,,the ,,positive ,,outcome ,,of         
,,philosophy  ,the ,nature of ,human    
,brain ,work ,letters on ,logic4 ,the   
,positive ,outcome of ,philosophy  ,,by 
,,joseph ,,dietzgen  ,,translated ,,by  
,,ernest ,,untermann  ,,with ,,an       
,,introduction ,,by ,,dr4 ,,anton       
,,pannekoek ,,translated ,,by ,,ernest  
,,untermann  ,,edited ,,by ,,eugene     
,,dietzgen ,,and ,,joseph ,,dietzgen1   
,,jr4  ,,chicago ,,charles ,h4 ,,kerr   
,,company #aijf   ,,copyright #aijf ,,by
 ,,eugene ,,dietzgen     ,,contents     
,,page ,,introduction ,,by ,,anton      
,,pannekoek                             
#g  ,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,human ,,brain 
,,work   ,preface                       
#da   ,i4 ,introduction                 
#dg   ,,ii4 ,pure ,reason or the        
,faculty of ,thought in ,general        
#fa   ,,iii4 ,the ,nature of ,things    
#hj   ,,iv4 ,the ,practice of ,reason in
 ,physical ,science             #ajd    
a ,cause and ,effect                    
#ajh       b ,matter and ,mind          

#aai       c ,force and ,matter         
#abd   ,v4 ,practical ,reason or        
,morality                          #acc 
a ,the ,wise and ,reasonable            
#acc       b ,morality and ,right       
#adc       c ,the ,holy                 
#aef  ,,letters ,,on ,,logic   ,first   
,letter                                 
#agg   ,second ,letter                  
#aha   ,third ,letter                   
#ahf   ,fourth ,letter                  
#aia   ,fifth ,letter                   
#aih   ,sixth ,letter                   
#bje   ,seventh ,letter                 
#bab   ,eighth ,letter                  
#bag   ,ninth ,letter                   
#bbe   ,tenth ,letter                   
#bcj   ,eleventh ,letter                
#bcf   ,twelfth ,letter                 
#bdb   ,thirteenth ,letter              
#bdh   ,fourteenth ,letter              
#bee   ,fifteenth ,letter               
#bfj   ,sixteenth ,letter               
#bfe   ,seventeenth ,letter             
#bga   ,eighteenth ,letter              

#bgg   ,nineteenth ,letter              
#bhc   ,twentieth ,letter               
#bhi   ,twenty-first ,letter            
#bif   ,twenty-second ,letter           
#cja   ,twenty-third ,letter 7a7        
#cjg   ,twenty-third ,letter 7b7        
#cab   ,twenty-fourth ,letter           
#cah  ,,the ,,positive ,,outcome ,,of   
,,philosophy   ,preface                 
#cbg   ,i4 ,positive ,knowledge as a    
,special ,object                  #ccc  
,,ii4 ,the ,power of ,perception ,is    
,kin to the ,universe         #ccg      
,,iii4 ,as to ,how the ,intellect ,is   
,limited and ,unlimited      #cdb       
,,iv4 ,the ,universality of ,nature     
#cdh   ,v4 ,the ,understanding as a     
,part of the ,human ,soul           #ced
   ,,vi4 ,consciousness ,is ,endowed    
,with the ,faculty of ,knowing       as 
,well as ,with the ,feeling of the      
,universality       of ,all ,nature     
#cfc   ,,vii4 ,the ,relationship or     
,identity of ,spirit and ,nature        
#cfi   ,,viii4 ,understanding ,is       

,material                               
#cgf   ,,ix4 ,the ,four ,principles of  
,logic                           #cha   
,x4 ,the ,function of ,understanding on 
the ,religious ,field    #cic   ,,xi4   
,the ,distinction ,between ,cause and   
,effect ,is only       ,one of the      
,means to ,facilitate ,understanding    
#dja   ,,xii4 ,mind and ,matter3 ,which 
,is ,primary1 ,which ,is                
,secondary8                             
#dji   ,,xiii4 ,the ,extent to ,which   
the ,doubts of the ,possibility       of
 ,clear and ,accurate ,understanding    
,have ,been       ,overcome             
#dah   ,,xiv4 ,continuation of the      
,discussion on the ,difference          
,between ,doubtful and ,evident         
,understanding             #dbh   ,,xv4 
,conclusion                             
#dcf     ,,introduction  ,,the          
,,position ,,and ,,significance ,,of ,j4
 ,,dietzgen',s ,,philosophical ,,works  
,,by ,,dr4 ,,anton ,,pannekoek   ,in the
 history of philosophy we see before us 

the consecutive forms of the thoughts of
 the ruling classes of society on life  
and on the world at large4 ,this class  
thought appears after the primitive     
communism has given way to a society    
with class antagonisms1 at a stage when 
the wealth of the members of the ruling 
class gave them leisure time and thus   
stimulated them to turn their attention 
to the productions of the mind4 ,the    
beginning of this thought is found in   
classic ,greece4 ,but it assumed its    
clearest and best developed form when   
the modern bourgeoisie had become the   
ruling class in capitalistic ,europe and
 the thinkers gave expression to the    
ideas of this class4 ,the characteristic
 mark of these ideas is dualism1 that is
 to say the misunderstood contrast      
between thinking and being1 between     
nature and spirit1 the result of the    
mental unclearness of this class and of 
its incapacity to see the things of the 
world in their true interconnection4    
,this mental state is but the expression

 of the division of mankind into classes
 and of the uncomprehended nature of    
social production ever since it became a
 production of goods for exchange4  ,in 
times of primitive communism1 the       
conditions of production were clear and 
easily understood4 ,things were produced
 jointly for use and consumed in common4
 ,man was master of his mode of         
production and thus master of his own   
fate as far as the superior forces of   
nature admitted it4 ,under such         
conditions1 social ideas could not help 
being simple and clear4 ,there being no 
clash between personal and social       
interests1 men had no conception of a   
deep chasm between good and bad4 ,only  
the uncontrolled forces of nature stood 
like unintelligible and mysterious      
powers1 that appeared to them either as 
well meaning or as evil spirits1 above  
these primitive little societies4  ,but 
with the advent of the production of    
commodities the picture changes4        
,civilized humanity begins to feel      

itself somewhat relieved from the hard  
and ungovernable pressure of fickle     
natural forces4 ,but now new demons     
arise out of social conditions4 ,no     
sooner did the producers give their     
products away in exchange instead of    
consuming them as heretofore1 than they 
lost control of them4 ,they no longer   
knew what became of their products1 and 
there was a possibility that these      
products might some day be used for the 
exploitation and oppression of the      
producers--,the products rule the       
producers4 7,engels7 ,in the production 
of commodities1 it is not the purpose of
 the individual producer which is       
accomplished1 but rather that which the 
productive forces back of him are aiming
 at4 ,man proposes1 but a social power1 
stronger than himself1 disposes2 he is  
no longer master of his fate4 ,the      
inter-relations of production become    
complicated and difficult to grasp4     
,while it is true that the individual is
 the producing unit1 yet his individual 

labor is only a subordinate part of the 
whole process of social production1 of  
which he remains a tool4 ,the fruits of 
the labor of many are enjoyed by a few  
individuals4 ,the social co-operation is
 concealed behind a violent competitive 
struggle of the producers against one   
another4 ,the interests of the          
individuals are at war with those of    
society4 ,good1 that is to say the      
consideration of the common welfare1 is 
opposed to bad1 that is to say the      
sacrifice of everything to private      
interests4 ,the passions of men as well 
as their mental gifts1 after they have  
been aroused1 developed1 trained1       
strengthened1 and refined in this       
struggle1 henceforth become so many     
weapons which a superior power turns    
against their helpless possessors4      
,such were the impressions out of which 
thinking men were obliged to fashion    
their world-philosophy1 while1 at the   
same time1 they were members of the     
possessing classes and had thus an      

opportunity to employ their leisure for 
a certain self-study1 without1 however1 
being in touch with the source of their 
impressions1 viz41 the process of social
 labor which alone could have enabled   
them to see through the social origin of
 their ideas4 ,men of this class1       
therefore1 were led to the assumption   
that their ideas emanated from some     
supernatural and spiritual power or that
 they were themselves independent       
supernatural powers4 ,this dualist      
metaphysical mode of thought has gone   
through various transformations in the  
course of time1 adapting itself to the  
evolution of production beginning with  
ancient slavery1 on through the serfdom 
of the ,middle ,ages and of mediaeval   
commodity production1 to modern         
capitalism4 ,these successive changes of
 form are embodied in ,grecian          
philosophy1 in the various phases of the
 ,christian religion1 and in the modern 
systems of philosophy4  ,but we must not
 regard these systems and religions for 

what they generally pass1 that is to    
say1 we must not think them to be only  
repeated unsuccessful attempts to       
formulate absolute truth4 ,they are     
merely the incarnations of progressive  
stages of better knowledge acquired by  
the human mind about itself and about   
the universe4 ,it was the aim of        
philosophical thought to find           
satisfaction in understanding4 ,and as  
long as understanding could not wholly  
be gotten by natural means1 there       
remained always a field for the         
supernatural and incomprehensible4 ,but 
by the painstaking mental work of the   
deepest thinkers1 the material of       
science was ceaselessly increased1 and  
the field of the supernatural and       
incomprehensible was ever more narrowed4
 ,and this is especially the case since 
the progress of capitalist production   
has promoted the persistent study of    
nature4 ,for through this study the     
human mind was enabled to test its      
powers by simple1 quiet1 persistent and 

fruitful labor in the search for        
successive parts of truth2 and thus to  
rid itself from the overirritation of   
hopeless quest after absolute truth4    
,the desire to ascertain the value of   
these new truths gave rise to the       
problems of the theory of understanding4
 ,the attempts to solve these problems  
form a permanent part of modern systems 
of philosophy1 which represent a        
graduated evolution of the theory of    
understanding4 ,but the supernatural    
element in these systems prevented their
 perfection4  ,under the impulse of the 
technical requirements of capitalism1   
the evolution of natural sciences became
 a triumphal march of the human mind4   
,nature was subjugated first through the
 discovery of its laws by the human     
mind1 and then by the material          
subordination of the known forces of    
nature to the human will in the service 
of our main object1 the production of   
the necessaries of life with a minimum  
expenditure of energy4 ,but this bright 

shining light rendered1 by contrast1 the
 gloom which surrounded the phenomena of
 human society only the darker1 and     
capitalism in its development still     
accentuates this contrast1 as it        
accentuates and thus renders more easily
 visible and intelligible all contrasts4
 ,while the natural sciences dispensed  
with all mysterious secrecy within their
 narrower domain1 the darkness shrouding
 the origin of ideas still offered a    
welcome refuge to the belief in miracles
 on the spiritual field4  ,capitalism is
 now approaching its decline4 ,socialism
 is near4 ,and the vital importance of  
this transition in human history cannot 
be stated more strongly than in the     
words of ,marx and ,engels3 ,this       
concludes the primary history of man4   
,he thereby passes definitely out of the
 animal kingdom4 ,the social regulation 
of production makes man fully the master
 of his own fate4 ,no longer does any   
mysterious social power then thwart his 
plans or jeopardise his success4 ,nor   

does any mysterious natural force       
control him henceforth4 ,he is no longer
 the slave1 but the master of nature4   
,he has investigated its effects1       
understands them1 and presses them into 
his service4 ,for the first time in his 
history he will then be the ruler of the
 earth4  ,we now see that the many      
centuries that filled the history of    
civilization were a necessary           
preparation for socialism1 a slow       
struggle to escape from nature's        
slavery1 a gradual increase of the      
productivity of labor1 up to the point  
where the necessaries of life for all   
may be obtained almost without exertion4
 ,this is the prime merit of capitalism 
and its justification1 that after so    
many centuries of hardly perceptible    
progress it taught man to conquer nature
 by a rapid assault4 ,at the same time  
it set loose the forces of production   
and finally transformed and bared the   
springs of the productive process to    
such a degree that they easily could be 

perceived and grasped by the human mind2
 this was the indispensable condition   
for the control of this process4  ,as   
never since the first advent of         
production of commodities there has been
 such a fundamental revolution1 it must 
necessarily be accompanied by an equally
 fundamental spiritual revolution4 ,this
 economic revolution is the conclusion  
of the long period of class antagonisms 
and of production of commodities2 it    
carries with it the end of the dualist  
and supernatural thoughts arising from  
this source4 ,the mystery of social     
processes passes away with this period1 
and the spiritual expression of these   
mysteries must necessarily disappear    
with it4 ,the slow development of human 
thought from ignorance to an ever       
increased understanding thereby ends its
 first chapter4 ,this signifies the     
completion and conclusion of philosophy1
 which is equivalent to saying that     
philosophy as such passes out of        
existence1 while its place is taken by  

the science of the human mind1 a part of
 natural science4  ,a new system of     
production sheds its light into the     
minds of men already before it has fully
 materialized4 ,the same science which  
teaches us to understand and thereby to 
control the social forces1 also         
unfetters the mind from the bewitching  
effects of those forces4 ,it enables him
 even now already to emancipate himself 
from traditional superstitions and ideas
 which were formerly the expression of  
things unknown4 ,we may anticipate with 
our mind the coming time4 ,and thus the 
ideas which will then dominate are      
already even now growing within us in a 
rudimentary form corresponding to the   
present actual economic development4 ,by
 this means we are even now enabled to  
overcome the capitalist philosophy in   
thought and to soberly and clearly grasp
 the matter-dependent nature of our     
spirit4  ,the completion and the end of 
philosophy need not wait for the        
realization of socialist production4    

,the new understanding does not fall    
from heaven like a meteor4 ,it develops 
with the social-economic development1   
first imperfectly and imperceptibly1 in 
a few thinkers who most strongly feel   
the breath of the approaching time4     
,with the growth of the science of      
sociology and with that of its practical
 application1 the socialist labor       
movement1 the new understanding         
simultaneously spreads and gains ground 
step by step1 waging a relentless battle
 against the traditional ideas to which 
the ruling classes are clinging4 ,this  
struggle is the mental companion of the 
social class struggle4                  
999999999999999999999999  ,the methods  
of the new natural science had already  
been practiced for a few centuries      
before the new theory was formulated4   
,it first found vent in the expression  
of surprise at the great confidence with
 which men assumed to predict certain   
phenomena and to point out their        
connections4 ,our experience is limited 

to a few successive observations of the 
regularity or coincidence of events4    
,but we attribute to natural laws1 in   
which are expressed causal relations of 
phenomena1 a general and necessary      
applicability which far exceeds our     
experience4 ,the ,english thinker ,hume 
was the first who clearly expressed and 
formulated the question--since called   
the problem of causality--why men always
 act in this manner4 ,but as he believed
 the reason for such action should be   
sought in the nature of experience      
alone1 experience being the only source 
of knowledge1 and as he did not further 
investigate the special and distinct    
part played by the nature of the human  
mind in this experiential connection1 he
 could not find any satisfactory answer4
  ,kant1 who made the first important   
step toward the solution of this        
question1 had been trained in the school
 of rationalism which then dominated in 
,germany and which represented an       
adaptation of mediaeval scholasticism to

 the requirements of increased          
knowledge4 ,starting from the thesis    
that things which are logical in the    
mind must be real in nature1 the        
rationalists formulated by mere         
deduction general truths about god1     
infinity and immortality4 ,under the    
influence of ,hume1 ,kant became the    
critic of rationalism and thus the      
reformer of philosophy4  ,the question1 
how it is that we have knowledge of     
generally applicable laws in which we   
have implicit confidence--such as       
mathematical theses1 or the maxim that  
every change has a cause--was answered  
by ,kant in this way3 ,experience and   
science are as much conditioned on      
properties inherent in the organization 
of our mind as on the impressions of the
 outer world4 ,the former properties    
must necessarily be contained in all    
experience and science4 ,therefore      
everything dependent on this common     
mental part of science must be perfectly
 certain and independent of special     

sense impressions4 ,common to all       
experience1 and inseparable from it1 are
 the pure sense-conceptions 7reine      
,anschauungsformen71 such as space and  
time1 while the many experiences1 in    
order to succeed in forming             
understanding and science1 must be      
connected by the pure mind-conceptions  
7reine ,verstandesbegriffe71 the        
so-called categories2 among the latter  
also belongs causality4  ,now ,kant     
explains the necessity and general      
applicability of the pure sense and mind
 conceptions by the fact that they arise
 from the organization of our mind4     
,accordingly1 the world appears to the  
senses as a succession of phenomena in  
time and space4 ,our reason transforms  
these phenomena into things which are   
welded into one aggregate nature by laws
 of cause and effect4 ,on the things as 
they really are in themselves1 in the   
opinion of ,kant1 these pure conceptions
 cannot be applied4 ,we know nothing of 
them and can neither perceive nor       

reconstruct them by reason1 because in  
themselves they are wholly beyond reason
 and knowledge4  ,the result of this    
investigation1 which was the first      
valuable contribution to a scientific   
theory of understanding and forms1 from 
our standpoint1 the most important part 
of ,kant's philosophy1 served him mainly
 as a means of answering the following  
questions3 ,what is the value of        
knowledge which exceeds experience8 ,can
 we1 by mere deduction through concepts 
which go beyond experience1 arrive at   
truths8 ,his answer was3 ,no1 and it was
 a crushing blow to rationalism4 ,we    
cannot exceed the boundaries of         
experience4 ,by experience alone can we 
arrive at science4 ,all supposed        
knowledge about the unlimited and       
infinite1 about concepts of pure reason1
 called ,ideas by ,kant1 7as the soul1  
the world1 and ,god7 is nothing but     
illusions4 ,the contradictions in which 
the human mind becomes involved whenever
 it applies the categories outside of   

experience to such subjects1 are        
manifested in the fruitless strife      
between the philosophical systems4      
,metaphysics as a science is impossible4
  ,this did not give the deathblow to   
rationalism alone1 but also to bourgeois
 materialism which reigned among the    
,french radical thinkers4 ,kant's       
researches refuted the negative as well 
as the positive assertions anent the    
supernatural and infinite4 ,this cleared
 the field for faith1 for intuitive     
conviction4 ,god1 freedom and           
immortality are concepts the truth of   
which cannot be proved by reason1 like  
the natural truths derived from         
experience4 ,but nevertheless their     
reality is no less certain1 only it is  
of a different nature1 being subjective 
and1 therefore1 necessarily a matter of 
personal conviction4 ,the freedom of the
 will1 for instance1 is not a knowledge 
gained by experience1 because experience
 never teaches us anything but lack of  
freedom and dependence on the laws of   

nature4 ,but nevertheless freedom of    
will is a necessary conviction of every 
one who feels it in the categorical     
imperative3 ,thou shalt6 of every one   
possessed by a sense of duty and of the 
knowledge that he can act accordingly3  
therefore freedom of will is            
unconditionally certain and requires no 
proof by experience4 ,and from this     
premise there follows in same way the   
assurance of the immortality of the soul
 and of the existence of ,god4 ,it gives
 the same kind of certainty to all ideas
 which were left in a state of          
uncertainty by the critique of pure     
reason4 ,at the same time freedom of    
will determines the form of the theory  
of understanding4 ,in the entire world  
of phenomena there was no room for      
freedom1 for these phenomena follow     
strict rules of causality1 as demanded  
by the organization of our mind4        
,therefore it was necessary to make room
 for freedom of will somewhere else1 and
 so things in themselves1 hitherto a    

phrase without value and meaning1       
assumed a higher importance4 ,they were 
not bound to space1 time or categories1 
they were free3 they formed so to say a 
second world1 the world of noumena1     
which stood behind the world of         
phenomena and which solved the          
contradiction between the lawful        
dependence of things in nature and      
between the personal conviction of      
freedom of will4  ,these opinions and   
reasonings were fully in accord with the
 conditions of science and the economic 
development of ,kant's time4 ,the field 
of nature was left entirely to the      
inductive method of science which based 
itself on strictly materialist          
experience and observation1 classifying 
things systematically in their causal   
order and excluding all supernatural    
interference4 ,but while faith was      
banished from the natural sciences      
forever1 it could not be dispensed with4
 ,the ignorance as to the origin of the 
human will left room for a supernatural 

ethic4 ,the attempts of the materialists
 to exclude the supernatural also from  
this field failed4 ,the time had not    
come as yet for a materialist and       
natural ethics1 for science was not yet 
able to demonstrate as an indisputable  
truth1 founded on experience1 in what   
manner ethical codes and moral ideas in 
general had a material origin4  ,this   
state of things shows that the ,kantian 
philosophy is the purest expression of  
bourgeois thought1 and this is still    
more emphasized by the fact that freedom
 is the center of his system and        
controls it4 ,rising capitalism required
 freedom for the producers of           
commodities in order to expand its      
productive forces1 it required freedom  
of competition and freedom of unlimited 
exploitation4 ,the producers of         
commodities should be free from all     
fetters and restrictions1 and unhampered
 by any coercion1 in order that they    
could go1 under the sole direction of   
their own intelligence1 into free       

competition with their fellow citizens4 
,for this reason1 freedom became the    
slogan of the young bourgeoisie aspiring
 to political power1 and ,kant's        
doctrine of the free will1 the basis of 
his ethics1 was the echo of the         
approaching ,french ,revolution4 ,but   
freedom was not absolute2 it was to be  
dependent on the moral law4 ,it was not 
to be used in the quest for happiness1  
but in accord with the moral law1 in the
 service of duty4 ,if the bourgeois     
society was to exist1 the private       
interest of the individual must not be  
paramount1 the welfare of the entire    
class had to be superior to that of the 
individual1 and the commandments of this
 class had to be recognized as moral    
laws taking precedence over the quest   
for happiness4 ,but for this very       
reason1 these moral laws could never be 
fully obeyed1 and every one found       
himself compelled to violate them in his
 own interest4 ,hence the moral law     
existed only as a code which could never

 be fulfilled4 ,and so it stood outside 
of experience4  ,in ,kant's ethics the  
internal antagonism of bourgeois society
 is reflected1 that antagonism which is 
the compelling force of the ever        
increasing economic development4 ,the   
foundation of this antagonism is the    
antagonism1 already mentioned1 between  
the individual and social character of  
production that gives rise to           
omnipotent1 but unconceived social      
forces ruling the destiny of man4 ,in   
capitalistic production it is still     
intensified by the antithesis of the    
wealthy ruling class and the poor       
producing class that is continuously    
augmented by those who are expropriated 
by competition4 ,this antagonism gives  
rise to the contradiction between the   
aims of men and the results achieved1   
between the desire of happiness and the 
misery of the great mass4 ,it is the    
basis of the contradiction between      
virtue and vice1 between freedom and    
dependence1 between faith and science1  

between phenomenon and thing itself4 ,it
 is at the bottom of all contradictions 
and of the entire pronounced dualism of 
the ,kantian philosophy4 ,these         
contradictions are to blame for the     
downfall of the system1 and the work of 
disintegration was unavoidable from the 
moment that the contradictions of the   
bourgeois production became apparent1   
that is to say immediately after the    
political victory of the bourgeoisie4   
,the system of ,kant could1 however1 not
 be overcome1 unless the material origin
 of morality could be uncovered4 ,then  
these contradictions could be understood
 and solved by showing that they were   
relative and not absolute as they       
appeared4 ,and not until then could a   
materialist ethics1 a science of        
morality1 drive faith from its last     
retreat4 ,this was at last accomplished 
by the discovery of social class        
struggles and of the nature of          
capitalist production1 by the pioneer   
work of ,karl ,marx4  ,the practice of  

developed capitalism about the middle of
 the #aith century directly challenged  
proletarian thinkers to criticise       
,kant's doctrine of practical reason4   
,bourgeois ethics and freedom manifested
 themselves in the form of freedom of   
exploitation in the interest of the     
bourgeoisie1 as slavery for the working 
class4 ,the maintenance of human dignity
 appeared in reality as the             
brutalization and degradation of the    
proletarians1 and the state founded on  
justice proved to be nothing but the    
class state of the bourgeoisie4 ,and so 
it was seen that ,kant's sublime ethics1
 instead of being the basis in all      
eternity of human activity in general1  
was merely the expression of the narrow 
class interests of the bourgeoisie4     
,this proletarian criticism was the     
first material for a general theory1 and
 once it had been stated1 its           
correctness was demonstrated more and   
more by the study of previous historical
 events1 and these events were thereby  

shown in their proper light4 ,it was    
then understood by this theory that the 
social classes1 distinguished by their  
position in the process of production1  
had different and antagonistic economic 
interests1 and that each class did      
necessarily regard its own interest as  
good and sacred4 ,these general class   
interests were not recognized in their  
true character but appeared to men in   
the guise of superior moral motives2 in 
this form they crowded the special      
individual interests into the           
background1 and since the class         
interests were generally felt1 all the  
members of the same class recognized    
them4 ,moreover1 a ruling class could   
temporarily compel a defeated or        
suppressed class to recognize the class 
interests of the rulers as a moral law1 
so long as the inevitability of the mode
 of production in which that class ruled
 was acknowledged4 ,owing to the fact   
that the nature and significance of the 
productive process was not understood1  

the origin of human motives could not be
 discovered4 ,they were not traced back 
to experience1 but simply felt directly 
and intuitively4 ,and consequently they 
were thought to be of a supernatural    
origin and eternal duration4  ,not only 
the moral codes1 but also other products
 of the human mind1 such as religion1   
science1 arts1 philosophy1 were then    
understood to be intimately connected   
with the actual material conditions of  
society4 ,the human mind is influenced  
in all its products by the entire world 
outside of it4 ,and thus the mind is    
seen to be a part of nature1 and the    
science of the mind becomes a natural   
science4 ,the impressions of the outer  
world determine the experience of man1  
his wants determine his will1 and his   
general wants his moral will4 ,the world
 around him determines man's wants and  
impressions1 but these1 on the other    
hand1 determine his will and activity by
 which he changes the world2 this       
will-directed activity appears in the   

process of social production4 ,in this  
manner man by his work is a part1 a link
 in the great chain of natural and      
social development4  ,this conception   
overturns the foundations of philosophy4
 ,since the human mind is seen now to be
 a part of nature and interacts with the
 rest of the world according to laws    
which are more or less known1 it is     
classed among ,kant's phenomena4 ,there 
is no longer any need of talking about  
noumena4 ,thus they do not longer exist 
for us4 ,philosophy then reduces itself 
to the theory of experience1 to the     
science of the human mind4 ,it is at    
this point that the beginning made by   
,kant had to be farther developed4 ,kant
 had always separated mind and nature   
very sharply4 ,but the understanding    
that this separation should only be made
 temporarily for the purpose of better  
investigation1 and that there is no     
absolute difference between matter and  
mind made it possible to advance the    
science of thought processes4 ,however1 

this could be accomplished only by a    
thinker who had fully digested the      
teachings of socialism4 ,this problem   
was solved by ,joseph ,dietzgen in his  
work on ,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,human     
,,brain ,,work1 the first edition of    
which appeared in #ahfi1 and by this    
work he won for himself the name of     
philosopher of the proletariat4 ,this   
problem could be solved only by the help
 of the dialectic method4 ,therefore1   
the idealist philosophical systems from 
,kant to ,hegel which consist chiefly in
 the development of the dialectic       
method1 must be regarded as the         
indispensable pioneers and precursors of
 ,dietzgen's proletarian philosophy4    
999999999999999999999999  ,the          
philosophy of ,kant necessarily broke   
down on account of its dualism4 ,it had 
shown that there is safety only in      
finite and material experience1 and that
 the mind becomes involved in           
contradictions whenever it ventures     
beyond that line4 ,the mind's reason    

calls for absolute truth which cannot be
 gotten4 ,hence the mind is groping in  
the dark and critique may perhaps       
explain why it is in the dark1 but it   
cannot show the way out4 ,what is called
 with ,kant dialectics is in reality    
resignation4 ,true1 the mind finds      
knowledge about things outside of       
experience by some other way1 viz41 by  
means of its moral consciousness1 but   
this intuitive knowledge in the form of 
faith remains sharply separated from    
scientific understanding4 ,it was the   
task of the philosophical development   
immediately after ,kant1 to do away with
 this sharp separation1 this            
unreconciled contradiction4 ,this       
development ended with ,hegel2 its      
result was the understanding that       
contradiction is the true nature of     
everything4 ,but this contradiction     
cannot be left to stand undisturbed1 it 
must be solved and still retained in a  
higher form1 and thus be reconciled4    
,therefore the world of phenomena cannot

 be understood as being at rest4 ,it can
 be understood only as a thing in       
motion1 as activity1 as a continuous    
change4 ,action is always the           
reconciliation of contradiction in some 
higher form1 and contradiction appears  
in this way as the lever of progressive 
development4 ,that which accomplishes   
this dialectic self-development does not
 appear in the idealistic systems as the
 material world itself1 but as the      
spiritual1 the idea4 ,in ,hegel's       
philosophy1 this conception assumes the 
form of a comprehensive system outlining
 the self-development of the ,absolute  
which is spiritual and is identical with
 ,god4 ,the development of this         
,absolute takes place in three stages2  
in its primitive pure spiritual form it 
develops out of its undifferentiated    
being the conceptions of logic2 then it 
expresses itself in another1 an external
 form1 opposite to itself1 as ,nature4  
,in nature all forms develop by way of  
contradictions which are eliminated by  

the development of some higher form4    
,finally the ,absolute awakens to       
consciousness in nature in the form of  
the human mind and reaches thus its     
third stage1 at which the opposite      
elements1 matter and spirit1 are        
reconciled into a unity4 ,the human mind
 evolves in the same way to ever higher 
stages1 until it arrives1 at the end of 
its development by understanding itself1
 that is to say1 by knowing intuitively 
the ,absolute4 ,this is what happens    
unconsciously in religion4 ,religion1   
which in the form of faith must be      
satisfied with a modest corner in the   
system of ,kant1 appears in the system  
of ,hegel very proudly as a higher sort 
of understanding superior to all other  
knowledge1 as an intuitive knowledge of 
absolute truth 7,god74 ,in philosophy   
this is done consciously4 ,and the      
historical development which finds its  
conclusion and climax in the ,hegelian  
philosophy corresponds to the logical   
development of the human mind4  ,thus   

,hegel unites all sciences and all parts
 of the world into one masterly system  
in which the revolutionary dialectics1  
the theory of evolution1 that considers 
all finite things as perishable and     
transitory1 is given a conservative     
conclusion by putting an end to all     
further development when the absolute   
truth is reached4 ,all the knowledge of 
that period was assigned to its place   
somewhere in this system1 on one of the 
steps of the dialectic development4     
,many of the conceptions of the natural 
sciences of that day1 which later on    
were found to be erroneous1 are there   
presented as necessary truths resting on
 deduction1 not on experience4 ,this    
could give the impression that the      
,hegelian philosophy made empirical     
research superfluous as a source of     
concrete truths4 ,this appearance is to 
blame for the slight recognition of     
,hegel among naturalists2 in natural    
sciences1 this philosophy therefore has 
won much less importance than it        

deserved and than it might have won1 if 
its actual significance1 which consists 
in the harmonious connection between    
widely separated events and sciences1   
had been better understood under its    
deceptive guise4  ,on the abstract      
sciences the influence of ,hegel was    
greater1 and here he held an            
exceptionally prominent position in the 
scientific world of that time4 ,on one  
hand1 his conception of history as a    
progressive evolution in which every    
imperfect previous condition is regarded
 as a necessary phase and preparation   
for subsequent conditions and thus      
appears natural and reasonable1 was a   
great gain for science4 ,on the other   
hand1 his statements on the philosophy  
of law and religion met the requirements
 and conceptions of his time4 ,in his   
philosophy of law1 the human mind is    
taken in that stage in which it steps   
into reality1 having as its principal   
characteristic a free will4 ,it is first
 considered as a single individual which

 finds its freedom incorporated in its  
property4 ,this personality enters into 
relations with others like it4 ,its     
freedom of will is thereby expressed in 
moral laws4 ,by combining all           
individuals into one aggregate whole1   
their contradictory relations are merged
 into the social units1 viz41 the       
family1 the bourgeois society           
7buergerliche ,gesellschaft7 and the    
state4 ,there the moral rules are       
carried from the inner to the outer     
reality4 ,as the expressions of a       
superior1 common and more general will1 
they stand forth in the generally       
accepted moral codes1 in the natural    
laws of bourgeois society and in the    
authoritative laws of the state4 ,in the
 state1 the highest form of which is the
 monarchy1 the mind finds itself at its 
highest stage of objective realization  
as the idea of the state4  ,the         
reactionary character of ,hegelian      
philosophy is not merely a superficial  
appearance that rests on the            

glorification of state and royalty1     
thanks to which this philosophy was     
raised to the position of ,prussian     
state philosophy after the restauration4
 ,it was in its very essence a product  
of reaction which in those days         
represented the only possible advance   
after the revolution4 ,this reaction was
 the first practical critique of        
bourgeois society4 ,after this society  
had been firmly established1 the        
relative amenities of the old time      
appeared in a better light1 because the 
shortcomings of the new society made    
themselves soon felt4 ,the bourgeoisie  
had recoiled before the consequences of 
its revolution1 when it recognized that 
the proletariat was its barrier4 ,it    
arrested the revolution as soon as its  
bourgeois aims had been accomplished1   
and it was willing to acknowledge again 
the mastery of the feudal state and     
monarchy1 provided they would protect it
 and serve its interests4 ,the feudal   
powers that previously had been overcome

 by the weight of their own sins and by 
the unconditional superiority of the new
 social order1 again lifted their heads 
when the new order in its turn gave     
cause for well founded criticisms4 ,but 
they could not keep the revolution in   
check1 unless they recognized it in a   
limited degree4 ,they could once more   
rule over the bourgeoisie1 provided they
 compromised with it so far as it was   
inevitable4 ,they could no longer       
prevail against capitalism1 but they    
could govern for it4 ,thus1 by their    
rule1 the imperfectness of capitalism   
was revealed4  ,the theory of           
restauration1 therefore1 had to consist 
first of all of a thorough critique of  
the revolutionary bourgeois philosophy4 
,but this philosophy could not be thrown
 aside entirely4 ,so far as a critique  
of the old order was concerned1 the     
truth of bourgeois philosophy had to be 
admitted4 ,on the other hand1 the sharp 
distinction it made between the falsity 
of the old and the truth of the new     

order was found to be beside the mark4  
,so the correctness of the bourgeois    
philosophy itself proved to be relative 
and limited1 like that of a herald of   
some higher truth which in its turn     
would acknowledge that which was        
temporarily and partially true in its   
vanquished precursor4 ,in this way the  
contradictions became moments in the    
evolution of absolute truth1 in this    
way1 furthermore1 the dialectics became 
the main feature and method of          
post-,kantian philosophy2 and in this   
way1 finally1 the theorists of the      
reaction were the men who steered       
philosophy over new courses and who     
thereby became the harbingers of        
socialism4 ,scepticism and a critique of
 all traditional things1 yet a careful  
protection of endangered faith1 had     
characterized the tendencies of         
bourgeois thought during its            
revolutionary period4 ,in the           
reactionary stage1 the bourgeois        
implicitly accepted the belief in       

absolute truth and cultivated a         
self-righteous faith4 ,the practice of  
,metternich and of the ,holy ,alliance  
corresponded to the theory of ,hegelian 
philosophy4  ,the practice of the       
,prussian police state1 which embodied  
the shortcomings of capitalism without  
its advantages and thus represented a   
higher degree of reaction1 destroyed the
 ,hegelian philosophy1 as soon as the   
practices of maturing capitalism began  
to rebel against the fetters by which   
reaction endeavored to bind it4         
,feuerbach returned in his critique of  
religion from the fantastical heights of
 abstraction to physical man4 ,marx     
demonstrated that the reality of        
bourgeois society expresses itself in   
its class antagonisms which herald its  
imperfectness and approaching downfall1 
and he discovered that the actual       
historical development rested on the    
development of the process of material  
production4 ,the absolute spirit that   
was supposed to be embodied in the      

constitution of the despotic state      
before the ,march revolution now        
revealed itself as the narrow bourgeois 
spirit which regards bourgeois society  
as the final aim of all historical      
development4 ,the ,hegelian statement   
that all finite things carry within     
themselves the germ of their own        
dissolution came home to his own        
philosophy1 as soon as its finiteness   
and limitations had been grasped4 ,its  
conservative form was abandoned1 but its
 revolutionary content1 the dialectics1 
was preserved4 ,the ,hegelian philosophy
 was finally superseded by dialectic    
materialism which declares that absolute
 truth is realized only in the infinite 
progress of society and of scientific   
understanding4  ,this does not imply a  
wholesale rejection of ,hegelian        
philosophy4 ,it merely means that the   
relative validity of that philosophy has
 been recognized4 ,the vicissitudes of  
the absolute spirit in the course of its
 self-development are but a fantastical 

description of the process which the    
real human mind experiences in its      
acquaintance with the world and its     
active participation in life4 ,instead  
of the evolution of the absolute idea1  
the dialectics henceforth becomes the   
sole correct method of thought to be    
employed by the real human mind in the  
study of the actual world and for the   
purpose of understanding social         
development4 ,the great and lasting     
importance of ,hegel's philosophy1 even 
for our own time1 is that it is an      
excellent theory of the human mind and  
of its working methods1 provided we     
strip off its transcendental character1 
and that it far excels the first        
laborious contributions of ,kant to the 
theory of understanding4  ,but this     
quality of the ,hegelian philosophy     
could not be appreciated1 until         
,dietzgen had created the basis for a   
dialectic and materialistic theory of   
understanding4 ,the indispensable       
character of dialectic thought1 which is

 illustrated by the monumental works of 
,marx and ,engels1 has been first       
demonstrated in a perfectly convincing  
manner by ,dietzgen's critical analysis 
of the human force of thinking4 ,it was 
only by means of this method of         
thought--of which he was according to   
,engels' testimony an independent       
discoverer--that he could succeed in    
completing the theory of understanding  
and bringing it to a close for the time 
being4        999999999999999999999999  
,if we refer to the ideas laid down by  
,dietzgen in this work as his           
philosophy1 we say too much1 because it 
does not assume to be a new system of   
philosophy4 ,yet1 on the other hand1 we 
should not say enough1 because it would 
mean that his work is as passing as the 
systems before it4 ,it is the merit of  
,dietzgen to have raised philosophy to  
the position of a natural science1 the  
same as ,marx did with history4 ,the    
human faculty of thought is thereby     
stripped of its fantastic garb4 ,it is  

regarded as a part of nature1 and by    
means of experience a progressive       
understanding of its concrete and ever  
changing historical nature must be      
gained4 ,dietzgen's work refers to      
itself as a finite and temporary        
realization of this aim1 just as every  
new theory in natural science is a      
finite and temporary realization of its 
aims4 ,this realization must be further 
improved and perfected by successive    
investigations4 ,this is the method of  
natural science2 philosophical systems1 
on the contrary1 pretended to give      
absolute truth1 that could not be       
improved upon4 ,dietzgen's work is      
fundamentally different from these      
former philosophies1 and more than they1
 because it wishes to be less4 ,it      
presents itself as the positive outcome 
of philosophy toward which all great    
thinkers have contributed1 seen by the  
sober eyes of a socialist and analyzed1 
recounted and further developed by him4 
,at the same time1 it attributes to     

previous systems the same character of  
partial truths and shows that they were 
not entirely useless speculations1 but  
ascending stages of understanding       
naturally related1 which contain ever   
more truth and ever less error4 ,hegel  
had likewise entertained this broader   
view1 but with him this development came
 to a self-contradictory end in his own 
system4 ,dietzgen also calls his own    
conception the highest then existing1   
and its distinctive step in the         
evolution is that it for the first time 
adopts and professes this natural and   
scientific view1 instead of the         
supernatural point of view of the former
 systems4 ,the new understanding that   
the human mind is a common and natural  
thing is a decisive step in the         
progressive investigation of the mind1  
and this step places ,dietzgen at the   
head of this evolution4 ,and it is a    
step which cannot be retraced1 because  
it signifies a sober awakening after    
centuries of vain imaginings4 ,since    

this system does not pretend to be      
absolute truth1 but rather a finite and 
temporal one1 it cannot fall as its     
predecessors did4 ,it represents a      
scientific continuation of former       
philosophies1 just as astronomy is the  
continuation of astrology and of the    
,pythagorean fantasies1 and chemistry   
the continuation of alchemy4 ,it takes  
the place that formerly was held by its 
unscientific predecessors and has this  
in common with them1 apart from its     
essential theory of understanding1 that 
it is the basis of a new                
world-philosophy1 of a methodical       
conception of the universe4  ,this      
modern world-philosophy                 
7,weltanschauung71 being a socialist or 
proletarian one1 takes issue with the   
bourgeois conceptions2 it was first     
conceived as a new view of the world1   
entirely opposite to the ruling         
bourgeois conceptions1 by ,marx and     
,engels1 who developed its sociological 
and historical contents2 its            

philosophical basis is here developed by
 ,dietzgen2 its real character is       
indicated by the terms dialectic and    
materialist4 ,by its core1 historical   
materialism1 it gains a wholly new      
theory of social evolution that forms   
its chief content4 ,this theory was for 
the first time sketched in its main     
outlines in the ,communist ,manifesto1  
and later on fully developed in a number
 of other works and thoroughly          
vindicated by innumerable facts4 ,it    
gives us the scientific assurance that  
the misery and imperfectness of present 
society1 which bourgeois philosophy     
regards as inevitable and natural1 is   
but a transitory condition1 and that man
 will within measurable time emancipate 
himself from the slavery of his material
 wants by the regulation of social      
production4 ,by this certainty socialism
 is put on an eminence so far above all 
bourgeois conceptions that these appear 
barbarous in comparison with it4 ,and   
what is more significant1 our           

world-philosophy may justly claim to    
have for the first time thrown the light
 of an indisputable science on society  
and man2 combined with the maturest     
products of natural sciences it forms a 
complete science of the world1 making   
all superstitions superfluous1 and thus 
involving the theoretical emancipation1 
that is to say the emancipation of the  
mind4 ,the science treating of the human
 mind forms the essence and foundation  
of this theory of society and man1 not  
only because it gives us the same as the
 natural sciences a scientific or       
experience-proven theory of the function
 of human thinking1 but also1 because   
this theory of cognition can alone      
assure us that such sciences are able to
 furnish us an adequate picture of the  
world1 and that anything outside of them
 is mere fantasy4 ,for this reason we   
owe to ,dietzgen's theory of cognition  
the firm foundation of our              
world-philosophy4  ,its character is    
primarily materialistic4 ,in            

contradistinction to the idealist       
systems of the most flourishing time of 
,german philosophy which considered the 
,mind as the basis of all existence1 it 
starts from concrete materialist being4 
,not that it regards mere physical      
matter as its basis2 it is rather       
opposed to the crude bourgeois          
materialism1 and matter to it means     
everything which exists and furnishes   
material for thought1 including thoughts
 and imaginations4 ,its foundation is   
the unity of all concrete being4 ,thus  
it assigns to the human mind an equal   
place among the other parts of the      
universe2 it shows that the mind is as  
closely connected with all the other    
parts of the universe as those parts are
 among themselves2 that is to say1 the  
mind exists only as a part of the entire
 universe so that its content is only   
the effect of the other parts4 ,thus our
 philosophy forms the theoretical basis 
of historical materialism4 ,while the   
statement that the consciousness of man 

is determined by his social life could  
hitherto at best be regarded as a       
generalization of many historical facts 
and thus seemed imperfect and open to   
criticism1 capable of improvement by    
later discoveries1 the same as all other
 scientific theories1 henceforth the    
complete dependence of the mind on the  
rest of the world becomes as impregnable
 and immutable a requirement of thought 
as causality4 ,this signifies the       
thorough refutation of the belief in    
miracles4 ,after having been banished   
long ago from the field of natural      
science1 miracles were now banished from
 the domain of thought4  ,the           
enlightening effect of this proletarian 
philosophy consists furthermore in its  
opposition to all superstition and its  
demonstration of the senselessness of   
all idol worship4 ,socialist            
understanding accomplished something    
which the bourgeois reformers could not 
do1 because they were limited to natural
 science in a narrow sense and could not

 solve the mystery of the mind2 for in  
explaining all the mental1 spiritual    
phenomena as natural phenomena our      
proletarian philosophy furnishes the    
means for a trenchant critique of       
,christian faith which consists in the  
belief in a supernatural spiritual      
being4 ,in his dialectic discussions of 
mind and matter1 finiteness and         
infinity1 god and the world1 ,dietzgen  
has thoroughly clarified the confused   
mystery which surrounded these          
conceptions and has definitely refuted  
all transcendental beliefs4 ,and this   
critique is no less destructive for the 
bourgeois idols3 ,freedom1 ,right1      
,spirit1 ,force1 which are shown to be  
but fantastic images of abstract        
conceptions with a limited validity4    
,this could be accomplished in no other 
way than by simultaneously determining1 
in its capacity as a theory of          
understanding1 the relation of the world
 around us to the image which our mind  
forms of it4 ,in this respect ,dietzgen 

completed the work begun by ,hume and   
,kant4 ,as a theory of understanding1   
his conceptions are not only the        
philosophical basis of historical       
materialism1 but also of all other      
sciences as well4 ,the thorough critique
 directed by ,dietzgen against the works
 of prominent natural scientists1 shows 
that he was well aware of the importance
 of his own work4 ,but1 as might be     
expected1 the voice of a socialist      
artisan did not penetrate to the lecture
 hall of the academies4 ,it was not     
until much later that similar views     
appeared among the natural scientists4  
,and now at last the most prominent     
theorists of natural science have       
adopted the view that explaining        
signifies nothing else but simply and   
completely describing the processes of  
nature4  ,by this theory of             
understanding ,dietzgen has made it     
plainly perceptible why the dialectic   
method is an indispensable auxiliary in 
the quest for an explanation of the     

nature of understanding4 ,the mind is   
the faculty of generalization4 ,it forms
 out of concrete realities1 which are a 
continuous and unbounded stream in      
perpetual motion1 abstract conceptions  
that are essentially rigid1 bounded1    
stable1 and unchangeable4 ,this gives   
rise to the contradiction that our      
conceptions must always adapt themselves
 to new realities without ever fully    
succeeding2 the contradiction that they 
represent the living by what is dead1   
the infinite by what is finite1 and that
 they are themselves finite though      
partaking of the nature of the infinite4
 ,this contradiction is understood and  
reconciled by the insight into the      
nature of the faculty of understanding1 
which is simultaneously a faculty of    
combination and of distinction1 which   
forms a limited part of the universe and
 yet encompasses everything1 and it is  
furthermore solved by the resulting     
penetration of the nature of the world4 
,the world is a unity of the infinitely 

numerous multitude of phenomena and     
comprises within itself all             
contradictions1 makes them relative and 
equalizes them4 ,within its circle there
 are no absolute opposites4 ,the mind   
merely constructs them1 because it has  
not only the faculty of generalization  
but also of distinguishing4 ,the        
practical solution of all contradictions
 is the revolutionary practice of       
infinitely progressing science which    
moulds old conceptions into new ones1   
rejects some1 substitutes others in     
their place1 improves1 connects and     
dissects1 still striving for an always  
greater unity and an always wider       
differentiation4  ,by means of this     
theory of understanding1 dialectic      
materialism also furnishes the means for
 the solution of the riddles of the     
world 7,weltraetsel74 ,not that it      
solves all these riddles2 on the        
contrary1 it says explicitly that this  
solution can be but the work of an ever 
advancing scientific research4 ,but it  

solves them in so far as it deprives    
them of the character of a mysterious   
enigma and transforms them into a       
practical problem1 the solution of which
 we are approaching by an infinite      
progression4 ,bourgeois thought cannot  
solve the riddles of the world4 ,a few  
years after the first publication of    
,dietzgen's work1 natural science in the
 person of ,du ,bois-,reymond           
acknowledged its incapacity by his      
,ignorabimus3 ,we shall never know4     
,proletarian philosophy1 in solving the 
riddle of the human mind1 gives us the  
assurance that there are no insoluble   
riddles before us4  ,in conclusion1     
,dietzgen in this work indicates the    
principles of a new ethics4 ,starting   
with the understanding that the origin  
of the ideas of good and bad is found in
 the needs of man1 and designating as   
really moral that which is generally    
useful1 he logically discovers that the 
essence of modern morality rests in its 
class interests4 ,at the same time1 a   

relative justification is accorded to   
these temporary ethics1 since they are  
the necessary products of definite      
social requirements4 ,the link between  
man and nature is formed by the process 
of social production carried on for the 
satisfaction of man's material wants4   
,so long as this link was a fetter1 it  
bound man by a misapprehended           
supernatural ethics4 ,but once the      
process of social labor is understood1  
regulated and controlled1 then this     
fetter is dropped and the place of      
ethics is taken by a reasonable         
understanding of the general wants4     
999999999999999999999999  ,the          
philosophical works of ,dietzgen do not 
seem to have1 until now1 exerted any    
perceptible influence on the socialist  
movement4 ,while they may have found    
many a silent admirer and contributed   
much toward a clearing up of their      
thoughts1 yet the importance of his     
writings for the theory of our movement 
has not been realized4 ,but this is not 

a matter for great surprise4 ,in the    
first decade after their publication1   
even the economic works of ,marx1 the   
value of which was much more apparent1  
were little appreciated4 ,the movement  
developed spontaneously1 and the        
,marxian theory could exert a useful and
 determining influence only by means of 
the clear foresight of a few leaders4   
,hence it is no wonder that the         
philosophy of the proletariat1 which is 
less easily and directly applicable than
 our economics1 did not receive much    
attention4 ,the political maturity of   
the ,german working class1 which was    
farthest advanced in the theories of the
 international movement1 did not develop
 to the point of adopting ,marxian      
theses as party principles1 until after 
the abolition of the anti-socialist     
laws4 ,but even then they were for most 
of the spokesmen of the party rather    
concise formulations of a few practical 
convictions than the outcome of a       
thorough scientific training and        

understanding4 ,it was no doubt the     
great expansion of the party and of its 
activity which demanded all their powers
 for its organization and management1   
that led the younger intellectuals of   
the party to devote themselves to       
practical work and to neglect the       
theoretical studies4 ,this neglect has  
bitterly avenged itself in the          
theoretical schisms of the subsequent   
years4  ,the decrepit condition of      
capitalism is now evidenced very plainly
 by the decay of the bourgeois parties1 
so that the practical work of the       
socialist party is in itself sufficient 
to attract every one who has an         
independent turn of mind and a capacity 
for deep feeling4 ,but under the present
 circumstances1 such a transition was   
not accompanied by a proletarian        
world-philosophy acquired by painstaking
 study4 ,instead of such a philosophy1  
we are confronted by a critique of      
socialist science from the bourgeois    
standpoint4 ,marxism is measured by the 

standard of the immature bourgeois      
theory of understanding1 and the        
,neokantians1 unconscious of the        
positive outcome of philosophy of the   
past century1 are trying to connect     
socialism with ,kantian ethics4 ,some   
even speak of a reconciliation with     
,christianity and a renunciation of     
materialism4  ,this bourgeois method of 
thought1 which1 being anti-dialectic and
 anti-materialistic1 is opposed to      
,marxism1 has acquired some practical   
importance in the socialistic movement  
of countries where by lack of economical
 development the class-consciousness of 
the workers is hindered by relics of the
 narrow-minded views of the class of    
little producers--as in ,france and     
,italy under the name of reformism4 ,in 
,germany where it could not obtain much 
practical importance it presented itself
 mostly as a theoretical struggle       
against ,marxism under the name of      
revisionism4 ,it combines bourgeois     
philosophy and anti-capitalist          

disposition and takes the place formerly
 occupied by anarchism1 and1 like       
anarchism1 it again represents in many  
respects the little bourgeois tendencies
 in the fight against capitalism4 ,under
 these circumstances1 a closer study of 
,dietzgen's philosophical works becomes 
a necessity4  ,marx has disclosed the   
nature of the social process of         
production1 and its fundamental         
significance as a lever of social       
development4 ,but he has not fully      
explained1 by what means the nature of  
the human mind is involved in this      
material process4 ,owing to the great   
traditional influence exerted by        
bourgeois thought1 this weak spot in    
,marxism is one of the main reasons for 
the incomplete and erroneous            
understanding of ,marxian theories4     
,this shortcoming of ,marxism is cured  
by ,dietzgen1 who made the nature of the
 mind the special object of his         
investigations4 ,for this reason1 a     
thorough study of ,dietzgen's           

philosophical writings is an important  
and indispensable auxiliary for the     
understanding of the fundamental works  
of ,marx and ,engels4 ,dietzgen's work  
demonstrates that the proletariat has a 
mighty weapon not only in proletarian   
economics1 but also in proletarian      
philosophy4 ,let us learn to wield these
 weapons6  ,,anton ,,pannekoek4         
,leyden1 ,holland1 ,december1 #aijb4    
,the ,nature of ,human ,brain ,work  ,a 
,renewed ,critique of ,pure and         
,practical ,reason  ,,by ,a ,,manual    
,,worker  ,translated by ,ernest        
,untermann     ,,the ,,nature ,,of      
,,human ,,brain ,,work     ,,preface    
,it may not be amiss here to say a few  
words to the kind reader and the unkind 
critic in regard to the personal        
relation of the author to the present   
work4 ,the first objection which ,i     
anticipate will be aimed at my lack of  
scientific learning which is shown      
indirectly rather1 between the lines1   
than in the work itself4 ,how dare you1 

,i ask myself1 come before the public   
with your statements on a subject1 which
 has been treated by such heroes of     
science as ,aristotle1 ,kant1 ,fichte1  
,hegel1 etc41 without being thoroughly  
familiar with all the works of your     
famous predecessors8  ,at best1 will you
 not merely repeat what has long since  
been accomplished8  ,in reply1 ,i wish  
to say that the seeds sown by philosophy
 in the soil of science have long since 
blossomed and borne fruit4 ,the product 
of history develops historically1 grows 
and passes away1 in order to live       
eternally in another form4 ,the original
 deed1 the original work1 is fertile    
only in the contact with the conditions 
and relations of the time in which it is
 born4 ,but it finally becomes an empty 
shell1 when it has yielded its kernel to
 history4 ,whatever of a positive nature
 was produced by the science of the     
past1 lives no longer in the words of   
the author1 but has become more than    
spirit1 has become flesh and blood in   

present science4 ,in order1 e4 g41 to   
know the products of physics and produce
 something new in its field1 it is not  
necessary to first study the history of 
this science1 nor derive the hitherto   
discovered laws from their fundamental  
source4 ,on the contrary1 historical    
research might only be an obstacle to   
the solution of a definite physical     
problem1 for concentrated strength will 
naturally accomplish more than divided  
strength4 ,in this sense1 ,i consider my
 lack of other knowledge an advantage1  
because ,i am thus enabled to devote    
myself so much more intensely to my     
special object4 ,i have striven hard to 
study this object and to learn          
everything which is known about it in my
 time4 ,the history of philosophy has in
 a certain sense been repeated in the   
development of my individuality1 since  
,i speculated from my earliest youth on 
the means of satisfying my longing for a
 consistent and systematic conception of
 the world1 and ,i believe ,i have      

finally found this satisfaction in the  
inductive understanding of the human    
faculty of thought4  ,note that it is   
not the faculty of thought in its       
various manifestations1 not the         
different forms of it1 but its general  
form1 its general nature1 that satisfied
 me and that ,i propose to discuss4 ,my 
object is then very plain and           
circumscribed1 indeed it is so simple1  
that ,i had difficulties in showing its 
nature from different points of view and
 was compelled to resort to numerous    
repetitions4 ,at the same time1 the     
question concerning the nature of the   
mind is a popular one1 which is not     
limited to professional philosophy1 but 
concerns all sciences4 ,and whatever the
 history of science has contributed     
towards the solution of this question1  
must be generally alive in the          
scientific conceptions of the present4  
,i could well be satisfied with this    
source4  ,i may1 then1 confess in spite 
of my authorship1 that ,i am not a      

professor of philosophy1 but a mechanic 
by profession4 ,if any one should feel  
justified in telling me3 ,shoemaker1    
stick to your last6 ,i would reply to   
him with ,karl ,marx3 ,your non plus    
ultra professional wisdom became        
enormously foolish from the moment when 
the watchmaker ,watt invented the steam 
engine1 the barber ,arkwright the loom1 
the jeweler ,fulton the steamship4      
,without classing myself among these    
great men1 ,i can strive to emulate     
them4 ,besides1 the nature of my object 
is especially pertinent to the class1 a 
member of which ,i have the pleasure1 if
 not the honor1 of being4  ,i treat in  
this work of the faculty of thought as  
the organ of the general4 ,the oppressed
 fourth estate1 the working class1 is   
the true exponent of this organ1 the    
ruling classes being prevented by their 
special class interests from recognizing
 the demands of general reason4 ,our    
first consideration is1 of course1 the  
relation of our object to human         

conditions4 ,however1 so long as        
conditions are not equalized for men in 
general1 but vitiated by class          
interests1 our view of things is        
influenced by these class limitations4  
,a truly objective understanding        
requires a subjective theoretical       
freedom4 ,before ,copernicus saw the    
,earth was moving and the ,sun          
stationary1 he had to place himself     
outside of his terrestrial standpoint4  
,the faculty of thought1 having all     
relations for its object1 must abstract 
from all of them in order to grasp its  
own real nature4 ,since we can          
understand things only by means of      
thought1 we must abstract from          
everything in order to understand       
thought in general4 ,this task was too  
difficult1 so long as man was bound to  
some limited class standpoint4 ,not     
until historical development has        
proceeded to the point of striving at   
dissolution of the last society based on
 a ruling and a serving class1 can      

prejudices be overcome to the extent of 
enabling the faculty of understanding to
 grasp the nature of human brain        
activity in the abstract4 ,it is only a 
historical movement aiming at the direct
 and general liberty of the masses1 the 
new era of the fourth estate based on   
much misunderstood premises1 which can  
dispense with the spirit cult           
sufficiently to be enabled to expose the
 real author of every spook1 the pure   
mind4 ,the man of the fourth estate     
represents at last the pure man4 ,his   
interests are no longer mere class      
interests1 but mass interests1 interests
 of humanity4 ,this indicates that we   
are now approaching the end of a        
development in which the interests of   
the mass were dependent on the interests
 of a ruling class and in which humanity
 made progress not so much in spite of  
as by means of continuous oppression by 
,jewish patriarchs1 ,asiatic conquerors1
 antique slaveholders1 feudal barons1   
guildmasters1 modern capitalists and    

even capitalist ,caesars4 ,the class    
conditions of the past were inevitable  
in the general development4 ,now this   
development has arrived at a point where
 the mass becomes conscious of itself4  
,man has hitherto developed by class    
antagonism4 ,by this means he has now   
arrived at the point where he wants to  
develop himself consciously4 ,class     
antagonisms were phenomena of humanity4 
,the working class strives to abolish   
class antagonism in order that humanity 
itself may be a truth4  ,just as the    
,reformation was conditioned on the     
actual environment of the sixteenth     
century1 so1 like the discovery of the  
electric telegraph1 the research of the 
theory of human understanding is based  
on the actual conditions of the         
nineteenth century4 ,to this extent the 
contents of this little work are not an 
individual1 but a historical product4   
,in writing it1 ,i feel myself1 if ,i   
may use this mystic phrase1 as a mere   
organ of the idea4 ,only the form of    

presenting the subject is mine1 and ,i  
beg the kind reader to judge it         
leniently4 ,i ask that the reader may   
direct his or her silent or loud        
objections1 not against the form1 but   
against the substance of my remarks1 not
 to cling to the letter1 but to         
understand the spirit of my words4  ,if 
,i should not succeed in developing the 
idea1 and if my voice should thus be    
drowned in the hubbub of our overstocked
 book market1 ,i am nevertheless certain
 that the cause itself will find a more 
talented champion4  ,,joseph ,,dietzgen1
 ,tanner4  ,,siegburg1 ,may #ae1 #ahfi4 
,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,human ,,brain     
,,work     ,i4  ,,introduction          
,systematization is the essence and the 
general expression of the aggregate     
activity of science4 ,science seeks to  
classify and systematize the objects of 
the world for the understanding of our  
brain4 ,the scientific understanding of 
a certain language1 e4 g41 requires an  
orderly arrangement of that language in 

general categories and rules4 ,the      
science of agriculture does not simply  
wish to produce a good crop of potatoes1
 but to find a system for the methods of
 cultivation and thus to furnish the    
knowledge by which success in           
cultivation can be determined           
beforehand4 ,the practical result of all
 theory is to acquaint us with the      
system and method of its practice and   
thus to enable us to act in this world  
with a reasonable certainty of success4 
,experience is1 of course1 an           
indispensable condition for this        
purpose2 but it alone is not sufficient4
 ,only by means of empirically developed
 theories1 by science1 do we overcome   
the play of accident4 ,science gives us 
the conscious domination over things and
 unconditional security in handling     
them4  ,no one individual can know      
everything4 ,the capacity of the        
individual brain is no more adequate for
 the knowledge of everything that is    
necessary than the skill and strength of

 the individual's hands are sufficient  
to produce all he needs4 ,faith is      
indispensable to man1 but only faith in 
that which others know1 not in what they
 believe4 ,science is as much a social  
matter as material production4 ,one for 
all and all for one4  ,but just as there
 are some wants of the body which every 
one has to satisfy by himself1 so every 
one has to know certain scientific facts
 which are not the prerogative of any   
special science4  ,this is true of the  
faculty of human understanding4 ,the    
knowledge and study of this theory      
cannot be left to any particular guild4 
,lassalle justly says3 ,thinking itself 
has become a special trade in these days
 of division of labor1 and it has fallen
 into the worst hands1 those of our     
newspaper writers4 ,he thus urges us not
 to acquiesce in this appropriation any 
longer1 not to submit any more to the   
harangues of public opinion1 but to     
resume thinking for ourselves4 ,we may  
leave certain objects of scientific     

research to professionals1 but general  
thought is a public matter which every  
one should be required to attend to     
himself4  ,if we could place this       
general work of thinking on a scientific
 basis1 if we could find a theory of    
general thought1 if we were able to     
discover the means by which reason      
arrives at understanding1 if we could   
develop a method by which truth is      
produced scientifically1 then we should 
acquire for science in general and for  
our individual faculty of judgment the  
same certainty of success which we      
already possess in special fields of    
science4  ,kant says3 ,if it is not     
possible to harmonize the various       
co-operators on the question of the     
means by which their common aim is to be
 accomplished1 then we may safely infer 
that such a study is not yet on the     
secure road of science1 but will        
continue to grope in the dark4  ,now1 if
 we take a look at the sciences1 we find
 that there are many1 especially among  

the natural sciences1 which fulfill the 
requirements of ,kant1 agreeing         
unanimously and consciously on certain  
empirical knowledge and building further
 understanding on that4 ,there we know1 
as ,liebig says1 what is to be called a 
certain fact1 a conclusion1 a rule1 a   
law4 ,we have touchstones for all this1 
and every one makes use of them before  
making known the fruits of his labors4  
,the attempt to maintain any proposition
 by lawyer's tricks1 or the intention to
 make others believe anything that      
cannot be proven1 are immediately       
wrecked by the ethics of science4  ,not 
so in other fields1 where concrete and  
material things are left behind and     
abstract1 so-called philosophical1      
matters are taken up1 as1 for instance1 
questions of general conceptions of the 
world and of life1 of beginning and end1
 of the semblance and the essence of    
things1 of cause and effect1 of matter  
and force1 of might and right1 of wisdom
 of life1 of morality1 religion1 and    

politics4 ,here we find1 instead of     
irrefutable proofs1 mere lawyer's       
tricks1 an absence of reliable          
knowledge1 a mere groping amid          
contradictory opinions4  ,and it is     
precisely the prominent authorities of  
natural science who show by their       
disagreements on such matters that they 
are mere tyros in philosophy4 ,it       
follows1 then1 that the socalled ethics 
of science1 the touchstones of which the
 boast is made that they never fail in  
determining what is knowledge and what  
is mere conjecture1 are based on a      
purely instinctive practice1 not on a   
conscious theory of understanding4      
,although our time excels in diligent   
scientific research1 yet the numerous   
differences among scientists show that  
they are not capable of using their     
knowledge with a predetermined certainty
 of success4 ,otherwise1 how could      
misunderstandings arise8 ,whoever       
understands understanding1 cannot       
misunderstand4 ,it is only the absolute 

accuracy of astronomical computations   
which entitles astronomy to the name of 
a science4 ,a man who can figure is at  
least enabled to test whether his       
computation is right or wrong4 ,in the  
same way1 the general understanding of  
the process of thought must furnish us  
with the touchstone by which we can     
distinguish between understanding and   
misunderstanding1 knowledge and         
conjecture1 truth and error1 by general 
and irrefutable rules4 ,erring is human1
 but not scientific4 ,science being a   
human matter1 errors may exist          
eternally1 but the understanding of the 
process of thought will enable us quite 
as well to prevent errors from being    
offered and accepted as scientific      
truths as an understanding of           
mathematics enables us to eliminate     
errors from our computations4  ,it      
sounds paradoxical and yet it is true3  
,whoever knows the general rule by which
 error may be distinguished from truth1 
and knows it as well as the rule in     

grammar by which a noun is distinguished
 from a verb1 will be able to           
distinguish in both cases with equal    
certainty4 ,scientists as well as       
scribes have ever embarrassed one       
another by the question3 ,what is truth8
 ,this question has been an essential   
object of philosophy for thousands of   
years4 ,this question1 like philosophy  
itself1 is finally settled by the       
understanding of the faculty of human   
thought4 ,in other words1 the question  
of what constitutes truth is identical  
with the question of the distinction    
between truth and error4 ,philosophy is 
the science which has been engaged in   
solving this riddle1 and the final      
solution of the riddle by the clear     
understanding of the process of thought 
also solves the question of the nature  
of philosophy4 ,hence a short glance at 
the nature and development of philosophy
 may well serve as an introduction to   
our study4  ,as the word philosophy is  
connected with various meanings1 ,i     

state at the outset that ,i am referring
 only to socalled speculative           
philosophy4 ,i dispense with frequent   
quotations and notes of the sources of  
my knowledge1 as anything that ,i may   
say in this respect is so well          
established that we can afford to       
discard all scientific by-work4  ,if we 
apply the above-named test of ,kant to  
speculative philosophy it appears to be 
more the playground of different        
opinions than of science4 ,the          
philosophical celebrities and classic   
authorities are not even in accord on   
the question3 ,what is philosophy and   
what is its aim8 ,for this reason1 and  
in order not to increase the difference 
by adding my own opinion1 ,i regard     
everything as philosophy that calls     
itself by that name1 and we select from 
the voluminous literature of philosophy 
that which is common and general in all 
philosophers1 without taking any notice 
of their special peculiarities4  ,by    
this empirical method we find first of  

all that philosophy is originally not a 
specialized science working with other  
sciences1 but a generic name for all    
knowledge1 the essence of all science1  
just as art is the essence of the       
various arts4 ,whoever made knowledge1  
whoever made brain work his essential   
occupation1 every thinker without regard
 to the contents of his thoughts1 was   
originally a philosopher4  ,but when    
with the progressive increase of human  
knowledge1 the various departments      
detached themselves from the mother of  
all wisdom1 especially since the origin 
of natural sciences1 philosophy became  
known1 not so much by its content as by 
its form4 ,all other sciences are       
distinguished by their various objects1 
while philosophy is marked by its own   
method4 ,of course1 it also has its     
object and purpose4 ,it desires to      
understand the universal whole1 the     
cosmos4 ,but it is not this object1 this
 aim1 by which philosophy is            
characterized2 it is rather the manner  

in which this object is accomplished4   
,all other sciences occupy themselves   
with special things1 and if they        
consider the universe at all1 they do so
 only in its bearing on the special     
objects of their study1 the parts of    
which the universe is composed4         
,alexander von ,humboldt says in his    
introduction to his ,cosmos that he is  
limiting himself to an empirical        
consideration1 to a physical research1  
which seeks to elucidate the uniformity 
and unity by means of the great variety4
 ,and all inductive sciences arrive at  
general conclusions and conceptions only
 by way of their occupation with special
 and concrete things4 ,for this reason  
they claim that their conclusions are   
based on facts4  ,speculative philosophy
 proceeds by the opposite method4       
,thought1 the object of its study1 may  
be some special question1 yet it does   
not follow this up in the concrete4 ,it 
rejects as fallacious the evidence of   
the senses1 the physical experience     

gained by means of the eye and ear1 hand
 and brain1 and limits itself to pure   
and absolutely abstract thought1 in     
order to understand thus by the unit of 
human reason the multiplicity of the    
universe4 ,in seeking for an answer to  
the question3 ,what is philosophy8 which
 question we are specially discussing   
just now1 speculative philosophy would  
not start out from its actual material  
form1 from its wooden and pigskin       
volumes1 from its great and small       
essays1 in order to arrive at a         
conception of its object4 ,on the       
contrary1 the speculative philosopher   
turns to introspection and looks in the 
depths of his own mind for the true     
concept of philosophy4 ,and by this     
standard he separates the impression of 
his senses into true or erroneous4 ,this
 speculative method has hardly ever     
dealt in tangible things1 unless we     
recognize this philosophical method in  
every unscientific concept of nature    
which populated the world with spooks4  

