The life of the spirit; an introduction to philosophy

Front matter

CORNELL UNIVERSITY- LIBRARY *

UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY

Cornell University Library B 841.E86 1909

Preface

In the present volume philosophy is not regarded as a known quantity, and no attempt is made to impart it to the individual by a comparative survey of its different departments ; but it is treated as a problem — the problem that it in reality continually becomes in the course of the centuries. The book represents a particular view of the nature of philosophy, and undertakes to show that it must be conceived in this way if it is to be equal to the demands which are made upon it by the life of mankind, and particularly by the present situation. By tracing out as simply and clearly as possible a few of the leading lines on which the age-long work of the human spirit has proceeded, it is shown that our spiritual life is not built up in peace and security on a given -foundation, but that doubt and yi PREFACE

conflict extend right down to the foundation, and that no progress of our inner life is possible without a reversal of our first impressions. If philosophy thus appears intimately bound up with all the striving of humanity and the necessity for spiritual self-preservation, then the re-emergence of a philosophy of life and existence becomes an urgent requirement in the complication and confusion of the present situation, and in the struggle which we have to wage to-day for a spiritual centre for our civilisation and a perception of the meaning and value of life. It is because this struggle concerns not merely the learned, but every man who does not despair of attaining to inner independence and true fulness of life, that it is hoped this book will appeal to a wider circle of readers, especially those who share the author's strong and painful conviction of the U inadequacy and indeed the emptiness of y modern civilisation, in spite of all its outer ostentation. RUDOLF EUCKEN.

Jena, May 1908.

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE

It is my pleasant duty to thank the friends who have helped me in various ways. The translation owes much to my discussions with Mr G. G. Berry, whose keen insight has cleared up many a difficulty. I am also much indebted to Mr W. R. Boyce Gibson for generously allowing me to see in manuscript the concluding portion of his forthcoming translation of Prof. Eucken's Lebensanschauungen, and for giving me the benefit in other ways of his intimate knowledge of Prof. Eucken's philosophy. To Prof. L. P. Jacks I owe the correct interpretation of the passage from Hegel quoted on p. 54. The translation in the "English and Foreign Philosophical Library" does not seem to bring out the real meaning, but it was unfortunately too late to viii TRANSLATOR'S NOTE

alter it. Finally, I am greatly indebted to Prof. Eucken himself for courteously giving me information on a considerable number of doubtful points. For any errors that there may be, I, of course, am solely responsible.

F. L. POGSON.

Oxford, December 1908.

Introduction

That philosophy is not only full of problems, but that philosophy itself as a whole is and remains a problem is shown by the varied estimation in which it has been held and the disputed place which it occupies in the life of mankind. On the one hand it is called the queen of the sciences, and a life dedicated to it seems the acme of human existence ; minds of the highest rank have laboured to serve it, and it has often intervened with great effect to modify the whole condition of humanity. This modifying influence, moreover, has appeared in a great variety of ramifications.

At one time, as in the case of Plato, philosophy has wrested pure ideals from the dark tangle of everyday life and has held them up as sure guiding stars to action. At another time, as in the case of Aristotle, it has sought to grasp tiie_fuhie^gf.reality in a unified whole and to penetrate the whole of life as an organizing influence. At still another time, as in the later ages of antiquity, it has been a support and finally a consolation amid the cares and troubles of life. In modern times again it has acted as an Jnfluence in liberati ng men's minds and as a torch of advancing culture. Moreover, it has in addition carried out a vigorous examination of the traditional condition of life and has sought to enlighten men in the most thoroughgoing way as to the limits of their powers. No great spiritual achievement has seemed possible without the help and co-operation of philosophy ; whene ver it has-been wanting life has lost in spontaneity, in freedom of movement, in depth. Religion especially has often enough experienced this to its grave injury. When we follow this line of thought philosophy appears as an indispensable and most important part of the spiritual possessions of humanity.

