Handbook of the History of Philosophy

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Part I. PRE-8CH0LA8TIC PHILOSOPHY

TBAIYSLATED BT

T. A. FINLAY, S.J., M.A.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

DUBLIN M. H. GILL AND SON

o'cOimELL STREET J887

M. H. GILL AND SON, PRINTERS, DU9UN.

Y I

I

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

This translation of a work, well-known and largely used in Q the Catholic Schools of Germany, has been made with a view to provide for Catholic students of philosophy in our English speaking Colleges, a trustworthy manual of the History of Philosophy. Students will find in this work a fulness of information unusual in a handbook. And they will further find that the Schools of Philosophy which have grown up within the Church, or have stood in close relation with her teaching, here receive explicit and adequate notice. In this respect the work offers an advantage not provided by the text-books on which our Catholic Schools have hitherto been forced to rely. Perhaps the manual hitherto most largely used by our Catholic students, in their study of the History of Philosophy, has been Schwegler's Handbook, translated by Dr. Stirling. How far such a work falls short of the requirements of Catholic students is shown by the fact that the author omits from his history all treatment of Scholastic Philosophy. His reasons for this omission are thus set forth : " We exclude also Scholasticism, or the Philosophy of the Christian middle ages; which belongs (being not so much philosophy as rather a reflecting or a philosophizing within the pre-suppositions of a positive religion, and therefore essentially theology) to the historical science of the Christian dogmas." Philosophy within the limits of a positive religion is of prime importance to the Catholic student, and a work from which the history of this portion of philosophy is excluded, must be a defective aid in the studies he is supposed to prosecute. Another advantage which the history here offered possesses over most German works on the same subject, is its clearness of statement, and y\ translator's preface.

general inteUigibility of language. Por the beginner at all events, such phrases as Schwegler's definition of philosophy : ^^ the thought totality of the empirical finite," are neither very definite nor very luminous. The simple phraseology and definite conceptions of Dr. Stockl's work contrast strongly with this vagueness of expression and mistiness of thought. Readers of Ueberweg's History of Philosophy will notice that in many parts of his work Dr. Stockl has followed not only the thought but the very words of that writer. In the German text of his book, Dr. Stockl is careful to acknowledge by italics what he borrows from XJeberweg. In the translation these italics are not always inserted ; it was not considered that the quotation marks would be of importance to our students. The Translator acknowledges gratefully the courtesy of Dr. Stockl and of his German publisher, Herr Kirchheim, in authorising this translation.

Author's Preface To The First Edition

It is not without cause that in the modem teaching of philosophy great importance is attached to the History of Philosophy. In itself it is a deeply interesting study to follow the progress of philosophical thought through the course of its development. But our interest in the study increases when we observe that the History of Philosophy teaches us into what by-paths the human mind wanders when it abjures the guidance of Christianity, and that it indicates to us the safe route to follow if we would arrive at the true term of speculative inquiry.

A " Handbook of the History of Philosophy " which sketches the course philosophy has followed in its development, and the leading philosophical systems through which that progress had been effected, cannot fail to have its use for the student who seeks a safe way through this vast and varied field of study.

In the present Handbook I have endeavoured to provide for the student a help of this sort. There are, indeed, many Handbooks already in existence. But these, for the most part, do not view the subject from the Catholic standpoint, and are not sufficiently safe guides for Catholic students. In this respect, the present work, will, it is hoped, meet a want not hitherto satisfied. In composing this Handbook, I have followed the plan of my larger work on the History of Philosophy. I have also largely made use of the well-known works of Hitter, Sigwart, !Nixner, ZeUer, XJschold, Erdmann, and Ueberweg. I am specially indebted to XJeberweg's work, which is very complete in its account of the literature of this subject, and I have largely drawn on it in tiiis reject.

vi author's preface to the first edition.

In the case of each philosopher, I have cited, as far as possible, the original works in which his opinions are contained, and have indicated with regard to the more important, the modem works in which their systems are discussed. To enter at further length into the literature connected with their systems, or to cite from their works in greater detail was not permitted by the character of the manual on which I was engaged.

The present work will serve as a sort of complement to my Handbook of Philosophy (2nd Edit., Kirchheim, Mainz). In every science the complement of scientific theory is the history of the science, that is of the actual process of development through which the science has passed. The rule holds good for Philosophy.

May this work, by the blessing of God, be found of avail to promote the study of philosophy in union with the spirit of Christianity, and to advance the philosophical education of our Catholic youth.

MiinsteTy Sth September^ 1870.

