did for morality and knowledge.
It
had therefore no
Schiller,
intrinsic value.
taking his stand on the Critical philosophy and going beyond these theories, sought the proper value of the aesthetic in the adjustment of the two natures of man, and this he found in play. It is true that he meant this in a sense which seemed to give great prominence to the anthropological element. Schiller took the sensuous and the moral impulses to be an original antagonism in man's nature, as Kant did, and thought that he found in the
impulse to play that which brought about a reconciliation Hence art was supposed to be specifiof our dual nature.
cally
human, and
peculiar to
man
A worm
In industry the bees surpass thee, could feats of skill to thee impart, Exalted spirits in thy science share But thou alone, O man, hast art.
is based upon the metaphysical assumption that that they have exalted spirits are devoid of sense these It follows the sensory experience of the inner life. not that it is in man alone that the great antitheses of reality are combined. Apart from this, Schiller's theory of the impulse to play
That
has been entirely confirmed and much developed in modern In the play of children, animals, biology and psychology. and primitive peoples we see the evolutionary preparatory stage of art. Dancing, singing, and adornment are the of it and in unconscious co-operation therewith rudiments
;
320
AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
as important elements in its development, the
we have,
erotic play of courtship on the one hand, and on the other the social forms of play which, especially in the shape of
rhythm, ennoble daily toil and relieve what is otherwise The impulse of play has also been tedious and joyless. called the function-impulse, to the satisfaction of which there is attached a pure pleasure, even when it seems to have no aim and no serious meaning. In the proper sense, however, there is no aesthetic significance in play of this description, and we may ask what must be the
nature of
its content to give any aesthetic value to play. All play is a copy of something serious. It imitates a vital activity which is seriously concerned with real things and purposes. Hence it is that play so easily turns into
it
As long as earnest, as one sees in the case of children. remains pure play, we are at some distance from the
life which it imitates, and we thus freely enjoy the content of life at a distance. Hence play is higher proper according to the value of the life-content which is represented in it, detached from the seriousness of real willing. Esthetic play is, therefore, when the deepest and highest
serious
reality of life is copied in

is
it.
production, self-presentation The inner content expresses itself, where it claims the seriousness of life, desire and conduct, by means of action
Hence all art, as and self-forming
aesthetic
in play.
Where there is neither of these things, the inwardness breaks out in a sensuous shape which gives pure joy. Hence art is, as Benedetto Croce says, expression endowed with intuition itself, and life passes into appearance more purely and perfectly in this purposeless expression than when it develops in serious work and the restriction of this to the casual and particular by action and enjoyment. In this sense art is, Guyau says, the most intensive enhancement of life that we know. Here, then, is the real meaning of what we found called the all idealising and style unreality of the aesthetic object aim in the long run at giving a pure and perfect expression of one's own life in the sensory appearance. The capacity to do this is the power of aesthetic proand enjoyment.
:
duction, or
what we
call
genius.
This idea again has
ART
321
changed a good deal in the course of time. It was denned ex eventu when it was said that genius is a model and standard for posterity and critics. One goes a little deeper
in pointing out that the genius does not create according to rules, but produces the new and beautiful out of itself
;
and Kant saw deepest of all into the nature of the aesthetic life, from which he was so remote, when he said that genius is an intelligence which acts as nature does. In this much-quoted phrase both the inward necessity and the
undesigning purposiveness of the formative power of the
aesthetic personality are expressed. The inward necessity means the impulse and force of the undesigning selfThe impulse and the force both together presentation.
:
the genius, but it does not follow that they are both given together. Rather, there is, perhaps, nothing in the world more difficult to endure, nothing that is more disturbing, than the unhappy condition of the half-genius, in whom the impulse is found without the power to carry it out. That is a misfortune of the artistic life that even the greatest experiences at the limits of his productive power. It is a deep shadow cast from the heights of
make
human
and
in
life.
These limits cannot be passed by any
toil
exertion, because the creative
power
of art is rooted
the unconscious. That is why the artist is usually averse from theory and philosophising. It does not It is indeed, it threatens to disturb him. help him we others who need to understand his nature and activity
;
and determine
values.
place in the general fabric of civilised attempting to do so we stumble against the irrational in the creative work of the artist.
its
And
in
Hence Schelling gave a happy turn to Kant's definition when he defined genius as " the unconscious-conscious." The artistic activity exhibits a mutual play of conscious
and unconscious processes which can never be rationally The artist must create because of an impulse explained. to self-realisation of which he is not the master. From
unconscious depth there emerge into his consciousness is to be. How he embodies them, what particular shape he gives them, is again determined by something in the unconscious depths. The creation
this
the images of what
21
322
is
ESTHETIC PROBLEMS
is
criticism, but the positive not a matter of cunning and it comes as a fortunate chance from the calculation unconscious depths of life. This is what the Greeks felt when they spoke of some divine madness, the âvla of The affinity of genius to madness refers only the poet. to this mingling of conscious and unconscious functions, it by no which evades all control of analytic thought means contains the pathological element that has at times, on the strength of this analogy, been wrongly ascribed On the contrary, the selfto the nature of the genius. realising of the genius is, precisely because in it the conscious reaches into the sub- or super-conscious, the personal into the super-individual, the human into the metaphysical,
accompanied by conscious
;
element of achievement
the redemptive power which men have always felt and This significance, however, prized as the divine in art. to the genius only in the highest stages of his pertains creativeness, and the artist himself is, like all his activity,
in the general affairs of life hampered by all the failings of humanity, from which a transcendent value emerges
only in his most perfect achievements. He must constantly wrest this value from reluctant reality, and he finds himself oppressed by it in his self-realisation
:
The noblest thing that spirit e'er conceived Is with some foreign stuff adulterate.
CHAPTER
III
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
LOGICAL, ethical, and aesthetic values
range,
for of
valuephilosophical inquiry, as distinct from the amenities and utiliactivity which, ties of ordinary life, can lay claim to general recognition
make up the the human
entire
and the necessity of actual unconditionedness. In them we have traversed the three provinces of the psychic life presentation, will, and feeling and in each of these provinces we have explained how the valuation of the
empirical
itself.
mind has a significance that transcends the mind The normative general consciousness which is thus
in its empirical form the collective consciousany particular historical structure in the human
is
:
indicated
ness of
chronicle race in
:
in its ideal
its
form the cultural unity
of the
whole
metaphysical significance a
rational
com-
munity primary reality that transcends all There can be, as regards content, no further experience. universal values beyond these three, because in these the
of spiritual entire province of psychic activity is exhausted ; and we cannot, in point of fact, name any value that does not
belong to one of these provinces. When, in spite of this, we speak of a realm of religious values, which may be comprised under the title of the sacred, we mean that all these values may assume religious forms. We know a of truth, religious motives of conduct, religious guarantee and religious feelings of many kinds. Even sensuous enjoyment may in some circumstances, as in the case of orgiastic conditions, assume a religious form and become From this we get that universal significance of sacred. in virtue of which it embraces the whole life of religion man and from this also we understand why the treat;
823
324
ment
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
of religious philosophy
if it is
must always be one-sided subordinated to or incorporated in one of the special philosophic disciplines logic, ethics, or aesthetics as a derivative part. Religion was for a time treated philosofrom the point of view of theoretical reason phically,
Its centre of gravity was is to say, as knowledge. then put in the province of practical reason, and it was converted into a species of ethic. Lastly, its home has been sought in the province of the aesthetic reason, and it has been represented as mainly a mode of feeling. But the comprehensive content of religion cannot be understood in any one of these ways, without consciously or unconsciously using the others at the same time. If we seek the common feature in all the valuations which can thus assume a religious complexion, we find that it is always the relation of the values to a supramundane, This element of superempirical, suprasensuous reality. otherworldliness is so characteristic of the essence of religion that, when it is excluded, we get some such This caricature as the Positivist Religion of Humanity. is not the place to resume the various elements which lead That to this enhancement of the essential valuations. is the business of the history and psychology of religion, and they have a broad and far from exhausted field for their investigations. Philosophy is concerned only with the question where we must, in all circumstances, seek the reason for this change of the sensuous into the suprasensuous. We shall not find it in the contents of particular values, but in the character of universal validity
that
of these values.
20
The
Sacred. as an
The sacred not a special province of values Conscience otherworldly phenomenon The superempirical union of persons God as a suprasensuous reality Ejection of the mythical
from religious philosophy
Relation of religion to the other provinces of culture The classification of religions Pious sentiment and its influence on ideas Two meanings of the suprasensuous.
we do not mean any special class of valid values, such as those which constitute universally
By
the sacred
THE SACRED
325
the true, the good and the beautiful, but all these values together in so far as they are related to a suprasensuous We seem to be justified in assuming such a relareality.
tion by the experiences which our consciousness sustains from the exercise of its own activity and from the aspiration, based thereon, after ultimate and absolute princiIn our mental life we cannot be satisfied ples of valuation. with the empirical forms of the general mind to which we are conducted by an inquiry into logical, ethical, and The division within itself which conaesthetical values.
opposes the judged subject to the judging, suffices up to a certain point for the sociological explanation of the actual and approximative universal That is supposed to be true validity of the valuation. that false with general opinion which corresponds Thus also every violation of custom which contradicts it. is bad, and every feeling that runs counter to tradition is In this way it might seem as if the division in perverse. conscience were reduced to an opposition between the normative general mind and the special functions of the
science means, since
it
:
individual
itself.
whom
But
this is only apparent.
the general mind finds to be part of It might be true if
as an actually general mode of and feeling, something fixed and absolute. presentation, will, That it is not. It not only varies in the different histhis general
mind were,
phenomenal forms of society, but it is gradually changed by each of them. Progress in the evolution of the general mind consists, as we saw, in an original sin on
torical
the part of the individual, who rebels against the current valuation. In this, however, the individual does not He appeals to a higher his arbitrary will. rely upon He ascends from the temporal to the eternal court. and divine law, and is the champion of this against a world of contradiction. The investigator or the thinker defends his new result, the reformer his ideal, the artist and in them conscience transcends the his new form social phenomenal form of the general mind and reaches
;
transcendental and metaphysical reality. There are, of But, however much course, innumerable illusions in this. false prophets may err, the undeniable right of appeal to
326
the highest
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS court remains. We usually recognise
this
situation in the province of knowledge, and why should it not hold also for conflicts of the ethical and aesthetic
provides a proof of a vital connection Just as conscience as a social phenomenon is possible only through the reality of the common social life, so conscience as a consciousness of value beyond all the chances of space and time is possible only in virtue of a still deeper connection. There is revealed in it a spiritual depth of life which presupposes, not merely the collective social mind, but a supramundane court. And since this social mind forms the ultimate and highest synthesis empirically, this absolute reason of conscience must be sought beyond claimed that the distinction experience. Augustine between true and false, which makes judgment possible in us, implies the reality of the highest truth as the prinDescartes similarly ciples on which this judgment rests. said that our appreciation of different degrees of perfection in all finite things and in ourselves can only be based upon the reality of the most perfect being. Even in Plato's theory that all higher knowledge is recollection we have this belief in the reality of value, and of the norm
life ?
If it does, it
of
personalities which transcends experience.
of the idea
It is
and the ideal, which transcends life in time. the Socratic feeling that truth is not our discovery or our illusion, but a value that is rooted in the ultimate that in it we experience something depths of reality that goes beyond the empirical existence, not only of the individual, but also of the race. In this sense the life of values demands a metaphysical
;
anchorage, and, if we give the name God to this superempirical vital connection of personalities, we may say that his reality is given in the reality of conscience itself. God is just as real as conscience. The life of values which is conscious of these connections may be called
the life of man in God, or religion. It is, of course, clear that this chain of thought is not a proof in the sense of but it contains a postulate that is empirical thought involved in the nature of valuation the moment rigorously
;
it
would
rise
above individual and
historical relativity.
THE SACRED
Hence
327
this metaphysical anchorage of valuation is more than a feeling of conviction or a belief, which might be merely an opinion or an illusion. Kant's theory, that this superempirical connection of life is not a matter of knowledge that is restricted to the world of the senses, but of a rationally necessitated belief, has been conceived in the sense that this postulate of the belief contains an
ideal that holds only as a guarantee in the interest of reason, and that it might therefore very well be merely
an illusion or fiction for a practical purpose. Albert Lange weakened the force of Kant's idea in this way, and
" " the recent followed him. Philosophy of the as-if In point of fact, however, this relation to a supersensuous reality is found in the content of conscience, which is just as real an experience as any other that we use in conEven if all the structing our knowledge of the world.
ideas
we form of it are figurative and inept, even if they are illusions or fictions, the relation itself is unquestionit is, as Kant said, the fact of pure reason. able And
;
on
this
we
rely
when we would be
is
certain
fictitious
that
the
religious problem of philosophy.
real,
and not a
problem
What we have here tried to make clear indicates the way in which philosophic thought is led from its own
Prescienhighest problems to the problem of religion. tific thought approaches the problem in quite other and very different ways, and it raises questions so many
of
which are scientifically unanswerable by philosophy we must seek some principle which will enable us to exclude from consideration those constituents of relithat
gious thought that are alien to philosophy. The mythical faculty, without which there can be no religion, is pro-
vided by the pressure of imagination and of empirical wishes with an abundance of contents which, though they may here and there offer possibilities of interpretation in
detail, are quite beyond scientific explanation. These imaginative elements of the religious life, which have not, and cannot claim, any general validity as facts or, still less, as norms, must be studied by the history and psychology of religion. The philosophy of religion can
328
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
only take them into account as side-issues, when it considers religion as a sociological fact and interprets it, on critical lines, as an historical phenomenon, showing how its conceptual nature is realised in the empirical vital forms of The core and proper sphere of the inquiries of the philosopher of religion are the questions which consider how far this superempirical connection of personalities is related with a rational realm of values. We reach the same result when we start with a conception of the task of philosophy as a philosophy of civilisation. We are accustomed to count religion as one of the great cultural forms together with science, art, morality, law, and the State, but the consideration we have just given teaches us in principle that there can be no question of the complete co-ordination of religion with the other forms. These others have each their peculiar kind of value in the content which they realise in the life of humanity, but religion has no such special province of It consists in the metaphysical tincture and values. relation which all these values may assume. Religion would be deprived of its universal significance if the sacred were marked off from the other cultural provinces as a special section of the life of values. Wherever this
society.
is
attempted in practice, religion becomes rigid and sapWhen it is done in theory, it prevents an insight into the essential relations between religion and secular
less.
life.
The course of harmony with this.
history
is
We now know
in its general features in all four cultural
forms as differentiated departments, often overlapping with religion, but clearly distinct from it in their nature. But this was not always the case. The further we go back into the past, the more we find a religious complexion even in the secular aspects of life. All science has developed from myths and dogmas, all artistic creation from practices of worship, all morality from the religious obligation of conscience, all State organisation from the From these differentiated religious bonds of society. and secularised institutions religious reactions and new
growths are quite distinct. They take the secularised forms of civilisation back into the religious unity, and
THE SACRED
the process of differentiation has to begin over again. European evolution shows this feature of the history
Greece and of civilisation in all its phases. the outer forms of culture out of the religious
the clearest fashion.
ledge
is
Rome
develop matrix in
With the
the
science of the Ionics
know:
in mythical imagination of the Greek comedy and plastic art the secularisation the ethic of Epicurus brings aesthetic life is completed and about a conception of life entirely free from religion of Rome, even where the secular political organisation
: :
detached from
it
of its religious origin, of religions which wage stands clear of the whole group war on each other within its frontiers. Afterwards, at
retains
some external remnant
the time of the great migrations of peoples, the reliIt opens with the clash of gious reconstruction begins. in the triumph of Christianity, and religions, which ends
Christianity takes back science, art, morality, and poliThus it was in the tical life into its religious form. from the thirteenth century to the Middle Ages. But
eighteenth we see the other institutions of civilisation gradually awaken to a sense of independence and assume an increasingly secular form, which remains a luminous standard for all future time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, a new reaction seems to set in, and all the signs of the times seem to promise a
fresh
period of religious integration. A new wave of strong religiosity sweeps over old Europe. The ecclesiastical forces, especially the Roman, work cleverly to direct it into their bed. They have to struggle against
the multitude of sects, the rich growth of which affords the best proof of the religious pressure of the time. Far less dangerous for them is the mystical tendency which has infected the thought of our time in the sense that a philosophy to-day seems to be able to count upon a stretch
of reality
when
The mystical
takes these elements into consideration. intuition, which forswears a conceptual

