CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

I. Why Study the History of Philosophy

who had
I. We would scarcely call anyone "educated" no

knowledge whatsoever of history; we all recognise that a nan

should know something of the history of his own country, its

political, social and economic development, its literary and of

artistic achievements-preferably indeed in the wider setting an
European and, to a certain extent, even World history. But if
educated and cultured Englishman may be expected to possess
some knowledge of Alfred the Great and Elizabeth, of Cromwel
the
and Marlborough and Nelson, of the Norman invasion,
Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, it would seemn equally
clear that he should know something at least of Roger Bacon and
Duns Scotus, of Francis Bacon and Hobbes, of Locke, Berkeley
and Hume, of J. S. Mill and Herbert Spencer. Moreover, if an
educated man is expected to be not entirely ignorant of Greece
and Rome, if he would be ashamed to have to confess that he had
never even heard of Sophocles or Virgil, and knew nothing of the
origins of European culture, he might equally be expected to
know something of Plato and Aristotle, two of the greatest
thinkers the world has ever known, two men who stand at the
head of European philosophy. A cultured man wll know a little
concerning Dante and Shakespeare and Goethe, concerning St.
Francis of Assisi and Fra Angelico, concerning Frederick the
Great and Napoleon I: why should he not be expected also to
know something of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas,
Descartes and Spinoza, Kant and Hegel? It would be absurd to
suggest that we should inform ourselves concerning the great
conquerors and destroyers, but remain ignorant of the great
CTeators, those who have realy contributed to our European
culture. But it is not only the great painters and sculptors who
have left us an abiding legacy and treasure: it is also the great
thinkers, men like Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas, wbo have enriched Europe and her culture.| it
belongs, therefore, to a cultured education to know something at
east of the course of European
philosophy, for it is our thinkers,
 INTRODUCTION to
to mak our
helped
have
as well as our who

tume, whether artists and gerne to ad the

g e n e r a l s ,

and of time
for good or ill. of M:
waste

Now. no one would t h a t it

is
the
Michel
creations

works of sup
uppose
is not
which is
te themselves wnich not
themselves

ngelo,
elo, for Shakespeare
the re
re or
or
or
contempla

contermin
they have intrinsic v
they
in
value
elapseda betw
dimin1shed by
intrinsic
that
should Con sh it be
the number P l a t o o r Ari
m o r e

their deaths and our o Y e t

o f
no

time.
sidered a waste of timeown .thougnide
thought
as
a
outstanding
s out abide

or St.
Augustine,
to
stuyt-creatiotists
artists have
t h o u g h t - c r e a t i o n s

for their spirit. O t h e r a t ddoes

lived and
ved and
achievements of the human that does
oes n noto t lesse
lessen
lesSen the
the
sns.
painted since the time of Rubens, but have p h i u o s o p h i s e d sine
but
philosophised
since
value u work: other
other
thinkers
the interest and
he time of work: does not
destroy
Plato, but that
beanty of his philosophy. men to
n o w something of

But if it is cultured
the histo
desirable for all sofar
as occupation, cast of
history puasophic
of thought, m u c h m o r e is this
mind and need for specialisation permit, now
mind
I refer
desirable for all avowed students of phílosophy.
not desirah
Philosophy, who study it
eSpecialy to students of the Scholastic
the psosoPa perennis I
e
pAHOsophia perennis. That it is down from Heaven,
no wish to dispute: but it did not drop
nave
t grew out of the past; and if we really want to appreciate the
work of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Bonaventure or Duns Scotus,
we should know something of Plato and Aristotle and St. Augus-
tne. Agan, if there is a philosophia perennis, it is only to be
expected that some of its principles should be operative in the
minds even of philosophers of modern times, who may seem at
frst sight to stand far from St. Thomas Aquinas. And even if
this were not so, it woud be instructive to observe what results
follow from false premisses and faulty principles. Nor can it be
denied that the praçtice of condemning thinkers whose position
and meaning has not been gTasped or seen in its true histonc
setting is greatly to De deprecated, while it might also be borne
ind that the application of true principles to all
nhilosopby was certanuy not completed in the Middle spheres o
P may well be nat we have Ages,
modern thinkers, e.g. in the field
something to learn To
of Aesthetic theory or Natural
Philosopby.
of 2.
theIt
2. tpast
may
mayarebe
merely antique
objected thatrelics;
the that
various
thephilosophical
history of philosopny
system
of the pa "refuted and
consists of efuted and spintualy; dead
systems, since each has
 INTRODtiCTiONN

