Introduction to the study of philosophy

Introduction

STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY

BY

J. H. W. STUCKENBERG, D.D.

NEW YORK A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON

Sfr1>

Copyright, 1SS6, By A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON,

Presswork by John Wilson and Son, University Press.

Preface

The title indicates the specific aim of this volume. It is not an encyclopaedia ; nor is it intended as an introduction to any particular philosophical system, or to the history of the various systems, but to the study of philosophy itself. The book was not written for philosophers, but for students and others who desire to prepare themselves for philosophic pursuits. While especially adapted to beginners in philosophy, maturer students will find it helpful as a review. It may serve to concentrate and crystallize the thoughts which have been confused and bewildered by the perplexing problems of philosophy, and by the antagonistic views in the different systems, and thus may prepare the thinker for a new and more vigorous start in philosophic research. The urgent need of such a work is the apology for its existence, — a need evident to all who understand the inherent difficulties of philosophy, the conflicting notions respecting its nature, aim, divisions, and method, and the numerous mistakes of students, and their failure to secure the best results from philosophic

inquiries.

iii iv PREFACE.

The specific aim has not merely determined the general character of the volume, but also its particular parts, so as to limit the contents strictly to the scope of an introductory work. No labor has been spared to present, in the clearest manner, such thoughts as are regarded most essential for the beginner. The reader who knows the difference between floundering in a subject, and thinking through it, is in no danger of mistaking obscurity as synonymous with philosophical profundity. But even an elementary work in philosophy is obliged to discuss subjects which require profound study, and furnish food for the deepest thought. Particularly is this the case with those great problems which have enlisted the best energies of thinkers ever since the birth of philosophy. The student who has the acumen and thoroughness which adapt him to philosophical investigations will appreciate the importance of grappling early with themes which most severely test his intellectual powers. While intent on securing all possible help to put him into the right attitude to philosophy, he will value all aids only as means for becoming independent of foreign help. Philosophy is not taught, but thought; and even an introductory work presupposes that the student will do more for himself than others can do for him. Particularly in philosophy is it true, that what one gets depends on what he brings.

The best introduction to philosophy is not so much an accumulation of materials of thought, as the develop-

PBEFACE. V

ment and proper direction of the energy of thought. While the following chapters aim to give a clear statement of problems, and hints for their solution, it is evident that their full discussion must be left to philosophy itself. Where mere statements are all that the philosopher requires, the beginner may need the processes themselves which lead to the results attained by mature thinkers ; and here such processes are frequently given, so that, by means of the genetic method, the student may learn that only by thinking through a thought can it be appropriated. At the end of each chapter, hints are found under the head of Reflections, intended partly as a review, but mainly as suggestions for independent inquiry and for mental discipline.

Aside from the nature of the subject, the character of the volume has been determined by the author's own experience of the difficulties of philosophical studies, and by extensive observations, in America and Germany, of the perplexities and mistakes of students of philosophy. Particularly have these observations been valuable in Berlin, where students congregate from all parts of the world. A careful consideration of the need of beginners has led to the treatment of certain subjects with greater fulness than required in ordinary philosophical works ; while other topics have been only mentioned or briefly discussed, their full consideration being left to a period of greater maturity. A clear view of philosophy itself and its divisions, a definite statement of the problems involved, and specific directions for

VI PREFACE.

thorough and successful study, have been the constant aim. While the views of philosophers in past ages may be learned from their books, or from the history of philosophy, the student generally finds it exceedingly difficult to form a comprehensive view of present tendencies in philosophic thought, — tendencies which are the more important because he is continually, though perhaps unconsciously, subject to their influence. Frequent reference is made to the present status of philosophy, in order that the student may learn what special demands the age makes on the philosophic thinker, and against what dangers he must guard. Wisdom does not lose itself in random thinking, but it selects timely and useful subjects, which the historic development justifies and the age makes urgent, and which are capable of richest development and most fruitful application.

Much valuable help has been derived from the numerous volumes consulted ; but as none of them has exactly the same aim as this volume, they could not determine the general plan and particular method of the book. It is hoped that the student will find in the work that independence respecting prevalent systems which the book itself is intended to promote. So far as justice required, special mention has been made of the authors used. The student will be grateful for the views of eminent philosophers on the most important problems ; and he who makes reading subordinate to thinking will not regret the opportunities for reflection furnished by the interruptions occasioned by footnotes. The longer

PREFACE. vii

notes are thrown into the Appendix, and to these the numbers in the text refer.