,the rudiments of scientific speculation
 occasionally dealt with the course of  
the sun and the globe4 ,but since       
inductive astronomy cultivates these    
fields with greater success1 speculative
 philosophy limits itself entirely to   
abstract discussions4 ,and in this line 
of research as well as in all others it 
is characterized by the production of   
its results out of the idea or the      
concept4  ,for empirical science1 for   
the inductive method1 the multiplicity  
of experiences is the first basis1 and  
thought the second4 ,speculative        
philosophy1 on the other hand1 seeks to 
arrive at scientific truth without the  
help of experience4 ,it rejects the     
socalled transient facts as a foundation
 of philosophical understanding1 and    
declares that it should be absolute1    
exalted above time and space4           
,speculative philosophy does not wish to
 be scientific physics1 but metaphysics4
 ,it regards it as its task to find by  
pure reason1 and without the assistance 

of experience1 a system1 a logic1 or a  
theory of science1 by which everything  
worth knowing is supposed to be reeled  
off logically and systematically1 in    
about the same way in which we derive   
grammatically the various forms of a    
word from its root4 ,but the physical   
sciences operate on the assumption that 
our faculty of understanding1 to use a  
familiar illustration1 resembles a piece
 of soft wax which receives impressions 
from outside1 or a clean slate on which 
experience writes its lines4            
,speculative philosophy1 on the other   
hand1 assumes that certain ideas are    
innate and may be dipped and produced   
from the depths of the mind by means of 
thought4  ,the difference between       
speculative and inductive science is    
that between fantasy and sound common   
sense4 ,the latter produces its ideas by
 means of the outer world1 by the help  
of experience1 while fantasy gets its   
product from the depth of the mind1 out 
of itself4 ,but this method of          

production is only seemingly one-sided4 
,a thinker can no more think            
transcendental thoughts which are beyond
 the reach of experience1 than a painter
 can invent transcendental pictures1    
transcendental forms4 ,just as fantasy  
creates angels by a combination of man  
and bird1 or mermaids by a composition  
of woman and fish1 so all other products
 of fantasy1 though seemingly derived   
out of itself1 are in fact only         
arbitrarily arranged impressions of the 
outer world4 ,reason operates with      
numbers and orders1 time and measures1  
and other means of experience1 while    
fantasy reproduces the experiences      
without regard to law and in an         
arbitrary form4  ,the longing for       
knowledge has been the cause of         
speculative attempts to explain the     
phenomena of life and nature at a time  
when lack of experience and observation 
made inductive understanding impossible4
 ,experience was then supplemented by   
speculation4 ,in later times1 when      

experience had grown1 previous          
speculation was generally recognized as 
erroneous4 ,but it nevertheless required
 thousands of years of repeated         
disappointments on one side and numerous
 brilliant successes of the inductive   
method on the other1 before these       
speculative hobbies came into disfavor4 
,fantasy has certainly a positive power1
 and speculative intuition1 derived from
 analogy1 very often precedes empirical 
and inductive understanding4 ,but we    
must remain aware of the fact that so   
much is assumption and so much actual   
scientific knowledge4 ,conscious        
intuition stimulates scientific         
research1 while pseudo-science closes   
the door to inductive research4 ,the    
acquisition of the clear understanding  
of the distinction between speculation  
and knowledge is a historical process1  
the beginning and end of which coincides
 with the beginning and end of          
speculative philosophy4  ,in ancient    
times1 common sense operated in common  

with fantasy1 the inductive with the    
speculative method4 ,the discussion of  
their differences begins only with the  
understanding of the numerous           
disappointments caused by the still     
inexperienced judgment which have       
prevented an unobstructed view of the   
question up to modern times4 ,but       
instead of attributing these            
disappointments to lack of              
understanding1 they were charged to the 
account of the imperfection of the      
senses4 ,the senses were called         
impostors and material phenomena untrue 
images4 ,who has not heard the lament   
about the unreliability of the senses8  
,the misunderstanding of nature and of  
its phenomena led to a serious rupture  
with sense perceptions4 ,the            
philosophers had deceived themselves and
 thought they had been deceived by the  
senses4 ,in their anger they turned     
disdainfully away from the world of     
sensations4 ,with the same uncritical   
faith with which the semblance had      

hitherto been accepted as truth1 now    
uncritical doubt rejected the truth of  
sensations altogether4 ,research        
abandoned nature and experience1 and    
began the work of speculative philosophy
 by pure thought4  ,but no6 ,science did
 not permit itself to be entirely led   
astray from the path of common sense1   
from the way of truth of sense          
perceptions4 ,natural science soon      
stepped into the breach1 and its        
brilliant successes gained for the      
inductive method the consciousness of   
its fertility1 while on the other hand  
philosophy searched for a system by     
which all the great general truths might
 be opened up without specialized study1
 without sense perception and           
observation1 by mere reason alone4  ,now
 we have a more than sufficient quantity
 of such speculative systems4 ,if we    
measure them with the aforementioned    
standard of unanimousness1 we find that 
philosophy agrees only on its           
disagreements4 ,in consequence1 the     

history of speculative philosophy1      
unlike the history of other sciences1   
consists less of a gradual accumulation 
of knowledge1 than of a series of       
unsuccessful attempts to solve the      
general riddles of nature and life by   
pure thought1 without the help of the   
objects and experience of the outer     
world4 ,the most daring attempt in this 
line1 the most artificial structure of  
thought1 was completed by ,hegel in the 
beginning of the nineteenth century4 ,to
 use a common expression1 he became as  
famous in the world of science as       
,napoleon ,i did in the world of        
politics4 ,but ,hegelian philosophy has 
not stood the test of time4 ,haym1 in   
his work entitled ,hegel and ,his ,time1
 says of ,hegelian philosophy that it   
was pushed aside by the progress of the 
world and by living history4  ,the      
outcome of philosophy up to that time1  
then1 was a declaration of its own      
impotence4 ,nevertheless1 we do not     
underestimate the fact that a work      

occupying the best brains for thousands 
of years surely contained some positive 
element4 ,and in fact1 speculative      
philosophy has a history1 which is not  
merely a series of unsuccessful         
attempts1 but also a living development4
 ,however1 it is less the object of its 
study1 less the logical world system1   
which developed1 than its method4       
,every positive science has a material  
object1 a beginning in the outer world1 
a premise on which its understanding is 
based4 ,every empirical science has for 
its fundament some material of the      
senses1 some given object1 on which its 
understanding is dependent1 and thus it 
becomes impure4 ,speculative philosophy 
seeks a pure1 absolute1 understanding4  
,it wishes to understand by pure reason1
 without any material1 without any      
experience4 ,it takes its departure from
 the enthusiastic conviction of the     
superiority of understanding and        
knowledge over experience gained by     
sense perceptions4 ,for this reason it  

wishes to leave experience entirely     
aside in favor of absolutely pure       
understanding4 ,its object is truth2 not
 concrete truth1 not the truth of this  
or that thing1 but truth in general1    
truth in itself4 ,the speculative       
systems seek after an absolute          
beginning1 an indubitably               
self-supporting starting point1 from    
which they may determine the absolutely 
indubitable4 ,the speculative systems   
are thus by their own mentality         
perfectly complete and selfsufficient   
systems4 ,every speculative system found
 its end in the subsequent knowledge    
that its totality1 its selfsufficiency1 
its absoluteness1 was imaginary1 that it
 could be determined empirically and    
externally like all other knowledge1    
that it was not a philosophical system1 
but a relative and empirical attempt at 
understanding4 ,speculation finally     
dissolved into the knowledge that       
understanding is by its very nature     
impure1 that the organ of philosophy1   

the faculty of understanding cannot     
begin its studies without a given point 
of departure1 that science is not       
absolutely superior to experience1 but  
only so far as it can organize numerous 
experiences4 ,it followed from these    
premises that the object of philosophy  
can be a general and objective          
understanding1 or truth in itself1 only 
in so far as understanding or truth in  
general can be derived from given       
concrete objects4 ,in plain words1      
speculative philosophy was reduced to   
the unphilosophical science of the      
empirical faculty of understanding1 to  
the critique of reason4  ,modern        
conscious speculation takes its         
departure from the experienced          
difference between semblance and truth4 
,it denies all sense phenomena in order 
to find truth by thinking1 without being
 deceived by any semblance4 ,the        
subsequent philosophers1 however1 found 
every time that the truths of their     
predecessors1 gained by this method1    

were not what they pretended to be1 but 
that their positive result consisted    
simply in having advanced the science of
 the thought process to a certain       
extent4 ,by denying the actuality of the
 senses1 by endeavoring to separate     
thought from all sense perceptions1 by  
isolating it1 so to say1 from its       
sensory cover1 speculative philosophy1  
more than any other science1 laid bare  
the structure of the mind4 ,the more    
this philosophy advanced in time1 the   
more it developed in its historical     
course1 the more classically and        
strikingly did this kernel of its work  
spring into view4 ,after the repeated   
creation of giant fantasmagorias1 it    
found its solution in the positive      
knowledge that socalled pure            
philosophical thought1 abstracting from 
all concrete contents1 is nothing but   
thoughtless thought1 thought without any
 real object back of it1 and produces   
mere fantasmagorias4 ,this process of   
speculative deception and scientific    

exposure was continued up to recent     
times4 ,finally the solution of the main
 question1 and the solution of          
speculation1 was introduced with the    
following words of ,feuerbach3 ,my      
philosophy is no philosophy4  ,the long 
story of speculative work was finally   
reduced to the understanding of reason1 
of the intellect1 the mind1 to the      
exposure of those mysterious operations 
which we call thinking4  ,the secret of 
the processes by which the truths of    
understanding are produced1 the         
ignorance of the fact that every thought
 requires an object1 a premise1 was the 
cause of the idle speculative wanderings
 which we find registered in the history
 of philosophy4 ,the same secret is     
today the cause of those numerous       
speculative mistakes which we observe in
 passing over the words and works of    
naturalists4 ,their knowledge and       
understanding is far developed1 but only
 so far as it refers to tangible        
objects4 ,the moment they touch upon    

abstract discussions1 they offer        
lawyers' proofs in place of objective   
facts4 ,for although they know          
intuitively and in a concrete case that 
this is a truth1 that a conclusion1 and 
that a rule1 they do not apply this     
knowledge in general with consciousness 
and theoretical consistency4 ,the       
successes of natural science have taught
 them to operate the instrument of      
thought1 the mind1 instinctively4 ,but  
they lack the systematic understanding  
which operates with conscious and       
predetermined certainty4 ,they ignore   
the outcome of speculative philosophy4  
,it will be our task to set forth in a  
short summary what speculative          
philosophy has unconsciously produced of
 a positive nature by a tedious process1
 in other words1 to explain the general 
nature of the thought process4 ,we shall
 see that the understanding of this     
process will furnish us with the means  
of solving scientifically the general   
riddles of nature and of life4 ,and thus

 we shall learn how that fundamental and
 systematic world conception is         
developed which was the long coveted    
goal of speculative philosophy4     ,,ii
  ,,pure ,,reason ,,or ,,the ,,faculty  
,,of ,,thought ,,in ,,general   ,when   
speaking of food in general1 we may     
mention fruits1 cereals1 vegetables1    
meat and bread and classify them all1 in
 spite of their difference1 under this  
one head4 ,in the same way1 we use1 in  
this work1 the terms reason1            
consciousness1 intellect1 knowledge1    
discernment1 understanding1 as referring
 to the same general thing4 ,for we are 
discussing the general nature of the    
thought process rather than its special 
forms4  ,no intelligent thinker of our  
day1 says a modern physiologist1        
pretends to look for the seat of the    
intellectual powers in the blood1 as did
 the ancient ,greeks1 or in the pineal  
gland1 as was the case in the middle    
ages4 ,instead we have all become       
convinced that the central nerve system 

is the organic center of the            
intellectual functions of the brain4    
,yes1 true enough1 thinking is a        
function of the brain and nerve center1 
just as writing is a function of the    
hand4 ,but the study of the anatomy of  
the hand can no more solve the question3
 ,what is writing8 than the             
physiological study of the brain can    
bring us nearer to the solution of the  
question3 ,what is thought8 ,with the   
dissecting knife1 we may kill1 but we   
cannot discover the mind4 ,the          
understanding that thought is a product 
of the brain takes us closer to the     
solution of our problem1 in as much as  
it draws it into the bright light of    
reality and out of the domain of fantasy
 in which the ghosts dwell4 ,mind       
thereby loses the character of a        
transcendental incomprehensible being   
and appears as a bodily function4       
,thinking is a function of the brain    
just as walking is a function of the    
legs4 ,we perceive thought and mind just

 as clearly with our senses as we do    
pain and other feelings4 ,thought is    
felt by us as a subjective process      
taking place inside of us4 ,according to
 its contents this process varies every 
moment and with each person1 but        
according to its form it is the same    
everywhere4 ,in other words1 in the     
thought process1 as in all processes1 we
 make a distinction between the special 
or concrete and the general or abstract4
 ,the general purpose of thought is     
understanding4 ,we shall see later that 
the simplest conception1 or any idea for
 that matter1 is of the same general    
nature as the most perfect              
understanding4  ,thought and            
understanding cannot be without         
subjective contents any more than       
without an object which suggests        
individual reflection4 ,thought is work1
 and like every other work it requires  
an object to which it is applied4 ,the  
statements3 ,i do1 ,i work1 ,i think1   
must be completed by an answer to the   

question3 ,what are you doing1 working1 
thinking8  ,every definite idea1 all    
actual thought1 is identical with its   
content1 but not with its object4 ,my   
desk as a picture in my mind is         
identical with my idea of it4 ,but my   
desk outside of my brain is a separate  
object and distinct from my idea4 ,the  
idea is to be distinguished from        
thinking only as a part of the thought  
process1 while the object of my thought 
exists as a separate entity4  ,we make a
 distinction between thinking and being4
 ,we distinguish between the object of  
sense perception and its mental image4  
,nevertheless the intangible idea is    
also material and real4 ,i perceive my  
idea of a desk just as plainly as the   
desk itself4 ,true1 if ,i choose to call
 only tangible things material1 then    
ideas are not material4 ,but in that    
case the scent of a rose and the heat of
 a stove are not material4 ,it would be 
better to call thoughts sense           
perceptions4 ,but if it is objected that

 this would be an incorrect use of the  
word1 because language distinguishes    
material and mental things1 then we     
dispense with the word material and call
 thought real4 ,mind is as real as the  
tangible table1 as the visible light1 as
 the audible sound4 ,while the idea of  
these things is different from the      
things themselves1 yet it has that in   
common with them that it is as real as  
they4 ,mind is not any more different   
from a table1 a light1 a sound1 than    
these things differ among themselves4   
,we do not deny that there is a         
difference4 ,we merely emphasize that   
they have the same general nature in    
common4 ,i hope the reader will not     
misunderstand me henceforth1 when ,i    
call the faculty of thought a material  
quality1 a phenomenon of sense          
perception4  ,every perception of the   
senses is based on some object4 ,in     
order that heat may be real1 there must 
be an object1 something else which is   
heated4 ,the active cannot exist without

 the passive4 ,the visible cannot exist 
without the faculty of sight1 nor the   
faculty of sight without visible things4
 ,so is the faculty of thought a        
phenomenon1 but it can never exist in   
itself1 it must always be based on some 
sense perception4 ,thought appears1 like
 all other phenomena1 in connection with
 an object4 ,the function of the brain  
is no more a pure process than the      
function of the eye1 the scent of a     
flower1 the heat of a stove1 or the     
touch of a table4 ,the fact that a table
 may be seen1 heard1 or felt1 is due as 
much to its own nature as to that of    
another object with which it enters into
 some relation4  ,but while each        
function is limited by its own separate 
line of objects1 while the function of  
the eye serves only for the perception  
of the visible1 the hand for the        
tangible1 while walking finds an object 
in the space it crosses1 thought1 on the
 other hand1 has everything for its     
object4 ,everything may be the object of

 understanding4 ,thought is not limited 
to any special object4 ,every phenomenon
 may be the object and the content of   
thought4 ,more than this1 we can only   
perceive anything when it becomes the   
object of our brain activity4           
,everything is therefore the object and 
content of thought4 ,the faculty of     
thought may be exerted quite generally  
on all objects4  ,we said a moment ago  
that everything may be perceived1 but we
 now modify this to the effect that only
 perceivable things may be perceived4   
,only the knowable can be the object of 
knowledge1 only the thinkable the object
 of thought4 ,to this extent the faculty
 of thought is limited1 for it cannot   
replace reading1 hearing1 feeling1 and  
all other innumerable activities of the 
world of sensations4 ,we do1 indeed1    
perceive all objects1 but no object may 
be exhaustively perceived1 known1 or    
understood4 ,in other words1 the objects
 are not wholly dissolved in the        
understanding4 ,seeing requires         

something that is visible1 something    
which is1 therefore1 more than seeing4  
,in the same way1 hearing requires      
something that can be heard1 thinking an
 object that can be thought of1         
something which is more than our        
thoughts1 something still outside of our
 consciousness4 ,we shall learn later on
 how we arrive at the knowledge that we 
see1 hear1 feel1 and think of objects1  
and not merely of subjective            
impressions4  ,by means of thought we   
become aware of all things in a twofold 
manner1 viz41 outside in reality and    
inside in thought1 in conception4 ,it is
 easy to demonstrate that the things    
outside are different from the things in
 our thoughts4 ,in their actual form1 in
 their real dimensions1 they cannot     
enter into our heads4 ,our brain does   
not assimilate the things themselves1   
but only their images1 their general    
outlines4 ,the imagined tree is only a  
general object4 ,the real tree is       
different from any other4 ,and though ,i

 may have a picture of some special tree
 in my head1 yet the real tree is still 
as different from its conception as the 
special is different from the general4  
,the infinite variety of things1 the    
innumerable wealth of their properties1 
has no room in our heads4  ,i repeat1   
then1 that we become aware of the outer 
world in a twofold way1 viz41 in a      
concrete1 tangible1 manifold form1 and  
in an abstract form1 which is mental and
 unitary4 ,to our senses the world      
appears as a variety of forms4 ,our     
brains combine them as a unit4 ,and what
 is true of the world1 holds good of    
every one of its parts4 ,a              
sense-perceived unit is a nonentity4    
,even the atom of a drop of water or the
 atom of any chemical element1 is       
divisible1 so long as it exists at all1 
and its parts are different and         
distinct4 ,a is not ,b4 ,but the        
concept1 the faculty of thought1 makes  
of every tangible or sense-perceived    
part an abstract whole and conceives of 

every whole or quantity as a part of the
 abstract world unit4 ,in order to      
understand the things in their entirety1
 we must take them practically and      
theoretically1 with body and mind4 ,with
 the body we can grasp only the bodily1 
the tangible1 with the mind only the    
mental1 the thinkable4 ,things also     
possess mental quality4 ,mind is        
material and things are mental4 ,mind   
and matter are real only in their       
inter-relations4  ,can we see the things
 themselves8 ,no1 we see only the       
effects of things on our eyes4 ,we do   
not taste the vinegar1 but the relation 
of the vinegar to our tongue4 ,the      
result is the sensation of acidity4 ,the
 vinegar is acid only in relation to our
 tongue4 ,in relation to iron it acts as
 a solvent4 ,in the cold it becomes     
hard1 in the heat liquid4 ,it acts      
differently on different objects with   
which it enters into relations of time  
and space4 ,vinegar is a phenomenon1    
just as all things are4 ,but it never   

appears as vinegar by itself4 ,it always
 appears in connection with other       
phenomena4 ,every phenomenon is a       
product of a subject and an object4  ,in
 order that a thought may appear1 the   
brain or the faculty of thought is not  
sufficient in itself4 ,it requires1     
besides1 an object which suggests the   
thought4 ,from this relative nature of  
our topic it follows that in its        
treatment we cannot confine ourselves   
purely to it4 ,since reason1 or the     
faculty of thought1 never appears by    
itself1 but always in connection with   
other things1 we are continually        
compelled to pass from the faculty of   
thought to other things1 which are its  
objects1 and to treat of their          
connections4  ,just as the sight does   
not see the tree1 but only that which is
 visible of the tree1 so does the       
faculty of thought assimilate only the  
perceivable image of an object1 not the 
object itself4 ,a thought is a child    
begotten by the function of the brain in

 communion with some object4 ,in a      
thought is crystalized on one side the  
subjective faculty of thought1 and on   
the other the perceivable nature of an  
object4 ,every function of the mind     
presupposes some object by which it is  
caused and the spiritual image of which 
it is4 ,or vice versa1 the spiritual    
content of the mind is derived from some
 object which has its own existence and 
which is either seen or heard1 or       
smelled1 or tasted1 or felt1 in short1  
experienced4  ,referring back to the    
statement that seeing is limited to the 
visible qualities of some object1       
hearing to its audible qualities1 etc41 
while the faculty of thought has        
everything for its object1 we now       
understand this to mean that all objects
 have certain innumerable1 but concrete1
 qualities which are perceptible by our 
senses1 and in addition thereto the     
general spiritual quality of being      
thought of1 understood1 in short1 of    
being the object of our faculty of      

thought4  ,this mode of classifying all 
objects applies also to the faculty of  
thought itself4 ,the spirit1 or mind1 is
 a bodily function connected with the   
senses which appear in various forms4   
,mind is thought generated at different 
times in different brains by different  
objects through the instrumentality of  
the senses4 ,we may choose this mind as 
the object of special thought the same  
as all other things4 ,considered as an  
object1 mind is a manysided and         
sense-perceived fact which in connection
 with a special function of the brain   
generates the general concept of ,mind  
as the content of this special thought  
process4 ,the object of thought is      
distinguished from its contents in the  
same way in which every object is       
distinguished from its mental image4    
,the different kinds of motion perceived
 by the help of the senses are the      
object of a certain thought process and 
supply to it the idea of motion4 ,it is 
easier to understand that the mental    

image of some object perceived by the   
senses has a father and a mother1 being 
begotten by our faculty of thought by   
means of some sense-perceived object1   
than it is to grasp the existence of    
that trinity which is born when our     
present thought experiences its own     
existence and thus creates a conception 
of its own self4 ,this has the          
appearance of moving around in a circle4
 ,the object1 the content and the       
function of thought apparently coincide4
 ,reason deals with itself1 considers   
itself as an object and is its own      
content4 ,but nevertheless the          
distinction between an object and its   
concept1 though less evident1 is just as
 actual as in other cases4 ,it is only  
the habit of regarding matter and mind  
as fundamentally different things which 
conceals this truth4 ,the necessity to  
make a distinction compels us everywhere
 to discriminate between the object of  
sense perception and its mental concept4
 ,we are forced to do the same in the   

case of the faculty of thought1 and thus
 we find it necessary to give the name  
of ,mind to this special object of our  
sense perceptions4 ,such an ambiguity of
 terms cannot be entirely avoided in any
 science4 ,a reader who does not cling  
to words1 but rather seeks to grasp the 
meaning1 will easily realize that the   
difference between being and thinking   
applies also to the faculty of thought1 
that the fact of understanding is       
different from the understanding of     
understanding4 ,and since the           
understanding of understanding is again 
another fact1 it will be permitted to   
call all spiritual things facts or sense
 perceptions4  ,reason1 or the faculty  
of thought1 is therefore not a mystical 
object which produces the individual    
thought4 ,on the contrary1 it is a fact 
that certain individual thoughts are the
 product of perception gained in contact
 with certain objects and that these in 
connection with a certain brain         
operation produce the concept of reason4

 ,reason as well as all other things of 
which we become aware has a two-fold    
existence3 one as a phenomenon or       
sense-perception1 the other as a        
concept4 ,the concept of any thing      
presupposes a certain sense-perception  
of that thing1 and so does the concept  
of reason4 ,since all men think as a    
matter of fact1 every one has himself   
perceived reason as a part of reality1  
as a phenomenon1 sense-perception or    
fact4  ,our object1 reason1 by virtue of
 the fact that it partakes of the nature
 of the senses1 has the faculty of      
transforming the speculative method1    
which tries to dip understanding out of 
the depths of the spirit without the    
help of sense-perception1 into the      
inductive method1 and vice versa of     
transforming the inductive method1 which
 desires to arrive at conclusions1      
concepts1 or understanding exclusively  
by means of sense-perception1 into the  
speculative method1 by virtue of its    
simultaneous spiritual nature4 ,our     

problem is to analyze the concept of    
thought1 or of the faculty of thought1  
or of reason1 of knowing1 of science1 by
 means of thought4  ,to produce thoughts
 and to analyze them is the same thing  
inasmuch as both actions are functions  
of the brain4 ,both have the same       
nature4 ,but they are different to the  
same extent that instinct differs from  
consciousness4 ,man does not think      
originally because he wants to1 but     
because he must4 ,ideas are produced    
instinctively1 involuntarily4 ,in order 
to become fully aware of them1 to place 
them within the grasp of knowing and    
willing1 we must analyze them4 ,from the
 experience of walking1 for instance1 we
 derive the idea of walking4 ,to analyze
 this idea means to solve the question1 
what is walking generally considered1   
what is the general nature of walking8  
,we may answer3 ,walking is a rythmical 
motion from one place to another1 and   
thus we raise the instinctive idea to   
the position of a conscious analyzed    

idea4 ,an object is not consciously1    
theoretically1 understood1 until it has 
been analyzed4 ,in examining what       
elements constitute the concept of      
walking1 we find that the general       
attribute of that experience which we   
agree in calling walking is a rythmical 
motion4 ,in actual experience steps may 
be long or short1 may be taken by two   
feet or by more1 in brief may be varied4
 ,but as a concept walking is simply a  
rythmical motion1 and the analysis of   
this concept furnishes us with the      
conscious understanding of this fact4   
,the concept of light existed long      
before science analyzed it1 before it   
was understood that undulations of the  
ether form the elements which constitute
 the concept of light4 ,instinctive and 
analytical ideas differ in the same way 
in which the thoughts of every day life 
differ from the thoughts of science4    
,the analysis of any idea and the       
theoretical analysis of any object1 or  
of the thing which suggested the idea1  

is one and the same4 ,every idea        
corresponds to some real object4 ,ludwig
 ,feuerbach has demonstrated that even  
the concepts of ,god and immortality are
 reflections of real objects which can  
be perceived by the senses4 ,for the    
purpose of analyzing such ideas as      
animal1 light1 friendship1 man1 etc41   
the phenomena1 the objects1 such as     
animals1 friendships1 men1 and lights1  
are analyzed4 ,the object which serves  
for the analysis of the concept animal  
is no more any single animal1 than the  
object of the concept light is any      
single light4 ,these concepts comprise  
classes1 things in general1 and         
therefore the question1 or the analysis1
 of what constitutes the animal1 the    
light1 friendship1 must not deal with   
any concrete1 but with the abstract     
elements of the whole class4  ,the fact 
that the analysis of a concept and the  
analysis of its object appear as two    
different things is due to our faculty  
of being able to separate things into   

two parts1 viz41 into a practical1      
tangible1 perceptible1 concrete thing   
and into a theoretical mental1          
thinkable1 general thing4 ,the practical
 analysis is the premise of the         
theoretical analysis4 ,the individually 
perceptible animals serve us as a basis 
for the analysis of the animal concept1 
the individually experienced friendships
 as the basis for the analysis of the   
concept of friendship4  ,every idea     
corresponds to an object which may be   
practically separated into its component
 parts4 ,to analyze a concept is        
equivalent1 therefore1 to analyzing a   
previously experienced object by        
theoretical means4 ,the analysis of a   
concept consists in the understanding of
 the common or general faculties of the 
concrete parts of the analyzed object4  
,that which is common to the various    
modes of walking1 the rythmical motion1 
constitutes the concept of walking1 that
 which is common to the various         
manifestations of light constitutes the 

concept of light4 ,a chemical factory   
analyzes objects for the purpose of     
obtaining chemicals1 while science      
analyzes them for the purpose of        
obtaining their concepts4  ,the special 
object of our analysis1 the faculty of  
thought1 is likewise distinguished from 
its concept4 ,but in order to be able to
 analyze this concept1 we must analyze  
the object4 ,it cannot be analyzed      
chemically1 for not everything is a     
matter of chemistry1 but it may be      
analyzed theoretically or               
scientifically4 ,as we have already     
stated1 the science of understanding    
deals with all objects4 ,but all objects
 which this science may wish to analyze 
theoretically1 must first be handled    
practically4 ,according to their special
 natures1 they must either be handled in
 various ways1 or carefully inspected1  
or scrutinized by intent listening1 in  
short they must be thoroughly           
experienced in some way4  ,it is a fact 
of experience that men think4 ,the      

object or suggestion is furnished by    
facts1 and we then derive the concept   
instinctively4 ,thus1 to analyze the    
faculty of thought means to find that   
which is common or general to the       
various personal and temporary processes
 of thought4 ,in order to follow this   
study by the methods of natural science1
 we require neither physical instruments
 nor chemical reagents4 ,the sense      
perception which is indispensable for   
every scientific understanding1 is so to
 say present in this case a priori1     
without further experience4 ,every one  
possesses the object of our study1 the  
fact of thought faculty and its         
experience1 in the memories of himself  
or herself4  ,we have seen that thought 
like any other activity as well as its  
scientific analysis is everywhere       
developing the general or abstract out  
of particular and concrete sense        
perceptions4 ,we now express this in the
 following words3 ,the common feature of
 all separate thought-processes consists

 in their seeking the general character 
or unity which is common to all objects 
experienced in their manifold variety by
 sense perceptions4 ,the general element
 which is common to the different       
animals1 or to the different            
manifestations of light1 is that which  
constitutes the general animal or light 
concept4 ,the general is the nature of  
all concepts1 of all understanding1 all 
science1 all thought processes4 ,thus we
 arrive at the understanding that the   
analysis of the faculty of thought      
reveals its nature of finding that which
 is general and common to concrete and  
distinct things4 ,the eye studies the   
visible1 the ear the audible1 and our   
brain that which is generally           
conceivable4  ,we have seen that thought
 like any other activity requires an    
object2 that it is unlimited in the     
choice of its objects1 because all      
things may become the objects of        
thought2 that these objects are         
perceived in manifold forms by various  

senses2 and that they are transformed   
into simple ideas by extricating that   
which they possess in common1 which is  
similar1 which is general in them4 ,if  
we apply this experienced understanding 
of the general method of thought        
processes to our special object1 the    
faculty of thought1 we realize that we  
have thus solved our problem1 because   
all we were looking for was the general 
method of the thought process4  ,if the 
development of the general out of the   
concrete constitutes the general method 
by which reason arrives at              
understanding1 then we have fully       
grasped reason as the faculty of        
deriving the general out of the         
concrete4  ,thinking is a physical      
process and it cannot exist or produce  
anything without materials any more than
 any other process of labor4 ,my thought
 requires some material which can be    
thought of4 ,this material is furnished 
by the phenomena of nature and life4    
,these are the concrete things4 ,in     

claiming that the universe1 or all      
things1 may be the object of thought1 we
 simply mean that the materials of the  
thought process1 the objects of the     
mind1 are infinite in quantity and      
quality4 ,the materials which the       
universe furnishes for our thought are  
as infinite as space1 as eternal as     
time1 and as absolutely manifold as the 
nature of these two forms of being4 ,the
 faculty of thought is a universal      
faculty in so far as it enters into     
relations with all things1 all          
substances1 all phenomena1 and thus     
generates thought4 ,but it is not       
absolute1 since it requires for its     
existence and action the previous       
presence of matter4 ,matter is the      
boundary1 beyond which the mind cannot  
pass4 ,matter furnishes the background  
for the illumination of the mind1 but is
 not consumed in this illumination4     
,mind is a product of matter1 but matter
 is more than a product of mind1 being  
perceived also through the five senses  

and thus brought to our notice4 ,we call
 real1 objective products1 or things    
themselves only such products as are    
revealed to us simultaneously by the    
senses and the mind4  ,reason is a real 
thing only in so far as it is perceived 
by the senses4 ,the perceptible actions 
of reason are revealed in the brain of  
man as well as in the world outside of  
it4 ,for are not the effects tangible by
 which reason transforms nature and     
life8 ,we see the successes of science  
with our eyes and grasp them with our   
hands4 ,it is true that science or      
reason cannot produce such material     
effects out of themselves4 ,the world of
 sense perceptions1 the objects outside 
of the human brain1 must be given4 ,but 
what thing is there that has any effects
 in itself8 ,in order that light may    
shine1 that the sun may warm1 and       
revolve in its course1 there must be    
space and other things which may be     
lighted and warmed and passed4 ,in order
 that my table may have color1 there    

must be light and eyes4 ,and everything 
else which my table is besides1 it can  
be only in contact with other things4   
,its being is just as manifold as those 
various contacts or relations4 ,in      
short1 the world consists only in its   
interrelations4 ,any thing that is torn 
out of its relations with the world     
ceases to exist4 ,a thing is anything in
 itself only because it is something for
 other things1 by acting or appearing in
 connection with something else4  ,if we
 wish to regard the world in the light  
of the thing itself1 we shall easily see
 that the world itself and the world as 
it appears1 the world of phenomena1     
differ only in the same way in which the
 whole differs from its component parts4
 ,the world itself is nothing else but  
the sum total of its phenomena4 ,the    
same holds good of that part of the     
world phenomena which we call reason1   
spirit1 faculty of thought4 ,although we
 distinguish between the faculty of     
thought and its phenomena or            

manifestations1 yet the faculty of      
thought itself1 or pure reason1 exists  
in reality only in the sum total of its 
manifestations4 ,seeing is the physical 
existence of the faculty of sight4 ,we  
possess the whole only by means of its  
parts1 and we can possess reason1 like  
all other things1 only by the help of   
its effects1 by its various thoughts4   
,but we repeat that reason does not     
precede thought in the order of time4   
,on the contrary thoughts generated by  
perceptible objects serve as a basis for
 the development of the concept of the  
faculty of thought4 ,just as the        
understanding of the world movements has
 taught us that the sun is not revolving
 around the earth1 so the understanding 
of the thought process tells us that it 
is not the faculty of thought which     
creates thought1 but vice versa1 that   
the concept of this faculty is created  
out of a series of concrete thoughts4   
,hence the faculty of thought           
practically exists only as the sum total

 of our thoughts1 just as the faculty of
 sight exists only through the sum of   
the things that we see4  ,these         
thoughts1 this practical reason1 serve  
as the material out of which our brain  
manufactures the concept of pure reason4
 ,reason is necessarily impure in       
practice1 which means that it must      
connect itself with some object4 ,pure  
reason1 or abstract reason without any  
special content1 cannot be anything else
 but the general characteristic of all  
concrete reasoning processes4 ,we       
possess this general nature of reason in
 two ways3 ,in an impure state1 that is 
as practical and concrete phenomenon1   
consisting of the sum of our real       
perceptions1 and in a pure state1 that  
is theoretically or abstractly1 in the  
concept4 ,the phenomenon of reason is   
distinguished from reason itself just as
 the real animals are distinguished from
 the concept of the animal4  ,every     
actual reasoning process is based on    
some real object which has many         

qualities like all things in nature4    
,the faculty of thought extracts from   
this many-sided object those properties 
which are general or common with it4 ,a 
mouse and an elephant1 as the objects of
 our reasoning activity1 lose their     
differences in the general animal       
concept4 ,such a concept combines many  
things under one uniform point of view1 
it develops one general idea out of many
 concrete things4 ,since understanding  
is the general or common quality of all 
reasoning processes1 it follows that    
reason in general1 or the general nature
 of the reasoning process1 consists in  
abstracting the general ideal character 
from any concrete thing perceptible by  
the help of the senses4  ,reason being  
unable to exist without some objects    
outside of itself1 it is understood that
 we can perceive pure reason1 or reason 
itself1 only by its practical           
manifestations4 ,we cannot find reason  
without objects outside of it with which
 it comes in contact and produces       

thought1 any more than we can find any  
eyes without light4 ,and the            
manifestations of reason are as varied  
as the objects which supply its         
material4 ,it is plain1 then1 that      
reason has no separate existence in     
itself1 but that on the contrary the    
concept of reason is formed out of the  
material supplied by the senses4        
,mental processes appear only in        
connection with perceptible phenomena4  
,these processes are themselves         
phenomena of sense perception which1 in 
connection with a brain process1 produce
 the concept of the faculty of thought  
itself4 ,if we analyze this concept1 we 
find that pure reason consists in the   
activity of producing general ideas out 
of concrete materials1 which include    
so-called immaterial thoughts4 ,in other
 words1 reason may be characterized as  
an activity which seeks for unity in    
every multiplicity and equalizes all    
contrasts whether it deals with the many
 different sides and parts of one or of 

more objects4 ,all these different      
statements describe the same thing in   
different words1 so that the reader may 
not cling to the empty word1 but grasp  
the living concept1 the manifold object1
 in its general nature4  ,reason1 we    
said1 exists in a pure state as the     
development of the general out of the   
special1 of the abstract out of concrete
 sense perceptions4 ,this is the whole  
content of pure reason1 of scientific   
understanding1 of consciousness4 ,and by
 the terms pure and whole we simply     
indicate that we mean the general       
content of the various thought          
processes1 the general form of reason4  
,apart from this general abstract form1 
reason1 like all other things1 has also 
its concrete1 special1 sense form which 
we perceive directly through our        
experience4 ,hence our entire process of
 consciousness consists in the          
experience of the senses1 that is in the
 physical process1 and its              
understanding4 ,understanding is the    

general reflection of any object4       
,consciousness1 as the ,latin root of   
the word indicates1 is the knowledge of 
being in existence4 ,it is a form1 or a 
quality1 of existence which differs from
 other forms of being in that it is     
aware of its existence4 ,quality cannot 
be explained1 but must be experienced4  
,we know by experience that             
consciousness includes along with the   
knowledge of being in existence the     
difference and contradiction between    
subject and object1 thinking and being1 
between form and content1 between       
phenomenon and essential thing1 between 
attribute and substance1 between the    
general and the concrete4 ,this innate  
contradiction explains the various terms
 applied to consciousness1 such as the  
organ of abstraction1 the faculty of    
generalization or unification1 or in    
contradistinction thereto the faculty of
 differentiation4 ,for consciousness    
generalizes differences and             
differentiates generalities4            

,contradiction is innate in             
consciousness1 and its nature is so     
contradictory that it is at the same    
time a differentiating1 a generalizing1 
and an understanding nature4            
,consciousness generalizes              
contradiction4 ,it recognizes that all  
nature1 all being1 lives in             
contradictions1 that everything is what 
it is only in co-operation with its     
opposite4 ,just as visible things are   
not visible without the faculty of      
sight1 and vice versa the faculty of    
sight cannot see anything but what is   
visible1 so contradiction must be       
recognized as something general which   
pervades all thought and being4 ,the    
science of understanding1 by            
generalizing contradiction1 solves all  
concrete contradictions4     ,,iii      
,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,things   ,in so   
far as the faculty of understanding is a
 physical object1 the knowledge of its  
nature is a matter of physical science4 
,but in so far as we understand all     

things by the help of this faculty1 the 
science of understanding becomes        
metaphysics4 ,inasmuch as the scientific
 analysis of reason reverses the current
 conception of its nature1 this specific
 understanding necessarily reverses our 
entire world philosophy4 ,with the      
understanding of the nature of reason1  
we arrive at the long sought            
understanding of the nature of things4  
,we wish to know1 understand1 conceive1 
recognize all things in their very      
nature1 not in their outward appearance4
 ,science seeks to understand the nature
 of things1 or their true essence1 by   
means of their manifestations4 ,every   
thing has its own special nature1 and   
this nature is not seen1 or felt1 or    
heard1 but solely perceived by the      
faculty of thought4 ,this faculty       
explores the nature of all things just  
as the eye explores all that is visible 
in things4 ,just as the nature of sight 
is understood by the theory of vision1  
so the nature of things in general is   

understood by the theory of             
understanding4  ,it is true that it     
sounds contradictory to say that the    
nature of a thing does not appear to the
 eye1 but to the faculty of thought1 and
 at the same time to imply that the     
opposite of appearance1 nature1 should  
appear4 ,but we here refer to the nature
 of a thing as a phenomenon in the same 
way in which we referred to the mind as 
a perception of the senses1 and we shall
 demonstrate further on that every being
 is a phenomenon1 and every phenomenon  
is more or less of an essential thing4  
,we have seen that the faculty of       
thought requires for its vital activity 
an object1 or raw material4 ,the effect 
of reasoning is seen in science1 no     
matter whether we understand the term   
science in its narrow classical sense or
 in its broadest meaning of any kind of 
knowledge4 ,the phenomena of sense      
perception constitute the general object
 or material of science4 ,sense         
perceptions arise from infinite         

circulation of matter4 ,the universe and
 all things in it consist of            
transformations of matter which take    
place simultaneously and consecutively  
in space and time4 ,the universe is in  
every place and at any time itself1 new1
 and present for the first time4 ,it    
arises and passes away1 passes and      
arises under our very hands4 ,nothing   
remains the same1 only the infinite     
change is constant1 and even the change 
varies4 ,every particle of time and     
space brings new changes4 ,it is true   
that the materialist believes in the    
permanency1 eternity1 indestructibility 
of matter4 ,he teaches us that not the  
smallest particle of matter has ever    
been lost in the world1 that matter     
simply changes its forms eternally1 but 
that its nature lasts indestructibly    
through all eternity4 ,and yet1 in spite
 of all distinctions between matter     
itself and its perishable form1 the     
materialist is on the other hand more   
inclined than any one else to dwell on  

the identity of matter and its forms4   
,inasmuch as the materialist speaks     
ironically of formless matter and       
matterless forms1 in the same breath    
with perishable forms of imperishable   
matter1 it is plain that materialism is 
not informed any more than idealism as  
to the relation of content to form1 of a
 phenomenon to the essential nature of  
its subject4 ,where do we find such     
eternal1 imperishable1 formless matter8 
,in the world of sense perceptions we   
never meet anything but forms of        
perishable matter4 ,it is true that     
there is matter everywhere4 ,wherever   
anything passes away1 something new     
instantly arises4 ,but nowhere has any  
homogeneous1 unchangeable matter        
enduring without any form1 ever been    
discovered4 ,even a chemically          
indivisible element is only a relative  
unit in its actual existence1 and in    
extension of time as well as in         
extension through space it varies       
simultaneously and consecutively as much

 as any organic individual which also   
changes only its concrete forms1 but    
remains the same in its general nature  
from beginning to end4 ,my body changes 
continually its fleshy tissue1 bones1   
and every other particle belonging to   
it1 and yet it always remains the same4 
,what constitutes1 then1 this body which
 is distinguished from its transient    
form8 ,it is the sum total1 in a        
generalized way1 of all its varied      
concrete forms4 ,eternal and            
imperishable matter exists in reality   
only as the sum total of its perishable 
forms4 ,the statement that matter is    
imperishable cannot mean anything but   
that there will always and everywhere be
 matter4 ,it is just as true to say that
 matter is imperishable and merely      
changes its forms1 as it is to say that 
matter exists only in its changing      
forms1 that it is matter which changes  
and that only the change is eternal4    
,the terms changeable matter and        
material change are after all only      

different expressions for the same      
thing4  ,in the practical world of sense
 perceptions1 there is nothing          
permanent1 nothing homogeneous1 nothing 
beyond nature1 nothing like a thing     
itself4 ,everything is changing1        
passing1 phantomlike1 so to say4 ,one   
phantom is chased by another4           
,nevertheless1 says ,kant1 things are   
also something in themselves1 for       
otherwise we should have the absurd     
contradiction that there could be       
phenomena without things that produce   
them4 ,but no6 ,a phenomena is no more  
and no less different from the thing    
which produces it than the stretch of a 
twenty-mile road is different from the  
road itself4 ,or we may distinguish     
between a knife and its blade and       
handle1 but we know that there would be 
no knife if there were no blade and no  
handle4 ,the essential nature of the    
universe is change4 ,phenomena appear1  
that is all4  ,the contradiction between
 the thing itself1 or its essence1 and  

its outward appearance is fully solved  
by a complete critique of reason which  
arrives at the understanding that the   
human faculty of thought may generalize 
any number of varied sense perceptions  
under one uniform point of view1 by     
singling out the general and equivalent 
forms and thus regarding everything it  
may meet as a concrete part of one and  
the same whole4  ,in other words1 the   
relative and transient forms perceived  
by our senses serve as raw material for 
our brain activity1 which abstracts the 
general likeness out of the concrete    
forms and systematizes or classifies    
them for our consciousness4 ,the        
infinite variety of sense perceptions   
passes in review before our subjective  
mind1 and it constructs out of the      
multiplicity the unity1 out of the parts
 the whole1 out of the phenomena the    
essential nature1 out of the perishable 
the imperishable1 out of the attributes 
the subject4 ,the essence1 the nature of
 things1 the thing itself is an ideal1 a

 spiritual conception4 ,consciousness   
knows how to make sums out of different 
units4 ,it can take any number of units 
for its sums4 ,the entire multiplicity  
of the universe is theoretically        
conceived as one unit4 ,on the other    
hand1 every abstract sum consists in    
reality of an infinite number of sense  
perceptions4 ,where do we find any      
indivisible unit outside of our abstract
 conceptions8 ,two halves1 four fourths1
 eight eighths1 or an infinite number of
 separate parts form the raw material   
out of which the mind fashions the      
mathematical unit4 ,this book1 its      
leaves1 its letters1 or their parts1 are
 they units8 ,where do ,i begin1 where  
do ,i stop8 ,in the same way1 ,i may    
call a library with many volumes1 a     
house1 a farm1 and finally the whole    
universe1 a unit4 ,is not everything a  
part1 is not every part a thing8 ,is the
 color of a leaf less of a thing than   
that leaf itself8 ,perhaps some would   
call the color simply an attribute and  

the leaf its substance1 because there   
might be a leaf without color1 but no   
color without a leaf4 ,but as surely as 
we exhaust a heap of sand by scattering 
it1 just as surely do we remove all the 
substance of a leaf when we take away   
its attributes one after the other4     
,color is only the sum of reactions of  
leaf1 light1 and eye1 and so is all the 
rest of the matter of a leaf an         
aggregate of interactions4 ,in the same 
way in which our reason deprives a leaf 
of its color attributes and sets it     
apart as a thing itself1 may we continue
 to deprive that leaf of all its other  
attributes1 and in so doing we finally  
take away everything that makes the     
leaf4 ,color is in its nature no less a 
substance than the leaf itself1 and the 
leaf is no less an attribute than its   
color4 ,as the color is an attribute of 
a leaf1 so a leaf is an attribute of a  
tree1 a tree an attribute of the earth1 
the earth an attribute of the universe4 
,the universe is the substance1         

substance in general1 and all other     
substances are but its attributes4 ,and 
this world-substance reveals the fact   
that the nature of things1 the thing    
itself as distinguished from its        
manifestations1 is only a concept of the
 mind4  ,in its universal search from   
the attribute to the substance1 from the
 relative to the absolute1 from the     
appearance of things to the true things1
 the mind finally arrives at the        
understanding that the substance is     
nothing but a sum of attributes         
collected by brain activity1 and that   
the mind itself1 or reason1 is a        
substantial being which creates abstract
 mental units out of a multitude of     
sense perceptions and conceives of the  
universe as an absolute whole1 as an    
independent thing itself1 by adding all 
its transient manifestations4 ,in       
turning away full of dissatisfaction    
from attributes1 searching restlessly   
after the substance1 throwing aside     
phenomena1 and forever groping for      

truth1 for the nature of things1 for the
 thing itself1 and in finally realizing 
that this substantial truth is merely   
the sum of all socalled untruths1 the   
totality of all phenomena1 the mind     
proves itself to be the creator of the  
abstract concept of substance4 ,but it  
did not create this concept out of      
nothing4 ,on the contrary1 it generated 
the concept of a world substance out of 
attributes1 it derived truth out of     
manifestations of things4  ,the idealist
 conception that there is an abstract   
nature behind phenomena which           
materialises itself in them1 is refuted 
by the understanding that this hidden   
nature does not dwell in the world      
outside of the human mind1 but in the   
brain of man4 ,but since the brain      
differentiates between phenomena and    
their nature1 between the concrete and  
the general1 only by means of sense     
perception1 it cannot be denied that the
 distinction between phenomena and their
 nature is well founded2 only the       

essential nature of things is not found 
back of phenomena1 but by means of      
phenomena4 ,this nature is materially   
existent and our faculty of thought is a
 real and natural one4  ,it is true of  
spiritual things as well as of physical 
ones1 in fact it is true of all things1 
metaphysically speaking1 that they are  
what they are1 not in themselves1 not in
 their abstract nature1 but in contact  
with other things1 in reality4 ,in this 
sense one might say that things are not 
what they seem1 but manifest themselves 
because they are existent1 and they     
manifest themselves in as many different
 ways as there are other things with    
which they enter into relations of time 
and space4 ,but the statement that      
things are not what they seem requires1 
in order to be rightly understood1 the  
modification that whatever manifests    
itself1 exists in nature1 and its       
existence is limited by its             
manifestations4 ,we cannot perceive heat
 itself1 says a book on physics written 

by ,professor ,koppe1 we merely conclude
 from its manifestations that it is     
present in nature4 ,thus reasons a      
naturalist who seeks to understand a    
thing by practical and diligent study of
 its manifestations1 but who seeks      
refuge in the speculative belief in a   
hidden thing itself whenever a lack of  
understanding of the fundamentals of    
logic embarrasses him4 ,we1 on the      
contrary1 conclude that there is no such
 thing as heat itself1 since it cannot  
be found1 in nature1 and we conceive of 
heat as effects of matter which the     
human brain translated into the         
conception of heat itself4 ,because     
science was1 perhaps1 as yet unable to  
analyse this conception1 the professor  
says we cannot perceive the natural     
object which gives rise to this         
conception4 ,heat itself is simply      
composed of the sum total of its        
manifold effects1 and there is nothing  
else to it4 ,the faculty of thought     
generalizes this variety of effects     

under the concept of heat in general4   
,the analysis of this conception1 the   
discovery of the general character of   
the various manifestations of heat1 is  
the function of inductive science4 ,but 
the conception of heat separated from   
its effects is a speculative idea1      
similar to ,lichtenberg's knife without 
handle and blade4  ,the faculty of      
thought in touch with sense perceptions 
produces the nature of things4 ,but it  
produces them no more independently of  
things outside than do the eye1 the ear1
 or any other sense of man4 ,it is not  
the things themselves which we see or   
feel1 but their effects on our eyes1    
hands1 etc4 ,the faculty of reason to   
generalize different perceptions of the 
eye permits us to distinguish between   
concrete sights and sight in general4   
,the faculty of thought conceives of any
 concrete sight as an object of sight in
 general4 ,it furthermore distinguishes 
between subjective and objective sight  
perceptions1 the latter being sights    

which are visible not alone to the      
individual eye1 but to eyesight in      
general4 ,even the visions of a         
spiritualist1 or such subjective        
impressions as forked lightning1 circles
 of fire1 caused by excited blood of    
closed eyes1 serve as objects for the   
critical consciousness4 ,a glittering   
object revealed by bright sunlight miles
 away is no more and no less tangible in
 substance1 no more and no less true1   
than any optical illusion4 ,a man whose 
ear is tingling hears something1 though 
it is not the tinkling of bells4 ,every 
sense perception is an object1 and every
 object is a sense perception4 ,the     
object of any subjective mind is a      
passing manifestation1 and every        
objective perception is but a perishable
 subject4 ,the object of observation may
 exist in a more tangible1 less         
approachable1 more stable1 or more      
general form1 but it is not a thing     
itself4 ,it may be perceived not alone  
by my eyes1 but also by those of others1

 not by the eyes1 but also by the       
feeling1 the hearing1 the taste1 etc4   
,and it may be noticed not alone by men1
 but also by other objects4 ,but        
nevertheless it appears only as a       
manifestation1 it is different in       
different places1 it is not today what  
it is tomorrow4 ,every existence is     
relative1 in touch with other things1   
and entering into different relations of
 time and space with them4  ,every sense
 perception is an actual and natural    
object4 ,truth exists in the form of    
natural phenomena1 and whatever is1 is  
true4 ,substance and attribute are only 
terms for certain relations4 ,they are  
not contradictions1 and1 as a matter of 
fact1 all contradictions disappear      
before our faculty of generalization and
 differentiation4 ,for this faculty     
reconciles all contradictions by finding
 a general quality in all differences4  
,existence1 or universal truth1 is the  
general object1 the raw material1 of the
 faculty of thought4 ,this material is  

of the utmost variety and supplied by   
the senses4 ,the senses reveal to us the
 substance of the universe in the forms 
of concrete qualities1 in other words1  
the nature of perceptible matter is     
revealed to the faculty of thought      
through a variety of concrete forms4 ,it
 is not perceived as a general essence1 
but only through interdependent         
phenomena4 ,out of the interdependence  
of the sense perceptions with our       
faculty of thought there arise          
quantities1 general concepts1 things1   
true perceptions1 or understood truths4 
,essence and truth are two terms for the
 same thing4 ,truth1 or the essence and 
nature of things1 is a theoretical      
concept4 ,as we have seen1 we receive   
impressions of things in two ways1 viz41
 a sense impression and a mental        
impression1 the one practical1 the other
 theoretical4 ,practice furnishes us    
with the sense impression1 theory with  
the mental nature of things4  ,practice 
is the premise of theory1 sense         

perception the premise of the nature    
which is also called the truth4 ,the    
same truth manifests itself in practice 
either simultaneously or consecutively  
in the same place or in different       
places4 ,it exists theoretically as a   
homogeneous conception4  ,practice1     
phenomena1 sense perceptions1 are       
absolute qualities1 that is to say they 
have no quantitative limitation1 they   
are not restricted by time or space4    
,they are absolute and infinite         
qualities4 ,the qualities of a thing are
 as infinite as its parts4 ,on the other
 hand1 the work of the faculty of       
thought1 of theory1 creates at will an  
infinite number of quantities1 and it   
conceives every quality of sense        
perceptions in the form of quantities1  
as the essential nature of things1 as   
truths4 ,every conception has a quality 
of some sense perception for its object4
 ,every object can be conceived by the  
faculty of thought only as a            
quantitative unit1 as true nature1 as   

truth4  ,the faculty of thought produces
 in contact with sense perceptions that 
which manifests itself as true nature1  
as a general truth4 ,a primitive concept
 accomplishes this at first only        
instinctively1 while a scientific       
concept is a conscious and voluntary    
repetition of this primitive act4       
,scientific understanding wanting to    
know an object1 such as for instance    
heat1 is not hunting after the phenomena
 themselves4 ,it does not aim to see or 
hear how heat melts iron or wax1 how it 
benefits in one case or injures in      
another1 how it makes eggs solid or ice 
liquid1 nor does it concern itself with 
the difference between the heat of an   
animal1 of the sun1 or of a stove4 ,all 
these things are from the point of view 
of the faculty of understanding1 only   
effects1 phenomena1 qualities4 ,it      
desires to get at the essence1 the true 
nature of things1 it strives to find a  
general law1 a concise scientific       
extract1 of things seen1 heard1 and     

felt4 ,the abstract nature of things    
cannot be a tangible object4 ,it is a   
concept of theory1 of science1 of the   
faculty of thought4 ,the understanding  
of heat consists in singling out that   
which is common to all phenomena of     
heat1 which is essential or true for all
 heat4 ,practically the nature of heat  
consists of the sum total of all its    
manifestations1 theoretically in its    
concept1 scientifically in the analysis 
of this concept4 ,to analyze the concept
 of heat means to ascertain that which  
is common to all manifestations of heat4
  ,the general nature of the thing is   
its true nature1 the general quality its
 true quality4 ,we define rain more     
truly as being wet than as being        
fertilizing1 because it gives moisture  
wherever it falls1 while it fertilizes  
only under certain circumstances and in 
certain places4 ,my true friend is one  
who is constant and loyal to me all my  
life under all circumstances4 ,of       
course1 we must not believe in any      

absolute and unconditional friendship   
any more than in any absolute and       
eternal truth4 ,perfectly true1         
perfectly universal1 is only the general
 existence1 the universe1 the absolute  
quantity4 ,but the real world is        
absolutely relative1 absolutely         
perishable1 an infinity of              
manifestations1 an infinity of          
qualities4 ,all truths are simply parts 
of this world1 partial truths4          
,semblance and truth flow dialectically 
into one another like hard and soft1    
good and bad1 right and wrong1 but at   
the same time they remain different4    
,even though ,i know that there is no   
rain which is fertile in itself1 and no 
friend who is true in an absolute sense1
 ,i may nevertheless refer to a certain 
rain as fertile in relation to certain  
crops1 and ,i may distinguish between my
 more or less true friends4  ,the       
universe is the truth4 ,the universe is 
that which is universal1 that is1 things
 which exist and are perceived4 ,the    

general mark of truth is existence1     
because universal existence is truth4   
,now1 existence is not a general        
abstraction1 but a reality in the       
concrete form of sense perceptions4 ,the
 world of sense perceptions has its true
 and perceptible existence in the       
passing and manifold manifestations of  
nature and life4 ,therefore all         
manifestations are recognized as        
relative truths1 all truths as concrete 
and temporal manifestations4 ,the       
manifestation of practice is considered 
as a truth in theory1 and vice versa1   
the truth of theory is manifested in    
practice4 ,opposites are mutually       
relative4 ,truth and error differ only  
comparatively1 in volume of degree1 like
 being and seeming1 life and death1     
light and dark1 like all other opposites
 in the world4 ,it is a matter of course
 that all things of this world are      
worldly1 consequently are of the same   
matter1 the same nature1 the same       
family1 the same quality4 ,in other     

words1 every volume of perceptible      
manifestation forms in contact with the 
human faculty of thought a being1 a     
truth1 a general thing4 ,for our        
consciousness1 every particle of dust as
 well as every dust cloud1 or any other 
mass of material manifestations1 is on  
the one hand an abstract thing in       
itself1 and on the other a passing      
phenomenon of the absolute object1 the  
universe4 ,inside of this universe the  
various manifestations are systematized 
or generalized at will and on purpose by
 means of our mind4 ,the chemical       
element is as much a manysided system as
 the organic cell or the whole vegetable
 kingdom4 ,the smallest and the largest 
being is divided into individuals1      
species1 families1 classes1 etc4 ,this  
systematization1 this generalization1   
this generation of beings is continued  
in an ascending scale up to the infinity
 of the universe1 and in the descending 
scale down to the infinity of the parts4
 ,in the eyes of the faculty of thought 

all qualities become abstract things1   
all things relative qualities4  ,every  
thing1 every sense perception1 no matter
 how subjective or shortlived it may be1
 is true1 is a certain part of truth4   
,in other words1 the truth exists1 not  
only in the general existence1 but every
 concrete existence has also its own    
distinct generality or truth4 ,every    
object1 whether it be a mere passing    
idea1 or a volatile scent1 or some      
tangible matter1 constitutes a sum of   
manifold phenomena4 ,the faculty of     
thought turns various quantities into   
one1 discerns the equality in different 
things1 seeks the unity in the          
multiplicity4 ,mind and matter have at  
least actual existence in common4       
,organic nature agrees with inorganic   
nature in being material4 ,it is true   
that there are wide divergences between 
man1 monkey1 elephant1 and plants       
attached to the soil1 but even greater  
differences are reconciled under the    
term organism4 ,however much a stone may

 differ from a human heart1 thinking    
reason will discover innumerable        
similarities in them4 ,they at least    
agree in being matter1 they are both    
visible1 tangible1 and may be weighed1  
etc4 ,their differences are as manifold 
as their likenesses4 ,solomon truly says
 that there is nothing new under the    
sun1 and ,schiller also says truly that 
the world grows old and again grows     
young4 ,what abstract thing1 being1     
existence1 generality is there that is  
not manifold in its sense               
manifestations1 and individually        
different from all other things8 ,there 
are no two drops of water alike4 ,i am  
now in many respects different from what
 ,i was an hour ago1 and the likeness   
between my brother and myself is only   
relatively greater than the likeness    
between a watch and an oyster4 ,in      
short1 the faculty of thought is a      
faculty of absolute generalization1 it  
classes all things without exception    
under one head1 it comprises and        

understands everything uniformly1 while 
sense perceptions show absolutely       
everything in a different1 new and      
individual light4  ,if we apply this    
metaphysics#a to our study1 the faculty 
of thought1 we see that its functions1  
like all other things1 are material     
manifestations1 which are all equally   
true4 ,all manifestations of the mind1  
all ideas1 opinions1 errors1 partake of 
a certain truth1 all of them have a     
kernel of truth4 ,just as inevitably as 
a painter derives all forms of his      
creation from perceptible objects around
 him1 so are all ideas1 images of true  
things1 theories of true objects4 ,so   
far as perceptions are perceptions1 it  
is a matter of course that all          
perceptions perceive something4 ,so far 
as knowledge is knowledge1 it requires  
no explanation that all knowledge knows 
something4 ,this follows from the rule  
of identity1 according to which a equals
 a1 or from the rule of contradiction1  
according to which #ajj is not #a1jjj4  

,all perceptions are thoughts4 ,one     
might claim1 on the other hand1 that all
 thoughts are not perceptions4 ,one     
might define perceiving as a special    
kind of thought1 as real objective      
thought in distinction from supposing1  
believing1 or imagining4 ,but it cannot 
be denied that all thoughts have a      
common nature1 in spite of their many   
differences4 ,thought is treated in the 
court of the faculty of thought like all
 other things1 it is made uniform4 ,no  
matter how different the thoughts ,i had
 yesterday may be from those ,i have    
to-day1 no matter how much the thoughts 
of different human beings may vary at   
different times1 no matter how clearly  
we may distinguish between such thoughts
 as those expressed by the terms idea1  
conception1 judgment1 conclusion1       
impression1 etc41 they each and all     
possess the same common and universal   
nature1 because all of them are         
manifestations of mind4  ,it follows1   
then1 that the difference between true  

and erroneous thoughts1 between         
understanding and misunderstanding1 like
 all other differences1 is only         
relative4 ,a thought in itself is       
neither false nor true1 it is either of 
these only in relation to some other    
object4 ,thoughts1 conceptions1         
theories1 natures1 truths1 all have this
 in common that they belong to some     
object4 ,we have seen that any object is
 a part of the multiplicity of sense    
perceptions in the world outside of our 
brains4 ,after as much of the universal 
being as constitutes the object which is
 to be understood has been defined by   
some customary term of language1 truth  
is to be found in the discovery of the  
general nature of this perceptible part 
of being4  ,the perceptible parts of    
being which constitute the things of    
this world have not only a semblance and
 manifestation1 but also a true nature  
which is given by means of their        
manifestation4 ,the nature of things is 
as infinite in number as the world of   

sense perceptions is infinitely         
divisible in space and time4 ,every part
 of any phenomenon has its own nature1  
every special phenomenon has its general
 truth4 ,a phenomenon is perceived in   
touch with the senses1 while the true or
 essential nature of things is perceived
 in contact with our faculty of thought4
 ,in this way we find ourselves face to 
face with the necessity of speaking     
here1 where the nature of things is up  
for discussion1 simultaneously of the   
faculty of thought1 and on the other    
hand of dealing with the nature of      
things when the faculty of thought is   
our main subject4  ,we said at the      
outset3 ,the criterion of truth includes
 the criterion of reason4 ,truth1 like  
reason1 consists in developing a general
 concept1 or an abstract theory1 from a 
given sum of sense perceptions4         
,therefore it is not abstract truth     
which is the criterion of true          
understanding1 but we rather refer to   
that understanding as being true which  

produces the truth1 or the general      
hall-mark of any concrete object4 ,truth
 must be objective1 that is to say it   
must be the truth about some concrete   
object4 ,perceptions cannot be true to  
themselves1 they are true only in       
relation to some definite object1 and to
 some outside facts4 ,the work of       
understanding consists in the           
abstraction of the general hall-mark    
from concrete objects4 ,the concrete is 
the measure of the general1 the standard
 of truth4 ,whatever is1 is true1 no    
matter how much or how little true it   
may be4 ,once we have found existence1  
its general nature follows as truth     
itself4 ,the difference between that    
which is more or less general1 between  
being and seeming1 between truth and    
error1 is limited to definite           
conditions1 for it presupposes the      
relation to some special object4        
,whether a perception is true or false  
will1 therefore1 depend not so much on  
perception as on the scope of the       

question which perception tries to solve
 of its own accord or which it is called
 upon to solve by external              
circumstances4 ,a perfect understanding 
is possible only within definite limits4
 ,a perfect truth is one which is always
 aware of its imperfection4 ,for        
instance1 it is perfectly true that all 
bodies have weight only because the     
concept of body has previously been     
limited to things which have weight4    
,after reason has assigned the          
conception of body in general to things 
of various weights1 it is no longer a   
matter for surprise to find that bodies 
must inevitably have weight4 ,once it is
 assumed that the term bird was         
abstracted exclusively from flying      
animals1 we may be sure that all birds  
fly1 whether they are in heaven1 on     
earth1 or in any other place4 ,and to   
explain this we do not require the      
belief in a priori conceptions which are
 supposed to differ from empirical      
conceptions by their strict necessity   

and generality4 ,truths are valid only  
under certain conditions1 and under     
certain conditions errors may be true4  
,it is a true perception that the sun is
 shining1 provided we understand that   
the sky is not covered by clouds4 ,and  
it is no less true that a straight stick
 becomes crooked in flowing water1      
provided we understand that this truth  
is an optical one4 ,truth is that which 
is common or general to our reasoning   
faculty within a given circle of sense  
perceptions4 ,to call within a definite 
circle of sense perceptions that which  
is exceptional or special the rule or   
the general1 is error4 ,error1 the      
opposite of truth1 arises when the      
faculty of thought1 or consciousness1   
inadvertently or shortsightedly and     
without previous experience concedes to 
certain phenomena a more general scope  
than is supported by the senses1 for    
instance when it hastily attributes to  
what is in fact only an optical         
existence1 a supposed plastic existence 

also4  ,the judgment of error is a      
prejudice4 ,truth and error1            
understanding and misunderstanding1     
knowing and not knowing1 have their     
common habitation in the faculty of     
thought which is the organ of science4  
,thought at large is the general        
expression of experienced facts         
perceived by the senses1 and it includes
 errors as well4 ,error is distinguished
 from truth in that the former assigns  
to any definite fact of which it is a   
manifestation1 a wider and more general 
existence than is supported by sense    
perceptions and experience4 ,unwarranted
 assumption is the nature of error4 ,a  
glass bead does not become a            
counterfeit1 until it pretends to be a  
genuine pearl4  ,schleiden says of the  
eye3 ,when the excited blood expands the
 veins and presses on the nerves1 we    
feel it in the fingers as pain1 we see  
it in the eyes as forked lightning4 ,and
 thus we obtain the irrefutable proof   
that our conceptions are free creations 

of the mind1 that we do not perceive the
 external world as it really is1 but    
that its reflex actions on us simply    
give rise to a peculiar brain activity1 
on our part4 ,the products of this      
activity are frequently connected with  
certain processes of the external world1
 but frequently they are not4 ,we close 
our eyes and we see a circle of light1  
but there is in reality no shining body4
 ,it is easy to see that this may be a  
great and dangerous source of errors of 
all kinds4 ,from the teasing forms of a 
misty moonlight night to the threatening
 and insanity-producing visions of the  
believer in ghosts we meet a series of  
illusions which are not derived from any
 direct processes of external nature1   
but belong to the field of the free     
activity of the mind which is subject to
 error4 ,it requires great judgment and 
wide education1 before the mind learns  
to break away from all its own errors   
and to control them4 ,reading in general
 seems so easy1 and yet it is a         

difficult art4 ,it is only by degrees   
that the mind learns to understand which
 of the messages of the nerves may be   
trusted and used as a basis for         
conceptions4 ,the light1 if we consider 
it entirely by itself1 is not clear1 not
 yellow1 nor blue nor red4 ,the light is
 a movement of a very fine and          
everywhere diffused substance1 the      
ether4  ,the beautiful world of light   
and splendor1 of color and form1 is     
supposed not to be a perception of      
something which really is4 ,through the 
thick covering of the grape arbor1 a ray
 of sunlight undulates into the cooling 
shadows4 ,you think you see the ray of  
light itself1 but what you really see is
 nothing but a flock of dust particles4 
,the truth about light and color is said
 to be that they are waves rushing      
through ether in restless succession at 
the rate of #afj1jjj miles per second4  
,this true physical nature of light and 
color is supposed to be so illusive1    
that it required the sharp intellects of

 the greatest thinkers to reveal to us  
this true nature of light4 ,we find that
 every one of our senses is susceptible 
only to definite external influences1   
and that the stimulation of different   
senses produces different conceptions in
 our mind4 ,thus the sense organs are   
the mediators between the external      
soulless world 7undulations of the      
ether71 which is revealed to us by      
science1 and the beautiful world of     
sense perceptions in which we find      
ourselves with our minds4  ,schleiden   
thus gives an illustration of the fact  
that there is still a great deal of     
embarrassment1 even in our times1 when  
the understanding of these two worlds is
 under discussion1 that there is still  
much helpless groping to explain the    
connection between the world of thought1
 of knowledge or science1 which is in   
this case represented by undulations of 
the ether1 and between the world of our 
five senses1 represented by the bright  
and colored lights of the eyes or of    

reality4 ,at the same time this         
illustration shows how queer the        
traditional survivals of speculative    
philosophy sound in the mouth of a      
modern scientist4 ,the confused         
condition of this mode of thought is    
seen in the distinction between an      
external sense-perceived world of       
science and another one1 in which we    
find ourselves with our minds4 ,the     
distinction between the senses and the  
mind1 between theory and practice1      
between the special and the general1    
between truth and error1 has been       
noticed by such thinkers1 but they have 
no solution for it4 ,they know there is 
something missing1 but they do not know 
where to look for it1 and therefore they
 are confused4  ,the great scientific   
achievement of the ,x,i,xth century     
consists in the victory over            
speculation1 over knowledge without     
sense perception1 in the delivery of the
 senses from the thraldom of such       
knowledge1 and in the foundation of     

empirical investigation4 ,to acknowledge
 the theoretical value of this          
achievement means to come to an         
understanding about the source of error4
 ,contrary to a philosophy that tries to
 discover truth with the mind1 and error
 with the senses1 we seek for truth with
 the senses and regard the mind as the  
source of errors4 ,the belief in certain
 messages of the nerves which are alone 
worthy of confidence and which can be   
understood only by degrees without any  
specific mark of distinction1 is a      
superstition4 ,let us have confidence in
 all testimonials of the senses4 ,there 
is nothing false to be separated from   
the genuine4 ,the supernatural mind idea
 is the only deceiver whenever it       
undertakes to disregard the sense       
perceptions1 and1 instead of being the  
interpreter of the senses1 tries to     
enlarge their statements and repeat what
 has not been dictated4 ,the eye1 in    
seeing forked lightning or radiant      
circles when the blood is excited or a  

pressure exerted on it1 perceives no    
more errors than it does in perceiving  
any other manifestation of the external 
world4 ,it is our faculty of thought    
which makes a mistake1 by regarding     
without further inquiry such subjective 
events as objective bodies4 ,one who    
sees ghosts does not commit any mistake1
 until he claims that his personal      
apparition is a general phenomenon1     
until he prematurely takes something for
 an experience which he has not         
experienced4 ,error is an offense       
against the law of truth which          
prescribes to our consciousness that it 
must remember the limits within which a 
perception is true1 or general4 ,error  
makes out of something special a        
generality1 out of a predicate a        
subject1 and takes the part for the     
whole4 ,error makes a priori            
conclusions1 while truth1 its opposite1 
arrives at understanding by a posteriori
 reasoning4  ,a priori and a posteriori 
understanding are related in the same   

way as philosophy and natural science1  
taking the latter in the widest meaning 
of the term1 that of science in general4
 ,the contrast between believing and    
knowing is duplicated in that between   
philosophy and natural science4         
,speculative philosophy1 like religion1 
lives on faith4 ,the modern world has   
transformed faith into science4 ,the    
reactionists in politics who demand that
 science retrace its steps desire its   
return to faith4 ,the content of faith  
is acquired without exertion4 ,faith    
makes a priori perceptions1 while       
science arrives at its knowledge by hard
 a posteriori study4 ,to give up faith  
means to give up taking things easy4    
,and to confine science to a posteriori 
knowledge means to decorate it with the 
characteristic mark of modern times1    
work4  ,it is not a result of scientific
 study1 but merely a freak of philosophy
 on the part of ,schleiden to deny the  
reality and truth of light phenomena1 to
 call them fantasmagoria created by the 

free play of the mind4 ,his             
superstitious belief in philosophical   
speculation misleads him into abandoning
 the scientific method of induction and 
speaking of waves rushing through ether 
in restless succession at the rate of   
#afj1jjj miles per hour as being the    
real and true nature of light and color1
 in contradistinction to the color      
phenomena of light4 ,the perversion of  
this mode of procedure becomes evident  
by his referring to the material world  
of the eyes as a creation of the mind   
and to the undulations of the ether1    
revealed by the sharp intellect of the  
greatest thinkers as physical nature4   
,the truth of science maintains the same
 relation to the sense perception that  
the general does to the special4 ,waves 
of light1 the so-called truth of light  
and color1 represent the true nature of 
light only in so far as they represent  
what is common to all light phenomena1  
whether they are white1 yellow1 blue1 or
 any other color4 ,the world of the     

mind1 or of science finds its raw       
material1 its premise1 its proof1 its   
beginning1 and its boundary in sense    
perception4  ,when we have learned that 
the nature1 or the truth1 of things is  
not back of their phenomena1 but can be 
perceived only by the help of phenomena1
 and that it does not exist in itself1  
but only in connection with the faculty 
of understanding1 that the nature is    
separated from the phenomena only by    
thought2 and when we see on the other   
hand1 that the faculty of understanding 
does not derive conceptions out of      
itself1 but only out of their relations 
with some phenomenon2 then this         
discussion of the nature of things is an
 evidence that the nature of the faculty
 of thought is a conception which we    
have obtained from its sense            
manifestations4 ,to understand that the 
faculty of thought1 although universal  
in the choice of its objects1 is        
nevertheless limited in that it requires
 some object2 to recognize that the true

 thought process1 that is to say the    
thought with a scientific result1       
differs from unscientific thinking by   
consciously attaching itself to some    
external object2 to realize that truth1 
or universality1 is not perceived in    
itself1 but can be perceived only by    
means of some given object2 this        
frequently varied statement reveals the 
nature of the faculty of thought4 ,this 
statement re-appears at the end of every
 chapter1 because all special truths1   
all special chapters1 serve only to     
demonstrate the general chapter of      
universal truth4  ,,footnote3  #a ,e4   
g41 this all-embracing                  
physics4--,,editor4     ,,iv  ,,the     
,,practice ,,of ,,reason ,,in ,,physical
 ,,science   ,although we know that     
reason is attached to perceptible       
matter1 to physical objects1 so that    
science can never be anything else but  
the science of the physical1 still we   
may1 according to the prevailing ideas  
and usage of language1 separate physics 

from logic and ethics1 and thus         
distinguish them as different forms of  
science4 ,the problem is then to        
demonstrate that in physics as well as  
in logic1 as also in ethics1 the general
 or intellectual perceptions can be     
practically obtained only on the basis  
of concrete perceptible facts4  ,this   
practice of reason1 to generate thought 
from matter1 to arrive at understanding 
by sense perceptions1 to produce the    
general out of the concrete1 has been   
universally accepted in physical        
investigation1 but only in practice4    
,the inductive method is employed1 and  
one is aware of this fact1 but it is not
 understood that the nature of inductive
 science is the nature of science in    
general1 of reason4 ,the process of     
thought is misunderstood4 ,physical     
science lacks the theory of             
understanding and for this reason often 
falls out of its practical step4 ,the   
faculty of thought is still an unknown1 
mysterious1 mystical being for natural  

science4 ,either it confounds the       
function with the organ1 the mind with  
the brain1 as do the materialists1 or it
 thinks with the idealists that the     
faculty of thought is an imperceptible  
object outside of its field4 ,we see    
modern investigators marching toward    
their goal with firm and uniform steps1 
so far as physical matters are          
concerned4 ,but they aimlessly grope    
around in the abstract relations of     
these things4 ,the inductive method has 
been practically adopted by natural     
science and its successes have secured a
 great reputation for it4 ,on the other 
hand1 the speculative method has become 
discredited by its failures4 ,there is1 
however1 no conscious understanding of  
these various methods of thought4 ,we   
see the men of physical research1 when  
they are outside of their special field1
 offer lawyer-like speculations in lieu 
of scientific facts4 ,while they arrive 
at the special truths of their chosen   
fields by sense perceptions1 they still 

pretend to derive speculative truths out
 of the depths of their own minds4      
,listen to the following statements of  
,alexander von ,humboldt1 which he makes
 in the initial argument of his ,cosmos 
in regard to speculation3 ,the most     
important result of physical research by
 sense perception is this3 that it finds
 the element of unity in a multitude of 
forms2 that it grasps all the individual
 manifestations offered by the          
discoveries of recent times1 carefully  
scrutinizes and distinguishes them2 yet 
does not succumb under their mass2 that 
it fulfills the sublime mission of the  
human being1 of understanding the nature
 of things which is hidden under the    
cover of phenomena4 ,in this way our aim
 reaches beyond the narrow limits of the
 senses1 and we may succeed in grasping 
the nature by controlling the raw       
material of empirical observation       
through ideas4 ,in my observations of   
the scientific treatment of general     
cosmic phenomena1 ,i am not deriving    

unity out of a few fundamental          
principles found by speculative reason4 
,my work is the expression of a         
thoughtful observation of empirical     
phenomena seen as one and the same      
nature4 ,i am not going to venture into 
a field which is foreign to me4 ,what ,i
 call physical cosmology does not1      
therefore1 aspire to the rank of a      
rational science of nature4444 ,true to 
the character of my former occupation   
and writings1 which were devoted to     
experiments1 measurements1 and          
investigations of facts1 ,i confine     
myself in this work to empirical        
observations4 ,it is the only ground on 
which ,i can move with a measure of     
security4 ,in the same breath ,humboldt 
says that without the earnest desire for
 the knowledge of concrete facts any    
great and universal world philosophy    
would be merely a castle in the air and 
in another place that an understanding  
of the universe by speculative and      
introspective reason would represent a  

still more sublime aim than             
understanding by empirical thought4 ,and
 on page #fh of volume ,i4 he says3 ,i  
am far from finding fault with endeavors
 of others the success of which still   
remains in doubt1 when ,i have had no   
practical experience with them4  ,now   
natural science shares with ,humboldt   
the consciousness that the practice of  
reason in physical research consists    
exclusively in perceiving the element of
 unity in a multitude of forms4 ,but on 
the other hand1 though it does not      
always admit its belief in speculative  
introspection as frankly as ,humboldt   
does1 it nevertheless proves that it    
does not fully understand the practice  
of science and that it believes in a    
metaphysical as well as a physical      
science by using the speculative method 
in the treatment of so-called           
philosophical topics1 in which the      
element of unity is supposed to be      
discovered by introspective reason      
instead of an analysis of multiform     

sense perceptions1 and it demonstrates  
its lack of unity by being unaware of   
the unscientific character of           
disagreements1 by believing in a        
metaphysical science outside of the     
physical domain4 ,the relations between 
phenomenon and its nature1 cause and    
effect1 matter and force1 substance and 
spirit1 are certainly physical ones4    
,but what is there of unity that science
 teaches about them8 ,plainly then1 the 
work of science1 like that of the       
farmer1 has so far been done only       
practically1 but not scientifically1 not
 with a predetermination of success4    
,understanding1 that is to say the      
practice of understanding1 is well      
applied in science1 ,i readily admit4   
,but the instrument of this             
understanding1 the faculty of thought1  
is misunderstood4 ,we find that natural 
science1 instead of applying this       
faculty scientifically1 simply          
experiments with it4 ,what is the reason
 for this8 ,natural science has         

neglected the critique of reason1 the   
theory of science1 logic4  ,just as the 
handle and the blade of a knife         
constitute its general content1 so we   
found that the general content of reason
 was the universal1 the general itself4 
,we know that it does not produce this  
content out of itself1 but out of given 
objects1 and these objects are the sum  
of all natural or physical things4 ,the 
object of reason is1 therefore1 an      
infinite1 unlimited1 absolute quantity4 
,this infinite quantity manifests itself
 in finite quantities4 ,in the treatment
 of relatively small quantities of      
nature the true essence of reason1 the  
true method of understanding1 is well   
recognized4 ,it remains to be           
demonstrated that the great relations of
 the world1 the treatment of which is   
still doubtful1 are likewise            
intelligible by the same method4 ,cause 
and effect1 mind and matter1 matter and 
force1 are such great world problems1   
and they are of a physical character4   