other."Did not Kant declare that

kalled and buried
the Mta
"keeping the human mind n suspen wi'h
physic is always s
fade, andyet are never fulhlled. ' that
hopes that never advancing." in Metan hysic
other science s continually
every the same point, withot eac.ma
men 'perpetually revolve round
asinglee step"? Platonism, Aristotelianisn, Scholasticsre
Cartesianism, Kantian1smn, Hegelianism-al have had their
periods of popularity and all have been chalenged: Earopean
lhttered w1tn metaphysica!
Thought may be "represented
as
systems, abandoned and unreconciled. "" Why study tie azti
quated lumber of the chamber of history?
Now, even if all the philosophies of the past had beer. 2ot or.ly
challenged (which is obvious) but also refuted (which is ot at ai
the same thing), it stil remains true that "errors are alwas
instructive," assuming of course that philosopay s a poss.e
science and is not of itself a willo-the-wisp. To take an erar.le
from Mediaeval Philosophy, the conclusions to which Exaggerated
Realism lead on the one hand and those to which Nominais ead
on the other hand indicate that the solution of the protiem ot
universals is to be sought in a mean between the two extremes
The history of the problem thus serves as an expermental proot
of the thesis learnt in the Schools. Again. the fact that Abso:ute
Idealism has found itself incapable of providing any adequate
explanation of finite selves, should be suñcieat to deter anyee
from embarking on the monistic path. The insistence in motem
philosophy on the theory of knowledge and the Sudject-dject
relation should, despite all the extravagances to which it has ld,
a t any rate make it clear that subject can n o more de reducet o

object than object to subject, while Marxism, notwithstandng

its fundamental errors, will teach us not to neglect the induence
of technics and man's economic life on higher spheres of human
culture. To him especially who does not set out to learn a given
system of but aspires to philosophise ab ovo, as it were,
philosophy
the study of the history of philosophy is indispensable, otherwise
be will run the risk of proceeding down blind alleys and repeating
do
the mistakes of his predecessors, from which a serious study
past thought might perhaps have saved hum. tend
3. That a study of the history of philosophy may
(Madady).
Hegel,
A . N. Hist.
Phil., I,Process
Whitedead,
p. 17. and R«al1ly, p. 13 s g . p. a
Needess tu say, the "

bistorical attitude is not Professor Whitehead's owa attutude.

N. Harthano, Ethics, I, p. 119.
 INTRODUCTION

induce a sceptical frame of mind is true, but it must be

be rem
remen
em-
bered that the fact of a succession of systems does not prove thas
rove tha
X challenges the position ofs
any one philosophy is erroneous. If that the positio
and abandons it, that does not by itself prove tnat the positio
of Y is untenable, since X may have abandoned it on insufficie
insuffhcie
the development
8TOunds or have adopted false premisses, Y. The wor
of
the philosophy of
which involved a departure from
seen many religions-Buddhism,
Hinduism, Zoroastrianie
nas Mohammedanism, etc., but
that
does not prove tha
Cbristianity,
Christianity is not the prove that, a thorouc
true Religion; to
would be necessary. But inc
refutation of Christian Apologetics
existence of a variety of Religion
it is absurd to speak as if the
as one religion to be the trae
ipso facto disproved the claim of anyas
Religion, so it is absurd to speak that though the succession of
there is no true philn
philosophies ipso facto demonstrated
sophy and can be no true philosophy. (we make this observation.
D,
of course, without meaning to imply that there is no truth or
value in any other religion than Christianity. Moreover, there is
this great difference between the true (revealed) Religion and the
true philosophy, that whereas the former, as revealed, is neces-
sarily true in its totality, in all that is revealed, the true philo-
sophy may be true in its main lines and principles without
reaching completion at any given moment. Philosophy, which is
the work of the human spirit and not the revelation of
God,
grows and develops; fresh vistas may be opened up by new lines
of approach or
application to new problems, newly discovered
facts, fresh situations, etc. The term "true
philosophia perennis should not be understood to philosophy". or
and complete body of denote a static
of development or
principles and applications, insusceptible
modiication.)
. Nature
of the History of Philosophy
I. The
history: of philosophy is certainly not a mere
20
3 o f opinions, a narration of isolated items of congeries
conDection with one thought that have no
another. If the history of pbilosophy is
treated "only a the enumeration
these opinions are considered as of of various opinions," and if al
becomes"an idle tale, or, if you equal value or disvalue, then
There is will, an erudite investigation.1
and continuity and connection, action and
antithesis, and no reaction,
philosophy can really be understood ruuy
H His. Phil., I. p. 13.
 INTRODUCTION