it
knowledge of its subject, abounds in picturesque language and glowing imagination, but it yields no firm and distinct results.
It is
repeatedly teaches
a thing of moods and, as history loosens the soil for it us, merely
;
330
ecclesiastical
fruits in its
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
dogmatism to sow
its
seed and reap
the
own domination.
religions which owe their own origin to an advanced of civilisation, such as Buddhism, stage Christianity, and Islam, adopt the valuations of the other departments of
The
culture as parts of their own life, and give them a new complexion. In the case of other religions, which have developed out of primitive conditions with the peoples
who hold them, and

and
science, to
suffered State and morality, art out of them as independent strucgrow tures, all these values are from the start included in the Thus these relations to the other departreligious unity.
ments of culture are common to all religions, and they have been rightly characterised and classified, according to the predominance of one or other element, as aesthetic, This shows, theoretical, ethical, and ritualistic religions. however, that the value is to be sought always in the other fields, and that the specific religious element must be sought only in the relation of these to a transmundane
validity.
This
is,
that offers
itself to
therefore, the essential thing in religion philosophic inquiry. All the special
forms which this otherworldliness assumes in the imagination, feeling, and conduct of the religious man must remain
the subject of empirical investigation. The connection with a higher world of values is first felt in the empirical consciousness, and Schleiermacher has justly described the devout feeling of " simple depen" dence as the foundational fact of the religious life. This
feeling,
however, in its na'ive and simple knows nothing about the object to which
considered,
it
primitiveness,
it
is
related.
one of the indefinite Psychologically and even Schleiermacher connects it first only feelings, with a world-unity in the Pantheistic sense of Spinoza. To embrace and explain the totality of the psychic life this feeling must be given in presentation. Only then can it develop in the external life as a motive of will and conduct and organise itself as a specific religious community in a Church. But this definition of devout feeling in presentation is not possible as knowledge and in that we have the fundamental problem of religious existence.
is
;
THE SACRED
331
For knowledge, which in the last resort must be capable of scientific proof, comprehends only the world of experience, and in this instance there is question of the relation of this world of experience to what is beyond experience. Of this relation our knowledge can attain only one element
;
the other we know only by postulating the relation itself, and out of these two elements we cannot construct that which is beyond experience. Instead of knowledge, therefore, we get a presentation which claims another This is the mythos, in the general sense sort of validity. much as Hegel described religion as the form of the word
;
of presentation of the Absolute in consciousness. Here we " have the same relation as that which Kant, in his tran-
scendental dialectic," described in regard to the attempts It is a to create a philosophic-dogmatic metaphysics. of something that is not experienced, but must question necessarily be thought, yet cannot be known solely by its Hence the constantly recurring relation to experience. to attain the impossible, and the failure of every attempt such attempt. Just in the same way all the historical
religions
attempt to give some sort of form in presentation to the object of pious feeling. They do not attain any that can be proved, but merely the self-shaping knowledge " mind. This of their inner life in the presentational must be conceded to the mythos in every form significance
'
but this
is
is all it
can claim.
protected from otherwise would have to bring to bear upon it its logical principles, its principles of contradiction and sufficient reason. This criticism is disarmed in respect of the mythos when it purports to be no more than a presentational expresfor the latter, being a relation sion of the religious feeling
;
only in this way that it the criticism of scientific thought, which