Preface To The Second Edition

In offering to the public this Second Edition of the Handbook of the History of Philowphy^ I have not to announce any change in the arrangement of the work. Here and there some slight omissions have been supplied, and certain needful explanations added. The literature of the subject has, however, been noticed more fully, and the developments of recent philosophy have been accorded more attention than in the First Edition. These changes have added somewhat to the size of the volume.

History, it is said, is a . good teacher. This is specially true of the History of Philosophy. It teaches us that anarchy has invaded the realm of mind whenever and wherever Eevelation, and the depository of revelation — ^the Church — have been discarded ; wherever the peoples ^^ have risen up against the Lord and against His Christ " ; and it shows that anarchy has subsided only when men have returned to God and to His Church. The History of Philosophy thus throws light upon our present surroundings. If the men who now "have risen • up against the Lord and against His Christ " were capable of instruction, they would learn from history that they are drawing society in Europe to the verge of an abyss. We have no hope that they will learn any such lesson. But for those who " have not bowed the knee to Baal,^' who have not sacrificed their independence of thought to the prejudices of party, the History of Philosophy will serve as an incitement to hold fast to truth, though it be persecuted and despised, certain that now, as ever, it must triumph in the end.

INTfiODUCTION.

SI-

1. Looked at from the subjective standpoint, Philosophy is nothing more than the effort of discursive thought to reach the highest and ultimate reasons of all things that are, in the measure in which this end is attainable by mere reason. The task which the human mind imdertakea in this study is very vast and very difficult. For this reason it lay in the nature of things that Philosophy should not reach its perfect development at a bound — ^that in the course of centuries many thinkers shoiud set themselves to the solution of the great problem, and should devote the -power of intellect allotted them to attain, as best they could, the end of philosophical inquiry. In this way the course of time has brought forth many philosophical eystems. Each of these represents the labour which its author has expended in the investigation of the ultimate reasons of things that are, and the results he has attained by this inquiry.

2. The philosophical systems with which the history of the human race confronts us are not only many in number ; they furthermore differ from one another as weU in Matter as in Form. The sum of truth is greater in one than in another; and some seem in this respect to have failed altogether ; some systems are of wider comprehensive range, taking in the whole domam of speculative thought ; others are devoted to a special field of philosophical inquiry ; some are, in their arrangement, rigidly systematic — ^in others the several parts seem loosely bound together, the effort after system is not prominently apparent, li we seek the reasons of this diversity, we shall find them^ partly in the great range and difficulty of the task which Philosophy sets the human mind, partly in the different points of view adopted by the several thinkers, and partly in extrinsic conditions — ^in the influences exercised upon the several tmnkers by the circumstances in which they lived.

3. In spite, however, of this diversity we find a certain ioner connection between the several philosophical systems which succeed one another in time. The results attained by earher philosophers were not lost upon those who succeeded them. The latter made the theories of their predecessors part of their own systems, when they held them to be satisfactorily established. If they considered them insufficiently proved, or whoUy false, they set up in opposition to them other principles which appeared to them more tenable. Thus there came to be established a

Introduction

certain mtrinsio order of connection between the successiye systems^ corresponding to the extrinsic order of succession in time. One philo* sophic system refers us to another, and each can be understood m its full siffnificance only in connection with others to which it stands immediately related.

4. This inner connection between the successive systems of Philosophy gives a reason whvi with the progress of time, a continuous development of Philosophy and philosophic thought is observable. Each succeeding thinker had before him, in the systems of his predecessors, the results hitherto achieved by philosophical inquiry. These were in part available for the construction of his own system. In part they had to be refuted, and the philosopher, in order to set right the teachmg in question, was led to a deeper study of the subject matter concerned. His system would naturally be more highly perfected than those of his predecessors — a distinct advance upon them. The succession of philosophical systems in time is thus seen to involve a progressive development of Philosophy itself, a constant advance towards the perfection of philosophic knowledge.

5. It must, indeed, be admitted that this advance has not always been uninterrupted. The human race does not advance to the goal of perfection fixed for it by God in undisturbed progress. It passes through periods of storm and profoimd disturbance, though these, in their measure, seem ultimately to purify and perfect it. So it is with the progress of Philosophy. Periods of difficulty and danger arise, which sometimes interrupt for centuries the progress of philosophical thought. Systems imposing in their grandeur, and rich in the possession of truth, are abandoned lor others that are at once poor and pretentious ; and these failing to satisfy the human mind, a moment comes when philosophical inquiry is thrown aside as without utility and without fruit, and Scepticism or Materialism reigns instead. These, however, are but moments of crisis. They do not last for ever. They even serve to impel the human mind to higher efforts of inquiry when the crisis is past. For the errors which come to the surface in these periods of stormy confusion call for repression and competent refutation, and thus oblige the philosopher to make deeper the foimdations, and more extended the range of his philosophic Imowledge.

