To practical problems, in the
broadest
sense of the word, belong also those which relate to art and religion.
Windelband - History of Philosophy
v 16
The wonderful feature in the history of philosophy remains just this, that out of such a multitude of individual and general complications there has yet been on the whole laid down that outline of universally valid conceptions for viewing the world and judging life, which presents the scientific significance of this development.
6. Investigation in the history of philosophy has accordingly the following tasks to accomplish: (1) To establish with precision what
may be derived from the available sources as to the circumstances in life, the mental development, and the doctrines of individual philosophers ; (2) from these facts to reconstruct the genetic pro cess in such a way that in the case of every philosopher we may understand how his doctrines depend in part upon those of his predecessors, in part upon the general ideas of his time, and in part
upon his own nature and the course of his education ; (3) from the consideration of the whole to estimate what value for the total result of the history of philosophy belongs to the theories thus established and explained as regards their origin.
With reference to the first two points, the history of philosophy is a philologico-historical, with reference to the third element it is a critico-philosophical science.
(a) To establish its facts the history of philosophy must proceed to a careful and comprehensive examination of the sources. These sources, however, vary greatly at different times in their transparency and fulness.
The main sources for investigation in the history of philosophy are of course the vvrks of the philosophers themselves. For the modern period we stand here upon a relatively safe footing. Since the discovery of the art of printing, literary tradition has become so well established and clear that it offers in gen eral no difficulties of any kind. The writings which philosophers have pub lished since the Renaissance are throughout accessible for the research of today. The cases in which questions of genuineness, of the time of origina
tion, etc. , give rise to controversies are extremely seldom ; a philological criti cism has here but a narrow field for activity, and where it can enter (as is the cane in part in reference to the different editions of Kant's works), it concerns •oleljr subordinate, and in the last instance indifferent, points. Here, too, we are tolerably sure of the completeness of the material ; that anything of weight is host, or still to be expected from later publication, is scarcely to be assumed ; if the sharpened philological attentiveness of the last decades has brought us new material for Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Maine de Biran, the philosophical outcome has been only vanishing in comparison with the value of what was already known. At most it has concerned the question of supplementing our knowl-
edjre, and this must continue to be its province. The importance of occasional »rpr**si«ns in letters has been specially felt here, for these are adapted to shed more light on the individual factor in the historical development of philosophy.
With the sources of the Mediaeval Philosophy the case stands less favourably. These have in part (a small part, to be sure) still only a manuscript existence.
V. C*rtL*in and his school have rendered valuable service in publishing the texts, and in general we may be convinced that for this period also we possess material, which has indeed gaps, but is on the whole adequate for our purpose. *»n the other hand, our knowledge of the Arabian and Jewish philosophy of the Mkidle Aires, and so of the influence of those systems on the course of Western Tbaafrhi. is still very problematical in details ; and this is perhaps the gap most sorely felt in our investigation of the sources for the history of philosophy.
MqcIi worse still is the situation as regards the direct sources for Ancient P\it/]»oj. hf. Of the original works, we have preserved, to be sure, the most
Introduction.
16
important : the fundamental portion of the works of Plato and Aristotle, though even these are often doubtful in form. Besides these we have only the writing! of later time, such as those of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, the Church Fathers, and the Neo-Platonists. By far the greater part of the philosophical writing* of antiquity is lost. In their stead we must content ourselves with the frag ments which the accident of an incidental mention in the writings of extant authors has kept for us, here too often in a questionable form. 1
If, nevertheless, success has been attained in gaining a view of the develop ment of the ancient philosophy, clearer than that of the mediaeval, presenting a picture whose accuracy extends even to details and is scientifically assured, this is due not only to the unremitting pains of philologists and philosophers in working through their material, but also to the circumstance that beside the remains of the original works of the philosophers there are preserved also, as secondary sources, remains of historical records made in antiquity. The best, indeed, of these also is lost : namely, the historical works which arose from the learned collection made by the Peripatetic and Stoic schools at the end of the fourth and in the third century b. c. These works passed later through many hands before they were preserved for us in the extant compilations prepared in the Roman period, as in the Placita Philosophorum,2 going by the name of Plutarch, in the writings of Sextus Empiricus," in the Deipnosophistoe of Athe- nseus,4 in the treatise of Diogenes Laertius, repl filar Sayitdru! * xal iro0eyiiirur tiSx (v 0iXoero0/p ivSoKi)ni<7diiTuv,f' in the collections of the Church Fathers, and in the notes of the Commentators of the latest period, such as Alexander Aphro- disias, Themistius, and Simplicius. H. Diels has given an excellent and thor ough treatment of these secondary sources of ancient philosophy, Doxographi
Gmci (Berlin, 1879).
Where the condition of the sources is so doubtful as is the case over the
entire field of ancient philosophy, critical ascertainment of the facts must go hand in hand with examination of the pragmatic and genetic connection. For where the transmission of the material is itself doubtful we can reach a decision only by taking a view of the connection that shall accord with reason and psychological experience. In these cases it becomes the task of the history of philosophy as of all history, after establishing a base of operations in that which is assured by the sources, to proceed to ascertain its position in those regions with which tradition finds itself no longer directly and surely in touch. The historical study of philosophy in the nineteenth century may boast that it has fulfilled this task, to which it was stimulated by Schleiermacher, by the labours of H. Ritter, — whose Geschichte der Philosophic (12 vols. , Hamburg, 1829-63) is now, to be sure, antiquated, — Brandis and Zeller for the ancient philosophy ; and of J. E. Erdmann and Kuno Fischer for the modern. Among the many complete expositions of the history of philosophy by far the most trustworthy in these respects is J. E. Erdmann's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, 2 vols. (3d ed. ), Berlin, 1878 ; [Erdmann's History of Philosophy, trans, ed. by W. S. Hough, Lond. and N. Y. , 1890].
An excellent bibliography of the entire history of philosophy, assembling the literature in exhaustive completeness and good arrangement, is to be found in Ueberweg's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, 4 vols. , 8th ed. , ed. by M. Heinze (Berlin, 1894-98). [Ueberweg's History of Philosophy, trans, from the 4th ed. by G. S. Morris (N. Y. 1871), contains additions, but of course does not
/
i The collections of fragments of particular authors are mentioned under the notices of the individual philosophers. It would be desirable if they were all as excellent as Usener's Epicurea. Of the fragments of the Pre-Socratics W. F. A. Mullach has published a careful collection, which, however, is no longer adequate in the present condition of research (Fragmenta Philosophorum Grascorum).
