Introduction to Philosophy

A Handbook for Students of Psychology, Logic, Ethics, Aesthetics and General Philosophy

Oswald Külpe, W.B. Pillsbury, E.B. Titchener

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429870637
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

First published in 1927, this translation of Kulpe's 'Einleitung in die Philosophie', 1895, covered psychology, logic, ethics, esthetics and general philosophy. The author adopted a uniform approach of positivity, interest and impartiality, aiming his work at a wider public than students of philosophy. The volume was intended as an elementary but complete guide to philosophy, past and present and included facts and arguments previously confined to philosophical encyclopaedias.

Chapter I.
Definition and Classification of Philosophy

§ 2. The Definition of Philosophy.

1. A DEFINITION is a determinate relation between certain symbols (usually written or spoken words) and the objects which they indicate. It is, in other words, the meaning of a symbol, explicitly formulated. Hence any enquiry into the definition of philosophy must begin by answering the question what the word ‘philosophy’ means. We are met at once by a great divergence of opinion as to the significance of the term; so that our first task will be (cf. §1. 5, 6) to collect and examine those proposed definitions which have proved most important, i.e., have been most widely accepted. How far it may be possible to combine the various formulæ into a phrase which shall do equal justice to the present and the past, we cannot here decide; we shall recur to the point in Chapter IV. For the present we confine ourselves to definitions which have actually been offered, and say nothing of the ideal definition which we may ultimately find.

2. Little credence is now given to the statement of Heraclides Ponticus that the use of the word ‘philosophy’ to denote a science begins with Pythagoras. Herodotus was, in all probability, the first to employ the verb ‘philosophise’; he makes Croesus tell Solon how he has heard that “from desire of knowledge Solon has traversed many lands, philosophising.” The phrase “from desire of knowledge” (θεωρίηs είvεkεv) sounds like a translation of the participle “philosophising” (ϕιλοσοϕέων). Thucydidee speaks in much the same sense of the Athenians in Pericles’ incomparable funeral oration: “We are lovers of wisdom (we philosophise) without effeminacy” (ϕιλοσϕôυμευ àvεv μαλακίαs). And Cicerq says that knowledge of the best things, and the ability to use this knowledge, in whatever department they may be acquired, are termed ‘philosophy.’ All these uses of the word indicate that there is a peculiar province of knowledge which we are impelled to explore not by any practical need, but by the simple desire for knowledge itself. Now there can be no doubt that self-preservation or some other equally practical end lies behind the first beginnings of all knowledge. All the more remarkable, then, is this distinction of a special province of knowledge, which men investigate from the pure desire to know, without obtaining any direct profit for themselves or for the society in which they live. We employ to-day a single name for such knowledge in all its branches, and call it ‘science.; Evidently, then, ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ spring from a common root.

3. But philosophy came to mean a great deal more than this, even among the ancients. At first, before its results had been achieved, we find philosophical activity, philosophising, the centre of attraction. But as the stock of knowledge increased, and the thoughts of other generations could be regarded by the objective light of history, the name was gradually extended to a certain sum of acquired knowledge, products of this philosophical activity. When Socrates, pressing the etymological significance of the term, calls himself a philosopher (a striver after wisdom), as distinguished from the Sophists (teachers or possessors of wisdom), he is not really exalting with a sincere mind the endeavour after knowledge for knowledge’ sake, but rather passing a sceptical judgment upon the certainty of knowledge or the possibility of knowing. His disciple Plato takes up a more positive and objective attitude on the question of what constitutes philosophy. Thus we read, e.g., in the Theaetetus, of “geometry or any other philosophy”; while in the Euthydemus we find a general definition of philosophy regarded as acquisition of knowledge (κτησιs επωτήιηs). More than this: there are passages which define the philosopher as one whose efforts aim at a knowledge of the eternal, of the essential uature of things, and thus give a quite definite objective meaning to philosophy. We find a still closer definition in Aristotle’s “first philosophy” (πρώτη ϕιλοσοϕία) and “second philosophy” or physics. Aristotle means by ‘first philosophy’ philosophy proper, the highest or most general philosophy,—that which to-day is usually entitled metaphysics. But he also employs the word with technical precision, in its wider sense, as equivalent to ‘science’ and as opposed to ‘art’ or the ability to make use of science (τέχνη).—Cf. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, 1870, s.v. ϕ ιλοσοϕία.

