That which we call science nowadays was known to our ancestors by a name
which then sounded very respectable and distinguished, but which has in
the meantime acquired a somewhat ludicrous taste, the name of wisdom.
This gradual transition of wisdom into science is a positive achievement
of philosophy which well deserves our attention.
The term "ancestors" is very indefinite. It comprises people who lived
more than three thousand years ago as well as those who died less than a
hundred years ago. And a wise man was still respected a hundred years
ago, while to-day that title always implies a little ridicule and
disrespect.
The wisdom of our ancestors is so old that it has not even a date. It
reaches back, the same as the origin of language, to the period when man
developed from the animal world. But if we call a wise man, in the
language of our day, a philosopher, then it is at once plain that wisdom
is descended from the ancient Greeks. This wonderful nation produced the
first philosophers.
Whether this term indicates a man who loves wisdom or one who loves
science, is of little moment to-day, and there was no such distinction
in ancient times. We remember that it was entirely undecided among the
Greeks whether a mathematician, an astronomer, a physician, an orator,
or a student of the art of living deserved the title of a philosopher.
These professions were not clearly distinguished. They were wrapped up
one in another like the embryo in a mother's womb. While humanity had
still little knowledge, a man might well be wise. But to-day it is
necessary to specialize, to devote one's self to a special science,
because the field of exploration has grown so extended. The philosopher
of to-day is no longer a wise man, but a specialist.
The stars are the objects of astronomy, the animals of zoology, the
plants of botany. Who and what are now the objects of philosophy? This
may be explained in one word to an expert. But if we try to give
information to the general public, the matter becomes difficult.
What do I know about the shoe industry, if I know that it produces
shoes? I know something general about it, but I have no knowledge of its
details. It is impossible to give sufficient information on the details
of shoemaking to any one in a few words, not even to an educated person.
Neither is it possible to explain the object of philosophy in such a
way. The object may be stated, but not explained, for it cannot be made
plain and brought home to the understanding in a few words.
That is the word, understanding. The understanding is the object of
philosophy.
We must at once call the reader's attention to the ambiguity of this
term. Understanding, knowledge, is the object of all science. That is
nothing special. Every study seeks to enlighten the brain. But
philosophy wishes to be a science and does not desire to relapse into
antiquity by becoming universal wisdom. To say that understanding is the
object of philosophy is to give merely the same reply which Thales,
Pythagoras, or Plato would have given. Has proud philosophy gained
nothing since? What is its positive achievement? That is the question.
Philosophy to-day still has understanding for its object. But it is no
longer indefinite understanding which tries to embrace everything, but
rather the understanding of the method by which knowledge may be gained.
Philosophy now wishes to learn _how it comes to pass_ that other objects
may be illumined by the mind. To speak plainly, it is no longer the
understanding which seeks to know everything as it did at the time of
Socrates that is now the special study of philosophy, but rather the
mind itself, its method and the perceptive powers of thought and
understanding.
If this were all, if the world's wise men had done nothing but to at
last find the object of philosophy, it would be a very scanty
achievement. No, the harvest is much richer. The present day theory of
human understanding is a real science, which well deserves to be
popularized. Our ancestors sought understanding after the manner of
Socrates and Plato in the entrails of the human brain, while at the same
time despising the experience outside of it. They hoped to find truth by
cudgeling their brain. "Honor to Socrates, honor to Plato; but still
more honor to Truth!"
Aristotle showed a little more interest in the outer world. With the
downfall of the old social stage the old philosophy naturally succumbed
also. It did not revive until a few hundred years ago, at the beginning
of modern times.
A short while ago, Shakespeare attracted much attention, when some one
claimed to have discovered that it was not he who wrote those famous
dramas and tragedies, but his contemporary Bacon of Verulam, Lord
Chancellor of England. Whether Shakespeare keeps his laurels or not,
Bacon's name is still great enough, for it is generally accepted as the
mile stone of modern philosophy.
One might say that philosophy was asleep from the time of Aristotle to
that of Bacon. At least it produced no remarkable results during that
period, and it cannot be denied that philosophy from ancient Greek days
to the present times moved in a mystic fog which detracted much from its
study in the eyes of educated and honest men. But the philosophers
themselves are less to blame for this than the concealment of the
object. Only after the entire social development has furthered the human
understanding to the point where it can benefit from the light spread by
the various branches of science, does philosophy become conscious of its
special object and able to separate its positive achievements from the
rubbish of the past.
If we compare the old Grecian wisdom with modern science, the outcome of
philosophy looks insignificant by the side of the achievements of
science. Nevertheless, great as the value of the aggregate product of
science may be, it is composed of individual values, and every one of
its parts is worthy of consideration. The method, the way, the form, in
which the mind arrives at its practical creations is one of these parts.
The mind, on its march from ignorance to its present wealth has not only
gathered a treasury of knowledge, but also improved its methods, so that
the further constructive work of science proceeds faster now. Who will
fail to recognize that material production has accumulated a treasure in
the methods by which it produces to-day, which is by no means of less
value than the accumulated national wealth itself? The positive outcome
of philosophy bears the same relation to the wealth of science.