3 Plut. Moralia, ed. DUbner, Paris, 1841 ; Diels, Dox. , pp. 272 ff. ; [Plutarch's Morals, Miscellanies, and Essays, ed. by Goodwin, Boston, 1870 ; trans, also in
the* Bohn Lib. ].
Ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1847.
* G. Kaibel, Leips. 1888-90. 6 Ed. Cobet, Paris, 1860.
Jt] The History of Philosophy. 17
pi* (he bibliography of recent works. ] Under the general literature may also
b» mentioned, R. Eucken, Die Lebcnsanschauungen der grosstn Denker (Leips,
m).
i) Explanation of facts in the history of philosophy is either pragmatic (logi
cal . or baaed on the history of civilisation, or psychological, corresponding to tin ine factors which we have set forth above as determining the movement ot limtht. Which of these three modes of explanation is to be applied in individ. ul cases depends solely upon the state of the facts with regard to the trans- bsboo of material. It is then incorrect to make either one the sole pri-. ciple & treatment. The pragmatic method of explanation is dominant with those »*> we in the entire history of philosophy the preparation for a definite system •( philosophy ; so with Hegel and his disciples (see above, p. 10 f. ); so from a Botanian standpoint with Chr. A. Thilo, Kurze pragmatische Geschichte der MaKfAit (2 pts. ; Coethen, 1876-80). Kuno Fischer and W. Windelband ute emphasised in their interpretation of modern philosophy, the importance <i considering the history of civilisation and the problems of the individual
The purely biographical treatment which deals only with successive person alia* ■ quite inadequate as a scientific exposition of the history of philosophy. Tla mode of treatment is represented in recent time by the treatise of G. H. Lews*, The History of Philosophy from Thales to the Present Day (2 vols. , tfled 1871), a book destitute of all historical apprehension, and at the same him > party composition in the spirit of the Positivism of Comte. The works ^ the French historians (Damiron, Ferraz) are inclined to take this form of » teparate essay-like treatment of individual philosophers, not losing from sight, ac»em. the course of development of the whole. l
'f ) The most difficult task is to establish the principles according to which the craeal philosophical estimate of the individual doctrines must be made up. The kustory of philosophy, like all history, is a critical science ; its duty is not •aiy to record and explain, but also to estimate what is to ccunt as progress ari fruit in the historical movement, when we have succeeded in knowing and
ladenunding this. There is no history without this critical point of view, and ■•**mdence of a historian's maturity is that he is clearly conscious of this point <4new ai criticism ; for where this is not the case he proceeds in the selection •4 ha material and in his characterisation of details only instinctively and *nhmi a clear standard. 3
h ■ understood, of course, that the standard of critical judgment must not be i pmaie theory of the historian, nor even his philosophic conviction ; at least '■*»employment of such a standard deprives the criticism exercised in accord- net wtth it of the value of scientific universality. He who is given to the heaef that he possesses the sole philosophical truth, or who comes to this field atari with the customs of the special sciences in which, no doubt, a sure result aakts it a very simple * matter to estimate the attempts which have led to it, — ■sea a one may well be tempted to stretch all forms that pass before him upon *■*»Procrustes-bed of his system ; but he who contemplates the work of thought a tatnry, with an open historical vision, will be restrained by a respectful ""mace from reprimanding the heroes of philosophy for their ignorance of the *■»«■ of an epigone. *
A WeU-r. lluinry »f Philosophy, is to be recommended as a good text-book '** French ed_ Paris, 1891). [Eng. tr. by Thilly, N. Y. 1896. ]
:Thia applies in every domain of history, in the history of politics and of •stasnre, at well as in that of philosophy.
1 Ai aa example of this it may be noticed that the deserving author of an *dlent History of the Principles of Mechanics, Ed. DUhring, has developed - ta Kritisckc Geschichte der Philosophic (3d ed. , Berlin, 1878) all the caprice
Me-«ided judgment. The like true of the confessional criticism passed a- Stockl. Lthrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic vols. , 3d ed. , Mainz,
a Impoasible to protest enough against the youthful conceit with which "a far time the fashion in Germany to look down with ridicule or insult tnathe "achievements of the present " upon the great men of Greek and Ger-
*' *J'•*
* a
It
(2
is
18 Introduction.
In contrast with this external method of pronouncing sentence, the scientific history of philosophy must place itself upon the standpoint of immanent criti cism, the principles of which are two : formal logical consistency and intellectual fruitfulness.
Every philosopher grows into a certain set of ideas, and to these his thinking remains bound, and is subjected in its development to psychological necessity. Critical investigation has to settle how far it has been possible for him to bring the different elements of his thinking into agreement with each other. The contradiction is almost never actually present in so direct a form that the same thing is expressly maintained and also denied, but always in such a way that various positions are put forward which, only by virtue of their logical conse quences, lead to direct contradiction and really irreconcilable results. The dis covery of these discrepancies is formal criticism ; it frequently coincides with pragmatic explanation, for this formal criticism has been performed in history itself by the successors of the philosopher in question, and has thus determined for them their problems.
Yet this point of view alone is not sufficient. As purely formal it applies without exception to all attested views of a philosopher, but it gives no criterion for decision on the question, in what the philosophical significance of a doctrine really consists. For it is often the case that philosophy has done its work just in conceptions which must by no means be regarded as in themselves perfect or free from contradiction ; while a multitude of individual convictions, which there is no occasion to oppose, must remain unnoticed in a corner, so far as our historical survey is concerned. In the history of philosophy great errors are weightier than small truths.
For before all else the decisive question is : what has yielded a contribution to the development of man's conception of the universe and estimate of life ? In the history of philosophy those structures of thought are the objects of study which have maintained themselves permanent and living as forms of apprehen sion and norms of judgment, and in which the abiding inner structure of the human mind has thus come to clear recognition.
This is then the standard, according to which alone we can decide also which among the doctrines of the philosophers — concerning, as they often do, so many various things — are to be regarded as properly philosophical, and which, on the other hand, are to be excluded from the history of philosophy. Investi gation of the sources has of course the duty of gathering carefully and com pletely all the doctrines of philosophers, and so of affording all the material for explaining their genesis, whether from their logical content, or from the history of civilisation, or from psychological grounds ; but the purpose of this laborious work is yet only this, that the philosophically indifferent may be ultimately recognised as such, and the ballast then thrown overboard.
It is especially true that this point of view must essentially determine selec tion and presentation of material in a text-book, which is not to give the investi gation itself, but to gather up its results.
§ 3. Division of Philosophy and of its History.