4. The idea of philosophy undergoes yet another change at the hands of the Stoics and Epicureans. Alongside, or rather in place of, the strictly scientific meaning of the word, comes an emphasising of the value of the practical results of philosophic activity, and of the need for a comprehensive view of the purposes of human life and action. Thus Cicero exclaims: “Philosophy, thou director of our lives, thou friend of virtue and enemy to vice ! What were we, what were the life of man at all, but for thee ?” The individualistic thought of these schools found its chief interest in the endeavour after practical capacity or happiness. At the same time certain special fields of knowledge, such as mathematics and astronomy, begin to assume the rank of independent sciences.

It would be difficult to extract from the definitions of philosophy which we have mentioned hitherto any abstract formula which should be valid for all alike. Without attempting anything of the sort, we may, however, call the reader’s attention to the fact that one and all lay special emphasis upon the natural desire for knowledge as an end in itself. This view also found representation in the middle ages, when the term philopophy was applied to knowledge attained by the natural light of reason, as contradistinguished from the supernatural knowledge owed to revelation. Philosophy thus comes to mean systeraatised natural knowledge.

5. The same distinction appears in the definition of philosophy as scientia saecularis, worldly wisdom or temporal science; for those who accepted it could not, of course, admit that any but temporal matters, the things of this world, were illuminable by the natural light of human reason. Even the rise of modero philosophy produced no apparent change in this point of view: the only difference is that the value set upon temporal wisdom increases with marked rapidity, and that there is manifested a growing tendency to grant the claims of reason to be the sole and exclusive instrument for the attainment of real knowledge. In the writings of Descartes or Cartesius (1596–1650), the ‘father of modern philosophy,’ we find explicit acceptance of this standpoint; certain knowledge can be gained only through philosophy, and established only upon a philosophical basis. Here again, i.e., philosophy stands simply for science, as it did in the ancient world. In England, the differentiation of temporal wisdom and theology was longer lived. The dominant note, both in Bacon’s (1561–1626) classification of the sciences according to the faculties of knowledge,—in which philosophy is derived from reason,—and in Hobbes’ (1588–1679) definition of philosophy as the knowledge of causal connections, would seem to be the same with that of mediæval thought. And the supposition is confirmed by the fact that the English universities have retained scholastic forms longer than any others, and that even to-day certain uses of ‘philosophical’ carry us back to the older and wider meaning of the word. Further to notioe in this connection are the curiously hard and fast distinction between knowledge and belief, and the absence of a metaphysics, in the strict sense of the term, which are characteristic of English philosophy. Philosophy is made to do service in the investigations undertaken by the separate sciences; it remains specifically scientific, and is thus kept upon the safe ground of experience, and deals with facts of universal validity.

6. The chief end of continental philosophy, on the other hand, has been to accomplish a rational unification of knowledge and belief by help of a metaphysics erected by scientific methods upon a scientific basis. Descartes believed that the principal aim of philosophy was the complete knowledge of all things knowable, and that this involved the discovery of one supreme and final principle, from which every fact of knowledge might be rationally deduced. Later on Christian Wollf (1679–1754) defined philosophy as the “scientia possibilium, quatenus esse possunt,” i.e., as the science of the possible, so far as it can become actual. For him too, that is, the task of philosophy consists in the establishment of most general principles, from which the data of knowledge can be derived. Nor is there any great difference of outlook in Kant’s (1724–1804) definition of philosophical knowledge as “rational knowledge from concepts,” in J. G. Fichte’s (1762–1814) view of philosophy as a “science of knowledge” (Wissenschaftslehre), or in Hegel’s (1770–1831) definition of it as a “science of the absolute.” So we come by easy gradations to the definition of philosophy as the ‘science of principles,’ which is generally current at the present time. The definition proposed by Ueberweg (+1871) takes precisely this form; and the tendency of many modern philosophers to regard epistemology and logic as the sole or at least the central disciplines of a scientific philosophy is an indication of substantial agreement with his view.