It is
between the knowable and the unknowable, inevitably

has in
a character of irrationality. The truth that the mythical presentation can lay claim to is, therefore, Pragmatist. It is, in fact, the most important field for the application of the Pragmatist conception of truth. For it means the mental satisfaction of the religious craving beyond the limits of any possible knowledge. Hence in the course of philosophic thought we cannot
it
332
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
deal with any of the questions which the mythical presentations, or the dogmatic teachings in which they are elaborated by the actual religions, involve. They are,
true, the occasion for most men of the birth of doubt in regard to their nai've ideas, and therefore they lead to " " philosophy. In ordinary life we mean chiefly by sceptic the man who has begun to question the traditional
it is
There are many questions with teaching. which the mind of youth, especially, torments itself under the pressure of traditional dogmas, and which, nevertheless, can never be problems of philosophy, because they presuppose purely mythical views. Doubts of this
religious
kind cannot in detail be solved by philosophic thought. It can only consider in a general way what elements of the religious reality are accessible to the scientific mind.
The essential thing is to inquire to what extent man belongs to this suprasensuous vital order which forms the essence of every religious affirmation. In that sense alone can the truth of religion be considered from the point of view
of philosophy.
Before we go into this, it is advisable to point out the ambiguity of the idea of the suprasensuous world in the ordinary way of thinking and speaking, which leads to a good deal of misunderstanding. We find the word used by Kant himself in two different ways by which he got out of many difficulties, but created greater difficulties.
;
If by "sensory" we understand, according to the direct meaning of the word, what is accessible to the bodily senses and knowable through them, it is the same thing
as corporeal or material. On these lines the non-sensory or that is to suprasensual is the incorporeal or immaterial say, everything without exception that is not body or bodily movement. The soul with all its states and activi:
belongs to this incorporeal or suprasensuous world, according to general opinion as well as all philosophic theories except the Materialistic. But that is not what is meant when we speak of the suprasensuous in the sense of religious metaphysics. Here there is question of the
ties
relation of the
mundane
fore the entire psychic
life,
to the transmundane, and thereas far as it can be experienced,
THE SACRED
belongs to the mundane.
333
When we
into relation with the world of sense, we " " by speaking of the inner sense as the
of
thus bring the psychic may express it
form or faculty which we have experience of the psychic The difficulty of the functions and come to know them. ambiguity is, therefore, that in one sense the sensory
knowledge
in
;
excludes the psychic life, and in the other includes it to put it the other way about, the psychic life is part of the suprasensuous on one view, and not part of it on the
The difficulty was felt by Plato, in whose teaching the soul belongs to the world of appearances, but is related to the world of suprasensuous forms, and is able to perceive them. He solved the difficulty by regarding the soul as
other.
the highest and best thing in the corporeal world.
ambiguity
of sensuous
of
marked
in
in
and suprasensuous Kant's philosophy. As long

theoretical
is
still
The more
as
we remain
reason the sensory world, which we can know, is conceived in the sense of the world of experience, to which the objects of the inner sense, the psychic states, belong just as strictly as do The suprathe objects of the outer senses, bodies. sensuous here is the realm of what lies beyond experience, of the unknowable, which we have to think, though we cannot attribute to it any content of our experience.
the
field
But the moment we pass to the field of practical philosophy, the moral life becomes part of the suprasensuous, and is opposed to the life of sensuous impulses. The suprasensuous fills itself with experiences of the moral consciousness, and is opposed to all that is defined and conditioned by a relation to the bodily life, and by man's belonging to the world of sense or matter. Out of this vacillation in the use of the word arises the fundamental religious problem, how in man the psychic life reaches from the sensuous world to the suprasensuous.
334
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
21
The Truth of Religion.
Faith and knowledge
Natural religion and
The immortality of the soul The transmigration rational religion The substance of souls The postulate of freedom of souls Posthumous justice The Faust-like impulse to live on PerSoul and spirit The philosophical idea of sonalistic
God
pluralism Proofs of the existence of
God
The
ontological proof
and
Pantheism The cosmological proof and Deism proof and Theism.
The
teleological
The
between
first
contact
thinkers of the school of Miletus, in whom the scientific and thought of the Greeks begins, put their physical in the place of the ideas which metaphysical hypotheses national they found in popular beliefs, in the aesthetic
philosophy
between knowledge and and religion, was inimical.
faith,
The
mythos, and in cosmogonical poetry

the
and out
of their
his poet-philosopher Xenophanes forged teaching in his struggle with the anthropomorphism weapons which was common to all these forms of faith. Thus
of God, having little with the traditional view, and this new creation encountered the movement toward Monotheism that was taking place in general thought. In the great vitality and subtle differentiation which disthe Greeks it was tinguished the religious life amongst inevitable that the various deities should blend with each other, and this was in harmony with the Henotheistic feature which was present in Greek mythology
science created a
new conception
but the name in
common
from the
of the
preponderance of a
Science
its
development
to
expressed the idea of fate or single deity such as Zeus. victorious co-operated very powerfully in the of Monotheism, and since that time all
start,
since
it
been restricted positive relations to religion have Monotheism. The relics of polytheistic and polydsmonistic myths, which even the great civilised reabsorbed in the religions partly retained and partly
beyond the range of philoevolution of Monotheism, on sophical inquiry. the other hand, coincides with the change which we
course of time,
lie
entirely
The
moral religion, an essential regard as the transition to

feature of which
ethical
of
is
335
predicates.
that the Deity shall be endowed with Amongst the Greeks this change
occurs in the very period in which scientific criticism The gnomic poetry represents religion was born. Zeus as the supporter of the moral order, whilst the ridicule which Xenophanes poured upon the popular belief had reference not only to the imagining of the gods in physical human shape, but particularly to the fact that human experiences such as birth and death,
human
sins
like
imputed which philosophy helped to elaborate,
to
them.
murder and adultery and The new conception
lying, were of Deity,
combines the idea of a single world-principle with the metaphysical idea of a supreme court of the moral life. Hence there arose an antagonism between the religion of science and the religion of the people. With the conceptual
forms of the Sophists the Cynics and the Stoics taught that there was only one God according to nature and truth, but there were many according to human belief and the changes of opinion. In the course of time the conflict of religions in the Middle Ages, in the period of the Arabian philosophers, and then the struggle of sects in the West led to a distinction between positive religions, which are based upon history, and a natural The eighteenth century religion based upon reason.
in particular sought this unsectarian religion
:
a religion
that
could
be
understood
the
should
represent
and proved, and which essential and significant things
in all religion.
all
Opposed to a natural religion of this character are the arguments we quoted previously in dealing with
natural law. And there is a special difficulty in the case of religion. If there were such a natural religion, its teaching could be established in the same way as a mathematical theorem, and there would then be only one religion. But it would no longer be a religion, because it is part of the fundamental pious feeling that its This forms the object is vague and undefined. mystery of it, and without mystery there is no religion.
Hence
science
is
ill
advised to attempt to construct a
336
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
Wherever this has been religion out of its knowledge. the result has been an anaemic structure attempted,
which
secure
ill
secured
one.
no
Indeed,
community, and was unsuited to even positive religion is equally
advised when it attempts to convert itself into a demonstrable doctrine. It then exposes itself to all the dangers which arise for the irrational content of life from clash with rational thought, and it divests of the mystery which is of its very essence. itself was an unhappy idea Christianity without mysteries
' '
'
the eighteenth century. Hence, however necessary the construction of dogmas may be in the ecclesiastical organisation and for the purposes of its external life as Plato very clearly shows in his ideal State, which has
of
a deeply religious complexion yet the intellectualising of the devout feeling is a great menace to its specifically It has been said of Church-law that religious energy. and the same might be ends where it begins religion said of dogma, for they are parallel forms in the
;
secularisation of religion. In spite of these objections to the attempt to found a rational religion, it must be recognised that such
attempts have brought out the two problems with which we have to deal in any philosophical discussion
of the theoretical
truth of religion. The poverty and anaemia of natural religion are due to the fact that it retains only two elements out of the whole apparatus the belief in the existence of a of the religious mind and good God as creator and ruler of the world and just
:
It the belief in the immortality of the human soul. is easy to see that there are remnants of anthropomorphism even in these formulae of eighteenth-century
thought.
is
To the
but
true, attribute
Deity, for instance, they do not, it any physical or morally reprehensible
tendency between the midway mythical ideas above which they would rise and the conceptual description of the transmundane with which
features,
of
they
do
ascribe
moralising
human
sort.
They
are
shows
philosophical inquiry is concerned. And this character in what direction we must look for the philoso-
337
phical elements which are the ultimate justification for the whole mass of religious ideas.
In the idea of immortality we have a combination a number of elements derived from human needs and these are in part of a worldly origin and content, and they therefore chiefly determine the various forms in which the life of the soul after death is pictorically We need not go into these different shapes represented. which the imagination has given to the intellectual demand which is common to them all. It is our place rather to point out that this common element of them all is the metaphysical craving to secure for the human personality some significance that transcends the world
of
;
of sense. have found this craving fully justified in every form of the life of values in the knowledge of science, in the unconditionedness of the moral judg:
We
ment, and in the task of art. We need therefore give no special proof here. But religious thought has converted this into a temporal conception. If there were
question only of the philosophical postulate in virtue of which the highest forms of valuation which we discharge as our own bring into the world of appearance a transcendental order of reason, the problem would assuredly have to be solved in an affirmative sense by a critique of the logical, ethical, and aesthetic activity.
ordinary religious thought demands the prolongation in time of the existence of the human individual beyond its earthly life, and it thus takes the problem into quite a different field. In this sense the belief in the immortality of the human soul first arose in the Dionysian religion of souls. In this the soul was as a dcemon which, on account of some sin, regarded was banished from the suprasensuous world to which
it
But
expiate
originally belonged, and put into an earthly body to its sin and merit a return to its divine home.
Hence in the original sense, as we see very clearly in the writings of Plato, immortality meant the transmigration of souls. It teaches pre-existence just as emphatically
as
post-existence.
Indeed,
in
the
for
case
of
Plato,
in
it
seems from the
first
argument 22
immortality
the
338
Pluedo as
tence,
if
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
he particularly emphasised the
inferred
pre-exis-
post-existence by analogy. The whole philosophy of life of the Dionysian religion is concentrated in this idea of transmigration of souls,
and only
which the dcemons, limited in number, through the world of living things, feeling all the misery of sin and repentance and at last finding rest with the gods who, in a state of eternal felicity, are raised above the whole of this turmoil. Later redemptive religions more or less vigorously rejected the idea of pre-existence, and confined their theory of immortality to post-existence. They see no
according
to
wander
restlessly
difficulty in representing the soul as beginning to exist at a definite point in time and then continuing to exist for ever. Since then the task of apologetic thought
has been to find a secure foundation for this perpetual post-existence of the human soul after its life on earth
is
over.
theoretical arguments which may be used for purpose are centred mainly about the conception of the substance of the soul. They lay stress upon the
this
The
feature
of indestructibility which, since the Eleatic metaphysics, has been inseparably connected with suband we need hardly point out that this stantiality applies also to the claim that the soul never began, as in the original idea of the transmigration of souls. Since it has been the custom in ecclesiastical metaphysics to count the soul amongst the finite substances created by God, and at the same time award it the character of indestructibility, the proof of immortality has been sought particularly along the line of proving the soul's The earlier arguments, which were drawn substantiality. from the idea of the soul as the ultimate cause of all movement and the principle of life, clearly prove too much. As far as they can be regarded as sound, they " souls," not merely the human apply to all sorts of soul and they are generally connected with the primitive idea of the soul as a vital force which, as we have previously shown, has been more and more discarded in the progress of scientific thought, and replaced
; ;

