按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
We have to seek for sources of another kind in this than in political history。 There historians are
the fountainheads; which again have as sources the deeds and sayings of individuals; and the
historians who are not original have over and above performed their work at secondhand。 But
historians always have the deeds already present in history; that is to say; here brought into the
form of ordinary conception; for the name of history has two meanings: it signifies on the one hand
the deeds and events themselves; and on the other; it denotes them in so far as they are formed
through conception for conception。 In the history of Philosophy there are; on the contrary; not any
sources which can be derived from historians; but the deeds themselves lie before us; and
these…the philosophic operations themselves…are the true sources。 If we wish to study the history
of Philosophy in earnest; we must go to such springs as these。 Yet these operations form too wide
a field to permit of our keeping to it alone in this history。 In the case of many philosophers it is
absolutely necessary to confine oneself to the original authors; but in many periods; in which we
cannot obtain original sources; seeing that they have not been preserved to us; (as; for instance; in
that of the older Greek philosophy) we must certainly confine our attention simply to historians and
other writers。 There are other periods; too; where it is desirable that others should have read the
works of the philosophers and that we should receive abstracts therefrom。 Several schoolmen
have left behind them works of sixteen; twenty…four and twenty…six folios; and hence we must in
their case confine ourselves to the researches of others。 Many philosophic works are also rare and
hence difficult to obtain。 Many philosophers are for the most part important from an historic or
literary point of view only; and hence we may limit ourselves to the compilations in which they are
dealt with。 The most noteworthy works on the history of Philosophy are; however; the following;
regarding which I refer for particulars to the summary of Tennemann's History of Philosophy; by
A。 Wendt; since I do not wish to give any complete list。
1。 One of the first Histories of Philosophy; which is only interesting as an attempt; is the 〃History
of Philosophy;〃 by Thomas Stanley (London; 1655; folio ed。 III。; 1701。 4。 translated into Latin by
Godofr。 Olearius; Lipsiae; 1711; 4)。 This history is no longer much used; and only contains the old
philosophic schools in the form of sects and as if no new ones had existed。 That is to say; it keeps
to the old belief commonly held at that time; that there only were ancient philosophies and that the
period of philosophy came to an end with Christianity; as if Philosophy were something belonging
to heathendom and the truth only could be found in Christianity。 In it a distinction was drawn
between Truth as it is created from the natural reason in the ancient philosophies; and the revealed
truth of the Christian religion; in which there was consequently no longer any Philosophy。 In the
time of the Revival of Learning there certainly were no proper philosophies; and above all in
Stanley's time systems of Philosophy proper were too young for the older generations to have the
amount of respect for them necessary to allow of their being esteemed as realities。
2。 Jo。 Jac。 Bruckeri Historia critica philosoph? Lipsi?; 1742…1744; four parts; or five
volumes in four; for the fourth part has two volumes。 The second edition; unaltered; but with the
addition of a supplement; 1766…1767; four parts in six quartos the last of which forms the
supplement。 This is an immense compilation which is not formed straight from the original sources;
but is mixed with reflections after the manner of the times。 As we have seen from an example
above '§ A。 3。 c。' the accounts given are in the highest degree inaccurate。 Brucker's manner of
procedure is entirely unhistoric; and yet nowhere ought we to proceed in a more historic manner
than in the history of Philosophy。 This work is thus simply so much useless ballast。 An epitome of
the same is Jo。 Jac。 Bruckeri Institutiones histori? philosophic?; usui academic? juventutis
adornat?。 Lipsi?; 1747; 8; second edition; Leipzig; 1756; third edition prepared by Born;
Leipzig; 1790; 8。
3。 Dietrich Tiedmann's Geist der Speculativen Philosophie; Marburg; 1791…1797; 6 vols。; 8。
He treats of political history diffusely; but without any life; and the language is stiff and affected。
The whole work is a melancholy example of how a learned professor can occupy his whole life
