Rudolph Eucken | Page 2

has
been very largely limited to a small class of students, and the
philosopher has been regarded as a dreamy, theorising, and unpractical
individual.
Many people, when they hear of Eucken, will put him out of mind as an
ordinary member of a body of cranks. From Eucken's point of view this
is the most unfortunate thing that can happen, for his message is not
directed to a limited number of advanced students of philosophy, but is
meant for all thinking members of the human race.
The problem he endeavours to solve is far from being one of mere
theoretical interest; on the contrary it has to do with matters of
immediate practical concern to the life of the individual and of the
community. To ignore him will be to fail to take account of one of the
most rousing philosophies of modern times.
The apathy that exists in regard to the subject of philosophy is not easy
to explain. It is not that philosophising is only possible to the greatest
intellects; it is indeed natural for the normal mind to do so. In a quiet
hour, when the world with its rush and din leaves us to ourselves and
the universe, we begin to ask ourselves "Why" and "How," and then
almost unconsciously we philosophise. Nothing is more natural to the
human mind than to wonder, and to wonder is to begin to philosophise.
Perhaps philosophers have been largely to blame for the indifference
shown; their terms have often been needlessly difficult, their language
obscure, and their ideas abstruse. Too often, too, their abstract

speculations have caused them to ignore or forget the actual experience
of mankind.
Those who have quarrelled with philosophy for these or other reasons
will do well to lay their prejudices aside when they start a study of
Eucken, for though he has some of the faults of his class, he has many
striking and exceptional excellences.
Philosophers in general set out to solve the riddle of the universe. They
differ in their statement of the problem, in the purpose of the attempt,
and in their methods of attempting the solution. Some will wonder how
this marvellous universe ever came into existence, and will consider the
question of the existence of things to be the problem of philosophy.
Others in observing the diversity of things in the universe wonder what
is behind it all; they seek to go beyond mere appearances, and to
investigate the nature of that behind the appearances, which they call
the reality. In their attempts to solve one or both of these problems,
thinkers are led to marvel how it is that we get to know things at all;
they are tempted to investigate the possibility of knowledge, and are in
this way side-tracked from the main problem. Others in their
investigations are struck with amazement at the intricate organisation
of the human mind; they leave the riddle of the universe to study the
processes of human thought, and examine as far as they are able the
phenomena of consciousness. Then thought itself claims the attention
of other philosophers; they seek to find what are the laws of valid
thought, what rules must be followed in order that through reasoning
we may arrive at correct conclusions. Others become attracted to an
investigation of the good in the universe, and their question changes
from "What is?" to "What ought to be?" Others interest themselves in
the problem of the beautiful, and endeavour to determine the essence of
the beautiful and of its appreciation. In this way the subject of
philosophy separates out into a number of branches. The study of the
beautiful is called Æsthetics; of the good, Ethics; of the laws of thought,
Logic; of the mind processes, Psychology; of the possibility of
knowledge, the Theory of knowledge; while the deeper problems of the
existence of things, of reality and unity in the universe, are generally
included under Metaphysics.

It need hardly be pointed out that all these branches are very closely
related, and that a discussion of any one of them involves to some
extent a reference to the others. One cannot, for example, attempt to
solve the great question of reality without touching upon the possibility
of knowledge, without some reference to the processes of the human
mind, and the standards of the validity of thought, of the good, and of
the beautiful.
It is however essential, if one is to appreciate a philosopher, to
understand clearly what his main problem is. Therein lies frequently
the differences among philosophers--that is, in the special emphasis
laid on one problem, and the attention to, or neglect of other aspects.
To fail to be clear on this matter frequently means to misunderstand a
philosopher.
And it would seem that many critics have failed to