is seen
historical setting and in the light. of its con
in its
unless it systems. How can one reaily underst:
nection
with o t h e r
induced h1m to say
stand wat
at or
what what
Plato w a s getting something of the thought of Heraclitus ai
ides, the Pythagoreans? How can one understand whyanen
Kant
the such apparently extraordinary position in regard
ides,
adopteme and the Categories, unless one knows Sormethingto
of
Rritish empiricism and realises the effect of Hume's see
of Kant? tical
conclusions on the mind
2 . But if the history of philosophy is no mere collection of
ealated opinions, it cannot be regarded as a continual progress
or even a spiral ascent. That one can find plausidie instances in
the course of philosophic speculation of the Hegelian triad of
thesis, antithesis and synthesis is true, but it is scarcely the task
of a scientific historian to adopt an a priori scheme and then to
f t the facts into that scheme. Hegel supposed that the succession|
of philosophic systems "represent the necessary succession of
stagesin the development" of philosophy, but this can only be
so philosophic thought of man is the very thinking of the
if the
"World-Spirit." That, practically speaking, any given thinker is
limited as to the direction his thought will take, limited by the
immediately preceding and the contemporary systems (linited
also, we might add, by his personal temperament, his education,
the historical and social situation, etc.) is doubtless true; none the
less he is not determined to choose
any particular premisses or
Principles, nor to react to the preceding philosophy in any
particular way. Fichte believed that his system followed logicaliy
on
that of Kant, and there is certainly a direct logical connection,
as every student of modern philosophy is aware; but Fichte was
not determined to develop the philosophy of Kant in the particular
way he did. The succeeding philosopher to Kant might have
cnOsen to re-examine Kant's premisses and to deny that tne
cusions which Kant accepted from Hume were true conclusions
e might have gone back to other principles or excogitated new
ones of his own. Logical sequence there undoubtedly is in te
history of philosophy, but not nocesary sequence in the strict sense. |
We canno therefore, agree with Hegel when he says that "the
We cannot,
final philosophy of a period is the result of this development,
ment, and|
and
is truth in the highest form which the self-consciousness of spirnit
atords of itself."1 A good deal depends, of course, on how you

Hist. PAik., III, p. 532.

 INTRODICTION

divide the "perimls" and what you

consider h,
consider
are plensed,
to

here tliere
s aple sca
final philosophy'.of any [erivd (and lor
with
preconceived
opinion
opinion
arbittary choice, in accordance there (unless we first adopt hd
wishes), but what guarantee is final philosophy of any perie
whole Hegelian position) that
the
development
taincd?
of thought yet attained>
Tpresents the highest of pliloson
one can legitimately speak
of a
Mediacval period hilosopt
nnat main philosor

