P R E FA C E .

P R O B A B LY th e mos t n i fy i n g l i n k o f t h es e S TU D IES
u

w h et her th e s t ud y happ en s to b e a nc ie nt ,

m ed i aeval o r m od er n w h eth e r it b e m etap h y s i cal

, , ,

p ys c h o l o g ic al o,r e t h ic a l will b e fo un d to be a
ce rt a i n s p ir i t u alis t i c el em e n t o r i d eal istic t e nd en c
y .

I t w as th e p r es e n c e o f s u c h a s pi ritu al istic el eme nt

or t en d e nc y t h a t m a i n l y d e t e r m i n ed th e c h o ic e o f

t h e s u bj ects . M o s t o f th e P ap er s h av e app ea r ed
i n G er man Fr en c h A m eric an and B ritis h p h i l o
, , ,

s op hical o r t h eo l ogi c al j o u r n al s T o th e ed it o r s
.

of th e s e j ou r n al s I w o ul d e x p r e ss th e i n d eb t ed n e s s

u s u al i n s uc h c a s es B ut I o w e m o r e t h a n cu s
.

tom ary g r a tit u d e to P r o fes s or D r L S t e in e d it or .

,

fzi r sy s i ematzsce s l osop /zze and

of th e A r c/zi t}
' '

o f th e A n h zv fzi r Gesc/zzc/zte a er
'

for

e r m i s s i o n t o r ep rin t a n y o f th e d o u b l e s eri es o f
p
A r tic l es w h ic h appear ed i n th es e i mp o rtan t p hi l o
s ophical j o u rn al s O th er j o u r nal s t h a t favo u r ed
.

m e by pub li s h i ng P aper s h e r e r ep ri nt ed w er e th e
 P RE FA C E .

Sacr a a nd th e P r i n ceton T eo/og i ea l

R evi ew ,
wh il e i n fo u r o th er j o urn al s s o me par ts
o f c e r tai n ch ap t e r s app ea r ed T o th e ex ec u ti ve
.

o f th e A ristote l i a n So ci et y L o nd o n I am i n
, ,

d eb ted fo r p er m iss i o n to r ep rint th e Pap e r ( n ow

r evi s ed ) o n B onatel l i a p e rm is s io n gran ted s ome
y e a rs a
g o ,
b u t o nl
y n o w t ake n ad va nt a e o f
g O f .

th e P ap e r s th a t h a v e a lr ead y a pp ea r ed n o t on e
,

i s n ow is s ued w ith o u t r evis i o n o r m od i cati o n ;

an d i n s o m e i ns ta nc es e n l a rg e m e nt to s o m e s l i gh t
, ,

e x te nt h as b een th e r es u l t . T h e r e w er e o t h e r
Pap er s I s h o ul d h ave l i ked to i nclu d e b ut fo r , ,

vari ou s r ea s o n s ,
I h ave n o t b een ab l e to i ns er t
t h em i n th e p r es e n t v o l u me . In th e c hap t e r o n
O rigen as C h risti an p hi l o s o p h e r I h ave d r a w n
,

l a rgel y fro m m y fo rm er P ap e r on th at th in ke r as ,

I wi s h ed h i m to h ave p l ac e i n this p hil o s o p hic

s ucc es sio n .

J A M E S L I N D SA Y .

AN N I C K LO DGE ,

IRVI NE Febm a vy 1 909

, .
 CO NT E NTS .

C H AP T E R I .
( I NT R OD U C T ORY ) .

C
TH E P L A E AN D W O RT H OF OR I ENTAL I OO Y
PH L S P H .

PA GE

U nsati s fac t ory atti tude of H i s to i es of Ph i l osoph y G reek

r

Th o ugh t and O r i en tal Ph i l oso ph yTh e Ph il osoph y of

th e C h i n es eO u H i nd u T h ou gh t T h e Ved an t a an d
San kh y a Ph i l osoph i es B rah m an i c Ph i l osop h y Bud
d h i s t M etaph y si cs u
B rah mani c moni sm an d H in du
p ess i mi s m Z oroastr i an th o ugh t and th eod icy
E as t ern mys ti c i s m E g ypt i an s p ecul ati ve i d eas
Wor th of E as tern Th o ugh t for E urop ean Ph i losoph y
T h e U n i v ersal i t y of P h i l osop h y

C H AP T E R II .

P LA TO I T OTLE O N SUBSTAN CE
AN D AR S AN D E FF I C I E NT
CAUSAT IO N .

Relat i on s of ub stance and C au s al i tyTh e Su b s tance con

S
cept i n G reek P h i losoph y P l at o on S u bs t ance P lat o
I deasAr i s totl e on S u b s tan ce Ari s to tle s M e ta
'
on

ph ysi c sH i s rel ati on s to P l ato i n res p ec t of Sub s tance

Self ac ti v i t y in Ari s t o tl e P l at o on C ausat i on H i s
-

C reat i oni sm P l ato s Ulti ma te C au se Ari sto tle on

C ausat ionH i s P ri me M o v erEf ci ent C au se in A is r

totl e H i s rel at i on s to P l at o i n r es p ec t of C au sat i on

x C O N T E N TS .

C H A P TE R III .

I OO Y
GREEK P H L S P H O F REL G I IO N .

Th e G reek mind and i ts el i giou s w ork i ngs

r V agu e Sp i ri t i sm
and th e O rp h i c songsX enop h an es and th e p r i nc i ple

of u n i tyG r eek my th ol ogyN atural i s m P ol yth ei sm

M onoth ei st i c tend en cySyncreti smE th i cal i nu
enc e of th e G reek t rag ed i an s T h e E l eat i cs Th e Ion i c
p h i losop h ers H eracl i tus an d Xenop h anes Anaxa
goras an d SocratesTel eo l ogi ca l r easoni ngs and p sy
ch ol ogi cal mod e o f So cra tes P l at o s on tol ogi cal

arch etyp es P l ato on myth o lo gy H i s p h i l osop h y of

-

rel i g i onP l at o on s o ul goo d a n d soci et y Ari s to tl e s

D ei tyH i s Pri me M over H i s s elf ac ti v i ty dual i sm

, ,

-
, ,

an d d oc tr ine of F i n a l i t y P h i l o s h ierarch y of b ei ng s

S toi cal efforts after un i tyGreek r el igious i deal and

b el i ef i n F ateC ri ti ci sm b y X enoph anesP lato s i dea

of th e G oodH i s v i ew of M att er Ar i s totl e on Real i ty

H is relations to P lato H i s O v e soul and C osmol ogy
r

Ph i lo s medi ati ng Logos E levated th ough t of P l ot

i nu sSu mmari sing of th e d i sc u s s i onC h ri s t ian Th e

ol ogy and G reek Ph i l osop h y

C H A P TE R IV .

TH E E H T I CAL PH L I OSOP H Y O F M AR C US A URELI US .

Stoi c ph i losoph yM edi t ti ons of M arcu s Aurel i us

a

C h aracter of h is p ract ical e th i cs H i s v i ew of organ i c

u n ityH i s d oc trine o f P rov i d en ceH i s i ndi v i du ali s m
H i s treatment ofevi lH i s v i ews of D ei ty and of th e
so ul Rel at ion s of God an d man Au rel i u s on reas on
Stoi c fatal i sm and Opti mism Stoic th eory of vi rtue
E m ph asi s ofAurel i u s on th e good wi llQ u iet is t i c t en d
en ci esTh e F utu re l i feS to i c s t ress on formal p r in

c ipl e of eth i cal l aw D efects of S toi cismIts relat ive

mer i t s I ts fal se atti tud e to l ife Its rel atio n to
C h ri sti an th ough t
 C O N TE N T S . xi

C H AP TE R V .

TH E P H L I OSOP H I CAL D OC T R I N E O F TH E L G S O O .

Im p or tance of th e Logos d oc tri ne Its cosmologi cal an d -

met aph ys i cal ch aract er Th e L og os of th e St oi c s an d

P h i lo T h e Log o s i n t h eol og i c al th i nk i ng T h e L ogo s

of J u s t i n M a t yr T h e t h o u gh t of th e gr ea t A p o l og i s t s
r

Logos d oc tri ne and h i s tori c develop men t s Ath ena

gor as on th e Logos
C lemen t O i gen and Ath anas i u s
~
,
r ,

C h r i stian th ough t o n th e Logos F ull s igni can ce

of th e C o n cept i on T h e Sp erm at i c W or d Utt e ed r

R eas on L ogos i n earl y and i n m od ern ph i l os o ph y

Real t ren d of Logos s p ec ul at i on

C H AP TE R VI .

G N OST I C I SM AS A P H L I OSOP H Y O F R EL G I IO N .

H i s t ory and can ce of G n ost ici s m Its rel ati on s to

s i gn i

C h r i st iani ty and H ell eni sm Its genes i s an d meth od

Its t r u e n ature Its Gn oszs i ts as p irat i ons an d b el i efs
'

Its th eo di cy an d s o t e i ologyJ ud ai c P agan and

r , ,

H ell en i c for m sSys t em of B asi l id es : i ts p sy ch ol ogy

and m et aph y si cs I ts d o c t ri n e of th e A b solut e an d

ev o lut i on ary con cept i on s C h a ac t er of i ts rel i g i o u s

r

ph i l o soph y Sys tem of Val en tin u s H i s D ei ty and

D emi ur g u s C om par i son wi th B as il id esRel at i on of
C l emen t to both Wo th of G n os t i c sp ec ul ati v e
r

end eavo u r s

C H AP TE R V II .

A UGUST I N E S
I O SOP H Y
PH L OF H S I T O RY .

C h arac t er of Au g u s tph i l osoph y of h i s t oryIts mer i ts

i nes
and d efect s I n uen ce on s u b s equ en t d ev el op m en t I ts

e th i c al b ear i ng an d i mp or t D i v i ne forek nowledge and

x C O N TE N T S
u
h man free wi ll
- Au gu s t i ne s rel at ions to P l at o

P l at on
i s ts and th e Incarnat ionA u gu s t ine on C r eat i o n a nd
T i meViews of evi l Aug us ti ne s p sych ol ogyRela

tion to M ani ch a ismF ur th er d i scus s i on of ev i l H is

ph i losoph i cal th eory of th e wi ll Th e F all Si n F ree
wi ll Vi r tue M ut ab i li ty of th e creatu r e
, ,

D ual ism of
A ug u s ti ne s p os i t i on P rov i d en ce and th e gr ow th o f
,

n at i on sAu g u s t i n e s et h i ca l

ph i los oph yP rob l em o f
ev i l an d th e U n i vers e F inal syn th es i s Sp i ri tual
M oni sm

C H AP TE R V III .

O RI GE N As C H R I ST IAN PH L I O SOP H E R .

C omp veness of O r igen s th o ugh t H i s k no wl edge

reh en s i

an d h i s T h ei s m H i s Sp i i tu al i s t i c m o n i s m H i s C os
r

m ogo ny D iv i ne t r an scen d en ce Lo gos and E t er nal

G enerat i on of th e Son H i s treatmen t of C reat io n
Rel a ti on s o f D i v i ne an d H u man O r i g en s p sy ch ol og y

H i s v i e ws o f cog ni t i onH i s es ch at ol og i cal i d eas

H i s i n d e b t ed n es s to G eek ph i l o sop h y P l a to s i d eal i s m
r

F reed o m O i gen s eth i cal p h il o soph yH i s s er v i ces

r

to t h ou gh t H i s a e p er so na l i ty
r r

CHAPTE R IX .

TH E PH L I OSOP H Y OF P L OT I NUS .

F eatu t l t in u sF o under of N eo P l aton

res of th e s y s em of P o -

i smC h ar ac ter o f th at p h i l oso ph y H i s p h i l osoph y of

th e O n e Th e P l o t i ni c t r i adT h e G oo dT r an scen d

en c e of D ei t y W o ld So ul of P l o t i n u s Hi s t reat men t
r -

o f m att er Th e m i cr ocos m Sp i ri tu al i s m of P lo t in u s
H i s analys i s of con sc iou sness Vi ews of th e soul
an d of t h o u gh tRel at i on s to Id eal i s m and M ater i al i s m
,

Views o f th e World and God H i s con cept i ons of -

 C O NTE N TS . xm

FreedomH is treatmen t of c ogn i t i onH is mys t i ci sm

and t ici sm
as ce H is i n u ence on th e h is t ory of

s pec ulat ion

C H AP T E R X .

C OLAST I C
S H AN D M E D E I VAL I O O Y
PH L S PH .

Sch ol as ti c P h il osoph y in H i s tor i es ofP h i l osoph y D i

tinc ti on s

of Sch o las t i ci sm f rom M ed i e v al Ph i l os op h yN atu e of r

Sch o l as t ic Ph i l osop h y Its m eth odIts p h i l osop h i cal

s y n th es i s Ansel m and Ab el ar d Aqui nas and D u n s
S co tus Real i s t and N om i n al i s t con t en t i onsSign i
can ce of th e con t rovers y H o bb es and Locke Th e
C onceptual is t posi tionIn di v i dual ism of Roscell i nus
P r o b l em of Th omi sm and Sco ti smO ek am an d i n tel
l igi b le s peciesSi gni cance of O ckamD evel op ments
o f Sch ol as t i ci smTh o u gh t o f Scotu s E rigen a of A n ,

sel m and of Al b er tu s M agn u sM er i t s and d ef

, ec t s o f

Sch ol as t i c Ph i l osoph y

C H AP T E R XI .

I O O Y
TH E P H L S P H O F AQ U I N AS .

g eni us for sys tem i n Aqu inas H i s rel at i ons to Ar i s to tl e

Ch aracter and meth od of h i s ph i losoph y H i s
d emons trati on of th e In ni te H i s v i ews of God and
R e vel at i onTh e cat egor y of C au sal i t yH i s treat men t
of th e O n tol ogi cal arg u m en t H i s d octr ine of th e F i rs t

Ef c i en t C au seH i s v i ew of C reat i on and th e world of

ef fec t sH i s d egrees of D i v i ne i n t ell igi b i l i tyH i s d o c
tr ine of Subs tanceH is vi ew of th e s oul H i s psy
ch ol ogyH i s t reat men t of th e W i llHi s p r esen t at i on

of g rac e H i s concepti ons o f F reed omH i s v iews of

ev i lO pti mi sm of Aqu in asH i s ph i los oph y of know

ledge Asp ect s of P rov i d ence Real i sm rati onal i sm

d ial ecti ci sm and mys ti ci sm of Aqui nasH i s inuence
, ,

o n E u rop ean t h ou h t
g
 C O N TE N T S .

C H AP T E R X II .

TH E PH L I OSO P H Y OF WYC L I F .

Wycl if s ph il o soph i c cl ai m s N eg lec t b y H i s tor ies of P h ilo

s oph y W yc l i f s L og z ea N o mi n al i s m an d O ekam

'

Si ngul a s an d u ni v ers al s Wyc l i fs P l atoni s m H i s

r

Th omi s t t enden cy H i s e xt eme Real i smSi gni can cer

ofWy c l ifs p os i t i on sA tt i tud e ofh i s p h i l osoph i cal ad ver

s ar i es E p i s t em ol og i ca l i s s u es C o n ceptu a l i s m Att i
tude of A l ber tus M agnu s Wycl i f on th e In carnati on
O n Go d O n F reed om O n C r eat i on H i s tr eat men t
of th e In f i n i te P an th e i s t i c d an g e s D et er mi ni s m an d
r

C onti ngen cy P edes t in a tion Trans u b stant i ati on

r

Wy cl if s v iews of ev il ma tte s p ace ti mePh i l osoph i c

,
r, ,

m er i t s of Wyc l i f

C H AP T ER X I II .

TH E P H L I O SOP H Y O F SP I N OZ A .

M etaph ys i cal tting of Sp i noz a s ph i losoph y H i s d octr i nes

se

of God S ub s t an ce and C au s al i ty P ers on al i t yA n

, ,

th r o p om orph i sm E xtensi on and th ough t Sp i no a s

z

p sy c h o l ogy A tt i b ut es an d m o d es
r G ran deu r of
Sp i no a s concepti onsT h ei r l ack of c ons i s t en cy D em

z

sz7/ e n a tur aSp i n o a s m on i s m C r i t i c i s m of h i s h ar

'

moni s a tion of a tt i b utes and m o des w i th s ub s t an c e

r

H i s on t ol og i cal p o i t i o nN a tur e: n atur a ta Lack o f

s

eth i cal qu al i t y M et ap h ysi cal b asi s of eth i cs H i s

-

sch eme too i n t e ll ec tu al i s t i c H i s t ea ch i n gs on I mmor

t al i ty Tr eatmen t of evi l E th ical ver s us cogni t i ve

act i v i t y Sp i no a on th e p ass i on s O n th e selfO n
z

l ove F a tal mi st ake o f h i s ph i l osoph y D i sregar d of

ni te i nd i vi dual i ty H i s i ndeb ted ness H i s i n uence
m

M eri t s and d efec t s ofh i s syst em

 C O N T E N TS . XV

C H AP T E R X IV .

L ESSIN G s P H L I OSOPHY O F R EL G I IO N .

Fo u n d e r of mod ern P h i l oso ph y of Re l igi on d i s t i n ct i ve

- H is
posi ti on D i v ine E du cati on of th e Race D efec ts of
L es s i ng s con cept i ons H i s t or i c Rel igi ons Rel i gi on

a n d i ts Record s Sp iri t of free i n qui ryTh e Enl i gh t

en men t B i bl i olatry Frag ments of Reimar us
C h ar acter of Lessing s th ink i ng Ques t of Truth

D ei ty and Revelati onH u man D evelop mentRelat ion

to th e F at h ers and Sch oo l men E t ern al tr uth s of reas on
Acci dental t r uth s ofh i s tor y E voluti on and L es s i ng s

th eo ryH i s s tress on Indi vi dual i tyP ersonali tyIm

mor tal i tyD etermini sm M oni s m D ei sm P anth ei s m, ,

D evelopment and P ro vi den ce Asp ects of th e Tr i ni ty

an d oth er C hris ti an doc t i nes r C h aracter of h i s
r el ig io p h i l osoph ical th ou h t
g
-

C H APT E R X V .

KA NT S

I OSOP H Y
PH L OF R EL G I IO N .

Kan t s re l igiou s ph i losoph yH i s per sonal i tyH is v iew of

th e ex is t ence of GodD efec t i ve tr eat men t of th ei s t i c

proofsTh e O n tologi cal arg umentVi ews of H egel

Th e C os mologi cal p roo fK ant s t reat men t of p rinci pl e

of ef ci en t causat i onB etter v i ew of LeibnizWo ld r

con t i ngenc y consi d ered Th e Tel eo l og i c al argu men t

Th e M or al p roof Kan t s D ei t y too external G ene t i c

p o in t of v iew overl ookedRel igi on red uced to ter ms

of mor al i t D efec t s an d p os i t i v e meri t s of Kan t
y
D i vorce of th eoreti c and p rac ti cal r easonE th i c too
i n d i v i du al i s ti cD efec ti ve emo ti onal treat ment D ei s ti c
se tt i ng H i s h an dl i ng of p r ob l ems of ev i l and redemp
ti on T h e Ki ngdom of God Res ults of s ch i s mat ic
treatm ent of rat ional facult yWor th of Kant s th ree

Cr i ti ques H i s concept i on of Rev elat i on V iews o f

b
x vi C O NTE N TS .

God, fr eed om and th e h i s tori c el ementInadequ acy

of Kan t s phi loso p h y of rel i g i onH i s on e s i d ed m or al
,
-

s t res s M er i t or i ou s s i de o f h i s work H i s pl ace

s upreme among mo d ern et h i c i s t s

C H AP T E R X VI .

A C ON STRUCT IVE ESSA Y I N IDEAL I SM : H E GE L

AN D B E R K ELEY .

N atur e an d l
c ai ms d eal i sm Its i mp er i sh able ser v i ce
of I
Id eal i sm of H ege l i an t y p e I ts i nj u s t i ce to th e
in di v i du al s elf H eg el i an i d eal i sm an ev olut i onI ts
treatmen t of freedom ev i l and resp on si b i l i tyN ature
, ,

of th e A b s olute e xp er ienc e and of th e wor ld u n i t y

C ategori es of s ub s tance and sp iri tH egeli an L og i c

,

H egel i an met aph ysi cs Wi ll and T h ough t E mph asi s

on r eason D og m at i sm of N eo H egel i ani sm Its
organ i c wh ol e o f t h ou gh t F ault s o f th e s ys t em

Sup er io i t y of T h ei s t i c I d eal i sm
r H egel i an t rea t m en t
of th e C a t egor i es E xp er i en ce and r ea l i t yH egel i an

i nj u s t i ce to P erson al i ty O n e si ded E th i c al I d eal i s m

-

- Knowl e dge of th e Ab s olut eM eri t s and d efect s of

E th i ci s mAb s t rac t Id eal i sm and eth i ca l Id ea l i s m
I n ni te wor th of h u man l i fe Ab so luteness of th e
D iv i ne B ei ngSp ecul ati ve i m pulse an d moral val ua
t ionTh ei st i c Id eal i sm and th e Absolute H egel ian
phi losop h y of i mmanenceT h e i ndepen dence of th e
self Q ues tion of l i mi tat i on Inclu si v e ch aract er of
P ersonal i ty Tr u e natu re of self cons ci ou s ness Im
- ~

pl i cations of p ersonal i tyTh e U niv erse as sp i ri tual

H egel i an ep i s temo l ogy Th e Real and th e I dea l
Knowl ed ge and eal i t ySen s e p er cept i ons an d s p ir i t
r -

ual p ercept i on sT h e world as men tal C on st ru c t i on

F eatu res of Th ei s ti c Ideal i s mU ni ty of Sp iri tual i s t ic

moni smGod and th e extern al world T h e wor ld of
selv es Th e Ab solut e Li fe i n t i meReal an d for mal
freedom C ri ti cal id eal i sm of Neo Kant i smIts un -
 CO N TE N TS . x vii
sa ti s fac toriness D efec t s of Ab s olute Ideal i s mSub
j ective Ideal i sm of B erkel ey Its sh or t comi ng s
N ature of s p i r i t knowledgeD i sp osal of th e cogni t i ve
-

p rob lem F ur th er cr it i ci sm of B erkel ey F aults of

ph i l osoph i c s ystems i n resp ect of D i v in e P ersonal i ty
V iews of Lot e B i ed e mann and G reen N atu e
-
z ,
r ,
r

an d co s m i c mi n d Rel a t ions h i p of Go d an d man

C H A P TE R X V I I .

FRE NCH PH L I O SO P H Y I N TH E N I N E T E E NT H CENTU RY .

re tu rn to Sp ir i tu al i sm P h i los oph i cal Tradi t ion al i s m

C o m t e ou p osi ti ve soci al s cien ceC om t e an d H egel
Soci ol ogy L aw o f th e th ree s t atesH u man i t y i n
C o m te s sys tem C o m te s meth o d of el i m i n ati on

M e i t s and d efect s o f C o m t e s t rea t men t Sp ir i tu al i s m

r

of M ai ne d e B iran E c l ec t i c i sm of C ou s i n P s y

c h ol og y of C o u s i n an d J ou r oyP os i t i ons o f Va ch ero t

'

a n d C aro Sp i r i tu al i s m of Si m on Sai s s et and J anet , ,

Li b er t y p h i lo so ph i es of Secret an Renouvi er and , ,

Ravai sso n C on t ing en cy t h eo ry of B out oux Ren r -

ouvi er s

Cr ztzczlcme I ts p h i l oso p h i c i n u n ce I ts
' '

m er i ts h
Tr eatmen t o f th e categor y o f Rel at i on
Renouvi er s th eor y of k no wledge

D efec ts of h i s
P ers on al i s m C omp os i te Ch arac t er of h i s s ys t em
m

H i s n eo cr i t i ca l t h eory wan t i ng B erg son L ach el ier

-
, ,

P oi n car F o u i ll e s d ees for eesC h ar act er of Foui l

'

z

l ee s concept i ons F urth er d isc us s i on o f C ar o Guyau

,

C our no t M i l h a ud D u kh ei m H o ld of E c l ec t i c i s m i n
, ,
r

F ran ce C ri ti ci sm o f th e p h i los op h y of th e century

C H A P T E R X V I II .

I TAL I AN PH L I O SOP H Y I N TH E N I N ETEE NT H CE NTURY .

I t al ian ph i l os op h y i n s ev en teenth an d eigh teenth cen t uri es

Gal axy of Ital i an p h i losoph ers at dawn of n in eteen th
cen tu ryPh i l osop h y i n C ent ral I t al y P h i l os op h y i n
xv ii i CO N T E N TS .

So uth ern I t al yP h i los oph y in N or th ern I talyPh i lo

sop h y i n s econ d h alf of n i n eteen th cen tu ry V as t

ac t i v i t y of I t al i an p h i l osoph ers i n th e l as t t h r ee d e

cad es of th e c entu ryD i v ers e forms of I t al i an ph i l o

SO ph i c th ough tP lace of P os i t i v i s m i n I t al yM ami an i

an d F rancesco B onatell i In uence of B onatel l i s

Sp i r i tu al i s m B onatel l i s p syc h ol ogic al meri t s

H is
metaph ysical train ing H i s in t ro duc t i on of G erm a n
th o ugh t i nto Ital y H i s treatmen t of p erception of ,

sen s i b i l i t y an d in t ell ec t an d of co ns ci ence and t h o u gh t

Atti tude towards pure i d eal i sm and dual i st i c real is m

,

Its unsatis factori ness Rel ati ons to Lo tz eB onatel l i

and Lo t z e b ot h d ef ec ti veP r i zes of al l th i ngsO n to

logi cal l awsB onatell i s doc t i n e of th e wi llG erm an

r

psych ologis ts Itali an ph i l osoph y of will P sych o

l og i s ts on w i ll a nd i m pul s e Vo l i t ionRecen t p s y
ch ol ogy B on atel l i on F i t C au se D ynami c an d
rs

mech ani cal cau ses Kn owi ng an d b eing B onatel l i

on th e t ranscend ent ac t i v i t y of th e Ab solut e

C H A FT E R X IX .

TH E P H L I OSOP H Y O F SP A IN .

Ph i losoph y in M ed i aev al Sp ai n Av err oi s m Ph i l osoph i c

pos i ti ons of Averroes M d esRaymond Lull y
ai mon i

Raymond of Sab und e Ph i los oph y among th e

J es ui t sB annez and M ol i n a D o mi ni cans and Fr an
c i sc an sF onseca and Su are M et ap h ysi cal s ys tem
of Su ar ez
z

Relat ions of Su are and Aqu i nasSu arez

z

o n s ub s t ance ex is t ence
, an d th e Ab s olut eReal con
,

cern of th e J es u i t p h i l osop h e s M oral p hi l osop h

y of
r

Q u eved oT h omism an d Scoti s mC h u rch l y Sch ol ast i c -

p hi losop h ers i n beginn ing of n ine teenth century

Funa menta l P izzl osopl zy of B al mez

H i s meth od
'

p sych o logi cal His ph i loso ph ic cr i ticism C r iterion

of B al mez H is v iews of cer ti tud e H i s ecl ec ti c
Sp i r i tu al is m H is doc t rin e of F i rs t C ause H i s con
 CO NTE N TS . X IX

cep ti on of Tr ini ty E xtens ion and t ime Th e

th e

In ni te Th e d i v i s i b i l i t y of m att erB al mez o n ex i s t

en ce an d e ssen ce H i s e t h i cal p osi ti ons Sp anish
ph i losoph y i n second h alf of nineteen th c entury
Sch ol as t i c p h i l oso ph ers Sch ool o f Sam d el R io
Krau se H egel and Kan t Th e mos t recen t Sp an i sh
, ,

ph i los op h i cal wri ters C h arac ter o f th e Sp ani sh

Wel ta m elzaun

C H A P T E R XX .

ME AP H S T Y I CAL V OP M E NTS
DE EL OF OU R TIM E .

N eed of met ap h y s i cal i n t eres t M et aph ys i c al

th ough t i n
E u ro p e M e tap h ysic s an d Real i t y E v o lut i on and
Tel eol og yP r ima y p os i t ion of M etaph ys i cs M e t a
r

ph ys i cs and E th i cs M etap h ys i cs as scien ce M eta

ph ysi cs an d Th eol ogy M etaph ys i cal th eor y of ex
p er i en ce
M et aph ys i cs and th e W h ol e M on i s t i c
tendency Reason and th e World Wh ol e Su b s tan ce -

Self act i v i t y Th e Wor ld G r o u nd C on c ept of th e

- - -

Ab s o lute T h e A b s o lut e Sp i r i t U ni ty of wo ld r

g ro u n d i ng p r i n c i pl e A b s o lut en es s o f D ei t y
E xp er i
en ce an d th e t anscen d ent
r Kn owl ed ge and th e
Ab solute D eterm i n at i on o f th e I n ni te Ab solute
tr uth B adl ey and C ai dSci ence and M etap h ys i cs
r r

Sp i r i t and N atu e God and wor ld Sc i en ti c

r

m et aph ys i c s H o m ogen ei t y o f God and th e w orld

M eth o d of m et aph ysi cs Sci en ces of N a tu re
H aeck el s moni sm Sh or tcomi ng s of Sc ien t i c m on i s m

Sp i i tual is t i c mon i s m Go d as F ul ness of t h ough t

r

an d b ei ng Syn th et i c m o d e of i n qu i y M et aph ys i ca l r

v iew of th e wor ld P lural i sm and M oni sm Q u esti on

of ult i mat esT h e Ab s o lut e P ers on al i t y Imm an en c e
an d t an s cen d en ce Fr ee d o m of D ei t y
r T h e R el i g io u s

C onscio u sness Th e F uture Li fe Immor tal i ty

Spi noz a and H egel Th e B el i ef i n G odP ersi s t ence
an d p ermanen ce of th e so ul Impl i c at i on s of Sp i ri t
XX C O N TE N T S .

-
Th ei s tic metaph ysi cal n eed s Lo tz e B ergson
M e taph ys i cal th o ugh t of E urope

C HAP TE R XX I .

YC H OLOGIC AL
PS V O
DE E L P M E NTS O F OU R T I ME .

P s ych o l og i cal develop ments to uch ing th e soul St ar ting

p oin t of p sych ologyThe s elf and p sych i c p rocesses
B osanquet Int er d ep end ence of th e fac ulti es
Ra t io nal p sych ol ogy H u m i an an d Kan t i an p sych o
logies Fich te s ego M aine d e B iran s ego P s y

ch ol ogy and Relig ionG en et i c meth od P sych ol og y

an d m et ap h ys i csC on t en t and p roc ess W und t s l aw

of s p i ri tual en ergy M un sterb e g s t reat men t o f th e

r

so ul P s ych o ph ys ical
-
v i ews of Wundt N eed of
i llu mi nated t h ink i ng N ature of p sych ol ogical ex
e i
r e nce A r i s t otl e K a nt an d S ch l ei er mach erSub
p , ,

j ec ti ve exp e r i e n ce s o f re l i g i on E xpl i c at ion of th e

p sych i cal nature Immedi atenes s of sp i ri tu al li fe
P s ych ol ogi cal in sigh t o f Aug u s ti n e D eep er p sy ch o
l ogi cal scrut i niesRel ati ons of body and mi ndTh e
M at eri al is t i c th eoryT h e th eory of P arall el i s mTh e
In terac t ion t h eory T h e D ual is m onl y r elat i ve
Sp i r i tu al p sych ol ogy Ac ti v i ty of cons ci ou s nes sTh e
N ature of M en tal A ct i vi ty F un ct ional p sych ol ogy
Tel eol ogical ch aracter of self ac tiv i tyId eati onal con
-

t ents of M ysti ci smP s ych ol og i al v i ew of mysti ci sm

c

Ind ivisibi l i ty of th e soul Th e soul in newer psy

ch ol ogy E p i s t emol ogy and p s ych ol ogyTh e s oul as
c os mi c fact

C H AP T E R XX II .

T I CAL
E H V O
DE EL P M E NTS OF OU R TIME .

D evelop ment of th e Science of E th i cs E th ical recon

s t r u cti onE th i cs and s ci en t i c adv an ces M oral i ty as
non rati onal
-
M oral i t y as o bj ec t i v el y val i dHar tmann ,
 CO N TE N TS . xx i

d
S i gw i c , k and M oor eM etaph ysi cal bas i s of eth i cs
t
E h ic i s s t and th e G oo d Th e Ri gh t an d th e Good
A ut o n omy of th e m ora l i d eal T h e moral ac t O bj ec
t i v e r eference of th e G ood F ou i ll e on ob l iga ti on
M et ap h ysi c of moral s E m pi r i ci s m i n et h i cs Sup er i
or i ty of met ap h y s i cal tr eat ment D efec t i v e B ri ti sh
meth o d E th i cs and th e to t al i t y o f th i ng s Si d gwi c k
and S tep h en E t h i cs an d th e s p ec i al s c i en cesE th i cs

an d p s ych ol ogy E th i cs an d th e I deal E th i cs as

c on d i t i on ed b y met ap h s i cs E t h i cs as s c ien ce of
y
con du c t on l y E th i cs of th e RealE t h i cal d ev el op .

men t a r eal p r ogress F aults o f U ti l i tari an i sm

Sp en cer s H ed oni s mSi dg wi ck s U n i v ersal i s t i c H ed on

i smG reen s i d eal i s t i c et h i cs C a t eg o y of mor al ob

r

l igat i on B en th am M i ll Sp en cer O rig i nal i ty of th e

, ,

eth i c al con s c i ou s n ess Soc i al as p ec t s of St ep h en an d

G i ycki F r eed o m as eth i cal p os tul at e E v o lut i on ar y

z

c on s i d era t i on s W und t s ev o lut i on i s m H e b a t s t ea t

r r r

m en t of m o al i t y r Th eori es of v alueM ei non g and

Eh renfel sM et aph y s i cal im pl i cat ion s M oral i t y as a
Total i ty E th i cs of un iversal ch arac ter

I N DE x OF A UT H O RS AN D S U BJ ECT S
2 STU D I E S I N E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

b el at ed treatm ent o f th e O xford S ch o o l sh all in such ,

m att er s be s u r pas s ed Dr E C ai r d p ermit s him self to

, . .

s ay th at whil e th er e i s a th eol o gic al phil os ophy of
,

I ndi a ear li er in d ev el o pm ent th a n G reek phil o sophy ,

y e t

th e th o ught o f I n di a th o ugh o ft en s ubtl e a n d p r o
,

fo und i s unm eth o dic al an d do es n o t c o n duc e to
,

,

distinct and a dequ at e thinking But th er e i s always

.

so m ethi n g fo r ce d an d artici al w h en th e so lid ar ity o f

m an ki n d b ecom es a thi n g n egl ect ed o r despi sed W e .

c a nn ot n egl ect th e m oral ideal v ast an d to r m enting , ,

which th e imm en s e an d m yst er i ou s O r i ent discl o s es to

us ev e n th o ugh th a t id eal l eft hum anity al l unqui et and

E as t ern Philosophy no d o ubt I ndi a alon e

,

unfree .
,

exc ept ed i d en ti ed f ar to o e as ily phil oso phic al th eo r i es

with d o ct r in es o fr eli gi o n an d ev en in I ndi a th e con nec

,

ti o n of philo s o phy with religion w as clos e Th ere it was .

,

in fact eith er a s pe cul ativ e d ev el o pm ent of th es e d oc

,

t r in es or it w as an in s t r u m ent fas hi o n ed to opp o se th em

, .

I t i s th erefore evid ent th at phil o so phy s trictly s o c all e d , ,

c an sc ar c ely b e s aid to h av e h ad its birthpl a c e in this ,

full sen s e in th e E ast But it is a gri ev o us mist ake on

, .

th at g ro und to p ass over O r i ent al Philosophy as of no

acc o unt D eu s sen h as s et a n o t abl e ex ampl e o f b ett er
.

thi n gs but th e pr eva iling h abit of thou g ht will b e r ecti

,

ed o n ly aft er m uch tim e N o t a fo r m o f p o lyth eistic o r

.

p anth ei stic th o ught but o urish ed o n I ndi a n s oil s o ,

vigo ro u s w as t h e r eectiv e spi rit th ere B ec aus e the .

co nst ructi o n o f philos ophic al s yst ems is so much m or e

m ark ed in th e m ent al en ergy and mobility of Gr eek
thought we mu s t not b e d elud ed into th e notion th at
,

O ri ent al Philosophy h as not much to t each th e O c ci

 C
P LA E A N D W O RT H O F O R IE N TA L P H IL O SO P H Y .
3

d ent al mind O ri ent al dre aming and in a ctiv e Q ui etism

.

did not keep th e sp ecul ativ e id eas of th e O ri ent al p eopl es

fr o m h aving much th at was fruitful fo r th e H istory o f
Phil o sophy Th ese must be g arn er ed into th e treasuri es
.

of phil o s ophic wisdom Already in th e philosophy o f

.

I ndi a we m eet m any notions th at recur in l at er historic al

d ev el o pm ents And in truth I ndi a h as a vast hist o ry o f
.
, ,

philosophy al l its own B esid es which if philosophy b e

.
,

s aid to be only wh er e thought is fr ee of th e domin ant

r eligi o n is it always su fci ently realis ed h ow fr ee an d
,

ind ep end ent m uch o f th e I ndi a n philosophical thought

was ? L a cking th e cl ear n es s a n d m assiv en es s of Greek
th o ught o f I n d i a n philosophy one may yet v ery w ell
,

m aint ain th at it with i ts sp ecul ativ e fr eedom an d v ari ety

, ,

tr ansc end ed th at o f Gr eece in h eightno sm all achi ev e

m ent W e are O ccid ent als an d h av e s een but in p art
.
, .

B esides we must d o j ustice to O r i ent al Philosophy at

,

th e outs et o f an y histo ry o f int ell e ctu al d ev el o pm ent in ,

ord er th at th e Gr eec e O r i ent al Phil o sophy o f th e Al ex

-

andri a of th e Ptol emi es m ay t a k e its pr o p er pl ac e in an d ,

rel ation to th e hi s t o rical d ev elopm ent N o difculty in

, .

transl ating O ri ent al mysticism an d dreaming int o t erms

of O ccident al th o ught mu st keep th es e things from b eing
don e Philosophy t a king thus i ts ris e in th e E ast will
.
, ,

r em ark th e co mp ar ative abs ence of genuin e sp ecul ativ e

phil o sophy among th e Chin es e whos e S pi r itism rem ain ed ,

v agu e ind enit e a nd uninspiring I say c o mp arativ e

, , .
,

for it is a cl ear however comm o n mist ake to supp os e

, ,

th er e is no Sp ecul ative philosophy of th e Chin ese As in .

I ndi a so in Chin a th a t philos o phy was d ue to a n eed o f

,

vi ewing th e World whole born of cert ain r eligious wants

-
.
4 STU D IES I N E U RO PE A N P H ILOSO P H Y .

Th at philosophy followed an d p ri ori m ethodth e mod e

of D escart es r ath er th an o f B acon and th e lin es of
O ri ent al th eo ry h av e h er e gon e out in th e study of n atur e
in w ays th at are striking enough It is not too much to
.

s ay th at th er e h as b een a sp ecul ativ e th eism of Chin a ,

which spit e of th e bl endings o f m at eri alism and agnosti

,

c i s m h as h eld to D ivin e Unity how ev er abstra ctly

, , For .

th e D ivin e ord er of th e univ ers e w as ontologic ally con

c ei ved in Chin es e thought .Th en it will allow Hindu

philosophy so expr essiv e in i ts wide an d v ari ed r ange
, , ,

of th e h ighly sp eculativ e ch aract er of th e H indu mind to ,

d ecl are the innit e and et ern al excell ence of God For .

in th e unity an d p er fection of th e Godh ead do es th e

O ri ent al nd d eep est d elight T h e ear ly intrusion of
.

th e sp ecul ativ e el em ent is in fa ct th e su r prising thing

, , .

O nly aft er m a ny strang e gl ori c ati on s was it d estin ed to

r each th e gen er ali s ation of a C entr al O ne s elf exist ent ,
-
,

L ord of th e multiform cr eation Fin ely do es this s p ecu

.

l ativ e el em ent Shine out in th e d eep and subtle id ealistic

phil o sophy of th e Up anish ads which how ev er often, , ,

d escrib e th e n atur e of D eity in ways too pur ely n eg ative .

T h e id ea of God as th e Unknown and U nknowabl ean

idea which h aspl ay ed so l arg e a p art in mod ern thought
and writing wa s n o product of the Al exa ndri an tim e .

I t is much l ess a cr eation o f H erb ert S p enc er I t li es far .

b ack in O ri ent al Phil o sophy But th at philosophy h ad

.

a deep er id ea in r el ation to God H e was for it th e

.

Absolut e an d Uncondition ed S uch c o nc eptions th e

.

Al exandri an S cho o l long afterwards sought to r educe

to h arm o niou s and int elligibl e rel ation to oth er truths
by its th eory o f em an ations an hypothesis p erp etu ally
 C
P LA E AN D W ORT H O F O R IE N TAL P H I LO SO P H Y .
5

present to O rient al sp ecul ation . Enough now to say

th at ancient em an ativ e th eory was strong j ust wh ere
modern evolution is weak and we ak j ust where mod ern
evolution is strong th at is to say em an ativ e th eory
,

w as st r o n g in its hold on th e forceful Suprem e Power ,

a nd w eak in its gr asp o f th e process es o f d evelop

m ent . God was for O ri ent al thought the All out s ide ,

Whom th ere could be nothing by way of limiting H im .

And so it took too easily a pantheisti c tinge T ak e the .

V ed ant a an d th e S ankhy a philosophies chi ef of the ,

a nci e nt I ndi an philos o phic al s y s t ems I n th e V ed antic

.

philos o phy so potent an d well develop ed we nd a

,
-
,

specul ative form of conceiving D eity which may be t aken

,

as th at of a p antheistic syst em at once mystic al a nd

id ealistic . I n its Sp ecul ativ e d evelopment V ed antic ,

philosophy be ars the tru e impress of O rient al th o ught

in its too light esteem for activity its quietism an d its
, ,

insu f ci ent account of mor al l aw The V ed ant a is r eli

.

gion as well as philosophy Th e highest truth a ccording

.
,

to th e Ved ant a is th at th ere is O ne an d only O ne

, , ,

Et er nal B ei ng to which th er e is no second I ndi an

, .

th eol o gy is b ased on th e foreg o ing conception of th e

high est v erity which nds expr ession in such s ayings as
,

I am Br ahm a Thou art th at & c I ndi an thinkers
, , .

do not all ow this to m ean a d eni al of the nit e to which , ,

in its m anifoldness and d i erenti ati ons th ey allow v alid ,

ity so soon as they com e down from th e phil o sophica l

altitud es whereon they realis e their id entity with th e

Brahm a The O n e and S ol e Ultim ate Reality is th e

.

B r ahm a : all the univers e is Br ahm a ; and nothing h as

any ind ependent being divorced from Brahm a
, This .
6 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E AN P H I LOSO P H Y .

so it is cont ended is not to be t aken as implying th at

m an in I ndi an thought los es altogether his individu ality
, , ,

or quits his hold o n th e reality o f th e world Though .

t h e B r ahm a is th e I nnit e an d as such alon e h as real

, , ,

being though th e world is M ay a or illusion and i n

, , ,

dividu al s o uls are not allowed real exist enc e yet I ndi an ,

id eali s tic thinkers t ell us it was n ever me ant to d eny al l

r eality to the univers e or to c ast doubt on the exist enc e
,

o fm an who a s think er an d critic of al l th at is illusory

, , ,

c ann o t b e hims elf illusory Possibly West ern thought

.

sh o uld give l arger att ention to th ese re assuring a sp ects .

T h e co nception of th e B ra hm a is without doubt th e , ,

funda m ent al postul at e ; but We st ern thought is pron e to

feel l eft by th e monism of th e Brahm anic philosophy
with but one v ast blank void Though tr ansmigr ation .

is h er e so compl ete as to include cosmic as w ell as

individu al cycl es yet th e B rahmins philosophic ally i n
,

trod uc ed th e l aw o f c aus ality into the Spiritu a l w or ld ,

an d m a de each tr ansmigr ati o n the result of th e pr evious

life H ence th e conception cam e to we ar the rigo ur the

. ,

univers ality an d the invaria bility of F ate Th e ton e of

, .

th e V e d as may b e t ak e n a s th at of an optimistic p o l y th e

ism th at of the Upanish ad s as a pessimistic p anth eism

, .

I n th e c ase of the form er philosophy arose as a n a tur al

,

product ofpr actical r eligi o us n eeds vi ew ed in th eir r el a

ti o n to the world ord er I n s acrice an d p r ay er fo r
-
,

e x ampl e th ey felt th e wh o l e order o f the world to b e a

,

d ep end ent o ne V edantic philosophy is a syst em as

.

monistic as Sankhya philosophy was du alistic with ,

N ature and Soul as th e t erms of the antith esis The .

Sa nkhy a system h eld th e conquest of desire to be the

 C
P LA E A N D W O RT H O F ORIE N TA L P H I L O SO P H Y .
7

way of s alv ation fr om bondag e to m att er T h e S ankhy a .

philo s ophy d eni es a So ul s uprem e ov er al l s uch as th e ,

World So ul o f th e Up a nish ad s T h e Up ani s h ad s h av e

-
.
,

fo r th ei r fund a m ent a l n o t e th e id entity of th e individu al

,

soul with th e Wor ld So ul wh os e ch ara ct er as G o d th ey

-
, , ,

regard as inco m p reh ensibl e T o th e Sa nkhy a d o ct r in e .

,

m att er s t and s on o n e sid e whil e it s ees an i n nit e numb er

,

of individu al s o ul s with o ut a tt r ibut es and k n own o n ly

, ,

in a n egativ e w ay o n th e oth er S ide Thi s st res s o n

, .

et er n al m att er giv es S a nkhy a phil o so phy a r ealistic ch a r

act er. Buddhi s m d eni ed th e subst a nti al ch ara ct er o f th e

individu al s oul in a w ay which did n o t S an khy a philo
Sophy ,ev e n thoug h th e du alism a n d p es s imi s m of this

l att er philosophy wer e fo unt s wh en c e Buddhi s m o w ed .

I n th e g r oundw o rk o f both S a nkhy a a n d Buddhi s t m et a

phy s ics th e p r im ary s ubst anc e of thing s m a nifests it self
,

by th e di rect d evelopm ent o f th e wo rld an d contingent

exist enc es with o ut any di re ction o r int erpositi o n o f a
,

D ivin e an d p er s on al Ag ent Buddhism s imply disp en sed .

with th e ess enti ally m et aphys ic al teachings o f th e U p an i

sh ad s a bout a Wo rld S oul an d th e n eed o f th e s o ul s
-
,

u ni o n with th at World S oul in o r d er to s alv ation T h e

-
.

Buddhi s t mod e of s alv ation w as on e in which ev er y m an

c o uld wo rk out s alv ation fo r hims elf with o ut r eferenc e to
G o d or gods g r eat o r sm all
, T h e B rah m a nic w ay o f .

s alvati o n w as n eg ativ ed by th e Buddhi s t diss o lution O f

D eityth e et ern al B r ahm a o r p er so n al C reato r o f th e
.

w orld who as th e great Self v a ni s h ed with th e enti r e

-
, ,

h er esy o f individu ality Ti s on m o r a l virtu e Buddhism

.

r eli es : renunci ati o n as th e p ath to s ervice i s i ts ai m

, ,
.

Buddhist philosophy h as in whol e its ow n points o f , ,

8 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

p eculi ar int erest such as its etern al syst em o f mor al

,

retribution or K arm a its instinct for th e av o id anc e o f

,

evil its r ej ecti o n of a s up er ph e nom en al ego its b eli ef in

,
-
,

mor al c au sation and its h o p e to rob evil of al l power h er e

,

or h er eaft er by th e m oulding o f life an d ch a r a ct e r F or .

th e s oul is y et allow e d in Buddhist th o ught som e mo ra l

ker n el o f i ts own T h e points of cont ras t b etween s uch

.

O r i ent ali s m an d H ebr aism are v ery evid ent but w e are ,

no t h er e conc er n ed to go int o th es e W e are only d eal .

ing with th e pla c e a nd suggestiven ess o f th e study of

O r i ent al phil oso phy And in s uch study th e O r i ent al
.

mind o f to d ay m u s t b e no m ore n egl ect ed th an the

-

O ri ent al mind of th e p as t .

B eautiful is th e w ay in which N atur e app eals to th e

H indu mind as G o d s im ag e th e abod e within whose

,

b eauty an d sweetn ess th e I mm an ent Spirit dwells But .

it is to West ern th o ught not so wis e as might be wish ed

, , , ,

th at Hindu phil o soph ers h av e not thought more highly

o f Obj ectiv e exist enc e a n d th e w o r ld of a pp ear anc es .

H ence w e see I n di a p res ent to o m any ph en o m en a of

world i gh t and p essimi s tic w orld c o nception s T h e
- -
.

imp or t anc e of m a int aining r ight b asic r eligio p hi l o so -

p h i c al c o nc eptions h as b een imp ressiv ely t a ught th e

wo rld by th es e philosoph ers Th e fat al o n e sid edn ess o f .
-

B rahm anic m o nism h as fo und its n em esis in th e du alism ,

asc etici s m , p essimism a nd politic al d epend enc e of th e

,

H indu n ations But it i s mo re pl easing to re ect th at

.
,

ev e n wh e n th e I nnit e h as b af ed th e h eights of H indu

Sp ecul ati o n V e dic s ag es ar e found to h av e s een in al l the

, ,

fo r c es and ph enom en a of N atu re th e inwo rking light of ,

D eity 8 0 gr eat ind eed b ecom es th e pr essu r e of the

.
, ,
IO STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

b eing s H e cr eat ed . Exist enc e to it impli ed pol arity ;

th er e c o uld b e n o g o od without cor r es ponding evil I t .

l eft i ts di s tinctiv e ethic al p rincipl e in a r el ati o n to o

ext ern al with a s t ra ng e n egl ect o f int er i o r mor al p erf
,
ec

ti o n But I ra ni a n th o ught too h as its su rp r i s es For

.
, ,
.

it di s cov ers a c ap a city fo r ren ed d enition which we ,

are only to o ap t to thi n k p eculi ar t o t h e O ccid e nt a l mind .

It d o es s o in c er t ai n w ay s for which it h as b een p o ss ibl e

to cl a im a rati o n al p r i o r ity in r esp e ct o f G reek S p ecul a

tiv e th ought And th e m oral i n t er es t o f Zo r o ast r i an

.

th o ught s urp asses th e S p ecul ativ e .

T o tr a n s l a t e th e v agu e a n d dr ea my products o f th e
O r ie nt al mi n d i n t o t er m s o f W est er n th o ught m ay n ot b e
a lw ay s eas y ; but ,
b ec au se th e E a st er n mind l acks th e
G reek l ov e an d p o w er o fd enition it by n o m eans follows
,

th at Eur o p ean thought must w rap its elf within it self ,

a n d r efus e al l c o mmunity o f thought with th e E ast ern

mind Th at m ind m ay som etim es b r ing us n eedful re

.

mind er th at th ere are t r uth s which l i e b ey o nd th e reach

o fp r eci s e d eniti o n a n d th at th es e m ay yet b e truths t o
,

liv e by To be t r u e in life m ay som etim es b e ev en m o re

.

n ecess ary th an to b e a ccu ra te i n th o ught D iv ers e as .

th es e E ast ern mod es o f th eological thought may be th e ,

spi r it of r eligi o nwhich i s o necan yet exist in al l It .

s aid much for Ju stin M artyr th at h e b eli ev ed th e s eed o f

th e L ogos to exist in ev ery r a c e o f m an C r ud e co n
.
,

fus ed an d in ar ticul at e as th e expr es s i o ns of E aster n faith

,

m ay Oft en be W es t ern thought m ay yet disc ern in th em

,

el em ent s o f m ora l an d Spi r itu a l ch ar act er und erlying

ev er y v ar i ety o f cr ed al expr es s i o n T h e w o rth of th e
.

et ern al o v er th e ev a n esc ent th e pr es enc e o f imm a n ent

,
 C
P LA E AN D W ORT H O F O R IE N TAL P H IL OSO P H Y . II

D eity in every p art of th e univ ers e th es e and such like -

truths shine out impr es s iv ely for us in E astern espec i

,

ally Hindu thought N ear o fkin to H indu intoxic ation

.

with N ature is th e O ri ent al s c o nception o f th e Etern al

S pirit as supremely r eveal ed in m an s own spirit Th e

.

philosophi c d efects of O rie nt al co nception and pres ent a

tion will by contrast c ar ry much s uggestive te aching for
the O ccid ent al mind It is th e tot a l religious experience
of hum an n atur e E as ter n as well as Western th at
.

philosophy of religion h as to explain ; an d in so expl ain ,

ing it it h as its own p ar t to pl ay in k ee ping th e coupl et

,

tru e
O ne acc en t of th e H o l y G h os t
Th e h eedl ess w orld h at h n ev er l o st .

Too intently v eil ed in my s tery was th e philosophic

teaching of the Egypti ans to c all for much att ention
in this connecti o n With th em an d oth er such anci ent
.

peoples as th e B abyl o ni a n s As syri ans and P h oeni

, ,

c i an s
, specul ativ e el em ent s are but few and ne ed not ,

d et ain us . And y et s u r ely n o o ne c an m ake a

,

c areful study o f Egypti a n r eligi o n for exampl e without

, ,

feeling th at gr e at sp ecul ativ e id eas like th e D ivin e U nity

, ,

and th e D emiurgic al M ind or L o go s idea d ev elop ed by ,

Plato and th e Neo Pl at o nists wer e pres ent at l east to th e

-
,

esot eric Egypti a n mind Enough however h as b ee n

.
, ,

s aid to Show how u n warra nt ed is th e custom ary p hil oso

phi cal n egl ect of O r i ent a l philo so phy d espit e th e sug ,

gestive ch ar acter of i ts ess enti a l id eas Sur ely j ustice .

can very well be d o n e to th e G reek mind as an ind e ,

pendent growth with pr o ducts al l its own without

, ,

sh aring this custom ary phil os o phic al n egl ect of E ast ern
12 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E AN P H I LO SO P H Y .

th o ught with al l the suggestiv e ch ar act er of its ess enti al

,

id eas Why should we fo rg et the stimul ating i nuences

.

which th e Greek mind received from E astern thought ?

Why should we ov erl oo k th at the philosophic products
o f G reec e undoubtedly inco rpor at ed within th ems elv es

O r i en tal notions and id eas so th at th ese n egl ect ed

,

s o u r ces re ally are metres cogi tatzonum nostm rnm P Why

I would furth er ask d oes W est ern thought so r ea dily

,

st r ive to ent er into th e fuln es s an d inventiven ess of Gr eek

th o ught and r em ain so easily content with a m er ely
,

cu r i ous somewh at idl e int erest in E astern thought ?

, ,

Why forget th at in Gr eece as in I ndi a and Chin a th e

l aws of philosophical developm ent wer e simil arphilo
, ,

s o phy h er e also being a pr o duct of r eligious n eeds an d ,

th e strifes an d conicts o ut o fwhich new forms ofr eligi o n

aro s e ? The answer i s of course found in th e historic

, ,

ci r cumst ances mor al ev o lution an d politic al dev elopm ent

, ,

which conn ect us as W est ern ers so much mor e in our

, ,

Eu ro p ean p ast with th e philosophy of Greec e Wind el .

b and t ells u s in a footn o t e th at O riental phil osoph i si n gs

rem ai n so remote from th e cours e of Europea n philo

sophy which is a compl et e u n ity in its elf th a t in his
, ,

vi w th er e is no occasion to ent er upon them

e ,

This .

is at l east in keeping with wh at the L atin po et s aid of

Euro p e as andax j up ati genus B ut th er e is sur ely in al l
.

thi s no s u fcient reason for rem aining cont ent with an

incapacity to m ak e ours elves at hom e with different
thou ght conditions and inu ences th a n thos e which h ave
-

domin at ed Europ ean progress Philosophy h as sur ely a .

y et m or e univers al not e to st r ik e th an this merely Eu r o

p ean one I t c annot sur ely forg et th at wov en of one
.
, , ,
 C
P LA E A N D W O RT H O F O R IE N TAL P H I LO SO P H Y . I3

warp and woof t hroughout as is the univers e of thought ,

not without Asi atic philosophy c an it be m ad e p erfect .

I nd eed it c annot w ell stop even th ere for a r eason a bl e

, ,

apprehension of th e Wo r ld whol e is a world hist o ric al

- -

ph enomenon o r appearance ch ar act eristic of all cultur ed

,

p eopl es wh atso ev er N ot in Gree ce alon e but ev ery

.
,

wh er e th at man h as a tt ain ed to a c ert ain m easure o f

culture h as h e philosophis ed or thought upon th e Wor ld
,

whole Religion h as b ee n th e p o int of d ep artur e Philo

. .

S ophy is the fa ir est ow er of univers al hum an r eas o n an d ,

n ev er th e sp eci al p res erve o f any favoured n ation or

peopl e wh eth er E ast ern or W est ern
, .
 CHAPTE R II .

P L ATO AN D AR ST I O T L E O N SU B STAN C E AN D

E FFI C I E N T C A U SAT I O N .

OF th es e two old est c at ego r i es o f thought subst ance ,

a n d c a us a lity th e rel ati o n m ay rst b e bri ey not ed

, .

Subst a nc e is c ause at res t a s c ause is subst a nce in

,

o p er ati o n . W e c annot c o nceive C h ange in its begin ,

n i ngs , without c aus e ; but without subst ance ch ange , ,

in its v ery id ea would b e m ea ningless and absu r d A

, .

c au se must be a subst a nc e or b eing in en ergy ; but a

, ,

sub s t a nc e n eed not b e a n a ctiv e c aus e I n s h or t sub .

,

st anc e s t a nds to c aus e in th e r el ation of s o urce to

condition H ence H egel t oo k subst anc e to be cau s e o f
.

th e m od es and mod es to b e th e effects of th e subst anc e

, .

With o ut c aus ality ev ent o r o ccurrence th er e w o uld be

, ,

n o n e O n th e oth er h and C h ange need n ot m ake up

.
,

th e wh o l e of re ality m ay ind eed b e only th e visibl e o r

,

ext er ior side of things ; o n e m ay still ask as to t h e ulti

m at e el e m ents wh er eo f things ar e compos ed wh eth er

, ,

th ey m ay not h ave in th e m selv es su fcient r eason for

th ei r b eing and for th e l aw o f th eir co mbin ations Even .

if w e do not see th e subst a nce o f the world to be

n ec ess ary it do es not y et fo llo w th at it may not be
,

n ec ess ary If the ultim at e el em ents elude us in th eir

.
 P LAT O A N D A R IST O T L E O N S UB S TA N CE . 1 5

noum en al or s ubst anti al asp ects a p er m a n ent sub

,

str atum O f al l exist enc e m ay y et be postul at ed a s a ,

n ecessity of thought As G reek phil o s o phy b eg an with

.

th e s earch for subst a nti a l b eing th e p er m a n ent el em e nt

b ehi n d th e c o ntinu al ch a ng e of ph enom en a SO it end ed

,

with th e s a m e qu es t : th e qu es t o f a prim ary subst anc e

w e nd st ea dily pu r su ed by A n axim en es D iog en es o f ,

Ap o ll o ni a H er a clitus An a xi m and er An axag o ras an d

, , , ,

X enoph an es N ot al l O f th es e early philo s oph ers h eld

.

t h e p er m an ent sub s t a nc e to b e o n e : plur a lity o f s ub

st a nc es was alr eady h eld i n p r onounced for m by th e

Atomi s t philosoph er s in thi s earli es t s t age th e Ato mi s m,

of L eucippu s was th e n al r eply to Th al es at th at tim e

p o s sibl e But it is th e an sw er o f Pl at o an d A r istotl e
.

th at i s now to o ccupy us for th ey both p erceiv ed th at

,

philosophy must h av e an absolut e found atio n Pl ato .

poured a n ew t echnic al an d philo s ophic al sig n icance

int o th e t erm orza a as h e did int o s o m a ny oth er s To

, .

Pl at o oa i a par excel l en ce is subst a nc e in th e s ens e o f

,

th at int erm edi ary b etween id eas an d things which m ay

p er h aps b e b e st d esc rib ed as th e p rincipl e o f th e real i sa
ti o n of fo rm in m att er h o w ev er far fr om th e l angu ag e o f
,

Pl at o s uch a m od e o fsp eaking may be But his d o ctrin e .

of pr im ar y sub s t ances v ariou s ly n a m ed as th es e are i s

, ,

ab s t r us e an d l a cking in explic ation Es sen ti al b eing o r

.

om a is hi s p os tul ation f or th at which h o ld s t o g eth er

el em ents of th e soul kn o wn a s th e s am e

an d th e

oth er ( Ti maeus 3 5 A) AS us ed by Pl at o ozza i a w as a
,
.
,

Sp e ci al C h ara ct er i s tic o f th e Id eas th e rea l exi s t e nc e s

(7 21 3p m ) as distinguish ed fr o m earthly app ear anc es (7 d

.

Thus it com es about th at Pl ato s id eas

 16 S TU D IES I N E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

may b e vi ew ed as s ubst ances sinc e th ey wer e to him not

,

only th e real exist ents but th e c aus es of all things and

, ,

et ern al I n th e Ti meens Pl ato sp eaks of an el em ent or

.
,

subst anc e th at und erli es all things but this p r imitiv e ,

m att er h as n o s ubst anti ality o f its ow n re ality b eing ,

r eserved fo r th e I d eas H e s ep ar at es th e form or qu ality

.

fro m m att er an d hypost ati ses it in th e I d ea But th ese

, .

hypost atis ed or m et aphysic al entiti es s eem only to afford

an o th er i n st a nc e o f th e p r incipl e th a t e nti a multipli

c ntur p raet er n ecess i tatem
a Still th e p ertin ent fact
.
,

r em ains th a t this substanti al exist ence of th e id eas is

postul at ed in th e Ti maeus ( 5 1 D ) T h e o n e subs t a nce
.

for Pl ato is th erefo re th e I d ea which i s sol e r eality

, , , .

M att er is for him th e pa) bv o r n on b eing yet h e h as for

-
,

it a m ethod of p articip ating in I d eas H is co nception .

is n ot fr ee fr o m di fculti es o f du alistic C h ara ct er Since ,

m att er exerts a limiting inu enc e on th e I d ea as though ,

it wer e som ething ext er n al to it H is explic ation is not.

free fr o m h alting in s ight an d o bscurity and th e mist ake ,

of Pl atoni s m w as to id entify th e n egative or non b eing -

with m att er o r at any r at e sp ac e Such non b eing is

, , , .
-

r ea lly t h e n eg ation o f subst a nc e s inc e it h a s n o positiv e

,

p r incipl e of exi s t ence in its elf Th e i m per s on al ch aract er

.

o f th e Sup re m e I d eath e I d ea o f G o od i n Pl ato is to

b e k ept in vi ew . But this is in keeping with h i s origin al

a s s umption of s o m e so r t o f prim o r di a l m att er as sub ,

st ratum o f al l m o ti o n an d all b ecomingi n fact nu rs e ,

a n d m o th er o f a l l b ecoming This substr atum Plato

.

t reats as s eat o f ev erything yet n o pr o p er account of it

,

i s giv en ; it s eem s to m ea n with him b eing c o ndition ed

, ,

by sp ac e yet m er e sp ace c annot be conceiv ed as a

,
18 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

sensibl e But Aristotl e s simpl es t conceptio n of sub

.

st ance is 7 68e w outh at which simply exists as existing

-
.
'
,

by its elf and with o ut oth er thi ngs This 7 686 w is

,
. .

simply the individu al o f th e concr et e world and such ,

things as its gure qu ality qu antity & C which are , , ,

.
,

inh erent in it ar e t er m ed its accid ents

,
.

But Aristotle c a ll s th e sub s t anc e 7 6 eo n u j ust th at it

-
,

may st and out ag ain s t woo ds 77 0669 [See Categ ,

iii 1 6 M eta v an d vii ] Ar istotl e s rst substance being

. .
, . .

,

as we h av e j ust s ee n th e individu a l subsisting in itself

7 68e n or th at which n eith er exists in a subj ect
,

nor is afrm ed of a subj ect Aristotle t akes for his ,

second substance th at which not being in a subj ect ,

( woxei p evov) may be afrm ed of di fferent subj ects to

, ,

indic at e their speci es o r kind The difculty of d e n .

ing substanc e Aristotl e discus ses in the seventh book of

th e M etap hy si cs showing how its el e m ents c annot be
,

subst ances an d yet how on th e oth er h and they c annot

, , ,

b e anything but subst a n ces (M eta vii He deter .

, .

min es only with difculty th at sub st a nc e should be dened

only as to its form an d not its m att er [M eta vii I I ]
, .
, . .

H e in fact le aves th e subj e ct in ad equ at ely d en ed h ere

, , ,

o r els ewh ere t hough h e is not without inclin ation to t ake

,

as high est subst a nc e th at which is most simple not re al ,

ising th at our ultim at e must b e th e most complex and

concr et e as th at int o which al l els e runs b ack for eXpli
,

c ation Aristotl e speaks o f vr oxeep w; 5 M ) as conv eying

.
,

his conc eption o f wh at w as t r u e o f th e m at eri al world ,

but not o fthe ultim at e otzo fa or D eity But wh at m arks '

, .

th e woxei /I evov as subst a nc e is in Arist o tl e its i ndepend , ,

ence ( vi pai n ) otza l a ) as a composit e form ed of the union of
- -
 P LA TO A N D A RIST O T L E ON S U B S TA N CE . 19

e ss enc e or form with m atter or PM) Aristotl e is unh ap .

pily p er pl exing in his use of th e t erm oa i a ev en wh en ,

att ention is r estrict ed to th e n atu re of things alon e

,

without r eg ard to th eir exist enc e S ubst anc e to him w as .

equiv al ent to 7 5 si r a c ; rst of th e c at egori es it was

/
,

disti n guish ed from al l att ribut es or pr o per ti es

ledr a
'

) [M eta i ] I n his div er gence from Pl ato Aristotl e

.
, .
,

m akes ozun a not univ er s al but s o m ething individu al and ,

concret e Som etim es it signi es th e mixtu re of m att er

.

an d fo r m at oth er tim es it is a s th e sub s t r at e t aken to

, , ,

b e pur e ind et ermin at e m att er H e st r ongly c o nd emn s .

Pl at o s m aking th e id ea as s ubst ance exist a p ar t fr om

,

th at o f which it is th e s ubst anc e an d ess enc e Pl ato s .

id eas ar e not to Aristotl e r eal sub s t a nc es or ozzo i a t

, ,

-
,

t aking ozzo Ifa to m ea n th at which exi s ts by its elf But
-
.

fo r Aristotl e no l ess th a n for Pl ato th e g en er al id ea

, ,

was ess enc e of th e p articul ar an d w a s at wi a s o far

as th at m eant ess enc e Wh at Aristotl e did r ej ect .

was any Pl atonic cl a im o f r ight fo r id eas a s e xist ent

,

ap ar t fr om things in which as th ei r for m th ey w ere

, , ,

imm an ent or inh er ent I f t h e r el ation o f form to.

m att er w as in Pl ato th at of reality to n on b eing

, ,
-
,

th es e tw o were to A r istotl e c o rr el ativ e t erms wh o s e

, , ,

union constitut ed B eing But his pr eci se fault h er e .

w as in n ot s eeing how fully th ey w ere c orr el a tiv e

with each oth er so th at th e w o rld of exp er i ence c annot
,

b e cl eft by m aking so ess enti al a divisi o n a s h e did

b etween form an d m att er I n th e m et aphy s ics o f .

Aristotle m att er do es not exist ofits elf o r ind ep end ently

, .

of form ; it i s in its elf unknowabl e an d can b e separat ed ,

from form only through m ent al abstr action Form is .

20 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I LOSO P H Y .

th e vepeyet a

which bring s fo rth th e re al out of i n deter
min ate pot enti ality M att er is not non b eing as with
.
-
,

Pl at o : it h as a tend ency t ow ar ds th at w h er eof for m is

th e reality : motion is th at which conn ects for m an d
m att er as mom ents of on e exi s t ence Th e great gift .

of Ar i s t o tl e to th e discu ss ion o f th e subst ance pro bl em

was th e d o ctrin e of sub s t a nc e a s a s elf a ctive p r inciple -

th e assertion of abs o lut e reality th at is ab s olute , ,

s elf activity
-
as for him th e a bs olut e
,
which is p rim al ,

pres upposition o f all k n o wl edg e Ess enc e thing or .

, ,

s ub s t a nc e is to Aristotle th at which admits of al l

, ,

C h ange in which resp ect h e is clos ely followed by

,

L o tze ( Lotz e s M etap hy si cs vo l i p 7 4 E n g edn )

. . . . .
, ,

S uch es s enc e is d esign at e d 7 6 r i ea n by Aristotle a nd

v
,

is den ed by form in its m os t compl ete s ens e H avin g .

so d ealt with B eing or subst a nc e Aristotl e is r eady to ,

d eal with th e subj ect of C au s e We therefo re p as s to .

th e t r e atm ent by Pl at o a n d Ari s totl e o f th e probl em of

ei c i en t c aus ation In th e r ea sonings o f Pl a to and

.

Ar i stotl e th ere is an und erlyi n g assumption of ca u sality .

Exi s tence is energy to A r ist o tle ; to Plato it is int el

l ect but int ell ect which holds in its elf al l th e
id eas o f th e univers e in th ei r c aus al signic anc e Pl ato .

and A r i s totle alike pl ac ed b eing beyond thought

b eyond knowledge Pl at o however reach es a more
.
, ,

pr actic al result wh en feeling the in ad equ aten ess of

, ,

th e conc ept of subst a nti ality o r existenc e h e l ays it ,

down in the Sophi st th at th e b eing of things is nothing

but th eir power Pl ato saw befor e Ar i s totl e , ,

th at in th e r egress of movem ents there must be a rst

, ,

t erm The int ell ect

. which is existence to Pl ato ,
 P LA O A N D T AR I ST O T LE ON S U B STA N C E . 21

is som ething which holds in its elf al l th e id eas of th e

univ ers e in th ei r c aus al s ignic anc e T h e psychology o f .

Pl ato pr esuppos ed mind wh er ev er th ere w as moti o n an d ,

so h e w as l ed to postul at e D eity as Prim e M ov er o f th e

univ er s e with subordin at e or d eput ed d eiti es ( See th e
, .

Ti maeus 4 1 B a n d , B etween th e Prim al C au s e an d

ordin ary mort als Pl at o set th es e infer ior o r subordin at e
deiti es app ar ently as a way of accounting fo r th e Short
, ,

co ming s o f th e w o rld ( See th e Ti mceus 41 C ) But a .

,
.

m ore impo rt a nt consid er ati o n in th e pr es ent conn ection , ,

is th at Pl ato exp ressly rec ognis es th e d ep end enc e o f th e

world up o n a c au s e b ey o nd it s elfn a vr i y ap ct 86va -rov !

( See Ti maeus 2 8 A an d B )
'

xwpl s a i r fov y evea w a xei v

-
'
r . .
,

Pl a t o in th e s econd b oo k o f th e Rep ubli c alr eady t reats

, ,

in exp ress t erms o fth e D ivin e c aus ality H e go es o n in .

,

th e sixth bo o k to giv e his th o ughts mo r e p r ecis e form

, ,

wh en b e explicitly s ays th e Go o d is n ot m ere exist ence

otzo i a but tr an sc ends it in dignity an d pow er I n th e

-
.

s eventh book h e afrms th e Good to be c au s e of all th at

,

is bright and b eautiful in th e w or lds of th e visibl e an d

th e invi s ibl e rst a n d m o st p r ofound o f ef ci ent caus es .

D espising th e outw ard and ph en o m en al Pl ato ris es to ,

th e r ec o gnition o f a S up r em e C aus e as r eal an d innit e ,

ess e nc e ind eed but yet tr an s c end e ntly abstr act an d

, ,

id eal Cr eat ed things are t ake n (sixth b o ok of th e

.

Rep ubli c) as Pl ato s s t a rting p o int only th at h e m ay ris e

-

above th em (e7r

dp j v ci vvm i er ov g dwoea emc

'

an d m akin g th em fulcr u m for his ight a dva nce to

, ,

th e Prim ary C aus e which as univ er s al principl e is out

s id e an d abov e th e p o int of d ep artur e

, ,

uexpe f or) e wu
wor ov e7rl 7 971) 1-0 6 n a vr bs d pxv Zd w ( See th e Rep ubl i c

'
. .
,
22 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

vi 5 1 1 B ) I n th e t enth book of th e Republ i c Pl ato

.
, . ,

distinctly C l aims for God th at H e is First Author or

Creato rcpvr ovp ydco fal l things I n th e P ki l ebus with
' r . ,

its th eory o fb eing we nd Pl ato sp eaking of a S up rem e

I nt e llig e nc e stas
,

voil e e which is d ecl ared to b e c aus e of

al l things Thi s supra mund an e p r incipl e is for him de -

a
.

ter mi n i n g c a us ea i r f of al l things I n th e P hi l ebus . ,

ind eed Pl at o feels th e pressur e o fth e c aus al axiom in c on

,

nec t i on with al l things as d eriv ed : h e holds ev er ything

which com es int o b eing to c o m e of n ec essity into b eing

through a c aus eava y/ca i ov ei va c wei r/ 7 a 7 a y uyvueva 8rd
f
, .
r .

f

T w a. a r i fa y ryi y veo a t
-
v
' '
717139 y p d v xwpi c
t cz 5
7 01 v yy
ft f vo v
ro ;

( See P hi l ebus E ) This gen eral C au se of th e exist ence of

, 26 .

the universe as we know it d es erv es in Pl ato s vi ew to

, , ,

,

b e r eg ard ed as th e Reason of th e w o rld ( See P hi l ebus .

,

3 0 A ) S till we h av e to pass from th e P ki l ebus to Ti mceus

.
,

an d th e L aws for a n y full d ev elopm ent o f cosmological

th eo ry Th ere Pl ato voices th e di fculty of nding th e

.

Author ( wocnr rjc) an d F ath er ( 7ra n jp) o f th e world '

,

which alr eady m ea ns th e qu est for an E f ci ent C aus e .

( See Ti mceus 2 9 A ) I n Ti maeus also Pl ato intr oduc es

.
, ,

th e id ea of Conditions (as suppl em ent ary )

vva w t a I to
th e c aus e prop er ( a i r fa ) an id ea which was aft erw ards ,

to r ec eiv e alik e imp o rt ant support and criticism This .

idea o f n ec ess ary c aus e ( 7 5 fvva r w v) w as to Pl ato th at of '

s om ething without which tru e c a us e would not b e c ause .

N o very r i go r ous s ens e n eed b e impos ed upon p ass ages of

bold Creationism in th e Ti maeus wh er ein we nd th e ,

creativ e p erson ality an d delib erat e activity o f th e D emi

u rg e En o u g h th at we h av e G od dwelt upon as Person al
.

Creator or E f ci ent C aus e Pl ato r ecognising th at th at ,

 P LA O AN D A R IS OT T T LE ON S U B ST A N CE . 23

which becomes necess arily b ecom es und er the inu enc e ,

of a C ause I t l acks n ec ess ary b eing ; it com es into

.

exist enc e in answer to a s ui c i ent r eason But th e .

E f ci ent C aus e of Pl ato is Arti cer r ath er th an Creator ,

imposing according to l aw form on p re exist ent sub

, ,
-

st a nc e although o n e can h ardly doubt th at in a d eep er

, ,

way th e r eal qu est of Pl ato is for an Ultim at e C aus e

,

th at is principl e of life an d motioni n oth er words of

,

, ,

al l I onic m anifest ations o f c eas el ess proc es s And i n .

,

d eed i f we t ake say th e Rep ubl i c Ttmceus S ophi st and

, , , , , ,

S tatesman al l togeth er o n e c an h a rdly h elp feeling th at

, , ,

in his r eligious m etaphysics Pl ato h ad d eep an d r eal ,

hold on a p r oduci ng B eing in th e Suprem e Cr eat or who

is for him wo rld p r inciple so th at his m et aphy s ic al con
-
,

c epti ons can h ardly b e d eni ed th e poss ession o f tru e

dyn amic force Again in th e P keedr us G o d is as P er

.
, , ,

son al Spirit c aus e of th e w o rld s ord er a n d d esign

,

et ern al c aus e it is s aid of et ern al mov em ent

, W e must , .

b e cont ent to r em ark th at D ivin e c aus a l id ea cl ear ly

a pp ears in such oth er works of Pl ato as th e S ophi st an d

th e Statesman in both o fwhich th e D eity is Spoken of as

,

F ath er Arti cer an d G en erat o r So too c aus al id ea

, , .
, ,

r ecurs in Thea tetus L aws and P ha ao I n th e cosmo

, , .

logical r easonings of th e L aws for example Pl ato fo unds , ,

upon th e n ecessity of a ration al c aus e to th e actu al st at e

of things s etting out in s o doing from th e idea of
, , ,

motion So too in th e t enth book of th e L aws w e

.
, , ,

h ave th e principle of th e Self M ov er p ro p ound ed Against - .

this however A r istotle properly urg ed th at a Self M ov er

, ,
-

is ex vi ter mi ni impossibl e W e are now in a position to .

af rm on the g en eral qu estion th at God is always and

, ,
24 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H I LOSO P H Y .

e verywhere to Pl at o O rga nis er o f th e World and C on

, ,

s erver o f its eternal youth imm edi at e C ause of n ature

,

and s elf mov ed p r incipl e o n which al l c o smic mov ements

-
,

d epend S uch i s Pl ato s Et er n al an ess enti ally xed

.

qu antity thron ed high ab o v e a n d i n accessibl e to al l

, ,

ch ange and in Wh om th e id ea o f Pr im e M ov er is alr eady

,
-

pres ent I t m ay b e r em ar ked in this con n ection th at

.
, , ,

although Pl ato h as giv en l es s p er fect ed a nd precis e th eory

as to Prim al C aus e th a n w e nd i n Ar i s totl e it does yet ,

by no m eans follow th at Pl ato i s to our mod ern ideas , ,

less exalted in his r el ativ e th eo lo gic al conceptions th an

, ,

the gr eat S t agirit e But in our pr es ent conn ection we

.
, ,

can but r egr et th at in his gr and emph asis on ethical

,

ends Pl ato fell S hort o f any n al or s atisfying tr eatm ent

,

of the problem o f c aus ation o r real efci ency Pl ato s

.

int er est p ass ed from th e m et aphysic al qu estion of ef

cient c aus es into th e ethical qu est of th e Good or the ,

se arch after a Fin al C aus e T h e mor al purposiveness

, .

of man gr ew in its b ol d upon Pl ato until it eff ected this ,

result of displ acing ef ci ent by n al C aus e This some .

wh at t ang enti al mov em e nt of Pl at o s thought is h ardly

to be d eem ed s atisfacto ry for th e m ethod and the result

,

are not strictly t aken re ally philos o phic al

, , .

While the earli er thinkers o f Gr eece were pron e to

acc ept ch ange simply as a fact A r istotle h ad surer gr asp ,

on the true id ea of c aus e as som ething th at must be

,

uncaus ed or self c aus ed -

T h e Pl atonists saw th at
.

ch ang e must be r eferred to th at which do e s not ch ange ,

but th ey did not h av e a like appr eh ension of how truly

c aus ative or origin ativ e Prim al Reality must beh ow
little it could be m er e in activ e b eing They were too .
26 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

H is r el ation is one of pur e tra nscende nc e ; D eity does

not app ear as active an d int eres t ed C au s e of th e life of
the world But it should b e notic ed th at Aristotle in
. ,

holding to th e ind ep endenc e o fth at D ivine Reason which

is the prim ary source o f al l en ergy a n d m aint aining its ,

s ep ar ation from the wor ld d oes n o t view the action of

the Prim al C aus e D ivin e Rea s o n upon the world
,

process as mech anical but r ath er r eg ard s th e s elf activity

,
-

of e ach and every p ar t as h aving b een provided for ,

through imm an ent en ergy which h as b een com municated

to them .

Thus th en we s ee th e r esult of Aristotl e s l arge concern

,

with (pri m ean int er est so different from th at of Pl ato

,

in n al C aus e l n a quit e astoni s hing s earch aft er

the att ainment o f C aus es and th e m aint enance of a,

sci entic conception of th e wo r ld I n his P hysi cs Aris .

,

totl e a rgues in a d eep an d b as al fashion th at movement

, ,

cannot be s elf c aus ed in th e c as e o f extended substance

-
, ,

and further th at moti o n must be without b eginning and

,

quit e continuous I n hi s M etap hy si cs Aristotle m akes

. ,

movem ent consist o f possibility p assing into actu ality ,

and t ak es th e sou r c e of mov em ent to be compl etely re al

ised actu ality I n oth er wo r ds it is form pure and

.
,

without admixture of m att er But efcient c aus e in

.
,

his M etaphy si cs oft e n m eans a subst ance prior in time

,

to th e e ffect wh ereas h e els ewh er e us es ef cient c ause

,

as mer ely conditi o ning th e ef fect and not preced ent to it

,

in resp ect of tim e It should b e obs erved h ow import ant

was Aristotl e s distincti o n b etw een s elf activity
.

purus -

actus and pot ency I t ope ns th e way for distinguishing

between the Prim al Ground o f things
.

complete in itself
 T
P LA O AN D ARIS O T T LE O N S U B STAN C E . 27

and no t movedand the n ature of things thems elves as ,

conditioned in ch ar acter and evolution al in l aw So far .

as it go es Aristotl e s insight w as gr eat but it w as of

, , ,

cours e h alting in its issu e F or his system was nu

, .

doubt edly st atical in ch ar act er and be n either felt th e ,

need n or saw th e mode o f r el ating th e Prim al Ground

to th e world of imperfection th at is N o doubt h e may .
,

h av e m eant to improve upon Pl atonic I d ea by such

extern al C ause as he invoked to conv ert possibility into

actu a lity but how ever his hold o n th e facts ofexp eri ence
, ,

may h ave been greater hi s m ethod was yet too ext er n al

,

to produce s atisfactory results So th at although Aris .

,

totl e did so much for th e subj ect of C aus ati o n the ,

inu ence of Pl ato s id eas overbore much of t h e effect

prop erly to h av e b een exp ect ed F or too much was

so th at ef ci ent as well as
. ,

allow ed to form al c ause ,

m at eri al and n al c auses w ere left in th e Sh ad e And .

,

of course the imp erfection of his id ea of caus ation is to

,

be not ed no less th an his m eritorious treatm ent since he

, ,

is ev en prep ared to drop th e notion of s equ ence an d does ,

not r eg ard caus e as an a nt ecedent with d et ermining

power . C aus ality only throws th e expl anation b ack

upon an ant ecedent th at continu ally ees us an d the ,

only escape is by t aking c aus ality its elf up into s ome

form o f self activity as th e only c at egory th at expl ains
-
,

its elf Aristotl e h as not dealt with the probl em of

.

efci ent C ause or Principl e as s atisfactorily r el at ed to

the world but at le ast h e g av e invalu abl e ai d and such
,

a not eworthy contribution towards th e solution of the

probl em as to b e of imp erish able m emory .

 C H A PT E R III .

G RE E K P H L O SO P H
I Y O F RE L G O I I N .

RE C O G N I S I N G t h e ligio philosophic al dev el o pm ents of

re -

a nci en t I n di a we y et nd th e b eginnings o f philosophy

,

o f r eligion rst mo s t truly l a id in G r eec e H er e th e .

s ep arat en es s an d syst em atis ed ch aract er o f p hil osop hi

c al re ection are no doubt obs erv abl e as n ev er b efore
, , .

Religi o n att ain ed to n ew s elf c o nsci o usn ess in G r eec e

-
,

so th at phil o s ophic al religion in d eep er mo re re ec

, ,

tiv e s en se app ear s

, T h e G r eek mind h as greater
.

mobility an d con s t ructiv e en ergy in th e syst em atising

o f thought th a n was p o ss ess ed by th e E as t er n mind ,

with its in activ e qui etistic t end enci es

, I ts free .
,

cr eativ e s pirit i s n ely s een in th e const ruction of

Greek religious conc eptions and b eli efs But this is .

not to s ay th at th e Gr eek d ev elopm ent w as fr ee from

a st ag e of v agu e an d u nre ec ti n g S piriti s m Th e ex .

t er n al c ast of th e popul ar religion of G reece roused

philosophical thought only by th e ant agonism it pro
vo ked to th e a b s urditi es cont ain ed in its l egends of
th e gods For h er e th at which w as rst w as not
ev en though it conc er n ed t h e gods th at which w as
.

h eavenly but v ery much th e r ev ers e A high er philo

,
.

SO p hi c inu enc e se ems to h av e b een ex ert ed o n early

 G RE E K P H I L O SO P H Y O F RE LI G IO N . 29

Greek thought by th e O rphic s ongs or legends with ,

their bl endings of th e earthly an d th e he av enly an d

th eir cosmogonic ch ara ct er G reek s earch for a singl e
.

principle whenc e th e cosmic o r d er h ad b een derived

,

or evolved w as h encefor th n atur al an d intelligible

, .

N ature to the Greek mo r e th a n h alf revealed th e soul

within .

T h e thought of an ab s olut e p r inciple of unity rst

took clearly den ed fo rm in Xen o ph an es who rep re ,

sents El eatic M onism n aming his O ne B eing God

, ,

and vi ewing H im as r a tion al H e comb ats prev ailing

.

Polytheism and th e a nth r o po m orphic conceptions of

,

Hom er and H esiod A s t r iking featur e o f Gr eek re

.

l igio us d evelopm ent is i ts l ack o f org anis ed unity its ,

absence of anything lik e uni ed tr adition of fun da

ment ally religious typ e T h e s ensuous forms and i m
.

agi nati ve symbols o f Gr eek mythology as found in th e ,

poets present ed a n atur alism s o g r oss an d crude th at

,

it could not but prove an easy p r ey to th e critic al

sh afts of d eveloping r e ecti o n I n the polyth eism of.

Greek r eligion th e gods wer e n ot only hum anis ed ,

but were t erribly hum an ca pricious j ealous l awl ess

-
, , ,

p arti al and immora l Th e religion o f th e Greek was

, .

m ainly a religion o f this world for it was here h e ,

sought for th e most par t his comp ens ations And the
, , .

gods must h ave b een very troubl eso m e to him fo r so ,

j ealous were they of hum a n succ ess or prosp erity th at

they must n eeds b e av enging th e m selves on hum an
5 3 pm But in this conn ection th e g r eat trouble is th at
.

things were left by Gr eek thought in so imp erson al

a condition th at th e s ens e of p erson ality was so
3 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O S O P H Y .

ill d e n ed
-
. Perh aps th e b es t featur e in th e crude
anth r op o morphis m o f Gr eek myth o logy is t h e fact th at

th eir g o ds w er e soci al and h appy I n fact th e entire . ,

hum anity of th e Gr eek s s eem ed to b e r e ect ed in

th ei r god s T h e deiti es o f t h eir p anth eon s eem con
.

st r uct ed a ft er hum an p att er ns of b eauty int elli gence , ,

an d str ength Th ei r go d s ar e men in fact ; sup er

.
,

hum an th ey are only th ey ar e sup erior in cou rage or

,

vi rtu e to m en Fr ee from dr ead and j oyo us was G reek

.

life ; for a Hom er th e divin e l ay in th e hum an ; in

H om er and H esiod faith in Justic e surviv es The .

id ealis ation o f man pl ayed a l arg e p art in th e

r eligious thought of Hom er As pointing toward .

monoth eistic unity w e h av e ev en in Hom eric tim es

, , ,

t h e conc eption o f Z eus as F ath er of gods and men .