In discussing the relation of philosophy to science, it would have been easy to treat the subject wholly from the philosophical standpoint. But this relation has become so important, that both sides should be heard; and for this reason the views of scientists, as well as those of philosophers, are presented: hence numerous references are made, both in the text and in the Appendix, to leaders in science.

In addition to the works referred to in the text, a list of books is given at the end of the first chapters, on the subjects therein discussed. This list may be valuable as an introduction to the literature on philosophy, particularly to the philosophical journals. Besides a knowledge of current philosophical tendencies, these journals furnish valuable aid to the student for the selection of works on the general subject, and on the various departments of philosophy.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Definition of Philosophy 11

II. Relation of Philosophy to Religion 57

Chapter I. Definition Of Philosophy

Intellect is energy, great equally in discovering as in solving problems. The leading systems of thought have revealed difficulties before unseen, and exposed fallacies in reasoning before supposed to be perfect. The works of Plato and Aristotle, of Hume, Kant, and Hegel, teem with problems ; and some supposed solutions given by them are found to contain greater problems than they themselves knew. Difficulties multiply as we go deeper ; and whoever discovers a new unsolved question proves that he has thought more correctly or more profoundly than his predecessors. The discovery of such problems, where the ordinary thinking sees none, is the first step toward philosophical thought; and the determination of their exact nature is a condition for all successful attempts at solution. The difficulty which arrests thought tests the mind's quality, and tends to develop its capacity. Resistance makes the intellect conscious of itself, and arouses its greatest energy. The supposed limits of the understanding, for instance, provoke to almost superhuman efforts to transcend them. Unless the tension is too great, it will develop the utmost strength. The spontaneous flow of thought which we do not master, and are scarcely conscious of, may become so habitual as to unfit the mind for riveted attention to profound themes, and for the control of its own processes ; while problems requiring penetrative thought, and long, absorbing investigation, are of inestimable value for intellectual discipline, even if their study ends in no solutions. Only with severe labor can we rise from a life lost amid sensations, to a steady contemplation of concepts. These are at first taken for what they seem to be, just like the impressions through the senses ; only after severe training to the task can the mind fathom their meaning, discover their problems, discern their relations, and learn what they imply, but do not explicitly state. This life in the concepts, if deep and consistent, moves among the problems which have enlisted the best energies of the first thinkers for thousands of years, and have given birth to philosophy.

All who use this term intelligently recognize it as designating a sphere which lies far beyond the range of ordinary thinking, though numerous avenues lead from the one to the other. The profoundest efforts to solve the mysteries of thought and being have usually been regarded as characteristic of philosophers. The first and final causes, and the great concepts lying between them, are the realm of philosophy ; but such statements are too general to convey any tangible meaning.

It is a popular conviction, that the object of philosophical contemplation lies beyond ordinary scholarship, as well as beyond the search of the masses ; and hence but few in any age, even when scholarship was not unusual, have been honored with the illustrious name of philosophers. But the reverence accorded to them has been based on vague notions of the excellence of their pursuit, rather than on a clear conception of its exact nature. The recognition that depth characterizes philosophy has not served to dispel the mysteries connected with the term. The popular mind associates with it wisdom and reason, — peculiar endowments and a peculiar sphere of inquiry ; but however eminent and solitary the position thus assigned to philosophy, its real character has been but little understood by the popular mind. All this becomes self-evident so soon as we appreciate the truth, that we understand only what we intellectually elaborate or work out for ourselves.

The use of the term on the part of scholars is scarcely less vague than in the popular mind. The proof is found in works of scientists and philosophers, and in general literature. The thoughtful reader is consequently constrained to ask, What constitutes philosophy? An inquiry into the mysteries of being? The objects which philosophers contemplate ? The method of inquiry ? The results attained by the investigation ? Whoever seriously reflects on the word will apprehend the difficulty of determining its exact sense. With the prevailing vagueness in its use, what wonder if those beginning the study of philosophy are puzzled by the nature, aim, relations, and limits of the subject?

In many problems an exhaustive study is the condition of clear conception ; still it is evident that at the very outset the exact place of a discipline in the whole system of knowledge should be determined in order to insure its successful investigation. Perhaps even this can be done only after long inquiry ; in that case no effort should be spared in the beginning to determine the subject proximately and as clearly as possible. The limitation given a subject by the definition is essential to concentration and perspicuity of thought. We must find a subject, must separate it from its attachments, and possess it intellectually, before we can apply to it predicates or use it effectively. The rational and successful pursuit of a study, therefore, necessarily depends largely on a clear conception of its nature. Only when an object is in some measure known, can the way to it be found; only then can it be recognized when discovered; only then can its importance be appreciated, and directions for its pursuit be valuable. With no definite end in view, the most diligent study is in danger of losing itself in distractions, in fruitless searchings, and idle wanderings.