nly notophy
and if Ockhamism can be regarded
as
the can
philosophy certainl
Ockhamist
period, the philoson*
of that
regarded as the supreme
achievement of
mediaeval
philosophy
snown,' represents
Mediaeval philosopBhy, as nas
Professor Gilsonwhat
And philosophy of the
curve rather than a straight line.
a
ask, represents the synthesie
present day, one might pertinently
of all preceding philosophies? for Truth
exhibits man's search
3. The history of philosophy
discursive reason. A Nco-Thomist, developing
by the way of the smplicite Deum
St. Thomas' words, Omnia cognosceuia cOg70SCunE
maintained that the judgment alwavs
in quolibet cognito, has
points beyond itself, always contains an implicit reference to C
Absolute Truth, Absolute Being. (We are reminded of F. H
term "Absolute" has not, of course, the same
Bradley, though the
meaning in the two cases.) At any rate we may say that the
seatch for truth is ultimately the search for Absolute Truth, God,
and even those systems of philosophy which appear to refute this
.statement,e.g. Historical Materialism, are nevertheless examples
of it, for they are all seeking, even if unconsciously, even if they
would not recognise the fact, for the ultimate Ground, the
supremely Real. Even if intellectual speculation has at times led
to bizarre doctrines and monstrous conclusions, we cannot but
have a certain sympathy for and interest in the struggle of the
buman intellect to attain Truth. Kant, who denied that Meta-
physics in the traditional sense were or could be a science, none
the less alowed that
we cannot remain indifferent to the objects
with which
Metaphýsics profess to deal, God, the soul, freedom
and we may add that we
cannot remain indifferent to the huma
intellect's search for the Tnue and
mistakes are made, the fact
the Good, The ease with wniu *

and other
that personal temperament, educa
apparently "fortuitous" may* often
often
circumstances
nMartchal.
J. i y S.fJ..PAslasophical
Le
Enjperie De Veris., 22, 2,
ad i.
Pral. to Ist Ed. Poins de
Depart de la
of Pure Raasom. Metaphysqus
of Crilsgue
 INTRODUr:TION

Ilertual ul-de
intelle
u l . d r ^ac,
rac, tlie fast th w
the p r r e s of our ninds
an

lCad
Cad
cad the
the
thinker up
hut that nins may
not pure
not pre
ure
i n t e l l i g e n c e s ,

nced by
extraners
ttloss
tir tra, rdout
shew
but tinat shrld n o t .
frequently
e Revelation,
Revela
t tr
religious n o r makr us
the n e r d for t h e r of h u mnaa n spe.ulation despise the
altogether oi
air altoge
attain Tith
despait
ait
despair alo past thinkers to
of past
of
Oona
4 fde
Thea prcsent writer adheres to the Thomistic stand Pnt
attempts

bona-
a fde nt
and that this >A
4 philosnphia perennis
is a
that there Thomism in a wicde sense But he wld like to make
Perennis is To' say that the Thor
on this matter: (a)
two observations
two does not mean that h
perennialphilosophy
Svstem is the of
given historical epoch and is incapatie
system is closed at any direction (6) The perenniai prilo-
further development in any
the close of the Mediaeval period does
not deveion
sophy after
frOm "modern*" philosophy, but
merelv alongside of and apart
modem philosophy. I do not mean
developsalso in and through
to suggest that the philosophy of Spinoza or Hegel, for instance
term Thomism; but ather that
can be comprehended under the
when philosophers, even if they would by no means
cal! them-
s e l r e s "Scholastic, " a r r i v e b y t h e e m p l o y m e n t of t r u e principles

at valuable conclusions, these conclusions must be looked on as

belonging to the perennial philosophy.