But syncr etism w as alr eady well on its way and ,

H om eric r eligi o n is th at Of th e cultur ed few rather

th an th at o f th e p eo pl e I ts outl o ok o n th e futur e
.

life w as o n e of gl o om I n Z E s ch yl us th ere is r ealised

.

no con s ci o u s a nt agonism to th e popul ar b eli ef in th e

ord er of th e gods abov e H e h as his pl ea for Zeus
.

as p att ern an d p ro t ector of right eousn ess Sophocl es .

a dmits a mor e hum a nly o p er ativ e r ation al el em ent .

Eu r ipid es i s st agger ed b efor e th e difculty of r econ

oiling divin e j u s tic e with hum a n d eed a n d doom His .

p es simi s tic th o ught w or ld o p en ed o ut o n th e whole

-

life o f hi s tim e an d h e st ands st r ongly m ark ed by his

,

r ej ecti o n o f th e polyth eistic religion his r ecognition of ,

th e possibility an d n ec essity of a sci entic conc eption

o f th e world a nd his a dh er e nc e to a mo r al id eal

, Th e .

st r ife b etw een uoq and M47 09 a ssumes in Euripides

 G RE E K P H I L O SO P H Y O F RE LI G I O N .
3!

its sh arp est form But Eu r ipid es not only h elp ed to

.

d est r oy th e fai r world o f mythology but was also in , ,

som e real s ens e p athnd er for m an s free p erson ality

,

ov er ag ainst th e w eight o f authority B eyond al l n ai v e .

conditi o ns Euripides ca lls to th e life of re ection to ,

whos e r ation al ideal of life h e r em ain s tru e recogni s ,

ing with n e cosmopolit e s ens e th at thus th e rac e

, ,

m ov es out of d ar kn ess int o light Th e G r eek tr ag edi ans

.
,

in fact rais ed th e c o nc eption of th e gods towards th e

,

id eal o f p erfect ethic al S pi r it in th eir effort s to purg e

of a nthropomo r phic d efect Taking al l th at h as no w
.

b een adv anc ed it b ecom es evid e nt h ow in evit abl e was

,

th e a nt agonism th at s hould follow phil o s o phic al r e ec

tion on such mythologic c ruditi es an d err ors as h ave

b een adv ert ed to .

Co m ing b ack to Xenoph an es we m ay r em ar k th at ,

his s o l e D eity i s ra is e d abov e multiplicity an d ch a ng e ,

an d i s p er fectly s elf suf c i ng T h e abst ract moni s m of

-
.

th e El eatics c o n c ern ed its elf m e t aphysic ally with th e

, ,

b eing r ath er th an th e o rigin of things But it was o n .

th e o r igin o f things th at th e I onic phil os o ph ers x ed

th eir att e ntion a nd H era clitus voic ed th ei r origin ux

, , ,

ch ang e an d d ec ay
,
Hylozoi s tic in pr inciple as his
.

th eory w as H er aclitus emph asis es th e c eas el es s ux o f

thing s th e res tl ess a ctivity o f n atu re th e p assing
,

of things o r th eir univ ers al m ov em ent (m i vm pet) A .

s ubtl e ,al l p er v as iv e moti o n und erli es thi s ch a ng e

-
th e

exh austl es s en ergy of th e D ivin e Reason it self B ut .

th e go al of H eraclitus could not but prov e a s c eptic al

on e , s inc e th e o nly crit erion o f b eing l ay in th e

mom ent ary s ensible appreh en s i o n of th e individu al and ,
32 S TU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

xed knowledge was not to be thought of H er aclitus .

w as however re ally compl e m e nt ary not a nt a g o nistic

, , , ,

to X enoph anes as Pl ato w as swift to see But th e

,
.

t el eo l ogical reasonings o f S oc rat es h elp ed P l ato to this

s ynth esis ; for S ocrates h eld th at wh at exists f o r a use

ful en d must b e product o f int ellig ence in which as , ,

in o rganic structure p arts serv e th e whole , An ax .

agor as ,
no doubt h ad al ready sugg ested mind as
,

mov er o f m att er holding th a t al l things were in

,

C h aos till r eason cam e to arr a ng e th em but th e ideal ,

i s ti c ch ara ct er of his su g g estion w as not sust a i n ed in

h i s too m ech anic al mod e of explication Thu s th e .

p re em i n ence h e postul at ed for M ind b ec a m e lost in

- .

th e physic al working ; still th e id ealistic or imm at er i al

,

principl e h ad b een brought int o View which w as to ,

prov e ultim at e gain To So cr at es th ere was a D ivine

.

Wisdom or Reason th at fas hioned and uph eld the

univers al or cosmic o r d er a n d by him and his fol ,

lower s the ration al elem ent in Greek mythol ogy was

appr eh end ed T h e r ation al syst em of truth at which
.

S ocra t es aim ed was sought to be educed in psycho

logical m anner th e principl e o f this system b eing to
,

him g en eric ally active within th e hum an consci o usn ess .

Pl at o p ass ed beyond this p s ychologic al st at e into th e

ont ologic the ide a b ecoming to him an ont o l o gical
,

a rch etyp e T h e defect h ere was th at Pl atoni s m t ended

.

to m ak e thes e arch etyp es extern al and ind ep end ent

e ntiti es ,lying apart from th e creative mind Pl ato .

,

noblest of pione ers in th e sph ere of th e philosophy of

r eligion vindic at es the ch ara ct er of the gods as ab
,

sol utel y good and m aint ains the D iv i ne n atu r e to be

,
34 STU D IES I N E U R O P E A N P H IL OSO P H Y .

of activiti es . T h e obvious troubl e in God s whol e

a ctivity b eing thus c o nt empl ation i s to und erst a nd

,

how H e h as to do with this ch anging and nite

world . A r i s t o tl e c o nceiv es th e wor ld as r eally d e
p endent upo n Go d an d in n eed o f Him who is to
, ,

Aristotl e i ts Prim e M o v er th e o r igin al c aus e o f all

,

exi s t e nc e . But this Pr im e M o ver tu r ns o ut o n ex

am in ati o n to b e s o r ath er in r esp e ct o f logic a l p r iority

th an a s rs t i n tim e i n H i s unb eginni n g b eginning .

Ari s totl e endeavou rs n ot very s ati s fact orily to co mbine

, ,

imm an ent an d t ran s cend ent vi ews in hi s c o nception of

D eity as a reacti o n fro m th e tr an scend ent univ ers al
,

i s m o f Pl ato . But it w as a g reat achi ev em ent th at

Ar i st o tl e not o nly m ad e pu re s elf a ctivity actus purus
-

-
th e p r im a l g ro und but als o t oo k things to be a
,

du al synth es i s o f s elf activity a n d p o t enc e F o llowing

-
.

An axag oras Ari s to tl e t ransfor m ed his pur us actus into

,

reaso n o r ab s tra ct int ellige nc e which c o uld n ot offer

,

an y s ati s fact o ry b as is o f m edi ati o n b etw ee n th e w o rld

an d its Ulti m at e Ground H i s recogniti o n o f th e

.

imm an ent en d o f ev ery obj ect r ais ed his d o ct rin e of

n ality far abov e th e utilit ar i an t el e ol o gy o f l ater
phil osoph ers . Wh at A r i stotl e h ad to say as to th e
uni o n of th e individu al and th e univ er s al an d as to ,

th e functi o n o f th e living soul in educing philosophy

an d sci enc e fr om exp er i enc e within a soci al ord er is ,

of e nduring int er es t .

N ow it will r eadily b e s een th a t th e point to which we

,

h av e b een brought by th e thought of Aristo tl e is o ne

which l eav es a br each to th e h eali ng of which th e efforts
,

of l at er Greek sp ecul ation w ere direct ed H ence we

.
 G RE E K P H IL O SO P H Y O F R E LI G IO N .
35

h av e Philo s h i erarchy o f b eing s bridging th e du ali s m

b etween God an d m atter and th o s e em an ation al at

,

tempts to m edi at e b etween th e O ne a n d th e m any which

are ch ar act eristic of th e N eo Pl atonism of Plotinus and
-

Proclus B efor e th es e end eavours w e h av e o f c o urs e

.
, ,

the att empts of S to icism to nd u nity in s elf conscious -

thought its elf which t o ok its elf to b e in p erfect h armony

,

or on en ess with G od as th e principl e of th e univ erse an d ,

troubl ed its elf nothing about th e world of m att er or p ar

ti c ul ar obj ects an d ev ents H ar dly are we c all ed to
.

follow out h er e th es e l at er syst ems o f Gr eek th o ught ,

wh er ein sp ecul ative thought b ec am e sub o rdin at ed to

pr actic al ethics and th e r end ering o f th e individu al
,

su fci ent unto him self b eca m e a cc o unt ed a thing o f fun

d am en tal v alu e in spit e of th e fact th at such s tr ength
,

wa s to o i s ol at ed for g en er al r esult W e are o nly c o n .

cern ed n ow with th e r eligi ou s id eal o f th e Gr eeks in th e

m o s t ch ar acteristically Gr eek forms and p eri o ds Th at .

r eligious id eal we h ave s een to be th e outco m e o f th e

high est typ e of polyth eistic th ought th e r esult of d e
vel o p m en t th at t e nd ed to a n alw ays gr eat er unity N ev er .

was th e p ersist ent Greek b eli ef in F at e as th at to whic h ,

gods no l ess th a n m en are s ubj ect with o ut s om e und er

, , ,

lying feeling o fprot est And ind eed Fat e it self b ec am e

.
, ,

l ess conceiv ed as h ard ext er n al n eces sity an d as s um ed

mor e th e ch ara ct er o f r ation al l aw Th e eleme nts o f a .

perfectly ass ur ed world ord er l ay b ehind th e imp er so n al

-

guise of wh at s eemed only blind an d i rration al F at e .

Th e Furi es turn ed at last to gr aciousn ess T h e worlds .

of m en and of gods wer e p erson al

It is a pl easing r eligious d ev elopment
.

i n som e w ays
36 TU D IE S
S IN E U RO PE AN P H ILO SO P H Y .

inspiring ev enwe h ave b efore us from the b eginnings ,

O f incisiv e criticism of th e popul ar r eligious thought by

Xenoph an es up to th e new philosophy of r eligion pro

pound ed by Pl ato with th e hum anity b eauty purity
, , , ,

t r uth and fr eedom by which th at r eligi o n w as m ar ked

,
.

For it sh o uld b e n o t ed wh at a growing c o nc eption m ar k ed

al l this Gr eek d ev elopm ent o f th e hum a n s o ul as D ivin e

alik e in n atur e an d in d estiny an d a s o f p eer l ess worth ,

in its ra tion al an d s pi r itu al life H igh est to Pl ato w as th e

.

id ea o fth e Go o dthis al l ruli n g id ea was to him absolute

-

r eality Pl at o s conc epti o n o f life is n o doubt shot

.

, ,

through with religion for h i s i s an e nti rely r eligious one

, ,

but his conc eption is yet a ch aract er istically Gr eek o ne .

I t import s a high s ens e of m an s conn ection with th e All

-
an ex alt ed uni o n o f th e hum a n with th e D ivin e But .

it obviously is not a r eligi o n of restor ation of r en ewal of , ,

co n sol atory power l acking as it do es r eal p er son al

, , ,

r el ation I t falls far short of b eing r evel ation al in any

.

historic s ens e Pl ato is n o t a physici a n to th e S ick ; his

.

philosophy is th at of th e whol e sound m an But b e , .

tw een God and man th ere is no r eal communion O n a .

m et aphysical Vi ew r eligion i s to him sp ecul ation and

,

nothing els e i n Go d is pure and immut able ess ence

found O n a moral vi ew God is to him th e ideal of
.

m o r al p erfectionth e g o od and r ight eous Spirit Pl ato s

,

mo ral kingdom is c o ncern e d with j ustic e r ath er th an

l ov e but th e j ustic e is t emp er ed with mildn ess and
,

m ercy M att er i s to him th at which resists th e action

.

of God and c aus es evil to b e pr es ent in th e world Such

, .

a Vi ew of m att er as non pli ant and imp en etrabl e b efor e

-

th e D ivin e M ind w e c an of cours e by no m eans accept

, , .
 G RE E K P H ILO SO P H Y O F REL I G I O N .
37

Plotinus was abl e l at er to afrm the unr eality of m atter ,

in spite of the p art it pl ays among r eal things .

Aristotl e like Pl ato thought our und erst a nding of life

, ,

must d ep end on our insight into th e gr eat w orld of r eality ,

for th e cont ent o f hum an exist enc e is g ain ed through its

conn ection with th e All L ike Pl ato h e highly est eems
.
,

form an d ind eed h e m akes of th e r el ation of form and

,

m att er som ething which rul es al l reality an d constitut es

th e co r e o f al l life But wh er eas Pl ato rent th e w o rld in
.

twa in by h i s s ev er a nce of ess enc e and r eality this s ev er ,

a nc e w a s to Aristotl e an int o l er abl e s chism an d h e ,

sought to st eer his philosophic co urs e tow ard ap p reh en

si o n o f th e unity o f r eality Reality is for him th e
.

ess enc e found in th e a ctu al ph e nom en a A r istotl e do es .

not like Pl at o set out from th e id ea and work to the

, , ,

d at a o fexp eri enc e St arting from th e d at a of exp eri ence

.
,

A ristotle r is es from th e actu al or empiric al to th e ulti

m at e or univ ers al The synth etic an d p ro g ressiv e pro
.

c ed ur e of Pl ato is in Aristotl e r epl ac ed by a n alytic an d

regressiv e t endenci es Pl ato exc els by th e richn ess of

.

his id eas and th e Spiritu alistic ch ar act er of his thought .

Aristotle excels in his combin ed hold on th e r ation al

form el em ents and th e empiric al d at a th at ll th ese out
-
.

For A ristotle with his monistic tend ency th er e is a

, ,

D ivin e O v ersoul which is th e source of th e world as a

,

realm of r eason an d which is th e origin ating caus e ofthe

,

et ern al world mov em ent Thus th e world do es not w ear

.

to thought so co ntrastive an d oppos ed a look as on the

Pl atonic vi ew But it is for al l th at a v ery weak position
.
, ,

Aristotle t akes in assigning to God only the place of

Prime M over of the world sust aining to it rel ations only
,
38 STU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

in virtue of the motion H e communicates We miss .

those Ideas in the divin e mind which are arch etypes of

cr eated things ; we are c ert ainly not brought n ear to God ,

since God is h er e s ep arat ed fro m th e world to which H e ,

communic ates mov em ent N everth el ess his cosmology

. ,

must be allowed to h ave more consist ency th an th at of

Pl ato .

In Philo the L o gos m edi at es b etween transcendent

,

D eity and man But th e L ogos conception is in Philo

.

a v acill ating an d imp er fe ct o ne n o t r eaching up to r eal

,

person al r esult But th e m erit must be freely accorded

.

to Philo of h aving linked th e b est o f O l d Test am ent

thought to th e b est o f G r eek philosophic al thinking in ,

his conception o f God who is not only O ne but the

, ,

Good Th e profound exp ress i o n giv en to th e Pl atonic

.

philosophy by Plotinus m eant of cours e a gre at g ain in

, ,

el ev ation This is s aying much if we rem ember how

.
,

gr eat h ad b een th e el evation o f Pl ato s t eaching

how ( in th e Rep ubli c) h e h ad t aught th e idea of the

good to be reg ard ed as caus e o f al l sci ence and
truth and h ad insist ed on th e good as far exceeding
,

essenc e in dignity an d power B ut th e transcendence of

.

his D eity th e i napp reh ens i bl eness of His n ature kept

, ,

his omnipres ence fro m b eing so felt th at men could

p art ake in th e wealth of spiritu al life This despite the .

stimul ating and el evating effect o f his conception of the

O ne the I nef
, fable N o doubt his afrm ation of mystic al
.

ecst asy me ant a c ert a in unity o f m an with God as i n ,

volved in emotion al r espon s e But the l ack rem ained in

.

respect ofthe process b eing o ne am en able to the scruti n

ising view of re ason Reason was a too transition al
.
 G RE E K P H ILO SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N .
39

t erm in th e proc ess of r etu r n to God by ecs t atic el ev a

tion an d th e mysticism inv olv ed w as a turning of th e
,

b ack upon exp eri e nce T h e thought o f Pl o tinus h as th e

.

m erit o f cours e o f ridding us o f an thr Op o m orph i s m but

, , ,

th e p r ic e p aid is a d e ar o n e th e dethron em e nt of r eason

d ear b ec au s e a God unkn o w abl e c an b e of n o s ervic e or

,

int erest eith er to faith or to philosophy I f phil o s o phy .

c o uld b e co nt ent thus it w o uld h av e l ear nt an d g ain ed

,

n o thing Whil e th e concepti o n of God r em ain ed in

.

Gr eek philo so phy as it culmi n at ed in Pl o tinus v ery

, ,

much o f an abstr action or limiting conc ept it b ec a m e in , ,

Philo a living r eality .

Thus we are n ow i n a position to m ar k th e ch ar act er of

th at developm en t which con s titut es th e Gr eek philo sophy
o f r eligi o n W e h av e s een th e ch ar act er o f th eir early
.

go d s th eir hum a ni sed o r an th r op o morphic d eiti es

, ,

wh o s e w o r s hip w as y et th e p recu r s or o f th e w o r s hip of

Spiritu al p r incipl e W e h av e not ed th e gro wth o f sub
.

j ec tive r e ection fr om t h e phil o s ophy o f An axag oras

onward V ery notic eabl e in S ocr ates i s this emph as is
.

o n mor al r eas on I n Pl ato th e p re emin enc e of id eas

.
-

or r eason w e h av e obs erv ed to b e con s picuous H is .

religi o n is ethical an d mystic al rath er th a n m et aphysical .

Ar istotl e s s t ress on pu re r eas o n aft er our own p articul ar

,

fashion we h av e also point ed o ut

, W e h av e t ak en .

a cc o unt al s o o f th e d ev el o ping id ea o f unity as ear l y

, ,

c o nc eiv ed und er th e notion of F at e which c ast i ts d ar k ,

imperso n al s h adow ov er th e thron e o f Zeu s hims elf B e .

sid es which m o noth eistic t endency w as s ee n i n th e m o re

,

or l es s consciou s gr opings a ft er mor e spi ritu al principle .

N or h av e w e failed to m ake som e p assing r ecognition

40 STU D IES I N E U RO PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

of th eir r eligion as th at of b eautyth e D ivin e b eing to

th em th e et ern ally b eautiful We h av e s een th e p uri ca
.

tion o fG reek m ythology by th eir po ets an d phil o soph ers .

Add to al l th es e things th at w e h av e r eckon ed with th e

m edit ati o n an d syst em atis ation which th ey gav e to et ern al
t ruth s p r incipl es a nd ideas thr o ugh th ei r great philo
, ,

s o phic think ers and it will b e evid ent h o w ext rao rdin arily
,

g reat w as th e contributi o n o f G reek phil o sophy of religion

to th e w orld s r eligious d ev el o pm ent T h e gr eatn ess of

.

th at cont ributi o n h as b ee n enh a nced by th e p ersistent

inu enc e exer t ed by G reek syst ems an d id eas o n al l
sub sequ ent ge n er ations But thi s is s aid without Sh aring
.

th e d efe ctiv e a n d o n e Sid ed vi ews o fthos ea m o ng whom

-

a re distinguish ed philosophic al n am es wh o t r eat early

Christi an Th eology as only a w eak re ex o f Gr eek Philo
s ophy an d quit e fail to r eali se th e n o bly cr eativ e and
,

ind ep end ent p ower o f early Spi r itu al think er s like Aris
tides J ustin Ath e n ago ras Th eo philu s Cl em ent and
, , , , ,

O r ig en Wh en we are c all ed to d eal with th e r el ations

.

of G reek Philos o phy to ear ly Ch r isti an Th eo logy Suum ,

Cui que must b e our motto if we h av e in sight enough to

,

p erceiv e h ow r eal an d g reat wer e th e power and po rtion

o f th at Th eol o gy in its elf a s th ey ar e rev eal ed in its
,

historical developm ent .

42 STU D IES IN E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

t he Emper o r s mystic sp eculation so l argely conc erned

,

with th e affairs of practical life The e nforc em ent of .

virtuous life h as pr ec ed enc e with him over subtle sp ecu , ,

l ati o n as to th e origin of things For int erest h ad been

'

tr ansferred fr om m et aphy s ic al sp ecul ation to pr actical

ethic s .Fo r all th at his syst em is not without m et a
,

physical fou n d ation : this is found i n its th eo ry ofN ature ,

as m o r al support an d guid e H i s discussi o ns of ethical

problems are n eith er syst em atic n or e xh austiv e
.

th ere is
n o a tt empt to m ake th em s o H is work is not an intel .

l ectu al syst em of th e U niv er s e : th e ethic al philosophy it

pres ents d oes not derive fr o m b eing p art of a philosoph
ic al system which offers its elf as an o rg anic whole There .

is h o wev er this fund am ent al conc eption underlyin g al l

, ,

his t eaching n am ely th at al l things form o n e whole

, , ,

and c o nstitut e a unity Thi s is in accord with th e essen

.

ti al l y monistic ch ar a ct er of S toicis m H e t each es th at .

this whol e is s o wi s ely ord ered th at the wisdom of each

p art li es aft er th e St o ic t el eo logy i n s eeking th e good of
_
, ,

th e whol e H ence th e E mp eror c an say

. All p arts of
the U nivers e are int erwov en and ti ed tog ether with a
s acr ed bond And no o ne thing i s for eign or unr elat ed
.

to a noth er This ge n er al conn ecti o n giv es unity a nd

.

orn am ent to the wo rld For th e w o rld t ake it altog ether

.
, ,

1
is but on e T h e unity a n d th e ide al signic a nce of
.

things h e gr a sps aft er th e Stoic al fashion which was

, ,

imp ell ed to th ese und er th e d em ands of r eason But of .

,

cou r s e this univ er s al r eason in things is still too much

,

an abstr act p o tenti ality Ag ain h e s ays I f thou didst

.

ever see a h and cut o f f or a foot or a h ead lying any

, ,

1
V II. 9 .
 E T H I C AL P H I LO SO P H Y O F M AR CU S A U RE LI U S .
43

wh er e ap art fr om th e r est of th e body s uch do es a man ,

m ake hims elf as far as h e can w h o is n ot c o nt ent with

, ,

wh at h app ens an d s ep ar at es hims elf from oth ers o r do es

, ,

anything s el s h I f yo u h av e d et ach ed you r s elf fr o m th e

.

n atur al u nityfor you w ere m ad e by N atu re a p art but ,

now you h av e c ut yours elf offyet in your c as e th er e i s , ,

this be autiful provision th at it is in your pow er ag ain to

,

1
unit e yo u r s elf O f c o urs e th e t r oubl e is th at Stoic a l
.
, ,

thought l eav es this o rg anic unity of m ankind a thing too

abstr act subj ectiv e an d pu r ely id eal O nc e m o re s ays
, , .

A urelius H e th a t frets him s elf b ec a us e thing s d o not

h app en j ust as h e wo uld h av e th em and s ec ede s an d ,

s epar at e s hims elf from th e l aw o f univ ers al n atur e is but ,

a sort o f ulc er of th e w or ld n ev er con s id er ing t h at th e

,

s am e c aus e which produc ed th e displ eas ing a ccid ent

m ade him too And l astly h e th at i s s el s h a n d cuts o ff
.
, ,

his o wn s o ul fr om th e univ ers al soul o fall r ati o n al b eing s ,

is a kind o fv o lunt ary outl aw 2

W e thu s s ee th e w o rld
.

to b e obj ectiv ely conc eiv ed by Au relius as a uni ed thin g

a cosm o s to which al l b elong But th e unifying .

power rem ain s too mys t eriou s in his thought an d w e ,

are n o t shown h o w m an as p art m ay b e c o m e r e c o ncil ed

, ,

with th e wh o l e Still this u n ity o f th e wo rld w as s t r ik

.
,

i ngl y conc eiv ed by him as giving unity to m an s life all

,

th e p ar ts o r m emb er s o f th e o ne b o dy being m o st clos ely

conn ect ed T h e alt ern ative i s a lways pres ent to him

.

3
eith er Provid enc e or atom s r ul e th e Univ ers e He .

h as his o wn po s iti o n cl early d en ed how ev er in his p ref , ,

er ence f or Pr ovid enc e with i ts b oundl es s possibiliti es

,

and hop es r ath er th an ch a nc e with its att end a nt res i

, , g
1
viii 34 . . i v 29 2
iv 3
. .
3
. .
44 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

n ation H e s h a r es th e St o ical b eli ef in D ivin e Power as

.

h aving giv en us all w e n eed V ery b eautiful is th e com .

p l etenes s o f his cont e ntm e nt with al l things All things

are h arm o ni o us to m e which are h arm o nious to th ee O ,

U niv ers e N othing i s for m e too early or too l at e which

.

is in d ue tim e for th ee All is fruit to m e which thy .

s eas ons 0 N ature b ear Fr o m th ee are al l things and

, , .
,

in th ee al l an d al l return to th ee T h e p o et says D ear

, . ,

City o f C ec rops ! S h all I n ot s ay D ear City of ,

His vi ew o f m a n s duty th erefor e is to live

, ,

a gr eeably t o th e c o ur se o f N atu r e a n d h arm o niously ,

with oth er m en H is individu alism SO vi r tuous and

.
,

strongly m arked t akes a prevailing optimism for grant ed

, ,

an d puts its elf int o h armony with th e ethic al cosmos .

For all th at h e k eenly feels th e impot enc e o f man born e

, ,

a long on th e wo r ld s curr e nt B ut o f course th e fact

.
, ,

of evil is a t r oubl e in face of th e Provid ence to which

r eference h as b een m a d e But St o ical cour age simply .

r efu s ed to admit th e fact an d took th e wo r ld for p erfect ,

.

S uch evil as th er e might b e mu s t be for th e gen eral good .

This is preci s ely o n e o f th e d efects o f th e mor al philo

sophy of Au relius th at th e r eality of th e ant agonism of
,

evil to th e good is n ot mor e d ecisively felt and so too , , ,

with r esp ect to th e reality of right eo usn ess A he art th at .

S h o uld b eat mo r e vi o l ently in symp athy with pr actical

triumphs o f right eousn ess th an th e philosophy of Aure ,

lius comp elled w as som ething th at could com e only by

,

th at t eaching b eing tr ansc end ed S inc er e as Stoical .

th o ught always r em ained it s eems l acking in thorough ,

n ess h ere It could not an d did not feel in any ad equ at e

.
, , ,

1
iv . 23 .
 E T H I C AL P H ILOSO P H Y O F M AR C US A U RE L I U S .
45

m ann er th e di fculty of r econciling th e p essimistic

,

asp e cts of th e world with its faith in th e p er fe cti o n o fth e

univ ers e H enc e hop e springs not et ern al in its br ea st

. .

Resign ation is to it th e whol e of virtu e be it to goodn es s ,

or to necessity .

T h e D eity th at for th e Emp ero r rul es and p ervad es

, ,

al l things is o n e th a t might v er y w ell sugg est th e D eity

of monoth eism O nly a cqui esc enc e in th e D ivin e will

.
,

h ere p art akes too much of indiffer ence to wh at may

occu r an d acc ept ance of wh at must as th o ugh it were
, ,

som e fat e which n eith er divinity nor hum anity can

ch ange Fo r though M arcu s Aur eliu s like Epict etus
.
, ,

and S en ec a a tt ains som e s ens e O f th e p erson ality of

,

D eity y et it is by n o m eans unifo r m or p ersist ent

,
.

To th e ethic al phil o sophy of Aureliu s th e so ul w a s ,

ind estructible th e d o min ant and guiding principl e o f

life I n its p r incipl e o f reas o n h e found th e s ec ret of
.
,

m an s r el ati o nship to m an no l ess th an to God th e

, ,

univer s al reason H ence h e c an s ay . Though we are ,

n ot j ust o f th e s am e es h and blo o d y et o ur mind s are ,

1
n early rel at ed This broth erhood of man s ays Au re
.
,

lius will l ead us n ot o nly to s tr iv e for th e com m o n good

, ,

but to pity an d forgiv e Man is to him th e cr o wn o f .

natur e Yet th e n atur e of man is to him soci al but his

.
,

soci al eagern ess to s erv e m ankind is not such as to m ake

him br eak unr estrain edly with th e co s mic cl aim s which
are so c e nt ra l in his thought H er e too th er e is a .
, ,

prominent el em e nt of resign ation b efore th e inj ustice o f

m en M an s r el ation to th e D eity is in Stoic al ethics
.

, ,

of fund am ent al import ance Th ey m ake G o d an d reason .

u.
46 S TU D I ES I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

n ely id entical and our t r u e good th er efor e li es in

, , ,

conformity with th e mind and will of D eity The .

life of reas o n is th er efo re th at wh er eon Aur elius insists

, ,
.

Reason i s to him th e j udgm ent fo r ming pow er and can -

,

subj ect al l p as sion H old in h o nbur you r opinion ative

.

faculty fo r thi s alon e is able to pr ev ent any Opinion from

,

origin ating in you r guiding p r inciple th at is contr ary to

N atu re or th e p r op er cons tituti o n o f a r ation al cr ea
,

tu re.
1
Fo r in S toic al th o ught a r ation al n atur e is
, ,

subj ectively c o nc eived to b elong to al l N ot only that .

,

but as a r ati o n al b eing m an is exp ect ed to ris e abov e

,

hims elfb eyo nd his own individu ality Ti s in keeping .

with such a n atur e th e Emp eror s ays I f any m an is ,

abl e to convinc e m e a n d S how m e th at I do not think or

,

ac t r ight I will gl adly ch ang e for I s eek th e truth by

, , ,

which no man w as eve r inj ur ed But h e i s inj ur ed who .

a bid es in his e rr or an d ignor anc e S uch th en is th e .

, ,

Emp ero r s r mly enounc ed doct r in e of hum anity with

,

th e dig n ity a n d duty th a t p ert ain to ev er y m an a nd ev ery ,

m an s w o rk D utiful an d sinc er e we must be an d there

.
,

mu s t b e n o acti n g a p ar t in our going b eyo nd th e self , .

And if acco rding to S t o ic fat ali s m ev erything is neces

, ,

s ar il y d et er m in ed th e d et ermin ation is al o ng lin es th at

,

mu st be o ptimi stic ally c o nc eiv ed SO th e n o bility o f th e .

Emp ero r in k eeping with this s ay s I t is n ot s eemly

, , ,

th at I wh o willingly h av e b ro ught sorrow to non e Should

, ,

p ermit my self to b e sad .

Wh en we turn to th e St o ic th eo ry of virtue as ,

r epr es ented in Aur elius we nd th e inwardn ess of ,

virtu e r em ark abl e an d it i s absolut ely s elf Suf ci ng

,
-
.

1
o n e
 E T H IC AL P H IL O SO P H Y O F M AR C US A U RE L I U S .
47

V irtu e is to him prim arily c o smic : it is som ething

d ue to th e univ ers e or G od W e are fr ee to b e .

mov ed only from within : th e c alm which is co u s e

qu ent on j ust an d virtuous acti o n m akes j ust right eous ,

action th at in which o u r inn er r easoning al o n e nds

r est T h e good m an is lord o f his own life : h e is

.

such a king among men by r eas o n o f vi r tu e as h ad

, ,

n ev er b efor e b een dr eam ed V irtu e is to him sup erior

.

to life s v arying fo rtun es Thus arose th e co nc epti o n

.

of th e impossible wis e m an o f S toic al thought And .

th e imp o ssibility of th e r ealis ation l ed to i ts b ecoming

temp er ed in th e l at er d ev elopm ents with pr actic al and

, ,

pr actic abl e forms and insist enc es .

T h e Emp er o r s inculc ation s c o nt ain v er y much th a t

is undoubt edly exc ell ent as to th e wisd o m o f life

, .

Powerl ess were th e d ar ts of d estiny aga in s t th e inn er

r efuge of Aur elius with hi s l o fty tr anquillity of mind
, ,

an d d eep quick e ning of s o ul S uch a n ethic al Vi ew

.

o f th e wo r ld as his n eed not be oppos ed to a n int el

l ectu al o ne but th e ethic al o n e w as m o re d eeply

,

s ati s fying T h e g o od will in its d et a ch ed ex erci se

.
, ,

was fo r him s up rem e virtu e but with th e fo rm a l s elf

,

c o nsi st ency of thi s will h e w as too well cont e nt T h e .

chi ef fault I should nd with it is th at it l eads too

much to p assive an d qui etistic excell ences and h as ,

to o f ew insist enc es on th e activ e forth putting s o f -

h eroic virtu e I m ean we c an easily fear distu r b ance

.
,

too much an d c arry th e limits of p r ud e nc e too far

, .

I t s eems to us m o r e import a nt to h av e th e soul cul

ti vate th e pl enitud e of its own en ergy a n d p o w er fo r

th e p erform anc e o f activ ely an d g en erously h eroic

48 STU D IES IN E U R O PE A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

virtue We ne ed not too r eadily fear the world city

.
-

and its cl aims T h e good will is the gre at thing but

. ,

not as a m ere int er n a l st at e rath er as something which ,

goes forth in l abou r for th e whol e from morning until ,

evening . Wh en th e soul is too exclusively thrown

b ack upon its elf th ere are att e nda nt d angers of pride
,

and s elf c ond ence

-
S till quie ti s tic e xcess es apart the
.
, ,

insist ence on th e imp o rt a nce o f bei ng rather th an ,

knowing or d oing h as i ts own v alue , Those petty .

and untow ar d thing s towar ds which Stoicism fosters a

,

contemptuous disr egar d m ay u nd er higher and more

, ,

positive ethic al l aw b eco m e sources of j oy strength

, , ,

and worth But it is only j ust to th e Stoic al view to

.

r em emb er th at its indiffer enc e to outw ard things was

only a rel ativ e indiffer enceas comp ared with the ab
solut e renunci ation oi id eal mor al life and was even
ess enti ally r eligiou s s ince th e outward things were
,

t aken to be at th e dispos al of D eity in whose wisdom ,

we must conde
The S toical th eory o f good and evil
.

both alike ab
solute c am e to b e modi ed and room and pl ace ,

found for things as hum a n and actu ally existent The .

egoistic and al truistic t end enci es were not perfectly

h armonis ed the stre ss rem aining m ainly on the former
, ,

an d th e essenti ally soci a l ch ar a ct er of virtue being

imp erfectly drawn even though a c ert ain utilit ari an

,

int erest an d tendency are far from w anting in the

te aching o f Aur elius .

The future life is l eft in unc ertainty by the Emperor ,

though h e s eems not without s o m e s ens e of the con

ti nuance of life aft er de ath H e sc arcely ever touches
.
50 STU D I E S I N E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

n egl ect or disp ar agem ent o f such int erior dispositions

as ch arity bene cen c e t end ern ess an d S pont a n eous
lov e And wh en it is introsp ectiv e its s elf
, , ,

.
,
qu esti o ning ,

is too p er sist ent an d l ack s inspir ati o n fr om without

,
.

I t fo rg ets h o w ext eri o r an d univ ers al in i ts aim s moral

eff ort must b e n o m an living for hims elf o r b eing
, ,

c o m pl et e i n hims elf I n this w ay of thinking th ere is

.
,

th e t end ency too to r eti re too readily from th e world

, , ,

an d to s ac r ic e too littl e to s av e a n d impr ov e it .

Tru e individu ality com es not of th e soul s repr ession

,

but by its adv anc e in th e s er vice o f th o ught and life .

Th e s o ul gr o ws cosmic n ot by a bst ra ction of it self ,

fr om th e wo r ld but by cl aiming al l things as i ts own

, .

At a ny rat e tis but a co ld an d so ul d eso lating id eal

,

-

to which it c an att ain by dint o f p r oud an d s elf ,

r eli ant will V irtu e thus b ecom es easily too p erson al

.

an d s ubj ective I n M arcus Au relius h o wev er app ears

.
, ,

at tim es a t end er n es s which tr an s c ends S t o icism p r op er .

T h e ethical phil o sophy of St o ici s m at its high es t h ad , ,

n eed to be lift ed into th e sph ere of p ers on ality and

t h e realm o f ends r ation al ends for which alon e s elf
,

d eni al o r r enunci ation i s n ec ess ary But th en it will .

h av e p as sed o ut of th e twilight o f abstr action into the

sph ere o f n oo nd ay th e light of r eal principl es prin ,

c i p l es of lov e th at conc ern p ersons hum an an d divine , .

W e are not now conc ern ed to follow it thith er It .

is enough now to not e how far Stoic specul ation can

c arry us.

With Aur elius as with Epict etus m an s own s elf

, ,

dev el o pm ent is th at with which nothing in th e sh ap e

of outward circumst ance must be allowed to int erfere .
 C
E T H I A L P H I LO SO P H Y O F M AR CUS A U RE L I U S .
51

But h e ov erlooks too l arg ely th e w arfare within n o ,

less th a n without M an s inn er wo rld is mor e th a n

.

Stoic al c alm a n d th er e are high er things to be s aid

,

th a n th e Emp eror h as known N or is d estiny from a .

,

high er vi ew point m er ely th e cross gr ain ed thing it

-
,
-

s ee m ed to th es e S t o ic philosoph ers S till high credit .

,

must b e giv en to Stoic al th o ught for th e way in which

it adv anc ed o n Aristotl e an d anticip at ed l at er and
,

high er thought in t eaching th e will o f m an to c o n

,

fo r m i n vi r tu e of its fr ee int ern al disposition s to

th e out er limit ations impos ed on m a n s pow er

I ts .

m o di ed d et erminism m ade str ength o f will th e prim e

r equi s it e of m an s adj u st m ent to th e world s o rder an d

,

of his control of p a ssi o n Th e uniqu e tr iumph o f th e

.

will s p erfect self m ast ery b efore al l ext er ior issu es an d

-
,

th e pric el ess w o rth of th e w ill s inw ard o r inh er e nt

go odn ess w er e gr eat and v alid id eal s to set b efor e

,

men .B ut th ey must not b e so conc eiv ed th at th e

is o lat ed inn er life Sh all b e loos e ned from th e effort
aft er univ er s a lity .

A gr av er a nd mor e s ev er e l aw is r equir ed th an th e
Stoic al ob edi enc e to th e l aw of n atur e and reason ,

ev e n though w e admit th e valu e of th e s acrice of

d esir e to this Stoic al s ubordin ation to N ature s l aw
.

T h e life o f pure r ea son i s to Stoic a l thought t h e tru e

, ,

life for th e rati o n al is for it as we h av e s een th e

, , , ,

r eal . But such life of pu re reas o n c an n ev er b e the

t ru e t h e id eal life ; for not ap athy or indifference is
, ,

our n eed but always more and fuller life This false
, .

attitude to life is a gr av e d efect o f Stoicism : its aloof

n ess an d cont empt were a defa ult of life L ife is the .

52 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

on e thing n eedful ; life l augh s to s corn oppo s itions ,

troubl es loss es fa ilu res an d m ak es th em mini s ter to

, , ,

its own p r og ress an d d ev el o pm e nt L ife must b e at

.

o nc e int e n s e an d e xp a nsiv e sh all it b e genero s

g
so ,

an d fruitful . O f s uch life th e l aw i s to him that ,

h ath sh all b e giv en But it i s s ad to see s o noble a

.

soul as th a t o f th e E m p er o r un abl e to p roj ect his own

s eren e rati o n ality i n t o th e sy s t em o f th e wor ld as a
univ er sal p r incipl e an d to b ehold him equ ally un able
,

to c ar ry forw ar d hi s o w n subli m e a dh ere nce to m oral

id eal int o faith in et ern al m or a l id eal at th e co re and
centr e o f a wo rld th at seem ed to be i ts cont r adictio n .

T o th e E m p er o r M ar cus Au relius must b e acco rd ed

high though di s c r i m in ating p rai s e fo r h i s c o n t r ibuti on
, ,

towa rd s th e imp er ish abl e glo ry o f Stoic al ethics in his ,

s etting fo r th o f th e intrin s ic w or th o f m o r al p er s on ality ,

th e t r iu m ph o f m an s s elf c o nqu est th e a ctu ali s m of

-
,

en er g etic fullm en t of duty in mid s t o f hi s sch em e of

lofty id eali s m th e funda m ent al p l ac e o f D ivin e ord er

,

o r l aw ; f or th es e a n d s uch lik e i n s i s t enc es

, m ad e the ,

Emp eror th e imp or t a nt conn ecting link h e w as b etween -

p ag an a nd Ch ri s ti an th ought Th e emph asis of an

.

Aur eliu s o n th e i n w ardn es s of s elf an d th e int eri or ,

certitud e o f m oral virtu e was a for esh adowing of the

,

t eaching s o f an Au g ustin e .
 CH APT E R V .

TH E I
P H L O SO P H I C AL DO C T RI N E O F TH E L O GO S .

E Q U AL L Y in philo so phy and in th eology th e doct r in e of

th e L o g os h as b een o f p r im e impo r t ance Yet th at .

imp ort anc e i s still fo und fr equ ently app r eciat ed in v ery

, ,

in adequ at e m ann er It is usu ally s aid th at as m att er o f

.
,

hi st ory th e d o ct r in e to o k o nt o l o gical r is e i n th e id eali s m

,

of Pl at o , for mi n g th e m edi a ting pri n cipl e b etween th e

t ransce nd en t w orld an d th e w orld o f ph en o m en a Thi s .

i s t r u e o nly if w e rem emb er th at it h ad a l r ea dy b een

,

empl o y ed by H er aclitu s an d An ax ago r as as a pri n cipl e o f ,

r eas o n or l aw to expl ain th e o rd er of th e wo rld

,
It .

gradu ally w ork ed its way into a c entr al po s iti o n in phil o

s o phical thinki n g T h e philos o phical L ogos w as es se n
.

ti all y c o smol o gic al a n d m et aphysic al Th e S t o ics took

.

a ll activity to i m ply a L o go s or spiritu a l pri n cipl e As .

operativ e p rincipl e o f th e wo r ld th e L og os was to th em

,

ani ma mun di .Philo ag ain adopt ed this St o ic use of th e

, ,

word L og o s wh er eby it d enot ed a rati o n al p rincipl e

,

imm an ent in n atur e and in m an although h e d erived th e,

cont ents o fth e t erm mor e from Pl ato Phil o s L ogos is .

,

in f ct lik t e ear ly G reek 11 013 9 ; th e c o n stitutions of

a , e h

all oth er things a r e suppos ed to b e found in th e L ogos .

Thus th e philos ophic al L ogos is re ason absolut ely or ,

54 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

a bsolut e idea a strong enough I d ealism I n th e s am e

,
.

way the t erm L og o s b ec a m e th e c o nstructiv e norm of

,

th eol ogical thinking It i s evid ent th a t th e L ogos prin

.

c i p l e h ad a hi s tory in Gr eek phil o s o phy ere it c am e to be

C h r i s tol o gi sed in th e Church Th e ap plic ation of the .

t er m L ogos to th e int erpr et ati o n o f th e P erson of J esus ,

i n th e Gosp el of St John d oes not at al l c arry with it,

th at th e d o ct r in e w as in any full or adequ at e fashi on

r ealis ed even wh er e this Gosp el might be known Had
, .

it b een so fully grasp ed it w o uld h av e s u fficed to di s

,

sip at e all notions of ext ern al b eing or imperfect d eity or

s ep arat e n ature in resp ect of th e L ogos It is easy to
, .

s ee h ow thought t end e d quit e readily to associ at e the

title L ogos so suggestive ofreason ruling in th e universe

, ,

with th e idea o f Christ as a c o smic force an d to co me ,

short of appr eh ending th e real p erson ality of th e L ogos .

St John s Gosp el oppos es c ert ain positions of Gnosticis m

by i ts identic ation of th e J esus of hi s tory with the

m edi ating L ogos of G reek phil o sophy For th e L ogos .

gured in th e Gnostic writings wh ere it app ear ed as an ,

e on distinct from Christ T h e philos o phic al L ogos

.

m eant th e Reason St John s L ogos was th e Word and

,

,

to him it m eant a distinct hypost asis or p erson ality .

Subsisting in God as b eing or hypost asis was th e I n

nit e Thought r eecti o n and count erp art O f God
, ,

which
is in fa ct th e L ogos T h e L og o s was to Philo however
, , .
, ,

distinct from God an d s ubordin at e to him b eing in fact

, , , ,

pl ac ed by Philo outsid e th e D ivin e sph er e St John i s .

ag ain distinctiv e in id e ntifying t h e L ogos with th e Mes

s i an i c id ea Furth ermo re St J o hn l ays his m ain stress

. ,

on th e inc arn ation of th e L ogos an id ea wholly w anting ,

 P H ILO SO P H I A L C D O C TRI N E O F TH E LO G O S .
55

to Philo Phil o is du alistic J ohn is not ; m atter is to

.
,

Phil o evil to John divin e While th e creation of th e

, .

wo r ld was all th at Philo sought through th e L ogo s St ,

John cl aim ed in addition its redemption Fro m al l

which it is evid ent th at th e doctrin e of th e L ogos
, , .

wh at
ever may h av e b een the c as e as to th e t erm itselfwas
not d erived by St John from Philo being so essenti ally ,

different from his .

I t is m att er for som e surpris e no doubt th at the L ogos

, ,

d o ctrin e is not m ore in evid ence in post Ap ostol i c Fath ers ~

ant erior to Justin Martyr an d for som e re gret th at not

,

mor e materi al is av ail abl e for the guidanc e of our conclu

sion s Justin m akes evid ent the inu enc e o f Plato an d
.
,

s ys
a h e wishes to be Christi an not b ec aus e the t each
,

ings of Plato ar e different from those of Christ but be ,

1
c aus e they ar e n ot in al l points like Justin shows no
.
,

d o ubt the inu enc e of Pl atonic and S toic mod es of

,

thinking in conn ection with his L ogos ideas but not so ,

much can be drawn from this as h as frequently b ee n

don e It would be e asy to n ame r ecent philosophic al
.

writ ers who h av e shown n o r eal insight into the cr eative

int elligence th at led men like Justin to t ak e the Stoic
idea ofthe L ogos and nd th e D ivin e r eason imm ane nt
, ,

i
in n atur e and in man to be inc arn at ed in Jesus Christ
, ,

in th e m ann er o f th e gr eat Apologists Wh at insight is .

th ere i n supposing as th es e philosophic writ ers h av e b een

,

well content to do th at th e Christi an thought of th es e

,

Apologists was but a p ale r e ection of G r eek philosophic

t hought without independ ent and cr eative power ? As
,

J ustin s ays wh en bl aming Pl ato for l ack of spiritu al

,

Second Apol g of esti n xiii

1
o ,
.
56 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

und ersta nding I t is not th en th at w e hold the s am e

, , ,

Opini o ns as oth ers but th a t all s p eak in imit ation of ,

1
ours . Th e Apol o gi s ts r eally s et o ut to prov e Christi an
ity a reas o n abl e religion an d God s reaso n th ey found ,

r ev eal ed in th e L o g o s G reek thinker s th ey certainly .

wer e an d n ot l acking i n indep end en t p o w er

,
.

T h e c o s m ol o gic al a sp ect o fth e p ro bl em holds Justin at

th e o ut set but th e ethic al or m e di at o ri al int er est of
,

th e L o g os p r incipl e al so attr a ct ed h i m Th e functio n .

of th e L o gos w as m edi at o ri al an d in its r ev ealin gs of the , ,

F ath er to m en it link ed th e two wo rlds hum an and

,

D ivin e To Justi n i n d eed th e L ogos h ad b een r ev eal ed

.
, ,

i n cr eati o n in hum a nity in hi s tory in G reek philosophy

, , , ,

in O l d T es t am ent rev el ation an d m o st p erfectly in , , ,

Christ I n th e L ogo s a re th e unity a n d h arm o ny of

.

th e wo r ld gu ar ant eed W r it ers like Justin are s om etim es

.

quot ed as s ugg es ting th e Vi ew th at th e L ogos was but an

asp ect of th e D ivin e N o d o ubt th e Son is o ft en .
,

spok en o f by Ju s tin in t er m s th at sugg est an em an ation

o r product o f th e F ath er s essenc e : h e h o ld s th e Son

to b e

nu m er ic ally di s tinct from th e F ath er ; 2 but
th e wo r d as p e ct might easily Obscur e th e fact th at

J ustin n ev erth el ess h o lds H im to be Go d ; in power

,
3
,

indivisible an d in s ep arabl e fr o m th e Fath er ; 4
in

will n ot di s tinct fr o m Him 5 Justin do es n o t how ever .
, ,

m a k e th e L o g o s a p ers on al tot ality in Him self an d apart ,

fro m th e Fath er T h e whol e L og o s h aving b ecom e i n

.

c ar n at e in Ch r i s t th er e is a sup er iority in Him ov er all

,

p revi o us t each ers to J ustin in r es p ect o f complet en ess

, ,

1
Fi r st Apol ogy of sti n , 1x . D i al og ue w i th Tam
2
p/l o, ch . 1 29 .

3
I bi d .
, 1 26 .
4
I b id .
,
1 28 .
5
Ib
id , 5 6 . .
58 STU D IES IN E U R O PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

Wh en we com e to Clem ent w e nd th e doctrin e of the

,

L ogos c entre a nd supp or t o f his whole syst em H e h eld

th at th e L ogos
.

equ al with but distinct from th e Fath er

, ,

-
was m anifest ed throughout th e history of th e wo r ld ,

an d n a lly incarn at ed in J es us Christ Greek philos ophy .

to him purges th e s o ul an d p r ep ar es it b efor eh and for
th e r ec eption offaith T h e L o rd H ims elf is to Cl em ent
.

th e living L ogos th e H o r t atory Word in th e high ,

th ological s ens e of th e t erm Word
e Th e inn er mind .

of G od is r ev ealed in th e Wor d according to Clem ent , ,

fo r H e is th e full revel ation o f the F ath er Cl em ent

do es n ot follow Justin an d oth ers who
.

founding on th e
a mbiguity o fth e term L o os as me aning both r eason an d
g
imm anent Word th e
,

sp eechh ad distinguish ed th e

Reason which is i n God

from the ext erior Word
,

which m eant th e Word as Reve aler To Cl em ent .

,

thought and word are in G od o ne Cl em ent h eld to

, ,
.

th e imm a n ence of th e D ivin e Word in the univer s ea

doct rin e which b ec ame typic al o f Greek theology The .

P re inc arn at e Word in his vi ew pr ep ar ed th e wor ld for

-
, ,

th e t ea ching of th e L ogos This view o f D eity as th e

.

s ecr et fo r ce of Cr eation h as b een found stro ngly ac

cord ant with the adv anc es o f science .

I n th e strong h ands o f O rig en the L ogos doctrine ,

b ec a m e m arked by his t eaching as to the etern al g en era

ti o n of th e Sonwho was r egar ded as etern ally a distinct
p erson al B eing This add ed strength to the L ogos doc
.

t r in e putting it on rm er m et aphysical b asis by t aking

,

th e So n mor e complet ely out o f the c ategory of cr eat ed

b eings and rej ecting al l S ab elli an theories of a t emporal

,

ev o lution O rigen also oppos ed al l em an ation th eories

.
,
 P H ILO SO P H I AL C D O C TRI N E O F T H E LO G O S .
59

and held a differenc e o f ess enc e in the Son from the

Father The Son w as not how ev er of any created
.
, ,

essence Tw as thus O rig en sub o rdin at ed the Son to

.

the F ather who alon e h ad absolut en ess and self exist

,
-

ence The L ogos d o ctrin e w as c entral in th e Christology

.

of Ath an asius and in its O rig enistic form b ecame the

, , ,

m ainstay of th e N icen e Christology I n Ath an asius the .

cosmological id ea of Ch r ist as et ern al and necess ary ,

principle of medi ation b etween G o d and al l cre at ed

things outruns the sot er iological asp ect of Christ as
,

Saviour of m en To him th e L ogos m edi ator must be

essenti ally D ivin e v ery G o d o f v ery God
.

els e the ,

cl eft between nite an d in nit e could not be remov ed .

It must be evid ent fr om wh at h as already been ,

adv anced and without c arrying out our st at em ent into

,

furth er det ail th at th e uniqu e triumph of Christi an spec u

,

l ative genius was to m ake th e L o gos no m ere ext ern al

and subordin ate but an imm a n ent p erson al principl e in
,

the v ery n ature ofth e Abs o lut e For as H atch prop erly .
,

enough r em arks a tra nscendent D eity bec ame i ncom

,

muni cabl e th e mo re th e conc eption o f H is transcend enc e

was developed ; h e nc e th e n eed of such interm edi ate
Lo gos AS such it could m edi at e b etween G od and th e
.
,

world The discove ry of Chr isti an re ection was thus

.

the gre at one th at r eason is r o o t ed in p erson ality .

Person ality th at is to s ay was s een to be an imm an ent

, ,

cat egory of the D ivin e L ogos or the prim al B eing .

I d entic al in ess enc e with God th e L ogos b ecomes thus ,

distinct from Go d For H e h as thus an origin as . ,

God h as not Th e L ogos principle was inc arn ated in

.

th e person ality of J esus T h e unity between the .

60 TU D IE S
S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

D ivin e S pirit and the hum an was thus from th e outs et

assu r ed and is d ue to th e L o gos b eing th e imm an ent
,

p r incipl e of th e soul o f m an But of cours e it was

.
, ,

s till imp er fectly appreh end ed an d h ad to ght against

,

count er du alistic inu en ces i ss uing from N eo Pl at o nism

- -
.

I t is this id eal principl e o f th e L ogos th at o v ercom es

th e du alism of actu al life I t m akes a kn o wl edg e of
.

th e Ab s o lut e possibl e I t g iv es a r ation al m edi ation to

.

th e w o rld proc ess O nly th r ough th e id eal M edi at or

.
,

in whom it c entres c an a s inful r ace b e ush ered upon

,

a spi r itu al l ife th at is in n it e T h e em an atio n al a nd

.

m edi ati o n al featur es o f l at er Gr eek sp ecul ation signi

c an tl y wore a qu asi p er s o n al asp ect -
which fact m akes ,

it th e mor e n ec ess ary to r eali se th e signic ance in th e ,

n ew C h r isti anity of th e c at egory of p erson ality O f

,
.

co u rs e earli er imperson al a nd abstr act el em ents c ould

,

still l es s yield adv anc e So w e see this im port ance of

.

th e D ivin e Word or L ogos felt in theological r e ection

in th e m ann er alre ady s et o utfrom Justin onward s ,

s o th a t from this tim e th e et ern al imm an ent self

evoluti o n o f th e L ogos com es into View as c ap abl e of

offer in g resist ance to G reek ideas of du alism Symp a .

th etic a s m en like Cl em ent and O rig en w er e t owar ds

G reek philosophy it s till r em ain ed to th em more a
,

p ro p ae d eutic th an a d o min ating inu enc e It sought .

to m a ke th e mor al fa ith o f religion r ation al to s atisfy ,

th e int ell ect as religion s atis ed th e h eart an d wi ll .

I n m o d er n philosophy th e L o gos p r inciple still h as

pl ac e b eing non e oth er th an th e principl e of s elf
c o n s ciousn ess the p r incipl e o f inn er most life an d
,

c o n sciou s nessor as incr easingly conceived o f living

, ,
 P H I L O SO P H I AL C D O C TR IN E O F TH E LO GO S . 61

Spi r it Th e L og o s i s th e imm an ent p r incipl e o f o ur

.

spir itu al b eing And it is th e p r incipl e which m akes

.

po s s ibl e to us a ra ti o n al co nception o f th e n atur e o f

absolut e B eing By it ab s olut e an d r el ativ e are
.

brought t ogeth er T h e L ogo s o f G o d h as com e down

.

to m en a s id eal M edi ator a n d Red ee m er o f th e r ac e .

Th e histo r ic L og o s h as thus b ecom e th e m edium o f

th e high est Spi r itu a l r ev el ati o n to m en T h e L o g os .

w as th e Crown of a nt ec ed e nt r eligiou s ev o luti o n an d , ,

as th e D ivin e L o go s fo r m ed th e living b o nd o f union

,

b etween th e rst Cr eation an d th e s ec o nd .

W e h ave now fo ll o w ed th e d ev el o p m ent o f th e

L og o s doctrin e fr o m th e dim appr eh e nsi o n of it by
H era clitu s as th e r eason of th e w or ld up to its
, ,

m o dern s i gn ica nce I t w as thi s L o g o s doct r in e o f

.

H er aclitu s which th e S toic s ch os e to m ake cent ral .

Aft er th em Ju s tin M ar ty r is fou nd s peaking o f th e

Sp erm atic Wo r d Thi s A67 0? G W Gp/La T LICOS w as by '

.

th em h eld to b e th e vit a l pri n cipl e of al l fo r m ative

forces b eing ind eed th e c reativ e Rea son in i ts activ e
, ,

an d p r oductiv e p ow er S o from Ju s tin onw ards w e

.

nd thi s D ivin e Wor ld Reas o n fully emb o di ed and

-

r ev eal ed in J es u s as th e L o g os wh ose p er s o n ality h as

,

in cons equ ence s upr em e a n d al l conqu er ing effect o r -

p ower of impr ession T o Justin th e. Sp er m atic

Wor d was in s o m e sor t a r aci al r ev el ation ; but h e
, ,

found th e whol e W or d o r full L ogo s in J es u s Ch r i s t

a s econd G o d T h e s am e conc epti o n s o f th e L o g o s
.

th at we nd in Justin occu r in Philo but th e fo r m er ,

d oes mor e j ustice to th e all imp ort a nt c at egor y o f p er

-

son al i ty
. T h e L ogos is to Philo not only D ivin e
62 STU D IE S I N E U R O PE A N P H I LOS O P H Y .

Reason r esting in its elf but also utt er ed Reason ,

.

For th e U niv er s al L ogos c arr i e s in it th e distinction

b etween th e thought o f G o d in its elf and th at sam e
thought wh en it h as b ec o m e obj ectiv e T h e L og os .

is to Philo constitutiv e p r incipl e of hum an indi

, ,

vi d ual i ty N o w it w as pr ecis ely this doct r in e o f th e

.
,

L o g o s with th e n ew S ignic anc e it b o re in Christi a nity

, ,

th a t b ega n to b r idge o v er th e ch as m b etween God

a n d t h e s e n s ibl e w or ld which Gr eek du alism h ad l eft
, .

I t w as a d oct r in e wh o s e or igin w as l aid by O r ig en

in th e So n o f G o d as eternal ly b egott en O f th e Fath er .

To him it was no em a n ation s ays H a rn ack but an , ,

ef uen ce of th e n atur e d ue to an int ern ally n ec es s ary

,

ac t o f will a vi e w which c er tainly d o es n ot l ack in

sub ordin ati o ni s m But for O rig en th e w orld nds

.
, ,

i ts unity in th e L og o s M edi at o r b etw ee n God and

,

th e w o r ld an d compl et e m anifes t a tion of th e hidd en

,

D eity 1
.Ev en with th e Stoics th e doctrin e h ad this ,

r eligious signic ance th at m an in his ess ence was

,

t aken to be kind red with G o d Philo st arted fro m .

th e St o ic id ea of th e L ogos as b asis o f his t eaching

on th e subj ect conn ecting it how ev er with th e

, , ,

Pl atonic doct r in e of id eas with th e Ar i st o t eli an voil e , ,

an d with th e H ebr ew Wisdom For Philo th e L ogos .

,

i s th e M edi at or th at est ablish es th e c o nn ection b etween

th e tr ansc end ent D eity and th e wo r ld s et ov er ag ainst

Him . For him man arriv es at union with G o d by

,

m eans of th e L ogos whom to know is to r ealise ,

m an s d estin ed end an d way For Philo th e L ogos

.
,

is Reason r ath er th an Word and m et aphysical

1
D e P r i n ce} , i . 2, 4-8 .
 P H I L OSO P H I A L C D O CT RI N E OF TH E LO GO S . 63

r ath er th an p erson al for p er son ality was n o t as yet

,

d en ed But th e L ogos w as st r ictly t ake n not a

.
, ,

p erson to Philo but a ter ti um qui d which was m or e

,

t h an m er ely a Spi r itu al principl e T h e shortcomi n g of .

th e Greek mod e of tr eating th e L og os id ea as c o mp ared ,

with mod ern m ethods st arting fr om m a n s s elf con

-

scious spirit was th at it r est ed th e wh o l e cas e too

,

much o n th o ught or knowl edge al o n e I t l eft to o .

much asid e th e world o f m an s c o ncret e mo ral i n

terests an d duti es for a p al e re ectiv e id eal M o d ern .

thought c annot foll ow th e a nci ent mod e of s imply

s eeking to co nn ect God an d th e world ; it mu s t rst
know m an nd out God and m ake c er t ain of th e
, ,

r eality of th e wo r ld b efo re p ro c eeding to th ei r co,

r elati o n T h e signic a nt inu enc e o f philosophy on

.

early th eologic al th o ught r eally c o n s ist ed in th e wa

y
in which th e phil o sophic al id ea o f th e L ogos worked
its elf int o an d Op er at ed upon th e th eology o f th at
, ,

tim e But this must not be t aken in a ny exaggerat ed

.

form or s ens e th at fails to r ecognis e th e cr eativ e and

independ ent p o wer an d int ellig ence o fth e early Ch r i s ti an
Apol ogist s working in p er fectly reason abl e and n atu ral
,

direction upon th e m at eri al s exi s ting to th ei r h ands .

Th ey recognis ed th e n eces sity th at Ch r i s ti anity Should

pl ant rm foo t in th e exi s ting int ell ectu al wor ld of
Gr eece an d Rom e T he L ogos might be but a pr in .

ci pl e , or an id ea but it repr esent ed to th e Gr eek

th e p r incipl e of r ev el ati o n
,

th e m eans wh er eby God

g ained access to and cont act with His w or ld And

, ,
.
,

to Philo th e L ogos was th e a rch etyp e of hum an

,

reason which l att er by r eason o f th e L ogos m ade

, ,
,
64 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

the ascent to G od I f we t a ke th e d evelopm ent down

.

to Ath an asius inclusiv ely it s eem s as though the c entre

, ,

of gr avity of th e L ogos doct r in e l ay not in th e his ,

tori cal Christ but r a th er in th e et e rn al L ogos as b eing

,

the et ern al divin e Spir it o f th e I nc ar n at e L ord Even .

when we tu r n to Iren ae u s w e nd him r esting th e ,

c ase for Christi anity on th e fa ct th at th e D ivin e

L ogos b ec am e m an i n Ch r ist i n ord er to effect the ,

unity of man and G o d I n o pposition to Gnostic

.

du alism I r en aeu s put for wa r d his strong cl aim for

Christ l aying stres s o n m a n s u n ion with God i n
,

adv anc e o f th e Ap o l o gist s r ath er th an on knowl edge

of God ev en whil e h e to o
,
r et a i n ed the philosophic al
, ,

idea o f th e L ogo s .

It h as b een ch arg ed ag a inst th e L ogos specul ation

th at it h as b een apt to Si t l o osely to p articul ar historic
ev ents an d occurr en ces But h owev er this m ay h ave
.

incid ent ally b een it h as n ot b een s hown to be in any

,

wis e ess enti al I n th e hi s t or ic a l d ev elopm ent

. th e ,

point from which thought a ctu ally s et out was the

identifying of th e P re I ncar n at e L or d with th e L ogos
-
.

But w e can by no m ea ns agree with th e position of

thos e who to th e hi s toric L ogo s o r God Man assign -

only a transitory an d conting ent signicance reserving ,

an ess enti al an d abiding si g nicanc e f or th e ide al God

Man or Et ern al L o gos O n t h e contrary . religion ,

centres not m er ely in th e L ogo s but in th e Absolute ,

God Man who is for ev er First born o f m any brethr en

-
,
-
,

the Consumm ator o f al l things an d the He ad of the ,

Church r ed eem ed which r eceiv es out of His D ivine

,

fulness for evermor e .

66 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

an d the result could by no p os s ibility prov e a s atisfying

philosophy of religi o n Th ey however m ade the ne ed
.
, ,

for it felt and in s o m e s en se p av ed the way for it

Gr eat was th e cl ash of id ea s in th at early tim eJ ewish
.
,

Gr eek Syri an B abyl o ni an and Persi an an d there is

, , ,

little n eed for wonder th erefore th at Gnosticism was

, ,

str ang e compound Gno s tici s m was in fact an

phil o sophy issuing o ut of this ferment a
a .
, ,

e clectic

ferm ent incr eas ed by th e d es ire to expl ain O ri ental

syst em s and cults Ant erio r to Christianity Gnosti
. ,

c i s m was op en to th e inu e nc es of P ersi a B abyloni a , ,

and I ndi a , an d w as inu enc ed by the ferm ent of Ori

e nt al r eligions which r esult ed in a religious syncreti sm

,
x
running into very different ext rem es But its n al out .

com e is s een in th e M anich aean Syst em while a pre ,

domin antly du alistic ch aracter m arks its entire history .

I t w as on this prim ary du alism th at Greek philosophy

a ct ed.

T h e Gnostics h av e b een styl ed th e rst Christi an

th eologi ans but with d o ubtful propriety F or though
, .
,

th ei r indirect us efuln ess w as s o great in bestirring the

Church to a ration al compreh ensi o n o f h er ten ets yet ,

it would be r ath er in appr opri at e to apply th e phrase

as h as som etim es b een don eto m en who if they had ,

h ad th eir way would h av e s eriously imp erill ed not to

, ,

say absolut ely d est r oy ed th e distinctive life an d ch ar

,

act er of Christi anity I nd eed th e w eapons th at with

.
,

stood and v anquish ed Gn o stici s m were dr awn from the

v ery armoury of Chri s ti anity so th at to speak of their ,

somewh at fant astic att empts in th e light m entioned

s eems r ath er a misu se o f l angu age Gnosticism took .
 G N O ST I C I SM AS A P H I LO SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N . 67

its distinctiv e ch ar act er fr om th e fact th at th es e en

deavour s w er e m ad e und er th e ruling id eas o f sin an d
,

s alv ati o n with a vi ew to r el at e th e id eas o f Gr eek

,

philosophy with th e myths of O ri ent al religions T h e .

c rude mythol ogi es h ad a philosophic al v alu e put upon

th em th at imp ar t ed a ch ang e of C h ara ct er to th e whol e
Gnostic mov em ent I t w as ra th er in spit e of th e
.

Gnostics th an by th ei r ai d th at Ch r i sti anity pro

, ,

cl aim ed an d p er fect ed its d o ctrin es o f th e o n e m or ally

p erfect an d omni s ci ent G od o f m o r al evil of a real
, ,

I nc ar n ation an d o f an ethic al red empti o n

,
And no t .

fr o m th e fact s an d doct r in es of N ew T es t am ent tim e

did th es e r s t Ch r i s ti a n th eo l o gi an s pret end to d eriv e
th e el em e nt s o f th at Gnosi s which a mid much th at w as ,

comm end abl e fr eely admitt ed th e v ag ari es an d error s of

,

s h eer int ell ectu al ar rog anc e a n d ex alt ed th em into th e

,

knowl ed ge th at w as to d eth ro n e faith .

Th e n est featu r e o f Gnostic th eo l o gy was aft er ,

ev ery d educti o n f or err o r i ts a spi r ation a ft er a th e

,

ology th at s hould really emb rac e a w or ld vi ew c o m -

pr eh ensive and b r o ad Th ey pu rsu ed th e o ntologic al

probl em sought h ow th e nit e an d m at er i al ca m e
.

fro m and c oexi s t ed with th e innit e an d s pi r itu al

, ,
.

T h e Abs o lut e B eing w as thus a m a i n Obj ect o f th e ir

thought Th ey set o ut fr om th e Pl at o nic axi o m th at

.

G od is goo d a n d n o thing but good

, I t w as with .

th em a fund am ent al b eli ef th at th e C reat or o f th e

wo rld is n ot G o d th e S uprem e B eing Th at Cr eat or
, .

is eith er a s ubo rdin at e ag ent o r an infer i or b eing ,

.

H e m ay b e evil or H e m ay n o t be unfr i endly

,
He .

i s th e D emiu r g e an d so n ot th at G o d who s ent a

,
68 S TU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

Red eem er into w orld And th e Red ee m er s o sent

th e . , ,

w as not a r eal inc ar n atio n o f th e D ivi n e but O n e ,

whom th ey vi ewed aft er a D oc etic fashion H e was .

O n e th a t i s no l o nger uniqu e wh os e h um a nity was

, ,

n o long er real But ag ain th e m o ral p ro bl em h eld th e

.
,

Gn ostics Th ey wo n d ered h o w th e w or ld in which so

. ,

much evil p revail s co uld c o m e fro m a g o od C reator

,
.

Th ey th erefo re so u ght a th eo dicy an d tu r n ed th eir ,

att enti o n to th e o r igin o f evil Th ey s et an ethic al

.

du ali sm b etw een s pir it and b ody s etti n g in fact , ,

n atu re an d s pi r it in a b s olut e o ppo s iti o n t o each oth er .

Th ey b r idge d th e gulf b etween th e t r an s cend ent D eity

a n d t h e w orld o f m att er by a v ast succ es s ion o f s pi r it

u al pow er s o r Z E O II S L ik e th e Pl at o ni s ts an d G r eek
.

s ch oo l s ge n e rally th ey th o ught n ot o f m an as m aking

,

h i s o w n evil Evil mu s t com e th ey thought fro m

.
, ,

m att er an d mu s t in fact b e th e w o rk o f th at being

, , ,

wh o c reat ed a m a t er i al w or ld This b eli ef i s a ch ar

.

ac ter i sti c a n d p ersist ent featur e o f G n os tic th eo logy .

Th ere i s n othing Ch r i sti an about it an d it i s not ev en ,

Pl at o nic For th e Pl at o ni s t w as c o nd ent enough th at

.

evil w as n ot to b e expl ai n ed thr o ugh a G o d .

Anoth er p rev ailing featur e o f Gno stic th eology was

its m aki n g s alv ation co n s i s t o f e nlight enm ent or kn ow
l edge r ath er th a n faith I n th ei r h a nds Red emption
.

l o s t b o th its univ ersality an d i ts m o ral ch ar act er .

Th ei r th eo l o gy as s um ed for i ts Gnosi s a high er worth

th an th e P i sti s of th e Chu r ch Th ei r pr et e nsion s on
.

b eh alf of th ei r Gnosi s wer e like thos e o f Philo who ,

cl aim ed to h av e a s ecret l o r e th at c am e by way of o ral

tradition .Th ey r ep res ent ed Christ to h av e given an
 G N O S T I C I SM AS A P H ILO SO P H Y O F R E LI G IO N . 69

esot eric t eachi n g to His apostl es different from th e ,

t eachings o f th e Chu r ch to th e p eopl e Yet th ei r .

position t ak en all in all should p erh aps b e look ed

, ,

upon as s up ra n atu r alist r ath er th a n ration alistic

, .

T h e two great divisions o f or igi n al Gnosticism w er e

th e J ewi s h a n d th e P ag an Jud aic Gnostici s m w as
.

th e r s t to c o m e into cont act with Ch r i s ti a nity but ,

th e p ag an Gno sticism w as most i n u enti a l i n its r esults

upon it For Ch r i s ti a nity th o ugh a living pow er

.
, ,

n eed ed a phil o s ophy B as il i d es V al entinus M ar ci o n

.
, , ,

Tati an and B ar dai s an w o uld giv e it o n e o n a Gn o stic

,

b asis But th e Gnosticism of B asili d es an d V al entinu s

.

w as n ot th e pur e H ell e ni s m it h as o ft en b een r ept e

sent ed to b e : th ei r Gn o sticism is much m o r e O r i ent al
is in fact O rient ali sm m asked i n H ell enism Jud aic
, ,
.

Gn os tici s m w e nd plumin g its elf up o n a hidden

wisdom sp eci a l illumin ation a n d exclu s iv e myst eri es
, ,
.

Theirs was an exclusiv en es s o f an int ellectu al s o rt O n .

th e oth er h and th e a postolic in s ist e nc e is o n myst ery

,

that is no longer my st ery but m ad e o p en an d m ani

,

fest Jud aic Gn o sticism attribut ed to a ngels wh at h e

.

l onged to th e L ogos th e Et er n al So n B es id es th es e
,
.

v agu e mystical sp ecul ations an d es o t er ic t eachings ,

ther e inh ered in this incipi ent Gn o stici s m a b aleful

ascetic t end ency Fr om th e J ud aic fo rm o f G n ostic
.

ism th e tr ansition tow ard l at er Gno s tic d o ctrin e is

,

m arked by C er i nth us C eri nth us attribut ed cr eation to

.

an ang elic D emiu r g e an d p av ed th e w a

, y by his a ng el
ology for th e coming o f th at tim e wh en a l at er G n os
ti ci sm s hould tr a nsform the ang el s o f C eri nth us into

id eal powers or i E o ns .
7o STU D I ES I N E U R O P EA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

Wh en w e c o m e to H ell enic Gn os ticism we nd ,

fant astic att empt s to s olve th e probl ems rais ed by

phil os ophy by m ean s of a my stic al int er p ret ati o n of
th e S c r iptu res . Th ese att empts wer e results o f th e
wor ki n g of Ch r i s ti a nity up o n th e sp ecul ativ e t end encies
o f th e G r ee k m i n d with i ts i n h er ent c ravi n g fo r int el
,

l ectu al cl ear n ess G n o s ticism w as i n fact es senti ally

.
, ,

a phil o sophy o f r eli g i o n who s e s t ar ting point w as th e

,
-

ulti m a t e p r i n cipl e of t hing s ev en th e D eity w h o was

,

r ais ed b eyo nd a l l th o ught an d expression and from ,

wh o m al l thin gs w ere d educ ed T h e Gnostics b eli eved .

in r ev el ati o n i n a g en eral s en se an d a dh ered to the ,

r ealit y o f th e rev el ati o n giv e n in th e Sc r iptu res alb eit ,

th ey rej ect ed p ortion s o f th ese writings as d ue to l n

feri o r ag en ci es th a n God By H ell enic G nosticism th e
.

D ivin e auth ority o f th e O ld T est a m ent w as admitt ed ,

but it w as vi ewed as cont a ining a hidd en philosophy ,

by which a cc o unt w as t ak en of th e lib er ation o f s pirit

fr o m th e b o nd ag e o f n atur e T h e allego ri s ing m ethod
.

w as r esor t ed to so th at th e c o n t ents o f th e O l d T est a

,

m ent w ere i n t er p ret ed as symbols of this hidd en t ruth .

For d ream s o f a M essi anic kingd o m th ey substitut ed a

mystical philoso phy with a whol e s eri es of v agu e per
s on i ed spi r itu al a b s t r acti o n s And th e s am e m ethod
.

w as a ppli ed by H ell en ic Gn o s ticism t o th e N ew T est a

m ent T o it th e inn er light o n which it prid ed its elf
.
, ,

w as n e c ess ary to such Gn o s i s o r illumin ation as was

supp osed to give tru e mystic al int erpret ation of th e
s acred record T h e Gnostics pr o bl em w as to expl ain
.

th e r el ation of th e God of pu re monoth eism to the

wo rld and to m an .
 G N O S T I C I SM AS A P H I L O S O P H Y O F RE L I G IO N .
71

Th e two gr eat pr es ent ativ es o f H ell enic Gnosticism

re

w ere B asi l i d es an d V alentinu s th e l att er a l es s co n

,

sist ent thinke r th an th e fo r m er T h e gr eat work o f .

B asili d es is th e E xeg eti ca in tw enty fo u r bo o ks But -

.

his t eachings ar e a lso p res erv ed in th e wr iting s o f his

son an d chi ef disci pl e I s ido re , O r ig en t ells us h e
.

also compo s ed Od es T h e c ar din al fact fo r B as i l i d es

.

is th e suffering of th e world I n th e B asilidi an s yst em

.
,

th e univer s ality o f su f fer ing is b as e a n d th e extincti o n ,

of su ffering i s g oal H e utt er ed th e p arad o x th at th e
.

m artyrs su ffer fo r th eir s ins b ec aus e to him it

,

s eemed b ett er to t ake su ffer ing a s a con sequ en c e of

sin or inh er it ed t en d ency to sin rath er th an admit ,

th e D ivin e constituti o n of th e wo rld to be evil .

B as il i d es h as a philo s ophic al purpos e : th e myst ery of

suf fering th e bu r d e n of exist enc ew eigh s up o n him
-

h e w o uld j ustify th e w ay s o f G od to m en And h er e .

w e c o m e upon th e k eyst o n e o f th e B a s ilidi a n s yst em ,

which i s th e l aw of t ra nsmig ration Tran s mig rati o n is .

to h elp t h e c o mpl et e pu r ic a ti o n of th e soul B as i l i d es .

l ays down th a t th e soul h as p revi o usly s inn ed in

a noth er life , an d b ear s its punishm e nt h er e D espit e .

his fat al bond age of r ebirth m a n s will is in thi s life

,

free Salv ation i s th erefo re p os sibl e to him but o n ly

.
,

the el ect are s av ed T h e sy s t em o f B as ili d es i s o f

.

m ar kedly du ali s tic ch ar a ct er in i ts th eo r i es o f n atur e ,

o f man , an d O f th e i nt erm edi at e ag enci es b etw een G od

and th e w or ld . I n th e B a silidi a n psych o l o gy th e soul , ,

in th e ordi nary s ens e of th at t er m c an h a rdly b e s a id ,

to exist . But th e m et aphysic O f B asil i d es affo rd s

rm er ground fo r th er e i s no doubt as to his postula
,
72 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H I LO SO P H Y .

tion of a G o d a lb eit a God o f th e m o s t abstr act and

,

r emot e C h ar act er Th e obviou s fault O f thi s p r ocedure

.

is th at it as s um es th e id ea of God with o ut showing

,

h ow th at id ea i s n ec ess arily pr esupp o s ed by th e con

t ent s o f exp er i enc e T h e Absolut e i s fo r B asi l i des un
.

pr edic abl e unknow abl e inconc eiv abl e an d th e en ergy

, , ,

o f his exp res s i o ns could not b e s urp as sed I n fact .

,

t h e c o m pl et e t ra n s c end e nc e an d a bsolut e in s cr ut ability

o f G o d c o uld n ot b e exp res sed with mo re c o m plet e

disr eg ard o f th e l o gic al con sequ enc es th an w e nd in
B as il i d es This doct r in e of th e absolut e tr a n s c end ence
th e c o mplet e incomp reh ensiblen es sof D eity as set
.

fo rth by B as i l i des h ad a gr eat i n u enc e o n th e Ch r i sti an

,

philosoph er s o f th e Al exa nd r i an s chools H enc e we .

nd Cl em ent able to say th at G od is b eyond th e O ne

an d high er th a n th e M on ad its elf B as i l i d es m akes.

much o n eg ati o n
f
N ot B eing God is his n am e for
.
- -

D eity . H e s p ea k s o f absolut e exist enc e as a bsolut e

nothing in a w ay which an ticipat es H eg el T h e Not
,

.

B eing G od d ep o sit ed an id eal cosmic g erm or tr ans
-

c en d en tal c os mic s eed which constitut ed at th e s am e

,

tim e th e a gg reg at e for ms o f th e actu al world He .

s ays th e God th at w as not m a de th e wo rld th at ,

w a s n ot o ut of wh at w as not
, T h e G od so con.

c ei ved as

th e G o d th at was not was th e logic al -

r esult of th e n egativ e mov em ent from th e wo r ld to

Go d . I t w as in d an g er o f m aking God a purely ind e

t ermin at e b eing of whom n othing could b e known or

s aida kind of d ei cati on of n eg a tivity Yet B asil i d es
,

h eld the world to b e in nit ely compl ex and h e m eant ,

G o d to be innit ely d et ermin at e T h e tru th is our .

,
74 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

b efo re hi s vi ew th e Son in th e b o s om o f th e F ath er ,

th e S o n by wh o m w or ld s w er e m ad e an d th e Son who ,

i s th e hi s t or ic Ch r i s t Th er e is littl e o f a D oc etic.

C h aract er it must b e s a id in his religi o u s philo sophy

, ,
.

T h e Ev an g el i s th e knowl edg e o f things s up ramund ane

a n d c el es ti a l I t i s i n fa ct
. th e fo urfo ld w i s d o m of
, ,

kn owing th e Fath er th e No t B eing G o d th e Son and

,
-
, ,

th e Holy Spi r it I t i s a philo so phy of r eligi o n m ad e

.

up o f el em en t s Gn o s tic B uddhist and Christi an th e

, , , ,

l ast n am ed for m i n g i n h i s o w n b eli ef th e chi ef fact or

-
, ,

in his sy s t em T h e s ch em e is m ea nt to s how h ow
.

power c am e to m en wh ereby th ey c o uld b ec o m e s o n s

o f God But it is d eeply tinctu red with Buddhi st co n
.

c ep ti o n s th o u gh p ar t aking of hi s t o r ic ch ara ct er and

, ,

o f such cl ear n es s o f d enition an d for mul ation as ,

Buddhi s m n ev er kn ew Th e G n o stic phil o so phi es were .

,

in fa ct p ag an but th ey t aught m en so m e thin gs which

, ,

are t oo eas ily for g o tt en O n e o f th es e w as th at th e .

,

o r igin o fevil m ay and s h o uld b e inquir ed into Anoth er .

w as th at th e p re exist enc e of th e s oul i s a truth not

,
-

to b e eas ily l eft b ehind as i s evid enc ed by th e l at e ,

n es s o f th e p oet w h o h as d ar ed pr o cl aim th at th e

s o ul th at r i s es with us h ath h ad el s ewh ere its

s etting an d c o m eth fro m afar
,

As fo r V al entinus . ,

h e h eld th e O r igin al F a th er to be b efore a ny c reat ed

b eing . I n t h e s am e n eg ativ e fashi o n h e m ad e Him
th e sol e Uncr eat ed with o ut tim e without pl a c e without
, , ,

a ny of wh o m H e s ought couns el H e i s th e u n n am eabl e . ,

inco mpr eh e n s ibl e a nd unb egott en G o d H e c all s this

, .

D ivin e B eing a lso th e D ep th This sh o ws h ow h e con .

c e i ved th e innit e fuln ess of t h e D ivin e n atur e as ,

 G N O ST I C I SM AS A P H I L OSO P H Y O F RE LIG IO N .
75

something of which po s itiv e p redicati o ns could not be

m ad e This tr anscendent fuln es s k eep s God from being
.

dened in a way which r emin d s o n e o f Spinoza Th e .

Plerom a or Fulness o f th e D ivin e L ife was accord ,

ing to V al entinus constitut ed by a s eri es of thirty

,

supern atural pow ers or Z E on s M an is a cre ation of th e

.

D emiurgus J esus c am e into th e world to fr ee men

.

from their subj ection to th e D emiurgus but all men do ,

not sh are this r ed empti o n Th e Gn o stics h ave rec eiv ed

.

th e spirit from J esus Th ey r i s e b eyond faith to th e

.

Gnosi s I n the Gnosi s th ey l earn th e myst eri es o f th e

.

Plerom a and are fr ee from th e l aw o f th e D emiurgus

, .

V al entinus h as som etim es b ee n t ak en as l ess consist ent

and inuenti al in his th o ught th a n B asi l id es but it do es ,

not l ack in compreh en s iv en es s Th e s an er el em ents o f

.

the V alentini an philos o phy ar e dr awn from Pl atonic

sources But th e fant as tic el em ents sup er add ed detr act
.

from its v alu e as a sci entic syst em .

Clement of Al exand r i a ch am pio ned the c ause of

orthodoxy ag ainst B asi l i d es an d V al entinus I n his .

Str omata he sets fo r th wh at h e conc eives to be th e

position of the tru e Gnostic wh o is for him the m ature
,

or well adv anc ed -
Ch r isti an whose whole life
,
he ,

says is a holy fes tiv al
, H i s tru e Gnostic or p erfect
.

Christi an h e took to b e quit e super ior to the ord in ary

beli ever His Gno s tic i s exempt fr om n atur al p assion
.
,

is sup erior to p ain an d ple asure is one with th e will ,

of God and is in a bli s sful st a t e o f pur e lov e

, So .

strong is his mystic al t end ency Yet th er e is little of .

system in Cl em ent s s etti n g fo rth o f the truth which

,

r et ains a bro adly pr actical v ein Th e distinctive fe atur e

.
76 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P EA N P H IL O SO P H Y .

of Gnosticism is as w e h av e s een its m aking a speen

, ,

l ativ e r eligious vi ew of th e wo r ldor religious kn ow

l edg e O i th e wor ld p roc esst ak e th e pl a ce o f a prae
-

tic al doct rin e o f Ch r i s ti an salv ation As ag ainst the .

Gnostici sm o f B as il i des an d V al entinu s th e Ch r isti an ,

th o u ght of th at early tim e h eld to a univ erse c reated

in lov e by th e o n e I nnit e D eity and n ot by any rival ,

p ower o r s ubsidi ary c reat o r Th e P er s on o f J esus.

could Simply n ot be adju s t ed to th e conception of

s uch a subo rdin at e p ower o r to endl es s gen ealogi es
,

o f mons an d em a n ati o n s fr o m th e Godh ead T h e spec u .

l ativ e v agar i es o f Gn o sticism are thus in r eality a s t rik

ing t ribut e to th e u n iqu e an d exc eption al ch aract er of
th e Pers o n o f Ch r ist S o too th e Christi an thought
.
, ,

of th e p er iod h eld th at evil by n o m eans i n h er es in

m att er but i s to b e t rac ed to th e will of r es ponsibl e

,

c reatu res Thi s b ec aus e th e wo rld w as t aken to be

.
,

o r igin ally an d ess e nti ally good N or did th at thought .

sh ar e th e Gnostic des p air as to th e gre at m ass of men ,

for to it th e m a ny w o uld in th e Wo r d m ad e es h nd
, ,

r ed emption But th e shor tcoming s o f th e Gnostic

.

sp ecul ations in th es e an d lik e r esp ects did not k eep

, ,

th em fr om b eing o f gr eat s ervic e to the d ev elopm ent

o f C hri s ti an philosophy Th ey brought into vi ew and
.

pr omin enc e th e n al pr o bl ems of life as well as th e ,

qu estion o f o r igins Th ey g av e th em answ ers which

.
,

by v ery reason of th ei r b eing only p arti al an d i nade

qu at e l ed to full er and mor e s ati s fying fo rmulation and
,

explic ation Th ey h ad th e m erit to dr aw att ention to

.

th e use of ex eg etic al m ethods o f d ealing with th e N ew

T est a m ent alb eit th eir own m ethods of use wer e ex

,
 G N O S T I C IS M A S A P H I L O SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N .
77

trem el y rbitr ary wh en not s o m ething worse T h e

a , .

l asting s ervic e which Gnosticism as a phil o so phy o f

,

religion r endere d w as to i m p el th e Chu rch to s et forth

, ,

a t r u e Gnostici s m ov er ag a in s t th at which it con s id ered

fal se an d this whil e m aint aining th e po s itiv e hi s t or ic al

,

ch aract er of Ch r isti a nity Thus fr om th e c o nt ent s o f

.
,

simpl e an d p ractic al Christi a n b eli ef a Chri s ti an th e

,

ol ogy ev e ntu ally r es ult ed Th at th eol o gy w as drawn o ut

.

aft er such id eas o f s ci entic m eth o d as th en pr ev ail ed .