It cannot be our purpose here to propose a systematic division of philosophy, for this could in no case possess universal validity his torically. The differences which prevail in the course of the histori cal development, in determining the conception, the task, and the subject-matter of philosophy, involve so necessarily and obviously a change also in the divisions, that this needs no especial illustration. The oldest philosophy knew no division at all. In later antiquity
man philosophy ; this was mainly the haughtiness of an ignorance which had no suspicion that it was ultimately living only by the thoughts of those whom it was abusing and despising.
§1] Division of Philosophy and of it* History. 19
i division of philosophy into logic, physics, and ethics was cur rent. In the Middle Ages, and still more in modern times, the im two of these subjects were often comprised under the title, theoretical philosophy, and set over against practical
philosophy. >:ace Kant a new threefold division into logical, ethical, and
tsxhetical philosophy is beginning to make its way, yet these various divisions are too much dependent upon the actual course of philosophy itself to make it worth our while to recount them i*re in detail.
On the other hand, it does commend itself to preface the historical exposition with at least a brief survey of the entire circuit of those problems which have always formed the subject of philosophy, how- er*r varied the extent to which they have been studied or the value tail has been attached to them, — a survey, therefore, for which no r'^im is made to validity from a systematic point of view, but which
j determined only by the purpose of preliminary orientation.
L Theoretical problems. Such we call those which refer, in part to car knowledge of the actual world, in part to an investigation of the
knowing process itself. In dealing with the former class, however, ti* general questions which concern the actual taken as a whole are distinguished from those which deal with single provinces of the srtuaL The former, viz. the highest principles for explaining the tmverse, and the general view of the universe based on these prin ciples, form the problem of metaphysics, called by Aristotle first, i. e.
fundamental, science, and designated by the name now usual, only on iceount of the position which it had in the ancient collection of the Aristotelian works — " after physics. " On account of his monothe istic view of the world, Aristotle also called this branch of knowl edge theology. Later writers have also treated rational or natural tLeUogy as a branch of metaphysics.
The special provinces of the actual are Nature and History. In
tie former, external
Tie problems presented to knowledge by external nature are called afmUogieal, or, specially, problems of natural philosophy, or perhaps fkymrnL The investigation of internal nature, i. e. of consciousness »>d its states and activities, is the business of psychology. The phil- '*oj&ical consideration of history remains within the borders of tksmUiiil philosophy only if it be limited to the investigation of '•** laws that prevail in the historical life of peoples ; since, how- em. history is the realm of man's purposeful actions, the questions
the philosophy of history, so far as this deals with the end of the aorement of history viewed as whole, and with the fulfilment of ! *• end, fall under the head of practical problems.
and internal nature are to be distinguished.
a
ijf
20 Introduction.
Investigation directed upon knowledge itself is called logic (in the general sense of the word), and also sometimes noetic. If we are occupied with the question how knowledge actually arises, this
If, on the other hand, we set up norms or standards according to which our ideas are estimated as regards their worth for truth, we call
psycho-genetic consideration falls in the province of psychology.
these logical laws, and designate investigation directed upon them as logic in the narrower sense. The application of these laws gives rise to methodology, which develops the prescriptions for a systematic ordering of scientific activity with reference to the various ends of knowledge. The problems, finally, which arise from the questions concerning the range and limit of man's knowing faculty and its relation to the reality to be known, form the subject-matter of epistemology or theory of knowledge.
H. Siebeck, Oeschichte der Psychologie, Vol. I. , in two parts (Gotha, 1880-84), incomplete, extending into the scholastic period.
K. Prantl, Oeschichte der Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols. (Leips. 1866-70), brought down only to the Renaissance.
Fr. Harms, Die Philosophie in ihrer (feschichte. I. "Psychologie"; II. "Logik" (Berlin, 1877 and 1881).
[R. Adamsou, The History of Psychology (in prep. ). ]
2. Practical problems are, in general, those which grow out of the investigation of man's activity, so far as it is determined by ends. Here, too, a psycho-genetic treatment is possible, which falls under psychology. That discipline, on the other hand, which considers man's action from the point of view of the ethical norm or stand ard, is ethics or moral philosophy. By morals (Moral) in the narrower sense is usually understood the proposal and grounding of ethical precepts. Since, however, all ethical action has reference to the community, there are attached to morals or ethics, in the narrower sense, the philosophy of society (for which the unfortunate name sociology seems likely to become permanent), and the philosophy of law or right. Further, in so far as the ideal of human society con stitutes the ultimate meaning of history, the philosophy of history appears also in this connection, as already mentioned.
To practical problems, in the broadest sense of the word, belong also those which relate to art and religion. To designate philosoph ical investigation of the nature of the beautiful and of art, the name ossthetics has been introduced since the end of last century. If phi losophy takes the religious life for its object, not in the sense of itself intending to give a science of the nature of the deity, but in the sense of an investigation with regard to man's religious behaviour, we call this discipline philosophy of religion.
f I] Division of Philosophy and of its History. 21
Fr. Schleiennacher, Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen isittentehre (col- •»"»«1 works. III. , Vol. I. , Berlin, 1834). L. v. Henning, Die Principien der EUui ta hutnrischer Entwicklung (Berlin, 1826). Fr. v. Raumer, Die ge- virktlicke Enticicklung der Begriffe von Stoat, Secht, und Politik (Leips. , 3d ed. . 1861). E. Feuerlein, Die philos. Sittenlehre in ihren geschichtlichen Haupt-
<-«■■*■ (2 vols. , TUbingen, 1867-69). P. Janet, Histoire de la philosophie wsi* et politique (Paris, 1868). W. Whewell, History of Moral Science Winborg. 1863). H. Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, 4th ed. (Lond. and
S. T. 1800). [Outlines of the History of Ethics, by same author (Lond. and XT, Id «L, 1892). J. Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory (2d ed. , Oxford •ad 5. T. 1886). ] Th. Ziegler, Oeschichte der Ethik, 2 vols, (the third not yet •Wared ; Strassburg, 1881-S6). K. Kostlin, Oeschichte der Ethik (only the r«conimt, 1 vol. , TUbingen, 1887). [J. Bonar, Philosophy and Economics in aW Historical Relations (Lond. and N. Y. 1893). D. G. Ritchie, The History >ffatitical Philosophy (in prep. ). ]
R. Zimmerman n, Oeschichte der Aesthetik (Vienna, 1868). M. Schasler, Krtwrkt Geschichte der Aesthetik (Berlin, 1871). [B. Bosanquet, The History ' SjtheUcs (Lond. and N. Y. 1892). W. Knight, The Philosophy of the Beau-
afsl (an outline of the history, Edin. and N. Y. 1891). Gayley and Scott, A •»«•*■ to the Literature of ^Esthetics, Univ. of California, and Introd, to the M*U,4m and Materials of Literary Criticism (Bost. 1899) have bibliographies. ]
J Burger. Oeschichte der Religionsphilosophie (Berlin, 1800). [Pttnjer, 3i**Tr of the christian Philosophy of Religion (Vol. I. , Edin. and N. Y. 1887). '• ttfc»d*-rer. The Philosophy of Religion, trans, by Menzies (Lond. 1887). Mar-
'■ana, A Study of Religion (2 vols. , 1888), and Seat of Authority in Religion 'JBO,. J. Caird, Jntrod. to the Philos. of Religion (1880). E. Caird, Evolu-
a— sf Rtlxginn (2 vols. , Lond. and N. Y. 1893). ]
The division of the history of philosophy is usually connected with that current for political history, so as to distinguish three great periods, — Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Philosophy. Yet the •eroons made in this way are not so favourable for the history of philosophy as they perhaps are for political history. Other points of division must be made, equally important as regards the nature of the development ; and, on the other hand, the transition between the Middle Ages and modern times demands a shifting of the point of division on either side.