Definitions are a mental necessity. In every definition, two things are to be distinguished; namely, an object defined, and the mind giving the definition. When two persons define the same word differently, the reason is found in the knowledge, the needs, the preferences, the prejudices, and perhaps the whims, of the persons. An object may be viewed in two lights. We can ask what it is in itself, or we can content ourselves with the impression it makes on our minds or what it is to us. In the latter case we consider only what the object seems to be, or how it strikes us. We do not go beyond this to inquire whether our impression is correct, but we take it as final. Superficial as this is, it is the common way of viewing objects. An inquisitive energy is required to lead the mind from the naive to the critical standpoint, which demands an investigation of the impression itself in order to determine its truth or falsity. So long as uncriticised impressions or mere opinions are taken for real knowledge, we must expect definitions to be personal and arbitrary, with a flavor of the defining subject rather than the characteristics of the object defined.

A sharp distinction between the mind as subject and the object before it, and a discernment of the difference between what seems to be and what is, are the best evidences that the mind has passed from its spontaneous to the critical and philosophical stage. By abstracting (separating) the object from the subject, and by concentrating the attention on it, the mind seeks the (not a) definition. It is an epoch in the history of intellect, when it begins to make objective truth the standard of subjective value.

We must not imagine that definitions alone change while the objects remain the same. A word may be variously defined ; but then the same word stands for as many different objects as there are definitions. Both Hegel and J. S. Mill wrote on logic, but they did not discuss the same subject. We speak of the philosophy of Plato and of Comte, but the latter rejected from philosophical inquiry what in Plato's system is the essence. And, as the same word may stand for different things, so different words may stand for the same object. There is thus much that is accidental and arbitrary in the use of words ; and where clearness and exactness are sought, it is of the first importance to come to an agreement on the sense in which words are to be taken.

Aside from these general considerations, there is special need of determining the meaning of philosophy. It would be difficult to find another word of the same prominence which has been subject to as many changes and to such a variety of definitions. At different times it has been made to include all that is possible and real on earth, in heaven, and in imagination. It is no wonder, therefore, that teachers of philosophy and authors of philosophical works find it extremely difficult to define the term, and be consistent in its use. This is especially true of the historians of philosophy, who are perplexed to know what to admit and what to exclude of the materials regarded in the various ages as philosophical. While some standards limit these to rational speculation, others embrace science and a large part of general literature. When we consider the heterogeneity of objects designated by the term at present, we must first define " system of philosophy," when used, if it is to convey any definite meaning. Indeed, in the same university, philosophical systems may be taught which really exclude each other.

It is evident that this indefiniteness must interfere both with the study and the progress of philosophy. The stream flowing through history for thousands of years has at last separated into so many rivulets that it is in danger of losing itself in the sand. Philosophers, therefore, recognize the necessity of coming to an understanding on the use of the term, so that they may concentrate their efforts, and also understand one another. Consequently, in philosophical journals and books, the definition of philosophy is one of the subjects most frequently discussed. So long as those regarded as philosophers cannot agree as to the object which engrosses their attention, it is not surprising that philosophy itself is regarded with suspicion, and treated by many as unworthy of serious inquiry. Not a few earnest thinkers are inquiring whether philosophy stands for any thing definite and valuable ; whether it is possible as a distinct department of thought. If it is an independent subject worthy of profound consideration, why do not philosophers limit the word and their investigations to that subject? Some have become suspicious that under cover of that attractive name men have sought for something which is unattainable. May it not be that the progress of knowledge shows that philosophers have been dreaming, and that, being awake now, they are searching in vain for the reality in their dreams ? Some are ready to put philosophy on a level with astrology and alchemy ; they accordingly assign its place to the past wanderings of the human mind in its progress toward knowledge.

This confusion discourages the beginner, and makes the study difficult. The vague use of the term also encourages looseness in thinking, and deceives the student into the belief that he has attained something real and precious, when he has nothing but a word that is almost meaningless, and includes the most heterogeneous materials. Of the many who study what is called philosophy, not a few at the end of their collegiate course cannot define the word. It may even happen that those who have studied the elements of psychology or logic imagine that they have mastered philosophy !