 C HAPTE R VI I .

A UG U ST I N E
S PH L I O SO P H Y I
O F H STO R Y .

NO T with o ut good rea son did O z an am pronounce Augus

tin e s gr eat work D e C

i
,
vi ta te D ei the rst g enuine
,

effort to produce a phil os ophy o f history For though .
,

not a philo so phy o fhisto ry in th e st rict and prop er sense ,

it yet mor e n ear ly a ppr o xim at es to a philosophy of

history th an any wor k of a nci ent or m edi aev al tim es .

N ot T acitus not Thucydid es n ot Aristotle nor ev en

, , ,

Plato but Augustin e r st conc eived a true l aw o f pro

, ,

gr ess in hum a n hist ory an d s o ci ety H is philosophy of .

history as an unfolding o f D ivi n ely o r d ain ed pl an may be

-

discount ed b ec aus e it pr o c eeds fr om r eligious postul ates

rath er th an by th e sh eer an d sol e p r inciple of d evelop
m ent But it n everth el ess rep resents histo ry in whole as
.

guided by principles and m ark ed by st ages ; and proof of

such D ivine plan i s al l we can yet att ain by our more
sci entic methods of studying histo r ical ph en om ena .

T oo th eo logic al how ev er it n egl ects s econd ary c auses

, , ,

an d d epr eci at es s ecul ar life and cultur e Written to .

d efend th e City o fG o d ag ainst t h e c alumnies of her foes ,

Augustin e Sp ent about thi rt een y ears ov er his gre at

undert aking wh er eby in tw enty two books h e sought to
, ,
-
,

j ustify th e w ays of G o d in ord ering th e cours e of hum an


A U GU ST I N E S P H I LO SO P H Y O F H IS T O RY .
79

hist or y W e d o not now m ean to l o o k at this m as siv e

.

wo rk in its who l e prop or ti o n s an d h i stori c o th eo logic al -

asp e ct s but to c o n c e nt r at e a tt enti o n upon thos e p ar t s o f

,

most signicant ethical import an d b earing H is t r eatis e .

is really a cosmol o gy Augustin e stood for th to d efend

.

th e n ew fa ith both in r esp e ct o f fa ct a n d o f id eal M o st .

lear n ed nobl e and inu enti al o f all h i s wo r k s th e City

, , ,

of G od lead s up in its gr eat argum ent to th e cont em
, ,

pl ati o n o f th at C ity which s hould n o t o nly s u r viv e th e

ch ang es an d r evolutions of tim e but ev en a cquir e new ,

power an d en er gy until th e tim e wh en it wo uld p ass i n to

,

th e s ph ere of n ew Sabb atic a n d et er n al r es t

, , Augus .

tin e s t eaching s o wid e in th e ran ge o f i ts Sp ecul a tiv e

,

tr eatm ent h as inu enced th e d ev el o pm ent of Ch r i s ti a n

,

philos ophy mor e l argely th an th at o f any o th er thinker .

I mper fect hi s philo so phy o f histo ry mi g ht b e but it w as ,

both gr eat in d esign a n d s ugges tiv e in i d ea T o him .

th ere are not m a ny wisdoms but on e i n which h e s ays , , , ,

are innit e tr eas u r es of thing s int ell ectu al Th es e t reas .

u res h e would s et fo rth i n th e g r owth o fhum anity .

So early as Bo o k V th e p er pl exing p ro bl e m o f th e
.

rel atio n of th e D ivi n e for e kn o wl edg e to t h e hum an will

-

em er ges H ere Augu s tin e h o ld s th at th e religi o us mind

.

abid es by b o th th e free a g ency of m an an d t h e fore know

- -

ledge O f G o d H e h as a lr eady s a id th at o ur wills are

.

included in th e or d er o f c aus es embr ac ed by th e D ivi n e

fore knowl edge ; and in th e pr ec ed ence h e giv es will ov er
-
,

int ellig enc e h e i s ap t to t ak e aw ay fr om th e freedo m h e

,

h ad psychologic ally b es tow ed o n will T o d en y th e pr e

.

sci en c e o f D eity i s to him sur e pr oof o f ins a nity D ivin e .

presci ence and hum an freedom fo r m to him an a ntino m y ,

 80 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

sinc e b oth c an be p r ov ed an d b o th are to b e b eli ev ed ,

.

H e c o nt end s th at thi s c o mp atibility of m a n s freedom of

will with D ivin e fo re k n o wl edg e d oes n o t m ea n agree -

m ent with bli n d fat e Augu s tin e d oes n ot d e ny th at .

n atu ral c au ses are efci en t ; th ey run b ack at l ast int o

th e will of G o d M an s will i s t o Augu s tin e a c au se in

.

t h e o r d er o f n atu re I t i s t h e effective c a u se Of hum an

.

w o r ks T h e o n ly efci en t c au ses are th e v olu n t ary i n th e

.

d o m a in o f s pi r it G o d h as fo re k n o wl edg e o f th e effects
.
-

o f ev er y c a u se c o n sequ en tly o f th e effect s of th e hum an

will H e d raw s thi s n e c o n clusi o n
. Th er efore we are
by n o m ea n s c o mp elled eith er ret a ining th e p resci ence , ,

o f G o d t o t a k e aw ay t h e fr eedo m o f t h e will o r ret ain

, , ,

ing th e freed o m o f th e w ill to d eny th at H e i s p resci ent ,

o f futu re thing s which i s impi o u s But we em b race

, .

b o th T h e for m er th at we m ay b eli ev e well th e l att er

.
, ,

th at we m ay liv e well .

H avi n g i n B o o k V I I c o mm end ed th e t eaching of

, .
,

V arro in res p ect o f i ts th ei s tic t end ency an d al s o oriti

, ,

c i s ed it f o r i ts n al p a nth ei s tic i s su e h e proc eed s in , ,

Bo o k V I I I to p o int o ut th e shortc o mings an d i ncom

.
,

p eten c e o f N eo Pl at o ni s m a nim a dv erting o n i t s Spiritu al

-
,

ism p ar ticularly with reg ar d to its d em o nolo gy But

, .

Augustin e h as high o pini o n o f Pl at o to wh o m h e app eals ,

ag a inst th e Pl a tonists Qui aqui a a P l a tone di ci tur vi vi t i n

.
,

A ugusti n o T h e m ethod is m or e to Pl ato th e results are

.
,

d ea r er to Augustin e I n Augu s tin e th ere are fewer

.

s h ad o w s a n d ph a nt o m s ; fo r th e sun h a s r is en He .

c o mm end s Pl at o for his t eaching as to God an d goodness .

G o d i s to Augustin e at onc e th e pr incipl e of t r uth and

th e p r incipl e o f b eing If th en Pl ato h as d ecl ared the
.
, ,
82 STU D IE S IN E U RO PEAN P H IL O SO P H Y .

in Augu s tin e s th eo retic t reatm ent and in th e th eology

,

which follow ed him Yet it do es s eem a v alid cr iticism

.

to say th at th e n othing is in his actu al d ealings with it , ,

n o t th e un r ea l thing it a pp ear s but is in fact highly , , ,

r eal alth o ugh n eg ativ ely so Th at is to say th e nothing

, .
, ,

in som e v ery real so rt d oes ent er into th e n atur e of the

,

creatu r e Evil i s to Augustin e as to Pl at o m erely th e

.
, ,

n eg ation o f g oo d ; it di sapp ears wh en things are vi ewed

as a wh o l e O n e imp or t a nt r es ult o f this r eality of th e
.

nothing undoubt edly i s th at we are s av e d from giving up

,

cr eation as an unthinkabl e myst ery as m en h av e b een so ,

Oft en wont to d o T o no s uch a gnostic p os ition did

.

Augu stin e in any real or actu al way d r iv e m en what

, , ,

ev er his m o d es O f ph ras eology might t end to d o For .

Augustin e s own th o ught cl ear ly found in th e nothing

or th e reality of th e n eg ativ e th a t which f or him ex

pl ain ed m uch This reality of th e n eg ativ e or n on b eing

.
-

is to b e h eld by us without ascribin g to it any positive

n atu re or con s t r uctiv e c at eg o r i es wh atso ev er if we would ,

s t and on su r e philosophic gr ound I n thi s el ev enth book .

,

Augustin e fu r th er bring s o ut th at th e Cr eati o n was th e

rev el ation o fth e D ivin e Goodn ess M an is encomp assed .

by th e wo r ks of G o d wh o is n ev er without witn ess in th e

,

wor ld M an i s psychologically according to Augustin e

.
, ,

th e great est m ast er of psychological an alysis in the

anci ent wo r ld m ad e up o f th reefo ld powersa power of
M em ory or uni ed s elf consciousn ess a pow er of I nte-
l li ,

gence or cont empl ation an d a d elib er ativ e cap acity of ,

Will I mp or t a nt th es e are as sh o wing th at Augustin e

.

und er s t oo d th e will to b e no isol at ed thing ap art from its

en vi r on i n gs .

A U G U ST I NE S P H ILO SO P H Y O F H IS O R T Y . 83

N ow ar e b r ought up to B ook X I I wh erein th e

we .
,

origin o f evil is dealt with T o this subj ect Augustin e .

p asses aft er giving a n e anticip ation o f th e mod er n

th eo ry of the struggl e for exist enc e an d th e l aw of n atur al
s el ection Augustin e h ad thr o wn o ff M ani ch mi s m but
.
,

th e g reat probl em it ra is ed h e n ev e r th r ew off Th at .

p robl em was j ust th e r el ation of evil o r n eg ation to G o d

or th e Absolut e I n this twelfth book as in c ertai n oth er
.
,

p arts of his writing s th e subj ect nd s rich sp ecul ativ e,

t reatm ent H e l aid foundations in fact fo r a tru e gno s is

.
, ,

of non b eing T h e M anich aea n doctrin e of th e positiv e

-
.

n atu r e an d et ernity o fevil i s explicitly rej ect ed by Augus

tin e I n B ook X I Augustin e h ad al ready s aid th at
. .

th ere is no n atu re of evil but th e lo s s of th e good is ,

c all ed evil H ere in Book X I I h e vi ews evil as spring
.
,
.
,

ing up wh en th e will turning from th e b ett er of two ,

alt er n ativ es choos es som e inferior thing
, S uch fals e .

ch o o s ing is in Augustin e s vi ew a fault an d ev ery fault

,

, ,

injur es th e n ature and is con s equ ently c o nt r ary to th e

,

natu re . It is d esir e o f th e
in fer i o r thing which h as
m ade th e will evil not th e fact th at his will was a n atu re
, .

For if a n ature is th e c au se o f an evil will wh at els e ,

c an w e say th an th at evil a ri ses fr om g o od or th a t g oo d ,

i s th e c aus e of evil ? Evil i s with Augustin e a defect , ,

rath er th a n an e ect H e vi ews it as r esult o fa de
.

ci en t cau se not an ei ci ent c aus e

, a n eg ativ e r ath er

th na a pos itiv e fact o r in o ur m o r al history

It i s .

defecti on from th e g o od th at i s th e c aus e of evil Evil as .

,

defecti o n fro m th e high est p erfection is ess enti ally a ,

ret r ogr es si o n tow ards imp er fection a nd n o thingn ess An .

evil will Augustin e m aint ains h as no efci ent c au s e

, I ts , .
84 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

falling away or d eci ency h e m ean s is to be sought

, , ,

within th e will its elf without any ext erior origin ation
,
.

I n th ese vi ews o fAugu s tin e we mu s t how ev er b e o n our , ,

gu ard ag ainst vi ewing evil as s o m ething un real Even .

t aking evil a s defect it i s su r ely non e th e l ess oppositi on

,

to th e will o f th e I n n i te Oppositi o n which is of th e

ess enc e of Si n G o odn ess h as n o n eed of evil I ts only

. .

p os tulat e i s th e p oss ibility of evil Evil h as no positiv e .

c aus e outside th e will th at tu r n s to it G od is h ere to .

Augustin e th e high est ess ence th at which suprem ely ,

is, a n d a n evil a cti o n is m o v em ent aw ay from Him

th er efore towar ds n o thingn ess .

Th es e things bring us to th e consid er ation of Augus

tin e s phil os o phic al th eo ry of th e will

H e nds th e .

sourc e o f evil in m an s will as free Fo r th e v ery notion

.

of will to him impli es freedom T h e evil of th e will h e

, , .

a sc r ib es to mor al p erv ersity for to him th e will is ,

s elf mov ed
-
an d fr ee in its possibiliti es O f choosing th e
,

g oo d Th e qu es tion of th e n atur e o f th e individu al and

.

his envi ronm ent c o m es into n ew promin enc e under

Augustin e s treatm ent of th e will I t is th e abiding m erit

.

of Augustin e in h i s philosophy of volunt ary action to

, ,

h av e brought in a n ew conc eption of th e will contrastive ,

with th at which h ad prev ailed in th e Old Gr eek philo

sophy T his conception of fr ee will is a domin ant note
.
-

in th e writings o f Augustin e el sewh ere no l es s th an h ere

, ,

so th at in him th e will g ains quit e a new p r im acy .

I n Book X I V h e gr aphic ally d escr ib es th e two riv al

.

citi es th e City of God and th e earthly cityboth O f

th em found ed in lov e But th e form er springs from love
.

of God the l att er is ground ed in lov e of s elf

, E arlier in .
86 STU D IE S I N E U RO P EA N P H I LO SOP H Y .

In Book XX II Augustin e m aint ains th at evil had
never been w ere it not t h at th e mut able n atur e mut
.
,

able though good
, b ro u ght evil up o n its elf by Si n It .

is this mut ability o f th e c reatur e which is in Augustin e s ,

vi ew th e n eg ativ e caus e o f evil N o t th at mut ability is

,
.

its elf evil but th at th e c o nting ency which it implies

,

m eans for us a li ability to evil Th e mutability of the .

cr eature is for the d eep vi s i o n of Augustin e the root

, ,

possibility of evil And in sp ea king of th e beati c vision

.
, ,

Augustine ass er ts th at th e la st freedom of the will Sh all

consist in a free will by which th e creature cannot sin
-

not able to sin ev en as o ur free will is in this life one
,
-

able not to sin But thi s emph asi s o n evil h as not kept
.

Augustin e from s etti n g fo rth m an s spl endid c ap acity for

progr ess and th e am azing a dv a nc es h e h as m ad e

,
.

We h ave now pres ent ed in as succinct a form as pos ,

sibl e the m ain ethica l issu es rai sed in Augustin e s gr eat

,

work in j ustic ation o fwh at w as s a id at the outset as to

,

its import anc e for subs equ ent philosophic al dev elopment .

The pity is fro m a philos o phic al point o f vi ewth at

Augustine s work ends in a n et er n a l du alism and irr e

co nc il abl e a nt agoni s m Philosophy craves som e more

.

s atisfying tel eolo gica l en d of th e wo r ld process even the -

,

suprem acy o fth e goo d wh erein God sh all be seen to be

,

all in al l But this o f cours e mu s t be sought without

.
, ,

underestim ating th e power o fevil or th e mis ery of m an s ,

will or the forc e of th e Struggl e wh ereby the godl ess

,

world sh all be ov ercom e in th e t el eological movement ,

whereby things t end towards th at which is b etter But the .

reality ofevil c an be fac ed without giving way to absolute

and P arsee lik e du alism in which th e unity ofbeing sh all
-
,

A U G U ST I N E S P H IL O SO PH Y O F H IS T O RY . 87

be viol ently r ent and br o ken S till Augu s tin e h as th e

.
,

merit to h ave a nticip at ed H erd er in th e w ay in which h e

nely set forth th e imp o s s ibility o f th e G o d of o rd er ,

b eauty and r egul arity h aving l eft without th e r egul ating

, ,

l aws of His Provid ence th e growth vicissitud es and , ,

dec ay of n ation s I t s eems to m e a vi rtu e in th e ear ly

.
,

tr eatm ent of evil by Augustin e th at h e l aid so much ,

stress on th e principle o fevil Th at k eeps its res ults or .

ef fects from b eing unduly tu r n ed to p essimistic account .

In th e Spirit of Au gustin e we acc o unt it n eedl ess still to

,

co nfound evil with imp er fection an d d ev elopm ent or ,

t o r egar d evil as n e c es s ary to b eing th at is r el ativ e .

Q uit e m ist ake n i s th e vi ew of thos e who think evil

must in som e w ay w or k for th e good Evil is no .

p art of God s et er n al purp ose an d in its elf do es not

,

di rectly cont ribut e th ereto Augu s tin e in Book XX II .

,
.
,

expr es sl y r emi n d s us th at God did not d epriv e th e a ng els

of th ei r fr eedom of will although H e fo rekn ew th at th ey

,

wo uld fall All th at our rel ativity o ught in thi s c o nn ec

.
,

ti o n to b e m ad e to b ear i s th e t end ency th e p ron en es s

, , ,

th e li ability to evil W e c o m e far sho r t o f p r obing th e

.

p r obl em of evil if w e t reat it si m ply as th e pr es s u re o f

,

our ow n n i tud e W e mu s t pi erc e to its issu es o f p ro

.

fo und mor al s ignicanc e ; for th es e mor al a sp ects d o n ot

allow us to rest in evil as simply in evit abl e I n th e .

metaphy si ca l aspect it s h o uld n ot b e fo rg ott en th at o ur

,

imp erfection is evil in a s ens e which h ere b elong s es s en

t i al l y to th e nit e u niv ers e As o n e h as w ell s aid
. A ,

universe without it i s no longer a univ erse di s tinct fr om

G od but w o uld be n o thing but t h e u niv ers e t ak en b ack
,

ag ain into th e absolut e b eing o f God T h e probl em o f .
88 S TU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

moral evil grows most luminous in Augustine s h ands

wh en set in r el ation to th e el em ent of choic e and th e fr ee

c aus ality of m an and in th es e r esp ects o ne might v ery
.
,

w ell C l aim him as a p recursor of th e ethic al theism of

to d ay
-
Fo r th e exist e nc e of mor al evil j ustic ati on
.
,

m ay b e fou n d in th e fact of fr eedom F reedom without .

th e po s sibility o f evil is n ot think abl e Th er e is not a .

littl e tru e ethic a l philosophy in Augustin e s cont ention

th at o ur a ction gro ws m orally evil as we r ej ect th e ideal ,

g o od which is th e l aw o f our b eing and choos e to dr op

into a lower th an our nor m al orbit This is not to m ake .

evil o nly shortcoming in r esp ect of such id eal or to t reat ,

it a s m er e mist aken cours e an d n ot al s o spiritu al dis ,

o r der an d reb ellion I t was non e oth er th an John Stu art

.

M ill who s a id th at
go o d is gradu ally g aining ground
from evil yet gaining it so visibly at considerabl e i n
, ,

ferval s as to p r omis e th e v ery dist ant but n ot unc ert ain

, , ,

n al victory o f good and wh o d ecl ar ed th at to do

,

som ething during life on ev en th e humbl est scale if,

n o thing mor e is within r each towar ds b ringing this Con ,

summ ation ev er so littl e n earer i s th e most anim ating ,

a n d invigorating thought which can inspi r e a hum an

cr eatur e Confess edly th e d ark est of al l enigm as is th e

.

p r obl em of evil an d Augustin e h as an abiding titl e to

,

gr atitud e in th at h e h as striven to deal with it as with ,

oth er such probl ems as th e fo re knowl edg e o f God and -

fr ee will
-
Th ere is no unwi s dom like th at which e ith er in
.
,

phil o sophy or th eol ogy Sits d o wn b efo r e th es e probl ems as

,

in s olubl e Th e s p ecul ativ e impuls e in m an r efus es to be

.

so sil enced T h e o l d probl em of th e fore knowl edg e of

. -

God discuss ed by Augustine is still with us threat ening

, , ,
go STU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I LO SO P H Y .

overlo o k th at it n ev er is nor can be any p art o f the, ,

pl an purpos e o r appointm ent of the Eter n al It co mes

, ,
.

at l as t to this th at th e tru e moral p erson ality of man

,

mu s t b e m aint ain ed and th e st anding difculty is to

,

reconcile this with th e absolut e p erfecti o n o fD eity The .

way o f h armony a nd reconcili a tion is to b e found a lo ne

in th at spiritu al unity which is th e r esult of our feeling

th at O ur will s are ours to m ake th em Thin e , This is .

a p ossibl e concr et e Spiritu al unity which w e m ay r ealise

in God so th at for us Spiritu al coherence i n th e univers e

,
'

m ay b e found N o doubt th e ultim at e unicati o n of

.
, ,

which we sp eak d em ands ethic al qu aliti es and is i mpos

,

sible to mere thought T h e pur ely int ell ectu al or sp ecu

.

l ativ e elem ent will not su f c e a nd it i s precis ely on this ,

rock th at all suf c i n g int ell ectu al syst em s of phil o sophy

-

co m e to g r i ef T h e dearly w on unity which is already

.
-
,

ou rs w e c an h o ld fast in t h e condence th at a nal

,

synth es is assuredly awa its us alb eit it li es in adva nce of ,

ev en our l at est philosophi es o f hum a n history Wh at .

wond er th en th at it l ay b eyond re ach o f the r st phil

, ,

os o phy of histo ry ? The d evelop m e nt of hum anity

,

Augu s tine took to be an al o gous to th at o f the individu al ,

but n ot with o ut b eing aw are th at in th e cas e o f the ,

fo r m er age t e nds to p erfecti o n not to w eakn ess But

, , .
,

if the specul ativ e t erminus o f our probl e m may no t be

fully r e ach ed th e issues s o running up int o th e futu re at
, ,

l eas t th e n al j udgm ent mu s t be a t el eo logical o ne O ur .

look must be forward c ast for th e s pi r itu al monism we ,

s eek must not o nly unify by its principl e and bind al l ,

things in one but must yi eld a philosophy of history

, ,

A U GU ST I NE S P H I L O SO P H Y T
O F H IS O R Y .
91

which sh all furnish a clu e and a solution to th e course

of the v ast evolution ary mov e m ent and in which the
glory of th e spiritu al an d th e m at eri alth e City of God
,

and the e arthly citysh all b e bl end ed in one ine f fable

and h armonious spl endou r .
 CHAPTE R V III .

I
O R G E N AS C H R I S T I AN I
P H L O SO P H E R .

O RI G E N ros e to th e h eight o f r epr es enting th e Christi an

wo rld vi ew in a compreh en s ive syst em Th e work of
- .

O r ig en both in Th eology and in Ethics poss ess es a

, ,

p eculi ar v alu e for our age H e furnish es us with an

.

ex a mpl e o f livin g int er est in th e sp e cul ativ e probl ems

o f Christi a nity H e Shows h ow we m ay r et a in d ogm a

.
,

whil e nding pl ac e for a l arg er an d freer use of reason .

O r ig en is in s pirit v ery modern with l arge positive , , ,

an d dir ect en d in vi ew to which al l r efuting o f scepti

,

c i s m is but pr ep ar ator y Fo resh adowings of modern

.

eff orts to re concil e sci ence and faith are found in

P a ntaenus a n d Cl em ent th e l att er of whom is not
,

b ehind O rigen in this resp ect Th e s ame Obj ect i n .

spired O rigen whos e ecl ectic spi r it sought to h armonise

,

Ch r isti anity with Philos ophy in pursu ance of th e aims

,

o f P a ntaen us an d Cl em ent and to d estroy Gnosticism

, .

N ot l ess r em ark abl e th an th e breadth a n d thorough

n ess of O rig en s syst em was th e mor al earn estn ess th at

p erv aded it H e would h ave men tr av ers e th e whole

.

ci r cuit of knowl edge ; in fact h e ran up th e whol e ,

g amut of th e knowl edg e of his tim e in a way th at was

without p ar allel but he failed not to k eep b efor e him
, ,
94 STU D IE S I N E U R O P EA N P H IL OSO P H Y .

n ot only in rel ation to but ev en in dep endence on the

, ,

fr ee action of the individu al Wh at du alism exists is .

for O r igen fruit of nit e will at war with th e I nnit e

Will an d th erefore not a n ec ess ary ant agoni s m at all
,
.

I n fa ct h e in a m et aphy s ic a l direction spiritu alis ed

, , ,

or ideali sed th e corporeal wor ld so th at it b eca m e in , ,

his h ands pi erced through an d through with spiritu al

,

ag ency a nd function It is in fa ct a prim e virtu e in

.
, ,

O r ig en th at for him d eep er o r mor e ultim at e r eality ,

th an th at which belongs to th e Spher e of p erson ality

an d its r el ations th er e is non e
, A Spiritu alistic mo n ism .

his philosophy thus was and as such of deep int erest , , ,

for th e Spiritu al thought of to d ay which feels th e -

,

n ec essity in som e sort of b eing so too

, , For th ere is .

n o ground why re ason sh o uld not alw ays h av e more

to say on th e things of faith O rig en oppos ed th e .

p anth eism and fat alism of his time ; self th e world , ,

an d G o d w ere f or him th e ultim at es of al l r eligious

philo s ophy Th ey w ere for him the gre at ultim at es of

.

r eality and of knowl edge but they were not al l known ,

in like ways The cosm o gony of O rigen s ays H atch

.
, ,

w a s r eally a theodicy For O rigen the soul h as a

.

S piritu al s ense of its o wn which must be tr ain ed , .

H ence th e ne spiritu ality of O rig en s conce ptions of

th e u ns een world O r ig en st art ed from the conc eption

.

o f G o d as a spiritu al a n d unch ange able Being Creator ,

o f a ll things in fact e ndlessly creative , U nfolded .

an d r ev ealed H e is fr o m et er nity in the D ivin e L ogos

I n effabl e and incomprehen s ibl e is Godabov e wisdom

.

an d b ei n g He is to O rig en a Being Who se n ature

.
, ,

c annot be grasped or s een by the power of any hum an

 O RI GE N AS C H R I ST IAN P H I L O SO P H E R .
95

und rst nding ev en th e pur es t an d b right est

e a , G od .
1

is to O rig en an absolut e i ncor p o real unity H e is , .

without limit Sp ac e an d tim e are Shut out fro m H i s

.

b eing T h e O mnip o t ent is H e but n o t yet so as n u

.
,

af fect ed by H is goodn ess an d His wisdo m T h e ab so .

lut e imm at eri ality an d tr an s c end ent n atur e o f th e o n e

G o d with a ll th e implic ations o f p erson ality w ere
, ,

exhibit e d by O rig en with cl earn es s an d fuln es s th at

c o mm a nd th e sinc er e admir ation of t o d ay 2
N ot .

th at O rig en did n ot t ake his ow n w ay o f c o mpr o mising

th e D ivin e t r an s c end enc e for C l ear as h e k ept th e ,

p er so n ality of G o d h e h es it at ed n o t to qu alify th e
,

D ivin e I n n i tud e T h e D ivin e power c o uld n ot for

.

him be innit e el s e it co uld n ot under st and its elf

, .

N o r co uld th e D ivin e knowl edg e be innit e els e it ,

c ould n ot b e c o mp reh end ed Th es e uns atisfacto ry .

pos iti o n s of O rigen sp r ing fr om an undu e anthr o po

m or phi s m o u h i s p art Th ey are th e r es ult of h i s c on
.

founding th e I nnit e with th e I ndenit e o r wh olly

u nd en ed O rigen s notion th at G o d c an n o m o re b e
.

innite if H e fo r m a conc eption o f Him s elf is really

, ,

ab s u r d s inc e th e v ery d e n i t en ess of D eity m a k es Him

,

co mp reh ensibl e to th e D ivin e int ell ect .

T h e L og os w as with O rig en a n histo r ic P er son He .

w as th e D ivin e S o n an d as s uch sub o rdin at e but th e

, , , ,

s ubo r din ati o n is o f o fc e and p er s o n r ath er th an o f ,

es s en c e at l ea s t in
, his int enti o n Per fect I m ag e of .

th e F ath er w as H e in Whom h ad b een hid th e ,

tr easu res o f w i sd o m an d kn owl edg e It w as in fact .

, ,

th e c apit al d o ct rin e o f th e Al ex a ndri a n th eo l ogy th at

D P i
1
ei 5r n e. , . 1, . I b id 6 .
, .
96 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

God h ad becom e M an Th e L ogos is for O rigen the .

comp endium of th e D ivin e wo rld cre ative ide as For ,

-
.

him both sp ecul ative and r eligious needs are met in

the I nc arn ation Al l c reation h as its b eing in Christ
. .

I n Him too is th e life of hum anity by its very con

, , ,

sti tuti on H e is th e p er fect m anifest ation of the

.

hidd en D eity It i s th e ai m of O rig en to avoid in

.
,

sp eaking of the Son al l e m an ative o r p artitive th eories , .

O rigen repres ents G o d a s b egetting the etern al Son ,

the L ogos in an et ern al m a nn er and through Him

, , , ,

the world of fr ee spi r its T h e God and F ather of .

al l things is not th e only b eing th at is gr eat in our

j udgment for H e h as imp ar t ed ( a sh are ) of Himself and

,

His greatn ess to H i s O nly B eg ott e n and F irst born of - -

ev ery cr eatur e in o rd er th at H e b eing th e I m ag e of

, ,

th e I nvisible God might p res erve ev en in His gre at , ,

1
n ess th e I m ag e of th e Fath er
,
Th e L ogos is the .

Archetyp e of al l things H e ll s H e p erm eates the .

, ,

whol e cr eation O f p ar amount import ance is the rela

.

tion of th e soul to th e L ogo s I n Trinit ari an m atters .

,

O rig en held as we h ave s ee n to th e et ern al g en er ation

, ,

of the Son whose per fect m anhood an d p erfect Godh ead

,

h e uph eld even if we s hould no t a lways nd him speak

,

ing quite the l angu age of l at e catholicity L ike the .

union o f iron and re in a fu r n ace is to him the union

of these n atur s in Ch ist
e r
2
T h e r eal person ality alike .

o f F ather and So n is wh at O rig en most strove to

exhibit He adv anc ed up o n Cl em ent in his clear and
.

vigorous assertion o f th e hypost atic al distinction of the

So n . But it c annot be s aid th at O rigen s mode of

De P i m i I 6
1 r .
, .I bi d i i 6 6
, .
2
.
, .
, .
98 STU D IES I N E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

by D ivine omnipot ence an d goodn ess F or if God be .

et ern ally omnipot ent th en in O rigen s vi ew th ere

, , ,

must fr om et er nity h av e b een th at o n which H e could

ex erci s e H i s pow er a n d s o no l ess in th e c as e of His ,

goodn es s 1 F r om et er nity th er e mu s t h av e b een c reated

.

b eing B es id es a ch an ge w ould h ave t aken pl ace in

.
,

God if th e world h ad h ad a b eginning in tim e Th er e

,
.

h as th en n ev er b een a tim e in which a w o rld did not

, ,

e xist T h e w o r ld fo r O rig en is m ad e up of spirit

2
, ,

an d m att er a n d m att er is n ev er fo und without qu aliti es

, ,

alth o ugh it may b e notion ally s o c o nce iv ed O rig en

3
.

c annot und er st a nd h ow di stinguish ed m en s hould h ave

l ent th ems elv es to th e opini o n th at m att er is th e result
of ch ance r ath er th an of its b eing fo rm ed by God
Him s elf 4 .

O f Ch r i s t as Red eem er O rigen m ay not alw ays s atis

fac tor il y c o nc eiv e y et h e insists on J esus as th e bond ,

of uni o n b etw een God and m ankind From Him .

th er e b eg an th e union of th e D ivin e with the human

n ature in o rder th at th e hum an by communion with
, ,

th e D ivin e m ight ri s e to b e D ivin e not in J esus

, ,

alon e but in al l th o s e who n ot only b eli ev e but ent er

, ,

upon th e life which J esus t aught 5

H e ascrib es to .

Christ s d eath a s ignica nce n ot alon e for this world

, ,

but for al l worlds o f cr eatur es St r enu o us as O rigen is .

for th e fr eed o m of m an s will h e y et holds th at m an s

,

p rt in his s lv ti o n is v astly l ess th an God s
a a a the

,

6
rst an d chi f c us o t e work
e a e f h Ration al b eings .

1
De P r i m .
, i . 2, t o .
9
bd
I i .
, ii i 5 , 3
. .

3
I i bd .
, ii .
4; a sol i v 34
. .
4
I bi d .
, 11 . I, 4 .

C Cel m m, iii
. . 2 8 ; al so vu . I 7. 5
De P r i m iii . 1, I8.
 O RIG E N A S C H RI ST IA N P H ILO SO P H E R .
99

are wh at th ey m ake th ems elves v ess els for honour o r ,

dishonour 1
All r ation al cr eatur es a
. re of o n e n atur e ;

God h a s m ad e th em God is j ust 2

Creat ed b eing s , .

m ake th emselv es wh at th ey are through th eir ch o ic e of

good or evil in th e exercis e of th eir fr eedom o f will 3
, .

H e r et ains in v er b al w ays th e P aulin e di stinction

, ,

between s o ul and spirit but his psychology is
really dichotomous soul for him exi s ting so m ewh er e ,

b etween esh and mind or s pirit T h e spi r it .

ual n atur e of m a n s soul O r ig en d educ es from th e v ery

n atu re and r ang e of hum an cognition M an h as a kin .

ship with G o d in virtu e o f which h e d esires and can ,

know th e truth W e know as w e progressiv ely b ecom e .

like God I t is o n e thing to see an d a noth er to
.
,

know : to s ee a nd to b e s een is a prop erty o f b o di es '

to know an d to be kn o wn an attribut e of i nt ell ectu al ,

4
being . In t r uly Pl atonic fashion O r ig en m akes th e ,

reality o f th e id ea of th e good a postul at e of prim ary

imp ort anc e H e grounds th e sp ecul ativ e in th e pr ao
.

tical : h e who w o uld r each tru e knowl edge must p ass

to it from faith thro ugh philosophy M an c a nnot b e .

m erely body else God wer e th e s am e For man h as, .

knowl edge of G od an d th e co r por eal can know nothing ,

high er th an th e corporeal 5 W e are of opinion th at .

every rational creature without any distinction receives

a sh ar e of Him
, ,

th e Holy S pirit O r ig en sh r ank n o t

6
.

from th e extrem e individu ali s m which l ed him to a dopt

th e th eo ry of th e p re exist enc e of souls oblivious of a ll -
,

consider ations of r ace unity and conn ection .

1
D e P r i n c , i ii . . r, 2 1 .
2
I bid .
, iii .
5, 4 .

4
bd
I i .
, i . r, 8 .
5
I bi d .
, i . 1, 7 .
1 00 STU D IE S IN E U R O PE A N P H ILOSO P H Y .

F or O rigen N ature exists only for sinful men clothed

, ,

upon with th e world of sens e and it will ceas e to be ,

wh en th es e h ave found th ei r way b ack to th e bosom

of th e good For though O rigen s esch atological id eas
.
,

hold to future retribution th ey vi ew it as h aving a m eli ,

orati ve int ent s o th at at l ast evil will fad e aw ay

,
an d ,

goo d far o accru e to al l 1 O rig en argu es to th e i m

-
.

mo rtality of th e soul from th e way in which our know

ing an d thinking subst ance p ersists in its d esir e and
power to know God and truth 2
To th e fact of resur .

recti o n h e holds but th e resu r rect ed body is to him a

,

body spiritu al and eth ereal O rig en so far spiritu alis es .

th e conc eption of th e r esurr ection th at h e will not h ear

of our app earing in th e r esurr ection in id entity of sub

st ance For him th er e will be a n al restoration for
.

al l who h av e fall en aw ay from God and he t akes the ,

Apocutastasi s to b e univers l a
3
B ut this Restorationism .

O rig en h eld in distinctly esot eric fa shio n

4
I t h as not .

always b een obs erv ed th at his cosmologic al an d p sy

c h ol ogi cal sp ecul ations are re ally i hterwoven with his

Ethics .

O rig en h eld the study of Gre ek philosophy a n ec essity

for th e vindic ation of the faith an d the m eeting o f th e
sceptical I nto th e study of th e Greek phil o sophy he
.

boldly plunged donning th e philosoph er s m antl e He

,

.

m ad e his study of Pl atonic and Stoic al philosophy mor e

thorough und er th e guid ance of Amm on ius Sacc as As .

th e circle of th e scienc es was with th e Gr eeks a pre , ,

parati on for philosophy so Greek philosophy w as itself , ,

1
D e P n na , i 6 ,

. 2 ; C Cel m m,
. v . x5 .
2
De M un , i v 36
. .

bd
I i .
,
i 6, 3 ; ii
. . 1 0, 3 . C Cel m m, vi
. . 26.
1 02 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H IL OSO P H Y .

But reason and will are not distinguish ed as might ,

b e wish ed by O r ig en
, Reason s eems to h av e rul ed .

for him ov er al l ext ern al incit em ents an d it may well ,

h av e b een th at h e t o ok choic e to b e a functi o n o f th e

r eas o n With O rig en ethics m ea nt life and no t m er ely
.
,

th eory T h e ethic al d et ermin ation of th e will was in

.

his vi ew o f supr em e mom ent N ot in God s in ability .

,

but in our w ayward wills li es o ur hindr ance 1 Ethical , .

inu enc es O rig en nds ev erywh er e so th at his emph asis ,

o n mor al conduct c o uld n ot h av e b ee n s urp as s ed We .

fall from go o d through th e freedom o f our will wh ere ,

for e our will mu s t be root ed and grounded in love of

th e Good y e a
, of G o d 2
S o on er th an imp air the
, .

fr eedom of our will God was pl eased to r estrict His ,

own p resci enc e With O rig en who so emph asi sed the
.
,

moral end of phil o sophy th e d ev elopm ent of ethical ,

philosophy seems to h av e p ass ed mor e to th e W est ern

mind . Per h aps O rig en allowed the m a ntl e of th e
Platonist to obscur e his Christi an distinctiv en ess and ,

p er mitt ed an exc essiv e id ealism to cov er th e world

of actu al and concrete r eality H is unfruitful mod e .

o f all egorising S cripture wa s d ue to this id ealising

t end ency But th er e is no mistaking his nobility as
.

an ethic al philos o ph er : th e eye of th e pur e in h eart

c an fo r him lon e discern t e truth
a h By this divin e .

s ens e th er efo re n ot of th e ey es but of a pur e h eart

, , , ,

which is th e mind God m ay be s een by thos e who ,

3
are worthy O rig en s th eory of knowl edg e h ad more

.

1
C Cel m m,
. vi . 57
.

2
D e P r i nc , i 5 , 3 ; i 6, 3 ;
. x, . u . 2 ; n .
4, 3 .

3
bd
I i .
, i . I, l
9 ; so a so C Cel m m, . vi . 69 .
 O R IG E N AS C H R I ST I A N P H I LO SO P H E R . 1 03

th an theor etic ch ar act er i t bor e in fact a mystical , ,

asp ect th at c arr i ed in it an ethic al r el ation I t did so .

in vi rtue o f O r ig en s a i a na w data th at D ivin e s ens e

which d en o t es th e con s ciousn ess of m an in its high er

cognitiv e activity which m ad e th e Christi an cont ents
th e subj ect of our freest kn o wl edg e For th e hum an .

soul o r nit e reason c an unify its elf with th e M57 09 ,

nding t r u e knowl edge in s uch int erc ours e as results

fr om thi s unic ati o n O r igen s enti re d efenc e o f
.

Ch r isti a nity o n its hum an o r s ubj ectiv e sid e m ay be

, ,

s aid to h av e centr ed in th e s aying of J esus so b eau ,

tiful a n d p eg ant :
r n I f an y m an will eth to do His
will h e sh all know o f th e t eaching wh eth er it b e of
, ,

G o d or wh eth er I sp ea k fr o m M ys elf
, (John vii .

O ri gen t r i ed to und erst and th e m a nifo ldn ess o f th e

w or ld from an ethic al st andpoint so th at th e c o n ,

gruen c e o f th e n atur al with th e s pi r itu al might be

s een O ur concluding re ections on thi s s tudy o f th e
.

philosophic al th eology an d eth i cs o f O rig en are o f al l

'

th e Church univ ers al ow es to O rig en as th e most

compr eh ensiv e of anci ent Christi an thinker sone whos e

inu ence was l asting wide and deep O n Gnosticism
, , .
,

on th e r elations o f faith an d knowl edge on psycho ,

logical cosmologic al and p ractical r eligious p r obl ems

, , ,

b e sh ed a n ew an d gr eat light wh er eby th e absolut ely

,

ration al ch aract er an d th e p eculi arly ethic al m o d es of

Ch r i s ti anity h av e for ev er b een m ad e cl ear H e is a .

living inspir ation b ec aus e his spi r it an d principl es we

,

c an still sh ar e ev en wh en w e can by no m eans a cc ept

,

his Opinions ; can w elcome al l sci enc e al l knowledge , ,

b eli eving it can only s erv e th e gr eat n al ends of the

1 04 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

truth We can cultiv at e a spirit o f inquiry bro ad and

.
,

c atholic as his ; can s eek like him th at nest br eadth

, ,

of thought which is s o r ation ally constructive as to

bring th e t reasures of thought p ast pr es ent and to, , ,

com e into rel ation an d subj ection to th e mind of

,

Ch r ist T h e n e sp ecul ative b ent of O rig en by no

.

m eans kept him from holding rm an d fast to ess enti al

truths and historic facts of Ch r isti anity .

S eeds o f thought sown by O rig en which might not ,

always b e a cc o rd a nt with each oth er wer e uni ed in ,

his rich st rong an d striking per so n ality T h e love of

, , .

truth truth in al l its d epth o bj ectivity and ampli

, ,

tud e w as for O rigen rs t p assion and l ast in al l

r ation al b eings an d th er efor e w as it h e sought an
,

all s id ed
-
Christi an world vi ew of knowledge or wan e
,
-
.

H e sought ind eed as H arn ack s ays th e sph er e of

, , ,

cl ear knowl edge an d inward int ell ectu al ass ent em an

ating from lov e to G od

W e must wi th him wi den
.
, ,

faith to cov er al l th e fa cts of life reality exp eri ence ;

, ,

must t ake al l knowledg e and al l sci ence as in some

sort r ev ealing Go d to us ; must nd in th e Son of ,

God I ncarn at e th e key to all creation al l history all

, , ,

life since in H im al l things ar e o urs and H e is God s

, ,

.
1 06 STU D IE S I N E U R O PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

an d int er est His thr ee hypost as es indeed subsum ed

.
, ,

distinctiv e principl es of Stoicism Per ip at eticism and , ,

Pl atonism Th ere fell to th e l o t of Plotinu s an environ

.

m ent rich in el em en ts for an int ell ectu al n atu re For .

it was an envi r onm ent ch arged with elem ent s inh erit ed
fr om s econd centu ry m at er i alism an d mystici s m n atu ral
-
,

i s m an d h edo n i s m m o r ali s m an d s piritu alism

, Founder .

o f th e N eo Pl atonic school h e b ec am e und er th es e con

-

d i ti o n s .And its philo s ophy i s es se nti ally a philo sophy

of r eligion H e pr o v ed his pow er by pi ercing di rect
.

to th e m et aphysic a l h ear t of Pl ato s s yst em th at h e

,

mi ght r end it in pi eces for th e feeding o f his thought .

Plotinus howev er differs fr om Pl ato in s etting th e O ne

, ,

abov e al l id eas I t is his phil o s ophy ofth e O ne th at
.

proves so fascin ating an el em ent of his t eaching But .

th e Absolut e O ne rem ains a b are and extr em e unity ,

an d is n o t conc eiv ed by him as a unity of di f fer ences .

I nd eed in this emph asis o n th e unity of pure or abstract

,

b eing th e id ea of diversity disapp ears an d r ecourse is ,

v ainly h ad to a world soul for r econcil em ent of the -

o n e an d th e m any I t is ch ar act eristic of Plotinus

.

th at th e id eas h av e a distinct exist enc e in th e D ivine

Rea son T h e O n e th e I n effabl e o r th e Spiritu al is as
.
, , ,

th e unity of al l things unfolded in int ell ectu al and

, ,

afterw ar ds in s ensuous t erms Th e c at egori es used by

, .

Plotinus in r esp ect ofth e s econd el em ent in th e Plotinic

trinity which is I nt ellig enceim ag e of th e O newere
,

b eing r est m o tion id entity an d di fferenc e Th e pref

, , , , .

er ences of Plotinus l i e tow ards pur e abstra ct specul a ,

ti o n H e holds by th e ess ence of God as the absolutely

.

O ne and unch ang eabl e He th e O ne h as n either Form

.
, , ,
 TH E P H ILO SO P H Y O F PLO T I N U S . 1 07

nor Will nor Thought nor B eing God as th e O ne is

, , .
, ,

to him sourc e an d sp r ing of all g ood T h e Plotinic .

t r i ad ru ns b a ck to Pl atoth e Prim al O n e to th e Platonic

id ea of th e good mind and s o ul to th e D em i urgus iand
,

world soul o f Pl ato T h e P r im al Good is a p r incipl e of

-
.

ab s o lut e a n d indivisibl e unity . Fi rst C aus e H e is but ,

only in an abst ract m et aphysical s ens e T h e wh o le

, .

cosmologic al th o ught of Pl o tinus t ak es a t el eologic al

for m Reason is root ed in this high est or Ulti m at e
.

Good as its p rincipl e Th e O n e wh o s e n atur e w e thu s

.
,

s eek is not anything th at exists

, His O n e as th e .
,

Pow er of al l things is y et an d th er efo re n o n e o fth em

, , ,
.

As th e absolut e unity his O n e is th e c aus e of all exist

,

enc e , and must th erefor e go b efo re it I n fact th e .

,

First is to Plotinus rai sed ab o v e al l d et er m in ation s ,

so th at w e c annot st r ictly pr edic at e anything h er e A .

g reat dem erit this of th e sy s t em sinc e this sup rem e ,

ab s t r action o f th e unity o f exi s t enc e aw ay from exi s t ,

enc e its elf ro b s it o fal l rel ati o n to th e things it c reat e s

,
.

I t is th e n egation o f all c o nt e nt s T h e O n e an d Good .

is pl aced b eyo nd th ought though it is th e rs t p rin

,

c i pl e of things For Ploti nus h olds th e O n e to be

.
,

Pl ato s mean which in r eality is abov e go o d

,
To .

thi s Absolut e G o od all r eas on and life as pi re All .

thin gs are dr awn to G o d a God w h o is G oo dn ess

with o ut l ov e And our aspi r ing is through th e s o ul
.

n ot th e s eeking of th e o utw ar d ey e T h e O n e i s s een .

with th e ey es o f th e soul wh en it is tu r n ed away

,

fr om oth er sight s H i s philosophy o f th e O ne af r ms

.

th e t r ansc end ent ch ar act er a n d in appr eh ensibl e n ature

of God in a d ecid ed way H e is t ran s c end ent as

. ,
.
1 08 STU DIE S IN E U R O P EA N P H ILOSO P H Y .

beyond al l b eing an d kn owing H e th e O ne is .

in effable b ecaus e without pr edic at es I t really amounts

,
.

to this th at th e O ne is set abov e all cont ention N ot

,
.

known of knowl edge th e O ne is known through s o me ,

thing high er It is kn o wn in th e b rea king O f th e bonds

.

of s ens e in r ising by D ivin e O ewpfa and cont empl ation

, ,

of th e int elligibl e b eauty fr o m Matt er to Spirit from

, ,

S oul to Reas o n an d fr om Reason to th e O ne

,
This .

treatm e nt Of G od as th e in appr eh ensibl e O ne prov ed

th e v ery d est r ucti o n of r eason though it w a s m eant as ,

its ap oth eo s i s For it proc eed ed too much by the

.

w ay o f mystic a b s t ra ctio n an d insul at ed th e D eity to ,

s uch a n ext ent th at th ere w as loss of r eal s ens e of m an s

b eing i n G od an d of G o d s b eing i n m an T h e t rans

,

.

c en d en c e h ad its t r uth but it w as not th e whol e truth ,

which this mod e O f thinking w as sh adowing for th It .

h ad th e m erit h o wever to emph asis e r eason as th e

, ,

gr eat c o n s tructive p o wer God as Ground O fth e world .

, ,

i s wh en w e c o m e to anth r opom o rphic mod es of sp eech

, ,

mind or ration al Spir it So ul i s on e and m any Th e . .

World so ul is chi ef Of al l soul s This World soul is an

-
.
-

att empt to j o in by i ts m edi ation th e s en s ible and th e

, ,

id eal wo rld s N O l o ng er n eedful if God b e t ak en as no

.
,

ab s tr a ct u n ity but th e O ne Spi rit r ev ealed in n ature

,

an d in m an Th ere is a plur ality of souls for th ey are

.
,

increasing But th es e individu al souls are not m ere

.

p arts of th e univ ers al s o ul for this l atter is present , ,

is wh o l e an d entir e in all p articul ar or individu al souls

, .

M an s knowing soul runs b ack to Spirit

T h e hum an .

w as but an appa n age of th e wor ld s oul and h ere as -

, ,

els ewh er e in N eo P l atonism its psychology runs into

-
,
l IO S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H I L O SO P H Y .

and o n the signic ance o f our self id entity Plotinus

-
.

h as th e gre at m erit to h av e b een th e rst philosopher

to give precis e and explicit account O f such conc epts as
con s ci o usn ess and self consciousness H e m ak es such
- .

direct an alysis o f consci o u s n ess as n either Pl ato nor

Ari stotl e h ad do n e so advancing upon them by ex
,

hib i ti n g a distinctiv e d ev el o pm ent O f subj ective int erest

an d faculty . But ind eed h e is too subj ectiv e : he
abstr acts from a S ingl e sid e of our whol e life an d m akes ,

an Obj ective l aw f o r things out of this v ery abstr action .

N ature is fo r him real only so far as it is soul This .

m eans furth er in ad equ acy o n the p art of Plotinu s for ,

such an id ealising mode o f d ealing with N atu re would

soon r ul e out al l real n atu ral sci enc e and land us in the,

dr ea my and myst erious T h e soul i s th e self and can

.
,

by no possibility be m at eri al The soul is the product Of

.

spiritits near est r esult and its activity rend ers m atter
,

corpo real How m att er c an so proceed from the soul

.

is mor e th an Pl o tinus expl a ins H e m erely s ays it

.

com es out O f it as B eing com es out of N on B eing

,
-
.

S inc e soul so works upon m att er ev erything in the ,

world Of s ens e is this soul or spirit Hence Plotinus .

is abl e to spiritu alis e th e corporeal wo r ld to idealise ,

th e Univers e Soul is in fact th e c entr al core of his

.
, ,

syst e m : everything within an d without us is soul and

, , ,

the trouble is j ust to m ak e soul c ap able of expl aining

al l th e a ntith es es to be found in different sph eres of
b eing It is h e holds the fault of m an O f his d escent

into ni tude
. , ,

th at the soul h as fallen from the universal

n ature th at b elongs to it The out er or m at eri al is
.
, ,

for him but as sh adow Of subst ance or hus k of kernel ,

 THE P H ILO SO P H Y O F P LO T IN U S . I I I

the subst a nc e or kernel is th e hidd en spi r itu al or id eal , .

H i s spiritu a l m o nism would k eep th e u n ity in t h e s oul

O fth e whol e an d y et p r ovid e f
, or t h e r eality o f p ar ticul ar

souls Th e imm at eri ality O f th e soul h e at l east d efends

.

by argum ents drawn fr o m wid er r each th a n Pl ato or

,

Aristotl e h ad kn o wn an d inclu s iv e of feeling as well

, ,

as thought . Wh en h e com es to d eal with th e n atur e

o fthoughtthought which to him is motion h e is abl e
to m aint ain i ts incorpor eal ch ar act er in w ays th at for m
st r iking a nticip ati o n s Of m o d er n phil oso phy T h e ad .

v anc e of r ed em ption from r eality as giv en is th e b asal

thought of Plotinu s : his conc eptu al knowledg e wo r k ed
its w ay as w e h av e s een th r ough th e differ ent world
m at eri a lsbody soul spi ritup to th e pres entim ent Of
, ,

, ,

th e Wo r ld So ul
-
Plotinu s com es within n ear psycho
.

logic al vi ew O f mod ern id ealistic m ethods which y et ,

elud e his gr as p A real unity howev er h e did att ain

.
, ,

by an id ealis m of his o w n B es id es which it m ay be

s aid th at Neo Platonism minus its mysticism was in
.
,

-
,

m any of its l eading asp ects a pr ecu r s o r of mod er n ,

I d ealism . A tol er ably pure for m Of r ati o n ali s m it was ,

with a s ubtl e di al ectic of i ts Ow n Plotinus r eli es on th e .

divi s ibility of cor p o r eal subst a nc e an d th e unity of ,

consciousn ess fo r th e w o rking out O f h i s argum ent

ag ainst m at eri alism H e do es not how ev er s ep ar at e
.
, ,

betwee n c o nsci o usn ess an d its obj ects in any such

abs o lut e fas hion as th at of C art esi a nism for h e all ows ,

to th e s o ul in s om e so rt divisibility and ext ension

, , .

As for p er s on ality it do es not s eem as th o ugh i n dividu al

,

person ality wer e so truly provid ed for as it might app ear

in th e syst em of Plotinus since it r ather s eems lost in th e
,
1 12 STU D I E S IN E U RO PE A N P H I L OSO P H Y .

n ec ess ary m ovem ent O f th e univ ers al life of spirit F or .

th er e c an be no doubt th at in th e sy s t em o f Plotinus
fect in th e en d
,

em an ation al in ef th er e is a p r ocession Of
al l things fr om th e Absolut e an d a n inclusion of al l
,

things in Him Yet did not Plotinus wish th e world

.

vi ewed as an em a n ation fro m God with th e loss o f sub ,

st anc e att end ant th er eon W e r etu r n to Him by ecst atic

.

el ev ation T h e go al o f Plotinus for individu al p er son ality

.

app ear s to b e m erely th at ind et er min at e n ess in which

th er e is an unconscious unifying with th e Wo r ld Ground -

,

or a sinking into th e All O n e Fo r th e nite spirit must

-
.

put O ff all th at b elongs to it in this asc ent to imm edi ate

exp eri enc e of th e Absolut e O n e But this is no more .

r eligion as a tot al r econs ecr ation of al l things earthly and

hum an N ot only th e so c all ed m at eri alism o f th e Stoics
.
-

does Plotinus v anquish but also th eir fat alism But his
, .

Spiritu alistic doctrin e of fr ee will is not th at Of the-

mod erns h olding to it as a fact of consciousn ess ; rather

,

it is a Pl atonising mod e Of conc eiving th e soul fr ee as it

truly r ealis es th e conditions O f its own spi r itu al exist ence
th at is to say suffers no subj ection at th e inst ance of
,

body or m att er Fo r m att er though only an i n deter

.
,

min at e element and d eni ed r eal b eing is yet reg ard ed as

, ,

a c aus e o f evil an d a limit ation

, I f o ur wills were not .

free thinks Plotinus we should not be ours elv es but

, , ,

would be born e along by th e univ ers al mov em ent But .

free will do es not h ang v ery consist ently in his system

-
.

Nor is his d enition Of m att er v ery s atisfactory : he

thinks about it as do es Pl ato : it is a univ ers al sub
str atum ; is void O f form an d absolut ely ind enite ; h as
n o r eality but is mer ely th e possibility o f b eing and is
, , ,
 1 14 S TU D IES IN E U RO PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

pow er Pl o ti n u s insists on the n eed to nd an d recognise

, , ,

b eauty within o u r selv es s o th at thus we m ay ris e to the

,

r e c o gnition o f th e int elli gibl e b eauty S uch b eauty i s .

hid but fro m th e s o ul th at is by s elf will blind ed We -

.

n eed h ar dly h o w ev er d eny alth ough s aying th es e things

, , , ,

a pl a c e to m edit ati o n or th e my s tic g aze o f c o nt empl a

,

ti o n o n which Pl otinu s l ays so much st r ess for r eas on

, ,

m ay b e fully p r esen t wh er e th o ught is l eas t a ctiv e in its

s ear ch or o u t g o ings -
I n s uch cont empl ati o n th e s o ul is
.

still distinguish ed fr o m h er Obj ect whil e in ecst asy or , ,

union with Go d sh e i s o n e with it S uch ec s t asy t rans

, .

c end s r eas on a n d is t h e ultim at e principl e o f all c er

,

t a inty Fo r o n ly in SO b ecomi n g O n e with th e Ab s olut e

.
,

do we t ranscend th e du alisms th at hind er knowl ed ge .

S uch ecst asy w e c ann o t comm and : w e ca n only purify

an d pr ep are o ur selv es f or it Tis in vi rtu e o fsuch t each
.

ings th at Ploti n u s is som eti m es sp o k en o f as th e Mystic

pew excell ence T h e b a n eful r es ult acc r u es wh e n th e mys
.

tic al o r ec s t atic el ev ation b eco m es th e n eg ation o freaso n ,

and th er e i s no doubt th at thi s t e nd ency w as a r eal r esult

Of th e t eaching O f Pl otinus Gr av e d angers lu rk in the .

p ath of such dir ect vision as Plotinus inculc at es Sh ort .

of th es e d ang ers eve n th e s olitud e h e cont empl ates for

,

usa s wh at h e c all s a ight of th e alon e to th e Al o n e

is apt to b e rath er unfr uitful B es ides which it i s a graft .

,

on his phil osophya gr aft fr om his r eligi o nan d mu st

be t r eat ed as such fr o m a phil os ophic p o int o fvi ew But .

th e ecst atic a nd subj ectiv e exp er i e nc e was by no m eans

eith er fo unt or found ation o f his philosophy a s h a s Oft en ,

b een im agin ed V i r tu e with Plotinus i s Ob edi enc e to

.
, ,

r eason an d t h e high est g o od i s r each ed in b eing entir ely

"
,
 THE P H I L O SO P H Y O F P LO T IN U S . 11 5

tu n d
r e toson and liken ess to G o d
r ea , H e follows .

Pl ato in h o lding to th e doct r in e o fm et emps ych o si s o n ly

th e pures t s oul s ar e in th e futu re life m erg ed in G od
, , .

Th e inu enc e of Plotinus o n s ubs equ ent s p ecul a ti o n

h as b een gr eat I t p erva d e d th e M iddl e Ag es a n d
.
,

pi erced th r ough th e Ren a is sanc e Sen ses th ere are in .

which h e is m et aphysic al p recu r s or of S pinoza an d of ,

Sp enc er whos e U nknow abl e i s d ecl ar ed in l es s s elf c o n

,
-

s i s t ent t er ms th a n th at o f Ploti n us Thi s i s no t o f .

,

cou r s e to s ay th at Pl o tinus h as conc eiv ed or d en ed

, ,

with ad equ at e o r s atisfying d e niten ess h i s prim al O n e ,

which in fact h e h as not d o n e But Pl o tinu s h as

, , .

c o ntinu ed to be a n or i gin al sp ring o f philos o phic thought

a n d impul s e all th r o ugh t h e hi sto r y of s p ecul ati o n T he .

philosophy o f Plotinus h as th e g reat m er it o f m agnifyin g

th e c o nst r uctiv e p o w er Of r easo n I t h as th e fu r th er .

vi rtu e Of emph as i s ing th at as al l th o u ght inv o lv es du ality

,

or diff er enc e so G o d must p re c ed e an d t ra nscend al l

,

th o ught or in oth er wo rd s it h ad th e m er it o f carrying

, , ,

th e c o nc epti o n Of G od b ey o nd al l anthro p o m or phic

m o des ofexpressi o nto an Ab s olut e in which all th o ught ,

is t ranscended an d all c o n s ci o usn es s lo st But such a n

, .

unkn own G od would b e o f littl e int eres t sinc e H e could ,

giv e n o guid anc e to thought an d th e enti r e m o ve m ent ,

o f mind t o w ar ds Him w o uld w ear an ab o r tiv e an d i l l o gi

c al as p ect S o th e I nnit e mu s t c o m e int o r eal rel ati o n

.

to us . And to th e N eo Pl at o nist it s eem ed n e c es s ary to

-
,

d raw hims elf off fro m m att er as an Ob st ructiv e m edium .

H i s u pw ar d as c ent fr om m att er i s in keepi n g with t h e

n ativ e aspi rati o n ofth e hum an m ind SO th e phil o s ophy .

o f Pl o tinus w as abl e to giv e di s tinctn es s a n d el ev atio n to

1 16 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

th e Pl atonic phil o so phy Wh ere th e philosophy of

.

Ploti n u s seem ed m os t to l ack w as in its n eed o f n earer

,

a n d kindli er c o n t act b o th with th e m or al p ro bl em Of th e

w orld an d with th e s oci al di fculty S u rely w e m ay say

.

th at n o phil oso phy c an affo rd eith er to s hut O ff God fr om

th e li ght o f th e w orld o r to s hut O f
,
f th e light th at i s in
,

th e w or ld fr o m G o d
, . T h e D ivin e L ife i n i ts unfolding s
, ,

e n fo ld s ou r liv es SO th at in m aki n g us p art a k er s Of i ts

, ,

o w n n atu r e th e D ivin e pu r p ose in th es e liv es m a

, y freely
a n d su rely m o v e t o its a cc o mpli s hm e nt .
1 18 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

st ruck by Augustin e st art ed fr o m his str ess on th e

p rincipl e o f inwa rdn ess or inn er exper i ence th e I nner
l zckkez t of th e G erm a n s T h e d et ermin ativ e thing for
' '

m edi aev al phil o s o phy w as th e welc o m e it acco rd ed to

A r i stot eli an i s m w h os e di al ectic s were i ts life blood
,
-
.

S chol astic phil os o phy m ay b e t ak en to c e ntr e in great

scho o l m en Of th e thi r t eenth c e ntu ry like Alb ertu s ,

Aquin a s an d D uns Scotus while m edi aev al thou ght

, ,

w as s o wid e in r an g e a s to includ e ev e n such form s of

a nti sch o l as tic t ea ching as w er e distinctly p a nth eistic

-
.

M edi aev al philosophy c o mp reh end ed not only schol asti

ci s m , but al so N eo Pl atonic t endenci es exempli ed in
-

mystici s m an d c o mp ri sed much mo r e b esides Schol

,
.

a st i c i s m i s n o m ore th an o n e an d th at p er h aps th e
,

str o ng est of th e phil o s o phic al sch o ols of th e m edi aeval

,

p er iod Sch o l astic philos o phy of th e thirt eenth c entury

.

w as n o t only ground ed in tw elfth c entu ry thought but ,

ev en r an b a ck to th e ninth c entury moni stic r eali sm

of J ohn th e Scot as expound ed in th e D e Di vi si one
,

N atur es Sch o l as ticism is th e doctrin e of th e chu rch

.

sci entically app reh end ed and set fo rth But sch ol asti .

ci sm , a s g en er ally und erstood is l ess a sys t em th an a

,

ch aotic compound Of al l th e sy st ems a compound -

m arked by a pr eferenc e for j u dgm ents ov er fact s and ,

for a uth o rity b efo r e free reas on N ec essar ily d eductive .

w as its m ethod : fr o m d ogm atic pr emi ses it loved to

fo rg e its endl es s tr ain Of Syll o gi s m s : und er th es e arid
an d angul ar s yll o gistic fo r ms howev er r eas o n m an aged
, ,

to insinu at e its elf Th e sch o l astic mov em ent spr ang

.

fr o m th e fact th at faith willing to j ustify its elf at the

,

b ar of reason ex empli ed th e Ansel mi c s aying

,

Fi des
 C
S H O LAST I C A N D M E D IE VA L P H ILO SO P H Y . 1 19

queer ens i ntel l ectum, sought to present its doct rin es

an d

free of absurdity Th er e w as a distinctiv en es s Of

.

schol asticism th at l ay hid in its peculi ar union Of

philo s ophy and theology : to it th eolo gy went b efor e ,

philosophy des [m ecedens i ntell ectum philosophy
followed in the st eps o f th eo l ogy and j usti ed it to ,

m en . F or a philosophic al synth esis was r each ed wh er e

by th e gr eat D octors o f th e W est held d espit e al l ,

individu al origin ality a cert ain body o f doct r in e in

,

comm o na body which is Of the ess ence Of s c h ol asti

c i sm . But schol asticism ev e n in its e arly develop
,

m ents was stoutly opp osed by Ab el ard who cl a im ed

, ,

s elf evid ent v alidity f

-
or th e fund ament a l po s ition th at

r ati o n al insight must p r ep ar e th e way for faith s ince ,

faith c annot otherwis e b e s u r e of its truth O f cou r s e .

,

An sel m th e re al found er of schol asticism insist e d

th at th e mind of man s h o uld d ev elop its elf aft er th e
m ann er and spirit of sci e nc e spit e of th e fact th a t
c er titud e c ame by anoth er modeth at n amely of faith
,

.
, ,

But th e ai m of Anselm walking in th e steps of Augus

,

tin e was quit e other th an th at O f Ab el ard for whil e

, ,

Ans elm aimed only to m ake th e truths h eld by faith

co mp reh ensibl e to th e int ellect Abel ard st art ed with
,

thought or re ason as th e nor m and test of truth s o ,

pr o c eeding in wh at would be account ed a more r ation al

i sti c fashion . I n th e schools it became the busi n es s
of reason to vindicat e th eo lo gy as science T h e dog .

mat a O f positive religion w er e to Anselm m att er s of

n ecessary d eduction By Aquin as al l h Ope w as giv en
.

up Of p r oving Church dogm as by re ason ; h e d ecl ared

th em not contr ary to but abov e reason wh ere as S cotus
, , ,
1 20 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

w as pron e to m ake r eligi o n indep endent o f reason .

By O c kam al l b eyond exper i ence w as cl aim ed for the

sph ere Of faith .

T h e Reali s t a n d N o m in alist C o nt r ov ersy which sprang

up in th e S ch o l as tic Age s oo n c eased to b e one of
m er ely logic al imp o rt T h e discus s i o n wa s o ne in which
.

m edi aev al Eu r op e was t o rn : riv al th eo logies were

er cely pitt ed ag ainst each oth er : an d ki n g s and
emp eror s w ere ra ng ed in hostil e c am ps T h e N omin al .
e

i s t ov er thr o w Of univer s als s eem ed to l eav e an Open

do or for r ank m at eri ali s m wh er ein th e univ ers al deity
,

an d th e univ er s al p r incipl es of mo rality should no

mor e be found T h e Reali s t c o nt ention for th e reality

.

of univ ers al sreality b eing t ake n as one and th e sam e

t en d ed o n th e other h and to favour p antheism
, , ,

esp eci a lly in th e sci entic dir ection which Ab elard ,

w as not slow to p o int out Th er e was b esid es th e

.
, ,

n egative tr a nscend e nt alism or my s tic agnosticism Of

D ionysius wh os e p an th ei s tic a n d po s itivist t end enci es
,

wer e by n o m ea n s u nlit by faith an d aspir ati on The .

domin ant th o ught Of th e tim e took subst ances to be

mo re real th e mor e univer s al th ey were
, N o w the .

int eres t of th at contr o v ersi al tim e abid es for th e reason

th at th e probl em w as both r eal an d far r eaching in its -

issu es I nqui ri es of o ur ow n ti m e lik e th at o f th e o rigin

.

of s p eci es are but n ew ph as es o f th e p roblem as to

univer s als a p ar te r el and th es e inquiri es are found in
,

elds of philology as well as in thos e of physic al sci ence .

I t was Ab el a rd who insist ed th at univ ers als can n eith er

b e thing s on th e o n e h and n or w o rds o n the o th er
, , ,

a nd wh o with hi s str ess on c o nc eptu al thought gathered

, ,
1 22 TU D IE S
S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

individu al thing T h e whol e t end e ncy Of sch ol asticism

.

w as t ow ard s exh austion in a n ar id N omin a lism What .

vit al en er gy th e l at er N omin ali s m h ad w ent towards ,

t h e fo s t ering Of n a tu r a l sci enc e Ev en th e rel ation Of

.

G o d t o m o r alit y c a m e i n th e S chol a stic Age to be

, ,

inv olv ed i n th e c o n t r o v ersy But l et it r s t b e n ot ed

.

th at Hugo of St V ict o r l ed in th e twelfth c entu ry a

, ,

r em ar k abl e mystic al m ov em e nt o f a sc ent tow ar d s God .

H e d eni ed a knowl edg e o f th e es s enc e o f God but ,

h eld to th e d poster i om argu m e nt for D ei ty m aking

p articul ar us e Of th e evidence o f t h e r ati o n al soul Th e .

r eal pr o bl em a b o ut which Th o mists a nd S cotists w ere

a t v ar i a nc e w as t h e n atu re Of G o d I n th e D ivi n e .

n atur e w ill h ad a prim ary pl ac e with th e Scotists

, .

Will w as n ot d et ermin ed by int ell ect but det ermin ed ,

its elf T o th e Thomi s ts will an d reason are s o unit ed

.
,

in God as to be inc ap abl e of dish armony reason ,

supplying th e guiding light o f will S O to th e Scotists .

th e m oral l aw is g ro und ed in th e will o f God an d i s ,

uph eld but not as unc ert ainly by His at arbitrary

, , ,

as thi s m ay app ear I t i s to th em good j u s t bec aus e

.

God h as will ed an d e nj o i n ed it N ot r eason but .

,

g roundl es s will thus d et er min es th e go o d

, Th e .

Th o mists o n th e oth er h and cl ear th e m o r al l aw Of

, ,

this sor t Of conting ency an d gro und it so n ec ess arily

,

in th e n atu re of d eity th at it is quit e impo ssibl e to

conceive i ts b eing oth er th a n it is Wh at God com .

m ands H e c o m m ands with Thom as b ec aus e it is good

, , ,

a n d s een by Him to b e s o N o t th at eith er Aquin as

.

or S c o tus r eg ar d ed universal s fr om a N omin alist point

o f vi ew th at di s tinction
, such as it was b eing r es erv ed
 C
S H OL A ST I C AN D M E D I E VA L P H ILO S O P H Y . 1-2 3

for Willi a m O ckam Both Thom as and Duns S c otu s

.

h eld each in his own w ay to th e doctrin e Of i ntel

, ,

li gi bl e speci es by which a copy o f th e obj ect w as sup

,

pos ed i n th e proc ess Of knowl edge to aris e an d b e

, ,

s een by th e soul But th e powerful p erson ality Of

.

O c ka m, witti es t of th e sch oo lm en a ccording to Ho o k er ,

sw ept as id e th e th eo r y of int elligibl e sp eci e s as a n eed

l ess doubling of th e subj ect th e supp os ed copy in th e

,

mind b eing in his Vi ew no m o re th an th at Si gn for it

, ,

which i s fo und in o ur id ea o f it O ckam i n fact .

, ,

scatt er ed s eed s th at sh o uld aft erwards r i s e in an id eal

ism both epist emologic al an d p sych o l o gic al To O ckam
,
.

th e unity and exi s t enc e Of God w er e inc ap abl e o f d em

o n str ati o n : h e vi ewed th e n ec es sity for a Fi r st C aus e

in a pu rely hypoth etic al light O ek am it w as who set .

fo rth th e o pposition b etween dogm a an d r ea son s o th at ,

with him an i rr ep ar abl e b reach t o ok pl ac e b etw een

,

philosophy an d th eology S ch o l as tici sm m ay th en be

.

sa id to h av e pl ay ed i ts p art a n d m a d e an en d o f its elf

,
.

It only r em ain ed for D a nt e as p o et O f Thomism to , ,

sing th e s wan song of sch ol asticism Th er e c an be no

-
.

d o ubt th at D uns S cotus doughty ch ampi o n o f D ivin e

,

an d hum an freedom and pr ecursor o f mod er n sc eptic

i s m is a gr eat n am e as think er in m edi aev al philosophy
, ,

with a truly Scottish r epugn a nce to wh at h e d eem ed

th e s ervility of Aquin as b efor e Aristotl e Yet it is th e .

m er it of Aquin as to h ave b een far mor e coh er ent sys ,

tema ti c an d
, logic ally con s i s t ent th an Augu s ti n e or
Ans elm and his ethic al doct r in e touching th e will is
,

much mo re develop ed th an th at of Aristotl e H ardly .

a ny limit was set by D uns to th e r ang e and fr eedom

1 24 TU D I E S
S IN E U RO P EAN P H IL O SO P H Y .

of th e critic al int ell ect d espit e th e fact th at his faith ,

r est e d on authority For him the individu al is ul tl ma

.

r eal i tas W e can h ardly choo se but lean to th e side

.

of Aquin as in th e vi ew h e to o k of th e D ivin e n atur e

,

a n d m or al l aw since to us God is the absolut e reason

, ,

an d mor ality an embodim e nt o f th at r eason T O gr ound .

moral l aw as do es O ckam arbitr arily in the en actm ent

, ,

o f God s will so th at ev en if wh at is right h ad been

,

wrong and wh at is wrong h ad b een right it would

, ,

h av e b een our duty to ob ey b ec ause it was comm anded

is utt erly to fail of p erceiving how the n ecess ary and
,

u niver s al truths of reason are ground ed in God and

His a bsolut e re ason I n H im l aw is et ern al as th e .

abs o lut e r eason H is comm and is in virtu e o f et ern al

His th e D ivin e reason is ov er all His works
.

l aw . .

From the d ays of O rig en to o ur own the di f culty has ,

j ust b een to get thought to allow th at l arg er say to

r eas o n in the things of fa ith which b ecom es it as th at
on whi ch univ ers al and n ec ess ary truths and principles
dep end S chol asticism m ad e th e effort to r econcil e
.

fa ith an d knowl edge an d a ssumed at length th e form ,

o f thinking th at th e faith o f the church is absolute

tr uf h . Schol asticism succeed ed in tr anscending Aris
totel i an du alism by its compl et e subordin ation o fal l oth er

b ei n gs to God I t ov erp ass ed Aristoteli an inqui ry as to

.

how G o d is ultim ate c aus e o f th e world by declaring

th e glory of God to be th e end of th e world process .

O n th e foremost l evel Of l ear ning a nd spiritu al forc e

st o od S cotus Erig en a H e p aving th e way in th e ninth .
,

c entu ry for Ans elm s mov em ent held true r eligion for
,

tru e philosophy an d tru e philosophy for true r eligion

, ,
1 26 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

of th o ughtO f s h o wing th at such a b eing as h e p re sup -

p osed mu st b e thought w as not r ealis ed by Ans elm .

H e s t ra ng ely fail ed to u r g e a s a g ain st G au n il o wh at a , ,

n ec ess ary conception is th at o f th e most r ea l b eing and ,

how free th at conc eption i s fr om arbitr ar in ess and con

tr ad i c to r i n ess I mp er fect in di al ectic a l adroitn ess as his
.

a rgu m e nt m ight b e An selm yet did a gr eat service to

,

th o ught by hi s end eavour to giv e truth h eld by faith a

s ci entic form A d eep er se n se of th e difculti es i h
.

v olv ed in setting fo rth s uch truth s o n ration al gr ounds is

fo u n d in Alb ertu s M agnus an d Thom a s Aquin as owing ,

to th e t eaching s o f exp er i enc e an d d eep er study ofAris

totl e . Alr eady to Scotus E r i gen a G od h ad b een the ,

O n e C reative So urc e O f al l things ; i n this O ne C aus e ,

pr i m o rdi al c aus es immut ably sub s ist ; ind ependently
of Him th e univ ers e do es not exist but H e exists in all
, ,

thing s N atur e i s con s titut ed by th e et ern al archetypes

.

o f things E r i gen a s thought so m et aphys ic al in

.
,

ch ara ct er already m eant th e triumph of th e universal

,
.

Alb er tu s l ater put th e n o tion of I nnit e B eing in pl ace

, ,

of Pr i m e M ov er .

M ed i mval phil o sophy st ra ng ely fail ed to see th e unsat

i sfac tor i n ess o f its tr eatm ent Of logic a s so m ething purely
fo r m al an d di s s o ci at e fr om reality H en c e th e school .

m en did n o t reali se th at th ey turn ed th e Christi an

d ogm as int o so m any l o gic al puzzl es Thi s th ey did .
,

d es pit e th e fact th at th ey m ea nt to apply r eas o n to the

d a t a o f rev elati o n an d to nd o ut n ec es s ary t r uth Of
, ,

which God s h ould be to th em b as i s Th e discr edit into .

,

which th eir sys t em fell spr ang out of thi s div o rc e fr om,

r eality a nd exp eri enc e into which th e v erb al subtleties

,
 C
S H O L AST I C AN D M E D IE VA L P H I LO S O P H Y . 1 27

of th e s ys t em b et rayed th em T h e th o ught o f Eu ro p e
.

s p eedily l eft b ehi n d think er s lik e S u arez an d o th er s who ,

in modi ed w ay s v ainly clung to th e Old m eth o ds an d

principl es Phil o sophy h ad n eed o f a freer atmosph ere
.
,

in which th e only auth or ity s h o uld b e th at o f r easo n .

Th e m eth o d Of s chol astici s m w as th at Of subt racting th e

i rr ation al el em en ts fr om r eligion I t r eg ard ed r eligi o n as
.

a D ivin e rev el ation ; it st ar t e d with a s yst e m o fd o gm as

it was a ration ali s ed C atholici s m W e h av e s een h ow .

,

in D uns Sc otu s an d Willi a m O c kam th e effort s of th e ,

age o f t h e sch o l a s tics to r econcil e religion and philo

so phy end ed really i n th eir c o mpl et e disp ar ity b ei n g

r ecognis ed A s orr owful res ult w as thi s co nclusi o n o f

.

th e end eavour t o prov e an d m a int a in t h e u nity o f t r uth ,

r eligi ou s a n d philosophic al Fo r al l th at w e h o ld t o
.
,

th e vi ew th at th e m o d er n cont em p t o f schol astici s m is

exceedingly mispl ac ed Cu r rent th o ughtl es s n es s all ows

.

th e sch o l as tic spi r it Of s p ecul ativ e d epth a n d inquisitiv e

n ess,
its unm easur ed cond enc e in th e p ow ers o f th e
int ell ect its tr an s mitt ed w ealth of p ri n cipl es el em ent s
, , ,

an d t erms al l to p ass i n t o th e inh erit anc e o f t o d ay with

,
-

rar ely a w or d Of g rat e ful a cknowl edgm e nt D o gm atic in .

ch ar act er n o doubt th e thought of th at ep o ch w as but

, , ,

n ot without fr uitful i s su es for di al ectic al th o u ght fo r ,

th eol o gic al fo rmul ati o n and for ethic al t eaching a nd

,

pro n o uncem ent To it w e m ay w ell apply th o se word s

.

Of D ant e th at s p eak O f m agn i c en c es yet to be kn o wn so ,

th at th e fo es th ereof Sh all not b e abl e to k eep s il ent

Le s ue mag ni cenz e c on os c i ute
Sarann o u oi mi mi c i
an cora s i , c h e i s

N on me p ot ran t ener l e l i ng u e m ut e .
 CHAPTE R XI .

TH E I
PH LOS OPHY O F AQ U I N AS .

TH E v ast es t a n d m o st sy s t em atic geniu s o f th e Middle

Ages w as S ai n t Thom as Aquin as H i s archit ectonic w ork .
,

th e Summa Theol ogi ca e mb o di es th e wh o l e philos ophy

,

o fth at ep o ch exp o und ed in th e spi r it Of th e tim e

, That .

Spi r it w as th e s pi r it o f A r i s totl e Aquin as b ec am e th e .

b est repr ese nt ativ e O f Sch o l asticism Ro s mini wh o i n .

, ,

h i s Teodi cea sp ea ks Of Aquin as as chi ef am ong I t ali an

,

philo s o ph ers s et hi m s elf to p erfect th e philosophy of

,

Aqui n as by pu rging it O f thi s A r i s t o t eli an l eaven with ,

th e p an th eistic m at er i ali s tic t end ency it b o r e

-
Aquin as .
,

h o wev er h ad bo r n e so gr eat r esp ect to th e t eachi ngs Of

,

A r i s totl e th at o nly wh en th ey c am e into t ol erably cl ear

a nt ago nism to Ch r isti a n t r uth did h e d evi at e fro m th em .

I t is thus easy to see why Th o mism as a s yst em l a ck ed

i n l o gic al c o mpl et en es s a cut e an d m as s ive as it wa s
,
.

B ut Aquin a s i s not to b e thought Of as a m ere r epro

d uc er o fA r i s t o tl e as is som etim es s a id ; rath er is it tru e
,

t o s ay t h at with th e ai d of A r i s t o tl e an d th e fath ers h e

, ,

b ro u ght forth a philosophy al l h i s o w n For such fathers . A

as Ath a n asius B asil th e G reg o r i es Ch r y s o stom Ambros e

, , , , ,

Augu stin e w ere al l u sed by Aquin as wh o s e Aristot eli an

, ,

i s m is b r ight en ed with an ef uen c e o f Pl atonic el eva

1 30 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H ILOSO P H Y .

without r evel ati o n to be found in th e philosophy of

,

Aristotl e In th e c ase of n atur al religion Aquin as took

.
,

reason to b e p arall el with rev el ati o n in its working ;

wh ereas in r ev eal ed r eligion r eason h as m erely ancill ary

, ,

functions an d wo r ks in subordin ation to r ev el ation

, .

G o d is an in effabl e B eing in the vi ew of Aquin as and is

, ,

r ais ed abov e hum an knowl edg e God is to Aquin as as .

,

h e h as s a id a ft er Aristotl e th e Prim e M o t o r
, ,This n eed .

fo r a Fir s t C a us e is cu r iously b as ed by Aquin as upo n the

imp os sibility of an innit e s eri es o f success ive events ,

r ath er th an up o n deducti o n s b as ed on th e univ ers al

sci ence of n atu re H e h o lds we must adv ance from nite
.

eff ect to innit e c au se ; for though such ef fect may not

,

r ev eal th e entire c aus e it can yet prov e th at it exists

, .

Aquin as clung to th e absolut en ess O f D eity and did not ,

fail to s ep arat e Him wholly from al l cr eat ed things H e .

h eld th at all b eing s are not pur ely possibl e but there is ,

som ething which is n ec ess ary .

But ind eed it was r ath er th e ext ern ality Of nit e things
to God and th eir quasi ind ep end ence of him th at Aquin as
, ,

emph asis ed m aking the c at egory of c aus ality th e key

,

ston e o i his thought O f th e alt ern atives of the School

.

men Aquin as pr eferr ed to l ay str ess on th e uni versali a i n

,

r e and so l aid st r ess on th e c r eatur ely ess enc e th at th e

, ,

hold o f D ivin e imm a nenc e was loos ened H e in fact .

, ,

displ aced th e ontological argum ent of Anselm th at h e ,

might set up th e D ivine Exist ence in d posterl om fashion

'

since h e thought th e argum ent to be compl et e must be , , ,

a t on e an d th e s am e tim e d p r i or i and d p oster i ori

, The .

reason l ay in his accounting God the only b eing at onc e

ide al and r eal or Whose ideality w as id entic al with

,
 TH E P H IL OSO P H Y O F A Q U IN AS . 131

r eality God was to him actus pun ts th e absolut ely r eason

.
,

abl e subst anc e i n Whom will is subordin at e to r eason

,
.

Two fo rms of being are found by Aquin as in God

real b eing an d id eal b eing th e form er vi ewing God in ,

Hims elf th e l att er r eg arding H im as arch etyp al id ea

,
.

This distinction of b eing in G o d is aft erw ards found in

Rosmini but is not d ue to him
, Aquin as holds it i m .

po s sibl e to kn o w id eal b eing in God without knowing ,

His real being H e hold s we c ann o t know G od in His

.

ess enc e but o nly through His effects Th e t rend Of th e

, .

thought of Aquin as is u nfavour abl e to ontologi s m which ,

h as s om etim es profess ed to shi eld its elf b ehind hi s

autho r ity M an s knowl edg e O f God according to
.

,

Aquin as is an al ogical in ch aract er B eing an d es s ence

, .

are not distinguish ed in God : His ess enc e i s His b eing ,

s ays th e S umma By b eing h e m eans th e a ctu ality o f

.

ev ery fo r m or n atur e E s s enc e an d exist ence b eing thus

.

th e s am e in God as th e Fir s t Ef ci ent C aus e t h e act

as it is s aid
, ,

O f existing is d er iv ed in th e c a s e Of s e cond ,

ary ef ci ent c a us e s from this First E f , ci ent C aus e .

B eing h e thinks is in this First C aus e int elli genc e

, , , ,

itself God is to him distinguish ed as th e s elf exi s tent -

b eing
.

a n ec ess arily existing ess enc e This m et aphysical .

ess ence o f D eity is root and found ation of His sp ecic

attribut es as we s h all see

, .

As God alon e is b eing by H i s es s enc e for that His ,

ess enc e is H is b eing so ev ery cr eatu re is b eing by par

,

ti cip ati on an d its ess enc e is not its b eing

, T h e D ivin e .

imm ensity is to Saint Thom as an absolut e att ribut e

, , ,

th e tot ality of th e D ivin e es s enc e no t b eing some thing

comm ensur able with tot ality of pl ace God is in His .

I 32 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E AN P H IL OSO P H Y .

Word : th e Wo rd is God : th e Word God is th e Idea .

F or the wo rd Aquin as exp ressly s ays conceived in the

, ,

mind repr es ents al l th at w e actu a lly comp reh end In

, .

God th er e is a u n iqu e I dea a nd this I d ea i s God Himself

, .

T h e id ea is th e divin e es s e nc e with S aint Thom as which ,

al l things imit at e in s o f ar as th ey a r e good

,
.

As to th e wo rld Aquin as s ay s r eas o n c annot apodi e

,

tic ally show th at th e world was m ad e in tim e The .

et er nity of cr eation h e do es n ot afrm though h e do es ,

not think it c an b e r efuted s o repu g n a nt to r eas o n is a

,

b eginnin g of cr eat ed things H e allows th at th e philo

.

s oph er s h ave b een abl e to r ecognis e th e rst thing but ,

d eni es th at th ey h av e indep end ently of faith and by use

,

of th eir reas o n b een abl e to d em o nstr at e th at cr eation

,

to o k pl ace in tim e Sa int Th o m as aver s th at th e most

.

univer sal caus es produc e th e mo s t univ ers al effects and ,

th e most univ ers al ef fect h e thi n k s is b eing

, There is , .

no impression which th e mind mo re fund am ent ally

g ath ers in th e vi ew of Aquin as from th e obj ect th an
, ,

th at o f b eing .