7. But our survey would be incomplete if we failed to take account of some other attempts to formulate an unitary definition of philosophy. The rapid growth of the special sciences has led certain modern philosophers to assign philosophy a place among them, or to look upon it as supplementary to them. The original relation of the two departments of knowledge is thus reversed: philosophy has ceased to be the necessary presupposition of the work done by individual sciences, and this has come to be recognised as an adequate basis for philosophical labours. Herbart (1776–1841) approaches this point of view when he defines philosophy as the “working over of concepts,” and explains that to ‘work over’ means, in the concrete case, to classify, correct and supplement by determination of relative value. Philosophy accordingly falls for him into three main divisions: logic, metaphysics and practical philosophy or aesthetics (cf. §1. 3). Even here, then, we find that certain concepts are recognised as given, as data of experience. The same fundamental thought, expressed in greatly improved form, recurs in Wundt, who states that the problem of philosophy is the unification of all knowledge obtained by the special sciences in a consistent whole; and in Paulsen, who defines philosophy as the sum total of all scientific knowledge. Such a view evidently regards philosophy as supplementary to the separate sciences, as something which they may, perhaps, be able to do without; and there can be no doubt that this idea of the business of philosophy is widely prevalent at the present time. Of less influence is the position held by Beneke (1798–1854) and Lipps, who assert that philosophy is psychology, or the science of the inner experience, and that it must therefore be looked upon as co-ordinate with natural science.

8. It is evident that none of these modern definitions seeks to appreciate or explain philosophy considered as a product of historic development; they are intended rather to give expression to the personal opinions of independent thinkers as to the best possible way of pursuing the study of philosophy at a particular time. Hence, while they may appeal to us as programmes for determinate systems, or as apt résumés of the views of individual philosophers, they cannot be regarded as attempts to summarise the permanent characteristics of philosophy in a formula of universal validity. As it is a matter of indifference for our immediate purpose which of the more general definitions of philosophy we adopt, we will take that proposed by Ueberweg (cf. above, §2. 6), and try by its aid to illustrate the relation of philosophy to allied fields of thought. As a science of ‘principies,’ philosophy differs from the special sciences in that it is restricted to those most general concepts which they employ, but do not explain. Every science speaks of conditions, laws, forces, possibilities, realities, etc.; but no single discipline can undertake a comprehensive discussion of these and similar terms, if only for the reason that they are applied in the most diverse spheres, and by no means always endowed with the same attributes. As a ‘science,’ philosophy falls under the general heading of products of mental activity, while it is distinguished from other members of the same class, e.g., from art and religion, by its endeavour to assure the universal validity oi its statements.

9. The following criticisms may be passed upon this definition of philosophy:—

(a) The fact that philosophy has always had an individual significance, i.e., that it has been the work of particular philosophers, may well make us hesitate to predicate the term ‘science’ of the sum total of philosophic achievement. We do not speak of Helmholtz’ or Maxwell’s physics, of Berzelius’ or Liebig’s chemistry, of Ranke’s or Taine’s history, of Savigny’s or Wächter’s jurisprudence. If the name of an individual occurs in the exposition of any of these sciences, it is only that some definite discovery may be accredited to its author, or some definite hypothesis, which has not met with general acceptance, be associated with those investigators upon whose authority it rests. Philosophy is to a much greater degree the work of particular men; and it is as yet only in certain of the philosophical disciplines that we can see personal opinions beginning to consolidate about a nucleus oi generally accepted laws.

(b) But neither does philosophy deal with ‘principles,’ in all the departments of knowledge which pass under its name. Ethics, e.g., purports to be a direct scientific investigation of the facts and laws of the moral life, and to state the conditions which must be fulfilled by every action which is to be made the matter of a moral judgment. Æsthetics, in the same way, is the science of the facts and laws of æsthetic pleasure. Neither of these two disciplines, which are universally ascribed to philosophy, can be regarded by the impartial critic as anything else than a special science (cf. §§9 and 10),—unless, indeed, he is prepared to accept a definition of philosophy as bizarre as that proposed by Lotze, who declared that it is the investigation of the thoughts which constitute our principles of judgment in daily life and in the separate sciences. And even then it would not be hard to show that the definition, generous as it looks, cannot cover a very considerable portion of the field of philosophic work.

