them, but because only by their assistance can we thoroughly overcome the misunderstandings which constantly threaten us in the discussion of this subject. One portion. of the question here concerned has been already decided, what is right and what is wrong in Materialism being already shewn, as soon as the notions with which we have here constantly to deal are made clear; and further, it is essential that we should take them at their immediate source, and observe the gradual modifications they undergo.

Aristotle is the creator of metaphysic, which, as everybody knows, is indebted for its unmeaning name merely to the position of these books in the series of Aristotle's writings. The object of this science is the investigation of the principles common to all existence, and Aristotle therefore calls it the first philosophy'-that is, the general philosophy, which has not yet devoted itself to a special branch. The idea of the necessity of such a philosophy was correct enough, but the solution of the problem could not even be approached until it was recognised that the universal is above all that which lies in the nature of our mind, and through which it is that we receive all knowledge. The failure to separate the subject and the object, the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, is here therefore especially noticeable, as, owing to this failure, the Aristotelian philosophy becomes an inexhaustible source of self-delusion. And the middle ages were especially inclined eagerly to embrace the very worst delusions of this kind; and these are at the same time of special importance for our subject: they lie in the notions of matter and potentiality, as related to form and actuality.

Aristotle mentions four universal principles of all existence: form (or essence), matter (üλŋ, materia, as it was rendered by the Latin translators), the efficient cause, and the end.27 We are here chiefly concerned with the first two.

27 Ueberweg, Hist. of Phil., 4 references there given are quite enough Aufl., i. 172-175, E. T. i. 157-159. The for our purpose, as we are not here

The notion of matter is, in the first place, entirely different from what we nowadays understand by 'matter.' While our thought retains in so many departments the stamp of Aristotelian conceptions, on this point, through the influence of natural science, a Materialistic element has forced itself into our modes of thinking. With or without Atomism, we conceive of matter as a corporeal thing distributed universally, save where there is a vacuum, and of an essentially uniform nature, although subject to certain modifications.

In Aristotle the notion of matter is relative; it is matter in relation to that which is to result from it through the accession of form. Without form the thing cannot be what it is; through form the thing becomes what it is in reality; whilst previously matter had only supplied the potentiality of the thing. Matter has, nevertheless, to begin with a form of its own, though of but a low order, and one quite indifferent in relation to the thing which is to result.

The bronze of a statue, for example, is the matter; the idea of the work is the form; and from the union of the two results the actual statue. Yet the bronze was not the matter in the sense of this particular piece of metal (for as such it had a form which had nothing to do with the statue), but as bronze in general, i.e., as something having no reality in itself, but which 'can' only become something. And so matter also is only potentially existing (Svvápe ov), form only in reality or in actuality (évepyeía ov or ἐντελεχείᾳ ὄν). The passing of the possible into actuality is Becoming, and this is, therefore, the moulding of matter by form.

As we see, there is here no question whatever of an independent corporeal substrate of all things. The concrete, phenomenal thing itself, as it here or there exists—e.g., a

concerned with a new view of the nised Aristotelian notions and doc Aristotelian metaphysic, but merely trines. with a critical exposition of recog

VOL. I.

N

N. B.

log of wood lying yonder-is at one time 'substance,' that is, an actualised thing consisting of form and matter, at another time is merely matter. The log is 'substance,' a complete thing, as a log having received from nature the form of a log; but it is 'matter' with regard to the rafter, or the carving which is to be made from it. We have only to add the qualifying words, "in so far as we regard it as matter" (i.e., material). Then everything would be clear, but the conception would no longer be strictly Aristotelian, for Aristotle, in fact, transfers to the things themselves these relations to our thought.

Besides matter and form, Aristotle further regards efficient causes and ends as grounds of all existence, the last of which, in the nature of things, coincides with the form. As the form is the end of the statue, so also Aristotle regards in nature the form that realises itself in matter as the end, or the final cause, in which Becoming finds its natural consummation.

But while this manner of regarding things is consistent enough in its own way, it was completely lost from view that the related notions are throughout of such a kind that they cannot, without producing error, be assumed as actually recognised properties of the objective world, though they may supply a well-articulated system from a subjective standpoint. And it is therefore of the more importance that we should make this clear, because only a very few of the keenest thinkers, such as Leibniz, Kant, and Herbart have entirely avoided this rock, simple as the matter really is.