This id ea o fb eing is th e rst o f al l rst pr inciples and ,

may b e expres sed in th e n egativ e fo r mul a B eing is not ,

not b eing
-
Th en b eing h e a rgu es mu s t be th e p roper
, ,

eff ect o fth e r st an d m os t univ er sal c au s e which i s God ,

.

Creation is to him p r op erly th e wo r k o f Go d W ho pro ,

duc es b eing a bsolut ely And th e visibl e world i s c reated

.

aft er id eas th at are ext ern ally exist ent in th e D ivin e M ind ,

such id eas b eing O f th e ess enc e of God yea b eing in , ,

fact God But th e s ep ar at en ess of God from th e c rea

,
.

tion h as to b e soft en ed down and this is effect ed by ,

Aquin as through insisting on God as b eing in all things

1 34 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L OSO P H Y .

ar e thos e of c aus ality xcellence or emin ence e

(excell entz w or emi nenti a ) an d n eg ati o n (negati oni s) All

'

.
,

goodn e ss and p erfection for Aquin a s exist pre emin ently -

in G od N ot always free from d ang er h ow ever i s his

. , ,

mod e o f speaki n g as for exa mpl e wh en h e m akes God

, ,

simply th e a ctu a lity o f all thing s an d s ep arat es poten

t i al i ty fr o m Him o r wh e n h e t end s to id e ntify thought
,

an d b eing B eing h e expres s ly r eg ar ds as its elf the m ost

.

p er fect O fal l thing s in virtu e O fits actu ality ; b eing it self

,

i s to him th e a ctu ality of all things an d ev en of th eir ,

ideas H e holds a doct rin e Of n al c au ses wh erein al l

.
,

things are di rect ed to th ei r en d by a suprem e and int el

l igen t B eing .

Aquin as h o lds to tw o d egrees of D ivin e int elligibility

th e rst d egree com es to us by n atur al light an d to the ,

s econd d eg ree w e are guid ed by s up er n atural illumina

tion This di s tinction h as a v ery fund am ent al pl ace with
.

Aquin as an d h e thinks o ur c o nfus ed an d unpr actis ed

,

visi o n h as n eed to g row in th e use of th e l att er o r high er

light SO it n o doubt h as but h i s fo r m er positi o n th at
.
, , ,

God as C r eato r an d L ord is known th r ough th e things

, ,

th at are m ad e i s o n e which s eem s r ath er to exceed the

,

vi ew possibl e to mod ern philosophy O f religion s o deeply ,

af fect ed by K anti an an d post K a nti an a gnosticism The - .

light of hum an r eason h e hold s to b e a p articip ation

in t h e uncreat ed light O f D ivin e reas on ; h e t akes th e
rst p rinciple to b e known natural ly such knowl edge ,

b eing of G od as th e Autho r of N atu re ; an d h e r egards

this principl e as th e s o urce Of al l hum a n sci enc e and
knowl edg e I t is o n such a strong and a ssured founda
.

ti o n h e will build his philosophical edic e .

 T H E P H IL OSO P H Y O F AQ U I N AS . 1 35

God h aving put within th e soul i ts int ell ectu al light

, ,

its knowl edge O fthos e rst principles which are th e g er ms ,

O f th e sci e nc es is [war excel l ence th e c aus e O f hum an

, , ,

sci ence in his vi ew D ivin e Reason is for him th e l aw

.

O f a ll c reat ed things an d s uch l aw i s et ern al , TO .

Aquin as subst anc e m eans b eing which exi s t s in its elf

, ,

a n d not in a noth er as i ts s ubj e ct Substanti a est r es cuj us .

natur ee debetur esse non i n a l to Fo r uw ox el uevov h e u ses.

supp osi tum r ath er th a n substr a tum S ubst a nti a l fo rm is .

to him th at which constitut es m att er in i ts p r im ary

b eing th e fo rm b eing th at by which a thing is wh at it
,

is I n vi rtu e of God s int ellig enc e His life i s for Aquin as

.

, , ,

as f or Aristotl e imm o rt al an d et er n al
, And th e hum an .

soul which i s fo r Aqui n as m os t p erfect o f al l th e fo rms

,

which m att er i s c ap abl e o f receiving is in his Vi ew als o , , ,

imm o rt al b eing th e sole fo r m which surviv es th e dissolu

,

tion Of its corporeal or g anis ation T h e s o ul is to him a .

b eing p ro p er an imm ort al sub s t a nce which com es not

, ,

by gen eration but pr o ceeds from G o d by creation

, .

Aquin as in his thr eefold vi ew of subst a nce h eld al l

, ,

ess enc es s av e G o d to b e m a d e up of m att er a n d fo rm .

T h e hum a n soul as imm at er i al s ub s t a nc e was to him

, , , ,

condition ed as to its exist enc e th r ough its ess enc e I t .

is imp ort ant to Obs erv e b efore w e p ass from th es e ,

asp ects th at Aquin as expr ess ly hold s int ellig enc e to

,

know b eing absolut ely an d without disti n cti o n o f ti m e

, .

Th erein h e h as hi s p oints o f cont a ct with th e thou ght Of

Augu stin e a nd O f D ant e .

W e c a nnot dwell o n th e am azing comp reh ensiven ess

an d subtl ety ofth e r eligi o us an d m et aphy s ic al philosophy

of Aquin as : we h av e his ethic al philo s ophy also to ex

1 36 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

a min e but it c an be best understood wh en his whole

,

syst em of thought is kept in full vi ew The whole is to .

him always pr es ent in th e p art but it is his philosophy ,

in whol e we sh all most conn ect edly nd from a bro ad

surv ey ofits p arts I t m ay at this point b e tl y recalled
.

th at his S umma is not only th e Ch r isti an r eligion

th rown into sci entic fo rm but is also th e o rderly ,

expositi o n o f wh at a ma n Sh o uld be H ence th e vision .

of th e D ivin e Ess ence of Whom he treats with such

,

th eol o gic power an d fuln ess is for him th at p erfect ,

bl ess edn ess which h e t akes to be th e ultim ate en d of man .

G o d also as absolut e activity Of thought and will h e

, ,

t akes to act for an en d which ev erything in th e world

,

subs erves .

Th e high dignity of man is found by Aquin as m ainly

in his will only th er e is this trouble th at m an is apt
, , ,

in the thought of Aquin as not to carry su fci ent ,

answ er in his origin al spiritu al constitution to the

, ,

comm ands o f supr em e will impos ed upon him H e is .

m o r e sci entic th a n Augustin e or Ans elm in his tr eat

m ent Of th e will a tr eatm ent clos ely rel at ed to other
p arts Of his philosophy Though his psychology i s so
.

l arg ely drawn from A r istotl e yet his th eory of the will
,

h as the m erit to b e much mor e compl et e th an A ris

totl e s an d h as ex er t ed l arg e inu enc e on Eu ro p ean

,

philosophy H e s ets as we h ave s een the D ivin e will

.
, ,

in a rel ation of d ep endence on th e D ivin e intellect .

S o in resp ect of m a n s n ature lik ewis e Aquin as held

, ,

th e far r eaching doctrin e th at int ell ect is suprem e ; to

-

him wh at reas on app r oved will ob eyed The good is , .

comm and ed by God in his view bec ause it is good

, , ,
1 38 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

Per h aps o ne ought to say th at freedom as it is ,

fo und in Aquin as s eems to exist rath er too v erb ally

, ,

an d n o t to b e su f ci ently r eal H e is apt to appear .

as though t r ying to r et ain freedom and d et erminism

at o n e an d th e s am e tim e Th ere is no la ck o f stress
.

on freed o m as for example wh en h e s ays th e b eing

, , ,

i s free th at c an rul e i ts o w n action for h e is fr ee wh o ,

is th e c aus e o f hims elf ; wh ereas th at which is by a ,

sort o f n ec es s ity d r iven to action is h e holds in a

, , , ,

st at e inc o mp atibl e with fr eedo m Yet though m an s .

,

turning to G o d is ascrib ed by him to fr ee will this -

,

turning Of th e will is decl ar ed impossible unl ess God

Hims elf s o turn it SO th at o n th e o ne h and Aquin as
.
, ,

in th e cl eares t m ann er decl ar es mov em ent Of th e will

to b e nothing l es s th a n inclin ation of th e will its elf

t o wards th e thing wish ed O n th e oth er h and h e .

,

af r m s th at G od al o n e c an ch ang e th e will for th at ,

H e alon e is c aus e of th e pow er Of inclin ation c aus e ,

in fact O f th e will which H e alon e c an efcaci ousl y

, ,

m ov e .

O n which it may b e r em ar k ed th at th e will may no ,

doubt be mov ed by its elf as int r insic c aus e and may

, ,

y et b e op en to b e mov ed by G o d in H is gr ac e as ex
tr i n si c c aus e so th a t th ere is n o r eal inconsist ency
,
.

And yet it s eems not ea sy to hold th e pr es ent ation Of

Aquin as to b e quit e un ambiguous and this mo re or ,

l es s equivoc al ch ar act er o f fr eedom in his h ands i s

more s urprising in vi ew o f his g enuin e doctrin e of
Cr eation with th e distinctn ess o f th e w orld fr om God
,

which it involv es .

I n resp ect of th e D ivin e r el ation to evil Aquin as ,

 THE P H I L O S O P H Y O F A Q U I N AS . 1 39

teaches th at the s inful ac t is b o th b eing an d ac t and ,

th at God is no doubt th e cau s e of al l action consi dered

, ,

as act .But then s ays Saint Thom as sin is mor e th an

, ,

being and act ; it is a d efect a d efect springing from

fr ee will as its c aus e a nd not t o b e referred to G o d
-
,
.

Th at is to s ay h e m ak es God th e c aus e of th e act

,

where there is sin but not th e c aus e Of sin since He

, ,

is not the caus e of th e d efect which th ere is in the

ac t
. H is view of th e ch aract er o f evil is thus n eg ative .

His tre atment of th e e motions w as striking b eyond

a nything produced by M edi aevalism ; th e p assions he
refers to the body an d divid es th em into two gre at
,

typ es the concupiscent an d th e ir ascibl e The v arious

, .

forms and degr ees Of th es e p assions h e suggestively tr eats .

The optimism o f Aquin as w as of more moder ate

ch ar act er th an th at o f L eibniz or M al ebranche o r , ,

Rosmini As ag ainst th e strong Optimism Of Ab el ard

.
,

Aquin as h eld th at G od could cr eat e anoth er world

better th an this p res ent o n e but could not cre at e one
,

b ett er ad apt ed to th e end for which this world h as

been m ade It is by th e end in Vi ew he thinks the
.
, ,

ord er adopt ed mu s t be j udg ed D ivin e Wisdom is .

limited to a d et ermin ed order only as the end chosen ,

requires th e b est p articul ar m eans Of att aining it .

The soul its elf i s in th e Summa vi ewed as

alre ady indicated

, ,

a s t h e substanti al
form of a physical
org anic body endowed with r ation al life This was .

in accordance with th e th eory o f th e Schol astics as to

a r adic al subst ratum call ed materi a p ri ma prim ary
m att er Aquin as like Alb ertus m ade m atter its elf the
.
, ,

principle of individu ation in which he was Opposed ,

1 40 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

by D uns Scotus H is doctrin e of the soul must we ar

.

to us a v ery m at eri alistic aspect unless it be carefully

,

rem emb ered th at this subst anti al form w as t aken to

b e imm at er i al a n d p er fectly simpl e H e expressly s ays.

th at th e hum an soul which is c all ed int ellect or mind

, ,

is som ething incorpor eal an d s elf subsisting Although - .

th e int ell ectu al soul h as no m att er h e s ays from , ,

which it is constitut ed yet it i s for m Of a c ertain

,

m att er T h e int ellectu al individu al r eache s his com

.

p l eted individu ality in th e ex er ci se of r eason and free

will 8 0 th e r ation al soul h e thinks is prop erly s aid
.
, ,

to h av e b eing and to h av e b een cr eat ed or m ad e

, .

For b eing m ad e (er i ) ends in b eing N ot from pre .

existing corpor eal m att er could i t h av e b een m ade or ,

it would th en be corpore al ; and not from pr e existing -

Spiritu al m att er as in th at
, c as e spiritu al subst ances
would be mutu ally tr ansform ed ; th erefo re he holds it
could o nly h av e b een by cr eation To him th e soul
.
,

as imm at eri al w as immort al an d could not be con

, ,

c ei ved as oth erwis e M an is to him th e int erm edi ate

.

link b etween m at eri al life and Spiritu al o r imm at eri al

activity .

I n his philosophy of knowl edg e Aquin as m ak es m an s

cognitiv e powerlik e th e soul fr om which it em anates

,

p art ak e of a doubl e ch aract er m at eri al and i m ,

m at eri al All knowl edge b egins for him from th e data

.

Of s ensuous p erc eption H e distinctly s ays th at our

.

knowl edg e com es rst fr om the sens es but m aintains ,

this do es not m ean th at o ur s ens e cognition is the -

complet e an d p erfect c aus e o f our kn o wledge but ,

r ath er th at it suppli es th e m at eri al of the c ause He .

1 42 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H I LO SO P H Y .

W e m ay now m ak e som e r em arks o n features of this

imposing philos o phy Of th e M iddl e Ages Its realistic .

ch aract er is obvious th e r eal b eing fo r Aquin as th e

,

ration al H e compl et ed
. in a Ch r isti an s ens e the
, ,

w or k o f A r i s t o tl e H e vindic at ed th e sup er io r ity of

.

th e cont empl ativ e life as Aristotl e h ad d o n e m aking

, ,

th e cont empl ation o f Godth e vision o f H i s b eing or

es s enc e at o nc e h igh est g o od a n d high est t r uth We .

h av e in Aquin as a fu s i o n of di al ectic s and mysticism .

T o di al ectics w e o we his syst em with its th eo ry of ,

th e s up er i o rity o f int ell ect to will an d its org anic con ,

n ecti on of d o g m as To mystici s m w er e d ue alike its

.

b as e in l ov e and its ap ex in th e b eati c vision Of

,

God His th o ught h ad b een affe ct ed by th e mystical

.

agnosticism of D ionysius th e Ar eop agit e on which he ,

m ad e som e not abl e adv ances His mind h ad suffer ed .

a s t r ange cl eav ag e wh ereby th e D ivin e and th e earthly

b ec am e p art ed into two quite s ep ar at e worlds Thi s .

du ali s m was d ue to an eccl esi astic al sup ern aturalism

so s tr o ng as to p r ov e abl e to l ay th e found ati o n Of his

syst em o n this du alistic b asis .

Th e b old ch ar act er of his ontology strikes th e mind ,

which nds th e m atch of it only in H eg el L ess .

di rect an d l ess p a nth eistic was his vi ew of cr eation

, ,

as e m a n ating from G o d th a n th at of his m aster , ,

Alb er tu s M agnus and so h e r epr es ented th e active

,

will of D eity as th at which as Thought wills and , ,

cr eat es T h e id ea O f ord er as a r uling idea of the

.
,

M iddl e Ages nds in him its most symm etrical and

,

proportion at e exp ressi o n H e d ev el o ps it into a great

.

living syst em conn ecting th e most m an ifold and

,
 T H E P H I LO S O P H Y O F A Q U I N AS . 1 43

diverse interests so th at th erefrom h e with syst em a

, ,

ti si ng g enius builds up an al l e mbracing wo rld vi ew

,
- -
.

Christi anity he brings into clos er r el ati o n with sci ence

and culture ,a s th es e th en exist ed For g r ac e com es .

to p erfect n atur e not to d estroy it (gr ati a naturam non

,

tol l i t sed per ci t) A l ead er of th e Christ endom o f his

.

own tim e Aquin as w as m aking truth th e quest Of his

,

compreh ensiv e mod e of thinking For th e most p art .

,

h e m ad e knowl edg e a n d th eo r etic reason p r ec ed e will

an d pr actic al r eason an d this r ation al el em ent is a
,

very pr ecious featu r e in Thomistic philos o phy T h e .

b eing of God th e gr o unding of th e world in H im an d

, ,

th e soul s immort ality are to Aquin as truths alr eady

,

discover abl e by re ason T h e unity of the D ivin e

.

ess enc e r eason can r ec eiv e but it is oth erwis e with ,

th e triplicity of the D ivin e P er sons Reason is to him .

th e pr ecursor of faith a n d with th e ind ep e nd enc e of

,

th e fo rm er h e j oins its subordin ation to th e truth of

Christi an rev el ation Reason can at l east ov erth ro w

.

Obj ections to such r ev el ation ev en though its t r uths ,

are abov e r eason an d not est ablish ed by m ea ns of it

, .

Perh aps one should not err in estim ating th e el ev ation

Of his life and his mild p ersist ency in his imm ens e
,

t ask as great er th an his el evation abov e his own tim e

, .

But it is cert ainly a t r ibut e to his r eali s ing in hims elf

th e high est develop ed th o ught of his tim e th at th e ,

mighty D ant e Sits so clos ely to th e thoug h t o f th e

Ang elic D octo r .

Th er e can h ardly b e a doubt th at th e d efensiv e

attitud e O f Aquin as towards Pl atonism bore him
further towards empiricism th an would oth erwis e h ave
1 44 S TU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H I LOSO P H Y .

b een th e c as e Th e inu enc e of Aquin as on th e sub

.

s equ ent hist ory O f r eligious thought was undoubt edly

great an d h as liv ed on into th e dogm atic thought O f
,

to d ay ev en in th e Pr o t est ant world This w as l argely

-
.

th e r esult of M el a nchthon s h aving t ak e n up posi

ti o ns in symp athy with th e Aristot eli anism o f Aquin as .

Among sub s equ ent thinkers inu enced by Aquin as must

b e r ecko n ed Spin o z a wh o se e thic al an d m et aphysic al
,

philosophy owed much to ideas d eriv ed fr o m the

Angelic D octor For th e pl ace o f Aquin as in the
.

histo r y of ethics is cert ainly not l ess import ant th an

his signic anc e for th e history of r eligious thought .

I n ne o n e c an think of n o high er tribut e to his

,

wo rk th an is found in th e fact th at th e great est n eed

of th e wo rld to d ay is j ust th at Of a n Aquin as to do
-

for its v ast body of synth etic knowl edge wh at the

Angelic D octo r did for th at O f th e M iddl e Ages .
1 46 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

L et th en go b a ck ve c entu ri es an d lo o k into the

us ,

mind of thi s young O xfor d philo so ph er W e nd it .

full o fth o ught s th at m ad e him th e sw or n foe Of N o min al

i s m which er s twhil e h ad n o l es s a n a m e th a n Willi am
,

O c kam as th at of i ts d o ught y ch a mpi o n T h e L ogi ca .

Of Wyclif l eav es as id e argum ent atio n an d syll ogisms ,

vit al as th es e a pp eared to th e S ch o l astic s his d esire to ,

co u n t eract N o min alism an d giv e a reali s tic turn to

,

L ogic b e in g th e reas o n
, N ow to th ese N omin ali st s
.
,

n o g en er al t er m is a n ythi n g but a n e m pt y s ounda

atus voei s as th ey t er m ed it
, Th at i s to say the
.
,

g en er al t er m h as n o m eaning a p art fro m th e Si n gul ars

to which it r efer s T h e Si n gul ar s th er efor e to which
.
, ,

this t erm refer s are th e o nl y r eal things i n th e world

, .

But it is Of cou rse much too b o ld a thi n g fo r N o m i nal

, ,

i sts to say th at r es embl a nc es o r liken es ses b etween

p er sons or things ar e n o t d en o t ed by th ese gen eral
t er ms an d SO far th ey h av e to st ep down fro m th ei r
, , ,

N o m in ali s t p ed est al For it i s evid ently absu rd to say

.

th at only Singular s do exi s t in th e wo rld To some .

e xt en t ev ery s ingul ar i s its univers al This whil e it .

,

r et ains its ow n distinctiv e individu ality o r peculi arity .

Wyclif w as fond Of th e myst ery of th e Trinity as an

illust r ati o n Wh at th e F ath er is s o Wyclif ho lds
.

is th e So n an d is th e H oly S pirit Yet th e F ather is

,
.

n ot t h e So n N or is th e Spi r it th e F ath er
. I n such .

w ays Wyclif sought to st rength en his p o s iti o n to the

m en O f th at tim e H e is Thomi s t in t end ency but his
.
,

Plat o ni s m is p r on e to c arry h i m away fr om Aquinas .

Wyclif s thoughts an d d o ctrin esfa nt a stic as m any of

th em must s eem to th e men of to d ay are dr awn out

-
 T H E P H ILO SO P H Y OF WY C LI F . 1 47

with gr eat c are strength an d am azing logic al ex actitud e ;

, ,

h e i s in fa ct a logici a n b efor e al l
, , B ut on e with a .

m et aphysical cr eed an d who is determined to d emon

,

st rat e the existence of univ ers als His Realis m was Of .

ext rem e ch ar act er S m all wonder th at th e logici a n s o f

.

to d ay hold all r eal exist enc e to be necess arily singul ar

-
,

and
y et r ej ect Re alism th e g en er al notion not b eing to
, ,

th em of any m et aphysic al s ignic anc e T h e conict

, .

b etween N omin alism an d Realism was ind eed th e b as al

on e in m edi aev al phil o so phy and th e inu e nc e : o f
,

Ar i s totle though h e w as by no m eans a N o min ali s t

, ,

pro ved p aramount in d rawing O ffthought in a N omin alist

directi o n which so well h a rm o nis ed with th e int erest of
,

S ci enc e a n d ex act knowl edge of the concr et e For .

th ere c an h ardly be a doubt th at m edi aev al thinking

sh owed a tend ency to id entify th e r eal with th at which
w as m erely abstr act or l o gic ally exist ent so th at at l a s t a ,

N omin alistic typ e Of th ought i s s een to prev ail Th e .

Realism of Wyclif took things to be as we know th e m

to b eas th ey exist in ou r minds and w as thus for e ,

runner of such I dealism as th at of B erkel ey an d th e

G erm an Tr ansc end ent ali sts of recent times Wh at .
,

th en is th e ess enti al po s iti o n involv ed in this phil o

,

Sophic a l st a ndpoint ? I t is a s Dz i ewi c ki prop erly points

,

o ut th at to b e is to be p er c eiv ed ; th at m att er is n o thing

,

ap a rt fro m th e knower ; th a t it exists as and wh en we , ,

kn o w it ; th at the non ego is pos it ed by th e ego an d

-
,

b eco m es one with it ; and th at th e ext ern al w orld is

known by us only as a modic ation of ourselves s aid ,

wo rld b eing in fact only s uch modic ation Wyclif

, ,
.

sh ares Schol astic subs ervi enc e to the c ategori es of

1 48 STU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I LO SO P H Y .

Aristotl e and we to d ay a ft er al l th at h as been s aid

,
-
,

both for an d ag ain st t h e A ri s t o t eli an scheme still wait ,

to know h ow th es e c at ego r ic principl es d et ermin e

thought th e whil e they do n o t of n ecessity come into
,

consciousn ess .

Th e Oppon ents Of Wyclif on th e oth er h and h eld , ,

th at things are not as w e know th em Th eir position .

thus anticip at ed in impor t a nt ways th e philosophy Of

, ,

L ocke the m at eri ali s m of th e e ight eenth century and

, ,

th e Empiricism an d Po s itivis m o f to d ay Th e position -

.

is possible to th ese rep rese nt ativ es of thought in virtue

of th e s elf contr adictions i n to which o ur knowl edge at
-

m any points falls N ow it must b e s aid th ere is truth

both in the pos i t i o n o f Wyclif and in th at of his
adv ers ari es F or while b etween thoughts and things
.
,

things which give ris e to o ur id eas and thoughtssome

r es emblance must exi st yet w e m ay not go so far as to
,

postul at e identity b etween thing s and our knowled ge

of th em Wycli fs plac e i s with tho se who stand for
.

knowl edg e in its b asal ch ara ct er an d worth But any .

proper d enition of knowl edge or discussion of its ,

n ature th ere is not for th e d ay of epistemology was

, ,

not yet . W e may no t carry th e co nict so far as di d

h e but we c an do n o oth erwis e th an admit th at it

,

h as b een d ue to this D oct o r E vangel i cus and those
who h av e followed on his lin es th at th e found ations of,

truth st and sure W e m ay ve ry well gr ant to Realism

.

th e truth of the typ es an d cl asses th e gener a and speci es, ,

O fsci enc e without d enying s o m e whol esom e forc e to the

,

N omin alist cont ention th at o ur convention al general

propositions stand in n eed of th e corrective inu ence
1 50 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

position discu s s qu estion s lik e th e c es s ati o n of non

to
en ti t
y at Creati o n and th e L ord s hip of D eity a nt erior
,

to th e C r eati o n T o day it m ay b e rem ark ed we are

.
-
, ,

still positing c reativ e en ergy in D eity th at annul s non

b eing an d call s fo rth as th e L og os c reatu rely existence
, , ,

out o f this s ph ere o f n o n b eing I n d ealing with the -

.

I nnit e w e n d Wyclif h aunt ed with th at qu an tit ative

,

innit e which h as s hown s uch wond erful p er sist ence in

,

phil o sophy fr o m Ar ist o tl e s day to o ur own H e thinks

.

th at an alogic ally al l thin gs G o d an d His cr eatu res are

, , , ,

id entica l Omni a sunt i dem i n en ti tate h e afrms H i s

.
,
.

r eali s m g oes f ar b ey o nd t h e position ofth ose w h o h o ld to

a n al o gic al id en tity but regar d such id entity as n ot real

,

b ec au se an al o gical G od i s to Wyclif id entical with the

.

cr eatu re in r esp ect th at th ey are b oth b eing But .

Wyclif h as his answer for th o s e w h o think h e identi es

G od w ith th e c r ea tu r e a n d m ak es s ub s t a nc e to be acci
,

d ent H i s an s wer i s i n effect th at that whi ch i s b eing

.
, ,

i n th e c a s e Of G o d c annot b e l o gic ally conclud ed to be

th e s a m e with tha t whi ch w e c all b eing in th e cr eatu re .

G o d i s to Wy clif th e absolut e C a us e a n d th e my st erious ,

Sourc e o f all things Wyclif found it h ar d to st eer

.

cl ear o f th e d an ger s o f Panth eistic t end ency in th e use

h e m ak es o f th e concepti o n of T ra nsc end ent B eing as ,

som ething common to God and th e cr eature an d h e ,

elud es th e d a ng er o nly by gr eat l o gic al a d r oitn ess an d

ar gum ent ativ e subtl ety .

I n Wy cli fs th eo ry o f F r eedom th e conc eption of

p o ssibility bulked l arg ely So l arg ely th at at l as t in

.
,

h i s p eculi ar u se Of it a s appli ed to God h e was driven

, ,

to a h ard d et erminism whil e sti l l upholding Fr ee will ,

-
 TH E P H ILO S O P H Y OF W Y C LI F . 1 51

as a dogm a I n t reating of th e conting ent Wyclif

.
,

h eld al l ind et er min ati o n to h ave its ultim at e c aus e in

God .N ec essity an d co ntingency are n o t absolut ely
Oppos ed in th e vi ew o f Wyclif It is howev er v a in
,
.
, ,

to try to ev a d e th e lin es b eing s h arply dr aw n b etw ee n

th es e two Wyclif s d o ct rin es Of N ec essity wer e an ath e

.

m ati sed by th e Cou ncil of C o n sta nz in 1 4 1 5 fo r th e ,

t emper o f th at tim e w as s uch at l eas t as co uld nd no

d elight in b o ld p ar a do x Wyclif s t h o ught like th at o f
.

,

so m e think er s st ill s eems t o fail to r ealis e th e implic a

,

tion s o f our b eing fr ee an d n it e ag en t s in a m oral

s yst em o f thin gs I t d oes s o b ec au se d ue s c o p e is not
.

allow ed to th e free s elf d et er min ation o f m an -

th e ,

c au sativ e ag ency O f G od SO h aunting it N O o ne wh o .

tho roughly und er st a nd s wh at ration al free agency i n

v olv es would set o ur p ecc ability o ur li ability to s i n in , ,

s uch clos e rel a tion to G o d s Absolut e C aus ality as

Wyclif d oes but w o uld rel at e it m ore to our ow n fr ee

,

ch o ice or v oliti o n W y clif s t ro ngly adh ered in hi s

.
,

Tr i al ogus & c , to th e Augu sti n i a n d o ct r in e of p r e

.
,

d estin ati o n a n d t r i ed to s av e fr eed o m by s aying th at

,

G o d c annot b r ing u s to m er it or th e Opp os it e unl ess w e

al s o will Wyclif s st renuous Opposition to T ran sub

.

stanti ati on a r o se fr o m hi s unwillingn ess to a cc ept a

m et aphy s ical th eory implying th at a n a ccid ent c o uld
exi s t with o ut a subj ect .

Wyclif h as his th eo ry also touching G o d s r el ation to

evil. H e thinks G o d c a nn o t m ak e m an c o m m it mor al

evil but th e s i n t a king pl ac e H e c an m a ke such fa ct o f
, , ,

evil to b e g o o d fo r th e sin is t r u e a n d th erefor e in

, , ,

Wycli fs vi ew good A r ath er sp ecious int erpr et ation

, .
,
1 52 STU D IE S IN E U R O P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

in our vi ew sinc e th e result o r infer enc e as exi sting

, ,

good is credit ed to D eity to whom howev er the pre

, , , ,

miss i s not att ach ed Wh at ev er exist s m ust be good

. ,

Wyclif thinks so th at evil practic ally c eas es to be evil

,

an d h as b ec o m e go oda p o s ition which i s not without

p arallels in our own gen erati o n th o ugh h appily th es e are ,

few .

Wycli fs th eo ri es of m att er Sp ace and tim e are full

, ,

Of p o ints of curi o us int eres t H e d oes not h old to th e .

o r din ar y S chol astic du alism Of fo r m an d m att er Matt er .

an d fo r m ar e n o t a bs o lut e s ep ar abl e r ealiti es in his

vi ew ; h e postul at es a sort of t r initym att er form and
, ,

, ,

c o mp o und i a which al l are di ffere nt though in a s ense ,

id entic al H e r eg ar ds m att er as et ern al and thinks

.
,

m att er and form should be t reat ed qu alit ativ ely r ather ,

th an as qu a ntit ativ e p arts It is Of c o u r s e quit e feas ible

.
, ,

to conc eiv e m a tt er as et er n al a nd yet r et a in c reation as ,

n eces sary to giv e it for m I n th e m att er o f tim e .

,

Wyclif h olds it also to be et er n al Tim e i s ev erywh ere .

,

h e think s an d is et ern al a s th e wo rld
, T h e wo r d
is .
,

with h i m m eans et er nity b eing really signic a nt of al l

, ,

tim e Tim e n eeds a befor e an d an after an d th ese are

.
,

found only in mov em ent with o ut which thinks Wyclif , , ,

th ere i s no tim e But mov em ent wo uld be con s titut ed

.
,

in his vi ew by th e ight o f im agin ation its elf S pac e is

, .

r eal but only as p eopl ed with co rp oreal s ubst a nce

, .

W e h ave n ow r apidly s urv eyed th e cl aims of Wyclif

a lw ays so rati o n al always so c r itic al to b e a g reat
,

philosoph er no l ess th an a gr eat r eligiou s r efo rm er

, .

L ittl e wonder if his m er its in th e fo r m er resp ect h av e , ,

b een so sh am efully ignor ed wh en ev en his wo rk in the , ,

 C H APTE R XIII .

TH E I
P H L O SO P H Y I
O F SP NO Z A .

O NLY c ert ain features o f th e phil o sophy of th e great

an d a dmi rabl e S pinoz a th at m o r e es p eci ally c all for
,

c r iticis m will be n o tic ed i n this ch apt er I t is pecul

, .

i ar l y difcult to estim at e Spinoza or writ e Of him at ,

al l
,
b ec aus e so much d ep ends on th e st andpo int from
which we vi ew him It h as b een l at ely cl aim ed for
.

S pinoza th at h e i s much l ess m et aphysici a n th an h as

b een g enerally suppos ed his m et aphysic b eing really
,

incid ent al to his work as ethical philo s oph er B ut if .

,

o n e chos e t o m aint ain th e r ev ers e vi ew it s eems to ,

m e th ere would b e much to subst anti at e th at position .

At any rat e th er e d oes n ot r eally seem to be a ny getting

,

aw ay fr o m th e import a nc e Of th e m et aphysic al s etting

Of Spi n oza s ethic al wor k

.

To S pinoza with doct r in e l ess root ed in C artesian

,

ism th a n h as usu ally b een s uppos ed God is Subst ance ,

th e i s Of al l things G od as s o c all ed causa sui is

.
,
-
,

univ ers al exist ence But h i s God is not th e b eing th at

.

d et ermin es it s elf only b eing th at is without d etermi n

,

ation . Th at is to say G o d to Spinoza is b eing its elf

, , ,

as fact not as unproved postul at e God is ens absa

, .

l ute i nni tumb eing absolut ely innit e Subst ance is

.
 T H E P H ILOSO P H Y O F SPI N O A Z . 1 55

th e fund am ent al conc ept o f th e whole philosophy o f

Spin o za an d al l our knowl edg e is r educ ed by him to
,

th e r el ati o ns of c aus ality N O oth er sub s t a nc e c an .

th ere b e th an this I mm an ent C aus ality : G od i s th e

only s elf subsist ent indep end ent an d s elf co nt ain ed
-
, ,

B eing : He holds al l c au sality within H i m s elf But .

Spin oza s subst anc e is n o t o ppos ed to spirit sinc e it

,

may b e s aid to c arry within it all th e imm an ent en ergi es

an d functions of spirit Yet th e higher absolut e Of .

spirit not subst ance h e fa ils co nsciously to r each Th e

, ,
.

on en ess and i n ni tud e o f subst ance are unfa lt er ingly

1
set for th in his consist e nt a nd compl ete P a nth eism .

Th e wo rld is to Spinoza but th e n ec ess ary c o n s equ e nce

Of th e n ature Of G od an d h i s afrm ation o f s ub st ance
,

is r each ed only by n eg ati o n o f th e n eg ativ e and unreal

things o f nit e exist ence Sub s t ance is th e sol e and .

ef ci ent c aus e Of al l thing s .

Th e ethic al philosophy of S pinoza expr es s ly a n d en

ti t ely excludes person ality fr om its conception o f God .

God is an ext end ed thing ext ension b ei n g an ,

att r ibut e o f His T h e D ivine ext ension i s innit e

. .

Go d th e extended is indivisibl e
, Anthropom o rphism
,
.

Spinoza abhors b ec aus e ev er y b eing would m ake th e

,

Ultim ate Reality aft er i ts own likeness SO m o ral an d .

perso n al qu aliti es power s O f int ell ect and will as we

, ,

know th em h av e n o pl ace in his idea o f Go d Yet

,
.
,

along s ide this we h av e st r angely enough th e fact

, , ,

th at th e t o t ality of b eingi n its essenti al and et er n al

as p ect sh as for him co n s ciousness or thought Go d
, ,
.

is yet for him in fact c o nsciousn ess per se et ern al al l

, , , , ,

1 E tb i 1 -1 4
.
. .
,
1 56 STU D I E S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L OSO P H Y .

embr acing s elf Suf ci ng ,

H is consciousness may be
-
.

cognis ed by our r eason But it is to Spinoza not . , ,

an alogous to our own con s ciousn ess which is but a ,

m ode and as such nit e d ep endent transitory
Ext ension an d thought o r c o nsci o usn ess disp arate
.
, , , , ,

attribut es by which th e on e subst a nce is known to us

are rated by Spin oza m etaphysical ly higher than

nit e things which ar e but m o d es while the former
, ,

are th e attributes Th es e two D ivine attribut es ex

.
,

t ension and thought are h ar m o nis ed in the unity Of,

the subst ance which th ey reveal ; th ey are also parallel

in th eir dev elopm ent Things exi s t for him only in
.
, ,

God as the mod es o f H is r ea lity God or subst ance

t h e ens i nni tum is
.

to Spinoza ess enti ally active , ,

(cogi tans) b eing in fact activity its elf I n the fact

, , , .

th at S pinoza s conception is thus dyn amic r ather th an

,

st atic h e app ears th e m or e uns ati s factory in his results

, .

I n ascribing D ivin e pow er a n d innit e int ellect (i ntel

l ectus i n ni tus) to D eity Spinoz a m akes his God as un ,

intelligibl e as possibl e to us by d ecla ring will and intellect

in Him to be o th er th an known to us 1 O n the side
Of thought God is ens absol ute i ndeter mi natumabsolutely
.

indet ermin at e thought Yet h e c an sp eak Of God loving .

2
Hims elf with in n it e int ell ectu al love Spinoza .

s ays his not ascribing qu aliti es like will and r eason in ,

the s ense in which we kn o w th em to D eity is that , , ,

the D ivine m ay not be confus e d with hum an n ature .

Th er e is thus to Spin o za nothing outside God as sub

, ,

st ance and al l v alid t ran s ference Of hum an qu aliti es

, ,

like re ason and will to God is wholly don e away ,

.

1
EM i 31 " . . Ibid v 3 5 9
.
, . .
1 58 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

world we see ? T h e u n ity of th e worldits absolut e

unitymay be a n e ph ras e to conj ure with but we ,

w ant a unity th at will explic at e th e r el ation Of the

nite elem ent s to th e wh o l e in which th ey st and and ,

be mor e th a n m er ely v er b a l O f cours e Spinoza g ets .

,

b eyond such an ab s tra ct unity in th e concret e whol e

gain ed by his D eus si ve natur a wh e n he boldly id enti es ,

God and N atu re This mo n i stic principl e t a kes his

.

id eali s m b eyond th e d u al i s m th en current H e h ad .

started o ut from C ar tesi an b as is an d dir ect ed his en ,

d eavour tow ards r ec o nciling th e o ppositions o f id eal

thought and r eal b eing o f mater i a cogi tans and extensa
, ,

at th e imm ens e co s t of po s tul atin g a singl e subst anc e !

His Pl atonising pow er ex alt ed uncreat ed subst anc e to

th e r ank Of absolut e b eing o f which m att er and mind , ,

as r el ativ e wer e but att r ibut es thr o ugh which it is

,

m anifest ed But wh at we miss is a r ation al grounding of

.

the attribut es and mod es in th e n atu re o f his absolute .

GOd was th e only free c au se th e All Real m aking ,
-
,

a Whol e o f N atur e in which H e w as n ecess arily ex

,

press ed 1 But th e ont o logic unity of Spinoza cannot

.

b e t aken as s atisfa ctor y with i ts st atic conditions or

,

rel ations and its abso rption of th e r el ative and individ

,

ual . H is solution lend s its elf too easily to a m ateri alistic

int erpret ation for if m att er a nd Spirit b e run into one
,

subst ance it is only too easy to m ake spirit but a

,

qu ality o f m atter A Go d i s n o t so easily got out of

.

th e S pi noz an subst anc e for God a n d th e world are

,

conc epts th at c a nnot b e lo gic ally h armonis ed in such

fashion O f cours e it wo uld be to feed ourselves on a
.
,

1
E t/z .
, i Def 7
. . .
 TH E P H I L O SO P H Y O F SP I N O A Z . 1 59

d elusion to suppos e we h ad r each ed a r eal unity wh en

we ha d m a d e God or s ubst a nc e Simply th e s um Of
, ,

nit e m anifest ation s But th e h armoni sation o f th e

.

attribut es ( attr i buta ) a n d m o d es ( modi ) with th e o n e only

subst anc e (substanti a) is only effect ed by S pinoz a by th e

p eculi ar and un exp ect e d fashion in which h e cl a i m s
reality for th ese different w ays in which subst a nc e
n ecess ar ily expresses G o d T h e unity of his Absolut e
.

of innit e qu alit ativ e cont ent is cu r i o u s ly drawn fro m

an agg reg at e of h et er o g en eou s realiti e s each i n nit e in ,

kind O ne ca nn o t ch o o s e but admi re h o w ev er th e

.
, ,

m ast erlin ess of his st at em ent th at G o d is a B eing ,

each one Of Whos e attr ibut es exhibits or exp res s es
et er n al and innit e esse nc e o r n atur e Spinoza i s
1
.

unt ro ubl ed as to con s ist ency in holding to th e w o rth

,

Of th e nit e wor ld an d th e mod es th e absolut e sub ,

s t anc e D eus si ve substan ti a notwith s t a ndin g fo r in , ,

Spinoza s vi ew th es e C h a ng eful a s p ects do not import

,

unreality Th ey could not b e unr ea l to h i m seeing

.
,

th ey are vi ew ed as n ec ess ary And yet w e ar e o blig ed

.

to h old h e h as really dissolv ed th em with o ut m eaning ,

to do so in th e ultim at e an d abstra ct c o nc eption of

b eingb eing absolut ely i n d et ermin at e (non deter mi n ata)

,

-
fr o m which no w ay app ear s b ack to th e conc ret e .

There i s a di s tinct l ack o f for m ativ e principl e or nexus .

How we are to get b ack from th e et ern al an d innit e

to th e nit e m o d es do es not at al l app ear T he .

m ech anic al is l eft by Spin oza s r ation alism wh o se id eal

,

O f knowl edg e i s geo m etry in undisput ed pos ses s ion o f

,

the eld . Thing s are in G o d an d st ay th ere 2 H e i s

, .

1
E th i Def 6
, . . . I bi d i 1 8 2
.
, . .
1 60 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H IL OSO P H Y .

th ei r imm an ent but not th eir t r ansitiv e c aus e (causa

,

i mmanens n on ver o transi ens) 1 And whil e so rem ain

,
.
,

ing in God things are y et suppos ed to proceed from

,

H im a confu s ed r ep res ent ati o n All knowledge to .

,

S pinoz a involv es th e knowl edg e of G o d

, His onto .

logical position a im ed at es t a blishing th e selfexistence -

a n d et er n ity o f N atu re r ath er th an th e exi stence Of ,

Go d . I ndividu a l or nit e things are n o thing by them

s elves exist only i n God b ei n g but modi O f th e innit e
, ,

s ubst a nc e N O pr o p er r el ati o n Of th e D ivin e c aus ality

.

t o th em is sh ow n Spinoza s gr ounding cosmical exist

.

e nc e in th e n atur e Of D eity is indefensible ; in his

t h eo ry Of extre m e ethic al n ec essit ation h e app ears to

b e without notion o f s elf conscious voliti o n i n D eity -

h e d oes not see th at this w o uld n ot y et m ak e such

v o lition al a ction m att er of ab s o lut e c o ntingency or i n
differen ce to D eity I f G o d is to him th e o nly free
.

C au se th at do es n ot m ean th at G o d h as freedom in
,

th e free will s ens e fo r G od h as no m o re will th a n H e

-
,

h as und er st a nding Th es e both b elong to th e world

.

or th e na tur a n atur ata Again Spin oza h as no h old on

.
,

th e p o ints o f cont a ct b etw een th e D ivin e int elligence

a n d th e hum an an d so h e m akes an absurd and i r r ation al

,

b reak b etween th em N or is it app arent how so v ari

.

a bl e an d tr a n s i ent a mod e as t h e hum a n spi r it c an 5 0

wondrou sly know th e innit e as did S pin oza But th e .

i mpo r t a nt thing fr om an ethic a l p o int of Vi ew is th at

, , ,

th e univ er s e giv e n us by S pi n o za with h i s i m m an ent ,

c au se o r m o ni s tic p r incipl e is as yet p erfectly non , , ,

m oral in ch ar act er a m et aphysic al ess enc e i n tremen

,

E ri i 18 1
d i 29 S h l c ,
. an .
, c o .
1 62 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E AN P H I L O SO P H Y .

th e fact th at al l exi s t enc e app ear s to th e reas o n of

S pin z
o a

under th e fo r m of et ernity h e is yet abl e to ,

put fo rward an e thic an d duti es ar e n ot all owed to dis

,

a pp ear as w e m i ght h av e th o ught Th ere i s still to be .

st riving a ft er wh at Spinoza c all s p erfecti o n For hi m .

th e r st a n d o nly fo und a ti o n vi tu kn wl dg 1
for r e i s o e e .

C er titud e i s to him fo und i n cl ear id eas which are
, , ,

a s n ec es s ar ily t ru e as th e id ea s o f G o d T o his r esolu .

tion o f ethic al a ctivity i n t o c o gn itiv e activity w e shall

r etu r n l at er En o ugh n ow to rem ark th at o ur gr owing
.

kn owl edg e o r p rogr es sive vi rtu e c eases to w ear its grad

u al ch ar act er wh e n h e com e s to s p ea k of o ur s h aring

in th e int ell ectu al lov e o f G o d for Go d an d w e are ,

b ecom e s t ran gely on e in th e innit e lov e c om m on to

Him an d to us Cl early though psych ological acut en ess
.
,

is in th e m ain ch aract er istic of Spin oza psychological ,

c o nsist ency h as h er e b een t o him n o j ewel .

S pinoz a s ethic al t ea chings on i m m o r t ality 2 mu st

a lw ay s r em ain at a di s t a nc e fr o m m en s r ea l a pp reh en

s i o n th e t em p oral r el ati o n h aving n o pl a c e i n it an d th e

, ,

p ers o n al asp ect of it b eing s o indi s tinct All conscious .

n ess o fth e nit e s elf as such h as in fact v ani sh ed Th e

, ,
.

p er si s t en c e of r easo n h o wever h e m aint ai n s but it is an

, , ,

im m ort ality s p ecul ativ e a n d i m p erso n al S enti mus experi .

murque nos mternos esse ; a n d w e are e tern a l h er e in life ,

an d n o t m er ely aft er d eath This et ernity o fmind m eans .

tim el essn ess NO wond er th erefor e a free m an thinks

.
, ,

of nothing so littl e as O f d eath h i s wi s dom is a m edita ,

3
ti o n n o t o fdeath but o flife Fo r th e int ell ectu al love
,

.

1
E tlz .
, iv . 22 .
2
I bi d v .
, .
8
I bid .
,
i v 67 . .
 TH E P H IL O SO P H Y O F SP I N O ZA . 1 63

Of Go d n ev er p er i s h s av e only in s o far as it
c an ,

is rel at ed to th e b o dy .
"

T h e l a ck o f m o r al qu ality to which w e h av e a dv er t ed , ,

is seen in S pin o za s t reat m ent o f evil

I t c a nn o t of .
,

cours e b e d eni ed as within th e natur a natur ata but i s

, ,

expl ain ed a s m ere illusi o n SO littl e h av e i ts m o ra l qu ali

,

ti es an d rel ati o ns b een app r eci at ed O ur philo s oph er .

d oes n o t s h r ink fro m th e r a th er b a r efac ed ac kn ow l ed g

m en t o f th e con sequ enc e Of h i s m o ral a ttitude no

1
a cti o n consid er ed in it self al o n e is eith er good or evil .

H e m ea n s th ey ar e a ccording to h i s sy s t em n ec es s ar y
, , ,

a n d n eith er good n o r b ad Thi s i s c ert ainly to sit lo o sely

.

e nough to mo ra l d i s ti n ctions o f a n y th o r o ugh go ing ch a r

a ct er but i s not s u r p r i s in g i n o n e wh o s e ethic exi s t s o r

,

h as pl ac e at a l l o n ly i n virtu e o f wh at w e m ay c a ll an

i n t eres ting inc o n s i s t ency U nd er th e fo r m O fet ern ity
.
,

we should s ee h i m di s s ip at e for us a l l m o ra l duti es a n d

j udgm ent s O f g o o d an d evil which r es t o nly o n

,

c o m p ar is o n H i s int ell ectu a li s tic m o r al s m ay conduct

.

us to O ewpta with its c al m an d p ass i o nl es s bli s s but th ey

, ,

b elo ng n ot to th e w or ld of r eal life an d i m p erativ e ethic al

end eav o u r .H i s wh o l e p os iti o n 2 is o n e which m a k es th e
g ood s o m ething m er ely r el ativ e to ev ery m an an d to ,

ev ery m an s d es i re D o ubtl ess h e a dva nc es to th e n oti o n

.

o f a t r u e o r high es t g oo d f o r th e i n dividu al m an a n d f or ,

hi s adv a nt ag e t a k en in wh o l e but s uch s upr em e g oo d is ,

still r el ativ e to th e i n dividu al And Spinoza b eli ev es .

th at m an do es entir ely acco r ding to h i s knowl ed g e .

What h e kn ows th at h e d oes s o activ e in his vi ew is

, , ,

knowl edge o r reason T h e p al e i n t elle ctu al cast o f th e

.

Ed1
iv 59
a ,
. . S P t i v fth E th i 2
ee ar . o e cs .
 1 64 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

go o d with him is s een in th e fa ct th at it i s but a modus

cogi tan di
, ,

an ac t Of j udgm e nt A b ad acti o n h e vi ews as

.

o nly a wro ng j udgm e nt a n d an ac t i s b ad

,
by comp ari ,

so n o nly b ec au se o f i t s d e fect o r w an t o f b eing M an s

'

in h i s vi ew d ue to w a nt O f kn owl edg em an s
,

evil i s

, ,

knowl edge Of wh a t m a k es for h i s ow n welfar e ; an d to

thi n k on e s ow n w ea l i s to h i s m ind to will or desi re it

, , .

But i n so m a king ethics a m er e accomp anim en t and

c o n se qu en t o f kn ow ledge Spin o za is in o ur vi ew doing
, , ,

a m os t u n w a rr ant abl e a nd d efectiv e thin g L ife is .

a s s u redly m or e th a n th o ught or kn o wl ed ge a n d r eality ,

re qui r es m ore th a n to sa ti s fy th e d em ands o f for m al

reaso n W e c an by n o m ean s c o ns ent to r es o lve ethics

.

int o a p al e res iduu m o f th e life o f c o n t empl ative r eas on ,

for m a n s life i s s h o t th ro ugh with ethic al c o nicts and

strivings and th e w or ld i s ent angl ed i n thi s warfare

, .

Spi n oza seem s to b e h aunt ed by th e d elu s i o n of int ell ect

ual i s mo n e s till cu r re n t th at k n o wl edg e i s h ere p ower ,

wh ereas it i s Si m ply a condition o f power N o impul ses .

of pu re kn ow l edge will s u fc e fo r th e ov er co m ing of th e

p as s i o ns howev er imp res s iv ely th e kn owl edg e be set
,

fo rth Kn owl edge av ail s o nly as y o ked to th e st rength

.

Of w ill o r th e ethic al for c e o f ch aract er which is th e ,

domin ant fact o r in th e p r oc es s o f ethic al t r iumph Thi s .

u n du e exalt ati o n o f k n o w l edge giv es an a i r Of abst ract

n es s an d arti c i al i ty to Spin oza s whol e ethic al treatment

,

which i s by no m ean s c o ng r u ent with reality as embodi ed

in ethic al life and c o nict .

And s o as to th e p ass ion s Spinoza s an alysi s of th e

.

ph enom en a of feeling an d p as s i o n i s v ery power ful and

c o mplet e H e d eriv es al l th e p assion s fro m d esi re The
. .
1 66 STU D I E S I N E U RO P EA N P H I L OSO P H Y .

tion in God S pinoza s ethic i s rea lly one of pure self

.

ass ertion and s elf s ee ki n g a n d is m ar k ed by a str ang e

-
,

incap acity to d o j u s tic e to th e n egativ e elements of

s elf d eni al an d s elf sacri c e 1 H e h as no underst anding
- - .

O f th e d ev elopm ent o f th e high er life Of spirit through

conict with th e l o wer life o f es h but for aught that , ,

app ears is anti ascetic th ro ughout

,
-
H appin ess is for .
,

him found in th e life th a t i s ratio n a l an d freefound

,

in vi rtu e to which h a ppi n es s n eed not be s acriced

, .

Bl ess edn ess is n o t th e rewar d Of virtu e but virtue ,

its elf .

N o more c an w e a dmit h i s d o ctrin e Of love so oft en ,

l auded as lofty and disint eres t ed to b e th e s atisfactory ,

thing it app ears Say s S pi n oza H e who loves God

.

2
must not end eav o u r to h av e Go d lov e him in return .

It is al l v ery w ell to s ay th at h e m ea ns th e impure

el em ent v anish es fr o m s elf s eeking wh en th e s elf we seek -

is th at whos e ess en ce i s reas o n and th e knowledge and

love o God an d th at G o d i s so lov ed bec ause the
f ,

t aint of subj ectivity is s o abs o lut ely oblit er at ed Th e .

fact r em ains th at th e wor ds imply mor e and oth er th an

this Th ey imply an ext re m e o f th e v ery s elf sufci ency
.
-

which is suppos ed to h ave va n ish ed Th at man is so .

su f cient unto hims elf as n o t to n eed th e gracious love of

God wh ereby his bl es sedn ess an d perfection sh all be
,

att ain ed is sure ly f, a r fr o m h a ving r e mov ed the stigm a

o f s el fi shn ess An alt r ui s m s o p erfect and entire seems
.

but a new form o f s elshn es s so sup r eme in its choice of ,

s elf th at it h ath no n eed even o fG o d or H is love I fit is .

God th at is lov ed it app ea r s ab s urd to affect indifference

,

1 Ed i i i 6 7 ; ii i 9 ; i v
a, .
,
9
I bi d 19 . . 22 . .
,
v. .
 TH E P H IL O SO P H Y O F SP I N O ZA . 1 67

to H i s return of l o v e sinc e in loving H im it i s i m p os

, , ,

s ibl e not to b e con s ci o us th at H e th e All G o o d d o es a n d ,

-
,

must lov e us I t is thus s tr a n ge and really egoistic th at

.
,

our lov e must w ear s uch guis e o f di s int er est edn es s as t o

c are not wh eth er th e God w e l o v e h as any app reci ation

of th e outg o ing s o f o u r vir tuou s affection S uch i n d i ffer .

enc e i s c o mp atibl e with o ur l o v e to G o d only if a n d wh e n

th e G od w e love is an abstr act id ea l o r an imp ers o n al

ab s tr a ction . I n th at ev ent th e God w e lov e c a n do s o ,

littl e for us th at w e c an w ell affo rd to expect no r eci p ro

cating l o v e th e Obj e ct b eing i n c ap abl e o f em o ti o n And
, .

s uch ind eed i s S pi n o za s G o d o n e with o ut affection s

, , , ,

n either loving nor h ating and SO without p o wer Of r eturn ,

.

But in truth Spin oza s s ayi n g i s p ath o l o gical sym pto

, ,

,

m atic Of th e condition o f o n e w h o h as m a d e fa t al mist ak e

in mi ss ing th e p er son ality Of Go d H i s po s iti o n dr a ws .

int elligibility fro m th e circu m s t a nc e th at in h i s vi ew , ,

Go d th e Ab s olut e l o v es n o o n e a n d s o to d esir e th at
, , ,

G od l o v e us would b e to d esi r e th at G o d b e no m o r e
Him selfi n fact inconsist ent It is a n int ell ectu al love
we are t o ld with o ut blindn ess a n d with o ut p ass ion a
.
, ,

fai n t reecti o n o fth e lov e w ith which G o d lov es Him self .

But we m ay as k Wh at vit ality b elong s to it I s it fr ee

fr om s elf d ecepti o n ? I s it v o id ofth e p er il of hypocri sy ?

-

T he g eom et r ic al w ay c o n s umm at ely p erfect in its kind

, ,

c an n ever sati s fyingly d eal with vit a l te r m s a n d int er ests .

L ov e s r el ations must b e p er s on ali sed at b o th e n d s o fth e

scale O f b eing hu m a n an d D ivin e F a ilu r e to see this .

m arks Spinoza s ethic al sho r tcoming T h e only vi r tu e

.

or m erit o f th e s ayi n g li es in its att est ati o n to S pinoza s

p assi o n at e d ev o tion to t r uth as truth to r eality as it i s ,

1 68 STU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

wh at ever a spect it m ay w ear Philos o phic ally h owever th e

.
, ,

disreg ard o f th e nit e individu ality O f th e subj ect which ,

h i s wor ds imply i s inc o n s i st ent with th e d elight in pure

,

s elf c o mpl ac ency which h e inculc at es
-
T h e mind s

int ellectu al l ov e o f G o d say s Spi n oza i s th e very love
, ,

wh erewith G o d lo v es Hi m s elf n o t in so far as H e is ,

i n nit e but in s o far as H e c an be exp res sed by th e

,

e s senc e o ft h e hum a n mi n d c o n s id ered und er th e for m of

,

et er n ity ; th at i s th e mind s int ell ectu al l ov e Of Go d i s

,

p ar t Of th e innite l o v e w h erewith G o d l o v es Hims elf 1 .

Wh en th e p o s itiv e e l em en t o r ch ara ct er o f th e nit e i s so

a b s t ract ed th e n d o es nit e e xi s t enc e a ctu ally v a ni s h and
, ,

G o d r eally b ec o m es al l in al l S uch is th e r esult of his

.

identic ati o n Of G od a nd m a n T h e reality O f th e nite .

,

a n d th e w or th o f exp er i e n c e are n eith er ad equ at ely re

,

g ar d ed n o r expl ain ed by Spinoza wh eth er w e t ake the ,

m et aphysic al o r th e ethic a l p ar t s of h i s t reatm ent .

I t s eem s to m e v ain to att empt to p alli at e wh at H egel

c all ed th e ac os mi s m o f Spin oza h i s m aki n g th e
'

Absolut e o nly r igid s ubst a nc e not yet Spi r it or at
, ,

l eas t to cl aim j ustic e in Spinoza to th e reality o f th e

nit e . T o s ay th at fo r S pi n oza th er e is n o absolut e
d u ali s m b etw ee n s ub s t a nc e a n d m o d e b etw ee n real and ,

ph en om en al to u rge th at t h e reality o f th e i n dividu al is

gu ara nt eed in th e r el ativity of th e m o d e b ec au se sub ,

s t a nc e or G o d m ea n s with S pin oz a e xi s t enc e it s elf an d ,

th e individu a l c a n n o t fall o ut s id e but m u s t b e includ ed

within s uch exi s t enc e or b eing ; thi s i s to m ake insist

e n ces s o h o p el ess ly d o m in a t e d by th e id ea O f a m er ely

q u a ntit a tiv e wh o l e o r s till undiff e r e nti at e d u n ity 2

as to

E t/ v 3 6
1
L ,
. . I bi d i 1 5 1 6 2 5 2 9 2
.
, .
, , , .
1 70 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

w ere G eulincx a nd M al ebr a nch e H e i s too p ro n e to

.

v acill at e b etween ph enom en alism an d reali s m and ev en ,

c o m es n ear b ei n g too w ell c o nt en t w ith an ath ei stic

m o n i s m E n o r m o u s en ergy an d on th e whol e Splendid
.
, ,

co n s i s t ency o f th o u ght m ar k th e d ev el o p m ent o f hi s

s yst e m vi ew e d fr o m hi s ow n st a n d p o int a n d th ere i s an
, ,

e ng agin g fear l es s n ess in di s cl o sing h i s n a l c o nvictio n s .

O n e h ar dly n eed s to r em ar k th e n e sci e ntic r ig o ur an d

s e cu r ity with which h i s th o u ght m ov es t o w ard s the
rec o gniti o n an d elucid ati o n o f fact with o ut pl ay o f sub
,

j ec ti ve fan cy Th er e i s n o h es it ati o n no v acillati on in

.
, ,

h i s l ay ing b are th e m o d er n w o r ld A spi ritu al and divine

.

wo rld it i s to hi s g rea t c redit b e it saida w orld Of

,

sci e nc e an d n o t m erely o f s ch o l as tic c o nc eptions albeit

,

th o u ght o r kn o wl edge do es n o t giv e to us as it gave to ,

him th e wh o le o f ethic s an d Of th e wi s d o m Of life For

, .

h i s n e ped a g og ic inu enc e w e are gr at eful to Spinoza ,

a lth o ugh a c r itic al study l eav es him n o mo re to us th an

a s c h oo lm as t er to b r ing u s to s om e b ett er form of ideal

ism th an h i s o wn .
 CHAPTE R XIV .

L E SS ING
I
S PH LOS P H O Y O F RE L G O I I N .

L E SS I N G is gu re o f quit e s u rp assing int er es t if it

a ,

w er e o nly fo r th e fact th at in him th a t grea t mod er n

o utg r owth kn o wn a s G erm an lit er atu r e t oo k i ts ris e .

H e l aid th e fo und ation s Of G erm a ny s int ell ectu al life

,

freeing its cultu r e fro m th e fett er s o f th eol o gy But .

our int er est h ere c entr es in L e ssi n g as o n e w h o m ay

be fairly reg ar d ed as in so m e s en s e th e fo und er o f

, ,

Philosophy o f Religi o n in m o d er n tim es N o doubt .

th e n atur al th eo l o gy o f his age s till h eld h i m in s o m e

ways but h e rst appli ed th e n otio n Of a p ro gr es s ive

,

hi st o rical d ev elo pm ent to th e int erp ret ati o n Of p o s itive

religion s . T h e ev o luti o n a l ch aract er o f religi o n th e ,

idea Of r ev el ati o n as a p r ogres s iv e t raining o f th e

hum an r ac e an d th e c o ncepti o n o f Chri s ti anity as but
,

m arking on e great s t ag e i n th e D ivi n e educatio n O f

m a nkind s uch w as L es si n g s di s cov ery N O d o ubt h i s
,

.

o r igin ality h as b een Oft en exaggerat ed m an y o f his ,

ideas h aving b een anticipa t ed by am o ng s t o th er s

O rigen N ichol as of C u s a and L eibniz
, , F r om L eibniz .

h e l ear n ed th e n o ti o n of d ev elopm ent which h e so ,

appli ed in th e hist or ic sph ere as to d eep e n th e vi ew

O f hist o ry Spin o z a h e d eeply s tudi ed n ot h o w ev er

.
, , ,
1 72 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

a tt achi n g hims elf str ictly to h i s syst e m But n ever .

b efore L es s ing h ad thi s g reat p ro gr essiv e idea of the

D ivin e educ ati o n of th e race b een adv anced with such
s t r ength o f th o ught a n d ch ar m o f styl e M uch i n deed .

it w as to h av e it in d ays wh en m en were d r iv en to
D e ism for l ack Of a ny more s pi r itu al th eo logy The .

c o n c epti o n o f L ess in g i s th a t in G o d s great sch ool

,

b O O k o f Tim e each of th e hi s t or ic religi o n s i s a l es so n

,

s et f or hum a nity s l ear ning

Thi s inv o lv es th e non
.

n a lit y o f any o ne Of th em L ess in g n ot o nly held

.

th at wh at w e call educ ati o n i n th e individu al i s

r ev el ati o n in th e rac e but aft er w or king o ut his
, ,

th es is th at e duc a ti o n i s r evel ati o n a n d revel ati on

e duc ati o n , as k s wh eth e r th ere i s n o t for thi s pu r p ose

e t er nity b efore u s ( I s t n icht di e g anze Ewigkeit

L es s i n gw o rks out hi s c o n c e pti o n with a t endency too

i n t ellectu a l ; h i s th o ught is too ci r cumsc rib ed m oving ,

within J ud ai s m an d Ch ri s ti anity ; wh at h e ai m ed at is
s till o ur n eed , but o n m o r e c o mp reh en s iv e r a n ge In .

h i s N a th an the Wi se L ess ing reall y s eeks to i n veigh

ag a in s t th e big o t ed a dh erenc e t o a do m in a nt r eli gion ,

a n d ag ainst r eligi o u s cr eed with o ut c o rresp o nd ent life ,

go ing so far ev en as to iden tify r eligi o n with m orality .

This too exclu s iv e st ress o n m orality to th e n egl ect of ,

t r uly religi o u s wo rld vi ew i s a d efect o r o n e sid edness

-
,
-

fo u n d not o n ly in L es s ing but al s o in K ant an d th e

,

p rev ailing th o ught o f th e tim e But h i s ai m no doubt .

, ,

w as to insi s t o n r ight doing for its o w n s ak e as a ,

c ou n t er a ctiv e to undu e th eologic al in s i s t enc e o n the

d oct r in e of r ew ar d an d puni s hm ent L essi n g s acc ept
.

1 74 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

the arr ow s o f L essing s critici s m dir ect ed H e h ad a

.

c o mpl et e t r iumph o v er G oetz e a n d o th er s an d suff er ed ,

i n pr es tig e p er h aps m o r e in th e h o us e o f his fr i ends ,

wh en N ico l ai h ead o f th e s o call ed P arty o f Enlighten

,
-

m ent (A ufkl ar ung) all ow ed th e b r ight r eligion o f reason

,

t o gr o w i n t o a dull ra ti o n a li s m L ess in g s l ett er s on

.

G o etze a n d Bibli o l a t r y d o not h o wever m ak e pl eas ant

, ,

rea di n g th e cu rre nt o f c o nt r o v er si al feeli n g is s o st ro ngly

,

p r esent i n th em A m id th e co nt r ov ers i al el ement s o ccu r

.

c l ea r a n d ch ara ct eri s tic in s i s t en c es lik e th e fo llowing

th e l ett er is not th e Spi r it a n d th e Bibl e is n o t t e

,

l i gi on th er e w as religi o n b efo re th ere w a s a Bibl e and ,

C h r i sti a nity b efor e ev ang eli s ts and a postl es h ad wr itten ;

th e wh o l e t r uth of th e Ch r isti a n religi o n c an n o t p ossibly

d ep end up o n th ese w r iting s ; if th ey wer e lo st th e t e ,

l i gi o n t a ught by th em might still sub s i s t ; th e s c r iptu ral

tr adition s are to b e expl a in ed fr om th e int ern al t ruth of
r eligi o n S uch w ere L essing s i n sist e nc es p o u red forth

.
,

fro m a s pi r it s co rn ful Of tho s e d efenc es Of th e faith

w hich h e felt w e re e n o ugh to b et ray an y c aus e .

With rare and n obl e c o u rag e L essing publi s hed the

Fr agm ents Of Reim ar u s in s c or n o f c o n sequ ence In
,
.

th em wh at m ay b e c alled th e es o t eric d o ct rin es of th at

p ro di gy of l ear n in g Reim ar us were set forth in vin
, , ,

d i c ati o n o f th e s ac r ed n es s o f rea so n a nd th e s uprem acy ,

o f consci e nc e as ag a inst th e p ret en s i o n s Of t h e o r tho

,

d o xy Of th e tim e As fo r L ess ing hi m self h e w as m ore

.
,

c ritic th a n sy s t em atic phil os oph er an d th eo logian de ,

vi s ing m or e th an d o ing an d discov er ing weak po s itions

,

mo re th a n d efending st ro ng o n es Th at i s to say he .
,

s ugg est s an d inspi res m o r e th a n h e dir ectly or syst em


L E SS I NG S P H I LO S O P H Y O F RE LI G IO N . 1 75

ati c all y t each es H i s w o rk i s uni ed by th e id ea o f

.

progr essive hum a nity by h i s k een int eres t in t ruth an d

, ,

by his unfailing s pi r itu al ai m T h e ger min ant an d po s i

.

tiv e el em ents o f his t ea ching h av e m a de h i s inu ence

o n s ubs equ ent th o ught gr eat as witn ess H eg el G o eth e
, , ,

H ein e an d m any oth ers H a rdly any of his p as sa g es

,
.

h a s ar o u s ed mo r e int erest th a n th at which o ccu rr i n g ,

in on e o f h i s c o n t ro v er si al w r itin gs in 1 77 8 cont ains ,

th e d ecl aration th at if Go d offer ed hi m truth in th e

,

on e h a nd an d in th e oth er nothing but th e ev er

, a ctive

impul se for tr uth L es sing w o uld ch oos e to w and er in

,

er ro r in o r d er to win t r uth rath er th a n po sses s a n d

,

enj oy it . H o w ev er much it m ay h av e b een pr ais ed ,

or h o w ev er m uch it m ay attr a ct a nd fas ci n at e o n e ,

it is imp o s s ibl e to give it a ppr o v al in any unqu ali ed

way .

For wh at i s truth th at th e hon est s eeker aft er it

,

s h o uld b e so much afra id o f its pos sess ion ? Why n o t

be m o r e c ar eful to m a i n t a in th e ho n esty a n d si n c er ity
i m pli ed i n ou r p ro fessed s earch for its acqui rem ent ?
W h at but th e p oss es sion of th e t r uth gives to life i ts
p eerl ess v alu e Obj ectiv e truth b eing th er e to b e s o ught ?
,

L ife is su rely poss essi o n a s w el l as p ro gr es s i o n : it c an

be no m ere s eeking a n d b ec o ming with n ev er a n d ,

ing and b eing s o m ethi n g positiv e an d denit e : it i s a

pr ogr ess i n an d n ot m erely towar ds th e t r uth L ife is
, ,
.

att ainm ent as w el l as a dv a nc em en t a n d t h e a dv a nc e ,

m ent li es thr o ugh att ainm ent B esid es w e n eed n o t

.
,

fear th at th e truth will b e s o eas ily po s sess ed th at ,

o ur po s s es s i o n o f it will be so easily c o mpl et ed O ur .

poss ession o f it is n ev er complet e an d o nc e for all .

1 76 S TU D IE S IN E U R O PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

L es s i n g n eedl essly ex aggerat es a great t r uth n am ely , ,

th at th e t r uth do es n ot exi st for us till w e l ear n to

lov e an d b eli ev e it I t sh o uld b e n o t ed th at M al e
.

br anch e an d Richt er b o th utt ered s imil ar sentim ents

to L es sing s o impr es sed app arently w ere th ey with
, , ,

t h e fa ct th at t r u e b eing is dy n a mic r ath er th a n s t atic .

L es si n g h a d n o l o v e for s uch orth o d o x co n ceptions

Of D eity as th at Of an ext ra mu n d an e p er s o n al C ause
-
,

o f th e w orld an d c o nfes s ed h e kn ew only 31: rea l

,

way , n ot th ereby h o wev er c o mmitting him self to

, ,

tho ro ughg o ing Spin oz i s m L es s ing h eld to th e co m

.

p l ete r atio n ality Of Rev el ation which go es n ot b eyond ,

r eas o n as such H e h eld th a t th e v ery n atu re of a

.

Rev el ati o n c a ll s for a c ert a in sub m is s i o n Of reaso n but ,

r eas o n th er ein o nly exp re ss e s a j u s t c o nvicti o n o f i ts

ow n limit a tion s Reas o n i s to L ess ing a thing of be

.

c om i n g a n d th e form Of Rev el ati o n i s n ec essary to it

,

as th e int egum ent o f th e t r uths o f reas on T h e fact .

th at it co n t ai n s t ruth t ran s c endin g o ur reas o n i s to

L es s in g an ar gum ent i n its fav o u r n o t a n Obj ecti on .

Wh at w o uld it b e if it rev ea l ed nothing ? Gradu al
a n d p ro g r es s iv e mu s t r ev el ation b e as su m ing s om e ex ,

t er n al an d auth o rit ativ e form but n o t to be id entied

,

with any o f i ts positive fo rm s Et er n al t ruth s i n

.
,

d epend ent o f histo r ic al evid enc e for m th e s um of ,

r eligi o n to L es s ing It will b e seen h ow littl e L essing

.

att empts a cc o unt o f th e m a nn er an d ev en possibility

, ,

o f Rev el ati o n Ev en th e Chr isti an religion was for

.

him d es tin ed to p ass like th e J ewi s h and indeed ,

L es s ing s its lightly to all p o s itive r eligions .

I t s eem s a s o m ewh at absurdly l ar ge cl aim L essing

1 78 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

c ative purpo se I n his vi ew th at positiv e r eligion was

.
,

best which h ad in it th e l eas t numb er o f additions to

n atural religi o n L essing like K ant b eing infect ed too
, , ,

much with th e abst ra ct du alism Of p os itiv e and
n atur a l so ch aract eristic o f th e philo s ophy o f the

E n li ght en m ent H i s t ory w as to him but th e rec o rd Of

.

Enli ght en m ent But th e Enli ght en m ent (A ufkl ar ung)

w as m ar k ed by a n inc a p a city fo r und erst a nding th e real

s ignic a nc e O f hi s t o ry an d in th e way h e u sed the
,

o pp o sition b etw een et ern al t r uths of r eas o n an d acci

d ent al t r uths O f histo ry L ess ing hims elf cannot be

s aid t o h av e t r a nsc e nd e d thi s inc ap acity O nly l at er .

w as this Oppositio n to r ec eive cl earer m arking Off and

t reatm ent .

T h e th eo ry o f th e educ ati o n o fth e rac e as put forward ,

by L essing h as no d o ubt b een th r own int o th e sh ade by

, , ,

th e th eo ry o f ev o luti o n with which howev er it m ay be

, , ,

s a id to b e i n s ub s t a nti al ag r eem e nt L es si n g s th eory

.

h ad th e vi r tu e to be hist or ic al whil e th e ev o luti o n th eory

,

h as n o t alw ays th e m er it Of m aking a s ati s factory thing

of th e facts co nn ect ed with d eg en eracy L essing s co n .

c epti o n o feduc ati o n

with its fath erly ch aract er of God ,

i ts gr eat e duc ati o n al pu r p o s es for th e r ac e and its ,

et er nity to w o r k i n
was ind eed a g reat o n e t eaching ,

h ow th at which is in p ar t is b eing c o ntinu ally don e away ,

th at th at which i s perfect m ay co m e It c ert ainly gave .

a n ew clu e to th e und erst anding alike o f Rev el ation and

I nspir ation and th e strongly m ark ed ethic al ch ar act er Of

,
-

th e whol e proc ess i n each of i ts thr ee great st ag es or

per iodsdes erv es es p eci al notice .

L essing l a id enormous stress on I ndividu ality and ,


L E SS I NG S P H IL O S O P H Y O F RE L I G IO N . 1 79

m k
a es it a kind of moral b asis for m a n s life th at every

one should ac t in th e dir ecti o n o f his individu al

p er fec
tion . But w hil e st an di n g thus in intuitiv e fas hion
, , ,

fo r t ra nsc end en t I ndividu alism L es s ing n o m o r e th a n , ,

H erd er s ucc eed ed in giving it a sp ecul ative grounding

, .

But th e endl es s life fo r this p er fe ction w as th e s trange

o n e of t r ansmigr ati o n fo r th e Pl atonic t ea ching s ab o ut
,

tr an s migrations o f th e s o ul s eem to h av e b een quit e

a ccept ed by L essing T h e position of L es s ing as to
.

m an s p erson ality was exp res s ly thi s I f I am God is

, ,

als o ; H e m ay b e s ep arat ed fr om m e but n ot I from ,

Him . Pr ob ably L essin g did n ot feel how t ru e i s th e

c o nv ers e al so th at if G o d is n otla cks p erso n alityI
,

am n ot a n d c a nnot pr et e nd t o p er son ality

, Th e i m mo r
t ality of th e s o ul lik e th e unity o f G odwas a t ruth in
.

L essing s Vi ew c ap abl e Of d emon s t r ation But as to

.
,

imm o rt ality h e thinks we can di s pen se with th e N ew

,

Test am ent j ust as in th e doct r in e of th e unity o f God

, , ,

h e think s w e c an disp ens e with th e O l d .

L essing h eld with a s tr a ng e t e n acity to D et er minism ,

loving n ecessity it is oft en s a id almost as d ear ly as did

, ,

S pinoza And h e volunt eered wh at mu s t s ee m to us

.

th e r ath er ast o ni s hing o pinion th at d et er mi n i s m h as

nothi n g to fear fr o m th e s id e of m o r als But p erh aps .

it wer e wis er n o t to t ake his i s ol at ed s ayings too ser iou s ly .

A kind o f ideal M o nism is wh at we nd in L essing in ,

who m thought i s more spi r itu alis ed th an in S pinoza ,

c hi ey throu gh t h e individu alistic t eaching Of L eibniz .

If L essing s earli er l eanings w er e tow ards D eism it s eems

,

a s th o ugh his l at er exp eri enc es t e nd ed to P anth eism .

Panth eist howev er h e i s not alb eit Spinoza so d eeply

, , ,
 1 80 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

inu en ces h i m for th at inu enc e i s m ore on th e h i stor ico

,

c ritic al sid e th an on th e phil o s ophic al H i s D eity w as .

n ot w ith o ut s up er n atu ral c as t although s et al so in n atu r al ,

r el ati o ns ; an d th e free a n d c o n s cious Spi r it W h o to him ,

r ep rese nt e d Et ern al P r ovid e nc e w as abl e to d et er min e ,

H i s ow n en d s D ev el o p m en t as L ess ing expound s it

.
, ,

n eed n ot th erefo r e exclude Pro vid ence L essi n g ev en

, ,
.

d eal s i n s p ecul ativ e fas hi o n with th e do ctri ne O f th e

, ,

Tr i n ity aft er th e ex ampl es o f Augusti n e Aquin as and

, , ,

M el anchth o n Offering wh at to him app ear s a ph i l oso

,

p h i c al equiv al en t L ess ing und ers t and s th e T r inity in

.

th e se n se O f i m m a n en t di s tincti o n s His own p erfec .

tio n s are co nc eiv ed by D eity in two fold fashion : b oth

as s i n gl e an d as u n it ed i n Hims elf as th eir s um G od s
.
,

thinki n g m ean s c reati o n H i s idea s are a ctu aliti es and

, ,

H i s c r eati o n ow s from His co n c eivin g H i s p er fecti ons

singly . Wh en H e c o nc eiv es th em as united th en ,

c r eat es H e th e So n o f G od H i s o wn et ern al im age ; ,

a n d th en bec o m es t h e H o ly Spirit th e b o nd b etween ,

F ath er an d So n .

O n wh at are kn o wn as M edi ation al as p ects of t ruth ,

L es sing h as littl e to s a y h i s vi ew s b eing pr ed o min antly

,

ethic al I nd eed h e i s r ath er m eag re in wh at h e h as to

.
,

s ay o fth e Per so n o f Ch r i s t in H i s whol e hi s t or ic re l atio n s ,

a lth o ugh h e d oes d eal with t h e S a ti s fa cti o n Of Ch r i s t a nd

O r igin a l Si n O n th e Res u r r ecti o n Of o ur L o rd L essing

.
,

h as so m ethi n g t o s ay O n e o f th e F ragm ent s Of Reim

.

ar us publi s h e d by him att a cks th e res u rrection histo ry ,

a nd L es si n g agr ee s s o f a r th at th e Gosp el a cc o unt s c an

not b e rid of c o n t rad ictio n s But h e d o es n ot on th at .

acc o unt t reat t h e res u rrection a s unhi s to r ic al

Wh o
.
,
 1 82 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

Et ern al r ec o mp en ses pr o mis ed in th e New Test am ent

,

as r ew ar ds o fvi r tu e ar e t o L essin g only m ea n s of educ a

ti o n des tin ed to g radu al di s u se ; virtu e will at l ast i n

,

th e st ag e o f pu r ity o f h eart b e l o v ed for i t s o wn sak e ,

an d p ra cti s ed f or n o m er e h eav enly rew ar ds Th at is .

th e tim e to which L es s i n g l o o k s fo rw ar d wh en in th e , ,

invisible m a rch of Et er n a l Pr ovidenc e th e Ch r i sti an ity ,

Of r easo n sh all h av e c o m e an d men will do th e good ,

b ecau s e it is th e g oo d H o w m uch th at w as b oth n eedful

.

a n d whol eso m e in th es e in s ist enc es n eeds no pointing

o ut wh eth er o n e agr ees with L es s ing in th e enti rety of

,

hi s t ea chings o r n ot T h e insi ght a n d p regn a ncy of

.

t h e exp res s i o n which L ess ing h as in such w ay s o fl o oking ,

out up o n th e futur e giv en to his religious conviction

,

h av e b een v ery expressly not ed by Zell er 1 .

T h e a n a lytic cl ear n ess of L es s ing s w r iting s h as been

a l rea dy n o tic ed but this is n ot to s ay th at his w ork was

,

alw ay s m ar ke d by s elf con s ist e ncy It w as much th at

-
.

h i s d eep soul an d cl ear comp reh e n s ive int ell ect shunn ed
, , ,

t h e d ry a nd ar id D ei s m o f his tim e but m ore th at h e ,

should h av e put fo rw ar d such positiv e truth s as h e did ,

lik e so m a ny g er min al s eed s o f th o ught Highly ch arac .

ter i s ti c O f th e G er m a n spi r it is his wo rk wi t h i ts pre ,

emin ent cl ear n es s an d c a nd o u r D ogm ati s m of b eli ef is .

wh at h e oppos es th e religion of th e l ett er as aga inst th at

,

o ft h e Spi r it T h e v o t a ry o f E n light e n m ent

.

his enlight en m ent y et l ea ds him to Ch risti a nity as th e

r eligi o n o f hum a nity at its high est Ch r isti an t r uths b eing ,

fo r him t ruths for rea so n L es sing w as a pow erful pre .

cu rs or O f H egel alik e in hi s developm ent al t reatm ent Of

,

1
E Z ll
. V t g m d A bh
e er, or ra el gm v l i

an a u n o . II .
 '
LE SS I NG S P H I LO SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N . 1 83

th e positiv e r eligions and in his sp ecul ativ e t reatm ent of

dogm as like th e Trinity H e g av e th e b as al thou ght of
.

H egel s philosophy Of religion in h i s th eory of th e educ a

tion of th e race while th e fo und ation for Kant s doctrin e

,

of ethics w as l a id in L essing s insist enc es o n th e go s p e l

Of pur e mo rality I f L essing b e h eld as es t ra ng ed from

.

positive Chri s ti a nity th e d egree o f his ali en ati o n is

,

m att er o n which th ere i s still no compl et e agreem ent .

Wh at is b ey o nd di s put e is L essing s signica nc e for th e

Philosophy Of Religi o n as a g reat s emin al think er .

P roph et an d h arbing er h e w as o fa m ore t r uly e nlight en ed

ti m e th a n his own an d if th e world h as not ev en yet go t
,

b eyond th e faith o f authority th at is no reas on why w e

,

cann o t h ear tily app reci at e wh at th e univ ers al th o ughts O f

L es s ing did fo r th e imm edi at e an d i m port ant futu re .
 CHAPTE R XV .

N
I
KA T S P H L O SO P H Y O F RE L G I IO N .

TH E phil o sophy o f Religi o n pr o pound ed by th e imm ort al

Ka nt must b e pr onounc ed a thing fear fully and wonder
fully m ade I nt eres ting an d ing eni o us in th e highest
.

d egree it yi elds at almost ev ery tu r n th e contradictory

,

an d uns atisfa ct or y I t is o nly int end ed now to gl an ce at

.

c ert ain p o int s in his phil o sophy o f religi o n m ore especi ,

ally i n rel ati o n t o his rej ecti o n O f th ei s tic pr oo fs a nd h i s ,

w elcom e o f th at m o ral p res ent ation on which h e gr eatly

l ean ed W e k n ow h o w l ar g ely d et ermin ed th e ch aract er
.

o f K a nt s phil o s o ph y O f r eligion w as by at avi s tic i nu

en ces , c o mbin ed with th os e o f th e pi etism an d ration al

ism O fth e G er m a ny Of th e eight eenth centu ry H i s own .

p ers on ality w as c o ntributiv e Of th at lov e O f liberty in

h ar m o ny with l aw which l ed him to l ay suprem e stress
o n t h e will to do good K ant s co nc epti o n of r eligi on

.
,

subj ectiv ely vi ew ed as giv en in h i s Rel i gi on wi thi n the

,

L i mi ts of P ure Reason i s by no m ean s a s ati s fact o ry

,

a n d a d equ a t e o n e eith er in r esp ect o f m a n s religi ous

,

hi s tory o r in r egar d to th e cont ent Of religi o n its elf wh en

, ,

h e say s it is th e cogniti o n o f al l o ur duti es as divin e

co m m and s T h e mor al a n d p r a c t ic al c ert ainty of c on
.

vi c ti o n which for him constitut ed r eligion spr a ng of ,

1 86 STU D I E S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL OSO P H Y .

K ant n ever saw Twa s a rash er thing th a n h e suppos ed

.

to s ay th at i s always is m er ely th e c o pul a o fa j udgment .

H eg el did m uch b ett er wh en h e found th e high est proof

for th e t r uth o f a c o nc ept in its b ei n g a n ec es sity to
th o u ght an d c o n clu ded th erefrom to its n ecessity of
,

b ei n g Ka nt h as th e m er it h ow ev er to h av e cut away
.
, ,

d efectiv e m et aphy s ic s at cer t ain w ell known an d t ol erably

-

Obvi o u s p o i n t s but h e w as wro n g i n supp os ing th at

,

wh at w e n eces sar ily think an d think as n ecess arily

,

existi n g , h as n o titl e to v alidity I t i s n o qu es tion of

.

m ere c o n c eiving it is o n e Of n ec ess ary thi n king To

, .

say th at e xi s t e n c e c a nn o t be cl aw e d o ut of th ought

i s obvi o u s en o ugh a nd b eyond ch all en g e in th e c as e of

m ere i m ag ining but th at i s n o t thinking at al l in the
,

s en s e o f thi s argu m e nt I t is thought d ealing with th e

.

r e a l t h e exi s t en t an d t h e n ec es s ar ily exi s t en t

,
The .

t r uth i s K an t s po s iti o n is both illogical and ir ration al

,

.

T o d eny th e p ass age to exi s t enc e fr o m n ec es s ary thought

Of n e c es sary exi s t ence w o uld be a m or e ast o undi ng feat
o f i n t e ll ectu al confusi o n th a n K ant d r ea m ed TO wh at
.

m eaningl ess co n fu s i o n wo uld thought i n i ts ulti mat e ,

p r incipl es and working be reduced if it s h o ul d be h eld

, ,

as A n s el m d eem ed impossibl e (nequi t B um non esse

cogi tar e) th at G o d c an be co nc eiv ed as no n existent

-
,

a nd thi s argu m ent tr eat ed i n th e ctitiou s Kantian

m ode . T h e id ea o f thi s argu m ent sh o uld n ev er h ave
b een cl assed with th o s e b or n o f individu al fancy and ,

i ts u n iqu en ess a nd solit arin es s l o s t s ight of But th e

.

s t andp o int o f m er e ab s t ract thinking a s s um ed by K ant

in r esp ect Of th e r el ati o n o f id eality invo lved is too l ow

to b e c o nclu s iv e Still th at we h av e ev en Kant s
.
,

KAN T S P H I L O SO P H Y o r RE L I G IO N . 1 87

a rgum ent a bout a hu n d r ed doll ar s in co ncept b eing

a cc o unted a s good as a hundr ed d o ll ar s in pu rse re ,

p eated as though it h a d so m e v es tig e o f v a lu e i s ,

w arr ant for r ec alling h ow B enn o E r dm ann d escr ib ed i ts

u se by K a nt as b arb ar o u s H egel r ightly u rg ed th at
.
,

in d eali n g with G od w e are t reating Of an Obj ect

,

wh o lly different in kind fr om an y hundred d o ll ars a nd ,

th at in fact no p articul ar n o tio n o r r epres ent ation

, ,

wh atso ev er is co mp arabl e to th e c as e of th e c o ncept Of

Go d . H egel fu r th er th o ught it w o uld b e st r an ge if th e ,

c o ncr et e tot ality which w e call G o d sh o uld n ot be r ich

, ,

enough to includ e s o poo r a c at ego ry Of b e i n g as th at

h ere involv ed Th o ught its elf s eems to d em a nd an

.

ulti m at e unity Of things an d thi s argu m en t is but an

,

ef fo r t to giv e logic a l fo r m to o ur b eli ef in s uch an

Ulti m at e .G o d is th e Ulti m at e which th o ught SO
d em an d si s th e ultim at e c o nc ret e tot ality Th er e i s .

in Him a p r incipl e which giv es unity to th e discr e t e

m ultiplicity of th e w o rld This i s m ore a nd oth er th a n
.

m a king H im a m ere n a m e fo r th e All But th e w eak .

n ess of th e O nt o logic al ar gum ent t ak en by it s elf , ,

r em ain s in th e fact th a t it c an l ay n o d et er min at e

qu ality on this B e i n g Who i s a bov e al l reality to j us
, ,

ti fy o ur m ar ki n g Him Off a s G o d .