We must conclude, then, that one of the commonest of current definitions of philosophy is inadequate in its statement, both of the ‘genus proximum’ and of the ‘differentia specifica.’ The conclusion serves to justify the attempt, which we propose to make later on, to find a better definition of the essential purpose of philosophy.

Note.—We sometimes read of ‘sources’ of philosophical activity, philosophy being regarded as the product of a definite impulse or emotion. Plato, e.g., makes wonder (θαυμάζειν), and Herbart doubt, the origin of philosophy. But curiosity as to the existence or nature of something, and doubt as to the correctness or validity of some statement, are emotions which underlie advance in all departments of science, and can be brought into special relation to philosophy only by the instancing of some peculiarity in philosophic subject-matter, by which they are there aroused. In saying this, however, we do not wish to deny that a special capacity or specific talent is the presupposition of a successful handling of philosophical questions.

LITERATURE.

R. Haym, ‘Philosophie,’ in the Allgemeine Encyclopädie of Ersch and Gruber. Sect. 3, Part 24, pp. 1–11. 1848.

F. Ueberweg and M. Heinze, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 8th ed., I., pp. 1–5. 1894. Trs. of 4th ed., by G. S. Morris. 1891.

W. Windelband, Geschichte der Philosophie, pp. 1–6. 1892. Trs. by J. H. Tufts. 1893.

§ 3. The Classification of Philosophy.

1. Classification in philosophy must always be classification along the lines laid down by a definition of philosophy. Hence the differences of definition which we have discussed in preceding paragraphs mean corresponding differences of classification. As a matter of fact, however, not every philosopher who has given us a more or less clear definition of philosophy has also attempted a definite classification of his subject-matter. The earliest of which we have record is that of Plato. Plato distinguishes, in treatment though not in name, between three disciplines: dialectics, physics and ethics. Dialectics embraces epistemology and metaphysics; it is a science of ideas or concepts, of the essential nature of things. Physics includes natural science, natural philosophy and psychology, and can therefore, perhaps, be best rendered by the phrase ‘natural knowledge,’ Lastly, ethics covers for Plato the same field that it does for us, i.e., is the scienue which deals with moral conduct. It is plain that this specification of parts of philosophy does not constitute a system, in any true sense of the word, but is intended simply to bring out some of the more prominent characteristics of the science. But its adoption by the Stoics and Epicureans made it of great influence upon subsequent philosophic thought, and it dominated philosophy as late as, and even later than, the middle ages.

2. The influence of the Platonic classification is also due, in part, to the fact that no systematic arrangement of the philosophical disciplines had come down from Aristotle. It is true that Aristotle is customarily accredited with the division of philosophy into theoretic, practical and poetic, on the strength of the sentence: πάσα διάνοια ή πρακτική η ποιητική ή θεωρητική. But we have seen (cf. § 2. 3) that Aristotle knew and employed a much narrower definition of philosophy; and as the divisions of his system show no traces of any such triple distinction, it seems probable that the word διάνοια should not be translated ‘philosophy.’ On the other hand, we find a little further on the phrase φιλοσοφιαι θεωρητικaί used to cover the sciences of mathematics, physics and theology; so that we are bound to assume, at least, that Aristotle recognised a complementary ‘practical’ philosophy. However this may be, it is readily intelligible that the Aristotelian definitions could have but little influence upon later thought.

At the beginning of modern philosophy we are met by a comprehensive classific...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• TRANSLATORS’ PREFACE
• AUTHOR’S PREFACE
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Introduction.
• Chapter I. Definition and Classification of Philosophy.
• Chapter II. The Philosophical Disciplines.
• Chapter III. Schools of Philosophical Thought.
• Chapter IV. The problem of Philosophy and the Philosophical System.
• Indices—