But on the other hand every survey of human experience shows that at all times philosophy has had its zealous opp onents , who have declared that it was superfluous and indeed have rejected it as harmful. This is the case with the specialist, who believes that the work of knowledge is completely defined when the world has been divided up among the different scientific disciplines ; with the practical man who regards brooding and reflection as a hindrance to keenness of action ; and, finally, with the believer in positive religion, who thinks that philosophy undermines the security of faith and fills men with proud self-confidence. But more dangerous than any attack from without is the fact that philosophy is uncertain of itself, that its work is dislocated, that it is divided into different schools, each one of which, in order to maintain itself, thinks it necessary to refute all the others. This conflict threatens to remain unsettled and without result ; it seems in the course of the centuries to grow rather than to diminish. For whether the Sophists were in the right with their subjectivism, or Socrates with his doctrine of concepts, whether happiness in life_ is to be sought by the way of the Stoa or by that of Epicurus, is still an open question. Of course the individual actors have withdrawn from the stage, but their ideas have remained and passionately continue the fight, like the spirits on t he C atalaunian Fields. From this standpoint it remains incomprehensible how philosophy can have gained a deep influence over thought and life ; but if this influence must be accepted as an indisputable, fact, we are confronted by a riddle which necessarily impels us to take our bearings both as to the task and the position of philosophy.

It is true that an attempt has been made to get rid of the above contradiction by means of a conception of philosophy which would make it acceptable to all : the only question is whether, in such a case, everything is not lost which lends it independence and value. In earlier times as well as at the present day it has often been held up as the sole aim of philosophy to co-ordinate _ the ^wprk of the djfffjenl^sgjences and to blend their results into a unified picture : the more investigation becomes specialized, it is said, the more necessary is a special discipline which should concern itself with any unity that may be left ; in surveying and discussing the presuppositions, the methods, and the results of the individual sciences, philosophy has an important task to which no objection can be raised. No doubt there is a task for philosophy here, but every attempt to gain a more exact conception of it gives rise to complications and difference of opinion. How are we to conceive of this surveying and co-ordinating activity ? If it is bound to take the sciences as they come, if it has no right of revision, if it can venture on no further development, then to be sure it has escaped all danger, but at the same time it has lost all significance. For if it is thus limited it becomes merely a registering of the results of the particular sciences, an encyclopaedia which is not a genuine science, though a generous use of language might give it the name. In particular it is hard to see how a mere encyclopaedia could have exerted upon thought and life those deeply disturbing and fruitfully elevating influences which the examples of Plato and Kant are enough to show have actually proceeded from it. And what if the individual sciences do not harmonize without demur, if bitter conflicts arise, if, for example, one department of science contends for the exclusive operation of mechanical causality, but another craves at least some shred of freedom therefrom ? Shall philosophy quietly suffer such a contradiction to remain and be ready to submit to it? According to the above conception it would not have the slightest remedy.

On the other hand one who desiderates for philosophy a separate domain of activity may perhaps be inclined to think that it carries out a synthesis of the manifold in accordance with the particular nature of the contemplating subject ; that it is not so much a science governed by strict rules as an unfettered art, and that it therefore remains inseparably bound up with the nature of the individual. According to this conception, philosophy would offer an incalculable variety of pictures of the world, some of which would quickly fade, while to others their inherent spiritual power would give the capacity to subjugate men's minds and to last for thousands of years. This view seems to be favoured by the fact that the history of philosophy shows us a great abundance of figures. There is no doubt that this conception contains a certain amount of truth ; tije^jsubje^tiv^elernen^ i mportant in philos ophy, for a man's philosophy can least of all be separated from the whole of his personality. But on the other hand the influence which philosophy has exercised throughout history remains unexplained. For how could subjective pictures of that kind cause such passionate excitement and stir, or give rise to so much love and hate ? Besides this, philosophy does not merely offer an unlimited number of individual pictures, but it also shows persistent types which seem to embody the fundamental tendencies of human existence and effort. Hellenism especially has given rise to an abundance of types to which humanity has remained faithful as it has gone on its way, and which are continually producing new effects. In spite of all the progress of knowledge, Platonism and Aristotelianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism still maintain their position. Besides, it would be incomprehensible how philosophy as ajpurely i ndividual anjisubiective reflection of reality could affect the contents of thought and alter the conditions of life, or how it could be for humanity a source of freedom, of security, and of rejuvenation. Philosophy has been often enough a compelling force which has transformed the whole of the work of the spirit. Whence this compulsion if it rests purely on the caprice of the individual ?