T h e Cosmol o gic al ar gum en t w as t o K a nt a m ere

b egging Of th e qu es tion o n e in which a Fi rst C aus e

for al l th at i s conti n gent w as s o ught i n an abso

l utel y n ec ess ary B ein g Such an o v er s t eppin g o f th e

.

s ens e world to m a ke said inference K ant could n o t

-

appr o v e . N O m o re c o uld h e acc ept th e conclusion to a

First C aus e fr om th e impossibility of an innit e s eries
1 88 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P EA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

of cau ses or co nditi o n s since Of c o u rs e w e cannot

, , ,

m ake such a tra n s fer Of s ubj ectiv e pr inciple to things

Obj ective Wh en we m ak e such a tr an s fer K ant thinks
. ,

it a p er a a t s ei s ct o yevos an d as s uch to be di s
o

r
'

, , ,

c redit ed . But H egel pro p er ly as we think d ecl ares

, ,

th at if th o ught ca n n ot go o ut b eyo n d th e s ens e world it -

,

were m ore n eedful to s h ow how th o ught ev er found its

way i n t o th e s en s e w o rld-
T h e t r uth i s th ere was no
.
,

r ea l w ar r a n t fo r K a n t s assuming th at c au s ality c annot

c ar r y u s bey o nd th e i m p r essi o n s Of s en s u o u s exp er i ence .

O n such a vi ew w h er e it i s alw ay s p er ti n en t to ask

, , ,

wo uld be K ant s o w n w arra nt for t aking c au s ality to be

e v e n subj ectiv ely n ec ess ar y ? T h e v ery exist e nc e ofnon

e mpi r ic al n ec es s a r
y id eas i s pr oo f th at th e kingd o m of
reaso n i s n o t o f thi s w o r ld K ant s st r ess on th e i n nite
.

s er i es o f c au s es is r eally ir r el evan t th e qu es ti o n b eing ,

st r ic tly o n e o f th e warr ant for a Fi r s t C au s e as d et er ,

mi n ed by th e l a ck o fself exi s t ent an d n ec ess ary b eing on

-

t h e p ar t Of t h e univer s e K ant s Obj ection to transfer

.

Of th o u ght n ec es s ity to a n ec es s ity o f exi s t enc e c ert ai nly

l acks in d ar ing consist ency an d in s ight for what
, , ,

th o ught or reason m u s t of necessi ty think i s to be t aken

a s tru eis el sewh ere in K ant s o w n t ea ching so t aken
, ,

a s tru e. Th er e m ay o f cou r s e still b e r ais ed th e qu es

, ,

ti o n wh eth er th e wor ld can be an effect o f anything o ut

sid e it self but th e real qu esti o n is for a G r o und Of the
,

p os sibility of al l nit e thi n g s It b o ots n othi n g th at K ant

.
,

with h i s r es t r ict ed c aus ality to sen s ibl e exp eri ence

wo uld h ave d eem ed a n int ra m und an e C au s e illusory -

m o dern s ci enc e an d modern thought h av e t au ght us to

p ass fro m ph en o m en a to th eir sup ers en s uou s g r ound .
1 90 S TU D IES IN E U R O P E AN P H I LO SO P H Y .

O nly in G od as p r im e s ou r ce an d ultim a t e sust ain er

, ,

i s its w a nt apeE wfou nd O f cou r s e th e r eal strength

.
,

o f th e argum e nt is d rawn as L eibniz prop er ly divin ed , ,

fro m th e conting e ncy Of th e wo rld Thi s wo rld of .

exp er i enc e i s n o t a p er fect c o sm o s I t is not wholly .

r ati o n al a n d n e c ess ar y a n d so w e m ust,

recognis e th e

c onting e nt This contingent o r d ep en d ent ch ar acter of

.

th e w o r ld i s evid enc ed in N atur e b oth as uni ed Whol e , ,

under th e m os t co mplet e g en er ali s ati o ns known to

s ci enc e a n d a s vi ew e d s i n gly in a n
, y Of its p ar t s We .

know limit ati o n as s u r ely a s w e kn o w b ei n g Every .

thi n g i s i n i ts tu r n con d iti o n ed by s om ething els e and

, , ,

i s m ad e wh at it i s by i ts rel a tions to oth er thing s The .

numb er Of r el ati o ns is indenit e an d th e c omplete ,

r a ti o n ality o f such r el ations as a syst em i s p ast n din g , ,

o ut . While an und erlying nexus O f fo r c e m akes every

thing al s o c au s al i n its tu r n yet th ere i s no tr ace of ,

exi s t e nc e indep ende nt an d no n c o nditio n ed Part s of

,
-
.

e xi s t e nti al ph en o m e n a ev erywh er e thr o ugh o ut th e un i

,

v ers e d ep end up o n o th er p art s n o t l es s d ep end ent No

, .

a gg reg ati o n Of th ese d ep end e nt exist en c es c an p os sibly

m ak e a n ind ep e nd ent an d n o n co n dition ed universe -

.

Cl ear ly a universe s o nit e an d d epen de nt mu st h ave its

,

C aus e o r Gr o und b eyo nd it self I n wh o l e it must h ave .

,

a n ind ep end e nt s elf exi s t e nt C aus e as n ec ess ary c orr el ate

,
-
,

O fi ts n i t ud e .

The Tel eological ar gu m ent K ant tr eat ed not fai rly when ,

h e did n ot a llow it to r est cont ent with evid encing i a

tel l i gen ce K ant quit e fail ed to appr eci at e how synth etic
.

is th e mod e Of this pr o of building up fr om th e pri n ,

ci ent r eason in a w ay distinguish ed from the

c i pl e o f su f
 KA N T S P H I L O S O P H Y O F R E L I G I O N . 19 1

ontologic al an d co smol o gic al proofs I n h i s C r i ti que

.

of j udgmen t K a nt fa il ed to k eep in mind th at th e a

,

p oster i ori argum ent n eed no t giv e innity of int ellig e nc e ,

but only int ellig ence in th e Prim al C au se o f al l things .

His p r ocedur e really am o u nt ed to d er iving th e p r in

c i p l e of n ality in n atur e fro m th e a p r i or i conc epts o f

mor ality His i n iti al er r or i s to h av e conn ect ed n atu re

.

with freedom as n ec ess ary to p r oduce n a lity H is .

ultim at e erro r w as to h ave found in n ality no Obj ectiv e

r es ult but o n ly a subj ectiv e n ecess ity T h e subj ectiv e
, .

n ecessity h ad its h o m e o n ly in K ant s im agin ation

We .

m ight as reason a bly argu e ag a inst th e evid enc es o f will ,

pu rpos e a nd d es ign in oth er hum an b eings Tre ndel

, .

en burg p r o p er ly poi n t ed o ut th at th e Obj e ct its elf i s aft er ,

all n eed ed a cc or ding t o K ant him s elf to sa

, , y wh e n this
,

wh olly subj ectiv e pr incipl e o f n ality i s r equi red I t w as .

a gr atuit o us as s umpti o n o n K a nt s p art to suppos e th at

th e argum ent w a s to c arry us to a t r ansc e nd ent al Obj e ct ,

inst ead O f m erely brin g ing us exp eri enti ally int o con
, ,

t act with th e D ivi n e M ind o r I nt elligenc e K ant s oh .

j ecti on to this proo f as yi elding o nly an A r chit ect not ,

a n abs olut e an d or igin ativ e Cr eat or i s not at al l to t h e

,

point s inc e this proof i s o nly c o nc er n ed in its strict

, ,

an d pr o p er s ens e with t h e ord er pu r po se a n d h arm o ny

, , ,

O fth e w or ld as d ue to reas o n o r int ellig e nc e K ant h ad .

b een b ett er empl oyed in d o i n g som ething to tran s cend

K anti a n du alism o f inn er an d out er in s t ea d Of l eaving,

H eg el s high er vi ew O f N atu re to d o this fo r him

.

K ant s cr iticism of th e tr aditi o n al proofs i s thus far

l ess d am aging th an h as Oft en b een suppos ed and ,

philosoph ers h av e allowed th ems elves to b e impos ed

192 S TU D IES IN E U RO PE A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

upo n to a n eedl es s
not altogeth er c redit a bl e ext ent
an d .

Tu rn w e n o w to h i s t r eatm ent Of th e M o ra l P r o o f In .

h i s Cr i ti que of j udgmen t K an t h as it th at for this

,

w orld with s uch en d as it b ear s a M oral Auth or or

, ,

G o d i s to b e a c k n o wl ed ged And in h i s C r i ti que of .

P ur e Reason h e s a y s : , B el i ef i n G o d an d in an o th er
w o rld i s so i n t erwo v en with m y m or al n atu re ( Gesi n
nung ) th at th e for m e r c a n n o m o r e v a n i s h th an th e l at ter
,

c a n ev er b e t or n fr o m m e T h e o nly p o int to be here

.

k ept i n mind i s th at thi s ac t Of fa ith Of th e intellect

a ssum es th e exi s t enc e ( Vor aussetz ung) o f m o ral dis

p o s iti o ns I f w e leav e th em as id e an d supp os e a mind

.

quit e indiffer en t with resp ect to mo r al l aws th en th e ,

inquir y r ai sed by reaso n b ec o m es m erely a subj ect for

S p ecul ati o n s upp or t abl e a s such
, by s t r ong arguments
, ,

fr o m a n al ogy but n o t by s uch th at to th em th e m ost

,

s tubb o r n s c e ptici s m must yi eld C o n s ci enc e as th e .

touch s t o n e o f revelati o n w as indeed n ely set forth by , ,

K an t an d th e n a l o utc o m e of h i s phil osophy i s a moral

,

i n t er pret ati o n Of th e univ erse .

This does n o t k eep u s fr o m thi n ki n g hi s D eity st ands ,

b oth in h i s M etaphy si cs of E thi cs and his Cr i ti que

of P r a cti cal Reason i n a rel ati o n to ethics which is too
,

ext er n al a n d ev e n s up er ci al
, H i s m oral p o stul at es .

were n o t p o s tul at e s o f life but o f phil oso phy And yet

, .
,

in rej ecting m erely i n t ell ect u al g ro und s o f th eological

b e li ef h e w a s really falli n g b a ck upon th e vit al int erests
,

Of religi o u s life Religi o n b ec o m es in fa ct pu rely a

.
, ,

m att er o f faith w ith K a n t an d s uch fa ith i s s tr angely

,

left with o ut th e s upp o r t th a t int ell ect m ight b e expect ed

to render K an t fail s to put h i s m o ralistic p roof under
.
1 94 S TU D IE S IN E U R O PEAN P H I LO SO P H Y .

It is no t to supp o s ed th at we c an in an y wi s e impos e
be
th e m o r a l l aw up o n o ur s elv es wh en th e ethic al id ea ,

in us is in i ts ab s o lut e p ower an d w orth to be run

, ,

b ack a n d ground ed i n th e Ab so lut e M o ral I d eal Kant .

fail ed to k eep th e m oral r eason fro m b ec o ming too

ab s t r a ct a n d hum a ni s tic h e might h av e k ept th e p rin
c i p l e o f m ora l aut o n o my a n d subsum ed it p r op erly und er

religion h ad h e a d e qu at e ly c o nc eiv ed th e n atu re O fm an s

,

soul K an t st ra ngely mi s s ed s eei n g th e th eo retic ch ar

.

a ct er of t h e m oral p r o o f as d rawn fro m D ivin e m ani

,

festati o n in m oral l aw el s e h e would not h av e set it

,

up o n a s ep arat e pl an e fr om th e o th er th ei s tic p roofs .

H e furth er fail ed to app reci at e th at such b eli ef in G od as ,

th e mor al p roo f really b r ings to u s mu s t b e s h o t th r ough ,

with el em ent s o fr easo n far b eyond h i s im agini n g s .

T h e mist ak es o r mi s conc epti o n s o f K a nt h ow ev er , ,

d o not blind u s to h i s g reat p o sitiv e m er it s H e rightly .

fo und th e n or ms Of m or ality in m an s rati o n al and

s pi r itu al n ature D et ach ed err o r s such as w e h ave b een

.
,

p o inting o ut n eed n o t d etr act fr o m a ppr eci ation of his

,

w or k in wh o l e an d in i ts high er qu aliti es
, H o w truly .

c o ngr u o us i s mo ral l aw with th e es s enti al n atu re of m an

w as strikingly b r ought ou t by K an t w h o nobly set it ,

a bov e eph em er a l utiliti es T O c o n s ci e nc e K ant gives

.

b ack th e Absolut e which h e h ad t ake n away from

,

r ea s o n But it m ust Of co urs e n ev er b e fo rgo tt en th at

.
, ,

K ant n ev er really t ra n s c ends th e du ali s m o f exp eri ence ,

n ev er really effects a high er synth esis b etween form and

m att er b etw een duty and inclin ati o n b etween moral
, ,

id eas o f a really religious origin and m oral ideas of

j udici al typ e N o d o ubt h e d ecl ares th at no con
.
,

KA NT S P H I L O SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N . 1 95

t r ad i c ti onr e m ains but th at is not to t ak e aw ay th e

du ality to c arry th e synth esis b ey o nd th e s ph er e of
,

m er e feeling I t w as l eft for Ficht e to conti n u e an d

.

compl et e th e w or k o f K a nt in this r es p ect Th e mor al .

r eas o n as id eal K ant rightly t akes to b e aut o nom o us

, ,

Self l egisl ating in th e sph er e of m o r a ls

-
B ut b etween .
,

th e m o r al r ea s o n and th e Abs o lut e h e h as m a d e an ,

imp ass abl e ch asm so th at m orality an d r eligion are um

,

bridged Th e n o um en al world h e h ad m ade a Gr enz begri

'

a regul ative co nc ept m ar king out th e limits o f our

knowl edg e .

But now h e t ell s us th at wh at th e mo ral id ealth e

mor al consciousn es sd em ands must b e tru e an d m ay ,

be kn o wn C er t ainly his p ractic a l divorce o r s ep aration

Of th ese two kinds of r eason
.

th e th eor etic an d th e

pr acticali s u nwarr ant ably g reat even th o ugh h e might ,

hims elf ackn o wledg e th em to b e in th e l ast r esort , ,

o ne . Th e n o ti o n s Of n ec es sity an d univ ers ality in mor al

action a pp ea r c o ld an d b ar e in K ant s thought which
,

n eed s light an d w a rmth fr o m th e synth etic proc ess es

a n d unifying pow er s O f th e mind I d o n o t compl a in .

s o much O f th e individu alistic ch ar a ct er Of his ethic al

thoughts as is don e by th o s ewh o se chi ef c are is fo r soci al

e thics . For t h e individu al must do th at only which
h e c o uld m ak e a univer s al nor m And th e i nd ivi d ual .

mu st work out his o wn ethical s alvation it s eems to m e , ,

rs t Of all in an individu ali s tic way Th at i s b eginning .

,

n o d o ubt r ath er th a n end but it i s a n ee dful b eginning

, , ,

an d s ecur ed as s uch by K a nt without yi elding to wh at

, ,

is subj ectiv e aiml ess and c ap rici o u s

,
B esides which
,
.
,

it is to be not ed how much K ant h ad got aw ay from

1 96 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P E AN P H I L OSO P H Y .

n eeds Of th e individu al in h i s l at er enunci ati o ns O f the

,

m oral po stul at es to th e mo ral n eeds ofth e univ ers e

,
.

But K ant w as n o t v er y c o n s i s t ent in his use Of th e

postul at es a n d s o do es n o t alw ay s inc rease th e w eight
,

o f h i s r eas o n ing K ant s ethic al d epth an d purity l ead

.

him up to high app reci ati o n Of th e r eligi o n which t akes

al l its duti es as D ivin e co mm ands A too legalistic .

c o nc epti o n h o wev er Al s o it s eems to me to h ave

, .
,

b een fo r individu al exp er i enc ea suggestiv e vi ew that

K a nt t oo k wh en h e fou n d in g reat religi ous truth s or
,

d o ctr in es s o m ething to b e r ep eat ed as ethic al proc esses

i n th e i n n er liv es o f g oo d m en But th e ethic al must .

get b eyond thi s individu al as p ect Hi s t ory and ex .

p er i en c e alik e Show th e n eed o f hum a n d ev elopm ent for

m an s app reh en s i o n O f th e full cont ent of th e mo ral l aw

Of Kant K a nt s philos o phy Of r eligi o n was m arked by

.

l ack o fhi st o ric s ens e wh en h e t oo k th e hi s t or y o fr eligion

to s t art o n ly with Christi a nity which fo r him b egan the ,

univ ers al But h i s phil o s ophic al conc epti o n s are in

.
,

th e r eligious s ph ere l acking in w armth an d vit ality and

, ,

d o no t c ar r y him b eyond th e icy reg i o n Of th e mor al

reason . His religion st a nds unre deem ed by a single
g rand infu s i o n or d ash of Sc h l ei er m ac h er i an feeli ng .

Thi s i s th e m or e r em ar kabl e in asmuch as K ant l eft the ,

mo ral l aw as in r eality som ething felt r ath er th an

, , ,

int ell ectu ally appreh end ed or g ras p ed So m e more ade .

qu at e r ecogniti o n o f feeling sh o uld thus h ave b een easy

to him .

Ev en Spin oza do es m ore j ustic e to th e affections th an

K ant notwithst anding th at S pin o za s own lov e O f God
,

is a still too int ellectu al thing Not ofcours e th at it is .

, ,
19 8 STU D IE S IN E U R O P E A N P H I L O SOP H Y .

triumph of good N ot with wh at is c all ed tot al

.

depravity but with a t end ency to evil in m an s n atur e

,

,

do es K ant concern hims elf T h e r eality of evil is for .

K ant ev er m en acing th e s u re adv ance Of the moral life .

But this postul ate offaith in th e D ivin e avails not in th e

end for K ant s consuming zeal fo r hum an fr eedom l eads
,

him at l ast to look m erely to an innit e process for the

v anquishing of evil with o ut th at is to say D ivin e
, , ,

assist a nc e This is no p erfect t r iumph of good but a

. ,

prolongation ofthe st r uggl e And ind eed it is a fault of .

K ant th at he is so pron e to m ake th e good so much

a thing mer ely r egul ativ e or pot e nti a l Further Kant s

mor alism centr es m an too much in hims elfi n m arked

.
,

contrast with religion h enc e it is so e asy for K ant to

m ake much ofevil with its m or al culp ability and t ake no
, ,

re al account of sin M an s di s cord a nt r el ations to God

.

are terr a i ncogni ta to K a nt m a n s di s cord b eing in K ant

, , ,

only with hims elf K ant would not be troubled by

.

ext erior punishm ent s : wh at h e d oes not like is self

cond emn at i on for th at would affect our ch eerfuln ess and
,

arr est our mor al e n er gy H e thinks r adic al evil in us.

c arries with it guilt in resp ect of which we are li abl e

,

to punishm ent at o nc e n eces s ar y and mor ally hurtful

, .

H armony is r estored thinks Kant by th e id ea of the , ,

Son O f God o r God pl eas ing hum a nity O ur actu ality

-
.

is thu s repl aced by som ething b etter or high er God ,

reg arding us in th e light of this id ea rath er th an accord

ing to our actu al works .

But this replacem ent K ant wo rks out in no s atisfactory

way He leads us n o d o ubt into a r ealm of desire for
. , ,

goodness but in his d esir e to escape atoning el ements

, , ,

K AN T S P H I L O SO P H Y O F RE L I G IO N . 1 99

conducts to no actu ali sati o n Redemption is not with .

,

him a qu estion of the Ch r ist su ffering fo r m a n s s in s but

,

,

O f m an r ed eeming hims elf by th e su f fering o f h i s o wn

bett er o r higher b eing Reco ncili ation exists fo r us i n
.
,

Ka nt o n ly in th e sh ap e Of s elf r edemption by m ea ns o f
,
-

our own mor al volition T h e id ea o f hum anity w ell

.

pl easing to God is Obviously to o far r emov ed fr o m our

a ctu ality to inu e nc e o ur m o r al r enewa l to an y great

ext ent Wh at K ant fail s to t ak e any d ue an d p r op er

.

a ccount of is th e fact Of th e loss of mor al s tren gth

,

e nt a il e d by guilt not b eing in an

y prop er way or s en se
at o n e d for Peace of consci ence and j oy in God are
.

th er eby r end ered inch o at e an d imperfect K a nt s whole .

treatm ent h er e is int erestin g for th e way in which it

fo r es h ad ows th e Christi a n r ed e mption in p r incipl e but ,

it is p res age an d nothing m o r e his ide al Christ an i deal ,

an d n ot hing more T h e v a lu e o f K a nt s thought c on

.

ti n ues howev er to b e th at h e t aught m en to nd th e

, ,

highes t go od not along t h e pathway o f knowl edg e pu re

,

an d s impl e but r ath er along th e lin es o f mor al a ctivity

,

th e mo r al disciplin es o fth e will .

O n e Of th e most v alu a bl e featur es Of Rel i gi on wi thi n

the L i mi ts of P ure Reason is i ts thought O f th e Ki n gdo m

Of G o d which h as sinc e b een so fruitfully d ev elo p ed I t

,
.

w as a most pregn ant an d s ugg e stiv e thing for K ant to

s ay th ere is nothing go o d in th e world s av e a go o d will

al o ne . I t is now bett er u nd er stood how ev er th at w i l l , ,

n ever is without an int ellectu a l elem ent no r int ell ection ,

wi thout will if only th e d es ire an d will to know T h e

,
.

g o o d will as we know it i s n ev er blind in its str iving s

, ,

aft er th e mor al ide al but alw ays illumined by int ell ectu al
,
2 00 S TU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

idea an d conception Kant with al l th e exc ell enc es of

.
,

his brilli ant thr eefo ld an alys i s of r eas o n w as yet in h is , ,

schi s m atic t reat m ent Of ration al faculty far fr om any ,

ad equ a t e appre ci ati o n o f th e g ra nd ultim at es Of r eligi o us

thought an d exp er i enc e Ev e n th e ethic al an d aes th etical

.

m o m ent s on which K ant l aid s uch emph as is l ead us at

, ,

l ast to a p er fect an d s yn th etic unity in th e r eligi ou s I deal ,

Of which th er e i s in K a nt n o s u f ci ently r m full and , ,

s t ea dfast a pp reh en s ion a n d app reci ati o n Th er e i s al .

w ay s m o re in m an as really r ation al an d religiou s t h an

, ,

i s p er fectly explic abl e in t er ms o f reas o n but K ant h ad ,

o n ly a v ery in a d equ at e app reci ati o n of thi s fact Such .

b eing th e c as e it was m ore easy for Kant to fail o fs eeing

,

th e impossibility th at th e r ich c o nt ent a n d d ev elopm ent

of r eligi o n could Sp ri n g out Of so fo r m al a p r incipl e as

th at o f m or al reas o n A m or e distinctive pl ac e an d a
.
,

mo re specic an d p eculi ar functi o n mu st be cl aim ed for

,

religion th a n to b e s ub s um e d und er ethic s .

S till K ant s work w as fo r h i s tim e tr a nsc end ently

, , ,

great O nly th e exc ess of pu rely m ora l r easo n in his

.
,

r eligion tr a nsfo r ms it int o a d efect fo r th e el em ent O f

,

r eas o n i s n e ith er prop erly fus ed with n or rel at ed to , ,

hi s t or ic al an d exp eri enti al el em ent s in h i s sy st em Th e .

er ro rw hich s till liv es o n in high pl ac es must b e l eft

b ehind o f thinking th e K a nt Of th e C ritiqu e Of Practical

Reason c orrect o r o fa n earli er K ant of th e Pu r e Reason ,

th e err o r o f thinking an abs o lut e dogm atism (th at O f th e

c at egoric al imp erativ e) w as in K ant th e t ran s fo rm ation

, ,

o f a radic al nihili s m For Kant was b efore everything

.
, ,

an d a t ev er y s t ag e o f his c ar eer a m oralistic philosoph er

, ,

and by no m eans b e c am e so only at clos e O f his l engthy

2 02 STU D IE S I N E U R O P EA N P H I L O SOP H Y .

But th e id eal of the goodwhose triumph and kingdom

are s ecur ed by th e s a cric e Of Christ is th at wh ereto
K ant would bring man Wh at ever is n eedful for the.

r ealising of this moral id eal is h eld in his philosophy Of ,

relig ion to be tru e Thus at th e behest Of co nscience

, .
, ,

th e Absolut e is in a s ens e r estor ed to r eason

, , N ot .
,

indeed as imm edi at ely given in experi ence but only

, ,

n ecess ary postulate It w as in speculative blindn ess th at

.

K ant Sam son like brought down the whol e t emple of

,
-
,

m et aphysic al knowl edg e o f God His philosophy of .

r eligi o n h as p aid a h eavy p e n a lty for this d estructiven ess .

His mo ral postul at es as m ere moral necessiti es can no

, ,

wise comp ens at e th e l o ss Of any knowledge Of G od as

tr an s c end ent B eing .

Ad equ acy of a philosophy of religion on such a pu rely

m orali stic th eory is a p at ent impossibility If r eligion .

c o uld b e r educ ed to th e po s ition of m ere app endix to

morality as in K ant we might be found going on with
, , ,

Fi c h te to m ake Of God n o mor e th an the moral order Of

,

th e wor ld Web er ind eed r em arks th at the re al G od of

.

Kant i s Freedom in th e s ervice of th e id eal But Kant .

n ev er r each ed a r eal fr eed o m ; fr eedom s r el ation to

natIi ral c aus ation h e did not p r operly und erst a nd ; th e

tru e idea Of fr eedom could not st and Open to him s ince ,

th e vit al conn ection of r eligion and mor ality w as not

appr eh e nd ed by him J esus i s to K ant but th e exemplar

.
, ,

o f th e id eal j ust spok en of an d high est r epresent ative of

,

hum anity And this id eal s pr ings out Of our rational

.

b eing B ut th e w eakn ess o f K ant s philosophy ofr eligi on

.

lies p r im arily in the t end ency to re solve r eligion into the

s ervice Of the mor al id ealth e fullment of mor al duty

KA N T S PH IL O S O P H Y or RE LI G I O N . 20 3

an d a cti o n oblivious of th e fact th at r eligion in th e ,

rst in s t anc e do es not c o n s i s t in such ext eri o r action

, ,

but in attitudes of will an d s t ates of feeling K ant in .

,

th e s a m e m ann er as L es s ing und erestim at ed and mis

conc eived th e v alu e o fth e hi s toric el em ent its tru e pl ace

,

and r el ation H e quit ean d strang elyfail ed to r el ate

.

it to th e im m an ent D ivi n e principl e in us which h e ,

expr essly recognis ed Rel i gi on wi thi n the L i mi ts of

.

P ure Reason c an only b e an uns atisfactory a p r i or i

construction if th e K a nti an mode of disp ensing with
hi s tor ic medi ation is to be adopt ed .

Yet o n e can symp athis e with his s ens e of th e evils o f

hist or ic Christi a nity an d it is e asy to see how t r u e
,

religion as univers al b eco m es contr ast ed with hi s t or ic

, ,

faiths th at only p arti ally r epr es ent it F ull Of int eres t .

and s i gn ic a nce is K ant s phil os ophy of religi o n ev e n

,

though it be uns atisfacto r y in m any r espects Chi ef o f .

th e uns ati s factory asp ects is K an t s str ange failur e to nd

ro o m for the consciousn ess o f G o dabsolut e principle of

all real ity and most c o ncr e t e obj ect o f our th o ught
,

within th e hum an consci o u s ness and so to r ai se th e ,

individu al in his religion fo r ev er far abov e hims elf an d

, ,

his ow n purely indivi du alistic r efer ences and t endenci es .

B es id es it h as b een th e app r o ach of ethic al D eity to m an

,

th at h a s most surely gu ar a nt eed ev en at m edi ation al c o st

, ,

t h e m oral pow er K ant s eeks .

Wid ely contrastive is K a nt s thought to th at Of S pin o za

,

with his faith in an et er n al o r der an d his abs o lut e cer ,

t a inty ofth e subst ance u nveil ed to th e scrutiny O fr easo n .

K ant s faith is in moral l awth e power which en abl es us

sublim ely to tr anscend s en se an d th e power by which ,

204 S TU D IES IN E U RO P EA N P H I L O SO PH Y .

K ant would build up th e Spiritu al w o rld h e h ad d estroyed .

H e l ays this D ivin e M o r al O rd er up o n us with r esistl ess

might m akin g us tr eat it as absolut ely r eal absolut ely
, ,

D ivin e an d M o ral For it i s to our con s ci enc e his G od

.

rev eal s H im s elf K ant s faith is a n e thing as an active

. ,

p o s tul at e or a free s piritu al const r ucti o n yet n ev er can ,

w e b r ing ou r selves to b eli ev e th at only in this o ne par

ti cu l ar way h as G o d r eveal e d Hims elf a n d n ot also in ,

t h e sup er b w or kings Of th eo retic reas o n and Sp ecul ative

in s ight Such reaso n is a lso God s gift an d indeed is

.

,

th er e an y high er ? Tr u e it i s n ot s elf s uf ci ng but must

,
-
,

b e link ed to th e light of c o n s ci enc e ; but r eason a nd con

s ci enc e so unit edas in th e compl e x b eing c all ed m an
, ,

th ey s h o uld always be th ey will j o intly b ear us to

h ei ghts o th erwi se un att ain abl e and u n att ain ed W e can .

n ot th er efor e a cqui esc e i n t h e o n e s id edn ess o f K ant s

-

moral s t res s Exc ell ent as it is in m any ways in itself

.
,

it is n eith er tru e n or j u s t i n its r el ati o n to th e r ev elations

Of reas on or int ell ecto r r ath er in its indep end ence of
,

th em .

A s atisfying philo sophy of religion is po s s ible only

wh en to th e m oral el em ents emph asis ed by Kant j u stice
, ,

is d o n e to th e em o ti o n al el em ents O f Schl ei er m ach er and ,

to th e cl aim s o f Obj ectiv e t r uth rep res ent ed by H egel .

N ot without reason w as it th at a w ell known G erm an -

r eligious philos o ph er o nc e r em arked th at th e K anti an

m o d e of tr eating r eligi o n was to m ake it m er ely a sort Of

d r y nu r s e to m orality to b e shown to th e doo r as soon as
-
,

mo rality got st r ong er up o n h er legs Kant no doubt

.
, ,

h as th e m er it in h i s critic o sp ecul ative way to m ak e the

,
-
,

mor al faith Of reason a pp ear as a ration al grounding of

2 06 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E AN P H I L O SO P H Y .

how sickly and d es ol at e moral id eals are th at are nothing

,

els e , a n d to d educ e th er efro m th e n eed o f r eligi o n as ,

c arryi n g us far b ey ond th e p ower o f m o ral rea son al o ne .

K ant h as b o r n e th e p alm a m o ng m o d er n ethicists and ,

h a s given to m o d er n th eistic phil oso phy its mo s t vit alising

i n u enc es aft er ev ery d educti o n i s m ad e for th e d efects
,

o f h i s p rese nt ation Thi s is K an t s endu r ing title to

.

g ratitude in th e sph er e Of th e phil osophy o f religi o n It .

i s o f c o u r s e a differ ent thi n g fro m th e worth of h i s

, ,

s y s t em its elf but it is s o m ething su f

,
ci ently great .
 CHAPTE R XV I .

A C O NSTRU CT IV E E SSA Y INI DE AL I SM : H E GE L AN D

B E R KE L E Y .

IN the following ch apt er I h av e t r i ed as far as possibl e

, ,

to avoid n am es and d eal with arg um ents Th ere can .

be little doubt th at s om e form o f id ealism is destined

to be the philosophy th at sh all p r ev ail Som e int erest .

ing qu estions aris e Will th at for m be H egeli an id eal

.

ism ? O r must we not look to a m ore d ev elop ed form

of Theistic I d ealism ? Wh at in such an ev ent wi l l
, ,

be its attitude to I dealism of th e H egeli an type ? We

sh all do some n eg ativ e w o rk rst and th en p ass up to
,

more constructiv e effor t I d ealism wh eth er Of a Heg el

.
,

or a B erk el ey s eeks to int erp r et th e U niv erse aft er the

,

a n alogy of consci o us life an d r ega r ds conscious exp eri

,

e nce as f or us th e gr eat r eality Wis ely enough for

.
,

in no oth er way c an w e know o r nd ultim ate reality .

Although the Agno s tic position th a t we only know

th at we c an nothing know m ay sti l l r em ain a possi
,

bil ity it is so poor a p o ssibility th at th e philo

,

sophic mind at l east will n ev er long r est in it .

T h e gre at gift of id eali s m t o mod ern p h i l OSOp hi c

thought h as b een th e reality of th e ego the indi
vidu al self or spi r it T h e imp erish abl e s ervice of
.
2 08 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

I d ealism h as b een to m ake M at eri alism fo r ev er i m

possibl eto ov er pas s th e D u ali s m of mind and m att er ,

in its t riumph ant ass er ti o n o f spi rit or a s uprem e self

,

con s cious p r i n c iple as gro und o f al l exist enc e Thi s is .

a g reat d eliv er a n c e a n d it i s i m possibl e to r at e it to o

,

highly . T h e l o gical pri o rity Of mind or s pi rit ; th e

th or ough d ep end enc e o f m att er o n s pi r itu al co ndition s ;
th ese gr an d i n s i s t en c es Of m o der n id ealism w e mu st
n o t fail duly to app reci at e b ec au se th ere are oth er
,

p roblems to which ideali s m c an g iv e n o a n s wer But .

o ur app r eci ati o n n eed n o t impl y endo r s em e nt o f every

fo r m o f ab s olut e a nd unqu ali ed deni al o f any sort of

ind ep end en t rea lity to th e wo rld Of m att er with utt er ,

an d u n c r itic al di sregar d o f th e p ar t pl ay ed by th e Obj ec t

in m aking o ur th o ught c o n structions p oss ible or worth

ful Phil o s ophical id ealism of H eg eli an typ e is tru e so
.
,

far as it go es but it c an n o t c ar ry us far en ough

, We .

s ee k no t to d es t r oy n or to refut e it : we only suppl e

m ent an d p erfect it l eading it o n st epping stones of
,
-

i ts d ead self to hi gh er i s su es th a n thos e O f which it i s

its elf c ap able Th at i s to say t ak en as a philo sophy
.
, ,

w e d o n o t vi ew H eg eli a n id eali s m as a p er fect wh ol e

it is a g o od fo und ati o n but i s n o sati s fying sup er struc
,

tu re or ni s h ed fabr ic T h e r o ck o n which this form of

.

id ealism is sh att ered i s its in ability to offer any philo

sophic al warra n t or j ustic ation fo r its p ass age from

s piritu a l s elf th e unifying con s titutive

th e or

p ower o f th o u ght to th e w o rld of oth er s elves the

, ,

in ability to d o this individu al s elf any m o r e j u s tic e th an

i s impli ed in m aking it a m ere st ag e or m o m ent in th e
evolution ar y p ro c es s For a doctrin e of ev o lution it
.
,
2 10 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

life And this as we know is th e u nity Of consciously

.
, ,

r ealised end and pu rpos e Th e wo r ld is not the sep ar ate

.

thing from us which we in our ab s tr act thinking are , ,

so pron e to m ak e it I t is tru e th at th e unity which

.

we s eek is n o t to b e sought by looking for som e st atic

subst ance th at li es b ehind al l things And yet we, for .

our p art are n ot s o fea rful o f th e w or d
, subst ance ,

with its p arti colou red signic a nce as to ee it alto

-
,

geth er W e do not b eli eve any perfect met aphysic Of

.

exp eri enc e to be possibl e but it sh all bring forth its ,

specul ativ e construction of r eal ity by means of the

c ategory of subst ance W e h ave not got aw ay from .

th e c at egory when inst ea d o f subst anc e we h ave pre

, ,

ferr ed to speak o f an Abs olut e S ubj ect or the Absolute

Experience th e ultim at e r eality or substanti a b eing still
,

Absolute or U ncondition ed B eing But subst ance may .

b e and is an innit ely mor e vit al thing th an the

, ,

st atic exist ence which r eality app ears to us in our pro

cesses of ab str act thought S uch thought is purely .

instrument al an d h as action for its true end and issue

, .

Ultim ate subst ance or r eality is activity not p assivity ,

or st atic existe nce H ence spi r i t is b etter th an the

.

subst anc e c at eg ory in th e en d , Th e st atic being .

which abstr act th o ught l oves to a scri be to the Absolute

is a nullity to be shunn ed As an i deal for thought .

we may still k eep it but we must not allow it to mis

,

l ead us .

We willingly gr ant th at th e H eg eli an L ogi c should ,

in fairn ess be vi ewed only in c o nnection with the

,

P hi l osop hy of N atur e a n d th e P hi l osop hy of Sp i r i t and as ,

h aving to do with th e forms of pure thinking rather

 A C O N ST R U C T I V E E SSA Y IN I D E ALISM . 21 1

th an with c o ncret e exp er i enc e By thi s fai r an d .

r eason abl e procedu re we reach s elf active mind as th e -

n al principl e o f thought A v ery v alu abl e r esult it

.
,

must be s aid for th eistic philos o phy But so doing

, .
, ,

and gr a nting wh at h as j ust b een s a id w e do not get ,

rid of th e d ev elopm ent al vi ew of G o d in th e H egeli an

syst em nor of th e mischi ef wrought of H egeli a n m et a
,

physic in construing th e U niv er s e SO much in t erms

o f th e c o gnitiv e asp ects o f exp eri enc e to th e n egl ect of ,

thos e which are vo lition al an d emoti o n al Th e vic e of .

Heg eli a n id ealism as repr es ent ed by som e o f its most

,

not ed recent expo und er s li es j ust in this th at it m akes

, ,

thought constitutiv e Of r eality inst ead of int erpret ativ e

Of it and in so doing gives th e c at eg o ri es of thought
, , ,

an unw arr ant ed pl ac e in th e int erpr et ati o n Of th e

Univ ers e H eg el hims elf expr essly h o lds th at th o ught
.

disclos es th e constitution of rea lity : for him th e truth ,

is ess enti ally in knowledg e thought i s ess enti ally Ob

,

j ective Thought is for us also in an impo r t ant sens e

.
, ,

th e gr eat r eality ; but th e thought of m an m ay n ot

m ake or evolve th e world o f r eality ; i ts function is to

int erpret th e world as actu ally giv en to it ; th e com
bining unity of self consciousn ess conditions th at wo rld
-

Of r eality for us but d o es not creat e it or imp ar t to it

,

Obj ectivity Wh en we h ave j ust bl am ed H egeli an

.

id ealism for its pr actical n egl ect Of th e voliti o n al ,

mor al and soci al asp ects in favour of an insist ence

,

on th e abstract and int ellectu al we h av e not d on e so ,

in forgetfuln ess Of th e g o od things spok en by H eg el o f

Spirit as will But th es e can only be t ak en as H eg el
.

cl early me ant th em i n th e light of th e principl es

212 STU D IE S IN E U R OPEA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

emb edd ed in his th eo r etic syst em s inc e o n th ese ,

H eg el s t reatm ent of th e will i s b ased N O good c an

.

com e Of th e c o nfu s i o n ad opt ed by s o m e Of th e l at est

H egeli a n exp o n en ts o f m aki g thought d o duty in
n
,

D eity for th e synth es is o f th o u ght an d will W e are .

o p e n mind ed en o u g h t o admit a c er t ain fo r c e in th ese

-

e nd eav o u r s to m a k e H eg el m ean by th o ught n o t ah ,

stra ct c o g n iti o n but th e a ctiv e life Of mind its elf y et th e

, ,

qu esti o n rem ain s as to h i s warra nt for m akin g th e unity

Of o ur b e ing c o n s i s t in thou ght It rem ain s as H egel s
.
,

im m o r t al m er it th at h e b r o ught to men an alt ogether

,

n ew sen s e Of th e p o w er Of th o ught or r easo n the

inv a lu abl e compl em ent of th e K anti a n m orali s m The .

I nnit e S pi rit N eo H eg eli ani s m t ells us
,
-
co nt ains , ,

in th e v ery id ea o f its n atur e o rg anic rel ation to th e

,

nit e ; a n d a g ai n th e idea o f G o d c o nt ain s i n its elf
, ,

a s a n ec e s s ary el em ent O f it th e exi st e nc e of nit e

,

Spi r its ; a n d y et a g ain th e n atu re o f G o d w o uld be

,

imp er fect if it did n o t cont a in in it rel ati o n to a nite

world But h ow c an s uch a p r i or i dogm ati s m as to
.

th e n ec es s it ati o n of t h e D ivi n e B eing b e j u s ti ed ? O r

why d eify th e w or ld by m aking th e D ivin e N atu re or

B ein g so d ep end ent upon it ? And why as th e sy st em ,

el sewh er e i n k eeping with this d o es m ak e o u rselves

, , ,

but p art s a n d fragm ent s o f thi s o n e I n n it e Spirit ,

which i s th e So l e B ei n g and th e cont aining Whol e ?

H eg eli an id eali s m r ej ect s as p rep ost ero u s th e ch arge
th at in vi rtu e o f i ts org a nic whol e of thought it de
, ,

st roy s th e s elf activity o f individu al s ubj ect an d id enti es

-

hu m a nity with G o d and th ere i s app aren tly n o reason

,

to d o ubt th at it is entitl ed to do SO from th e st an d point

2 14 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

d epend ent exi st enc e : th ey are m er ely two differences

Of a fund am ent al unity Th at is to say a r eal identity
.
,

r adi at es th r o u g h all plur ality and di fference Con s cious .

n ess i s c er t ainly o ur ulti m at e but it d o es not giv e much

,

impres s i o n Of end eav o ur to d o j u s tice b y empi r ic reality

to h av e th e c easel es s a n d facil e it er ation th at th e world

h as n o ind ep end ent b eing but is m erely a ph ase Of

,

th e mind O ur i n dividu a lity b ecom es at l engt h lost

.

in th e Whole ; but rel at ed as all thing s are in the

,

univ ers e as a syst em which i s one and rati o n al we ,

c a nn o t cons ent to thing s b eing thus thr o wn into one

homog en eou s h eap Fo r th e real ity o f th e ego or s elf
.

is on e o fthe m et aphysic al p resuppositions o fth e Th eistic

I d ealis m w e ar e h er e conc ern ed to m a int a in I n all .

this w e are s eeing th e r esult o f th e c at egori es b eing

thrown i n to an i n t ell ectu al syst em as th o ugh th ey
wer e r eal an d concr et e Th e result com es o f tr eating
.

th e c at eg or i es a s a tim el ess conscious whol e with ,

which as a wh o l e of knowl edg e nit e b eing can come

, ,

into no conc eiv abl e r elati o n s av e as it simply forms

o n e O f i ts co m p o n e nt p ar t s Wh en H eg el t ells us th at
.

th e r eal is th e rati o n al w e c a nnot but feel h ow much

,

m ore it h ad b een to th e pu rpos e to r em emb er the

s ens es in which th e real is th e individu al For he .

h as n o t light en ed for us th e myst ery o f th e individu al

an d of things exist e nt in tim e C ert ainly th e univers e
.

is mor e th an a m ath em atical th eorem ; tis a thing

instinct with life an d vit al p o s s ibiliti es such th at no

s etting fo rth Of H egeli a n L ogic c an possibly exh aust
th es e For sp ecul ativ e thought must t ak e r eality not
.
,

as it sh o uld b e to th e di al ectic al mov em ent O f thought ,

but as it is empirically pres ent ed to it H egelian ideal .

 A C O N ST RU C T IV E E SSA Y IN I D E ALI S M . 215

ism ev en in th e rec ent form wh erein exp eri en c e is

,

substitut ed for thought i s an outwo r n m ethod ; for

,

r eality is n ot to b e SO identi ed with exp er i enc e an d ,

this typ e of id eali sm h as not y et found a conc ept l ar g e

enough to b e adequ at e to th e wh ole n atu re of thing s .

With th e Whol e or th e U niv erse G o d as self c o n

, , ,
-

scious B eing must not be id enti ed : H e h as th e

,

fr eedom an d th e di s tinctn ess of Ab so lut e Person ality .

T o hum an p erson ality with al l th e my st ery th at en

, ,

compass es th e p ath of our p erson al res pon s ibility

H eg eli an id ealism can do no m ann er o f j ustice I t can .

only tr eat it as illusion mor e o r l ess and on this rock

o f p erson ality which it is p er sist ently un a bl e to ap
, ,

p rec i at e s av e a s r el at e d to
r e e ction th e s yst e m is

sh atter ed an d w e fall into th e h and s o f grim n ec ess ity .

Contr ast ed with th es e exc essiv e int elle ctu alistic t end
en c i es Of H eg eli a n id ealism we nd a m o r ali s m o ft o d ay
,

th at lean s toward s mini m ising thought until it b ecom es

one sid edly ethic al
-
T h e Th eistic I d eali s m w e pu r su e
.

m ay b e obscur ed in thi s way also For th e univ er s e

.

must b e int elligibl e to thought since it i s th e r ev el ati o n

,

O f r eason th e expre ssion of r ation al th o ught S uch .

ethical id ealism arr ays in a way h ar dly to be c om

,

m end ed th e v o lition al an d m o ral a nd s o ci al as pects

,

Of m an s life against thos e o f thought

I t d oes s o .

becaus e it regards th ese asp ect s as thing s th at t ak e

us furth er al o ng th e p ath o f truth N O doubt ev ery
.
,

ethic al el ev ation t a k es
.
us som ewh at al o ng th e p ath

of truth but d oes it effect this in s ep arati o n from

,

thought or knowl edg e or r eason ? Th ere should n ot

b e ev en th e s embl anc e o f such s ep ara tion I n th e .

strength of the contr ast it employs b etw een th e two

2 16 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

s ets of elem ents such ethical ideali s m is not h appy

,
.

I t b ecom es l op sid ed in s o lifting th e ethic al impuls e to

-

ob ey o ut of r el ati o n to int ell ectu al int eres t Rath er .

should int ell ectu al int erest giv e d epth an d b a s e to moral

ism Q uit e con s i s t ently with this th e absolut e experi
.
,

e nc e mu s t m ea n th e fullm en t of m or al id ea s no l ess

th an th e a nswer to r ation al qu es ti o ns I t is quite .

pos s ibl e to in s i st on th e kn owl edge of th e Absolut e as a

knowl edg e o nly for us in s uch a w ay th at o ur d o ct rin e of
,

r el ativity will com e p eril o u sly n ear m aking o ur Absolute

an unknowabl e thing i n its elf -
W e h ave no right to
-
.

fo rget th at th er e i s a truth in th e H eg eli an cont ention

th at th e ultim at e reality o f th e univ ers e is th o ught We .

m ay not fo r get thi s b ec aus e H eg eli a n epist emological

failings erron eously m ak e th at th o ught to o abstract and
di sso ci at e fr om b eing I f m att er o r world exists only for
.

mind we are well w arrant ed in inferr ing a M ind for

,

which th e worl d with all th at th er ein is existsif that

, , ,

is w e are ideali s t e n o ugh N o r i s ethic al id eali s m quite

, .

fo r tun at e in its acco unt o four knowl edg e of th e Absolute .

Fr om th e H egeli an s id e it i s admitt ed th at th e Absolut e

,

c ann ot b e c o mpl et ely co m pr eh end ed but is h eld th at it ,

mu s t n ot be u rged th at th e Absolut e c annot b e c o mpr e

h end ed at all as it i s in its elf for this would be th e s am e
,

a s s aying th at th ere is for u s no Abs o lut e O ur know .

l edg e o fth e Ab so lut e must be h eld to b e a real knowledge

o f th e Ab s o lut e . I ts r el ativity i s s o m etim es press ed to a
d egr ee which m akes us c areful to m aint ain its r eality .

Th o ugh th e Ab so lut e in its compl et en es s is a whole Of

, , ,

which we are but p arts yet we c an know th e Absolut e in

,

a way th at is v alid and r eal so f ar a s it go es T h e ethic al .

218 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL OSO P H Y .

Th ere is no occasion to d enyii we deferth e innite

v alu e and signic anc e o f hu m an life nor do we call in ,

qu estion th e n obility of ethical zeal fo r th e p rim acy Of

duty But d oes n ot th e absolut enes s o f H i s b eing and
.

s elf r ev el ati o n exceed our exp eri ence so th at exp eri ence
-
,

c an n ot simply b e i ts m easu re ? And wh en it is implied

th at G o d is of no p ractic al account fo r m an unless man ,

rs t nd him self of innit e account wh at a subj ective ,

crit erion i s set up ! As s ur edly w e h av e no direct know

led ge of hum an life a s of innit e wo rth an d we see our ,

suicid es th erefor e lightly throw it away M an i s b ound

, , .

to know n o l ess th a n to m ak e mo ral es tim at e Tru e as .

it i s th at only as w e v alu e life do we reach out to a

High er th an w e w e yet c an n o t n arr owly r eason to God
,

fr om th e s enti m ent s and v erdict s o f th e moral life alone .

W e must h av e God b efo re th e innit e v alu e an d s igni

,

c anc e c an be ours th at Sp r ing fr om o ur b eing co nsciou sly

r el at ed to Him Wh at I d eny is th e r ight to proscribe
.
,

t h e Sp ecul ative impuls e in m anon whom r ests an i m

p er i ous oblig ation to s eek t r uth for its own s ak e wh ether ,

it minist ers to th e m agnifying o f m a n s life or not

.

Th o ught is n ev er to be s ac r ic ed b efo re a pur ely moral

int erest or hum an v alu ation An int ellectu al int er est h as
.

h er e its ow n power to deep en mor al earn es tn es s Wh at .

we h av e n o w s een th en is how I d ealism m ay assum e an

, ,

uns ati s fact o ry d evel o pm ent eith er aft er a o ne sidedly

,
-

int ell ectu al o r a o n e sid edly ethical typ e But for all
,
-
, .
,

th at th er e seems no go od reason why th es e two lines

,

o f id ealistic thought should n ot b e dra wn more clos ely

togeth er ; such d r awing tog eth er s eems j ust th e n eed Of

o ur tim e a n d will b e an augu r y O f philosophic goo d
, .
 A C O N STRU C T IVE E SSA Y IN D E AL ISM
I . 2 19

The Th eistic Ide ali s m which we se ek constructively to

p res e nt is one constitut ed by th e ideals of th e Abs o lut e
e nt ering into us and b eing r eaf rmed by us as o ur
, ,

id eals F or th e Absolut e i s nev er the unr el at ed : a

.

phil o sophical truism to s ay it is yet a truism which ,

K ant H amilton and Sp enc er h av e m ade it n ec es s ary to

, ,

r ep eat The Absolute life ent ers into our life : th e

.

Absolute ide als b ecom e our ideals : the Absolut e reas o n

a nd consciousn ess are constitutiv e as such of o ur nit e
, ,

r eason and self consciou s n es s N o sooner h as this been

- .

s aid th an Hegelian id ealism as a philosophy o f i mman ,

ence proc eeds to tre at o ur nit e s elves as m ere rep r od uc

,

tions Of the I nnite life I t d o es so for th e r easo n th at

.

it h as busi ed itself with th e p r obl em O f our knowing th e

ext ern al world and thinks it h as r each ed a consciou s n es s
,

th at is univ ers alatt ain ed a kn o wledg e th at is compl et e .

But it h as re ach ed its obj ectively constituted exp eri en c e

at str ange cost of the p art pl ay ed by nit e minds in th e

whole m att er NO unit ary s elf consciousness at which

.
-

H egelia n id eal ism may h av e ar rived can for a mom ent

h e a dmitt ed as th at of th e univ ers e so long as s o i m ,

port ant a p art Of exist ence is omitt ed as is involved in

th es e n egl ected nite minds W e are in a soci al world .

as t r uly as we are in a phys ic al world H eg eli an L o gic ,

n o twithst anding O ur individu al s elf or ego is not Si m ply

.

p art Of the univ ers al or ab so lut e c o nsciousn ess for a rea l ,

y et r el ativ e independ enc e i s pr e cisely wh at mu s t be

m a int ain ed for the separat e se lf N ot th at the s elf c an .

h ave an ind epend ence o f D eity in any absolut e s en s e or

in an y way n al sinc e God is its activ e Ground But
, .

how it will be asked if God is its active Ground c an it

, , ,
2 20 S TU D IES IN E U R O P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

be ind ep e ndent and free N ow it c ert ainly c o uld not be

,

so under such t eaching as th at o fRoyce an d o th ers wh o ,

m ake o ur freedom frankly a p art of th e D ivin e free
dom an d o ur consciou s n es s a portion of th e Di vme
,

consci o u s n es s But it c an b e so in th e s e n se th at God

.

wills for it th e d el eg at ed freedo m and indepe nd ence of a

s elfh oo d which no t ev en H e w ill viol at e : it c an be so in
th e s en se o f free an d volunt ar y b e ing which non e b eside ,

its elf ca n in quite th e s am e resp ects be it c an be so in

, ,

th e mutu a l commerc e a n d s o ci al co Op er ation of two -

spirit s th e nit e an d th e I nnite I s this to place a

,
.

limit ati o n o n God s life Why th en prefer to impose on

Him th e li m it ation rath er th at H e sh al l not be free to

d el egat e so much to H i s cr eatur es ? My nit en ess and
limit ati o n r em ain j ust b ecau se I am not m erged in the
,

u niv er s al consciousn ess or a bsolute exp eri ence The .

truth i s th e trouble ari ses from the unr eality o f looking

,

at found ati o n al truth or ultim at e re ality from th e mere

st andp o int o f abstr act thought and even th at thought as

,

it treat s par t o f r eality for wh o l e F or so w e fail to treat

.

re ality a s th e process which it really is and d eal with it ,

as in ess enc e m er ely a st atic fact Such process or .

mov em ent which sums up ultim at e r eality for us can be

, ,

known or thought by us ev en though it can n ever wholly

,

or actu ally come into our thought experience W e com e - .

b ack to say th at th e unity of th e world is th at Of a com

m on end j u s t as consci ous en d m ak es th e uni ty of our
,

individu al life The tr oubl e is to nd h o w God can

.
,

h av e a con s cious life inclusiv e of ours and yet di stinct ,

from it I f we hold H im to be distinct in His being

from ours even by th e whol e di ameter of b eing
.

we
2 22 STU D IES IN E U R O PE A N P H ILOSO P H Y .

Perfect and fr ee fr o m b ecoming as God s s elf conscious
, ,
-

ness and person ality m ay b e th ere s eems no r eason or ,

need to r ead int o th em an abs enc e o f soci al n ature or

c ap ability which w e discl aim fo r th ese in ours elv es N or .

do I feel th e n eed as s o m e h av e l at ely done to bring in

, ,

th e Ch r isti an d o ct r i n e o fth e T r i n ity in ord er to solve the

di fculti es in which w e are l eft by id eal ism Already we
h ave no reason to d o ubt th at Per fect B eingintern ally
.

person alis ed and exter n ally individu at edmay embrace

a plu rality O f di s tinctiv e an d p er s o n al m anifest ations .

Th er e s eems th er efore n o n eed to insist in the way

sometim es don e th at p er son alityour high est c at egory
, , ,

is in ad equ at e to expl ain th e multitude Of selves and

,

th at we must call in th e ai d o fth e superperson al unity

and th e multip erson al found in th e Trinity Rather .

it is our concepti o n of wh at is involved in simpl e

p erson ality th at s eem s in n eed o f rectication as in ,

its elf w earing soci al ch aract er an d implic ations .

T h e univ ers e th en w e t ak e to b e in its core and inmost

, ,

ess ence Spiritu al f or th a t which is fund a m ent ally present

,

in and m anifest ed th r oughout th e Univers e is spirit

, , , .

Such spirit is as we h ave s ee n m o r e th an simply ration

, ,

ality , though ration ality is so import ant a p art of it .

With H eg el we h ave t a ke n spi r it to be the pri ses by ,

which th e wo rld is p os ited But w e do not with him .

, ,

m ake the Absolut e L ife in its innit ely rich fulness the
, ,

r esult of th e s elf estr angem ent Of the Absolut e Spirit in

-

N atur e O ur I d ealism t ak es most gr atefully from the

.

H eg eli an h and th e spi r itu al principl e pre supposed in -

Knowl edge and th e spi r itu al p r incipl e m ade m ani fest in

,

n ature and furth er th e spiritu al principl e from which

, ,
 A C O N ST RU C T IV E E SSA Y IN I D EA L I SM . 22 3

th ey are both d eriv ed this l ast b eing an infer enc e fr o m

,

th e corr espond enc e an d int er rel ation o f th e oth er tw o -

.

But th e D eity r el at ed to th em as th ei r free c au se w e set

, ,

abov e n a tur e and m an as distinct fr om th em n or simply

, ,

r epr oduced in th em T h e H eg eli an epi s t em o lo gy which

.
, ,

in its th eo r etic n ak edn ess h as nothing b ett er to s ay th a n

,

th at ind et ermin at e r eality p ass es ov er (as th e d et er min at e

exist enc e) int o d et erm in at e n ess in our knowl edg e we ,

r ej ect as p ainfully crud e an d uns atisfyi ng .

W e h av e s een th en th at r eality is s pi r itu al an d p ro

, , ,

vi d es th e r eal id eal which i s th e t rue id eal Fund a

, .

m ent al reality th at is to say is spi r itu al th e u n iv erse

, , ,

b eing ultim a t ely ground ed in reaso n and b ased o n ,

r ati o n al thought T h e I d eal i s s uch b as al reality fo r

.

us just b ec aus e it is mor e th a n som ething m erely sub

,

j ecti ve T h e fund am ent ally Real o f th e Univ ers e i s for

.

us j ust th at a rch etyp al I d eal which h ad its hom e in th e

mind of G od T h e physic ally r eal is but th e m ani
.

festati o n of th e spi r itu ally id eal T h e et er n a l l aws a n d .

principl es o f r eason wh ereby th e id ea l so p a ss es into

,

th e re al are all ground ed in G o d

, Thus in His li ght .

w e s ee light I f th er e b e a spi r itu al realism in all this

.
,

it is a realism th at is in fa ct ideal T h e wo rld O f real

, ,
.

things i s n o t a world of m ere thing s but of things th a t ,

are to us a n exp res s i o n Of th e I d ea l M ind But this .

m ean s not a H eg eli a n m o de o f tr eating th e wo r ld as ,

in S ch o penh au er s phr as e a cry s t allis ed syllogism

, ,

as th o ugh logic were o rigin ativ e Of N atu r e

n ot simply

int erpr et ative of it H eg el s Ab s olut e I d eal is power
.

l ess to cr eat e th e world o f actu ality fo r with o ut ,

m att er as Kant s aid
, c at egori es ar e empty ,
Th e .
2 24 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E AN P H ILOSO P H Y .

Absolut e I dea i s in its self ev o lution of al l things -

,

most in an e b ec au se it gu r es a s thought th e i m

person al life of th o u ght as it h as b een t erm ed

,

with
,

out a liv e Thinker T h e s ear ch Of N eo H eg eli anism for

.
-

a principl e o f unity an d i ts s ymp a thy with evolution

,

ary conc eption h av e rendered pl ausibl e a pres ent ation

,

in which th ings s ub s ist w ithout sub s t ance an d origin ate

without caus e But ideali stic philosoph ers are not
.

wa nting w h o h av e di s cr imin at ed b eyond such a view ,

and r ecognis ed th e un att a in e d id ea l o f knowl edg e in ,

virtu e Of which kn owl edge c a n n ev er be th e full ex

,

pr ession Of reality T h e H eg eli an id entity Of thought

.

an d existenc e h as b een quit e o utgrown by modern

thought which p erc eiv es th a t whil e th e Absolut e may
, ,

b e r ev eal ed to us i n th e reality th at we know we ,

c annot without absu rdity p o stul at e th at th er e is no

more Absolut e th a n th a t which i s known or thought
by us T O tr eat al l exi s t e nc e of th e Absolut e beyond
.
,

wh at h as b een thought by us as non exist ent is ,
-
,

cl early absurd I n o ur knowl edg e of reality th ere

.
,

alw ays is such a p eriph er y o f i n d e n i teness as le aves

an innit e progr es s po s s ibl e to us O ur knowl edge .

implicat es exist ence o r reality b eyond knowledg e its elf

as a proc ess The cognitiv e subj ect c annot fail to
.

recognise th at th at Of which h e h as knowl edge exists

without him and c annot b e o ne with his own m ent al
,

st ate . Such d u ali s m is es s enti a l to any th eory of

knowl edge I t is th e t r ansc end ent Real which is thu s
.

implic at e in his knowl edg e And th e I d eal is this .

Real : th e I de al i s th e ultim at e an d tr a nsc endent

Re ality God is thus not a result brought forth of
.
2 26 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

o ur knowledg e Of th e r eal o r inn er b eing o f the

ph enom en a of th e m at eri al wo rld as p s ychical or
m ent al I t do es n o t k eep o n e fro m holding th a t th e
.

mind do es n o t s imply c o py th e wo rld so imp ress ed

upon it but as a ctiv e s ets i ts own s eal upon the

, , ,

wo rld of reality an d t ak es vi ew o f it which is its

,

own It do es n o t k ee p fa cts xed fo r us I thu s do

. .

not m erely thi nk of th e Absolut e as g round O f all

unity r oot o f all b ei n g an d condition o f al l c o n s cious
, ,

n es s fo r G o d n ei th er exi s t s n o r co m es int o b ein g only

,

thro ugh m y s ubj ectiv e thinking or my ratiocin at ed

knowl edge Of H im H e a nt ec ed ently exists an d acts
.

upo n me in th e various lin es of H i s self rev ealing to -

my thought an d life This is wholly comp atible with

.

my b eing id ealist e n o ugh to nd th e world as kn own ,

only thro ugh my pow er s o f mind or id ea in th e end ,

a m ent al const r uction Empi r ical reality in its time

.
,

pri o rity of exist ence conditions my m ent al co nstruc

,

tion in its logic al p r io rity T h e high er or spi r itu al

.

p erceptions o f th e Ab s olute Spirit giv e m e a knowl edge

which i s knowledge by ev ery l aw o f th o ught and every
principle of funda m ent al Reason Fo r m e th er efore .
, ,

a tru e I d ealism is th e tru e philosophy but it is a ,

Th ei s tic I d eali s m and n eith er a l op sided I nt ell ectu al

,
-

ist l e I d eali s m n or an exagger at ed Ethic al I d ealism

, .

I c all this Th eism id ealistic both b ec aus e it traces ,

m att er o r igi n atively to s pi rit and b ec aus e it m akes

, , ,

spi r it o r co n s cious exp eri enc e th at through which alone

cr eat ed m a tt er is kn o wn by us T h e world is rel at ed .

to spi rit in p erc eption and th e o nly r ation al inference

,

or int erpret ation is th at th e w o rld st ands r el at ed in

,
 A C O N ST RU C T IVE E SSA Y IN I D E A LIS M . 2 27

its tot ality to an origin al M ind or Thinker Who as , ,

Absolut e is constitutiv e o f th e whole But our I d eal

,
.

ism is t h eistic b ec aus e esch ewing th e m erely abstr act

,

unity Of p anth ei s tic conception wh ereby nite things

ar e t r eat ed s i m ply as el em ents or p ar ts within a whol e ,

it p res erv es th at r el ativ e s ep ar at en es s and distinctn e s s

of things which are es peci ally m a nifest in th e case Of
th e ext ern al w o rld an d m a n s c o n s cious spi r it

W e say .

r el ativ e s eparat en es s an d distinctn ess for our Th eism ,

s eeks to r et a in th e co nc ept of p ar ts mutu ally r el at ed

w ithin o n e va st whol e O ur Th eism r el at es both th e
.

ext er n al w orld an d m an s spirit to th e c reativ e p o w er

o r ag ency o f G o d , which calls th em into b eing and

giv es th em dir ection .H ence th e th ei s tic c o nception
O f t h e const a nt d ep e nd enc e o f th e cr eatur e no m er e

p anth ei s tic simulacrum up o n God W h o h as giv en us ,

b eing o f our o w n Th r ou g h thi s l arg er mo re fund a

.
,

men tal Reality we nd Our w ay to unity ev en th e

, ,

unity of a Spiritu alistic M onism and escap e th e en ,

sn aring m esh es o f th e D u alis m o f mind and m att er .

This M oni s m is v ery different from th at Of th e

Spinozist or th e pr es e nt d ay M at er i alist for it is th e
-
,

doct r in e of th e I nnit e S pirit o f G od as th e o ne

und erlying Reality . This S pirit as a unit ary B eing
, ,

fo rms th e gro und and principl e o f all oth er b eing .

Thi s Et ern al Spirit is also th e p o s sibility O f th e int er

a cti o n s b etw een individu al b eings an d thing s : in a
m et a physical sens e , is So ul an d Sub st a nce o f al l
thing s ; but such M o ni s m i s to be und er stood as at ,

th e s am e ti m e ethic al th at is to say fully ret entiv e

, , ,

O f hum a n fr ee dom an d r es ponsibility But our I d eal .

2 28 S TU D IE S IN E U R O P EA N P H I LO SO P H Y .

is m nd s n o di f culty in such int eracti o n as is h erein

p r es upp os ed o r in th e c o n s t ant re cipro city b etween
,

subj ect an d Obj ect I n th e c as e of th e ext ern al w orld

.
,

G o d i s i n th e w o rld n o l es s th an H e i s over it In .

th e m at eri al w or ld G o d i s m ad e m a n ifes t so th at ,

th ro ugh it w e kn o w H i m in H i s Obj ectiv e r eality .

Thi s w o r ld Of m att er w e t ak e n ot as fo reign to our

S pi r itu a li s tic n atu r e for w e kn o w it o nly as confor m
,

t o o ur i n t ellig en c e . I t c an n o t i n r es p e ct o f its ex
,

i s ten c es a n d pro c esses be di s p ar at e a n d discontinu ous

,

with o u r co n sci o u s life wi th which in fact it form s

, , ,

o n e wh o l e . Ev en h ere th ere i s th e u n ity o f subj ect

an d Obj ect a mid al l app aren t du al ity S O th e d i s .

ti n cti o n b etween th e imm an enc e of D eity and H i s

tran sc end enc e g ro ws not i n t o a s ep arati o n for then ,

s h o uld w e b e l eft with n o thing but a n abstr acti o n o n

o ur b a n d s . I n th e c a s e Of th e co n s ci o u s s pi r it of
m an w e p o stul at e a r el ative an d subst a nti al i nd epend
,

e nc e fo r it G o d b ei n g i m m a n ent in m an y et t ra n
, ,

sc en di n g h i s nit e s pi r it i n s uch wis e th at m an s

fr eed o m an d resp o n s ibility are n o t i m p air ed O ur self .

h oo d is invi o l abl e as such but n o t yet as o riginally

, ,

ind ep en dent Of G od M y life i s unit ar y an d s elf

.

cont a in ed but it i s yet ess enti ally rel at ed to oth er

,

liv es E ach o f th es e liv es i s m ark ed by th e unity o f

.

k n o wing th e oth er s to b e in n a tur e like its elf As .

Opp osed to hum a n selv es G od h as a unity o f con ,

sc i o u s n ess within Hims elf but n o t in s uch wi se th at

,

it s t and s u n relat ed to th e s e hum a n s elv es Th e have .

o f G o d s b eing i m m an e nt i n at th e s a m e tim e

an d ,

e xt er n ally r el at ed t o o ur hum a n s pi r it s
, b elongs to th e ,
2 30 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

ken , th o u gh of such r eality m ay b e bi d from

th e what

me . SO th e s u r vey fro m my id eali s tic w atch t ow er -

l eav es m e not with th e ch eri sh ed an d d elu s ive notion

th at th ere is n o reality b eyond wh at I p erceiv e Th e .

c r itic o id ea li s tic m ethods Of N eo K antists like Coh en

- -
,

N at orp an d Kinkel ar e n o m o re s ati s facto ry th an

,

tho se o f N eO H egeli an s -
C o h en not o nly o uts th e
.

weakn ess o f K ant in res p ect o f th e giv en but h as ,

p resent ed th o ught pr o c ess es as producing fro m th eir

-
,

a ctivity al o n e th eir co nt ent T h e j udgm ents of pu re

, .

thought functi o n with C o h en as d et ermi n i n g mom ents

, ,

in th e con s tructi o n o f th e world o f kn owl edg e His .

attitud e tow ar d s th e giv en is un r eas on a bl e an d full of

c o ntr adiction s T h e c o nt ent o f thou ght i s for Cohen

.
, ,

u n ity and n ot m att er or stuff N at o rp g o es s o far as

, .

to h o ld th e thought o f th e cont e nt a n d th e c o nt ent ,

which forms th e Obj ect Of knowl edg e to b e thought ,

its elf so r educing us to an e mpty a bstracti o n In .

k eepi ng with al l this Kink el d ecl ares th at thought ,

mu s t h av e n o s o u r ce o r o r igin o utsid e Of it self A .

doct r in e Of absolut e r el ativity is th e n al r es ult A .

thorough comp aris o n Of C o h e n s thought world with

-

th at of H eg el is v ery suggestiv e ev en th o ugh Coh en ,

r epudi at es H eg el Far too much H eg el l eft thought

.
,

in his system th e only s ub s t anc e SO th at reas on

, ,

gur es too l arg ely as d evoid of en ergy But reas on .

with o ut en er gy soon sinks int o n othingn ess Ju st as .

little o n th e o th er h and d oes will act in its free

, , ,

deed s with o ut reas o n o r th o ught A tru e psych ology

, .

an d a tru e m et aphysic Of th e s elf are h er e a p r i m e

n eed . I t r e m a ins th e inc urabl e d efe ct of Absolut e

 A C O N ST RU C T IVE Y
E SSA IN I D E ALI S M . 23 1

I d ealism th at thought is so ov er w eight ed as to r esult

-

in a too compl et e suppr ession of en er gy .

I h av e s aid nothing o f an y a ims which M at eri alism

m ay h av e in th e way of providing th e unity we s eek ,

fo r th e M a t eria li s m o f to d ay infallibly l ands us in

-

subj ective id ealism and can by n o consist ent pos s ibility

,

do anything to h elp us Th e r em ark able subj ectiv e

.

id ealism o f B erkel ey brought in th e id ea and power of

G od to a ccount for our s ens ations and to esc ap e th e
conc eption o f m att er doing so in a way we cannot
,

a cc ept . For God an d oth er s elv es though implicitly ,

a ssum e d by B er kel ey are no mo re imm edi at ely ex

,

p er i en c ed by us th a n i s th e wor ld o f m att er The .

imp er ill ed exi s t ence Of nit e s pirits in B erk el ey s syst em

w as a dmitt ed by hims elf : we h av e no imm edi at e evi

d enc e or d emonstrativ e knowl edg e o f th eir exist
e nc e
, h e thinks . And so h e was d riv en to bring in
D eity as m aint ain er o f th at int ercours e b etween spirits ,

wh er eby th ey are abl e t o p erceiv e th e existe nc e of

each oth er . T h e B er kel ey an di fculty of b r idging th e
ch as m th at s ep arat es us from oth er p ersonaliti es is o ne
th at is keenly felt in N eo H egeli anism to which Obj ec
-
,

ti vel y v a lid knowl edg e Of th e phy s ic al wo r ld app ear s much

mor e easy th an a like knowl edg e Of oth er p ers o n aliti es .

T h e only way found is by an app ea l to c o mm o n s ens e -

,

which cann o t h elp as suming an d ackn o wl edging oth er

p erson al individu als But is this to b e r eg ard ed as
.

s ati s fact ory ? And why sh o uld physic al Obj ects b e mor e
v alid o bj ectively for m e th a n p er s on al Obj ects ? S ur ely
, ,

I a m entitl ed to nd th e p er so n aliti es o f my fellows as

cl early and v alidly conc eiv ed as a nything I can think
232 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O S O P H Y .

or know about physical Obj ect s T h e o nly thing o f . ,

c o urs e which can be s a id a g ain s t th at i s th at m an as

, ,

spi r it i s n o t k n o w n by wh at h e i s but by wh at h e does ,

.

T h e spi r it of a m a n w e know o nly as w e are O f it : we

kn o w it i n vi r tu e of its activity or its m o v em ent and ,

th at o f cou rse is to know it i n a s ubj e ctiv e fashion

, ,

r ath er th a n as an o bj ect Th ere i s still th e qu estion

. ,

wh eth er m en are kn own o nly as pu re spir its Th e t ruth .

s eem s to be th at th e e ss enti ally so ci al n atur e O f th e

,

s elf is th at which is r eally n o t und erst o o d an d k ept in

mind Th e epist emological difculty di s appear s and is
.
,

no mor e exist ent wh en th at is under s t o od in th e c ase

, ,

o f oth er p erso n aliti es th a n o f physical b o di es T he

cognitiv e p r obl em th e imp as s abl e ch asm v anish es
.

wh en in prop er purs u a nc e o f th e idealistic position

, ,

oth er s elv es are n ot set up as entiti es o utsid e th e s elf ,

but vi ewed as Obj ect s lying within th e con s ciousn ess

of a uni ed self B erkel ey h ad to fac e th e fact th at
.

God an d nite spi rits c an b e conceiv ed as existing in

d ep end ently o fo ur conc eptions o f th em but h e cert ainly ,

did not and could n ot prov e th at th e wor ld may not

, ,

b e conc eiv ed a s exi sting in th e s a m e ind ep end ent

fashion Thi s although al l our d at a for such a b eli ef
.
,

are m ent al H e in fa ct wraps hi m s elf up in th e w or ld

.
, ,

Of his ow n con s cious ideas and b egs th e qu estion ag ain ,

an d a g ain Th e world is for him n eith er c aus e of our

.

s ens ations nor count erp art o f our id eas an d w e are ,

l eft so much in a sph ere of m er e ass er tion as to th e

n o n exist enc e of th e wo r ld
-
th at we h ardly wonder ,

Hum e sh o uld h av e s aid B erk el ey s positions admitt ed

o f no a nswer an d pr o duc ed n o convicti o n H e must .

2 34 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

gre at to pr ev ent th e el abor ation of a perfectly s atis

as

fyi ng th eory but th es e c o nsid er ations do not in the

,

l east ext enu ate or j u s tify w eak philosophic t emporisings

with wh at ought alw ays to h av e b een felt to b e essenti al
to Th eism o f any vit al sort I am quit e re ady to admit
.

th at from th e S id e Of s ci e nce n o l ess th a n th at of philo

,

sophy it is h arder th an ever to ret ain th e personality

,

O f G Od An innit e p erso n s eem s to ordin ary philo

.

sophical us age a cont radicti o n in t erm s while modern ,

sci ence cont emplat es th e univer se as illimit ably v ast con ,

ti nuous int er rel at e d

, Such a n U nivers e the I nnite
-
.

Person ality must be abl e to ll a n d to form E vol u .

ti onary sci enc e oft en vi ew ed as inimic al to p erson ality

,

in D eity must in its t el eologic al r efer ence be held to

, , ,

point to mind o r p ers o n ality in God I will o nly say .

this th at the obj ecti o ns u r g ed ag ainst Person ality in

,

God by philosoph ers o f any school wh atsoever quite

, ,

fail to convince or s a tisfy m e ev en wh en th ey are not

,

quit e w anting in l o gical fo rc e And th e reason is .

obvious We are h er e d ealing with elem ents th at belong

.

to the l arger logic of life ag ainst which v erb al quibblings

,

do n ot avail To th e beli ever in th e Absolute Per

.

sonali ty nothing h a s y et b een a dv a nc ed from any qu arter

,

that n eed keep him fr om holding to r eal and vi tal per

s o nal i tystripped of al l its a ccid ent al limitationsi a
God I t were easy to n a m e phil o sophers of to d ay who
.

exhibit a truly wond erful and p reci se knowl edge of wh at

possibiliti es of b eing d o not exist for D eity when shorn ,

Of this th at and th e oth er hum an qu ality But wh at

, , .

wond er if the wo rld r em ains unconvinced ? H as not

the dogm atism of phil o s ophy h ere run wild ? Wh at
 A C O N ST R U C T I VE E SSA Y IN I D E A L IS M . 23 5

do es D ivin e P er son ality r eally involv e ? I t inv o lv es th at

G od is th e great Thinker th e sup rem e Will er an d th e
, ,

S ov er eign affection al M or alist a l l in O n eI m ea n in

, ,

a conscious unity Th es e el em ents Of int ellig enc e

. ,

af fecti o n a l or mor al goodn ess an d will are c o nstitutiv e

, ,

o f D ivin e P er s o n ality as we know or a pp r eh end it .

,

G o d is as P ers o n ality n o t m ere c au se o f th e world

, , ,

but subj ect as well T h e effect of r ec ent discussi o ns is

.

to m ak e o n e adh er e m o r e rmly to L otze o n o n e point ,

n a m ely th at p erfe ct p er so n ality exi s t s in Go d o nly and

, ,

th a t t alk of H is b eing sup erp erso n al mu st b e discard ed ,

o n d em a nd of t h e r eligi o u s instincts an d as pir ati o ns .

W e h ave h ad philo s oph er s ev en m aint aining th e n i tud e

Of G o d as a way Of p reserving His per son ality an d
, ,

th eol ogic al p eopl e h ave b een found comm ending th em

fo r s o doing Th es e thing s are due to failu re to t ra n
.

s c end a m er ely qu antit ativ e w a

y o f appr eh ending p er
s o n al i t
y without
, e nt ering into its int ensiv e i n n i t
y its
spi r itu al an d ethic al implic ations Perso n ality in D eity .
,

it must be r em e mb er ed i s b efo r e al l thin gs ethical

, , , ,

and must be d eeply appr eh end ed in its ethic al b earings

a nd r el ations if it i s to b e g ras p ed a nd und er stood at

al l
. Any st at e o f m ind i n dic ative o f s ervitud e to for
m al l o gic will m a k e littl e h eadw ay in solving th e dif
c ul ti es o f I nnit e P erson a lity I t is p erson ality th at
.

will und er st and const r u e and int er p ret p erson ality a nd

, , ,

it is alo ng th e h eights Of ethic al an d achi ev ed p er

s o n al i ty th at we mu s t l ear n in s u rer th an th e l ogici a n s
,

way th e pow er a nd possibiliti es o f p er s o n ality on its

,

D ivin e s id e T h e vit ality of th e u niv ers e an d th e

. ,

imm an enc e of th e life Of D eity are truths which h av e ,

2 36 S TU D IE S IN E U R O PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

b een much m o re vividly realis ed in our tim e but c on ,

d enc e in th e p erson ality Of God h as in really enlight ,

en ed qu ar t ers b een th ereby quicke n ed n o t qu ench ed

, ,
.

N o di s cl ai m er of imp er son ality c o uld b e m o re compl et e

th an th at of th e n ewer philo s o phic al Th eism Th er e .

h as b een n o l a ck o f conc eivi n g G od th ro ugh th e world

O f nit e exp er i enc e an d s uch knowl edg e o r c o nc eption
,

O f Him is t r u e as f ar as it g oes For though H e be .

,

fo r us th e Ab s o lut e B eing an d as s uch a s elf evid ent

, , ,
-

p rincipl e Of reaso n yet o u r knowl edg e Of H im ar i ses

,

o nly o n o cc asi o n Of o ur exp er i enti ally knowing Him in

H i s Obj ective r eality Thi s i s n ot to say th at th ere

.

m ay n o t b e a dv a nt ag e s uch as Bi ed erm a nn sugg ests

, ,

in b eginning within th e logico m et aphysical id ea o f th e -

absolut en es s Of G o d s B ei n g rath er th a n with th e

,

empi r ic al id ea Of m a n Wh en Green as ks us to b ecome

.

al l th at th e Et er n a l C o nsci o usn ess is h e evidently ,

e xp ects us to p er fo r m th e psych o logic al feat Of know

i n g all th a t th e Et ern al Consciousn ess al ready i s .

A psychol o gy Of th e Et ern al C o nsciousn ess w e cert ainly

do n o t m edit at e for predicat es applicabl e in our nite
,

c as e d o n ot h old for th e al l emb ra cing con s ciou s -

n ess ; but we ass ert th at th e knowl edg e o f th e I nnit e

S pi r it mu s t b e kn o wl edge fro m th e in s id e th at is o f , ,

a s ubj e ctiv e ch ar a ct er th e U niv er se b eing th e r esult

,

of H i s own cr eativ e kn o wing an d willing God th en .

, ,

as th e Ab s olut e P ers o n al S pirit mu s t b e cl ear ly af

rm ed .

O f s uch pu r e spirit ind eed we c an afrm but littl e

, , ,

exc ept, with H eg el its freedom th at is to say i ts s elf

, , ,

m ov em ent or activity S uch absolut e S pirit we can

.

truly know only in a dyn amic fashi o n n o t ontologic ally ,

th at is to s ay we kn o w this s pirit as we are of i t Such

, .
 CHAPTE R XV I I .

FRE N CH I
P H LO S O PHY I N T HE N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U RY .

F RE N C H phil o sophy in th e nin et eenth century while ,

m aking its own al l rich m ater i al lik e th at furnish ed by

Kant and H egel h as no t fa il ed to m aint ain its own
,

continuous ch aract er and di s tinctiv e featur es I ts .

C ar tesi an spi r it h as b een as clearly m an ifest in th e

n in et eenth as i n th e sev e nt eenth a n d eight eenth c enturi es .

A domin ant s pi r itu alism p er v aded th e philosophy of th e

sev ent ee nth c entu ry wh er ein sp ecul ative r eason h ad
,

n ally c ast Off S chol asticism M at eri alism and Sensism

.

found vogu e in th e eight eenth c entu ry T h e philo .

s o phy of th e nin et eenth ce ntury in France is a return

to th e spi r itu a lism of th e s ev en t ee nth c entury In .

th e r st h alf o f th e nin et ee nth c entu ry philos o phy in ,

Fr a nce was l argely co ncern ed with qu estions O f soci al

r efo r m and p o litic al philo sophy Thes e wer e oft en
.

cou rageo usly and suggestiv ely d ealt with Philo .

s o phic a l T raditi o n ali s m as r epres ent ed by De Maistr e

,

an d D e B o nal d L a men nai s a n d B al l anc he l ooked

, , ,

o n th e c r itic al s pirit as o n e o f d a ng er Th ey urged .

,

in ways ext rav ag ant en o ugh submi ss i o n to th e Church

, .

Tr aditi o n auth o r ity a n d s o cial life th ey set up as

, ,

cou n ter ac ti ves to individu ali s m and a n archy The .

 F RE N C H P H IL OSO P H Y IN I 9 TH C E N TU R Y . 239

Abb Gr atry set forth hi s vi ew s o n th e kn owl edg e of

G od and th e soul an d o n hi s torical philosophy in
, ,

int er esting a bl e and v alu able p res entations

, , S aint .

S imon p r ocl aim ed a coll ectivism Of his ow n an d th e ,

n eed fo r a l earn ed and skilful cl er gy Fouri er pro

.

pound ed his ph al a n s t eri es an d dr eam ed d rea ms O f

,

an h a rm o ni o u s s oci ety wh erein o rgani sati o n Should

b eg et a h appin ess p er fect and compl et e Th en c am e .

Comt e d enouncing all th es e end eav o urs as viti at ed by

th e fact th at a n a l l c o nvincing soci al s ci enc e
-
a sci ence

of p r actic al politics h ad n ot rst b een for mul at ed .

I t w as o n th e h eights of such p o sitive s oci al s ci enc e

C o mt e hop ed to gain a vi ew p o int which should em
-

b rac e not o nly th e g o od in th e eight eenth century

philos o phy as h and ed on by Condor c et but als o wh at
, ,

e ver o f truth m ight r esid e in it aft er th e d am aging

a s s ault s of De M aistr e on its n eg ativ e ch ar a ct er .

Comt e thu s b ec am e th e c o mpl et er o f D esc art es wh o ,

h ad d o n e so m uch to fo s t er th e positive spir it A .

r eform in philos o phic m ethod was th e fund am enta l

n o tio n o f P o sitivi s m I t w as preci sely Co m t e who rst
.

und erst o od th e sci enti c i s su es an d r ealis ed th e ch ang ed

condition s o f philo s ophy H e s aw th at phil o s o phy m ay
.

n o m ore s eclud e h er self i n ab s t ra ct th o ught an d c o n

,

struct th eori es to which facts must b end C o mt e .

,

r ealising th e proud s ecu r ity wh ence th e po s itiv e s ci enc es

now scrutinis e th e r es ults Of sp eculative p hil os o phy ,

m akes th e c reation of a positiv e soci al sci enc e co n

s ti tute th e fund am ent al unity o f th e wh ol e p h i l OSOp h i

c al sys t em T h e co ncepti o n o f a social evolution

.

O f hum a nity as a d ev eloping org a nism is set forth by

2 40 TU D IE S
S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

C o mt e in th e P osi ti ve P ol i ti cs but h ad al ready b een ,

di m ly app reh end ed by C o nd o r cet T h e hi s toric evo .

l uti o n set fo rth by C o mt e i s i n m ar ked c o nt r ast to

H egel s s inc e it is ext er n a lan ext er i o r p rocessi o n in

,

fa ct i n pl a ce o f th e H e g eli an d ev el o pm en t o f spi rit

fro m withi n A p os itiv e th eo ry Of k n o wl edge co uld
.

n ot ,
i n h i s vi ew b e s ep arat ed fro m thi s n ew s ci en ce
,

Of h i s with i ts n o t v ery pl ea s ing n a m e o f So ciolo gy

,
.

T o ev ery b ra nch o f kn o wl edg e h e w o uld apply o ne

an d th e s a m e m e th o d And th e m eth o d i s n o s oon er
.

fo u n d t h an th e phil osophy i s for m ed T h e utt er i n .

ad equ a cy O i h i s so c a ll e d l aw o f t h e th ree s t at es h as
-

b ee n r ep eat edly s h o w n wh ereby h e m agni ed into a ,

s uppo s ed gen eral an d p r i m ar y l aw c er t a i n ph enom en a

Of s econd ar y an d p ar ticular s ignic anc e N ow it is .

,

Obvi o u s th at in t reating th e t ra n sc en d ent al as i n ac ces

,

s ibl e to t h e int ell ect C o m t e m ad e h i s sy st em d efective

,

a n d inc o m pl et e H e s aw but o ne s id e o f th e shi eld

.
,

as S p e nc er h as s een th e o th er An d it i s a l ogical .

w eak n es s to t rea t hum anity as a n org an i s m with out

e xt e nding th e or g anic id ea t o th e m edium a n d c o n di

t i o n s und er which t h e so ci al life o fhum a n ity i s d ev el o p ed .