We might yield to the temptation either to drop the term altogether, or to leave it in its present indefinite-' ness, with no particular object and no peculiar sphere T were it not for the treasures of the past which it holds, and for the conviction that it stands for something too precious to lose. Subjects are often difficult in proportion to their intrinsic value, and the terms used vaguely to designate them may only indicate the eagerness of the mind to grasp the subjects themselves. There is no other word to take the place of " philosophy ; " but the concept for which it stands is so difficult, because it lies beyond the usual objects of contemplation, and this naturally contributes to the present confusion.

But no one who forms and appreciates the concept will begrudge the labor it costs. The student with patient thoroughness in the beginning may discover a light which shall illumine his course till the end.

PRINCIPLES WHICH DETERMINE THE DEFINITION.

In a definition we aim at a full and clear apprehension of an object. This is only possible by so limiting that object as to be readily distinguishable from others, especially from those most closely related. Brevity being essential to clearness in definitions, we cannot give a full description of an object by defining it ; the characteristic marks by which it can at once be recognized will meet all requirements. In order that an object may be known, its own peculiarities, as well as its relation to other objects, must be indicated. The most essential elements are the determination of the class or genus to which the object belongs, and its peculiarities in that genus (the genus proximum and the differentia specified).

Where a subject is complicated, it is more easy to determine what the general requirements of a definition are than to fix the principles according to which it is to be found. With all the learned and laborious efforts to define philosophy, these principles have not been sufficiently considered. We cannot expect agreement respecting the definition, unless it is understood with what conditions it must comply. Our first inquiry must therefore be: What rules should be followed in defining philosophy ?

Owing to the variety of objects at one time or another included under this name, there may be a strong temptation to let preference or prejudice or a mere whim decide to which the term shall be applied.

Every arbitrary, merely subjective definition, must, however, be rejected. Whatever its authority to the mind giving it, objective value it cannot claim. We are not seeking any one's opinion, but philosophy itself, — an aim according to which the reader is expected to accept or reject all presented in this chapter.

For the same reason we cannot let any existing system determine the sense of the word, unless the system itself has been proved the true philosophy. It is common to adopt a system taught at a university, and then make it the test of other systems. Those pursuing this method should remember that there is a difference between philosophy and philosophical systems. Every system is apt to have some peculiar views respecting philosophy ; and it is to be regretted if the beginner accepts these, and lets them determine the whole course of his inquiries, instead of waiting until the mind can compare and critically test the various systems, and can either form its own or adopt one rationally. The philosophic mind can wait.

Not a few define the term according to what they think philosophy can and ought to accomplish, thus limiting it to what they regard as most important or within the reach of the mind. This, however, makes the subjective state the principle of the definition, while the historic use of the term is ignored. If this rule is adopted, there may be as many definitions as definers. Besides, it has by no means been determined what the limits of the knowable are ; this, in fact, is one of the most important problems of philosophy, and it would be unreasonable to close the investigation by making any one's opinion on the subject the last appeal.

Useful as the etymology may be in determining the original sense of a word, it does not necessarily indicate its meaning afterwards. Words are but symbols of thought, and their meaning is liable to change with the concepts for which they stand. It sometimes happens that in the course of time the sense of a word changes to the very opposite of the original. The development of a subject is also a development of the corresponding term, which grows with it in definiteness and richness. Yet the etymology may be useful, the original meaning of a word being in many cases like the seed which determines the future growth. As all development is according to law, each stage of progress depending on the preceding growth, the etymology is important in giving the root of the meaning, the concept of those Avho first used the term, and the nature of the subject then designated by it. While, therefore, we do not expect the etymology to give the use of the term " philosophy " in the different ages and the various systems, it will, nevertheless, be valuable in determining important elements in the historic use of the word.

The history of the term is far more important than its etymology. It gives the notions attached to the word by the leading philosophers and in the prominent systems. Even if the historical use has varied greatly, there is in all probability something common, some leading thought which underlies the various senses, at least in the principal systems. If this common element can be found, it will give the central thought of philosophy in all ages, or that which makes an historical system philosophical. Those who ignore this historical use of the term must regard the standard histories of philosophy misnomers, and must sever the word arbitrarily from its past associations. The history of philosophy is a summary of the thinking of all philosophers, even the greatest of whom constitutes only a small part of the whole course of philosophical development. If, then, we prefer the whole to its parts, we must place the historic use of the term higher than the conception of any philosopher, unless that conception is either a legitimate product of the historical development, or else proves that development to be fundamentally wrong.

Useful as the historical development is in determining the sense of the term, it has unfortunately terminated in no generally accepted definition. We cannot therefore appeal to the present use of the word to determine its sense, nor is any system so prominent as to make any particular meaning generally prevalent. Still the consciousness of the age, especially of its best thinkers, must be taken into account.