6. It will appear from what we have been saying that it is a profitable study to make acquaintance with the successive j^iilosophical systems, as well in themsdves as in their mutual connection, and in tms wav to follow step by step the develo^ent of philosophic knowledge as it manifests itself in the series. ''The mind is roused and strengthened by observing how many highly-gifted men have, out of mere love of truth, laboured with untiring z^ to build up tiie great structure of philosophical science, and have furthered by their efforts the harmonious development of man's spiritual life ; while at the same time it is protected against pride and self-deception by learning how weak it is, notwithstanding the great thoughts with which it teems. Furthermore, he who will achieve anything like a higher philosophical knowledge must

INTRODUCTION.

make acquaintance with the opinions and methods which philosophical investigation has already called into existence, that he may estimate the problems before him anght^ and avoid every one-sidedness from which others have already escaped/' We cannot, however, be required to study all philosophical systems with the same attention. We must chiefly occupy ourselves with those which stand out prominently above the rest, and round which the others group themselves as round so many centres.

7. We are now in a position to form a right notion of the history of Philosophy. Objectively considered, it is nothing more than the series of philosophical systems which have appeared in time, and the development of philosophical knowledge as manifested in them. In the subiective sense — ^witn which we are now concerned — ^the history of Philosophy is an exposition of the successive systems of Philosophy, setting forth their contents, their mutual connection, and the progressive development of philosophical knowledge represented in them. , 8. A history of Philosophy thus involves three requirements :

The contents of the several philosophical systems must be set forth with the greatest attainable clearness, and with all possible completeness. The historian must address himself to his task cautiously, thoughtfully, dispassionately and impartially. It must be his first effort to set forth each philosophical system exactly according to the mind of its author, to omit nothing which is essential, and to add nothing.

In the second place, the history of Philosophy has to make clear the relation in which each system stands to those which preceded it, what elements it has borrowed from them, or in what antagonism it stands to them. And again, it has to show what influence each system has exercised upon those that followed, how its principles have been subsequently expanded, transformed, or otherwise modified, that its bearing and significance may be fully understood.

In the third place, the history of Philosophy must indicate how far a given system has been an advance or a falling back in philosophical knowled&;e, that we may be able to fix its place in the order of development whicSi philosophy has followed.

9. As regards the method to be applied by the historian of Philosophy in the execution of his task, the question arises, which of the two methods, the a priori or the a posteriori^ meets the requirements of a history of Philosophy such as we have described P To this we reply :

The a priori method lays down a pre-established principle as the foundation of the whole historical system, and from this derives all the systems which have appeared in time, showing their contents and the order of succession in which they have appeared to be alike necessary results of the development of the principle assumed. It is thus that Hegel, in his '' History of Philosophy," has endeavoured to establish, on a priori grounds, that the several philosophical systems which the course of time has brought forth are no more than isolated, imperfect elements of the Absolute Philosophy — ^the Hegelian. This successive

INTRODUCTION.

realisatdon of the several elements of the Absolute Philosophy was required, in order that the gradual synthesis of contradictions might at last give rise to the perfect Philosophy, that is to say, that God might attain to perfect consciousness in the mind of man. This a priori method of Hegel has found many imitators, though the pantheistic principle has not in all cases been an assumption in these methods.

But a priori constructions of history after this fashion must bo peremptorily rejected as unjustifiable and mistaken. In the first place» an exact knowledge of the various systems, as their authors framed them, is not possible if we view their development in the light of a philosophical theory of our own, and study them onlv as seen through this medium. Under such circumstances the several systems will be judged according to the standard and the requirements of our own. The tendencies and opinions of the historian himself will be apparent at every turn, but what tne authors of the systems under discussion though t» and aimed at, will not be put before us. In the second place — ^and thi» argument is decisive — systems of Philosophy come before us as facts of history, and as such they are contingent, not necessary. The contingent cannot be proved a necessity ; he who undertakes such a proof is forced to deny the contingent character of all historical facts— a proceeding which involves assumptions that belong either to Pantheism or Materialism.

The a posteriori method is theonly method which accords with the notion of a history of Philosophy. In this matter, as in history generally, we have to do with questions oi fact ; we have first to make acquaintance with the several systems of Philosophy, as with so many facts, before we proceed to seek the reasons of these facts, that is, before we inquire how they have come to be, in what relations of dependence they stand to other systems, and what progress of philosophical thought is manifested in them. Nor shall we proceed further in this latter direction than the sense attributed by the authors to the systems which they actually framed will warrant. The historian must, therefore, make his own philosophical system subserve the purposes of history. He must not make of it the criterion or the measure of others. Only in this way can he present us with a history of Philosophy true in its details and faithful to facts.