M an or mind individu al C o mt e would c o n st r u e th ro ugh

hum a nity r ath er th a n hum anity th ro ugh individu al
,

mind T h e i n d ivi d ual is for h i m o nly a n ab s tracti on
.
'

a n d exists only th r ough univ ers al hum a nity Hum anity .

is for him sup r em e mo ral en d but h e c er t a inly unfolded ,

n o prop er an d u n iv ersal l y rel at e d m oral sy s t em Wh at .

ev er di f culti es m ay att end th e pu rsuit o f an absolute

phil os o phy th es e we c ert ai n ly p refer to a syst em which
, ,

lik e th at o f C o mt e d ec eiv es it self as to wh at is D ivine

, ,
2 42 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LOSO P H Y .

domin ating and cent ralising i n inu ence as Ecl ecticism

was about th e year 1 8 3 0 N ow th e inu ence Of Kant
.

is felt and now th at of L e ibniz an d Sch elling At other

,
.

times evolution ary t ende nci es are m anifest d ue to the ,

th eori es Of L a m ar ck an d S p encer whil e at yet other ,

points of tim e C o mt ean inu ences com e into vi ew .

To this we sh al l retu r n l at er .

I t was as succeeding th e d estructive an d p assion at e

cr iticism Of th e e ight een th centu ry th at M ain e d e Bir an
b ecam e one of th e fo u n der s of S pi r itu alism in Fr ance .

Th eirs was a spi r itu al i s m b eco ming enough no doubt , ,

but l acking in th e fer m en t o f life I n th e h ands Of Biran .

an d R oy er Coll ar d it s o on b ec am e an o f
-
ci al spiritu alism .

M ain e d e Bi ra n did n ot p r o fes s to nd th e absolute .

H e k ept sur e footh old o n exper i enc e D e Bir an in som e .

,

resp ects precursor o f m od er n p sychology propounded ,

th e immedi at e consci o u s n es s o f s elf a ctivity as

th e -

primitive and fund a e t al p r incipl e o fhum an cognition
m n .

H e distrust ed th e id ea o f s ub s t a n c e which in the philo , ,

sophy of D escart es h ad t end ed t o wa rd s p anth eism H e

, .

m ade for hims elf in th e en d a ki n d of vi a medi a b etween

, ,

S toicism an d Chri s ti an ity T h e fo r m er b e suppos ed

.

to m ake too much o f m an s will an d th e l atter too little

, .

H is acut e an alys es over p ass ed s ens ati o n alism by bring

ing out th e pl ace and imp o rt ance o f th e will .

M ain e d e Bir a n w as followed by hi s d evot ed discipl e

Cou s in fam ed for h i s wide Ecl ecticism O th er founders
, .

Of spiritu alism w er e s uch di s cipl es o fCousin as J ouffroy ,

Sai ss et Vach erot

, J an et G arni er Ravaisson Jul es
, , , ,

S imon D ami ron Fr a nck a n d brilli a nt ess ayists like

, , ,

C aro and B ers ot C o usin s m eth o d is eclectic but

.

,
 F RE N C H P H I L O SO P H Y IN 1 9 TH C E N TU RY . 243

spiritu alism is th e soul O f his syst em H i s mor ality i s .

ex actly th at of spiritu ali s m medi at e an d t radition al

,
.

H i s Ecl ecticism was cl early not th at o f pi ecing tog eth er

p art s Of oth er syst ems ; th at i s j u s t wh at it was not It .

pr o fes s ed to b ase it s elf o n obs erv ati o n and induction ,

to arr iv e at unity s ol ely by th e ai d Of th e exp er im e nt al

m eth o d . O f cou r s e this m eth o d in restin g o n O b ser
, ,

vation th at i s c o mpl et e will includ e th e truth in oth er

,

an d l es s c o m pl et e syst em s ; th er e fo re d oes C o u s i n ch oo s e

to c all his m eth o d eclectic SO h i s Ecl ecticism h as to

.

d o with th e t ea chings o f hi st or ic al phil o so phy wh ose ,

psych o lo gic al rel ati o n s h e cl early p er c eiv ed as well as ,

w i t h th e fa ct s Of c o n s ci o u s n es s An d as m att er o f fa ct
.
, ,

h e so o n b r ought i n to hi s b r illi a n t t ea ching sfo r h e w as

th e m os t i n u enti al F r en ch phil o so ph e r of th e c e ntu ry

el em e nt s th a t sto o d in i rre c o ncil abl e cont radicti o n to

ea ch o th er . T h e t r uth i s h e w as u n a bl e to abid e fa ithful

,

to his o w n m ethod an d to c arry a n aly s i s to i ts fu r th e s t

,

pos s ibiliti es .

Ecl ectic spi ritu alis m w an ed aft er C o u s i n an d the d e ,

cli n e o f m et aphy s ics o f th e scho o l of Cousi n h as p av ed

th e w ay fo r th e cult o f s ci en c e Even J ouffroy with
.
,

s o ul athi r s t f o r c er titud e did n ot nd in t h e t eachings

,

o f h i s m ast er p er fect s atisfacti o n

J o uffroy m ad e m an
.

t h e c ent r e of his phil o s ophic al s tudi es a n d m ad e will ,

c ent ral in m an M an is a free fo r c e ; t o hi m th ere i s

.

an o r d er univ er s al an d i m p er so n al i n G od ; al l m orality

for him consi st s in resp ect for thi s univer s al or d er .

T h e p sych o l o gy Of C o u s in a n d J o uffroy b as ed on O b ser ,

v ati o n by m ea n s O f co n s ci o u s n ess an d reecti o n was ,

us ed in support of a Spiritu alistic m et aphysic .

2 44 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H IL O SOP H Y .

Vac h erot l o o sely to Eclecticism an d was n ot

s at ,

a fr aid to d eal with th e m et aphysic al pr o bl e ms in th e

a tt empt to found a n ew Spi r itu alistic s cho o l Th e .

id ea o f p er fecti o n th e c o nc epti o n Of th e innit e th e

, ,

n otion of th e id eal w ere al l h a ndl ed by Vach er ot who

, ,

h eld p erfecti o n to be incomp atibl e with r eal exist enc e .

Vac h erot h ad a Spi r itu ali s tic b ent a n d a ft er C o usi n , , ,

t end ed to giv e a n ont o l ogic al tu r n to p s ych o l ogy I t .

h a s b ee n for him r ath er unsymp ath etic ally put that

, ,

th e id ea o f p erfecti o n i s G o d but th a t p er fecti o n h as ,

n o exi s t e nc e C aro h as d ealt with Vac h er ot s p os itions

.

i n s everely c r itic al fas hi o n l eaving h i m o nly a s h ad owy,

D eitya gm ent of th e im agin ation Th e innite is .

,

w ith Vac h er o t simply th e al l th e al l or nothing

,
.

T h e D eity o f Va c h ero t s id eali s m i s w h e n d ev eloped

, ,

m erely an id ea l o ne : h e cl eaves to th e n o ti o n Of a
p er fect D eity w h o d o es n o t r eally exist fo r a t ru e God ,

c an not with him be living and r eal ! T h e p er s o nality

, ,

of D eity Vac h ero t in s h o r t d e ni es : Go d as th e id eal

, , ,

O f al l thing s exi s t s f ,o r h i m o nly as H e i s thought : th e

real innity i s th e wo r ld C aro c o nt ends on th e oth er

.
,

h and th at a G o d wh o do es n o t exi s t i s n o G od at al l
, .

As agai n st Vach ero t s c o nt en ti o n th at h e yet gu ard s

th e Obj ectiv e r eality of D eity as p erfectly ind ep e nd ent

O f th e mind C ar o r et o r ts th at Vach erot s G o d as the

,

Sup rem e I d eal is a pu r ely a b s t ract a n d subj ective con

c ep ti on th e m er e p r oduct Of hum a n r eas o n th e pur e
, ,

an d s impl e result o f o ur o w n i n t ell ectu a l Op er ation s .

Jul es S im on t reat ed n atur al religi o n in th ei stic

fas hion d o i n g so in a p ow er ful m ann er
, .

S ai s set r end er ed m anifest h o w th e p ers o n ality O f God

2 46 STU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

with gr eat power and m ade his inu enc e felt b eyo nd the
,

b o und s Of Fr ance This i s a fo r m Of philos o phic co n

.

cep ti o n with which th e tw e nti eth c entury will h av e to

r eckon . B outro ux t a kes cogni sa nc e of th e postul at es

an d r esults of th e p os itiv e s ci en c es a n d s ee k s to do ,

full j ustic e to r eality H e m akes ne insist ence o n th e

.

v alu e Of th e H i s t or y o f Philoso phy w h os e g r eat d o c ,

t rin es h ave in th em a p r incipl e o f life Ren o uvi er was .

at o nc e id eali s t an d ph en o m en ali s t an d p r o v ed an abl e ,

phil o so ph er Ren o uvi er st oo d o ut as s ev ere critic o f

.

e cl ectic Spi r itu a lism H e bl a m ed i ts m eth o d or r a th er

.

its l ack o f m ethodev en m o re th a n its c o nclu s i o ns .

Ren o u vi er p o s tul at es a b eginni n g for th e w or ld holds the ,

a sc ending s er i es o r innit e regr es s o f c aus e s to h av e h ad

a rst t er m t a k es lib er t y an d c o nting e ncy to p er t ain to

,

th e w o rld o f ph en o m en a a n d thinks m a n s lib erty and

,

p er son ality c ap abl e o f b eing c r itic ally es t abli sh ed For .

Ren o uvi er i s n o thing if n o t c r itica l His syst em h e calls .

C r iticis m e I t l ea n s at point s to L e ibnizi a nism H is .

st and for individu al fr eedom i s a b o ld o ne Panth eism .

an d fat alism h e w o uld av o id by a r igid exclu s i o n Of t h e

id ea o f subst an ce C o n s ci ence i s for h i m th e revel atio n

.

o f th e abs o lut e a n d th e m a in str ess o f h i s ethic al t each

,

ing li es o n duty This for m of N eo K anti s m h as exert ed

.
-

gr eat inu ence on Fr ench philosophic thought und er ,

Ren o uvi er B ro ch ar d Pill o n a n d Da ur i ac

, , As C ritic , .

i s m e it m ay b e allo wed to h av e m ad e in c er t ain c r itic al
, ,

r esp ects a n a dv a nc e ( as id ea listic ph enom en alism ) on

,

t h e Old er m et aphysics A sys t em of Person alism his

.
,

thought no doubt is in its more positiv e and co nstruc

, ,

tiv e aspects H e modi es an d suppl e ments K a nti an

.
 F RE N C H P H ILO SO P H Y IN 1 9TH C E N TU RY . 24 7

criticism by subsuming al l th e c a tegori es und er th e p r in

c i p l e of th e r el ativity of knowl edge a n d by m aking th em
,

al l mod es of th e c at egory of rel ati o n Expr essly h e .

holds Rel ation its elf to be th e m ost general r el ati o n

which al l o th er r el ati o ns pr es u ppos e and consequ ently ,

to be th e r st O f th e c atego r i es I t w a s a s r ej ecting .

th e Unc o ndition ed s ubst anc e an d n o um en a as so m a ny

, , ,

int ell ectu al ctions th at Renouvi er r eg ard ed it as

,

necess ary to r eprese nt th e tot a l s ynth e si s o f ph en o m en a

und er th e asp ect o f P erson ality H e thought th e .

K nti a n philos o phy was pr actically b ent upon th e
a

r uin of th e p er son al l wh o s e m o d es are ph eno m en a l

,
.

This h e s ays b ec au se Of K ant s adh ere nc e to th e reali s m

O f sub s t a nc e a n d th e noum e n o n Ren ouvi er s th eory o f

.

knowl edg e rej ect e d al l n o tion s o f th e innit e o f s ub ,

st ance O f thing i n its elf an d co nn ed kn owledg e to the

,
- -
,

limits o f th e kn o wing mind wh ere it was pu r ely rep re ,

sentati ve T h e p er son with his mod es o f consciou s n es s

.
, ,

w as fo r Ren o uvi er ultim a t e fa ct H is ph enom en al .

kn owl edg e h e thought c an know real re l ati o n s and

, , ,

th erefo re tru e exist enc e Fo r knowl edg e must be j udg ed

.

by wh at th e p ers o n c an know a n d n o t by wh at on , ,

critical hypoth esi s h e c an n o t kn o w O utsid e c o n

, .

s c i o us n ess th ere w as to Ren ouvi er s id ea li s tic ph enom

en al i s m n o thing ; but th e ph enom en al s er i es was no t

,

supposed to give c ert ainty which c a m e o nly thr o ugh ,

rati o n al b eli ef Ren ouvi er s b eli ef i n th e p erson as a

.

r ea l knowing s ubj ect is l ess a m o r al p o stul at e as with ,

K a nt th a n an epist em o l o gic al o n e H is p er son ali s m is

, .

d ev elop ed o n th e int ell ectu al Side to th e n egl ect O f th e ,

e thic al asp ects H is b eli ef is dr awn from th e relations

.
 24 8 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

Of our consciou s nes s Obj ect s in a ph enom en al world

to .

For Ren o uvi er n o obj ective r epres ent ation c an be m or e

,

th an subj ecti vely Obj ectiv e

a n d w e h av e m er e ly id eas

ro u sed in us by th e p rese nc e Of Obj ects or bodi es but n o ,

r eal p erc eption o f b o di es in th em selv es A kind of .

n atu ral b eli ef m a kes th em kn o wn to u s T h e th o ught Of .

Ren o uvi er s et t i n g o ut fr o m K an ti a n b as e d ev el o p ed in
, , ,

th e m a n n er n o w indic at ed i n th e di recti o n o f pu re rel a

,

ti vi s m but h i s s y st e m s u f
, fered S O m any inu e nc e s th at it
b e c a m e fa nt as tic an d co m posit e a n d s om ewh at h et er o
,

gen eo us in i ts a n s w e r s H is thought s om ewh at str angely

.

fail ed to p er c eive th at pu rely rel ative v alu es imply

ab s olut es which must b e in s o m e s o rt kn own as th e
, ,

A fo und atio n o f said rel a tivi s m s Ren o uvi er so ught a

.

synth es i s of K a nt an d Hum e so ught t o pu r ify K anti an

,

\l s y s t e m by th e plu r ali s m an d ph en o m e n ali s m which w er e

th e result o f Hu m e s r igid a n alysis o f exp eri e nc e T he

.

n o u m en o n or thing i n it s elf is thus a s w e h av e s een not

- -
, ,

all o w ed to a pp ear i n Ren o uvi er s n eo critici s m T he

-
.

l aw Of ph enom en a i s for him th e it pr i or i el em ent in

exp er i enc e i n which r es p e ct Ren ouvi er d oes n o t s eem
,

quit e so l ogic al as Hum e C r itic al and s uggestive as

.

p ar ts Of th e n eo c r itic al th eory are o n e c an n o t regard

-
,

s uch a mix ed s y s t em as s ati s fa ctory .

B o utro ux an d Poinc ar h av e s tood fo r t he i nd eter

m i n i sm which h a s b een so m ar k ed a featu r e of th e

n eo critic al s ch o ol B er gs o n is Spiritu ali s tic in h i s
-
.

m et aphysic s P o i n care h o ld s th at sci enc e would not be

justi ed as it i s in its c o nclu s i o ns if it did no t r eveal
, ,

to us som ething o f th e n atu r e O f r eality To him th e .

real is th e o bj ectiv e th at is c o mmunity am o ng thinking

, ,
2 50 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

b ec oming d et er mi n i n g th e future
an d Fouill e and .

Ren o uvi er h av e d o n e mo re th a n an y oth er thinkers in ,

t h e l att er h alf o f th e nin et eenth c e ntu r y for philosophy ,

in Fr anc e Fouill e by his id ea fo rces Oppo s ing me rely

,
-

m ech an ic al vi ew s of th e univers e a n d Renouvi er Oppo s ,

i ng th e unint elligibl e as b eing in fact th e s elf co nt r a , ,

-

d i c to ry
. F ouill e rej ect s th e philo s ophy of conti n gency ,

which Ren o uvi er acc epts D au r i ac a l s o h as ably d e

.

fend ed co n ting e ncy ag ainst Fo uill e s att acks H ardly

.

b ehind Fo uill e an d Ren o uvi er h as b een C aro in resp ect ,

o f his b r illi a nt e xp o sition an d d e fe nc e o f Spiritu alistic

philo s ophy T h e high est probl ems of thought h e not

.
,

alw ays without a c ert ain h ardn ess c o nfr ont ed and ,

t reat ed with a rare power of philo s ophic al po l emic .

C ar o i s a s t riki n g an d b eautiful philos o phic perso n ality ,

m aint aining h i s positi o ns with s ingul a r skill lucidity , ,

a n d g r ac e Th ese position s r ange th em selv es ro und

.

s uch s ubj ects as God th e soul th e futu re life a n d duty

, , , .

T h e G o d fo r Wh o m as a Spi r itu a listic philosoph er h e

, ,

c o nt e nd s mu s t b e a God living i n t elligent an d loving

, , ,
.

O nly s uch a G o d c a r r i es for him real p erfecti o n th e

p er fecti o n o f th o ught an d l o v e Reas o n i s abl e to con .

c ei ve such a D eity h e h o ld s a n d th e religi o u s consci enc e

, ,

c an app ro v e H i m n o t blind N e c ess ity

, O n e O f th e m o st .

rec ent Fre nch m et aphysic al t reat m e nts is th e c reative

ev o luti o n o f B ergs o n fro m th e s t andpoint O f th e
,

mod ern sci entic vi ew of th e w o rld I ts synthesis is .

to o a bstr act m erely p s ych o logic al a n d l a cking in reality

1
.

G uya u took fo r hi s m ain id ea th at Of lifelife as a

, ,

p r incipl e of n atur al po wer exp ansi o n and fruitfuln es s , ,

.

O n Be g n 1
l o h p xx p 3 0
r so , see a s c a . . . 1 .
 F RE N C H P H ILO SO P H Y I N 1 9 TH C E N TU RY . 25 1

He st r ove to Show how in this way th e individu al an d

, ,

th e s o ci al points Of vi ew might be reconcil ed Guy an .

poss es sed gre at d epth Of feeling an d ch arm Of style .

Th at able and distingui s h ed thinker C ournot h as sou ght , ,

to b as e his philosophy o n a group o f fund am ent al id ea s

gl ean ed from the v arious sci enc es such id eas a s o rd er ,

ch a nc e prob ability
, H e s eeks not c ert ainti es in his
.

philosophy C ournot s c aution and freedom from d og

.

m atic certitude h av e milit at ed ag ainst the power and

prev al enc e Of his t eaching s H is innite prob ability
.

i s in st r iking contrast to Comt e M ilh aud h as m ade a

.

kind o f norm al obj ectivity th e qu est of sci e nc e a nd ,

a ppli ed t h e s a me criterion to r eligion its elf D u r kh eim . ,

greatly inu enced by C om ti s t id eas adopts p ractically ,

t h e p o sition th at G od i s s oci ety and th at in d es i r ing, ,

H im we are only se eki n g to att ain the high est r ealis ation
,

of ou r s elv es God does n o t di sapp ea r in hum anity r ath e r

.
,

hum a nity discovers God in its elf and fervently worships ,

H im for v ery re ason th at it h as fo und H im th er e .

H aving compl et ed this b r ief revi ew of French philo

sophica l d ev elopm ents in th e nin et eenth c entury it o n ly ,

r em ains to be s aid th at th e of ci al philosophy in Fr ance

is still m ainly Eclecticism Its n earest d anger i s th at o f
.

b eing co nt ent to t each I ts m ost serious lack h as b een

.

fr uitful d ev elopm ent an d th a t is s eriou s enough for a

,

philosophy An eclectic philosophy th at sh all be c o m

.

pre h en s ive enough for thi s tim e must I d ecid edly think , ,

b e o n e th at sh all reconcil e a n d do j ustic e in its v ast ,

syn th esis to thos e three gr eat philosophic typ es o r

, ,

fund am ent al philosophic m ethods r epresented by wh at ,

I Sh all c all N atur alism Ration a lism and M or alism

, ,
.
25 2 S TU D IE S IN E U R O P EA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

C art esi anism th o ught to s o lv e th e pr o blem o f th e

univ er s e by cl ear n ess of th o ught I n Oppositi o n to
.

C art esi a ni s m th e sen s ati o n ali s m o f Condill ac thou ght

,

to n d al l th e kn o wl edg e possibl e to u s through th e

c orrect int erp ret ati o n o f o ur sen sations Th e mo ralism .

or N eo K a nti a ni s m o f R en o uvi er t ea ch es th e s upr em e

-

wo rth o f c o n s ci en c e an d its rev el ations Wh at I m ain .

t ain i s th at th e Ecl ectici s m o f F rance m ust nd r oom to

,

d o j ustic e to al l th r ee sph er es or typ es of reality : ( 1 ) to

th e w or ld o f e m pi r ic r eality m edi at ed through th e
,

s en ses ; ( 2 ) th e w o r ld Of abstr a ct truth to which we are ,

b r o ught thr o u g h th e for ms an d p ro ces s es of thought ;

(3 ) th e w or ld o f id eal v alu es r ev eal ed to us in th e i m
,

p erati ves o fc o n s ci e nc e H o w h ard it is to get th e j ustice

.

w e d es id erat e fo r al l th es e th r ee sph er es of t r uth or

reality th e histo ry o f philosophy is a st anding wit n
, ess .

Yet a n Ecl ectici s m th at s h all n egl ect any o ne of th es e

th ree factor s i s in s t antly o p e n to d am aging assaults in
t h e int er ests o f th e n egl ect ed fa cto r s H appily in most
.
,

rec ent y ears s o m e Of th es e d esid er at a are b eing m et as

, ,

in th e phil o s ophy o f th e sci enc es by B ergson th e cl assic ,

r ation alism of H am eli n an d th e philos o phy of action of

,

O ll L ap r un e
-
T h e w eakn ess Of Fr e nch phil o s ophy in
.

th e nin et ee nth c e ntury ar o se fr om i ts bifurc at ed m o ve

m entits t endency c r itic al and its t en d ency reco n struc

tiv e And n ot o nly so but i n F ra nc e as els ewh ere we
.
, , ,

nd at th e clo se O f th e nin et eenth centu ry philosophi es ,

r ath er th an phil osophy Th ere th e r ich and fr uitful t e

.

s ul ts Of t h e phil o so phic a l s p eci ali s ts aw ait ed s o m e unify

ing power or p ro c es s wh er eby th e lo st sens e of tot ality

,

should b e b rought b a ck to m en s minds an d th e unity of

,
 CHAPTE R XV I I I .

I T AL I A N I
P H L O SO P H Y IN THE N I N E T E E N T H C E N TU RY .

I T A L I AN philos ophy i n th e nin et een th centu ry fo r m s an

int eresting r ec o rd To d o it j ustice it i s n ec essary to
.
,

rem em b er how w h en philo so phy r eviv ed in I t aly in

,

t h e s ev e nt ee nth c en tu ry th e subj ectivism of D esc art es

,

a n d M al eb ra nch e a n d th e S e nsi s m O f L ock e

, an d still ,

m ore o f C o ndill ac b ec a m e th er e th e pr ev ailing i n u

,

en c es . T h e eight eenth c e ntu ry w as a tim e O f re

c u p erati o n fo r I t ali a n th o ught w hich w as l ed by

,

j u r ists like Gi an n o n e m et aphys ici ans lik e V ic o founder ,

o f th e phil o s o phy o f hi s t or y in its mod er n t r eatm en t ;

a n d l eg a li s t s an d e c o n o mi s t s lik e B ecc ar i a with his

im m en se s ervices to j ustic e a n d hum an ityFi l angi eri ,

G en ov es iw h o in augu rat ed doubt c ritici s m and O h , ,

s erv ati o n in I t ali an philosophy but with o ut l eaving ,

an y g r eat , o r igin al s y s t em an d G al i a n i At dawn Of .

th e ni n et ee nth c en tu ry w e h av e V en tu ra m aki n g philo ,

so phy , a ft er Aquin as d epend ent on Rev el ation ; Gioj a

, ,

lik e C o ndill ac ndin g in an empi r ic al mood th e t r u e

, , ,

r ev el ation in t h e fa ct s of th e wo r ld ; th e inu enti al

Rom agn os i with st ro ngly m ar ked l eg alist a n d intui

,

t i o nal i s t t end enci es and p r incipl es ; G al l upp i a co n ,

 I T A L IA N P H ILOSO P H Y IN 1 9TH C E N TU RY . 25 5

s i d erabl e philos o ph er with cl ear ly de ned realistic

,
-

t end enci es ; th e gr eat Rosmini with his l eanings to ,

id eali s m an d h i s emph as i s o n b eing as th e u n iv ers al

,

a n d al l e mb r acing i d ea ;
-
th e pow er ful Giob er ti with ,

j udgm ents fram ed aft er an o ntol o gi s tic c ast ; th e ad

mi rabl e M ami ani with an o n t o logis m c as t in m o r e
,

r eali s tic m o uld ; V era with vigou r an d i n dep end enc e

,

e nough to imp ar t s o m e vit ality to H egeli an thought

in I t aly ; Fr a nchi with his powerful ration alism an d
,

o ppo s ition to o fci al id eali s m ; an d Ferrari with h i s ,

p o s itivist an d pr a ctic al c o nclusio n s Th ese with s uch .

,

oth er n a m es as De G r azi a th e ecl ectic C ol l ec c h i an d , ,

B o r r elli th e inu enc e o f which l a st o n th e philo

,

S ophic al d ev el opm en t Of So uth er n I t aly w as n o t o f

.

th e h a ppi es t kind c ov er p r etty w ell th e rs t h alf of

,

th e nin et ee nth c e ntury A p eri o d l et it b e s aid in

.
, ,

which we nd phil os o phy in C ent ral I t aly m ar ked by

c o nst ant e mpi r ical t endency whil e th e t en d ency in ,

N or th er n I t aly w as ideali s tic But th e inu en c e o f

.

F err ar i F ranchi an d M a mi ani ra n o n into th e s econd

, ,

h alf of th e century E arly in th e sec o nd h alf o f th e

.

c en tu ry must be n ot ed th e Tho m ist phil o s o phy o f

L ib er at o r e D u r ing th e l ast th r ee d eca d es of th e
.

c e ntu ry th e ph i l o so phic al a ctivity o f I t aly w as g reat

, .

G a b elli by th e c l ear n ess o f h i s th o ught an d th e fresh

,

n ess O f its fo rm ; V ill ari di s tingui s h ed by his l ear n ed

,

historic r esear ch es ; S p av ent a by his m et aphys ic an d , ,

c r iticis m o f Kanti a n concept s ; Sicili ani by h i s posi ,

t i vi s t pr edil ecti o ns ; C a nt o ni by h i s emin ent N eo ,

K a nti a n endeav o u r s ; L ombros o by hi s i m p o rt a nt l eg al

and positivist inq u i r i es ; Ard i gO
,

th e I t ali a n S p enc er ,
2 56 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

as on e c all him by his p ro nounced and syst em

m ay
a tic p os itivi s m ; Conti by h i s s ervices to sound m et a
,

physics ; Angi ul l i by hi s positiv e an d exp erim ent al

,

m ethods ; L ab a n c a by his n ely inclu s iv e di al ectic ;

,

C or l eo by h i s ing eni o u s philosophy of id entity ; De

,

S ar l o by his lucid a n d critic al l abou r s th es e h ave

, ,

b een am o n g th e i n uences which h av e m ad e I t ali an

thou ght in th e ni n et eenth c entu r y a rich an d var ied
t reas u re h ou s e O f philos o phical activity No r do they
-
.

by a ny m ea n s exh aust th e inu enc es for th ere h ave ,

b ee n (th e H er bar ti an ) L ab riol a M ar i ano Ragn i sco

'

, , ,

Ser gi C es c a P ec c en i n i D i Giovanni Val dar ni n i

, , , , ,

P ey retti M o r s elli T r iver o Cro c e Vail ati an d m any

, , , , ,

o th er s b es id es Chi ef am o n g th e fo r ms of th e It alian
.

t reasu re h o use Of thought are th e Positivist idea th e

-
,

Neo K a nti an vi ew th e Ev oluti o n al vi ew and th eor i es

-
, ,

th at tu rn o n th e volunt ari stic asp ect of Reality P os i .

ti vi s m h as b een m o r e sl o wly o v er p ass ed in I t aly th an

i n a ny o th er c o unt ry It suit ed th e g eniu s Of th e

.

I t ali an mi n d an d it found th er e favouring conditi on s

, .

Pluming its elf up o n b eing a philo s ophy o f fact it did ,

no t see h o w it essenti ally fail ed to r eco gnis e th e

fundam ent al c o nc ept o f Evoluti o n in not admitting ,

th e p r ocess M ami a ni seems to b e th e think er to wh om

.

Fra nc es c o B o n atel l i w h o is n ow s p eci ally to o ccupy

,

our att ention m o s t a ppr o xim at ed in h i s Pl atoni s ing

,

t end enci es This Pl at o nising t en den cy i s quite undi s

.

gui sed in M am i ani : in Pl ato s light h e is continu ally

seeing thing s cl early ; but M a m i a ni is r eally m ore real

i sti c in th e c ast of h i s thought th an th e ontologists ,

an d hold s th at we know dir ectly nit e r el ations an d ,

25 8 STU D IE S I N E U R O PE A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

h as since r each ed th e h eight Of its d ev elopm ent through

th e inu enc es Of a H elmh o ltz a L o tz e a Wundt an d , , ,

oth er s B on atel l i rst t ra nspl ant ed empiric psych o logy

.

to I t aly a n d introduc ed th e t a st e for ex a ct Ob s erv ation

,

of int er n al facts A m ar ked featu re O f h i s wo r k was th e

.

t e nd ency to s et forth in fo r m pr ecis e an d cl ear th e

, ,

ph e n o m en a of c o n s ci ence N ot l es s o ut st a ndi n g s eems.

to h av e b ee n th e mo ral n o bility of th e ma n th a n his

int ell ectu a l em in enc e s o th at his wo rk part ake s of th e

,

n atu r e of a d eep an d c o nvinced effo rt to rectify th e

domi n ant phil oso phical curr ents o f his tim e S trong .

h e w as in his in s i s t enc e o n th e fund a m ent al difference

b etw een s ensibility an d int ell ect T h e Obj ectivity of .

ext e n s ion o f mov em ents

, o f tim e a n d s o fo r th ,
h e ad , ,

mi tted . F eeling h e was no t di s p osed to tr eat as a fo rm

of knowl edg e To p erc eption h e att ribut ed th e exclusive
.

function o f conc eiving th e real concrete H e l eft to .

thou ght as Obj ect th e wo rld Of th e idea I n gen eral

, , .
,

B on atell i s eems to h av e follow ed th e vi ews of H er b art

a n d L o tz e But in th ei r t end ency to o pp os e feeling
.
,

an d int ell ect B o n atel l i div erges fr o m th em for a cco r d

, , ,

ing to him it is o nly th rough th o ught th at we arr ive

,

at th e knowl edg e o f th at which is I n conn ection with .

th es e mutu al inu enc es o f feeling an d ideati o n I would ,

o nly rec all how s tr o ngly L otz e h as in h i s m et aphysic , ,

linked id ea s with s o m e p ar ticul ar vit al feeling Ch ange .

th e feeling an d th ere i s no r o adw ay to th e id eas c o n

,

n ec ted th erewith T h e lin e which B o n atel l i o n th e

.
,

o th er h a nd pur s u es s eems to m e a su f ci ently stra ng e

, ,

and striking o ne T h e a ntith es is b etw een thought and

.

feeling n o w so frequ ent h e do es n ot follow I n a wo rd

, , .
,
 T
I ALIA N P H ILO S O P H Y IN 1 9 TH C E N TU RY . 259

he m akes conscience th e equiv alent of thought H e t akes .

consci ence to be the rst th at knows ; but th ere is no true

an d p r o p er conscience without thought Consci ence is to
.

him ess enti ally an act Of afrm ation a tru e j udgm ent but, ,

t h er e c an be no such c o n s ci en c e without something b eing

p res ent ed i n fact without thinking
, Th at is no d o ubt
.
, ,

a s tr a ng e proc edur e which id enti es conscienc e with the

ac t o f j u d ging but th e o bj ection to consci enc e b eing t e

,

d u c ed to a j udging ac t i s t ak en to be due to a m ech anic al

c o nception of j udgm ent I do not propose to stat e i n
.

extenso t h e grounds o n which B onatel l i m aint a ins th ese

po s ition s for th er e are o th er points I wish to notic e

,
.

Enough to r em ar k th at it h as been cl aim ed for this

identication of consci enc e with an act Of thinking th at ,

it renders th e whol e cognitiv e proc ess int elligibl e th e ,

x ed p o int requir ed as ultim at e t erm of r efer enc e b eing

found in the act of consci enc e which is alr eady an act
,

of cog n ition .

A c ar din al point with B on atel l i is th e distinction of

s en s itive p erc eption from that which is intellectu al T h e .

b as i s ofs e nsitive p erception h e nds in sens ation I do .

n o t pr o po s e to go into his p o s itions as to proj ecti o n a n d

obj ec ti vi s at i on I t must s u fc e to say th at th e elabo ra

.

ti o n Of thought c arri es with its elf as an instinctive a nd

,

r ati o n al b eli ef the conviction th at wh at is af r m ed is

,

t r u e and exists ind ep endently O f th e subj ect Th at is to .

say Obj ectiv e v alidity is inh ere nt in every el abor ation o f

,

th o ught as such B onatel l i a l s o d eals with the import

, .

an t m o d ern probl em of th e w o rth of p erception He .

t ak es it to be th e preci se function of thought to r e ect

r eality N ot so with s ensibility which h as for its t ask
.
,
2 60 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

to constitut e r eality i n uni o n with th e obj ectiv e el em ent .

T he d et ermin ati o n o fth e p eculi ar n atur e o f thi s Obj ectiv e

el e m ent h e h o lds to b e th e real qu es tion I n m a king for .

th e wo r th of p er c epti o n B o n atell i seem s to st eer hi s w ay

,

b etween th e S cyll a o f a pu rely id eali s tic vi ew and th e

Ch arybdi s Of a du ali s tic r eali s m th at t reats th e p rim ary
qu aliti es of bodi es as Obj ectiv e H e t ak es th e thing to .

be but t h e l aw or fo r mul a Of a ll th e p er c eptiv e po ss i b il

iti es Obvi o u s ly a t o l er ably id ealistic vi ew in resp ect of
,

th e fa ct th at Obj ectiv e r eality gu res as a t r uth o r p rin

ci p l e O n th e oth er h a nd h e in s ists th a t s uch l aw i s n ot

.
,

som ething m erely thinka bl e but is a fo rc e effectiv e real

, , ,

an d ind ep e nd ent o f us in this w o rld Of ti m e s p a c e an d

, , ,

movem ent I am inclin ed to ag ree with Profes s or de

.

S arl o in thi n king it impo s sibl e for B on atel l i s Spi r itu alism

to rem ain in e quilibrium b etw ee n th es e two m o d es of

co ncepti o n Fo r it s eem s most p er tin ent to ask h ow

.

B o n atel l i s l aw c an be so m ething oth er th a n m erely

think abl e ; h o w it c an pres en t thos e ch ar act ers O f sub

sist enc e reality a nd p ar ticular is ation which are inh erent
, ,

in our appr eh en s i o n o f real and p articular exist enc es ;

a n d how s p a c e ti m e an d m ov em ent are to b e tr eat ed
, ,

as things in th em selv es B o n atell i hims elf re cogni s es

.

th ese di s tinctiv e features of tru e p er c epti o n p er c eption

o f th e real H e s eems to m e to h av e ad opt ed th es e
.

p o sitions with thi s un s ati s factory r es ult b ec aus e s en s ibl e

, ,

o f th e d rawb ack s to a pu r ely id eali s tic vi ew whil e cling

ing to a d es i re to do justice by th e r eal to which h e h as ,

giv en n o p ro p er effect .

I p as s h o w ev er to touch o n B o nat el l i s vi ew s of th e

, ,

ch ar act eristics of thought H e i s critic al o f L otz e s.

2 62 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L OSO P H Y .

s ay th at thought and exist enc e cert ainly seem to be so
conn ect ed as th at th ey both fo llow the s ame supreme
l aws ; which l aws are as reg ards existence l aws of the
, ,

being and b ecoming of al l things an d events and as , ,

reg ards thought l aws of a truth which must be t aken

,

account of in ev er y conn ection of id ea s So th at here .

again we s eem to h av e in B on atel l i as ind eed in L otze

a mediate vi ew and one not particularly thorough

,

going with eith er o f th em I dea l e ntities are in the

.
,

B onatell i an view det ermin ati o ns of conscience then

, ,

thoughts and nothing mor e h aving an existence only ,

in our minds B on atel l i emph a sises the fact th at

.

r eligious philosoph ers h av e posit ed for ide as a pl ace

and subst anti a l found ati o n in D e ity Himself Hence .

accrue to th em th e ch ar act ers o f ment ality absolute ,

n ess immut ability ind ep end enc e Of time an d Of al l

, ,

nite thought . H e l ays s t r ess on the sense th ese

philosoph ers h av e h ad o f th e insu f ci ency of the order
of ide ality or possibility in c o ns equ ence of which they
,

postul ate an absolut e P r i us as the true an d absolute

reality i n virtu e Of which conc eption th ey identify the
ide al absolute with th e ab so lut e th at is re al Every .

thing knowable thus com es to b e considered as th at

which is known by th e Absolute M ind In all this we .

h ave but B onatell i s way of rep rese nting thos e mod ern

endeavours to nd th e unity of thought and b eing

which h av e found l arge fa v o ur a mongst ourselv es In .

th ese we t ake God to b e th e Abs o lut e which r ation al

,

thought is nec essit at ed to thinkth e I nnite Mind the ,

P r i us of all thought as of al l things through Whom we ,

are able to think God Such a notion of D eity is no

.
,
 I TAL IA N P H I LO S O P H Y I N 1 9T H C E N TU R Y . 26 3

doubt very incompl et e

, It do es not yi eld th e G o d
.

of Th eis m ; it do es not ev en su fce to exclud e P an

th eism But it b ears in i ts bosom as a n eces s ary d atum
.
,

of consciousn ess proof o f th e v alidity of its Obj e ctive

,

exist e nc e al l m er ely logic al pro o fs n o twithst anding

,
It .

t akes us b eyond th e nit e an d conting ent an d th at is ,

much . I t r ec ti es th e m i s t akes of K a nt It p o sits .

B eing as giv en not predic at ed in its id ea of God It

, ,
.

rec ognis es th e n egl ect ed volition al elem ent in th e

as s er tion of th e a ctu ality of its innit e id eal by spirit .

It cl aim s r eality for wh at h as b een fo und a n ec essity of

thou g ht a d atum o f feeling and a n ec es s ary Offspring of
, ,

reason . For it dis allows a world of r eality differ ent

fr o m th e wor ld as it is to thought and to which thought ,

conditi o ns do n ot apply T o r ev ert to B o n atell i

. .

Thought as thought h as a limit Its limit i s l o gical .

n ec essity whos e n eg ative asp ect m ainly com es into

,

vi ew as unthinkabl en e ss Th en th ere is th e qu estion

.

as to wh eth er logica l n ecessity is a fact Thought as .

,

b eing ess enti ally r eason accepts no bond which do es

,

not j ustify its elf to reason Thus w e s ee th at logica l .

n ec essity t aken in th e n egativ e as p ect of which we h ave

,

sp o ken is simply a m ark or s ign of th at high er o r

,

r ation al n eces s ity in virtu e o f which l aws ont o l ogical

,

an d id eal rul e at onc e thought a n d b eing O f cou rs e .

,

it is not impossibl e to think th e ab s urd W e may n o t .

b e abl e to gu re a qu adril at er al t r i angl e but w e can ,

think it w ell en o ugh for th e cont ention Of B on atel l i

,

is th at in th e thought of a conc ept w e h av e but two

, ,

kn own el em ents and the rel ati o n in which th ey h av e

to be pl ac ed When o n e thinks in thi s contr adictory
.
2 64 STU D I ES I N E U R O PE A N P H I L OSO P H Y .

way, says B onatel l i his thought as a function o f th e

,

spi r it is activ e but th e p ractic al r es ult i s nil for his

, ,

co nc ept h as h eld in it tw o j udgm ents o n e o f which ,

m ay be th e n eg ati o n Of th e oth er H enc e sp r ings a n ew

.

proof of th e o bj ectivity o f th e id ea ; for to t ru e th o ught

th ere always co rres ponds an Obj ect ind ep enden tly of th e
ex er ci s e o f th e subj ectiv e functi o n of thi n king whil e to ,

fals e thou ght th ere c o rresp o nds n o such o bj ect But o f .

,

cou rs e thought m ay b e h ar monious a s a thinking act

, ,

an d n o t r epr es ent c o nc ret e r eality : in which c ase we

are n o t to think th e o bj ectiv e reality r em ai n s n o mor e

th an a possibility ; th e impo r t a nt point i s th at th e Obj ect ,

is h er e able to b ecom e real while in th e oth er c as eth e

,

c as e of fals e thoughtno such r esult i s po ss ibl e .

B o natel l i s doct r in e o f th e will co r r esponds to hi s

th eory o f kn o wledg e : th e will is with him an irre , ,

d uc i bl e activity a s thought in its or igin ality

, , is a ,

function su i gener i s H e seem s to p o stul at e a continuity

.

in th e u nfolding o f th e di fferent forms Of hum a n activity

r el ating to t h e voliti o n al ac t in such wis e th at desire
,

an d will are pr es ent ed rath er as di f fer enti ations of a

singl e pr o c ess th a n a s h eterog en eous functi o ns o f th e
spirit This r eminds on e of th e tend ency o fs o m e rec ent
.

G erm an p sych o l o gists to d i s tinguish b etwee n will as

rul ed by feeling a nd will th at is pr ed o min antly swayed
by thought I t s eems to me th at thus m ay aris e in ex
.

p er i en c e a du ality at tim es so str o ng as to give point

an d m eaning to Go eth e s s aying

Zw i S l
e ee en wohnen ach i n m ei ner But
r s .

I t ali an philosophy howev er t akes the m att er di ffer ently

, ,
2 66 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

r educibl e to a s ingle reas oning I think one may all o w .

th at r ecent psych o lo gy accords with thi s s o far at l east ,

th at it yi elds l arger reco g nition to th e intim at e psycho

logic al co nn ecti o n O f th e ph enom e n a Of v o liti o n with
id eas o r cogniti o n som etim es ev en h o lding th e volition al
,

process to c o nsist s imply an d enti rely in th e pr ev al enc e

O f th e m o tive id ea ,
wh at ev er it m ay h appen to be .

B o n atel li t ak es th e de ci s i o n to b e alway s d er ive d from

oth er ant ec ed ent af rm ati o n s th e sp ecic ch ar act er O f
,

th e volition al ac t con s i s ting in this th at it r end ers ,

pr actic al wh at was s imply a th eoretic position B o natell i .

nds it n ec ess ary to admit a First C au se as giving

reason to al l th e s eri es and ord er to al l th e facts The
,
.

nit e and d epend ent hum an b eing although for him a ,

prototyp e o f c aus ality r em ains but a s econd ar y c ause

,
.

I c er t ainly think B o natel l i j u s ti ed in thi s d em a nd th at ,

things be reduced to int elligibility ; such d em and is a

r ation al n ec essity not to be ov erridd en by s ci entic co n
,

cep ti o n of l aw : ev en Sp enc eri a n th o ught feels oblig ed

to admit such Fi r st C a us e in vi ew o f th e l aw and ord er

,

o f th e ph e nom en al world as a n ec es s ary d atum o f co n

sc i o us n ess
,

a c ause howev er which th at thought in

, , ,

th e m ost incons equ enti al fashion would m ake utt erly ,

unlike ou rs elves ; such a bond of r eal unity as B onatell i

seeks in G o d is n ot to be d eni ed us I h old in virtu e , ,

of any blind m ech anic al n ec essity W e are thus only .

b eing tru e to experi enc e in i ts highest and most ration al

n ec es s iti e s B o n atel l i thinks w e c an by re ection form
.
, ,

a c er t ain notion Of th e ch ar act ers which ought to be

p res ent in a r eal First C au se M ech anic al cau ses he .

dismi sses as insu fci ent thes e b eing m er ely interm edi ary
,
 I TALIAN P H I LO SO P H Y I N 1 9T H C E N TU RY . 267

t erms. Cert ainly he is r ight ; experience outruns the

mech anic al ; spirit an d spontaneity h ave not b een
b a nish ed they h ave not even been touched by th e l aw
of caus ation in the phys ical sphere A Dyn amic C ause .

is B on atell i s prim ary d em a nd such th at from it the

,

whole s eri es o fsecond ary c aus es m ay t ake st art I n this .

I t ak e B o natel l i to be enti rely j ustied for any sci entic ,

int er pr et ation O fphenom en a must be in ad equ at e so l o ng

as power , creative or form ativ e is exclud ed from ou r ,

notion of caus ation Powe r and no mere ant ecedence

.
, ,

is wh at the m etaphysic al idea of c ause procla ims This .

notion of efficient power or force is retain ed by the

hum an mind in its id ea Of c ause in the most n atur al
, ,

a nd instinctive m ann er Wh en Kant restricted the

.

validity of the principl e of c aus ality to th e s ensu o us

wor ld h e overlooked how synth etic thought is of its elf
, ,

and how u nwarr anted h i s d eni al was of every so r t of

c aus ality but th at which nds pl ay within the r a nge O f

e xperi enc e . Such a D yn a mic C ause as B onatell i pos
tul ates would be one whos e pow er should work through

al l N atur e and not be r esid ent in single obj ects

, Th e .

sh eer impotence of science th en is c ert ainly impli ed

, ,

in this coming of metaphysics to th e r escue th at th e ,

c aus al concept may not m ean the mere succession o f

ant ec ed e nts and cons equ ents but th e r elation of p h e
,

nomena to th at which is r eal Philosophic al thought

.

knows no ner progress th a n th at which h as been m ade

towards establishing the pr inciple th at the secret an d
ground Of our knowing is j ust re al being i n oth er
words th at al l true knowing is fundam ent ally knowl edg e
,

O f r eal being Ration al Will must pert ain to th e F irst

.
2 68 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

C ause for B on atell i ass erts we h av e no oth er way of

, , ,

r epr esenting a tru e c aus e th an by th e attribution of will .

I n this conn ecti o n I m ay r ec all how impossibl e it

admitt edly is for philos o phic al thought to e xpl a in th e

w ay in which c aus al action wo r ks or c o m es int o fo rc e .

It h a s j ust h ad to a cc ept th e fa ct o f efci ent c aus ation ,

a n d to po s tul at e as ultim at e Gr o und or imm an en t C aus e

,

o f th e world an I nnit e Spirit Whos e Will i s s upr em e

,
.

Th e c o r e of th e c aus al concept is to b e found in the

d et ermin ation of its ontological signicance Will is .

th e on e tru e c aus e of which we h av e a ny knowl edg e .

But this typ e o f c aus e Op erat es ab extr a in a way th at

mu s t not be tr ansferr ed to th e wo r king of imm an ent
D eity N o good r eas o n h as b een adv anced why we may
.

n o t infer not o n ly c au s ation in G o d th e s elf r elat ed

, ,
-

c aus ality but also I nnit e Will as n ecess ary fund a m ent al
,

c aus e of all things T h e thought an d fo rc e o f th e world

.

would h ar moniously c entr e in s uch a Supr em e M ind as

th e fr ee First C aus e a n d th e s elf d et ermining Will -
,

Whos e s elf d et er mining c aus ality conditions from th e

-
,

c ent re of th e cosmos outwa rds ev ery o th er caus e Th ere , .

c a n b e no compl et e c aus ality a s I m aint ain but th e , ,

c aus ality of s elf consciousn ess for th er e is no oth er form

-
,

o fb eing th at is fr ee N o s o o n er h av e w e Will as cau se

. ,

efci e nt nal an d form al th an d ecl ar es B on atel l i th e

, , , , ,

Pr im e C aus e c an pr es ent no oth er ch aract ers th an those

o f p erson ality an d creativ e skill O n which position .

I r em ark th at such a c aus al ag ent must be I nt ellig enc e ,

s upr e me p erson al and free

,
A spi r itu al Absolut e a ppears
,
.

to m e th e p resuppo s iti o n O f n atur al c aus ation and

m ech anism Th e tr ansc end ent activity o f such Absolute
.
 C H APT E R XIX .

THE PH I L O SO P H Y OF SPA N I .

IT c annot b e s aid th at S p ain h as t ak en th e pl a ce in the

H istory o fPhilosophy which sh e h as done in the history
ofl ett ers an d arts an d in politic al history
, Even in these .

l att er aspects S p ain h as b een from tim e imm emori al , ,

l acking ; for in th e d ay s o f h er p r im acy ide als of lib erty

, ,

and fr eedom of thought w ere c r ush ed out It c annot .

,

h owever b e forgott en th at I s idor e o f Seville h elped to

,

introduce Aristot eli anis m int o M edi aev al Th eology nor ,

wh at a s eat Of early Arabi an l ear ning Sp ain was and ,

c ontinued to b e long aft er Avic e nn a

, The rendezvous .
,

in th e tenth c entury o f th e most div ers e r aces Sp ain

, ,

rem ain ed ti l l th e thirt eenth c entury the th eatre of an

intense mov em ent o f id eas Avicebro n a Spanish Jew .
,

of th e el eventh c entu ry bore not ed inu enc e Among

, .

th e Ar abs of S p ain wer e Avem p ac e who died in 1 1 3 8 , ,

and Ab ubacer whos e d ea th w as in 1 1 8 5

, both of mys ,

tical t endency Th ey with Averroes c arried on after

.
, , ,

Avicenn a s d eath in 1 03 6 th e work an d r enown of th e

,

Arabi an philosophy which h ad d eclin ed in th e Orient

, .

Born at Cordov a in 1 1 26 Av err o es pr ov ed a gre at com

,

mentator on Aristotl et h e philosoph er xwr eo i w to

the Ar abic philosoph ers and liv ed till 1 1 98 Averro es .

 TH E P H I LO SO PH Y O F SP A I N . 27 1

h eld to th e et ernity and pot enti ality of m att er which , ,

for his cosmic du alism w as a n univer s al pow er c o nt ain

,

ing in a g ermin al way al l forms T h e Prim e M ov e r .

S imply dr ew forth or c all ed out th e a ctiv e fo rc es o f this

e t ern a l m att er or d ev elop ed th e fo r m involv ed in th e

,

m a tt er H e also s et fo rth th e em anati o n and hi erarchic

.

sub or din ation of th e s ph er es th e r s t s ph er e h aving b een

,

s et in motion by th e Pr im e M oto r an d e ach sph er e ,

h aving b een endowed with an int elligen c e of its o wn ,

which is i ts fo r m L a st o f pl an et ary int elligenc es is

.

hum an int ellig ence a for m imm at eri al et ern al i m , ,

p ers o n al Obj ectiv e A fo r m of t eaching d ang ero us as

, .

d enying o ur p er son al individu ality A discipl e Of Av er .

ro es M os es M a im o nid es m o s t fa mous J ewish philos o ph er

, ,

Of th e M iddle Ages ess ayed to reco ncil e Ar i stot eli a nism

,

with Jud a i s m B o rn at Co r dov a in 1 1 3 5 h e pur su ed his

.
,

a i m o f s h o wing th e s up rem e en d o f religi o n a n d s ci enc e

alik e t o b e t r u e kn o wl edg e of G o d though p er s ecut ed by

,

fa n a tic al s ecti o ns Of his own count rym en until his d eath

i n 1 2 04 . M aim o nides by no m ea n s blindly fo ll o ws A r abic
Ari s t o t eli an syst em L as t g reat r ep resent ative of th e
.

J ewish phil os ophy M aimonides r ej ect ed th e et ernity Of

,

m a tt er an d t reat ed hum a n int ellig enc e as individu at ed

,

an d s ep arat e .

Raym o nd L ully an d Raymond of Sa bund e ow ed to

S p a in littl e m ore th a n th eir birthpl a c e but L ul l y s i n

,

uen c e long r em a in ed b ehind him L ully w as bor n in

.

th e I s l e Of M aj o r c a in 1 2 3 5 an d a ft er early lov e Of
, ,

pl easu re d evelop ed in m atur e y ear s d evout pi ety ; h e

,

e ng ag ed in continu o us att ack o n Av err o ism I n th e .

i nt er ests o f L ully w er e includ ed lit er ary an d artistic as ,

2 72 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

well as philosophic al affairsind eed th ere is reason for

, ,

r eg arding him as th e m o st b r illi a nt C at al a n w r it er o f th e

M iddl e Ag es I n h i s th eo s o phist t e nd enci es L ully pro
.
,

c eed ed in d eductiv e fas hi o n to wh at h e suppos e d wa s by

, , ,

m ean s o f his ar s magn a a n expo s ition of al l t r uth not

, ,

rea li s ing th at s uch a pu re ly d eductiv e m ethod was

chi m er ic al an d d elu s iv e Raymond o f Sa b u n d e a
.
,

S p a ni s h physici a n who b ec am e p r o fessor Of th eo logy at

To ul o use fo llowed th e logic al m ethod of L ully i n his
,

Theol ogi a N a tur a l i s which aiming to u n it e th e soul with

, ,

G o d is m ar k ed by th eo s o phic t e nd enci es
, I t w as in th e .

s ixt ee nth c entu ry th at a rem ar k abl e an d aut o n o mous

m ov em ent o f ideas took pl a c e in Sp ain h aving its ris e ,

a mong th e D o m inic an s at th e Univ er s ity o f Sal a m anc a .

But free phil os o phic inquiry w as gr eatly blight ed in

Sp ain p r actic ally th e gr eat es t Pow er in Eu r op e for
most of th e sixt eenth c enturyby th e r ank owering of
th e I nqui s iti o n an d th e intr o duction in 1 5 02 Of th e
,

ce nso r ship of th e pr es s Philos o phy a m o n g th e J esuits

.
,

who est abli s h ed th ems elv e s in S p ain about th e year

1 5 48 , w as at r st p retty much pur e r eacti o n ag ainst
Pr o t est a n tism T h e D o minic an B a nn ez wh o was born
.
, ,

at V all ad o lid in 1 5 27 put forwar d th e doct r in e of

,

phy s ic al pr em otion as p art of th e t eaching o fAquin as .

L o uis M o lin a wh o h ad studi e d und er P et r u s F o n sec a

, ,

th e L u s it a ni a n A r i s t o tl e d efend ed in his th eo ry de
,

sci enti a medi a th e s emi Pel agi a n vi ews o f th e J es uits

-

ag ainst D o minic a n att a cks T h e D ominic ans h ad h e

.

co m e Thomists as th ei r ant agonists th e Fr ancisc ans

, , ,

were S c o tists Thus it will b e s een how far th e activity

.

o f th e J esuit philos oph ers in S p ain was by th e middle ,

274 STU D I ES I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

th e thing requir ed . O n m a n y min o r p o ints ind eed , ,

Su ar ez really agrees with Sc o tus but h e i s s till s o far

,

und er t r aditi o n al c o nst raint as to b e with Aquin as on

w eighti er m a tt ers o f phil o s o phic imp o rt N ot a little .

striking w as th e fa ilure o f th e Sp ani s h m o v em e nt in

philos o phy du r ing th e s ixt eenth c entu ry to impress i ts elf
in m ore du rabl e fo r ms and m o re ext ended limit s th an th e
, ,

I b er i a n p enin s ul a but it w a s yet in its elf a s u f

, ci ently
str iking philo s o phic reviv al a retu r n to th e gr eat sys
tem ati s i ngs o f th e thi r t ee nth c e ntu r y a nd abov e al l to
, , ,

Thomism . Su arez was h o w ever a gr ea t n am e in

, ,

S pain s philos o phic al history repr es enting as h e d oes

, , ,

th e n al effor t o f expiring phil o s o ph y T o S u ar ez. s ub ,

s t anc e st ands under t h e a ccid ents in s uch a w ay th at i t

it self do es n ot requi re a s imilar suppo rt His vi ew of .

th e exi s t en c e of thing s i s s uch th at h e holds th e sci enc es ,

in s p eaking by th em s elves not to s upp o s e th e actu al

,

e xist en c e o f th ei r obj ect s sinc e this is acci d ent al s o f

, ar ,

as c o nc er n s th e reas o n o r et er n al id eas O f sci enc e .

This position was t a ken b ec a u se o f th e S ch o l as tic vi ew

th at th e conc epts w e form Of things wo uld rem ain for
e v er t r u e did t h e thing s th ems elv es no t exist an d th at
, ,

kn owledge o r s ci en ce r es t s o n th e p er ceptio n of th e i n
tri ns i c t r uth o f o u r conc epts T h e I nnit e h e thinks
.
, ,

ca nn o t be m o re pr ecis ely d en ed th a n as th at which can

h av e nothing m ore of th e p erfect in it S u ar ez Oppos ed .

th e n o ti o n of an im m edi at e kn o wl edg e o f th e Ab so lut e ,

fo r to him th e D ivin e E s senc e c o uld n o t b e so c o nt em

pl ated without a knowl edg e of all th e D ivin e p erfection s .

T o S u arez th e cl aims of mor al l aw r est ed upon tho se

dict at es o f n atural reason which app eared to him i h
 THE P H I LO SO P H Y O F SP A I N . 27 5

n ec ess ary and indep end ent o f al l v oliti o n

tr i ns i c al l y , ,

eve n Of th at which w a s D i vin e Th e pow er of Emp ero rs

.

S u ar ez h eld to be d eriv ed from th e P o p e an d s uch r ul er s ,

h e r eg ard ed a s n o t without r es po nsibility to th o se r ul ed

h e nc e it is not altogeth er s urp r i s ing th at it w as his for tu n e
to be consid er ed a republic an by Philip I I o f Spa in and .
,

to h av e h i s w ritings b ur nt by th e P arli am ent of P ar is .

But th e r eal co nc ern o f th e J esuit philos o ph er s w as with

religi o n n ot secul ar p o liticsto which as th e s piritu al ,

o r d e r of thi n gs th ey bo re in such a c entury as th e

, ,

eight eenth n o ble an d impr es s ive witn es s H er e how

,
.
,

ev er ,w e h av e b ee n conc ern ed only with th eir th o ught

d evelopm ents in th e sixt eenth c entury an d at th e Ope n ,

ing o f th e sev ent eenth .

Fr o m th e b r i ef aft er bl o om on th e I b eri a n br anch o f

-

S chol as tici s m w e h ave pas se d to th e b eginning Of th e

,

s ev ent eenth c entu r y to which p eriod must b e r eferr e d

,

th e t r eatis es o n m o ra l phil o s ophy by th e fa mous S p anish

writ er Qu ev ed o Th at c entu ry d awn ed a mid J esuitic al

, .

cont ro v er s i es th at t en ded to sink S ch o l as ticism into

alw ays gr eat er di s r e put e Th er e c am e th e age o f th e
.

l es s er m en : Su arez di ed at L i sb o n in 1 6 1 7 to be follow ed ,

by th e infer i o r lights o f Alphonsus M endoza an d G o nza , ,

l ez in hist o ric sequ enc e

, With no l ack o f m et aphy s ic al
.

subtl ety th e co nt ro versy b etween th e D o minic a ns as

,

Thomi s ts and th e F ran ci s c an s as Scotists w as continu ed

down to th e eight eenth c e ntu ry th e funda m ent al diver
,

gence rem aining t h e di s solutio n by S co tis m o f th a t unity

of fa ith an d s ci enc e of th eo logy an d phil o s ophy i n
which S ch ol astici s m h ad found p eculi ar pl easur e But .

int ell ectu al to r pidity c am e at l ength to b o th p arti es an d ,

2 76 S TU DI E S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO S O P H Y .

in th e ight eenth c entury S p ain w as giv e n ov er to p hi l o

e

sophe l egisl ati o n a n d sw ay with more m at eri al th an ,

m en t al p r o gres s I n th e n in et ee nth c entury

.
th e ,

Chu r chly Schol astic Philo s o phy h ad m OSt r epr es entatives

-

in Sp ain A m o ng th es e m ay b e r eck o n ed Fr ancisco

.

Alv arad o J L B al m ez D on o s o Cor t s Zeferino

, . .
, ,

G o n zal ez O rti y L ara J J U rr abur a an d o th ers

, , . .
,
.

O n e o fth e chi ef a im s Of th e p res ent ch a pt er is to sp eak

Of th e gr eat nin e teenth c entu ry r epr es ent ativ e Of n eo
S chol a stici s m which S p ain fu r nish ed in th e m et aphys ic
i a n B al m ez w h o c an sc ar c ely b e s aid to h av e c o m e to
,

his own B o rn at V ich i n C at al o ni a in 1 8 1 0 h e b ecam e

.
,

profes so r of m ath em atics for s om e tim e in th e coll eg e of

h i s n ativ e t o wn a n d his m ath em atic al predil ections w ere
,

not with o ut inu ence upon th e fo r m o f h i s phil osophical

exp o siti o n s H is d eath took pl ace in 1 8 48 Wh at ever
. .

d efect s m ay m ar k his philosophy it cann o t be denied a ,

highly h o n o u rabl e pla c e a m o ng Spiritu alistic inu ences

a n d m o v em e nts in th e n in et eenth c e ntury I n o ur pr es .

e nt conn e ction it cl a ims th e att enti o n d ue to th e most

not abl e phil o sophic al pr es ent ation th at h as app eared in

Sp ain for som e c entu r i es This was his Fundamental .

P hi l osophy wh er ein h e fo llows th e a nci ent divi s i o n into

,

l o gic m et aphys ic s an d ethics an d r a ng es ov er such

, , ,

subj ect s as certitud e sen s ation s s p ace and tim e id eas

, , ,

an d b eing unity an d numb er innity and subst ance

, , ,

n e c essity and c aus ality H i s m eth o d th r o ughout is re ally

.

p sych o l ogic with out h o wev er giving to p sychology , ,

an y sp eci a l pl ac e or tr eatm e nt an d at tim es as for , ,

ex a mpl e in his r ej ecti o n o f K a nt s o bj ection s to th e i n

,

tuiti o n of th e ego und er p aralogisms of th e pure r eason

, ,
2 78 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

e st ablish ed ; its tripl e crit eri a h e nds in consci enc e ,

evid enc e an d common s ens e

,

C er titud e s ays B a
- l m
.
ez
1
, ,

do es not or i gin at e in re ecti o n th e Sp o nt an eous product

o f m a n s n atur e

it i s i n h er ent in th e w o rking o f th e
,

int ell ectu al an d sen sitive faculti es

Th e Creator in . ,

calling b eing s ou t Of n o thing g av e th em th ei r fa culti es in ,

a cc or d with th e pl ac e th ey occupy in th e sc al e of creati o n .

N ow b eing as int ellig ent h ad n eed of b eli ef
, , , C erti .

tude exi s ts ind ep end ently o f all sy s t em s : th eori es live ,

an d will exi s t with o ut inu e ncing this fa ct
, Philo .

sophy h as for its r ole th e examin ation of th e grounds of

c ert ainty with th e vi ew of kn owing mor e thoro ughly th e
,

hum an mi n d an d th e l aws which r ul e it but without

, ,

att er ing its elf th at it c an ch ange th e n atur e of things .

Thus for B al m ez cert a i n ty Of th e s t ro ngest kind sp rings

,

from n atu ral instinctth e irr esistibl e forc e of nat ure ; an

,

immov abl e adh esi o n resting upon evidence it is yet the ,

r es ult of an invo lunt ary i m pulsion n ev er th e product of a ,

s er i es o freasonings .

W e m ay not call his s y s t em o rigin al for it is an ,

ecl ectic s pi r itu ali s m an d n o t su fci ently free o f sub

,

servi ent rel ation to th eo lo gic al d o gm a s His th eological .

preoccup ation s s eriously h amp er his phil o sophical

freedom an d ind ep end ence H e is to o p ro n e to j ustify .

Ch r i sti an my s t eri es a n d too littl e h appy in th e att empt

, .

Av o idin g th e s ub o rdi n a ti o n o f r eas o n to fa ith as in

S ch o l asticism an d th e n ec ess ary conformity o f r ea son
,

an d fa ith fo und in th e sev e nt eenth c entu r y B al mez is ,

y et p ro n e to confound th es e t er rit or i es a n d to appro ,

p ri a te th e dogm as and my s t er i es o f religi o n in ord er th e ,

Fu nd m nt l P hi l p hy B k I
1 a e h p iii
a oso , oo .
, c a . .
 TH E P H IL O SO P H Y O F SP A I N . 27 9

b ett er to d efend th em But h e is not aliv e to p erils

.

involv ed in s uch co nfusion a like from th e phil o s o phical ,

a n d t h e th e ol ogic al S id es H e d oes not r ea lis e th e.

virtu e of int errog ating r eas on and m ayh a p convincing ,

on e s s elf r ath er th a n asking Of h er answers to al l

,

facts wh erewith to c o nfo und on e s adv ersari es H enc e

,

.

h e will m ake l o gic al d em o nstr ation o f all r eligion ; will

sh o w a r ev el ation to b e possibl e and necess ary ; and ,

will p ro ve th e pl ace o f authority in th es e m att ers not ,

r ealising su fci ently th at reas o n ca nn o t b e disp ens ed

fro m m aking h er own p ar ticul ar ex amin a ti o n of th ese

d og m as .

B al m ez r efer s to th e conc eption o f First C aus e ,

h o ping by th e p rincipl e of c aus ality t o d em onstr at e th e

e xist e nc e O f G o d H e refers to S aint Th o m a s Aquin as
.
,

wh o h eld th at B ein g i s in th e Fi r st C aus e int ellig e nc e

, ,

it s elf Aquin a s m aint ains th at al l effect s p re existin g

.
-

i n God as in th eir C aus e must b e in H im in a m a nn er

, ,

int elligible sinc e th ey ar e n ot o th er th a n His i ntell i

,

g enc e For B al m ez God as U niv ers al C aus e c o nt ains

.
, , ,

i n Hims elf virtu ally an d in high est d eg ree all real and
, ,

possibl e b eings a n d h e m a int ains th at c aus ality must

,

b e o r igin an d principl e o f th e rep res ent ation Of Him .

T h e ag r eem ent o fth e effect with th e c a us e is to B al m ez

n o m er e lo g ic al o r s ucc ession al af fa i r but i mpli e s th e ,

id ea ofa pr o d ucing fo r ce o r a ctivity Far fr o m b eing an .

i n er t m ass th e co r po real wo rld pr es ent s to hi s vi ew an

,

a ctivity o f p r odi g i o us pow er .

B al m ez s ees in th e doctrin e o f th e Trinity th e

'

s ublim e typ e o f th e n ec ess ary distinction o f subj ect

a n d obj e ct to th e most pr o fo und int ellig e nc e B ut .
2 80 STU D I ES I N E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

h is e xplica tion was no t h appy b eing o fa s or t th at would

,

l eav e o n e for ch o ic e polyth eis m or pa nth ei s m .

B al m ez h eld th e id ea o f ext en s ion to be ins ep ara bl e

fro m th at o f b o dy but h e did n o t like D es c ar t es m ake
, , ,

ext en s ion th e ess enc e of body it self S p a c e is to B al m ez

.

ab s t ra ct e xt en s i o n ext e n s i o n po ssible and unlimit ed .

With so m e l eanings t o war ds th e po s iti o n o f L eib n iz ,

B al m ez r em a ins at th e st at e of c o nj e ctu re as to wh ether

w e c an know th e rea l es senc e o f m att er H e intro duc es
.
,

into h i s discu s si o n o fs p a c e and ext ensi o n cert ain m ath e ,

m ati cal c at egori es o f id eas Real tim e for him d oes

.
, ,

not exist s av e in things id eal tim e b eing for h i m an

, , ,

a bstr a ction . I nd enit e tim e is but ind enit e pos si

b i l i ty of succ ession in things T h e notion o f ti m e
.

B al m ez t r ac es to t h e p r incipl e o f c o ntr a dicti o n h o lding ,

th at a thing c an n ot both be an d n ot be s imult an eously ,

w hich c a n sc ar c ely be h eld to be a s implic ati o n o f ti m e ,

a ft e r al l
. For att enti o n m ay b e x ed eith er on th e
s i m ult an eity on th e o n e h and or o n th e cont ras t Of
, ,

b e i ng and not b eing o n th e o th er T h e power an d

, .

v ali d ity o f m e m ory as m arking th e befor e and th e after

mu s t su rely b e t aken i n to fuller acc o u n t o rif any
, ,

p referth e different c o nt ent s o ffeeling which m ark c on

t i n u ou s du rati o n .

B al m ez t akes t h e innit e to be di s tinguish ed fro m th e

i n d enit e as D esc art es al s o h ad d o n e T h e i n nit e is
, .

n ega tiv e i n app earanc e o nly Ev erything t ak en in itself

.
,

a n d in abstr acti o n fro m all o th er thing s c an b e con ,

c e i ved as innit e th at i s to say as dis eng aged fro m

, ,

t h e limit ations p ro p er to it But thi s rel ativ e kind o f

.

innit e i s an o bj ect of conception rath er th an of ex ,

2 82 TU D IE S
S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO S O P H Y .

al l oth er b ei n gs i t do es not yet imply any m a king His

,
,

ind ep endence abs o lut ewhich things p anth e i s m fails to

unders ta nd M a t er i al sub s tance i s th e Obj ect of neces
.

s ar y b eli ef T h e sub s t a nce of th e ego m anifests it self

.

di rectly to th e c o n sci ence in al l int eri o r ph e nom en a .

Exi st enc e is for B al m ez th e act which giv es b eing to

sub st an c e o r it m ay b e t ak en as th at by which ess ence
,

e xist s B a l m ez t akes th e id ea of exist enc e to repre

.

s ent pu re reality w hile to him th e id ea of ess ence is

,

th at which d et erm in es an d spe ci es sa id reality .

E s s en ce is th at which constitut es a thing wh at it is , ,

as distingui s h ed fr o m ev erything els e an d t h e es s enc es ,

o f al l thi n gs are to b e fo und in God Existence .

b elongs to th e o rd er Of th e r eal ess enc e to th e order ,

of t h e id eal ; th e disti n ction h e holds to b elong to the

r ealm of ideas not of r eality , .

I n his e thic a l po s itio n B al m ez t ak es consci ence to ,

be ess en ti ally a ctive a s in s ensibility and ab o ve all

, , , ,

i n liber ty L ib erty in ind ep end ent b eings suppo s es a

.
, ,

l aw . Thi s l aw h e thinks d oes not em a n at e from th e

, ,

arbit rar y will of God an d h as n ot its principl e in ,

D eity s av e as m et aphys ica l t ruths th ems elve s h ave It .

is th e repres ent ati o n o f th at mo ral o r der which is th e

c o o r d i n ati o n o f th e c reatu res with God
- a cco r ding to ,

th ei r d egree of p er fectio n Th e p r incipl e o f mor ality.

B al m ez t a kes to b e th e l ov e of G o d an d o f al l thing s ,

th at God lov es in th e s am e o rd er as H e l ov es th em
, .

T h e th eory which wro n gly m ak es duty r es t on a s enti

,

m en t th e lov e Of G o d an d subo rdin at es it to empi r ical

, ,

a n d i n c o mpl et e kn o wl edg e o f t h e univ er s al ord er i s

yet ,

a n el ev at ed o ne d eriv ed fr o m M al eb ra nche
, For M ale .
 T H E P H I LO SO P H Y O F SP A I N . 28 3

br anch e h ad s aid th at tis th e D ivine lov e th at m ov e s

us
the s ame lov e wh erewith G od lov es H i m s elf and
th e things H e h as m a d e But Malebr anch e w as with
o ut an
y con c eption of a life wh erein s ens e is tran s mut ed
into thought and passion tr a n s formed into duty
, .

Among philosophic writ ers ofSchol astic symp athi es in

m or e recent years ma b e n a m ed Gonzal ez d e A r int er o
y ,

M ar c elino Arnaiz A GOm ez I zquierdo to m ention no

, .
,

oth ers O fD onoso Co rt s who l ed the re action ag ain s t

.
,

m od ern philosophy in th e l att er p a rt of th e nin et eenth

c entu ry it should be sa id th at he repres e nt ed strict
,

C atholicism This spirit o f n arrow C atholic orthodoxy

.

was al s o sh ared by O r ti y L ara professor Of m et a ,

physics i n the U niv ersity Of Madrid M at eri alistic .

philo s ophi es like th at of Pedro M at a worked in oppo

, ,

s i ti o n to the philosophi es a lr eady m ention ed whil e ,

Positivism and Spiritu alism incre as ed in th e l att er p ar t

o f th e nin eteenth centu ry Th ese m at eri alistic an d
.

positivistic t endencies h ave b een ably comb at ed by

v ar ious philosophic writ ers pr esently to be d escribed .

J Sa nz d el Ri o who studi ed und er Kr aus e s discipl es

.
, ,

Ro ed er and L eonh ard i ex ert ed during the s ec o nd h alf

, ,

o f th e nin et eenth century a n astonishing inu enc e in

,

S p ai n
. H e founded in fa ct a philos o phic al sch oo l
, ,

w hich s till exerts pow erful inu e nc e through such r epr e

s en tati ves a s Professors Fr ed er ico de C a stro N ico l aus ,

S al m er n Gin er d e 105 R i o s a n d Gonzal ez Serr ano

, ,
.

Wh en however th e H eg eli a n and K anti a n p hil oso

, ,

phi es b ecam e b etter known in S p ain the Krau sean ,

philo s ophy su ffered in con sequ ence even th o u gh it ,

s eem ed to corresp ond mo re with th e Sp anish mind in

2 84 STU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

gen eral . N ext to K raus e H eg el i s th e philosoph er

,

wh o h as attr a ct ed most att e ntion in Sp a in I n r ec ent .

year s not a little philosophic al activity h as b een shown

,

in Sp ain . M eliton M artin h as pr o v ed an abl e an d

geni al philos o ph er ; A G om ez Izqui erd o h as b een not ed
.

for his res earch es in hi s torical phil o sophy and his ,

e dit or i al l ab o ur s fo r th e Cul tur a E spai i ol a ; M arc elino

'

Ar n ai z h a s att empt ed a synth es is o f cont empor an eous

psych olo gy with th at o f Augustine and Aquin as and , ,

whil e following Schol astic lines in h is psychological

studi es h as yet fo und ed o n exp eri enc e ; M artinez N u nez
,

h as c o mb at ed th e th eo ri e s o f m od ern m ech a nists ;

G o nzal ez d e Arint ero h a s as s ail ed m at eri alism and
p os itivi s m and giv en an abl e pres entation fr om th e
,

Th o mi st p o int o f vi ew ; P A L e mos h as Opp os ed . .

s ci e ntic positivi s m ; b es ides who m ar e Rubio y D i az ,

A L op ez M u oz M P O lm edo E A d e B es s o n and
.
, . .
, . .
,

m a n y oth er s B ut a ft er al l allow a nc es for th e phil o

.
,

sophic al m erits o fSp ain it must be s aid th at th e Sp ani s h

,

Wel tanschauung still r em ain s too n ati o n ally s elf cont ain ed -
,

a n d too gr eatly l acking in obj ectivity .

2 86 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EAN P H I LO SO P H Y .

S ubj ectiv e individu al mom ents will in evit ably ent er

an d

into th e treatm ent o f m et aphysics ch arged as it is with

inqui ri es int o th e real u n ity o f th e univ er s e its g oal an d ,

i ts gr ound th e n atur e o f m an s soul an d oth er such

,

,

m att ersand t h e n eed p res s es th at m et aphysics go out

in s earch o f o bj ectiv e m at er i al s I m ean w e c ann o t keep
.
,

too cl os e to p al p i tati n g Rea lity

-
For M et aphysics is j ust
.

th e phil o s o phy o f th e Rea l T h e mind s h ealthy instinct

.

for realit y mu s t b e m a int a in ed in o ur qu es t fo r th e high est

cat eg o r ies Th e m et aphys ici a n s sph er e i s th e realm o f
.

t h e c ategor i esth e r ealm o f realitybut it i s not al o n e

'

th at o f th e int ellect ; it is al s o th e realm of c o n s cious

a n d e xplicit m o r a l i l l um i n ati ven e ss T h e ad equ at e hypo .

th es i sth e al l compreh ending conceptwill thus be no

-

v a in ab str acti o n S hunning th e atmosph ere of illu s io n

.
,

m et aphysics mu s t t ake p rim ary a cc o unt i n a way n ot

al way s d o n e o f Evoluti o n a s principl e o f becoming and ,

mu s t Sh o w th e en d which Ev o lution s ubs erv es in com

p elling th o ught to r ecogni s e th e n ecessity of tel eology or
th e fact o f pu r pos e in n atu r e T h e n eed o fo ur tim e i s to
.

m ai n t ain th e prim ary position o f M et aphysics wh ereby , ,

as pr esupp os iti o n o f th e sp eci a l p ro bl ems of Ethic s P sy ,

c h ol ogy, an d L o gic it must t ake p rec ede nce of th em

, ,

an d p r ofo undly affect th ei r di r ection an d tr eatm e nt even ,

while M et aphy s ics m ay r ec eive fro m th eir d et ailed out ,

w or king fuln e ss o f for m and co nt ent

, .

N ever I b e li ev e w as th e n eed for a t r u e m et aphysic

, ,

m o re d eeply fel t Ri tsc h l Comt e an d L itt r n otw i th

, , ,

s t an di n g N o t a littl e o f th e m et aphysic o f r ec ent tim es

.

h a s b een but a m et aphy s ic al a bo rti o n with a th eo ry of ,

ev o luti o n alm os t a ll e mb r acing but evolving no possible

-
,
M E TA P H Y SI CA L D E VE LO P M E N T S OF O U R TIM E . 2 87

com munion with D eity Th e m et aphys ic we c rav e will .

g r o und its l aws n o t in an y m o l ecul ar m o v em en t s o f

,

things physic al nor ev en in any m er e volition s of th e

,

Will D ivi n e but in th e D ivin e N atu r e or Ess enc e An

,
.

ethic al m et aphy s ic it mu s t b e with th e m et aph y s ic a l ,

a ttribut es of i ts D eity a ll k ey ed up t o t h e et er n a l ethic a l

ess e nc e Of which we sp eak For th e U n conditi o n ed .

B eing with wh o m we h av e to do i s O n e wholly ethic al

in His n atu re But I do n o t m ean to sugg est in s aying
.
,

thi s any pu rsu an c e of m et aphy s ic s m erely for th e s atis

,

facti o n o f ethic al n eed s an d ap ar t fr om th e sh eer i n ,

tel l ec tual wo r th an d disciplin e o f m et aphysic its elf T he .

s ci e nc e o f m et aphysic s w e to d ay most d eeply n eed th a t -

,

it m ay d et er min e fo r us wh at can and wh at ca n n ot be

kn o wn ofb ei n g a nd th e l aws of b ei n g a pr i or i i n oth er ,
-

w or d s fr o m thos e n ec ess iti es of th e mi n d o r l aws o f

, ,

b eing which th o ugh rs t rev eal ed to us by e xper i enc e

, , ,

must yet h av e p re exi s t ed i n o rd er to m ake exper i enc e

-
,

its elf p o ssibl e Ch ast en ed an d c r itic al th e m et aphys ic

.
,

o f t h e tim e is such th at P auls en h as s aid Th ere i s ,

to d ay p ro b ably n o t a m et aphysici a n who b eli ev es th a t

-

h e h as th e key to unlock th e myst eri es o f th e w o rld .

But for all th at I think w e do well t o r em ind o u r s elves

, ,

th at w h en we think w e h av e d o n e with m et aph y s ic s we

, ,

arewh eth er w e u n d er s t a nd it or n o t
h avi n g d o n e w ith
D eit y .

N or c an a ny thoroughgoing m et a physic d o without

th eo l o gy as its touchsto n e and s uppo r t ev en th ou gh th e
, ,

n eed exi s ts in no s ervil e fashi o n or unduly d ep endent

fo rm It must as m et aphysic d eal with th e realit y of
.
, ,

thing s as mirror ed in thought but if th at which th eo l o gy

2 88 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

t each es is tru e m et aphy s ic al t r uth c a nn o t b e un affect ed

,

by it For m et a phy s ics must s eek th e whol e truth dis

.

coverabl e by and in exp er i enc e M et aphysic al treat

, , .

m ent h as in lik e m ann er i ts own p eculi ar light to Sh ed

, ,

o n t h e b asa l p ro bl e ms o f th eo logy Th e p r obl em o f .

m et a phy s ics is found in th e wo r ld o p en ed to ou r vi ew

by th e v ast an d v ar i ed co n s t ructiv e a ctivity involved in
e xp er i e nc e O f th at a ctivity in i ts wh o l e ra n ge or ext ent
.

m et aphy s ics i s c r itic al It is co n c ern ed with th e tot al

.

sum o f exp er i enc e n o t m er ely individu al experi enc e

, .

Fo r it emb rac es al l b eing an d kn o wing ontol ogy and

epi s t em olo gy a n d a compl et e th eo ry o f exp eri enc e
i n th e sen s e j ust indic a t ed would m ea n a m et aphy s ic
th at s hould be p erfect M et aphy s ic al knowl edg e aims
.

at reality as th at i s given to us i n o ut er an d
, inner
e xp eri enc e ; it w ant s not o nly coh er ent syst em but ,

truth .

Exp er i ence m ar ks th e limit s o f s ci entic kn owledge .

M et aphysic s gr asps th e inn er es senc e of reality th e l ast ,

g ro und Of b e i n g B e i n g m a
y
. b e o n e o r m a ny m ay be
found in th e Real o r in th e I deal T h e m et aphysical .

vi ew o f th e wor ld which c o mp reh end s th e wo r ld of

,

b eco m ing a l s o t akes v arious fo rm s M et aphysics s eeks

, .

a c o nn ection with t h e Whol e an d th e unity of th e I deal ,

a n d th e Real M et aphys ic s must n eeds be a m et aphysic

.

Of Spirit n o l ess th an of N atu re for reality i s a uni ed ,

whole I t is fo r m et a physic al s ci enc e to Show wh erein

.

r eality as Whol e h as its n al g r ound Sp ecul ative .

t h o u ght as serts th at th ere is such a Whole W e c all .

it Id ea : Reason d em ands this All n es s th e Wh ole -

.

Th e m et aphysic al ne ed n ow is to keep th e Whol e in

29 0 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

Th e Ol d t ro ublou s c at eg ory of s ub s t ance h as h ad

an d

its t r uth t r an s fer red to th e conc eption of self activity -

as funda m en tal fact Thi s s elf activity i s n o ar ch

.
-

j uggl er I t is th e m et aphysic al a n sw er o f to d ay to
.
-

th e o l d qu eri es a s to D i ng an si ch B ei n g or S ub s t a nce- -
, ,
.

This j u s t m ean s a ctivity which c arr i es its p r im al i m

pul se i n i ts o wn bos o m N o t Ka nt al o n e but also
.
,

Ficht e S ch op enh au er an d H ar t m ann each in h i s own

, , ,

w ay h ad s o m e s en s e o f th e impli e d t r uth which is

, ,

s imply th a t o f th e indi s solubl e c o nn ecti o n of th e inn er

a ctu al self with t h e ext er ior an d ess enti al .

Thi s n otio n of s ub s t anc e i s s i m ply fundam ent al in o ur

c o gnitiv e exp eri ence I t Sp r i n gs up in exp er i ence every
.

ti m e my s elf a ctivity is inhibit ed by a nything wh ats oever

- .

I t is but th e i n evit abl e m a king r ea l of th at whi ch I m ust

so int er pret in t er m s o f my rea l s elf I t i s thu s an ulti .

m at e in exp eri ence b ey o nd or b ehind which yo u ca nn ot

,

fu rth er go An d wh en th o ught p ass es up to high er

.
,

m att ers th ere to o o n e m ay nd pl ac e an d roo m for the

,

noti o n o f s ub st a nce i n a conception ofth e Wor ld Ground -

s o sought Thus th e Arist o t eli an doctri n e of subst ance

.

a s a self a ctiv e p r i n cipl e

-
though n ot with o ut its s hort
,

coming s is a really philosophic al o n e D escar tes an d

, .

Spinoza b o th m i ssed it ; not so L eibniz wh e n h e sought ,

t o r es t o r e dyn amic c at eg o r i es for th e st atic r el ations in

which th es e thi n kers h ad left m att ers W e c an ev en .

o v erp as s A r i s t o t eli a n insight a n d r is e fr o m subj ectiv e,

int elligenc e to th e en ergy o f s elf conscious p ers on ality

wh en we as c end to th e id ea of th e Absolut e Per s onality .

I n such w ay s we r et ain th e n o tion Of sub s t a nc e r ather ,

th an ux or stream of b eing while we at th e s am e tim e ,

.
 M E T A P H Y S I CA L D E V E LO P M E N T S OF OU R T IM E . 29 1

v id th e S p i n oz an c o nc epti o n o f its kal ei d OSCO p i cal l y

a o

C h anging p erfor m a nces which yet c o uld n ot prov e

,

gr o und of a r eal y et adv ancing d ev elopm ent But .

th e subst a nc e conception h as thus yi elded to th at Of

spir it .

B ut we ar e not don e with di fculti es No s o o n er do .

w e try to d et ermin e th e Abs o lut e a s Ab so lut e S pi r it th an

we c ar ry o v er to this conc eption of th e Absolut e th e
a n al o gy of th e hum a n life o f s pirit But in thi s we c o m e
.

o nly to a n al o gi e s of c o nsci o u s n es s a n d t h e a dv a nc e o f
,

thinking th e Abs o lut e in an abs o lut e w ay rem ains actu ally

un f ul ll ed u n f o r m et a phy s ic s a s ex a ct sci e nc e
ul l l e d f .

S pi r it i s in us a unity of th e m an ifold a nd i s th e a n
, , ,

ti th es i s Of m ech a nism W e by vir tu e of o ur i n d ep end

.
,

en c e, are ex alt ed a b o v e t h e ch a nging m anifoldn es s o f

o u r life o f rep res ent ati o n So G o d r ul es th e wo rld an d
.
,

is ex alt ed abov e it Wh a t m et aphy s ic do es i s to d et er

min e th e c o ncept of th e Ab s olut e
.

th e Uncondition ed o r

Ab s olut e B eing aft er Tim e Sp a ce an d C ausality and , , ,

to r ais e it s elf th r o ugh C au s ality Sp ac e an d Tim e to

, , , ,

t h e id ea o f unity a n d o f th e whol e o f th e innit e and ,

th e et er n a l .

I t is this unity which fo rms th e b as is o f s p ecul a ti on .

T h e qu es ti o n o fth e es se nc e and th e qu a lity o fth e Et er n a l

B eing is indeed th e qu es tion T h e Et er n al B eing must .

be n ot o nly o rigin a l a n d n ec es s ar y it m ust als o r em a in ,

wh at it isan ess enc e a self existing essenc e T h e Spi r it

,
-
.

of thi s ess enc e i s th e Absolut e S pirit So m et aphysics .