In consequence of this, the entire history of philosophy will here he treated according to the following plan of division, in a manner t£ be more exactly illustrated and justified in detail by the exposi- t>. o itself : —
(1) The Philosophy of the Greeks: from the beginnings of amtifie thought to the death of Aristotle, — from about 600 to •122 B. r.
(2) Hellenistic- Roman Philosophy: from the death of Aristotle v, ta* passing away of Neo-Platonism, — from 322 b. c. to about 580 *_d-
Mediaeval Philosophy: from Augustine to Nicolaus Cusanus, — from the fifth to the fifteenth century.
14 1 The Philosophy of the Renaissance : from the fifteenth to the •**ent»r«? uth century.
(Z)
22 Introduction.
(5) The Philosophy of the Enlightenment: from Locke to the death of Leasing, — 1689-1781.
The German Philosophy : from Kant to Hegel and Herbart, — 1781-1820.
The Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century.
(6) (7)
PART I.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS.
Chr. A. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der griechisch-romischen Philosophic. 3 pts. in 6 vols. Berlin, 1835-66.
Same author, Geschichte der Entutickelungen der griechischen Philotophie und ihrtr Xachtcirlcungen im romischen Reiche. 2 pts. Berlin, 1862-66.
H Zeller, Die Philosophie der Oriechen. 3 pts. in 6 Tola. 1st vol. in 6th, 2 vol. in 4th, 3-5 vols, in 3d ed. Leipg. 1879-93. [Trans. , with the excep tion of the portion on the concluding religious period, as six works: Pre- Svrratic Philosophy (2 vols. ), Socrates and the Socratic School*, Plato and the Older Academy, Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics (2 vols. ), Stoics. Epicureans, and Sceptics, History of Eclecticism, chiefly by S. F. Alleyne and <>. J. Reichel. Lond. and N. Y. , Longmans. ]
A. Schwegler, Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie. Ed. by K. Kostlin. 3d td. Freiburg. 1882.
L. Strumpell, Die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophic 2 pts. Leips. 1854-61.
w\ Windelband, Geschichte der alien Philosophie. 2d ed. Munich, 1894. [History of Ancient Philosophy, trans, by II. E. Cushman, N. Y. , 1899. J
Riturr et Hreller, HUtoria philosophic graco-romanat (Graieoz). In 8th ed. Edited by Wellnian. Gotha, 1898. An excellent collection of the most important sources.
[A. W. Benn, The Greek Philosophers. 2 vols. Lond. , 1883. The Philoso
phy of Greece. Lond. 1898. ]
Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker. Vienna, 1897. [Trans, by L. Magnus.
Greek Thinkers. Lond. and N. Y. , 1900. ]
Ir by science we understand that independent and self-conscious work of intelligence which seeks knowledge methodically for its own sake, then it is among the Greeks, and the Greeks of the sixth i^ntury B. C. , that we first find such a science, — aside from some tendencies among the peoples of the Orient, those of China and India1 particularly, only recently disclosed. The great civilised
1 Even if it be conceded that the beginnings of moral philosophy among the Chinese rise above moralising, and especially those of logic in India above inci- deatal reflections on the scientific formation of conceptions, — on which we shall not here pronounce, — these remain so remote from the course of European Moaophy. which forms a complete unity in itself, that a text-book has no jctasloo to enter upon them. The literature is brought together in Ueber-
•»L|6.
23
24 The Philosophy of the Greeks.
peoples of earlier antiquity were not, indeed, wanting either in an abundance of information on single subjects, or in general views of the universe ; but as the former was gained in connection with prac tical needs, and the latter grew out of mythical fancy, so they remained under the control, partly of daily need, partly of religions poetry ; and, as was natural in consequence of the peculiar restraint of the Oriental mind, they lacked, for their fruitful and independent development, the initiative activity of individuals.
Among the Greeks, also, similar relations existed until, at the time- mentioned, the mighty upward movement of the national life unfet tered the mental powers of this most gifted of all peoples. For this result the democratic development of constitutions which in passion ate party struggle tended to bring out independence of individual opinions and judgments, and to develop the significance of person ality, proved even more favourable than the refinement and spiritual- isation of life which increasing wealth of trade brought with it. The more the luxuriant development of individualism loosened the old bonds of the common consciousness, of faith, and of morals, and threatened the youthful civilisation of Greece with the danger of anarchy, the more pressing did individual men, prominent by their position in life, their insight, and their character, find the duty of recovering in their own reflection the measure that was becoming lost. This ethical reflection found its representatives in the lyric and gnomic poets, especially, however, in the so-called seven wise men. 1 It could not fail to occur, also, that a similar movement, in which individual opinions asserted their independence, should trench upon the religious life already so varied, in which the opposition between the old mystery-cults and the aesthetic national
mythology stimu lated the formation of so many special types. 8 Already in the cos- mogonic poetry the poet had dared to portray the heaven of the
myths according to his own individual fancy ; the age of the seven sages began to read its ethical ideals into the gods of the Homeric poetry, and in the ethico-religious reformation attempted by Pythag oras,8 coming as it did in the outer form of a return to the old strict- ness of life, the new content which life had gained came all the more
clearly to view.
'The "seven sages," among whom Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Solon are usually named, while with regard to the rest tradition is not agreed, must not, with the exception of Thales, be regarded as representatives of science.