,we shall demonstrate that the most     
general distinction between reason and  
its object furnishes the key to the     
solution of the great world problems4   
7a7 ,cause and ,effect4  ,the nature of 
natural history1 says ,f4 ,w4 ,bessell1 
lies in the fact that it does not       
consider phenomena as facts in          
themselves1 but looks for their causes4 
,the knowledge of nature is thus reduced
 to the minimum number of facts4 ,but   
the causes of the phenomena of nature   
had been investigated even before the   
age of natural history4 ,the            
characteristic mark of natural history  
is not so much that it investigates     
causes1 but that the causes which it    
investigates have a peculiar nature and 
a particular quality4  ,inductive       
science has materially changed the      
conception of causes4 ,it has retained  
the term1 but uses it in a different    
sense from that employed by speculation4
 ,the naturalist conceives of causes    
differently within his special field and

 outside of it2 here1 outside of his    
specialty1 he frequently indulges in    
introspective speculation1 because he   
understands science and its cause in a  
concrete1 but not in a general way4 ,the
 unscientific forces are of a           
supernatural make-up1 they are          
transcendental spirits1 gods1 forces1   
little and big goblins4 ,the original   
conception of causes is an              
anthropomorphic one4 ,in a state of     
inexperience1 man measures the objective
 by a subjective standard1 judges the   
world by himself4 ,just as he creates   
things with conscious intent1 so he     
attributes to nature his human manner1  
imagines the existence of an external   
and creative cause of the phenomena of  
sense perception1 similar to himself who
 is the special cause of his own        
creations4 ,this subjective mood is to  
blame for the fact that the struggle for
 objective understanding has so long    
been in vain4 ,the unscientifically     
conceived cause is a speculation of the 

a priori kind4  ,if the term            
understanding is retained for subjective
 understanding1 then objective science  
differs from it in that such a science  
penetrates to the causes of its objects 
not by faith or introspective           
speculation1 but by experience and      
induction1 not a priori1 but a          
posteriori4 ,natural science looks for  
causes not outside or back of nature's  
phenomena1 but within or by means of    
them4 ,modern research seeks no external
 creator of causes1 but rather the      
immanent system1 the method or general  
mode of the various phenomena as they   
are given by succession in time4 ,the   
unscientifically conceived cause is a   
thing in itself1 a little god who       
generates his effects independently and 
hides behind them4 ,the scientific      
conception of causes1 on the other hand1
 looks only for the theory of effects1  
the general element of phenomena4 ,to   
investigate a cause means then to       
generalize a variety of phenomena1 to   

arrange the multiplicity of experienced 
facts under one scientific rule4 ,the   
knowledge of nature is thus reduced to  
the minimum number of facts4  ,the      
commonplace and inept knowledge differs 
from the most exalted1 rarest1 and newly
 discovered science in the same way in  
which a petty and childish superstition 
differs from the historical superstition
 of a whole period4 ,for this reason we 
may well choose our illustrations from  
our daily circle1 instead of looking for
 them in the so-called higher regions of
 a remote science4 ,human common sense  
had long practiced the investigation of 
causes by inductive and scientific      
methods1 before science realized that it
 would have to pursue its higher aims in
 the same way4 ,common sense does arrive
 at the faith in a mysterious cause of  
speculative reason1 just like the       
naturalist1 as soon as it leaves the    
field of its immediate environment4 ,in 
order to stand firmly on the ground of  
real science1 every one requires the    

understanding of the manner in which    
inductive reason investigates its       
causes4  ,to this end let us glance     
briefly at the outcome of the study of  
the nature of reason4 ,we know that the 
faculty of understanding is not a thing 
in and by itself1 because it becomes    
real only in contact with some object4  
,but whatever we know of any object1 is 
known not alone through the object1 but 
also through the faculty of reason4     
,consciousness1 like all other being1 is
 relative4 ,understanding is contact    
with a variety of objects4 ,to knowledge
 there is attached distinction1 subject 
and object1 variety in unity4 ,thus     
things become mutual causes and mutual  
effects4 ,the entire world of phenomena1
 of which thought is but a part1 a form1
 is an absolute circle1 in which the    
beginning and end is everywhere and     
nowhere1 in which everything is at the  
same time essence and semblance1 cause  
and effect1 general and concrete4 ,just 
as all nature is in the last instance   

one sole general unity1 in view of which
 all other unities become a multitude1  
so this same nature1 or objectivity1 or 
world of sense perceptions1 or whatever 
else we may call the sum of all         
phenomena or effects1 is the final cause
 of all things1 compared to which all   
other causes become effects4 ,but we    
must remember that this cause of all    
causes is only the sum of all effects1  
not a transcendental or superior being4 
,every cause has its effect1 every      
effect causes something4  ,a cause      
cannot be physically separated from its 
effect any more than the visible can be 
separated from the eye1 the taste from  
the tongue1 in brief the general from   
the concrete4 ,nevertheless1 the faculty
 of thought may separate the one from   
the other4 ,we must keep in mind that   
this separation is a mere formality of  
thought1 although it is a formality     
which is necessary in order to be       
reasonable or conscious1 in order to act
 scientifically4 ,the practice of       

understanding1 or scientific practice1  
derives the concrete from the general1  
the natural things from nature4 ,but    
whoever has been behind the scenes1 and 
has looked at the faculty of thought at 
work1 knows that1 conversely the general
 is derived from the concrete1 the      
concept of nature from natural things4  
,the theory of understanding or science 
teaches us that the antecedent is       
understood by its consequent1 the cause 
by its effect1 while our practical      
understanding regards the after as a    
consequence of the before1 the effect as
 a result of the cause4 ,the faculty of 
understanding1 the organ of             
generalization1 regards its opposite1   
the concrete1 as secondary1 while the   
faculty of thought which understands    
itself regards it as primary4 ,however1 
the practice of understanding is not to 
be changed by its theory1 nor can it be2
 the theory intends simply to render the
 steps of consciousness firm4 ,the      
scientific farmer differs from the      

practical farmer1 not because he employs
 theory and method1 for both do that1   
but because he understands the theory1  
while the practical man theorizes       
instinctively4  ,to continue3 ,from a   
given multitude of facts1 reason        
generates truth in general1 and out of a
 succession of forms and transformations
 it abstracts the true cause1 just as   
absolute multiplicity is the nature of  
space1 so absolute variability is the   
nature of time4 ,every particle of time 
and space is new1 original1 and has     
never been there before4 ,the faculty of
 thought enables us to find our way     
through this absolute medley by         
abstracting general concepts out of the 
multitude of things in space1 and       
tracing the variations of time to       
general causes4 ,the entire nature of   
reason consists in generalizing sense   
perceptions1 in abstracting the common  
elements out of concrete things4        
,whoever does not fully understand      
reason by understanding that it is the  

organ of generalization forgets that    
understanding requires an object which  
must remain something outside of its    
conception1 since such object cannot be 
dissolved by its conception4 ,the being 
of the reasoning faculty cannot be      
understood any more than being in       
general4 ,or rather1 being is understood
 when we take it in its generality4 ,not
 being itself1 but the general element  
of being1 is understood by the faculty  
of thought4  ,let us realize1 for       
instance1 the process which takes place 
when reason understands something it did
 not know before4 ,think of some        
peculiar1 unexpected and unknown        
chemical transformation which takes     
place suddenly and without apparent     
cause in some mixture4 ,assume          
furthermore that the same reaction takes
 place more frequently after that1 until
 experience demonstrates that this      
inexplicable change occurs whenever     
sunlight touches the mixture4 ,this     
already constitutes a certain           

understanding of the process4 ,assume   
furthermore that subsequent experience  
teaches us that several other substances
 have the faculty of producing the same 
reaction in connection with sunlight4   
,we have then arranged the new reaction 
in line with a number of phenomena of   
the same class1 that is to say we have  
enlarged1 deepened1 completed our       
understanding of it still more4 ,and if 
we finally discover that a special part 
of the sunlight unites with a special   
element of the mixture and thereby      
produces this new reaction1 we have     
generalized this experience1 or         
experienced this generalization1 in a   
pure state1 in other words1 the theory  
of this reaction is complete1 reason has
 solved its problem1 and yet it has done
 nothing more than it did when it       
classified the animal and vegetable     
kingdoms in families1 genera1 species1  
etc4 ,to find the species1 the genus1   
the sex1 etc41 of anything means to     
understand it4  ,reason proceeds in the 

same way when it investigates the causes
 of certain transformations4 ,causes    
are1 in the last instance1 not noticed  
and furnished by means of sight1        
hearing1 feeling1 not by means of the   
sense perceptions4 ,they are rather     
supplied by the faculty of thought4 ,it 
is true1 causes are not the pure        
products of the faculty of thought1 but 
are produced by it in connection with   
sense perceptions and their material    
objects4 ,this raw material gives the   
objective existence to the causes       
produced by the mind4 ,just as we demand
 that a truth should be the truth about 
some objective phenomenon1 so we also   
demand that a cause should be real1 that
 it should be the cause of some         
objective effect4  ,the understanding of
 any concrete cause is conditioned on   
the empirical study of its material1    
while the understanding of any general  
cause is based on the study of the      
faculty of reason4 ,in the understanding
 of concrete causes1 the material of    

study varies1 but reason maintains a    
constant or general attitude4 ,the      
cause1 as a general cause1 is a pure    
conception1 and it is based on the study
 of the multiformity of concrete        
understandings of causes1 or on the     
multiplied study of concrete causes4    
,hence we are compelled to return to the
 concrete material of the general       
concept1 to the understanding of        
concrete causes1 if we wish to analyze  
the concept of a general cause4  ,when a
 stone falls into the water and causes  
ripples on the surface1 the stone is no 
more the cause of the ripples than the  
liquid condition of the water4 ,if the  
stone falls on solid substances1 it     
causes no ripples4 ,it is the contact of
 the falling stone with liquid          
substances which causes the ripples4    
,the cause is itself an effect1 and the 
effect1 the ripples1 become a cause when
 they carry a piece of cork ashore4 ,but
 in either case the cause is based on a 
mutual effect1 on the interaction of the

 waves with the light condition of the  
cork4  ,a stone falling into the water  
is not a cause in itself1 not a cause in
 general4 ,we arrive at such a cause    
only1 when the faculty of thought uses  
concrete causes for its raw material and
 constructs out of them the pure concept
 of the cause in general4 ,a stone      
falling into the water is only the cause
 of the subsequent ripples1 and it      
becomes a general cause only through the
 experience that ripples always follow  
the falling of a stone into water4  ,we 
call cause that which generally precedes
 a certain manifestation1 and effect    
that which generally follows it4 ,we    
refer to the stone as the cause of      
ripples merely because we know that it  
always causes them when falling into    
water4 ,but since ripples sometimes     
appear without being preceded by the    
fall of a stone1 ripples have another   
general cause4 ,so far as there is      
anything general in ripples which       
precedes them1 it is the elasticity of  

the water itself which is the general   
cause of ripples4 ,circular ripples1    
which are a special form of ripples1 are
 generally preceded by the falling of   
some body into the water1 and this body 
is then considered as their cause4 ,the 
cause is always different in proportion 
and to the extent of the phenomena under
 consideration4  ,we cannot ascertain   
causes by mere introspective reasoning1 
we cannot derive them out of our head4  
,matter1 materials1 sense perceptions   
are required for this purpose4 ,a       
definite cause requires a definite      
material1 a definite amount of sense    
perceptions4 ,in the abstract unity of  
nature1 the variations of matter are    
represented by the variations of        
concrete quantities4 ,every quantity is 
given in time before and after a certain
 other quantity1 as antecedent and      
subsequent4 ,the general element of the 
antecedent is called cause1 the general 
element of the subsequent1 effect4      
,when the wind sways a forest1 the      

yielding character of the forest is as  
much instrumental in producing this     
effect as the bending power of the wind4
 ,the cause of a thing is its connection
 with other things4 ,the fact that the  
same wind leaves rocks and walls        
standing shows that the cause is not    
qualitatively different from the effect1
 but that it is a matter of aggregate   
effects4 ,if nevertheless science or    
knowledge determines any special fact to
 be the cause of any change1 that is to 
say of any succession of phenomena1 this
 cause is no longer regarded as the     
external creator1 but merely as the     
general mode1 the immanent method of    
succession4 ,a definite cause can be    
ascertained only when we have under     
consideration a definite circle1 series1
 or number of changes1 the cause of     
which is to be determined4 ,and within a
 definite circle of succeeding          
phenomena1 that which generally precedes
 is their cause4  ,the wind which sways 
a forest differs from wind as a general 

cause only in that the latter has other 
general effects1 inasmuch as it howls in
 one place1 stirs up dust in another1 or
 acts in many different ways4 ,in the   
special case of the forest1 the wind is 
a cause only in so far as it precedes   
the swaying of the trees4 ,but in the   
case of rocks and walls1 the solidity   
precedes the wind and is therefore the  
general cause of their resistance to the
 swaying power of the wind4 ,in a still 
wider circle of hurricane phenomena1 a  
gentle wind may be regarded as a cause  
of the stability of the objects last    
mentioned4  ,the quantity or number of  
given objects varies the name of their  
cause4 ,if a certain company of people  
return from a walk in a tired condition1
 this change of condition is just as    
much due to the physical weakness of the
 people as to the walk4 ,in other words1
 a manifestation has in itself no cause 
which can be separated from it4         
,everything which was connected with a  
phenomenon has contributed toward its   

appearance4 ,in the case of the         
promenaders1 the physical constitution  
of their bodies has to be considered as 
well as the physical constitution and   
length of the road and duration of the  
walk4 ,if reason is nevertheless called 
upon to determine the special cause of  
some concrete change1 for instance1 of a
 tired feeling1 it is simply a question 
of determining which one of the various 
factors has contributed most to that    
feeling4 ,in this case as well as in all
 others1 the work of reason consists in 
developing the general from the         
concrete1 that is to say in this case1  
singling out from a given number of     
tired sensations that which generally   
precedes the tired feeling4 ,if most of 
the promenaders or all of them are found
 to be tired1 the walk will be          
considered as the cause4 ,but if only a 
few are tired1 the weak constitution of 
these people will be considered as the  
general cause of their tired condition4 
,to use another illustration3 ,if the   

discharge of a shot frightens some      
birds1 this effect is due to the        
combined action of the shot and the     
timidity of the birds4 ,if the majority 
of the birds fly away1 the shot will be 
considered as the cause4 ,but if the    
minority fly away1 their timidity will  
be regarded as the cause4  ,effects are 
subsequences4 ,since all things in      
nature follow other things and all      
things have an antecedent and a         
subsequent1 we may call the natural1 the
 real1 the sense perceptions absolute   
effects1 having no cause unless we find 
one with our faculty of thought by      
systematizing the given material4       
,causes are mental generalizations of   
perceptible changes4 ,the supposed      
relation of cause and effect is a       
miracle1 a creation of something out of 
nothing4 ,for this reason this relation 
has been and still is an object of      
speculative reasoning4 ,the speculative 
cause creates its effects4 ,but in      
reality the effects are the material out

 of which the brain1 or science1 forms  
its causes4 ,the cause concept is a     
product of reason2 not of pure reason1  
but of reason married to the world of   
sense perceptions4  ,if ,kant maintains 
that the statement3 ,every change has   
its cause is an a priori truth which we 
cannot experience because no one can    
possibly experience all changes1        
although every one has the irrefutable  
feeling of the correctness of this      
statement1 we know now that this        
statement expresses merely the          
experience that the phenomenon which we 
call reason recognizes the uniform      
element in all multiformity4 ,or in     
other words1 we now know that the       
development of the general element out  
of the concrete facts is called reason1 
thought1 or mind4 ,the secure knowledge 
that every change has its cause is      
nothing else but the conviction that we 
are thinking human beings4 ,cogito1 ergo
 sum4 ,i think1 therefore ,i am4 ,we    
have experienced the nature of our      

reason instinctively even if we have not
 analyzed it scientifically4 ,we are as 
well aware of the faculty of our reason 
to abstract a cause out of every given  
change1 as we are that every circle is  
round1 that a is equal to a4 ,we know   
that the general is the product of      
reason1 and reason produces this general
 thing in contact with every given      
object4 ,and since all objects before   
and after a certain other object are    
temporal changes1 it follows that all   
changes which we as thinking beings     
experience must have a general          
antecedent1 a cause4  ,already the      
,english sceptic ,hume felt that true   
causes are different from assumed       
causes4 ,according to him the concept of
 a cause contains nothing but the       
experience of that which generally      
precedes a certain phenomenon4 ,kant    
rightfully remarks on the other hand    
that the conception of cause and effect 
expresses a far more intimate relation  
than that indicated by a loose and      

accidental succession1 and that the     
concept of a cause rather comprises that
 of a certain effect as a necessity and 
strict general result4 ,therefore he    
claimed that there must be something a  
priori in reason which cannot be        
experienced and which extends beyond    
experience4  ,we reply to the           
materialists who deny all autonomy of   
the mind and hope to detect causes by   
experience alone that the general       
necessity which presupposes the relation
 of cause and effect represents an      
impossible experience4 ,and we reply to 
the idealists3 ,although reason explores
 causes which cannot be experienced1    
this research cannot take place a       
priori1 but only a posteriori1 only on  
the basis of empirically given effects4 
,it is true that the mind alone         
discovers the imperceptible and abstract
 generality1 but it does so only within 
the circle of certain given sense       
perceptions4   7b7 ,matter and ,mind4   
,the understanding of the general       

dependence of the faculty of thought on 
material sense perceptions will restore 
to objective reality that right which   
has long been denied to it by ideas and 
opinions4 ,nature with its varied       
concrete phenomena which had been       
crowded out of human considerations by  
philosophical and religious imaginings1 
and which has been scientifically       
re-established again on special fields  
by the development of natural sciences1 
gains general theoretical recognition by
 the understanding of the functions of  
the brain4 ,hitherto natural science has
 chosen for its object only special     
matters1 special causes1 special forces1
 but has remained ignorant in general   
questions of so-called natural          
philosophy regarding the cause of all   
things1 of matter1 of force in general4 
,the actual existence of this ignorance 
is revealed by that great contradiction 
between idealism and materialism which  
pervades all works of science like a red
 thread4  ,may ,i succeed in this letter

 in strengthening the conviction that   
chemistry as an independent science     
represents one of the most powerful     
means for the higher cultivation of the 
mind1 that its study is useful not alone
 for the promotion of the material      
interests of mankind1 but because it    
permits a deeper penetration of the     
wonders of creation1 with which our     
existence1 our welfare1 and our         
development are intimately connected4   
,in these words ,liebig expresses the   
prevalent views which have accustomed   
themselves to look upon material and    
spiritual differences as absolute       
opposites4 ,but the untenability of such
 a distinction is vaguely felt even by  
the just quoted advocate of this view1  
who speaks of material interests and of 
a mental penetration which is the       
condition for our existence1 welfare1   
and development4 ,but what else does the
 term material interests mean but the   
abstract expression of our existence1   
welfare1 and development8 ,are not these

 the concrete content of our material   
interests8 ,does he not say explicitly  
that the penetration of the wonders of  
creation promotes our material          
interests8 ,and on the other hand1 does 
not the promotion of our material       
interests require a penetration on our  
part of the wonders of creation8 ,in    
what respect are our material interests 
different from our mental penetration of
 things8  ,the superior1 spiritual1     
ideal1 which ,liebig in conformity with 
the views of the world of naturalists   
opposes to our material interests1 is   
only a special part of those interests4 
,mental penetration and material        
interests differ no more than the circle
 differs from the square4 ,circles and  
squares are contrasts1 but at the same  
time they are but different and special 
classes of form in general4  ,it has    
been the custom1 especially since the   
advent of ,christian times1 to speak    
contemptuously of material1 perceptible1
 fleshly things which are destroyed by  

rust and moths4 ,and nowadays people    
continue on this conservative track1    
although their antipathy against        
perceptible reality has long disappeared
 from their minds and actions4 ,the     
,christian separation of mind and body  
has been practically abandoned in the   
age of natural science4 ,but the        
theoretical solution of the             
contradiction1 the demonstration that   
the spiritual is material and the       
material at the same time spiritual1 by 
which the material interests would be   
freed from the stigma of inferiority1   
has not yet been forthcoming4  ,modern  
science is natural science4 ,science is 
deemed worthy of its name only in so far
 as it is natural science4 ,in other    
words1 only that thought is scientific  
which consciously has real1 perceptible1
 natural things for its object4 ,for    
this reason representatives and friends 
of science can not be enemies of nature 
or of matter4 ,indeed they are not4 ,but
 the very existence of science shows    

that this nature1 this world of sense   
perceptions1 this matter or substance1  
does alone and by itself not satisfy us4
 ,science1 or thought1 which has        
material practice or being for its      
object1 does not strive to reproduce    
nature in its integrity1 in its entire  
perceptible substance1 for these are    
already present4 ,if science were to aim
 at nothing new1 it would be            
superfluous4 ,it is entitled to special 
recognition only to the extent that it  
carries a new element into matter4      
,science is not so much concerned in the
 material of its study as in            
understanding4 ,of course it is the     
understanding of this material which is 
desired1 the understanding of its       
general character1 of the fixed pole in 
the succession of phenomena4 ,that which
 religion supernaturally separates from 
the material1 which science opposes to  
the material as something higher1       
diviner1 more spiritual1 is in reality  
nothing but the faculty of rising above 

multiformity1 of proceeding from the    
concrete to the general4  ,the nobler   
spiritual interests are not absolutely  
different from the material interests1  
they are not qualitatively different4   
,the positive side of modern idealism   
does not consist in belittling eating   
and drinking1 the pleasure in earthly   
possessions and in intercourse with the 
other sex1 but rather in pleading for   
the recognition of other material       
enjoyments besides these1 as for        
instance those of the eye1 the ear1 of  
art and science1 in short of the whole  
man4 ,you shall not indulge in the      
material revelries of passion1 that is  
to say you shall not direct your thought
 one-sidedly to any concrete lust1 but  
rather consider your entire development1
 take into account the total general    
extension of your existence4 ,the bare  
materialist principle is inadequate in  
that it does not appreciate the         
difference between the concrete and the 
general1 because it makes the individual

 synonymous with the general4 ,it       
refuses to recognize the quantitative   
superiority of the mind over the world  
of sense perceptions4 ,idealism1 on the 
other hand1 forgets the qualitative     
unity in the quantitative difference4   
,it is transcendental and makes an      
absolute difference out of the relative 
one4 ,the contradiction between these   
two camps is due to the misunderstood   
relation of our reason to its given     
object or material4 ,the idealist       
regards reason alone as the source of   
all understanding1 while the materialist
 looks upon the world of sense          
perceptions in the same way4 ,nothing is
 required for a solution of this        
contradiction but the comprehension of  
the relative interdependence of these   
two sources of understanding4 ,idealism 
sees only the difference1 materialism   
sees only the uniformity of matter and  
mind1 content and form1 force and       
substance1 sense perception and moral   
interpretation4 ,but all these          

distinctions belong to the one common   
genus which constitutes the distinction 
between the special and the general4    
,consistent materialists act like purely
 practical men without any science4     
,but1 since knowing and thinking are    
real attributes of man regardless of his
 party affiliation1 purely practical men
 do not exist in reality4 ,even the     
merest attempt at practical experiment  
on the basis of experienced facts       
differs only in degree from scientific  
practice based on theoretical           
principles4 ,on the other hand1         
consistent idealists are just as        
impossible as purely practical men4     
,they would like to have the general    
without the special1 the spirit without 
matter1 force without substance1 science
 without experience or material1 the    
absolute without the relative4 ,how can 
thinkers who search for truth1 being1   
relative causes1 such as naturalists1 be
 idealists8 ,they are so only outside of
 their specialties1 never inside of     

them4 ,the modern mind1 the mind of     
natural science1 is immaterial only so  
far as it embraces all matters4 ,but men
 like the astronomer ,madler find so    
little of the ridiculous in the current 
expectation of the materially increased 
spiritual power after our emancipation  
from the bonds of matter1 that he has   
nothing better to substitute for it and 
flatters himself with having defined the
 bonds of matter as material attraction4
 ,truly1 so long as mind is still       
conceived in the form of a religious    
ghost1 the expectation of an increased  
mental power after the emancipation from
 the bonds of matter is not so much an  
object for ridicule as for compassion4  
,but if we regard mind as the expression
 of modern science1 we offer the better 
scientific explanation for the          
traditional faith4 ,by bonds of matter  
we do not mean1 in that case1 the bond  
of gravitation1 but the multiplicity of 
sense perceptions4 ,and matter holds the
 mind in bondage only so long as the    

faculty of thought has not overcome the 
multiplicity of things4 ,the            
emancipation of the mind from the bonds 
of matter consists in developing the    
general element out of the concrete     
multiplicity4   7c7 ,force and ,matter4 
,the reader who has closely followed our
 main idea1 which will be further       
illustrated1 will anticipate that the   
question of matter and force finds its  
solution in the understanding of the    
relation between the general and the    
special4 ,what is the relation of the   
concrete to the abstract8 ,this is the  
common problem of those who see the     
active impulse of the world either in   
the spiritual force or in the material  
substance1 who think to find the nature 
of things1 the non plus ultra of        
science1 in either of these facts4      
,liebig1 who is especially fond of      
straying from his inductive science into
 the field of speculative thought1 says 
in an idealist sense3 ,force cannot be  
seen1 we cannot grasp it with our hands2

 in order to understand its nature and  
peculiarities1 we must investigate its  
effects4 ,and if a materialist replies  
to him3 ,matter is force1 force is      
matter1 no matter without force1 no     
force without matter1 it is plain that  
either has determined this relation only
 negatively4 ,in certain shows1 the     
clown is asked by the manager3 ,clown1  
where have you been8 ,with the others1  
answers the clown4 ,and where were the  
others8--,with me4  ,in this case we    
have two answers with the same content1 
in the other we have two camps which    
quarrel with different words about an   
indisputable fact4 ,and this dispute is 
so much more ridiculous because it is   
taken so seriously4 ,if the idealist    
makes a distinction between matter and  
force1 he does not mean to deny that the
 real phenomenon of force is inseparably
 linked with matter4 ,and if the        
materialist claims that there is no     
matter without force and no force       
without matter1 he does not mean to deny

 that matter and force are different1 as
 his opponent claims4  ,the dispute     
exists for a good reason and has its    
object1 but this object is not revealed 
in the dispute4 ,it is instinctively    
kept under cover by both parties1 so    
that they may not be in a position where
 they would have to acknowledge their   
own ignorance4 ,each wants to prove to  
the other that the other's explanations 
are inadequate1 and both demonstrate    
this sufficiently4 ,buechner admits in  
the closing statements of his ,matter   
and ,force that the empirical material  
is insufficient to permit of definite   
answers to transcendental questions1 and
 that therefore no positive answer can  
be given to them4 ,and he furthermore   
says that the empirical material is     
fully sufficient to answer them         
negatively and to do away with          
hypothesis4 ,this is saying in so many  
words that the science of the           
materialist is adequate for the proof   
that his opponent knows nothing4  ,the  

spiritualist or idealist believes in a  
spiritual1 which means in a ghostlike   
and inexplicable1 nature of force4 ,the 
materialist thinkers1 on the other hand1
 are skeptical4 ,a scientific proof of  
faith or of skepticism does not exist4  
,the materialist has only this advantage
 over his idealist opponent1 that he    
looks for the transcendental1 the       
nature1 the cause1 the force1 not back  
of the phenomenon1 not outside of       
matter4 ,but he remains behind the      
idealist when he ignores the difference 
between matter and force4 ,the          
materialist dwells on the actual        
inseparability of matter and force and  
does not admit any other reason for a   
distinction between the two than an     
external reason derived from the demand 
of our mind for systematization4        
,buechner says in ,nature and ,mind1    
page #ff3 ,force and matter1 separated  
from one another1 are for me nothing but
 thoughts1 fantasies1 ideas without any 
substance1 hypotheses which do not exist

 for any healthy study of nature1       
because all phenomena of nature are     
rendered obscure and unintelligible by  
such a separation4 ,but if ,buechner    
deals with any special department of    
natural science in a productive way1    
instead of handling phrases of natural  
philosophy1 his own practice will show  
him that the separation of forces from  
matter is not an external1 but an       
internal1 an imminent necessity1 by     
which alone we are enabled to elucidate 
and understand the phenomena of nature4 
,although the author of ,force and      
,matter chose for his motto3 ,now1 what 
,i want is--facts1 we assure the reader 
that this device is more a thoughtless  
word than a serious opinion4            
,materialism is not so coarse-grained   
that it wants purely facts4 ,those facts
 which ,buechner is looking for are by  
themselves not specifics for his        
desires4 ,the idealist likewise wants   
such facts4 ,no student of nature wants 
mere hypotheses4 ,what all cultivators  

of the field of science want is not so  
much facts as explanations or an        
understanding of facts4 ,even the       
materialist will not deny that science1 
the natural philosophy of ,buechner not 
excepted1 is more concerned with mental 
forces than with bodily matter1 that it 
cares more for force than for matter4   
,the separation of force and matter is  
derived from the demand of our mind for 
systematization4 ,very true6 ,but so    
does all science emanate from the demand
 of our reason for systematization4     
,the contradistinction between force and
 matter is as old as that between       
idealism and materialism4 ,the first    
conciliation between the two was        
attempted by imagination which1 through 
the belief in spirits1 suggested a      
secret nature as the cause of all       
natural phenomena4 ,science has of late 
expelled many of these special spirits  
by replacing the fantastic demons with  
scientific1 or general1 explanations4   
,and after we have succeeded in         

explaining the demon of pure reason1 it 
is not difficult to expel the special   
spirit of force by the general          
explanation of its nature and thus to   
reconcile scientifically the            
contradiction between spiritualism and  
materialism4  ,in the universe which    
constitutes the object of science and of
 the faculty of reason1 both force and  
matter are unseparated4 ,in the world of
 sense perceptions force is matter and  
matter is force4 ,force cannot be seen4 
,oh1 yes6 ,seeing itself is pure force4 
,seeing is as much an effect of its     
object as an effect of the eye1 and this
 double effect and other effects are    
forces4 ,we do not see the things       
themselves1 but their effects on our    
eyes4 ,we see their forces4 ,and force  
cannot alone be seen1 it can also be    
heard1 smelled1 tasted1 felt4 ,who will 
deny that he can feel the force of heat1
 of cold1 of gravitation8 ,we have      
already quoted the words of ,professor  
,koppe to the effect that we cannot     

perceive heat itself1 we merely conclude
 from its effects that this force exists
 in nature4 ,this is saying in other    
words that we do not see1 hear1 or feel 
the things themselves1 but their effects
 or forces4  ,it is just as true to say 
that we feel matter and not its force as
 it is to say that we feel force and not
 matter4 ,indeed1 both are inseparable  
from the object1 as we have already     
remarked4 ,but by means of the faculty  
of thought we separate from the         
simultaneously and successively         
occurring phenomena the general and the 
concrete4 ,for instance1 we abstract the
 general concept of sight from the      
various phenomena of our sight and      
distinguish it by the name of power of  
vision from the concrete objects1 or    
substances1 of our eyes4 ,from a        
multitude of sense perceptions we       
develop by means of reason the general  
element4 ,the general element of        
different water phenomena1 for instance1
 is the water power distinguished from  

the substance of the water4 ,if levers  
of different materials but of the same  
length have the same power1 it is plain 
that in this case force is different    
from matter only in so far as it        
represents the general element of       
various substances4 ,a horse does not   
pull without force1 and this force does 
not pull without the horse4 ,indeed1 in 
practice the horse is force and force is
 the horse4 ,but nevertheless we may    
distinguish the power of pulling from   
other qualities of the horse1 or we may 
refer to the common element in different
 services of horses as general horse    
power1 without thereby starting from any
 other hypothesis than we do in         
distinguishing the sun from the earth4  
,for in reality the sun does not exist  
without the earth1 nor the earth without
 the sun4  ,the world of sense          
perceptions is made known to us only by 
our consciousness1 but consciousness is 
conditioned on the world of sense       
perceptions4 ,nature is infinitely      

united or infinitely separated1         
according to whether we regard it from  
the standpoint of consciousness as an   
unconditional unit or from the          
standpoint of sense perceptions as an   
unconditional multiplicity4 ,there is   
truth in both unity and multiplicity1   
but it is truth only relatively         
speaking1 under certain conditions4 ,it 
matters a great deal whether we look    
about with the eyes of the body or with 
the eyes of the mind4 ,for the eyes of  
the mind1 matter is force4 ,for the eyes
 of the body1 force is matter4 ,the     
abstract matter is force1 the concrete  
force is matter4 ,matter is represented 
by the objects of the hand1 of practice1
 while force is an object of            
understanding1 of science4  ,science is 
not limited to the so-called scientific 
world4 ,it reaches beyond all classes1  
it belongs to the full depth and width  
of life4 ,science belongs to thinking   
humanity in its entirety4 ,and so it is 
with the separation of matter and force4

 ,only a stultified fanaticism can      
ignore the practical distinction4 ,the  
miser who accumulates money without     
adding any wealth to his life process   
forgets that the valuable element of    
money resides in its force1 which is    
different from1 its substance4 ,he      
forgets that not mere wealth as such1   
not the paltry gold substance1 lends a  
reasonableness to the quest for its     
possession1 but its spiritual content1  
its inherent exchange value1 which buys 
the necessities of life4 ,every         
scientific practice1 which means every  
action carried on with a predetermined  
success and with understood substances1 
proves that the separation of matter and
 force1 though only performed in thought
 and existing in thought1 is            
nevertheless not an empty phrase1 not a 
mere hypothesis1 but a very fertile     
idea4 ,a farmer manuring his field is   
handling pure manuring force1 in so far 
as it is immaterial for the abstract    
conception whether he is handling cow   

dung1 bone dust1 or guano4 ,and in      
weighing bundles of merchandise1 it is  
not the iron1 copper1 stone1 etc41 which
 is handled by the pound1 but their     
gravity4  ,true1 there is no force      
without matter1 no matter without force4
 ,forceless matter and matterless force 
are nonentities4 ,if idealist           
naturalists believe in an immaterial    
existence of forces which1 so to say1   
carry on their goblin-pranks in matter1 
forces which we cannot see1 cannot      
perceive by the senses and yet are asked
 to believe in1 then we say that such   
men are to that extent that naturists1  
but mere speculators1 in other words    
spiritualists4 ,and the word of the     
materialists who refer to the           
intellectual separation of matter and   
force as a mere hypothesis1 is quite as 
brainless4  ,in order that this         
separation may be appreciated according 
to its merits1 in order that our        
consciousness may neither etherealize   
force in a spiritualist sense nor deny  

it in a materialist sense1 and in order 
to comprehend it scientifically1 we have
 only to understand the faculty of      
thought in general or in itself1 that is
 to say its abstract form4 ,the         
intellect can not operate without some  
perceptible material4 ,in order to      
distinguish between matter and force1   
these things must exist and be          
experienced by sense perception4 ,by    
means of this experience we refer to    
matter as the expression of force and to
 force as the expression of matter4 ,the
 perceptible object which is to be      
studied is therefore matter and force in
 one1 and since all objects are in their
 tangible reality such matter and       
force-things1 the distinction made by   
the mind consists in the general method 
of brain work1 in the derivation of the 
general unity1 from the special         
multiplicity in any one and in all given
 objects4 ,the distinction between      
matter and force is summarized in the   
universal distinction between the       

concrete and the abstract4 ,to deny the 
value of this distinction is equivalent 
to denying the value of any and all     
distinction1 equivalent to ignoring the 
function of the intellect altogether4   
,if we refer to phenomena of sense      
perception as forces of matter in       
general1 then this generalized matter is
 nothing but an abstract conception4    
,but if we mean by the term sense       
perception the various concrete         
substances1 then the general element    
which embraces the differences of things
 and pervades and controls them is force
 producing concrete effects4 ,and       
whether we say matter or force1 the     
mental which science is studying1 not   
with its hands1 but with its brain1 the 
so-called essence1 nature1 cause1 ideal1
 superior or spiritual1 is the          
generality comprising the special       
things4     ,v  ,,practical ,,reason    
,,or ,,morality   7a7 ,the ,wise and    
,reasonable4  ,the understanding of the 
method of science1 the understanding of 

the mind1 is destined to solve all the  
problems of religion and philosophy1 to 
explain thoroughly all the great and    
small riddles1 and thus fully to restore
 research to its mission of empirically 
studying details4 ,if we are aware that 
it is a law of reason to require some   
perceptible material1 some cause1 for   
its operation1 then the question        
regarding the first or general cause    
becomes superfluous4 ,human             
understanding is then seen to be first  
and last cause of all concrete causes4  
,if we understand that it is a law of   
reason to require for its operation some
 given object1 some beginning at which  
to start1 then the question of the first
 beginning must necessarily become      
inane4 ,if we understand that reason    
derives abstract units out of concrete  
multiplicities1 that it constructs truth
 out of phenomena1 substance out of     
attributes1 that it perceives all things
 as parts of a whole1 as individuals of 
some genus1 as qualities of some object1

 then the question regarding a thing    
itself1 a something which in reality is 
back of all things1 must needs become   
irrelevant4 ,in brief1 the understanding
 of the interdependence of reason       
reveals the unreasonableness of the     
demand for independent reason4  ,now1   
although the main object of metaphysics1
 the cause of all causes1 the beginning 
of all beginnings1 the nature of things1
 causes little inconvenience to modern  
science1 and even though the needs of   
the present have overcome the leaning   
for speculation1 this practical downfall
 of speculation does not suffice for the
 solution of its problems4 ,so long as  
the theoretical law is not understood1  
according to which reason requires some 
concrete object for its operation1 there
 is no hope of abandoning objectless    
thought1 this malpractice of speculative
 philosophy1 which pretends to generate 
knowledge without intercourse with      
objective reality4 ,our naturalists     
demonstrate this very clearly as soon as

 they turn from their tangible          
specialties to abstract things4 ,the    
dispute over questions of life's wisdom1
 of morality1 or the quarrel over the   
wise1 good1 right1 or bad1 reveals that 
here is the boundary of scientific      
agreement4 ,the scientific explorers of 
the exact sciences abandon every day    
their inductive method when dealing with
 social problems1 and stray off into the
 regions of speculative philosophy4     
,just as in physics they believe in     
imperceptible physical truths1 in things
 themselves1 so in social matters they  
believe in the reasonable1 wise1 right1 
or bad1 in the sense of things          
themselves1 of absolute phases of life1 
of unconditional conditions4 ,it is here
 where the outcome of our studies1 of   
the critique of pure reason1 must be    
applied4  ,in recognizing that          
consciousness1 the nature of            
understanding1 the mental activity in   
its general form1 consists in developing
 general concepts out of concrete       

objects1 we circumscribe this insight by
 stating that reason develops its       
understanding out of contradictions4 ,it
 is the nature of the mind to perceive1 
in given phenomena of different         
dimensions and different duration1 the  
nature of things by their semblance1 and
 their semblance by their nature2 to    
distinguish in wants of various degrees 
the most essential and necessary from   
the less pressing2 to measure within a  
certain circle of magnitudes the large  
by the small and the small by the large1
 or in other words to compare the       
contrasts of the world with one another1
 to harmonize them by explanation4      
,common parlance instinctively calls    
understanding judging2 judging requires 
a certain standard4 ,just as surely as  
we cannot perceive any objects which are
 in themselves great or small1 hard or  
soft1 clear or dark1 just as surely as  
these terms denote certain relations and
 require a certain standard by which    
their relations can be determined1 even 

so does reason require a certain        
standard for the determination of that  
which is reasonable4  ,the fact that we 
consider certain actions1 institutions1 
conceptions1 maxims of other periods1   
nations1 or persons unreasonable is     
simply due to the application of a      
different standard1 because we ignore   
the premises1 the conditions1 which     
cause another's reason to differ from   
our own4 ,men who differ in their mental
 estimates1 in their understanding of   
things1 may be likened to the           
thermometers of ,reaumur and ,celsius1  
one of which designates the boiling     
point by #hj and the other by #ajj4 ,a  
different standard is the cause of this 
different result4 ,on the so-called     
moral field there is no scientific      
agreement1 such as we enjoy in some     
physical matters1 because we lack the   
uniform standard which natural science  
has long since found4 ,it is still      
attempted to perceive the reasonable1   
good1 right1 etc41 without empirical    

data1 by speculative reasoning without  
experience4 ,speculation seeks the cause
 of all causes1 the immeasurable cause2 
truth itself1 the unconditional and     
standardless truth2 the unlimited good1 
the unboundedly reasonable1 etc4 ,the   
absence of a standard is the essence of 
speculation1 and its practice is        
characterized by unlimited inconsistency
 and disagreement4 ,if there are        
followers of certain positive religions 
who agree in the matter of morals1 they 
owe this to the positive standard which 
certain dogmas1 doctrines and           
commandments have given them4 ,but if   
any one tries to perceive things by pure
 reason1 the dependence of this reason  
on some standard will be demonstrated by
 its impure1 that is to say individual1 
perceptions4  ,sense perception is the  
standard of truth1 or of science in     
general4 ,the phenomena of the outside  
world are the standard of physical      
truths1 and man with his many wants is  
the standard of moral truth4 ,the       

actions of man are determined by his    
wants4 ,thirst teaches him to drink1    
need to pray4 ,wants are regulated in   
the ,south by southern conditions1 in   
the ,north by northern conditions4      
,wants rule time and space1 nations and 
individuals4 ,they induce the savage to 
hunt and the gourmand to indulge4 ,human
 wants give to reason a standard for    
judging what is good1 right1 bad1       
reasonable1 etc4 ,whatever satisfies our
 need is good1 the opposite is bad4 ,the
 physical feeling of man is the object  
of moral standards1 the object of       
practical reason4 ,the contradictory    
variety of human needs is the basis for 
the contradictory variety of moral      
standards4 ,because a member of a feudal
 guild prospered in a restricted        
competition1 and a modern knight of     
industry in free competition1 because   
their interests differ1 therefore their 
views differ1 and the one justly        
considers an institution as unreasonable
 which the other regards as reasonable4 

,if the intellect of some person        
attempts to define by mere introspection
 the standard of reasonableness as a    
general thing1 this person makes himself
 or herself the standard of humanity4   
,if reason is credited with the faculty 
of finding within itself the source of  
moral truth1 it commits the speculative 
mistake of attempting to produce        
understanding without perceptible       
objects4 ,the same mistake is to blame  
for the idea that man is subordinate to 
the authority of reason1 for the demand 
that man submit to the dictates of      
reason4 ,this idea transforms man into  
an attribute of reason1 while in reality
 reason is an attribute of man4  ,the   
question whether man depends on reason  
or reason on man is similar to the one  
whether the citizen exists for the state
 or the state for the citizen4 ,in the  
last and highest instance1 the citizen  
is the primary fact and the state is    
modified according to the requirements  
of the citizen4 ,but whenever the       

dominant interests of the citizenship   
have acquired the authority in the      
state1 then the citizen is indeed       
dependent on the state4 ,this is saying 
in so many words that man is guided in  
minor matters by more important ones4   
,he sacrifices the less important1      
minor1 particular things to the great1  
essential1 general things4 ,he          
subordinates his desire for more        
individual indulgence to his fundamental
 social needs4 ,it is not pure reason1  
but the reason of a weak body or of a   
limited purse which teaches man to      
renounce the pleasures of dissipation   
for the benefit of the general welfare4 
,the wants of the senses are the        
material out of which reason fashions   
moral truths4 ,to single out the        
essential need among different physical 
needs of various degrees of intensity or
 extension1 to separate the true from   
the individual1 to develop general      
concepts1 that is the mission of reason4
 ,the difference between the apparently 

and the truly reasonable reduces itself 
to the difference between the special   
and the general4  ,we recall that reason
 requires sense perceptions for its     
existence and operation1 that it needs  
some object which it can perceive4      
,existence is the condition or premise  
of all understanding4 ,just as the      
understanding of true existence is the  
function of natural science1 so the     
understanding of reasonable existence is
 the function of wisdom4 ,reason in     
general has the mission of understanding
 things as they are4 ,as physical       
science it has to understand what is    
true1 as wisdom1 what is reasonable4    
,and just as true may be translated by  
general1 so reasonable may be translated
 by generally appropriate to need4 ,we  
saw a while ago that a sense perception 
is not true in itself1 but only         
relatively true1 that it is called true 
or general only in relation to other    
perceptions of lesser importance4 ,in   
the same way1 no human action can be    

reasonable or appropriate in itself1 it 
can be reasonable only in comparison    
with some other action which attempts to
 accomplish the same purpose in a less  
practicable1 that is an impracticable1  
form4 ,just as the true1 the general1 is
 conditioned on the relation to some    
other object1 on a definite quantity of 
phenomena1 on definite limits1 so the   
reasonable or practicable is based on   
definite conditions which make it       
reasonable or unreasonable4 ,the end in 
view is the measure of the practicable4 
,the practicable can be determined only 
by some definite object that is wanted4 
,once this object is known1 then that   
action is called reasonable which       
accomplishes it in the fullest1 most    
general way1 and all other actions      
appear unreasonable compared to it4  ,in
 view of the law which we evolved by our
 analysis of pure reason and which      
showed that all understanding1 all      
thought1 is based on some perceptible   
object1 on some quantity of sense       

perceptions1 it is evident that         
everything distinguished by our faculty 
of distinction is a certain quantity and
 that1 therefore1 all distinctions are  
only quantitative1 not absolute1 only   
graduated1 not irreconcilable4 ,even the
 difference between the reasonable and  
the unreasonable1 or in other words     
between that which is momentarily or    
individually reasonable and that which  
is generally reasonable1 is merely a    
quantitative distinction1 like all      
others1 so that the unreasonable may be 
conditionally reasonable1 and nothing is
 unreasonable but that which is supposed
 to be unconditionally reasonable4  ,if 
we understand that reason requires some 
perceptible object1 some perceptible    
standard1 then we shall no longer try to
 understand the absolutely reasonable1  
the purely reasonable4 ,we shall then   
limit ourselves to look for the         
reasonable1 as for all other things1 in 
concrete objects4 ,the definite1        
accurate1 certain1 uniform result of    

some understanding depends on the       
definite formulation of the task1 on the
 accurate limitation of the perceptible 
quantity which is to be understood4 ,if 
a certain moment1 a certain person1 a   
certain class1 a certain nation are     
given and at the same time an essential 
need1 a general and predominating       
purpose1 then the question regarding the
 reasonable or suitable is easily       
answered4 ,it is true that we may also  
know something of things which are      
generally reasonable for mankind in the 
aggregate1 but in that case our standard
 must be abstract mankind instead of    
some concrete part of it4 ,science may  
study the anatomical structure of some  
concrete body as well as the general    
type of the human body1 but this again  
it can do only when it supplies the     
faculty of understanding with general   
instead of individual material4 ,if     
science divides the whole human race    
into four or five races1 by establishing
 a certain standard of physiognomy1 and 

later on discovers some individuals or  
tribes whose characters are so peculiar 
and rare that they cannot be classed    
under any of the established races1 the 
existence of such exceptions is not a   
crime against the physical order of the 
world1 but merely a proof of the        
inadequacy of our scientific            
classification4 ,if1 on the other hand1 
some conventional mode of thought       
considers a certain action as           
universally reasonable or unreasonable  
and then encounters opposition in actual
 life1 convention fancies itself exempt 
from the work of understanding and      
assumes to deny civic rights in the     
moral order of the world to its         
opponents4 ,instead of realizing the    
limited applicability of its rules by   
the existence of opposing practices1    
convention seeks to establish an        
absolute applicability of its rules by  
simply ignoring the cause of the        
opposition4 ,this is a dogmatic         
procedure1 a negative practice1 which   

ignores facts on the pretense that they 
are irrational1 but it is not a positive
 understanding1 not an intelligent      
knowledge1 such as manifests itself by  
the conciliation of contradictions4  ,if
 our study aims to ascertain what is    
universally human and reasonable1 and if
 these predicates are given only to     
actions which are reasonable and        
practicable for all men1 at all times1  
and under all conditions1 then such     
concepts are absolute1 indeterminate1   
and to that extent meaningless1         
indefinite generalities4 ,we are stating
 such universal and indeterminate1 and  
therefore unimportant and unpractical   
concepts1 when we say that physically   
the whole is greater than a part1 or    
that morally the good is preferable to  
the bad4 ,the object of reason is that  
which is general1 but it is the         
generality of some concrete object4 ,the
 practice of reason deals with          
individual and concrete objects1 with   
the things which are the opposite of the

 general1 with special and concrete     
knowledge4 ,in order to perceive in     
physics whether we are dealing with a   
part or with the whole object1 we must  
handle definite and concrete objects or 
phenomena4 ,if we desire to ascertain   
what is morally preferable as good or   
bad1 we must start out with a definite  
quantity of human needs4 ,abstract and  
general reason1 with its socalled       
eternal and absolute truths1 is a       
phantasmagoria of ignorance which binds 
the rights of the individual with       
crushing chains4 ,real and true reason  
is individual1 it cannot produce any    
other but individual perceptions1 and   
these perceptions cannot be generalized 
to any greater extent than the general  
material with which they operate4 ,only 
that is universally reasonable which is 
acknowledged to be so by all reasons4   
,if the reason of some time1 class1 or  
person is referred to as rational1 and  
if some other time1 class or person     
considers it irrational2 if1 for        

instance1 the ,russian noble considers  
serfdom a rational institution and the  
,english bourgeois the so-called liberty
 of his wage worker1 both of these      
institutions are not absolutely         
rational1 but only relatively1 only in a
 more or less limited circle4  ,it is   
not necessary to state that ,i do not   
mean to question the great importance of
 our reason by the foregoing remarks4   
,even though reason cannot              
independently1 or absolutely1 discern   
the objects of the speculative          
introspection1 such as the objects of   
the moral world1 the true1 the          
beautiful1 the right1 the bad1 the      
reasonable1 etc41 it nevertheless is    
well fitted to distinguish relatively1  
by means of concrete sense perceptions1 
between general and concrete things1    
between the object and its              
manifestation1 between fundamental needs
 and fanciful appetites4 ,although we   
may dispense with the belief in absolute
 reason and consequently realize that   

there can be no absolute peace1 still we
 may call war an unmitigated evil when  
comparing it with the peaceful interests
 of our time or of our class4 ,not until
 we abandon our fruitless exploring trip
 after absolute truth1 shall we learn to
 find that which is true in space and   
time4 ,it is precisely the consciousness
 of the relative applicability of our   
knowledge which is the strongest lever  
of progress4 ,the believers in absolute 
truth have adopted the monotonous       
diagram of good men and rational        
institutions as a basis for their views 
of life4 ,for this reason they oppose   
all human and historical institutions   
which do not fit into their pattern1 but
 which reality nevertheless produces    
without regard to their brains4         
,absolute truth is the arch foundation  
of intolerance4 ,on the other hand      
tolerance proceeds from the             
consciousness of the relative           
applicability of eternal truths4 ,the   
understanding of pure reason leads to   

the realization that the consciousness  
of the universal interdependence of     
reason is the true road toward practical
 reason4   7b7 ,morality and ,right4    
,the nature of our task limits us to the
 demonstration that pure reason is a    
nonentity1 that reason is the sum of all
 acts of individual understanding1 that 
it deals only seemingly with pure and   
general1 but in reality with practical1 
or concrete1 perceptions4 ,we have been 
discussing that philosophy which        
pretends to be the science of pure or   
absolute understanding4 ,we found its   
aim to be idle1 inasmuch as the         
development of speculative philosophy   
represents a succession of              
disappointments1 because its            
unconditional or absolute systems proved
 to be limited in space and time4 ,our  
presentation of the matter has revealed 
the relative character of so-called     
eternal truths4 ,we perceived that      
reason was dependent on sense           
perceptions1 we found that any truth    

required definite limits for its        
determination4 ,as regards more         
especially life's wisdom1 we saw that   
the acquired knowledge of pure reason   
manifested itself in practice by the    
dependence of the wise or the rational  
upon concrete sense perceptions4 ,if we 
now apply this theory to morality as    
such1 we must be able to establish      
harmony also in this field1 where there 
is some doubt as to what is right and   
wrong1 by means of the scientific       
method4  ,pagan morality is different   
from ,christian morality4 ,feudal       
morality differs from modern bourgeois  
morality as does bravery from solvency4 
,in brief1 we need no detailed          
illustration to show that different     
times and nations have different        
moralities4 ,we have but to understand  
that this change is necessary1 a special
 characteristic of the human race and of
 its historical development1 and we     
shall then exchange the belief in       
eternal truths1 which every ruling class

 claims to be identical with its own    
selfish laws1 for the scientific        
knowledge that absolute right is purely 
a concept which we derive by means of   
the faculty of thought from the various 
successive rights4 ,right as an absolute
 concept means no more and no less than 
any other general concept1 for instance1
 the head in general4 ,every real head  
is a concrete one and belongs either to 
man or to some other animal1 it is      
either long or broad1 narrow or wide1 in
 other words it has special             
peculiarities4 ,but at the same time1   
every concrete head has certain general 
qualities which are universal in all    
heads1 for instance the quality of being
 the superintendent of the body4        
,moreover1 every head has as many       
general as individual traits1 it is no  
more personal than it is common4 ,the   
faculty of thought abstracts the general
 traits from the actual concrete heads  
and in this way creates the concept of  
the absolute head4 ,just as the absolute

 head1 or the head1 is composed of the  
general qualities of all heads1 so the  
absolute right stands merely for the    
general characters of all rights4 ,both 
of these concepts exist merely as ideas1
 not as objects4  ,every real right is a
 concrete right1 it is right only under 
certain conditions1 at definite periods1
 for this or that nation4 ,thou shalt   
not kill1 is right in peace1 but wrong  
in war2 it is right for the majority of 
bourgeois society that wishes to see the
 outbursts of passion controlled in the 
interest of its own predominant needs1  
but wrong for the savage who has not    
arrived at the period where a peaceful  
and social life is appreciated1 and who 
therefore would consider the above      
commandment as an immoral restriction of
 his liberty4 ,for the love of life1    
murder is a detestable abomination1 for 
revenge it is a sweet satisfaction4 ,in 
the same way robbery seems right to the 
robber1 wrong to the robbed4 ,there can 
be no question of any absolute wrong in 

such cases1 only of wrong in a relative 
sense4 ,an action is wrong in a general 
sense only in so far as it is generally 
disliked4 ,plain robbery is wrong in the
 opinion of the great majority today    
because our generation takes more       
interest in bourgeois affairs of        
commerce and industry than in the       
adventures of the knights of the road4  
,if there were such a thing as an       
absolutely right law1 dogma1 or action1 
it would have to serve the welfare of   
all mankind under all conditions and at 
all times4 ,but human welfare is as     
different as men1 circumstances1 and    
time4 ,what is good for me is bad for   
another1 and the thing which may be     
beneficial as a rule may be injurious as
 an exception4 ,what promotes some      
interests in one period may interfere   
with them in another4 ,a law which would
 presume to be absolutely right would   
have to be right for every one and at   
all times4 ,no absolute morality1 no    
duty1 no categorical imperative1 no idea

 of the good1 can teach man what is     
good1 bad1 right1 or wrong4 ,that is    
good which corresponds to our needs1    
that is bad which is contrary to them4  
,but is there anything which is         
absolutely good8 ,everything and        
nothing4 ,it is not the straight timber 
which is good1 nor the crooked4 ,neither
 is good1 or either is good1 according  
to whether ,i need it or not4 ,and since
 we need all things1 we can see some    
good in all of them4 ,we are not limited
 to any one thing4 ,we are unlimited1   
universal1 and need everything4 ,our    
interests are therefore innumerable1    
inexpressibly great1 and therefore every
 law is inadequate1 because it always   
considers only some special welfare1    
some special interest4 ,and for this    
reason no right is right1 or all of them
 are right1 and it is as right to say   
,thou shalt not kill as it is to say    
,thou shalt kill4  ,the difference      
between good needs and bad needs1 right 
wants and wrong wants1 like that between

 truth and error1 reasonable and        
unreasonable1 finds its conciliation in 
the difference between the concrete and 
the general4 ,reason cannot discover    
within itself any positive rights or    
absolutely moral codes any more than any
 other speculative truth4 ,it cannot    
estimate how essential or unessential a 
thing is1 or classify the quantity of   
concrete and general characters1 until  
it has some perceptible material to work
 upon4 ,the understanding of the right1 
or of the moral1 like all understanding1
 strives to single out the general      
characteristics of its object4 ,but the 
general is only possible within certain 
defined limits1 it exists only as the   
general qualities of some concrete and  
determined perceptible object4 ,and if  
any one tries to represent some maxim1  
some law1 some right in the light of an 
absolute maxim1 law or right1 he forgets
 this necessary limitation4 ,absolute   
right is merely a meaningless concept1  
and it does not assume even a vague     

meaning until it is understood to stand 
for the right of mankind in general4    
,but morality1 or the determination of  
that which is right1 has a practical    
purpose4 ,yet1 if we accept the general 
and unconditional right of mankind as a 
moral right1 we necessarily miss our    
practical aim4 ,an act or a line of     
action which is universally or          
everywhere right requires no law for its
 enforcement1 for it will recommend     
itself4 ,it is only the determined and  
limited law1 adapted to certain persons1
 classes1 nations1 times1 or            
circumstances1 which has any practical  
value1 and it is so much more practical 
the more defined1 exact1 precise and the
 less general it is4  ,the most         
universal and most widely recognized    
right or need is in its quality no more 
rightful1 better1 or valuable than the  
most insignificant right of the moment1 
than the momentary need of some         
individual4 ,although we know that the  
sun is hundreds of thousands of miles in

 diameter1 we are nevertheless free to  
see it no larger than a plate4 ,and     
though we may acknowledge that some     
moral law is theoretically or           
universally good or holy1 we are free in
 practice to reject it momentarily1 in  
parts1 or individually1 as bad and      
useless4 ,even the most sacred right of 
the most universal extent is valid only 
within certain definite limits1 and     
within particular limits an otherwise   
very great wrong may be a valid right4  
,it is true that there is an eternal    
difference between assumed and true     
interests1 between passion and reason1  
between essential1 predominating1       
general1 well-founded needs and         
inclinations1 and accidental1           
subordinate1 special appetites4 ,but    
this difference is not one of two       
separated worlds1 a world of the good   
and a world of the bad4 ,it is not a    
positive1 general1 continuous1 absolute 
difference1 but merely a relative one4  
,like the difference between beautiful  

and homely1 it depends on the           
individuality of the person who         
distinguishes4 ,that which is a true and
 fundamental need in one case1 is a     
secondary1 subordinate1 and wrong desire
 in another4  ,morality is the aggregate
 of the most contradictory ethical laws 
which serve the common purpose of       
regulating the conduct of man toward    
himself and others in such a way that   
the future is considered as well as the 
present1 the one as well as the other1  
the individual as well as the genus4    
,the individual man finds himself       
lacking1 inadequate1 limited in many    
ways4 ,he requires for his complement   
other people1 society1 and must         
therefore live and let live4 ,the mutual
 concessions which arise out of these   
relative needs are called morality4     
,the inadequacy of the single           
individual1 the need of association1 is 
the basis and cause of man's            
consideration for his neighbor1 of      
morality4 ,now since the one who feels  

this need1 man1 is necessarily an       
individual1 it follows that his need    
must likewise be individual and more or 
less intensive4 ,and since my neighbors 
are necessarily different from me1 it   
requires different considerations to    
meet their needs4 ,concrete man needs a 
concrete morality4 ,just as abstract and
 meaningless as the concept of mankind  
in general is that of absolute morality1
 and the ethical laws derived from this 
vague idea are quite as unpractical and 
unsuccessful4 ,man is a living          
personality1 whose welfare and purpose  
is embodied within himself1 who has     
between himself and the world nothing   
but his needs as a mediator1 who owes no
 allegiance to any law whatever from the
 moment that it contravenes his needs4  
,the moral duty of an individual never  
exceeds his interests4 ,the only thing  
which exceeds those interests is the    
material power of the generality over   
the individuality4  ,if we regard it as 
the function of reason to ascertain that

 which is morally right1 a uniform      
scientific result may be produced if we 
agree at the outset on the persons1     
conditions1 or limits within which the  
universal moral right is to be          
determined2 in other words1 we may      
accomplish something practical if we    
drop the idea of absolute right and     
search for definite rights applicable to
 well-defined purposes by clearly       
stating our problem4 ,the contradiction 
in the various standards of morality1   
and the many opposing solutions of this 
contradiction1 are due to a             
misunderstanding of the problem4 ,to    
look for right without a given quantity 
of sense perceptions1 without some      
definite working material1 is an act of 
speculative reason which pretends to    
explore nature without the use of       
senses4 ,the attempt to arrive at a     
positive determination of morality by   
pure perception and pure reason is a    
manifestation of the philosophical faith
 in understanding a priori4  ,it is     

true1 said ,macaulay in his ,history of 
,england1 in speaking of the rebellion  
against the lawless and cruel government
 of ,james ,,ii41 that to trace the     
exact boundary between rightful and     
wrongful resistance is impossible3 but  
this impossibility arises from the      
nature of right and wrong1 and is found 
in every part of ethical science4 ,a    
good action is not distinguished from a 
bad action by marks so plain as those   
which distinguish a hexagon from a      
square4 ,there is a frontier where      
virtue and vice fade into each other4   
,who has ever been able to define the   
exact boundary between courage and      
rashness1 between prudence and          
cowardice1 between frugality and        
avarice1 between liberality and         
prodigality8 ,who has ever been able to 
say how far mercy to offenders ought to 
be carried1 and where it ceases to      
deserve the name of mercy and becomes a 
pernicious weakness8  ,it is not the    
impossibility of accurately determining 

this limit to which the nature of the   
difference between right and wrong1 in  
the sense of ,macaulay1 is due4 ,it is  
rather due to the vague thought which   
believes in an unlimited right1 in      
absolute virtues and faults1 which has  
not risen to the understanding that the 
terms good1 brave1 right1 and bad are   
valid always and everywhere only in     
relation to some concrete individual who
 reasons1 and that they have no validity
 in themselves4 ,courage is             
foolhardiness in the eyes of the        
cautious1 and caution is cowardice in   
the opinion of the daring4 ,the revolt  
against existing governments is always  
right in the eyes of the rebels1 always 
wrong in the opinion of the attacked4   
,no action can be absolutely right or   
wrong4  ,the same qualities of man are  
good or bad1 according to his needs and 
their uses1 according to time and place4
 ,here trickery1 slyness1 and bad faith 
prevail1 there loyally1 frankness and   
straightforwardness4 ,here compassion   

and charity serve their purpose and     
promote welfare1 there ruthless and     
bloody severity4 ,the quantity1 the more
 or less beneficial effect of a human   
quality1 determines the difference      
between virtue and vice4  ,reason can   
distinguish between right and wrong1    
virtue and vice1 only to the extent that
 it can measure the relative quantity of
 right in any faculty1 rule1 or action4 
,no categorical imperative1 no ethical  
code1 can serve as a basis for the real 
practical right4 ,on the contrary1      
ethics finds its justification in the   
actual righteousness of perceptible     
objects4 ,for general reason1 frankness 
is not a better quality than slyness4   
,frankness is preferable to slyness only
 inasmuch as it is quantitatively1 that 
is to say1 more frequently1 better1 and 
more generally appreciated than slyness4
 ,it follows that a science of right can
 serve as a guide in practice only to   
the extent that practice has served as a
 basis for science4 ,reason cannot      

determine the action of man beforehand1 
because it can only experience1 but not 
anticipate reality1 because every man1  
every situation1 is new1 original1      
exists for the first time1 and because  
the possibilities of reason are confined
 to understanding a posteriori4         
,absolute right1 or right in itself1 is 
an imagined right1 is a speculative     
desire4 ,a scientifically universal     
right requires certain definite and     
perceptible premises which form the     
basis of the determination of the       
general4 ,science is not a dogmatic     
infallibility which may say3 ,this or   
that is right1 because it is so         
understood4 ,science requires for its   
perceptions some external object4 ,it   
can perceive right only if it rightly   
exists4 ,the universal existence is the 
material1 premise1 condition1 and cause 
of science4  ,from the foregoing follows
 the postulate that morality must be    
studied inductively or scientifically1  
not speculatively by the method of      

traditional philosophy4 ,we must not    
attempt to study absolute1 but only     
relative rights1 only rights based on   
certain premises1 and only this can be  
the moral problem of reason4 ,thus the  
belief in a moral order of the world is 
dissolved in the consciousness of human 
freedom4 ,the understanding of reason1  
of knowledge1 of science1 includes the  
understanding of the limited validity of
 all ethical maxims4  ,whatever         
impressed man as salutary1 valuable1    
divine1 was exhibited by him in the     
tabernacle of faith as the most         
venerable thing4 ,the ,egyptian         
worshipped the cat1 the ,christian      
venerates the divine providence4 ,so1   
when his needs led him to live a        
well-regulated life1 the benefits of the
 law inspired him with such a high      
opinion of its noble origin that he     
adopted his own handiwork as a gift of  
heaven4 ,the invention of the mouse-trap
 or other useful appliances pushed the  
cat out of its exalted position4        

,whenever man becomes his own master1   
takes care of himself1 and provides for 
himself1 then all other providences     
become useless1 and his own mastership  
makes all superior tutelage unbearable4 
,man is a jealous creature4 ,ruthlessly 
he subordinates everything to his own   
interests1 even ,god and ,his           
commandments4 ,no matter how great or   
venerable an authority any code may have
 acquired by long and faithful service1 
as soon as new needs oppose it1 they    
degrade the divine authority to the     
ranks of human law and transform ancient
 right into modern wrong4 ,the          
,christian frivolity refused to respect 
the threat of physical retribution which
 the ,hebrew had anointed as an         
authority in moral questions and revered
 under the maxim3 ,eye for eye1 tooth   
for tooth4 ,the ,christian had learned  
to cherish the blessings of             
peacefulness2 he carried submissive     
tolerance into the holy land1 and       
decorated the vacant tabernacle with the

 gentle injunction to offer the left    
cheek when the right was tired of cuffs4
 ,in our times which are ,christian in  
name1 but very anti-,christian in deeds1
 the long venerated tolerance has long  
gone out of use4  ,just as every        
religion has its own peculiar ,god1 so  
every time has its own peculiar right4  
,to this extent1 religion and morality  
are in harmony with the worship of their
 sanctum4 ,but they become arrogant     
upstarts whenever they assume to exceed 
their natural boundaries1 whenever they 
attempt to saddle upon all              
circumstances1 under the pretense of    
offering something incomparable1        
absolute1 permanent1 that which is      
divine and right at certain times and   
under definite conditions2 whenever they
 proclaim a successful remedy for their 
own peculiar disease as a universal     
patent medicine for all diseases2       
whenever they overbearingly forget their
 descent4 ,a law is originally dictated 
by some individual need1 and then       

mankind with its universal needs is     
supposed to balance itself on the thin  
rope of this one rule4 ,originally that 
which is really good is right1 and      
thereafter only some decreed right is   
supposed to be really good4 ,that is the
 unbearable arrogance4 ,ordained right  
is not satisfied to serve as the right  
of this time1 this nation or country1   
this class or caste4 ,it wants to       
dominate the whole world1 wants to be   
absolute right1 just as if a certain    
pill could be absolute medicine1 could  
be good for everything4 ,it is the      
mission of progress to repulse this     
assumption1 to pluck this peacock       
feather out of the tail of the rooster1 
by leading mankind on beyond the        
boundaries prescribed by ordained law1  
by extending the world for him1 by      
conquering for his cramped interests a  
wider liberty4 ,the migration from      
,palestine to ,europe where the         
consumption of pork does not cause      
leprosy emancipates our natural freedom 

from a once divine restriction by making
 it irrelevant4 ,but progress does not  
deprive one ,god of his shoulder straps 
for the purpose of decorating some other
 ,god with them4 ,that would merely be  
an exchange1 not an acquirement4        
,evolution does not drive the saints of 
tradition out of the country2 it simply 
retires them from the wrongfully        
occupied field of universality into     
their peculiar boundaries4 ,progress    
picks up the child and then pours the   
water out of the bath tub4 ,though the  
cat may have lost its aureole and ceased
 to be a ,god1 it does not give up      
catching mice2 and though the ,jewish   
rules for bodily cleanliness at certain 
definite times have long been forgotten1
 a clean body is still highly respected4
 ,the present wealth of civilization is 
due only to the economical              
administration of the acquirements of   
the past4 ,evolution is as much         
conservative as it is revolutionary1 and
 it finds as much wrong as right in     

every law4  ,it is true that the        
believers in absolute duty scent a      
difference between moral and legal      
right4 ,but their self-interested       
narrowness does not permit them to      
realize that every law is originally    
moral and that every special morality is
 gradually reduced to the level of a    
mere law4 ,their understanding reaches  
into other times and other classes1 but 
does not reach their own time and class4
 ,the laws of the ,chinese and ,samoyeds
 are understood to refer to the peculiar
 requirements of those people4 ,but the 
rules of bourgeois society are supposed 
to be far more sublime4 ,our present day
 institutions and moral codes are either
 regarded as eternal truths of nature or
 reason1 or as permanent oracular       
expressions of a pure conscience4 ,just 
as if the barbarian did not have a      
barbarian reason2 as if the ,turk did   
not have a ,turkish conscience and the  
,hebrew a ,hebrew one2 as if man could  
follow the dictates of some absolute    

conscience1 instead of the conscience   
being conditioned on the man4  ,whoever 
limits the purpose of man to the love   
and service of ,god1 and to eternal     
blessedness hereafter1 may devoutly     
recognize the traditions of abstract    
morality as authoritative and guide     
himself accordingly4 ,but whoever       
regards development1 education1 and     
blessedness on earth as man's life      
purpose1 will not think that the        
questioning of the assumed superiority  
of traditional morals is irrelevant4 ,it
 is only the consciousness of individual
 freedom which creates sufficient       
unconcern for the rules made by others  
to permit a brave advance1 which        
emancipates us from the striving for an 
illusory absolute ideal1 for some best  
world1 and which restores us to the     
definite practical interests of our time
 and personality4 ,at the same time we  
are thus reconciled with the world as it
 really is1 because we no longer regard 
it as the unsuccessful realization of   

that which ought to be1 but rather as   
the systematization of that which cannot
 but be4 ,the world is always right4    
,whatever exists1 is right and is not   
fated to be otherwise until it changes4 
,wherever there is existence1 which is  
power1 there is also right without any  
further condition1 because it is right  
in a formative stage4 ,weakness has no  
other right than that of striving for   
supremacy and then enforcing a          
recognition of its long denied needs4   
,the study of history shows us not only 
the negative and ridiculous side of the 
religions1 customs1 institutions and    
ideas of the past1 but also their       
positive1 reasonable and necessary side4
 ,it explains to us1 for instance1 that 
the deification of animals was due to an
 enthusiastic recognition of their      
usefulness4 ,and so the study of history
 shows not alone the inadequacy of the  
things of the present1 but also         
demonstrates that they are the          
reasonable and necessary conclusions    

from the premises of previous stages4   
7c7 ,the ,holy4  ,in the well-known     
statement3 ,the end sanctifies the      
means1 the developed theory of morality 
finds its practical expression4 ,this   
maxim1 used in an ambiguous sense1 may  
stand as a common reproach for us and   
for the ,jesuits4 ,the defenders of the 
society of ,jesus make efforts to prove 
that it is a malignant attempt to       
discredit their clients4 ,we shall not  
try to speak for either party to this   
dispute1 but will devote ourselves to   
the subject matter itself1 and seek to  
substantiate the truth and              
reasonableness of this maxim1 to        
rehabilitate it in the public opinion4  
,it will be sufficient for the          
refutation of the most general          
opposition to understand that end and   
means are very relative terms1 that all 
concrete ends are means and all means   
are ends4 ,there is no more of a        
positive difference between great and   
small1 right and wrong1 virtue and vice1

 than there is between end and means4   
,considered as something integral by    
itself1 every action has its own end and
 its means are the various moments of   
which even the shortest action is       
composed4 ,every concrete action is a   
means in relation to other actions which
 aim at the same common effect4 ,but in 
themselves actions are neither ends nor 
means4 ,nothing is anything by itself4  
,all being is relative4 ,things are what
 they are only within and by their      
interrelations4 ,circumstances alter    
cases4 ,in so far as every action is    
accompanied by other actions1 it is a   
means1 and serves a common end which    
exceeds its own special end2 but        
inasmuch as every action is complete in 
itself it is an end which includes its  
own means4 ,we eat in order to live2 but
 so far as we are living while we are   
eating1 we are living in order to eat4  
,as life to its functions1 so the end is
 related to its means4 ,just as life is 
simply the sum of all life's functions1 

so the end is the sum of all its means4 
,the difference between means and end   
reduces itself to that between the      
concrete and the general4 ,and all      
abstract differences reduce themselves  
to this difference1 because the faculty 
of abstraction or distinction reduces   
itself to the faculty of distinguishing 
between the concrete and the general4   
,but this distinction presupposes the   
existence of some material1 some given  
objects1 some circle of sense           
perceptions by which it manifests       
itself4 ,if this circle is found in the 
field of actions or functions1 in other 
words1 if a previously defined number of
 different actions is the object of our 
study1 then we refer to the general     
character of these objects as the       
general end and to every more or less   
extended part of them1 or to every      
function1 as a means4 ,whether any      
definite action is considered as an end 
or as a means1 depends on the question  
whether we consider it as a whole in    

relation to its own parts1 or as a part 
of some whole in which it is connected  
with other parts1 with other actions4   
,from a general point of view which has 
all human actions for the object of its 
study1 and encompasses them all1 there  
exists only one end1 viz41 the human    
welfare4 ,this welfare is the end of all
 ends1 is the final end1 is the real1   
true1 universal end compared to which   
all special ends are but means4  ,now1  
our claim that the end sanctifies the   
means can have absolute validity only in
 regard to some absolute end4 ,but all  
concrete ends are relative and finite4  
,the one and sole absolute end is human 
welfare1 and it is an end which         
sanctifies all rules and actions1 all   
means1 so long as they are subservient  
to it1 but which reviles them as soon as
 they go their own way without serving  
it4 ,the human weal is literally and    
historically the origin of the holy4    
,that which is hale is holy4 ,at the    
same time we must not ignore the fact   

that the weal1 or hale1 in general1 the 
hale which sanctifies all means1 is but 
an abstraction1 the real content of     
which is as different as are the times1 
the nations1 or persons which are       
seeking for their welfare4 ,it must be  
remembered that the determination of    
that which is holy or for the human weal
 requires definite conditions1 that no  
action1 no means1 is holy in itself1    
that each one of them is sanctified only
 by definite relations4 ,it is not every
 end which sanctifies the means1 but the
 holy end which sanctifies its own      
means4 ,but since every real and        
concrete end is only relatively holy1 it
 can sanctify its own means only        
relatively4  ,the opposition against our
 maxim is not so much directed against  
it1 as against the wrong application of 
it4 ,recognition is denied and the      
socalled sanctified ends are accorded   
only limited means1 because there is    
lurking in the background the           
consciousness that these ends have only 

a relative holiness4 ,on the other hand 
our defense of the maxim does not imply 
that the various nominally holy means   
and ends are sanctified because some    
authority1 some scriptural statement1   
some reason or conscience1 has declared 
them to be so1 but only in so far as    
they answer the common end of all ends1 
the human welfare4 ,our maxim of ends   
does not at all teach that we should    
sacrifice love and truths to sanctified 
faith1 but neither does it demand that  
we should sacrifice faith for love and  
truth4 ,it merely states the fact that1 
whenever some superior end has been     
determined by sense perceptions or      
circumstances1 all means contrary to    
that end are unholy1 and that on the    
other hand means which are generally    
unholy may become temporarily and       
individually sanctioned by their        
relation to some momentary or individual
 welfare4 ,wherever peacefulness is     
actually in favor as a sanctified means1
 war is unholy4 ,when1 on the other     

hand1 man seeks his salvation in war1   
then murder and incendiarism are holy   
means4 ,in other words1 our reason      
requires for a valid determination of   
that which is sanctified certain        
definite material conditions or facts as
 premises2 it cannot determine the holy 
in general1 not a priori1 not           
philosophically in the old speculative  
way1 but only in concrete cases1 a      
posteriori1 only empirically4  ,if we   
understand that human welfare is the end
 of all ends1 the ideal of all means2 if
 we furthermore dispense with all       
special determinations of this welfare1 
with all personal ideas of it1 and      
recognize that it is different under    
different circumstances1 then we        
understand at the same time that no     
means is sanctified beyond the sanctity 
of its end4 ,no means1 no action1 is    
positively sanctified or makes for human
 welfare under all circumstances4       
,according to circumstances and         
relations one and the same means may be 

good or bad4 ,a thing is good only to   
the extent that its results are good1   
only to the extent that there is good in
 its end4 ,lying and cheating are bad   
only because they result injuriously for
 ourselves1 because we do not wish to be
 lied to or cheated4 ,but whenever a    
sanctified end is in question1 the      
deceptive means used in lying and       
cheating are called tricks of war4 ,if  
any one is firmly rooted in the goodness
 of chastity because he thinks it was   
ordained by ,god1 we cannot discuss the 
matter with him4 ,but if one honors     
virtue for the sake of virtue and abhors
 vice for the sake of vice1 in other    
words1 for their consequences1 he admits
 that he sacrifices the lust of the     
flesh to the end of good health4 ,in    
short1 he admits that the means are     
sanctified by the end4  ,in the         
,christian conception of the world1 the 
commandments of its religion are        
absolutely good for all time1 they are  
considered good because ,christian      

revelation declares them to be so4 ,this
 conception does not know that1 for     
instance1 its acme of virtue1 the       
specifically ,christian virtue of       
abstemiousness1 received its value only 
by contrast with corrupt heathenish     
licentiousness1 but that it is not a    
virtue when compared to reasonable and  
normal satisfaction of material needs4  
,it deals with certain means which it   
calls indiscriminately good without any 
relation to their ends1 and others which
 it calls indiscriminately bad in the   
same absolute way4 ,and for this reason1
 it opposes the above named maxim4  ,but
 modern ,christianity1 modern           
civilization1 has practically long done 
away with this faith4 ,it does indeed   
call the soul the likeness of ,god and  
the body a putrid food for worms2 but   
its deeds prove that it does not take   
its religious phrases seriously4 ,it    
cares little for the better part of man 
and directs all its thoughts and actions
 toward the satisfaction of the despised

 body4 ,it employs science and art1 and 
the products of all climates1 for the   
glorification of the body1 clothing it  
sumptuously1 feeding it luxuriously1    
caring for it tenderly1 resting it on   
soft cushions4 ,although they speak     
slightingly of this earthly life in     
comparison to the eternal life beyond1  
yet in practice they cling for six days 
of the week to the uninterrupted        
pleasures of this body1 while heaven is 
hardly considered worthy of careless    
attention for more than one short hour  
on ,sundays4 ,with the same thoughtless 
inconsistency the socalled ,christian   
world also attacks our maxim with words1
 while in practical life it sanctifies  
the despised means by the end of its own
 welfare1 going even so far as to       
demonstrate its inconsistency in its own
 life by subsidizing prostitution with  
state funds4 ,the fact that the         
legislative bodies of our representative
 states keep down the enemies of their  
bourgeois order by courtmartials and    

exile1 that they justify this course by 
the proverb1 ,do unto others as you     
would that they should do unto you1 in  
the interest of public welfare1 or that 
they defend their divorce codes by the  
plea of individual welfare1 proves that 
the bourgeoisie also believes in the    
motto3 ,the end sanctifies the means4   
,and even though the citizens delegate  
rights to the state which they deny to  
themselves1 also our opponents cannot   
but admit that in so doing the citizens 
are simply delegating their own rights  
to the superior authority of the state4 
,true1 whoever employs lying and        
cheating in the bourgeois world for the 
end of gaining wealth1 even though he   
may make it one of his ends to give to  
charity1 or whoever steals leather1 like
 ,saint ,chispinus1 for the purpose of  
making shoes for poor people1 does not  
sanctify his means by his end1 because  
the end in that case is not sanctified1 
or only nominally so1 only in general1  
but not in the concrete case quoted4    

,for charity is an end of but inferior  
holiness which must not be more than a  
means compared to the main end of       
maintaining bourgeois society1 and      
whenever it contravenes this main       
purpose1 charity loses its character of 
a good end4 ,and we have already seen   
that an end which is sanctified only    
under certain circumstances cannot      
sanctify its means beyond them4 ,the    
indispensable condition of all good ends
 is that they must be subservient to    
human welfare1 and whether this welfare 
is secured by ,christian or pagan1 by   
feudal or bourgeois means1 it always    
demands that the things which are       
considered unessential and of lesser    
importance should be subordinated to the
 essential and necessary things1 while  
in the above quoted cases the more      
salutary honesty and bourgeois          
respectability would be sacrificed to   
the less salutary charity4 ,the end     
sanctifies the means signifies in other 
words that in ethics as well as in      

economics1 the profit must justify the  
investment of the capital4 ,again1 if we
 call the forcible conversion of        
infidels a good end1 and an arbitrary   
police measure a bad means1 this does   
not prove anything against the truth of 
the maxim1 but only testifies to its    
wrong application4 ,the means is not    
sanctified in the case1 because the end 
is not1 because a forced conversion is  
not a good end1 but rather an evil one  
resulting in hypocrisy1 and because such
 a conversion does not deserve this     
name1 or because force is a means which 
is unworthy of this term4 ,if it is true
 that a forcible conversion or wooden   
iron are senseless ideas1 how is it that
 people will persist in fighting against
 universally recognized truths with such
 inconsistencies1 such inane word plays1
 such tricks of rhetoric and sophistry8 
,the means of the ,jesuits1 sly tricks  
and intrigues1 poison and murder1 appear
 unholy to us only because the ,jesuitic
 purpose1 for instance that of extending

 the wealth and influence and glorifying
 power of the order1 is an inferior end 
which may make use of the innocent      
language of the pulpit1 but is not an   
absolutely sanctified end1 no supreme   
end1 to which we would grant means that 
would deprive us of some essential end1 
for instance of our personal and public 
safety4 ,murder and manslaughter are    
considered immoral as individual actions
 because they are not means to          
accomplish our main end1 because we     
incline not toward revenge or           
blood-thirstiness1 nor toward           
arbitrariness and the wilful            
dispensation of justice by some judge1  
but toward lawful decisions and the more
 or less impartial decrees of the state4
 ,but do we not explicitly declare in   
favor of the maxim ,the end sanctifies  
the means1 when we constitute ourselves 
into juries and render dangerous        
criminals powerless by the rope and the 
ax of the executioner8  ,the same people
 who boast of having dropped ,aristotle1

 that is to say the belief in authority1
 for centuries1 and who therefore       
replaced the dead traditional truth by  
living self-gained truth1 are found to  
be completely at odds with their own    
development in the above cited cases4   
,if we listen to the recital of some    
funny story1 which may be told by even a
 reliable witness1 we nevertheless      
remain loyal to the principles of free  
reason1 that is to say we are free to   
regard as serious and regrettable any   
incident which the narrator may consider
 funny and ridiculous4 ,people know how 
to distinguish between a story and the  
subjective impression its incidents     
created on the mind of the narrator1 and
 which depends more on the personality  
of the witness than on the actual facts4
 ,but in the matter of good ends and bad
 means it is proposed to neglect the    
distinction between an object and its   
subjective end which is otherwise the   
point of all critique4 ,such ends as    
charity1 the conversion of infidels1    

etc41 are thoughtlessly1 a priori1      
called good and holy1 because they once 
were so under particular conditions1    
while now their effect in the cases     
above cited is just the opposite1 and   
then people wonder that the unrighteous 
title carries with it unrighteous       
privileges4  ,only that end is worthy of
 the predicate good or holy in practice 
which is itself a means1 a servant1 of  
the end of all purposes1 of welfare4    
,whenever man seeks his welfare in      
bourgeois life1 in production and       
commerce of commodities1 and in the     
undisturbed enjoyment of his private    
property1 he clips his long fingers by  
the commandment3 ,thou shalt not steal4 
,but wherever1 as among the ,spartans1  
war is regarded as the supreme end and  
craftiness as a necessary quality of a  
warrior1 there thieving is used as a    
means of acquiring craftiness and       
sanctioned as a means for the main end4 
,to blame the ,spartan for being a      
warrior instead of a sedate bourgeois   

would be to ignore the facts of reality1
 would be equivalent to overlooking that
 our brain is not designed to substitute
 imaginary pictures for the actual      
conditions of the world1 but is         
organized to understand that a period1 a
 nation1 an individual is always that   
which it can and must be under given    
circumstances4  ,it is not from mere    
individual and unpraiseworthy fondness  
for the paradox that we subvert current 
views by defending the maxim ,the end   
sanctifies the means1 but from a        
consistent application of the science of
 philosophy4 ,philosophy originated out 
of the belief in a dualist contrast     
between ,god and the world1 between body
 and soul1 between the flesh and the    
spirit1 between brain and senses1       
between thinking and being1 between the 
general and the concrete4 ,the          
conciliation of this contrast represents
 the end1 or the aggregate result1 of   
philosophical research4 ,philosophy     
found its dissolution in the            

understanding that the divine is worldly
 and the worldly divine1 that the soul  
is related to the body1 the spirit to   
the flesh1 thinking to being1 the       
intellect to the senses1 in the same way
 in which the unity is related to the   
multiplicity or the general to the      
concrete4 ,philosophy began with the    
erroneous supposition that the one1 as  
the first thing1 was the basis on which 
developed the two1 three1 four1 and the 
entire multiplicity of things by        
succession4 ,it has now arrived at the  
understanding that truth1 or reality1   
turns this supposition upside down1 that
 the reality with its multiplicity of   
forms1 perceivable by the senses1 is the
 first and foremost thing out of which  
the human brain gradually derived the   
conception of unity or generality4  ,no 
achievement of science can be compared  
with the amount of talent and           
intellectual energy consumed in         
harvesting this one little fruit from   
the field of speculative philosophy4    