A careful study of the subject will show that the confusion is largely verbal. Philosophy really has a sphere of its own, clearly defined, and very important ; and no other subject can either take its place or make it unnecessary. Its separate existence and continued study are thereby justified. It will be found that there is a sense which gives the essence of the etymology, as well as of the historic use of the term ; which contains what is common to the great systems ; which marks an important and distinct department of thought; and which also gives the idea on which the present intelligent use of the word is based.

We shall now, under the guidance of these principles, proceed to determine the meaning of the term.

ETYMOLOGY AND HISTORY OF THE WORD.

The etymology * primarily indicates a certain spirit and tendency, namely the love of wisdom, and the striving to become wise. So long as wisdom was a pursuit

* <£iAos ail(I cro^c'a, and not an attainment, its exact nature could not be determined. The sphere of inquiry and the goal reached were to each seeker the measure for his apprehension of the desired object. Thus wisdom as the chief excellence of man might be differently apprehended according to the views, preferences, and results of the inquirers. It might be viewed as the summit of speculation in any particular department, or as the culmination of all theoretical inquiry ; or it could be taken as the practical guide of life or as skill for attaining particular ends, — a skill in which the highest theory and best practice are united. It was not unusual to ascribe wisdom to persons who excelled in an art or learning. Pythagoras is said to have been the first who employed " philosophy " to designate a particular subject ; and it is claimed, that he called himself a philosopher rather than wise,* because he thought God alone wise, while man is merely a friend of wisdom, and strives to attain it.f This sentiment, however, corresponds most fully with the spirit of Socrates, and many think it should be attributed to him rather than to Pythagoras. Plato also repeatedly states that wisdom belongs only to God, but that it becomes man to be a friend or lover of wisdom.

In the historical use of the word, we behold a reflection of the various views of philosophy itself in the course of its development. We must, however, distinguish between the popular and the technical use of the term. In the former, some phase of philosophy is usually

* <j><.A6<ro(J>os rather than <ro<}>6<;.

t On the use of the term among the Greeks, I have found of special value " Philosophic," hy R. Haym, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyklopaedie ; Paulsen, " Ueber das Verhaltniss der Philosophic zur Wissenschaft," in Vierteljahrsschrift fur loissenschaftliche Philosophie, 1877, first number; and Ueberweg's Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Einleitung.

seized, or a general characteristic designated ; but it is of little service in determining the technical sense.

While originally the word indicated merely a mental attitude toward wisdom, and the striving to which that led, it was soon used also to designate the result of this striving.* For a long time, however, the word was used vaguely. Thus Herodotus employs it to designate the desire for learning, while Thucydides uses it in the sense of striving after intellectual culture. Among others, sophists and rhetoricians were called philosophers, and the contents of their instruction were designated philosophy. Isocrates, for instance, uses the term for rhetoric. Even in the Socratic school the sense of the word was by no means fixed. Plato employs it for study, for learning, for love of learning; but the knowledge to which he especially applies it is that sought for its own sake and not for practical application. Thus he speaks of himself as a philosopher, in distinction from the sophist, who makes a trade of imparting instruction, and from the politician, who seeks knowledge for practical ends. Like Plato, his pupil Aristotle also uses the word in various senses.

Besides this general use of the term, we, however, find that Plato and Aristotle also employ it in a technical sense. Thus Plato, as already intimated, uses it to designate the purely theoretical activity of the mind, aside from any practical application of the results attained. While the artist seeks skill, and the rhetorician and politician eloquence, in order to influence popular assemblies, the philosopher seeks truth, simply

* The word larropia has heen subject to a simliar development as (fKAoo-otfua. Both originally designated merely a subjective state or attitude, and afterwards the results attained, namely histories and philosophies. The same is true of many other terms.

because it is the truth. The philosopher also differs from the historian, who merely describes events. Plato wants to get behind phenomena, and seeks to attain an intellectual apprehension of existence ; and he holds that " a philosopher is one who sees the essence of things, the true things, the ideas." * Not satisfied with the transient and the particular, Plato sought the eternal and the universal ; instead of what seems to be, he aimed to get at reality itself. From the world of sense he withdrew to the world of ideas, the archetypes of all existence, the contemplation of which he regarded as the true philosophy. The term, however, is not confined to this contemplation or to any mental attitude, but is also applied to the knowledge or system which is the result. But as a system philosophy was not distinguished from mathematics and physics; and in one instance Plato speaks of geometry as included in philosophy.