The wonderful feature in the history of philosophy remains just this, that out of such a multitude of individual and general complications there has yet been on the whole laid down that outline of universally valid conceptions for viewing the world and judging life, which presents the scientific significance of this development.
6. Investigation in the history of philosophy has accordingly the following tasks to accomplish: (1) To establish with precision what
may be derived from the available sources as to the circumstances in life, the mental development, and the doctrines of individual philosophers ; (2) from these facts to reconstruct the genetic pro cess in such a way that in the case of every philosopher we may understand how his doctrines depend in part upon those of his predecessors, in part upon the general ideas of his time, and in part
upon his own nature and the course of his education ; (3) from the consideration of the whole to estimate what value for the total result of the history of philosophy belongs to the theories thus established and explained as regards their origin.
With reference to the first two points, the history of philosophy is a philologico-historical, with reference to the third element it is a critico-philosophical science.
(a) To establish its facts the history of philosophy must proceed to a careful and comprehensive examination of the sources. These sources, however, vary greatly at different times in their transparency and fulness.
The main sources for investigation in the history of philosophy are of course the vvrks of the philosophers themselves. For the modern period we stand here upon a relatively safe footing. Since the discovery of the art of printing, literary tradition has become so well established and clear that it offers in gen eral no difficulties of any kind. The writings which philosophers have pub lished since the Renaissance are throughout accessible for the research of today. The cases in which questions of genuineness, of the time of origina
tion, etc. , give rise to controversies are extremely seldom ; a philological criti cism has here but a narrow field for activity, and where it can enter (as is the cane in part in reference to the different editions of Kant's works), it concerns •oleljr subordinate, and in the last instance indifferent, points. Here, too, we are tolerably sure of the completeness of the material ; that anything of weight is host, or still to be expected from later publication, is scarcely to be assumed ; if the sharpened philological attentiveness of the last decades has brought us new material for Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Maine de Biran, the philosophical outcome has been only vanishing in comparison with the value of what was already known. At most it has concerned the question of supplementing our knowl-
edjre, and this must continue to be its province. The importance of occasional »rpr**si«ns in letters has been specially felt here, for these are adapted to shed more light on the individual factor in the historical development of philosophy.
With the sources of the Mediaeval Philosophy the case stands less favourably. These have in part (a small part, to be sure) still only a manuscript existence.
V. C*rtL*in and his school have rendered valuable service in publishing the texts, and in general we may be convinced that for this period also we possess material, which has indeed gaps, but is on the whole adequate for our purpose. *»n the other hand, our knowledge of the Arabian and Jewish philosophy of the Mkidle Aires, and so of the influence of those systems on the course of Western Tbaafrhi. is still very problematical in details ; and this is perhaps the gap most sorely felt in our investigation of the sources for the history of philosophy.
MqcIi worse still is the situation as regards the direct sources for Ancient P\it/]»oj. hf. Of the original works, we have preserved, to be sure, the most
Introduction.
16
important : the fundamental portion of the works of Plato and Aristotle, though even these are often doubtful in form. Besides these we have only the writing! of later time, such as those of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, the Church Fathers, and the Neo-Platonists. By far the greater part of the philosophical writing* of antiquity is lost. In their stead we must content ourselves with the frag ments which the accident of an incidental mention in the writings of extant authors has kept for us, here too often in a questionable form. 1
If, nevertheless, success has been attained in gaining a view of the develop ment of the ancient philosophy, clearer than that of the mediaeval, presenting a picture whose accuracy extends even to details and is scientifically assured, this is due not only to the unremitting pains of philologists and philosophers in working through their material, but also to the circumstance that beside the remains of the original works of the philosophers there are preserved also, as secondary sources, remains of historical records made in antiquity. The best, indeed, of these also is lost : namely, the historical works which arose from the learned collection made by the Peripatetic and Stoic schools at the end of the fourth and in the third century b. c. These works passed later through many hands before they were preserved for us in the extant compilations prepared in the Roman period, as in the Placita Philosophorum,2 going by the name of Plutarch, in the writings of Sextus Empiricus," in the Deipnosophistoe of Athe- nseus,4 in the treatise of Diogenes Laertius, repl filar Sayitdru! * xal iro0eyiiirur tiSx (v 0iXoero0/p ivSoKi)ni<7diiTuv,f' in the collections of the Church Fathers, and in the notes of the Commentators of the latest period, such as Alexander Aphro- disias, Themistius, and Simplicius. H. Diels has given an excellent and thor ough treatment of these secondary sources of ancient philosophy, Doxographi
Gmci (Berlin, 1879).
Where the condition of the sources is so doubtful as is the case over the
entire field of ancient philosophy, critical ascertainment of the facts must go hand in hand with examination of the pragmatic and genetic connection. For where the transmission of the material is itself doubtful we can reach a decision only by taking a view of the connection that shall accord with reason and psychological experience. In these cases it becomes the task of the history of philosophy as of all history, after establishing a base of operations in that which is assured by the sources, to proceed to ascertain its position in those regions with which tradition finds itself no longer directly and surely in touch. The historical study of philosophy in the nineteenth century may boast that it has fulfilled this task, to which it was stimulated by Schleiermacher, by the labours of H. Ritter, — whose Geschichte der Philosophic (12 vols. , Hamburg, 1829-63) is now, to be sure, antiquated, — Brandis and Zeller for the ancient philosophy ; and of J. E. Erdmann and Kuno Fischer for the modern. Among the many complete expositions of the history of philosophy by far the most trustworthy in these respects is J. E. Erdmann's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, 2 vols. (3d ed. ), Berlin, 1878 ; [Erdmann's History of Philosophy, trans, ed. by W. S. Hough, Lond. and N. Y. , 1890].
An excellent bibliography of the entire history of philosophy, assembling the literature in exhaustive completeness and good arrangement, is to be found in Ueberweg's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, 4 vols. , 8th ed. , ed. by M. Heinze (Berlin, 1894-98). [Ueberweg's History of Philosophy, trans, from the 4th ed. by G. S. Morris (N. Y. 1871), contains additions, but of course does not
/
i The collections of fragments of particular authors are mentioned under the notices of the individual philosophers. It would be desirable if they were all as excellent as Usener's Epicurea. Of the fragments of the Pre-Socratics W. F. A. Mullach has published a careful collection, which, however, is no longer adequate in the present condition of research (Fragmenta Philosophorum Grascorum).