The underlying error consists in this, that the notion of the possible, of the duváμei ov, which is in its nature a purely subjective assumption, is transferred to things.

It is undeniable that matter and form are but two sides from which we may contemplate the essence of things; and even Aristotle was cautious enough not to say that the essence was compounded from these two, as if they were separable parts; but if we refer the becoming and actually

happening to the interpenetration of matter and form, of potentiality and actuality, the error we have just avoided meets us at this point with redoubled force.

It must much rather be indisputably concluded that if there is no formless matter, even though this can be only assumed and not imagined, then there exists also no potentiality in things. The δυνάμει ὄν, the potentially existing, is, as soon as we leave the sphere of fiction, a

11 N. 13.

pure nonentity, no longer to be found. In external nature ||

there is only actuality and no potentiality.

Aristotle regards, for example, the general who has won a battle as an actual conqueror. This actual conqueror, however, was a conqueror before the battle, yet only Evváμe, potentia, potentially. So much we may readily concede, that there lay even before the battle in his person, in the strength and disposition of his army, and so on, conditions which brought about his victory- his victory was possible; but this whole employment of the notion of potentiality rests upon this, that we mortals can never see more than a portion of the causes in action: if we could view all, we should find out that the victory was not 'potential,' but that it was 'necessary;' since the incidental and contributory circumstances stand also in a fixed causal connection, which is so ordered that a particular consequence will result, and no other.

It might be objected that this is quite in harmony with the Aristotelian assumptions; for the general who is necessarily victorious is in a certain way already the conqueror, and still he is not yet actually so, but only 'potentia.'

Here we should have an admirable example of the confusion of notions and of objects. Whether I call the general conqueror or not, he is what he is-a real person, standing at a certain point of time in the course of inner and outer properties and events. The circumstances that have not yet come into play have for him as yet no existence at all; he has only a certain plan in his concep

tions, a certain strength in his arm and voice, certain moral relations to his army, certain feelings of hope and apprehension; he is, in short, conditioned on every hand. That from these conditions, in connection with other conditions on the side of his opponent, of the ground, of the armies, of the weather, his victory will result, is a relation which, if conceived by our thought, produces the notion of the possibility, or even of the necessity, of a result, without thereby taking anything from him or adding anything to him. No addition is necessary to this notional possibility in order to turn it into actuality, except in our thought. "A hundred actual thalers," says Kant, "contain no whit more than a hundred potential thalers." 28

28 Kant's Kritik d. v. Vemunft, Elementarl., II. Thl. 2 Abth. 2 Buch. Haupst. 4 Abschn., E. T. Meiklejohn, p. 368, ed. Hartenstein, 409.

Kant is there discussing the impossibility of an ontological proof of the existence of God, and shows that 'existence' is not a real predicate at all, that is, not a "conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing." And so, therefore, the real contains no more (in its conception) than the merely possible, and reality is the existence of the same thing as an object, of which the (merely logical) possibility gave me only the conception. In order to explain this relation Kant employs the following example : A hundred real dollars contain no more than a hundred possible dollars. For, as the latter indicate the conception, and the former the object, on the supposition that the content of the former was greater than that of the latter, my conception would not be an expression of the whole object, and would consequently be an inadequate conception of it. In another sense, however, it may be said that there is more in a hundred real dollars than in a hundred possible dollars

that is, in the mere conception of them. For the real object-the dollars-is not analytically contained in my conception, but forms a synthetical addition to my conception (which is merely a determination of my mental state), although this objective reality - this existence - apart from my conception, does not in the least degree increase the aforesaid hundred dollars." The illustration of a treasury-bill, added in the text, attempts to make the matter still clearer, since, in addition to the merely logical possibility (the idea of a hundred dollars) an additional ground of probability is brought into play, which rests upon a partial view of the conditions influencing the actual payment of a hundred dollars. These conditions (partially recognised) are what Ueberweg (àpropos of Trendelenburg; comp. Ueberweg's Logik, 3 Aufl. S. 167, § 69) calls "real or objective possibility." The appearance of a problematical relation is due to this fact, that we transfer to the object the relation which is conceived by our mind between the mere actual presence of the conditions, and the later, also actual existence of the condiditioned.