mind.
339
by the idea of a bearer or vehicle of the functions of the Now, if the soul in this sense were a simple substance as it was in Descartes's metaphysic it could
neither
destroyed nor dissolved into simple conThis was the direction taken by Plato in his arguments in the Phcedo, where he emphasised the inner unity and independence of the soul as contrasted with the composite character of the body. The chief
stituents.
be
was laid upon the antithesis of physical and psychic, and the " suprasensuous " nature of the soul was essentially found in its conscious functions. But we saw in the course of our analysis of the ontic problems of substance and causality the weakness of
stress in this
applying the category of substance to the facts of inner experience, and that modern psychology speaks rather of a functional than of a substantial unity of the individual psychic life. In any case, it is impossible to
deduce from the categorical form of thought and speech the actual endless duration of that to which the form is applied. It is rather the other way about verbal must be justified by actual proof of this particular usage
:
surviving all the changes of time." And from the nature of the case this empirical proof must remain within the bounds of experience. Such survival might be conceived, perhaps, on the dualistic lines of psycho-physical causality, whereby, on the analogy of the nature of memory, one might speak of an indefeature of
finite
"
persistence of the psychic contents beyond their temporal and bodily occasions. But, on the other hand, on the lines of psycho-physical parallelism it is difficult to
think that the soul has not to share the fate of its body. Considerations of this nature are merely an application, in harmony with modern empirical thought, of the criticism which Kant made in his Paralogisms of Pure Reason of the arguments which were current in the rational psychology of his time for the substanHe showed that tiality and immortality of the soul. these arguments are based upon a confusion of the But he went logical subject with the real substratum. on to show that the negative position, the denial of im-
340
mortality,
is
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
just as incapable of proof as the affirmative,
and that here again we have one of the cases in which science ends in an insoluble antithesis, and so it is permitted to decide between the alternatives on the ground Hence his theoretical of an interest of practical reason. criticism kept open the possibility of an ethical metaphysic, in which the soul returned, not now under the name of substance, but as "intelligible character" and
a reality of the suprasensuous world. This brings us to what are called the moral arguments In the for the suprasensuousness of human nature. course of his ethics Kant finds this argument in the selfdetermination of the will without any other motive than the moral law that is to say, in freedom. Since this
is impossible in the world of sense, which is subject to the law of causality, the reality of freedom, without which there can be no morality, must be sought in the suprasensuous world indeed, it is only by freedom that we learn its reality. In so far as a man belongs to this world of freedom he is a person and intelligible character, and is raised above time, which is merely the form of the phenomenal world. This is not the place to examine Kant's argument in detail to ask whether the practical
;
:
conception of freedom as self-determination by law is quite identical with the theoretical (transcendental) conception of freedom as the capacity to cause without being caused. We are rather concerned with the fact that we have precisely in this train of thought the
But Kant was not content with this. He went on from this height to the traditional idea of immortality as an infinite persistence of the earthly life of man, and he afterwards sought to justify this postulate by the feeling of validity and the
In this he exof justice beyond the grave. pressed a common mode of feeling and thinking, which plays an important part in the positive religions and Kant's formulation their treatment of moral questions. starts from the idea of the highest good as the identity
of
decisive reason for lifting a super-terrestrial world.
man
as
a moral being into
demand
virtue
and happiness.
He means
that
it
is
incon-

is
341
ceivable that virtue should alone be worthy of happiAnd since this identity ness, yet not destined to share it.
not secured during earthly life, but very disputable, the realisation of the highest good must be sought in the life beyond. It is a fact that this feeling really We would like the good man to be happy and exists. it is painful for us to see the wicked man enjoy the good things of earth, perhaps in precise proportion to the unscrupulousness with which he uses means which the
;
is
moral law forbids others to use. The general feeling not satisfied with the assurance that, in spite of all
real happiness within him, and the other, in spite of all his enjoyments, has the fact is that in the only a fallacious happiness. No
:
his sacrifices, the
good man bears
course of earthly
life
the distribution of happiness and
unhappiness proceeds on lines of ethical indifference. Let us not deceive ourselves as to this fact. But when
we regard
will
this as
unjust,
and
the
be remedied beyond moral or morally justified sentiment ? Is it, especially, so necessary a claim of the moral consciousness that the postulate of immortality may be securely based upon it, as Kant attempted to do ? We may seriously doubt it. A strict rigorism might discard it, and find
that
trust that the injustice grave, is this really a
and happiness are two things that have, The to have, nothing to do with each other. and ought would say this might justly expect the approval man who of so strong an opponent of Eudasmonism as the founder
virtue
On the whole, however the argument may be, and however many consoling it may help through the painful riddle of life on earth, Besides all other objections it is certainly not proof. Who is going to end the question is in the there that what we think ethically necessary will guarantee be realised ? It is quite clear that the broad application of this argument in its popular forms is not free from The idea of justice beyond the grave cerobjection. does much to promote legality, and this element tainly could not very well be spared in the actual condition
of the
categorical imperative.
of social
life.
But
it
also contains a danger to pure
and
342
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
since
it
autonomous morality,
is
apt to
make a
decisive
motive of the idea of reward and punishment in the next life. And there is another danger in the frequent
use of this type of argument. The more closely the moral precept is, in theological moralising, brought into relation with the appeal to immortality and justice after death, the greater is the likelihood of scepticism arising as to moral conduct itself when the belief in the survival of the soul after death is enfeebled. The moral proof of immortality is purer in the form in which Goethe, in his eightieth year, formulated the " My belief in our continuance after death," postulate. " If arises from my conception of activity. he said, I work right to the end, nature is bound to provide me with another form of existence if the present can no longer sustain my spirit." Goethe goes on to say that
he
will
it
unless
have nothing to do with means new tasks and new

this
eternal
happiness
difficulties to over-
come.
he deduces that immortality depends activity, and is not given to all. of the Stoics claimed that only the wise were immortal. In both cases the idea is based upon a belief in the justice of the world-order. Thus does the belief in immortality extend from one extreme to the other. On the one hand we have the on the other hand desire for rest after the unrest of life
From
upon the value of one's In the same way some
a desire of
unbounded
the desires which tinuance of earthly life and a remedy of its defects. all of them there is something of the Faust -impulse
between the two all activity in one way or other postulate a con:
In
to
experience more than earthly reality can supply. The finite spirit is not content with the narrow circle of space and time in which it finds itself exiled. The spatial limitation of existence might, perhaps, be tolerated, especially if we could continue the familiar experiences But our limitation in time is a more serious of life. matter. Men are not much troubled about the past,
and are not afflicted because there were so many things but it is hard to reflect at which they were not present
;
that
we
shall
not see the future, not see the further

upon the unbounded
343
development of those tasks in which our inmost feelings were involved. Hence the Faust-impulse casts itself
In a sense the limits of future. time might be removed, and the limits of space remain and so imagination, working upon the idea of immortality, has pictured us in the future life wandering from star to star, and has thus got back to the original idea of the transmigration of souls. We need not speak here about the very definite have thus been pictures of the future life which imagined, but will add a few considerations as to the
;
metaphysical
and
metapsychical
tendencies
of
these
In the first respect we have the idea that perthings. sonalities are amongst the timeless primary constituents
and that they do not represent results in the temporal course of the empirical which arise and pass away. In this sense Kant and Schopenhauer speak " " of the of man. Later writers intelligible character
of things,
speak of primary positions, henads, and so on. We have noticed this question, when dealing with ontic problems, in connection with the antithesis of the singularistic and the pluralistic view of things. Personalistic Pluralism has very often been held in connection with the problems of freedom and responsibility but we cannot fail to see that it is opposed to Monotheistic metaphysics in a way which cannot be concealed by any
;
ingenuity of argument. Lotze, perhaps, made the best attempt to get over the difficulty by representing that individual personalities may be conceived as merely partial appearances of the primary divine substance, in which case they must share its eternity and indeFechner at the same time contended that structibility. he found room for the belief in immortality in his Panbut in this case it is scarcely psychic philosophy of life consistent with Fechner's own theory of psycho-physical
;
to metaphysics the ideas of immortality connected with the attempts to find a stratified structure in the psychic life, the mortal parts being separable from the immortal. This was done by Plato
parallelism. In relation
are
344
with
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
;
value explicit reference to differences of by Aristotle rather on theoretical lines. Plato in his later
period regarded the psychic activities which are bound up with the body and its needs as the lower and mortal, overshadowing the higher and immortal part to some extent during its life on earth in which case it is not to see in what can have consisted the sin of this easy
;
pure immortal soul, for which it was condemned to exile in the body. Hence in Plato's Timceus the migration of souls looks more like a law of fate than a moral disIn Aristotle the vegetative and the animal pensation. soul are put in a position of inferiority to the higher
and
as
soul or reason, the vovs; which, to have come from without into the supposed organic world, may also survive as the immortal part. Thus, at all events, Aristotle has been understood by
specifically
is
it
human
all
his
scientific
commentators.
rise
The
combination
of
these
Neo-Platonist theory, gave which has persisted, with various modifications of expression, from the time of Plotinus to modern philosophy, and survives in the speech of our time. Besides the psychic life that is bound up with the world of sense, and perishes with it, there is supposed to be a spiritual life which rises into the suprasensuous world. " " is of this world The soul the spirit belongs beyond this world. The one is empirical, the other metaphysical. That is to some extent the language of our own time. These theories, however, are in their in some measure at variance with the idea assumptions of immortality. For what we may call the reason or the spirit, as distinguished from the soul, is altogether
'
'
theories
to
the
totle
impersonal or superpersonal. The commentators on Ariswere not agreed whether there is question in his and historically those theory of personal immortality were right who contended the vovs is in the Aristotelic system not personal, but merely the generic reason or even the world-reason. Even in Plato there is the same
;
impersonality of the immortal part of ttje soul, since he at times gives it the same name, reason. These ideas are, up to a certain point, easily harmonised with