St. Thomas Aquinas certainly. makes some statements con-
to
cerning State, for example and we have no inciination
the
a
question his principles; but it would be absurd to expect
State in the thitteenth
developed philosophy of the modern of view it is dificult to
century, and from the practical point
see how a developed and articulate philosophy of the State on
the
principles could be elaborated in the concrete, unti
scholastic
towards
moaem State had emerged and until modern attitudes
The state had shown themselves. It is only when we have had
State and
experienCe of the Liberal State and of the Totalitarian reaÍse a"
Or he correspondine theories of the State, that we can
mplications contained in the little that St. Thomas says o
ne ate arnd develop an elaborated Scholastic political philosopny
E
contain a"
PPcable to the modern State, which will expressly the
in the other theories while renouncing
err contained when to be,
The resultant State-philosophy will be seen Scholastic
looked a development of
the concrete, not simply
princiun actual historical situation
principle
in absolute isolation from the
a development of
these
r o m intervening theories, but reather
 INTRODUCTION
princ1pies in the light of the historical situation, State.
devel
achieved in and through opposing theories of the Stat elopment
ate. If this
to m.
pount of view be
adopted, we shall enabled
maintain the
dea of a perennial
philosophy .witno committing rselves, onon
ourselves,
committing ours.
the one hand, to a very narrow outlook whereby the
perennial
otherimplies
philosophy is confined to a given century, or, on the rily
other hahd
hand,
to an Hegelian view of philosophy. which necessari e - iimplies
ncon
otherwise-
tbough Hegel himself seems to have thought
at a given moment.
>STentiy) that Tnuth is never attained

m. Ho to Stwdy the History of Philosophy

I The first point to be stressed is the need forr seeing'
seeing any
ans,
philosophical system in its historical setting and connections
This point has already been mentioned and does not require
further elaboration: it should be obvious that we can only gran
adequately the state of mind of a given philosopher and the
raison d'tre of his philosophy if we have frst apprehended its
historicalpoint de départ. The example of Kant has already been
given; we can understand his state of mind in developing his
theory of the a priori only if we see him in bis historical situation
is-d-us the critical philosophy of Hume, the apparent bank
uptcy of Continental Rationalism and the apparent certainty of
máthematics and the Newtonian physics. Similarly,'we are better
enabled to understand the biological philosophy of Henri
if we see it, for example, in its relation to
Bergson
theories and to preceding French:
preceding mechanistic
2. For a profhtable
"spiritualism."
study of the history of philosophy there
is also need for a certain
"sympathy," almost the
approach. It is desirable that the. historian shouldpsychological
know some-
thing of the philosopher as a man (this is not possible in the case
of all philosophers, of
course), since this will help him to feel his
way into the system in questíon, to view it, as it were, from
inside, and to grasp its peculiar favour and characteristics. we
have to endeavour to
put ourselves into the place of the phuo
sopher, try to see his thoughts from within.
to
this
5ympathy or. imaginative insight is essential for Moreover,
the Scholastic
philosopher who wishes to understand
man, for example, has the modern. philosophy. If a
modern background of the Catholic Faith, a
systems, or some of them
at least,
y s mere bizarre readily appear but
to

he
suceeds, asmonstrosities
far as he canunworthy of serious att
ion,
(without, of course, >" ndering
iering
.
 INTRODyCTION
frem within, he
own principles), i n seeing the systems e rT
o f understanding
qincipeof und
what the phi an
c h a n c e

however,ver becorne s prentnpirt with

wth ti
uch
more

not, as to disregard
h 0we
tie truth r at
muthe philosopher
must

themselves, or the logial cnertvn

We
We
Psycholoaken in cns.
may
thought. A psychoog1st 1stiy
Of his
System
0h preceding
vith preccdia

but not an kistT1an '

f pirmh
the
System to first viewpoint,
t h e first
phy.
iead ne
psychological approach mZt
himselle
msell
For example,
exa that the purely
aa purely
system of Arthur Schopenhauer was tie creatien
For the same
and disappointed man, wio at
Supposetered, soured
abittered,

of an emsed literary
of an
t i m e p o s s e s sneodt h i n g
power and aesthetic imagnaton and
m o r e ; a s t h o u g h h i s p h i l o s o p n y w e r e s u 7 p i y