3 Plut. Moralia, ed. DUbner, Paris, 1841 ; Diels, Dox. , pp. 272 ff. ; [Plutarch's Morals, Miscellanies, and Essays, ed. by Goodwin, Boston, 1870 ; trans, also in
the* Bohn Lib. ].
Ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1847.
* G. Kaibel, Leips. 1888-90. 6 Ed. Cobet, Paris, 1860.
Jt] The History of Philosophy. 17
pi* (he bibliography of recent works. ] Under the general literature may also
b» mentioned, R. Eucken, Die Lebcnsanschauungen der grosstn Denker (Leips,
m).
i) Explanation of facts in the history of philosophy is either pragmatic (logi
cal . or baaed on the history of civilisation, or psychological, corresponding to tin ine factors which we have set forth above as determining the movement ot limtht. Which of these three modes of explanation is to be applied in individ. ul cases depends solely upon the state of the facts with regard to the trans- bsboo of material. It is then incorrect to make either one the sole pri-. ciple & treatment. The pragmatic method of explanation is dominant with those »*> we in the entire history of philosophy the preparation for a definite system •( philosophy ; so with Hegel and his disciples (see above, p. 10 f. ); so from a Botanian standpoint with Chr. A. Thilo, Kurze pragmatische Geschichte der MaKfAit (2 pts. ; Coethen, 1876-80). Kuno Fischer and W. Windelband ute emphasised in their interpretation of modern philosophy, the importance <i considering the history of civilisation and the problems of the individual
The purely biographical treatment which deals only with successive person alia* ■ quite inadequate as a scientific exposition of the history of philosophy. Tla mode of treatment is represented in recent time by the treatise of G. H. Lews*, The History of Philosophy from Thales to the Present Day (2 vols. , tfled 1871), a book destitute of all historical apprehension, and at the same him > party composition in the spirit of the Positivism of Comte. The works ^ the French historians (Damiron, Ferraz) are inclined to take this form of » teparate essay-like treatment of individual philosophers, not losing from sight, ac»em. the course of development of the whole. l
'f ) The most difficult task is to establish the principles according to which the craeal philosophical estimate of the individual doctrines must be made up. The kustory of philosophy, like all history, is a critical science ; its duty is not •aiy to record and explain, but also to estimate what is to ccunt as progress ari fruit in the historical movement, when we have succeeded in knowing and
ladenunding this. There is no history without this critical point of view, and ■•**mdence of a historian's maturity is that he is clearly conscious of this point <4new ai criticism ; for where this is not the case he proceeds in the selection •4 ha material and in his characterisation of details only instinctively and *nhmi a clear standard. 3
h ■ understood, of course, that the standard of critical judgment must not be i pmaie theory of the historian, nor even his philosophic conviction ; at least '■*»employment of such a standard deprives the criticism exercised in accord- net wtth it of the value of scientific universality. He who is given to the heaef that he possesses the sole philosophical truth, or who comes to this field atari with the customs of the special sciences in which, no doubt, a sure result aakts it a very simple * matter to estimate the attempts which have led to it, — ■sea a one may well be tempted to stretch all forms that pass before him upon *■*»Procrustes-bed of his system ; but he who contemplates the work of thought a tatnry, with an open historical vision, will be restrained by a respectful ""mace from reprimanding the heroes of philosophy for their ignorance of the *■»«■ of an epigone. *
A WeU-r. lluinry »f Philosophy, is to be recommended as a good text-book '** French ed_ Paris, 1891). [Eng. tr. by Thilly, N. Y. 1896. ]
:Thia applies in every domain of history, in the history of politics and of •stasnre, at well as in that of philosophy.
1 Ai aa example of this it may be noticed that the deserving author of an *dlent History of the Principles of Mechanics, Ed. DUhring, has developed - ta Kritisckc Geschichte der Philosophic (3d ed. , Berlin, 1878) all the caprice
Me-«ided judgment. The like true of the confessional criticism passed a- Stockl. Lthrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic vols. , 3d ed. , Mainz,
a Impoasible to protest enough against the youthful conceit with which "a far time the fashion in Germany to look down with ridicule or insult tnathe "achievements of the present " upon the great men of Greek and Ger-
*' *J'•*
* a
It
(2
is
18 Introduction.
In contrast with this external method of pronouncing sentence, the scientific history of philosophy must place itself upon the standpoint of immanent criti cism, the principles of which are two : formal logical consistency and intellectual fruitfulness.
Every philosopher grows into a certain set of ideas, and to these his thinking remains bound, and is subjected in its development to psychological necessity. Critical investigation has to settle how far it has been possible for him to bring the different elements of his thinking into agreement with each other. The contradiction is almost never actually present in so direct a form that the same thing is expressly maintained and also denied, but always in such a way that various positions are put forward which, only by virtue of their logical conse quences, lead to direct contradiction and really irreconcilable results. The dis covery of these discrepancies is formal criticism ; it frequently coincides with pragmatic explanation, for this formal criticism has been performed in history itself by the successors of the philosopher in question, and has thus determined for them their problems.
Yet this point of view alone is not sufficient. As purely formal it applies without exception to all attested views of a philosopher, but it gives no criterion for decision on the question, in what the philosophical significance of a doctrine really consists. For it is often the case that philosophy has done its work just in conceptions which must by no means be regarded as in themselves perfect or free from contradiction ; while a multitude of individual convictions, which there is no occasion to oppose, must remain unnoticed in a corner, so far as our historical survey is concerned. In the history of philosophy great errors are weightier than small truths.
For before all else the decisive question is : what has yielded a contribution to the development of man's conception of the universe and estimate of life ? In the history of philosophy those structures of thought are the objects of study which have maintained themselves permanent and living as forms of apprehen sion and norms of judgment, and in which the abiding inner structure of the human mind has thus come to clear recognition.
This is then the standard, according to which alone we can decide also which among the doctrines of the philosophers — concerning, as they often do, so many various things — are to be regarded as properly philosophical, and which, on the other hand, are to be excluded from the history of philosophy. Investi gation of the sources has of course the duty of gathering carefully and com pletely all the doctrines of philosophers, and so of affording all the material for explaining their genesis, whether from their logical content, or from the history of civilisation, or from psychological grounds ; but the purpose of this laborious work is yet only this, that the philosophically indifferent may be ultimately recognised as such, and the ballast then thrown overboard.
It is especially true that this point of view must essentially determine selec tion and presentation of material in a text-book, which is not to give the investi gation itself, but to gather up its results.
§ 3. Division of Philosophy and of its History.