,

as a sci e nc e of t h e Abs o lut e h as th e n eed to s eek to

,

present so far as it c an an Absolut e as g ro und of th e

possibility of all su bj ectiv e and obj ectiv e b ei ng
, ,

as ind eed z
29 2 STU D IE S I N E U RO P EA N P H I LO SO P H Y .

th e high est al l embracing subj ective o bj ective p rincipl e

,
-
,
- .

A real God wh o m ak es His exi s t ence k n own in concret e

m a nifest ations sta nd s in n o kind o f contr adicti o n to th e
id ea of a wo rld gro undin g p rincipl e T h e id ea of an
- .

ab s olut e unity is d et ermi n ed in its elf without as yet a ,

concr et e to b e repr esent ed S uch an Absolut e as this

.

involv es is but exist enti al count erp art of th e unity o f

exp er i enc e
, a n d o nly in cou r s e of m et aphysic al inquiry

i s its n ature d et er m in ed a s r eal o r c aus al o r p er son al

, ,
.

T h e ess en c e which r ep res ents this abs o lut e unity must

in th e end b e pers on al So w e und ers tand th e w orld
.

grounding p r incipl e M et aphysics app reh ends this p rin

.

c i p l e only as an o r igin al unity only as s elf conscious

,
-

unity which i s th e et er n al an d prim al c aus e of al l con

,

sc i o usn ess
. A S chop enh au er rep resents this unity as for ,

him th e c o nc ret e m o ni s m r epr es ent ed by Absolut e Will

a L o tz e c o nc eiv es t h e u n ity in a w ay which h as b een

blam ed fo r b ei n g m uch too a bstra ctth e inn er essence

of th e unity not b eing d e ned und er th e form of th e
Abs olute Pers o n ality .

I t m ay v ery w ell b e as k ed wh eth er w e c a n r eally think

a nything m o r e c o nc ret e or m or e r easo n abl e und er th e

n oti o n o f Abs o lut e Will th an und er th e conc eption of

Ab so lut e Person alitya wo r ld infor ming Per s o n Wh at
-
.

i s n eed ed is th a t w e p ress b ey o nd th e m et aphysics of

,

s elf c onsciousn es s in D eity to th e m et aphys ics of th e

e t ern al ethic al es s e nc e of God th e c ent ral P erson ality
, ,

W h o i s real an d univ ers al g r ound of possibility to al l

b eings an d things I n such an absolut en es s of D eity I
.

nd th e obj ective of my b eing and thought I t ake such .

Absolute to be gr ound of all unity root of al l b eing and , ,

2 94 STU D I E S I N E U RO PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

Absolute can be for me no unknowabl e thing i n -

its elf fo r th at were an impossibl e and contr adict ory

,

conc epti o n .

A gl ance at th e H ist o ry o f M et aphy s ics will Show how

far fro m eas y is t h e t a s k o fwhich w e h av e Sp o k e n at such
l ength T h e w eighti es t t as k Of th e pres ent consist s in
.

th e d et er m in ati o n o f th e I nnit e but th e conc eption of

,

th e r ea ll y ei c i ent which we to d ay h av e m ed i at ed o nly

-
,

th ro ugh C au sality s pr in gs fr o m wh at affects th e hum an

,

mind This conc eption will always m ea n an imp erfect

.

o n e as to t h e e ss enc e o f G o d but on e by no m eans

,

fund a m ent ally fals e If o n e thinks o f God as p erfectly

.

un rel at ed to th e individu al an d quit e i so l at ed from th e

,

hum an subj ect o n e h as a funda m e nt ally fals e concepti o n

,

o fG o d But it i s impossible to app re h end th e essen c e

.

o f G o d i n such a fashi o n M et aphysics s ay s Ko en ig
.
, ,

s eek s to b r ing r eality to absolut e c o nc epti o ns whil e th e ,

conc ret e s ci e nc es cont e nt th em s elv es with no ti o ns rel a

t i vel y p er f
ect Yet t h e m et aphysici a n will not hold hi s
.

ow n positions to be absolut e t r uths for h e knows th at ,

th ese m u s t b ecom e modi ed by l at er insights of th e

und ers t anding Thi s do e s not d r iv e us to Br adl ey s
.

crit er i o n o fth e t ruthn a m ely s elf c o n s i s t e ncyan d does

,
-

not b r ing us to tr eat truth as o ne o f th e things th at i s to ,

s ay a pp ear a nc es which m o re o r l es s e xi s t
, But it will
m ake us feel th at th e absolut e t r uth i s with Go dis
.
,

His .

K a nt c all ed m et aphysic s th e sci e nc e which adv anc es

from th e knowl edg e of th e s en s ibl e to th e knowledg e of
th e s up er s e nsibl e by m eans o f r eas on Reason d em ands .

th e Whol e but r eason do es not d em a nd fo rm an d unity

,
 M E T AP H Y S I CA L D E V E L O PM E N T S O F O U R T IM E . 29 5

h e r e m atter an d m anifoldn ess th ere I t d em ands th e

, .

clos ed h armoni o u s Whole while th e p rinciple o f unity

, ,

p erp etu ally rul es M et aphys ic s h o lds th e Ofce o fc enso r

.

in th e kingd o m Of th e sci enc es T h e sci en tic interest

.

culmin at es in th e m et aphysic al int er es t to which a ,

unit a ry conc eption of th e wo r ld is n eces s ary This .

m et aphysical int er est h as b een n eedles s ly confound ed

with th at which is r eligious by D r E C a i r d an d oth er s
. .

T h e m et aphy s ics Of C r itici s m t ea ch es u s to app reh end

th e wo r ld a n d al l its p r oduct s a s app eara nc es th a t is to ,

say , m ere repr es ent ati o ns K ant was cont ent ed with
.

sci entic inv estig ation a nd rep res ent ation Of th e know
l edge of exp er i enc e an d gav e n o d o ubt an impuls e to
, , ,

science in th e n arrow s ense o f th e t erm B ut o n .

,

B radl ey s crit erion al l exp er i ence mu s t p r ove its elf

,

un real Br adl ey h as n o s atisfacto ry solution to giv e o f

.

th e probl em h o w d egr ees o f r e ality are p o s s ibl e how ,

wh at is n o t r ea lh as o n ly m ore o r l es s realityfall s int o

th e kingd o m o f r ea lity .With B r adl ey n o individu al ,

mom ent of exp er i en c e i s in its elf real All reality co n .

si st s in psychic exp er i ence an d t h e r el ativ e i s o n ly real

,

in th e m eas ur e in which it i s a bsolut e Dr s Br adley an d

.

E C ai rd c ann o t b e s aid to s o lv e th e m et a phy sic a l

.

problem at al l Fo r th e di fculty re m ains wh erein th e

.
,

difference b etw een th e deg rees o f r eality con s i s t s an d ,

h o w thi s differ enc e is in g e n era l to b e appr eh ended .

From s h a ll o w p a nth ei s m and u ndiffer enti at ed unity

w e a re n ot y et d eliver ed .

T h e cont empt o f m et a physics s o c o m m o n in our tim e

we c an n eith er s h are n o r excus e W e see in th e tra n
.

s c en den t a d o m ain of a biding hypoth es es Th es e hypo .

296 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

th es es are sci entically n eces s ary I n th ei r right use .

an d pr o po r ti o n a l v alu ati o n we c atch sight o f th e e s s e nc e

o f sci entic m o d es o f vi ew T h e d es pis ers o f m et a

.

physic s i n th e i n t er es t o f s ci e nc e s ee in th e completion
o fexp er i enc e which m et a phy s ic o ffers n o thing but m ere

s ubj ectiv e pl ay with o ut v alu e in fact an altogeth er
,

purp os el es s yea fo o li s h v entu re
, , Fo r to th em th e
.

r a ti o n alisi n g o f exp er i enc e i s th e en d n eith er of s ci enc e

n or of phil os o phy . T o th em sci enc e i s o nly th e on e

si d ed m ech a nic al i n qui ry i n to n atu re Th ey do not
.

p erceiv e how i m po ss ibl e it i s fo r hum a n thinking to st o p

a t t h e sci entic ally known with o ut pr es s ing on to an
,

int er est in th e wh o lei n th e conn ecti o n of things Th ey .

t ake it for th e t ask Of sci enc e to m easur e not to v alu e ,

to disco v er not to expl ain But a m et aphysic al vi ew of

, .

t h e w o rld s ee k s t o expl ain o r to r ation ali se it And yet .

o ur m et aphysics mu s t n ot w ea r a too r ation alistic ch ar

a ct er f
, o r m a n n o t o nly e nj o ys r easo n but is r el at ed to

t h e high er ord er o f things by virtu e o f th at p eculi arly

qu ali ed m et aphysica l el em ent or p art of his b eing which

we c all th e s pir it . T h e m et aphy s ic al c o mpl etion of
exp er i enc e ari ses o u t of th e probl em o f th e unity o f th e

w orld Th e en d o f th e s ci entic m eth o d is n o t a d et er

.

min at e p ers on al r el ation to things but th e knowl edg e of

,

th ei r ground an d co nn ection M et aphy s ics d et er min es

.

th e l as t g r ound o f th e world c o nn e ction as spirit

-
But .

th e Ab so lut e Spirit is not a m erely abstr a ct monistic

p r incipl e It is not n ec essary th at m et a physic solve th e

.

difference b etween spirit and n atur e in an a bst ract unity .

To m et aphys ics th e wo rld conn ection is th at of th e

,
-

wo rld of imm an ent spirit But this is not to break down

.
29 8 S TU D IE S I N E U R O PE A N P H I LO S O P H Y .

a dv ances with every ascent of hum an cultur e an d h as ,

for its pr esupposition th at w o rld knowl edg e consists not -

o fp arts th at cont r adict ea ch o th er Wh at divides m et a .

physic s fro m th e o th er s ci e nc es is n ot its m eth o d but ,

o n ly th e univ ers ality o f i ts t as k Fo r m et aphysic s is .

ind eed a sci en ce an d th e crown of all sci ences But it

,
.

is not s ci enc e in th e s am e sen se as th e p articul ar

,

sci ences I t i s th e inquiry aft er th e Real T h e gr eat est

. .

s ci entic p erfo rm a nc es o we th eir o rigin to this sp ec u

l ativ e activity o f r eas o n N atur al s ci ence is a di s cipline

.

o f hyp o th es es Th e divin at or y el em ent of inquiry rules

.

in th e hyp o th es i s a nd j ust th r ough such hypoth es es

thr o ugh th at i s to s ay s p ecul ativ e thoughtc o m es to
,

, ,

things n ew and radi a nt light T h e sp eculative m eth od .

,

p r op er ly conc eiv ed i s r el at ed to exp er i enc e O nly in

exp er i enc e a s a whol e o nly in th e Absolut e it self
.
,

is
full r eality to be found .

T h e Abs o lut e i s t h e tot ality of b eing Buss e properly .

s ays ,

T h e Ab s o lut e c a nn o t b e t h e Abs o lut e c an n ot , ,

th at i s b e th e t o t ality of al l th e r eal with o ut i ts co nt ent

, , ,

as th e tot ality of al l t h e r eal b e ing p er c eiv ed an d with

, ,

out th e t o t ality o f all th e real b eing p erceived as i ts

c o nt ent . Thought i s but it do es n ot exh au s t reality
, .

Thought is reality but no t th e Ab s olut e T h e weighti est

, .

truths in th e sci enc es of N atur e are reach ed through

thinking exp eri enc e W e h av e th e sci enc es o f N atur e
.

an d th o s e o f S pirit and w e p erc eiv e th at in th e c o urs e

,

of tim e th ey must r ealis e th e o ne sci ence For al l t r uth .

is ultim at ely o ne W e would ev en kno w God Who

.
, ,

absolut ely t ak e n is th e o nly r eal Man is not only an

, .

individu al but a s elf conscious individu al a p erson

,
-
.
 M E T A P H Y S I C AL D E VE L O P M E N T S OF OU R T IM E . 29 9

Th e s elfh o o d of th e individu al will is r eal T h e Abs o lut e .

an d th e individu a l are a t b as e an d b o tt o m o n e Re al .

unity h as in o ur m et aphy s ic al vi ews not b een reach ed

, , ,

but monism is an und o ubt ed m et aphysic al a dv ance .

M onism m ay b e t ak en to b e a n ec essity o fth o ught B ut .

th e u nity so sought is n ot o n e th at com es Of effacing

d eep or ev en b as al differen c es but m er ely a unity th at

,

runs b ack into id entity o fsourc e o r on en es s o fo rigin ative

Rea lity

T h e whol e d em a nd o f th e hum a n spi r it is for such a

unity as spiritu al m onis m i m pli es and con sequ ently a ,

ration a l m et aphysic will C l eav e t o a S pi r itu a li s tic th e o r y

o f r eality So m e ki n d o f a u nity th e b eing o f th e w o r ld

.

mu s t r em ain for usa unity res embling th at o f th e s elf .

Reas o n i e th e c at eg or i es in th eir entir ety is wh a t o u r

, . .
, ,

philosophy o f n atu re mu s t expl ai n T h e unity a mid al l

.

th e m a nifo ldn es s o f s ci entic for m s o f life a n d oth e r

ph enom en a is nothing but th e u n ity of id eas o r o f th e

thinking self S uch a des i re fo r u n ity i s without d o ubt
.
, ,

th e m a st er impuls e of m o d er n th o ught But thi s m ea ns .

so m ething v er y dif fer ent fro m th e monism o f H aeck el ,

w h o h as n o t in fa ct r ea ch ed a s t r ictly m o nistic d o ct r in e
, ,
.

T h e att ra ctiv en ess of h i s th eory li es in its a pp a r ent c o n

grui ty whil e wh at re ally h app en s i s th a t th e p h i l o s o

,

ph i c al kingd o m i s t ak en by viol ence a n d att r ibut es m os t

divers e in ch aract er are for ced t o g eth er an d d eclared
co rr el ativ e as p ects or s id es of o n e thing T h e th eor y .

p ractic ally t a kes s enti enc e o r m at er i ality as th ey exist ,

in us an d puzzl e u s and ro u nd s o n u s by t elling us w e

,

shall nd th ese c o existing in every cell an d m o l ecul e

-
,

wh er e th ey are but sid es o r aspects of o ne thing AS if .

3 00 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H IL O SO P H Y .

this new mod e of st ating th e c as e wer e an expl an ation

o f it !

I do not t a ke th e conc eption o f ext e nd ed subst a nc e to

b e fund am ent a l in m o ni s m Ext ension S pinoza forgot
.
, ,

is to o subj ectiv e a qu ality to b e er ect ed into an inde

p enden t att r ibut e ap ar t from experi ence T h e unitary .

ch ara ct er o f b eing we cann o t esc ap e p o s tulating as we , ,

d o abs o lut e s pi r it as th e s elf exi s t e nt principl e of al l

,
-

things Th ere is nothing i rration al in th e suppositi o n

.

of a spiritu al subst ratum a continuous p er m an ent , ,

unit ary s o ul s ub s t a nc e distinct fr om an d high er th an th e

-
,

physical o rg anism but co rel at ed and int er acting with it

,
-

i n fact s uch a suppositi o n is th e most r ational we

,

know T h e fa ct is soul is i m p o ssibl e to o ur knowledge

.
,

s av e as a r eali s ati o n o f spi r itu al pot ency a n d such reali ,

s ati o n must b e r o o t ed in a n imm an e nt s piritu a l principl e

as i t s wo r ld g ro u n d-
Thus th e du ali s tic pro ce s s b ecom es
.

t ra n s c end ed and receiv es n al expr es s ion in t er ms of

,

s o ul o r spi r it .

Th e t r uth i s s ci entic m o ni s m to d ay n o t only p er sists

,
-

in m aking th e p s ychic al d ep end o n th e physic al but is so ,

r adic ally l acking in epi s t em olo gic al und erst anding as to

m a k e m att er i ts ultim at e r ath er th a n mind o r conscious
n es s I t str angely fa il s to s ee th at in m aking mind
.
,

depend o n m att er r ath er th a n cr eat e i t as I dealism

fund am ent ally a ss ert si t b ar s its ow n way to th e
m o ni s m it d esir es to r ea ch I t must stoop to p ass
.

through th e lowly g at ew ay o f epist emological sci ence ,

a n d s o l earn th at m an knows al l h e do es only in th e

m edium of c o nsciousn ess his knowl edg e moving always

,

within th e s ph ere of hum an thoughts and id eas I n its .

3 02 STU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

in order to do this we must s eek H im and const antly

,

a dv ance in the knowl edg e a n d living conception of Him .

The fuln ess an d th e fullm en t o f thought is God He is .

th e whole p o ssibility o f th o ught H e is also the entire

.

fulnes s o f p o ssibl e b eing G o d is a r eal indivisible and

.
, ,

sole ess enceth e w h o l e fuln ess of thought His unity .

must b e perfect Go d al o n e i s O n e ; with this O ne we

.

can rst b egin to spea k o f b eing It n eed n ot be d enied

.
,

though we are Sp ea king o f th e Absolut e th at th ere is a ,

s ens e in which our Absolut e i s r el ative E ach age or .

st age nds its o wn Ab s olut e fo rms th at is its own , ,

id eal or concepti o n of th e Absolut e which is in this , ,

sens e r el ative
, .

Although w e c an nd n o s uch p erfect essence as ,

thought is n ec ess it at ed to think in r eality yet the , ,

thought of th e most real ess en ce o f al l proceeds from

wh at is empirically giv en S ays Thi el e
. N ot only the ,

philosophy of an A r ist o tl e o r a K ant o r a Herb art but

, , ,

al so th at o f a Pl ato o r a Ficht e o r a Heg el r ests n ally

, , ,

on wh at is empirically giv e n O u r m ethod of inquiry is

.

th e synth etic which is s o v a lu abl e and indisp ens able f

, or

th e knowl edge O f rea l ev ents T h e m et aphysical inter

.

pretati on a nd working up of th e in n er and outer facts of

exp eri ence will give a conc epti o n of th e world and its

connection in which subj ect an d obj ect thought and

, ,

b eing spirit and n atu re p r es ent a unity and in this

, , , ,

unity th e ess ence o f th e world

, S uch a u nity met a
.

physical thought mu s t s eek T h e m et aphysical vi ew of

.

the world s ees th e giv en w orld not m er ely from th e,

standpoint of scientic m ethod but d em ands for the, ,

s etting forth of th e d eep est e ss enc e o f th e world the ,

 M E TA P H Y SI C AL D E VE LO P M E N T S OF O U R T IM E .
303

a cknowl edgm ent o fa D ivin e Wo r ld Gr o und God is th e -

.

First an d H e giv es to every thing its t r u e full worth

, , .

I n His ess enc e in His unity we must nd th e fuln ess o f

, ,

th o ught an d p erfecti o n its elf .

Not th at th e hum a n will is identic al with t h e D ivin e ,

but th at with plur alism w e must unite monism for ,

plu ralism pos sess es n o t th e s am e wo rth o f r eality as do es

m o ni s m L otz ean d o ctrin e j oins a real plu r alism to a
. .

d eep er monism M an is fr ee Fr ee will i s pluralistic

. .
-
.

But free will must be c o nn ect ed with th e c o nc eption of a

-

t heodicy an d this l as t is m o nistic M or ality d em a nds

an ethic a l en d
.
,

a G o d ; an d it i s quit e evid ent th at G od

c an not be o rigin at o r o f s i n M an i s a c au se but God as

.

Absolut e C aus ality is tru e c aus e o fal l b eingth e c au se of

,

all c au s es t h e soul o f al l souls

, But yet th e will i s fr ee .
,

a nd our s elfhood is n o t m ere app eara nc e Ev ery free .

a ction is fr uit ont o lo gically of r eason an d will o f

, ,

r eas on s purpos e an d will s en ergy T h e info r ming

.

power of c reativ e reas o n alon e d et er min es will a nd to ,

d eny lib erty is to n egat e will God is fr ee and unbound .

,

but God in H i s a ction m ak es H ims elf d ep end ent on

hum an r el ation o r b eh avi o ur Yet G o d h as H is own .

life.

T h e puzzl e h as b een s a id to b e th e mode o f an activity

s o pur e s elf c o nsci o us
,
a n d fr ee not its r ea lity
-
, I f th e , .

mode of it b e inconceiv abl e we are told th ere i s an ,

e n d to it as a so luti o n But is not thi s an ext rao r d in ary

.

attitud e to as s u m e ? D o w e t reat al l ultim at es in s uch a

fashi o n ? For w e are h ere d ealing with an ultim at e ,

s uch pur e fr ee s elf activity b eing but o ur p res ent d ay

,
- -

equiv al ent f o r th e thinking subst a nc e o f D esc art es a n d ,

3 04 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

th e t urns of Aristotl e Wh at indeed are ultim ates

actus

but j ust facts th e m o s t illumin ating fa cts

.

whose modes
we yet may no t kn o w ? A Spiritu alistic monism is
certainly w arr ant ed in m a int aining th at there is only one
principl e of b eing ev en th at p r im al fo r m of s elf activity
,
-

which we h ave postula te d N eith er religious thought

.

nor tru e m et aphys ic m ust fo r a m om e nt falt er in cl aiming

for God all th e p o s sibiliti e s so involv ed in Absolute
Person ality worki n g in per fect freedom
, Philosophy .

and r eligion are b o th fatuous a n d blind if th ey do not ,

see th at j ust up o n th e b as i s o f s uch divin e possibilities

must rest th e who l e r eligi o u s sup erstructur e of fact ,

doctrin e and id eal

,
.

Philosophy for all th at h as n ow b een s aid j oins with

, ,

religion in m aint a ining th at no m ere B eing of tr anscend

ent ord er is su f ci ent to set up r eligion for us Such a .

B eing h as not yet w orth or v alu e for us So com es it .

th at by His spi r itu a l p ower an d wo r king He must enter

, ,

into r eal r el ation with us A high er world H e s ets up

.

within th e world w e see a nd above al l within th e life

, , ,

ofm an Bradl ey inveighs a ga i n s t an empty transcend

.

enc e but wh at transcend ence c an be more empty th an
,

th at h e h as l eft him self aft er r educing th e world of ap
p earanc e to illu s ion ? But again by oth ers it is s aid , ,

such transcendence as th ere is i s only an inference from ,

imm an ence a n d so is a s econd ary consider ation
, .

N ow no doubt G od p erv ad es th e univ ers e as we know

, ,

it B ut by wh at right s h all w e m ake imm anence r ath er

.
, ,

th an tr anscend enc e th e real not e o f th e D ivine relation

,

ship ? By wh at right sh all we m ake events o f one order

eu order deriving from D ivine n ecessity ? B ecause
3 06 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H ILO SO P H Y .

not keep us from distinguishing Him from th e univers e ,

an d m aint aining f or H im as s upr amund a n e a nd s elf

,

exi s ting subj e ct an exist enc e in and for Hims elf

,
Till .

th en H e is n o t God
, .

T h e religious consciousn ess r end er s h er e in o ur vi ew , ,

th e high est servic e t o w ards th e cl ar ifyin g of phil o sophical

th o ught wh en it s h ow s how much th e r eligi o us interest

,

owes to thi s v ery tra n s cende nce o f D eity ; sinc e it is in

th e c easel es s int er a ction o fimm an enc e a n d tr a nsc endence

th at o ur s piritu al life b ecom es ll ed with its d eep est and

rich est c o nt en ts And ind eed w e ask M ust we c ast th e
.
, , ,

r eligi o u s con s ciousn ess into th e abyss a s th e p r ic e we ,

p ay for imm a n enc e ? S uch a proc edur e is not in th e lin e

o f o ur philosophy Tr u e m et aphysic m ak es no such
.

d em and wh en most tru e to its own p r inciples The

,
.

t ruth i s a s uppl e m enti n g or compl eting of o n e sidedness

,
-

is h ere th e r eal n eed Tim e w as wh en in O r iental

.
,

th o ught transcend ence assum ed ov erb al ancing p ropor

,

tions an d th e w or ld side r eced ed ; whil e th e s am e r esult

,

h app en ed to O ccid ent al th o ught but in l ess th eoretic and ,

m o re p ractic al fo r m .

But n ow w e see imm a n ence ov er b alancing alik e on ,

th e sid es o f man a n d o f th e w or ld ; whil e th e D ivine

is s hunt ed always m o re Wh at is really n eedful and .

p er fectly pr actic abl e i s to do j u s tice to both these

,

m om ent s o r to s ee k out s o m e high er conscious unity

,

which Sh all m ean th e h arm o ny or ag reem ent of both .

G o d mu s t not b e r educ ed to compl et e s ubs ervi ence to

a sci entic conc epti o n of His rel ati o n to the universe ,

in which fr ee and exc eption al initi ativ e sh all be d eni ed

Him .
M E TA P H Y S I C AL D E V E LO P M E N T S OF OU R T IM E .
3 07

O n th e qu estion of th e futu re life m et a phy s ics d ecl a res ,

a sci entic ally demonstrabl e kn o wl edg e o fits n e c es s ity to

be by no m ea n s possibl e but ass erts it to b e a reas o n abl e

,

b eli ef This faith is no en emy which s p ecul ativ e thought

.

h as to comb at and conqu er O n e d efends th e fa ith in i m .

mort ality m et aphysic ally through th e proof which springs

out of th e singl en ess or s implicity and imm at eri ality of
th e soul This argum ent n o m et aphysic c an d est r oy
.

Go eth e s word K ein We s e n k ann z u N ichts zerfalle n

, ,

h as b ec o m e an axiom If o n e tri es to g r as p s pirit as the

.

n est sublim at e of th e corporeal org anis ation why should ,

Spi r it go und er ? The Et ern al Spirit o f th e univers e

expr ess es its own innit e life in o ur countl es s immort ali

ti es Th ei stically th e lov e th at is in D eity knows no

.
,

limit to th e liv es it must n eed s endo w with th e cap acity

to l ov e T h e imm edi at e philosophic ally gr ound ed con
.

s equ ence of th e faith in im m ort ality is th e hypoth es is o r

accept a nc e of a n ew wo r ld Per s on al b eing as Eucken
.
,

r ightly s ays is n ot a m er e appropri ation of a given
,

wo rld but it is the expr ession and breaking through o f a

,

n ew world n ew within th e life of th e Spi r it S pin o za s

.
,

et er nity of t h e mind w as l acking in individu al el em e nts .

T o H eg el immort ality w as but th e v agu e id ea l possibility

,

ofthought to et ernity m ea nt th at i s to s ay th e et er nity

, , ,

ofth o ught But this immor ta lity h as found n eith er s elf

.

consci o u s p erson ality nor s elf conscious a ctu al thought - .

W e h av e n eed to think our es s enc e as b eing Also to .

,

distinguish o ur b eing as tr ansi ent fr o m an unknown

, , ,

absolut ely non tr a n s i ent ess enc e

- Yet we mu s t also .

r equi re th e positiv e striving aft er ideal p er fection in th e ,

consciousn ess o f th e innite worth of th e hum an p erson

308 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I LO SO P H Y .

a lity T h e h O pe of immo rt ality ind eed enj oys a p os ition

.

of solid ar ity with th e b eli ef i n G o d Finit e b eings as we .

are w e are uniqu e an d individu a l in o ur di f

, ferenc es and ,

thi s uniqu e an d nit e individu ality must run on into

G o d s et ern al pu rpos e

T h e individu ality
. which is ,

es s enti al to o ur p r es ent a n d purp o s e ful lives nds and , ,

o nly can nd its full a n d p er fe ct scop e in a life linked to

,

God wh o se m eaning is g enuin ely continuous with th at

,

o f o ur p rese nt life I t i s i n virtu e of i ts uni o n a n d c om

.

muni o n with God th at our life nds individu al and

immo rt al expr es s ion Th e univ er s e its elf as n ot d evoid
.
,

of m eaning moves in its en er gi es to a spiritu al g oal com

,

m ensur at e with its st r uggl e an d t rav ail .

W e c ann o t escap e b eli ef in th e p ersist enc e an d per

m an en c e o f th e s o ul M etaphy s ical thought regar ds the
.

future life as n ot o th er th an th e life th at now is ; h ere and

no w et ern al life is ours in th e mid s t of tim e I n and
, .

through th e life th at i s w e know th e life th at i s to com e

, .

I t i s thus much m or e sur e and real to us th a n its m er e

r ev el ati o n to us fr om with o ut w o uld h av e m ad e it It .

weak ens non e o f th e ground s of our b eli ef th at there is

a m et aphy s ic which tr eats th e b eli ef as a chim er a .

Fashion er o f our fram e and Fath er of our spirit in God

, , ,

a s s o r el at e d to us w e h av e th e gro und of all our hop e of

,

imm ort ality O ur kn o wledge o f th at life m ay b e small ;

.

our vi s ion of its pos s ibiliti es m ay b e dim ; but such

knowl edge is ours as may b e ad equ at e for this life and ,

we are n ot God To our knowl edg e we add a sure and

.

strong outreaching hop e whos e light of immort ality ,

glows and burns within us th e mor e brightly as we m ak e

th e life mor e abundant our own I n this ende avou r .
3 10 STU D I E S I N E U RO P EA N P H IL O SO P H Y .

for contradicti o ns an d h alf truths Yet hi s singularly -

.

sh arp and ecl ectic mind h as en r ich ed thought with much

th at m akes for m etaphysic al progr ess I t is th e m et a .

physical n eed o f our t im e to bring such syst em atis ed

truth to h ar m o ny which it will do by pu rging o ut the
,

l eav en of contr adicti o n g arn er ing th e truth amid obscu

,

t iti es o f th o ught an d s etting it in consi s t ent a n d h armo

,

nio ns r el ati o n s H is vi ews on s uch m att er s as monism

.
,

fr eedom imm a n en ce th e s o ul s elf consciou s n ess sub

, , ,
-
,

st ance th e individu al th e on e an d th e m a ny are am o ng

, , ,

th e num er o us p o ints o n which his thought s till d es erves

att enti o n 0 1 t ak e th e r ec ent m et aphysic s o f B ergson

. .

His th eori es of m em ory instinct p er so n ality mind and

, , ,

body tim e abst ract an d tim e actu ally p ass ed r eality or

, ,

exist enc e a s a ctivity i n ev o lving life th e n atur e an d vit al ,

functions o f int elligenc e sp atial unr eality & c suggest

, , .
,

points of vi ew worth c o nsid er ati o n but Op en to qu esti o n ,

as too abstr a ct at tim es li berty ) too psych o logical , ,

too littl e ethic al .

Fr om th ese inqui r i es and scruti n i es th er e must eventu

ally accru e gr ea t g a in both to philosophy and th eology ,

an d th e n eed a bid es th at th ey b e pursu ed with e nthusi asm

and tho r oughn es s bo r n o f full b eli ef in th ei r v alu e The .

fact is being always m o r e recognis ed th at th e n eed is for

a m et aphysic th at sh all b e empi r ic ally w ell ground ed an d ,

s t eadily r ear i t s s up ers t r uctur e o n b asis o f fact I n spite .

of th e un m et aphysical spirit which to d ay m akes m et a -

physic s a disciplin e d es pi sed an d r ej ect ed of m en we ,

must hold fas t in m ore pu rely factu al w ays to th e att ain

, ,

m ent o f m et aphysic al conclu s ion s For though th ere are .

th e signs of quick en ed int er est indic at ed at th e b eginning

M E TA P H Y S I C AL D E V E LO P M E N T S O F OU R T IM E .
31 1

of this ch apt er sti ll it must not be forgott en th at ev en in

,

G erm any cl assic l and of m et aphysic al th o ught m et a

, ,

physic al sp ecul ation is to d ay r ath er mo re l anguid th an

-

it should be an d th e s am e is yet mor e tru e o f count r i es

,

like Fr anc e Sp ain H oll and and I t aly T h e r eviv ed

, , ,
.

m et aphysic al int er est ofBritain an d Am eric a is th e mo re

surprising s inc e abst r u se m et aphysic al thought com es
,

not so n aturally to th es e co untri es so d eeply imm ers ed ,

in concer ns of th e pr actical life Great n eed r em ains

.

th at p r op erly m et aphy s ical subj ects of inquiry b e p r os e

c uted s uch as Ultim at e r eality a n d t h e signicanc e of

th e world o n t h e b as is o fe xh austiv e study o f n atur e a nd

hum an life For m et aphysical insight for th e futu re

.
, ,

must be b as e d on th e univ er s al cultur e of our tim e ev ery

adv a nc e in univ ers al culture p articul arly th e adv ances
in th e sci e nces o f n atur ewill ca rry so m e modifying
power o r i n u enc e for m et aphysics To c o m e into s uch
.

p erfect h arm o ny o r touch with th e cultu re of his own

tim e is th e high est th e m et aphysici a n c an do .

W er ten s ei ner Z ei t genug gerh an

d e n B es
D er h a t g el eb t fii r all e Z ei t en

Tr anscending pr es ent int er es t and reality we mu s t p ress ,

o n to know to wh at th e whol e w o rld t e nds ; wh at w e

o u r s elv es a re and why w e do exi s t ; y ea an d f

,
or wh at ,

r easons we b ear ours elv es as w e now dO .

 CHAPTE R XX I .

PS Y C H O L O G I C AL DE V E L O P M E NT S OF OU R T I ME .

PSYC H O L O G I C AL d evelopm ents h ave in our time been

, ,

m any but non e high er th an those which are concerned

,

with th e soul The soul h as been m ad e th e b ase of

.

religion in virtu e of its p eculi ar depth an d essence

th e p eculi a r e xp eriences and implic ations o fth e inner life .

Th e thought of our tim e is p r on e to nd th e rst and the

n al r eli giou s evid ence in th e psychological spher ei n
th at spiritu al s ens e wh erein the soul is s ee n in the
Spl endid an d S ignic ant func ti o ni ngs of faith P sy .

ch ol ogy s ets o ut from consciousn ess which m akes for

,

reality th e g reat differenc e ofawaren ess and is a general ,

and indi s p en s abl e p re condition of v alu e

-
W e are now .

to t ake th e s o ul wh ere p s ychologising phil o sophers are

m ainly co nt ent to le av e it W e are c o ncern ed with
.

it only in its highest r ea ch es where its ideal function

,

ings are l eft by form al psychology undev elop ed and nu

touch ed Th e psychology o f the soul is h er e t aken to
embr a c e al l inn er op er ati o ns
.

not alon e th e cognitive

powers but al l psychic p r oc ess es th at are v o litional and
emotion al as well though we are to deal only with
,

som e of th e high er asp ects of psychic exp eri ence I n .

so doing we a ccept Of cours e the teachings o f modern

, , ,
3 14 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PE AN P H IL O SOP H Y .

qu aliti es and rel ations But our p r imitive exper ience

.

is unit ary and it is wh en we sp eak of our experi ence

,

i n its unit ary an d p erson al self hood th at we t alk of -

the soul Tru e psychology m aint ains the unity of the

.

soul as result of co untless s ubtle an d c eas eless p sycho

,

physical proc ess es I t thus m akes o f th e soul n o mere

.

mos aic after th e O l d faculty psychology conceptions
, ,

compo sed of so m a ny sep ar atist and distinctive p arts .

This unity of th e s oul as monistic i s fundam ent al in , ,

mod er n psychol o gy and h as l ed to a true s ens e Of the

interdepend enc e of th e faculti es
,

will thought and emo , ,

tion And if th er e be phys iologists who will h av e non e

.

of th e s o ul and psychic di s p o sitions b ecaus e th ey hold

these to be m et aphysic al th at is no re ason why we ,

should n ot hold to th e soul and its pr ocess es as alone

expl ai n ing th e facts of o ur d eep er exp eri ence The .

qu al iti es and r el a tions of psychic exp eri ence are ex

pl ain ed by ration al psych o logy which for any full and , ,

thorough c arryi n g out of this purpos e s eems to n eed the ,

soul as imm at eri al ess ence This n eed not m ean th e .

unity O f th e s o ul as a sp eci al b eing assumed as with

, , ,

L otze at th e out s et nor th e prefacing psychology with

, ,

m et aphysics as with H er b art , .

Th e psychol og y of th e so ul is concern ed with the

knowl edge o f th e soul s n atur e th e l aws of its d eve

lo p ,

ment an d its rel ations to its environment A purely

, .

empirica l tr eatm ent is no t and c annot b e s ati s fying , , .

Psychol o gy ne ed not be m ade m et aphysic al but its ,

result s may b e allowed to ca st light on the soul itself

ou s o ul not m er ely on a soul
, T h e ne id eality of .

the soul leads it to seek nothing l es s th an an absolute

PSY C H OL O G I CAL D EV E L O P M E N TS O F OU R T IM E .
315

life which cle arly c an n ev er be a thing r ealis ed Fo r

, .

th e soul is alw ays m ar k e d by potenti ality : its a ctivity

is ever th at of spiritu al pot e nce on the way to actu ality .

But this does not lead to th e Humi an psychology in its

v ain s earch for an ego abstr a ct ed from al l m ent al life ,

nor to th e K anti an psychology in its failure to nd an y

re al soul or s elf in exp er i ence K ant s logical concept
.

of u nity is both transcend ent an d indetermin at e in

n ature and reality an d in no way s atisfact o rily co n
,

nected with the j udging activity in experi enc e wh er ein ,

soul or self is ass ert ed I t was an unr eal ego a ,

m erely logical subj ect conscious o f its elf only as a

,

faculty of conj oining el em ents into intuition s M an .

not only combines but j udg es

, j udg es his con s olid at ed
exp eri ence in the light of mor al l aw . I t is of c o urs e
, ,

not overlook ed th at Ka nt r eco gnised in man a p ower

th at el ev ates him above hims elfa power which only
th e underst anding c an conc eiv e a power which r ightly ,

enough he took to be th at o f p erson ality But K ant

, .

l acks in not re alising th e sph ere o f spiritu ality op en

to us as higher th an such p erson ality . T h e ethic al
consciou s ness o fFi ch te r ev o lt ed ag ainst Kant s evapo ra

tion of o ur person ality into an unre al egoan unsub

; an d it is Fi ch te s c r owning

act of synth esis

stanti al

m erit to h ave set up th e ego as indissolubly subj ect

Obj ect.

B eyond our individu a l p erson al ity stretch es th e world

of souls which severally d ep end o n som e common ground
,

and process N o abstract and b arely logical unity is

.

this c entr al ground an d unifying process : it is th e

Absolut e L ife centre o f al l souls
,
L ife of our life a n d ,
3 16 STU D I E S IN E U R O PE A N P H ILOSOP H Y .

Soul of our souls Bradl ey a n an d Ritschli an thought

.

alike h ave their s elf appoint ed limit ations writ l arge -

here I n wh at is c all ed th e O ver s oul we sh all nd

. ,

d ue yet r egul ative outl et for th e affection al p art of

, ,

our n ature in th e fello wship of wh a t Prof J ames is .

pl eased to call th e G reat Comp a nion the Absolute

,

M ind H enc e we nd M a in e de Bira n th e philosopher

. ,

o f inn er exp eri enc e s ayi ng th a

in the psychological
,

asp ect or as r eg ards c o gniti o n th e s o ul dr aws al l from

, ,

its elf or from th e E go by ree cti o n ; but in the moral

, ,

asp ect as r eg ards th e p erfecti o n to b e hop ed f

,
or the ,

good to be obt ain ed or th e obj ect in life to be aimed ,

at the soul dr aws al l an d r ec eiv es al l from without

,

not from th e ext ern al w o rld an d s en sations but from ,

the pur ely int ellectu al world abov e of which God is ,

the c entr e This m ay n o doubt be still too intel
.
, ,

l ectu al But it is int eres ting to nd Bir an l ater s aying

.
, ,

o f thr ee kinds Of t e mp er am ent in th e int ellect or soul ,

th at th er e is a group of tho s e who are illumined by the

uniqu e and unch anging light which r eligion affords .

Apropos of Biran it is int eres ting to nd from some , ,

m anuscripts of his only r ecently edit ed th at this philo

, ,

soph er to whom exist e nce was kn o wn in and through

,

th e activity of th e ego e xpr es s ly not es wellnigh a

centu ry ago the t end encyso fr equ ent in our tim eto
, ,

confound the psychol o gical origin of id eas with the
met aphysics of exist ence M uch int eresting discussion .

h as l at ely t aken pl ac e as to th e rel ations of psycholo gy

to religion or th e fo unding o fr eligion upon psychology
, .

Religion is without d oubt an es s enti ally psychologic al

, ,

study its phen o m en a b eing pur ely psychical N ow it

, .
,
318 STU D IE S I N E U R O PEA N P H ILO SOPH Y .

ci sel ysuch creative forces Wundt s eems to h ave had

in vi ew in formul ating his l aw of incre ase of spiritu al
en ergy which h e in fact oppo ses to the l aw of con
, , ,

servation of energy And if th ere be ind eed no limit

. , ,

to the incr eas e of Spiritu al b eing th er e may lie ther ein

,

som e compens ati o n for thos e dis adv ant ages which ,

L otze so nely set o ut of p s ychologic al doctrine in

,

c omp arison with sci e ntic doctrin es of energy .

Yet must it no t b e fo rg o tt e n th at al l perc eptual

a ctivity involved is in its fo rwar d looking and s elective
,
-

ch ar act er a thing of qu ality in th e psychologic sphere

, ,

however we may s eem to sp eak in qu antit ative t erms .

And w h at ind eed m ay n ot b e so p erc eptu ally present

will in th e Sph er e o f th e s oul be furnished by the
spiritu al im agin ationth at picturing faculty which the
, ,

G erm ans c all E i nbi ldungskr afti n its power to give

vividness to r eligious r ealities or rel ations We are of .
,

course as far as may be fr om agreeing with M ii nsterberg

,

in dropping th e soul fr o m psychology for the soul or ,

subj ect is certainly no pu rely l o gi cal cti on without '

unity or perm an enc e Rath er is the soul for us a

.

growing vital unity its unity o f a i m and purpose the

,

found ation of our real p ers on al id entity This self .

uni ed s elf identical principl e which we c all the soul

,
-

is one which not only springs up in exp erience but ,

gives to it unity an d not o nly p ersists in exp erience

, ,

but progresses with it For w e cer t ainly do not me an

.

to say th at consciousn ess h as h ad n o history but is in ,

its m anifest ations an uniqu e and inexplic abl e fact of

a w aren ess This is a v ery different result from the
.

m erely hypost atis ed abstractions of thought and feel ing ,

PSY C H OLO G I CAL D E V E LO P M E N TS OF O U R T IM E .
3 19

so d ear to a psychol ogist like M unst er b erg which h av e

l eft th e real w or lds of in s tinct an d impuls eb o th high er
,

an d lower so f ar b e hind But of this M ii nstersb erg

.

is by no m eans un aware for it i s j ust h e who h as s aid

,

th at this is th e point which ev en philosoph er s so easily

ov er l o ok ; a s soon as we sp eak of p sychic al obj ects of ,

id eas an d feelings and voliti o n s as cont e nts of co n s ci ous

,

n ess w e sp eak of an artici al t ransform ati o n to which

,

t h e c t gori
a e es o f r eal life n o long er apply Th at is j ust
.

th e tr o ubl e th a t h e h as c arr i ed th e psychic st at es o f

,

p sychology to so remot e a dist anc e fr o m an y r eal li fe

th at we know a divo r c e o f p sychologic al truth from
m ent al reality for which th ere is n o s ci entic n ec essity
or w arra nt I s psych o logic al th eor y u n lik e al l tru e

.

sci entic th y not to nd its b ase i n th e real

eor

world whos e fa cts giv e th e th eori es th ei r v alu e ?

,

T h e soul in th e high spiritu al s ens e m ay b e ev er

, ,

so difcult to d en e o r m ay compl et ely elud e o r

,

tr ansc end d eniti o n ; but its di s tinctiv e power pl ac e , ,

and w or ki n g c an b e quit e cl ear ly r ealis ed a n d a ct ed

upon For as Stucken b erg pro p erly rem arks to m ak e

.
, ,

a th eory o f th e ess e nc e o f t h e soul th e principl e for

th e e xpl a n ation of its op er ations is both unphilo s ophic al

,

an d unsci e ntic N o mo re in m ind th an in n atu re

.

h av e we a knowl ed g e Of th e subst a nce o th er wi s e th an

from its o p er ations .C ert a inly th e ess ence o f mind
in th e b roa d s ens e alr eady indic at edor soul is no
m ore in s cr ut abl e th an in th e sam e s ort of inquiry is
, ,

m att er O f cou r s e th e suppos ed es s enc e of soul must

.
,

rem ain m er e po s tul at e and not
, domin at e the entir e
inv estigation Th er e is no r eason why our psychology
.
3 20 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

should not t ak e full account of th e p sycho phy s ic al views -

O f Wundt w h o recognis es th e c e ntra lis ed unity of our

,

inn er life an d i ts unlimit ed c ap acity for growth Th en .

we m ay go o n to inquir e into th e pr o c es s wh er eby ,

l eaving th e lower l ev el s o n which fo rm al psychology

h as b een cont ent to d ea l with th e soul s as c ent the

,

soul i s seen to reach its high est c ent re For though .

,

w e m ay t a k e al l p sychologic a l fa cts to b e n ec ess arily

process es w e sh all s till n eed th at int er conn ection of
,
-

al l individu al p s ychic al exp er i enc es which is f o r Wundt

th e s o ul o r ego And th e s aying of H er aclitu s we sh all

.

nd to be as tru e as it is anci ent th at though you , ,

trod ev ery p ath you could not nd th e limits of th e

,

s o ul , s o d eep i s its ess enc e T h e s a m e thing would

.

doubtles s h av e b een s a id by Em er son who would h ave ,

tr a c ed his ow n m o st illumin at ed thinking to th e d o min a

tion ofth e s oul ov er th e s en s es an d th e u nd er standing .

M uch o fth e di s cu rsive thinking o fphilosophic al writ ers

to d ay is n ot greatly illum in ed an d c annot b e b ecau se it
-
, ,

is car r i ed o n at a l evel to which th e soul do es not d escend

b ecau s e whil e th e sp ecul ativ e impuls e must at ev ery
, ,

cost be m aint ain ed in full p o wer and m er idi an spl end our
, ,

its wor k is n ot carri ed o n so to sp eak in th e s oul s ir

, ,

r adi ating pr es enc e Cons equ ently th e l ack of i l l umi n

.
,

at ed thinking is chi ef l ack o f t h e phil o sophic al thought

of th e tim e For in such th o ught th e l ack of full experi

.
,

e nc e o f r ealit y an d of th e whol e truth of life

, is Oft en ,

b et rayed an d th at to a p ainful d egr ee Tis a l ack for

, .

which nothing c an comp ens at e T h e soul must be t e.

stored to h er pl ac e and rights ; sh e must sit as qu een of

the psychol ogic r ealm M ind must ob ey her b eh ests ;
.
3 22 STU D IE S I N E U RO PE A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

But Of cou r s e s uch b ei n g do e s no t di s p en s e th e s o ul

, ,

fro m effo rtth e effor t to full ev ery n ew an d p resen t

dut y ; it only giv es n ew light fo r s uch fullm e nt T h e .

high er kn owl edge o f G o d and th e s up er t er res t r ial out

,
-

l oo k upo n m an s life ar e really to b e so ught in d evel op ed

,

life o f th e s oul wh ere in th e i m m edi at e co n s ciousn es s o f

,

G o d a n d o f H i s e nv el o pi n g p res enc e giv es n ew el eva

ti o n to th o ught an d d eep er in s ight to s p ecul ativ e power
, .

B o th K a nt a n d A r i stotl e h av e h er e b een g reatly ov er

p as se d i n th e m att er o f o r igin al an d p en etr ating
,

p sych ological a n aly s i s B ut K a nt an d S chl ei er m acher

.

p av ed th e w ay for study o f th e s ubj ectiv e exp eri ences

of religi o n H e nc e th e inqui r i es o f J am es St arbuck
.
, ,

L eub a an d C o e which howev er l a ck o n th e ep i s temo

, , , ,

logic al sid e T h e p resence an d o p er ati o n o f th e Et er n al

.

Spi rit within u s h ave a wa k en ed n ew an d divin er e moti o n s

a n d id eal s th an e ith er K anti a n or Ari s t o t eli a n r eas o n

knew Th es e high er regi o n s of t h e soul s life are th e

.

mo s t dif cult for p sych o l ogy and th e fr equ ent li m it ati ons
,

of psych o logical t reatm ent h ere spring fr o m th e in ability

to s eize th e pr o c es ses an d n o t m erely r eckon th e p ro
,

ducts . T h e sup er ci al as p ect s are o f c o urse eas ily , ,

e nough ab s tr a ct ed a n d d en ed but it is a n o th er m att er ,

t o su rp r i s e th e sec ret o f t h e soul s d eep est worki ng s

.

Th e li m it s o f th e so ul it see m s s afe to s ay are n ever

, ,

fo und and no psycholo gical a n alysi s c an ev er be real ly

,

exh a u s tive O u rs i s a p erp etu a l b ecoming a n d su r face

.
,

impressi o n s Of th e s o ul which is o ur o w n we cer tainly

get but n ev er full s ounding s Of t h e s ub conscious d eeps
,
-

th at l i e b ehi n d M an i s o ne and m an is spi r it and it is

.
, ,

as such a s pi r it th at m an mu s t b e ra is ed t o full spiritu al

end o wm ent an d t h e h eight o f tru e s oul vision To pi erce -

.
PS Y C H O L O G I C AL D E VE L O P M E N T S OF O U R T IM E .
3 23

to th e dividing as u n d er o f s o ul an d spi rit w as b eyo nd th e

p ow er Of A r ist o t eli an p sychol o gy an d s pi r itu al psychol ogy
,

c am e to th e rescu e I f th erefore w e still sp eak o f s o ul

.
, ,

soul an d s pirit in th ei r uni o n b eing essenti al to lifei t

must not be in fo rg etfuln ess O fth e fa ct th at to a spiritu al ,

psychology the spirit is supr em e T h e psychica l n atur e

, .

in its wid es t r each es m ar ks th e life of th e soulorg an Of

sci enc e and philosophy ; but th e spirit i s m ark ed by th at
high es t o f faculti es known as G od co nsciou s n es s I f w e -
.

wo uld see th e imp ort anc e o f explic ations of th e n atur e

an d r el ations o f t h e s oul w e h av e o nly to tu r n to th e
,

vag u e g en er aliti es o n th e soul found in a di s cu ss i o n such

,

as H al d an e s Gi or d L ectur es wh e re t h e s o ul is r e pr es ent ed

,

as m erely th e high es t as p ect in which th e m an app ear s

in everyd ay exp er i enc e
T h e spirit or s o ul in th e all inclusiv e an d m o st s piritu al
-

sen se is disti n guish ed fro m th e reectiv e understa ndi ng

in vi r tu e of th e imm edi at en ess of such spi ritu al life This .

is th e r ich r esult o f th e Spiritu alis ati o n or int ern al appro

pri ati o n of th e not s elf by th e e xp a nding s oul o r ego
-
.

And ev en with o ut any outside compulsion th e knowing

, ,

s oul or ego h as an initi ativ e of its o w n in th e high er

ph ases Of kn o wl edge Th e co gnitiv e Spi r itu al m i n d as
.
,

subj ect i s rec eptiv e o f spiritu al t r uth accor din g to its

,

o wn c at ego r i es an d l aws T h e life o f th e s pi r it w ear s an

.

int ell ectu al as p ect but i ts Spi ritu al i n t elligenc e i s distinct

,

fro m an d high er th an m ere int ell ectu al in s ight and p ro

, ,

c es s I n con sequ enc e o f which o nly th e int ellect th at is

.
,

spiritu ally illumin a t ed will really b e in a p o sition to

underst and o r explore th e high es t r ealiti es th ought ,

consci ousn ess life truth d estiny

, , ,
.

T h e cl ear psychologic al insight o f Augustin e en abl ed

3 24 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E AN P H I L O SO P H Y .

him twelv e c enturi es b efor e D es c ar t es to p er ceiv e gr eat

, ,

things of th e s oul Augu s tin e r eco gnis ed th e simplicity

.

of th e soul an d its a ctivity as an e ntir ety in al l actions

, , , ,

such activity o f th e s o ul d ep ending upon th e ceas el ess

a ction o f G o d Also th e self c er t a inty o f th e ego as the
.
,
-
,

p o int o f d ep ar tu re o f al l c er t ainty w as cl ear ly bro ught ,

o ut by h i m But with this wh o l e or entir e activity Of

.
,

t h e soul Augu s tin e r ecognis ed i ts limit ations in know

,

l edg e d ue to th e soul s n i tud e i ts s ubj ecti o n to th e l aw

,

o f d ev elopm ent a n d its fa lling within t h e ra ng e o f th e

,

h am p ering n o etic con sequ enc es Of m o ra l evil Accord .

i ngl y h e ear ly a n d C l ear ly saw th e n eed in ord er to the

, ,

att a inm ent Of high er knowl edg e a nd c ertitud e of th e ,

wh o le soul or s elf b ei n g su rrend ered to its qu est C m .

n i sc i enc e was not to him as to c er t ain mod ern philo ,

so ph ers t h e soul s foibl e I t s till n eeds to b e mo re fully

.
,

reali s ed h o w much shortco m ing a nd fa ilu re li es b ehind

pres ent d ay philosophisi n g about life an d its high er
-

probl em s b ec aus e th es e are dealt with as though th ey

,

were exclusiv ely int ellectu al and did not r eally depend ,

o n add ed s pi r itu al il l u m i n ati ven ess And thus it oft en .

re m ains al l unper ceiv ed h ow th e deep est clu es o r n ear est ,

solutions of such probl ems will b e found within th e di s

,

ti ncti vel y spi r itu al sph erewill b e o p en ed to th e d eep

and subtl e p erc eptions ofth e int ell ectu al spiritu al thinker -
,

and to him alon e But th e s pi r itu al instincts for al l

.
,

th at do gr eatly r equir e th e accentu ating c o nrming

, , ,

a nd sust aining a ids of philosophic a l thought an d inquiry .

Th es e will h elp us p ass b eyond th e m ere subj ectivity in

which psychology might l eav e us Psych ology like .
,

ev ery Sp eci al sci enc e h as to do with exp eri enc e and

, ,
3 26 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

Her e may tl y be noticed tho se psychologic al develop

ments which conc er n th e rel ati o n o f b o dy and mind or ,

th e two s eries o fpr o c ess es th e psychic al a nd th e physic al

, ,

as m att er of supr em e phil o so phic int erest since th e d ays

o f D esc art es Th es e inqui r i es ar e keenly pursu ed to day

.
-

from v arious points of view Th ere is th e impossible

.

m at eri alistic th eory as w e sh all ter m it in which the

, ,

physical process es are t r eat ed as th e c a us e of th e psychic

process es Attractively as th e defenc e of such position
.

h as b een pres ented th ere ar e grav e initi al difculti es

,
.

If physic al c aus es produc e th eir physic al ef fects the ,

l atter equ alising th e fo rm er mu s t w e not th en conclude

,

th at the psychic effects o wing fro m th ese s am e physic al

c auses must b e st ra ng ely sup er uou s or unb al anced
effects ? O r are we to s ay th ey are altogether unc aused ?
Are the inner psychic sou r c es such a s feeling and desire, ,

not creative of psychic effect s s p eech for exampl e ? We ,

may as on th e th eo ry o f p arall eli s m hold there is no

, ,

caus al r el ation b etween th e phy s ic al and th e psychical .

T h e two elds ar e th en clos ed a g ain s t ea ch oth er : th ere

is in each cas e an unbr o k en c aus al n exus A theory
, , .

which claims the s uppo rt o f Wundt Riehl H offdi ng , , ,

Paulsen J odl St o ut Ebbingh a u s a nd M ii nster berg is

, , , ,

d eserving Of all att enti o n But th e pr inciple o f c aus ality

.

h as be en shown to be no ob s t acl e to th e rel ation O f mind

and body which are l eft in so un r el at ed and articial
,

a form by p ar all elis m i n fa ct su s pend ed in th e ai r , .

Par allelism is no fact o f exp eri ence but only a th eory ,

for th e int erpr et ati o n of fa cts But one m ay well allo w .

th e th eory to be o ne with th e adv a nt age ofcl earness in i ts

issue and sci entic pr et en sions in its favour though not

, ,
PS Y C H O LO G I CA L D E VE LO P M E N TS OF O U R T IM E .
3 27

without import ant biologic a l an d psychologic al co n se

quen c es for the soul a n d its life But th e int era cti o n .

th eory s eems to m e th e most n atur al conception of th e

r el ati o n b etw een spirit an d b o dy an d corresponds b ett er
,

with th e logic al n eed o f thought to vi ew the world as a

uni ed whole The int er action th eory avoids absu r d a nd
.

p ar adoxic al issues and is in cl o s er agreem ent with id eal

,

i sti c m et aphysics and a n id ea l conc eption of th e world .

T he r eal strength of th e int er a ction th eory is n ev er ap

p ar ent until its difculti es h av e b een fac ed an d its con
t entions prop erly set forth It gives a b ett er account
of th e fa ctsno sm al l token of superiority Th ere is
.

. ,

of c o u rse the stup endou s di f culty as to c au sal int er

,

acti o n b etw een two a pp ar e ntly disp ar at e seri es but th e ,

disp ar at eness is by n o m ean s a bsolut e and th e difculty ,

c an b e v ery r eason ably r esolv ed in entir e consist ency with

th e l aw o f th e cons erva tion o f e nergy I n fa ct th e . ,

difculty is due to misconceptio n of th at l aw fo r th e ,

qu antit ativ e relations of th es e c aus al conn ecti o n s is all

th ere is any n eed to m a int ain As a res ul t interacti o n
.
,

h a s b ee n shown to contra dict no known l aw rightly ,

int erpr et ed and to be at th e s am e tim e in h appy accord

, , ,

with th e testimony of exp er i e nce Th ese r esults are d ue .

to think ers lik e L otz e S ig wart Erh ardt W en ts c h er

, , , ,

Reh m ke Kii l pe Busse Stumpf Br adl ey W ard J am es

, , , , , , ,

Taylor N O doubt th er e i s th e di fculty in deal ing

.
, ,

with th e psychic ph e nom e n a th a t mod es of con s ci o u s n ess

,

a n d forms o f m at eri al e n er gy s eem incomm ensu rabl e .

But it must not be overlook ed th at it is not n ec es s ar y

to th e int er action theo ry to m a int ain th at th e psychic
ph en o m en a create the phy s ic al ch ang es but m er ely th at ,
3 28 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PEAN P H IL O SO P H Y .

th e l att er c ann o t o ccu r with o ut th e fo r m er T h e psychic

.

st at e i s a c aus e in th e s en se th at th e phys ical m ov em ent

r equi r es it a s an el em ent o r fa ct o r . T h e how o f th e
phys ic al ch ang e s o c a us ed m ay b e hidd en fr om us but ,

this i s n ot mo re puzzling th an o th er c as es wh er e we do
n o t kn o w th e how .I n thi s c o n n e cti o n I m ay b e p er
m i tted to exp res s d o ubt wh eth er th e p s ychic ph enom en a
as possibl e fo r m s of e n ergy not in th e m e ch a nic al fo ot

pound sen seh av e ev er h ad full co n s id er ati o n m ade of

th em Wh at if th ey are n ot only fo rm s o f en ergy but Of
.

t h e most real e n er gy ? Wh at is o ur c o n s ci o usn es s wh en

you h av e ab s tra ct ed fro m it all th at i s en ergetic ?

Wh at if our in a bility o r r eluct a nc e to do j ustice to th es e
int en s iv e fo rm s o f pu r p o siv e hum an a ctivity b e bo r n only
of s ci entic h abitud es o f mind ? I t i s s o m uch easi er to
d o sci entic j u s tic e to th e physic al th a n to th e psychical
ph enom en a M o re s eri o us to my mind th a n th e qu estion
.
, ,

o f th e inc o m m en s ur abl en es s o f t h e tw o s eri es o f forms

o f e n er gy is th e c o n s id er ation wh eth er in adopting th e

,

int er acti o n th eo ry w e m ay not com e short of d o ing

,

j ustic e to th e p er fect s pont an eity of mind Yet I d o not .

mys elf feel thi s difculty to an ext en t th at p rev ent s my

a cc epting th at th eo r y as a r eas o n abl e an d ev en n ec es s ary

p ostul ation It is only as mi s t ak e th at stat es o f c on

.

s c i o us n ess are t ak en t o b e inc ap abl e of p r oducing C h ang es

in th e physic al w orld T h e rel ati o n o f mind and body

.

atly c o nt radicts th e id ea th at physic al o ccu rrenc es can

b e d ue o nly to phy s ic al c au ses . Th ere is to m e n o thing
inconc eiv able in t ra n seunt action T h e psych o physic al
.
-

organism c all ed m an unit es in hims elf th es e two kinds o f

exi s t enc e but h e do es so in ways wh ereby th eir r el ation
,
3 30 S TU D I E S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

hu m an thi n king fro m b eing se lf d et er mining in th e

di rectiv e inu ences o fi ts o w n thought a ctiviti es Psych o -
.

logy h as not yet d et er m in ed th e pre ci s e n atu re of m ent al

a ctivity wh eth er it c o n s i s t s o f m e re c h a nge o f impuls e or
, ,

c o n atio n o r b ett er
, o f d ev el o pm e nt but such activity ,

h as i ts id eal m ea s u r e This activity in th e high est

.

s piritu al s ph ere is i n p erfe ct k eepi n g with t h e t each

ings of wh at is to day t er m ed fu n ction al p sych o logy

-
.

Functi o n al p sychology t r i es to d o j ustice to th e i m

m edi at e s elf and its inn er self i n iti at ed mov em ent s - .

So d o i n g it l ays str es s o n th e con ativ e aspect s of

,

c o nsci o u s n ess th e end positing or t el eo lo gic al ch ar

-

a ct er o f ou r spiritu al se lf a ctivity T h e c at ego r ies o f

-
.

function al psycholo gy are th erefore dyn amic rather

th an s t atic but th eir t eleolo gical t ende nci es mu st be
,

st at ed i n su f ci ently spi r itu al ter m s M ystic al s t at es .

h av e Oft e n b ee n des c r ib ed as though th ey wer e v o id of

id eation al cont ent M any Of th e mys tics h ave no doubt
.
, ,

w ritt en as th o ugh th ei r st at es o f bl ess edn ess peace and , ,

lov e w ere p sych o logic ally viewed v o id of ideati o n al con

, ,

t en t s But were th ey really so vo id as th ey th emselves

.

thought ? S ur ely n o t alw ays For is no t th e id ea of .

G od so fruitful th at i ts p resen c e in th e mind and i ts

, ,

inu ence up o n th e stream o f c o n s cio u s n ess may m ake ,

o ur p erc epti o n s of H i m o r o f t r uth s th at rel at e to Him

, ,

m o r e th a n o u r aw ar en es s t ak es full account of H ence ,

do we n o t nd th at wh en th e soul i s d escrib ed as most

,

l o s t in G o d God i s still c o nceiv ed as a B ei n g o f po sitive

,

qu aliti es l o ve wisdom po wer goodn es sWhos e qu aliti es

, , ,

th e s o ul s u rely appreh ends ? W e must n ot fo rget h ow

wh t s o m e p sych ol o gi s ts h av e t erm ed relativ e i natten

a

PS Y C H O LO G I CAL D E V E LO P M E N TS O F OU R T IM E .
33 1

tion keeps us little aware of our own st at es a n d little ,

a bl e c or r ectly to d escrib e th e m We d ar e n o t say that

.
,

in th es e high er insights or expe r ienc es cognitiv e c o n ,

sc i o us n ess h as c eas ed to e xi s t B esides mystics are n o t

wholly w anti n g rare thou gh th ey bewho h av e been
.
,

wis e e nough to perc eiv e or recognise th at em o ti o n is

v alu el es s wh en it stops in it s elf an d b ecom es nothing

,

mor e th an m erely emotion al exp erience ; and tha t

a cti o n s or st ates , with o ut attend ant p erc epti o n and

r e ection , c annot p os s ibly b e good In such cas es .
,

th e function of th e p erceptive an d j udging po wers

in th e high er li fe of th e soul h as b een explicitly ac

knowl edged .This fact h as b een wellnigh u niver sally
ov erlook ed when mystic al exp eri ence h as b een treat ed
,
.

Th e psychology of mysticism shows th e mystic life to

b e a p r ogr ess r ath er th a n a s t at e albeit it owes much
,

to sub conscious aims a n d id ea s

-
.

W e c an l earn from mystic d e liv erances about th e soul

, ,

th e b en ets accruing to our m ent al pe ac e to our s e ns e o f ,

int ellectu al unity and power an d to a n ely universa li se d

,

r eg ar d for th e will of G o d a s l aw of al l life a nd a cti o n ,

without l ending th e le ast c o unt en a nce to indol ent qui et

isms or th e vacuiti es o f an idl e piety T h e inwar d .

mind edn ess of the mystics th eir s abb atic r esting o f th e

,

s o ul in itself and in th o ught o f its D ivin e ally th eir ,

h o lding of the attention up o n G o d and th eir qui et co n

tem p l ati ve vision of th e U ns ee n
,

thes e are thing s w e in

our m easur e must sh are alb e it we strive b ett er to und er
,

st and h ow oft en thes e s eem ing p as siviti es are in p sycho ,

l ogic t r uth potent forms o f activity Th e t end enti al

,
.

id eas p resent therein are sur ely of great psych ol o gic al

332 STU D I E S IN E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

imp ort ance an d v alu e Th ere is su rely gr eat l ack of

d elic at e p ercepti o n and n e t as t e in co mp a ring th e i n
u en c e Of God s pr es enc e o n th e c o nsciou s n ess of th e

mystic al soul with th e c o nt ro l exer ci sed by th e hypnotis er

o v er h i s s ubj ects . W e c an s urely w elcom e th e unicati o n
o f t h e soul with G od o r o f t h e hum a n will with th e

D ivin ewith o ut a cceptin g an id entic ati o n in which al l ,

differenc es h av e dis app ear ed Fo r th e hum an s o ul o r s elf

.

is j u st s uch a growth or p ro c es s as is requi red for thi s

no st atic self
, id entic al subst ance .

Th e nit e s o ul though it b e but a s egm ent Of b eing

, ,

i s o n e a nd indivisibl e But th e soul in its indivisibility

.
, ,

h as too o ft en b een conc eiv ed a s a s eparabl e entity in

w ays th at explai n ed nothing b ec aus e th ey m ad e of it a ,

m er e abst racti o n void o fc o nt en t A s pi r itu al p sychol ogy

, .

c annot r es t in raci al o r phyl og en etic as p ects of th e soul ,

thou gh th es e h av e th ei r n ecess ary v alu e Go eth e h as .

v ery well s aid I f du ring o ur lifeti m e w e see th at p er
,

for m ed by oth er s to which we ou rs elv es felt an earli er

c all but h ad b een o blig ed to giv e up with much b esid es
, , ,

th en th e b eautiful feeli n g e nt er s th e mind th at o nly man ,

kind tog eth er i s th e t ru e m an an d th at th e individu al can

,

only be j oyous an d h appy wh en h e h as th e c o u rage to feel

hims elf in th e whole But whil e th e s oul feels hum anity
.
,

t o b e thus ess en ti ally o n e it y et c ann o t but b e s en s itiv e

,

to th at l arg est o f as p e cts in which G o d i s th e spiritu al

en vi r onm ent o r o bj e ctive compl em ent o f th e so ul s uni

t ary activity and exp er i enc e and is in som e s o rt th e , , ,

b as e and s uppo rt o f raci al d ev el opm ent s a nd commun al

c o nn ecti o ns as well through th eir grounding an d growth
,

in th e imm an ent Go d O ur psychology will th en b e

.
, ,
3 34 STU D IE S I N E U R O P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

thought th e only knower must b e to l eav e us epi stemo

logic ally un satis ed Fo r nothing can b e tru e in epis
.

t em o l ogy which i s fal s e i n p sych o l o gy T h e nit e soul .

h as its own uniqu e exp er i enc e a n d is p r oxim a t e initi ating

,

c ent re o f its o w n d eeds Hyp er empi ric al is th e soul or

.
-

s elf in th e unity o f its activ e co nditi o ning as p ects ; in its

,

asp ect a s c o n diti o n e d it is o f c o ur s e e mpirical T he

, , , .

u n iv er s e i s n o t a li en to us ; and th ere i s a wid er s elf

a s o ci a l org a ni s m ofwhich th e s o ul fo rms p art which , ,

t oo h as i ts s pi r itu al m a t r ix in imm a n e nt D eity

, All .

hi s tory and s o cial culture are in fact condition ed by th e

, ,

hyp er empirical pr esupp ositi o n s o f such active Spi ritu al

-
'

s elv es or c entr es . T h e pr es en c e a ctivity a nd aspiring

, ,

p o wer of th e s o ul co n stitut e a co s mic fact as real as any

with which s ci ence h as to d o a fact s econd to non e in
signic ant reach and inh erent inspira ti o n In i ts aspira .

ti o n s and id eal s th e soul nds a vit al c o nt act with God

, ,

an d w o nd er s n o t th at un expl o r e d d epths are in D eity

wh en o ur own sublimin al s elf re m ains s o much of a
sil ent l and I n al l this w e s ee how m o d er n psych ology
.

h as r epl a c ed th e Old er p sychology with i ts s o ul or s el f ,

as ind ep end ent e ntity at st art by t eachings lik e th os e of

,

Wundt an d o th er psycholo gi sts wh o m a k e o f th e unity of

t h e s o ul a pr o bl em .

T h e c reativ e spi r it ual en er gy w or ks as a t r anscend ent

a n d j udging el e m ent in o ur p er so n ality r aising it above ,

it s elf an d l eading it to j udge its elf in resp ect of att ain

,

m ent an d o f shortcoming Thu s d oes th e soul as de

.
,

ter m i n ed by th e D ivin e or c r eativ e Spirit work out its ,

w orld d estiny as a qu asi ind ep end ent entity or a ctivity

- -
,

w ith endl ess pow er of conscious choice I t is not on .

PS Y C H O L O G I CAL D E V E LO P M E N T S OF OUR T IM E .
33 5

the pla n e O f th e psychic voliti o n s o f th e s o ul butwh at ,

is so oft en ov erlook ed abov e th e l ev el o f m erely c o n

s ci o us p er so n ality at t h e l ev el n am ely
, o f th e s pi r it
,

o r Spiritu a l n atu re o f m a n as fr ee
, a n d tr a nsc en d ent
, ,

an d Op e n to th e C reativ e S pi r it t h at t r u e freedom i s
,

re alis ed .

So sch aff i ch am s au send en W eb s tu h l d er Z ei t

,

U n d w i rk e d er G o tt h e t eb l d
i l en d i ges K ei .

Th e r edemption of th e s o ul li es j u s t i n its b ec o m ing ,

i n its tu r n creativ ea ctive Sh arer in th o s e c os mic mov e

,

m ents o f th e Et er n al an d Ab so lut e Spi r it which m ea n

th e sa lvati o n o f t h e w o r ld T h e s o ul would re m a in
.

spi r itu ally inco mplete did it not com e int o vit al rel a
,

tion with this l ar g er wh o le .

 CHA PTE R XX I I .

E T H I C AL DE VE LO PME N TS OF OU R T I ME .

TH E d ev el o pm ent o f th e s ci enc e of ethics is now s een

to b e a n ec es s ity o f th e a dv an ci n g growth of th e ethical

consci o u s n es s or o f d ev eloping p er son ality T he de

, .

vel O p m en t h as p r oc eeded fr om th e individu al to society

r ath er th an i n rev ers e fashion Th ere i s s een to be not

.

m erely a n ev o lution o f mo ral ity but a l so a d evel op ment

,

of th e m or al j udgm ent or pow er of ethic al appreci ati o n

an d formul atio n Th ere h av e n ot o n ly b een high er
.

ethic al st and ar ds reach ed obj ectiv ely but also subj ee

, ,

t i vel y high er d egr ees of ethic a l realis ation

, M ore cl ear .

h as it alway s b ecom e th at th e ontol o gic al c o nditio ns of

this moral ev olution alo n e c an be t a k en to afford th e
light n ec es sary fo r its t r u e int erpr et ati o n ev en though ,

cu rr ent ethic al t eaching h as b een so far from doing any

m ann er o f j ustice to th es e conditions T h e under lying.

n eeds an d p r oc ess es o f ethic a l r eco nst r uction h ave g ro w n

alw ays m ore app ar ent fr o m work s like th o s e of Sp enc er ,

J an et St eph en Gi z yc ki an d m any oth er s Th e sp ecial

, , , .

sci entic r equi rem ent in th e sh ap e o f ethical symp athy

an d spi r it h as b ee n mo re ge n er ally recognis ed so th at ,

th e study app ear s in this r esp ect to as k only wh at is

account ed a r eason abl e an d n ecess ary d em and in every

3 38 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P E A N P H ILO SO P H Y .

th e Unc o n s ciou s its working m uSt be tow ar ds th e

,

em a ncip ation of th e i n t ell ect fr om th e will S uch an .

ethic al found ati o n i s no d o ubt v ery abstr act but

.

, , ,

H ar t m ann really holds to th e r eality o f ethics every ,

m o ral ac t o f o u rs b eing in hi s vi ew c o nduciv e to th e

, ,

t r u e ulti m at e en d of th e univ er s e M orality is at l east .

n o t d elu s iv e Fo r us th e en d of th e u n iv er s e can be
.
,

n o o th er th a n th e go o d whos e ulti m at e and unanal ys

,

abl e ch ar a ct e r h as b een s o fo r cibly rep res ent ed by th e

l at e Pro f S idgwick a nd M r G E M o o re Sidgwick

. . . .

r eally t reat ed th e go od in highly abstr a ct fashi o n and ,

with s o m e l ack o f philosophic al thoro ughn ess Th e .

simpl e i rreducibl e idea Of th e good b elo ng s s o littl e to

e ith er S idgwick or M oo r e th at to s ay n o thing Of Pl at o , ,

it i s th e p reci se positi o n o f s uch r ation ali s t mo rali s ts as

Cudworth an d P r ic e Th e a n sw er to th e inquiry as to
.

t h e good wa s fo r th em a t autology fo r to th em g ood

, , ,

w as g o o d j ust a s ti m e w a s ti m e an d s p ac e w as sp ace
, ,
.

But M r M oo re o bj ect s to Pro fes s o r M Kenz i e s resting

e thic s o n a m et a physic al b a si s an d m aking th e go od ,

d ep end o n its b ein g real b ec a u se th e goo d i s , u n iqu e in

ki n d an d un affect ed by any conclu si o n s we m ay reach
,

a bout th e n atu re o freali t y N ow w e n eed n ot d eny th e

3
.
,

distinctive qu ality o f ethical t r uth s nor th e ind ep endence ,

o f t h e m ora l j udgm en t in t r u e an d p r op er sen se But

, .

thi s i s n o t to s ay th at th ere are n o m et aphy s ical postu

l at es o r p resupp os itions i n volved I t i s n ot to s ay th at .

n o truth about wh at i s real c an h av e an y b earing

up o n th e good A thing to be g o od it i s m aintain ed

.
, , ,

n eed n ot b e involv ed in th e constituti o n of reality ,

wh eth er th at o f th e r eal s elf or th e r ation al univers e .

 E T H I C AL D E V E LO P M E N T S OF OU R T IM E .
3 39

But th er e is surely in al l thi s a s erious ov erlooking of

, ,

th e crit e rion of th e good a s s omething th a t must b e

,

d et ermin ed by th e l aws and id eals Of re ason Th ere is .

l a ck o f insight into th e fa ct th a t th e good is no t quite s o

deep an d un an alysabl e a n o tion as h as been cont e nd ed ,

for it presupposes th e tru e a n d the knowl edge o f it is

,

fo und ed on b eing T h e go od h as b een too abst r actly

.

conceiv ed by M r Moor e a l s o as the s eeking of a n Obj e ct

, ,

ra th er th an the s erving of a b eing or b eings with which ,

l att er ethical ch ar act er i s p r im arily concern ed The .

goo d resting upon th e tru e is o ur ration al en d H ence

, ,
.

Ka nt h eld th at th er e i s n o thi n g eith er within th e wor ld

,

o r o ut Of it which is good without qu alic ation s av e a

, ,

good will Rightly en o ugh s inc e th e good r ai s es life to

.
,

th e pl an e of a tim el es s reality Ethicists must n ot too

.

r eadily as sum e th eir g o o d ev en with th e addition

in it self to be som ethi n g r eally ultim at e a nd n u
an a ly sabl e N or must th ey confo und th e b eing uniqu e
in kind on th e p art of ethic a l good with its a bsolut e
, ,

u n rel at edn ess to truth or reality els e ethics may b ecom e ,

a sci enc e of th e vision ary an d unr eal T h e id ea l i s th e .

fund a m ent al reality so th at m et aphysical pr esuppo sitions

,

c an not be so e asily got aw ay fro m Wh en we are told .

th at good is good and nothing els e wh at ev er as s o m e ,

thing which th e ethicist h as es t ablish ed and are yet

,

t o ld in al m o st th e s am e b rea th th at such funda m e nt a l

truths o f ethics are s elf evide nt in th e sense th at no
-
,

reas o n can be giv en for th em we feel th at a s o m ewh at

,

i rrati o n al c ast is given to ethics The ethical phil o s o ph er

.

c an in t h e w ays w e h av e b ee n d escribing easily m a k e

, ,

th e go o d a n d its recogniti o n much too axiom atic an af fai r

3 40 STU D I E S I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

for an but a r are ed atm o s ph er e far r em o v ed fro m life

y
an d its vit al int eres ts O ur int erest in ethic al m eth o d as
.
,

such n eed not and s h o uld no t blind us to p r im al concern

, , ,

with ethic al b eing sth ei r ch ar act er s choices voliti on s , , ,

s elf d et ermin ati o n s

-
M o r al di stincti o n s exi s t fo r such
.

b eing s as rati o n al for o n ly b ad psych o logy g r ounds th ese

, .

in feelin g rath er th an i n reason Feeling p resupp o s es .

r ealit y pr es en t to co n sci o usn es s o r th o ught an d ethical ,

feeling p resuppo ses kn owl edg e of m ora l distinction s .

Th ere h as b een a s o m ewh at p rev al ent t end ency in th e

ethic a l th o u g ht o f o u r tim e to s hu n t t h e qu esti o n o f th e

r i ht in fav o u r o f th e qu estio n o f th e g ood on account o f

g ,

th e l es s ab s t ra ct m o r e fund am ent al ch ara ct er o f th e

,

l a tt er T h e fo rm er i s howev er o f g reat i m p ort a nce in

.
, ,

rel ati o n to hum an vo lition S idgwick v ery a dmir ably

.

p o int ed o ut th ei r di ffer enc e wh en h e said th at th e r ight

i n volv ed th e id ea o f a n autho rit ativ e p r es c ripti o n to do a

thing wh ereas th e g oo d as c o nc eiv ed by us l eav es us
, ,

,

w aiti n g for s o m e st a nd ard wh ereby w e m ay estim at e th e

,

r el ativ e v alu es o fdifferen t go o d s B ut th e ethic al idea Of .

th e right w ith i ts c o nformity to p resc r ib ed l aw or

,

st and ard h as b een g radu ally felt to go n o t so d eep and

, ,

to p ro v e n ot s o a d equ at e a n d concr et e as th e c o nc epti on ,

O f th e g o o d o r o f W orth as ethic al e nd But it .

must fo r all th at b e ad m itt ed th at n o t all th e att empts

, ,

th at h av e b ee n m ade to d et er min e th e univ ers al validity

of th e conc ept of th e goodoi mor al v alu eh av e issu ed
in any univ er sally recognis ed r esult G oo d th at i s moral .

i s o n e with th e right : th e right is uniqu e go o d Ethic al .

th eo ri es rem ain as divers e as thos e which are m et aphysical ,

p artly a s r esult of v arying hi s to ric al point s of vi ew and ,

342 S TU D IE S IN E U RO P EA N P H I LO S O P H Y .

mor al end eavours Should b e found in bei ng r ath er th an in

doi ng in ch ar act er r ath er th a n in c o nduct in will d ir ec
, ,
-

tion rath er th an in act s Thi s without fo rg etting th at .

,

th e G oo d h as i ts Obj ectiv e r e ferenc e as p er t aining to a ,

wo rld o rd er o n which it i s dep ende nt n o l es s th a n its

-
,

subj ective sid e or referenc ep o ss ess es th at is to say an , ,

id eati o n al n o l ess th an an affectiv e c o nt ent N or is the

,
.

conc ept o f th e go o d h o wev er pr im ary in ethics to keep

, ,

j u s tic e fro m b eing don e to o th er n o ti o n s s uch as duty , ,

virtu e freedom It is really a c as e o f th es e l atter de

, .

p endin g i n th eir t el eol o gic al r eference fo r th eir very

, ,

m eaning forc e and j ust i c ati o n o n th e good as ethical

, , ,

en d . O n e is no t r eadily inclin ed to fo ll o w Fouille who ,

h as rec ently rel eg at ed oblig ati o n to a quit e s ub o rdin at e

position as n o long er an ultim at e and ir r educible c at e
,

gory It s eem s to m e th e ought o f obligation is c apable

.

o f mo r e an d high er obj ec ti vi s at i o n th a n F o uill e sup

pos es and absolut e v alu es w e are n ot quit e c o nt ent so
,

lightly to di s miss fro m ethic s But w e are quit e willing .

to a dmit th at th e conc ept o f w or th or v alue th e

a tt ractiv e p o w er of th e G oo dm ay with th e growth and ,

el ev ati o n o f t h e ethic a l p erson ality repl a c e at l east to a , ,

v ery l arg e ext ent th e ethic s o fo bligati o n

, .

T h e ind ep en d en c e o f ethics in reg ar d Of th e world ,

vi ew h as b een es p eci ally felt s inc e K ant W e are not

, .

co nt en t howev er wit h a m er e s ci en c e Of c onduct which

, , ,

is not such as to be at th e s a m e tim e a m et aphys ic

, ,

o f mo ral s T h e m et aphysic al tr e atm e nt of ethic s i s al so

.

sci en ti c is th e s ci e nc e o f ethics For

par excel l ence .

such a m ethod t akes up into it s elf al l th at b elongs to

ethic s as a pu r ely n atur al sci enc e al l th e in esc ap abl e ,
 E T H IC A L D E VE LO P M E N T S OF OUR TI M E .
34 3

n atural s anctions of hum a n conduct and al l the n atur al ,

vindications of morality found in hum an experi ence and

history I t simply t a kes al l th e g r ist so brought to the
.

met aphysical mill an d s eeks to c o ordin at e al l the

,
-

ethic al issu es involv ed so th at th e life of God so far

, ,

as m anifested in i ts inspiring inu ence sust aining ,

power and quickening impuls es in hum a n lives sh all

, , ,

not b e ne edl essly o bscu re d o r th o ughtl essly ignored

,
.

For it knows we m ay as well try rid ours elves of our

own sh adow as think to fra m e a s ci ence of ethics
irresp ective of met aphysic al bel i efs b el i efs in the ulti w

m at e n ature of th e univ er se an d of man T h e tru e .

scientic m ethod mu st in such a science as th at of

,

ethics be th at which is most co nform abl e to the

,

ch aracter and condition o f th e facts with which it h as

to do A mer ely d es c r iptiv e tr eatm ent of ethics may
.

do well enough for ethical tr eatm ent of m an at dull

l evels and conv en tion al s t ag es but is quit e inc apable ,

ofproducing a r ea lly in s pi r ing ethic b ec aus e it h as no ,

power to explain m an at his ethic al highest Of .

cours e th e advoc at es o f ethics as a strictly scientic

,

discipline ar e quit e co nt ent with th es e l ev els th e

ndings of common s en se s inc e
- th ere is no tr an
scending common sen se eve n in s uch a sph er e as the

-
,

ethical But ethical id eal c an n ev er be s atis ed by

.

empiricism in such c as es as fo r ex ample thos e of th e , ,

artist or th e m ar tyr wh ere in the id ea l transcends

, ,

beyond doubt th e em pi r ic al s t a ndp o int M an in such

,
.
,

cas es in not fo und in th e m ora l w arfar e at his own

,

ch arges but is ar m ed with th e pledges of th at I nnite

,

Mor al Spirit in Wh o m b ehind th e mor al order as its

, ,
3 44 STU D IE S I N E U R O PE A N P H I L O SO P H Y .

Gu ar antor and Author his faith i s ro ot ed and ground ed

,
.

Thus we see the sup er i ority Of th e m et aphysic al tr eat

m ent of ethics ov er th at which is m er ely sc i enti c
car es only for giv en facts with o ut d ue r eg ard to th eir
,

ultim at e philosophic al int er p ret ation Ethics is quite

.

independent o f m et aphy s ical inquir y s o far as d escrip

,

tion of facts touching m o ra l ph en om en a is concerned ,

but th e c ase st and s o th er wis e wh e n w e com e to con

sid er their valu e an d th e n ature of th e reality th at
,

li es b ehind such ph en o m en a N o thing is more cert ain

.

th an th e inu enc e o f cert ain m et aphysical conceptions

upon our ethic al th eo r i es an d up o n th e sort of c ategories
,

a n d terms w e sh all us e for c o n s tr uing an d cl assifying

ethic al facts . Wh at i s to hind er if it b e t ak en other

,

wis e our employi n g m erely n at ur ali s tic c at egori es for

,

man and his m o r al ch ar act er i stics in compl ete dis

,

reg ard of th e tru e ont o l o gic s ignic ance o f his per

son al i ty an d h i s r ea l r el atio n to th e univ ers e ? Th e
n ature of m an an d o f th at reality which constitutes
,

his environm ent c an by no p os s ibility be l eft uncon

,

si d ered in any r ati o n al t reatm ent of ethics But .

nothing in such n eces sa ry m et aphysical r eference need

in the le ast weak en th e in s i s t ence th at ethics be
drawn from an d co n for m to th e truth of things
, ,
.