nothis
and
But ths vi view-
insigh
manifestation
of certain Psychological states.
the
the mani
po eave out of account the fact that his pessLn:stic
would leav
point would the Hegelian opti
system is largely a reaction to
vohuntaristic
Vo as it would also leave out of a c c o n t the fact
mistic Rationalism,
Schopenhauer's
aesthetic theory may have a valce of its
that
of the kind of man that propoinded it, and
own. independent
the whole problem of evil and suffering wnich
would also neglect
and which is a very real
is raised by Schopenhauer's system
himself was a disapgonted ard
problem, whether Schopenhauer
disillusioned man or not. Similarly, although it is a great beip
Friedrich Nietzsche
towards the understanding of the thought of
his
if we know something of the personal history of the man,
who
ideas can be looked at in themselves, apart from the man
thought them.
3. To work one's way into any thinker's system. thorouzhly
but
to understand not only the words and phrases as they stand,
intended to convey (so
also the shade of meaning that the author of the
far as this ís feasible), to view the details system in ther
and its implications,
Telation to the whole, fully to grasp its genesis but natural, then,
al this is not the work of a few moments. It is
of philosophy should
a t specialisation in the field of the history the various sciences.
C Eeneral rule, as it is in the fields of
of the philosophy of Plato, for instance
Calist knowledge
ures besides thorough knowledge of Greek language ana
a
,aknowledge of Greek mathematics, Greek religaon, Greeor
apparatus
science, etc.
ence, etc. The specialist thus requires a great
historiann
to be a true
scholarshit
of philoso but it is essential, if he is
sophy, that he should not be so overwhelmed with bis
of learning,
that he fauls
scholar)q u i p m e n t and the details
 INTRODUCTION

in stion and fails .

e t r a t e the spurit of the

philosophy to
maat * kiY Again un his writings
or his Scholarship is
lectures. Scholarsh

means enough.
nsensade dut it is bv ao evoted to
well be devoted to h .
lifetime nmight
Te act that a whole leave much
t o be done, me
and still
stui megrnat thinker
undertake the composition of a
oe
btd as to
that a n e whe is can hardly
hope too produce
produc a
philosophy
much value to speCialists. T
w i n s history of
anything of The
w thst iwl ofer consCious of
this fact, and
is quite
autr st the present wvrk
he is not wtng or specialiste
e as already said in the preface, There iS no need t
is
of specialists. There to
e t atder utilising the wyrk this work hs
reasons for WTiting
here the author's
epeat agan
mention that ne will consider himsele
e urud like once more to
in sbme smal degree
e l repaxd fer his wuvrk if þe can contributestudent for whom th
DOE an to the instructiom
of the type of
also to the broadening of his
wor is pimaril designéd, but
understanding of and
outiook, to the acquirement of a greater
of mankind, and of course
syTpathy with the intellectual struggle
to a irmer and deeper hold on the principles of true philosophy.

. Acint Philesophy
In this volume we treat of the philosophy of the Greeks and
Romans. There can scarcely be much need for dwelling on the
importance of Greek culture: as Hegel says, ""the name of Greece
strkes home to tbe heatts of men of
education in Europe."1 No
one would attempt to deny that the Greeks
left an imperishabie
legacy of literature and art to our European world, and the same
is true in
regard to philosophic speculation.
After its first begin-
aings in Asia Minor, Greek
develcpment philosophy pursued
until it ßowered in the its course ot
two great
Plato and Aristotle,
and later, through philosophies
of
a
great infuence on the formation of Neo-Platonism, exercised
its character as
the first period Christian thought. Both in
of European
for its intrinsic value, it cannot but
of speculation
be of interest
and also
philosophy.
aght that have no
In Greek philosophy
to every student
by means lost their watch problems come to
we
answers
e suggested that are not relevance for us, we nn0
may discern a without value; and even
certain nafvedl, a
recipitation, certain thoug
Greek philosophy
European achievement. remains one of
of the
over-confidence au
the glories of
Moreover, if the glories or
His. philosophy ofof the
philosophy
Phil., 1. p. t49
tn
 INTRODUCTION