It cannot be our purpose here to propose a systematic division of philosophy, for this could in no case possess universal validity his torically. The differences which prevail in the course of the histori cal development, in determining the conception, the task, and the subject-matter of philosophy, involve so necessarily and obviously a change also in the divisions, that this needs no especial illustration. The oldest philosophy knew no division at all. In later antiquity
man philosophy ; this was mainly the haughtiness of an ignorance which had no suspicion that it was ultimately living only by the thoughts of those whom it was abusing and despising.
§1] Division of Philosophy and of it* History. 19
i division of philosophy into logic, physics, and ethics was cur rent. In the Middle Ages, and still more in modern times, the im two of these subjects were often comprised under the title, theoretical philosophy, and set over against practical
philosophy. >:ace Kant a new threefold division into logical, ethical, and
tsxhetical philosophy is beginning to make its way, yet these various divisions are too much dependent upon the actual course of philosophy itself to make it worth our while to recount them i*re in detail.
On the other hand, it does commend itself to preface the historical exposition with at least a brief survey of the entire circuit of those problems which have always formed the subject of philosophy, how- er*r varied the extent to which they have been studied or the value tail has been attached to them, — a survey, therefore, for which no r'^im is made to validity from a systematic point of view, but which
j determined only by the purpose of preliminary orientation.
L Theoretical problems. Such we call those which refer, in part to car knowledge of the actual world, in part to an investigation of the
knowing process itself. In dealing with the former class, however, ti* general questions which concern the actual taken as a whole are distinguished from those which deal with single provinces of the srtuaL The former, viz. the highest principles for explaining the tmverse, and the general view of the universe based on these prin ciples, form the problem of metaphysics, called by Aristotle first, i. e.
fundamental, science, and designated by the name now usual, only on iceount of the position which it had in the ancient collection of the Aristotelian works — " after physics. " On account of his monothe istic view of the world, Aristotle also called this branch of knowl edge theology. Later writers have also treated rational or natural tLeUogy as a branch of metaphysics.
The special provinces of the actual are Nature and History. In
tie former, external
Tie problems presented to knowledge by external nature are called afmUogieal, or, specially, problems of natural philosophy, or perhaps fkymrnL The investigation of internal nature, i. e. of consciousness »>d its states and activities, is the business of psychology. The phil- '*oj&ical consideration of history remains within the borders of tksmUiiil philosophy only if it be limited to the investigation of '•** laws that prevail in the historical life of peoples ; since, how- em. history is the realm of man's purposeful actions, the questions
the philosophy of history, so far as this deals with the end of the aorement of history viewed as whole, and with the fulfilment of ! *• end, fall under the head of practical problems.
and internal nature are to be distinguished.
a
ijf
20 Introduction.
Investigation directed upon knowledge itself is called logic (in the general sense of the word), and also sometimes noetic. If we are occupied with the question how knowledge actually arises, this
If, on the other hand, we set up norms or standards according to which our ideas are estimated as regards their worth for truth, we call
psycho-genetic consideration falls in the province of psychology.
these logical laws, and designate investigation directed upon them as logic in the narrower sense. The application of these laws gives rise to methodology, which develops the prescriptions for a systematic ordering of scientific activity with reference to the various ends of knowledge. The problems, finally, which arise from the questions concerning the range and limit of man's knowing faculty and its relation to the reality to be known, form the subject-matter of epistemology or theory of knowledge.
H. Siebeck, Oeschichte der Psychologie, Vol. I. , in two parts (Gotha, 1880-84), incomplete, extending into the scholastic period.
K. Prantl, Oeschichte der Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols. (Leips. 1866-70), brought down only to the Renaissance.
Fr. Harms, Die Philosophie in ihrer (feschichte. I. "Psychologie"; II. "Logik" (Berlin, 1877 and 1881).
[R. Adamsou, The History of Psychology (in prep. ). ]
2. Practical problems are, in general, those which grow out of the investigation of man's activity, so far as it is determined by ends. Here, too, a psycho-genetic treatment is possible, which falls under psychology. That discipline, on the other hand, which considers man's action from the point of view of the ethical norm or stand ard, is ethics or moral philosophy. By morals (Moral) in the narrower sense is usually understood the proposal and grounding of ethical precepts. Since, however, all ethical action has reference to the community, there are attached to morals or ethics, in the narrower sense, the philosophy of society (for which the unfortunate name sociology seems likely to become permanent), and the philosophy of law or right. Further, in so far as the ideal of human society con stitutes the ultimate meaning of history, the philosophy of history appears also in this connection, as already mentioned.
To practical problems, in the broadest sense of the word, belong also those which relate to art and religion. To designate philosoph ical investigation of the nature of the beautiful and of art, the name ossthetics has been introduced since the end of last century. If phi losophy takes the religious life for its object, not in the sense of itself intending to give a science of the nature of the deity, but in the sense of an investigation with regard to man's religious behaviour, we call this discipline philosophy of religion.
f I] Division of Philosophy and of its History. 21
Fr. Schleiennacher, Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen isittentehre (col- •»"»«1 works. III. , Vol. I. , Berlin, 1834). L. v. Henning, Die Principien der EUui ta hutnrischer Entwicklung (Berlin, 1826). Fr. v. Raumer, Die ge- virktlicke Enticicklung der Begriffe von Stoat, Secht, und Politik (Leips. , 3d ed. . 1861). E. Feuerlein, Die philos. Sittenlehre in ihren geschichtlichen Haupt-
<-«■■*■ (2 vols. , TUbingen, 1867-69). P. Janet, Histoire de la philosophie wsi* et politique (Paris, 1868). W. Whewell, History of Moral Science Winborg. 1863). H. Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, 4th ed. (Lond. and
S. T. 1800). [Outlines of the History of Ethics, by same author (Lond. and XT, Id «L, 1892). J. Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory (2d ed. , Oxford •ad 5. T. 1886). ] Th. Ziegler, Oeschichte der Ethik, 2 vols, (the third not yet •Wared ; Strassburg, 1881-S6). K. Kostlin, Oeschichte der Ethik (only the r«conimt, 1 vol. , TUbingen, 1887). [J. Bonar, Philosophy and Economics in aW Historical Relations (Lond. and N. Y. 1893). D. G. Ritchie, The History >ffatitical Philosophy (in prep. ). ]
R. Zimmerman n, Oeschichte der Aesthetik (Vienna, 1868). M. Schasler, Krtwrkt Geschichte der Aesthetik (Berlin, 1871). [B. Bosanquet, The History ' SjtheUcs (Lond. and N. Y. 1892). W. Knight, The Philosophy of the Beau-
afsl (an outline of the history, Edin. and N. Y. 1891). Gayley and Scott, A •»«•*■ to the Literature of ^Esthetics, Univ. of California, and Introd, to the M*U,4m and Materials of Literary Criticism (Bost. 1899) have bibliographies. ]
J Burger. Oeschichte der Religionsphilosophie (Berlin, 1800). [Pttnjer, 3i**Tr of the christian Philosophy of Religion (Vol. I. , Edin. and N. Y. 1887). '• ttfc»d*-rer. The Philosophy of Religion, trans, by Menzies (Lond. 1887). Mar-
'■ana, A Study of Religion (2 vols. , 1888), and Seat of Authority in Religion 'JBO,. J. Caird, Jntrod. to the Philos. of Religion (1880). E. Caird, Evolu-
a— sf Rtlxginn (2 vols. , Lond. and N. Y. 1893). ]
The division of the history of philosophy is usually connected with that current for political history, so as to distinguish three great periods, — Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Philosophy. Yet the •eroons made in this way are not so favourable for the history of philosophy as they perhaps are for political history. Other points of division must be made, equally important as regards the nature of the development ; and, on the other hand, the transition between the Middle Ages and modern times demands a shifting of the point of division on either side.
