common conception of them. The most unlike individuals amongst lions or maybugs are yet much nearer to each other than the lion is to the tiger, or the maybugs to the stag-beetle. This observation is doubtless true. Yet a very brief examination of its force will show us that the real connecting link, which we will for brevity's sake admit without discussion, is in any case something quite different from the universal type of the genus which we in our fancy associate with the name apple-tree. We might, then, from this point carry much further the metaphysical discussion of the relation of the individual to the universal, of the one to the many. Supposing that we knew a formula of the combination of matter, or of the state of things in a germ-cell, by which it could be determined whether the germ will develop itself into the form of an apple or of a pear tree; then it may be conjectured that every individual germ-cell, besides the conditions of this formula, has also its individual variations and peculiarities, and really is at bottom in all cases, at first, the result of the universal and particular, or rather the concrete fact, in which there is no distinction whatever of the universal and the particular. The formula lies purely in our mind. We easily see that here again realistic objections might be made; but it is not necessary to follow this chain further in order to understand the error of the Aristotelian doctrine of the universal. This error lies much further back; for Aristotle keeps close by the word. He seeks nothing unknown behind the universal essence of the apple-tree. This is much rather fully known. The word directly indicates a reality, and this goes so far that Aristotle, in the transference of that which was found in the organism to other objects, in the case of a hatchet distinguishes the individuality of this particular hatchet from its 'hatchetness.' The hatchetness' and the material, the metal, taken together, compose the hatchet, and no bit of metal can become a hatchet until it is seized and possessed IN, B. N.B. by the form corresponding to the universal. This tendency so on. As a matter of fact, then, this thoroughgoing influence of the Platonic modes of thought is clearly shown in the method of inquiry usually employed by Aristotle. For we speedily discover that his proceeding from facts, and his inductive mounting from facts to principles, has remained a mere theory, scarcely anywhere put in practice by Aristotle himself. At the most, what he does is to adduce a few isolated facts, and immediately spring from these to the most universal principles, to which he thenceforward dogmatically adheres in purely deductive treatment.54 So Aristotle demonstrates from universal principles that outside our enclosed world-sphere nothing can exist; and in the same manner he reaches his destructive doctrine of the 'natural' motion of bodies in opposition to the 'enforced' motion, to the assertion that the left side of the body is 54 Eucken, loc. cit., S. 167 sqq., shows that even the strict notion of induction in Aristotle is not easy to fix, because he often uses the expression for mere analogy, which must, however, differ from induction; and even for the mere explanation of abstract ideas by instances. Where the term is used more strictly (for the reaching of the universal out of the particular), Aristotle was still inclined (loc. cit., S. 171) to pass hastily from the particular to the universal. "So hat er denn colder than the right, to the doctrine of the transformation of one kind of matter into another, of the impossibility of motion in empty space, to the absolute distinction of cold and warm, light and heavy, and so on. So again he proves a priori how many species of animals there can be, demonstrates from universal principles why animals must be endowed with this member or that, and numerous other propositions, which are then employed in their turn, with the most logical consistency, and which in their totality render successful inquiry completely impossible. The science to which the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy best adapts itself is naturally mathematics, in which the deductive principle has attained such brilliant results. Aristotle, therefore, views mathematics as the type of all sciences, only he prevents its employment in natural researches by everywhere referring the quantitative back to the qualitative; and so adopts a precisely opposite course to that taken by modern physical science. Closely connected with deduction is the dialectical treatment of controverted points. Aristotle is fond of a historico-critical exposition of the views of his predecessors. They are to him the representatives of all possible opinions, to which he finally opposes his own particular view. Universal agreement is a complete proof; the refutation of all other views gives an appearance of necessity to what appears to be the one remaining view. Plato had already distinguished knowledge from correct opinion by the capacity of him who has a ready answer to all possible objections, and can maintain his own view successfully in the struggle of opinions. Aristotle himself introduces the opponents, makes them expound their opinions-often inaccurately enough-disputes with them on paper, and then sits as judge in his own cause. So victory in discussion takes the place of proof, the contest of opinions the place of analysis, and the whole remains a purely subjective treatment, out of which no true science can be developed. N. B, If we now ask how it was possible that such a system could prove a barrier for hundreds of years, not only to Materialism, but to every empirical tendency, and how it is possible that the organic-world theory of Aristotle' is still to-day maintained by an influential school of philosophy to be the axiomatic impregnable basis of all true. philosophy, we must, in the first place, not forget that speculation is in general fond of starting from the naive notions of the child and the charcoal-burner, and so of connecting together in the sphere of human thought the highest and the lowest, as opposed to the relativistic mean. We have already seen how consistent Materialism is able, as no other system can, to bring order and relation into the sensible world, and how it is entitled, from this starting-point, to regard even man, with all his various activities, as a special case of the universal laws of nature; and yet, how between man as an object of empirical research, and man as he is in the immediate self-knowledge of the subject, there is fixed an eternal gulf. And hence the attempt is ever repeated to see whether, by starting from self-consciousness, we may attain a more satisfying philosophy; and so strong is the secret tendency of man in this direction, that this attempt will a hundred times be regarded as successful, in spite of the recognised failure of all previous efforts. It will indeed be a most important step in philosophical progress if these efforts are finally abandoned; but that will never be the case unless the longing of the human reason for unity receive satisfaction in some other way. We are constituted not merely to know, but also to imagine and construct; and though with more or less mistrust of the definite validity of what the understanding and the senses have to offer us, yet mankind will ever hail with joy the man who understands how, by the force of genius, and by employing all the constructive impulses of his era, to create that unity in the world and in our intellectual life which is denied to our knowledge. This creation will, indeed, be only the expression of the yearning of the age after unity and perfection; yet even this is no small thing, for the maintenance and nourishment of our intellectual life is as important as science itself, although not so lasting as this is since the investigation of the details of positive knowledge, and of the relations which are the exclusive objects of our knowledge, is absolute, owing to its method, while the speculative apprehension of the absolute can only claim a relative importance as the expression of the views of an epoch. Although, then, we must ever regard the Aristotelian system as an opposing hostile force in relation to the clear distinction of these spheres-although it is the standing type of a perverted method, the great example of all that is to be avoided, in its mingling and confusion of speculation and inquiry, and in its pretensions not merely to comprehend but to dominate positive knowledge-yet we must, on the other hand, recognise that this system is the most perfect example as yet afforded in history of the actual establishment of a theory of the universe which forms a united and self-included whole. If, therefore, it is my duty to lessen the reputation of Aristotle as an investigator, yet, nevertheless, the manner in which he united in himself, and collected into a harmonious system, the whole sum of the learning of his time, still remains a gigantic intellectual achievement, and, by the side of the perverseness which we have been obliged to point out, we find in every department abundant marks of penetrating acuteness. In addition to this, as the founder of logic, Aristotle deserves a place of high honour in philosophy, and if the complete fusion of his logic with his metaphysic, taken abstractly, lessens the value of this science, yet this very combination lends force and charm to the system. In an edifice so firmly built, the spirit could take rest and find its support in the seething and impetuous time when the ruins of the ancient culture, with the enthralling ideas of a new religion, excited in the Western mind so great and troubled an excitement, |