with the study of speculative philosophy; and yet have no idea at all of speculation。 His
argumenta to the Plato of Brucker are of the same description。 In every history he makes
abstracts from the philosophers so long as they keep to mere ratiocination; but when the
speculative is arrived at; he becomes irate; declaring it all to be composed of empty subtleties; and
stops short with the words 〃we know better。〃 His merit is that he has supplied valuable abstracts
from rare books belonging to the Middle Ages and from cabalistic and mystical works of that
time。
4。 Job。 Gottlieb Buhle : Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie und einer kritischen
Literatur derselben。 G?ttingen; 1796 to 1804。 Eight parts; 8。 Ancient philosophy is treated with
disproportionate brevity; the further Buhle went on; the more particular he became。 He has many
good summaries of rare works; as for instance those of Giordano Bruno; which were in the
G?ttingen Library。
5。 Wilh。 Gottl。 Tennemann's Geschichte der Philosophie; Leipzig; 1798…1819; eleven parts; 8。
The eighth part; the Scholastic Philosophy; occupies two volumes。 The philosophies are fully
described; and the more modern times are better done than the ancient。 The philosophies of recent
times are easier to describe; since it is only necessary to make an abstract or to interpret straight
on; for the thoughts contained in them lie nearer to ours。 It is otherwise with the ancient
philosophers; because they stand in another stage of the Notion; and on this account they are
likewise more difficult to grasp。 That is to say; what is old is easily overthrown by something else
more familiar to us; and where Tennemann comes across such he is almost useless。 In Aristotle;
for instance; the misinterpretation is so great; that Tennemann foists upon him what is directly
opposite to his beliefs; and thus from the adoption of the opposite to what Tennemann asserts to
be Aristotle's opinion; a correct idea of Aristotelian philosophy is arrived at。 Tennemann is then
candid enough to place the reference to Aristotle underneath the text; so that the original and the
interpretation often contradict one another。 Tennemann thinks that it is really the case that the
historian should have no philosophy; and he glories in that; yet he really has a system and he is a
critical philosopher。 He praises philosophers; their work and their genius; and yet the end of the
lay is that all of them will be pronounced to be wanting in that they have one defect; which is not to
be Kantian philosophers and not yet to have sought the source of knowledge。 From this the result
is that the Truth could not be known。
Of compendiums; three have to be noticed。 1。 Frederick Aft's Grundriss einer Geschichte der
Philosophie。 (Landshut 1807; 8; second edition; 1825) is written from a better point of view; the
Philosophy is that of Schelling for the most part; but it is somewhat confused。 Aft by some formal
method has distinguished ideal philosophy from real。 2。 Professor Wendt's G?ttingen edition of
Tennemann (fifth edition; Leipzig; 1828; 8)。 It is astonishing to see what is represented as being
Philosophy; without any consideration as to whether it has any meaning or not。 Such so…called
new philosophies grow like mushrooms out of the ground。 There is nothing easier than to
comprehend in harmony with a principle; but it must not be thought that hence something new and
profound has been accomplished。 3。 Rirner's Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie; 3
vols。; Sulzbach; 1822…1823; 8 (second amended edition; 1829) is most to be commanded; and
yet I will not assert that it answers all the requirements of a History of Philosophy。 There are many
points which leave much to desire; but the appendices to each volume in which the principal
original authorities are quoted; are particularly excellent for their purpose。 Selected extracts; more
specially from the ancient philosophers; are needed; and these would not be lengthy; since there
are not very many passages to be given from the philosophers before Plato。
3。 Method of Treatment Adopted in this History of Philosophy。
As regards external history I shall only touch upon that which is the concern of universal history;
the spirit or the principle of the times; and hence I will treat of conditions of life in reference to the
outstanding philosophers。 Of philosophies; however; only those are to be made mention of the
principles of which have caused some sensation; and through which science has made an advance;
hence I shall put aside many names which would be taken up in a lea