10. Again, " the development of Philosophy is, in many respects, dependent upon the development of other sciences (of the empirical sciences more particmarlv), and upon the religious convictions and opinions as well of the individual philosopher as of the people to which he belongs. It* progress or decline is influenced by the intercourse of nations with one another, by the conditions of social life peculiar to the several peoples, by the family organisation as maintained among them, by their political institutions, by the state of art among them, and, lastly it is affected by the peculiar circumstances which have shaped the lives of the individuals who have specially contributed to its development. It is true a history of Philosopny cannot enter minutely into all these details. They are the material for other departments of history. But it cannot avoid occasional allusions to them, since they have exercised an important influence on

TNTRODVCnOV. O

the progress of Philosopliy. For the same reason, it cannot omit from view the outward lives of the several philosophers. On this point, too, it must furnish adequate information.

11. The sources from which a history of Philosophy must he drawn are: —

Primarily, such works of the philosophers as have reached us, or such fragments of their writings as are stul preserved. But, before using such works or fragments of works for the purposes of history we must first be assured of their authenticity and integrity. Historical criticism, by which this assurance is given us, must, therefore, prepare the way for a lustorv of Philosophy.

In dealing witn philosophical theories and systems where the author's own exposition is not accessible to us, we must, of course, content ourselves with the statements of others. In such cases these statements are most reliable which are based immediately on the writings of the philosophers ; and next to these, the statements of disciples as to the oral teachings of their masters. If the purpose of the writer whose statements are our source of information be not so much historical narration as proof of the doctrines he is stating, we must, in order to make his utterances available for purposes of history, discover from them the exact thoughts of the author of the theories in question, and we must test each statement made by its bearing on this issue. The source from which the writer drew, and the purpose of his writings, are of first importance ; next in importance, as a criterion of his trustworthiness, is his own education in Philosophy, his capacity to imderstand the doctrines with which he is dealing.

12. In seeking a division of the history of Philosophy, we find two great divisions obviously suggested — ^the history of the pre-Christian (ancient) Philosophy, and the history of Philosopny since Christ. Christ is the central point for all history. His coming into the world has been called by the Apostle " the fulness of time " {plenitudo temporis). He was the scope and the consummation of the times that preceded Him, He was the point of departure for the time that followed ; for the events that have filled it have all been hallowed by the Redemption he effected. For the Christian all history is thus divided into two great periods, and with the rest, the history oi Philosophy. This view is in strict accordance with the facts of the case. The Philosophy which preceded, and that which followed Christ, differ more widely in character than the philosophies of any of the several periods subordinate to these. The world has never witnessed such a revolution in human thought, such an enlargement of the range of human knowledge as that effected by the introduction of Christianity. We cannot, therefore, find elsewhere a more appropriate point at which to divide the history of Philosophy into its main divisions than at the point where Christianity appears in the world.

13. If we inquire what are the characteristic features of these two chief eras of Philosophy, we find them in their respective relations to Christianity which we have indicated above.

INTBODUCTION.

To speak first of pre-Christian Philosophy.

Pre-Christian Philosophy is characterised generally by persistent vigorous efforts to attain a purer knowledge of that truth wnicn was embodied in the religious tenets and traditions of the several ancient peoples. Religious traditions, though derived from an imtainted source (the primary tradition), had imdergone so many transformations among various nations, and had been so thickly overlaid with errors, that in the state they had reached they coidd no longer satisfy the longing of the human mind for truth. The mind of man set itself, therefore, t>S reach by rational investigation what it no longer possessed in the traditions of religion. Its innate desire of knowledge was the force which impelled it to consecrate its energies to the search after truth.

This effort of the human mind was, it must be admitted, in many respects successful. The philosophers of antiquity arrived at tiie knowledge of many important and lofty truths. But the path they had entered on did not lead them to the whole truth, and of this the ablest thinkers amongst them were only too well aware. Manifold errors, too> f oimd entrance into and disfigured their systems. No one of the ancient philosophies stated the whole truth, and all contained many errors. Philosophy coidd not maintain itself at the level reached in these systems; it sank after a time into Materialism and Scepticism.

From this point of view Philosophy, in its earlier development^ appears as a preparation of the human mind for the Christian Revelation which was made to the world in the fulness of time. This preparation was accomplished in three ways :

In the first place, the great thinkers of antiquity, having attained a knowledge of many important truths, but not of the whole truth, had roused that longing after the fulness of truth, to which, as we know, Plato gave such striking expression. By exciting this desire for truth in its fulness, and thus rendering the human mind more ready to receive it, ancient Philosophy did its most important work in preparation for Christian Revelation.