It is true that an attempt has been made to avoid the danger of such a relapse into pure subjectivity by regarding philosophy as the representative of necessities of thou ght which have not been sufficiently emphasized in everyday life and in the other sciences. By unfolding and fully developing these necessities philosophy has the right and the duty of transcending its starting-point and reorganizing its representation of reality. It thus acquires compelling force and is bound, in particular, to set itself the task of radically removing all the contradictions which appear in our world of thought. This seems to lift its task above the risk of pure subjectivity and to make it a matter which concerns the whole of humanity. But this conception, too, contains more complications than are apparent at first sight. The experience of history shows that there is no unanimity as to the exact nature of that which is to count as a necessity of thought. Great thinkers have absolutely contradicted one another on this subject: Hegel, for example, saw in contradictions a power favourable to the production and promotion of spiritual life, while to Herbart, on the contrary, they seemed absolutely intolerable. Does not, then, the search for necessities of thought bring us back to the very subjectivity beyond which it was to carry us ? And we may be doubtful of the right of a thinking which rests purely upon itself to impose its demands on the totality of things. Thinking, in its immediateness, is something which goes on in man : if things are to conform to thought, does there not arise a merely human interpretation of reality which may be quite foreign to reality itself? But the strongest motive in the pursuit of truth is the desire to get beyond the small and narrow circle of the merely human and to gain full participation in the life of things themselves, in the breadth and truth of the universe. It is, above all, this inner expansion and liberation, this carrying of man beyond himself, which makes the work of great thinkers valuable and helpful to us ; a merely human truth is a contradiction in terms, is no truth at all. If we cannot thus be sure of some sort of inner connection with the universe in our thinking, if we cannot found our thinking on a wider and deeper life, then philosophy does not exist in the sense in which it was understood at the height of its activity, and in which it has, as a matter of fact, influenced mankind.

We are thus thrown back from thought on to life — life as it co-ordinate s i tself from within to some sort of unifie d whole , direct s its p ower s to p articula r ends , and adjusts itself to the totality of its environment. We need only examine the individual thinkers more exactly as regards the inner texture of their work and the aims which have actuated them, to become aware that, behind what stands before us as fully accomplished, there lies a^ particular shaping of lifg, and that here is the point of division which separates thinkers and drives them to do battle with one another. Only because it was founded in such a life has thought attained a finished form as well as a constraining necessity ; only from this starting-point has it gained the power of taking reality up into itself and striving after inner illumination. The products of thinking have varied very largely for the reason that, corresponding to the connection with life which is the foundation of thought, the work of knowledge has been from the first conceived differently. The failure to recognize this connection between thought and life is mostly to blame for the fact that the strife of the philosophers with one another has turned out to be so unedifying and so fruitless. The contest always ran the risk of moving in a circle, because it never got back to the point where in reality the division lies, and because it treated as the main thing what was the effect of deeper causes. This connectioiLof thought with life enables us also

INTRODUCTION IS

to understand that in the case of philosophy the work of knowledge is so closely connected with the nature of the personality.

But this connection of thought with life does not seem to lead us out of our complications to a secure standpoint. The danger again arises of a wide separation and division of mankind into separate circles. For, after all, different types of life do develop and range themselves side by side and put forth equal claims. Who is to decide to which of them belongs the higher right and leadership, and which, therefore, may produce a general pfcture of reality that should be reckoned as definitive ? Besides, this gives no explanation how a movement which arises in man could go beyond him, bring him into connection with the great world, and put him in possession of its meaning. And without this there is no knowledge of truth in the sense in which philosophy strives to attain it.

All these discussions come in the end to this, that the existence of philosophy is bound

14 THE LIFE OP THE SPIRIT

up with definite conditions which are by no means perfectly obvious, and which no mere acuteness or reflection can bring to light, but as to whose existence or non-existence only experience can decide. If thought is to have a root and a basis in life, and if at the same time it is to have a constraining power and a character of universality, there is only one possibility. There must appear within reach of man a life which can risjs^ above divisions and can counteract them, a life, further, which can develop out of its own movement comprehensive connections and, indeed, can show itself active in moulding the world. Finally, it must be a life which n^t^njyjtojiche^and interprets what it lays hold_ of from the outside , but shapes it frqmjvithin and admits it to its own depths. Only if man is able in this way to share in a universal life and thereby outgrow the limits of his particular nature, can his thinking advance from a mere cognition of things to a true knowledge. Thus there results the possibility and, indeed, the necessity of a new way of looking at th e world in contrast to that practised by the individual sciences.