G erm an m ethod is much sup er i or to British method

h ere wh en the form er put s m et aphysical b ases and
,

implic ations in th e fo r e c o u r t of syst em for th e po st

-
,

p onement of th es e till aft er s eem s both unn ecess ary
and unsci entic .Th er e is no sys t em o f ethics which
is not afli at ed to a m et aphysic of som e sort j ust ,

as ther e is no system of m et aphysics which does not

3 46 S TU D IE S IN E U R O P E AN P H IL OSO P H Y .

no light to s h ed o n ethic al p roc es ses o f inquiry ? Such

a product m a
y b e ethic al sci e nc e but it is sci e nc e g ro wn
,

m ech a nical r ath er th a n vit al a nd s ci enc e n o longer

,

c on f o frnab l e i n m e th o d to th e t r uth a n d r eality which

it i n v es tigat es . Sidgwick an d St eph en reduce it to

m er e wo r king ethica l r ul es Thi s is n ot to s ay th at
.

s uch ethic al sci ence m ay n o t b e among th e rich dat a

which it i s th e bu s i n e ss of m et aphy s ic to i n t erpret ,

but it is to ai rm th at th e ultim at e p r obl em s O f ethics

m ust be vi ewed in th e light of Reality t a k en i n wh o le ,

tha t is o n th e ethic al sid e Of m et aphysic s For even

, .

tho s e who m ak e o f ethic s o nly a s ci enc e o f conduct

s how t h e h altin g a n d u n s ati s factory ch ara ct er o f th ei r

sci entic t rea t m en t by h aving to a pp end acknow

l ed gm en ts o f t h e pl a c e o f m or ality as a n el em ent in
a l ar g e r whol eas s et in a n d r el a t ed to
, co smic pro ,

c es ses a n d or d er . C ert ainly this i s n o t ethics in th e

,

high est ; th ere is a lways so m ethi n g n o t th or ou ghgoing

a b o ut s uch a p roc edu re T h e c as e o f ethics i s v ery
.

different fro m th at Of oth er p articular sci ences wh er e ,

m et aphy s ic al pres uppo siti o n s m ay be inv o lved : the

differ ence li es in th e fact th at p ar ticul ar m et aphys ical
th eo r i es of th e n atu re o f kn o wledge or Of r eality
wh eth er th e reality of m ind or o f m att erare con
ti n ua l l y c ap abl e o f b eing u sed a n d are us ed , fo r th e ,

overth ro w o f th e fu ndam ent al assu m ption s o f ethical

sci enc e T he s p eci al s ci enc es s i m ply ass um e th e ulti
.

m at e p ri n cipl es o f m et aphy s ic s with o ut feeling any call

,

to v alid at e or inv esti gat e th em but th e d ep endence of

ethics i n
,

i ts p ercipi enc e Of Reality b ehind m o ral

ph enom en ai s to o great fo r it n o t to n eed th e h elp
 E T H I CA L D E V E L O P M E N TS OF O U R T IM E .
3 47

which a t ru e m et aphysic c an supply Thi s by n o .

m eans impli es th at ethic s i s a pu rely d eriv ative s ci ence ,

but is m eant to as sert fo r ethic s a rel ati o n to m et a

physic s o th er t h an th a t sust ain ed by any O f th e p ar
ti c ul arth a t is n atur a l sci ence s T h e m et aphysic w e
.

hold will h av e
,

though L S t eph en h ad n o p er c eption

.

of th e fa ct a v ery di f fer e nt inu e nce fo r our ethic s

th an it Will h av e for o ur physic al sci ences T h e b usi .

n ess of ethics is with th e O ught con s ciousn ess no t ,

m erely th e I s con s ci o usnes s an d th e o ught i s ,

for m an o th er an d high er th a n it w as T h e ab str a ction

. ,

in sh or t with which th e speci al s ci ences draw Off

,

particul ar p art s or a sp ect s o f reality fr om th e rest o f

it can o nly with far g reat er di fculty an d with m uch
, ,

less s atisfact o rin es s be p ractis ed i n th e c ase o f ethic al

,

s ci enc e . T h e p ar t a bst r a ct ed is h ere s o l arg e a nd so

clo sely inw o v en with th e Whole o f Reality th at to al l , ,

int ents and purp oses it can n o t b e ad equ at ely d ealt

,

with in s ev era nce fro m m eta phys ic al postul at e s o r

pr o legom en a It i s i m p os sible to ag ree with Tayl o r
.

an d oth er s w h o m ak e ethics a m erely e mpi r ic a l sci e nc e ,

b ased up o n th e br o ad er s ci enc e o f p sych o l o gy Thi s .

i s n ot to s a y th a t psychologic al m ethod mu s t n ot h av e
l arger pl ac e in ethic s as L a dd and o th er s h ave pro
,

perly in s i s t ed but s uch ethical psychol o gy will con s ist

,

o f ethic a l a n a lysi s r ath e r th a n o f s t r ictly p sych o l o gic a l

an aly s is with its gr ea t er ex a ctn ess

,
T h e l a w s of m o r al
.

action m ay surely b e t a k e n as i m m a n e nt e nds o r id eal s

o f hu m a nity s upplying
, as such psych o l ogic al fo un d a
, ,

ti o n for ethics as a sci ence Ethic s can an d must .

, ,

an alys e f or us th e mo ra l consciou s n es s must d eliver it ,

348 S TU D IES IN E U RO P E A N P H ILOSO P H Y .

from di s t res s ing inconsist enci es an d mu s t imp rove

all ,

an d p er fe ct it I n so d o ing ethic s m ust h av e a phil o

.
,

s ophic b asis an d reali se as cl early a s m ay b e th e

, , ,

r el ation s in which w e st an d to th e Univ erse as a

wh ol e So d o i n g ethic s b e c o m es suprem ely r ation al ;
.
,

a n d s uch it m ust b ec o m e for ethic s h as not ev en a ,

b egin n in g with o ut thought Ethic al sci enc e h as n ot .

o nly to do with th e g iv en but with th e I d eal which ,

r each es o u t f ar b ey o nd o ur empi r ic al kn o wl edg e This .

,

b ec au se o f th e dyn a mic ch aract er o f m a n This c o n cern .

with th e I d eal tak es us ulti m at ely i n t o th e o nt o l ogic al

s ph er e to which p sych o l o g ic a l b ear ing s are at l ast
,

dr iv en I n th e Sph ere o f m et a phy s ic al p resupposition s

.
,

ethic s m u s t r ecko n n ot o nl y with th e d ev el o pm e n t s of

th e hu m a n s elf o r p erso n ality but al so with th e m et a ,

phy s ic s O f th e Ab so lut e B eing th e m et aphys ical

Ur gr und o f Wh o m knowl edg e i s ind eed rel ativ e but ,

Who i s y et self r ev eali n g So to o h as ethics to do

- .
, ,

with th e m et aphy s ic s o f th e w o rld th e Ursache

wh erein th e t r u e an d es s enti al b eing o f n atu re will b e
fo u n d i n s pi r it c arr yin g with it th e implic at e o f pur
,

p os i ve n es s an d n o t i n a ny m er e m ech an i s m o f n ature
,
.

M et aphy s ic s i s thu s m et aph y s ic o f s pi r it n o l ess th an

o f n atu re N atu re do es n ot exist alon e and spi rit i s
.
,

c ert ainly n o t s o m ething which n atu re c an an n ex as h er

ow n . M et aphysi c s as sci en c e of th e n atu r e o f r eality
, ,

co n diti o ns th e p erfect ed result s o f eth i c s an d th at to ,

a g reat er d egr ee th an it d oes th e results of th e oth er

s ci e nc es Fo r alik e i n m att er an d in m ethod ethic al
.
, ,

sci enc e differs fr om th e physic al s ci enc es Th ese l att er .

m ay in resp ect of th ei r res ult s b e t r ibut ary t o ethics

, , ,
350 S TU D IES I N E U RO P E A N P H IL O SO P H Y .

m oral life may be min e but I must n eeds pursu e th e

,

unity o f a ration al an d s elf c o nsist ent m or al id eal -

.

Th at is not som ething u n real an d purely im agin ary ;

it is in fact p art of me i s th e most real o f realities
, , , .

An a dv a ncing I d eal is th at wh er eof we speak som e ,

thing th at is fru it of o ur et hica l dev elopm ent and not ,

xed an d absolut e We postul at e a p r og ressive dev elop

.

m ent for mor ality for w e h o ld n o moral id eal to be

,

n al in th e sens e of st ation ary Fin ality in a s en se no

.
,

d o ubt d o es pert ain to th at id eal but not in th e s en se

, ,

o f an ything so ultim a t e a s to preclud e furth er pro

g ress Ethics is one o f th e world s re al factors and

.

, ,

to b e red eem ed from sh eer ph e n o m en alism an d pos sible

illusi o nism must h av e m et aphysic al postul at es these

, ,

l att er to be establish ed i n as r m a n d sci entic a m ann er

a s pos s ibl e This m et aphys ical grounding giv es to ethics
.

or m or ality its unconditi o n al ch aract er and keeps it ,

fro m be ing r educed to th e realm of subj ectiv e j udg m ents .

O n e ca n not h elp feeling so m e surprise alike th at ethicists

h ave so Oft en b een sl ow to p er c eiv e th e fall aci o us i denti
c ati o n of ethic al ch ara ct er with m ere constit ution al
m otive or n atur al impuls e in h edonistic th eo ri es an d ,

to r eali se wh at a r esolutio n o f ethic al r ight int o a m ere

a mi abl e d esire to pl ea s e or m a k e h appy is inv olv ed in

Utilit ar i an i s m with its un s ati s factorin ess as to m otives

, .

Sp en c er wh e n t aking a p s ych o logic al point o f Vi ew is

, ,

fra nkly h edonistic pl eas u re being for him th e n al ai m

,

o f a ll a ctivity But h e wa nts pleasure to so meb ody

.
,

a n d a m a ximum o f pl e as u r e He t akes l ength and

.

b readth o f life as his crit e ri o n o f the end n o t seeing ,

h o w littl e pl easur e m akes for tru e fuln es s of life .

 E T H I CAL D E VE L O P M E N T S O F OU R T IM E .
35 1

Pl eas u r abl e feeling as a cco mp a nim e nt o f th e att ain

,

m e nt of desirable end s is n o w a rr a nty for h ed o nis tic

,

ethic s m a king pl easur e th e s ol e obj ect of d esir e U ni .

for m conj unction i n exp er i en ce do es n ot cr eat e iden tity .

T h e b as es o n which ev e n S idg w ick sought to r es t h i s

Univ ers alistic H edonism or Utilit ari anism wer e by n o
m eans strong l arg ely b ec au se of his treatm ent of th e
,

G oo d in abstraction fr o m th e n atur e of th e b eings for

wh o m it should b e go o d S idgwick s Utilit ari a nism w as
.

Of a h alting kind esp eci ally o n th e evolution al sid e and

, ,

c am e sh o rt O f th e id ealistic ethics of Gr een with i ts ,

insist ence upon goodn es s o f wil l o r ch aract er as ethical

en d. Utilit ari anism ind eed with its faulty accou n t o f
, ,

th e g en esis an d d ev el o p m e nt Of our mor al id eas an d ,

its d eg r ad ation of vi rtu e to th e p o sition of m ean s r ath er

th an end c arri es so m any u n s atisfactory
,
an d ev en o n e ,

feels t empt ed to say ig n obl eimplic ations th at it h as

, ,

l os t ethic al c ast e mo re th a n i n th e nin et eenth c entu ry .

Pro p os ing th e well b ei n g o f m a nkind fo r its en d its

-
,

en d is yet curiously s o ught

i n virtu e Of its h edo nistic
el em e nt by reduction of s o ci ety in gen eral to int eres ted
m o tiv es or consid er ati o n s T h e ethics of expedi en cy
. of

pr ud ence and th e s a tisfying o f m er ely hum an end s

st ands as far r emov ed as ev er it did from wh at h as b een

t erm ed th e ethics o f in n it e a n d myst erious obligati o n

.

It is e nough for us to h o ld by an ultim at e c at ego r y

( ultim ate for pr actic al pu r p o s es even if not conceptu al ly

,

so) o f mor al Oblig ation as th at which m ay b e r eg ar d ed

,

as fund a m ent al in ethic a l c o nc eption I t is pl ai n th at

.

th er ein is th e id eal perce iv ed by us and th at such id eal

,

binds its elf upon u s as b eing divin e in its or igin an d as ,

35 2 S TU D IE S IN E U RO PEA N P H I L O SO P H Y .

b eing id entic al with divin e pu r pos e fo r us Fo r i s not .

,

m an s own id eal r eally o ne with th e id ea o r pu rp o s e of

D eity for him ? D oes n o t arbit rar in ess di sappear fro m

m orality wh en c o nceiv ed as s o m ething th at r ev eals th e
mo ral id eal s o f m an to b e in h ar m o ny w ith th e purpose
o f Go d f o r him as p ar t ak er of t h e D ivin e N atu re ?
, Th e
ethic s o f in n it e o blig ati o n h owb eit th ey w ear a uniqu e
,

ch ar act er and are s et i n a b ackg ro und o f m y st ery still ,

s t a nd high ab o v e th o s e of utilit ar i a n n eed a n d prud ence .

For th e ethic al ph en o m en a r em a in insu fci ently ao

c o u n t ed for by Utilit a r i a nism wh os e vi s i o n m ov es in too
,

limit ed a sph ere o fth e s ubj ectiv e an d th e emoti o n al It .

i s still t r u e th at th e r ight i s n o s oo n er di s c er n ed th an
o blig a tion sup er v e n es For us th e oblig ati o n com es with
.

th e e n light enm e nt o f reason und er th e d ev elop m ent of

s elf c o n s ci o u s n es s T h e m a in u se of th e Utilit ar i an
.

th eo ry i s as a gods end to soci al a nd political philo

s o ph er s wh o h av e n o di fculty in m aking c apit al out of
,

as m a n y s o phi s tic al applic ati o n s a s po s s ibl e o f i ts prin ~

c i p l e o f th e g reat e st h appi n ess o f th e gr eat es t numb er

a p r incipl e wh os e un sati s fa ct or in es s h a s b een w ell s ho wn

by Sp enc er W h y c a n n o t pl eas u re or h appin es s be re

.

pl ac ed by th e gr eat est good O f th e gr eat es t numb erby

th e w ell b ei n g o f so ci ety ? I n reality p er fecti o n o f ao
-
,

ti vi ty as constitutiv e p r incipl e of th e g oo d n eed not

c o nict with o r exclud e h appin ess as but a noth er aspect

, ,

o f t h e m att er .Th ere is no n eed to d eny a pl ac e to

pl easu re as efci ent c au s e in hum a n activit y Since wis ,

dom s ways are pl eas a ntn ess b ut n o t a ch o ic e of pl easur e

, .

Conv enti o n al s ancti o ns an d mi serabl e utiliti es are poo r

sub s titut es fo r uncondition al m or ality and mor al el eva
354 STU D IE S I N E U RO P E A N P H I LO SO P H Y .

tions c an keep me fr om b eing in ethic al ch ara ct er j ust

wh at I m ake mys elf ; th ey do n o t affect my power s o to
r ealis e mys elf in vi r tu e o f th e freedom o f my will A .

tru e freed o m c an n o t but b el o ng to th e v ery n atu r e o f our

spiritu al self activity t h e fa ct of t h e s elf b eing p art o f a
,

s er i es n o wi s e d est ro ying s uch freedom a s th e d et er mini s t ,

is prone to s uppos e W e are free but w e ar e so as we

.
,

become fr ee O u r freed o m is fa ct yet it is achi eved : it is

.
,

th e fr eed o m o f t h e r ip e self consci o u s will ; it li es in

,
-

m oral p erfecti o n wh erein o ur v ery cap acity of free and

,

res p o n s ibl e C h o ic e b eco m es s t r en gth e n ed F reedom as .

,

S i eb eck h as p r op er ly in s ist ed r e m a i n s a n id ea l n ev er
,

wh olly realis ed but reaching on ev en int o a realm o f

,

freedo m lyi n g b eyond th e wo rld T h e freed o m an d i n .

d ep end enc e o f ethical life mus t b e m a i n t ain ed against

det er mini s tic m o ni s m s of ev ery so rt an d a n ethic al b as i s
,

found n ot in p sych o logy but in m et aphys ics for fr eedo m

, ,

a n d obj ectiv e m oral l aw Fo r fr eedo m i s th e p o stul at e

.

o f mor al j ud gm e nt a n d th e m o r al j udgm e nt consists o f

,

in s ight whil e p r ud enti al j udg m ent s are m erely m att ers of

,

fores ight Ethics mov es in th e s ph ere o f th e ab stract

.
,

who se pr incipl es ar e conti n u ally a ctu ali sed i n o ur c o n

c ret e p erson al ity swayed by th e sublimity an d idealit y of
,

moral l aw But th e o bj ectivity o f mo ral l aw i s som e

.

thing to b e lear n ed in al l t h e va st exp er i ence o f life just ,

as th e gr eat Obj ectiviti es o f th e ar ts an d th e s ci enc es a re

l earn ed . H ence ev o luti o n ary consid er ations are not

with o ut their int er est an d valu e alb eit ethics as a nor , ,

m ati ve disciplin e r ea ps no r ea l g ain fo r th e v alidity of

,

its no r ms fr om such consid er ations I n th at resp ect we .

agr ee with Kii l p e T h e results of curr ent ev o lution ary

.
 E T H I CAL D E V E LO P M E N T S OF OU R T IM E .
35 5

ethics in wh atso ev er r esp ects uns atisfa ctor y are at l east

, ,

sugg e stiv e of p r ogres s in m ethod as in ethic al s pi r it and ,

h av e h elp ed to put ethics on th e hi ghly us eful track of

tracing o ut historic mor ality th e evo luti o n o fm oral id eals
,

and instituti o ns in a s ci entic m ann er Evolution ary

, .

ethic h as shown psychologic al a n alysi s of th e n atu re an d

a utho r ity o f consci enc e v ain s av e a s full a ccount i s t aken

,

of th e growth of conscienc e i n th e rac e as in th e i n

dividu al Wundt h as shown th e v alu e of evolutionis m
.

very well in h i s l aw o fth e h et er og o ny ofpurp o s e wh erein ,

unfor es een sourc e s o f n ew id eas of purpo se s pr i n g up so ,

th at altrui s tic d ev elopm ents m ay accru e fro m eg o i s tic

motion s o r b egin n ing s W un dt s differ e nti ati o n of t h e
.

st ages in th e evolution of mor al id eas is a n e exempl i

cation of v alu abl e applic ation of evolution ary doctrin e
in ethics but o n e th at i s n o t a bov e qu esti o n b o th as to
, ,

wh eth er o rigin al mo ra l el em ents are not at tim es as s um ed

rath er th a n di s c o v ered an d as to wh eth er r eal n o rms
,

h ave b een extra ct ed fro m empi r ic al ethics T h e m o dify .

ing effects of ev o luti o n al Vi ew are too p alp able to be

d eni ed and in th e t end ency th ey h av e fost ered to s eek
, ,

a non h ed onistic b as i s f
-
o r ethics th ey mu s t b e r e ck o n ed
,

with by ev ery o n e who would put ethic s o n a s ci entic

b asis But it i s still too soon to forec ast th e ultim at e
.

conclu s ions Of th e activity in s ubj ectiv e p sych o lo gy in ,

physiology of th e n ervou s sy s t em an d in evolution ary ,

interpr et ation ofethic al probl ems Herb art m ad e mor al

.

ity not som ething p ert aining to th e ess enti al n atur e o f an

obj ect but m er ely a j udgm ent of v alu e This j udgm ent
,
.

ofv alu e nd s its st and ard of c o mp ar ison in th e id eas of

inn er freedom p erfection and b en evolence T h e mor al

, ,
.
3 56 STU D IE S I N E U RO P EA N P H ILOSO P H Y .

j udgm ent is a kind of est eem or estim at e of v alu e ; the

j udgm ent of v alu e h as i ts s ubj ectiv e and its Obj ective
a sp ects ; and th e n eed h as in th e ethic al as in oth er
,

s ph er es aris en f
, o r an univ ers a l th eo ry o f v alu e B r oad .

b eginnings in investig ating th e subj ect of v alu e w ere

m ad e by Brent a no and L otze I n our own d ay th e .
,

Au st r i an philo s o ph ers M einong and Ehr enfels h ave

, ,

carr i ed o ut th e id ea of H erb art s j udg m ent s of t ast e o r

deter min ati o ns of v alu e int o m ore c om p reh en s iv e Sph ere

o f t reatm ent a n d th e univ e r s al th eory o f v alu e is s een
,

to be o n e Of n o m erely p s ych o logic al ch aract er By .

Ehrenfels v a lu e i s t aken to m ean th e rel ati o n o f a thi ng

t o d es ire a nd h e t ends to set feeling all feeling b eing to
,

hi m feeling of v alu eand i rration al impul s e abov e o ur

ends as d et er min ed by r ea s o n in a r ath er uns atisfact o ry
,

w ay .M ein o ng giv es mo re pl a c e to r ation al r e ection ;

h e in fact t end s to giv e kno w l edg ean d th e d esi re for
, ,

i ti n a bstracto rather too l ar ge a pl ac e h e r e c o gnis es an

el em ent o f judgm ent in ev er y estim at e Of v a lu e ; but to

him th e appr e ci ati o n o f v alu e p art ak es o f th e n ature of

feeli n g r ath er th an of j udgm en t Such feeling h o wever .
, ,

h e t ak es t o b e n o el e m ent d et ach ed fro m or ind ep end ent ,

o f c o n t ent
, T h e subj ectiv e a spect o f v alu e i s th at em
.

p h as i sed by M einong as b eing th e asp ect with which we

,

are co n cern ed fr om th e psychol o gical point Of View .

M einong s subj ectivism do es not however keep him

, ,

from distingui s hing th e o bj ective fact o f v alu e it self from

th e m erely subj ectiv e appreci ation of v alu e th e Wer th

from th e Wer thhal tung But a m erely individu alistic

.

psycholo gical point of vi ew is by no m eans a n al or

unsurpass able o ne since moral p erson ality c alls in i ts
, ,
 IN DEX

A b lut
so e, 4 , 6 7, 7 2 , 83 , 1 06 , 1 1 2 ,
th e, A ngi ul l i , 25 6
1 1 4 4 1 5 . 1 5 8 1 5 9. 1 6 7 -1 68 . 1 94 1 9 5 .
- -
A nse lm 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 23 1 26 1 3 6 1 8 5
,
-
,
-
, ,
-
18
202 , 2 09 , 2 1 0, 2 1 6, 2 1 9 , 2 24, 2 2 6 -2 2 7 , An th p m phi m 9 2 9 3 3 9 9 5
ro o or s , ,
-
0, , , 1
2 42 , 2 45 2 46 , 2 6 2 , 26 8, 2 74, 29 1 2 9 4 ,
- -
1 1 5, 155
2 98 -2 9 9 . 3 0 1 3 0 2 . 34 5 . 3 49 -
Apoeatas tas i s, 1 00
b lut
A so en es s o f God , th e, 8 7, 9 5 , 1 2 5 , p ll
A o o n i a, 1 5
I 49 , 1 5 8 . 1 6 7. 203 , 2 1 7 -2 1 3 , 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 pl t
A o ogi s s , the, 40 , 5 5 - 5 6 , 6 3 -64
23 . 26 2 . 2 9 0 2 94. 2 96 . 304. u
Aq i nas, 1 1 8, 1 2 1 -1 24 , 1 2 6, 1 2 8
5
- -
1

34 2 5 4, 2 7 , 2 7 ,
3 9 2 84 , 325 ; on C reati !

Abub acer , 2 70 1 32 -1
33 ; tl
on o ogy, ph i l OSO p
1 42 ;
d t
Acci en , 1 3 3 , 1 5 0- 1 5 1 , 2 7 3 -2 7 4 1 28 , 1 35 , 1 40 ; p l
sych o ogy , 1 3 6 ; 1
Acosmi sm , 1 6 8 so ul , 1 35 , 1 40 ; hi s S u mm a, 1 2 8 1 -

tvt
Ac i i y, 2 1 0 , 2 5 2 , 264 -2 65 , 2 72 , 2 79 ,

2 8 2 : 2 8 7 : 3 0 3 ! 3 1 0: 3 1 81 3 2 4, Ara bi 1 29a, , 1 4 1 , 2 70-2 7 1

3 49 3 5 0, 3 5 2 3 5 3 . 3 5 5 3 A so e.
- -
b lut I3 6, A rc h typ
e es, 3 2 , 3 8 , 63 , 96 , 1 2 1 , 1 26 , 1
1 5 6, 2 2 5 , 2 6 8 , 3 0 1 h oso h ca , p il p i l
.

25 5 , I 49 . 2 2 3
2 6 1 , 284 ; s pi i tu lr a ,
1 40, 1 9 9 A rdigb, 2 5 5
Actu al is rn , 4 8 , 1 6 5 , 1 98 -1 99 , 22 3 2 6 3 , , t
Areo pagi e, the, 1 2 9, 1 42
333 1 3 5 4 . 3 5 7 td
Ari s i es , 4o
E ons, 6 8 69 7 5 -76
-
,
ttl
A ri s o e i ani sm, 2 70-2 7 1
E sch yl us, 3 0 t tl
Ari s o e, 5 1 , 78 , 1 05 , 1 09 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 8 , 1
l Esth eti cs, 200 , 245 1 2 3 - 1 24 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 8- 1 3 0, 1 3 5 1 3 6 , 1 4 -

t
Agnos ici sm , 4 8 2 , 1 20, 1 3 4, 1 42 , 207
,
1 44 . 1 47-1 49 . 1 69 . 2 7 . 2 8 9 -2 90. 3 c
3
Ah ri man, 9 3 0 4, 3 1 3 , 3 2 2, 3 2 5 ; th e Ca tegon
u d
Ah ra M az a , 9
- 18 Cu t
a sa i on, 20 -2 7 C os mo ogy , 3 l
lb t u
A er us M agn s , 1 1 8 , 1 26, 1 29 , 1 3 9 , 1 42 , t
Dei y, 3 3 3 4 ; F
orm, 1 8 1 9 ; M a -
tt
1 49 1 8 20-
M etaphy si cs , 1 8 1 9 , 25 -2 -

Al x nd i
e a r a; 72 7 5 95 1 29 1 1 : P hy s i cs, 2 5 -2 6 ; Pri m e M o er , 2 5 2 v -

All g i i g 70 1 02
e or s n , ,
lt
3 4, 3 7 ; Rea i y, 3 7 ; Su s ance, 1 7 bt
Alph u 75
on s s, 2 A rnaiz , M arce i no , 2 8 3 -2 84 l
Alt uism 1 66 3 5 3 3 5 5
r . . .
A M A
Alv arad F isco 2 76
o, ran c , t
A sce i cism, 8 , 1 1 3 , 1 66
A lv B lth
ar ez , 273
a aza r, t p l
A sia i c h i oso hy, 1 -3 , 1 3 p
A mb rose, 8 12 A ssyrians, 1 1
Am i er ca,28 5 3 1 1 ,
t
A avi sm, 1 84
A m i n th i
er ca e16 1 cs, t u
A h an asi s, 5 9 , 64, 1 2 8
A mm i u Son s 1 00 accas, t t
A h ei s i c moni s , 1 70 m
An l gy 1 09 1 3 1 1 5 0 1 9 2 207
a o , , , , , , 29 1 t
A h enag oras, 40 , 5 7
A x g
na a o ras , 1 5 39 5 3 , ,
t
A o mi sm, 1 5 , 3 5 3
A xi m d
na an 15 er , tt but
A ri es , 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 5 6 - I 5 9 , 1 6 9 , 2 8
.

An xi m n
a 15
e es, 29 9 1 300
3 60 IN DE X .

A u/ kl m ng, 1 7 4, 1 78 , 1 82 B osanq e , ut 3 13
u ut
A g s i ne, 5 2 , 78, 80-8 2, 1 09, 1 1 7 1 1 8, -
B ousset, 65

vl
1 2 3 , 1 2 8 -1 2 9, 1 3 5 - 1 3 6, 1 5 1 , 2 84, 3 23 B outr oux, 245 -2 46, 2 48 -249, 28
5
t
3 2 5 ; e h i cs, 78 -79 ; e i , 8 3 8 7 ; fo re B owne, 285
k now e ldge, 79 80, 88 89
- - p lsych o ogy, B dl
ra ey, Dr, 2 8 5 : 3 1 67 3 2
ll
79 , 8 2, 3 23 -3 24 ; th e wi , 8 4-85 , 3 24 B rad ward i ne, 1 5 3
uti
A s r a, 1 45
_

B rah ma, 5 , 6
ut p l
A s rian h i oso h ers p B t
ren ano, 356 ; B p l p
ra h mani c hi oso h y, 5 -8
Dz i ewi cki , 1 45 Eh renfe s , 3 5 6 ; M ei
l B t
ren ano, F , 3 5 6 .

no ng, 3 5 6 B t
ri ai n, 3 1 1
Avempace, 2 70 B t t
ri i sh e hi cs, 1 6 1 , 3 44
v
A err oes, 2 70 B d
roch ar , 2 46
v
A errois m, 2 7 1 Bu G d
r no, i or ano, 1 6 9
v t
A es a, 1 , 9 B udd ens i eg , 1 4 5
v b
A i ce ron, 2 70 Budd hi sm , 7-8 , 74
v
A i cenna, 1 4 1 , 2 70 Bu sse, 2 85 , 2 9 8, 3 0 1 , 3 2 7
A warenes s, 3 1 2 , 3 1 8, 3 3 0, 3 3 3
Cid D E
a r , 295 r .
,
2,
B byl
a oni ans, 1 1 , 66 C t i 25 5
an on ,

B acon, 4, 24 1 C m i 34
a er , 1
Bal l anche, 2 3 8 C aro , 2
4 44 5 2, 2 , 2 0
Bal mez , J L , 2 76-2 82, 285
. . C t i ni m 1 1 1 5 4
ar es a s , 1 , , 1 5 8, 1 69 , 2 3 8 , 2
Ban nez , 2 72 C t l 27
a a an, 2
Bardai san , 6 9 C t l i 2 76
a a o n a,
B l
asi , 1 2 8 C t g i 8 19 1 6
a e or es, 1 ,
0 , 1 47- 1 48 , 1 8 7, 1 !
b lut
Basi li des, 6 9, 75 A so e, 72 ; sych o p 2 1 0 -2 1 1 , 2 1 4, 2 2 2 -2 2 3 , 24 7, 2 73 , 2
l ogy , 7 1 s f feri ng, 7 1 ransmigra i on,
u t t 2 86,
3 90. 2 99 3 2 3 , , 3 30, 3 42 , 3 44 , 3 5
71 C th li i m
a o c s , 1 2 7, 2 8 3
Bu t
a mgar en, 3 1 3 C u li ty 6
a sa , , 8, 1 4, 2 0- 2 1 , 27
,
1 30, 1 3
Bu
a r, 1 8 1 1 34, x4 r, 5 5 , 1 88 - 1 89, 2 65 -2 69, 2 7
1
B ut
ea y, 40, 8 7, 1 08 , 1 1 3 -1 1 4 2 7 9 , 2 8 9 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 4 , 3 01 , 3 2 6
B
eccar ia, 2 5 4 Cu t
a sa i on, 2 0 -2 7 , 8 0 8 3 , 1 2 6, 1 30, 1 -

Beer, D r, 1 45 1 3 3 , 1 3 8 , 1 6 5 , 2 6 7 -2 68 , 2 73
Bei ng, 6 7 , 7 2 -74, 94 , 1 06 1 07, 1 1 0, 1 1 2 ,
-
Cu b lut
a s e, A so e, 1 5 0 - 1 5 1 , 1 5 5 , 1 60, 1 ;
1 2 5 4 26 7 I 3 04 3 2 , I 3 4: 1 43 5 I 49 7 1 90 , 2 6 8, 3 03
1 5 5 , 1 5 7-1 5 8, 1 8 5 , 1 8 7 , 2 1 0, 2 1 2 , 2 1 7, Ceri nth us, 6 9
2 2 2 , 2 2 7 , 2 3 6 -2 3 7 . 245 , 2 6 2 , 2 67 , 2 73 , C t tud
er i e, 1 6 2 , 243 , 247, 25 1 , 2 76 -2:
2 76 , 2 79 , 2 80-2 8 1 , 2 8 7 -2 8 9, 2 9 1 , 29 7
3 24, 3 3 7
2 9 8, 3 00, 3 02, 3 04 , 3 07 , 3 1 , 33 9 , 3 4 1 ,
3 Cesca , 2 5 6

345 C l d Cu l
ha ce on, o nci of, 5 7
B u
el gi m, 2 8 5 Ch i n a, 1 2
Bl
e i ef, 1 92 , I 94! 25 91 C t u t
hi nese h o gh , 3 -4
2 78 , 2 8 2 , 3 06 , 30 8, 3 1 0, 34 3 C t
hri s , P erson of, 76, 98 , 1 80-1 8 1
B k
ene e, 2 5 7 C t d
h ri s en om, 1 43
B t
en h am, 3 5 3 C t T l
h ri s i an h eo ogy, 40 , 7 7 , 1 2 9, 222
B ergso n, 2 48 , 2 5 0, 2 5 2 C t t u t
hri s i an h o gh , 5 2 , 6
B kl
er e ey, 1 47 , 20 7, 225 , 2 3 1 -23 3 , 3 1 3 C t t
hri s i ani y, 1 72-1 74, 1 2 , 242 g
Bersot, 242 C tl
hri s o ogy, 5 4, 5 9 ,
B bl
i e, 1 74 C t
h rysos om, 1 2 8
B bl l t
i i o a ry, 1 74 Churchl y-Sch ol as i c Phi oso hy, 276, 2 t l p
Bi edermann , 2 3 6 2 s4
l
Bi o ogy. 3 2 7, 3 3 7 Ct
i y ofGod, 84-85 , 9 1 , 3 5 7
Bd
o y, mi nd and , 3 1 3 , 3 2 5 ,
3 26 -3 2 9 Cl t
emen , 40, 5 8, 60 , 72, 75 , 92
Bo eh ri nger, 1 45 Coe, 3 22
B t u
o e hi s, 1 4 1 C t
ogni i on, 9 9 , 1 03 , 1 1 3 , 1 40, 1 6 2 , 1
Bonatel l i , Francesco, 2 5 6-269 242, 2 5 9 , 289, 290, 3
l
Borre l i , 2 5 5 3 2 3 7 3 3
3 62 IN D E X .

Ego, 8 , 1 7 3 20 7, , 20 9, 2 1 4, 24 1 , 3 1 5 -
3 16, u
E ro pe, 1 2 7 , 2 7 2
3 20, 3 2 3 u p
E ro e, M e i ae a , 1 20 d vl
EgO ism, 1 6 7, 3 5 5 u p p l
E ro ean h i osoph y, 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 2 7,
pt t u t
E gy i an h o g h , 1 1 1 29 vl
E i , 8 -1 0 , 44 , 48 , 6 7 -6 8, 7 6, 8 2 , 1 39, 1 5
E h rehfel s, 3 5 6 1 64- 1 6 5 , 1 9 8 , 20 1 , 2 09 , 245 ori gi n 0
l t
E ea i cs, 2 9, 3 1 8 3 -8 4 , 86 -8 7, 89, 1 0 1 , 1 1 3 ; n egatit
t
E ma na i ons, 4 -5 , 3 5 , 5 8, 60, 62, 76, 8 1 , ch arac er of t
, 1 3 9, 3 24

9 6 , 1 1 2 , 1 42 , 2 7 1 v lut
o t
i o n, o f e h i cs, 3 3 6 33 7 , 342 -3 4 -

E merson, 3 20 3 5 1 1 3 5 5 ; Of CV, 89 ;
t
E mo i o ns , th e, 1 9 7, 204, 2 1 1 , 3 49 d
mi n , 249 , 3 2 9 ; of re igi on, 6 1 , 1 7 l
p
Em i ri c i s m, 1 43 , 1 48, 1 89 , 200 , 2 1 4, 1 77 1 7 8, 2 1 3 ; of wo r , 7 3 , 9 1 , 1 7
-
ld
2 26 , 2 2 9, 2 5 2 , 2 5 4-2 5 5 , 2 5 8, 2 8 2, 3 02 , 2 08 , 2 24, 23 4, 2 3 9 , 2 5 0, 2 5 6 , 2 86

3 1 4 , 3 3 1 3 3 4, 3 43 l 313
so u ,

E nergy, 2 0, 2 5 2 6, 2 8, 2 30 , 2 3 7, 301 , 3 1 8 ,
-
E v lut i ni m 24 1 242 3 5 5
o o s ,
-
,

3 7 3 2 8, 3 3 4 E x g ti 7 1 76
-
2 e c ca, ,

l
Eng an d , 2 8 5 E xp i n 1 2 6 1 65 1 68
er e ce, , , , 181, 1 88 - 1
t t
E nl i gh enm en , th e, 1 74, 1 78 , 1 82 1 9 4, 1 96 , 200-20 1 , 209 - 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 -2
p t tu
E ic e s, 4 1 , 4 5 , 5 0, 1 69 2 1 6 -2 1 8, 220-2 2 1 , 2 25 , 2 29 , 2 3 3, 2 3
p t l
E is emo ogy, 1 2 3 , 1 4 1 , 1 48, 2 1 6, 22 3 , 2 3 7, 2 42 , 248, 2 64, 2 66 - 2 6 7 , 2 8 7-29
2 3 2 , 2 47: 2 881 300 3 0 1 1 3 1 71 3 221 33 3 2 93 , 2 9 5 -2 9 8 ,
3 00, 3 0 2, 305 , 3 1 3 3 1 ,

d B
Er mann, enno , 1 8 7 3 2 1 , 329 , 3 43
d J
E r man n , E , 1 45
. . E xpen mental tsm, 2 4 1 , 243 , 2 5 6
dt
E rh ar , 3 2 7 xt
E ensi o n, 1 1 1 1 5 5 - 1 5 6, 2 2 5 , 2 5 8 28
. ,

tu
ri gena , Sco s 1 1 8 , 1 24-1 26
, 3 00
s ch a to l ogy , 1 00

Essence , 19 21, 9 7, 1 06 , 1 2 2, 1 3 1 Fal ckenb erg, 1 45

3 6, 1 4 2 ,
1 1 6 0-1 6 1 , 1 6 6,
1 5 7, Fall , th e, 85
26 1 , 2 7 3 2 74 , 2 80 ,
-
28 7 -2 88 , 2 9 1
2 8 2, Fatal i sm, 46, 94 1 1 2 , 246
,

2 9 2 , 2 9 4, 3 07 , 3 1 4! 3 1 9 3 20
-
Fate, 3 5 , 3 9 , 1 4 1
l t
E thi ca Dei y, 20 3 , 2 44, 2 8 7 Fath ers, th e post Ap ostol i c 5 5 ,
-
, 1 28 1 21 -

t l
E hi cal d ua i s m, 6 8 1 77
t l t t
E h i ca i n eres s , l
79 , 8 6, 1 9 4, 24 7, Fee i ng, 1 9 6, 2 5 8, 263 -2 65 , 2 80, 3 1 9, 33
2 8 7 , 3 40 3 40 4 3 5 0 , 3 5 6
t l
E h i ca la w, 1 0, 49 Ferrar , 2 5 5 i
t l
E hi ca mon i sm, 2 2 7 t
Fi ch e, 1 9 5 , 202 , 290, 3 0 2 , 3 1 5 , 345
t
E hi ca lp l p
h i oso h y, 49 -5 0, 1 02, 1 3 5 Fil angi eri , 2 5 4
t l p t
E hi ca s i ri , 3 1 , 1 0 1 , 1 6 1 -1 62 , 1 78 , 1 9 7 , Fi na lC u
a se, 24, 3 4, 1 3 4 ,
2 9 2 , 3 49 , 3 5 5 Fi rs tC u
a se, 2 1 -2 6 , 1 07, 1 2 3 , 1 30 -1 3 1 , 1 3
t lt
E h i ca h ei sm, 88 , 1 9 3 - 1 94 1 8 7 -1 88, 266 -268 , 2 79 , 2 8 9
t l t
E h i ca h eory, 4 1 -42 , 47, 88 , 1 02 , 1 2 7, Fi s e, 3 1 3 k
1 9 3 , 2 46 , 3 40 , 3 44 F orence, 2 5 7 l
t
E h i cs , - u u ti

3 3 6 3 5 7 ; A g s ne s , Fon seca, P e rus, 2 72 - 27 3 t
-8
79 9 ; e m p i ri ca , 3 43 3
.
l 4 7 -
3 49 , 3 5 1 k
Fore- now ed ge, Di i n e, 7 9 80 , 88 89 l v - -

v l ti
3 5 5 ; e o u onary, 3 3 6 3 3 7 , 342 3 43 , For m,
- -
1 91 1 06 7 1 3 3 1 I 3 S1 I 3 9 1 4 '

3 5 1 35 5
-
Green s, 3 4 1 , 3 5 1 h l sto ry o f, 1 5 2 , 1 69. 2 94, 3 2 5
1 44, 35 7 ; i n i i a is i c, d v du l t 1 95 1 9 6 ; Fortl age, 2 5 7
-

t t d
Ka s , 1 9 2 -20 0, 3 3 9 , 3 42 ; me h o o f, Fo i e, 2 49-2 5 0, 285 , 3 42
n

u ll
x6 t , 33 6 33 7 . 3 43 , 3 45 3 49 ; m eg
- -
a Fo ri er, 2 3 9 u
p i _

h ys cs an d, 3 4 3 -349 , i
O r gen s, France, 2 3 8 , 24 2 , 25 0-2 5 3 , 285 , 3 1 1
O

p t l
9 2 , 1 0 1 1 0 2 ; rac i ca , 3 5 , 4 2, 47 , 1 64, Fran ch i , 2 5 5
-

351 p l
sych o ogy and , 347-3 48 ; sci en Franci scans, 2 72, 2 7 5
ti c , 33 6, 3 4 2 -3 44 , 3 1 6 3 5 5 ; Fran c , 2 42 k
l
soc i a , 1 9 5 , 2 1 9 -2 22 , 23 2 , 2 3 8 2 3 9 , 2 5 1
-
, d
Free o m, 84, 88 -89 , 1 0 1 - 1 02 , 1 3 7-1 3
33 4, 3 5 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 ; S
2 - i noz a

p
s, 1 60 1 6 1 , 1 49 - 1 5 0 , 1 60 , 1 6 5 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 8, 202 , 2c
-

1 6 4, 1 6 7 1 68 ; S oi ca
-
t
5 1, 52 l, 220 , 2 27 -22 9 , 2 3 6 , 2 6 9 , 3 04 3 0 5 , 3
uk
E c en , 30 7 1 0
3 43 3 4 1 4 2 , 3 5 4-
35 5
u pd
E ri i es, 3 0 3 1 reewrl l , 84, 8 7 , 1 1 2, 1 5 0, 3 03
 I ND E X .

F ench E l ti
r c ec cism 242, 244 -24 , 249 , z 1
5 S t
H ar mann , 290 , 3 3 7 -33 8
French ph i l osophy: 2 3 8-2 5 3
-
t
H a ch , 5 9 , 94
Ful lerton, 28 5 H aurau, 1 4 5
Fu ncti ona l psych logy
3 29 330 o , b
H e rai s m, 8
Fund a mental P h al osop/ry , 2 76 -2 77
'

d
H e o ni sm , 1 06, 35 0 3 5 1 i 3 5 3 3 5 5
'

F ure Li fe, th e, 48, 2 5 0, 306-3 09

ut l
H ege , 1 4, 72 , 89 , 1 25 , 1 42, 1 68- 1 69, 1 7
1 8 2 - 1 8 3 , 1 8 7- 1 8 8 , 1 9 1 , 204 , 207, 2 1
Gabell i , 25 5 2 1 2 , 2 1 4 , 2 2 2 -22 , 2 0 , 2 6, 2 8 , 24
3 3 3 3
Gal iani , 2 5 4 2 77 , 2 8 3 , 3 0 2 , 30 7
Gal l uppi , 2 5 4' 25 7 l
H ege i ani sm , 2 5 5 , 2 8 3
Garnier, 242 H ei ne, 1 7 5
Gaunil o, 1 26 ll
H e enism , 6 5 , 6 9, 9 3
G t t d
ene i c me h o , the, 1 9 3 , 3 1 6 -3 1 7 , 3 2 5 , l lt
H e mh o z , 2 5 8
3SI l tu
H erac i s, 1 5 , 3 1 -3 2 , 5 3 , 6 1 , 3 20
v
Geno esi , 2 5 4 b t
H er ar , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 -2 5 8 , 29 7, 3 02 , 3 5 5 -3
G t
eo me ry , 1 5 9 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 7 d
H er er, 8 7, 1 7 8
G l t tu
erman i era re, 1 7 1 d
H esi o , 29 3 0 -

t d
German me h o , 3 44 t
H e erogony, 3 5 5
p l p
German hi oso hy, 2 5 7 H eymans , G , 2 8 5 .

G p l
erman sych o ogy, 264 H in du t u t
h o gh , 4 -5 , 8 -9 , 1 1
G p t
erman S i ri , 1 8 2 t
H i s ori ca lp l p
h i oso h y, 1 , 3 , 1 45 , 23 9 , 24
t d tl
German ranscen en a ism, 1 47 246 , 2 70 , 2 74 . 2 84 . 2 8 9 , 2 94
Germany, 1 84, 2 85 , 3 1 1 t
H i s ory, 1 7 1 , 1 73 , 1 77- 1 78, 1 80 - 1 8 1 , 1 2
G ul x
e inc , -1 70 I 93 , 1 96 , 20 3 , 24 1 , 27
Gi annone, 2 5 4 30 5 , 3 1 7 3 1 8, 3 40, 3 43 , 3 5 5 , 3 5 7
-

G b
i o erti , 25 5 Ho bbes , 1 2 1

Gi oja, 2 5 4 d
H o gson , Dr Sh ad worth , 2 8 5
Gizycki , 3 5 3 H ffd i n g, 3 26, 3 29 , 3 37
Gn os i s, 65 , 67-6 8, 70, 7 5 , 1 04 l d
H o l an , 2 8 5 , 3 1 1
t
Gnos i ci sm, 5 4, 64, 6 5 -77 , 1 03 , 1 1 3 ; H o mer , 29 -3 0
Clemen t
on, 7 5 -76 ; H e eni c, 70 7 3 ; ll -
k
H oo er, 1 2 3
Ju dai c, 69 ; P agan , 69 , 74 H o wi son , 2 85
t
Goe h e, 1 69, 1 75 , 2 64, 3 07, 3 3 2 u
H go of St i c or, 1 22 V t
G t
oe ze, 1 74 u
H m e, 2 3 2 , 2 48, 3 1 5
l
Gonza ez , 2 75 l
H y oz o i sm, 3 1
G l
onza ez , eferi no, 2 76 Z H y n oti s m, 3 3 1
Good , th e, x6, 2 1 , 24, 3 3 , 3 6. 3 8 , 44 , 48 , g
H y ostas is, 1 6, 5 4, 9 6, 1 06
49, 82 85 , 1 07, 1 3 6, 1 6 3 , 1 98 , 2 02 , 3 3 8
-

3 42, 3 5 t 3 5 3 r 3 5 7 '
Ib i
er a, 2 74 -2 7 5
pl
Gos e , the, 1 80, 1 8 3 Id l
ea , th e, 3 5 , 3 6, 49 , 6 3 , 88 , 9 3 , 1 3 0 1 3
-

Grace, 1 3 7 4 3 8 , 1 43 1 6 7 , 1 8 6, 1 94 - 1 9 5 , 1 99 -200 , 202 , 2 1

Granada, 2 73 2 2 3 -2 2 4, 2 44 , 2 5 2 , 26 3 , 2 8 2 , 28 8 , 3 0
G t
ra ry, 2 39 3 7 3 39 3
2 , 4 1 , 3 4
-
3 , 3 4s, 3 4 8 -
35 I
G 63
reece, d l
I ea is m, 5 2 , 1 0 1 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 , 1 6 5 , 1 69, 1 7
G k th ugh t 2 3 1 0 1 2 28 29
ree o - - -
35 , 38 2 0 7 209 , 2 1 7 , 2 26 , 2 2 9 , 2 33 , 244 24
- -

3 9 60 , 1 00 I 2 9
,
, ,

,
, ,

2 49 , 2 5 5 . 2 60, 3 00 , 3 05 , 3 4s ; B k er

G ek t ragedy 30 3 1
re ,
- l '
ey s, 1 47, 2 3 1 t l
e hi ca , 2 1 6 -2 1 7, az t
G en 236 34 1 3 5 1
re , , ,
l
H ege i an , 20 7-2 1 5 , 2 1 9-2 24, 2 29 -23
G gori s th e 1 28
re e , ,
- t
N eo K an i an, 2 3 0, 2 5 3 ; O r g i e n
'
s, 1 0

Guy n 2 5 0
a ,

lt
1 02 ; P a o s, 5 3 , 1 0 1 lt u
ofP o i n s, 1 1
111 t t
h ei s i c, 20 7, 2 1 3 -2 1 5 , 2 1 9-2 3 7
H aeck el 299 ,
I l t d lt
d ea i s , th e, 1 2 1 i ea i y of, 3 1 4, 3 5 4
Haldane 3 23 ,
Id eas) 1 9 1 2 7 1 3 81 9 3 1 1 3 2 1 I 4
Ham l i n 2 5 2
e ,
1 6 2 , 1 94, 2 1 6 -2 1 7 , 2 3 2 , 249 , 27

Hami lton 2 1 9 ,
2 74, 2 75 , 2 80, 23 2, 3 00 : 3 1 6 , 3 1 9 , 3 5
Happi ness 1 66 1 93 2 73 3 5 2 , , , , 35 5
Harnac k ,
62, 1 04 d t
I ea i on , 2 5 8 , 3 30, 342
3 64 I ND EX .

Imagi na i on, 3 1 8 t 33 4, 3 5 3 3 5 4 ; -
v lua e, 2 5 2, 2 6 x, 342, 3 5
Immanence, 1 9, 2 6, 3 4, 5 5 , 5 8 -6 1 , 1 3 0, 3 57
1 60, 1 6 5 , 1 8 5 , 203 , 2 1 9, 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 , 2 6 8 , Justic 3 0 e, .

2 96, 3 0 , 3 04. 3 06, 3 1 0, 3 3 2 , 3 3 4. 3 47

9 Justin M ty 1 0 40 ar r, , ,
606 1
t lit
Immor a y, 1 00 , 1 43 , 1 62 , 1 79, 25 0,
3 06-3 09 K n t 1 6 1 1 72 1 8 3 206
a , , ,
-
, 2 1 2, 2 1 9, 22
Im pulse, 2 65 , 33 0, 3 5 6 2 30, 2 3 8 , 48 , 290, 294-23
24 2. 2 4 7 2
t
I ncarna i on , 5 6, 5 8 -5 9, 64, 6 7, 8 1 , 9 3 , 302 , 3 1 5 , 3 2 2 , 33 9, 3 42 ; C osmol ogl
961 1 04) I 49 arg men , 1 8 7 - 1 9 0 ; free om , 1 9 8 ; me
u t d
dt i i
In e erm n sm, 1 0 1 , 2 48 p h ysi cs , 1 86 , 1 9 2 M o ra r oof, l p
'

19
d
I n i a, 1 , 1 2 , 6 6 1 9 6 ; O n o ogi ca tl
arg men , 1 85 - 1 8 l u t
I t u t
nd i an ho gh , 2 -3 , 5 , 8 -9 p l p
hi oso h y of re i gi on, 1 84, 1 9 3, 1 l
I d v du l
n i i a i s m, 4 1 , 44 , 99 , 1 2 1 , 1 63 , 1 7 8 201 -2 0 3 , 2 05 -206 ; r eason , 1 99
1 9 2 0 3 2 3 8, 3 5 3 , 3 5 6
7, ,
t
Kan i ani sm , 1 34, 2 45 , 247 -248, 2 5 5 , 28
I ndIVId ua l l ty, 46, 5 0 , 6 2 , 1 1 9 , 1 40, 1 46, 2 89 , 3 2 2
1 6 5 , 1 6 8 , x79 , 2 1 4, 2 7 1 , 2 98 -2 9 9, 308 K arma, 8
v du t
I ndi i a i o n, 1 39, 2 22 , 2 7 1 d
Ki ng om o fGod , 1 9 9
I t
nni e, th e, 6 , 8 , 9 5 , 1 05 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 29 kl
Kin e , 2 30
1 30, 1 5 0, 1 5 4, 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 - 1 60, 1 6 9 , 2 1 2 , ld
K now e ge, heory o f, 89, 1 02 1 03 , 1 2 t -

2 1 9 2 20 , 22 7, 2 2 9 , 2 3 6) 2 44 , 1 40, 1 48 , 1 5 5 , 1 60 , 1 6 2 -1 64, 1 70, 2 1

2 6 81 2 74 1 2 76 1 2 9 1 1 2 949 3 43 2 1 4 , 2 1 6 , 22 2, 2 24, 2 3 0-2 3 1 , 2 3 3 , 24
I n ni tud e, 9 5 2 5 8 2 64 , 2 93 -2 9 4 , 3 5 6
,
t
I n ni y, 2 3 5 , 244 , 2 93 Koen g, 2 94 i
1 18 u
ra se, 2 8 3 -284
I u t
nq is i i on , th e, 2 7 2 rausean p l
h i oso h y, 2 83 p
p t
I ns i ra i on, 1 78 K l pe, 2 85 , 3 2 7, 3 5 4
t ll t
I n e ec , 1 37 , 1 40- 1 4 1 , 1 5 5 - 1 5 6 , 1 92, 200, u
K no Fi sch er, 1 8 5
2 1 7, 2 2 5 , 2 40 , 2 5 8 , 2 86, 3 2 1 , 3 2 9 . 3 3 8
t ll tu l
I n e ec a ism, 1 6 3 1 64, 1 6 7 1 6 8 , 1 72 , - -
Labanca , 2 5 6
1 96, 2 1 3 2 1 5 , 2 4 7, 3 1 6, 3 2 3 -
b l
La ri o a, 2 5 6
t ll v
I n e igence, D i i ne, 1 60, 1 9 1 , 2 6 8 , 2 79 L ach el i er, 2 45 , 2 49
I t ll b l t v
n e i gi i i y, D i i ne , 1 3 4, 1 5 6 , 1 6 7 La , P ro f G T , 2 8 5 , 3 47
dd . . .

I t t
n erac i on , th eory o f , 3 27 3 9
- 2 Lamarc , 2 42 k
I tu t
n i i on, 1 2 5 , 245 , 2 76, 289 , 3 1 5 Lamennai s, 2 3 8
I t u t
ra nia n h o gh , 9 1 0 -
d
Lan , 2 8 5
I renze us, 64, 6 5 Lara, O r i y, 2 76 , 2 8 3t
I si d ore (so n o fB as i l i d es ) , 7 1 L ati n, 1 45
I d v ll
s i ore of Se i e, 2 70 L aw, 9 , 1 7, 5 3 , 78 , 8 3 , 1 24. 26
I l d
ta i an m i n , 2 5 6 2 62 , 2 66 , 2 7 7-2 78 , 2 8 2, 3 1 8 , 3 23-3 1
It l p l
a ian h i o so ph y, 2 5 4 -269 3 2 7 , 3 29 , 3 4 1 : 3 5 7
I l l
ta i an ps ych o ogy, 2 5 8 -2 5 9, 2 6 5 Lech er , 1 45 l
tl C t l
I a y, 2 5 4 -2 5 6, 2 5 8, 2 85 , 3 1 1 en ra , b
L ei niz , 1 2 1 , 1 3 9 , 1 7 1 , 1 79 , 1 89, 24
25 5 t ut
N or h ern, 2 5 5 So h ern , 2 5 5 2 45 246. 2 7 7 , 2 80, 2 90: 3 1 3
-

u
Iz q i erdo , A G mez , 2 83 -2 84 . Lemos, P A , 28 4 . .

L eonh ardi , 28 3
Jms P f
a e , 3 1 3 3 1 6 3 2 2 3 27
ro .
, , , , L essi ng , 1 7 1 -1 83 , 20 1
33 7 ub
L e a, 3 2 2
Jnt a e 3 36, u ppu
Le ci s, 1 5
J ui ts th 2 72 273 275
es ,
e, -
, b t
L i era o re, 25 5
J u 76
es s, b t
Li er y, 2 4 5 -2 46, 2 6 5 , 2 70, 28 2 , 303
J wi h th ugh t 6 6 6 9 1 69 1 76 2 70 27 1
e s o , , , , ,
-
Life, 1 0 , 4 7 , 5 1 -5 2 , 8 5 , 1 02, 1 6 3 -1 64, 1
J dl 3 6
o ,
2 1 7 5 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 200 , 206, 2 1 0, 2 1 4, 2
J hn St n L g 5 4 5 5
o , , o o os, - 2 1 8 . 2 2 9 , 2 33 -23 4, 25 0, 2 77 , 29 3 . 3

J uff y 42 24 3
o ro ,
2 -
3 0 8 , 3 1 0, 1
3 5 3 ,
1 9 -
3 20, 3 22 3 3, 3
- 2

Jud ic G ti i m 69
a n os c s , 3 5 0, 3 5 7
Jud i sm 69 1 72 27 1
a , , , ib
_

L s on , 2 75
Judgm nt ct of 1 64 1 86 25 5 2 5 9 265
e ,
a , , , , , , tt
Li r, 24 1 , 2 86
3 66 IN D E X .

1 1 1, 1 1 3 - 1 1 4, 1 1 8, 1 22 , 1 25 , 1 42 , 1 9 7 , p
O r h i ci sm , 2 9
3 3 O 3 SI '
v u
O erso l , 3 7, 3 1 6
t l
M y h o ogy, G ree k , 2 9 -3 3 , 40, 65 , 6 7 Oxf d 2 or , , 1 46
O z an am, 7 8
N aza n tire Wi se, 1 72 - 1 7 3
t
N a orp , 1 7 , 2 3 0 t u t
P agan h o gh , 5 2 , 69 , 7 4
N atu m n atu r ata, 1 60 1 6 3 ,
P an taenus, 9 2
tu l t l
N a r a h eo ogy , 9 1 30 7 1 1 72 1 7 8 12 -
, 1 -
, ,
t
P an h ei sm , 2 , 5 6 , 4 1 , 8 0 , 94, 1 0 5 , 1 1 -

244 1 20 , 1 2 5 , 1 5 5 , 1 79 , 2 2 1 , 2 2
N tu l i m
a ra 9 O6 3 5 1 33 7 3 44
s . 2 .
I . . . 2 42 , 2 4 5 -246 , 2 8 0 2 82 , 2 9 5 -

N tua 6 8 r e. 34 23 3 37. . 67 1 . .
2 .
2 . ll l
P ara e i sm , h eory o f, 3 26 - 3 2 7t
288 9 6 99 3 0 3 0
.
2 31 33 7 3 48 ;
-
2 .
1 - 2. 1. .
Pari s , 2 7 5
H g l e e ; O ig 00 ; P l t i nu
on, 2 2 2 r en , 1 o s, Parsee, 8 6
1 10 P as si on, 46, 1 64- 1 6 5 , 1 67,
N C i ti i m R uvi
ee - r c s 46 2 48 , en o er s , 2

- ul
Pa s en , 2 8 5 , 2 8 7 , 3 26, 3 44
N H g li i m
eo - e e an s
4 5 9 31 , 2 1 2, 22 -2 2
, 22 2
-
P eccen ini , 2 5 6
N eo-K ti m an
3 46 48 2 5 2 5 3
s , 2 0, 2 , 2 ,
2- , d
P e agogi cs, 1 70
5 5 56
2 -
2 l
P e ag ian is m , 2 72
N Pl t ni m
ee - 11
a o 35 60 80 8 s 93 , , , ,
-
1, , pt
P erce i on , 1 6 1 , 2 2 5 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 8 260, 2 7 -

1 5 0 3 1 8 , 3 2 1 ; sen se, 1 40 , 2 2 5 2 2 6 ; spi -

N S h l t i i m 2 76
eo - c o as c s , i tual , 1 8 1 , 22 5 22 6, 3 24, 3 3 0 -3 3 1 , 3 . -

N w T t m t 7 6 1 73 1 8
e es a en , , ,
2 P erfec i on, 7 3 , 8 3 , 9 0 , 9 3 , 1 3 4, 1 6 1 -1 6
t
Ni C u il f 5 7
ce, o nc o , 1 65 4 661 I 79 ) 2 44) 2 5 01 2 8 2, 3 03 )
30
Ni Ch i t l gy 5 9
cene r s o o , 3 5 2 . 3 54 3 5 5
Ni h l c fC us
o as o 17 a, 1 P eri patet1c15 m , 1 06
N i l i 1 74
co a , P ersi a , 1
N et i
o 3 24
cs , P ersi an h ough , 9 , 66t t
N mi li m 1
o na 12 4 7 1 49
s ,
20 - 2, 1 - P ersona i sm , 2 46 24 7l -

N mi li t
o na t v y s 1 2 1 48 1 49
c on r o ers ,
1 20 - 2 ,
-
lt
P ersona i y , 2 2 , 45 , 5 0, 5 2, 5 4, 5 9 -6 :
N umo 2 47 4 8
en on , -
2 90 . 94 . 9 6 . 1 09 . 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 . 1 5 7. 1 6
N u M ti
ez , 84 2 85 ar n ez , 2 -
1 79, 1 9 3 , 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 2 2 2 , 22 9, 2 1 , 2
3 3
-

N ys , D .
, 28 5 2 3 6 , 2 44 2 47 , 2 6 8 , 2 90, 2 2 ,
-
9 3 04, 30
3 1 9 . 3 1 5 . 3 4 1 . 3 44 3 45 . 3 5 4. 3 5 6 -

O bj ti vi ty
ec , 1 04, 1 1 3, 7 5 , 1 89 , 1 41 , 1 P essum srn, 6 8 , 30 , 4 5 , 8 7 -

204, 2 1 1 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 6 -2 3 7 , 2 4 1 , 2 44, 2 4 8 , P ey retti , 2 5 6

25 1 , 2 5 8- 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 -2 6 4 , 2 7 1 , 2 84 -2 8 5 , l
P h eno men a i sm, 1 70, 1 88 - 1 89 , 246-24
289 . 29 2 . 3 3 2 . 3 3 6 3 3 7 . 342 . 34 s. 2 6 . 3 2 7 -3 2 8 . 3 5 0
3 21 . 7
-

3 54 . 3 5 6 P hi lip I I, 275 .

id t li
O cc en a sm , 1 3 , 1 0 1 1 , 3 0 6
_
- -
l
P hi o . 3 5 . 3 8 . 5 3 -5 5 . 6 1 -6 3 . 6 8
O ch am, Wi i am , 1 20 , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 , 1 2 7 ,ll l
Ph i ol ogy , 1 2 0
1 46 . I S3 p
Ph i l o so h y, Ara i an , 1 2 9 , 1 4 1 , 2 70 2 7 1 b -

T t
O l d es amen , 70, 1 79 t Ch i n ese, 3 4 Eastern, 2 3 , 1 0 -1 2
- -

l
O l -L aprun e, 2 5 2 pt
Egy i an , 1 1 ; Fren ch , 2 3 8 -2 5 3 ; Ge
l
O med o, M P , 2 84 . . man , 1 4 7, 1 8 2, 2 5 7 , 2 64, 2 85 , 3 1 :
O mni po ence, 9 5 , 98 t k
3 44 ; G ree , 1 3 , 1 0 -1 3 , 3 8 -40 ndi a1
-
I
t
O n o l ogy . 4 . 5 3 . 6 7 . 2 3 6. 2 44. 2 63 . 2 68 2 -3 , 5, 8 a ian, 2 5 4-2 6 9 , It l
2 85
2 8 7. 3 0 3 . 3 3 6 . 3 44. 3 48 ; of Aq i nas u d
mo ern , 60 , 63 ; organ of, 3 23 ;
14 2 P a o s, 3 ; S
2 lt i no z a

s, 1 5 8 , 1 60
'
p g l
re i i on , 1 2 1 ,
3 33 , 3 6, 39 -40, 65 -6
-

tl
o n o ogi ca arg men , 1 25 , l1 85 - 1 8 7 u t 70, 74) 7 7 1 1 0 61 I 3 41 1 7 1 2 1 83 4 8
tl
on o ogi sm , 1 3 1 , 2 5 5 2 5 6
-
. 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 , 200 -2 02 , 2 06 San h ya, 5 -7 k
pt
O i mi sm, 6 , 44, 46 , 1 0 1 , 1 3 9 u vni ersa i y of, lt 13 U anisha s, p d
t
O ri en , 2 , 2 70 6 7; -
Vd t
e an a, 5 -6 Wes ern, 1 , 6, t
tl l
O ri en a ph i os o h y, 1 -5 , 8 , 1 1 -1 2 , 306 p m
i
l )

tl
O ri en a i sm, 8 , 1 2 , 66 6 7, 6 9 P h l O SO pi.y o i h s or it
'
-

77 9 1
O ri gen, 40, 60, 6 2 , 7 1 , 9 2 - 1 04, 1 1 7, 1 2 4, P lz zl osop /zy of N atur
'

g 2 10
t d l
,
e h i cs of 9 2, 1 0 1 - 1 03 ; i ea i sm P izzl os opf
'

171 , f p
zy o S i r i t, 2 10
of , 1 0 1 -1
02 sy c h o o gy, 9 9 1 0 1
-
p l Ph oeni ci ans, 1 1
 IN DEX .
367

l
Ph y ogenesi s, 3 3 2 71 ; o f co ni
g tion 2 66 ,
3 1 6 ; of o si n
, Cu
Ph ys cs, 2 5 -2 6
i a nd p
J ouffroy, 2 4 3 em i ri c , 2 5 8 , 3 1 4,
l
Phy l o ogy . 3 1 4 . 3 5 5 3 3 4 ; eth i cs and , 3 4 7-3 48 ; f nc i on a , u t l
i ti
P e sm, 1 84 3 9 33 ;
2 -
0 G er m an 2 6 4 ; H me s, 3 1 5 ;

u
ll
P i on, 2 46 , 2 8 5 It la i an , 2 5 8 -2 5 9 ,
,

2 6 5 ; K an s , 3 1

5 ; t
Fi fth , 6 8 tp
me a hysi cs an d , 3 1 7 , 3 48 ; N eo
lt
P a o, 1 1 , 5 5 , 78 , 80, 8 2 , 1 05 -1 0 7 , 1 09 t
P l a oni c , 1 0 8 1 0 9, 1 1 1 o j ecti e, 3 2 5
-
b v
1 1 1 , 1 2 9 , 2 5 6, 302 , 3 1 3 ,
3 3 8 , 3 45 ; o n r i

O gen s, 99 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 ; P a i ne, 99 ;
-
ul
t
cau sa i on , 2 1 -24 ; on r ea i on , 2 1 -2
3 ; C t t l
ra i o na , 3 1 4 ,
3 3 2 ; recen , 2 66 ; r e t
l u
Fi na C a se, 2 4 ; Form, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 9 l i gi on and , 3 1 6 3 1 7 ; o f Socra es , 3 2 ;
-
t
th e Go o , 1 6, d
2 1 , 2 4, 3 3 , 3 6 , 3 8 of th e sou l ,
3 1 2 3 2 5 , 3 29 3 3 5 ; S i n
-
p -

d l
i ea i sm o f, 5 3 , 1 0 1 ; on d eas , 1 5 1 7 , I -
oza s,

1 5 7, 1 62 ; s i ri a , 3 23 32 5 , p tu l -

1 9 , 2 7 ; L aws, 2 2 -2 3 ; on M a er, 1 6 tt ub t v
3 3 0 3 3 2 ; s j ec i e. 2 5 4 . 3 2 5 . 3 5 5
-

1 7 , 20, 3 6 ; me a h ysi cs, 2 3 ; my h tp t v lt

3 5 6 of o i i on , 2 6 6 -26 7
l tl
.

o ogy, 3 3 ; on o ogy, 3 2 33 ; P ar -
tl
P o em i es, 3
mm zdes, 1 7


P /ze ao, 2 3 P h e am s ,

t
P y h ag oreans, 1 29
2 3 ; P lz i l ebus, 1 7, 2 2 ; h i oso h y of p l p
l
r e i gi on , 3 3 , 36 syc h o ogy , 21 p l Qu v d
e e o , 2 75
lt
Rea i y, 3 6 ; re i gi on, 3 6 -39 ; Repu bl i c l Q ui eti sm a 3 a 5 , 47 48 , 33 1
1 7, 2 1 -2 3 , 3 8 ; Sop/1 33 1 , 1 7, 2 0 , 2 3
so ul
, 3 3 ; States ma n , 2 3 ; s s an ce, ub t Rag ni sco , 2 5 6
1 5 1 7,
-
1 9 -20 ; l eaztetus, 1 7 , 2 3 Rashd al l , D r H , 33 7 .

Tz mceus , 1 5 1 6 , 2 1 -2 3

-
. t l
Ra i ona i sm , 1 1 1 , 1 5 9 , 1 74. 1 3 4. I 99 .
lt
P a oni sm , 1 6 1 7, 1 9 , 3 2 , 3 8 , 5 5 , 6 2, 6 7
-
2 0 2 1 2 1 4i 25 5 1 3 0 1 1 33 8 1 3 44 1
68 , 7 5 , 8 1 , 99 -1 02 , 1 0 6 1 07 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 , -

1 2 8 . 1 43 . 1 46. 1 5 8 . 1 69 . x79 . 2 5 6 . 3 1 3 Rauwenh of, 2 8 5

lt u
P o in s, 3 5 , 3 7 , 3 8 3 9, 1 05 1 1 7 ; h i s - - Rava i s so n , 2 42 , 2 4 5 , 2 49
p l p
h i oso h y ofth e O ne, 1 06- 1 08 Raym o n L y, 2 7 1 d ull
u l
Pl ra i sm , 1 0 8 , 2 1 4 , 22 2 , 2 48 , 3 0 3 Raymond of Sab und e, 2 7 1 -2 72
P oi n care, 2 48 l
Rea , th e, 2 2 3 2 2 4, 2 48 , 2 6 1 , 26 7,
-
2 82 ,
lt p l p
P o i i cal h i oso h y, 2 3 8 -2 3 9 , 2 7 5 , 2 77 , 2 86 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 1 , 3 1 9 , 33 8

352 l
Rea i sm , 1 20 - 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 , 1 4 7 - 1 5 0 , 1 70, 223,
P lybi u
o 181 s, 2 4 7 . 2 5 4-2 5 5 . 2 60
P lyth i m 2 6 2 9 30 3 5 2 80
o e s , , , , , ,
l t v
Rea i s con tro ersy, 1 20 1 2 1 , 1 42 , -
1 46 ,
P p th
o e, 2 75 e, I 49 I S3 .

P ph yry 8 1
or , R l i ty
ea 6 20 24. 1 -
. 3 6 3 7. 39 . 94. 1 1 1 ,
- 2 5. -

P i ti v P l i ti
os e 2 40 24 1 o cs , -
1 2 6 , 1 5 5 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 1 69 , 1 8 5 , 2 03 , 205 ,
-

P i ti vi m 1
os 1 48
s
3 9 245 2 5 5 2 5 6
, 20, , 2 , ,
-
,
20 7 , 2 1 0 2 1 3 , 2 1 6 2 1 7 , 2 20 , 2 2 3 2 2 4,
- - -

2 8 3 28 4 -
2 2 6 22 7 , 2 2 9 2 3 0 , 2 46 , 2 48 249 , 2 5 6
- - -

P to en ce, 1 25 3 5 , 1 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 2 64, 2 8 2 , 2 8 6 , 2 8 8
- -

P yra er , 6 2 8 9 . 2 9 3 . 2 95 . 2 9 8 -2 9 9 . 3 0 1 . 3 09 . 3 1 7.
P d ti ti
re es 1 0 1 1 37
na
51 on , , , 1
3 20. 3 23 . 3 2 5 . 3 3 8 3 3 9. 3 44 3 5 0
- -

P re- exi t fth

s en ce o ul 74 99 0 1 e so , , , 1 Reas on , 2 3 7 3 3 1 421 5 11 5 91
P ir ce, 3 38 6 1 62 , 9 2 , 1 0 2 , 1 06 1 08, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 1 1 8
- -

P im M v
r e- 21 24 2 5
o er,
3 7 1 26 1 3 , , , , , 0, 1 1 9, 1 2 2 , 1 2 4, 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 1 3 0 1 3 6 , 1 43 , ,
-

271 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 , 1 64, 1 74 , 1 76 , 1 7 8 , 1 84- 1 8 5 ,

P roc lu 3 5 s, 1 88 , 1 9 3 - 1 94, 1 99 2 00, 205 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 ,
-

P
'

l g
r os o z on , 1 25 2 1 9. 2 3 0. 2 3 6. 2 44-2 45 . 2 6 3 .
P t t nti m 2 72
ro es a s , 2 6 5 , 2 78 -2 79 , 2 8 1 , 2 88 2 8 9, 2 94, 2 9 8 -

P t t t th l gy 53 3 3 8. 3 40 -3 4 1 . 3 5 6
ro es an eo o , 1 2 99 .
P vi d
ro 43 8 7 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 8 2
ence, , , , , d pt
Re em i on , 6 7 6 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 2 5 , 1 6 1 , 1 99 ,
-

P y h l gy 1 2 3
s c o o 2 5 2 3 0 2 3 6 2 42 244
, ,
2 , , ,
-
, 3 34
2 5 0, 2 5 7, 2 60, 2 65 , 2 76 -2 77, 2 84, 2 86 , Reforma i on, th e, 1 5 3 , 1 73
t
3 1 6 , 3 1 8, 3 20, 3 2 2, 3 24, 3 2 6, 33 7, R eh mke, 3 2 7
3 47-3 5 0. 35 3 . 3 5 5 -3 5 6 ; of Aq i nas . u d
Rei , 2 77
1 36 ofAr s o e,
3 22 3 2 3 ofA
g si t tl -
uut u
Rei mar s, 1 74 , 1 80 - 1 8 1
i ne, 79, 82 1 6,
, 3 3 2 3 -3 24 ofB asi l i d es, lt
Re a i ons, 1 90 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 4, 2 1 7, 22 1 , 2 3 7,
36 8 I ND E X .

26 7. 2 94 . 2 9 6 - 2 9 7. l
Sch oo men, th e, 1 3 0, 1 45 , 1 5 3 , 1 69 , 1 7
33 3 4
2 . 304.
3 3
1 1 3 48 1 p u
Scho enh a er, 22 3 , 290, 292 , 2 97
Re l tivity
a ,
8 7, 1 68 , 2 1 6 , 247 - 2 48 , 293 , Sch weg er, 1 4 5 l
295 . 300. Science, 1 3 5 , 1 88, 2 39 , 246, 248 , 2
Rel i gi on w i th i n t/ze L i m its of P ur e 2 5 2 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 7, 2 7 1 , 2 75 , 2 8 4, 2 8 8 -2 5
Reason , 1 84, 1 9 3 , 1 9 7, 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 , 203 2 9 1 , 2 94-2 9 8, 3 00 , 3 0 2 , 3 06, 3 1 6 ,
32
l
Re igi on, Assyri an, 1 1 a y o nia n, 1 1 Bbl 3 24. 3 2 6. 3 28-3 2 9 . 3 3 4. 3 3 6 -33 7. 34
cen re t of , 64, 3 20 ; C hi nese, 3 -4 3 44. 3 46 3 5 0 . 35 4
-

pt
E gy i an, 1 1 ; e ol i on of, 6 1 , 1 7 1 , v ut ti
Sco sm, 1 2 2 , 2 72 , 2 74-2 75
1 77 - 1 78, 2 1 3 ; of G reece, 1 2 , 2 8-3 2 ,
tt
Sco ish Sch ool , th e, 2 7 7
d
3 9-40 ; of I n ia , 2 , 5 -8 ; of es i s, J ut tu
Sco s E ri gena, 1 1 8 , 1 2 4- 1 26
2 75 t
K an s, 1 84-206 Lessi n g s, 1 7 7

Sc ri ptu
res, th e, 70, 1 0 2

1 78 ; m ora i y an d , 1 72 lt na re of ,
tu Secrean , 2 45 t
203 ; P ersi an , 9 -1 0 hi oso h y and , p l p Se f, th e, 7 ,
l 9 4 , 1 1 0, 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 - 1 6
L24 3 , 3 3 2 3 61 74 1
20 7-2 09 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 1 , 2 29 -23 0, 2 3 2 , 2

77. 1 7 1 . 1 8 3 4 84 . 1 9 3 . 1 96 . 1 . 3 1 5 . 3 2 1 . 3 29 . 3 3 2
2 99 .
3 3
lt Se f ac
l tivit

200 -20 2 , 2 06 ; Ph oeni ci an, 1 1 P a o s, y, 26, 3 4, 2 1 1 -2 1 2 , 2 2 5 -22
-

p l
3 6 -39 ; sych o ogy and, 3 1 6 3 1 7 ; uni -
2 3 6 . 2 42 . 28 9-2 90. 3 04. 330 . 3 5 4
versali ty o f , 2 03
Se f-con sc o sness, 6 0 , 1 1 0, 1 1 3 , 2 1 1 , 21
l iu
Renai ssance, 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 2 2 1 -2 2 2 , 2 68, 2 9 2 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 2
Renouvi er, 2 45 -2 48, 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 , 2 8 5 Se f-d e ermi na i on, 9 3 , 1 5 1
l t t
t t
Res ora i oni sm, 1 00 S e l f- e e opm en , 5 0 -5 1 , 34 1 , 3 5
dvl t 3
u t
Res rrec i on , 1 00 , 1 80 Sel sh nes s, 1 66, 3 5 3
t but
Re ri i on, 1 00 Se f-sacr i ce, 1 66 , 3 5 3
l
v l dt
Re ea e h eo ogy, 1 29 -1 3 0l Seneca, 4 1 , 4 5
vlt
Re e a i on, 3 6 , 5 7, 6 1 , 8 2 , 1 26 t
Sensa i ons, 1 89, 2 2 5 , 2 3 2 -2 33 , 2 5 9, 27
I 2 7. 1 3 0 . 1 43 . 1 7 2 1 7 3 . 1 76 - 1 7 8. 1 9 2 . 16
i
-

2 1 7 . 2 46 . 2 4. 2 79 . 308
5 Se sati o nal i sm, 242 , 2 5 2
t
Ri ch er, 1 7 6 blt
Sensi i i y, 2 5 8, 2 8 2
l
Ri eh , 3 26 Sensism , 2 3 8 , 2 5 4
t
Ri gh , th e, 3 40 -3 4 1 Sergi, 2 5 6
Ri tschl , 2 8 6 Serrano, Go nz a ez , 2 8 3 l
t
Ri schl i ani sm, 2 8 5 , 3 1 6 v ll
Se i e, 2 70
tt
Ri er, P H , 2 85 . . l
Sh i r ey, 1 5 3
Roed er, 2 8 3 l
Si ci i ani , 2 5 5
Rolfes, 2 85 k
Sid gwi c . 3 46. 3 5 I
Romagn osi , 2 5 4 b k
Sie ec , 3 5 4
Rome, 6 3 t
Si gwar , 3 2 7
Roscel linus, 1 2 1 l
S i mme , 3 3 7
Rosmi n i 1 2 8, 1 3 1 1 3 9, 2 5 5 , 2 5 7
, , S i mo n, Jul es , 242 , 2 44 -245
Royce, 2 20 , 2 85 Si mon, Sai n , 2 3 9 t
C ll d
Royer- o ar , 242 Si n, 8 5 , 1 39 , 1 5 1 ori g in a , 80 l
l t
Soci a e h i cs , 1 9 5 , 2 1 9 2 2 2, 2 3 2 , 2 3 8-2 3
-
-

bl
Sa e li ani sm, 5 8, 9 7
5
2 1 1 3 3 41 35 7
Sacri ce, 6 , 5 1 , 202 5 0010103 1 . 2 3 9 -240 . 3 3 7
Sai sset, 2 42 , 2 45 t
Socra es, Apol ogy o f, 3 25 ; me hod t
Sal mer n, N i co a s, 28 3 lu l
1 29 ; mora reas on , 39 ; p l
sych o ogi c
lv t B
Sa a i o n , Bud
rah mani c , 7 ; d hi s , 7 ; t d t l l
mo e, 3 2 ra i o na e emen , 3 2 ; e e t tl
G t ld
nos i c, 68 , 7 1 w or , 3 3 5 l l
ogica reas o ni n s,
g 32
k p l p
San hya h i oso h y, 5 7 -
p l
So h oc es , 3 0
ll
Sch e i ng, 1 2 5 , 1 6 9 , 242, 245 , 2 7 7 ul
So , th e, 6, 7 , 33 , 3 6, 45 , 5 0, 7 1 , 10
l
Sch eiermacher, 1 69 , 1 96, 204 20 5 , 3 22 -
1 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 9 - 1 40 , 1 5 7 , 2 5 0 , 2 7
l t
Sch o as ici s m, 1 1 7 - 1 1 9, 1 2 2 - 1 2 4, 1 2 8 , 2 86 1 32
1 46 - 1 4 7. 1 5 2. 2 3 8. 2 7 5 . 2 7 7 -27 8 :
3 35
t d p i
me h o of, 1 2 7 ; S an sh , 2 7 3 , 27 5
,

Space, 9 5 , 1 5 2 , 260 , 2 76, 2 80 - 28

l t p l p
Sch o as ic h i oso h y, 1 1 7 27 3 29 1
2 74 p
S ai n, 2 70-272 , 274 -276, 283 28 5 , 3 1 1 -
3 70 I ND E X .

'

Tn al og us , 1 5 ! V lu j udgm nt 25 2 26 1 342 35 5 3 5
a e- e s, , , ,
-

T t
ri ni y. th e. 7 . 96 - 7. 1 6 . 1 2
3 9 4 5 . 1 83 . Var ro , 80
2 2 2 , 2 79 ; P o i ni c, 1 06 lt V ugh n 1 5 3
a a ,

T v
ri ero, 2 5 6 V d n t phi lo phy 5 6
e a a so ,
Tu
r e, th e, 24 1 Vd 1 6
e as, ,

T ut
r h , 1 04, 1 1 9, 1 2 7, 1 67, 1 7 3 , 1 7 5 - 1 76 , V tu 2 5 4
en ra,

1 7 8 , 1 8 2, 2 1 7 , 2 5 9, 262, 2 72 , 2 74 , 2 82 , V i h 2 76 277
c ,
-

8 7. 2 94. 2 98 . 3 09-3 1 0. 3 1 9 . 3 2 3 . 3 3 8. Vi 2 5 4
44
co,
V i ll i 2 5 5
ar ,

V i tu 7 46 47 49 5 0 85 1 1 4 1 6
r e. . . .
-
. . .

U eb erweg, 1 4 5 1 66 82 3 3 7
1
1 3 5 1 35 3 3 51 1 1 1

U lt t Cu
i ma e a s e, 2 3 , 1 89 G k 101
ree ,

lt t lt
U i ma e Rea i y, 5 , 94, 1 5 5 , 1 8 7, 2 0 7, V liti n 1 3 7 1 60 1 99 2 1 1 2 1 5 24
o o , , , , , ,

2 1 0, 2 1 6, 2 20, 2 24 , 2 8 9, 3 03 -3 04, 3 1 1 , 25 3 4 66, 2 7 5 , 2 8 7. 3 1 91 3 40 ; P5

33 9 , 2 6 6,
c h o l ogy o f 33 4
U d d
nc on i ti one , th e, 4, 1 89 , 2 1 0 , 2 47, V lunt i m 25 6
o ar s ,
2 8 7, 2 9 1
U n cons ci o us , th e, 3 3 7 -33 8 W d P f J 2 85
ar , ro . .
, , 3 0 1 , 3 27
U t b
n i y, of ei n , 1 06 - 1 07, 1 2 5 , 2 00 , 209 ,
g W b
e 1 45 20 2
er , ,

2 1 4, 22 8, 23 0, 262 , 29 1 -2 92
,
299 , 3 06 , Wel tanschau ung 1 345 , ,

3 1 4 3 1 5 . 3 20. 3 3 4. 3 4s ; Dw me. 4 . 5 9 . Wentsch er 3 2 7

0
-
,

1 43 , 1 5 7, 1 5 9 , 1 79, 2 5 , 26 2 , 2 66 , 2 92 ,
3 Western though t, 1 6 8, 1 0 1 2 , , , , 119
2 99 . 3 02 3 03 ; or amcr 9 3 , 1 2 7 . I S9 .
-
g Wi l l 49 5 1 , 79 80 82 , 84 8 5
,
- -
, , 1 0 1 -1 0
2 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 3 9 -240. 29 2 . 2 99 . 1 1 2, 1 22 , 1 36 2 1 1 -2 1 2, 24
2 64- 26 5 . 2 6 7 -2 6
'

3 02 , 3 0 6 , 3 1 8, 3 3 4 ; undieren ti ated , 2 43 . 3 03 . 33 8-3 3

1 5 4, 1 68 , 2 9 5 ; of th e wor , 42 - 4 3 , ld 3 5 4 ; I n ni e. t 94. I O 7. 1 5 5 . 2 9 2
90, 9 9, 1 5 8 , 1 87, 200, 209 -2 1 0, 220 d lb d
W i n e an , 1 , 1 2 ,1 45
2 2 1 , 2 2 4, 226 -22 7, 2 3 9 , 2 43 , 2 76 , 2 8 6 , d
Wi s om, 47, 1 62, 22 1 H b w 6 e re ,

2 3 9. 2 9 1 . 299 1 70
v
U ni er sa i sm, 1 2 5 l W l ff 3 1 3
o ,

v lt
U ni ersa i y, 6 . 1 3 . 3 4. 43 . 49. 5 1 -5 2 . 6 8. W d th 5 8 62 1 3 2 ; Sp m ti 6 1
or , e, , , er a c,
1 1 2 , 1 20, 1 3 0, 1 2 , 1 6 1 , 1 9 5 , 2 00 , 20 3 ,
3 W l d G und 1 1 2 1 88 2 1 9 290 29
or -
ro , , , ,
-

2 1 7. 2 1 9 . 2 7 1 . 2 73 . 2 7 9 . 2 8 5 . 2 97. 305 . 3 00 3 3 3 49. 0 .

325 . 3 3 ! 3 5 6 -3 5 7 W ld S ul 7 1 0 1 2 9 4 1 0 7 1 8 1 1 1
or -
o , ,
-
, ,
- 0 ,

U iv l
n ersa s , 1 20 -1 22, 1 24, 1 26 , 1 3 0, 1 46, W ld Vi w 9 2 1 43 1 72 2 84 34 34
or -
e , , , , ,
2,

47 49
1 . I 35 7
U iv
n th ers e, 87, 89 , 1 1 0, 1 2 6, 1 4 1 ,
e, 42 , W ld Wh ol 3 1 3 1 90 288 2 89 9
or -
e, , , ,
-
,
2
1 60, 1 90, 1 92 , 207, 2 1 1 , 2 1 4-2 1 5 , 2 1 9 , 294 2 97 -

222 2 2 3 . 22 5 . 2 3 4 2 3 6 4 3 7 . 2 4 1 , 2 5 2 .
-
Wundt 1 2 5 8 2 85 3 1 8 3 20 3 2 6 3 3
, , , , , , ,

2 8 2 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 3 , 2 97 -298 , 30 1 , 3 04-3 09 , 355

3 3 4, 3 3 8 . 3 44. 3 48 Wy l i f 1 45 1 5 3 Soci ty 1 45
c ,
-
e ,

Up ian sh a s, 4, 6 -7 d
U rrabura, J
J , 2 76 . . X n ph n s 1 5 29 3 1 3 2 3 6
e o a e , , ,
-
,

Ut l t
i i ari ani sm, 3 5 0-3 5 3
Y hv h 9
a e ,
V ach erot, 242 , 244
Vail ati , 2 5 6 Z th u t 9
ara s ra,
V al d arni ni , 2 5 6 Z l l 1 82 1 8 5
e er, ,
Vl t u
a en i n s, 69 , 74 75 -
Z u 30
e s,

V ll d l d
a a o i , 2 72 Z t i n t hought 9 1 0
oroas r a ,
-

P RINT E D B Y W ILLIA M BL A C KWOO D AND SO NS