of
of phil
interest
to e v e r y
student

and
t
philrsophy f
or its ow
for
speculation

ubsequent
of interest to
stidents Sch
rif
Teeks mus on s
Teeks it be
Plato and to Aristtle An
its inuene much to 74
h o owes
so
their
t oWn
h e i r own achinve
achiavem.
still
value, st
vaue, hich reeks was
was
Greeks really
really
Philosophy of the
and
reshness of mind, just
of
ireshness just as their
sphy
this
vigour We must
achievement.
of
their
their own n
into account Possibje n
fruit were
the art
d
adable desire of taking
iterature the importan
hat
allow the lau ad us to exaggerate
underestimatethe originality of the Greek mind
Greek infue underrate the orizn
"the
nfuence
and
to t we
truth Creeks
that than
we are
are to more likely to
farexaggerate it. The tendency c! the

ality of the "sources" is, of course, productive

"sour
to seek for
always
investigation,
ritical investig and it would be fol oto
historian critical
valuable
be
much
but it
remains
true that the tendency can pushed
belittle it;
belittle it; whern criticism threatens to be no lon
to lengths
too far, even assume a priori that everv
For instance, one must o t
scientifc.
thin ker is borrowed from a predecessor:
if ttis
opinion of every
is assumed, then
logically compelled to assume the
we should be
Colossus or Superman, frorm «*hom al
etistence of some primeval
speculation is ultimately derived. Nor
Nor
subsequent philosophic
whenever twe succeeding contem-
can we safely assume that,

porary thinkers or bodies

of thinkers hold similar doctrines, one
as it is, to
must have borrowed from the other. If it is absurd,
or rite is partially fourd in
suppose that if some Christian custom
that
Asiatic Eastern religion, Christianity must have borrowed
custom or rite from Asia, so it is absurd to suppase that if Greek
in
speculation contains some thought similar to that appearing
historical source of
an Oriental philosophy, the latter must be the
the former. After al, the human inu-llect is quite capable of
it be
nterpretung similar experiences in a similar way, whether
Tne intelect of a Greek or an Indian, without its being necessary
irrefutable proof ot
o Suppose that similarity of reaction is an historica
DOrOwn8. These remarks are not meant to depreciate
criticism and rese
esearch, but rather to pont
out that historical
not
Crticism must rest its conclusions on historical proofs and
deauce them from riori assumptions, garnishing them with a

pseudo-historical iavour. Legitimate historical criticism would

to
not, as yet at least
as seem to have seriously impaired the claim
originality made on behalf of the oree
L p.
Burnet, G.P,
 12 INTRODUCTION co
com.
ohilosophy,
pr
p ro
oddu
ucct
tiio
ohh

Roman phi however, is but a m

meea
aggrree
large
with that of the ks, for tthe aRomans
Greeks,
for depended
Greeks ffor their they
pared ideas, j u s t as they
Greeks ideas, Just as
o n the or arhPnilosophicphilosophic extent a t least, in
part.
o n the Greeks in
depended and, great
the field of literature. They had their own
peculiar glory and
(we ereation
at once of the of Roman Law
achievements think but their glory
achievements of Roman
and the seníus),
political
the realm of Yet, though
did not lie in
of
philosophical
Schools philosophy
eculation.
Greek pre-
on
the dependence Koman of
we cannot afford to neglect the philosophy
decessors is undeniable,
Roman world, since it shows us the sort of ideas that
of the
of the class
became current among the more cultured members
The thought of
that was Master of the European civilised world.
the later Stoa, for example, the teaching of Seneca, Marcus
Aurelius and Epictetus, affords in many respects an impressive
and noble picture which can hardiy fail to arouse admiration and
esteem, even if at the same tinme we are conscious of much that is
lacking. It is desirable too that the Christían student should
know something of the best that.paganism had to offer, and should
acquaint himself with the various currents of thought in that
Greco-Roman world,in which the Revealed Religion was im-
.
planted and grew. It is to be regretted if students should be
y -

acquainted with the campaigns of Julius Caesar or Trajan, with

the infamous/careers of Caligula or Nero, and yet should be
ignorant of ,the philosopher-Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, or the
infuence at Rome of the Greek Plotinus, who though not a
Christian/was a deeply religious man, ana whose name was so
dear to'the first great
of Hippo.A
figure of Christian pnuosophy, St. Augustine