,but neither does any scientific novelty
 encounter so many deep-rooted obstacles
 to its recognition4 ,all brains        
unfamiliar with the outcome of          
philosophy are dominated by the old     
belief in the reality of some genuine1  
true1 absolutely universal panacea1 the 
discovery of which would make all sham1 
false individual panaceas impossible4   
,but we1 on the other hand1 have been   
taught by the understanding of the      
thought process that this coveted       
panacea is a product of the brain and   
that1 since it is supposed to be a      
general and abstract panacea1 it cannot 
be any real1 perceptible1 concrete      
panacea4 ,in the belief in an absolute  
difference between true and false       
welfare1 there is manifested an         
ignorance of the actual operations of   
brain work4 ,pythagoras made numbers the
 basis of things4 ,if this ,grecian     
philosopher could have realized that    
this basic nature was a thing of the    
mind1 of the intellect1#b and that      

numbers were the basis of reason1 the   
common or abstract content of all       
intellectual activity1 then we should   
have been spared all the disputes which 
have raged around the various forms of  
absolute truth1 about things in         
themselves4  ,space and time are the    
general forms of reality1 or reality    
exists in time and space4 ,consequently 
all real welfare must be attached to    
space and time1 and every welfare which 
exists in these dimensions must be real4
 ,the different welfares1 in so far as  
their beneficent qualities are          
concerned1 are to be distinguished only 
by their height and breadth1 by the     
quantity of their dimensions1 by their  
numeral relations4 ,every welfare1      
whether true or seeming1 is perceived by
 the senses1 by practices of life1 not  
by abstract reason4 ,but practice       
assigns the most contradictory things to
 different people at different times as 
means to their welfare4 ,what is welfare
 in one place1 is disaster in another1  

and vice versa4 ,understanding1 or      
reason1 has nothing else to do in the   
matter than to number these various     
welfares as they are made real by sense 
perceptions in various persons and      
times1 and degrees of intensity1 in the 
order in which they appear1 and thus to 
distinguish the small from the great1   
the essential from the unessential1 the 
concrete from the general4 ,reason      
cannot dictate to us autocratically in  
matters of some absolutely true welfare1
 it can only indicate the most frequent1
 most essential1 and most universal     
welfare in a certain perceived number of
 welfares4 ,but it must not be forgotten
 that the truth of such an              
understanding1 or enumeration1 depends  
on certain definite premises4 ,it is    
therefore a vain endeavor to search for 
the true and absolute welfare4 ,this    
search becomes practical and successful 
only when it limits itself to the       
understanding of a definite amount of   
welfare of some particular objects4 ,the

 general welfare can be found only      
within definite boundaries4 ,but the    
various determinations of welfare agree 
in this respect1 that they all consider 
it well to sacrifice the little for the 
great1 the unessential for the          
essential1 and not vice versa4 ,in so   
far as this principle is right1 it is   
also right for us to employ for the good
 end of a great welfare some small means
 in the shape of a small evil and to    
endure it1 and thus we see once more    
that the end sanctifies the means4  ,if 
people were liberal enough to permit    
every one to go to heaven in his or her 
own way1 the opponents of our maxim     
would be easily convinced of its truth4 
,but instead of doing this1 people      
follow the usual course of              
shortsightedness and make their private 
standpoint a universal one4 ,they call  
their own private welfare the only true 
welfare1 and regard the welfare of other
 nations1 times and conditions a        
mistake4 ,so does every school of art   

declare its own subjective taste to be  
objective beauty1 ignoring the fact that
 unity is but a matter of ideas1 of     
thought1 while reality is full of the   
most varied forms4 ,the real welfare is 
manifold and the true welfare but a     
subjective choice which1 like a funny   
story1 may make an entirely different   
impression on others1 and be a false    
welfare4 ,even though ,kant1 or ,fichte1
 or some other particular philosopher1  
may discuss at length the purpose of    
mankind and solve the problem to his    
full satisfaction and to that of his    
audience1 we nevertheless have learned  
enough today to know that one can define
 one's own personal idea of the purpose 
of mankind by means of abstract         
speculation1 but that one cannot        
discover any unknown and hidden object  
in this way4 ,thought1 or reason1       
requires some object1 and its work is   
that of measuring1 of criticising4 ,it  
may distinguish between true and false  
welfare1 but will also remember that    

they have their limits1 remember that it
 is itself personal and that its        
distinctions are likewise personal and  
cannot be generalized beyond the point  
where others receive the same impression
 of the same object4  ,humanity is an   
idea1 while man is always some special  
person who has his or her peculiar life 
in a definite environment and is        
therefore subservient to general        
principles only from motives of         
self-interest4 ,the sacrifice of ethics1
 like that of religion1 is only         
seemingly a self-denial and serves the  
ends of reasonable self-interest1 an    
expenditure with a view to greater      
gains4 ,a morality worthy of that name  
which is not better defined by the term 
obedience can be exercised only through 
the understanding of its worth1 of its  
value for our welfare1 of its           
usefulness4 ,the variety of political   
parties is conditioned on the varieties 
of the interests concerned1 and the     
difference in the means is conditioned  

on the difference in ends4 ,in questions
 of less importance even the champions  
of absolute morality testify to this    
fact4  ,thiers in his history of the    
,french ,revolution tells of a peculiar 
situation in the year #agif1 when the   
patriots held the public power and the  
royalists carried on a revolutionary    
propaganda4 ,it was then that the       
partisans of the revolution1 who should 
have been the champions of unlimited    
liberty1 demanded coercive measures1    
while the opposition1 who secretly cared
 more for a monarchy than for a         
republic1 voted for unlimited liberty4  
,to such an extent are parties governed 
by their self-interests1 comments       
,thiers1 just as if this were an anomaly
 instead of being the natural1 necessary
 and inevitable course of the world4    
,when1 on the other hand1 it is a       
question of the fundamental laws of     
bourgeois order1 then the moral         
representatives of the ruling classes   
are egotistic enough to deny the        

connection of their material interests  
with these laws and to claim that theirs
 are eternal1 metaphysical world laws1  
that the pillars of their special class 
rule are the eternal pillars of         
humanity1 and that their own means alone
 are holy ones and their end the final  
end of the universe4  ,it is a          
disastrous deception1 a robbing of human
 liberty1 an attempt to cause the       
stagnation of the historical            
development1 if any age or class thus   
proclaims its own peculiar purposes and 
means to be for the absolute welfare of 
humanity4 ,morality originally reflects 
one's interests just as fashion reflects
 one's taste1 and finally the action is 
moulded after the conceived pattern like
 the coat in dressing4 ,in this process1
 force naturally is exerted for the     
maintenance and protection of one's own 
life and those who resist are subdued4  
,interest and duty1 though perhaps not  
entirely synonymous1 are certainly      
closely related4 ,both of them are      

merged in the term welfare4             
,self-interest represents more nearly   
the concrete1 immediate1 tangible       
welfare1 while duty concerns itself with
 the more remote and general welfare of 
the future also4 ,while self-interest   
considers the present tangible metallic 
welfare of the purse1 duty demands that 
we keep not only a part of welfare1 but 
all welfare in mind1 that we consider   
the future as well as the present1 that 
we remember the spiritual welfare as    
well as the physical4 ,duty thinks also 
of the heart1 of social needs1 of the   
future1 of the spiritual weal1 in brief 
of interest in general and urges us to  
renounce the superfluous in order to    
secure and retain the necessary4 ,thus  
your duty is your self-interest and your
 self-interest your duty4  ,if our ideas
 are to adapt themselves to truth1 or to
 reality1 instead of reality or truth   
adapting itself to our notions or       
thoughts1 we must understand that the   
mutability of that which is right1 holy1

 moral1 is a natural1 necessary and true
 fact4 ,and we must grant to an         
individual the theoretical freedom which
 cannot be taken from it in practice1 we
 must admit that it is as free now as it
 has ever been1 that laws must be       
adapted to the needs of the social      
individual and not to the vague1 unreal1
 and impossible abstractions1 such as   
justice or morality4 ,what is justice8  
,the embodiment of all that is          
considered right1 an individual         
conception1 which assumes different     
forms in different persons4 ,in reality 
only individual1 definite1 concrete     
rights exist1 and man simply comes along
 and abstracts from them the idea of    
justice1 just as he abstracted from     
different kinds of wood the conception  
of wood in general1 or from material    
things the conception of matter4 ,it is 
just as far from the truth1 to think    
that material things consist of1 or are 
by virtue of1 abstract matter1 although 
this view is widely spread1 as it is to 

believe that the moral or bourgeois laws
 were derived from the idea of justice4 
,the ethical loss caused by our         
realistic1 or if you prefer1            
materialistic1 conception of morality is
 not so great as it appears4 ,we need   
not fear that through this conception   
social beings will become lawless       
cannibals or hermits4 ,freedom and      
lawfulness are closely allied by the    
need for association which compels us to
 permit others to live together with us4
 ,if a man is prevented by his          
conscience or by other spiritualistic or
 bourgeois ethics from committing       
unlawful actions--unlawful in the wider 
meaning of the term--he is either not   
exposed to very grave temptations1 or he
 has a nature so tame that the natural  
or legal punishments fully suffice to   
keep him within prescribed bounds4 ,but 
where these checks are ineffective1     
morality is likewise powerless4 ,if it  
were otherwise1 we should have to assume
 that morality exerts in secret the same

 influence on the faithful which is     
exerted by public opinion on the        
faithless4 ,but we know from actual     
experience that there are more pious    
thieves than infidel robbers4 ,that the 
world1 which attributes so much value   
for social welfare to morality by word  
of mouth1 actually shares this view of  
ours1 is proven by the fact that        
bourgeois society gives more attention  
to the penal code and to the police than
 to the influence of morality4          
,moreover1 our fight is not directed    
against morality1 not even against any  
special form of it1 but only against the
 arrogance which assumes to stamp some  
concrete form of morality with the trade
 mark of absolute morality4 ,we         
recognize that morality is eternally    
sacred1 in so far as it refers to       
considerations which a man owes to      
himself and to his fellowmen in the     
interest of their common welfare4 ,but  
the freedom of the individual demands   
that each one should be at liberty to   

determine the degree of consideration   
and the manner of giving it expression4 
,under these circumstances it is as     
inevitable that the ruling powers1      
classes or majorities should enforce    
their special needs under the form of a 
prescribed right1 as it is that a man's 
shirt should be closer to his skin than 
his coat4 ,but it appears to us not     
merely very superfluous1 but even       
detrimental to the energies required for
 the progress of the future1 that some  
decreed right should be elevated to the 
position of absolute right and          
transformed into an insuperable barrier 
to the advance of humanity4  ,,footnote3
  #b ,which was gained by the mind's    
contact with its sense-perceived        
multiplicity of the world4--,editor4    
,letters on ,logic  ,especially         
,democratic-,proletarian ,logic  ,,by   
,,joseph ,,dietzgen  ,translated by     
,ernest ,untermann     ,editorial       
,remark4  ,the ,letters on ,logic1      
treating on the same subjects as ,the   

,positive ,outcome of ,philosophy1 were 
intended by the author to be replaced by
 this subsequent work4  ,we publish1    
however1 both these works in hopes that 
the reader will pardon the frequent     
repetitions on account of the additional
 light that other parts of the ,letters 
on ,logic are apt to impart4            
,,letters ,,on ,,logic     ,,first      
,,letter   ,dear ,eugene3  ,you have now
 reached the age at which the students  
go to the university4 ,there1 according 
to custom1 they register first of all   
for a course in logic1 whether they     
choose the study of law1 medicine1 or   
theology4 ,logic is1 so to say1 the     
elementary study in all branches of     
learning4 ,now you know1 my dear1 that  
school and life are regarded as two     
separate things4 ,i should like to call 
your attention to their connection4 ,we 
live also in school1 we are schooled    
also by life4 ,i should like to consider
 your trip across the ,atlantic ocean as
 your first venture in the high school  

of life1 and assume the role of your    
professor of logic4  ,i feel well       
qualified for this office4 ,although ,i 
am not well up in ,latin and ,greek1    
still ,i feel competent to guide you to 
the depths of logical science better    
than a ,german professor trained and    
installed according to the most approved
 pattern4 ,you will admit the           
possibility of such a thing4 ,for one   
who knows little may explain that little
 with more ease and efficacy than one   
who has his head stuffed full of the    
prescribed bunch of official wisdom4    
,you1 my son1 have been so fortunate as 
to enjoy a seven years' course in a     
,german college4 ,and since your        
teachers1 at your departure1 gave you   
the highest certificate1 ,i may well    
consider you as qualified not only to   
enter the school of life in the ,united 
,states1 but also to listen             
intelligently to my lectures on logic4  
,but in order that my well trained pupil
 may not look down upon his self-taught 

teacher1 ,i appeal to the fact that even
 the man with the best all-around       
education will be a tyro in specialties2
 and that1 on the other hand1 ignorance 
in many things does not exclude the     
possibility of knowing more about a     
certain specialty than science has      
heretofore grasped4 ,now ,i claim in    
this case to have acquired a knowledge  
of the subject with which ,i intend to  
deal here that surpasses anything ,i    
have been able to find in the           
professional literature4 ,i mention     
this1 my dear ,eugene1 with all due     
modesty1 not for the purpose of throwing
 a halo around my personality1 but in   
order to give a certain authority to my 
office as teacher and to inspire my     
pupil with confidence4  ,yes1 ,i value  
confidence4 ,although you know me as a  
democrat who cares nothing for          
authority1 you shall also learn to know 
me as a graduate in dialectics who1     
though he may empty the bath1 still     
retains his hold on the child and does  

not permit it to float off with the     
water4 ,children1 and one may say       
nations in their childhood1 cannot do   
without authority1 and a teacher1       
whether he instruct children or nations1
 cannot dispense with a certain         
confidence-inspiring air4 ,the pupil    
must believe in the wisdom of his       
teacher1 in order that he may approach  
the master with the necessary attention 
and willingness to learn4 ,later on the 
understanding of the subject makes all  
authority superfluous4 ,thus a thing so 
sublime as authority is subject to the  
destructive tendencies of time1 to the  
historical process4  ,hitherto mankind  
has often been tempted by preconceived  
notions to idolize vain things4 ,it has 
been attempted to shield not only       
authority in general1 but1 what is still
 worse1 this or that throne or altar1   
against the attacks of time4 ,the       
relation between the perishable and the 
imperishable has always been subject to 
much misunderstanding4 ,now since logic 

is that science which aims to set the   
intellect aright1 we shall have to touch
 occasionally on the general            
misconception of time and eternity4     
,the most famous expounders of logic are
 reproached for their cumbrous style and
 their obscure mode of explanation4     
,even masters of languages have         
complained in my hearing about the      
foreign terms used by that branch of    
science1 terms which even they could not
 understand4 ,much of the blame for this
 condition of things may fall on the    
difficulties of the subject1 which have 
baffled all elucidation for thousands of
 years4 ,some of the blame also falls on
 the bad habit of using learned         
vernacular4 ,but the greatest fault lies
 with the mental laziness of the        
students4 ,nothing can be learned       
without mental exertion4 ,if you are    
concerned in your further development1  
you will recognize the ,christian word  
as to the curse of work as untrue4 ,work
 cannot be descended from sin1 for it is

 a blessing4 ,you will have experienced 
in yourself how elated one feels after  
successful physical or mental work4     
,the things which science yields without
 exertion can be at most axiomatic      
commonplaces4  ,i assume that you are   
quite willing to perform the necessary  
mental labor1 and ,i promise you that ,i
 shall do my best to make this study    
easy for you4 ,i do this so much more   
readily1 as ,i frankly confess that     
these letters to my son are written with
 the intention of making them accessible
 to a wider circle of readers by means  
of the press4  ,before concluding1 let  
me say a word about my aim of speaking  
especially of democratic-proletarian    
logic4 ,you will think or say3 ,logic   
may be a subject worthy of study1 but a 
special democratic-proletarian logic can
 surely treat of nothing but party      
matters4 ,but just as the special       
accomplishments in this or that line1   
the special advances of this or that    
nation1 are at the same time general    

advances1 progress of civilization1 so  
the ideas of proletarian logic are not  
party ideas1 but conclusions of logic in
 general4 ,you may reply3 ,even though  
the special thought of a ,chinaman may  
be quite consistent and logical1 still  
we would not call it ,chinese logic4    
,that would be quite true1 but it does  
not meet my point4  ,the thought on     
which the proletarian demands are based1
 the idea of the equality of all human  
beings1 this ultimate proletarian idea1 
if ,i may say so1 is fully backed up by 
the deeper insight into the tortuous    
problem of logic4 ,now1 since this idea 
dominates mankind1 it certainly has more
 right than any ,chinese idea4          
,furthermore1 industrial development has
 leveled1 simplified1 cleared all social
 conditions to such an extent that it   
becomes ever easier to penetrate with   
sober eyes into the secrets of logic4   
,finally1 my logic deserves its         
proletarian qualification for the reason
 that it requires for its understanding 

the overcoming of all prejudices by     
which the capitalist world is held      
together4  ,the cause of the people is  
not a party matter1 but the general     
object of all science4  ,the people's   
cause as the ultimate object1 and logic 
as the most elementary and most abstract
 science1 as ultimate science1 are as   
intimately connected as plants and      
botany1 or as laws and the legal        
profession4 ,so are the interests of    
democracy and the proletariat intimately
 connected4 ,the fact that this has not 
been well recognized in the ,united     
,states so far1 is more a proof of the  
lucky condition of that country than of 
the scientific knowledge of its         
democracy4 ,the spreading primeval      
forests and prairies offered innumerable
 homesteads to the poor and they        
obscured the antagonism between         
capitalists and wage workers1 between   
capitalist and proletarian democracy4   
,but you still lack the knowledge of    
proletarian economics which would enable

 you to recognize without a doubt that  
it is precisely on the republican ground
 of ,america that capitalism makes giant
 strides and reveals ever more clearly  
its twofold task of first enslaving the 
people for the purpose of freeing them  
in due time4     ,,second ,,letter      
,dear ,eugene3  ,having written the     
first letter by way of introduction1 ,i 
now am ready for a gradual approach to  
my subject4  ,logic aims to instruct the
 human mind as to its own nature and    
processes2 it will lay bare the interior
 working of our mind for our guidance4  
,the object of the study of logic is    
thought1 its nature1 and its proper     
classification4  ,the human brain       
performs the function of thinking as    
involuntarily as the chest the function 
of breathing4 ,however1 we can1 by our  
will1 stop breathing for a while1 and   
accelerate or retard the breathing      
movements4 ,in the same way1 the will   
can control the thoughts4 ,we may choose
 any object as the subject matter of our

 thought1 and yet we may quickly        
convince ourselves that the power of our
 will and the freedom of the mind are   
not any greater than the freedom of the 
chest in breathing4  ,while logic       
undertakes to assign the proper position
 to our brain1 still it has to remember 
that nature has already assigned that   
position4  ,it is with logic as it is   
with other sciences4 ,they draw wisdom  
from the mysterious source of plain     
experience4 ,agriculture1 e4 g41 aims to
 teach the farmer how to cultivate the  
soil2 but fields were tilled long before
 any agricultural college had begun its 
lectures4 ,in the same way human beings 
think without ever having heard of      
logic4 ,but by practice they improve    
their innate faculty of thought1 they   
make progress1 they gradually learn to  
make better use of it4 ,finally1 just as
 the farmer arrives at the science of   
agriculture1 so the thinker arrives at  
logic1 acquires a clear consciousness of
 his faculty of thought and a           

professional dexterity in applying it4  
,i have two purposes in mind in saying  
this4 ,firstly1 you must not expect too 
much from this science1 for you cannot  
set contrary brains to rights by any    
logic4 ,secondly1 you must not think too
 little of it1 by regarding the matter  
as mere scholastic word-mongery and     
useless hairsplitting4 ,in daily life1  
as well as in all sciences1 we never    
operate without the help of thought1 but
 only with it1 hence an understanding of
 the nature of the processes of thought 
is of eminent value4  ,logic has its    
history like all sciences4 ,aristotle1  
whom ,marx calls the ,grecian giant of  
thought1 is universally recognized as   
its founder4  ,after the classic culture
 of antiquity had been buried by        
barbarism1 the name of ,bacon of        
,verulam rose with the beginning of     
modern times as a philosophical light of
 the first order4 ,his most famous work 
is entitled ,novum ,organon4 ,by the new
 organ he meant a new method of research

 which should be founded on experience1 
instead of the subtleties of the purely 
introspective method hitherto in vogue4 
,after him1 ,descartes1 or ,cartesius1  
as he called himself in literature1     
wrote his still famous work1 ,about     
,methods4 ,i furthermore recall         
,immanuel ,kant's ,critique of ,reason1 
,johann ,gottlieb ,fichte's ,theory of  
,science1 and finally ,hegel1 of whom   
the biographer said that he was as      
famous in the scientific world as       
,napoleon in the political4  ,hegel     
calls his chief work ,logic1 and bases  
his whole system on the dialectic       
method4 ,you have only to look at the   
titles of these philosophical           
masterpieces in order to recognize that 
they all treat of the same subject which
 we are making our special study1 viz41 
the light of understanding4 ,the great  
philosophers of all times have searched 
for the true method1 the method of      
truth1 for the way in which             
understanding and reason arrive at      

science4  ,i merely wish to indicate    
that this subject has its famous        
history1 but ,i do not care to enter    
more deeply into it4 ,i will not speak  
of the oppression and persecution1 which
 was inaugurated by religious           
fanaticism4 ,i will not enumerate the   
various events that led to a greater and
 greater light from generation to       
generation4 ,the attempt to trace this  
history would entangle us in many       
disputed questions and errors which     
would only increase the difficulties of 
this study for the beginner4  ,if a     
teacher of technology were to instruct  
you on steam engines and1 to explain    
their first incomplete invention1 trace 
their further development historically  
from improvement to improvement1 until  
he should arrive at the height of       
perfection attained in their present day
 construction1 he would also be         
advancing on a path1 but on a tedious   
one4 ,i shall endeavor to show my       
subject at the outset in the very       

clearest light which has ever been      
thrown on it by the help of the nations 
of all times4 ,if ,i succeed in this1 it
 will be easy in the future1 in the     
reading of any author1 to separate the  
chaff from the wheat4  ,i can afford to 
dispense with quotations and proofs from
 others in trying to make my case and   
demonstrating the positive product of   
social culture1 for we are dealing with 
the most universal and omnipresent      
object1--one which enters into every    
spoken or written sentence with its own 
body4 ,if anybody tells of far off times
 or wonderful things1 he must quote     
witnesses4 ,now1 much of what ,i have to
 say for my case may sound wonderful1   
because it runs counter to the popular  
prejudice1 but the only witness required
 to prove the truth of my statements is 
the clear brain of my pupil1 who has    
only to examine his own experience      
without preconceived notions1 in order  
to find proofs on every hand4  ,it is   
surprising in the first place1 that such

 a near at hand object has not been     
understood long ago and that so much    
still remains to be explained and to be 
taught after thousands of years of      
study4 ,but you know that just as the   
small things are often great1 and great 
things small1 so the nearest things are 
often hidden and the hidden things      
nearest4  ,i promised you in the first  
sentences of this letter1 dear ,eugene1 
that ,i would now pass from introduction
 to subject matter4 ,but since ,i have  
really continued to move around the     
outer edge of the subject instead of    
entering into its midst1 you might      
become impatient1 and so ,i will justify
 my method4 ,it is a peculiarity of this
 subject matter that it exposes me to   
this charge4 ,it is a peculiarity of    
thought that it never stays with itself1
 but always digresses to other things4  
,the thought is the plank to which ,i   
should stick1 but it is the nature of   
this plank never to stick4 ,thinking is 
a thing full of contradictions1 a       

dialectical secret4  ,now ,i know that  
here ,i am saying something which it is 
very hard for you to understand4 ,but   
look here1 has it not always been so8   
,when you began declining ,latin words  
in the sixth class1 you were unable at  
once to grasp the full meaning of       
declension4 ,you knew what you were     
doing1 and yet you did not entirely     
understand it4 ,only after penetrating  
more deeply into the construction of the
 language did the meaning and purpose of
 the beginning become clear to you4 ,in 
the same way1 you now must try to digest
 as much as you can of what ,i say1 and 
after you have gone more deeply into    
this matter1 you will fully understand  
me from beginning to end4 ,in taking    
lessons from an author1 on an unknown   
subject1 ,i have always followed the    
method of first getting a superficial   
view of the subject1 of glancing over   
its many pages and chapters1 in order to
 return to the beginning and acquire a  
thorough knowledge by repeated study4   

,with the growing familiarity with the  
subject the ability to understand it    
grew1 and at the conclusion the thing   
became clear to me4 ,this is the only   
correct method ,i can recommend to you4 
,in conclusion let me say for to-day in 
passing that the recommendation of the  
correct method for studying logic is not
 only an introduction1 but1 as ,i have  
already said1 the subject matter of     
science itself4     ,,third ,,letter    
,dear ,eugene3  ,my task of teaching    
logic requires two things3 a logician   
and a teacher4  ,the last named capacity
 requires that ,i should clothe the     
subject in an attractive way4 ,permit   
me1 therefore1 to combine the didactic  
style with that of the story teller1 and
 to relate at this point an episode from
 a novel of ,gustav zu ,putlitz3  ,the  
organist of a certain village is lying  
on his deathbed4 ,his last strength has 
been spent on the previous day in       
playing a hymn1 and after its conclusion
 he was carried from the church in an   

unconscious state4 ,he had played his   
masterpiece1 but at the same time his   
last piece4 ,a despised stage girl had  
accompanied him with a voice like that  
of a nightingale4 ,but neither she nor  
the organ player had earned any applause
 from the stupid villagers4  ,the old   
man looked around in his room1 his eyes 
were first riveted on his faithful      
piano1 his friend and companion through 
life4 ,he extended his hand1 but it sank
 down exhausted4 ,he had not had the    
intention to touch the piano anyway4 ,it
 was only like stretching out one's hand
 for a friend far away4 ,then he looked 
through the window trying to recollect  
what time of the day it was4 ,and when  
he had taken in the situation1 he turned
 to the girl kneeling at his feet4      
,poor child1 he began1 you were deeply  
disappointed yesterday4 ,i felt very    
much hurt1 when ,i first heard of it1   
but after that everything became clear  
to me while ,i heard the music all      
night1 until a short while ago4         

,rejoice1 my girl1 at being reviled1 for
 it is done for the sake of that sacred 
music1 and it is an ecstasy1 a blessing1
 to be martyred for one's music which is
 well worth all injuries4 ,i did not    
fare any better all my life1 and if ,i  
thank ,god for all the good he has done 
me until this hour1 ,i also thank him   
first and most fervently for the gift of
 music which he bestowed on the world1  
and which he revealed to me most        
wonderfully in my most painful hours4   
,for my music ,i have starved and       
suffered all my life1 and my gain was   
delicious1 my reward celestial for this 
poor perishable stake4  ,my father was  
an organist in a little town of ,eastern
 ,frisia4 ,his father had held the same 
position in the same church1 and1 ,i    
think1 so did the father of his father  
follow music for a profession4 ,music   
has been the heirloom of our family for 
generations4 ,true1 it was the only     
heirloom1 but ,i have cherished it and  
held its flag aloft all my life4 ,when  

,god calls me away1 ,i shall leave      
nothing behind but that old piano and   
the sheet music which ,i wrote myself1  
for in all other respects ,i have always
 been poor4 ,i might have done          
differently1 and my wife has often      
upbraided me for it1 but she does not   
understand the blessing of music4 ,i do 
not blame her for that1 for it was not  
her fault that ,god closed her ear to   
music as he did the ears of many others4
 ,poor people1 how cold and dreary must 
be their lives when music does not      
scatter blossoms in their path and bathe
 their temples in light4 ,but there will
 come a time when their ears will be    
opened1 and ,god will compensate them in
 heaven for what they missed here below4
  ,we who love music have tasted a part 
of eternal bliss here below1 for harmony
 which dissolves all chords is eternal  
life and its wings are fanning us in    
this terrestrial life----  ,do you see1 
,i know it well1 and no one besides me1 
how it is when the soul prepares to     

leave the perishable body and enter the 
song of the spheres--  ,you do not      
understand me1 my girl1 but do not      
worry1 you also will understand some    
day4 ,i will only tell you this much1   
and it shall be a consolation to you    
when the world treats you roughly       
hereafter4 ,all of us1 whether rich or  
poor1 whether reclining on soft silken  
cushions or on hard straw1 all of us    
enter life with the celestial melodies  
in our hearts4 ,the beating of time goes
 with us as long as we are breathing4   
,it is the beating of the heart in our  
breast4 ,we may seem to lose the melody1
 even the measured step of time seems to
 become confused by our passion1 but in 
the blessed hours we always find our    
melody anew1 and then we feel at home in
 the path of our life4  ,thus the old   
organist idolized his music4  ,but it is
 not alone the harmony of music which   
has such a power over the mind4 ,the    
harmony of colors1 every art and        
science1 has the same power4 ,even the  

most common craft1 and the most prosaic 
of all prose1 the chase after the       
dollar1 may take possession of a man's  
soul and prostrate him in adoration     
before its idol4 ,true1 not every one is
 so sentimentally inclined1 and even the
 sentimentalist is so only in especially
 sentimental moments4 ,furthermore it   
cannot be denied that artists1          
inventors1 and explorers are worshipping
 the most worthy and most adorable      
objects4 ,and ,i admit that no great    
success can be accomplished without     
putting your whole soul into some great 
aim4  ,nevertheless you should know that
 anything which may take possession of  
one's soul shares its sublimity with all
 other things1 and is for this reason at
 the same time something ordinary4      
,without such a dialectic clarification 
of our consciousness all adoration is   
idol worship4  ,the actual experience1  
then1 that anything and everything may  
serve as an idol should clearly convince
 you that no one thing1 but only the    

universe is the true ,god1 is truth and 
life4  ,now1 is this logic or is it     
theology8  ,it is both4 ,at closer range
 you will notice that all great         
logicians occupy themselves a great deal
 with ,god and deity1 and that on the   
other hand all honest theologians are   
trying to base their faith on some      
logical order4 ,logic is by its whole   
nature metaphysical4#c  ,there exists a 
class of logicians who attempt to deny  
the inevitable connection between the   
celestial region and the tangible       
universe4 ,some of them do so from      
excessive religious delicacy of feeling1
 in order to protect the sublime from   
the disintegrating effects of critique4 
,others have such an antipathy against  
the religious abuses that they do not   
wish to hear any more about religion4   
,both classes adhere to the so-called   
formal logic4  ,these adherents of      
formal logic may be compared to a maker 
of porcelain dishes who would contend   
that he was simply paying attention to  

the form of his dishes1 pots1 and vases1
 but that he did not have anything to do
 with the raw material1 while it is     
evident that he is compelled to form the
 body in trying to embody forms4 ,these 
things can be separated by words only1  
but not by actions4 ,in the same way as 
body and form1 the finite and infinite  
or so-called celestial spheres1 the     
physical and the metaphysical1 are      
inseparable4  ,logic analyzes thought4  
,but it analyzes thought as it is in    
reality1 and therefore it unavoidably   
searches for truth4 ,and whether this   
truth is found above or below1 or       
anywhere1 is a question which just as   
inevitably brings the logician into     
contact with the theologian4 ,to think  
of avoiding such a meeting from         
considerations of sympathy or antipathy1
 would be a rude lack of consideration  
for science4  ,metaphysical logic which 
aims to extend its field to eternity1   
which looks for logical order even in   
heaven1 and seeks to solve even the     

so-called last questions of all         
knowledge1 differs in a distinct way    
from formal logic1 which selects a      
restricted field for its research and   
confines itself to investigating the    
logical order of the socalled physical  
world4 ,this difference is worthy of    
your special attention1 because in it   
there is hidden the kernel of our whole 
correspondence4  ,it is quite a         
practical method to set a limit for     
one's investigations1 not to fly into   
clouds1 not to undertake anything that  
cannot be accomplished4 ,yet you must   
not forget that practical boundaries are
 not theoretical boundaries1 that they  
are not invariable boundaries for you1  
or for others4 ,although you cannot fly 
to heaven and will give up the idea of  
flying machines from considerations of  
practical expediency1 yet you will not  
wish to deny to man the theoretical     
freedom of infinite striving even in the
 matter of airships1 and you will not be
 so small as to give up the idea of the 

capacity for our race for metaphysical1 
or in other words1 infinite development4
  ,,footnote3  #c ,in the sense of3     
mental and physical world embracing1    
all-embracing4--,editor4     ,,fourth   
,,letter   ,dear ,eugene3  ,in my first 
letter ,i acquainted you with my        
purpose1 in the second ,i lifted the    
subject on my finger tips1 so to say1 to
 show it for a brief moment2 in the     
third ,i showed that its color had      
inevitably a religious shade4 ,now1 to  
continue1 permit me to introduce another
 point to your consideration4  ,the     
great cause of the working class has    
hitherto always been the beast of burden
 of a small and exclusive minority4     
,this is most evident in the slave      
states of antiquity1 in ,egypt1 ,greece1
 ,rome4 ,likewise in the feudal and     
guild systems of the middle ages the    
oppression of the mass of the people is 
sufficiently apparent4 ,at present this 
condition of things is more visible in  
,eastern ,europe1 in ,russia1 ,turkey1  

,bulgaria1 ,hungary1 ,eastern ,prussia1 
etc41 than in the industrial countries  
of the ,west4 ,in the ,united ,states of
 ,america it is most obscured1 so that  
there the people hardly realize their   
enslaved condition4 ,in ,america1 many  
of the upper ten thousand have made     
their way from the bottom up1 and it    
happens more frequently than in ,europe 
that the captains of industry laid their
 foundation by hard work4 ,the          
shortsighted observers then easily      
forget out of sympathy for the hard     
beginning that there is sharper's       
practice at the end1 and they indulge in
 the idle hope that every hard working  
beast of burden might transform itself  
into a happy millionaire by thrift and  
smartness4  ,you will probably ask3     
,what has that to do with logic or the  
art of reasoning8 ,patience6 ,you will  
admit that the emancipation of the      
nations from beastly toil1 misery and   
suffering is the highest goal of the    
human mind4 ,nor will you deny that the 

thought is the most essential instrument
 for reaching this high goal4 ,the      
accomplishments of thought are visible  
in the results of civilization4 ,the    
proletariat of the present1 also that of
 ,russia1 ,turkey1 ,east ,prussia1      
participates in these accomplishments of
 thought4 ,it participates not alone in 
the sense that its brains are better    
educated and cultured1 but also that its
 food1 clothing1 and shelter have become
 more civilized through the progressive 
deeds of intellect4  ,you see1 then1    
that the people's cause is connected    
with the faculty of thought1 and the    
nature of the latter may be illustrated 
as well by the example of the           
development of civilization4 ,the       
complicated network of wheels in a watch
 may also serve to demonstrate the      
nature of that which language designates
 by many names1 such as spirit1         
intellect1 faculty of knowledge1 reason1
 etc4 ,only it must be remembered that  
this mysterious something cannot be     

shown by itself1 but only in connection 
with other things1 whether they be the  
history of civilization or a watch4     
,there will then be no contradiction in 
finding that the intellectual life      
appears more powerful and magnificent   
through the clockwork of the history of 
civilization than through any miniature 
product of thought4  ,in searching for  
the connection of things1 one generally 
seeks to recognize the manner or the    
degree of the connection4 ,but we1 in   
this case1 disregard the question as to 
how the things of this world are related
 to one another and to thought1 and we  
simply make a note of the fact of the   
interdependence of thought and being1 of
 nature and mind4 ,this fact of the     
universal interconnection of things     
contradicts the untrained prejudice4    
,the uncultivated brain nurses the      
illusion that the earth1 the trees on   
it1 and the clouds and the sun above    
them are separate things4 ,but it       
requires a better training of reason to 

understand that the earth1 the tree1 the
 clouds1 and the sun1 can be what they  
are only in the universal               
interconnection4 ,i remember reading an 
article from ,fichte1 in a ,german      
school reader1 which clearly showed that
 the disarrangement of an insignificant 
object during the process of thinking   
causes us to disarrange the whole       
history of the world in our thoughts4   
,it is well known that one unfamiliar   
with political economy overlooks the    
fact that the business men not only     
carry on their trading for their private
 benefit1 but are also members of the   
process of social production4 ,it is    
overlooked that all labor1 aside from   
being individual activity1 is at the    
same time an organic part of social     
labor4 ,and just as ignorance of        
economics overlooks the industrial      
interdependence1 so ignorance of logic  
overlooks the cosmic interrelations4    
,here is a drop of water4 ,look how     
different it is according to the        

different things with which it is       
connected4 ,it cannot be what it is     
without a certain temperature4          
,according to changes in temperature1 it
 will assume either the form of ice or  
of steam4 ,in fat the drop remains      
compact1 in salt it divides infinitely1 
runs downhill in general and uphill in a
 loaf of sugar4 ,according to the       
specific gravity of a certain fluid1    
with which it may come into contact1 it 
either floats on the surface or sinks4  
,without a connection with the earth1   
its temperature and gravitation1 this   
drop and all others would disappear in  
the fathomless abyss and have no        
existence4 ,thus the forms of things    
change according to their connections1  
and they are what they are only as parts
 of the universal interrelation4  ,what 
is true of a drop of water1 is true of  
all things1 all forces and substances1  
even of our thoughts4 ,the human mind   
lives and works only in connection with 
the rest of the material universe--and  

the recognition of the organic unity of 
all things is the fulcrum of my logic4  
,old line metaphysical logic was so     
enamored of its object that the descent1
 the kinship1 and the connection with   
the common things of this world seemed  
too ordinary for the exquisite spirit4  
,that logic was transcendental1 and     
therefore its chosen object likewise had
 to be in touch with a transcendental   
world4 ,and though it was scientific    
enough to regard the tale of the        
creation of the first soul by the breath
 of ,god as a fable1 it was nevertheless
 so prejudiced in favor of the          
extraordinary nature of the intellect   
that it did not abandon1 for thousands  
of years1 the hope of finding in that   
intellect a source which would reveal   
transcendental matters4 ,formal logic   
now entirely discards this hope of a    
fantastical world1 but at the same time 
it misunderstands the natural connection
 between the spirit and the common      
world4 ,it isolates the instrument of   

thought and leaves the question         
undecided whether this instrument has a 
natural1 supernatural1 or no connection 
at all4 ,it overlooks that just as logic
 is real1 so reality is logical1 and    
does not see that the back door which   
leads to illogical heaven by way of     
faith deserves the disdain of science4  
,thought1 intellect1 are really         
existing1 and their existence is a      
uniform part of the universal existence4
 ,that is the cardinal point of sober   
logic4  ,the fact that the thoughts are 
of the same worldly substance as the    
other parts of the universe1 that they  
are parts of common nature and not a    
transcendental essence1 has already been
 expressed by ,cartesius in the famous  
words3 ,cogito1 ergo sum1 ,i think1     
therefore ,i am4  ,the fact of my       
thinking1 says the philosopher1 proves  
my existence4 ,in order to come to an   
absolute conviction on the nature of    
truth and error1 he sets out by doubting
 everything4 ,and then he says that he  

cannot doubt the existence of his       
thoughts4 ,he thus placed the spirit on 
the basis of real life1 delivered it of 
its transcendentalism1 and that         
constitutes his everlasting merit4      
,however1 not alone ,cartesius1 but also
 your own experience testifies to the   
inseparable connection between thinking 
and being4 ,have not your thoughts been 
connected always and everywhere with    
some worldly or real object8 ,if you    
attempt to isolate thought in order to  
ponder over it1 you can only do so      
because that thought has been           
experienced by you and therefore was in 
every instance attached to some worldly 
object4 ,true1 you have thought of      
,greek gods1 brownies1 and mermaids4    
,but you1 an amateur in painting1 are   
familiar enough with that part of the   
mind which is called imagination in     
order to admit that even this eccentric 
part of the mind does not only act1 and 
therefore1 exist in reality1 but also   
derives all its products from reality1  

so that even its most fantastical       
vagaries and illusions are still real   
pictures1 reflections of reality4  ,but 
how is it that ,i require such a        
multitude of words in order to state    
over and over again that the thought has
 a real existence and is a uniform part 
of the universe8 ,simply because from   
time immemorial the confusion in matters
 of logic is so great that the human    
spirit is in the same breath exalted to 
heaven1 and yet its thoughts regarded as
 nothing real1 nothing true4 ,this is   
made plain by the fact that a sharp     
distinction is commonly made between    
that which is real and that which is    
only imagined1 and this difference is   
exaggerated to such an extent that it   
appears as if the idea1 which indeed is 
only in the brain1 has no real existence
 at all4  ,in order that you may        
understand the interrelations of the    
things of the universe1 ,i must warn you
 against this exaggeration and prove    
that the intellect has a real existence 

which is connected with the universe or 
reality4 ,botany1 which occupies itself 
with plants1 does not only teach us to  
divide them into classes1 orders1 and   
families1 but it also does more by      
showing us what place in the entire     
realm of nature is occupied by the      
vegetable kingdom1 by pointing out the  
differences which distinguish the plants
 from the inorganic mineral kingdom or  
the organic animal kingdom4 ,formal     
logic similarly dissects the spirit into
 its parts1 makes distinctions between  
conceptions1 ideas1 judgments1          
conclusions1 divides these into         
subdivisions1 classifies conceptions    
according to species1 separates abstract
 and concrete thought1 knows many       
varieties of judgments1 registers three1
 four1 or more modes of conclusion4 ,but
 at the same time this formal logic     
recoils from touching on the question as
 to how the universal spirit is related 
to the universe1 what role it plays in  
the general existence1 whether it is    

part and parcel of nature or            
transcendental4 ,and yet this is the    
most interesting part1 the part which   
logically connects the intellect and the
 science of the intellect with all other
 sciences and things4  ,logic must teach
 us how to distinguish4 ,it is not a    
question1 however1 of distinguishing    
sheet iron from gold1 or a greyhound    
from a pug-dog1 for this is done by     
special lines of knowledge4 ,logic must 
rather enlighten us about that part of  
the faculty of distinguishing which is  
generally required in all branches of   
knowledge1 whereby truth and error1     
imagination and reality are recognized4 
,to this end ,i feel impelled to advise 
you not to overlook that even error and 
imagination belong to the one infinite  
and absolutely coherent reality4 ,for   
the purpose of distinguishing true      
imagination from actual reality1 it must
 be remembered that just as rye bread   
and cream puffs agree in belonging to   
the general category of baker's         

products1 so imagination and truth1     
thought and reality1 are two different  
kinds of the same nature4  ,to sum up   
the contents of this letter1 let me     
point out that its beginning shows the  
connection of the intellect with the    
development of the people1 while its    
conclusion explains the wider connection
 of the mind with the universal         
existence4     ,,fifth ,,letter   ,a man
 not trained in logical thinking is     
handicapped by the absence of a monistic
 method of thought4 ,monistic is        
synonymous with systematic1 logical1 or 
uniform4  ,if we call a cream puff a    
tidbit and rye bread a food without     
remembering that every food is a tidbit 
and every tidbit food1 and if we ignore 
the fact that both of them1 in spite of 
their difference1 belong to the same    
category and are1 therefore1 related1   
then we lack logic4 ,and logic is       
lacking whenever the fact is ignored    
that all things without exception3      
substances1 forces1 or qualities of the 

world1 are chips of the same block1     
finite parts of the infinite1 which is  
the only truth and reality4  ,that      
insects1 fishes1 birds1 and mammals form
 one and the same animal kingdom1 is an 
old story which has long been patched up
 by the logical instinct4 ,darwin did   
not only enrich the natural sciences1   
but also perform an invaluable service  
for logic4 ,in proving how amphibia     
developed into birds1 he bored a hole   
into the hitherto fixed order of        
classification4 ,he brought motion1     
life1 spirit into the zoological swamp4 
,in case you should not be familiar     
enough with ,darwin's work to understand
 my allusions1 ,i will enter a little   
more deeply into the matter in a few    
sentences4 ,the zoologists knew well    
enough that all species of animals      
belonged to the animal kingdom2 but this
 classification was a mechanical affair4
 ,now the ,origin of ,species1 which    
demonstrates that the zoological        
classification is not constant but      

variable1 which outlines the actual     
transition from one species of animals  
to another1 reveals at the same time    
that this alignment of all animal       
species in one kingdom is not only a    
logical mechanism1 but also a fact of   
actual existence4 ,this classification  
of all animals from the minutest to the 
most gigantic in one kingdom appeared   
before the time of ,darwin as an order  
which had been accomplished by thought  
alone1 while after him it was known as  
an order of nature4  ,what the          
zoologists did to the animal kingdom1   
must be done by the logician to         
existence in general1 to the cosmos4 ,it
 must be shown that the whole world1 all
 forms of its existence1 including the  
spirit1 are logically or monistically   
connected1 related1 welded together4  ,a
 certain narrow materialism thinks that 
everything is done and said when the    
inter-connection between thought and    
brain is pointed out4 ,a good many      
things may still be discovered by the   

help of the dissecting knife1           
microscope1 and experiment2 but this    
does not make the function of logic     
superfluous4 ,true1 thought and brain   
are connected1 just as intimately as the
 brain is related to the blood1 the     
blood with oxygen1 etc42 but moreover   
thought is connected quite as intimately
 with all other things as all physical  
objects are4  ,that the apple is not    
alone dependent on the stem which       
attaches it to the tree1 but also on    
sunshine and rain1 that these things are
 not one-sidedly but universally        
connected1 this is what logic wants to  
teach you particularly in regard to the 
spirit1 the thought4  ,if a traveler in 
,africa had to report a new animal      
species1 he would not make special      
mention of the fact of its existence1   
because that is obvious4 ,and though he 
were to relate things about the most    
abnormal existence1 we should still know
 that this abnormality is only a        
deviation in degree which does not      

overstep the bounds of existence in     
general4 ,but the human intellect is a  
greater novelty than the most wonderful 
animal species of the interior of       
,africa4  ,you know my sharpwitted      
friend ,englaender4 ,when ,i told him   
that ,i was writing articles on the     
human mind1 he advised me not to bother 
my head about it4 ,he said that this was
 a subject no man knew anything about4  
,and when the learned ,mr4 ,hinze1 whom 
you also know1 wanted to prove the      
inevitability of religious faith and the
 inadequacy of all science1 he always   
asked the pathetic question3 ,what is   
consciousness8 ,and he used to take on  
an expression1 as if he had presented a 
book with seven seals4 ,now ,i don't    
want to class the professors of logic   
with such men4 ,but it is a fact that   
the great multitude1 among them many    
scientists1 are quite unfamiliar with   
the truth that the existence of the blue
 sky and of the green trees is a uniform
 part of the same generality with the   

existence of our intellect4  ,for this  
reason it is necessary to prove that the
 intellect exists in the same way that  
all other things do4 ,for it is denied  
and misunderstood1 not only by those who
 regard the spirit as a being of a      
transcendental nature1 but also by those
 who admit the existence of the true    
contents of an ideological concept1 but 
not of thought itself4 ,in short1 the   
matter is so obscure that ,i feel sure  
that you will likewise be as yet in     
doubt whether there are not two kinds of
 ideological concepts1 one of them real1
 the other unreal4  ,for two thousand   
years logic has proclaimed the sentence 
that thought is a form to be filled with
 real contents4 ,true thought must      
coincide with reality4 ,it is true that 
there is a germ of sense in this        
statement1 but it is misunderstood4 ,the
 central point of logic is overlooked4  
,every thought must not only have a real
 content1 but it is also necessary1 in  
order to distinguish true thoughts or   

perceptions from untrue1 to realize that
 thought is always and everywhere a part
 of reality and truth1 even when it     
contains the most singular imaginations 
and errors4  ,just as the domestic cat  
and the panther are different species of
 cats and yet belong to the same genus  
of cats1 so true and false thoughts1 in 
spite of all their differences1 are of  
the same genus4 ,for truth is so great  
that it comprises absolutely everything4
 ,truth1 reality1 the world1 the all1   
the infinite and the absolute are       
synonymous expressions4 ,a clear        
conception of truth is indispensable for
 the understanding of logic4 ,and in the
 last analysis it is simply using       
different words for the same thing1 when
 ,i base the quintessence of logic1 its 
fulcrum1 cardinal1 salient1 or          
distinctive point on the spirit         
intimately united to nature or on the   
concept of a uniform world1 truth1 or   
reality4 ,i cannot give you a clearer   
view of truth than by quoting at this   

place the famous words of ,lessing3 ,if 
,god were to offer me the ever active   
striving for truth in his left hand and 
truth in his right hand1 ,i should grasp
 his left and say3 ,father1 keep truth1 
it is for you alone4 ,this statement is 
somewhat highflown and mystical1 and    
,lessing was no doubt somewhat          
embarrassed by mystical thinking4 ,still
 there is a sober truth in these words1 
which is quite clear and to the point4  
,truth itself is the universe1 the      
infinite and inexhaustible4 ,every part 
of it is a finite part of the infinite  
and is1 therefore1 finite and infinite1 
perishable and imperishable at the same 
time4 ,every part is a separate part and
 connected inseparably with the whole4  
,the human mind1 among others1 is such a
 part4  ,the universal existence1 or    
truth1 is the inexhaustible object of   
the human mind4 ,the fact that in the   
study of logic the human mind has itself
 for an object must be explained to the 
student by pointing out that in this    

case the subject and the object are both
 things like all other things1 in other 
words1 are a part of truth1 a part of   
natural existence4  ,truth itself cannot
 be wholly conceived by the human brain1
 but in parts4 ,for this reason we      
possess only the ever active striving   
for truth2 for this reason1 furthermore1
 the conception or knowledge can never  
be completely identical with reality1   
but can be only a part of it4  ,now     
permit me to say a few words which do   
not sound as would those spoken on the  
throne of logic1 but which are expressed
 in popular language4 ,if you conceive  
some real object1 whether a church      
steeple or a thimble1 then this object  
exists twice1 viz41 in reality and in   
conception4 ,on the other hand1 a       
certain creation of imagination has only
 a simple fantastical existence4 ,such a
 popular way of thinking is undoubtedly 
correct4 ,it is incorrect only when the 
fact is universally ignored that all    
modes of existence belong to the same   

genus1 the same as a domestic cat and a 
panther1 so that the existence of a     
thing in our brains1 and outside of them
 in the heavens1 on earth1 and in all   
places has a logical meaning only when  
it is the same existence in spite of all
 multiplicity4 ,an existence not        
partaking of the general nature of all  
existence would be an illogical1        
nonsensical1 thing4  ,now1 ,i think you 
will have no difficulty in understanding
 me when ,i say that a church steeple in
 imagination and the same church steeple
 in reality are not two church steeples1
 but that imagination and reality are   
forms of the same existence4  ,ancient  
logic ordered a medal and had stamped on
 its face3 ,the thought must be         
identical with the reality4 ,we now     
stamp on its reverse side3 7#a7 ,the    
thought is itself a part of reality and 
7#b7 the reality outside of thought is  
too voluminous and cannot enter thought 
even with its smallest particle4 ,what  
good1 under these circumstances1 is the 

old inscription1 especially since it    
does not teach us at all how the        
identity between thought and its real   
object is to be attained1 known1 or     
measured8  ,if you1 my dear ,eugene1    
should become confused by these         
statements instead of enlightened1 you  
should have patience and consider that a
 thing which is to be illuminated by    
logic must1 of course1 be first obscure4
 ,i believe that ,i have served you in  
some way by simply raising a doubt in   
your mind as to the soundness of the    
popular way of speaking and if ,i thus  
have convinced you of the confusion and 
inadequacy of the plausible idea of the 
identity of thought and reality4  ,true1
 a thought must agree with its object   
just as a portrait should4 ,but what    
good will it do a painter to have his   
special attention called to this fact8  
,have you ever seen a portrait or a copy
 that did not agree in some respect with
 the original8 ,i am convinced that this
 has never been your experience any more

 than a portrait which was a complete   
likeness of its object4 ,your experience
 will be sufficiently cultivated to know
 that it can always be a question only  
of a more or less4 ,i would seriously   
recommend to you to reflect on the      
relativeness of all equality1           
similarity1 and identity4 ,by far the   
greater part of humanity is in this     
respect barbarously thoughtless4 ,it is 
very difficult to grasp for the         
logically untrained brain that two drops
 of water or twins are only relatively  
alike or unlike1 just as are man and    
woman1 negro and white man1 and that all
 existence is just as alike as it is    
unlike4  ,it is with the thinker as it  
is with the painter4 ,they both search  
for a likeness of reality and truth4 ,in
 painting as in understanding there are 
excellent pictures and bad ones4 ,in    
this respect one may make a distinction 
between true and false thoughts1 but you
 must also know that even the           
unsuccessful portrait has some likeness1

 and that even the most accurate        
likeness is yet far from being in       
perfect harmony and identical with its  
object4  ,reality1 truth1 universal     
nature1 stands in the pulpit and        
preaches3 ,i am the ,lord1 thy ,god4    
,thou shalt not make any graven image to
 worship it4 ,you must have a far too   
sublime conception of truth to entertain
 the idea that any painter or thinker   
might encompass it fully within the     
limit of a picture1 no matter how good a
 likeness it may be4  ,now1 that we have
 recognized the human mind as a part of 
actual reality and truth1 we see at the 
same time that undivided reality1 the   
sum of all that is1 represents absolute 
truth which comprises everything4 ,in   
their capacity of parts of the universe1
 true and false thoughts1 good and bad  
men1 heaven and hell1 and all other     
things1 are all pieces of the same      
cloth1 bombs of the same caliber4       
,,sixth ,,letter   ,my ,dear ,son3      
,after the third letter had acquainted  

you with the fact that the subject of   
logic has a certain religious flavor1   
the two subsequent letters endeavored to
 show that the logical subject is       
interconnected with the universal       
existence of the world1 that the faculty
 of thought is an inseparable part of   
actual truth4 ,in the vernacular of     
theology my last two letters have       
represented the human mind as a part of 
the living true ,god4  ,christianity    
teaches3 ,god is a spirit and who would 
worship him must worship in spirit and  
in truth4  ,and logic teaches3 ,the     
spirit is a part of universal existence4
 ,whoever worships the spirit1 is an    
idolator1 for he worships a part and    
misunderstands the whole truth4 ,truth  
itself is identical with the universal  
existence1 with the world1 and all      
things are simply forms1 phenomena1     
predicates1 attributes1 passing         
expressions of it4 ,the universal       
existence may be called divine because  
it is infinite1 being the alpha and     

omega which comprises all things as     
special truths4 ,the intellect is such a
 limited part among other special parts 
of divine truth1 and the latter is      
frequently called world without any     
bombastic emphasis4  ,undoubtedly1 every
 science1 profession and trade can say  
the same thing of its object4 ,the blue 
sky and the green trees are divine      
parts4 ,everything is interrelated and  
connected4 ,if that were a good reason  
for not making any subdivisions1 every  
part and description would become       
endlessly tiresome4  ,however1 the      
specialty of logic is the cosmic sum of 
all truths1 because it aims at a general
 elucidation of the nature of the human 
brain4 ,this purpose is not so well     
served by an accumulation of other      
knowledge as by the general             
understanding of truth4  ,logic1 which  
seeks to enlighten the mind for the     
purpose of scientific thinking1 does not
 so much treat of true conceptions as of
 the general and absolute conception of 

truth which is inseparably linked to the
 infinite universal life4  ,if you wish 
to think scientifically1 you will first 
of all strive after clear ideas4 ,and   
yet your head may be quite clear in     
regard to everyday things1 without      
getting any nearer to general clearness4
 ,nor is such clearness obtainable by   
the accumulation of mere special        
knowledge1 for even if you were to grow 
in wisdom to the end of your days1      
nevertheless the fountain of wisdom1 the
 universe1 is inexhaustible and your    
brain will remain imperfectly informed  
or unclear as before4 ,yea1 even the    
smallest part of the world is so        
inexhaustible that the most talented can
 never acquire all the knowledge        
necessary to understand entirely even   
the most minute object4 ,the strongest  
microscope cannot see all there is to   
see in a drop of water1 and the wisest  
man can never learn all there is to     
shoemaking4  ,you can see by all this   
that the scientific use of our intellect

 is furthered by special knowledge only 
in the corresponding details4 ,for this 
reason it does not satisfy us to have   
some logicians tell us how many kinds of
 concepts1 judgments and conclusions are
 contained in our intellect4 ,these are 
special details of logic4 ,but the thing
 of first importance for the student of 
logic is the elucidation of the         
universal concept of truth1 not the     
accumulation of special truths4         
,special truths enlighten the intellect4
 ,but the understanding that all        
specialties are connected with one      
another by one monad or unit which is   
truth itself gives us a certain general 
enlightenment which certainly does not  
render any special research unnecessary1
 or take the place of it1 but which may 
well serve as the foundation of all     
research1 which may therefore be called 
a fundamental assistance4  ,i may remark
 in passing that the understanding of   
logical science is rendered especially  
difficult by the fact that the          

unpracticed understands all terms and   
concepts only in their narrow popular   
meaning1 while the subject matter leads 
up continually into the widest fields4  
,when ,i speak of parts of the world1   
you must not think merely of            
geographical parts1 but you must think  
farther until you arrive at the insight 
that stars and bricks1 matter and force1
 in short all parts of the world are    
world parts4  ,the logical difficulty   
may be principally traced to the lack of
 familiarity with the comprehensive     
categories4 ,it will be clear to you    
that thinking and being1 phenomenon and 
truth1 etc41 are conceptions of the     
widest scope4 ,so you may have some     
difficulty in distinguishing between    
concepts of truth1 and true concepts4   
,and yet this is the same as making a   
distinction between the general class of
 herbs and its individual species4 ,the 
mere intercourse with such comprehensive
 concepts as truth1 existence1 universe1
 is an excellent school of intellectual 

enlightenment4  ,perhaps you may object 
to the deviation of a science devoted to
 the special study of the faculty of    
thought into such fields as existence or
 truth4 ,but a logic confined to an     
analysis of the faculty of understanding
 would be narrow compared to one        
representing this faculty of            
understanding at work in real life4 ,if 
the science of the eye were to treat    
only of the various parts of the eye    
without considering the things outside  
connected with its function1 the light1 
the objects1 in short1 the vision of the
 eye1 it would be more an anatomy of the
 eye than a general science of the eye4 
,at all events a science which          
represents not alone the subjective     
faculty of vision1 but also the living  
activity of the eye1 the objective field
 of vision inseparable from the         
subjective faculty1 is a far more       
comprehensive instruction1 a higher     
enlightenment of the human brain4  ,in  
my opinion1 logic should not so much    

treat of the analysis of the            
intellectual subject as of the purpose  
and object of the faculty of thought1   
its culture1 which is not accomplished  
by the intellect itself1 but by its     
connection with the world of truth1 its 
interrelation with the universal        
existence4  ,what can a logic accomplish
 which divides thought into analytical  
and synthetical thoughts1 which speaks  
of inductive and deductive understanding
 and of a dozen other kinds1 but which  
finally declines to meet the question of
 the relation of thought and            
understanding to truth1 and fails to    
indicate what and where is divine truth 
and how we may arrive at it8  ,pilate1  
the typical sceptic1 shrugs his         
shoulders2 the clergymen make a mystery 
of divine truth2 the natural sciences   
care only for the true conceptions1 but 
naught for the concept of truth2 and    
then the special science of             
understanding1 formal logic1 tries to   
refer its task to philosophy or world   

wisdom4  ,i have already pointed out    
that the titles of the principal works  
on philosophy indicate that the whole   
world wisdom turns around the question3 
,how can our brain be enlightened1 how  
can it arrive at truth8 ,the naturalists
 answer that this can be accomplished by
 special studies1 and they are          
frequently opposed to philosophical     
research which makes general truth its  
main object1 and belittle it4 ,you will 
readily see that this is a mistake when 
you consider that1 to illustrate1 a     
machine or an organism as a whole is    
still something more than a mere sum of 
its parts4  ,no matter how well you may 
know each single part1 yet you will not 
understand the whole machine or organism
 by this means alone4 ,the universe is  
not an aggregation of unorganized parts1
 but a living process which must be     
understood not only in its parts but    
also as a whole4 ,we may pass for the   
moment the question whether the ,milky  
,way may be dissolved into stars1 and   

whether the stars may become globes like
 our ,earth which may develop plants1   
animals1 and intelligent beings4 ,the   
thing which is evident is that there is 
a process of development1 that all      
nature takes part in this movement1 that
 the universe is a whole without end1   
composed of an infinite number of parts2
 a coming and going1 an eternal         
transformation1 which is always         
identical with itself and always the    
same world4 ,what all this would be     
without our eyes and ears and without   
the intellect by means of which we use  
eyes and ears1 what the world in itself 
is1 that is a senseless and             
transcendental speculation4  ,the       
science of logic must deal only with the
 actual world which is inseparable from 
us and from our thoughts4  ,this world  
which we hear1 see1 smell1 in which we  
live and breathe1 is the world of truth 
or the true world4 ,that is a fact4     
,must ,i prove this8 ,and how is a fact 
proven8 ,how do we prove that a peach is

 a delicious fruit8 ,one goes and eats  
it4 ,in the same way1 you may now go and
 enjoy life1 of course in a rational    
manner1 and ,i am convinced that your   
own love of life will tell you that it  
is proof positive of the truth of the   
world1 of its actuality4  ,but even in  
the midst of this actual world there is 
present an inconsistent element1 a human
 race with a confused logic4 ,this race 
has been led by various depressing and  
saddening circumstances to blacken the  
delicious truth of this world and to    
look for a transcendental truth in      
philosophical metaphysics or religious  
fantasmagorias1 both of which are parts 
of the same stew4 ,the philosophers of  
misery who make of the world of truth a 
vain shadow and a miserable vale of     
sorrow must needs be convinced by logic 
that the living world is the only true  
one4  ,well1 that is not so difficult4  
,but there is a danger of getting into a
 vicious circle of errors1 imitating a  
snake biting its own tail4 ,i have to   

prove logically that the world and truth
 are one and the same thing1 before we  
have come to an agreement as to what is 
logical truth or true logic4            
,nevertheless1 nature has assisted us4  
,the logic of nature is the true logic  
by the help of which we can agree4      
,nothing more is required than a        
somewhat trained brain4  ,take two men  
having a dispute about truth4 ,one of   
them says it is one thing1 the other    
that it is something else4 ,so they are 
arguing about that which is4 ,this last 
word is a form of the verb to be4 ,hence
 in arguing whether the remote nebula in
 the heavens is a brick or a star1 a    
male or a female1 one is always         
discussing some form of existence4 ,all 
disputes turn around forms of existence1
 but existence itself is an undisputable
 truth4  ,have ,i now still to prove    
that all existence is of the same       
category8 ,are there any stones that do 
not belong to the category of stones1 or
 any kind of wood which is iron8 ,what  

would become of reason and language1 if 
such a thing were to be considered8 ,and
 yet1 much that is being said by        
opponents is of such a nature4  ,if ,i  
have succeeded in convincing you that   
the universe is the truth1 there still  
remains the special question3 ,what     
place shall we assign to fantastic      
ideas1 error1 and untruth8 ,if the      
universe is the truth1 then everything  
would be true1 and hence it seems       
contradictory that error and untruth    
should have a place in truth or in the  
world4 ,of this more anon4 ,i shall only
 point out in passing that untruth may  
without any contradiction belong to     
truth1 just as weeds are a negation of  
herbs and still at the same time herbs4 
,in conclusion ,i call your attention to
 the eminently proletarian character of 
the science of truth4 ,it gives to the  
working class the logical justification 
to renounce all clerical and mystic     
control and to look for salvation in    
this same world in which divine truth is

 living4     ,,seventh ,,letter   ,the  
philologists distinguish carefully      
between a science of language and a     
science of languages4 ,the latter       
teaches ,egyptian1 ,assyrian1 ,hebrew1  
,greek1 ,latin1 ,english1 ,french1 etc41
 while the former treats of the general 
characteristics common to all languages1
 of language itself4  ,philosophical    
logic stands in the same relation to    
other sciences4 ,the latter make us     
acquainted with special truths1 while   
logic treats of truth in general4 ,those
 overintelligent people who claim that  
truth is merely a collective term for   
many truths do not see the woods for    
trees4 ,herder1 ,wilhelm von ,humboldt1 
,max ,mueller1 ,steinthal1 etc41 have   
many things to say about the science of 
language of which the linguists with    
many languages never dream4  ,the       
science of language1 aside from its many
 amenities1 is also burdened with a     
difficult problem which it cannot solve 
without the help of logic4 ,this problem

 is the point of differentiation where  
babbling and word-mongery cease and     
intelligent speech begins4 ,for human   
speech has a certain meaning1 and even  
the cries of the animals are not without
 sense4 ,the sparrows know how to       
converse together1 the rooster calls his
 flock together1 the dog knows how to   
announce that a stranger enters his     
master's home4 ,not alone the jokers1   
but serious thinkers speak of animal    
language1 of a sign language1 and       
maintain that speech does not alone     
consist of words1 but also of           
inarticulate sounds and gestures4 ,poets
 endow even the storm1 the thunder and  
the winds with speech4 ,we wish to clear
 this confusion and ascertain what      
language is and where it begins4        
,languages1 as is well known1 have their
 beginning at the ,tower of ,babel4 ,but
 in order to get close to language1 we  
must look for a beginning of things     
either in ,god or in logic4  ,you know  
the old question3 ,which was first1 the 

egg or the hen8 ,but only a frivolous   
mind overlooks the serious side of this 
question and turns it into a mere joke4 
,the question of beginning and end is an
 eminently logical one1 and an          
unequivocal and clear answer to it would
 bring light not alone into the science 
of language1 but also into the human    
brain4  ,let us1 therefore1 follow up   
the problem of the origin of language a 
little farther4 ,when our forefathers   
dealt with this question1 they thought  
that a ,god had given speech to man or  
some genius had invented it4 ,they      
thought of a beginning in time4 ,the    
modern thinkers speculate more deeply4  
,they have found out that language is   
not a fixed thing1 but fluid1 and has   
risen from low beginnings to a great    
perfection4 ,we can no more find its    
temporal beginning by looking backward  
than we can see its end by looking      
ahead4 ,for this reason we no longer    
look for its temporal1 but for its      
ideological beginning4 7,steinthal47 ,we

 should like to have a fixed mark where 
we might say3 ,up to this point that    
which resembles speech is only roaring1 
exclamation1 noise1 and here is the     
beginning of the well articulated sound 
which deserves the name of spoken word4 
,but there is still another factor which
 complicates the question further4 ,some
 say3 ,it is not only the sound1 the    
word1 which constitutes speech1 but the 
connected sentence2 there must be sense 
and reason mixed with it4 ,and this     
applies to the speaker and to the       
listener4 ,language presupposes reason4 
,then1 again1 intellect is not a fixed  
thing1 but a fluid process which        
develops in1 from1 and by speech4 ,so it
 appears on one side as if the mind     
produces language1 and on the other1 as 
if language produces the mind1 the      
reason4 ,where1 then1 is the beginning  
and end1 and how can we bring order into
 these relations8  ,for us1 who are     
studying the mind1 not the language1 the
 conclusion follows that it is not alone

 the word1 but also the sound1 the tone1
 the gesture1 that all things have a    
meaning and speak a language4 ,we find  
mind wherever we penetrate with our     
mind4 ,not alone language1 but the world
 is connected with the mind1 with the   
thought4 ,but the connection with       
language may well serve as an           
illustration by which the connection of 
the cosmic mind may be demonstrated and 
the human brain illuminated4  ,language 
shares the honor with the mind of being 
extolled1 even in this sober century1 if
 not to the skies1 at least far out of  
the general connection of common things4
 ,for this reason1 we must emphasize in 
the case of language as in that of the  
mind1 that they exist1 that they are    
part and parcel of the universal        
existence4 ,at this point ,i wish to    
give you a vivid illustration of the    
unity of all being by pointing out that 
it is indubitably established by the    
existence of one single name which is   
sufficient to designate ,all4 ,true1    

language employs many names for this    
unity of the world1 but that is a       
luxury4 ,it is logical and necessary for
 the intellect to have one name for the 
,all1 because everything is not only    
infinitely variegated1 but also         
infinitely one1 or a unit4 ,there are   
many different waters1 but all water    
partakes of the general nature of water4
 ,unless that nature is present1 there  
is no water and the name of water does  
not apply4 ,in the same way there are   
many kinds of oil2 olive oil1 kerosene  
oil1 castor oil1 etc41 and each kind has
 its own subdivisions4 ,but everything  
that has a common name is a unit4       
,kindly observe1 now1 that the names of 
things form just such circles as the    
water does after being struck by a      
stone4 ,just as the name water1 so the  
name oil indicates a ring4 ,then the    
name fluid constitutes another and wider
 ring which includes both oil and water4
 ,then the name matter draws a still    
wider circle and includes solids as well

 as fluids1 and finally the name being1 
or ,all1 includes mind and matter1 all  
matter and force1 including heaven and  
hell1 in one sole ring1 in one unit4    
,on the basis of this universal unity1  
from which it becomes apparent that high
 and low1 dry and fluid1 in short the   
whole universe is made of the same      
substance1 any fantastic thinker can    
prove that human and animal language is 
one1 for otherwise one could not refer  
to both of them as language4 ,he may    
then justly contend that speech1        
producing a sound1 is a noise1 that     
speech and noise are one4 ,speech is    
sound and sound speaks4 ,in this way    
language would have no beginning and no 
end4 ,in the last analysis it would be  
one with all things1 and all things     
would be one with it4 ,in this way the  
whole universe would become an          
inexplicable1 incomprehensible1         
inexpressible mixture of speech4  ,and  
yet it is an old story that man's       
insight grows the more he magnifies a   

thing4 ,the more excessively we         
exaggerate a thing1 the plainer become  
its boundaries4 ,language indeed        
requires one single name for ,all1 but  
it also requires an infinite number of  
names in order to specify the parts of  
,all4 ,inasmuch as language claims to be
 only a part of existence1 this part has
 to be bounded1 and you should in this  
connection remember the unlimited       
freedom of man in drawing such          
boundaries4 ,words are not merely empty 
words1 but names of cosmic parts1 of    
cosmic rings of undulation4 ,language1  
or rather the mind connected with       
language1 wishes to bound the infinite  
by the help of language4 ,the           
instinctive popular use of language does
 this in a haphazard way4 ,conscious    
science proceeds in an exact manner4    
,just as it has determined on the field 
of temperature what should be called hot
 and what warm1 so it is at liberty on  
the field of sounds to determine where  
the name of language begins or ceases4  

,the end of the discussion of language  
is therefore this3 ,that which has      
already been done to horse power has not
 yet been done to the concept of        
language2 it has been somewhat fixed by 
common usage1 but only insufficiently4  
,and so the moral of this tale is that  
the things of this world1 even mind and 
language1 are connected and             
intermingling undulations of the same   
stream1 which has neither beginning nor 
end4  ,let me say it once more clearly  
and without circumlocution3 ,the logic  
which ,i teach and the thought which is 
its object are parts of the world1 of   
the infinite1 and every part being a    
piece of the infinite is likewise       
infinite4 ,every part partakes of the   
nature of the infinite4 ,hence you must 
not expect that ,i should exhaust my    
infinite subject4 ,i confine myself to  
the logical chapter of the ,one and the 
,many4 ,i simply wish to make it plain  
that without any contradiction the whole
 multiplicity of existence is of the    

same nature1 and that this oneness of   
nature subdivides into manifold forms4  
,the world is interconnected and this   
interconnection is subdivided into      
departments4 ,it adds to the general    
enlightenment of the human brain to     
recognize this in regard to language1 to
 mind1 to all parts of the universe4  ,i
 repeat1 then3 ,one may think logically 
without having attended any lectures on 
logic1 just as one may raise potatoes   
without a scientific knowledge of       
agriculture4 ,it was possible to invent 
the thermometer1 to clearly distinguish 
between sounds and colors1 and a hundred
 other things1 without having explained 
the faculty of discrimination4 ,but the 
most abstract distinctions1 such as     
beginning and end1 word and meaning1    
body and soul1 man and animal1 matter   
and force1 truth and error1 presuppose  
for their explanation a logical         
explanation of their interconnection    
with our intellect4     ,,eighth        
,,letter   ,dear ,eugene3  ,logic is    

going through the same experience as    
economics4 ,the economists of the       
capitalist era talk solely of the means 
and ways by which profit and surplus    
value may be increased4 ,they discuss   
only its relative size1 its increase or 
decrease4 ,but the thing itself1 its    
origin and descent1 is not discussed4   
,it is passed in silence that profit is 
extracted from labor power by paying    
less for a day's work than is produced  
by it4 ,the gentlemen talk only of the  
wealth of nations1 but not of their     
poverty4 ,and though this was due to    
ignorance in the beginning1 it has later
 become sheer roguery4  ,the formal     
logicians are as ignorant as they are   
roguish1 when they persist in discussing
 the intellect or thought in the        
traditional manner as if they were      
isolated things1 while ignoring the     
necessary connection of the object of   
the logical study with the world of     
experiences4 ,this interconnection leads
 to an explanation of truth and error1  

of sense and nonsense1 of god and idols1
 and this is very inopportune for the   
professors4 ,for this reason this       
unwelcome problem is handed over to the 
mystical departments1 to metaphysics and
 religion1 so that these venerable      
pillars of official wisdom may continue 
their services to the ruling classes4   
,i have already stated in my letters    
that the kernel of my discussion turns  
on the distinction between formal and   
what ,i call proletarian logic4 ,the    
formal logicians treat the intellect as 
a thing in itself1 while ,i express in  
many different ways the fact that the   
intellect does not exist by itself1 but 
is interconnected with all things and   
with the universe4  ,that intellect has 
indeed a transcendental leaning1 which  
seeks vent by trying to exclude now     
music1 now language1 now itself1 now    
some other fetich from the universal    
interrelation4 ,but the science of the  
mind teaches that the brain watching its
 own activity finds out that all        

affirmations and negations1 assertions  
and contradictions1 belong to the one   
omnipotent world mechanism1 which keeps 
them stored within itself and which is  
actually truth and life4 ,inasmuch as   
the human brain is of the same nature as
 this automatic universal being and     
interconnected with it1 logic is at the 
same time religion1 metaphysics1 and    
world wisdom4#d  ,formal logic teaches  
that our intellect must keep all things 
apart1 but does not teach that it must  
also connect them4 ,this logic is right 
in one way and yet does not arrive at   
the goal of a clear world philosophy1   
because it permits the transcendental   
leaning to exaggerate the differences   
and distinctions4 ,it overlooks the     
paradoxical or dialectical nature of    
things which are not only separated but 
also connected4 ,what must be understood
 is that1 generally speaking1 the       
classification of the universe is only a
 formality4 ,we are1 indeed1 justified  
in distinguishing between above and     

,below1 right and left1 beginning and   
end1 gold and sheet metal1 good and bad1
 but we must also enlighten ourselves as
 to how multiplicity can be a unity1 the
 variable constant1 and the constant    
variable4 ,formal logic has a wrong     
name4 ,it is not formal1 but            
transcendental4 ,it shares the common   
prejudice that there are absolutely     
contradictory things or irreconcilable  
opposites1 that there are essential     
differences which have no connection1 no
 bridge between them1 nothing in common4
 ,it teaches that contradictions cannot 
exist1 and contradicts itself by        
clinging to the belief that there are   
irreconcilable contradictions4 ,it      
teaches that a thing which contradicts  
itself is inconceivable1 is not true1   
and thus reveals that it is not well    
informed on the formality of            
contradictions1 on the true conciliation
 of contradictions1 and on universal    
truth4 ,gold is not sheet iron1 that is 
true enough4 ,whoever calls gold sheet  

metal or sheet metal gold1 contradicts  
himself4 ,in the actual world both      
things are separated4 ,yet they are not 
separated to such extent that gold and  
sheet iron do not partake of the same   
nature1 of the nature of all metal4     
,gold and sheet iron are unlike metals1 
but they have the same metallic         
likeness4 ,that like things are         
different and different things alike1   
that it is everywhere only a question of
 the degree of difference1 of formal    
differences1 this is overlooked by      
formal logic and by all who seek truth  
in any logical diagram or fetich1       
instead of in the eternal1 omnipresent  
existence of the inseparable universe4  
,our logic deals with truth or with the 
universe1 which contains the most       
sublime gods and the meanest deviltry1  
in other words1 which contains          
everything4 ,in the world truth there is
 contained error1 pretense1 lies1 just  
as death also lives in it4 ,in other    
words1 error1 pretense1 lies1 death are 

only phenomena1 formalities1 passing    
trifles or things which are nothing     
compared to the one thing1 that thing of
 all things1 which is being1 truth1     
life4  ,the understanding of the one    
living world truth is so greatly        
aggravated by the so-called             
contradictions which it contains4 ,we   
find for instance that where one thing  
ends another begins4 ,the end of the one
 is the beginning of another4 ,every    
beginning is at the same time an end4   
,both are contained in one another1 and 
yet in our minds beginning and end are  
separated4 ,we find the beginning and   
the end everywhere and nowhere4 ,or look
 into space4 ,you do not see any        
boundary1 and yet your vision reaches   
only a certain distance4 ,your vision is
 bounded and yet there is no boundary to
 be seen4 ,or look at life4 ,death soon 
arrives1 and yet a closer look shows    
that death is not really death1 for a   
new life arises from the ruins4 ,the    
world proves to be the eternal life     

which does not know death4 ,it is a     
contradiction to say that death lives1  
but this contradiction can be solved by 
the understanding that the difference   
between life and death1 however great1  
is still a formal one1 a difference     
which like all other differences is     
reduced to relative insignificance by   
the infinite cosmic life4  ,there exists
 a widely diffused school1 if this term 
may be applied to the unschooled1 that  
preaches patience in the matter of the  
systematization of our thoughts or the  
enlightenment of our intellect1 and     
though it no longer hopes for a         
mysterious revelation1 yet founds its   
faith on natural science which has      
explained so many things to us and which
 is finally supposed to throw light on  
the last questions of all knowledge4    
,but ,i can easily convince you that the
 new countries1 plants1 animals4        
,esquimaux1 that may be discovered on   
polar expeditions1 or the inventions    
which ,edison may perhaps make on the   

field of electricity1 or the experiences
 which future astronomers may gather in 
regard to suns1 moons1 and comets1 while
 they may add valuable contributions to 
science and life1 will yet do little    
toward a correct general employment of  
our intellect or to a universal         
enlightenment of the human brain4 ,on   
the other hand1 an enlightenment as to  
the nature and meaning of contradictions
 will spread light to the remotest      
corners of imagination1 into the heavens
 and eternity1 into the existence of the
 whole1 the unity and difference of all 
things4  ,the most drastic1 and perhaps 
the most instructive1 illustration of   
the correct meaning of contradictions is
 given by the contrast between truth and
 untruth4 ,these two poles are perhaps  
more widely separated than the ,north   
,pole and the ,south ,pole1 and yet they
 are as intimately connected as these   
two4 ,the commonplace logic will hardly 
listen to the demonstration of the unity
 of such apparently wide opposites as   

truth and untruth4 ,therefore you will  
pardon me1 if ,i illustrate this example
 by others1 for instance by the contrast
 between day and night4 ,take it that   
the day lasts twelve hours and the night
 likewise4 ,day and night are opposites4
 ,where there is day cannot be any      
night1 and yet day and night constitute 
one single day of twenty-four hours1 in 
which they both dwell harmoniously4 ,it 
is the same with truth and untruth4 ,the
 world is the truth1 and error1         
pretense1 and lies are embodied in it1  
are parts of the actual world1 just as  
night is a part of day without confusing
 logic4 ,we may honestly speak of       
genuine pretense and true lies1 without 
any contradiction4 ,just as unreason has
 still some reason left1 so untruth     
still lives inevitably in truth1 because
 the latter is all-embracing1 is the    
universe4  ,contradictions cannot exist4
 ,but confused brains full of           
contradictions nevertheless exist4      
,knives without handles and blades1 two 

mountains without a valley between them1
 and other nonsense1 exist as a phrase4 
,there are two kinds of contradictions3 
,senseless ones and very sensible ones4 
,yea1 the whole world#e is an infinite  
and inexhaustible contradiction1 which  
contains innumerable sensible statements
 and misstatements1 which never         
disappear and yet may be solved         
harmoniously by the help of time and    
reason4  ,from this it follows that the 
formal criteria of truth which are on   
everybody's tongue1 such as the identity
 of thought with its object1 and the    
absence of all contradictions1 do not   
furnish a basis at all for the analysis 
of truth and cannot define it1 except in
 an ignorant and roguish way4  ,since   
the prophet ,daniel scattered ashes in  
the temple and unmasked the servants of 
,baal1 other idol worshippers have      
continued to stimulate the people to    
daily sacrifices1 in order to steal the 
victuals at night4 ,this continual      
rascality and its repeated exposure has 

blunted the desire of the people to     
serve truth1 so that a great many have  
become frivolous and indifferent4 ,this 
rascally logic1 not to mention          
ignorance1 encourages the frivolous and 
indifferent in their godless departure  
from truth4 ,in the pulpit and in the   
garb of science it preaches the vanity  
and inadequacy of research4 ,this is    
preached not as a dogma1 but as a       
logical science1 and thus the senseless 
contradiction is committed of trying to 
prove truly by the help of the intellect
 that the intellect is too limited to   
grasp the truth and prove it4  ,in its  
historical course logical research once 
arrived at such a result in good faith4 
,this happened in the famous ,critique  
of ,reason of ,immanuel ,kant4 ,our     
shrewd friends of darkness now seek to  
utilize the fame of this work1 to which 
it is entitled on account of its great  
contribution toward the elucidation of  
cosmic truth1 for the purpose of        
preventing on the strength of it a      

progress of enlightenment beyond the    
standpoint of ,kant4  ,by the way1 ,kant
 has demonstrated that the truth in     
general is as much a matter of          
experience as the brain with which we   
search for it4 ,he has shown beyond a   
doubt that our eyes and ears are        
inseparably connected with our mind and 
with the whole cosmic truth4 ,but the   
persistent spirit of transcendentalism1 
or what is the same thing1 the          
traditional belief in the transcendental
 spirit1 has led him to grant a         
mysterious existence alongside of or    
above the human mind1 alongside of or   
above the cosmic truth1 to an           
incomprehensible monster spirit and to a
 fantastical hyper-truth4  ,the ,kantian
 critique of reason did not understand  
the universality of truth4 ,it still    
affirmed the existence of two worlds and
 two truths without any unity4 ,and as  
it is the curse of the evil deed to     
generate more evil1 it produced two     
intellects4 7#a7 ,the poor little       

subservient intellect of man1 and 7#b7  
the enormous and abnormal intellect of  
the ,lord1 who is supposed to understand
 the incomprehensible and to untie the  
most senseless contradictions like so   
many knots4  ,the truth which is the    
universe1 the cosmic or universal truth1
 will reveal to you the absurdity of    
abnormal humility which is contained in 
the dualistic doctrine of the two minds4
 ,of course1 the philosopher ,kant had a
 greater intellect than ,peter ,simple4 
,but nevertheless all intellects partake
 of the nature of the general intellect1
 and no intellect can step above or     
below this general nature without losing
 sense or reason4 ,one cannot speak of  
another1 higher1 faculty of thought than
 that acquired by man through experience
 without dropping from logic to         
absurdity4 ,no doubt the animal world   
possesses something similar to          
intellect4 ,no doubt1 also1 the animal  
mind may be separated from the human    
mind by some special name1 for instance 

instinct4 ,no doubt1 furthermore1 our   
reason is strengthened by culture from  
generation to generation4 ,but that     
anywhere and at any time there should   
come into existence a faculty of thought
 which would stand outside of the cosmic
 interconnection1 that is an absurd     
conception and a senseless thing4 ,just 
as necessarily as all water has one and 
the same nature1 that of being wet1 just
 so necessarily every intelligence and  
every thought partakes of the general   
nature of thought and must logically be 
a part1 a particular part1 of the one   
universal and empirical world4          
,,footnotes3  #d ,religion denotes here 
as much as conception of the world and  
explanation of its last questions2 and  
metaphysics stands here for everything  
conceivable1 which meaning embraces more
 than the mere tangible4--,,editor4  #e 
,when we consider its many parts as     
such4--,,editor4     ,,ninth ,,letter   
,repetition1 my dear ,eugene1 is the    
mother of all study4  ,logic aims to    

teach you the proper use of the         
intellect1 not only in this or that     
branch of study1 but in the general     
branch of truth4 ,its result is the     
following precept3 ,in all things always
 remember the universal interrelation4  
,in order to illustrate this statement a
 little1 let me point out that in the   
period of scholasticism thinking was    
practiced without any interconnection   
with the rest of the world1 merely by   
brown study4 ,the present age of natural
 sciences then cultivated a better      
method4 ,but the method of the natural  
sciences has not succeeded so far in    
being applied to the field of law1      
morals1 politics1 psychology1 and       
philosophy1 because the logical         
understanding of the total interrelation
 of the indivisible world truth was     
lacking1 because the concept of truth   
was enveloped in darkness1 and because  
the privileged classes have a great     
interest in maintaining darkness4  ,for 
this reason1 the true method of         

reasoning still requires many           
explanations4 ,the socialist1 for       
instance1 is charged with inciting the  
people1 with promising more than he can 
keep and with sowing strife in the      
hearts of men4 ,those who make this     
charge in the commonplace sense1 tear   
two things1 viz41 peace and strife1 out 
of their due connection4 ,as a matter of
 fact1 peace and strife must always     
dwell together4 ,a nation whose peace   
were not intermingled with a certain    
strife1 would be a nation of sluggards4 
,thanks to the strife in their breasts1 
the nations are progressive and         
stirring4 ,motion is the essence of the 
world1 and national motion is           
inconceivable without the striving of   
men4 ,for the sake of development and   
culture1 nations must always demand more
 than they can immediately attain4 ,on  
the other hand1 striving of this sort is
 not sufficient4 ,one must not demand   
more than one can obtain1 nor promise   
more than one can give4 ,for this reason

 the logical socialist must know that   
even in the future society the trees    
will not grow into the clouds1 and that 
the peace for which we hope and strive  
will always be mixed with strife4 ,the  
music of the future1 although more      
harmonious than the music of the        
present1 will nevertheless be eternally 
marred by disharmony4 ,there is nothing 
perfect in the world1 because only the  
whole universe is perfect1 because the  
universe alone is perfectness itself4   
,eternal peace1 as the warriors may     
justly claim1 is an illusion1 so long as
 we think of peace in a transcendental  
way and as being separated from strife4 
,but the sons of the war god who would  
like to continue the thunder of cannons 
and the rattle of sabers eternally1 are 
no less the victims of illusion1 if not 
something worse4 ,eternal is only war in
 peace and peace in war1 although that  
may seem senseless to the logicians of  
the old school4 ,thus even the          
inevitable war will become more peaceful

 and humane in the course of time4 ,the 
barbarian form of war1 of which the     
,prussians are masters1 is not destined 
to last forever1 unless we speak of the 
illogical eternity of the preacher which
 opens its doors by leaving the temporal
 world4 ,in defending the social war1 ,i
 wish to have it understood that neither
 the conceptions nor the things called  
war and peace are separated by a        
,chinese wall4  ,everything is          
interconnected and interdependent4 ,it  
is true that strife and animosities may 
be exaggerated1 and so may peace4 ,but  
whatever blame attaches to this1 refers 
only to the exaggeration4 ,it is not the
 animosity1 but the excessive animosity 
which deserves censure4 ,by recognizing 
the logical interconnection between     
peace and strife1 the dispute of the    
parties is rendered saner4 ,there is    
then no longer a question of a yawning  
chasm between satisfaction and          
dissatisfaction1 but of something about 
which an agreement is possible1 viz41   

how much there is of either4  ,as peace 
and war in the human breast1 so all     
variety intermingles in the cosmic unit4
 ,in the novel ,homo ,sum1 by ,ebers1   
the monk ,paulus1 who tasted the        
delights of the preliminary celestial   
ecstasy when castigating his body1 says3
 ,i truly believe that it is just as    
difficult on this globe to find pain    
without joy as joy without pain4 ,and   
,till ,eulenspiegel1 that type of a     
practical joker1 showed an understanding
 of dialectics when he lightened the    
difficulty of ascending a mountain by   
the reflection that the descent on the  
other side would be so much easier4     
,logic is no more senseless in teaching 
that all things1 even the most opposite1
 are of the same substance than it is in
 showing that night belongs to day and  
weeds to herbs4  ,in order that these   
petty illustrations may not confuse your
 mind1 it should be remembered that the 
essential point is the elucidation of   
the great contradiction between mind and

 matter1 between thinking and being1    
which includes all petty contradictions4
  ,in order to think in accordance with 
logical consistency1 you must not regard
 a thing as something independent1 but  
consider everything as fluid particles  
of the same substance1 which is the     
thing of all things1 the world1 the     
truth1 and life4  ,our logic is         
therefore the science of truth4 ,this   
truth is neither above nor below1       
neither in ,jerusalem nor in ,jericho1  
neither in the spirit nor in the flesh1 
but everywhere4  ,our logic is the      
science of understanding4 ,it teaches   
that you must not search for            
understanding by cudgeling your brain1  
but only in connection with experience1 
with the interrelation of things4       
,since man in his experience also meets 
errors1 science was dominated for       
centuries by the question whether truth 
and experience are not two different    
things1 whether all our experience is   
only an illusion of our senses4         