modern
345
theories of the general mind. Just as the individual arises from an empirical general mind, in which he constantly shares by the whole of his own activity, so there is in this general mind, as an ultimate and
innermost stratum, a province of rational validity, and

the individual mind shares also in this. But this share in its actual content and its eternal validity is independent of the extent to which it enters into the system of an historical general mind, and through this into the province of an individual mind. To that extent we
have here also a distinction of the mortal and the immortal in the psychic life, and precisely in the thought that we can make this eternal element our own in our
empirical psychic activity we find compensation for the mortality of all that merely enters consciousness from the bodily conditions of the life of the individual soul. Any person, however, who consoles himself with this
thought, that whatever has the value of eternity lives and works on in our nature and work, must realise that this is not the individual and personal immortality of
religious teaching.
immortality always find their completion in the idea of a moral order of the suprasensuous world, an ordo ordinans, as Fichte called it If man, as a as a counterpart to natura naturans. is to rise to a higher world, this metaphysical being, and itself must be conceived as a self-contained whole is applied to it, it takes the if the category of substance " God." In Kant's formula the postulate of imname mortality is completed by the existence of God. The
of
;
The moral proofs
good is by no means guaranteed even in the endless duration of by the natural order the life beyond. It is only guaranteed if there is a final unity of the natural and moral order in the Deity. In the main this was the chief point in the moral religion of the eighteenth century, in the case of such men as
realisation of the highest
Shaftesbury and Voltaire. When philosophy thus approaches the problem of the reality of God, we must bear in mind that this con-
346
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
ception has an important feature in common with the idea of God in current religion, but is by no means
identical
with it. The distinction is of importance in connection with all the theoretical proofs which philosophy urges of the existence of God. They hold first of all for the constructive religion which attempts to
put conceptual clearness into the traditional ideas of the mythos. We must remember that from the earliest period of science philosophers have been accustomed to give the name "God" to the ultimate principle of reality, no matter how they conceived the content of the term. Anaximander of Miletus calls the infinite the divine
:
Xenophanes
calls
far as Spinoza's Deus the moral order of the world. Positive religion will not recognise this use of the terms. It declares that these doctrines are
with the all, <9eos-. sive natura and Fichte's God as
the one, which So it goes on as
for
him
is
identical
atheism they deny ^s God. Nor need philosophers be surprised at this, since they see the different religions bringing against each other the charge of atheism, because one conceives the Deity differently from another. Everybody who does not believe as we do
an unbeliever." Philosophy has, of course, nothing But this very ambiguity to do with these controversies.
is
"
of the
word
is
were very different things. We may disentangle some vague surmise as the common element in all this rich diversity, but we must remember that a vague general belief of this kind need not be a
general truth. The philosophic problem of Deity, which emerges from axiology, is concerned only with our principle of The ordinary a totality of the suprasensuous world. of which we noticed the proofs of the existence of God,
theoretical significance in dealing with ontic problems, especially the problem of substance, were divided by Kant into the ontological, cosmological, and teleological
of God ex consensu gentium. " and ages meant by God

'
fatal to the popular proof of the existence For what different peoples
or
ment
is
ontological arguthat which starts from the conception of being.

physico-theological.
The

By
347
being is meant the content of all reality, and there If we is then no difficulty in proving that it exists. the ens realissimum et perfectissimum, our idea call God But we may ask includes reality and wants no proof. whether we are compelled to think the ens realissimum at all; and, since the drift of Kant's criticism is that that may reality does not follow from any conception be thought, it is not even enough to show that this conIn this respect ception must necessarily be thought.
Kant made the problem
all
the deeper
when he asked
for proof, not of the existence of God, but of the necesWhen we rid this idea sity of the existence of God. of its scholastic formulae, we find ourselves at the ex-
treme limit of
human
inquiry.
We
are face to face with
the question why anything must exist at all. Why is There is no answer to that question. there not nothing ? if we are not to move in a vicious circle, this necesFor,
sity
that to another,
must always be sought in something else, and from and so on ad infinitum. This holds
good even if we seek the reason of all being, as Fichte " " For or in the possible. and Weisse did, in the ought " or the possibility, we again ask, whence the ought and we must seek the reason in some other being.
'
Hence being
In this direction lay the

first
reveals its necessity "
by the
'
fact that it
is.
one possible
proof,
which
Kant, after his criticism of the ontological argument, And himself devised, and then silently abandoned.
the
in
direction lay the rehabilitation of the It is quite proof which Hegel attempted. ontological another question whether absolute being can be, in from all respect of its contents, something different On the strength of the premises of the beings. special
same
its
ontological proof that must be denied, and hence arises the Pantheism of the Eleatics, the affinity to medieval Realists, Spinoza, and so on. Hence also
the intimate relation of this argument and of Pantheism to the original indefiniteness of the religious feeling. With this Pantheistic feature are connected also the superlative predicates which play a great part in the
dialectic of this
argument
the greatest, most real, best,
348
most
of
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
perfect,
etc.
Whatever
it
is
possible
in
the
world
must be contained in the Even if it only makes its appearance principle itself. in the sensory world in the course of time, and had, perhaps, never appeared before, it must be timelessly real
appearance and beyond
in
the
absolute
being like
all
conceivable
perfections.
Here the suprasensuous is regarded in a thoroughly Spinozistic sense and sub specie ceterni, and therefore
the question discussed in the earliest metaphysical controversies, whether perfection means the beginning or the end, is irrelevant from this point of view. EmanaThe tion and evolution relate only to the appearance. It neither beginning nor end. divine world-essence has and end, the Alpha and the Omega. is alike beginning The cosmological proof comes a little nearer to ordinary religious thought since it seeks a cause of the innumerable individual things poured out in space and time a cause that shall be different from them in its nature
:
and
In the Scholastic formulation out by ideas of chance and this argument helped necessity, or of relative and absolute, conditioned or unconditioned, necessity, of the contingency of the finite and the necessity of the Infinite. In the very compliits
mode
of reality.
is
play of these conceptions, which we find most thoroughly drawn out in Hegel's Vorlesungen uber die Gottesbeweise, we see the need of reducing the force of this argument to the ontological, as Kant showed.
cated
dialectical
The cosmological argument in its simpler historical form, as we find it in Aristotle, depends on the category of causality in the same way as the ontological argument depends upon the category of substantiality. It seeks "
a
final link in the
chain of causes, the

this
prime mover,"
TO 7rpo)Tov KIVOVV.
From
was developed
later, partly
by introducing into it the element of time, the theory of the transmundane creator of the world, the idea of the Deists. In this causal form the argument is exposed to the well-known objections derived from the theory of knowledge. Causality, in so far as it is a category, is a relation between given empirical elements, and from it arises the need and the right to seek a second

link in connection with one that
349
is given, but only within the sphere of experience. But this does not justify the /iCTa/tacTi? els aAAo yevos which would occur if one were to pass in search of the cause from the physical to the metaphysical, from the finite to the infinite, from the con-
tingent to the necessary.
would be
sical
It follows, however, that it as illogical to deny this physico-metaphyjust that is to say, causal relation as to affirm it
:
Atheism is no more capable of scientific truth than Deism. But even if we were to ignore these objections and grant a demonstrative force to the cosmological argument, it would give us no knowledge of the nature and content of the cause which we thus inferred from the effect. For the causal relation does not determine anything about the likeness or unlikeness of cause and Hence at the most the cosmological proof merely effect. leads us once more to a quite vague idea of a First Cause,
without saying anything as to its nature. It therefore gives us no ground to think of God as a spiritual being, a personality. If we are to do this, we need to go on to certain elements which will enable us to determine the contents of the cosmic cause. This is supposed to be done by
the teleological proof, which is on that account, as Kant pointed out, the most impressive of all, and is the most esteemed by religious people. It infers a spiritual agency
from the purposiveness and harmony, the beauty and

perfection
of
the world.
it
From
this
machine
it
deduces that
perfection of the originated in the mind of a