Furthermore, Philosophy, having failed to maintain itself at the level reached in the more celebrated systems, had fallen into Materialism and Scepticism. And these had called forth in the human mind the feeling of need for higher assistance, for some divine revelation which shomd help man to a fuller knowledge of the truth. This feeling of the need of a revelation further contributed to dispose the human mind for the due reception of revealed teaching.

A third service, important to be remembered, was rendered by the ancient Philosophy to Christianity. On the one hand it thoroughly investigated the conditions and laws of scientific thought ; and on the other, by its efforts of speculation, it amassed a considerable body of truths of the natural order. In both these ways it prepared materials for the fabric of speculative Philosophy, which, after the time of Christ, was raised in connection with Christian Revelation. Thinkers of the Christian schools foimd abundant materials ready to hand, and these, aa we shall see, they used in the fullest measure.

iirrEODtrcTioN. 7

14. We oome now to the Pliilosophy of the newer or Christian period.

The Philosophy of this period is characterised in general by the effort to reach a profoimder understanding of truth, to dig deeper the foundations of knowledge. But the founders of the newer systems have pursued this effort on widely different lines.

Some have fallen in with the ordinances of Gbdyhave submitted to divine revelation, and, in submission to it as the guiding principle of their inquiries, have sought to penetrate the truth more profoundly, and to establish it on a more unassailable foundation. Following this path, they have achieved most brilliant successes, the systems which such thinkers have built up being amongst the most imposing with which the history of Philosophy presents us.

Omers affain have followed a course at variance with the divinely-established order. They have adopted a false and perverted attitude towards divine revelation, have even rejected Christianity altogether, and by a method thus opposed to the order established by God, have sought to discover the trum and to demonstrate it. Thinkers of this class have never attained satisfactory residts. The philosophic movements beg^ by them have led always, in course of due development, to far-reaching errors, and have at length lost themselves m Scepticism and Materialism.

But whatever road philosophers may have followed, whatever results thev may have produced, the final outcome has ever been to place the truth oi Chnstian revelation in clearer light before the scientific mind. To this end one set of philosophers have directly contributed by systems developed in harmony with, and in support of revelation. Others have contributed to the same effect indirectly. By the very errors into which they have fallen in consequence of their perverseness of thought they furnish proof that it is only when in accord with divine revelation, and when unreservedly obedientto its teachings, thatthe human mind can know the truth profoundly, and vindicate it successfully.

If, then, we regard pre-Christian Philosophy as a preparation for the Christian revdation, we must recognise in the newer Philosophy a continued confirmation of the same revelation, a power which has served to bring out more clearly, more comprehensively, and more forcibly the truth of ChristiaDity.

PART FIRST. HISTORY OF ANCIElfT PHILOSOPHY

GENEBAL VIEW. DIVISION.

§2.

1. In any general view of the history of the pre-Christian period, our attention is first drawn to the East, the cradle of human civilization. The history of Philosophy will therefore begin with an exposition of the Philosophy of the Eastern nations. Generally speaking, nowever, Philosophy, among these nations, is not met with as an independent science, standing apart from systems of religious teaching. Among them, philosophical theories are, as a rule, identified with doctrines of relififion. In India alone do we find a system of strictly philosophical doctrmes } but even here Philosophy stands in close relation to Religion. It is either a speculative development of religious doctrines, or it is framed in antagonism to a religious system whose principles it directly or indirectly combats. The history of Eastern Philosophy will, therefore, do no more than, firstly, bring into prominence the philosophical elements of the severed Oriental reUgions ; and secondly, give an accoimt of those more strictly philosophical systems which, in India, took their place beside the doctrines of Religion. Oriental Philosophvi as we have said, does not exhibit the characteristics of a philosophy m the strict sense of the term ; but it cannot, for this reason, be left out of sight altogether. As we shall show further on, an attempt was made at a later date to blend together certain notions derived from the East^with certain conceptions of the Greek mind, and the attempt gave rise to peculiar systems of Philosophy.

2. From the East we turn to the West, and first of all to Gh*eece. Here we come upon the birthplace of Philosophy strictly so called — Philosophy which is no longer a body of reli^ous doctrines. The Eastern mind, with its innate tendency to inactive Quietism, did not possess that mobility and energy which the construction of strictly philosophical systems demand^. But these gifts were abundantly possessed by the Greeks. To them genuine Philosophy owes its origin. The history of ancient Philosophy is, therefore, mamly concerned with the creations of the Greek mind. To the Ghreeks we are indebted for