In consequence of this, the entire history of philosophy will here he treated according to the following plan of division, in a manner t£ be more exactly illustrated and justified in detail by the exposi- t>. o itself : —
(1) The Philosophy of the Greeks: from the beginnings of amtifie thought to the death of Aristotle, — from about 600 to •122 B. r.
(2) Hellenistic- Roman Philosophy: from the death of Aristotle v, ta* passing away of Neo-Platonism, — from 322 b. c. to about 580 *_d-
Mediaeval Philosophy: from Augustine to Nicolaus Cusanus, — from the fifth to the fifteenth century.
14 1 The Philosophy of the Renaissance : from the fifteenth to the •**ent»r«? uth century.
(Z)
22 Introduction.
(5) The Philosophy of the Enlightenment: from Locke to the death of Leasing, — 1689-1781.
The German Philosophy : from Kant to Hegel and Herbart, — 1781-1820.
The Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century.
(6) (7)
PART I.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS.
Chr. A. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der griechisch-romischen Philosophic. 3 pts. in 6 vols. Berlin, 1835-66.
Same author, Geschichte der Entutickelungen der griechischen Philotophie und ihrtr Xachtcirlcungen im romischen Reiche. 2 pts. Berlin, 1862-66.
H Zeller, Die Philosophie der Oriechen. 3 pts. in 6 Tola. 1st vol. in 6th, 2 vol. in 4th, 3-5 vols, in 3d ed. Leipg. 1879-93. [Trans. , with the excep tion of the portion on the concluding religious period, as six works: Pre- Svrratic Philosophy (2 vols. ), Socrates and the Socratic School*, Plato and the Older Academy, Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics (2 vols. ), Stoics. Epicureans, and Sceptics, History of Eclecticism, chiefly by S. F. Alleyne and <>. J. Reichel. Lond. and N. Y. , Longmans. ]
A. Schwegler, Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie. Ed. by K. Kostlin. 3d td. Freiburg. 1882.
L. Strumpell, Die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophic 2 pts. Leips. 1854-61.
w\ Windelband, Geschichte der alien Philosophie. 2d ed. Munich, 1894. [History of Ancient Philosophy, trans, by II. E. Cushman, N. Y. , 1899. J
Riturr et Hreller, HUtoria philosophic graco-romanat (Graieoz). In 8th ed. Edited by Wellnian. Gotha, 1898. An excellent collection of the most important sources.
[A. W. Benn, The Greek Philosophers. 2 vols. Lond. , 1883. The Philoso
phy of Greece. Lond. 1898. ]
Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker. Vienna, 1897. [Trans, by L. Magnus.
Greek Thinkers. Lond. and N. Y. , 1900. ]
Ir by science we understand that independent and self-conscious work of intelligence which seeks knowledge methodically for its own sake, then it is among the Greeks, and the Greeks of the sixth i^ntury B. C. , that we first find such a science, — aside from some tendencies among the peoples of the Orient, those of China and India1 particularly, only recently disclosed. The great civilised
1 Even if it be conceded that the beginnings of moral philosophy among the Chinese rise above moralising, and especially those of logic in India above inci- deatal reflections on the scientific formation of conceptions, — on which we shall not here pronounce, — these remain so remote from the course of European Moaophy. which forms a complete unity in itself, that a text-book has no jctasloo to enter upon them. The literature is brought together in Ueber-
•»L|6.
23
24 The Philosophy of the Greeks.
peoples of earlier antiquity were not, indeed, wanting either in an abundance of information on single subjects, or in general views of the universe ; but as the former was gained in connection with prac tical needs, and the latter grew out of mythical fancy, so they remained under the control, partly of daily need, partly of religions poetry ; and, as was natural in consequence of the peculiar restraint of the Oriental mind, they lacked, for their fruitful and independent development, the initiative activity of individuals.
Among the Greeks, also, similar relations existed until, at the time- mentioned, the mighty upward movement of the national life unfet tered the mental powers of this most gifted of all peoples. For this result the democratic development of constitutions which in passion ate party struggle tended to bring out independence of individual opinions and judgments, and to develop the significance of person ality, proved even more favourable than the refinement and spiritual- isation of life which increasing wealth of trade brought with it. The more the luxuriant development of individualism loosened the old bonds of the common consciousness, of faith, and of morals, and threatened the youthful civilisation of Greece with the danger of anarchy, the more pressing did individual men, prominent by their position in life, their insight, and their character, find the duty of recovering in their own reflection the measure that was becoming lost. This ethical reflection found its representatives in the lyric and gnomic poets, especially, however, in the so-called seven wise men. 1 It could not fail to occur, also, that a similar movement, in which individual opinions asserted their independence, should trench upon the religious life already so varied, in which the opposition between the old mystery-cults and the aesthetic national
mythology stimu lated the formation of so many special types. 8 Already in the cos- mogonic poetry the poet had dared to portray the heaven of the
myths according to his own individual fancy ; the age of the seven sages began to read its ethical ideals into the gods of the Homeric poetry, and in the ethico-religious reformation attempted by Pythag oras,8 coming as it did in the outer form of a return to the old strict- ness of life, the new content which life had gained came all the more
clearly to view.
'The "seven sages," among whom Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Solon are usually named, while with regard to the rest tradition is not agreed, must not, with the exception of Thales, be regarded as representatives of science.