reconcile
the
supreme engineer.
Hence
men
trend
of
science
who wish
to
proof finds favour with the mechanical
of
scientific
investigation
with
is
religious
belief.
The argument from analogy, which
thus
made
the
basis of the metaphysical position of Theism, has a good deal of rhetorical force, but it is not strictly a proof.
Indeed, the analogy does not hold altogether when the argument is supposed to lead us to the conception of
For all-wise, all-good, and all-powerful Creator. the human engineer finds his material at hand, and there is thus a limit to his power whereas the Deity
an
350
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
has to create the material. This distinction was indicated by Kant when he said that the teleological proof leads only (as was the case with the older thinkers) to the conception of a governor and architect of the world. In order to go on to God we have to use also the cosmological (and in the end the ontological) argument. But even with this restriction the teleological argument is open to still further objections. That the purposive can only be due to design cannot be proved from the of the effect nothing can, strictly, be deduced properties as to the properties of the cause. Hume himself out that it was possible that, on the principles pointed of probability, in an infinite course of time there might arise a constellation of masses which would admit only a minimum of disturbance and therefore persist for a considerable time and when modern biology purported to be able to give a mechanical explanation of the vital
;
capacity
siveness in
lation
which, as
we previously saw, means purpo-
them
received
of organisms, physico-theological specua serious check and found itself in a
problematical situation. An examination of the soundness of its premises is even more menacing to the psychological impressiveness of this argument. Is the world really as purposive,
as harmonious, beautiful, and perfect as it ought to be in order to sustain the burden of the teleological argu-
ment
others
Kant took these premises for granted, but have made a detailed elaboration of them. Astronomical and, especially, biological teleology has
?
figured conspicuously
in
the literature of the subject.
With the
petulance
which,
unfortunately,
is
always
imported into any discussion in regard to religious questions it is said that only bad will can close a man's eyes to the purposiveness and beauty of the world that
;
ungrateful not to search for the author of it. As a matter of fact, no one actually resists this impression, but it is not the only possible impression. Any man who observes reality impartially sees a good deal that is not purposive and not harmonious, a good deal that is ugly and imperfect, in the world. Both, the purit is
REALITY AND VALUE
851
posive and purposeless, are found everywhere. There is a good deal of each, and it would be difficult to say which is the more abundant. Religion itself in its
highest form, redemptive religion, emphatically asserts that this world, which in its purposiveness bears the stamp of its divine Creator, is nevertheless full of imHow are we to reconcile perfection, misery, and sin.
What is the relation of the divine being who this ? sustains a suprasensuous world of values to a world of sense in which these values, while realised to some What is extent, are in large part flagrantly denied ? Of the the relation of what ought to be to what is ?
world of timelessly valid values to the world of things and temporal events ? That is the final problem.
22
Reality and Value.
Subjective and objective Antinomianism Optimism and pessimism -The problems of theodicy Physical evil Moral Dualism of value and unity of the world The will as the evil
principle of the temporal.
Our
inquiry
it
knowledge: The former

finds itself
began with the unsatisfactoriness of ends with the unsatisfactoriness of life. stimulated the reflective thought which urged from the unsettled ideas of daily life,
through scientific conceptions, to the problems of and these have pressed upon us more and philosophy more as we passed from questions of knowledge to quesAll theoretical problems arose from tions of valuation. the fact that the assumptions and postulates latent in the forms of knowledge of reality, especially the assumption of the identity of the world with itself, can never be fully realised in the contents given in experience. The whole life of values reveals an unrealised, or even unrealisable, mass of demands that are made, not only and of our ideas of the real, but of the reality itself concern not only human these unfulfilled demands states and activities, but also the things and situations to which they relate. Indeed, it is of the very essence
;
352
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
norm which guides it is not fuland not fulfilled always. "Ought' and " If norm is," value and reality, must be different. and reality were identical, there would be an end of
of valuation that the
filled of itself,
valuation, or denial
since
its
alternative
character
affirmation
no logical
:
presupposes this difference. There would be appreciation of true and false if there were
a natural necessity guiding the mind only to sound conno ethical appreciation of good and bad if clusions the natural process of motivation fulfilled the moral
no aesthetic appreand conduct and ugly if in every construction of nature and art we had a perfect expression of the and even all hedonistic appresignificant content ciation would cease if the whole of life were pleasant " " " must and those of The laws of or useful. ought
law in
ciation
all
volition
of
beautiful
'
cannot be entirely different, yet cannot be identical. Thus from the subjective antinomianism which reveals itself in all philosophic treatment of problems we came to an objective antinomianism, which puts the dualism even in reality, and makes the subjective dualism intelligible
The
by showing that it is only a special case of this. fact of valuation necessarily implies a dualism of the valuable and valueless in reality.
be
This subtle truth, which is easily overlooked, may traced in the meaning of the two attitudes which we find opposing each other under the names of optimism and pessimism. Even optimism does not deny that there is evil in the world. The superlative expression in the name means only that the world is the best That is its meaning in the scientific of possible worlds.
form which Leibnitz gave it. It by no means implies that the world is free from evil, but that it is a world in which evil is restricted to the smallest possible proIt is the best in the sense that it contains portions. the least evil. Pessimism, on the other hand, has no Its idea of denying that there is any good in the world. most eloquent champion, Schopenhauer, admits that
even
in this evil
world there
is
much
that
is
purposive,
successful, beautiful,
and consoling.
Hence neither view
REALITY AND VALUE

calls into question the
353
dualism of value in the real. All that they pretend to prove is the preponderance of one or the other element, and in this they have a good deal of appeal to the emotional reaction of people upon life. There are optimism and pessimism in the sentiments of the individual, or even of whole groups of individuals
peoples and ages which are urged by temperament or experience in one or the other direction. These are of emotional apperception which we quite effects understand psychologically. If at some time the accumulation of similar experiences leads to one of these
definite
result
it is attitudes, strengthened by selection is
generally
confirmed
mood
or disposition,
and assimilation. and moods can neither
and But the
be proved nor disproved. Hence we cannot objectively prove any preponderance either of the valuable or the valueless in the world in the sense of optimism and pessimism. It is impossible to estimate or appreciate the proportion with any confidence even within the narrow limits of humanity, to say nothing of the whole realm of life or the entire universe. Moreover, in judging that anything is good or bad we pass beyond the limits of man's faculty of knowledge in the sense that in doing so we must flatter ourselves that we know something about the end of the world. This is particularly true of the lowest and most widespread form of optimism and pessimism, the Hedonist form, which seeks to determine whether pleasure or pain predominates in the totality of reality. In this In respect explicit theories are generally pessimistic. ancient times, as a consequence of the Hedonism which found the end and meaning of life in pleasure, there arose a feeling of despair of attaining this end and a depreciation of
life,
to
which a Hedonist named Hegesias

;
gave expression by preaching suicide. In modern times his metaSchopenhauer chiefly advocated pessimism of the will and his ethic based upon compassion physic culminated in his doctrine of the misery of existence. Here were the germs of the scientific pessimism which was afterwards established by Edward von Hartmann.
23
354
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
;
The very nature of the will, he said, involved a preponderance of pain since in every effort there is the pain of the unsatisfied will. This is replaced by pleasure when the will is fulfilled, but the pain returns only
and
is
intensified
when
it is
again disappointed.
Hence
even if the chances of satisfaction and disappointment were equal, there would be a preponderance of pain, which must in any case precede in the will. This is
merely a
itself,
scientific
description of the pessimistic

of
it
mood
and the argument
pointing out that the effort, or no, is a pleasure, a pleasant feeling of life and selfassertion though this again is only a description of the optimistic tendency. Thus optimism and pessimism in the Hedonist form are based upon claims which
;
be countered by whether it be successful
may
the impulse to happiness makes upon knowledge, and with which knowledge is unable to comply. Even if we could statistically and scientifically prove a predominance of pleasure or pain in the whole scheme of things, it would give us no right whatever to qualify the universe as good or bad. There would always remain the counter-question, whether the world is there
for the purpose of producing pleasure a question that many answer in the affirmative in practice, but that
:
no one has ever answered theoretically. Hedonist optimism and pessimism are therefore moods at which we need not cavil as long as they do not claim the general force of demonstrable theories. On a higher ethical level we have an optimism and pessimism which see in the fulfilment of the moral law the end and aim of the world and of human life. Here we get a difference due to the theory that man's natural and original disposition was good, and that it has changed and degenerated in the course of his historical development. Those who, with Rousseau, hold that man is naturally good, must consider, when they contemplate the present state of things, that up to the
present, at all events, history has led to his degeneration.
the other hand, those who regard man's primitive disposition as bad, as the Egoistic ethic or the theolo-
On
REALITY AND VALUE
355
gical doctrine of original sin or Kant's theory of radical evil does, will have to show that social or religious These again influences have greatly improved him. are antithetic views that are often due to individual
disposition
or experience,
and which are incapable
of
regards man's natural endowconvincing proof. ment, we have already seen that a sharp division of men into good and bad, such as the Stoics claimed, argues a superficial psychology. As a matter of fact the motives of men are so mixed in real life that it is impossible to
As
divide them in this way. As to historical development, our consideration of the philosophy of history has shown us how difficult it is to form scientific ideas about the moral changes of the human race in the past or the It is always open to hold that the moral nature future. of man generally has remained unchanged, or is even and that would be an ethical pessimism unchangeable is not confined to Schopenhauer. that Again it is to combine a pessimistic view of man's original, possible and even of his present, condition with an optimistic view of his future. Thus Feuerbach and Diihring, in spite of their severe censure of actual moral and social conditions, were not shaken in their belief in the perfectibility of man and the certainty of progress and improvement. The finest combination of optimism and
;
Hartmann, who believes in a developwhich will lead to redemption from the misery of existence by the growth of the intellectual and the ethical life. Leibnitz, he thinks, was right in
pessimism
is
in
ment
of civilisation
holding that this world, considered in its entire evolubut Schopenhauer tion, is the best of all possible worlds also was right when he said that the world is bad and miserable enough. Hence it was a mistake of the unconscious essence of the world to produce a world at all, and the best possible world is this, in which the mis;
take will eventually be made good by knowledge and the denial of will, and the Deity may be redeemed by his own world. In this fantastic way the optimistic and pessimistic
moods
are
built
up
into
philosophical
systems.
The
356
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
only sound element of knowledge in them is the dualism of value in reality. It is the task of philosophy to get and pessimism, and understand this beyond optimism dualism to overcome it is a problem on which it has expended much fruitless labour. Ancient philosophy took the wrong way to do this under the pressure of the prevailing religious beliefs. It attempted to make the dualism of value equivalent to the theoretical dualism in which all metaphysical consideration ends the dualism of the spatial and the mental, of body and From various motives and soul, of matter and spirit. in many different ways it contended that the world of sense is the world of the imperfect and bad, as opposed to the good world of the spirit, the suprasensuous world and that in man the body was the evil, the soul or spirit the good. We have dealt previously with this identification and have pointed out the defects in its theoIn its effects, however, it goes far beyond retical basis. scientific thought in which, indeed, it did not originate,
;
and to which it is by no means confined. Both in theory and practice (from which it sprang) it involved a depreciation of the life of the senses. Man was taught to be ashamed of his own body, of the sensuous-suprasensuous dualism of his nature. For two thousand years this has lain like a disordered dream upon European humanity, and we return slowly, very slowly, to the clear Greek
view of
life.
Apart from this error and aberration, the fact of the dualism of value in the whole of life remains in undiminished obscurity, and from it sprang the four problems The fundaof theodicy which we have considered. mental question, formulated in religious terms, is, Why did God create a world of which evil is a necessary constituent ? These problems again present themselves The first to the ordinary mind in a Hedonist form. idea that the creation of the world was due to the wisdom, goodness, and omnipotence of God seems to be sharply contradicted by the dysteleological facts of life on earth the cruelty of animal life and the worse evils of human This imlife pain, want, and misery of every sort.
:
REALITY AND VALUE
357
pression is increased when we consider the distribution of happiness and unhappiness, which seems to our sense Even apart from all this, the bare of value unjust.
reality of physical evil is a powerful instance against the belief in a divine creation and government of the
The question of Epicurus, whether God could not or would not keep evil out of the world, or both, has never been satisfactorily answered. The rhetorical
world.
arguments which have been used repeatedly since the time of the Stoics and their opponents depend entirely on more or less pronounced anthropomorphisms. When
people speak of the educational value of evil, of the unavoidable incidental effects of things good in themselves, of the use of apparently contradictory means for the eventual fulfilment of the divine plan, one can always retort by asking whether a benevolent omnipotence could not have found less painful means for and the appeal, made long carrying out its designs
;
ago by the Stoics, to the impenetrability of the ways of Providence is supposed to be valid only for the believer,
not for the sceptic. These reflections may suffice to lessen the force of the problem of physical evil for some people, but they do not touch the heart of the question the reality of moral evil, the quantity of wickedness in the world. It is no use attempting to argue away this as is done with
physical evil, by saying, as the Stoics did, that pain is not really an evil, especially for the wise, but is merely or by saying, considered such by the immature man as the Neo-Platonists did in their metaphysical optimism, that everything real is good and perfect, and that the evil and imperfect is merely a defect of being. Rhetoric of this kind, as that evil is merely the absence
;
of good,
is
of
no value.
facts,
never get over the fact of