,cartesius replied to this3 ,no2 the    
belief in a perfect1 true being cannot  
admit of such a delusion4 ,by           
substituting the concept of truth for   
the concept of ,god1 we are certain that
 the world of experience is not a ghost1
 but the most actual reality4  ,although
 the great ,kant called the cosmic truth
 a phenomenon1 because he could not     
divest his mind of transcendental faith1
 of the faith in a transcendental truth1
 still we know today that all           
distinctions which are ever made        
constitute but a nibbling at the        
universal unit4 ,as necessarily as all  
variety in baking produces bakery wares1
 just as necessarily heaven and earth1  
and everything connected with them1 are 
parts of the indivisible truth which is 
also called nature1 cosmos1 universe1   
,god1 and experience4 ,language gives to
 its darling truth many different pet   
names1 just as a happy mother calls her 
heart's treasure by a thousand endearing
 terms4  ,feuerbach reasons in this     

fashion3 ,if ,god is not a personal     
being different from nature and man1    
then he is an entirely superfluous      
being4444 ,the use of the word ,god     
which is always combined with the       
conception of a separate being1 is a    
disturbing and confusing abuse4 ,why do 
you want to be a theist1 if you are a   
naturalist1 or a naturalist if you are a
 theist8 ,away with this contradiction6 
,where ,god is confounded with nature1  
or nature with ,god1 there is neither   
,god nor nature1 but a mystical         
amphibious hermaphrodite4  ,feuerbach is
 right4 ,the name of ,god is much       
abused4 ,but truth is also blasphemed by
 negation and frivolousness4 ,the sober 
understanding that ,god1 truth1 nature1 
are various names for the same thing    
permits us to play with them without    
despairing of the matter4 ,indeed1 this 
play of words serves to make the subject
 clear4  ,but logic demands that we     
recognize truth as the absolute1 as the 
power1 the force1 and the glory1 which  

comprises all logical and illogical     
distinctions1 together with the things  
to be distinguished1 even the faculty of
 distinguishing itself4  ,such an       
understanding of the absolute1 such     
world wisdom1 will not make you         
conceited1 because it makes you         
conscious of the fact that your         
understanding has grasped celestial     
truth which at the same time is         
terrestrial1 only in a very general way4
 ,you possess nothing but a definition  
of truth4 ,and without denying that     
definitions are valuable and            
instructive1 ,i1 at the same time1 point
 out that you know very little about    
astronomy when you know that it is the  
science of the stars4 ,no matter1       
therefore1 how clearly ,i may have      
defined truth1 we require for its       
complete understanding all the details  
of science1 and that is too much for me1
 for you1 and for any individual human  
being4  ,just as our vision never       
exhausts the visible1 because the eye   

sees an object but does not fully       
penetrate it1 just so can the intellect 
never fully understand and fathom the   
absolute all1 the truth1 or ,god4 ,but  
we can understand and fathom individual 
truths1 parts of the universal truth4   
,what understanding grasps is not the   
truth itself1 but yet it is true        
understanding4     ,,tenth ,,letter     
,dear ,eugene3  ,my previous lectures   
instructed you as to the very trivial   
fact that the thought is a part of the  
world4 ,in proceeding from the part to  
the whole1 ,i passed logically from the 
mouth of the river to its source4 ,the  
universe is the maternal womb of the    
intellect as of all things4  ,it occurs 
to me that you or some teacher of logic 
might accuse my letters of lack of      
logic4 ,it may seem that these lectures 
fail to present the subject matter in a 
strictly systematized form4 ,you will1  
please1 excuse this in part with the    
fact that they appear in the form of    
letters4 ,this form demands that the    

contents should be logically arranged   
and rounded off in each letter4 ,it     
should furthermore serve as an excuse   
for any defect1 that my subject is not a
 finished one1 not perfectly elaborated 
by others before me4 ,i am here not     
merely a lecturer1 but also an explorer 
on a field which1 though much           
investigated1 yet is still rather       
obscure4  ,the conclusion of my last    
letter explained that the use of the    
term ,god for the universe has much to  
recommend it and much to disqualify it4 
,but it is easily apparent that the     
universe with its absolute qualities is 
closely related to that infinite being  
of whom ,jakob ,boehme1 the             
philosophical shoemaker1 said3 ,he is   
neither the light nor the darkness1     
neither love nor anger1 but the eternal 
,one4444 ,hence all forces are merely   
one sole force4  ,that nothing exists   
outside of the universe1 that everything
 is contained in the ,all1 that the     
,all1 with all real and imagined beings1

 is everything1 that it is neither sweet
 nor sour1 neither great nor small1 but 
just everything and all1 this statement 
is as obvious as the often and long     
repeated statement of identity3 ,a      
equals ,a4  ,the ,all is omnipotent1    
omnipresent1 all-wise4 ,this last term  
might be questioned1 since the universe 
is not a dummy with a monster head and  
giant brain4 ,for this very reason it   
was considered inappropriate to apply   
the name of ,god to the universe1       
because that creates the impression of a
 personal being4 ,the ,all thinks only  
by means of human brains1 and for this  
reason omniscience cannot be anything   
but common human knowledge4 ,of course1 
you1 ,i1 and every other man1 are very  
limited in our knowledge4 ,but still we 
may indulge in the hope that the things 
which we do not know are known by other 
men or will be discovered by future     
generations1 so that the collective     
human mind will know everything that is 
knowable4 ,we cannot see everything that

 is visible2 there are animals that can 
see even better than we can4 ,but since 
even the most intelligent animal is     
supposed to lack the highest degree of  
intelligence1 reason and science1 there 
is no one who knows anything except the 
human race4 ,mankind is omniscient4 ,but
 since all our science is derived only  
from the world1 mankind is only the     
formal bearer of intelligence1 and it   
belongs to the fountain of all things1  
to eternal nature4 ,our wisdom is the   
wisdom of nature1 is world wisdom4      
,although there may be inhabitants of   
the moon and of other stars who may know
 things which are unknown to us1 still  
that is in the first place a mere       
speculation of little value1 and in the 
second place universal omniscience or   
the omniscient universe would not in the
 least be affected thereby4 ,it is a    
reasonable use of the language to regard
 human wisdom as the only and omniscient
 wisdom1 just as all natural and wet    
water is called water without any       

further modification4 ,i believe in the 
statement of ,protagoras3 ,man is the   
measure of all things4 ,whoever uses a  
different measure1 uses a superhuman1   
transcendental measure4#f  ,hence1 when 
,i call the cosmic essence of all       
existence omnipotent1 you will not think
 of a senseless magic power which forges
 knives without handles and blades1 nor 
will you read any transcendental meaning
 into my use of the term omniscience4   
,omniscience belongs obviously under the
 head of logic1 because the organ of    
science and wisdom is the object of the 
study of logic4 ,and it must now be     
stated that the human mind does not only
 exceed the animal mind by far1 but is  
also the non plus ultra of all minds4   
,but it must be retained that this mind 
can only be whatever it is in connection
 with the divine universe which ,i may  
also be permitted to call worldly deity4
 ,this name is fitting because it is a  
means of understanding that in the first
 place no monster mind rules the world1 

and in the second place the natural     
universe is not a mere sum of all       
things1 but truth and life4  ,of course1
 the identification of the universe with
 the religious ,god is only a           
comparison1 and comparisons are lame4   
,still we may compare the sun with an   
eternal lamp or the moon with a candle1 
or the ,german prime minister with a    
butler4  ,logic shall teach you that    
everything which may be distinguished by
 the faculty of understanding is of the 
same kind1 everything is of common clay1
 but the whole is sublimely elevated    
above all that is commonplace4 ,mere    
frivolous atheism1 as created by the    
free-thinkers1 is not sufficient4 ,a    
bare denial of ,god always creates some 
other idol worship4 ,the positive       
understanding of the divine world truth 
is an indispensable requirement for the 
radical extermination of all idol       
worship4  ,logic must begin with the    
sublime1 infinite1 absolute4 ,all       
logical1 consistent or interconnected   

thinking must take its departure from   
it4 ,the so-called scientific research  
after temporal causes1 after the egg    
from which the chicken was hatched1     
after the hen from which the egg came1  
after the kindred organisms which       
developed the hen by natural selection  
and adaption according to ,darwin1 this 
is a very valuable research without     
which we can never understand the world 
process4 ,but nevertheless1 such        
research must not satisfy the thinking  
man4 ,logic demands from everybody that 
he or she should search for the highest1
 for the cause of all causes4 ,whoever  
feels the desire to bring logical order 
into his consciousness1 must know that  
the finite and infinite1 the relative   
and the absolute1 the special truths and
 the one general truth1 are contained in
 one another4  ,logical thought as      
demanded by science means nothing but to
 be aware of the final cause1 the       
absolute foundation of all thought4     
,this foundation is the universe1 an    

attribute of which is the external and  
internal human head4 ,the thousand year 
old dispute between the materialists and
 the idealists turns on the question    
whether the spirit is material or the   
world spiritual4 ,our answer is plain   
and clear3 ,they both belong together1  
they together make up the one thing1 the
 thing of all things4 ,mind and matter  
are two attributes of the same          
substance4 ,they may be compared the    
same as fish and flesh1 the former being
 called very appropriately by some      
,african tribes water flesh4 ,in this   
way1 matter and mind are two kinds of   
meat of a different and yet of the same 
nature4  ,i remember reading in a       
satirical paper the question3 ,what is a
 gentleman8 ,answer3 ,a gentleman is a  
loafer with money1 and a loafer is a    
gentleman without money4 ,just as these 
two types of men are essentially alike  
and differ only in the small matter of  
money1 so you should remember that there
 are no essential differences1 that all 

differences are merely matters of       
attributes and qualities of the same    
absolute world substance4 ,to           
distinguish correctly and logically1    
that is the point which logic is aiming 
to teach us4 ,to make distinctions is   
the function which is also called       
perceiving1 knowing1 understanding1     
comprehending4 ,when you consider that  
this function is innate in man1 and that
 man together with his faculty of       
understanding is innate in nature1 then 
you recognize all distinctions and the  
distinguished objects as attributes of  
the undistinguished ,one1 of the        
absolute1 compared to which all things  
are only relative things1 in other      
words1 attributes4  ,i am endeavoring to
 make clear to you that logical thinking
 requires the awakening of the          
consciousness of the one supreme general
 nature4 ,and you must not think of this
 sum of all existence in the stupid way 
in which people used to think of the    
animal kingdom before ,darwin1 but      

regard the world as a living organic    
unit1 from which the faculty of         
understanding has blossomed the same as 
all other things4 ,in the logic of the  
narrow-minded1 all animal species are   
widely separated1 without any living    
interconnection1 while ,darwin has      
demonstrated the uniform process1 the   
intermingling life in multiform         
creation4 ,the illustration of this     
famous zoologist of the transition from 
one species to another may serve as an  
example of the logical transitions in   
the world process1 in which all         
differences are but undulations4 ,all   
our classifications must always remember
 the undivided basis on which they are  
resting4  ,we have shown that the       
intellect divides the universal nature1 
classifies and analyzes it1 and we have 
learned of the universal nature that it 
not only furnishes to the intellect the 
material for its work1 but also that the
 world comprises within its general     
process the intellectual process1 that  

the intellectual movement is a          
specialization of the natural movement4 
,the world is not only the object1 but  
also the subject of understanding1 it   
understands1 it dissects its own        
multiplicity by means of the human      
intellect4 ,our wisdom is world wisdom  
in a two-fold sense3 ,the world is that 
which is being understood1 classified1  
analyzed1 and at the same time it is    
that which1 by the help of our          
intellect1 practices understanding1     
classification1 etc4 ,when ,i call the  
human mind the cosmic mind1 the mind of 
the supreme being1 ,i wish to have it   
understood that there is nothing        
mysterious about this1 that ,i merely   
intend to show that thought or          
intelligence can only operate in the    
universal cosmic interconnection1 that  
it is not an abnormal and transcendental
 thing1 but a thing like all other      
things4  ,you must not conceive of the  
spirit as the producer of truth1 as a   
little god1 but only as a means4 ,the   

true god1 the divine truth1 has our     
intellect for an attribute4 ,the latter 
does not produce truth1 but only the    
understanding of truth4 ,it produces    
only pictures of truth which are all    
more or less perfect4 ,of course1 it is 
not at all immaterial whether we produce
 a more or less faithful1 a true or a   
false picture of truth1 but still this  
is1 at present and for us here1 a       
secondary matter4 ,the main thing is to 
know that truth1 or nature1 is far above
 all pictures1 and still consists of    
parts1 of forms1 which together         
constitute the whole4  ,,footnote3  #f  
,please note the additional explanation 
on page #gg4--;,,editor4     ,,eleventh 
,,letter   ,dear ,eugene3  ,johannes    
,scherr relates in the ,gartenlaube1 a  
,german family paper1 in an article     
entitled ,mahomet and ,his ,work1 that  
insane doctrinarians are searching for  
people without religion4 ,this has not  
succeeded1 it is said1 although the     
spark of religious feeling is glowing   

very dimly in peoples that are close to 
the animal4 ,but nevertheless1 he       
continues1 the expressions of religious 
feeling mark the boundary line where the
 beast ceases and man begins4 ,for just 
as in the higher stages of civilization 
religion means the consciousness of the 
finite of being one with the infinite1  
so in the lower stages of civilization  
the indefinite impulse is felt by man to
 connect his special nature with the    
universal nature and bring them into    
harmony4 ,this is idealism1 the         
idealistic need4 ,it is obvious that1   
and why1 the people have always and     
everywhere sought and found satisfaction
 for their idealistic longings in       
religion4 ,but1 adds the shrewd         
observer1 ,i must remark that ,i do not 
refer to the shifting population when ,i
 say people1 for sad to relate1 that    
population is torn away from all        
connection with natural conditions4 ,i  
refer to the settled1 the permanent1 the
 true people4  ,this quotation shows    

that a champion of the true people is in
 conflict with true logic4 ,in dividing 
a population into shifting and settled  
people1 one should retain as a basis the
 logical consciousness that all classes 
of people are embraced by one class2    
furthermore1 that human1 monkey1 ant1   
and other nations are parts of the one  
and the same nation2 until finally man  
and animal1 real and imaginary1 with all
 religious and godless things1 are      
ultimately fused in the world unit and  
can never be torn away from all         
connection with natural conditions4     
,all distinctions must logically be     
based on the consciousness of the       
absolute and universal unity1 of the    
interconnection of all things4 ,for this
 reason some pious people1 with their   
,god in whom everything is living and   
has its being1 have more logic than some
 freethinkers of the class of ,johannes 
,scherr who have no coherence in their  
method of thought4 ,the faithful think  
more logically than the narrowly        

skeptical1 for they begin and end with  
,god4 ,but still they cannot think quite
 logically1 because they cannot         
establish any logical connection between
 their eternally perfect ,lord and evil1
 the devil1 disease1 misery1 sin1 in    
short all the sufferings and vanities   
here below4  ,the unit of nature1 the   
infinite1 is the quintessence of logic4 
,neither natural science in the narrow  
sense of the word1 nor metaphysics1 nor 
formal logic1 can give any clue as to   
the nature of this thing of things4     
,this can be done only by a science of  
understanding which recognizes matter   
and mind and all opposites and          
contradictions as formalities of the    
universe4 ,how can a man who is out of  
touch with the mass of the shifting     
population feel that he is one with the 
universe8 ,whoever regards any special  
class as the true people1 has no        
understanding either of the common      
people or of the absolute universe4     
,proletarian logic teaches not only the 

equality of all human beings1 but       
universal equality4 ,and mark well1 this
 universal equality does not conflict   
with variety any more than a variety of 
pots and jugs conflicts with the unity  
of vessels1 or the manifold forms of    
bretzels and rolls with the unity of    
bakery ware4  ,the enemies of democratic
 development1 in attacking the idea of  
freedom and equality1 point to the      
manifoldness of nature1 the individual  
differences of men1 the distinctions    
between weak and strong1 wise and fools1
 men and women1 and consider it tyranny 
to attempt to equalize that which nature
 has made different4 ,they cannot       
understand that like things may be      
different and different things alike4   
,they are blinded by their class logic  
which sees only the differences1 but not
 the unity1 not the transfusion of all  
classes4  ,class logic teaches that     
contradictory things cannot exist4      
,according to it1 a thing cannot be     
genuine and false at the same time4     

,this class logic has a narrow          
conception of existence4 ,it has only   
observed that there are many different  
things in nature1 but has overlooked the
 fact that all these things have also a 
general nature4 ,we1 on the other hand1 
recognize that every thing1 every       
person1 is a part of the infinite world 
and partakes of its general nature1 is  
eternal and perishable1 true and untrue1
 great and small1 one sided and         
manyfold1 in short contradictory4       
,before and after ,socrates1 philosophy 
and religion have searched for the      
genuine1 right1 good1 true1 and         
beautiful1 but have reached no          
harmonious results4 ,but it cannot be   
denied that in the course of the        
centuries the problem has become clearer
 and clearer4 ,the great names of       
,pythagoras1 ,socrates1 ,plato1         
,aristotle1 ,bacon1 ,cartesius1         
,spinoza1 ,leibniz1 ,kant1 ,hegel1 are  
milestones on the highway of this       
progress4 ,the evolution is apparent1   

but the interrelation between the       
intellectual and physical1 and          
especially between intellectual and     
economic evolution1 is much ignored4    
,the bridge between mind and body was   
not found1 and philosophical evolution  
has been regarded up to our day as a    
purely mental process accomplished by   
one or two dozen of famous brains4 ,i   
wish to point out to you now1 that      
proletarian logic is the continuation of
 the preceding research after the       
genuine1 true1 good1 and beautiful4 ,it 
teaches how to conceive of these ideals 
logically1 and it has not so much       
proceeded from any one talented brain1  
but is rather the product of the entire 
cosmic process4  ,philosophical brains  
have developed the science of logical   
thought only to the extent that the     
material development of the world has   
stimulated them to do so4 ,you must     
regard the human brains only as         
secondary levers of the universal lever 
which is not only genuine1 true1 good1  

and beautiful1 but truth1 goodness1 and 
beauty itself1 or the world and the     
absolute4  ,the understanding of the    
absolute which is called good ,lord1 and
 then again the bad world1 in other     
words the selfsufficient cosmos1 is very
 inconvenient to the wisdom of the      
professors1 and they are attempting to  
assign it to a special study which they 
call metaphysics4 ,this division of     
labor is not introduced for the purpose 
of making research more productive1 but 
of surrounding this study by mysterious 
darkness4 ,the professors who lecture to
 the young people on formal logic set   
aside the ancient research after the    
true1 the good1 the beautiful1 and try  
to place these ideals outside of the    
light of science in order to be able to 
preserve them unchanged in the          
tabernacle of faith4  ,this charge may  
seem unjust1 because the learned        
gentlemen reserved a corner for the     
true1 the good1 and the beautiful in    
their metaphysical department4 ,but     

there is something peculiar about this4 
,the great ,kant has asked the plain    
question3 ,is metaphysics practicable as
 a science8 ,answer3 ,no6 ,the          
transcendental truth1 etc41 sought by   
metaphysics1 and named ,god1 freedom1   
immortality in ,christian language1     
cannot be found by any reason4 ,but     
being a child of his time1 the great    
philosopher makes a small concession to 
the transcendental4  ,he teaches3       
,although transcendental truth cannot be
 located scientifically1 still the      
religious faith in its existence is     
wholesome4 ,we1 in our time1 think more 
soberly about this theory of salvation  
and accept the elimination of all       
transcendentalism from science4 ,while  
the spokesmen of the true people would  
like to hide their exalted truth1       
freedom1 and immortality behind the     
curtains of temples1 we throw the full  
daylight of logic on the absolute truth1
 goodness1 and beauty of the material   
world4  ,logic as the science of correct

 thought cannot be restricted to any one
 object1 it cannot exclude any object1  
whether terrestrial or heavenly1 from   
its sphere4 ,the great lights of present
 day learning do not wish to subordinate
 the intellect as the object of the     
logical department1 and absolute truth  
as the object of the metaphysical       
department1 to one another1 but to      
co-ordinate them side by side4  ,but two
 co-ordinated things which are not      
subordinated to a third higher thing    
lack logic1 and the brain which is      
satisfied by such a condition suffers   
from disorder4 ,logical truth must      
inevitably be a part of absolute truth1 
and it is our duty to remove absolute   
truth from the field of metaphysics1 of 
transcendentalism1 and to transfer it to
 the sober world which forms an         
inseparable unit with the human mind4   
,so much for the proletarian duty to    
continue the research after the true1   
the good1 and the beautiful which was   
the object of the philosophers before   

and after ,socrates4 ,but remember that 
,i am referring only to the truly good1 
beautiful1 etc41 which is contained in  
the universal truth of all true         
specifications4 ,the question of the    
ethically good1 the esthetically        
beautiful and the absolutely perfect is 
as necessarily contained in the question
 of the universal truth as red1 blue1   
and green in the rainbow1 of course only
 in an abstract sense4  ,our logic which
 has for its object the truth of the    
universe1 is the science of the         
understanding of the universe1 a science
 of universal understanding or          
conception of the world4 ,it teaches    
that the interrelation of all things is 
truth and life1 is the genuine1 right1  
good1 and beautiful4 ,all the sublime   
moving the heart of man1 all the sweet  
stirring his breast1 is the universal   
nature or the universe4 ,but the vexing 
question still remains3 ,what about the 
negative1 the ugly1 the evil1 what about
 error1 pretense1 standstill1 disease1  

death1 and the devil8  ,true1 the world 
is vain1 evil1 ugly4 ,but these are     
merely accidental phenomena1 only forms 
and appendages of the world4 ,its       
eternity1 truth1 goodness1 beauty1 is   
substantial1 existing1 positive4 ,its   
negative is like the darkness which     
serves to make the light more brilliant1
 so that it may overcome the dark and   
shine so much more brightly4  ,the      
spokesmen of the ruling classes are not 
open for such a sublime optimism1       
because they have the pessimistic duty  
of perpetuating misery and servitude4   
,,twelfth ,,letter   ,logic1 the science
 of correct thought1 demands in the     
first place true1 or in other words1    
reasonable thought4 ,logic deals with   
reason and truth4  ,these two things    
have been endowed with a mysterious     
nature1 while they obviously belong to  
the entire universe and its tangible    
nature4 ,reason and truth are not       
separated from the other things1 are not
 things in themselves4 ,there is no such

 thing4 ,philosophers who have looked   
for them in the depths of the human     
brain with their hands over their eyes  
and engaged in brown study1 were on the 
wrong road4 ,proletarian logic differs  
from conventional logic in that it does 
not look for reason and truth behind the
 curtains of temples1 nor in the brains 
of the learned1 but it discovers them in
 the actual interconnection of all      
things and processes of nature4         
,preachers1 professors1 judges1 and     
politicians are the leaders of the wise 
men of ,gotham1 and since we have all   
passed our youth among them1 we find it 
difficult to get rid of their confused  
logic4  ,we owe much of our better      
insight to the famous philosophers4     
,these men had many an eccentric notion1
 but on the whole they were reasonable  
fellows who followed the doctrine of the
 unreliability of the senses and the    
faith in the hidden truth and reason    
more in a theoretical than in a         
practical way4 ,in practice they        

operated with open eyes and ears4 ,thus 
correct logic1 although confused by     
queer notions1 has been handed down to  
us from generation to generation4       
,preachers1 professors1 judges1 and     
politicians cling to the confused       
notions1 while we take the liberty to   
discard them4  ,now we recognize not    
only that reason and truth are connected
 with the world1 but also that the      
universe is the supreme reason and      
truth1 is that being which religion and 
philosophy have long been looking for1  
the most perfect being1 which ,plato    
called the true1 good and beautiful1    
,kant ,god1 freedom1 and immortality1   
and ,hegel the absolute4  ,if he is an  
atheist who denies that perfection can  
be found in any individual1 then ,i am  
an atheist4 ,and if he is a believer in 
,god who has the faith in the most      
perfect being with which not alone the  
theologists1 but also ,cartesius and    
,spinoza have occupied themselves so    
much1 then ,i am one of the true        

children of ,god4  ,the abuse of sublime
 feelings and exalted ideas has filled  
many hearts with disgust1 so that they  
care no longer for any unctuous sermons4
 ,the mere flavor of religion is odious 
to them4 ,nevertheless ,i assure you    
that we shall never get rid of idol     
worship1 unless we understand the       
supreme being1 reason or truth1 in its  
true nature4  ,understand is a          
mysterious word4 ,to bring light into   
the mystery of understanding by a clear 
theory of understanding1 is an integral 
part of the science of thought1 of      
logic4  ,permit me to compare the       
faculty of understanding with a         
photographic apparatus1 by the help of  
which you strive to obtain a picture of 
the cosmic truth4 ,then you will see at 
a glance that in this way we can obtain 
but a dim picture of the whole4 ,the    
object appears boundless1 too infinitely
 great and sublime to permit of copying4
 ,and yet we can approach it4 ,although 
we cannot get a true picture of         

universal truth1 yet we can obtain clear
 pictures of individual truths1 in other
 words1 we can picture the infinite in  
its parts4 ,by the help of your         
intellect1 you can grasp the infinite by
 means of limitation4  ,absolute truth  
appears to us in relative phenomena4    
,the perfect being is composed of       
imperfect parts4 ,a wise man of ,gotham 
may regard this as a senseless          
contradiction4 ,but we can separate the 
arms1 legs1 head1 and trunk from one    
another1 and so separated they will be  
mere parts of a corpse1 while connected 
they certainly possess the chance of    
vitality4 ,life is composed of the dead1
 the most perfect being is composed of  
imperfect parts4 ,in the universal truth
 everything is contained4 ,it is the    
perfect being1 it includes the whole    
existence1 even the imperfect4 ,the     
false1 the ugly1 the evil1 the nasty are
 involved in the true1 the good1 the    
beautiful4 ,the universal existence is  
the absolute truth1 the whole is        

composed of relativities1 of parts1 of  
phenomena4 ,our understanding1 our      
instrument of thought1 is likewise an   
imperfect part of the perfect being4    
,our intellect produces only a dim1     
imperfect picture of the absolute1 but  
it reproduces true pictures of its      
parts1 although pictures only4  ,there  
are good and bad1 adequate and          
inadequate1 true and false thoughts and 
understanding4 ,but there are no        
absolutely true thoughts4 ,all our      
conceptions and ideas are imperfect     
pictures of the most perfect being which
 is inexhaustible in great things as in 
small things1 as a whole and in parts4  
,every part of nature is a natural part 
of the infinite4  ,i repeat3 ,all parts 
or things of this world have1 apart from
 their imperfect nature as parts1 also  
the world nature of the absolute being4 
,they are imperfect perfections4 ,our   
intellect is no exception4 ,the human   
mind is the only mind having the name of
 reason1 and is the most perfect reason 

which can possibly exist4 ,in the same  
way1 the water of this earth is the non 
plus ultra of all water4 ,the belief in 
another and different mind1 in a monster
 mind1 belongs to the same              
transcendental category as the belief in
 a celestial river without the nature of
 water flowing around the castle of     
,zion4 ,even the most perfect mind is   
nothing else1 and cannot be anything    
else1 but an imperfect part of the      
absolute world being4  ,the first thing 
a student of correct thought has to     
learn is to distinguish true thought    
from false thought1 and for this purpose
 he must know above all that distinction
 must not be exaggerated4 ,all          
differences can only be relative4 ,the  
bad and the good pictures belong to the 
same family1 and all families finally   
belong to the absolute1 are individuals 
of the universe4  ,for the purpose of   
distinguishing true thoughts from false1
 it should be remembered that the true  
thought is only a part of the truth1 a  

part which does not exaggerate its own  
importance1 but subordinates itself to  
the absolute4  ,the following           
illustration may explain this4 ,although
 astronomy teaches that the earth       
revolves daily around its axis and that 
the sun is standing still1 it           
nevertheless knows that the fixed state 
of the sun is only a relative truth1 so 
that from a higher point of view both   
the earth and the sun are revolving4    
,the consciousness of its relative truth
 alone makes the statement of the sun's 
standstill true4 ,again1 when the farmer
 sees that the earth is fixed and that  
the sun is moving every day from ,east  
to ,west1 he is mistaken only so far as 
he regards his standpoint as the whole  
truth1 his farmers' knowledge for       
absolute knowledge4 ,the knowledge of   
the absolute alone enables you to       
distinguish correctly between truth and 
error4 ,whoever sees the sun turning    
around the earth with the consciousness 
that this revolution is but a partial   

truth is not in error1 but sees truly4  
,the knowledge of the absolute truth    
clears up error and instructs us as to  
the method of correct thought4 ,this    
thought makes us apt1 humble1 and       
tolerant in judging4  ,the wisest of men
 was very proud of his modesty in       
knowing that he knew nothing4 ,his      
example may well be recommended to-day4 
,although we have learned a great deal1 
we know very little compared to the     
inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom1   
good mother nature4 ,we learn every day1
 but we never learn all there is to     
learn4 ,what was to the credit of       
,socrates1 was his firm faith in the    
truth1 his conviction of its existence1 
and his faith in the mission of the     
human intellect to search for truth4    
,on the contrary1 the sophists confused 
and disputed everything4 ,they          
frivolously flouted all truth and       
research4 ,this same frivolousness now  
relies upon ,kant who1 misled by the    
prejudice of his time1 removed truth to 

a transcendental world and therefore    
deprecatingly called our actual world   
the world of phenomena4 ,in distinction 
from him1 our logic teaches that the    
phenomena of this world without         
exception are parts of the one truth1   
and that the true art of understanding  
consists in studying the parts4  ,the   
doctrine of the sophists to the effect  
that everything may be denied and       
disputed has a certain similarity with  
ours in that we declare that the        
universe is the truth and all parts of  
it true parts1 that smoke and fog1      
reason and imagination1 dreams and      
realities1 subject and object1 are true 
parts of the world4 ,they are not the   
whole truth1 but still true4 ,for this  
reason it is well to call your attention
 to the difference between the          
sophistical and the logical method of   
thought4 ,the contemporaries of         
,socrates are still alive to-day4 ,they 
are teaching in the name of ,god and    
believe in nothing1 while to us truth1  

every day naked and sober truth1 is     
sacred4     ,,thirteenth ,,letter   ,in 
his ,three ,books ,on ,the ,soul1       
,aristotle discussed at length the      
question whether the human soul has five
 senses or one4 ,the commentator1 ,j4   
,h4 von ,kirchmann1 the publisher of the
 ,philosophical ,library1 remarks in his
 footnote #agb that man has six senses4 
,he divides feeling into pure and active
 feeling4 ,according to this1 the phrase
 of the five senses belongs to the old  
iron the same as that of the four       
elements4 ,now neither you1 nor ,i1 nor 
any reader should worry about the       
question whether all sensation may be   
summed up in the one sense of feeling1  
whether there are five senses according 
to ,aristotle1 or six according to      
,kirchmann1 or whether there is even a  
seventh sense for the transcendental1   
the organ of which1 as some optimists   
hope1 will gradually be developed with  
the growing perfection of man4 ,we are  
concerned in this matter only so far as 

it is connected with the cardinal       
question1 whether the world is only one 
thing or a mere collection of an        
infinite number of disconnected things2 
whether the so-called things are        
independent subjects and objects1 or    
whether they are only predicates of the 
one world subject4  ,looking through the
 window ,i see the river1 the street1   
the bridge1 houses1 and trees4          
,everything is a thing in itself and yet
 is connected inseparably with all      
others4 ,the qualities of the world are 
regarded by the intellect as subjects2  
but the intelligent subject should also 
know that its actions1 its              
distinguishing and understanding1 are   
formalities1 a formal dismemberment of  
the absolute1 which in spite of all     
division always remains the undivided   
whole4  ,in order to master this method 
of thought1 you must understand above   
all that the things are only so-called  
things1 but are in reality qualities of 
the universe1 in other words1 relative  

things or predicates of the absolute4   
,you will then understand1 that our     
thought has a right to make one thing as
 well as six of a chair1 its back1 its  
seat1 and its four legs4 ,you will      
recognize that the five senses of       
,aristotle are not an eternal truth1 but
 a classification1 which is eternally   
variable4 ,distinguishing means         
classifying4  ,i know very well that ,i 
am making a bold statement here1 and    
that it is not easy to justify it4 ,for 
this reason you must not expect that ,i 
can make my meaning clear in a few      
sentences4 ,it is not only the general  
prejudice which prevents this by making 
a most mysterious and miraculous thing  
of the intellectual function1 but also  
the fact that this thing is still very  
obscure1 although it has become clearer 
and clearer in the course of time4  ,the
 freethinking pastor ,hironymi writes on
 this point3 ,the most prominent        
naturalists of the present1 such as     
,dubois-,reymond1 who are at the same   

time thinkers1 admit that they do not   
know what feeling1 life1 consciousness1 
are1 and how they arise4 ,and this      
ignorance is far more valuable for truth
 and religion than the alleged          
knowledge4 ,let us1 therefore1 continue 
in the devotion with which we have      
hitherto admired the universe without   
understanding it4 ,the higher existence1
 the consciousness1 has not been        
explained1 it has remained a miracle1   
the only lasting1 absolute1 miracle4    
,thus speaks the preacher who is a      
know-nothing by nature and makes a      
business of admiring and wondering1     
while we are interested in understanding
 and knowing4 ,we wish to fathom the    
mystery1 and hence ,i may write still   
more letters on logic and you may study 
some more4  ,i shall try to demonstrate 
by a trivial example1 how it is that    
understanding or distinguishing is based
 on classification4  ,take it that you  
awake at early dawn and notice in a     
corner of your bed room something       

uncouth and moving which you cannot     
clearly distinguish4 ,to know that a    
phenomenon appears is not enough because
 the term phenomenon applies to         
everything1 natural and unnatural       
things1 good and evil spirits4 ,even if 
you are sufficiently enlightened to know
 that the thing in question must be     
something natural1 still this explains  
very little1 for the term nature again  
means everything4 ,but you understand or
 recognize more when you ascertain that 
the uncouth thing is dead or alive1 wall
 paper or garment1 man or animal4 ,you  
will notice that in this intellectual   
enlightenment it is simply a matter of  
classification1 of the head under which 
the mystery should be classed4 ,to      
classify the phenomena of truth and     
life1 means to understand1 to use the   
intellect1 to enlighten the brain4  ,but
 we must well consider how far we shall 
have to go in our classification in     
order to find the place in the system   
which will fully clarify and determine  

understanding4 ,suppose that in the     
above mentioned case you have           
ascertained that the motion is due to a 
cat1 then the inquiring faculty of      
understanding has not yet reached the   
end of its tether4 ,the next question is
 then1 whether it is your cat or that of
 your neighbor1 whether it is black1    
white1 or grey1 young or old4 ,and when 
you finally recognize that it is your   
tomcat ,peter1 you must remember that   
the subject which understands as well as
 the object to be recognized1 being     
parts of the absolute1 are absolutely   
and infinitely divisible parts1 which   
are never fully understood and never    
fully exhausted4  ,please remember that 
in speaking of something uncouth1 we are
 not so much concerned in ,peter or     
,tabby1 but in the intellect which we   
desire to understand so that we may make
 a correct use of it4 ,and ,i refer to  
it as uncouth merely because its        
understanding is beset with so many     
difficulties4 ,when ,i compared it in   

the preceding letter with a photographic
 apparatus which should furnish us with 
pictures1 and in likening it now to an  
instrument designed to distinguish      
things by classification1 ,i warn you   
not to be confused thereby4             
,classification is most essential as a  
means of producing intellectual         
pictures4 ,in this connection ,i        
emphasize once more that the faculty of 
understanding1 the same as other things1
 is not independent by itself1 but can  
accomplish something only in the        
universal interconnection4 ,the         
understanding that the phenomenon quoted
 above belongs to the category of       
tomcats1 and more especially into the   
column labeled ,peter1 would not be any 
understanding at all1 if you had not    
become previously acquainted with the   
mouse-devouring race and individual in  
question4 ,only in connection with your 
previous experience is the understanding
 that this tomcat and the uncouth motion
 are one and the same thing1 or belong  

to the same category1 a true            
understanding4  ,ludwig ,feuerbach says3
 ,a talented writer is recognized by the
 fact that he assumes talent on the part
 of the reader also and does not chew up
 his subject into minute parts like a   
petty schoolmaster4 ,on the other hand1 
it seems to me that it is possible to   
assume too much1 and ,i pursued a       
schoolmasterly course in this case1     
because the subject is new to you and   
still leaves plenty of room for         
reflection4  ,i wanted to show by a     
commonplace example what ,i mean by     
insight and understanding and how by    
means of it the unknown and uncouth     
becomes known and familiar4 ,true1 the  
understanding in this case was illumined
 by previous experience1 while you are  
after new knowledge4 ,you want to know  
how enlightenment arises in order to    
acquire new insight4 ,now1 all novelty  
has the dialectic quality of being at   
the same time something antiquated4 ,new
 understanding can be acquired only by  

the help of old understanding4 ,in other
 words1 old and new understanding1 which
 ,i define here as the faculty of       
classification1 have their existence    
only in the total interdependence of the
 universal existence4  ,you must discard
 the old prejudice that knowledge can be
 collected like cents4 ,although this is
 well enough1 it does not suffice for   
the purpose of logical thinking4 ,one   
science belongs to another1 and all of  
them together belong to one class with  
the entire universe4 ,it will be        
apparent to you1 then1 that at the      
beginning of your young days your       
knowledge has not sprouted all at once1 
but has come out of the unknown4 ,and   
what is true of you1 is true of the     
whole human race4 ,in its cradle it was 
without intellect4 ,it had1 indeed1 the 
germ4 ,but do not beasts1 worms1 and    
sensitive plants have that also8 ,in    
short1 the light of perception and      
understanding is nothing new in the     
radical sense of the word1 but connected

 with the old and with the world in     
general1 and of the same kind4 ,all our 
knowledge must be connected and combined
 into one understanding1 one system1 one
 realm1 and this is the realm of        
reality1 of truth1 of life4  ,systematic
 classification is the task of logic4   
,the first requirement for this purpose 
is the awakened consciousness of the    
indivisibility of the universe1 of its  
universal unity4 ,this consciousness is1
 in other words1 at the same time the   
recognition of the merely formal        
significance of all scientific          
classification4  ,the unity of the      
universe is true1 and is the sole and   
innate truth4 ,that this sole world     
truth is full of differences1 is just as
 absolutely different as absolutely the 
same1 does no more contradict a         
reasonable unity and equality than there
 is any contradiction in the fact that  
the various owls have different faces   
and still the same owl face4  ,aristotle
 divided the sense into five parts1     

anthropologists the race of man into    
five races1 natural philosophers the    
space into three dimensions4 ,it is now 
a question of showing to you that such a
 division1 however true and just1 is    
nevertheless far from being truth and   
justice1 but is merely classification4  
,the fundamental requirement of logic is
 to designate scientific classifications
 as that which they are1 viz41 mental   
operations4 ,it is the business of the  
intellect to make classifications4 ,that
 is its characteristic quality and does 
not contradict the indivisible truth in 
the least4  ,old wiseacres teach that a 
reasonable man must not contradict      
himself1 and this is a wise1 though very
 narrow1 lesson4 ,hegel maintains that  
everything in the world is reasonable1  
hence the contradictions are also4      
,under this conservative exterior there 
is hidden a very revolutionary          
perception of which the destructive     
minds take advantage in order to flatly 
contradict the wiseacres and their      

stable1 dead1 disordered order which    
cannot stand any contradiction4  ,reason
 dissolves all contradictions and       
opposition into harmony by logical      
classification4 ,everything in its own  
time and place4 ,if it does not wish to 
be called unreason1 reason must rise to 
the understanding that its opposite is  
only a formal antagonism4 ,it must know 
that ,god and the world1 body and soul1 
life and death1 motion and rest1 and    
whatever else the dualists may          
distinguish1 are two and yet one4 ,then 
it becomes clear that the conservatives 
are the real revolutionaries1 because by
 their senseless adherence to the good  
old order they drive the proletariat to 
desperation1 until it upsets that order4
 ,on the other hand1 the maligned       
revolutionaries are conservative1       
because they subordinate themselves to  
the world's evolutionary process which  
was1 is1 and will be eternal4  ,the red 
thread winding through all these letters
 deals with the following points3 ,the  

instrument of thought is a thing like   
all other common things1 a part or      
attribute of the universe4 ,it belongs  
particularly to the general category of 
being and is an apparatus which produces
 a detailed picture of human experience 
by categorical classification or        
distinction4 ,in order to use this      
apparatus correctly1 one must fully     
grasp the fact that the world unit is   
multiform and that all multiformity is a
 unit4  ,it is the solution of the      
riddle of the ancient ,eleatic          
philosophy3 ,how can the one be         
contained in the many1 and the many in  
one8     ,,fourteenth ,,letter          
,shoemaking and beet culture are as much
 sciences as physics1 chemistry1 and    
astronomy4 ,reading1 writing1 and       
reckoning are called elementary         
knowledge1 and though ,i do not deny    
that they have an elementary value for  
the culture of the mind1 yet ,i can     
truly say that ,i have met well-informed
 people who could neither read nor      

write4 ,i wish to indicate by this that 
there are indeed high and low degrees of
 knowledge and science1 but that such   
graduations have only a temporary1      
local1 relative1 subjective             
significance1 while in the absolute all 
things are the same4  ,the scorn with   
which you may hear some people speak of 
the night of the absolute in which all  
cats are grey and all women beautiful   
,helenas shall not prevent us from      
repeatedly studying the absolute which  
,i have again and again praised as the  
main topic of logic4 ,only remember1    
please1 that you must not have any      
mystic idea of it4 ,the absolute is the 
sum total of all that was1 is1 and will 
be4  ,the subjects as well as the       
objects of all science belong to the    
absolute1 which is commonly called      
world4  ,all other sciences have for    
their object limited parts1 relative    
matters1 while the science of the mind  
treats of all things1 of the infinite4  
,this is a point to which ,i refer      

frequently because it tends to make my  
lessons obscure4 ,i am lecturing on the 
science of the intellect1 but ,i speak  
of all things1 of the universe1 because 
,i am obliged to demonstrate1 not the   
relation of the mind to shoemaking or   
astronomy1 but its general              
interrelations4 ,i have to make plain   
its general conduct1 and this leads     
necessarily to the all-embracing        
generality1 to the absolute4 ,we wish to
 learn the art of thinking1 not on this 
or that subject1 but the art of general 
world thought4  ,the intellect is a     
special part1 the same as every other   
scientific or practical object4 ,but it 
is that part which is not satisfied with
 piece work1 which knows that it itself 
and all special things are attributes or
 predicates of the absolute subject1    
that it itself and all things are       
universally interrelated4  ,the human   
mind is sometimes called                
self-consciousness4 ,but this name is   
too limited for such an unlimited thing1

 for the pathfinder of the infinite1 for
 your1 my1 and every other consciousness
 of the world and of existence in       
general4  ,for centuries the question   
has been discussed whether there are    
innate ideas hidden in the intellect or 
whether it may be likened to a blank    
paper which experience impregnates with 
knowledge4 ,this is the question after  
the origin and source of understanding4 
,whence comes reason1 where do we get   
our ideas1 judgments1 conclusions8 ,by  
the help of brown-study from the        
interior of our brain1 from revelation1 
or from experience8 ,it seems to me that
 you will quickly decide this matter    
when ,i ask you to consider that        
everything we experience1 together with 
the intellect going through experiences1
 is a revelation of the absolute4       
,everything we know is experience4 ,we  
may consider the mind as a sheet of     
blank paper1 but in order that it may   
receive writing on its surface this     
internal paper is as necessary as the   

external world which produces the hand1 
the pen and the ink for this process of 
writing4 ,in other words1 all experience
 originates from the world organism4    
,not knowledge1 but consciousness1 world
 consciousness1 is innate in the        
intellect4 ,it has not the consciousness
 of this or that in itself1 but it knows
 of itself the general1 the existence as
 such1 the absolute4  ,the science of   
the intellect has ever wrestled with one
 peculiar fact4 ,it found knowledge     
which the mind had received from the    
outside1 so-called empirical knowledge4 
,but it also found knowledge which was  
innate1 so-called a priori knowledge4   
,that there is always a valley between  
two mountains1 that gold is not sheet   
iron1 that the part is smaller than the 
whole1 that the angles of a triangle are
 together equal to two right angles1    
that circles are round1 that water is   
wet1 that fire is hot1 etc41 these are  
things of which we know that they are   
true in heaven and in hell1 and in all  

time to come1 although we have never    
been there with our experience4 ,this   
plainly shows that we harbor a secret in
 our brains which the lovers of the     
mystical seek to exploit by making      
believe that their self-interested      
wisdom of ,god and high authority       
likewise belongs to the eternally innate
 truths4 ,for this reason it is         
especially important for the proletariat
 to bring the controversy of the origin 
and source of understanding to a close4 
,our logic asks3 ,does wisdom descend   
mysteriously from the interior of the   
human brain1 or does it come from the   
outer world like all experience8 ,we    
shall leave its descent from heaven out 
of the question4  ,the answer is3       
,science1 perception1 understanding1    
thought1 require internal and external  
things1 subject and object1 brain and   
world4 ,truth is here and truth is      
there4 ,truth is so divine that it is   
everywhere and absolute4  ,but how to   
explain that wonderful a priori         

knowledge which exceeds all experience8 
,for it is a fact that the intellect has
 not alone the faculty of knowing things
 in general1 but also that of separating
 them into their parts and from one     
another and to name them4 ,it cuts off  
slices1 so to say4 ,but not like the    
butcher who sees everything merely from 
the standpoint of his trade4 ,you will  
remember from your own experience as    
well as from my repeated statements that
 the world is not a monotonous1 but a   
multiform unit4 ,this confused knot is  
dissolved and explained by intellectual 
separation1 by classification4 ,in the  
absolute everything is alike and unlike4
 ,but the intellect makes abstractions  
from the unlike4 ,for instance1 in      
conceiving of the term minerals1 we pass
 over the distinction between gold and  
sheet iron4 ,then1 when we continue the 
classification by subordinating gold and
 sheet iron as separate species to the  
general term of minerals1 we know very  
well that gold and sheet iron are       

different kinds of the same general     
mineral nature4 ,we know what the names 
indicate1 and so long as they retain    
their meaning1 we know that neither in  
heaven nor in hell can gold be sheet    
iron or sheet iron be gold4 ,water and  
fire are specialties taken from the     
universe and named4 ,is it a wonder1    
then1 that these names have a special   
meaning and that we have the settled    
conviction that wherever sense instead  
of nonsense is master1 fire burns1 water
 wets1 circles are round1 and the sum of
 the angles of every triangle is equal  
to two right angles8  ,these            
illustrations are commonplace enough1   
indeed1 but it seems to me that they    
clearly show the mere formality of the  
distinction between innate and          
experienced knowledge4 ,you will        
recognize that both of these kinds of   
knowledge are different and yet of the  
same kind1 that both are mixtures of the
 internal and external4 ,knowledge a    
priori ceases to be a miracle when we   

understand that it comes out of the same
 fountain of experience as a posteriori 
knowledge1 and in either case knowledge 
is acquired only by means of the        
intellect4 ,hence intellect connected   
with the world is the sole source of all
 wisdom1 and external nature as well as 
our internal faculty of understanding   
are parts of the one general nature1    
which is the truth and the absolute4    
,only a gradual1 slow1 gapless          
development1 says ,noire1 can free the  
thinking mind from the philosophical    
disease of wondering4  ,the art of      
dialectics or logic which teaches that  
the universe1 or the whole world1 is one
 being1 is the science of absolute      
evolution4 ,in the whole constitution of
 all natural things1 writes ,lazare     
,geiger1 there is hardly anything more  
miraculous than the way in which the    
miracle avoids our glance and           
continuously withdraws into the distance
 to escape observation4 ,in the place of
 the abrupt and strange things produced 

by imagination1 reason puts uniformity  
and transition4  ,and we add that the   
science of reason1 or logic1 teaches    
simultaneously with the unity of the    
whole world1 also that all things are   
alike miraculous1 or that there is only 
one miracle1 which is existence in      
general1 the absolute4 ,in other words1 
everything and nothing is miraculous4   
,in demonstrating that the most         
different things1 such as heat and cold1
 and all radical distinctions1 are only 
relative forms of universal nature1 ,i  
prove the uninterrupted and matter of   
fact transition and the absolute        
graduality1 the fusion1 of all things4  
,i have tried to establish this proof in
 regard to the two kinds of knowledge   
and illustrated it with commonplace     
examples1 because these have a          
popularizing effect4 ,in order to meet  
the demands of more exacting minds1 ,i  
shall presently take up the miracle of  
causality4 ,the indubitable statement   
that everything must have its cause is  

regarded as the most miraculous innate  
knowledge1 and is much misused for the  
purpose of bringing confusion into      
logic4     ,,fifteenth ,,letter   ,my   
,son3  ,if on my return from some voyage
 ,i were to tell you of all the things  
,i have not seen1 you would justly doubt
 the order of my senses4 ,sane reason   
demands that the description of         
unfamiliar things be given in a         
positive1 not in a negative manner4 ,if 
that is so1 is it not wrong to proceed  
negatively by trying to prove in        
explaining the nature of the intellect  
that it is not a miracle and no         
mysterious charm of wisdom8 ,i answer3  
,no4 ,for the present1 the intellect is 
still a sort of ignis fatuus which is   
magnified into a fiery man4 ,in order to
 understand the ignis fatuus1 it is     
necessary to remove the fiery man4      
,logic must show that human reason is   
not a miracle1 not a mystical receptacle
 of wisdom4 ,the negative process is in 
such a case positively in order4        

,wherever a thing is obscured by        
prejudices1 these must first be removed1
 in order that room may be made for the 
bare fact4  ,it was the famous ,kant who
 posed the question3 ,how is a priori   
knowledge possible8 ,how do we arrive at
 the knowledge of things which are not  
accessible to experience8 ,the answer is
 that the intellect cannot accomplish   
such a miracle1 and ,kant substantiates 
this in a long-winded way and with      
admirable penetration4 ,but he left a   
nasty hair in the soup4  ,he found that 
by the help of our reason we can explain
 only phenomena4 ,the confusion between 
truth and phenomena had been handed down
 to him as an infirmity of ancient      
times4 ,he worked diligently on its     
solution1 but left some work for those  
coming after him4 ,originally the study 
of supernatural and the profane study of
 natural things were closely            
intermingled4 ,not until the obvious    
results of natural science became known1
 did thinkers accommodate themselves to 

the habit of leaving supernatural things
 to faith and limiting science to the   
study of natural phenomena4 ,science had
 so to say passed on to the practical   
order of business1 not paying any       
further attention to the contrast       
between phenomena and truth4 ,but the   
logic1 which is innate in the human     
mind1 cannot content itself with the    
dualistic split between faith and       
science4 ,it demands a monistic system  
and does not desist until the primeval  
forests of faith are completely put     
under cultivation4  ,the logical impulse
 of culture caused ,kant to continue    
what was begun by ,socrates4 ,philosophy
 before ,socrates searched for truth    
externally4 ,while our logic teaches    
that everything is true1 and truth is   
the universe1 the ,ionic philosophers   
made a sort of fetish out of the matter4
 ,thales idolized the water as the thing
 of things1 another the fire1 a third   
numbers4 ,this worship of the fetish was
 the worship of truth4 ,the search for  

understanding starts out with           
misunderstanding4 ,from religious to    
scientific culture1 it is a step1 not a 
leap4 ,when ,socrates turned to         
introspection and started out1 with his 
,know thyself1 in submitting the prodigy
 of the human soul to critique1 he made 
another important step4  ,you know that 
the wisest of men was not interested in 
air and water1 in natural science of the
 strict order1 but rather in the good1  
the true1 and the beautiful1 in the     
human in the narrower sense1 in the     
realm of the spirit1 in the soul4 ,it   
was indeed unwise that he was interested
 to the verge of idolization1 since in  
consequence of this interest in a       
special part1 the other1 the material   
part was being neglected4 ,according to 
,goethe's statement that one thing is   
not fit for all1 ,socrates did right4   
,he and all philosophical lights after  
him studied the intellect4 ,what they   
missed was the now dawning understanding
 that the faculty of thought is not a   

prodigy but a special1 and at the same  
time common1 part of universal nature4  
,while these philosophers looked for    
truth in any one special form of        
excellence1 you are now invited to look 
for it in the total interrelation of    
things4  ,science has ever endeavored to
 do away with miracles and prodigies4   
,this could be accomplished only        
gradually1 and the logicians have1      
therefore1 remained more or less biased 
and confused4 ,the great ,kant was no   
exception4 ,he looked for supreme truth1
 and for its sake he investigated the   
intellect4 ,he is celebrated because he 
explained so well that this intellect   
feels no mission for anything           
transcendental1 and cannot understand   
anything but phenomena4 ,still he       
permitted something transcendental to   
remain4  ,kant is of the opinion that we
 perceive things as they appear1 but not
 as they are in themselves4             
,nevertheless we should believe that a  
mysterious truth is at the bottom of    

those phenomena1 because we should      
otherwise arrive at the irreconcilable  
contradiction that there are phenomena  
without anything which could appear4    
,the intellect1 he holds1 can operate   
only on the field of phenomena1 and for 
this reason we should give up the       
endless grubbing after the              
transcendental4 ,but we should leave one
 little room in the house of reason1 one
 little chamber of faith1 which points  
beyond experience up to the point where 
a mysterious truth guards ,god and ,his 
commands4  ,the subsequent philosophers1
 especially the ,hegelian philosophy1   
opposed this separation which assigned  
to the intellect only the study of      
phenomena and to faith the absolute and 
infinite for veneration4 ,but they did  
not yet succeed in completely mastering 
the matter1 they did not fully arrive at
 an indubitably clear exposition of the 
fountain of understanding and of the    
unity of truth1 so that reaction        
nowadays can again sound the retreat    

after the melody3 ,back to ,kant4 ,you  
know that ,lessing complained about the 
treatment of a dead dog accorded to     
,spinoza1 and ,marx added pointedly3    
,hegel is more of a dead dog to-day than
 ,spinoza was at ,lessing's time4 ,the  
enemies of the working class are the    
enemies of evolution4 ,they wish to     
preserve the existing order of things   
and the good old time in which they feel
 at home4 ,for this reason it is the    
mission of the proletariat to continue  
the work of logic4 ,it is our duty to   
show clearly that the metaphysical truth
 which ,kant opposed to the phenomena of
 nature and could not eliminate from the
 intellect1 is nothing but just a       
metaphysical1 a fantastically           
exaggerated1 thing4  ,according to our  
logic1 the universe is the truth and    
everything partakes of it4 ,that such a 
truth is logical and such a logic true1 
is shown by the interconnection of      
things1 so that this science is         
applicable to everything which the      

sciences respect as reasonable and true4
  ,in order to help you in the          
understanding of the absolute and       
liberate your thought from all special  
miracles1 ,i refer to ,kant's critique  
of reason4 ,it teaches that our         
intellect becomes a source of           
understanding only in connection with   
other phenomena of nature4 ,only his    
critique stuck fast in the mysterious   
fountain of causality4 ,thus he showed  
that he was only a seeker after logic1  
not its master4 ,the conclusion that    
there must be something that does appear
 where there are phenomena is certainly 
correct4 ,but that which ,kant was      
thinking of1 something of a             
transcendental or metaphysical nature1  
led him to the radically wrong          
conclusion that there must be something 
different1 peculiar1 miraculous1        
mysterious1 wherever there are          
phenomena4  ,the ,kantian conclusion    
that there must be an absolute truth by 
itself behind a phenomenon1 an absolute 

truth that exists independent of and    
disconnected with such phenomenon1 was  
due to his fetish-like conception of    
truth4 ,it is the first requirement for 
a correct use of the faculty of logical 
reasoning to know that truth is the     
common nature of the universe4  ,that a 
phenomenon must be based on nature1 or  
an effect on a cause1 is a fact         
identical with causality which ,i       
already promised to discuss in the      
preceding letter4 ,this same problem may
 also be expressed in the words3 ,where 
there are predicates1 there must be a   
subject that carries them4 ,in order to 
make quite sure that ,i will not be     
misunderstood1 ,i emphasize once more   
the fact that ,i am not raising any     
doubt as to the correctness of this     
conclusion1 but only to the metaphysical
 application of this conclusion after   
the ,kantian manner which consists in   
making the same use of it as a clergyman
 who tries to prove that his theology is
 innate in reason4  ,our conception of  

logic wishes to show that all causes and
 effects are matter of the same kind1   
and that our faculty of reasoning is a  
matter of fact thing which brooks no    
mysteries or metaphysical dreams4       
,,sixteenth ,,letter   ,now let me      
illustrate the interconnection of all   
things1 or the world-unit1 by discussing
 the question of causality4 ,we know    
that everything has its cause4 ,we know 
that this is also true on the ,moon or  
on ,uranus1 although we have not        
acquired this knowledge by experience on
 those world bodies4 ,thus it seemed    
that the intellect was a mysterious     
receptacle containing innate wisdom4    
,the same receptacle also contains1 for 
instance1 the truth that all white      
horses are white and all black horses   
black4 ,we do not know anything about   
the color of other horses in other      
countries1 but the color of black and   
white horses we know even if we have    
never seen them in other countries4 ,it 
is thus apparent that our intellect is  

an instrument which reaches beyond      
experience4 ,for this reason there would
 seem to be no telling where the supply 
of such miraculous revelations would    
stop and into what mysterious worlds the
 intellect passing beyond the limits of 
experience would lead us4  ,in order    
that the human intellect may not appear 
transcendental1 in order to give it its 
place in the general classification of  
natural forces1 we must investigate the 
nature of causality and so-called a     
priori knowledge4  ,kindly observe in   
the first place that a thing is just as 
wonderful after it is explained as it   
was before its explanation4 ,a          
scientific explanation of a thing ought 
not to do away with our admiration1 but 
only to reduce it to reasonable bounds4 
,the intellect may very well be regarded
 as something wonderful1 but its        
wondrous quality should be reduced to   
the measure of all things which are none
 of them any less wonderful4 ,after you 
have explained what water is1 after you 

have learned that it is composed of two 
chemical elements1 after you have       
realized all its qualities thoroughly1  
it still remains a wonderful1 divine1   
fluid4  ,all things have their causes4  
,what are all things8 ,they are         
attributes1 qualities of the universe4  
,it is innate in the intellect to know  
that the world is one thing1 that all   
things belong1 not to any different     
thing1 but to one and the same subject4 
,the intellect is by nature the absolute
 feeling of unity4 ,it knows of itself  
that everything is interrelated and that
 the consciousness of causality is      
nothing else but the consciousness of   
cosmic interrelation4 ,and ,i maintain  
that the innateness of the consciousness
 of cosmic interrelation in our brain is
 explained when we realize that it is an
 actual thing like all others1 a        
phenomenon which has the same general   
nature as every other phenomenon4#g     
,the fact is undeniable that a certain  
knowledge is innate in our              

consciousness4 ,the only difficulty has 
been to explain this fact4 ,at this     
point ,i call your attention to the     
exaggerated notion entertained in regard
 to explaining1 and understanding1      
things4 ,by explanations1 a thing is not
 dissolved1 but only classified4  ,the  
hatching of an egg is explained when you
 perceive that this process is part and 
parcel of a whole class of similar      
processes4 ,if you modify the exalted   
idea of the effect of explanations in   
this sense1 you must realize that the   
innate consciousness of the general     
interrelation of things is natural and  
intelligible and requires no other      
explanation than the humidity of the    
water1 the gravity of bodies1 or the    
color of black horses4  ,even after it  
has been explained and understood1 the  
intellect with its logic remains a      
wonderful thing4 ,just as clay is by its
 nature untransparent and pliable1 or   
glass transparent and brittle1 so       
consciousness has its peculiar innate   

qualities4 ,in this way knowledge comes 
to the intellect not only by experience1
 but it is also a sort of receptacle    
full of wisdom4 ,still this receptacle  
would no more contain wisdom without    
experience than the eye would have      
impressions without light4  ,in order to
 straighten out the intricate windings  
of our subject1 ,i recapitulate them4   
,we wish to learn the proper use of our 
intellect1 the conscious application of 
consciousness4 ,to this end we analyze  
its hitherto hidden mystical nature4 ,so
 long as we exalt this nature           
transcendentally to the clouds1 we do   
not acquire its proper use4 ,therefore  
the first paragraph of our lesson reads3
 ,the intellect belongs in the same     
category with all things of the         
universe4 ,and the second paragraph     
says3 ,if we distinguish two classes of 
thought radiated by the human intellect1
 viz41 innate thoughts1 such as         
causality1 and on the other hand        
thoughts which come through experience1 

we must remember that such a distinction
 is correct only when we realize that in
 spite of this classification in two    
kinds they really belong to the same    
kind4 ,innate and acquired wisdom1      
though served on two different plates1  
still are taken from the same general   
world dish4  ,from this it follows that 
the science of causality1 though        
applicable to all the phenomena of the  
world1 does not apply to the universe4  
,if it is a fact that all wisdom is     
worldly1 then one must not fly outside  
of the world with the concept of        
causality4  ,this is the salient point  
at issue4  ,all things are one thing1   
are interdependent1 stand in the        
relation of cause and effect toward one 
another1 or of genus and species4 ,to   
say that all things have a cause means  
that they have a mother4 ,the fact that 
every mother has a mother finds its     
final ending in the world mother or     
mother world1 which is absolute and     
motherless and contains all mothers in  

its womb4  ,causes are mothers1 effects 
are daughters4 ,every daughter has not  
only a mother1 grand-mother1 and        
great-grand-mother1 but also a father1  
grand-father1 and great-grand-father4   
,the origin1 or the family relationship1
 of a daughter is not one-sided1 but    
all-sided4 ,in the same way all things  
have not one1 but many causes which flow
 together in the general cause4  ,the   
intellect which has the innate knowledge
 that everything has its cause will     
accept the teaching that all causes in  
the world are founded in the absolute   
world cause and must return to it4 ,it  
is the quintessence of logic not only to
 ascertain the true nature of the       
intellect1 but also to elucidate the    
nature of the universe by the help of   
the intellect4  ,all things have a      
mother1 but to expect that the world    
mother should logically have a mother is
 to carry logic to extremities and to   
misunderstand the intellect and its art 
of reasoning4  ,if you have recognized  

the faculty of understanding as a part  
of existence1 you will not wonder at its
 miraculousness4 ,existence is          
wonderful4 ,its parts arise one out of  
the other1 out of the universal         
interrelations of the one world4 ,they  
all have their predecessors and causes4 
,but what is true of the relative parts1
 is not true of the absolute whole4  ,i 
am the son of my father and the father  
of my son4 ,i am at the same time father
 and son4 ,in the same way all things   
are simultaneously cause and effect4    
,although father and son are two        
different persons1 still the capacity of
 being father and son rest in the same  
person1 and although cause and effect   
are to be distinguished as two things1  
still they are two relations of the same
 thing4 ,persons and things1 causes and 
effects1 are not independent entities1  
but relative entities1 are              
interconnections or relations of the    
absolute4  ,the intellect is innate in  
us1 and with it and through it also the 

consciousness of being1 although it is  
innate in us only as the teeth of the   
child which grow after birth4           
,everything that we become aware of is  
known only as a part of the universe4   
,in so far as this is wonderful1 the    
consciousness of causality is           
miraculous4 ,but1 in fact1 the knowledge
 of the causality of all things is      
innate wisdom the same as that of the   
color of all white and black horses4 ,at
 the same time it must be observed that 
every innate knowledge is in part       
acquired1 and every acquired knowledge  
in part innate1 so that both kinds      
intermingle and form one category4  ,my 
whole argument aims to convince you that
 all things are worldly things1 and     
their causality is only another name for
 the same thing1 just as the ,german    
brot is called pain in ,french and bread
 in ,english4 ,thus we derive the firm  
conviction that if there is pain in     
heaven there will be bread1 and if there
 are things1 there will be causes and   

effects1 or interrelation with the unit 
of existence4  ,the mystery of causality
 is sometimes expressed by the statement
 that we possess the indubitable        
knowledge which extends beyond all      
experience that wherever a change takes 
place there must have preceded another  
change4 ,indeed1 we have the faculty of 
recognizing the unity in the infinite   
multiplicity1 and infinite multiplicity 
in the unity4 ,multiplicity1 change1    
motion--who is to split hairs about     
them1 who will make fine distinctions8  
,the intellect is the photographic organ
 of the infinite motion and             
transformations called the world4 ,it is
 and possesses the consciousness of     
cosmic changes4 ,is it a wonder that it 
knows that there is interrelation in its
 things1 that no part of the world1 not 
a particle of its motion and            
transformations1 stands alone by itself1
 that everything is connected and       
mutually dependent in and with the      
universe8 ,because this understanding is

 in a way innate in the intellect1      
therefore it understands that there is  
nothing but change1 infinitely          
proceeding transformations4 ,and if it  
detaches any single thing from this     
process1 it knows that changes preceded 
it and changes will follow4  ,in short1 
we must not marvel at any single part of
 nature1 not even at the intellect1 but 
admire the whole universe4 ,then        
fetishism will at last end and a true   
cult1 the cult of world truth1 can      
begin4  ,the art of thinking1 my dear   
,eugene1 is not so easy4 ,for this      
reason ,i keep on warning you against   
misunderstanding4 ,i do not mean to     
advise you with the foregoing against   
admiring any single part of nature1 or  
of art1 a landscape or a statue4 ,my    
teaching merely tends to moderate       
admiration by the reflection that the   
whole world is wonderful1 that          
everything is beautiful1 so that nothing
 ugly remains4 ,the distinction between 
beautiful and ugly is only relative4    

,even when ,i say that the true worship 
of ,god1 the cult of truth1 cannot begin
 until idol worship ceases1 you will    
appreciate the phrase and will not      
insinuate that ,i do not value the      
cultivation of science in the past1 or  
that ,i hate idol worship to the extent 
of forgetting what ,i have emphasized   
repeatedly1 viz41 that idol worship is  
also worship of ,god1 and error a paving
 stone on the way toward truth4 ,the    
most minute thing is a magnitude4       
,everything is true1 good1 and          
beautiful1 for the universe is absolute 
truth1 beauty and goodness4 ,i conclude 
with the words of ,fr4 von ,sallet3     
,a sunny view of world and life         
,is balm for brain and heart1      ,it  
is with health and beauty rife1         
,with noblest works of art4      ,but do
 not for a moment think      ,that it is
 captured in a wink4      ,the golden   
harvest does not grow1      ,unless the 
early tempests blow4      ,and only     
bitter woe and strain      ,will bright 

and lofty wisdom gain4   ,,footnote3  #g
 ,e4 g4 ,that of natural                
existence4--,,editor4     ,,seventeenth 
,,letter4   ,my subject1 dear ,eugene1  
is the simplest in the world1 but it    
requires thorough treatment for all its 
full understanding4 ,so every letter is 
in a way but a repetition of the same   
argument4 ,it is remarkable1 says       
,schopenhauer1 that we find the few main
 theses of pre-socratic philosophy      
repeated innumerable times4 ,also in the
 works of modern thinkers1 such as      
,cartesius1 ,spinoza1 ,leibniz1 and even
 ,kant1 we find that their few main     
theses are repeated over and over4  ,now
 ,i ask you to consider what ,i said in 
my first letters1 viz41 that the titles 
of the principal philosophical works    
reveal that philosophy is engaged in the
 study of logic1 in the analysis of the 
intellect and the art of its use4 ,you  
will then recognize that in the very    
nature of the subject my presentation of
 the matter lacks systematization4 ,it  

has no real beginning and end1 because  
its object1 the intellect1 is           
interconnected with the whole universe1 
which is without beginning and end1     
which has neither before nor after1     
neither above nor below4  ,you may      
venture that the relation of the        
intellect to the universe does not      
concern the intellect especially1 but is
 a universal matter4 ,that would be     
true4  ,but it is easy to show that the 
art of thinking and wisdom of the world 
are identical4 ,and although the        
universal interrelation of things is    
germain to all things and subjects1 yet 
its consideration is a special task of  
logic which treats all objects of       
thought summarily4  ,my subject         
therefore begins everywhere1 even though
 it is a specialty4 ,hence ,i take the  
liberty to take my departure from any   
literature which ,i happen to study4 ,in
 the present letter1 ,i deal with       
logical investigations of the prominent 
,professor ,trendelenburg4 ,his is a    

bulky volume1 but you need not fear that
 ,i shall weary you with its subtleties4
 ,as a rule ,i read only the preface of 
philosophical works of the second and   
third order1 their introduction and     
perhaps the first few chapters4 ,then ,i
 am approximately informed as to what ,i
 may expect from them further on4 ,one  
frequently finds statements which1 if   
they do not throw new light on the      
subject1 still bring out in bolder      
relief some of the accomplishments of   
historical research in our field4 ,and  
in order that the son may not trust to  
the father alone1 which might lead to   
distrust1 ,i connect my argument with   
some statements of ,trendelenburg4  ,in 
the preface to the second edition the   
author complains of the dull headache   
which the ,hegelian intoxication has    
left in ,germany and says3 ,philosophy  
will not resume its old power until it  
becomes consistent1 and it will not     
become consistent until it grows in the 
same way that all other sciences do4 ,in

 other words1 it must not take a new    
departure in every brain and then quit1 
but it must approach its problems       
historically and develop them4 ,the     
,german prejudice must be abandoned1    
according to which the philosophy of the
 future is supposed to look for a new   
principle4 ,this principle has already  
been found4 ,it consists in the organic 
world conception1 the fundaments of     
which are resting in ,plato and         
,aristotle4  ,the ,professor is right1  
but he overlooks that the philosophers1 
even of modern times1 do not begin each 
on his own account1 do not have each his
 own principle1 or if they have1 such a 
false originality is but the indifferent
 attribute of historical development    
which has handed the object of logic1   
the true art of thought1 from generation
 to generation in an ever brighter      
condition4  ,i repeat this emphatically 
for pedagogic reasons1 because ,i       
consider it essential to convince you   
and the reader that the apparent        

paradoxes which ,i state are the objects
 of discussion since time immemorial4 ,i
 also wish to stimulate you to a study  
of the master works of philosophy which 
show the cheering spectacle1 in the     
persons of the most brilliant specimens 
of the human mind1 of the onward march  
of this mind from darkness to light4    
,in order that the wheat contained in   
this human treasure box may not be      
concealed by the tares1 ,i am           
endeavoring to throw light on the       
outcome of the historical development of
 philosophy1 and for this purpose ,i    
continue to discuss the question by     
taking my departure in this instance    
from some further statements of         
,trendelenburg4  ,it is a peculiarity of
 philosophical methods of reasoning to  
recognize a part in the whole1 and it is
 tacitly assumed that the whole is      
descended from a thought which          
determines the parts4 ,on the other     
hand1 it is peculiar to empirical       
methods of analysis to study the parts  

without regard to their interrelation1  
or at best to collect them and put them 
together1 and it is tacitly assumed that
 every point is something peculiar in   
itself which must be studied apart from 
all the rest4  ,the aim of all human    
understanding is always to solve the    
miracle of divine creation by further   
creative thought4 ,when this task is    
undertaken in detail1 the detail study  
forces one on to other things3 for      
things must go backwards toward their   
dissolution by the same force through   
which they arose out of the depths4     
,these sentences state the problem      
before us4 ,shall we use the intellect  
philosophically1 or shall we use it     
empirically8 ,we are striving to        
understand the parts and the whole1 and 
this is identical with the research     
after a systematical world philosophy1  
or with the art of dialectics4 ,now we  
must state in the first place that      
thinking of any kind1 whether it be     
philosophical or empirical1 is of the   

same species1 that the same kernel is   
contained in both forms4 ,roses are     
different flowers from carnations1 but  
the flower nature is in both of them4   
,thus the nature of thought is contained
 in both philosophical and empirical    
thinking4 ,the distinction is well      
enough1 but their unity must not be lost
 sight of4  ,the philosophers1 he says1 
seek to understand the detail by the    
whole2 the empirical thinkers analyze   
the details without regard to           
interrelations4 ,but both methods of    
research are different specimens of the 
same genus1 and both of them are        
one-sided when their interconnection is 
overlooked4 ,the empirical thinker who  
seeks to understand the details in their
 isolation1 thinks philosophically1 when
 he regards his special research as a   
contribution to the whole1 and the      
philosopher1 who seeks to understand the
 detail by the whole1 thinks empirically
 when he rightly regards all details as 
attributes of the whole4                