The question then is whether we hasae. evidence of a life o f this k ind, which shapes our world and places us in a different fundamental relationship to reality. We believe that we can confidently answer this question in the affirmative. For we only need to gain a keener apprehension of what is called spiritual life, and to set it in sharper relief against the environment in which human existence involves it, to become aware that it offers the very thing which we desire and seek. Spiritual / life is, above all, the formation of a coherent/* system in life. In it not merely the p otentialities of the subject are a roused and heightened, but confronting the subject therearises a field, and indeed a whole kingdom, of an objective nature. Subject and object are comprehended in a self-contained activity and assist each other's further development. Nothing short of such a comprehension of the two sides can supply life with contents and values which, with all their inwardness, possess an indubitable superiority over all merely human powers and opinions. It is in this way that whole provinces such as science and art, jurisprudence and morality, grow up and develop their own contents, their own motives, their own laws. These provinces, however, strive towards unity and finally coalesce in a unified world. In fact, they belong on the subjective side from the veiy beginning to such a unified whole, and only in connection with it can they solve their own problem. Thus we find that wkhin man Jthgre is ^Sjgm^thjnj^whicli, goes JbeyjsniLhim ; he himself must become something different, and his whole life assumes the form of a problem when a unified world thus makes its appearance in his life and distinguishes itself from that which is merely human.

But what is the significance of this new life in relation to the whole of reality ? This can only be estimated by comparing it with that from which it distinguishes itself and which it strives to transcend. In the first place, the realm of nature surrounds us all and penetrates deep into the human soul. Here we see reality dissected into purely individual elements. Life is resolved into the relations of these elements ; it passes in purely individual processes, and does not get beyond mere matter-of-fact. For there exists here no life of the whole, which should comprehend the diversity, take it up into itself and thence draw profit. But the amount of psychical life which exists here has not yet reached the stage at which it might be called an individual life. For in the realm of nature psychical life does not attain any independence; it remains a mere concomitant phenomenon. It does not stand out as an end in itself, but forms a mere means and instrument for the preservation of living beings in the hard struggle for existence. But the great change that ensues when spiritual life comes upon the scene is that now the inner life bRcomes_jnde pendent and beg ins to prepare forjtself a world of_jt s_own. This change, with its introduction of an essentially new kind of life, and its construction of a world from within, with its own particular contents, values, and order, can never be the work of man by himself. It is only to be understood as a movement of the whole of reality itself, which surrounds man, takes hold of him, and drives him on. Thus the movement towards spiritual life appears as a movement of reality towards an independent conscious existence. A depth of the world is revealed which before was hidden, and this gives rise to a complete transformation which must produce an essentially new view of reality . But this new life, by the mere fact of its having consjtructed a state of. civi lization which exists side by side with what is purely natural, has proved its ppwer to make its way in opposition to pre-existing forces. The achievement of civilization, when at its height, in producing essentially new objects and essentially new human characters, can have been made possible only by the force of an independent spiritual life, seek ing to unfold i tself,

With the recognition of this movement there is a change in the whole representation of our spiritual work. It is no longer accessory to the main body of reality, and it is not a private concern of man by himself, but in it we recognize jt. portion jgf a^ world-movement , of which mankind is the servant. From this standpoint, that work can claim superiority both over isolated individuals and over all mere subjectivism.

But what is true of spiritual work generally applies also to philosophy. Man does not, out of his own inner consciousness and possibly quite at random, put a particular complexion on the world, but his philosophy can only possess truth and power so far as the life of the world comes to clear consciousness in it and reveals its own depth. The co-ordination of the manifold, which philosophy undertakes, cannot be imposed upon reality from the outside, but must come from within it and conduce to its unfolding. The task of philosophy now is to enhance and thus to foster that co-ordination in the work of thought. In opposition to the circumstances of humanity it will have to be the champion and e nforcer of the necessities of the spiritual life, and bring home clearly to man the connections of that life. From this point of view it is quite comprehensible how, throughout the course of history, philosophy was bound to accompany the life and the struggles of humanity, and how it could lift them to a higher level. It was able to do this because it was not an opinion of man by himself, but because it was a work and a demand ofthe s piritual life . It is only as a philosophy of spiritual life in this sense that philosophy can attain to independence and maintain the position assigned to it by its friends. And from this point of view its work can be seen to be a connected task which is common to the whole of humanity.