certain of
all
mind itself can which is for it the most and as such is the origin of all the
religious
sin,
The
This is the point fervour of the craving for redemption. at which the desire of a unified understanding of the world breaks down before an insoluble problem. The world of values and the world of realities, the provinces
358
'
RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
"
"
and must," are not foreign to each other. are in mutual relation everywhere. But they They are certainly not the same thing. There is a rent in the fabric of reality. Besides the values which are realised in it there is a dark power of something indifferent to or opposed to value. If we mean by God a single in which all that can be experienced has a principle common being and common origin, we can never underof
ought
stand
itself.
how
it
divides
into
Ancient
philosophy
on
duality that contradicts that account stopped
short at the antithesis of
God and
matter, or form and
later date theosophic and theogonic speculations, such as those of Jacob Boehme, tried to do away " " with this division or otherness but they had
matter.
At a
'
'
to be content with obscure figures of speech tions that were little more than aspirations.
and assump-
We
cannot
The dualism is the most get over the contradiction. certain of all facts, yet Henism is the most solid of all the assumptions of our philosophy of reality. For the
dialectic which would try to evade the difficulty the only logical means seemed to be the contradictory disjunction, and the only metaphysical escape the recognition of negativity and it has therefore, from Proclus to Hegel, attempted the impossible with its thesis, antiBut when it thus attempts to thesis, and synthesis. show how, in the words of Heraclitus, the one divides itself into two and then returns to itself, it merely succeeds with the dialectical process in defining and describing, but never in understanding and explaining. From the very nature of the case this final problem is insoluble. It is the sacred mystery, marking the limits of our nature and our knowledge. We must be content to remain there and to recognise that here, at this inmost point of life, our knowledge and understanding can reach no further than the other side of our For the will the duality of value of being, the will.
;
reality
If
is the indispensable condition of its activity. value and reality were identical, there would be no will and no event. All would remain motionless in a state of eternal completion. The innermost meaning
REALITY AND VALUE

of
359
time
is
the
inalienable
to
and what ought
be
difference between what is and because this difference,
which reveals itself in our will, constitutes the fundamental condition of human life, our knowledge can never get beyond it to a comprehension of its origin.
Hence we human beings find a dispassionate joy, not in the unrest of the will, which drags us into the transitory turmoil of the world of appearances, but in the
tranquil province of pure thought and contemplation in which the values of eternity are revealed 77 TO "rjSiarov Koi apiarov.
:
INDEX
Absolute
reality, 36,
45
Acosmism, 80
Êsthetic Epicureanism, 229
.(Esthetics,
300-16
After-feeling, 311
Agnosticism, 194 Altruism, 230
Anaxagoras,
127
35,
58,
60,
75,
83,
Bergson, 95 Berkeley, 38, 68, 114, 115, 194 Boehme, Jacob, 358 Brain, obscurity of the, 162 Broussais, 112 Bruno, Giordano, 79, 84 Biichner, 112 Burke, Edmund, 312
Cabanis, 112 Categorical Imperative, the, 236
Anaximander, 42, 74, Anaximenes, 89 Animism, 106 Antinomianism, 45

Antisthenes, 228 Aposteriorism, 180-1
79, 89,
346
Category
of inherence, the, 47, 51 of quantity, the, 72
Appearance and
reality, 34-46, 201
Causality, 48, 126-42, 348 Causes, classes of, 128-9
Apperception, 73 Apriorism, 108-1 Architecture, 314 Aristippus, 229

Aristotle,
18,
1 1 1
Chamberlain, H. S., 64 Chemical combination, 102, 155 Christianity, 262, 329

Christiansen, 311
35,
30,
62, 92,
106,
317. 344. 34 S
Church, the, 261 Cicero, 190

Civilisation, the
Arnobius,
philosophy
of,
328
Art, 316-24 Aseity, 62, 76 Associations, 256
Collectivism, 285 Colour, sensations of, 103 Common sense, the, 103
Assumptions, 18-20
Communities,
voluntary
and
in-
Atomism,
53, 62, 82
Attributes, 66 Aufkldrung, the, 28, 318 Augustine, 115 Authority and morality, 241-4
Automatic
Axioms, 22
actions, 161
Avenarius, 38
voluntary, 253-67 Comte, Auguste, 38, 39, 150, 267, 281 Condillac, 192 Conscience, 220-40 Conscientialism, 196 Consciousness, contents of, 196-
Bacon, 177 Bahnsen, 83 Baumgarten, A., 301 Beauty, nature of, 304-16 Being
existence, 35 true and apparent, 44 Belief, 175 Bentham, 227, 231
361
and
207 Conservation of energy, 157 Constitutive characters, 66 Convertibility of natural laws, 144 Copula, the, 67 Cornelius, 27 Cosmological argument, the, 349 Creation, 127, 349
Criterion of truth, 173 Croce, Benedetto, 320
Custom, 264
362
Darwinism, 149 Deism, 77 Democritus, 35,
INDEX
Finitism, 92-3, 99 First Cause, the, 349
43, 62, 112 Derivative characters, 66 Descartes, 18, 40, 66, 68, 91, 95,
Folk-psychology, 154
Forces, 128
Free
will,
the illusion
of,
70,
135,
104,
109,
in,
115,
133,
156,
179,326
Design, 146
248-53 French Revolution, the, 292, 293

Genius, 320-2 Giercke, 256 God, 76-80, 91-3, 216,
Determinism, 249 Diderot, 317 Dogmatism, 185-8 Dualism, no, 116-20
326,
of,
336,
Du Bois-Reymond,
Duty, 123-5
356-9
proofs of the existence
113
345-50
Diihring, 99, 112, 355
Goethe, 50, 61, 104, 177, 301, 342 Greek philosophy, 24, 34, 42, 58,
59, 90, 91, 121, 167, 176, 290, 317. 329, 334. 35 6 Guelincx, 137, 156 Guyau, 298, 320
79,
Dynamism, 129
Efficient causes, 128
Egoism, 193 ethical, 228

Eleatics, the, 336, 347
34, 42,
81
90,
Hanslick, 310
Elements, 59 Emotionalism, 108, 209, 211 Empedocles, 35, 117, 149 Empirical reality, 36, 49 Empiricism, 177-82 End, the, 146
Energetics, 71
Happiness and morals, 226-31 Hartmann, E. von, 353 Hedonism, 229, 353
Hegel, 15, 25, 35, 43, 116, 168, 222,
303,
33L
347. 348
Hegesias, 353
Helmholtz, 48
Henism,
74, Si,
358
Energy, 79
Entelechies, 63
Heraclitus, 117, 176, 358
Epicurus, 114, 191, 229, 251, 329, 357 Epiphenomena, 160
Epistemology, 167 Essence, 35, 52-5

Essential
and accidental, 52-8 Eternity, 99 Ethic, the Kantist, 234-8, 243
Herbart, 19, 24, 43, 59, 61, 81, 83, 122, 241, 303, 309 Hero, the, 285-6 Hertz, H., 130 History philosophy of, 277-99 truth in, 205-7 value in, 279
Hobbes,
in
Ethicsempirical and rationalist, 238 imperativist and descriptive, 220

intuitive,
Hominism, 180 Homoomeria, 58, 82
240
Humanism, 180 Humanity

end
of,
Eudaemonism, 211, 225-31

Event, the, 122-6 Evidence, 175 Evolution, 150 Existence, 35 Experience, contents Extension, 66, 68
unity
of,
297 288-92
138, 190, 240, 246,
Hume,
of, 49,
69, 72,
350 Hutcheson, 240