,trendelenburg1 then1 has expressed his 
case very obscurely4 ,both methods of   
study1 if employed one-sidedly1 entirely
 misconceive the art of thinking4 ,the  
philosophers err when they regard the   
intellect as the only source of         
understanding and truth2 it is only a   
part of truth and must be supplemented  
by all the rest of the world4 ,on the   
other hand1 the empirical thinkers err  
when they look for understanding and    
truth exclusively in the outer world1   
without taking into account the         
intellectual instrument by the help of  
which they lift their treasures4 ,in    
fact1 such one-sided philosophers exist 
only in theory2 ,i mean there are some  
who imagine that truth could be         
one-sided4 ,but in practice they all    
testify1 much against their will1 to the
 inevitable interconnection of matter   
and mind1 of inside and outside4 ,in the
 practical use of the intellect         
everybody shows that the part operates  
in the whole1 and that the whole is     

active in its parts4  ,we know a priori 
that the universe is a whole4 ,the      
universal existence can be conceived    
only as of one kind or nature4 ,the mere
 thought that there might be something  
which does not partake of the nature of 
the universe is no thought1 because it  
is a thought without sense or reason4   
,the whole world is the supreme being1  
though ,i grant that we have but a vague
 conception of it4 ,we have as yet no   
detailed1 true1 conception of the       
universe1 but it is gradually acquired  
in the course of science4 ,still1 our   
conception will never be perfect because
 details are infinitesimal and the      
absolute being is infinite growth4  ,as 
to details1 we know them more or less   
accurately and yet not accurately1      
because even the most minute part of the
 infinite is infinite4 ,all science has 
searched in vain for atoms4 ,what our   
understanding knows1 has always been    
nothing but predicates or attributes of 
truth1 although they are true attributes

 and are truly understood by us4  ,i    
emphasize the inadequacy of all modes of
 thought and of all understanding in    
opposition to those who make an idol of 
science4 ,i emphasize the truth of all  
perceptions in opposition to those      
knownothings who claim that truth cannot
 be understood1 but can only be admired 
and worshipped4 ,hence it follows for   
our theory of understanding that        
intellect and reason and the art of     
thought are no independent treasure     
boxes which make any revelations to us4 
,they are theoretical classifications   
which in practice are operative only in 
the universal interconnection of things4
 ,understanding1 perceiving1 judging1   
distinguishing and concluding1 etc41 are
 unable to produce any truths4 ,they can
 only enlighten and clarify experience  
by logical classification and           
distinction4 ,because man produces works
 which are preceded by planning1        
therefore the philosophical mode of     
research has assumed that the whole is  

descended from a thought4 ,but this is  
an assumption of human origin1 which is 
shown to be without foundation on closer
 analysis4 ,the plans of our works are  
copies of natural originals and are free
 creations of the mind only in a limited
 sense4 ,the artists are well aware of  
the natural descent of their thoughts   
and fictions4 ,to regard the world as   
the outcome of thought is a perverse    
logic4 ,it is the first condition of    
rational1 proletarian1 thought to       
recognize the intellect and its products
 as attributes of the world subject4    
,,eighteenth ,,letter   ,just as in     
political history action and reaction   
follow one another1 just as periods of  
economic prosperity are alternated by   
periods of depression1 so we find in    
literature a periodical fluctuation     
between philosophical and               
anti-philosophical tendencies4  ,after  
,hegel had for a time thoroughly aroused
 the spirits1 a time of apathy followed1
 so that this hero of thought who       

shortly before had been almost idolized 
could be attacked and reviled4 ,for     
about a decade1 a philosophical breeze  
has now once more been blowing4 ,the    
subject of logic1 the theory of         
understanding1 is again the object of   
universal attention4 ,this movement is  
stimulated by important discoveries in  
science1 such as the heat equivalent of 
,robert ,mayer1 the origin of species by
 ,darwin1 etc41 and natural science and 
philosophy may be compared to two miners
 who are digging a tunnel1 so that sharp
 ears on both sides can hear the blows  
of the hammers and the clanging of the  
tools4  ,there is much truth in this    
picture1 but it may also lead to        
misunderstandings4 ,by the vivisection  
of frogs and rabbits1 by boring into the
 brain1 physiology will not discover the
 mind4 ,no microscope1 no telescope1    
will reveal the nature of reason and    
truth or the art of logical discernment4
  ,neither will ,lazarre ,geiger1 ,max  
,mueller1 ,steinthal1 and ,noire succeed

 in philology in solving the last       
questions of all knowledge by the help  
of any primitive arch-language4  ,at the
 same time1 the value of the            
co-operation of these gentlemen is not  
denied1 only ,i desire to point out that
 the comparison with the tunnel is not  
quite accurate4 ,what ,marx said of     
economic formulas1 is true of logical   
formulas3 ,in their analysis neither the
 microscope nor chemical reagents are of
 any service4 ,the power of abstraction 
must replace them both4  ,the two       
sciences will finally meet1 not because 
each one of them digs away in its own   
one-sided fashion1 but because the      
miners meet after working hours and     
exchange their experiences4 ,and the    
philosophers may be the dominant party1 
because they are specialists in logic   
and therefore prepared to utilize       
anything which may serve their purpose1 
no matter from what side it comes4 ,the 
other party1 on the other hand1 has its 
own specialties and promotes the cause  

of logic in a secondary and involuntary 
fashion4  ,natural science has its own  
monism which is distinguished from      
philosophical proletarian monism in that
 it does not appreciate the historical  
outcome of philosophical research4 ,one 
of the most prominent representatives of
 the former is ,noire4 ,he entitles one 
of his little works ,monistic ,thought1 
but shows himself on its pages as a very
 unclear dualist4 ,he speaks of the dual
 nature of causality and relates that   
the mind operates with a different      
causality than the mere mechanical one4 
,he calls this other sensory causality4 
,according to him the world has only two
 attributes3 ,motion and sensation are  
the only true and objective qualities of
 the world4444 ,motion is the truly     
objective 444 though it is admitted that
 it gives us only the phenomenon4444    
,sensation makes up the internal nature 
of things4 ,every subject1 whether man  
or atom1 is endowed with the two        
qualities of all beings1 viz41 motion   

and sensation4  ,thereupon ,i have      
carefully looked for an explanation in  
,noire's works1 why he regards the      
nature of things as composed of an      
external and an internal quality1 and   
why sensation should not be regarded as 
a sort of motion1 but the only reason ,i
 could find was the dualistic nature of 
his monistic reasoning4  ,as            
,schopenhauer provided the whole world  
with a will1 so ,noire provides it with 
sensation4  ,kant and his ,critical     
,philosophy held in their time that our 
intellect perceives only the phenomena  
of nature1 while the mystic law of      
causality1 according to him1 points to a
 hidden being1 which cannot be perceived
 but must be believed1 which we may     
venerate but must leave undisturbed by  
science4 ,schopenhauer1 his brilliant   
successor1 who in spite of his          
brilliancy did not materially advance   
the cause of philosophy1 mystified the  
problem of causality by his discovery   
that the nature of the world is will    

power4 ,these teachings of ,kant and    
,schopenhauer are dressed up anew and   
mixed with the recent discoveries of    
science by ,noire4 ,but he entirely     
ignores the work of ,schelling and      
,hegel1 who by their criticisms have    
made evident the lack of logic in the   
,kantian separation of phenomenon       
7apparition7 from noumenon 7essence71 of
 cause from effect4  ,you are familiar  
with the silly question whether ,goethe 
or ,schiller1 ,shakespeare or ,byron1 is
 the greater poet1 and you will not     
think that ,i am trying to elevate      
,hegel above ,kant or ,kant above       
,hegel4 ,they are just two cogs on the  
spinning wheel of history4 ,if the      
second crushes what the first has       
cracked1 such is the result of their    
succession4  ,natural science is also a 
valuable co-operator in the solution of 
the world problem1 not so much by       
digging in the logical tunnel itself1 or
 making amateur excursions into the     
fields of philosophy or metaphysics1 but

 because it elucidates and renders      
tangible the special object of logic in 
such far-embracing objects as the unity 
of natural forces or of animal species4 
,the scientific presentation of this    
special object1 however1 requires a     
brain armed with the full equipment of  
the historical outcome of philosophy4   
,now you must not believe that ,i am    
conceited enough to place my own little 
personality on the pedestal as the only 
true philosopher4 ,i am too well aware  
of my shortcomings as a self-educated   
man4 ,but seeing that ,i have striven   
earnestly and without prejudice since my
 young days to understand the high      
object of my studies1 ,i feel in my     
heart a certain confidence in my        
qualification to deal with it4 ,on the  
other hand1 ,i know my lack of that sort
 of learning which is required in order 
to be able to present the scientifically
 much-courted nature of the human mind  
in such a form and with such emphasis as
 its sublime character deserves4 ,and if

 ,i1 nevertheless1 come before the      
public on various occasions with my     
tentative works1 ,i offer as an excuse  
that hitherto the ,messiah has not      
appeared who will come after me and     
whose ,john the ,baptist ,i should like 
to be4  ,you1 my dear ,eugene1 will take
 me soberly and reduce my resounding    
words to their proper measure1 when ,i1 
in the intoxication of enthusiasm1 flow 
over like that now and then4 ,you know  
that ,i am no hero worshipper4 ,though  
all research is but the product of      
individual minds1 the mind of each man  
is a part of the universal mind which   
produces science4 ,now follows the point
 which forms the conclusion of all my   
letters3 ,the intellect which produces  
science is indeed a part of man1 but    
still more a part of the world1 it is   
the universal world intellect1 the      
reason of the absolute1 the absolute    
reason4  ,the study of this intellect at
 work1 not merely in shoemaking1 in     
anatomy1 or in astronomy1 but in all    

fields1 in the infinite1 of its life in 
the absolute1 is the means by which the 
art of logic is acquired4 ,it is true   
that the infinite exists only in finite 
parts1 and you cannot conceive of the   
infinite directly1 you can perceive it  
only in its parts4 ,and in perceiving   
them you must always remember that every
 part is an infinite piece of the       
infinite universe4  ,in his             
,introduction and ,proofs of a ,monistic
 ,theory of ,understanding1 ,noire1     
after enumerating the new points        
contained in his work1 adds sneeringly  
that he is not in a position to give any
 new clews as to the nature of the      
absolute4 ,for this very reason ,i want 
to denounce his ,monism as a shallow    
piece of work1 which offers only the    
name instead of the essence4  ,the      
well-known ,ernst ,haeckel knows a great
 deal more about this subject4 ,in a    
lecture given at the twenty-fifth       
convention of natural scientists in     
,eisenach1 he calls the monistic view of

 nature a grand pantheistic one4 ,the   
essence of all religion1 according to   
him1 consists in the conviction of a    
final and unmistakably common cause of  
all things4 ,and he continues3 ,in the  
admission that with the present day     
organization of our brain1 we are unable
 to penetrate to the final cause of all 
things1 the critical natural philosophy 
and dogmatic religion agree4 ,whether   
the professor is one of those natural   
philosophers who regard the human mind  
as too narrow for the understanding of  
the unmistakably 7hence somewhat        
understood7 common cause of all things1 
is not quite clear to me1 nor probably  
to the famous scientist himself4 ,for he
 adds3 ,the more we progress in the     
understanding of nature1 the more we    
approach that unattainable final cause4 
,and further on3 ,the purest form of    
monistic faith culminates in the        
conviction of the unity of ,god and     
nature4  ,now ,i ask3 ,if nature1 ,god1 
and absolute truth are one and the same 

thing1 have we not learned something    
about the final cause of all things8    
,what necessity is there in that case   
for speaking in such an abjectedly      
humble tone of human understanding1 or  
to assign nothing but straw and husks to
 it1 in the language of ,hegel8  ,you   
see1 then1 that ,haeckel has a higher   
estimate of absolute nature than ,noire 
who does not care to have anything to do
 with the nature of the absolute4 ,but  
my object at this moment is to convince 
you that neither the one nor the other  
of these two1 nor natural science1      
so-called1 is directly digging in the   
tunnel which will give us light on the  
question of the limits of our           
understanding and the final cause of    
things4 ,our logic1 on the other hand1  
which treats the intellect as a part of 
nature1 cultivates a natural science    
that includes the mere empirical natural
 science in the same way in which the   
day of twenty-four hours includes the   
day of twelve hours and the night4      

,natural science proper deals mainly    
with tangible things4 ,light and sound1 
the objects of eye and ear1 are still   
included in its studies4 ,the objects of
 smell and taste stand on the dividing  
line4 ,but the socalled sciences of the 
mind1 such as grammar and politics1     
political economy and history1 morals   
and law1 and most decidedly logic1 are  
entirely excluded4  ,such a limitation  
is well enough1 if we remember that it  
is purely formal4 ,however1 it must not 
overlook the bridge which leads from    
limited nature to universal1 infinite1  
nature4  ,the monism of natural science 
has a far too narrow view of the        
universe4 ,when it says that all is     
motion1 it says just as little or as    
much as ,solomon with his all is vain4  
,everything is crooked and straight1    
everything great and small1 everything  
temporal and eternal1 everything truth  
and life4 ,but nothing is thus said to  
show the meaning of distinction in this 
world1 to explain how rest exists in    

motion1 and sense in nonsense4  ,in     
order to differentiate logically we must
 know that everything is everything1    
that the universe or absolute is its own
 cause and the final cause of all       
things1 which embraces all distinctions1
 even that of causality and that between
 matter and mind4     ,,nineteenth      
,,letter   ,philosophy should not try to
 be edifying1 said ,hegel4 ,this means  
that religious feeling is far below     
scientific thought4 ,but there is a     
reverse side to this sentence1 viz41    
that thoughts which do not rise to the  
edifying interconnection of all things1 
no matter whether they remain stuck in  
some specialty on account of            
frivolousness or of narrowmindedness1   
are far below a wise world philosophy4  
,in a former letter ,i have already     
emphasized1 and ,i hope to prove it more
 convincingly1 that the conception of   
,god1 or of the absolute1 is            
indispensable for a logical world       
philosophy4  ,you know that in my       

dictionary the gods and divinities of   
all religions and denominations are     
idols1 and justly so1 since they are all
 manufactured images4 ,instead of the   
entire universe1 they worship a more or 
less unessential part of it4  ,the      
religions show by their idolatry1 the   
sciences frequently by their little     
creditable indifference1 that they have 
no conception of the intellect and its  
art of reasoning4  ,the universe is a   
familiar conception4 ,everybody uses it1
 and there is apparently little to say  
about it4 ,but in fact it is the        
conception of all conceptions1 the being
 of all beings1 the cause of itself     
which has no other cause and no other   
being beside itself4 ,that the whole    
world is contained in the universe is so
 obvious that you may wonder at my waste
 of words over such a matter-of-fact    
thing4 ,but when you consider that the  
people have always searched for a world 
cause outside of the world1 together    
with a beginning of the world and a     

transcendental truth1 then you will see 
that they have not grasped the          
conception of the world as a whole1 as a
 universe4 ,and if that is admitted1    
then the proof that it is the cause of  
all causes1 the beginning of all        
beginnings1 and the truth of all truths1
 is not such a superfluous undertaking4 
,now you may say that it is presumptuous
 to try to understand the whole universe
 at once4 ,this objection is justified  
in a way1 according to the              
interpretation of the words4 ,still ,i  
hope that it will be my justification to
 declare that it is not a question of   
understanding the universe in detail1   
but only in general1 not each and       
everything in its differentiation1 but  
only in a summary way4 ,and it is only  
the edifying conception of the universe 
as a whole which will open for you the  
door to the understanding of the human  
mind1 of thought1 and the art of using  
it4 ,we wish to understand the          
conception2 not this or that conception1

 but the whole conception1 the          
conception of the whole4 ,you will no   
longer indulge in the superstition that 
the faculty of thought or understanding 
is a thing apart from the world's       
interconnection4 ,i presume that you    
have now learned enough about the art of
 thought to be sure not to think of     
anything without its worldwide          
interrelation4 ,for so long as one      
imagines that a piece of wood or a stone
 is a thing in itself1 without          
connection with light and air1 with     
,earth1 ,moon1 and ,sun1 he has a very  
barbarian conception of the things of   
this world4  ,i maintain that the       
understanding of the human faculty of   
reason and the art of its use are       
inseparable from the world concept4 ,and
 ,i want this understood in the sense1  
that it is not a mistake to distinguish 
between the internal mind and the       
outside world1 but that these are merely
 formal distinctions of the essentially 
indivisible and absolute universe4  ,the

 concept of this true ,god or divine1   
because universal1 ,truth shows on close
 analysis that it includes the special  
truth of the art of thought as well as  
all other sciences1 and pre-eminently   
the science of thought1 because this    
science must not limit itself to any    
special thing1 but must be world wisdom 
by its very will and nature4  ,to       
understand the universe1 then1 means to 
become aware that this being of all     
beings has no beginning1 no cause1 no   
truth nor reason outside and beside     
itself1 but has everything in and by    
itself4 ,to understand the universe     
means to recognize that one is rushing  
beyond the worldly infinity into the    
realm of fantastic transcendentalism and
 abusing the intellect1 when illogically
 applying such terms as beginning and   
end1 cause and effect1 being and not    
being1 to the absolute universe4 ,such  
an illogical use of the faculty of      
thought is well illustrated and rebuked 
by the poet who questions and answers3  

,and when my life has passed away1      
,what will become of me8      ,the world
 has one eternal day1                   
',thereafter' cannot be4   ,in order to 
acquire the universal sense1 you will   
strive to understand that the universe  
includes all relative things1 while as a
 whole it embodies the absolute or the  
edifying deity4  ,if you would become   
world-wise1 you must learn that the     
things called opposites and             
contradictions have a different meaning 
than is ordinarily applied to them by   
the logic of the idolators4 ,they say   
that ,god and the world1 body and soul1 
truth and error1 life and death1 etc41  
are irreconcilable antipodes2 that they 
exclude one another2 that they cannot be
 brought under the same roof1 but must  
be kept wide apart by the laws of       
eternal reason4 ,but this doctrine of   
contradiction is merely narrow          
dogmatism1 which confuses the minds     
instead of enlightening them4           
,certainly1 death differs from life1 the

 perishable from the imperishable1 black
 from white1 crooked from straight1     
large from small4 ,who would be silly   
enough to deny that8 ,but even the      
apparently most contradictory and       
opposite things may be classified under 
the same genus1 family1 or species1 as  
twins in a mother's womb4 ,the same     
thing that does not prevent male and    
female from sitting in the same nest1   
does not prevent the most widely        
different things1 in spite of their     
separate characters1 from being one and 
the same1 from being two pieces of the  
same caliber4 ,you are certainly still  
the same ,eugene that you were as a     
little baby1 and yet you are at the same
 time another4 ,the experts in          
physiology even claim that they can     
compute how often a man of sixty has    
changed his flesh1 bones1 skin1 and     
hair4 ,although the old man is the same 
individual that he was when first born1 
yet he never remained the same4  ,you   
will see by this illustration that all  

difference is of the same nature1 a     
general1 supreme1 universal being1      
absolute and divine1 and this absolute  
world being is highly edifying1 because 
it comprises all other beings and is the
 ,alpha and ,omega of all things4  ,is  
this world-god a mere idea8 ,no1 it is  
the truth and life itself4 ,and it is   
very interesting to note that the       
so-called ontological proof of the      
existence of ,god agrees very well with 
the world truth which ,i proclaim in the
 tabernacle of logic4 ,this proof is    
originally attributed to the learned    
,anselmo of ,canterbury4 ,however that  
may be1 it is certain that ,descartes   
and ,spinoza support him with their     
famous names4 ,they hold that the most  
perfect being must necessarily have     
existence1 because otherwise it would   
not be the most perfect4  ,i understood 
very well1 writes ,descartes in the     
fourth section of his ,method of        
,correct ,thought1 that in accepting the
 hypothesis of a triangle ,i would have 

to accept the fact that the sum of its  
three angles is equal to two right      
angles4 ,but nothing convinced me of the
 presence of such a triangle1 while ,i  
found that my conception of the most    
perfect being was as inseparably linked 
to existence as my conception of a      
triangle is to the identity of the sum  
of its angles with two right angles4444 
,hence it is certainly as undeniable as 
any geometrical proof can be that ,god  
exists as this most perfect being4      
,this argument appears to me as clear as
 daylight and ought to convince you1 not
 of the existence of a transcendental   
idol1 but of the truth of the absolute  
and most perfect world being4 ,if you   
were to remark that this perfectness is 
not so very great1 considering its many 
obvious imperfections1 ,i should ask you
 not to split hairs and to recognize    
with sane senses that these             
imperfections of the world belong as    
logically to the perfect world as the   
evil desires belong to virtue which     

becomes virtue only by the test of      
overcoming them4 ,the conception of a   
perfection which has no imperfections to
 overcome would be a silly idea4  ,now  
in conclusion let me say a few words of 
apology for continually interchanging   
the universe and the concept of the     
universe4 ,i frequently speak of the    
idea of a thing as if it were the thing 
itself4 ,but see here6 ,do you not ask  
on seeing the portrait of some person   
unknown to you3 ,who is this8 ,and do   
you not interchange the portrait for the
 person itself1 without difficulty and  
misunderstanding8 ,the idea stands in   
the same relation to the thing1 as the  
portrait to the person it represents4   
,this remark is directed against that   
unsound logic which knows only the      
separation of the idea from the thing1  
of reason from its objects1 but does not
 grasp the mere formality of such a     
distinction1 does not appreciate the    
unity of the world1 the edifying and    
supreme truth1 the truth of the supreme 

being4  ,this letter1 my dear ,eugene1  
pleads for edification1 but only for    
that kind of edification which includes 
the unedifying1 whereby edification is  
sobered down4 ,if you would give the    
name of pantheism to this world         
philosophy1 you should remember that it 
is not a sentimental and exalted1 but a 
common sense pantheism1 a deification   
which has the taste of the godless4     
,,twentieth ,,letter   ,dear ,eugene3   
,today ,i am going to present my case   
with the precision of a schoolmaster4   
,the concept of white cabbage embraces  
all white cabbage heads that ever were  
and ever will be4  ,the concept of      
cabbage embraces red1 white1 and many   
other kinds of cabbage4 ,the concept of 
vegetable embraces a still wider range4 
,the organic field is still more        
comprehensive4 ,and finally the world   
concept embraces everything which we    
know and don't know1 the end of which we
 cannot conceive1 and which therefore is
 called infinite4  ,when we trace our   

steps backward over the same reasoning1 
we find at once that the universal      
concept is divided into two parts1 viz41
 the universe and the conception of it4 
,we thus find the world in the concept  
and the concept in the world1 so that   
both of these parts are interconnected1 
each is the predicate of the other1 and 
whether we turn the thing to the right  
or to the left1 the concept is in the   
world and the world in the concept4     
,now it is true that the concept1 or the
 faculty of understanding1 is the object
 of our study rather than the world     
outside of it4 ,the faculty of          
understanding1 by the way1 is nothing   
but a collective noun for all concepts1 
hence simply another name for concept in
 general4 ,but what ,i eternally repeat 
is this3 ,we cannot make a concept      
separated from all the rest of the world
 the object of our study1 because that  
would be an empty abstraction which does
 not take on any meaning until we       
connect it with the world1 for instance 

the special concept of cabbage with     
sense-perceived cabbage and so forth4   
,the concepts of white cabbage1 cabbage 
in general1 vegetables1 or plants1 etc41
 are all of them special concepts and at
 the same time general concepts4 ,the   
one and the other is relative4 ,compared
 to the various species it includes1 the
 general concept of cabbage is abstract1
 while compared to the general concept  
of vegetables it is concrete4 ,and so it
 is with all concepts4 ,they are        
abstract and concrete at the same time4 
,only the final concept1 the world      
concept1 is neither concrete nor        
abstract1 but absolute4 ,it is the      
concept of the absolute1 which is       
indispensable for an understanding of   
logic4  ,we found a while ago that the  
absolute world concept consisted of two 
parts1 viz41 the concept and the world4 
,in the same way1 the chemists teach us 
that water consists of two elements1    
each of which by itself does not make   
any water1 while their compound makes   

pure water4 ,but we do not need such    
distant illustrations4 ,my table in its 
present composition is something        
different from what it would be if the  
same pieces were put together in some   
other way and without a plan4           
,therefore the world concept is a far   
more sublime concept than all the parts 
of which it consists4 ,and in order to  
make this quite clear1 ,i may honor this
 compound of the world and its concept  
by a special name1 say universe1 so as  
to distinguish it from its component    
parts4  ,now ,i declare1 without fear of
 having the word turned in my mouth by  
any sophist1 that the world embracing   
the thought1 or the universe1 is the    
absolute which includes everything1     
while the world and the thought of it1  
each by itself1 are but classifications 
or relative things4  ,we wish to        
understand thought1 not empty abstract  
thought1 but the universal              
world-embracing thought1 the thought in 
a philosophical sense4 ,this is not mere

 thought1 but living truth1 the         
universe1 the absolute1 the supreme     
being4  ,it is with the universe and its
 parts as it is with a telescope and its
 concentric rings4 ,our intellect is a  
special ring which gives us a picture of
 the whole concentric thing4 ,this      
photographer1 as ,i have called it in a 
former letter1 is not the object of our 
study for its own sake1 nor for the sake
 of its pictures1 but rather for the    
sake of the original1 of the universe4  
,it is as if somebody were to buy a     
portrait of some historically renowned  
person4 ,no matter how much concerned   
the buyer would be with the picture1 in 
the last analysis he is concerned with  
that person itself4 ,so it is with the  
art of understanding the absolute1 with 
world wisdom1 which we study not for the
 sake of the wisdom1 but of the world   
itself4  ,this lengthy discussion might 
have been cut short by simply speaking  
of the world instead of going to so much
 trouble on account of the world        

concept4 ,but ,i should then miss my    
point1 which is that the human intellect
 is a part of the world1 and that the   
ideological distinction which separates 
this intellect from the rest of the     
world1 requires for the whole an        
embracing term4  ,the absolute concept  
is the concept of the absolute1 of the  
supreme being4 ,to it applies all the   
true1 good1 and beautiful ever          
attributed to ,god1 and it is also that 
being which lends logic1 consistency1   
and form to all thought4  ,plato is a   
philosopher who has thrown a wonderful  
light on the faculty of understanding1  
though he has not fully explained it4   
,in his dialogue entitled ,gorgias1 he  
makes ,socrates say the following3 ,does
 it seem to you that men want that with 
which they occupy themselves at any     
time1 or that for the sake of which they
 undertake whatever they may be engaged 
in8 ,do those1 for instance1 who take   
some medicine prescribed by the         
physicians seem to want that which they 

do 444 or to want that for the sake of  
which they take medicine1 viz41         
health8444 ,in the same way those who go
 on board of ships and trade do not want
 that which they are doing2 for who     
would care to go to sea and face danger 
or conquer obstacles8 ,that for which   
they go to sea is that which they want1 
viz41 to become rich2 they are going to 
sea for the sake of acquiring wealth4   
,plato thus says that the immediate     
purposes of men are not their real      
purposes1 but means to an end1 means to 
welfare or for good4 ,he therefore      
continues3 ,it is in pursuit of good1   
then1 that we go when we go1 because we 
are after something better1 and we stand
 still for the sake of the same good4   
,now let us go a step farther than      
,socrates and ,plato4 ,just as men's    
actions are truly done1 not for the sake
 of some immediate purpose1 but of the  
ulterior1 of welfare1 and just as their 
socalled ethical actions are justified  
only by the general wellbeing1 so all   

things of the world are not             
substantiated by their immediate        
environment1 but by the infinite        
universe4 ,it is not the seed planted in
 the soil which is the cause of the     
growing plant1 as the farmer thinks1 but
 the ,earth1 the ,sun1 the winds1 and   
the weather1 in short1 the whole of     
nature1 and that includes the seed germ4
  ,if we apply this reasoning to our    
special object1 the faculty of          
understanding1 we find that it is not a 
narrowly human1 nor a transcendental1   
but a universal cosmic faculty4         
,according to ,homer1 the immortal gods 
call things by other names than mortal  
men4 ,but once you have grasped the     
concept of the absolute1 you understand 
the language of the gods1 you understand
 that the intellect by itself is but a  
minute particle1 while in the           
interrelation with the universe it is an
 absolute and integral part of the      
universal absolute4  ,all things have a 
dual nature1 all of them are limited    

parts of the unlimited1 the             
inexhaustible1 the unknowable4 ,just as 
all things are small and great1 temporal
 and eternal1 so all of them including  
the human mind are knowable and         
unknowable at the same time4 ,we must   
not idolize the faculty of thought nor  
forget its divine nature4 ,man should be
 humble1 but without bowing in doglike  
submission to a transcendental spirit1  
and he should be sustained by the       
sublime consciousness that his spirit is
 the true one1 the spirit of universal  
truth4  ,everything can be seen by eyes1
 including those of a hawk4 ,just as the
 eye is the instrument of vision1 so the
 intellect is the instrument of thought4
 ,and just as spectacles and glasses are
 means of assisting the eye in seeing1  
so senses1 experience1 and experiments  
are means of assisting the intellect in 
understanding4 ,with this equipment the 
intellect can assimilate everything in  
its conceptions4 ,it understands all1   
but all only in a relative sense4 ,we   

understand all1 just as we buy          
everything for money4 ,we can buy only  
what is for sale4 ,reason and sunshine  
cannot be valued in money4 ,we can see  
everything with eyes1 and yet not       
everything4 ,sounds and smells cannot be
 seen4 ,just as everything is great and 
small1 so everything is knowable and    
unknowable1 according to the meaning    
given to everything in the language of  
men or gods4 ,that word has the dual    
meaning of applying to any particle and 
to the whole universe4 ,so is the human 
mind universal1 but only a universal    
specialty4  ,look at that magnificently 
colored carnation4 ,you see the whole   
flower1 and yet you do not see all of   
it4 ,you do not see its scent nor its   
weight4 ,in the human language whole    
means a relative whole1 which is at the 
same time a part4 ,every particle of the
 universe is such a dual thing4 ,but in 
the language of the gods1 which is      
spoken by philosophy1 only the absolute 
universe is whole4  ,when the subject   

under discussion is not the intellect1  
but some other part of the world1 for   
instance the eyes1 the universal concept
 of the absolute is not so important1   
because the faculty of seeing1 like the 
faculty of wealth1 is in little danger  
of being metaphysically abused4  ,one   
knows that eyes which can see around a  
corner1 or through a block of iron1 or  
which can perceive the scent of a       
carnation1 are as meaningless as a white
 sorrel4 ,even though our eyes cannot   
see the invisible1 that does not prevent
 them from being a universal instrument 
which can see everything1 that is       
everything visible4  ,if you understand 
this1 you will also see through the     
miserable wisdom of the professors which
 wallows on its belly in the dust and   
cries with the faithful3 ,o ,lord1 ,o   
,lord6 similarly to ,du ,bois-,reymond1 
who cries out3 ,ignorabimus6 ,it is true
 that the human mind is an ignoramus in 
the sense that it is ever learning1     
because there is inexhaustible material 

in nature4 ,there is also something     
unknowable in every particle of nature1 
just as there is something invisible in 
every carnation4 ,but the unknowable in 
the sense used by those ignorant people 
who cannot understand the human mind    
because they have a transcendental      
monster in their mind1 such a monstrous 
unknowable exists only in the           
imagination of the idolators to whom the
 true spirit reveals itself as little as
 the spirit of truth4  ,just as surely  
as we know that there cannot be in      
heaven any knife without a blade and a  
handle1 nor any black horses that are   
white1 just so surely do we know that   
the faculty of understanding can never  
and nowhere be the absolute1 but must   
always be a special faculty4 ,the       
concept of understanding1 like the      
concept of a knife1 is limited to a     
definite instrument4 ,there may be all  
kinds of knives and intellects1 but     
nothing exists that has escaped from its
 own skin or from the limitation of its 

own particular concept4  ,by this       
standard you may measure the silly      
thought of those who speak              
transcendentally of an unlimited faculty
 of understanding4 ,they haven't any    
right idea of the mind nor of the       
universe1 of the conceivable nor of the 
inconceivable1 otherwise they would not 
speak in such a nonsensical sense of the
 ,limits of ,understanding4 ,in short1  
you see that the relative limitation or 
absoluteness of reason can only be      
understood by means of the concept of   
the absolute4     ,,twenty-,,first      
,,letter   ,the proletarian logic of the
 working class searches after the       
supreme being4 ,the working class knows 
that it must serve but it wants to know 
whom to serve4 ,shall it be an idol or a
 king8 ,where1 who1 what1 is the supreme
 being to which everything else is      
subordinate1 which brings system1       
consistency1 logic1 into our thought and
 actions8 ,the next question is then3   
,by what road do we arrive at its       

understanding8 ,any transcendental      
revelation being of no use to us1 there 
are only two ways open3 ,reason and     
experience4  ,now it is a mistake of    
common logic to regard these two roads  
as separate1 while1 in fact1 they are   
one and the same common road1 which by  
the help of empirical reason or         
reasonable experience leads us to the   
point where we recognize that the       
supreme being to which everything is    
subordinate1 is nothing special1 not a  
part or a particle1 but the universe    
itself with all its parts4  ,we take    
medicine for the sake of health1 we make
 efforts for the sake of wealth4 ,but   
neither health nor wealth are an end in 
themselves4 ,what good is health to us1 
when we have nothing to bite8 ,what good
 are all the treasures of ,croesus1 if  
health is lacking8 ,therefore health and
 wealth must be combined4 ,nor is that  
enough4 ,there is a spirit in us that   
drives us farther ahead4 ,there are     
still other treasures and requirements1 

for instance contentment is surely one  
of them4 ,but the motive power of the   
world spirit is so infinite1 that it is 
not satisfied until it has everything4  
,everything1 then1 in other words the   
whole world1 that is the true end4      
,socrates and his school1 to whom ,i    
alluded in the preceding letter1        
wandered the way of separate reason for 
the purpose of finding the supreme      
being1 the true1 the good1 the          
beautiful4 ,the platonic dialogues paint
 a very magnificent picture of the truth
 that neither health nor wealth1 neither
 bravery nor devotion1 are the greatest 
good1 but that it is mainly a question  
of the understanding and use to which   
mankind put these things4 ,accordingly  
they are good or bad1 they are but      
relative goods4 ,love and faith1 honesty
 and veracity1 are good enough1 but not 
the good2 they only partake of the good4
 ,what is sought is that which is under 
all circumstances absolutely good1 true1
 and beautiful4  ,when ,socrates asked  

his disciples to define the good or     
reasonable1 they enumerated as a rule a 
series of good and reasonable           
specialties1 while the master was       
continually compelled to instruct them1 
that his research was not aimed at those
 objects4 ,they name important virtues1 
and he wants to know what absolute      
virtue is4 ,they name good things1 and  
he is looking for the good1 for pure    
goodness1 while the good things have the
 bad quality of being good only under   
certain circumstances4  ,the ,socratic  
school then finds out that only the     
understanding or the intellect can find 
the circumstances under which we may    
arrive at the absolute4 ,understanding1 
the human mind1 philosophy1 is to them  
the divine4 ,thus they arrive at their  
famous ,know thyself1 which in their    
language means3 ,hold introspection and 
rack your brain4 ,but they did not      
succeed in thus using the intellect as  
an oracle4 ,nor did the ,christian      
philosophers of later times fare any    

better with that method1 when they      
changed the title of the object of their
 studies and substituted ,god1 ,liberty1
 and ,immortality1 for the good1 the    
true1 and the beautiful4  ,in order to  
get out of the confusion resulting from 
the many names given to the object of   
logic in the course of history1 it must 
be remembered that pagan as well as     
,christian research founded their quest 
for the absolute on the innate need of  
understanding the supreme being which   
was to be the pivot of all thought and  
action4 ,polytheism had to have a       
supreme god1 no matter whether his name 
was ,zeus or ,jupiter4 ,in consequence  
of this longing for unity it was very   
natural that the place of the many      
immortals was finally taken by one      
eternal father of all4 ,the philosophers
 are distinguished from the theologians 
only in so far as the former seek for   
the fulcrum of the world more on real   
than on imaginary ground4  ,after more  
than two thousand years of mediation by 

intermediary links1 ancient philosophy  
has at last been transformed into modern
 democratic-proletarian logic which     
recognizes that the intellect is an     
instrument which leads to the supreme   
being on condition that it does not rack
 the brain but goes outside of itself   
and consciously connects itself with the
 world outside4 ,this connection        
constitutes the supreme being1 the      
imperishable1 eternal1 truth1 goodness1 
beauty1 and reason4 ,all other things   
only partake of it1 to use ,platonic    
language4  ,although the ,socratic      
school were handicapped by many         
fantastical attributes1 still they were 
on the road towards true logic1 as      
neither health nor wealth1 nor any other
 treasure or virtue satisfied them4     
,they did not care for true phenomena1  
but for truth itself4 ,but truth is the 
universe1 and man must understand that  
this is the only truth1 in order to be  
able to use his intellect logically1 to 
be reasonable in the highest and        

classical sense of this word4  ,all the 
world speaks of logic and logical       
thought4 ,but when you1 my son1 as a    
thinking man feel the need of getting   
out of phraseology and knowing exactly  
what words should mean1 you will hardly 
find one book that will give you        
sufficient light on the subject of      
logic4 ,the best book would be the      
,bible1 perhaps4 ,i mean that1 when you 
inquire after beginning and end1 purpose
 and destination1 in short1 after that  
which would give you and all things a   
definite support1 when you search for   
the vortex around which everything      
revolves1 then the ,bible does not tell 
you about the beginning of this or that 
part of history1 but speaks of the      
absolute beginning and end of all       
history1 of the general purpose and     
general destination of all existence4   
,that is what ,i call logic4  ,the free 
thinkers were not satisfied with        
religious mythology1 they wanted to     
bring consistency and logic into their  

brains by their own studies4 ,plato and 
,aristotle have done good work along    
this line4 ,so have the subsequent      
philosophers1 ,cartesius1 ,spinoza1     
,kant4 ,the main impediment for all of  
them was the obstinate prejudice that   
man could have reason in his own brain4 
,of course1 that is where he has it1 but
 it is not reasonable reason4 ,the      
intellect shut up in the skull has not  
wisdom in its keeping1 as the ancients  
thought4 ,wisdom cannot be acquired by  
racking your brain4 ,hegel is right3    
,reason is in the brain1 it is in all   
things1 everything is reasonable4 ,i    
merely repeat1 then1 that the universe  
is the true reason4  ,you will not      
misunderstand the term racking your     
brain4 ,i am not an opponent of         
introspective thought1 but only desire  
to call your attention to the fact that 
it has led to the wrong habit of        
separating thought from sight1 hearing1 
feeling1 of divesting the mind of the   
body4 ,just as the ,christian looked for

 salvation outside of the flesh1 so the 
philosophers looked for reason or       
understanding outside of the connection 
with the rest of the world1 outside of  
experience4 ,it was especially the      
research after the nature of the        
intellect which imagined it had to creep
 inside of itself4  ,when studying the  
stars1 we look at the heavens2 when     
endeavoring to enrich our knowledge of  
plants1 we gather flowers4 ,but if we   
attempt to understand the mind1 we must 
not rack our brain1 nor dissect it with 
an anatomical knife4 ,we shall indeed   
find the brain1 but not the mind1 not   
reason4  ,and even the brain is not so  
easily cut out1 as many an overzealous  
materialist may think4 ,the student of  
anatomy who pries into the nature of the
 brain substance knows very well that   
this substance is not contained in the  
head of this or that fellow1 but must be
 sought in many heads before the average
 brain is found1 which differs          
materially from that of ,peter or ,paul4

 ,this will show that your brain is not 
only your own1 but also partakes of the 
universal brain1 and you will easily    
conclude from this how much less your   
reason is yours alone4 ,hegel is right3 
,not only men1 but everything is        
reasonable4  ,true1 the most rotten     
conditions may be defended by such      
maxims4 ,hence the great logician ,hegel
 has the bad name of having been1 not a 
philosopher of the people1 but a royal  
state philosopher of ,prussia4 ,i will  
neither blacken nor whitewash him1 nor  
will ,i overlook that he left the great 
cause in a state of mystical obscurity4 
,but ,i recognize that even the worst   
prejudices1 the most perverted morals1  
laws and institutions1 have their       
reasonable justification in the times   
and conditions of their origin4 ,such an
 understanding is immediately followed  
by the further insight1 that the most   
reasonable things1 crushed by the wheel 
of time1 will become rotten and         
unreasonable4 ,in short1 the good is not

 any special institutions1 but is found 
in the interrelations of the universe4  
,only the absolute is absolutely good4  
,and for this reason not only some      
conservative editors of capitalist      
papers1 but also the revolutionary      
authors of the ,communist ,manifesto1   
are genuine ,hegelians4                 
,,twenty-,,second ,,letter   ,dear      
,eugene3  ,socrates teaches3 ,when we   
walk1 it is not walking1 when we stand  
still1 it is not standing which is our  
purpose4 ,we always have something      
ulterior in view1 until finally the     
general welfare is the true end of our  
actions1 in other words1 the good4 ,and 
on closer analysis you will find that   
your individual welfare1 the socalled   
egoistic good1 is not enough in itself4 
,you are not only related to your       
father1 mother1 brothers1 sisters1      
relatives and friends1 but also to your 
community1 state1 and finally to the    
entire population of the globe4 ,your   
welfare is dependent on their welfare1  

on the welfare of the whole4  ,i know   
very well that the horizon of the       
everyday capitalist minds does not reach
 farther than they can see from the     
steeple of their church4 ,they think    
according to the bad maxim3 ,the shirt  
is closer to the skin than the coat4 ,if
 ,i had to choose between the shirt and 
the coat1 ,i should prefer to wear the  
coat without a shirt rather than to run 
around in shirt sleeves as the object of
 universal ridicule4 ,the old man who   
plants a tree the fruits of which he    
will perhaps never see is not such a    
capitalist mind1 otherwise he would sow 
seeds that would ripen during this      
year's summer4  ,at this juncture we    
must remember that the disciples of     
,socrates who looked for the absolute   
under the name of the good1 were in so  
far narrow as they conceived of it only 
from the moral1 specifically human1     
standpoint1 instead of at the same time 
considering its cosmic side4 ,just as   
health and wealth belong together1 and  

even these are not sufficient for human 
welfare which further requires all      
social and political virtues1 so the    
good is not comprised in the            
interrelations of all mankind1 but      
passes beyond them and connects itself  
with the entire universe4 ,without the  
universe man is nothing4 ,he has no eyes
 without light1 no ears without sound1  
no morals without physics4 ,man is not  
so much the measure of all things2 his  
more or less intimate connection with   
all things is rather the measure of all 
humanity4 ,not narrow morality1 but the 
universe1 the supreme being1 is the good
 in the very highest meaning of the     
word1 is absolute good1 right1 truth1   
beauty1 and reason4  ,in my preceding   
letter ,i spoke of universal reason and 
said that not alone men1 but also       
mountains1 valleys1 forests and fields1 
and even fools and knaves were          
reasonable4 ,now you are familiar with  
that student's song3 ,what's ,coming    
from the ,heights8 and you know that it 

makes everything leathern4 ,it speaks of
 a leathern hill1 a leathern            
coach-driver1 a leathern letter1 even   
father1 mother1 and sister are of       
leather4 ,and ,i mention this simply for
 the purpose of showing that ,i         
understand that we cannot call leather  
reasonable and reasonable leathern      
without brewing a mixture of language   
which is lacking the mark by which all  
reasonable language is distinguished    
from chattering1 howling1 and roaring4  
,language is only reasonable when it    
classifies the world and distinguishes  
things by different names4  ,this is    
easily understood4 ,but it is more      
difficult to see that those who use     
their intellect without logical training
 exaggerate distinctions to such an     
extent that they ignore the connection  
between them4 ,all things are not only  
distinct1 but also connected4 ,but logic
 so far must be blamed for not rising to
 the recognition of the interrelation of
 all things4 ,the science of            

understanding frequently treats reason  
and experience as if they were two      
different things without a common       
nature4 ,therefore1 ,i make it a point  
to insist that there is no experience   
without reason and no reason without    
experience4  ,the linguists who dispute 
about the question whether reason has   
developed after language or language    
after reason agree that both belong     
together4 ,one cannot speak without the 
use of reason1 or talk without sense1   
because chattering1 or babbling1 or     
whatever one may wish to call it1 are   
everything else but language4 ,on the   
other hand1 there can be no reason      
without naming the things of this world1
 so as to distinguish between leather   
and lady1 between reason and experience4
  ,of course1 the idea of a leathern    
lady is only a youthful prank4 ,still it
 is calculated to illustrate the        
dialectic transfusion of all names and  
things1 of all subjects and predicates4 
,it shows indirectly that according to  

common sense thought1 reason has its    
home only in the brain of man1 and that 
this reason is nevertheless unsound when
 it does not know and remember that the 
individual human brain is connected with
 all brains1 and reasons with the whole 
world1 so that only all existence and   
the entire universe is reasonable in the
 highest meaning of the word4  ,in order
 to be able to use your reason in all   
research and on all objects in a        
reasonable manner1 you must know that   
the whole world has one nature1 even    
leather and your sister4 ,apparently    
there is a wide gulf between these two1 
and yet in both of them the same forces 
are active1 just as a black horse has   
the same horse nature as a white horse1 
so that from this point of view your    
sister is indeed leathern and leather   
sisterly4 ,such statements sound        
paradoxical enough1 yet ,i insist on    
making them in this extreme manner in   
order to fully reveal the absolute      
oneness of all existence1 since it is   

the indispensable basis of a reasonable 
understanding of logic4  ,take one of   
the questions of the day now agitating  
the public mind1 for a further          
illustration4 ,two tendencies are now   
observed in the most radical political  
movement of the nations4 ,one of them is
 called propaganda of the deed4 ,it     
works in ,russia and ,ireland with      
dynamite1 powder1 and lead4 ,the other  
recommends the propaganda of the word1  
of the vote1 and of lawful agitation4   
,and the difference between these two is
 not discussed reasonably with a view to
 ascertaining for whom1 when1 where1 and
 why1 this or that propaganda is        
fitting1 but every one tries to present 
his relative truth with the fanatical   
sectarianism of those who claim absolute
 truth4 ,but if you have grasped the    
method of getting at truth1 the true    
method of using your reasoning faculty1 
you will take sides for one thing today 
and for another thing tomorrow1 because 
you will understand that all roads are  

leading toward ,rome4 ,and if some of   
the comrades outvote you occasionally1  
you will still value these antagonists  
as friends1 and if you combat them1 even
 in a war to the knife1 this will still 
be a relative war1 a use of the knife   
with reason4  ,our proletarian logic is 
tolerant1 not fanatical4 ,this logic    
does not want to be reasonable without  
passion1 nor passionate without reason4 
,it does not abolish the difference     
between friend and foe1 between truth   
and falsehood1 between reason and       
nonsense1 but calms the fanaticism which
 exaggerates those distinctions4 ,its   
fundamental maxim is3 ,there is only one
 absolute1 the universe4  ,remember well
 that the conception of a universe which
 has anything outside or beside itself  
is still more senseless1 if possible1   
than the idea of wooden iron4 ,you thus 
see that all differences have one common
 nature which does not permit a         
transcendentally wide difference between
 things or opinions4 ,because the       

universe is the supreme being1 therefore
 all differences1 even those of opinion1
 are unessential4  ,for the purpose of  
studying logic1 ,i entreat you to pay   
special attention to the question of    
essential differences and to test it by 
your own experience which will come to  
you from day to day4  ,by means of our  
logic we learn the language of the gods4
 ,in the dictionary of this language1   
there is only one essential being1 the  
universal or supreme being4 ,on the     
other hand1 the language of the mortals 
calls every particle a being1 but such  
being can be relative beings only4      
,every ear of a cornfield1 every hair of
 an ox skin1 and even every one of their
 particles1 is such a being4 ,but these 
relative beings are at the same time    
unessential attributes4 ,thus all       
differences between the particles of the
 world are simultaneously essential and 
unessential2 in other words1 they have a
 relative existence1 they merely partake
 of the supreme being1 compared to whom 

they are absolutely unessential4        
,whether you are a good or a bad man1   
whether your country is happy or        
unhappy1 free or oppressed1 is very     
essential to you or me1 but compared    
with the great absolute whole it is very
 unessential4 ,in the universal history 
the fate of any single nation has no    
more significance than one hair on my   
head1 although none of my hairs is there
 by mere chance and all of them have    
been counted4 ,hence everything is in   
its particular and isolated self an     
unessential thing1 but in the general   
interrelation everything is a necessary1
 reasonable1 essential and divine       
particle4  ,and now we come to the moral
 of it all4 ,the human reason1 the      
special object of logical research1     
partakes of the nature of the universe4 
,it is nothing in itself4 ,as an        
isolated being1 it is wholly void and   
incapable of producing any understanding
 or knowledge4 ,only in connection1 not 
merely with the material brain1 but with

 the entire universe1 is the intellect  
capable of existing and acting4 ,it is  
not the mere brain which thinks1 but the
 whole man is required for that purpose2
 and not man alone1 but the total       
interrelation with the universe is      
necessary for the purpose of thinking4  
,reason itself reveals no truths4 ,the  
truths which are revealed to us by means
 of reason1 are revelations of the      
general nature of the absolute universe4
  ,if you think of reason in this way1  
then1 my son1 you are thinking          
reasonably1 are world-wise1 logical1 and
 true4     ,,twenty-,,third ,,letter    
7,a7  ,although we know that there is no
 actual beginning1 because we are living
 in the universe without beginning and  
end1 still we mortals must always begin 
at a certain point4 ,so ,i have begun   
one of my retrospects over the history  
of my subject with ,plato1 and at       
another time ,i have ended with ,hegel1 
although before and after them there has
 been much philosophical thought4 ,these

 two names are luminant points which    
throw their light over everything which 
is situated between them4  ,the errors  
of our predecessors are just as useful  
for the purpose of illustration as their
 positive achievements4 ,more even3 the 
errors form the steps of a ladder which 
leads toward a universal world          
philosophy4 ,we clamber up and down on  
it1 perhaps a little irregularly1 but   
nowadays the crooked roads of an        
,english park are preferred to the      
straight ,french avenues4  ,it was an   
achievement on the part of the ,socratic
 and ,platonic schools to seek the good 
not in good specialties1 but in general 
good1 as a pure or absolute thing1 to   
search for virtue in general instead of 
virtues4 ,but it was a mistake which    
prevented their success1 to exaggerate  
the distinction between the special and 
the general4 ,according to ,plato1 the  
black and white horses canter over      
terrestrial pavements1 but the horse in 
general1 which is neither brown1 black1 

nor white1 neither as slender as a race 
horse nor as clumsy as a draft horse1   
cantered along in the ,platonic idea1 in
 the ideal mists4 ,platonic logic lacked
 what is taught by our present1 or if   
you prefer1 future proletarian logic1   
viz41 the general understanding of the  
interrelation of all things1 the truth  
that in spite of their individual       
differences all things belong together  
as individuals of the same genus4 ,the  
logical relation between individual and 
genus stuck upside down in the brain of 
the noble ,plato4  ,he lived in a time  
which is similar to our own time in that
 the world of the gods of the ancients  
was in the same state of dissolution in 
which the ,christian religions are      
today4 ,plato was as little satisfied   
with ,grecian mythology as a basis for a
 reasonable explanation of the world1 as
 we are with ,christian mythology4 ,he  
wanted to ascend to the universal truth1
 not by way of little traditional       
stories1 but by scientific philosophy4  

,his intention was good1 but his weak   
flesh wrestled with a task which        
required thousands of years for its     
solution4  ,a while ago ,i said that it 
was that topsy-turvy view of religion as
 to the relation between the special and
 the general which thwarted ,plato4 ,let
 me illustrate a little more in detail  
in what this religious topsy-turvydom   
consisted4  ,here we have wind1 the     
waters of the seas1 the rays of the sun1
 chemical and physical forces1 forces of
 nature4 ,these are specimens of the    
universal force of nature4 ,these       
specimens were regarded with sober      
enough eyes by the ,greeks1 but the     
general nature sat high upon ,olympus in
 the form of ,zeus4 ,in the same way1   
the ,greeks were familiar with beautiful
 things1 but beauty was an              
unapproachable goddess1 ,aphrodite4     
,true1 the philosopher no longer        
believed in the gods1 but he was        
nevertheless still under the influence  
of transcendental concepts and thus he  

mystified the general under the name of 
the idea4 ,the ,platonic ideas1 like the
 gods of the heathen1 are mystifications
 of the general4 ,plato furthermore     
shows himself as a descendant of        
polytheism in this3 ,although he clearly
 distinguished between virtue and       
virtuous things1 between beauty and     
beautiful things1 between truth and true
 things1 yet he did not rise to the     
understanding that all generalities are 
amalgamated and unified in the absolute 
generality1 that1 in so far1 the good1  
the true1 and the beautiful are         
identical4 ,the research for the        
absolute did not become monistic until  
,christian monotheism lent a hand4 ,you 
will see from this that religion and    
philosophy form a common chapter which  
has the genus of all genera for its     
object4 ,faith is distinguished from    
science in that the latter no longer    
bows to the dictates of imagination and 
of its organs1 the priests1 but seeks to
 fathom the object of its studies by the

 exact use of the intellect4 ,a partial 
amalgamation of the two is1 therefore1  
quite natural4  ,when a woman is strong1
 isn't she strong after the same        
conception and the same strength8 ,by   
the term same1 says the ,platonic       
,socrates1 ,i mean that it makes no     
difference whether the strength is in   
the man or in the woman4  ,this         
quotation1 taken from ,plato's ,menon1  
shows that ,platonic research deals with
 the general1 in this case the general  
concept of strength which is the same in
 man or woman1 ox or mule1 ,tom and     
,jerry4 ,it is the genus by means of    
which black and white horses are known  
as horses1 dogs and monkeys as animals1 
animals and plants as organisms1 and    
finally the variations of the whole     
world as the universe1 as the same4     
,plato has grasped this same-ness in a  
limited way1 for instance in regard to  
strength1 reason1 virtue1 etc4 ,but that
 in an infinite sense everything is the 
same1 that things as well as ideas1     

bodies1 and souls1 are the same1        
remained for radical proletarian logic  
to discover4  ,hand in hand with the    
narrow ,platonic conception of the      
general went a narrow theory of         
understanding or science1 a wrong       
conception of the intellect and its     
functions4 ,the ,socratic ,plato and the
 ,platonic ,socrates both call          
understanding by the name of            
remembering4 ,by praising understanding1
 they teach us that we must not believe 
the priests1 but study by the help of   
our senses4 ,but1 nevertheless1 they    
still teach a wrong method1 a narrow art
 of thought4  ,in ,menon1 the object of 
study is virtue4 ,socrates does not     
exactly pose as a schoolmaster4 ,he     
knows that he is called the wisest of   
men1 but explains that this is so1      
because others have a conceited opinion 
of their wisdom1 while his wisdom       
consists in humbly knowing that he knows
 nothing4 ,he does not so much try to   
teach what virtue is1 as to stimulate   

his disciples to search for it4 ,but his
 idea of research is distorted4  ,among 
the immortal things which he            
transcendentally separates from mortal  
things1 he also classifies the soul1 the
 immortal soul which dies and lives     
again1 and has always lived1 knows      
everything1 but must remember4 ,thus his
 research becomes a cudgeling of the    
brain1 an introspective speculation4 ,he
 is not looking for understanding by way
 of natural science1 through the        
interrelations of the world1 but        
speculatively through the inside of the 
human skull4  ,in order to make his     
theory of memory plain1 ,socrates in    
,menon calls an ignorant slave and      
instructs him in the fundamentals of    
geometry4 ,he quickly succeeds in       
getting from the ignorant fellow1 who at
 first gives wrong answers1 the correct 
statements by recalling the connections 
of thought by clever questioning4 ,he   
thus demonstrates to his satisfaction   
that man has wisdom a priori in his     

head4 ,but the ,socratic-,platonic art  
of logic has overlooked that such wisdom
 requires concepts which are fixed in   
memory by internal and external         
interrelations4 ,the socalled immortal  
soul with its innate wisdom has troubled
 the world a good while thereafter4     
,you must not think that ,i have a poor 
opinion of ,plato1 because ,i criticize 
him in this way4 ,on the contrary1 ,i am
 highly delighted with his divine and   
immortal writings4 ,honor to ,socrates1 
honor to ,plato1 but still more honor to
 truth4 ,i also assure you that ,i am a 
great admirer of natural science1 but   
nevertheless ,i should like to show you 
that it indulges in narrow reasoning4   
,robert ,mayer1 the talented discoverer 
of the equivalent of heat1 has proven   
that the force of gravitation1 of       
electricity1 of steam1 of heat1 etc41   
represents different modes of expression
 of the same force1 of the force of     
nature in general4 ,but no1 not quite   
so6 ,he has ascertained the numerical   

relation by which the transformations of
 one force into another is accomplished4
 ,thus a logical understanding sees that
 the various forces and force in general
 are distinguished in detail but        
identical in general4 ,darwin in his    
,origin of ,species has accomplished a  
similar demonstration4 ,but neither     
,mayer nor ,darwin have given that      
general expression to world unity which 
is required by the art of logic4 ,in    
order to become an adept at this art1   
you must rise to the understanding that 
all forces are various modes of         
expression of the one force1 all animals
 and species transformations of         
animaldom1 that on the moon a part is   
smaller than the whole1 the same as on  
earth1 that there as well as here fire  
burns1 and that as surely as you have no
 doubt of your being1 just as surely is 
there only one being1 the infinite1     
divine universe which has no other gods 
beside it1 but contains all forces1     
materials1 and transformations4  ,this  

is an innate science which is the cause 
of all other science1 an innate science 
which1 indeed1 must first be awakened in
 you by memory4  ,hence our proletarian 
logic instructs you not to rack your    
brain by mere introspection1 as the     
ancient philosophers used to do1 not to 
call the senses impostors nor to search 
for truth without eyes1 nose1 and ears1 
nor on the other hand to start out with 
the idea of certain natural scientists  
who try to see1 hear1 and smell         
understanding without the help of the   
intellect4  ,the mistake committed in   
making a wrong use of the intellect is a
 sin against the holy ghost4 ,the       
,socratic-,platonic doctrine of memory  
is one extreme side of this sin2 the    
other extreme side is represented by    
that modern science which tries to find 
truth by mere external means and rejects
 everything as untrue which is not      
ponderable or tangible4  ,as this letter
 is more intimately connected with the  
following one than is ordinarily the    

case1 ,i take the liberty to unite them 
under the same number and mark them with
 the letters ,a and ,b4     7,b7  ,we   
are still the guests of ,plato today1 my
 son1 and ,i should like to show you    
that this philosopher1 in whose time    
natural science had barely developed its
 first downy feathers1 already suspected
 its stubborn narrowness1 although in a 
certain sense the ,platonic logic was no
 less narrow than that of the so-called 
exact sciences still is to-day1 at least
 in part4 ,still ,platonic logic had at 
least the advantage of its outlook      
toward the ,supreme ,being1 the         
absolute1 while modern naturalism is    
still stuck in the narrow land of       
specialties4 ,therefore1 ,i hope that   
you will find it interesting to note    
with me the way in which universal truth
 is peeping forth beneath the wings of  
,platonic speculation4  ,listen1 then1  
to what ,i am going to say1 remarks     
,socrates in ,phaedo1 paragraph #de4 ,in
 my youth1 ,o ,cebes1 ,i had a great    

interest in natural science1 for it     
seemed to me a magnificent thing to know
 the cause of everything1 to learn how  
everything begins1 exists1 and passes4  
,a hundred times ,i turned to one thing 
and then to another1 reflecting about   
these matters by myself4 ,do animals    
arise when the hot and the cold begin to
 disintegrate1 as some claim8 ,is it the
 blood1 which enables us to think1 or   
the air or the fire8 ,or is it none of  
these1 but rather the brain which       
produces all perceptions1 such as       
seeing1 hearing1 smelling1 and does     
memory and thought then arise by these1 
and from thought and memory1 when they  
become adjusted1 understanding8 ,and    
again1 when ,i considered that all this 
passes away1 and the changes in heaven  
and on earth1 ,i finally felt myself    
poorly qualified for this whole         
investigation4 ,let this be sufficient  
proof to you3 ,in the things which      
formerly were familiar and known to me1 
,i became so doubtful by this           

investigation1 that ,i forgot even that 
which ,i thought ,i knew of many other  
things1 as for instance the question as 
to how man grows4 ,i thought that       
everybody knew that this was caused by  
eating and drinking4 ,for when through  
the food flesh comes to flesh and bone  
to bone1 and in the same way that which 
is akin to all the rest of the things   
which constitute man1 it seemed natural 
that a small mass would become larger1  
and thus a small man grow tall4 ,does   
not this appear reasonable to you8444   
,consider furthermore this4 ,it seemed  
enough to me that a man appeared large  
when standing by the side of something  
small1 that he looked taller by one     
head1 and in the same way one horse by  
the side of another2 or what is still   
plainer1 ten seemed to me more than     
eight1 because it is more by two1 and a 
thing of two feet longer than that which
 measures only one foot1 because it     
exceeds it by one4  ,thereupon ,cebes   
asks3 ,well1 and what do you think of   

this now8  ,i think1 by ,zeus1 says     
,socrates1 that ,i am far removed from  
knowing the cause of any of these       
things4 ,i do not even admit that by    
adding one to one ,i obtain two1 by such
 an addition4 ,for ,i wonder how it is  
that each was supposed to be one when by
 itself1 while now1 that they have been 
added to one another1 they have become  
two4 ,neither can ,i convince myself    
that if one thing divides a thing in    
two1 that this division is the cause of 
it becoming two4 ,for this would be the 
opposite way of making two4 ,but when ,i
 heard somebody reading something from a
 book1 written by ,anaxagoras as he     
said1 to the effect that it is reason   
which had arranged everything and was   
the cause of everything1 ,i rejoiced at 
this cause4444 ,now if one were to      
search for the cause of all things1 of  
their origin1 existence and passing1 he 
should only find out what is the best   
way to maintain their existence4444     
,hence it is not meet that man should   

care for anything else in regard to     
himself as well as to all other things1 
but for that which is best and most     
excellent1 and then he would also know  
the worst about things1 for the         
understanding of both is the same4      
,considering this1 ,i was glad to have  
found a teacher who knows about the     
cause of all things1 who suited me1 ,i  
mean ,anaxagoras1 and who would now tell
 me1 first whether the earth is round or
 flat1 and after telling me that1 would 
also explain to me the necessity for it 
and the cause1 by pointing to the fact  
that it was better that it should be so4
 ,and when he claimed that the earth was
 the center of things1 ,i hoped he would
 explain why it was better that it      
should be the center1 and when he had   
explained that1 ,i was resolved that ,i 
would not ask for any other cause4 ,in  
the same way ,i was going to inquire    
after the cause of the sun1 the moon1   
and the other stars1 etc4444 ,for ,i did
 not believe that after claiming all    

this to have been arranged by reason1 he
 would be dragging in any other cause   
than that of being best to have it just 
so4 ,and this wonderful hope ,i had to  
abandon1 my friends1 when ,i continued  
to read and saw that the man            
accomplished nothing by reason and      
adduces no other reasons relating to the
 arrangement of things1 but quotes air1 
and water1 and ether1 and many other    
astonishing things4  ,and it seemed that
 it was as if some one said ,socrates   
accomplishes all things by reason1 and  
then1 when he began to enumerate the    
cause of everything ,i do1 were to say  
first that ,i am sitting here because my
 body consists of bones and sinews1 and 
that the bones are hard and are         
differentiated by joints1 and the sinews
 so constructed that they can be        
extended and shortened1 etc4 ,and       
further1 if he tried to name the causes 
of our discussion1 he would refer to    
other similar things1 such as sound1 and
 air and hearing1 and a thousand and one

 other things1 quite neglecting the true
 cause1 viz41 that it suited the        
,athenians better to condemn me1 and    
that it suited me for this reason to    
stay here and seemed more just to me to 
bear patiently the punishment which they
 have ordered4 ,for ,i believe that my  
bones and sinews would have gone long   
ago to the dogs or been carried to the  
,boeotians1 had ,i not considered it    
more just and beautiful to atone to the 
state than to flee4  ,it is very        
illogical1 then1 to name such causes4   
,but if any one were to say that ,i     
should not be able to do what ,i please 
without these things 7sinews and bones1 
and whatever else ,i may have71 he would
 be right4 ,but it would be a very      
thoughtless contention to say that these
 things are the cause of my actions1    
instead of my free choice to do the     
best4 ,that would show an inability to  
distinguish the fact that in all things 
the cause is one thing1 and another     
thing that without which the cause could

 not be cause4 ,and it seems to me that 
it is precisely this which some call by 
a wrong name in considering it as the   
cause4 ,for this reason some put a      
whirlwind from heaven round the earth   
and others rest it on air as they would 
a wide trough on a footstool4  ,so far  
,socrates1 whose words ,i ask you to    
read repeatedly and carefully1 though   
they may look a little old-fashioned4   
,this quotation is somewhat lengthy1 but
 ,i thought best not to cut it too short
 and to present it in its main outlines4
  ,this quotation says on the whole the 
same thing which ,i have said in my     
proceeding letters4 ,according to       
,socrates1 all our thoughts and actions 
have a wider and more general purpose1  
which he calls the good1 so that we even
 do evil for the sake of good4 ,a crime 
always aims at some particular good4    
,evil is misunderstood good4 ,applied to
 natural science1 this means that it    
misunderstands the interrelation of all 
its fine discoveries4 ,and this charge  

is true even to-day4 ,although the      
natural interrelations are more and more
 recognized from day to day1 still the  
understanding of the absolute           
inter-connection continues to be        
overlooked1 especially that of the      
intellect with material things1 or of   
the ideal with the real4 ,natural       
science teaches after the manner of the 
gospel of ,john3 ,abraham begot ,isaac1 
,isaac begot ,jacob4 ,but it forgets to 
teach that all these genitors were not  
genitors in the last analysis1 but      
begotten by old ,jehovah himself4 ,the  
uncultivated condition of ,grecian      
natural sciences may have been ground   
enough for ,socrates to think little of 
it4 ,we1 on the other hand1 have to-day 
good reasons for thinking highly of     
natural science1 and for this very      
reason ,i take pains to illustrate by   
its prominent example in what respect   
the neglect of the universal world      
thought results in a narrow conception  
of the world4  ,we may well rejoice more

 lastingly than ,socrates when natural  
science teaches us how it happens that  
everything has its origin1 life1 and    
end1 because the knowledge of natural   
science has been far more enriched by   
modern experiences than it was at the   
time of ,anaxagoras4 ,nevertheless you  
must not stop learning furthermore from 
logic that all growing1 coming into     
existence1 living1 and passing away is  
but a change of form4 ,the causes of    
natural science are indeed not causes1  
but effects of the universe4 ,they are  
reasonable effects of reason in so far  
as the latter is not an isolated part1  
but interconnected with the universe4   
,to repeat3 ,our intellect is not ours1 
it does not belong to man1 but it       
together with man belongs to the        
universe4 ,reason and the world1 the    
true1 the good1 and the beautiful1      
together with ,godhood which you shall  
not idolize but understand in the spirit
 and in the world1 in truth and in      
reality1 are all one thing1 one being1  

and everywhere eternal and the same4    
,socrates shows that he has as yet only 
a narrow anthropomorphic1 not a cosmic  
conception of the best and good and of  
reason4 ,he was dominated by the        
prejudice which still holds sway over   
the uncultured believers in ,god1 that  
reason is older than all the rest of the
 world1 that it is the ruling and       
antecedent creator4 ,our conception of  
logic1 on the other hand1 teaches that  
the spirit which we have in our brain is
 but the emanation of the world spirit4 
,and this latter must not be conceived  
as a nebulous world monster1 not as an  
enormous spirit1 but as the actual      
universe1 which in spite of all change  
and all variation is eternally one1     
true1 good1 reasonable1 real1 and       
supreme4     ,,twenty-,,fourth ,,letter 
,the art of thought1 my son1 for which  
we are striving1 is not pure and        
abstract1 but connected with practice1 a
 practical theory1 a theoretical        
practice4 ,it is not a separate and     

isolated thing1 not a thing in itself1  
but is connected with all things2 it has
 a universal interrelation4 ,hence our  
logic1 as we have repeatedly stated1 is 
a philosophy1 world wisdom1 and         
metaphysics4 ,i include the latter1     
because our logic excludes nothing1 not 
even the transcendental4 ,it teaches    
that everything1 even transcendentalism1
 if practiced with consciousness and the
 necessary moderation1 and at the right 
time and place1 for instance at the     
carnival1 is a reasonable and sublime   
pleasure4  ,all prominent philosophers  
were explorers and users of the same art
 of thought1 of living1 of viewing the  
world1 although many of them retired to 
the solitude and were ascetics4 ,can the
 world be understood in a hermitage8    
,yes and no4 ,after you have been       
traveling and seeing many lands1 it is  
well to retire and classify the         
impressions received1 and thus to       
reflect about a true philosophy of life4
 ,in this way1 secluded thought1 in the 

relative meaning of the word1 that is1  
in connection with observation and      
experience1 with enjoyment and life1 is 
a veritable savior4 ,body and soul      
belong together1 and if they are        
separated1 it must be remembered that   
such a separation is a mere matter of   
form1 that they are in fact one thing1  
attributes of the same being which is   
infinitely great1 so great that all     
other beings are but its fringes4  ,the 
art of distinction distinguishes the    
infinite infinitely with the            
consciousness that in reality everything
 is interrelated without distinction and
 is one4  ,this truth1 and thus absolute
 truth1 is ignored by laymen and        
professional authorities alike4 ,the    
thousand year dualism between body and  
soul has been especially instrumental in
 preventing the understanding of the    
universal interrelation4 ,the whole     
history of philosophy is but a wrestling
 with the dualism between matter and    
mind4 ,it was only by degrees that it   

moved towards its monistic goal4  ,after
 the brilliant triple star              
,socrates-,plato-,aristotle was         
extinguished1 the philosophical sky was 
covered with dark clouds4 ,the heathens 
stepped from the stage1 and             
,christianity and the dogmas of its     
church predominated the logic of men1   
until at last a new scientific light    
arose in the beginning of modern times4 
,it was especially ,cartesius and       
,spinoza who were most brilliant among  
the early thinkers that emancipated     
their minds slowly and under great      
difficulties4 ,spinoza1 of ,jewish      
descent1 is especially interesting in   
his fight against narrowmindedness and  
for a universal philosophy4 ,he wrote an
 ,essay on the ,improvement of the      
,intellect and on the ,way by which it  
is best led to a true ,understanding of 
,things4 ,he1 as well as we1 was looking
 for the best way1 the true way1 the way
 of truth4 ,he1 as well as we1 seeks to 
study and practice the fundamentals of  

the art of thought4  ,he begins3 ,after 
experience has taught me that everything
 which the ordinary life offers is vain1
 and ,i have seen that everything which 
,i feared is only good or bad in so far 
as the mind is moved by it1 ,i finally  
resolved to investigate whether there is
 any true good--whether there is        
anything the discovery of which will    
forever secure continuous and supreme   
joy4 ,what is most generally found in   
life1 and what mankind regards as the   
highest good1 may be reduced to three   
things1 viz41 wealth1 honor1 and sensual
 pleasure4  ,after ,spinoza has then    
uncovered the shadowy side and the      
vanity of these popular ideals1 he calls
 them unsafe by their very nature1 while
 he is looking for permanent good1 which
 is insecure only as regards its        
possession1 but not in its nature4  ,but
 how is that to be found8  ,here ,i     
shall say shortly what ,i mean by true  
good1 and what is at the same time the  
highest good4 ,in order to grasp this   

fully1 we must remember that good or bad
 are only relative terms1 and thus the  
same thing may be called good or bad    
according to its relations1 or on the   
other hand perfect or imperfect4        
,spinoza1 forestalling the object of his
 research1 discovers that the true1     
supreme and permanent good is the       
understanding of the unity of the soul  
with the entire nature4 ,this then1 he  
says1 is the goal which ,i am coveting4 
,to this end1 we must study morals1     
philosophy1 and the education of boys1  
and combine with this study the entire  
science of medicine1 because health     
materially assists us in reaching our   
ideal4 ,neither must mechanics be       
neglected1 because many difficult things
 are made easy by art4 ,above all we    
must strive to find a way for the       
improvement of the intellect4  ,here we 
have once more arrived at the pivotal   
point of our subject1 my dear disciple4 
,who or what is the intellect1 whence   
does it come from1 whither does it lead8

 ,answer3 ,it is a light which does not 
shine within itself1 but throws rays    
outside of itself for the illumination  
of the world4 ,for this reason the      
science which has the faculty of        
understanding for its object1 though a  
limited1 is at the same time a universal
 science1 a universal world wisdom4     
,but isn't it a contradiction that a    
special science wants to be general     
world wisdom8 ,is not general wisdom    
that which comprises all knowledge1 all 
special science8 ,must ,i not know      
everything in order to be world wise8   
,and how can any single brain assume to 
acquire all knowledge1 to know          
everything8 ,answer3 ,it is impossible  
for you to know everything2 but you can 
rise to the understanding that your     
special wisdom and that of all others is
 a part of universal wisdom and form    
together a relative whole which in      
connection with all the rest of the     
world constitute the absolute being4    
,this understanding represents pure     

logic and is universal understanding1   
understanding of the universal being4   
,do not be troubled by the fact that    
,socrates was looking for virtue and the
 best1 or ,spinoza for permanent and    
supreme joy1 and that their wisdom aimed
 only at the narrow circle of human     
life1 without rising to the cosmic      
interrelation4 ,the means and the       
instrument by the help of which they    
strive for their ideal is the intellect4
 ,it is quite natural that intellectual 
research led to the study of the        
intellect1 to the improvement of the    
intellect1 to the critique of reason1 to
 logic1 and finally to the understanding
 that the faculty of thought is an      
inseparable part of the monistic whole1 
of the absolute which lends support1    
consistency1 reason and sense to all    
thought4  ,on his exploring tour for the
 improvement of the intellect1 ,spinoza 
picks up a remark which seems to me     
worthy of closer attention4 ,he says in 
so many words3 ,if we are looking for a 

way to improve the intellect1 is it not 
necessary for the purpose of finding    
such a way to first improve the         
intellect1 in order to be at all able to
 discern the way which leads to an      
improvement of the intellect1 and so on 
without end8 ,we must have a hammer to  
forge the iron1 and in order to have a  
hammer1 it must be made2 but for this   
purpose we need another hammer and other
 instruments1 and so forth without end4 
,in this way it must not be proven that 
men have no power to forge iron4 ,men   
have rather accomplished only the       
easiest tasks with difficulty and       
imperfectly by the help of the natural  
tools of their bodies4 ,gradually they  
accomplished more difficult things with 
less labor and better4 ,and thus they   
slowly proceeded from the simplest tasks
 to the instruments4  ,i admire in this 
process of reasoning the brilliant      
understanding that the hammer is not    
such a limited instrument as the        
untrained human brain thinks4 ,it thinks

 that a hammer is not a pair of tongs4  
,but ,spinoza says that the bare fist is
 a hammer when used for striking1 much  
more a stone or a club4 ,a pair of tongs
 used to drive a nail becomes a hammer2 
a hammer which ,i use to draw a nail    
becomes a pair of tongs4 ,fist or club1 
sense or nonsense1 all is one4 ,in other
 words1 things are separated1 but never 
so far as the fantastical dreamers      
think4 ,just as hammer and tongs1 saw   
and file1 are parts of the class of     
tools1 so all things are parts of the   
one and absolute universe4 ,recognize1  
then1 dear ,eugene1 that the relative   
and the absolute are not separated by   
such a bridgeless chasm1 that the one   
should be praised to the skies and the  
other damned to the lowest pit4         
,understand that everything is          
dialectically interrelated1 that the    
infinite1 eternal1 divine1 can live only
 in the finite1 special things1 and that
 on the other hand the parts of the     
world can exist only in the absolute4   

,in short1 raise your conception to the 
universal conception1 and at the same   
time1 understand the supreme being in   
all its parts instead of idolizing it4  
,the ,positive ,outcome of ,philosophy  
,,by ,,joseph ,,dietzgen  ,translated by
 ,ernest ,untermann     ,,the ,,positive
 ,,outcome ,,of ,,philosophy            
,,preface   ,as a father cares for his  
child1 so an author cares for his       
product4 ,i may be able to give a little
 additional zest to the contents of this
 work by adding an explanation how ,i   
came to write it4  ,although born by my 
mother in #ahbh1 ,i did not enter my own
 world until the mad year1 #ahdh4 ,i was
 learning the trade of my father in my  
paternal shop1 when ,i saw in the       
,koelnische ,zeitung1 how the people of 
,berlin had overcome the ,king of       
,prussia and conquered liberty4 ,this   
liberty now became the first object of  
my musings4 ,the parties of that period1
 the disturbers and howlers1 made a     
great deal of fuss about it4 ,but the   

more ,i heard about it1 and hence became
 enthusiastic over it1 the duller1      
hazier and more indistinct became the   
meaning of it1 so that it turned things 
upside down in my head4 ,the            
psychologists have long known that      
enthusiasm for a cause and understanding
 of that cause are two different things4
 ,mark1 for instance1 the zeal displayed
 by ,catholic peasants in singing their 
mass1 although they do not understand a 
word of ,latin4  ,what is meant by      
political freedom8 ,what is its         
beginning1 what its end8 ,where and how 
are we to find a positive and definite  
knowledge of it8 ,in the parties of the 
middle1 the so-called constitutionals1  
as well as among the bourgeois          
democrats1 there was no end of          
dissension4 ,nothing could be learned   
there4 ,among them1 as among the        
,protestants1 every one was a chosen    
interpreter of the gospel4  ,however1   
the papers of the extremes1 that is1 the
 ,neue ,preussische with its ,for ,god1 