But at the same time, this conception explains why philosophy is exposed to so much uncertainty and strife. For spiritual li fe is

ii ■ not something that is ready-made for us. but is

a difficult problem — in fact, the problem of problems. Certainly our being must be somehow grounded in it if we are to make an effort after it, but as far as our consciousness and activity are concerned, we must first win it and make it our own : only thus can it gain a clear shape and a definite content. But this further opening up takes place in the individual not so much through reflection or imagination as through the labour of the whole and as the work of history. What first makes history in the distinctively human sense possible, is the fact that here a revelation of spiritual life gets started and gains ground as the development of a new stage of reality. But the testimony of experience shows that the course of this historical movement is by no means sure and simple. In the first place, spiritual life has no domain of its own in the human sphere and no independent starting-point, but it develops out of our life in

22 THEJLIFE OF THE SPIRIT

nature and society and cannot dispense with it. In doing so it does not appear from the beginning as a whole, but starts from separate points and gradually extends to larger connections, which again may diverge from one another. And its progress through history is not orderly and sure, but resembles rather a groping and seeking. It makes a step forward, but encounters insurmountable obstacles and is often driven back a long way ; new starting points are tried, but they lead to a similar result. The life is often split into opposites, and then again the impulse towards reconciliation gains the upper hand : much drops out of sight, only to come up again later and exercise new influence, and so the whole becomes more and more complicated and involved. In particular &_ p ermanent com plication proceeds from the relation of the spiritual life to man. Spiritual life. s tands in need of the feelings and faculties of jnan, and so far as it gains these it raises him above that which is merely human But at the same time this merely human element persists and is always ready to drag dowj 2_ the spiritual life to its own level. It does this especially when no great spiritual tension and no powerful spiritual creative effort exercises a counteracting influence. At such times it almost appears as if this merely human element looked upon the spiritual life as an enemy, and would like to take vengeance on it for its troublesome interference. Nothing contributes more to impress a particular character on human history than the fact that spiritual life has to develop in the unsuitable and indeed hostile medium of human existence. But if spiritual life has often been dragged down to the level of the merely human, it has not- submitted for any length of time to this degradation. It has always escaped again, and, however much it might be disintegrated, it has always made a fresh effort to regain its unity ; in fact, throughout all the mistakes and passions of men it has made s ubstantial pro gress in self -R e alizat ion. It has been able to liberate life and thought from the tyranny of the mere passing moment, and by separating the temporal from the eternal, the human from the spiritual, to gather up the results of thousands of years, so as to be taken in at one view. It has been able to reawaken what to all external appearance had perished, and to hold fast everything that it recognized as valuable in a present which is above time and includes time. Philosophy in particular, just as spiritual life generally, takes its stand on this time-including present. History, however, appears on this view not as a kingdom of pure reason, but as a scene where a certain amount of reason wins through in the teeth of enormous resistance.

From this point of view the movement of history, with its elevation of spiritual life above the position and caprice of mere man, gains a special significance for philosophy, and in fact becomes an introduction to a philosophy of the spiritual life. For, in revealing all that has been unfolded of independent spiritual life, it shows wjm^ ^pssjbUities_ our life contains of

.bei ng raised to a high^rinward^level, and also what oppositions arise in this connection and have to be overcome in some way or other. It goes on to exhibit the conditions and the demands of spiritual creative effort, and the presuppositions and environment from which special kinds of spiritual life have sprung. It shows the dominating facts both within and as opposed to the spiritual life, and also the directions in which the movement progresses. It can further operate to free our work from all that is casual and temporary, and to bring it into line with the necessary course of spiritual life so far as it has been revealed in the history of the world. Our efforts will not only acquire thereby more breadth and freedom, but may also gain a stronger and securer position through the recognition of the great guiding lines of the general movement of history. Naturally all this can only take place according to the capacity of the individual life on which the task is laid of gaining an inner mastery over the materials provided by history. For without such individual exertion history cannot impart or teach anything: the contents of history must first be awakened and revivified by our own work before they can be of any significance or use to our own life. If we thus address ourselves to the spiritual content, the revivifying of the general movement of history takes the form of a comparative survey of the spiritual .posjessjojis^ which we have hjUijrJo^guir^and a summons to develop and secure these possessions against the influences and accidents of the moment. We need not waste any time in proving that the present, with its sharp oppositions, its violent cleavage, and ominous levelling down of life, and its want of any ruling aim , stands in particularly urgent need of being supplemented and developed in the way we have sketched. Historical study must press on with particular insistence to fresh philosophical work, to a creative activity which will transform philosophy by clearly proving the untenability of the present spiritual state and the necessity of a new type of culture. But in this respect the spiritual requirements which are involved, not so much in the time as in the general position in world history, are bound to set philosophy definite tasks and point it in definite directions.