180
Idealism, 68-9, 114, 192 Identity, 49-56 Ideology, 181
Illusion in art, 313 Imitation in art, 317-18
Faculties, unreality of, 60 Fall, the, 283 Family, the, 258 Fechner, 104, 105, 119, 149, 156, 255. 35, 343 Feuerbach, 112, 191, 246, 355 Fichte, 24, 81, 115, 116, 129, 184, 233, 283, 298, 345, 347
Immanence, 77
Immanent Immanent
event, the, 124 Positivism, 39
Immortality, 337-45 Indeterminism, 249
INDEX
Individual, the, and society, 26.\-6, 271, 283-4, 286 Individualism, 62-5 Individuality, 63-5, 69 Infinity, 44, 78-9, 89, 93, 99 Inherence, category of, 47, 51
363
Mechanism, 143-4, 151

.Mediterranean race, the, 290 Melissos, 90 Memory, Plato's theory of, 176 Metaphysical craving, the, 13
Innate ideas, 177 Inner sense, the, no Intellectualism, 107 Intelligible Space, 83
lonians, the, 41 Irony, 315
Metaphysical reality, 36 Metaphysics, meaning of, 36, 40 Middle Ages, the, 329 .Milieu, theory of the, 65 Modi, 66, 76/128 Mohammedanism, 262 Molecules, 60
Moleschott, 112
Jacobi, 38
Jellinek, 272
Jerusalem, 27
Judgment, nature
Kant,
of, 28,
208
Jurisprudence, 269
15, 31, 41, 45, 75, 85, 93, 94,
Monadology, 63, 84, 85, 127 Monism, 74, 118-20, 160, 164 Monotheism, 74, 334 Moral order of the Universe, 345 Morality-
104, in, 114, 147, 168, 195, 221, 234-8, 302, 307, 312, 331,
Movement
339-41, 347 Kirchhoff, 139
nature of, 19-41 sanction of, 241-53 in causation, 133, 152 Mysteries, the Greek, 261 Mysticism, 329 Mythos, the, 331
Knowledge
limits of, 23 nature of, 28, 167-73
object of, 196-207

origin of, 176-82 validity of, 182-96 Krause, C. F., 234
Kiilpe, O., 27
Naive realism, 185, 199 National States, 274 Natural law, 268 Natural religion, 336
Nature, 61 Neo-Platonism, 79, 92, 315. 344- 357
106,
178,
Newton,
Lamettrie, 112
Lange,
A., 162,
Law
327
philosophy 267-77 of nature, 268 Laws, natural, 130, 141 Legality and morality, 245
of,
104, 151 Nicholas of Casa, 79, 84, 92 Nietzsche, 100, 298 Night-theory, 104 Noetics, 167
Nominalism, 1867 Noumena, 36
Number, 73
Objective, the, 37
Leibnitz, 54, 63, 84, 116, 151, 179, 233, 302 Liberum arbitrium indifferentiseô,
Occam,
252
Liebmann,
O., 27 Locke, 68, no, 168, 177, 181, 242 Logical truth, 203
Lotze, 31, 48, 84, 86, 151, 201, 209,
343
191, 242 Occasional causes, 128 Occasionalism, 76 Ontological argument, the, 346-7 Opinion, 167, 174 Optimism, 352 Organism, identity of the, 56
Outer sense, the,
no
Mach, 139 Madness and genius, 322

Malebranche, 114 Manicheanism, 117
Materialism, 111-14, 160, 230 Materialistic conception of history,
Pantheism, 76-8, 92, 330, 347 Parmenides, 176 Paulsen, 27 People, the, 259 Perfection, morality of, 232-3
Personality, 70, 281-4, 2 ^7
293 Mathematical truth, 202 Measurement, 87
Pessimism, 352
Phenomena,
36, 43
364
Phenomenalism, 190-4 Philosophy criticisms of, 19-20
INDEX
Rome,
cultural evolution in,
329
Rousseau, 276, 354

Sacred, the, 324-33 Scepticism, 187-8, 332
Schelling, 129, 146, 305, 315, 321 Schiller, 106, 235, 247, 303, 312, 313. 319 Schleiermacher, 80, 233, 330 Scholastics, the, 107, 177, 180, 242 Schopenhauer, 13, 37, 48, 108, 115, 246, 292, 298, 303, 312, 313. 352, 353 Science, truth in, 204
demand
for,
13
difficulty of,
14
need of, 21 origin of, 18

task of, 17, terminology
19, 27,
of,
29
10
Plato, 34, 35, 40, 43, 59, 90, 105, 114, 167, 176, 186, 273, 315, 317. 336. 337- 344
Play, impulse to, 319-20 Pleasure and morals, 226-7

Plotinus, 79, 315, 344 Pluralism, 87, 343
Scotus, Duns, 242
Polydemonism, 75
Polytheism, 75
Positivism, 37-8, 41, 138 Postulates, 22
Secondary qualities, 103 Self, meaning of the, 69-70, 129 Self-consciousness, 281-3 Selfish System, the, 228, 245
Semeiotics, 191 Senses, the, 102-4 Sensualism, 177 Sex and morality, 223 Shaftesbury, 229, 232, 240, 315 Singularism, 74, 93
Size, 73, 87 Smith, Adam, 240 Socialism, 230 Society, 260 Sociology, 267
Powers, 128
Pragmatism, 174, 179, 331 Pre-established harmony, 86

Pre-existence, 337 Prejudices, 22
114 Probabilism, 189 Problematicism, 189 Proclus, 358 Progress, philosophy

Priestley,
of,
293-7, 3 2 5
Properties, 49~54
Protagoras, 227 Psychogenetic theory of knowledge, 176 Psycho-physical causality, 155-65 Psycho-physical parallelism, 157-
Socrates, 18 Solger, 315 Solipsism, 193 Soul, idea of the/l 105-7,
332-3,
63 Psychologism, 181 Psychology and science, 206

theories of modern, 107-8
338-45 Sound, sensations of, 104 Space, 83-4, 90, 93-7 Speech, 284-5
Herbert, 107, 150, 239, 298 Spinoza, 37, 78, So, 109, 119, 156, 232, 346 Spirit of the age, 86 Spiritualism, in, 114-16
Spencer,
State, the, 57, 260, 271 Stoics, the, in, 170, 239, 34 2 355. 357 Strauss, D. F., 112 Subjective, the, 37 Sublime, the, 312
.
Purposiveness, 146-8 Pythagoras, 90, nS
Quantity, 72-101
Rationalism, 177-82 Realism, 185, 199 Reality and appearance, 34-46 relative and absolute, 36 true and apparent, 35, 43 Relativity, 89 Religion and philosophy, 39, 324-51 Renaissance, the, 28, 40, 178, 315 Renouvier, 27, 99
Responsibility, 249-53
335,
Substance, 47-72 and cause, 133

Taste, 306 Teleology, 146-52, 350 Tertullian, in Thales, 42
Robinet, 158 Romanticists, the, 229, 245
Theism, 77, 349 Theory of knowledge, 167-73
INDEX
Thing-in-itself, the, 34, 68, 195
365
Things, 48-55. 67-8 Time, nature of, 94-9, 122 Transcendence, 77 Transcendental appearance, 45, 69 Transcendental truth, 171, 184 Transgredient event, 124 Transvaluation of values, 14 Truth, nature of, 166-75, 184-5 Turgot, 39
Value, meaning of, 209-17, 351-2 Vitalism, 106-7, 147 Vogt, 112 Volition, nature of, 210-11 Voluntarism, 107, 115, 209
Weisse, 347
Willfreedom
relation
of the, 70, 135, 248-53 of to knowledge, 28-9,
210
Unconscious states, 108, 148 Uniformity of nature, 141 Unity of the human race, 288 Unity of substance, 74-84 Universal restoration, too Universalism, 60-5 Universals, controversy about, 186
Utilitarianism, 211, 231
Winckelmann, 305
Woltf, 233, 301
World-empires, 290 Wundt, 26
Xenophanes, 334, 335, 346 Xenophon, 226
Validity, 182-3
Zimmermann, 310
MAR
6 1987
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKE

UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO
LIBRAF

Wilhelm Windelband. An Introduction To Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilhelm Windelband. An Introduction To Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilhelm Windelband. An Introduction To Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN INTRODUCTION

FISHER UNWIN LTD

First published in English

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

seeks to provoke the reader to think

systems of thought. In view of the aim of the work

have not found

REALITY AND APPEARANCE

THE QUANTITY OF BEING Number and magnitude

THE QUALITATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF REALITY

and derivative properties

Primary and secondary

MECHANISM AND TELEOLOGY

THE PSYCHO-PHYSICAL EVENT

THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE

THE VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE

THE OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE

Function and content of con-

feeling or will Reciprocity of values

Utilitarianism Morality Definition of morality

COMMUNAL WILL Individual and common

Voluntary and pre-existing

HISTORY The philosophy

Old age good

Reality with and without time.

Majority and Formalistic aesthetics

Sensuous appearance of the idea.

The sacred not a

THE TRUTH OF RELIGION

more and more

faction in their task.

the undefined and unknown.

like all periods of

have grown up and

Will the philosophy

demand ? It, at all The resignation which

They have made use

are the best for this purpose.

when they say

a different aspect from that which he sacrifice, if it prove necessary, the

ideas lightly borrowed from tical life of man is pervaded

To-day these scientific ideas are and they suggest to us so many

philosophical reflection. In the special sciences and in

Descartes has very

they arise out of the vigorous tion of the assumptions of our

and we have to show how necessarily and dispassionate examina-

Once we have conceived the task

of philosophy from the best answer to a number find

The moment you

the history of something disconnected,

people are right

see in this fruitless series

human folly. On the other hand, however, one

gets the impression, great figures of the

of view at different times,

always the same problems

and the same general

lines of solution that

this intrinsic pressure of