,king and ,fatherland1 and the ,neue    
,rheinische1 the organ of ,democracy1   
gave me a hint that liberty had some    
sort of a material basis4 ,during the   
following years1 my life in rural       
surroundings gave me leisure to follow  
this scent4 ,on one side1 it was the    
work of men like ,gerlach1 ,stahl1 and  
,leo1 on the other of ,marx and ,engels1
 that gave me a foothold4  ,though the  
communists and the ultra-conservatives  
came to widely different conclusions1   
still ,i felt and read between the lines
 that both of these extreme parties     
based their demands on one fundamental  
premise4 ,they knew what they wanted2   
they both had a definite beginning and  
end4 ,and that permitted the assumption 
that both had a common philosophy4 ,the 
,prussian landholding aristocracy based 
the cross1 which they wore as an emblem 
on their hats1 on the historically      
acquired royal military power and on the
 positive divine revelation of the      
,bible printed in black and supported by

 the ecclesiastical police force dressed
 in black4 ,and the ,communist point of 
departure was quite as positive1        
unquestionable and material1 viz41 the  
growing supremacy of the mass of the    
people with their proletarian interests 
based on the historically acquired      
productive power of the working class4  
,the spirit of both of these hostile    
camps was descending from the results of
 philosophy1 primarily from the         
,hegelian school4 ,both of them were    
armed with the philosophical            
achievements of the century1 which they 
had not only mechanically assimilated1  
but rather continually provided with    
fresh food like a living being4  ,in the
 beginning of the fifties1 a pamphlet   
was published by one of the cross       
bearers1 ,stahl1 entitled ,against      
,bunsen4 ,this ,bunsen was at the time  
the ,prussian ,embassador at ,london1 a 
crony of the ruling ,prussian ,king     
,frederic ,william ,,iv41 and1 apart    
from this1 nothing but a liberal muddle 

head who was interested in political and
 religious tolerance4  ,the pamphlet of 
the cross bearer ,stahl attacked this   
tolerance and demonstrated valiantly    
that tolerance could be preached only by
 a muddled free lance to whom religion  
and fatherland were indifferent         
conceptions4 ,religious faith1 so far as
 it is truth1 so he said1 has a true    
power and can transpose mountains4 ,such
 a faith could not be tolerant and      
indifferent1 but must push its          
propaganda with fire and sword4  ,in the
 same way in which ,stahl defended the  
interests of the landed aristocracy1 the
 philosopher ,feuerbach spoke in the    
interest of the infidel revolutionaries4
 ,both of them were to that extent in   
accord with the ,communist ,manifesto   
that they no longer regarded ,liberty as
 a phantasmagoria1 but as a being of    
flesh and blood4  ,when ,i had realized 
this1 it dawned upon me that any        
conception elucidated by philosophy1 in 
this case the idea of liberty1 had this 

peculiarity3 ,liberty is as yet an      
abstract idea4 ,in order to become real1
 it must assume a concrete1 special     
form4  ,political freedom as a          
glittering generality is a thing of no  
reality4 ,under such fantastic ideal the
 constitutionalists or the liberals     
conceal the liberty of the money bag4   
,under these circumstances1 they are    
quite right in demanding ,german unity  
with ,prussia as a head1 or a republic  
with a grand duke at the top4 ,the      
landed aristocracy also are right in    
demanding the liberty of that           
aristocracy4 ,and the ,communists are   
still more right1 for they demand the   
liberty that will guarantee bread and   
butter for the mass of the people and   
will fully set free all the forces of   
production4  ,from this experience and  
conclusion it follows that true liberty 
and the highest right are composed of   
individual liberties and rights1 that   
are opposed to one another without being
 inconceivable4 ,it is easy to proceed  

from this premise to the rule of thought
 laid down in this work1 that the brain 
need not make any excursions into the   
transcendental in order to find his way 
through the contradictions of the real  
world4  ,in this way ,i passed from     
politics to philosophy1 and from        
philosophy to the theory of positive    
knowledge which ,i presented to the     
public in #ahfi in my little work ,the  
,nature of ,human ,brain ,work4 ,further
 studies on the general powers of       
understanding have added to my special  
knowledge of this subject1 so that ,i am
 now enabled to fill the old wine into a
 new bottle instead of publishing a new 
edition of my old work4  ,the science   
which ,i present in the following pages 
is very limited in its circumference1   
but all the better founded and important
 in its consequences4 ,this1 ,i trust1  
will be accepted as a sufficient excuse 
for the recurring repetition of the same
 statements in a different form4 ,my    
remaining confined to a single point    

requires no apology4 ,what is left      
undone by one1 is bequeathed as a       
problem to others4  ,there might be some
 dispute over the question1 how much of 
this positive achievement of philosophy 
is due to the author and to his         
predecessors4 ,but that is an           
interminable task of small concern4 ,no 
matter who hoisted the calf out of the  
well1 so long as it is out4 ,anyway1    
this whole work treats of the           
concatenation and interdependence of    
things1 and this also throws a bright   
light on the question of mine and thine4
  ,j4 ,,dietzgen4  ,,chicago1 ,march    
#cj1 #ahhg4     ,,the ,,positive        
,,outcome ,,of ,,philosophy     ,i      
,,positive ,,knowledge ,,as ,a ,,special
 ,,object   ,that which we call science 
nowadays was known to our ancestors by a
 name which then sounded very           
respectable and distinguished1 but which
 has in the meantime acquired a somewhat
 ludicrous taste1 the name of wisdom4   
,this gradual transition of wisdom into 

science is a positive achievement of    
philosophy which well deserves our      
attention4  ,the term ancestors is very 
indefinite4 ,it comprises people who    
lived more than three thousand years ago
 as well as those who died less than a  
hundred years ago4 ,and a wise man was  
still respected a hundred years ago1    
while to-day that title always implies a
 little ridicule and disrespect4  ,the  
wisdom of our ancestors is so old that  
it has not even a date4 ,it reaches     
back1 the same as the origin of         
language1 to the period when man        
developed from the animal world4 ,but if
 we call a wise man1 in the language of 
our day1 a philosopher1 then it is at   
once plain that wisdom is descended from
 the ancient ,greeks4 ,this wonderful   
nation produced the first philosophers4 
,whether this term indicates a man who  
loves wisdom or one who loves science1  
is of little moment to-day1 and there   
was no such distinction in ancient      
times4 ,we remember that it was entirely

 undecided among the ,greeks whether a  
mathematician1 an astronomer1 a         
physician1 an orator1 or a student of   
the art of living deserved the title of 
a philosopher4 ,these professions were  
not clearly distinguished4 ,they were   
wrapped up one in another like the      
embryo in a mother's womb4 ,while       
humanity had still little knowledge1 a  
man might well be wise4 ,but to-day it  
is necessary to specialize1 to devote   
one's self to a special science1 because
 the field of exploration has grown so  
extended4 ,the philosopher of to-day is 
no longer a wise man1 but a specialist4 
,the stars are the objects of astronomy1
 the animals of zoology1 the plants of  
botany4 ,who and what are now the       
objects of philosophy8 ,this may be     
explained in one word to an expert4 ,but
 if we try to give information to the   
general public1 the matter becomes      
difficult4  ,what do ,i know about the  
shoe industry1 if ,i know that it       
produces shoes8 ,i know something       

general about it1 but ,i have no        
knowledge of its details4 ,it is        
impossible to give sufficient           
information on the details of shoemaking
 to any one in a few words1 not even to 
an educated person4 ,neither is it      
possible to explain the object of       
philosophy in such a way4 ,the object   
may be stated1 but not explained1 for it
 cannot be made plain and brought home  
to the understanding in a few words4    
,that is the word1 understanding4 ,the  
understanding is the object of          
philosophy4  ,we must at once call the  
reader's attention to the ambiguity of  
this term4 ,understanding1 knowledge1 is
 the object of all science4 ,that is    
nothing special4 ,every study seeks to  
enlighten the brain4 ,but philosophy    
wishes to be a science and does not     
desire to relapse into antiquity by     
becoming universal wisdom4 ,to say that 
understanding is the object of          
philosophy is to give merely the same   
reply which ,thales1 ,pythagoras1 or    

,plato would have given4 ,has proud     
philosophy gained nothing since8 ,what  
is its positive achievement8 ,that is   
the question4  ,philosophy to-day still 
has understanding for its object4 ,but  
it is no longer indefinite understanding
 which tries to embrace everything1 but 
rather the understanding of the method  
by which knowledge may be gained4       
,philosophy now wishes to learn how it  
comes to pass that other objects may be 
illumined by the mind4 ,to speak        
plainly1 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 philosophy1 but rather the mind      
itself1 its method and the perceptive   
powers of thought and understanding4    
,if this were all1 if the world's wise  
men had done nothing but to at last find
 the object of philosophy1 it would be a
 very scanty achievement4 ,no1 the      
harvest is much richer4 ,the present day
 theory of human understanding is a real

 science1 which well deserves to be     
popularized4 ,our ancestors sought      
understanding after the manner of       
,socrates and ,plato in the entrails of 
the human brain1 while at the same time 
despising the experience outside of it4 
,they hoped to find truth by cudgeling  
their brain4 ,honor to ,socrates1 honor 
to ,plato2 but still more honor to      
,truth6  ,aristotle showed a little more
 interest in the outer world4 ,with the 
downfall of the old social stage the old
 philosophy naturally succumbed also4   
,it did not revive until a few hundred  
years ago1 at the beginning of modern   
times4  ,a short while ago1 ,shakespeare
 attracted much attention1 when some one
 claimed to have discovered that it was 
not he who wrote those famous dramas and
 tragedies1 but his contemporary ,bacon 
of ,verulam1 ,lord ,chancellor of       
,england4 ,whether ,shakespeare keeps   
his laurels or not1 ,bacon's name is    
still great enough1 for it is generally 
accepted as the mile stone of modern    

philosophy4  ,one might say that        
philosophy was asleep from the time of  
,aristotle to that of ,bacon4 ,at least 
it produced no remarkable results during
 that period1 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 men4 
,but the philosophers themselves are    
less to blame for this than the         
concealment of the object4 ,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 
science1 does philosophy become         
conscious of its special object and able
 to separate its positive achievements  
from the rubbish of the past4  ,if we   
compare the old ,grecian wisdom with    
modern science1 the outcome of          
philosophy looks insignificant by the   
side of the achievements of science4    
,nevertheless1 great as the value of the

 aggregate product of science may be1 it
 is composed of individual values1 and  
every one of its parts is worthy of     
consideration4 ,the method1 the way1 the
 form1 in which the mind arrives at its 
practical creations is one of these     
parts4 ,the mind1 on its march from     
ignorance to its present wealth has not 
only gathered a treasury of knowledge1  
but also improved its methods1 so that  
the further constructive work of science
 proceeds faster now4 ,who will fail to 
recognize that material production has  
accumulated a treasure in the methods by
 which it produces to-day1 which is by  
no means of less value than the         
accumulated national wealth itself8 ,the
 positive outcome of philosophy bears   
the same relation to the wealth of      
science4     ,,ii  ,,the ,,power ,,of   
,,cognition ,,is ,,kin ,,to ,,the       
,,universe   ,the way of ,truth1 or the 
true way1 is not musing1 but the        
conscious connection of our thoughts    
with the actual life--that is the       

quintessence of the teachings of        
philosophy produced by evolution4 ,but  
this is not everything4 ,if ,i know that
 a tanner makes leather1 ,i do not by   
any means know everything he does1      
because there still remains the manner  
and method of his manipulations4 ,in the
 same way1 the doctrine of the          
interrelation of mind and matter1 which 
is the product of the entire social     
development1 requires a better and more 
specific substantiation1 so that its    
true quality as a positive achievement  
of philosophy1 or of the theory of      
knowledge may be better understood4 ,if 
the matter is represented in this bare  
manner--it does1 indeed1 resemble the   
egg of ,columbus--one does not see why  
so much should be made of it4 ,but if we
 enter into the details that have       
produced the result1 we do not only     
learn to better respect the prominent   
philosophers1 but their works also      
reveal a rich mine of special and       
comprehensive knowledge4  ,all sciences 

are closely related1 for advances in one
 branch are preparations for advances in
 others4 ,astronomy is unthinkable      
without mathematics and optics4 ,every  
science has begun unscientifically1 and 
in the course of the accumulation of    
individual knowledge a more or less     
exact systematic organization of this   
knowledge has resulted4 ,no science has 
as yet arrived at completeness and      
perfectness4 ,we have as yet more the   
results of experimental effort than     
accomplished perfection4 ,philosophy is 
no better off in this respect4 ,we      
rather believe we are doing something to
 overcome a deeply rooted prejudice when
 we state that philosophy is no worse   
off than other sciences1 so long as we  
succeed in ascertaining that it has     
accomplished positive results and in    
pointing them out4  ,it is a positive   
accomplishment of philosophy that       
mankind to-day has a clear and          
unequivocal conception of the necessity 
of the division of labor as a means of  

being successful4 ,our present day      
philosophers no longer make excursions  
into dreamland in the quest of the      
,true1 the ,beautiful1 and the ,good1 as
 did the ancients4 ,the ,true1 the      
,beautiful1 and the ,good1 are          
nevertheless the objects of all modern  
science1 only1 thanks to evolution1     
these objects are now sought by special 
means4 ,and the clear consciousness of  
this condition of things is a           
philosophical consciousness4  ,it is a  
part of the theory of understanding to  
know that in order to accomplish        
something one must limit oneself to a   
specialty4 ,that is a fundamental demand
 for the use of common sense1 which the 
primitive musing brain did not realize4 
,thinking must be done with wide open   
and active eyes1 with alert senses1 not 
with closed eyes or fixed gaze4 ,this is
 a part of logic4 ,we do not deny that  
men have always done their thinking by  
means of the senses4 ,we only claim that
 they did not do so from principle1     

otherwise the old complaint about the   
unreliability of the senses as a means  
of knowledge would not have lived so    
long4 ,neither would the inner man have 
been so excessively overestimated1 nor  
abstract thought so much celebrated1    
just as if it alone were the child of   
nobler birth4 ,i do not wish to detract 
from the merits of the power of         
abstraction1 but ,i simply claim that   
the clay of which ,adam was made was no 
less divine than the spiritual breath   
that gave him his life4 ,nor do ,i mean 
that it is due to philosophy alone that 
mankind learned not to strain           
understanding in abstract vaporings1 but
 instead to introduce the division of   
labor and to take up the various        
specialties with open senses4 ,the      
technique of understanding is the       
product of the entire movement of       
civilization1 and as such a positive    
accomplishment of philosophy4 ,the total
 process of evolution has placed the    
philosophers on their feet4  ,there is  

no doubt that up to the present time1   
philosophy partook more of the character
 of a desire and love of science than of
 world wisdom4 ,this wisdom does not    
amount to much1 even to-day4 ,this is   
plainly demonstrated by the dissensions 
of the educated and uneducated on all   
questions pertaining to wisdom of life4 
,socrates in the market of ,athens1 and 
,plato in his dialogues1 have probably  
said better things about the questions3 
,what is virtue8 ,what is justice8 ,what
 is moral and reasonable8 than the      
professors of philosophy would know how 
to say to-day4 ,kant has well said that 
the unanimity of the experts is the test
 by which one may decide what is a      
scientific fact and what is mere        
dispute4 ,from this it is easy to judge 
that wisdom of life is still in a bad   
way and will have to wait for its       
scientific transformation4  ,we declared
 understanding itself to be the special 
object of philosophy and shall now      
attempt to outline the results so far   

obtained by it4  ,one of the first      
requirements for the education of the   
object of philosophy is to recall its   
various names4 ,the understanding1 or   
the power of knowledge1 is also called  
intelligence1 intellect1 mind1 spirit1  
reason1 power of cognition1 of          
conception1 of distinction1 of          
imagination1 of judgment1 and of drawing
 conclusions4 ,the attempt has          
frequently been made to analyze         
understanding or to dissect it into its 
various parts and to specialize them by 
the help of those names4 ,especially    
logic knows how to give particular      
explanations of what is imagination1 a  
conception1 a judgment1 and a           
conclusion4 ,it has even divided these  
sections into subsections1 so that a    
trained logician might reproach me with 
being ignorant for applying various     
names to intelligence1 because only the 
common people confound those names and  
use them as synonyms1 while science has 
long used them in their proper order for

 designating special parts of           
intelligence4  ,to such a reproach1 ,i  
answer that ,aristotle and the          
subsequent formal logicians have made   
some pretty pointed observations and    
excellent arrangements in this field4   
,but these proved to be premature or    
inadequate1 because the observations on 
which the ancient intellectual explorers
 relied were too scanty4 ,this          
scantiness of the observations made in  
regard to intelligence1 and by          
intelligence1 has kept the human race in
 the mazes of intellectual bondage and  
by this mysticism has even prevented the
 most advanced minds from penetrating   
deeper into this obscure question4 ,the 
history of philosophy is not the history
 of a useless struggle1 but yet a       
history of a hard struggle with the     
question3 ,what is1 what does1 of what  
parts consists1 and of what nature is   
understanding1 intelligence1 reason1    
intellect1 etc48 ,so long as this       
question is unsettled1 the questioner is

 entitled to dispense with any and all  
sections and subsections of the         
intellectual object and to regard the   
various names as synonymous4  ,the main 
accomplishment in the solution of this  
question is the ever clearer and        
preciser knowledge of our days that the 
nature of the human intellect is of the 
same kind1 genus or quality as the whole
 of nature4 ,in order that the theory of
 understanding may be able to elucidate 
this point1 it must divest itself1 more 
or less1 of the character of a          
speciality and occupy itself with all of
 nature1 assume the character of        
cosmogony4  ,it is principally an       
achievement of philosophy that we now   
know definitely and down to the minutest
 detail that the human mind is a        
definite and limited part of the        
unlimited universe4  ,just as a piece of
 oak wood has the twofold quality of    
partaking not alone1 with its oaken     
nature1 of the general nature of wood1  
but also of the unlimited generality of 

all nature1 so is the intellect a       
limited specialty1 which has the quality
 of being universal as a part of the    
universe and of being conscious of its  
own and of all universality4 ,the       
boundless universal cosmic nature is    
embodied in the intellect1 in the animal
 as well as in man1 the same as it is   
embodied in the oak wood1 in all other  
wood1 in all matter and force4 ,the     
worldly monistic nature which is mortal 
and immortal1 limited and unlimited1    
special and general1 all in one1 is     
found in everything1 and everything is  
found in nature--understanding or the   
power of knowledge is no exception4  ,it
 is this twofold nature of the universe1
 this being at the same time limited and
 unlimited1 this reflection of its      
eternal essence and eternal truth in    
changing phenomena1 which has rendered  
its understanding very difficult for the
 human mind4 ,this intricate quality has
 been represented by religion in the    
fantastic picture of two worlds1        

separating the temporal from the        
eternal1 the limited from the unlimited1
 too unreasonably far4 ,but nowadays the
 indestructibility of matter and the    
eternity of material forces is a matter 
of fact accepted by natural science4    
,the positive outcome of philosophy1    
then1 is the knowledge of the monistic  
way in which the seeming duality of the 
universe is active in the human         
understanding4     ,,iii  ,,as ,,to     
,,how ,,the ,,intellect ,,is ,,limited  
,,and ,,unlimited   ,understanding      
taught by experience no longer muses    
about universal nature1 but acquires a  
knowledge of it by special studies4 ,by 
degrees philosophy1 first unconsciously 
and lately clearly and plainly1 has     
taken up the problem of ascertaining the
 limits of understanding4  ,this        
philosophical problem first assumed the 
form of polemics4 ,it became opposed to 
the religious dogma which represented   
the human mind as a small1 subservient1 
limited and restricted emanation of the 

unlimited divine spirit4 ,this          
terrestrial emanation was regarded as   
too limited to understand and find its  
divine source4 ,the study of the limits 
of the understanding has now emancipated
 itself from this dogma1 but not to such
 an extent that there is no longer any  
mysterious obscurity floating around the
 understanding and intelligence1 and    
especially around the question whether  
the human mind can penetrate only into  
some things while others will remain in 
the unscrutable darkness of faith and   
intuition1 or whether it may penetrate  
boldly and without hindrance into the   
infinity of the physical and chemical   
universe4  ,we here desire to claim as a
 positive outcome of philosophy that it 
has at last acquired the clear and exact
 knowledge that a socalled infinite     
spirit1 in the religious sense1 is a    
fantastic1 unscientific conception4 ,in 
the natural sense of the word1 the human
 powers of understanding are universal  
and yet in spite of their universality  

they are1 quite naturally1 limited4 ,the
 human understanding has its limits1 why
 should it not8 ,only drop the illusion 
that a dark mystery is concealed beyond 
these limits4  ,the understanding is a  
force among others1 and everything that 
is located alongside of other things is 
limited and restricted by them4 ,we can 
understand everything1 but we can also  
touch1 see1 hear1 feel1 and taste       
everything4 ,we also have the power of  
moving about1 and other qualities4 ,one 
art limits another1 and yet each is     
unlimited in its own field4 ,the various
 human powers belong together and       
constitute together the human wealth4   
,be careful not to separate the power of
 understanding from other natural       
powers4 ,in a certain sense it must be  
separated1 because it is the special    
object of our study1 but it must always 
be remembered that such a separation has
 only a theoretical value4  ,just as our
 power of vision can see everything1 so 
our understanding can grasp everything4 

,let us look a little closer at this    
statement4  ,how can we see everything8 
,not from any single standpoint4 ,in    
that sense our powers of vision are     
limited4 ,but what is not visible in the
 distance1 becomes so on approaching    
nearer to it4 ,what one eye cannot see1 
that of others can1 and what is         
invisible to the naked eye1 is revealed 
by the telescope and microscope4        
,nevertheless the vision remains        
limited1 even though it may be the      
sharpest1 and armed with the best       
artificial means4 ,even if we regard all
 the eyes of the past and future        
generations of humanity as organs of the
 universal human vision1 this vision    
still remains limited4 ,nevertheless1 no
 one will complain about the limits of  
human power1 because we cannot see      
sounds with our eyes or hear the light  
with our ears4  ,the understanding of   
man is limited1 just as his vision is4  
,the eye can look through a glass pane1 
but not through a plate of iron4 ,yet no

 one will call any eye limited1 because 
it cannot see through a block of metal4 
,these drastic examples are very        
opportune1 because there are certain    
wise men who reflectively lay their     
finger on their nose and call attention 
to the limits of our intellect in that  
sense1 just as if the knowledge gained  
on earth by scientific means were only a
 nominal1 not a real1 understanding and 
knowing4 ,the human intellect is thus   
degraded to the position of a substitute
 of some higher intellect which is not  
discovered1 but must be believed to     
exist in the small head of a fairy or in
 the large head of an almighty being    
above the clouds4 ,would any one try to 
make us believe that there is a great   
and almighty eye that can look through  
blocks of metal the same as through     
glass8 ,the idea of a spiritual organ   
with an infinite understanding is just  
as senseless4 ,an unlimited single      
thing1 an unlimited single being1 is    
impossible1 unless we regard the whole  

world1 the world without beginning and  
without end1 the infinite world1 as a   
unit4 ,within this world everything is  
subject to change1 but nothing can go   
beyond its genus without losing its name
 and character4 ,there are various kinds
 of fire1 but none that does not burn1  
none which has not the general nature of
 fire4 ,neither is there any water      
without the general nature of water1 nor
 a spirit that is elevated above the    
general nature of spirits4 ,in our days 
of clear conceptions the tendency toward
 the transcendental is mere fantastic   
vaporing4  ,it is not alone             
unscientific1 it is fantastic1 to think 
even afar of a higher power of thought  
or understanding than the human one4    
,one might as well think of a higher    
horse which runs with eight1 sixteen1 or
 sixteen hundred legs and carries away  
his rider in a higher air at a higher   
speed than that of the wind or the      
light4  ,it is a part of the            
achievements of philosophy1 of correct  

methods of thought1 of the art of       
thought or dialectics1 to know that we  
must use all conceptions1 without       
exception1 in a limited1 rational1      
commonplace way1 unless we wish to stray
 into that region where there are       
mountains without valleys and where     
every theory of understanding loses its 
mind4  ,it is true that all things1     
including our understanding1 may be     
improved4 ,everything develops1 why     
should not our intellects do so8 ,at the
 same time we may know a priori that our
 intellect must remain limited1 of      
course not limited in the sense of the  
dunce1 just as our eyes will never      
become so sharp that they can see       
through metal blocks4 ,every individual 
has its limited brain1 but humanity1 so 
the positive achievements of philosophy 
have shown1 has an intellect of as      
universal a power as any that can be    
imagined1 required1 or found1 in heaven 
or on earth4  ,we maintain that         
philosophy so far has acquired something

 positive1 has left us a legacy1 and    
that this consists in a clear revelation
 of the method of using our intellect in
 order to produce excellent pictures of 
nature and its phenomena4  ,for the     
purpose of making the reader familiar   
with this method1 with this legacy of   
philosophy1 we must enter more closely  
into the essence of the instrument which
 lifts all the treasures of science4 ,we
 are especially interested in the       
question1 whether it is a finite or     
infinite and universal instrument with  
which we go fishing for truth4 ,it is   
the custom to belittle the faculties of 
the human understanding1 in order to    
keep it under the supremacy of the      
divine metaphysical augurs4 ,it is quite
 easy to see1 therefore1 that the       
question of the essence of our powers of
 understanding is intimately related to1
 or even identical with1 the question of
 how we may be permitted to use them1   
whether they should be used only for the
 investigation of the limited1 finite1  

or also for the study of the eternal1   
infinite1 and immeasurable4  ,we object 
here to the tendency of belittling the  
human mind4 ,about a hundred years ago1 
the philosopher ,kant found it          
appropriate to draw the sword against   
those who played fast and loose with the
 human mind1 against the socalled       
metaphysicians4 ,they had made a        
miraculous thing of the instrument of   
thought1 a matter for effusions4 ,in    
order to be able clearly to state the   
outcome of philosophy1 we must acquaint 
the reader with the fact that this      
instrument of thought1 in its way1 is   
one of the best and most magnificent    
things in existence1 but that1 at the   
same time1 it is bound to its general   
kind or genus4 ,the human understanding 
perceives quite perfectly1 but we must  
not have an exaggerated idea of its     
perfection1 any more than we would of a 
perfect eye or ear1 that1 be they ever  
so perfect1 cannot see the grass grow or
 hear the fleas cough4  ,god is a       

spirit1 says the bible1 and ,god is     
infinite4 ,if he is a spirit1 an        
intellect1 such as man1 then it would be
 fair to assume that man's intellect is 
also infinite1 or even is the divine    
spirit itself which has taken up its    
abode in the human brains4 ,people      
cudgeled their brains with such confused
 conceptions1 so long as the object of  
modern philosophy1 the intellect1 was a 
mystery4 ,now it is recognized as a     
finite1 natural phenomenon1 an energy or
 a force which is not the infinite1     
though it is1 like all other matter and 
force1 a part of the infinite1 eternal1 
immeasurable4  ,leaving all religious   
notions aside1 the infinite1            
immeasurable1 eternal1 is not personal1 
but objective2 it is no longer referred 
to as a masculine1 but as a neuter4 ,it 
may be called by many names1 such as the
 universe1 the cosmos1 or the world4 ,in
 order to understand clearly that the   
spirit which we have in our minds1 is a 
finite part of the world1 we must get a 

little better acquainted with this      
infinite1 eternal world4 ,our physical  
world cannot have any other world beside
 it1 because it is the universe4 ,within
 the universe there are many worlds1    
which all of them make out the cosmos1  
which has neither a beginning nor an end
 in time and space4 ,the cosmos reaches 
across all time and space1 in heaven and
 on earth1 and everywhere4  ,but how do 
,i know what ,i state in such an offhand
 manner8 ,well1 the knowledge of the    
universe1 of the infinite1 is given to  
us partly by birth and partly by        
experience4 ,this knowledge is inherent 
in man just as language is1 viz41 in the
 germ1 and experience gives us a proof  
of the infinite in a negative way1 for  
we never learn the beginning or the end 
of anything4 ,on the contrary1          
experience has shown us positively that 
all socalled beginnings and ends are    
only interconnections of the infinite1  
immeasurable1 inexhaustible1 and        
unfathomable universe4 ,compared to the 

wealth of the cosmos the intellect is   
only a poor fellow4 ,however1 this does 
not prevent it from being the most      
perfect instrument for clearly and      
plainly reflecting the finite phenomena 
of the infinite universe4     ,,iv      
,,the ,,universality ,,of ,,nature      
,the positive outcome of philosophy     
concerns itself with specifying the     
nature of the human mind4 ,it shows that
 this special nature of mind does not   
occupy an exceptional position1 but     
belongs with the whole of nature in the 
same organization4 ,in order to show    
this1 philosophy must not discuss the   
human mind as if it were something      
separate from nature1 but must rather   
deal with its general nature4 ,and since
 this general nature of our intellect is
 the same of which every other thing    
partakes1 it follows that nature in     
general1 or the universe1 or the cosmos1
 all of which is the same thing1 are an 
indispensable object in the special     
study of the nature of the human mind4  

,we have already said that the          
experienced understanding of the present
 day no longer muses over nature in     
general in the fantastic and mere       
introspective manner as of old1 but     
rather seeks to obtain a knowledge of it
 by special study4 ,in so doing we do   
not forget that the study of specialties
 at the same time throws a light on the 
general relation of things1 of which    
every species is but a part4  ,since the
 human mind is a part of the whole of   
nature1 viz41 that part which has the   
desire and longing to obtain a          
conception of all the other parts1 and  
more than that1 to understand the       
interconnection between the parts and   
the undivided and infinite whole1 it is 
easy to comprehend the fact that the    
philosophers have occupied themselves so
 much with the most real and most       
perfect being4 ,whether this being was  
called ,god1 or substance1 or idea1 or  
the absolute1 or nature1 or matter1 all 
of these terms cannot prevent us today  

from approaching infinite nature with   
sober senses1 in order to gain1 by its  
help1 a lifelike picture of the human   
intellect1 which is not a mystical      
being1 but a reasonable part of the same
 nature that lives reasonably and       
intelligibly in all other parts of      
nature4  ,the inexperienced powers of   
distinction which did not understand    
their function1 magnified the difference
 between the infinite and its finite    
phenomena out of all proportion4 ,now   
that we have made the philosophical     
experience that the general as well as  
the special nature of the human         
intellect admits only of moderate and   
bounded distinctions1 we arrive at the  
conclusion that the immeasurable1       
all-perfect1 and eternal being is       
composed of finite1 commensurable1      
imperfect1 and transient things in such 
a way that the universal being combines 
in itself all perfections as well as all
 imperfections4 ,this contradictory     
universal being1 this nature to which   

all contradictory attributes may be     
simultaneously assigned1 in a certain   
sense puts the old rule to shame that   
you cannot at the same time affirm and  
deny the predicate of any subject4      
,nature comprises all and is all4       
,reason and unreason1 being and not     
being1 all these contradictions are     
contained in it4 ,outside of it there   
are no affirmations and no              
contradictions4 ,since the human mind   
eternally moves in affirmations and     
negations1 in order to obtain a clear   
picture of things1 it has an            
interminable task in understanding the  
interminable object4  ,our brain is     
supposed to solve the contradictions of 
nature4 ,if it knows enough about itself
 to realize that it is not an exception 
from general nature1 but a natural part 
of the same whole--although it calls    
itself spirit--then it also knows and   
must know that its clearness can differ 
but moderately from the general         
confusion1 that the solution of the     

problem cannot differ materially from   
the problem itself4 ,the contradictions 
are solved only by reasonable           
differentiation1 only by the science of 
understanding which shows that          
extravagant differences are nothing but 
extravagant speculations4 ,the human    
understanding inclines to exaggerations 
in its untrained state1 and it is a     
relic of untrained habits to            
differentiate in an absolute manner the 
spiritual from the rest of nature1 to   
make a too extravagant distinction      
between it and the physical body4 ,it is
 the merit of philosophy to have given  
us a clear doctrine of the use of the   
intellect1 and this doctrine culminates 
in the rule not to make exaggerated1 but
 only graduated distinctions4 ,for this 
purpose it is necessary to realize that 
there is only one being and that all    
other socalled beings are but minor     
expressions of the same general being1  
which we designate by the name of nature
 or universe4  ,in consequence of the   

human bent to exaggeration1 the human   
understanding has been regarded as a    
being of a different nature from that of
 natural beings which exist outside of  
the intellect4 ,but it must be          
remembered that every part of nature is 
another individual piece of it1 and1    
furthermore1 that every other and       
different part is really nothing        
different but a uniform piece of the    
same general nature4 ,the thing is      
mutual3 ,the general nature exists only 
in its many individual parts1 and these 
in their turn exist only in1 with and by
 the general cosmic being4  ,nature     
which is divided by the human           
understanding into ,east and ,west1     
,south and ,north1 and into a hundred   
thousand other named parts1 is yet an   
undivided whole of which we may say with
 certainty that it has as many          
innumerable beginnings and ends as it is
 without beginning and end1 as it is the
 infinite itself4 ,it is well known that
 there is nothing new under the sun4    

,nothing is created1 nothing disappears1
 and yet there is a continuous change4  
,the brain of man has a right and a left
 side1 a top and a bottom1 a front and a
 back part1 an interior and an exterior4
 ,and the innermost of the brain again  
has two sides or qualities1 a physical  
and a spiritual4 ,they are so little    
divided that the term brain has two     
meanings1 designating now the physical  
brain1 now its mental functions4 ,in    
speaking here exclusively of the mind1  
we tacitly assume its inseparable       
connection with the physical body4  ,the
 material brain and the mental brain are
 two brains that together make one4     
,thus two1 three1 four1 or innumerable  
things are yet one thing4 ,the human    
understanding was endowed by nature with
 the faculty of embracing the infinite  
variety of the universe as a unit1 as a 
single conception4 ,the unity of nature 
is as true and real as its multiplicity4
 ,to say that many are one and one many 
is not nonsense1 but simply a truism    

which becomes clear when understanding  
the positive outcome of philosophy4  ,a 
reader unfamiliar with this our product 
of philosophy still follows the habit of
 regarding the physical body as         
something different from the mind4 ,a   
distinction between these two is quite  
justified1 but this manner of           
classification must not be overdone4    
,the reader should remember that he also
 is in the habit of regarding such      
heterogeneous things as axes1 scissors1 
and knives as children of the same      
family by referring to them collectively
 as cutting tools4 ,the outcome of      
philosophy now demands that we apply the
 same method to the object of our       
special study1 the human brain4 ,we must
 henceforth eschew all effervescent     
flights of imagination and regard the   
powers of the human mind as children of 
the same family as all other physical   
powers1 whose immortal mother is the    
universe4  ,the universe is infinite not
 alone in the matter of time and space1 

but also in that of the variety of its  
products4 ,the human brains which it    
produces are likewise internally and    
externally of an infinite               
differentiation1 although this does not 
prevent them from forming a common group
 uniform in its way4  ,to group the     
phenomena of nature1 the children of the
 universe1 in such a way by classes1    
families1 and species that they may be  
easily grasped1 that is the task of the 
science of understanding1 the work and  
constitution of the perceiving human    
brain4 ,to understand simply means to   
obtain a general and at the same time a 
detailed view of the processes and      
products of the universe by grouping    
them in a fashion similar to that used  
for the vegetable kingdom by botany and 
for the animal kingdom by zoology4 ,it  
goes without argument that we1 the      
limited children of the unlimited       
universe1 are able to solve this problem
 only in a limited way4  ,however1 this 
natural physical limitation of the human

 understanding must not be confounded   
with the abject misery which slavish and
 sentimental metaphysics attribute to   
it4 ,the infinite universe is by no     
means niggardly in its gifts to the     
human understanding4 ,it opens its whole
 depths to our intellectual             
understanding and perception4 ,our      
intellect is a part of the inexhaustible
 universe and therefore partakes of its 
inexhaustible nature4 ,that part of     
nature which is known by the name of    
intellect is limited only to the extent 
that the part is smaller than the whole4
     ,v  ,,the ,,understanding ,,as ,a  
,,part ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,soul   ,the 
human intellect or understanding1 the   
special object of all philosophy1 is a  
part1 and in our case the most prominent
 part1 of the human soul4 ,gustav       
,theodore ,fechner1 a forgotten star on 
the literary firmament1 posed the       
question of the soul in his time and    
attempted to answer it4 ,in so doing he 
clothed the result of past philosophies 

in a peculiar garb which looked         
fantastic enough at first sight4 ,he    
regards the outcome of philosophy merely
 as an individual product and he is so  
full of veneration for the ancient      
terms1 such as immortal souls1 ,god1    
,christianity1 that he does not care to 
dismiss them1 no matter how roughly he  
handles their essence4  ,fechner extends
 the possession of a soul to human      
beings1 animals1 plants1 stones1        
planets2 in short1 to the whole world4  
,this is simply saying that the human   
soul is of the same nature as all the   
rest of the world1 or vice versa1 that  
all natural things have the same nature 
as the human soul4 ,not only animals1   
but also stones and planets have        
something analogous to our human soul4  
,fechner is not fantastic at bottom1 and
 yet how fantastical it sounds to hear  
him say3 ,i went out walking on a spring
 morning4 ,the fields were green1 the   
birds were singing1 the dew sparkled1   
the smoke rose toward the clouds4 ,here 

and there a human being stirred4 ,a     
glory of light was diffused over it all4
 ,it was only a small piece of the      
,earth4 ,it was only a short moment of  
its existence4 ,and yet1 as ,i took all 
this in with an ever-widening           
understanding1 ,i felt not alone the    
beauty1 but also the truth that it is an
 angel who is thus passing through the  
sky with his rich1 fresh and blooming   
nature1 his living face upturned to the 
heavens4 ,and ,i asked myself how it is 
that man can ever become so stunted that
 he sees nothing but a dry clod in the  
,earth and looks for angels above and   
beyond it1 never finding them anywhere4 
,but people call this sentimental       
dreaming4  ,the ,earth is a globe1 and  
what it is besides may be found in the  
museums of natural history4 ,thus writes
 ,fechner4  ,now there can be no        
objection to comparing the beautiful    
,earth and the stars around it with     
angels1 any more than there can be to   
the lover calling his sweetheart an     

angel of ,god4 ,the ,earth1 the ,moon1  
and the stars are according to          
,fechner's terminology angelic beings   
with souls2 mediators between man and   
,god4 ,he knows very well that this is  
nothing but a matter of analogy and     
terminology1 he is as atheistic as the  
most atheistic1 but his fondness and    
reverence for the traditional terms lead
 him to attribute a soul to the material
 world and to give to this great and    
infinite soul a divine name4  ,if we    
waive this religious hobby of           
,fechner's1 there still remains his     
peculiarity of using words and names in 
a symbolical sense4 ,it is nothing but  
the old poetic way of calling a         
sweetheart's eyes heavenly stars and the
 stars of the blue heavens lovely eyes1 
which makes a snowy hill of a woman's   
breast1 a zephyr of the wind1 a nymph of
 a spring of water1 and an erlking of an
 old willow tree4 ,this poetic license  
has filled the whole world with good and
 evil spirits1 mermaids1 fairies1 elfs1 

and goblins4  ,this is not a bad way of 
speaking1 so long as we keep in mind1   
like a poet1 what we are doing and that 
we are consciously using symbolical     
terms4 ,fechner does this only to a     
certain extent4 ,a little spleen remains
 in his brain4 ,it is this spleen which 
,i intend to deal with in the proper    
light1 in order to thus demonstrate the 
outcome of philosophy4  ,fechner is not 
aware that his universal soul reflects  
only one half of our present outcome of 
philosophical study4 ,the other half1   
which renders an understanding of the   
whole possible1 consists in the         
perception that not only are all        
material things endowed with a soul1 but
 that all souls1 including the human    
ones1 are ordinary things4  ,philosophy 
has not only deified the world and      
inspired it with a soul1 but has also   
secularized ,god and the souls4 ,this is
 the whole truth1 and each by itself is 
only a part4  ,apart from psychology1   
which treats of the individual human    

soul1 there has lately arisen a         
psychology of nations which regards the 
individual souls as parts of the        
universal human soul1 as individual     
pieces constituting an aggregate soul   
which1 decidedly1 is more than a simple 
aggregation of numbers4 ,the soul of the
 psychology of nations has the same     
relation to the individual souls that   
modern political economy has to private 
economy4 ,prosperity in general is a    
different question and deals with       
different matters than the amassing of  
wealth for your individual pocket4      
,granted that the national soul is      
essentially different from the          
individual soul1 what would be the      
nature of the universal animal soul1    
including the souls of lions1 tigers1   
flies1 elephants1 mice1 etc48 ,if we now
 extend the generalization farther and  
include in our psychology the vegetable 
and the mineral kingdom1 the various    
world bodies1 our solar system1 and     
finally the whole universe1 what else   

could that signify than a mere          
rhetorical climax8  ,mere generalization
 is one-sided and leads to fantastical  
dreams4 ,by this method one can         
transform anything into everything4 ,it 
is necessary to supplement              
generalization by specialization4 ,we   
wish to have the elephants separated    
from the fleas1 the mice from the lice1 
at the same time never forgetting the   
unity of the special and the general4   
,this sin of omission has often been    
committed by the zoologists in the      
museums and the botanists in their plant
 collections1 and philosophical         
investigators of the soul like ,fechner 
have drifted into the other extreme of  
generalization without specialization4  
,the positive outcome of philosophy1    
then1 in its abstract outline1 is at    
present the doctrine that the general   
must be conceived in its relation to its
 special forms1 and these forms in their
 universal interconnection1 in their    
qualities as parts of nature in general4

 ,true1 such an abstract outline reveals
 very little4 ,in order to grasp its    
concrete significance1 we must penetrate
 into its details1 into the special     
aspects of this doctrine4  ,the title of
 ,critique of ,reason1 which ,kant gave 
to his special study1 is at the same    
time a fitting term for all             
philosophical research4 ,reason1 the    
essential part of the human soul1 raises
 the critique of reason1 the science of 
philosophy1 to the position of the most 
essential part of psychology4  ,but why 
do we call this the most essential part8
 ,is not the material world and its     
understanding as essential as reason1 as
 intellect1 which bends to the task of  
exploring this world8 ,surely1 it is1   
and ,i do not use the word essential in 
this sense4 ,i call the intellect the   
most essential part of the soul1 and the
 soul the most essential part of the    
world1 only in so far as these parts are
 the special condition of all scientific
 study and because the investigation of 

the general nature of scientific study  
is my special object and purpose4       
,whether ,i endeavor to explain the     
general nature of scientific study1     
whether ,i investigate the intellect or 
the theory of understanding1 it all     
amounts to the same thing4  ,let us     
approach our task once more from the    
side of ,fechner's universal soul4 ,with
 his extravagant animation of all       
things1 with his plant1 stone1 and star 
souls1 he can help us to prove that the 
general nature of that particle of soul 
which is called reason1 intellect1      
spirit1 or understanding1 is not so     
extraordinarily different from the      
general nature of stones or trees as the
 old time idealists and materialists    
were wont to think4  ,as ,i said before1
 ,fechner is a poet1 and a poet sees    
similarities which a matter-of-fact     
brain cannot perceive4 ,but at the same 
time we must admit that the matter of   
fact brain which cannot see anything but
 mere distinctions is a very poor brain4

 ,the philosophers before me have taught
 me that a good brain sees the          
similarities and the differences at the 
same time and knows how to discriminate 
between them4 ,a sober poetry and the   
combination of poetic qualities with a  
comprehensive and universal             
levelheadedness and discrimination1     
these are the marks of a good head4     
,still the poorest as well as the most  
talented brains partake of the general  
brain nature1 which consists in the     
understanding that like and unlike1     
general and special1 are interrelated4  
,the one is never without the other1 but
 both are always together4  ,if the     
distinction between men and stones is so
 trifling that a talented brain like    
,fechner's can justly speak of them both
 as being animated1 surely the          
difference between the body and soul    
cannot be so great that there is not the
 least similarity and community between 
them4 ,however1 this escaped ,fechner's 
notice4 ,is not the air or the scent of 

flowers an ethereal body8  ,reason is   
also called understanding1 and it is a  
positive achievement of philosophy to   
have arrived at the knowledge that this 
understanding does not admit of any     
exaggerated distinctions4 ,in other     
words1 all things are so closely related
 that a good poet may transform anything
 into everything4 ,can natural science  
do as much8 ,ah1 the gentlemen of that  
science are also progressing well4 ,they
 transform dry substance into liquid1   
and liquid into gas2 they change gravity
 into heat and heat into mechanical     
power4 ,and they are doing this without 
forgetting to discriminate1 as happened 
to our ,fechner4  ,it is not enough to  
know that the body has a soul and the   
soul a body1 not enough to know that    
everything has a soul4 ,it is also      
necessary to discriminate between the   
peculiarities and details of the human1 
animal1 plant1 and other souls1 taking  
care not to exaggerate their differences
 to the extreme of making them          

senseless4  ,we do not intend to follow 
this theory of a universal soul any     
further4 ,fechner declares himself that 
it must be admitted at the outset that  
the whole question of a soul is a       
question of faith4444 ,analogy is not a 
convincing proof4444 ,we can no more    
prove the existence of a soul than we   
can disprove it4  ,however1 from the    
time of ,cartesius it has been an       
accepted fact in the world of           
philosophers that the consciousness of  
the human soul is the best proof of its 
existence4 ,the most positive science in
 the world is the empirical             
self-observation of the thinking soul4  
,this subject is the most conspicuous   
object imaginable1 and it is the        
positive outcome of philosophy to have  
given an excellent description of the   
life and actions of this soul particle  
called consciousness or understanding4  
,if the understanding is a part of the  
human soul and this soul an evident and 
positive part of the universal life1    

then1 clearly1 everything partaking of  
this life1 such as pieces of wood and   
stones scattered around1 is related to  
this soul4 ,individual human souls1     
national souls1 animal souls1 pieces of 
wood1 lumps of stone1 world bodies1 are 
all children of the same common         
universal nature4 ,but there are so many
 children that they must be classified  
into orders1 classes1 families1 etc41 in
 order to know them apart4 ,on account  
of their likeness1 the souls belong     
together in one class and the bodies in 
another1 and each requires more detailed
 classification4 ,thus we finally arrive
 at the class of human souls forming a  
department by themselves1 because they  
all have a common general character4    
,the manufacturers know that the work of
 ten laborers produces more and is of a 
different quality than the work of a    
single laborer multiplied by ten4       
,likewise the general human soul1 or any
 national soul1 expresses itself        
differently from the sum of the various 

individual souls composing it4 ,more    
even1 the very individual soul differs  
at various times and places1 so that the
 individual soul is as manifold as any  
national soul4  ,has the plant a soul8  
,has the earth a soul8 ,have they a soul
 analogous to that of man8 ,that is the 
question4 ,thus asks ,fechner4  ,just as
 my soul of today has something         
analogous to my soul of yesterday1 so it
 has also with the soul of my brother1  
and finally with the souls of animals1  
plants1 stones1 etc41 proving that      
everything is more or less analogous4 ,a
 herd of sheep is analogous to yonder   
flock of small1 white clouds in the sky1
 and a poet has the license to call     
those small clouds little sheep4 ,in the
 same way ,fechner is justified in      
propounding his theory of a universal   
soul4  ,is it not necessary1 however1 to
 make a distinction between poetry and  
truth8 ,my brother's soul and my own are
 souls in the true sense of the word1   
but the souls of stones--they are only  

so figuratively speaking4  ,at this     
point ,i want to call the reader's      
attention to the fact that we must not  
pass lightly over the valuation of the  
difference between the true and the     
figurative sense of a word4  ,words are 
names which do not1 and cannot1 have any
 other function than that of symbolic   
illustration4 ,my soul1 yours1 or any   
other1 are only in conception the same  
souls4  ,when ,i say that ,john         
,flathead has the same soul as you and  
,i1 my intention is simply to indicate  
that he has something which is common to
 you and me and to all men4 ,his soul is
 made in the image of our souls4 ,but   
where shall we draw the line in this    
comparison of images8 ,what is not an   
image in the abstract1 and what is more 
than an image in the concrete8  ,truth  
and fiction are not totally different4  
,the poet speaks the truth and true     
understanding partakes largely of the   
nature of poetry4  ,philosophy has truly
 perceived the nature of the soul1 and  

especially that part of it with which we
 are dealing1 that is1 reason or        
understanding4 ,this instrument has the 
function of furnishing to our head a    
picture of the processes of the world   
outside of it1 to describe everything   
that is around us and to analyze the    
universe1 itself a phenomenon1 with all 
its phenomena as a process of infinite  
variety in time and space4  ,if this    
could be accomplished with the theory of
 a universal soul1 then ,fechner would  
be the greatest philosopher that ever   
was4 ,but he lacks the understanding    
that the intellect which has to combine 
all things within a general wrapper1    
must also consider the other side of the
 question1 that of specification4 ,that1
 of course1 cannot be achieved by any   
philosopher4 ,it must be the work of all
 science1 and philosophy as a doctrine  
of science must acknowledge that4       
,,vi  ,,consciousness ,,is ,,endowed    
,,with ,,the ,,faculty ,,of ,,knowing   
,,as ,,well ,,as ,,with ,,the ,,feeling 

,,of ,,the ,,universality ,,of ,,all    
,,nature   ,in the historical course of 
philosophy1 there has been much         
discussion as to where our knowledge    
comes from1 whether any of it1 or how   
much of it1 is innate1 and how much     
acquired by experience4 ,without any    
innate faculties no knowledge could have
 been gathered with any amount of       
experience1 and without any experience  
even the best faculties would remain    
barren4 ,the results of science in all  
departments are due to the interaction  
of subject and object4  ,there could be 
no subjective faculty of vision unless  
there were something objective to be    
seen4 ,the possession of a faculty of   
vision carries with it the practical    
performance of seeing4 ,one cannot have 
the faculty of vision without seeing    
things4 ,of course1 the two may be      
separated1 but only in theory1 not in   
practice1 and this theoretical          
separation must be accompanied by the   
recollection that the separated faculty 

is only a conception derived from the   
practical function4 ,faculty and        
function are combined and belong        
together4  ,man does not acquire        
consciousness1 the faculty of           
understanding1 until he knows something1
 and his power grows with the           
performance of this function4  ,the     
reader will remember that we have       
mentioned as an achievement of          
philosophy the understanding of the fact
 that we must not make any exaggerated  
distinctions4 ,hence we must not make   
any such distinction between the innate 
faculty of understanding and the        
acquired knowledge4  ,it is an          
established universal rule that the     
human intellect knows of no absolute    
separation of any two things1 although  
it is free to separate the universe into
 its parts for the purpose of           
understanding4  ,now1 if ,i claim that  
the conception of the universe is innate
 in us1 the reader must not conclude    
that ,i believe in the old prejudice of 

the human intellect being like a        
receptacle filled with ideas of the     
true1 the beautiful1 the good1 and so   
forth4 ,no1 the intellect can create its
 ideas and concepts only by             
self-production and the world around it 
must furnish the materials for this     
purpose4 ,but such a production         
presupposes an innate faculty4          
,consciousness1 the knowledge of being1 
must be present1 before any special     
knowledge can be acquired4              
,consciousness signifies the knowledge  
of being4 ,it means having at least a   
faint inkling of the fact that being is 
,the universal idea4 ,being is          
everything2 it is the essence of        
everything4 ,without it there cannot be 
anything1 because it is the universe1   
the infinite4  ,consciousness is in     
itself the consciousness of the         
infinite4 ,the innate consciousness of  
man is the knowledge of infinite        
existence4 ,when ,i know that ,i exist1 
then ,i know myself as a part of        

existence4 ,that this existence1 this   
world1 of which ,i am but a particle    
with all others1 must be an infinite    
world1 does indeed not dawn on me until 
,i begin to analyze the conception of   
being with an experienced instrument of 
thought4 ,the reader1 in undertaking    
this work with such an instrument1 will 
at once discover that the conception of 
the infinite is innate to his           
consciousness1#h and that no faculty of 
conception is possible without this     
conception4 ,the faculty of conception1 
understanding1 thought1 means above all 
the faculty of grasping the universal   
concept4 ,the intellect cannot have any 
conception which is not more or less    
clearly or faintly based on the concept 
of the universe4 ,cogito1 ergo sum4 ,i  
think1 therefore1 ,i am4 ,whatever ,i   
imagine is there1 at least in           
imagination4 ,of course1 the imagined   
and the real thing are different1 yet   
this difference does not exceed the     
limits of the universal existence4      

,creatures of fiction and real creatures
 are not so radically different that    
they would not all of them fit into the 
general gender of being4 ,the manner1   
the form of being1 are different4       
,goblins exist in fiction and ,polish   
,jews exist in a tangible form1 but they
 both exist4 ,the general existence     
comprises the body and the soul1 fiction
 and truth1 goblins and ,polish ,jews4  
,it is no more inconceivable that the   
faculty of universal understanding      
should be innate in us than that circles
 come into this world round1 two        
mountains have a valley between them1   
water is liquid and fire burns4 ,all    
things have a certain composition in    
themselves1 they are born with it4 ,does
 that require any explanation8 ,the     
flowers which gradually grow on plants1 
the powers and wisdom that grow in men  
in the course of years1 are no more     
easily explained than such innate       
faculties1 and the latter are no more   
wonderful than those acquired later4    

,the best explanation cannot deprive the
 wonders of nature of their natural     
marvelousness4 ,it is a mistake to      
assume that the faculty of explanation  
which is located in the human brain1 is 
a destroyer of the belief in natural    
marvels4 ,philosophy which makes this   
faculty of explanation and the nature of
 its explanations the object of its     
special study gives us a new and much   
better understanding of this old miracle
 maker4 ,it destroys the belief in      
metaphysical miracles by showing that   
physical nature is so universal that it 
absolutely excludes every other form of 
existence than the natural one from this
 world of wonders4  ,i and many of my   
readers find in our brains the actual   
consciousness that this general nature  
of which the intellect is a part is an  
infinite nature4 ,i call this           
consciousness innate1 although it is    
acquired4 ,the point that ,i wish to    
impress on the reader is that the       
difference generally made between innate

 and acquired qualities is not so       
extraordinary that the innate need not  
to be acquired and the acquired does not
 presuppose something innate4 ,the one  
contradicts the other only in those     
brains who do not understand the        
positive outcome of philosophy4 ,such   
thinkers do not know how to make        
reasonable distinctions and exaggerate  
in consequence4 ,they have not grasped  
the conciliation of all differences and 
contradictions in universal nature by   
which all contradictions are solved4    
,philosophy has endeavored to understand
 the intellect4 ,in demonstrating the   
positive outcome of philosophy1 we must 
explain that philosophical understanding
 as well as any other does not rise out 
of the isolated faculty of              
understanding1 but out of the universal 
nature4 ,the womb of our knowledge and  
understanding must not be sought in the 
human brain1 but in all nature which is 
not only called the universe1 but is    
actually universal4 ,in order to prove  

this latter assertion1 ,i refer to the  
fact that this conception1 this         
consciousness of the infinite in the    
developed intellect1 is in a manner     
innate4 ,if the reader wishes to object 
to my indiscriminately mixing the innate
 faculty with the acquired              
understanding1 ,i beg him to consider   
that ,i am endeavoring to prove that any
 and all distinction made by the        
intellect refers in reality to the      
inseparable parts of the one undivided  
universe4 ,from this it follows that the
 admired and mysterious intellect is not
 a miracle1 or at least no greater      
marvel than any other part of the       
general marvel which is identical with  
the infinitely wonderful general nature4
  ,some people love to represent        
consciousness as something supernatural1
 to draw an unduly sharp line of        
separation between thinking and being1  
thought and reality4 ,but philosophy1   
which occupies itself particularly with 
consciousness1 has ascertained that such

 a sharp contrast is unwarranted1 not in
 harmony with the reality1 and not a    
faithful likeness of reality and truth4 
,in order to understand what philosophy 
has accomplished in the way of insight  
into the function of the discriminating 
intellect1 we must never lose sight of  
the fact that there is only a moderate  
distinction of degree between purely    
imaginary things and socalled real      
things4  ,neither the natural condition 
of our faculty of thought1 nor the      
universality of general nature1 permit  
of an exaggerated distinction between   
the reality of creations of imagination 
and of really tangible things4 ,at the  
same time the exigencies of science     
demand clear illustrations and so we    
must distinguish between these two kinds
 of reality4 ,it is true that in common 
usage the mere thought and the purely   
imaginary things are set apart from     
nature and reality as something         
different and antagonistic4 ,yet the    
rules of language heretofore in vogue   

cannot prevent the spread of the        
additional knowledge that the universe1 
or general nature1 is so unlimited that 
it can establish a conciliation between 
these limited antagonisms4 ,the cat and 
the dog1 for instance1 are pronounced   
enemies1 but nevertheless zoology       
recognizes them as being legitimate     
domestic companions4  ,human            
consciousness is1 in the first place1   
individual4 ,every human individual has 
its own4 ,but the peculiarity of my     
consciousness1 of yours1 and that of    
others1 is that of being not alone the  
consciousness of the individual in      
question1 but also the general          
consciousness of the universe1 at least 
that is its possibility and mission4    
,not every individual is conscious of   
the universality of general nature1     
otherwise there would be none of that   
distracting dualism4 ,nor would there be
 any necessity for volumes and volumes  
of philosophy to teach us that a limit1 
a thing1 or a world outside of the      

universal1 is a nonsensical idea1 an    
idea which is contrary to sense and     
reason4 ,we may well say1 for this      
reason1 that our consciousness1 our     
intellect1 is only in a manner of       
speaking our own1 while it is in fact a 
consciousness1 an intellect belonging to
 universal nature4  ,it can no more be  
denied that our consciousness is an     
attribute of the infinite universe than 
it can be denied that the sun1 the moon 
and the stars are4 ,since this          
intellectual faculty belongs to the     
infinite and is its child1 we must not  
wonder that this universal faculty of   
thought is born with the capability of  
grasping the conception of a universe4  
,and whoever does no longer wonder at   
this1 must find it explicable1 must     
realize that the fact of universal      
consciousness is thus explained4  ,to   
explain the mysterious may be regarded  
as the whole function of understanding1 
of intellect4 ,if we succeed in         
divesting of its mysteries the fact that

 the concept of an infinite universe is 
found in the limited human mind1 we have
 then explained this fact itself and    
substantiated our contention that the   
things around us are explained by their 
accurate reflection in our brain4  ,we  
summarize the nature of consciousness1  
its actions1 life1 and aims in these    
words3 ,it is the science of infinite   
being2 it seeks to obtain an accurate   
conception of this being and to explain 
its marvelousness4 ,but we have by no   
means exhausted its life and aims in    
these words4 ,with all the power of     
language1 we can convey but a vague idea
 of the immensity of the object under   
discussion4 ,whoever desires to know    
more about it1 must work for his own    
progress by observation and study4 ,this
 much may be safely said3 ,this question
 is no more mysterious than any other   
part of the general mystery4            
,,footnote3  #h ,e4 g41 given with his  
consciousness4--,,editor4     ,,vii     
,,the ,,relationship ,,or ,,identity    

,,of ,,spirit ,,and ,,nature   ,there is
 a natural law of analogy which explains
 that all things belonging to the       
universe are members of the same family1
 that they are related to one another by
 bonds which permit of the greatest     
variety in individual differences and   
are not nullified even by the distance  
between extremes4 ,if we grasp the      
meaning of these words in their full    
bearing1 we recognize the outcome of    
philosophy up to date4 ,they teach us   
how to use our intellect in order to    
obtain an accurate picture of the       
universe4  ,the intellect is also called
 by the name of faculty of              
discrimination4 ,if in the science of   
the powers of this faculty we place     
ourselves on the standpoint of          
present-day natural knowledge1 we       
possess the clear and plain insight that
 there are no exaggerated distinctions1 
no unrelated extremes1 in the universe4 
,the infinite is related to the finite4 
,for all developed and perishable things

 are the direct offspring of the        
imperishable1 of the eternal universe4  
,general nature and its special parts   
are inseparably interlaced4 ,there is   
nothing among all that has a name which 
is fundamentally different from other   
things known by name4  ,there will      
hardly be any objection against these   
sentences1 until we proceed to draw     
their last consequences4 ,if all things 
are related and without exception       
children of the universe1 it follows    
that mind and matter must also be two   
yards of cloth from the same piece4     
,hence the difference between human     
understanding and other natural human   
faculties must not be magnified into    
that of irreconcilable extremes4  ,in   
order to become accustomed to scientific
 distinctions1 the reader should        
consider that a man can remain under the
 sway of a belief in ghosts only so long
 as he ignores the relationship of all  
existing things4 ,he believes in real   
ghosts whose reality is supposed to be  

radically different from his own4 ,such 
a distinction is exaggerated and        
illogical1 and whoever believes in it   
does not know how to discriminate       
scientifically and has not the full use 
of his critical faculties4  ,just as    
common parlance opposes art to nature   
and then forgets that art is a part of  
nature1 similarly as night is a part of 
day1 so the language of the believer in 
ghosts does not know that reason and    
wood1 mind and matter1 in spite of all  
their differences1 are two parts of the 
same whole1 two expressions of the same 
universal reality4 ,everything is real  
and true1 because in the last instance  
the universe is all1 is the only truth  
and reality4 ,so ,i call it a slip of   
the tongue to speak of natural nature as
 opposed to natural art or artificial   
nature1 of imaginary reality as distinct
 from real reality4 ,there ought to be a
 different name for the day of twelve   
hours than for the day of twenty-four   
hours1 so that it might be better       

understood that day and night are not   
fundamentally different1 but two prongs 
of the same fork4  ,just as the faculty 
of thinking is innate in the child1 and 
grows with its development1 so mankind's
 faculty of thought grows and has       
hitherto expressed itself in a language 
which gave only instinctive conceptions 
of the composition of the human brain   
and of its functions4 ,the construction 
of languages explains in a way the      
condition of the human mind which had   
only inadequate knowledge of itself so  
far4 ,those shortcomings of speech which
 ,i called slips of the tongue were not 
understood until sufficient progress had
 been made in the explanation of the    
process of thinking1 and now these same 
shortcomings offer an excellent means of
 representing and demonstrating the     
results of enlightenment4  ,the mind is 
to give to man a picture of the world1  
the language is the brush of the mind4  
,it paints by its construction the      
universal relationship of all things    

referred to in the beginning of this    
chapter1 and it does so in the following
 manner3 ,it gives to each thing not    
only its own name1 but also adds to it  
another indicating its family1 and      
another indicating its race1 another for
 the species1 the genus1 and finally a  
general name which proclaims that all   
things are parts of the one indivisible 
unit which is called world1 existence1  
universe1 cosmos4  ,this diagrammatic   
construction of language furnishes us   
with an illustration of the graduated   
relationship of things and of the way in
 which the human race arrives at its    
knowledge1 its perceptions or pictures4 
,we said that philosophy is that        
endeavor which seeks to throw light on  
the process of human thought4 ,this work
 has been rendered very difficult by the
 unavoidable misunderstanding of the    
universal relationship just mentioned4  
,the transcendentalists insist above all
 that the process of thinking and its   
product1 thought1 should not be classed 

among ordinary physics1 not as a part of
 physical nature1 but as the creature of
 another nature which carries the       
mysterious name of metaphysics4 ,that   
such a nature and such a science is     
neither possible nor real is proven by  
the construction of language which      
normally describes everything as being  
closely related and corroborates this by
 its abnormal shortcomings which we     
called slips of the tongue4  ,the       
shortcomings of language which          
demonstrate the positive outcome of     
philosophy consist in occasionally      
giving insufficiently significant names 
to things belonging to a group in which 
the distinction between individuals1    
species1 genera1 and families is not    
clearly defined4 ,it is not discernible1
 for instance1 whether the term cat     
applies to a domestic cat or to a tiger1
 because that term is used for a large  
class of animals of which the domestic  
cat is the arch-type4  ,but it may be   
that this illustration is not well      

chosen for the purpose of demonstrating 
that slip of the tongue which is        
supposed to give us an exact            
appreciation of the positive outcome of 
philosophy4 ,let us find another and    
better illustration which will be a     
transition from the inadequate to the   
adequate and thus throw so much more    
light on the obscurities of language4   
,another and better example of the      
inadequacies of language is the         
distinction between fish and meat4 ,in  
this case1 we entirely lack a general   
term for meat1 one kind of which is     
furnished by aquatic animals and the    
other by terrestrial animals4  ,now let 
the reader apply this shortcoming of    
language to the distinction between     
physics and metaphysics1 or between     
thought and reality4 ,we lack a term    
which will fully indicate the relation  
between these two4 ,thoughts are indeed 
real things4 ,true1 there is a          
difference whether ,i have one hundred  
dollars in imagination or in reality in 

my pocket4 ,still we must not exaggerate
 this difference into something         
transcendental4 ,painted money or       
imagined money are in a way also real1  
that is in imagination4 ,in other words1
 language lacks a term which will       
clearly express the different realities 
within the compass of the unit4  ,the   
understanding of these peculiarities of 
language is calculated to promote the   
insight and enlightenment in regard to  
that secret lamp which man is carrying  
in his brain and with which he lights up
 the things of this world4 ,the         
cultivation of the theory of            
understanding1 the critique of reason1  
has an elementary significance for the  
elucidation of all things4 ,this is not 
saying that philosophy1 that special    
science with which we are here dealing1 
is a universal science in the sense in  
which antiquity conceived of it4 ,but it
 is universal nevertheless in the sense 
in which the alphabet and other primary 
topics are universal4 ,every one must   

use his brains and should therefore take
 pains to understand its processes4     
,though the knowledge of these does not 
make other efforts unnecessary1 still it
 explains many ideas1 it elucidates the 
nature of thinking which every one is   
doing and which is frequently used in a 
more ruthless manner than a dog would   
treat a rag4  ,the inertia which has    
prevented the one-sided idealists on the
 one hand and the one-sided materialists
 on the other from coming to a peaceful 
understanding may be traced to one of   
those slips of the tongue4 ,we lack the 
right terms for designating the         
relationship between spiritual          
phenomena1 such as our ideas1           
conceptions1 judgments and conclusions  
and many other things on one side and   
the tangible1 ponderable1 commensurable 
things on the other4 ,true1 the reason  
for this lack of terms is the absence of
 understanding1 and for this reason the 
dispute is not one of mere words1       
although it can be allayed only by an   

improvement of our terminology4         
,buechner1 in his well-known work on    
,force and ,matter1 likewise overlooks  
this point1 the same as all prior       
materialists1 because they are as       
onesidedly insistent on their matter as 
the idealists are on their idea4        
,quarrel and strife mean confusion1 only
 peace will bring light4 ,the contrast  
between matter and mind finds its       
conciliation in the positive outcome of 
philosophy which teaches that all       
distinctions must be reasonable1 because
 neither our instrument of thought nor  
the rest of nature justify any          
exaggerated distinctions4 ,in order to  
elucidate the moot question1 nothing is 
required but the insight that ideas     
which nature develops in the human brain
 are materials for the work of our      
understanding1 though not materials for 
the work of our hands4 ,philosophy has  
made material efforts to grasp the      
understanding and its conceptions and is
 still making them in the same way in   

which chemistry is working for the      
understanding of substances and physics 
for the understanding of forces4        
,substances1 forces1 ideas1 conceptions1
 judgments1 conclusions1 knowledge and  
perceptions1 according to the positive  
outcome of philosophy1 must be regarded 
as differences or varieties of the same 
monistic genus4 ,the differentiation of 
things no more contradicts their unity  
than their unity contradicts their      
differentiation4 ,darwin expanded the   
conception of species and thus          
contributed to a better understanding of
 zoology4 ,philosophy expands the       
conception of species still far beyond  
the ,darwinian definition in teaching us
 to consider the species as little      
generalities and the largest genus1 the 
absolute or the cosmos as the all in    
one1 the all-embracing species4  ,in    
order to closely connect the worm and   
the elephant1 the lowest and the highest
 animal1 the vegetable and the animal   
kingdom1 the inorganic and the organic1 

as members of the same species or genus 
in a reasonable way1 we must keep       
account of the gradations in nature1 the
 transitions1 the connecting links and  
connecting ideas4 ,embryology1 which    
shows that the life of the highest      
animal develops through the stages of   
the animal genus1 has greatly promoted  
the understanding of the common nature  
of all animals4  ,the continuity in the 
natural gradation of things is perfect1 
because there are no gradations which   
are not represented1 because there are  
no differences between the various      
grades which nature does not fill by an 
intermediary form4444 ,there is no      
abrupt difference in nature1 no         
metaphysical jump1 no vacuum1 no gap in 
the order of the world1 says a          
well-known author of our times whose    
name ,i shall not mention1 because ,i   
wish to base my argument on the         
acknowledged facts rather than on names 
of authorities4  ,what ,darwin taught us
 in relation to animal life1 viz41 that 

there are no fundamental differences    
between species1 that is taught by      
philosophy in regard to the universe4   
,the understanding of the latter is     
rendered difficult by the habit of      
making a transcendental distinction     
between matter and mind4     ,,viii     
,,understanding ,,is ,,material         
,whether we say that philosophy has the 
understanding for the object of its     
study1 or whether we say that philosophy
 investigates the method of utilizing   
subjective understanding in order to    
arrive at genuine1 correct1 excellent1  
objective knowledge1 that is only a     
matter of using different terms for the 
same process4 ,it makes no difference   
whether we designate the object of our  
special science as a thing or as a      
process4 ,it is much more essential to  
understand that the distinction between 
the thing and its action is in this     
instance of little consequence4         
,according to modern natural science all
 existence is resolved into motion4 ,it 

is well known now that even rocks do not
 stand still1 but are continuously      
active1 growing and decaying4  ,the     
understanding1 the intellect1 is an     
active object1 or an objective action1  
the same as sunshine1 the flow of       
waters1 growing of trees1 disintegration
 of rocks1 or any other natural         
phenomenon4 ,also the understanding1 the
 thinking which takes place consciously 
or unconsciously in the human brain1 is 
a phenomenon of as indubitable actuality
 as the most material of them4 ,it      
cannot in the least shake our contention
 of the materially perceptible nature of
 intellectual activity that we become   
aware of this activity by an internal1  
not by an external1 sense4 ,whether a   
stone is externally perceptible or      
thought internally1 what difference does
 this slight distinction make in the    
incontestable fact that both perceptions
 are of equal material1 natural and     
sense-perceptible kind8 ,why should not 
the action of the brain belong in the   

same category as the action of the      
heart8 ,and though the movement of the  
heart be internal and that of the tongue
 of the nightingale external1 what is to
 prevent us from considering these two  
movements from the higher viewpoint of  
natural or material processes8 ,if the  
function of the heart may be referred to
 as material1 why not the function of   
the brain8 ,true1 the present usages of 
language are in conflict with this mode 
of thought4 ,but it must be remembered  
that every science comes into conflict  
with usages of language by progressive  
development4 ,the discovery of every new
 thing in plant and animal life compels 
the discoverer to invent a new term or  
change the meaning of an old one4 ,the  
term material has not had a well        
defined1 but rather an indefinite       
meaning so far4 ,now1 since it is       
necessary1 in order to understand the   
function of the brain to remove it from 
the class of transcendental or          
metaphysical conceptions and assign to  

it a place among the material things1   
the question arises3 ,what will be the  
most appropriate term for it8 ,the      
material and the spiritual are both two 
species of the same genus4 ,how are we  
to designate the species1 how the genus8
 ,for the sake of complete clearness1 we
 require three different names1 one for 
each species and a common general name4 
,but since we are much less concerned   
about the name than about the           
understanding of these facts which      
cannot be well explained without terms1 
we do not insist dogmatically on calling
 the understanding material4 ,it is     
sufficient to point out that the        
function of the heart and of the brain  
both belong to the same class1 no matter
 whether this class be called material1 
real1 physical1 or what not4 ,so long as
 language has not established a definite
 meaning for these terms1 all of them   
serve equally well and are equally      
deceptive4  ,the positive outcome of    
philosophy which culminates in placing  

the theory of understanding in the same 
class with all other theories1 cannot be
 easily demonstrated on account of a    
natural confusion of thought which      
arises from an equally natural confusion
 of language4 ,in the special department
 of handicraft as well as in that of    
scientific brain work the terminology is
 well systematized1 while in the general
 affairs of life and science there is a 
confusion which is as great in the      
matter of conceptions as in that of     
applying the terms by which those       
awkward conceptions are expressed4      
,wherever understanding is clear1 there 
the language is also clear4 ,the man who
 does not understand shoemaking does not
 understand its terminology4 ,this is   
not saying that the understanding of a  
trade and the understanding of its      
terminology are identical1 but only     
indicating their actual connection4  ,if
 the reader has had a glimpse of the    
enormity of the work of more than two   
thousand years of philosophy in order to

 state what little we know today of its 
achievement in the science of           
understanding1 he will not be very much 
surprised at the difficulties we here   
meet with in finding terms for its      
demonstration4  ,the function of the    
brain is as material as that of the     
heart4 ,the heart and its function are  
two things1 but they are dependent one  
upon the other so that one cannot exist 
without the other4 ,the function may    
partly be felt4 ,we feel the heart      
beating1 the brain working4 ,the working
 of the heart may even be felt by touch1
 which is not the case with the working 
of the brain4 ,but it would be a mistake
 to imagine that our knowledge of the   
function of the heart is exhausted by   
our perception of it through the touch4 
,once we have overcome the habit of     
making exaggerated distinctions between 
things1 and have learned to consider the
 differences of things as well as their 
interconnection1 we can easily          
understand that the science of the      

function of the heart is an infinite    
science which is connected with all     
others4 ,the heart cannot work without  
the blood1 the blood cannot exist       
without food1 and this is connected with
 the air1 the plants1 the animals1 the  
sun1 and the moon4  ,the function of the
 brain and its product1 the             
understanding1 is likewise inseparable  
from the universal interdependence of   
things4 ,the health of the blood which  
is produced by the action of the heart  
is no more and no less a material       
phenomenon than the total knowledge of  
science which appears as a product of   
brain life4  ,although we represent the 
doctrine of the material nature of      
understanding as the positive outcome of
 philosophy1 this is not proclaiming the
 victory of that narrow materialism     
which has been spreading itself         
particularly since the eighteenth       
century4 ,on the contrary1 this         
mechanical materialism wholly           
misunderstands the nature of the        

problem4 ,it teaches that the faculty of
 thought is a function of the brain1 the
 brain is the object of study and its   
function1 the faculty of thought1 is    
fully explained as a brain quality or   
function4 ,this materialism is enamored 
of mechanics1 idolizes it1 does not     
regard it as a part of the world1 but as
 the sole substance which comprises the 
whole universe4 ,because it             
misunderstands the relation of thing and
 function1 of subject and predicate1 it 
has no inkling of the fact that this    
relation which it handles in such a     
matter-of-fact way1 but not at all      
scientifically1 may be an object worthy 
of study4 ,the materialist of the old   
school is too horny-handed to consider  
the function or quality of understanding
 as an object worthy of a separate      
scientific department4 ,we1 on the other
 hand1 follow the suggestion of         
,spinoza1 who required of the           
philosophers that they should consider  
everything in the light of eternity4 ,in

 so doing we find that the tangible     
things1 such as the brain1 are qualities
 of nature1 and that in the same way the
 socalled functions are natural things1 
substantial parts of the universe4  ,not
 only tangible objects are things1 but  
also the rays of the sun and the scent  
of flowers belong to this category1 and 
perceptions are no exception to the     
rule4 ,but all these things are only    
relative things1 since they are         
qualities of the one and absolute which 
is the only thing1 the thing itself1    
well known to every one by the name of  
the universe1 or cosmos4     ,,ix  ,,the
 ,,four ,,principles ,,of ,,logic       
,since this work wishes to demonstrate  
the positive outcome of philosophy1 the 
reader may ask the author what are his  
proofs that instead of the quintessence 
of thousands of years of philosophical  
work he is not offered the elaboration  
of any individual philosopher1 or even  
that of the author himself4  ,in reply  
,i wish to say that my work would be    

rendered uselessly voluminous by        
quotations from the works of the most   
prominent philosophical writers1 without
 proving anything1 since the words of   
one often contradict those of another4  
,what is said by ,kant1 ,fichte1        
,schelling1 or ,hegel1 in one place of  
any of their works1 is at least         
considerably modified1 if not           
contradicted1 in another place of the   
same work4 ,it is of little consequence1
 how and by whose help ,i have arrived  
at the positive outcome of philosophy as
 here rendered4 ,whether it is the      
actual outcome or not can be judged only
 by the expert1 and every opinion is    
necessarily very subjective4  ,under the
 circumstances ,i1 as author1 claim that
 my opinion is worth as much as any     
other1 and the reader may therefore     
accept my assurance4 ,as to the further 
value of that which ,i offer1 it is a   
peculiarity of the subject under        
discussion that every reader carries it 
and its experiences within himself and  

may1 without consulting any other       
author1 at once draw his own conclusions
 about my views1 provided he has        
acquired the necessary training in      
thought4 ,what a traveler tells us about
 the interior of ,africa must either be 
believed to the letter or verified by   
the accounts of other travelers4 ,but   
what ,i say about logic will1 ,i hope1  
find its corroboration in the logic of  
every reading brain4  ,the theory of    
understanding which has become the      
special object of philosophy1 is nothing
 else1 and cannot be anything else1 but 
expanded logic4 ,many practical rules   
and laws of this department are known   
and recognized since the time of        
,aristotle4 ,but the question whether   
there is one world or two1 a natural and
 unnatural1 or supernatural as it is    
called with preference1 that is the     
point which has given much trouble to   
philosophy and which will influence the 
health of logic so long as it is        
undecided4  ,dr4 ,friedrich ,dittes1    

director of the institute of pedagogy in
 ,vienna1 has published a ,school of    
,pedagogy1 several editions of which    
have appeared1 in which he gives much   
attention to logic4 ,dittes is a        
prominent pedagogue1 well known through 
his writings4 ,he confines himself in   
his ,school to teaching only that which 
is well established and accepted without
 a doubt4 ,as a practical man who       
addresses himself mainly to teachers of 
primary grades1 he would not place      
himself on the pinnacle of the outcome  
of philosophy1 even if he could4 ,he    
must confine himself to that which is   
well established1 which is far removed  
from the disputes of the day4 ,but it   
may here serve as a whetstone by the    
help of which we may give to the        
positive product of philosophy its      
latest and greatest sharpness4  ,he     
writes right in the beginning of the    
first part3 ,our ideas are as manifold  
as the objects to which they refer4     
,several things may have many or few1 or

 at least one quality1 in common4 ,still
 they may also be totally different4    
,this last point1 viz41 that there may  
be things which are totally different   
from one another1 is the one which is   
decidedly rejected by that science which
 has risen to the eminence of the       
positive acquisition of philosophy4     
,there can be no natural things which   
are totally different from one another1 
because they must all of them have in   
common the quality of being natural4    
,it sounds very commonplace to say that 
there are no unnatural things in nature4
 ,since the last witch was burnt1       
everybody is sufficiently enlightened to
 know that4 ,but the logical conclusions
 of natural monism have not yet been    
drawn4 ,true1 natural science1 properly 
socalled1 is busily engaged in arriving 
at them4 ,but so much more strife is    
there in the science of mind and there  
is no other remedy but a well founded   
theory of understanding which teaches   
that nature is not alone absolute       

nature1 but also the nature of the      
absolute4 ,from this doctrine it        
necessarily follows that all things are 
not individually independent1 but       
related by sex1 dependent children1     
predicates of the monistic unity of the 
world4  ,the arch fountain of the human 
spirit1 says ,dittes1 is perception4444 
,whether perception as such discloses to
 us the true nature of things1 or       
whether it makes us familiar only with  
their phenomena1 this is not to be      
discussed by logic4 ,the practical      
pedagogue who confines himself to the   
education of children's brains or who   
wishes at most to influence such        
teachers as educate children's brains1  
is quite right in being satisfied with  
the old traditional ,aristotlean logic4 
,but in the school of the human race1   
this logic has not been sufficient4 ,for
 this reason the philosophers have      
broached the question whether           
perception1 the arch fountain of the    
human spirit1 is a true or a deceptive  

fountain4 ,the product of the           
philosophical investigation which we    
here offer amounts to the declaration   
that the logicians are greatly mistaken 
about the arch fountain4 ,it is a       
cardinal error of ancient logic to      
regard perception as the ultimate source
 from which the human mind dips its     
knowledge4 ,it is nature which is the   
ultimate source1 and our perception is  
but the mediator of understanding4 ,and 
its product1 recognized truth1 is not   
truth itself1 but merely a formal       
picture of it4 ,universal nature is the 
arch fountain1 is the eternal and       
imperishable truth itself1 and our      
perception1 like every other part of    
universal existence1 is only an         
attribute1 a particle of absolute       
nature4 ,the human mind1 with whose     
nature logic is dealing1 is no more an  
independent thing than any other1 but   
simply a phenomenon1 a reflex or        
predicate of nature4  ,to confound true 
perceptions or perceived truths with    

general truth1 with the non plus ultra  
of all truths1 is equivalent to         
regarding a sparrow as the bird in      
general1 or a period of civilization as 
civilization itself1 which would mean   
the closing of the door to all further  
development4  ,modern philosophy1       
beginning with ,bacon of ,verulam and   
closing with ,hegel1 carries on a       
constant struggle with the ,aristotlean 
logic4 ,the product of this struggle1   
the outcome of philosophy1 does not deny
 the old rules of traditional logic1 but
 adds a new and decidedly higher circle 
of logical perception to the former     
ones4 ,for the sake of better           
understanding it may be well to give to 
this circle a special title1 the special
 name of theory of understanding1 which 
is sometimes called dialectics4  ,in    
order to demonstrate the essential      
contents of this philosophical product  
by an investigation of the fundamental  
laws of traditional logic and to explain
 it thereby1 ,i refer once more to the  

teacher of elementary logic1 ,dittes4   
,under the caption of ,principles of    
,judgment he teaches3 ,since judging1   
like all thinking1 aims at the          
perception of truth1 the rules have been
 sought after by which this purpose     
might be accomplished4 ,as universally  
applicable rules1 as principles or laws 
of thought1 the following four have been
 named3        7#a7 ,the law of         
uniformity 7identity74       7#b7 ,the  
law of contradiction4       7#c7 ,the   
law of the excluded third4       7#d7   
,the law of adequate cause4   ,so much  
scholastic talk has been indulged in    
over these four principles1 that ,i can 
hardly bring myself to discuss them     
further4 ,but since my purpose1 the     
demonstration of the positive outcome of
 philosophy1 consists in throwing a new 
light on the logic contained in these   
four so-called principles or laws1 ,i am
 compelled to lay bare their inmost     
kernel4  ,the first principle1 then1    
declares that ,a is ,a1 or to speak     

mathematically1 every quantity is equal 
to itself4 ,in plain ,english3 a thing  
is what it is2 no thing is what it is   
not4 ,characters which are excluded by  
any conception must not be attributed to
 it4 ,the square is excluded from the   
conception of a circle1 therefore the   
predicate square must not be given to a 
circle4 ,for the same reason a straight 
line must not be crooked1 and a lie must
 not be true4  ,now this so-called law  
of thought may be well enough for       
household use1 where nothing but known  
quantities are under consideration4 ,a  
thing is what it is4 ,right is not left 
and one hundred is not one thousand4    
,whoever is named ,peter or ,paul       
remains ,peter or ,paul all his life4   
,this1 ,i say1 is all right for         
household use4  ,but when we consider   
matters from the wider point of view of 
cosmic universal life1 then this famous 
law of thought proves to be nothing but 
an expedient in logic which is not      
adequate to the nature of things1 but   

merely a means of mutual understanding  
for us human beings4 ,hence the left    
bank of the ,rhine is not the right1    
because we have agreed that in naming   
the banks of a river we will turn our   
backs to the source and our faces to the
 mouth of the river and then designate  
the banks as right and left4 ,such a way
 of distinguishing1 thinking1 and       
judging is good and practical1 so long  
as this narrow standpoint is accompanied
 by the consciousness of its narrowness4
 ,hitherto this has not been the case4  
,this determined logic has overlooked   
that the perception which is produced by
 its rules is not truth1 not the real   
world1 but only gives an ideal1 more or 
less accurate1 reflection of it4 ,peter 
and ,paul1 who according to the law of  
identity are the same all their lives1  
are in fact different fellows every     
minute and every day of their lives1 and
 all things of this world are1 like     
those two1 not constant1 but very       
variable quantities4 ,the mathematical  

points1 the straight lines1 the round   
circles1 are ideals4 ,in reality every  
point has a certain dimension1 every    
straight line1 when seen through a      
magnifying glass1 is full of many       
crooked turns1 and even the roundest    
circle1 according to the mathematicians1
 consists of an infinite number of      
straight lines4  ,the traditional logic1
 then1 declares with its law of         
identity1 or in the words of ,dittes law
 of uniformity1 that ,peter and ,paul   
are the same fellows from beginning to  
end1 or that the western mountains      
remain the same western mountains so    
long as they exist4 ,the product of     
modern philosophy1 on the other hand1   
declares that the identity of people1   
woods1 and rocks is inseparably linked  
to their opposite1 their incessant      
transformation4 ,the old school logic   
treats things1 the objects of           
perception1 like stereotyped moulds1    
while the philosophically expanded logic
 considers such treatment adequate for  

household use only4 ,the logical        
household use of stereotyped conceptions
 extends1 and should extend1 to all of  
science4 ,the consideration of things as
 remaining the same is indispensable1   
and yet it is very salubrious to know   
and remember that the things are not    
only the same permanent and stereotyped1
 but at the same time variable and in   
flow4 ,that is a contradiction1 but not 
a senseless one4 ,this contradiction has
 confused the minds and given much      
trouble to the philosophers4 ,the       
solution of this problem1 the           
elucidation of this simple fact1 is the 
positive product of philosophy4  ,i have
 just declared that logic so far did not
 know that the perception produced by   
its principles does not offer us truth  
itself1 but only a more or less accurate
 picture of it4 ,i have furthermore     
contended that the positive outcome of  
philosophy has materially added to the  
clearness of the portrait of the human  
mind4 ,logic claims to be the doctrine  

of the forms and laws of thought4       
,dialectics1 the product of philosophy1 
aims to be the same1 and its first      
paragraph declares3 ,not thought        
produces truth1 but being1 of which     
thought is only that part which is      
engaged in securing a picture of truth4 
,the fact resulting from this statement 
may easily confuse the reader1 viz41    
that the philosophy which has been      
bequeathed to us by logical dialectics1 
or dialectic logic1 must explain not    
alone thought1 but also the original of 
which thought is a reflex4  ,while1     
therefore1 traditional logic teaches in 
its first law that all things are equal 
to themselves1 the new dialectics       
teaches not only that things are equal  
to themselves and identical from start  
to finish1 but also that these same     
things have the contradictory quality of
 being the same and yet widely variable4
 ,if it is a law of thought that we gain
 as accurate as possible a conception of
 things by the help of thought1 it is at

 the same time a law of thought that all
 things1 processes1 and proceedings are 
not things but resemble the color of    
that silk which1 although equal to      
itself and identical throughout1 still  
plays from one color into another4 ,the 
things of which the thinking thing or   
human intellect is one are so far from  
being one and the same from beginning to
 end that they are in truth and fact    
without beginning and end4 ,and as      
phenomena of nature1 as parts of        
infinite nature1 they only seem to have 
a beginning and end1 while they are in  
reality but natural transformations     
arising temporarily from the infinite   
and returning into it after a while4    
,natural truth or true nature1 without  
beginning and end1 is so contradictory  
that it only expresses itself by        
shifting phenomena which are            
nevertheless quite true4 ,to old line   
logic this contradiction appears        
senseless4 ,it insists on its first1    
second1 and third law1 on its identity1 

its law of contradiction and excluded   
third1 which must be either straight or 
crooked1 cold or warm1 and excludes all 
intermediary conceptions4 ,and in a way 
it is right4 ,for every-day use it is   
all right to deal in this summary       
fashion with thoughts and words4 ,but it
 is at the same time judicious to learn 
from the positive outcome of philosophy 
that in reality and truth things do not 
come to pass so ideally4 ,the logical   
laws think quite correctly of thoughts  
and their forms and applications4 ,but  
they do not exhaust thinking and its    
thoughts4 ,they overlook the            
consciousness of the inexhaustibleness  
of all natural creations1 of which the  
object of logic1 human understanding1 is
 a part4 ,this object did not fall from 
heaven1 but is a finite part of the     
infinite which actually has the         
contradictory quality of possessing in  
and with its logical nature that        
universal nature which is superior to   
all logic4  ,from this critique of the  

three first fundamental laws of logic it
 is apparent that the human             
understanding is not only everywhere    
identical1 but also different in each   
individual and has a historical         
development4 ,we are1 of course1        
logically entitled to consider this     
faculty like all others by itself and   
give it a birthday4 ,wherever man       
begins1 there understanding1 the faculty
 of thought1 begins4 ,but we are        
philosophically and dialectically no    
less entitled1 and it is even our duty1 
to know that the faculty of             
understanding1 the same as its human    
bearer1 has no beginning1 in spite of   
the fact that we ascribe a beginning to 
them4 ,when we trace the historical     
development of these two1 of man and    
understanding1 backward to their origin1
 we arrive at a transition to the animal
 and see their special nature merging   
into general nature4 ,the same is found 
in tracing the development of the       
individual mind4 ,where does            

consciousness begin in the child8       
,before1 at1 or after birth8            
,consciousness arises from its opposite1
 unconsciousness1 and returns to it4 ,in
 consequence we regard the unconscious  
as the substance and the conscious as   
its predicate or attribute4 ,and the    
fixed conceptions which we make for     
ourselves of the units or phenomena of  
the natural substance are recognized by 
us as necessary means in explaining     
nature1 but at the same time it is      
necessary to learn from dialectics that 
all fixed conceptions are floating in a 
liquid element4 ,the infinite substance 
of nature is a very mobile element1 in  
which all fixed things appear and sink1 
thus being temporarily fixed and yet not
 fixed4  ,now let us briefly review the 
fourth fundamental law of logic1        
according to which everything must have 
an adequate cause4 ,this law is likewise
 very well worthy of attention1 yet it  
is very inadequate1 because the question
 what should be our conception of the   

world and what is the constitution of   
the most highly developed thinking      
faculty of the world requires the       
answer3 the world1 in which everything  
has its adequate cause1 is nevertheless1
 including consciousness and the faculty
 of thought1 without beginning1 end1 and
 cause1 that is1 a thing justified in   
itself and by itself4 ,the law of the   
adequate cause applies only to pictures 
made by the human mind4 ,in our logical 
pictures of the world everything must   
have its adequate cause4 ,but the       
original1 the universal cosmos1 has no  
cause1 it is its own cause and effect4  
,to understand that all causes rest on  
the causeless is an important dialectic 
knowledge which first throws the        
requisite light on the law of the       
necessity of an adequate cause4         
,formally everything must have its      
cause4 ,but really everything has not   
only one cause1 but innumerable causes4 
,not alone father and mother are the    
cause of my existence1 but also the     

grand parents and great grand parents1  
together with the air they breathed1 the
 food they ate1 the earth on which they 
walked1 the sun which warmed the earth1 
etc4 ,not a thing1 not a process1 not a 
change is the adequate cause of another1
 but everything is rather caused by the 
universe which is absolute4  ,when      
philosophy began its career with the    
intention of understanding the world1 it
 soon discovered that this purpose could
 be accomplished only by special study4 
,when it chose understanding1 or the    
faculty of thought1 as the special      
object of its study1 it separated its   
specific object too far from the general
 existence4 ,its logic1 in opposing     
thought to the rest of existence1 forgot
 the interconnection of the opposites1  
forgot that thought is a form1 a        
species1 an individuality which belongs 
to the genus of existence1 the same as  
fish to the genus of meat1 night to the 
genus of day1 art to nature1 word to    
action1 and death to life4 ,it does not 

attempt to explore the essence of       
thought for its own sake1 but for the   
purpose of discovering the rules of     
exploring and thinking correctly4 ,it   
could not very well arrive at those     
coveted rules1 so long as it idealized  
truth transcendentally and elevated it  
far above the phenomena4 ,all phenomena 
of nature are true parts of truth4 ,even
 error and lies are not opposed to truth
 in that exaggerated sense in which the 
old style logic represents them1 which  
teaches that two contradictory          
predicates must not be simultaneously   
applied to the same subject1 that any   
one subject is either true or false1 and
 that any third alternative is out of   
the question4 ,such statements are due  
to an entire misconception of truth4    
,truth is the absolute1 universal sum of
 all existing things1 of all phenomena  
of the past1 present1 and future4 ,truth
 is the real universe from which errors 
and lies are not excluded4 ,in so far as
 stray thoughts1 giants and brownies1   

lies and errors are really existing1    
though only in the imagination of men1  
to that extent they are true4 ,they     
belong to the sum of all phenomena1 but 
they are not the whole truth1 not the   
infinite sum4 ,and even the most        
positive knowledge is nothing but an    
excellent picture of a certain part4    
,the pictures in our minds have this in 
common with their originals that they   
are true4 ,all errors and lies are true 
errors and true lies1 hence are not so  
far removed from truth that one should  
belong to heaven and the other to       
eternal damnation4 ,let us remain human4
  ,since old line logic with its four   
principles was too narrowminded1 its    
development had to produce that         
dialectics which is the positive outcome
 of philosophy4 ,this science of thought
 so expanded regards the universe as the
 truly universal or infinite1 in which  
all contradictions slumber as in the    
womb of conciliation4 ,whether the new  
logic shall have the same name as the   

old1 or assume the separate title of    
theory of understanding or dialectics1  
is simply a question of terms which must
 be decided by considerations of        
expediency4     ,x  ,,the ,,function    
,,of ,,understanding ,,on ,,the         
,,religious ,,field   ,we took our      
departure from the fact that philosophy 
is searching for understanding4 ,the    
first and principal acquisition of      
philosophy was the perception that its  
object is not to be found in a          
transcendental generality4 ,whoever     
wishes to obtain understanding1 must    
confine himself to something special1   
without1 however1 through this          
limitation losing sight of all measure  
and aim to such an extent that he       
forgets the infinite generality4  ,a    
modern psychologist who occupies himself
 with ,thoughts on ,enlightenment1 which
 topic is evidently related to ours1    
says3 ,real and genuine enlightenment   
can proceed only from religious motives4
 ,expressed in our language1 this would 

mean3 ,every genuine understanding1     
every true conception or knowledge1 must
 be based on the clear consciousness    
that the infinite universe is the arch  
fundament of all things4  ,understanding
 and true enlightenment are identical4  
,it is true1 say the ,thoughts on       
,enlightenment1 that all enlightenment  
takes the form of struggles on account  
of the nature of him who is to be       
enlightened and of the object about     
which he is to be informed4 ,but it is a
 struggle for religion1 not against it4 
,the author1 ,professor ,lazarus1 says  
in his preface that he does not wish the
 reader to base his opinion on any      
single detached sentence4 ,every single 
sentence1 he says1 may be tested as to  
its value1 but the whole of my views on 
religion and enlightenment cannot be    
recognized from any single one of them4 
,as this wish is entirely justified and 
as our position is somewhat supported by
 his psychological treatment of         
enlightenment1 we shall comply with his 

wish and seek to grasp the meaning of   
his statements on the religious nature  
of enlightenment in their entirety1 not 
as isolated sentences4  ,we even go a   
step farther than ,professor ,lazarus1  
by extending to understanding what he   
says about enlightenment1 viz41 that    
genuine knowledge and enlightenment     
must1 so to say1 take their departure   
from religious motives4 ,but we differ a
 little as to what motives are          
religious4 ,lazarus refers1 so far as ,i
 can see1 to ideas and the ideal1 while 
we1 thanks to the positive outcome of   
philosophy1 understand the terms        
religion and religious to refer to the  
universal interdependence of things4    
,obviously the dividing line between    
heat and cold is drawn by the human     
mind4 ,the point selected for this      
purpose is the freezing point of water4 
,one might just as well have selected   
any other point4 ,evidently the dividing
 line between that which is religious   
and that which is irreligious is as     

indeterminate as that between hot and   
cold4 ,neither any university nor any   
usage of language can decide that1 nor  
is the pope a scientific authority in   
the matter4  ,it is mainly due to the   
socalled historical school that a thing 
is considered not alone by its present  
condition1 but by its origin and        
decline4 ,what1 then1 is religion and   
religious8 ,the fetish cult1 the animal 
cult1 the cult of the ideal and         
spiritual creator1 or the cult of the   
real human mind8 ,where are we to begin 
and where to end8 ,if the ancient       
,germans regarded the great oak as      
sacred and religious1 why should not art
 and science become religious among the 
modern ,germans8 ,in this sense1        
,lazarus is correct4 ,the enlightenment 
which was headed in ,france by ,voltaire
 and the encyclopedists1 in ,germany by 
,lessing and ,kant1 the enlightenment   
which came as a struggle for reason and 
against religion1 was then in fact a    
struggle for religion1 not against it4  

,by this means one may make everything  
out of anything4 ,but this has to be    
learned first in order to recognize how 
our mind ought to be adjusted1 so that  
it may perceive that not only everything
 is everything1 but that each thing also
 has its own place4  ,we wish to become 
clear in our minds how it is possible1  
and reconcilable with sound conception1 
that such an anti-religious struggle as 
that carried on during that period of   
enlightenment can nevertheless be a     
struggle for and in the interest of     
religion4 ,we wish to find out how one  
may abolish religion and at the same    
time maintain it4  ,this is easily      
understood1 if we remember the          
repeatedly quoted dialectic rule        
according to which our understanding    
must never exaggerate the distinctions  
between two things4 ,we must not too    
widely separate the religious from the  
secular field4 ,of course1 the religious
 field is in heaven1 while the secular  
is naturally in the profane universe4   

,having become aware that even religious
 imagination1 together with its heaven  
and spirit creator1 are profane         
conceptions in spite of their alleged   
transcendentalism1 we find religion in  
the secular field1 and thus this field  
has in a way become religious4 ,the     
religious and the profane infinite have 
something in common1 at least this that 
the indefinite religious name may also  
be applied to the secular or profane    
infinity4  ,all culture1 every condition
 of humanity or of a nation1 has its    
roots as well as its bounds in history1 
says our ,professor of psychology4      
,should not religion1 which according to
 the words of a ,german emperor must be 
preserved for the people1 also have its 
bounds in history8 ,or does it belong to
 the infinite and must it exist forever8
 ,in order to free history of its       
bounds1 it is necessary to avail        
ourselves of the positive outcome of    
philosophy and to demonstrate that      
nothing is infinite but the infinite    

itself1 which has the double nature of  
being infinite and inseparable from the 
finite phenomena of nature4 ,the whole  
of nature is eternal1 but none of its   
individual phenomena is1 although even  
the imperishable whole is composed of   
perishable parts4  ,the relation of the 
constant whole of nature to its variable
 parts1 the relation of the general to  
the specialties composing it1 includes1 
if we fully grasp it1 a perfect         
conception of the human mind as well as 
of the understanding and enlightenment  
which it acquires4 ,this mind cannot    
enlighten itself as to its special      
nature without observing how it came to 
enlighten itself as to the nature of    
other specialties4 ,we then find that it
 has likewise enlightened itself on     
religious phenomena by recognizing them 
as a part1 as a variation1 of the       
general phenomenon of the constant1     
eternal1 natural universe4 ,hence       
secular nature1 which is at the same    
time eternal and temporal1 is the mother

 of religious nature4 ,of course1 the   
child partakes of the nature of the     
mother4 ,religion1 historically         
considered1 arises from nature1 but the 
determination of the date of the        
beginning of this specialty is left as  
much to the choice of man as that of the
 point where the cold and the warm meet4
 ,the general movement of nature1 from  
which arise its specialties1 proceeds in
 infinite time4 ,its transformations are
 so gradual that every determined point 
constitutes an arbitrary act which is at
 the same time arbitrary and necessary2 
necessary for the human being who wishes
 to gain a conception of it4 ,a perfect 
conception of religion1 therefore1 goes 
right to the center of the question1 to 
the point where the religious specialty 
reaches a characteristic stage1 to its  
freezing point1 so to say4 ,from this   
standpoint1 heat and cold may be sharply
 defined2 likewise religion4 ,if we say1
 for instance1 that religion is the     
conception of a supernatural spirit who 

rules nature1 and the reader thinks this
 definition somewhat appropriate1 the   
simple demonstration of the achievements
 of philosophy in the field of          
understanding or dialectics proves that 
this religious conception is untenable  
in this world of the human mind which   
knows how to obtain a logical picture of
 its experiences4  ,to desire to        
preserve religion for the people as a   
sharply defined and finite thing is     
contrary to all logic and equivalent to 
swimming against the tide4 ,on the other
 hand1 it is equally illogical to       
identify religion after the manner of   
,lazarus with the conception of natural 
infinity or infinite nature1 because    
that promotes mental haziness4  ,the    
laws of thought obtained by             
philosophical research give us          
considerable enlightenment about the    
infinite material process1 the nature of
 which is sublime enough to be worthy of
 religious devotion1 and yet special and
 matter-of-fact enough to wash the dim  

eyes with natural clearness4  ,we have  
already seen in preceding chapters that 
we must first define our standpoint     
before we can decide which is the right 
or left bank of a river4 ,so it is also 
in the matter of abolishing and         
maintaining religion for the people4 ,it
 can be done the moment we extend the   
discussion to the realm of infinity4    
,the conception of infinity1 called     
substance by ,spinoza1 monad by         
,leibniz1 thing itself by ,kant1 the    
absolute by ,hegel1 is indeed necessary 
in order to explain anything1 not only  
by the fourth root1 but by the infinite 
root of the adequate reason4 ,to that   
extent we are agreed that enlightenment1
 or understanding as we say1 is not     
alone a struggle against religion1 but  
also for it4 ,in the theory of          
understanding acquired by philosophy1   
there is contained a decisive repeal of 
religion4 ,nevertheless we say with     
,lazarus3 ,the power of enlightenment   
and its aim are not expressed in        

negation1 not in that which is not      
believed1 but in that which is believed1
 venerated1 and preserved4 ,and yet     
every enlightening perception1 every    
understanding resulting from            
enlightenment1 is a negation4 ,in       
seeking enlightenment1 for instance1 on 
understanding1 it is necessary1 in order
 to prove that it is a natural          
phenomenon1 to deny the religious       
element in so far as it assumes the     
existence of a divine chief spirit whose
 secondary copy the human spirit is     
supposed to be4 ,or1 in order to gain   
enlightenment on the nature of the      
universe1 in order to realize that it is
 a truly universal universe1 we are     
compelled to deny the existence of every
 higher world1 including the religious4 
,but if we desire to become enlightened 
as to how it is that religion may not   
alone be denied1 but also preserved1 we 
must transfer its origin from an        
illogical other world into the natural  
and logical universe4 ,thus religion    

becomes natural and nature religious4   
,if worship is confined to the          
idolization of the sun or the cat1 every
 one realizes the temporality of the    
matter4 ,and if we restrict worship to  
the adoration of the great omnipotent   
spirit1 every one realizes the          
temporality of this adoration who has   
acquired an accurate conception of the  
small human spirit4 ,if1 on the other   
hand1 we extend religious worship to    
everything which has ever been          
venerated1 or will ever be venerated1 by
 human beings1 in other words1 if we    
extend the conception of religion to the
 entire universe1 then it assumes a very
 far-reaching significance4  ,this is   
the essence of enlightenment on         
religion3 ,that we may at will expand or
 contract our conceptions1 that all     
things are alike to the extent of       
representing only one nature1 that all  
fantastical ideas1 all good and evil    
spirits and ghosts1 no matter how       
supernaturally conceived1 are all       

natural4  ,the essential thing in the   
enlightenment acquired by philosophical 
study is the appreciation of the fact   
that understanding1 enlightenment1      
science1 etc41 are not cultivated for   
their own sake1 but must serve the      
purpose of human development1 the       
material interests of which demand a    
correct mental picture of the natural   
processes4  ,we have chosen the         
religious idea for discussion in this   
chapter so that it may serve as a means 
of illustrating the nature of thought in
 general4 ,we regard it as the merit of 
philosophy to have unveiled this nature4
  ,professor ,lazarus is quite a        
pleasing companion4 ,he is a fine       
thinker1 saturated with the teachings of
 the philosophers1 not overfond of any  
particular school1 and only about two   
hands' breadth removed from our         
position4 ,but this is just enough to   
demonstrate by his shortcomings the     
advantages of our position which proves 
that the part of the human soul         

performing the work of thinking is      
understood by us at least two hands'    
breadth better than by this prominent   
psychologist4  ,the function of         
enlightenment is to recognize that no   
phenomenon can be an effect which has   
not another phenomenon as its cause1 and
 to search for the sole cause of every  
effect1 noting all its parts and their  
consecutive divisions4  ,these words    
describe the mental work performed by   
the human brain fairly well1 but still  
they require a little addition1 to the  
effect that the mental work is no       
exception from any other phenomena1 all 
of which have not alone their special1  
but also one general cause4 ,the cause  
of all causes1 of which religion is     
making an idol1 must be profaned1 so to 
speak1 by the cult of science1 so that  
the above definition of ,lazarus        
regarding enlightenment would read as   
follows3 ,the sole and true cause of all
 effects is the universe1 or the general
 interdependence of all things4 ,but    

this is not by far the full scope of    
enlightenment4 ,it is further necessary1
 as ,lazarus well says1 to note all its 
parts and their consecutive divisions4  
,we further add3 ,the universal cause   
must be understood not alone in its     
consecutive parts1 but also in its      
co-ordinate parts4 ,it is only then that
 understanding1 enlightenment1 become   
perfect4 ,we then find that after all   
the relation between cause and effect1  
or the relation between the universal   
truth and its natural phenomena1 is not 
a very trenchant one1 but a relative    
one4  ,enlightenment advances in        
various1 in all1 fields of mental life4 
,religious enlightenment has long been  
recognized as the most essential1 justly
 so1 and for many reasons1 the chief of 
them being that religious enlightenment 
is the most important and hence the most
 bitterly contested4  ,thus religious   
enlightenment is a part of universal1   
cosmic1 enlightenment4 ,it is a         
confusing expression to say that it is  

confined to all fields of mental life4  
,we believe to be shedding more light on
 the question by saying that there is   
enlightenment in all fields1 not alone  
in the mental1 but also in the cosmic1  
which unites both the material and      
mental4 ,to classify this field1 that is
 the exhaustive task of our             
understanding1 that its exhaustive      
definition4     ,,xi  ,,the             
,,distinction ,,between ,,cause ,,and   
,,effect ,,is ,,one ,,of ,,the ,,means  
,,of ,,understanding   ,the processes of
 the human mind and their subjective    
composition cannot be analyzed in a pure
 state and without regard to their      
objective effects any more than         
handiwork can be explained without the  
raw material to be handled and the      
products derived therefrom1 any more    
than any work can be described in a pure
 state without regard to the product4   
,that is the sad defect of old time     
logic which is an obstacle to its       
further advance3 it literally tears     

things out of their connections and     
forgets the necessity of interdependence
 over the need of special study4  ,the  
instrument which produces thought and   
knowledge in the human brain is not an  
isolated thing1 nor an isolated quality4
 ,it is connected not only with the     
brain and the nervous system1 but also  
with all qualities of the soul4 ,true1  
thinking is different from feeling1 but 
it is nevertheless a feeling the same as
 gladness and sorrow4 ,thought is called
 incomprehensible and the heart         
unfathomable4 ,it is the function of    
science1 of thinking and thought1 to    
fathom and comprehend what as yet is not
 fathomed and not comprehended4  ,just  
as thinking and understanding are parts 
of the human soul1 so the latter is a   
part of physical and intellectual man4  
,together with the physical development 
of man1 of the species as well as of the
 individual1 the soul also develops and 
with it that part which is the special  
object of the theory of understanding1  

viz41 thought and thinking4 ,not alone  
does physical development produce       
intellectual development1 but1 vice     
versa1 the understanding reacts on the  
physical world4 ,the one is not merely a
 cause1 nor the other merely an effect4 
,this obsolete distinction does not     
suffice for the full understanding of   
their interrelations4 ,we pay a tribute 
to the thoughts on enlightenment of     
,professor ,lazarus quoted in the       
previous chapter by acknowledging that  
they throw so much light on a certain   
point that little more than the dot over
 the i is required in order to clear up 
a bad misunderstanding about the        
relation of cause and effect4  ,since   
the time of ,aristotle this relation has
 been called a category4 ,we have       
already noted the statement which       
characterizes the age of enlightenment  
as one in which the causal category1 or 
let us say the distinction between cause
 and effect1 became the dominant issue4 
,other periods live with their          

understanding1 with their thoughts1 in  
other categories4 ,though the ancient   
,greeks knew the distinction between    
cause and effect1 yet it was far from   
being the dominant point of view in     
their search after scientific           
understanding4 ,instead of regarding1 as
 we do today1 everything as effects     
which were produced by preceding causes1
 they saw in every process1 in every    
phenomenon1 a means which had a purpose4
 ,the category of means and purpose     
dominated the ,greeks4 ,socrates admired
 the knowledge of nature displayed by   
,anaxagoras1 the stories he could tell  
of sun1 moon1 and stars4 ,but as        
,anaxagoras had omitted to disclose the 
reasonable purpose of the processes of  
nature1 ,socrates did not think much of 
such a natural science4 ,at that period 
the means and the purpose were the      
measure of reason1 the handle of the    
mind1 the category of understanding2    
today causes and effects have taken     
their places4  ,between the golden age  

of ,greece and the era of modern        
science1 the socalled night of the      
,middle ,ages1 the epoch of             
superstition1 extends4 ,if then you     
started out on a voyage and first met an
 old woman1 it meant misfortune for you4
 ,wallenstein cast the horoscope before 
he directed his troops4 ,understanding  
was gathered from the flight of a bird1 
the cry of an animal1 the constellations
 of stars1 the meeting with an old      
woman4 ,the category of that period was 
the sign and its consequences4  ,and    
according to ,lazarus1 these things were
 believed by brains which were by no    
means dull4 ,i refer to a name which    
fills us all with veneration3 ,kepler   
believed in astrology1 in the category  
of the sign and its consequence1        
together with the thinkers of the       
thousand years before him and of his own
 century4 ,astrology was a science for  
many centuries1 promoted together with  
astronomy 444 and by the same people4   
,the peculiar thing in this statement is

 the reference to the category of sign  
and consequence as a science4 ,this     
category has no longer a place in modern
 science4  ,may not our modern          
viewpoint1 the category in which our    
present day science thinks1 the category
 of cause and effect1 be equally        
transitory8  ,the ancients have         
accomplished lasting scientific results 
in spite of their purposes4 ,mediaeval  
superstition with its signs1 its        
astrology and alchemy1 has likewise     
bequeathed to us a few valuable         
scientific products4 ,and1 on the other 
hand1 even the greatest partisans of    
modern science do not deny that it is   
marred by various adventurous vagaries4 
,the categories of means and purposes1  
of signs and consequences1 are still in 
vogue today and will be preserved       
together with that of causes and        
effects4 ,the knowledge that this latter
 category is likewise but a historical  
one and exerts but temporarily a        
dominating influence on science belongs 

to the positive outcome of philosophy1  
and ,professor ,lazarus1 with all his   
advanced standpoint1 has remained behind
 this result by about a yard4  ,kindly  
note that it is not the extinction of   
the relation between cause and effect   
which we predict1 but merely that of its
 dominance4  ,whoever skips lightly over
 the current of life1 will be greatly   
shocked when reading that we place the  
fundamental pillar of all perception1   
the category of cause and effect1 in the
 same passing boat in which the prophets
 and astrologers rode4 ,one is very     
prone to belittle the faith of others by
 the name of superstition and honor     
one's own superstition by the title of  
science4  ,once we have grasped the fact
 that our intellect has no other purpose
 than that of tracing a human picture of
 cosmic processes1 and that its         
penetration of the interior of nature1  
its understanding1 explaining1          
perceiving1 knowing1 etc41 is nothing   
else1 and cannot be anything else1 that 

moment it loses its mysterious1         
transcendental metaphysical character4  
,we also understand then1 that the great
 spirit above the clouds who is supposed
 to create the world out of nothing1    
could very well serve the mind as a     
means of explaining things4 ,and it is  
the same with the category of cause and 
effect1 which is a splendid means of    
assisting explanation1 but still will   
not suffice for the requirements of all 
time to come4  ,the perception that the 
great spirit above the clouds is a free 
invention of the small human mind has   
become so widely spread that we may well
 pass on over it to other things4       
,among the questions now on the order of
 business is the one whether the causes 
with which modern science operates so   
widely are not in a way creators in     
miniature which produce their effects in
 a sleight-of-hand way4 ,and this       
erroneous notion is1 indeed1 the current
 conception4  ,if a stone falls into the
 water1 it is the cause of the          

undulations1 but not their creator4 ,it 
is only a co-operator1 for the liquid   
and elastic qualities of the water also 
act as a cause4 ,if the stone falls into
 butter1 it creates at best but one     
undulation1 and if this stony creator   
falls on the hard ground1 it is all up  
with the creation of undulations4 ,this 
shows that causes are not creators1 but 
rather effects which are not effected1  
but effect themselves4  ,the category of
 cause and effect is a good help in     
explanation1 so long as it is           
accompanied by the philosophical        
consciousness that the whole of nature  
is an infinite sea of transformations1  
which are not created by one great or   
many small creators1 but which create   
themselves4  ,a well-known philosophical
 author expresses himself in the        
following manner3 ,during the first     
weeks of its existence1 the child has no
 perception either of the world without1
 or of its own body1 or of its soul4    
,hence its feeling is not accompanied by

 the consciousness of an interaction    
between these three factors4 ,it does   
not suspect its causes4 ,we see that    
soul1 body1 and outer world are called  
the three factors of feeling4 ,now note 
how each one of these three causes or   
factors is1 so to say1 the store house  
of innumerable factors or causes1 all of
 which cause the feeling of the child4  
,the soul consists of many soul parts1  
the body of many bodily parts1 and the  
outer world consists of so many parts   
that it would consist of ten times more 
parts1 if there were any more than      
innumerable4  ,there is no doubt that   
the child's feeling1 or any other1 does 
not exist independently1 but is         
dependent on the soul1 the body1 and the
 outer world4 ,this constitutes the     
indubitable interrelation of all things4
 ,in the winding processes of the       
self-agitated universe1 the category of 
cause and effect serves as a means of   
enlightenment1 by giving our mind its   
help in the systematization of          

processes4 ,if the drop of a stone      
precedes1 the undulations of the water  
follow2 if soul1 body1 and outer world  
are present1 feeling follows4  ,the     
positive outcome of philosophy does not 
reject the services of the category of  
cause and effect4 ,it only rejects the  
mystical element in that category in    
which many people1 even among those with
 a scientific education1 still believe4 
,there is no witchcraft in this matter1 
but simply a mechanical systematization 
and classification of natural phenomena 
in the order of their appearance4 ,so   
long as water remains water and retains 
its liquid and elastic properties1 and  
so long as a stone is a stone1 a        
ponderous fellow striking the water     
heavily1 just so long will the splash of
 the stone be surely and inevitably     
followed by undulations of the water4   
,so long as soul1 body1 and outer world 
retain their known properties1 they will
 with unfailing precision produce       
feeling4 ,it is no more surprising that 

we can affirm this on the strength of   
our experience than that we have a      
category of cause and effect4 ,there    
exists nothing extraordinary but the    
condition of things1 and in this respect
 all things are alike1 so that human    
understanding1 cause and effect1 or any 
other category1 are no more             
extraordinary than any other condition4 
,the only wonder is the universe1 but   
this1 being a universal wonder1 is at   
the same time trivial1 for nothing is so
 familiar as that which is common to    
all4  ,by the help of the viewpoint of  
cause and effect1 man throws light on   
the phenomena of nature4 ,cause and     
effect serve to enlighten us about the  
world4  ,the way1 the method1 by which  
this enlightenment is produced1 is the  
special object of our study4 ,we do not 
deny that cause and effect serve us as a
 means1 but only as one of many4 ,we    
honor the category of cause and effect  
far too much when we regard it as the   
panacea4 ,we have seen that formerly    

other viewpoints served the same purpose
 and still others exist today1 some of  
which have a prospect of being valued   
more highly in the future than cause and
 effect4 ,this category serves very well
 for the explanation of processes which 
follow one another4 ,but there are other
 phenomena which occur side by side1 and
 these must also be elucidated4 ,for    
such a purpose1 the category of genus   
and species is quite as serviceable4    
,haeckel speaks somewhat slightingly of 
museum zoologists and herbarium         
botanists1 because they merely classify 
animals and plants according to genera  
and species4 ,the modern zoologists and 
botanists do not simply consider the    
multiplicity of animals and plants which
 exist simultaneously1 but also the     
chronological order of the changes and  
transformations1 and in this way they   
have gained much more of a life-picture 
of the zoological and botanical world1 a
 picture not alone of its being1 but    
also of its growing1 of arising and     

declining4 ,undoubtedly the knowledge of
 the museum zoologists and herbarium    
botanists was meager1 narrow1           
mechanical1 and modern science offers a 
far better portrait of truth and life4  
,still this is no reason for            
overestimating the value of analysis by 
cause and effect4 ,this method          
supplements the category of genus and   
species4 ,it assists in enlightening1 it
 helps in the process of thought1 but it
 does not render other forms of thought 
superfluous4  ,it is essential for the  
theory of understanding1 to recognize   
the special forms of thought of old and 
new times as peculiarities which have a 
common nature4 ,this common nature of   
the process of thought1 understanding1  
enlightenment1 is a part of the         
universal world process1 and not greatly
 different from it4  ,the conception of 
a cause partly explains the phenomena of
 the universe2 but so does the          
conception of a purpose and of a        
species1 in fact1 so do all conceptions4

  ,in the universe all parts are causes1
 all of them caused1 produced1 created1 
and yet there is no creator1 no         
producer1 no cause4 ,the general        
produces the special1 and the latter in 
turn produces by reaction the general4  
,the category of the general and the    
special1 of the universe and its parts1 
contains all other categories in the    
germ4 ,in order to explain the process  
of thought1 we must explain it as a part
 of the universal process4 ,it has not  
caused the creation of the world1       
neither in a theological nor in an      
idealist sense1 nor is it a mere effect 
of the brain substance1 as the          
materialists of the eighteenth century  
represented it4 ,the process of thought 
and its understanding is a peculiarity  
of the universal cosmos4 ,the relation  
of the general to the special is the    
clear and typical category underlying   
all other categories4  ,one might also  
apply other names to this category1 for 
instance1 the one and the many2 the     

essence and the form2 the substance and 
its attributes2 truth and its phenomena1
 etc4 ,however1 a name is but a breath  
and a sound2 understanding and          
comprehension are what we want in the   
first place4     ,,xii  ,,mind ,,and    
,,matter3 ,,which ,,is ,,primary1       
,,which ,,secondary8   ,it is the merit 
of the philosophical outcome to have    
delivered the process of understanding  
from its mystic elements4 ,so long as   
cause and effect are not recognized as a
 form of thought belonging to the same  
species with many other forms of        
thought1 all of which serve the common  
purpose of illuminating the cosmic      
processes for the human mind by a       
symbolized picture composed of various  
conceptions1 just so long will something
 mysterious adhere to the category of   
cause and effect4  ,philosophy is       
particularly engaged in illuminating the
 understanding4 ,it has learned enough  
of its specialty to know that it is a   
part of the universe performing the     

special function of arranging the world 
of phenomena and its smaller circles    
according to relations of consanguinity 
and chronology4 ,such an arrangement    
presents a scientific picture of the    
world4 ,the well-known diagram of       
conceptions used by logicians1          
consisting of a large circle symbolizing
 the general1 inside of which smaller   
circles crossing and encircling one     
another represent the specialties1 is a 
fitting aid in explaining the method by 
which the faculty of understanding      
arrives at its scientific results4      
,science in general is the sum of all   
special kinds of knowledge1 differing   
from them in no greater degree than the 
human body from the various organs of   
which it is composed4 ,a bodily organ   
can no more exist outside of the body   
than any particular knowledge can exist 
outside of the generality of all        
sciences4 ,no metaphysics is possible   
under this condition4  ,as surely as we 
know that two mountains cannot be       

without a valley between them1 just so  
surely do we know that nothing in       
heaven1 on earth1 or in any other place 
can lie outside of the general circle of
 things4 ,outside of the worldly world  
there can be no other little world4 ,a  
logically constituted human mind cannot 
think differently4 ,and it is likewise  
impossible to discover such an outside  
world by the help of and within the     
limits of experience1 because thought is
 inseparable from experience and there  
can be no experience without thought4 ,a
 man who has a head upon his            
shoulders--and there can be no man      
without a head--cannot experience any   
unworldly metaphysical world4 ,the      
faculty of experience1 which includes   
the faculty of understanding or         
perception1 is merely empirical4 ,our   
settled conviction of the unity of the  
universe is an inborn logic4 ,the unity 
of the world is the supreme and most    
universal category4 ,a closer look at it
 at once reveals the fact that it       

carries its opposite1 the infinite      
multiplicity1 under its heart or in its 
womb4 ,the general is pregnant with     
specialties4  ,this is a comparison1 and
 comparisons limp4 ,a mother has other  
qualities beside that of motherhood1    
while the universe1 or the absolute     
generality1 is nothing but the bearer1  
the cause1 of all special and separate  
things4 ,it is pure motherhood which can
 no more be without children than the   
children without a mother4 ,in this way1
 no cause can be without effects4 ,a    
cause without an effect--let us dismiss 
it4 ,the child is as much a cause in    
motherhood as it is its effect and      
product4 ,in the same way the universe  
has never been1 and could not be        
conceived1 without the many special     
children which it carries in its womb4  
,if thought wishes to make for itself a 
picture1 a conception of the cause of   
all causes1 it must necessarily take    
cognizance of the effects4 ,thought may 
very well separate one from the other1  

but cannot think correctly without the  
consciousness that its separating and   
distinguishing is only a formality4     
,imagining1 conceiving1 knowing1        
perceiving1 are so many formalities4#i  
,but philosophy took its departure from 
the opposite1 the wrong1 view4 ,it      
regarded perceiving1 understanding1 as  
the main thing4 ,it did not use science 
as a formality1 as something secondary1 
as something serving a nature1 a cause1 
a purpose1 a higher reason1 but it      
started with the illogical and          
irrelevant assumption that the specialty
 of mind1 understanding1 conceiving1    
judging1 distinguishing1 is the primary1
 supreme1 self-constituted cause and    
purpose1 instead of being an element in 
logic4 ,even in ,hegel's logic1 which1  
by the way1 has given us much light on  
the process of thought1 this confounding
 of the original with the copy is the   
cause of an almost impenetrable         
mysticism4  ,not nature1 but science is 
to those idealist philosophers the      

source of truth4 ,the true idea         
surpassed everything with them4 ,this   
idea is forced by ,hegel to roll about1 
and wind1 and twist as if it were not a 
natural child1 but a metaphysical       
dragon4 ,but we cannot deny that in     
these twistings and windings of the     
,hegelian dragon the condition of the   
mind is exposed in all its peculiarities
 and nakedness4  ,according to ,hegel's 
theosophical opinion ,i do not become   
aware of my friend in material          
intercourse and bodily touch4 ,hegel's  
mark of a true friend is not that he    
proves true in life1 but that he        
corresponds to his idea4 ,the idea of   
true friendship is for the idealist the 
measure of friendly truth1 just as      
,plato measures the ideal or true       
condition of states and cooking pots of 
this valley of sorrows by the standard  
of an idea of the state1 or an idea of  
the cooking pot1 supposed to be derived 
from some other world4  ,it is surely a 
valuable gift of nature that the human  

mind can form its ideals4 ,but it is a  
gift that has also caused much trouble  
and which requires for its higher       
development the clear understanding that
 ideals are constructed out of real     
materials4 ,without this understanding  
the human race will never succeed in    
making a reasonable use of its ideal    
faculty4 ,the beautiful ideal of true   
friendship may stimulate us to          
emulation4 ,but the knowledge that it is
 nothing but an ideal which in reality  
is always mixed with a little falseness 
serves as no mean antidote against      
sentimental transcendentalism4 ,and the 
same holds true of truth1 liberty1      
justice1 equality1 brotherhood1 etc4    
,the striving after an ideal is very    
good1 but it does no harm to be         
conscious of the fact and clearly see   
that any ideal can never be realized    
without some admixture of its opposite4 
,what is it that ,lessing says8 ,if ,god
 were to offer me the search for truth  
in his left hand1 and truth in his      

right1 ,i should grasp his left hand and
 say3 ,father1 keep truth1 it is for you
 alone4  ,it has not been the task of   
philosophy to give us a true mind       
picture of the world4 ,this it cannot   
do1 this cannot be done by any          
scientific specialty4 ,it may be done by
 the totality of sciences1 and even by  
them only approximately4 ,even with them
 striving is a higher truth and of      
higher value than knowing4 ,i repeat1   
then3 ,it is not the particular task of 
philosophy to furnish a true picture of 
the world1 but rather to investigate the
 method by which the human mind arrives 
at its world pictures4 ,that is its     
work1 and it is the object of this book 
to sketch its outline4  ,a sketch is in 
itself an inexact piece of work4 ,i may 
be blamed for jumbling together such    
terms as world1 cosmos1 universe1       
nature1 or such others as ideas1        
judgment1 conclusion1 thought1 mind1    
intellect1 etc41 and for using them as  
synonyms when many of them have already 

been assigned their fixed meaning in the
 classification of science4 ,but this is
 the point which ,i emphasize1 that the 
method of science1 of thought1 has the  
twofold nature of making fixed terms and
 still remaining pliable4  ,science not 
only defines what this or that is1 but  
also how it moves1 how it originates1   
passes away1 and still remains2 how it  
is fixed and yet at the same time       
moving4 ,the real being of which science
 treats1 viz41 the universe1 is not     
alone present1 but also past and future1
 and it is not alone this or that1 but  
it is everything4 ,even nothing is      
something belonging to the aggregate    
life4  ,this dialectic statement is     
rather incomprehensible to the          
unphilosophical brain4 ,nothing and     
something are conceptions so widely     
diverging from one another in the       
unphilosophical mind that they seem far 
more apart than heavenly bliss is       
supposed to be separated from earthly   
misery1 according to the declarations of

 clergymen4 ,clergymen are              
transcendental logicians1 and it is     
likewise transcendental to regard       
nothing as an absolute nothing4 ,it     
cannot be denied that it is at least a  
conception or a term4 ,therefore1       
whether little or much1 it is something4
 ,we cannot get out of existence1 out of
 the universe1 any more than            
,muenchhausen can pull himself out of a 
swamp by his pigtail4  ,there can be no 
absolute nothing1 because the absolute  
is synonymous with the universe1 and    
everything else is relative4 ,so it is  
also with nothing4 ,it simply has the   
significance of not being the main      
thing4 ,to say3 ,this is nothing means  
it is not that which is essential at    
this time and place4 ,this man is       
nothing simply means that he is not a   
man out of the ordinary1 and it does not
 at all signify that he is nothing at   
all4  ,the category of being and not    
being1 like all categories1#aj which    
appear as something fixed to the sound  

but ill-informed mind1 is really        
something shifting4 ,its poles fuse and 
flow into one another1 its differences  
are not perfectly radical4 ,these       
categories give us an illustration of   
the mobile universe1 which is a unit    
composed of its opposite1 multiplicity4 
,the positive outcome of philosophy has 
for its climax the understanding that   
the world is multifarious1 and that this
 multiplicity is uniform in possessing  
the universal nature in common4 ,the    
sciences must represent these objects in
 such a contradictory way1 because all  
things live in reality in this          
contradiction4 ,what the museum         
zoologists and the herbarium botanists  
have accomplished on the field of       
zoology and botany in the category of   
space1 has been accepted by the         
,darwinians with the addition of the    
variety of those subjects in the        
category of time4 ,either class of      
scientists categorizes1 classifies1     
systematizes4 ,the chemists do the same 

with substances and forces1 and so does 
,hegel with his categories of being and 
not being1 quantity and quality1        
substance and attribute1 thing and      
quality1 cause and effect1 etc4 ,he     
makes all things flow into one another1 
rise1 pass1 move1 and he is right in    
doing so4 ,everything moves and belongs 
together4  ,but that which ,hegel missed
 and which is added by us consists in   
the further perception that the flow and
 the variability of the categories just 
quoted is only an illustration of the   
necessary variability and interaction of
 all thoughts and conceptions1 which    
are1 and must be1 nothing but           
illustrations and reflexes of the       
universal life4  ,however1 the idealist 
philosophers who have all of them       
contributed materially toward this      
ultimate special knowledge1 are still   
more or less under the mistaken         
impression that the process of thinking 
is the true process and the true        
original1 and that the true original1   

nature or the material universe1 is only
 a secondary phenomenon4 ,we now insist 
on having it understood that the cosmic 
interaction of phenomena1 the universal 
living world1 is the truth and life4    
,is the world a concept8 ,is it an idea8
 ,it may be conceived and grasped by the
 mind1 but it does and is more than     
that4 ,it surpasses our understanding in
 the past1 the present1 and the future4 
,it is infinite in quantity and quality4
 ,how do we know that8 ,we say in the   
same breath that we do not know         
everything which is passing1 has passed1
 and will pass in the world2 we do not  
understand the whole1 and yet we claim  
to have fully understood that this whole
 universe is not a mere idea1 but       
something absolute1 something more than 
a conception or an intuitive knowledge1 
something real and true1 something      
infinite4 ,how do we solve this         
contradiction8  ,the science of the     
limitation of the individual and of the 
collective human intellect is identical 

with the universal concept2 in other    
words1 it is innate in the human        
intellect to know that it is a limited  
part of the absolute universe4 ,this    
intellectual faculty of ours is no less 
natural and aboriginal than the faculty 
of trees to become green in summer and  
that of the spiders to spread their     
nets4 ,although the intellect is a      
limited part of the unlimited and aware 
of this fact1 yet its faculty of        
knowing1 understanding1 judging1 is a   
universal one4 ,no intellect is possible
 or conceivable which can do more than  
the instrument of thought given by      
nature to the human race4 ,we may indeed
 conceive of a mental giant4 ,but when  
we take a closer look1 every one will   
perceive that this mental giant cannot  
get outside of the traditional race of  
thinkers1 unless he is supposed to be   
the creature of imagination4  ,thinking1
 knowing1 understanding1 are universal4 
,i can perceive all things in about the 
same way that ,i can see all cobble     

stones4 ,i can see them all1 but ,i     
cannot see everything that they are     
composed of1 ,i cannot see1 for         
instance1 that they are heavy and       
ponderable4 ,in the same way all things 
may be perceived1 but not everything    
that belongs to them4 ,they do not      
dissolve in understanding1 in other     
words1 understanding is only a part of  
the universe1 all of which may be       
perceived1 but the understanding of     
which is not the whole1 since our       
intellect is but a part of the universe4
  ,everything may be understood1 but    
understanding is not everything4 ,every 
pug-dog is a dog1 but every dog is not a
 pug-dog4 ,the conflict of idealism and 
materialism rests on this same conflict 
between genus and subordinate species4  
,the idealist incarnate contends that   
all things are ideas1 while we strive to
 make him see that ideal things and     
material things are two species of the  
same genus1 and that they should be     
given a common family or general name   

beside their special name1 on account of
 their common nature and for the purpose
 of a sound logic4 ,wherever this       
understanding has been acquired1 the    
quarrel between idealists and           
materialists appears in the light of a  
mere bandying of words4  ,everything is 
large1 everything is small1 everything  
extended through space and time1        
everything cause and everything effect1 
everything a whole and a part1 because  
everything is the essence of everything1
 because everything is contained in the 
all1 everything related1 everything     
connected1 everything interdependent4   
,the conception of all as the absolute1 
the content of which consists of        
innumerable relativities1 the concept of
 the all as the universal truth which   
reflects many phenomena1 that is the    
basis of the science of understanding4  
,,footnotes3  #i ,a ,by means of which  
we picture and explain the monistic     
interrelation of all things1 called     
universe1 nature and cosmos4--,,editor4 

#aj ,that is1 like all categories that  
are subdivisions of the absolute being1 
of general existence1 pertaining only to
 the phenomena or specialties which1    
however1 in their entirety constitute   
the absolute being or monistic          
nature4--,,editor4     ,,xiii  ,,the    
,,extent ,,to ,,which ,,the ,,doubts    
,,of ,,the ,,possibility ,,of ,,clear   
,,and ,,accurate ,,understanding ,,have 
,,been ,,overcome   ,a contemporaneous  
professor of philosophy1 ,kuno ,fischer1
 of ,jena1 says3 ,the problem of modern 
philosophy is the understanding of      
things4 ,but this problem does not      
occupy modern philosophy alone2 it was  
also considered by ancient philosophy4  
,even more1 it belongs to the whole     
world4 ,all the world1 ,i mean the whole
 human world1 and especially the        
sciences1 search after understanding4 ,i
 do not say this for the purpose of     
setting the ,professor right1 for ,i    
acknowledge that he is a fairly         
deserving philosopher4 ,if ,i cared to  

go through his works1 ,i should surely  
find other passages which state the     
problem of philosophy more accurately   
and concretely1 to the effect that      
philosophy does not strive merely for   
the indefinite understanding of things1 
but rather for the special understanding
 of that particular thing which bears   
the name of understanding4 ,philosophy  
at the climax of its development seeks  
to understand understanding4 ,it has    
seriously attempted the solution of this
 problem so long as men think1 so far as
 our historical records go4  ,after that
 which we have already said about the   
beginning and the end of things and     
about their immortality1 it will be     
easily understood that the thing called 
understanding has no more historical    
beginning than all the rest4 ,the known 
grows out of the unknown1 the conscious 
out of the unconscious4 ,our modern     
consciousness1 though agreeably         
cultivated1 is still an undeveloped1    
unconscious consciousness4              

,nevertheless1 development has gone far 
enough to make it plain that            
understanding is anti-religious4        
,especially the understanding of        
understanding1 the outcome of positive  
philosophy1 has a pronounced            
anti-religious1 and to that extent      
destructive1 tendency4 ,but one should  
not have an exaggerated idea of this    
destruction4 ,here1 under this sun1     
nothing is destroyed without leaving the
 basis for the growth of new life from  
the ruins4 ,it belongs to the conception
 of the universe to understand that it  
is the main conception required for the 
conception of conception1 for the       
understanding of understanding4  ,the   
history of philosophy begins with the   
decay of heathen religion1 and the      
history of modern philosophy with the   
decay of ,christian religion4 ,since    
religion must be preserved for the      
people according to the official        
declarations of the rulers1 the official
 professors are not clear and accurate  

expounders of the positive outcome of   
philosophy4 ,no matter how great the    
work of ,spinoza1 ,leibniz1 ,kant1 and  
,hegel may be1 yet the followers of     
,kant and ,hegel have no freedom of     
research1 and ,kuno ,fischer1 although  
very close to the root of the subject1  
is nevertheless doomed to remain in the 
mystification of the function of        
conceiving and of understanding4 ,his   
profession clouds his judgment4         
,nature1 says this professor1 is        
regarded as the first object of         
understanding1 as the principle from    
which everything else follows4 ,in this 
respect modern philosophy is            
naturalistic4 ,it is taken for granted  
that nature can be understood1 or that  
the possibility of understanding things 
is given4 ,modern philosophy makes this 
assumption dogmatically4444 ,the        
,kantian philosophy1 on the other hand1 
assumes a critical1 not a dogmatic1     
attitude toward the possibility of      
understanding4 7,system of ,logic and   

,metaphysics1 by ,kuno ,fischer1 second 
edition1 pages #ajd and #aji47 ,in this 
latter1 critical1 stage1 the subject is 
kept rather hot by the professors of    
philosophy4 ,the critics are still      
engaged in exclaiming3 ,be amazed1 oh   
world6 ,how is understanding possible8  
,in the first place1 there is nothing to
 be amazed at4 ,why is not the          
naturalistic philosopher consistent by  
recognizing his special object1         
understanding1 as a natural object8     
,the supposition that an understanding  
of things is possible1 is neither a     
supposition nor anything dogmatic4  ,the
 philosophers should abandon their old  
hobby of trying to prove anything by    
syllogisms4 ,nowadays1 a case is not    
substantiated by words1 but by facts1 by
 deeds4 ,the sciences are sufficiently  
equipped1 and thus the possibility of   
understanding is demonstrated beyond a  
doubt4  ,but1 say the critics who are so
 wise that they hear the grass growing1 
are those perceptions which are produced

 by the exact sciences really           
perceptions8 ,are they not simply       
substitutes8 ,those sciences recognize  
only the phenomena of things2 but where 
is the understanding which perceives the
 truth8  ,we shall offer it to them4    
,you are naturalists4 ,well1 then1      
nature is the truth4 ,or are you        
spiritualists who make a metaphysical   
distinction between the truth and the   
phenomenon8 ,to understand means to     
distinguish and judge4 ,the semblance   
must be distinguished from the truth1   
but not in an excessive manner4 ,it must
 be remembered that even the most evil  
semblance is a natural phenomenon1 and  
the sublimest truth is only revealed by 
phenomena1 just because it is natural4  
,but the old logic cannot stand any     
contradictions4 ,semblance and truth are
 contradictions for it and they cannot  
be reconciled by it4 ,but the           
irreconcilable simply consists in       
entertaining1 in this monistic world1   
thoughts which are supposed to be       

totally different4 ,hence old style     
logic lacks entirely the mediating      
manner of thought which does not elevate
 understanding and its faculty of       
thought to the skies1 but is satisfied  
to regard it as a very valuable1 but    
still natural1 quality4  ,the old logic 
could not construct any valid rules of  
thought1 because it thought too         
transcendentally of thinking itself4 ,it
 was not satisfied that thought is only 
a faculty1 a mode of doing1 a part of   
true nature1 but the nature of truth was
 spiritualized by it into a             
transcendental being4 ,instead of       
grasping the conception of spirit with  
blood and flesh1 it tries to dissolve   
blood and flesh into ideas4 ,that would 
be well enough1 if such a solution of   
the riddles were meant to have no other 
significance than that of symbols4  ,the
 old logic contains long chapters about 
the proofs of truth4 ,it is supposed to 
be identical with the idea and to be    
proven by ideas4 ,this would be all     

right1 if we remained conscious of the  
secondary relation in which the idea and
 understanding stand to truth4 ,but old 
line logic is not conscious of this     
relation4 ,on the contrary4 ,its        
consciousness distorts that relation4   
,it elevates the mind to the first place
 and relegates blood and flesh to the   
last4  ,the necessity of a conception is
 proven by the impossibility of its     
opposite4 ,an idea is contradicted by   
proving its impossibility4 ,this        
impossibility is demonstrated when it   
can be proven that a thing is at the    
same time ,a and not-,a1 or when it can 
be shown that a thing is neither ,a nor 
not-,a4 ,the first mode of proof is     
called antinomy1 the second1 dilemma4   
,in this representation of the logical  
proof much is said of the thing1 for    
instance this3 ,a thing cannot be at the
 same time straight and crooked1 true   
and untrue1 light and dark4 ,the        
excellence of this doctrine is easily   
apparent1 because it is overlooked that 

the concept thing is not a fixed1 but a 
variable one4 ,if a straight line is a  
thing1 and a crooked line another thing1
 and if these two things are held to be 
opposed to one another1 then the above  
logic is the most justified in the      
world4 ,but who claims that there are   
not many straight lines which are       
crooked at one end1 which run straight  
on for a certain distance and then turn8
 ,who will define to us what a line is8 
,a line may be composed of #aj1 #bj1    
#cj1 etc41 parts1 and each part is a    
line4  ,before anything to the point can
 be said about the logical laws1 it is  
necessary to say above all how it stands
 with the relation of the whole to its  
parts1 of the universe to its           
subdivisions4 ,the old theological      
question of ,god and his creatures1 the 
old metaphysical question of the unity  
and the multiplicity1 of truth and its  
phenomena1 reason and consequence1 etc41
 in one word1 the question of           
metaphysical categories must be solved  

and settled before the definition of the
 minor factors of understanding1 the    
questions of formal logic1 can be       
attempted4  ,what is a thing8 ,a        
clergyman would answer3 ,only ,god is   
something1 everything else is nothing6  
,and we say3 ,only the universe is      
something1 and everything in it consists
 of vacillating1 changing1 precarious1  
varicolored1 fluid1 variable phenomena  
or relativities4  ,in our times1 up to  
which the theologians have speculated so
 much and contributed so little to      
understanding1 one can hardly touch on  
the ,god concept without annoying the   
reader4 ,yet it is very essential for a 
thorough understanding of the human mind
 to point out that the ,god concept and 
the universe concept are analogous      
concepts4 ,not in vain have the first   
minds of modern philosophy1 such as     
,cartesius1 ,spinoza1 ,leibniz1 occupied
 themselves so closely with the ,god    
concept4 ,they invented the socalled    
ontological proof of the existence of   

,god4 ,this proof if applied to the     
universe1 testifies to its divinity4 ,a 
metaphysical cloud pusher as well as the
 physical cosmos are fundamentally      
concepts of the most perfect being4 ,it 
makes little difference whether we say  
that the concept of the universe1 or of 
the cosmos1 or of the most perfect being
 is innate in man4 ,if this concept were
 not existing1 it would lack the main   
thing required for its perfection4      
,hence the most perfect being must      
exist4 ,and it does4 ,it is the         
universe1 and everything belongs to its 
existence4 ,nothing is excluded from it1
 least of all understanding4 ,the latter
 is1 therefore1 not only possible1 but a
 fact1 which is proven by the very      
concept of the most perfect being4      
,this ought to be sufficient to help us 
over the doubts of the critics1         
especially over ,kantian criticism1 or  
rather dualism4 ,kant did not care to   
accept the dogma of the possibility of  
understanding without examination2 he   

wished to investigate first4 ,he then   
discovered that we may understand       
correctly1 provided we remain with our  
understanding on the field of common    
experience2 in other words1 in the      
physical universe1 and refrain from     
digressing into the metaphysical heaven4
 ,but he did not understand that the    
metaphysical heaven against which he    
warns us would be an obsolete standpoint
 in our days4  ,he still permits that   
transcendental possibility to remain and
 while he warns us not to stray into it 
with our understanding he omits to tell 
us to also keep away from it with our   
intuition4 ,kant struggles about between
 the thing as phenomenon and the thing  
itself4 ,the former is material and may 
be understood1 the latter is            
supernatural and may be believed or     
divined4 ,with this doctrine1 he again  
made understanding1 the object of modern
 philosophy1 problematical1 thus        
inviting us to investigate further4     
,this we have done1 and it is now the   

positive outcome of philosophy to know  
clearly and definitely and understand   
that understanding is not only a part of
 this world of phenomena1 but a true    
part of the general truth1 beside which 
there is no other truth1 and which is   
the most perfect being4  ,philosophy    
took its departure from confused        
wrangling about that which is and that  
which is not1 especially from the       
religious disappointments met by the    
,greek nation when its world of deities 
dissolved into phantasms4 ,humanity     
demands a positive1 strong1 unequivocal1
 reliable understanding4 ,now1 in this  
world of ours1 the solid is so mixed    
with the fluid1 the imperishable with   
the perishable1 that a total separation 
is impossible4 ,nevertheless our        
intellect catches itself continually    
making separations and distinctions4    
,should not that appear mysterious to   
it8 ,the necessary and natural result   
was the problem of the theory of        
understanding1 the special question of  

philosophy3 ,which is the way to an     
indubitably clear and positive          
understanding8  ,the summit of ,grecian 
philosophy bears the name of ,aristotle4
 ,he was a practical man who did not    
like to stray into the distance when he 
could find good things near by1 and he  
did not concern himself about the       
descent of understanding4 ,its platonic 
origin from an ideal world went         
instinctively against his grain4 ,he1   
therefore1 took hold of the question at 
the nearest end and analyzed the        
positive knowledge available at that    
time4 ,but since ,grecian science and   
the knowledge of ,aristotlean times were
 rather slim1 his attempt to demonstrate
 logic did not produce any decisive     
results4 ,but it had been discovered    
that it was possible to make positive   
deductions from fixed premises4         
,aristotle clung to this4 ,he showed    
clearly and definitely1 excellently and 
substantially1 how logical deductions   
should be made in order to arrive at    

positive understanding4 ,all dogs are   
watchful4 ,my pug-dog is a dog1         
therefore it is watchful4 ,what can be  
more evident8 ,why1 then1 speculate     
about ,god1 freedom1 and immortality1   
when indubitable knowledge may be       
obtained by the formal method of exact  
deductions8  ,but ,aristotle had        
overlooked something1 or1 being a       
practical man1 perhaps overlooked it    
intentionally4 ,the premise from which  
he deducted the watchfulness of dogs in 
general1 was handed down by tradition   
and had been accepted on faith4 ,but was
 it founded on fact8 ,could there not be
 some dogs who lacked the quality of    
watchfulness1 and might not our pug-dog 
be very unreliable1 in spite of all     
exact deductions8 ,in the case of the   
pug-dog this would not be of very great 
moment4 ,but what about the question of 
the beginning and end of the world1 or  
the question of the existence of ,god8  
,the ,grecian gods had been outgrown by 
,aristotle4  ,the history of logic1 and 

of philosophy in general1 is interrupted
 by ,christianity and by the decline of 
the antique world1 until the reformation
 opens a new era4 ,the ,catholic church 
had1 in its own way1 thoroughly settled 
the great questions of the true nature  
of things1 of beginning and end1 reason 
and consequence4 ,but when it1 and with 
it ,christianity1 began to disintegrate1
 disbelief once more posed in the brains
 of the philosophers the old question3  
,how do we obtain reliable and true     
understanding8 ,reliability and truth   
were at that time still identical4      
,bacon and ,descartes are the men who   
started the investigation4 ,both of them
 were disgusted with ,aristotle and with
 his formal logic1 particularly with the
 subtleties of scholasticism4 ,it did   
not satisfy this new epoch to found     
positive understanding on traditional   
contentions and exact deductions        
therefrom4 ,it is a radical epoch and1  
therefore1 epoch-making4 ,the new       
philosophers have the aim of unequivocal

 understanding in common with the       
ancient philosophers4 ,bacon still      
connects himself with the stock in trade
 of the past4 ,his historian says of him
 that one should not reiterate that     
,bacon took his departure from          
experience1 for this means nothing or   
nothing more than that ,columbus was a  
mariner while the main thing is that he 
discovered ,america4444 ,he wanted to   
find a new logic corresponding to the   
new life4444 ,the inventive human mind  
has created the new time1 the compass1  
the powder1 the art of typography4444   
,he wanted a new logic which            
corresponded to the spirit of invention4
 ,he1 the philosopher of invention1 was 
,lord ,chancellor of ,england1 was a man
 of the world4 ,not only himself1 but   
also his science1 was too ambitious1 too
 full of energy1 too world-embracing1   
for him to bury himself in solitude4    
,that is a glory for a philosopher1 but 
at the same time an obstacle for his    
special task1 for the new logic4 ,he    

recognized the import of his task only  
in its general outlines4 ,but his       
contemporary and successor ,descartes   
approached the matter more radically and
 pointedly4  ,although in recent times  
the human mind had demonstrated its     
positive faculty of understanding in    
natural sciences1 especially by         
inventions1 still it was prejudiced by  
religious improbabilities in its great  
premises dealing with the essence of    
things and men1 with the good1 true1 and
 beautiful1 as the ancients called it4  
,in order to end his doubts1 ,descartes 
elevates radical doubt to the position  
of a principle and of a starting point  
for all understanding4 ,then he cannot  
doubt that he is at least searching for 
truth4 ,he who does not believe in any  
understanding1 any science1 any         
inventions1 cannot doubt at all events  
that the impulse for understanding is   
there4 ,it1 at least1 is undeniable4    
,cogito1 ergo sum--,i think1 therefore  
,i am--that is a premise which cannot be

 shaken4 ,the rest1 thinks ,descartes1  
may be deducted by ,aristotlean methods4
  ,with this thought1 the philosopher of
 modern times relapsed into the old     
error that anything positively true     
could be ascertained with logical       
formulas4 ,his consciousness of the     
thoughts stirring in his brain1 ,i might
 say his flesh and blood1 convinced him 
by matter-of-fact evidence of the       
reality of their existence4  ,this fact 
had hitherto been misunderstood4 ,it is 
claimed that ,descartes could convince  
himself only of the existence of his    
soul1 of his thought1 by evidence4 ,no1 
my feeling1 my sight1 my hearing1 etc41 
are just as evident to me as my         
thinking1 and simultaneously with sight 
and hearing that which is heard and     
seen4 ,the separation of subject and    
object can and must be merely a         
formality4  ,the ,descartian thesis has 
been distorted into the statement that  
nothing is evident to man but his own   
subjective conception4 ,and the ideology

 has been carried to the extreme of     
calling the whole world an idea1 a      
phantasmagoria4 ,true1 ,descartes needed
 ,god in order to be sure that his      
conceptions did not cheat him4  ,in     
order to prove that we no longer need   
such extravagant means in our times1 ,i 
shall devote another chapter to this    
subject4     ,,xiv  ,,continuation ,,of 
,,the ,,discussion ,,on ,,the           
,,difference ,,between ,,doubtful ,,and 
,,evident ,,understanding   ,let us     
divide the history of civilization into 
two periods4 ,in the first1 the less    
civilized period1 the doubtful          
perceptions predominate1 in the second  
period the evident ones4 ,our special   
investigation of the correct way of     
evident understanding began in the first
 period in which the doubtful           
perceptions1 commonly called errors1    
predominated4 ,in this period1 the gods 
rule in heaven and imagination on earth4
  ,to get rid of errors meant originally
 to lose gods and heaven4 ,the ideal    

world was the cause of metaphysics4     
,metaphysics which drew the             
investigation of the supernatural into  
the circle of its activity1 did so for  
the purpose of enlightening the human   
mind4 ,thus its problem was from the    
outset of a twofold nature4 ,it desires 
to throw light on the natural process of
 thought1 which was temporarily         
unbalanced by a bent for the            
supernatural1 and for this reason it    
first loses itself in the clouds4       
,while human reason has now become      
soberer1 the meaning of the term        
metaphysics has also been sobered down4 
,our contemporaneous metaphysicians     
speak no longer of such transcendental  
things as the ancients did4 ,present day
 metaphysics occupies itself with such  
abstract ideas as the thing and nothing1
 being and coming into being1 matter and
 force1 truth and error4  ,particularly 
the investigation of doubtful1          
erroneous1 and evident or true          
understanding1 which we here discuss1 is

 a part of metaphysics4  ,the term      
metaphysics1 then1 has a double meaning1
 one of them transcendental and         
extravagant1 the other natural and      
within sober limits4 ,our sober task of 
demonstrating the positive outcome of   
philosophy that acquired sober methods  
in dealing with understanding also      
compels us to face transcendental       
metaphysics1 which sobers down in the   
course of time and develops into its    
opposite1 into pure1 bare1 naked        
physics4  ,the divine has become human1 
the transcendental sober1 and so        
understanding grows ever more           
unequivocal and evident in the progress 
of history4  ,in order to become clear  
on the problem of understanding1 we must
 cease to turn our eyes to any one      
individual opinion1 thought1 knowledge1 
or perception4 ,we must rather consider 
the process of understanding in its     
entirety4 ,we then notice the           
development from doubt to evidence1 from
 errors to true understanding4 ,at the  

same time we become aware how unwise it 
was to entertain such an exaggerated    
idea of the contrast between truth and  
error4  ,whoever searches for true and  
evident understanding will not find it  
in ,jerusalem1 nor in ,jericho1 nor in  
the spirit2 not in any single thing1 but
 in the universe4 ,there the known      
emerges from the unknown so gradually   
that no beginning can be traced4        
,understanding comes into being and     
grows1 is partly erroneous and partly   
accurate1 becomes more and more evident4
 ,but there is never an absolutely true 
understanding any more than there can be
 an absolutely faulty one4 ,only the    
universe1 but not any single thing1 is  
absolute1 imperishable1 and impregnable4
  ,in order to accurately define        
understanding1 we must separate it from 
misunderstanding1 but not too far1 not  
excessively1 otherwise the thing becomes
 extravagant4 ,the limited formal logic 
teaches1 indeed1 that the same thing    
cannot be affirmed and denied at the    

same time1 affirmation and denial being 
contradictions4 ,but such a logic is    
very narrow4 ,herbs are not weeds4      
,weeds are the negation of herbs1 and   
still weeds are herbs4 ,an erroneous    
understanding is a negation of a true   
understanding1 error is not truth1 and  
still it exists in truth4 ,there is no  
absolute error any more than perceptions
 are the truth itself4 ,all perceptions 
are and remain nothing but symbols or   
reflections of truth4  ,we do not wish  
to confound error with truth and make a 
stew of them1 but rather understand them
 both4 ,the mixing is done by the man   
who opposes them as irreconcilable      
contradictions4 ,let us first note the  
mistake committed in so doing4 ,by so   
opposing error and truth something is   
done which is not intended1 not known4  
,the intention is to confront the       
erroneous understanding with truth4 ,for
 this purpose1 error is assumed to be   
the same as erroneous understanding1    
which may be admitted2 but true         

understanding and truth are two         
different things and must be kept       
separate1 if we wish to arrive at clear 
and unmistakable results4 ,if we        
formulate the question in this way3 ,how
 do erroneous and true understanding    
differ1 we are nearer to the desired    
clarity by two solar distances4 ,we then
 find that error and understanding do   
not exclude one another1 but are two    
species of the same genus1 two          
individuals of the same family4  ,two   
times two is not alone four2 this is    
only a part of the truth2 it is also    
four times one1 or eight times one-half1
 or one plus three1 or sixteen times    
one-quarter1 etc4 ,the man who first    
observed that the sun circled around the
 earth once a day1 committed a mistake1 
yet he made a true perception4 ,the     
apparent circulation of the sun in      
twenty-four hours around the earth is a 
substantial part of the understanding   
which illumines the relation of the     
motion of the sun and of the earth4 ,no 

truth is merely simple1 but it is at the
 same time composed of an infinite      
number of partial truths4 ,the semblance
 must not be contradictorily separated  
from truth1 in an extravagant sense1 but
 is part of truth1 just as all errors   
contribute toward true understanding4   
,in so far as all perceptions are       
limited1 they are errors1 partial       
truths4 ,true understanding requires    
above all the backing of the conscious  
recognition that it is a limited part of
 the unlimited universe4  ,the cosmic   
relation of the whole to its parts1 of  
the general to the special1 must be     
considered in order to get a clear      
conception of the nature of the human   
understanding4  ,understanding or       
knowledge1 thinking1 perceiving1        
reasoning1 must1 for the purpose of     
investigation1 not be excessively       
separated from other phenomena4 ,in a   
way1 every object which is chosen for   
special study is isolated4 ,in saying1  
in a way1 ,i mean that the separation of

 the objects of study from other world  
objects must be consciously moderate1   
not exaggerated4 ,the separation of the 
intellect from other objects or subjects
 when investigating them1 must be       
accompanied by the recognition that such
 a separation is not excessive1 but only
 formal4 ,in separating a board1 for the
 purpose of studying its condition1 from
 other boards or things and finding that
 it is black1 ,i must still remember    
that this board is black only on account
 of its interdependence with the whole  
world process2 that the blackness which 
it possesses is not of its own making1  
but that light1 and eyes1 and the whole 
cosmic connection belong to it4 ,in this
 way every special perception becomes a 
proportionate part in the chain of      
universal perceptions1 and this again a 
proportionate part of the universal     
life4  ,that this evident universal life
 is not a mere semblance1 not a ghost1  
not a baseless imagination1 but the     
truth1 is made evident to the thinking  

man by his consciousness1 reason1 common
 sense4 ,true1 he has been deceived by  
them1 sometimes4 ,but it requires no    
logic1 no syllogistic proof1 to know    
that they are telling the truth in this 
respect4  ,it is nevertheless important 
to give this proof1 because by it the   
peculiar nature of our intellect is     
revealed1 of the object the study of    
which is the special concern of         
philosophy4  ,this proof1 that the      
universe is the universal truth1 was    
first attempted by philosophy in an     
indirect way1 by casting about in vain  
for a metaphysical truth4  ,the         
philosopher ,kant was no doubt the      
thinker who confined the use of         
understanding most strictly to the      
domain of experience4 ,now1 if we       
recognize that this field is universal1 
we become aware that the assumed        
,kantian limitation is not a limitation 
at all4 ,the human mind is a universal  
instrument1 the special productions of  
which all belong to general truth4      

,though we make a distinction between   
the doubtful and the positive1 the      
outcome of philosophy teaches us that it
 must be no excessive distinction1 but  
must be backed up by the consciousness  
that all evidence is composed of        
probabilities1 of phenomena of truth1 of
 parts of truth4  ,the thinking         
understanding--this is the result of    
philosophy--is no more evident than     
anything else and derives its existence 
not from itself1 but from the universal 
life4 ,this universal life from which   
thought derives its perceptions1 from   
which understanding derives its         
enlightenment1 does not only exist as a 
general thing1 but also in the form of  
infinitely varied individualities4 ,and 
generalization1 the relation of things1 
their number and extension1 are no more1
 and no less1 infinite than             
individualization and specialization4   
,every tree in the forest1 every grain  
of a pile of sand1 are individual1      
separate1 distinct4 ,every particle of  

every grain of sand is distinctly       
individual4 ,and the infinite           
individualization of nature goes so far 
that1 just as the human individual is   
different every day1 every hour1 every  
moment1 so is the individual grain of   
sand1 even though its transformations   
were not to become noticeable until     
after thousands of years1 by accumulated
 changes4 ,by classifying this          
contradictory1 infinitely general and   
infinitely individual nature in groups  
according to time and space1 in classes1
 genera1 families1 species1 orders1 and 
other subdivisions1 we are discerning   
and understanding4  ,in the universe1   
every group is an individual and every  
individual is a group4 ,the uniformity  
of nature is not greater than its       
variety4 ,both of them are infinite4 ,we
 distinguish between time and space4    
,every moment is composed of little     
moments4 ,the smallest division of time 
cannot be denominated any more than the 
largest1 just because there is no       

smallest and no largest in the universe1
 neither in time nor in space4 ,atoms   
are groups4 ,as smallest parts they     
exist only in our thoughts and thus give
 excellent service in chemistry4 ,the   
consciousness that they are not         
tangible1 but only mental things1 does  
not detract from their usefulness1 but  
heightens it still more4  ,it is the    
nature of human intelligence to divide1 
classify1 group4 ,we divide the world   
into four cardinal points2 we also      
divide it into two kingdoms1 the kingdom
 of the mind and the kingdom of nature2 
the latter we again subdivide into the  
organic and the inorganic1 or perhaps   
into the mineral1 vegetable1 and animal 
kingdoms4 ,in short1 science seeks to   
illumine the universe by division4 ,the 
question then arises3 ,which is the     
genuine and true division8 ,where does  
the variety of science1 its undecided   
vacillation end1 and when does          
understanding become stable8  ,the      
reader should remember that the things1 

the objects of understanding1 are not   
fixed1 but also variable objects1 and   
that the whole universe is moving1      
progressing2 that especially the human  
mind becomes more and more affluent from
 century to century1 from year to year1 
and that for this reason science is not 
alone compelled to fix things1 but also 
to remain in flow4 ,the fixed and the   
fluid are not so widely separated in    
science any more1 that the evidence     
could not be evident and yet at the same
 time a little doubtful4  ,man and his  
understanding are progressive1 and for  
this reason he must progress by         
experience in his classifications1      
conceptions1 and sciences4  ,the fixed1 
impregnable1 socalled apodictical facts 
are nothing but tautologies1 if seen at 
close range4 ,after it has become common
 usage to call only heavy and tangible  
things bodies1 it is an apodictical fact
 that all bodies are heavy and tangible4
 ,if the conceptions of vapor1 water and
 ice are restricted by common usage and 

by science to the three stages of       
aggregation of the same substance1 then 
we need not wonder at our firm assurance
 that the water will always remain fluid
 in all time to come1 also above the    
stars4 ,this signifies nothing more than
 that we conceive of the things as solid
 which we call solid1 and of those as   
fluid which we call fluid1 but it does  
not change the fact that our faculty of 
understanding or perceiving gives us    
only an approximate picture of natural  
processes1 in which the solid and the   
fluid are neither wholly opposed nor    
different1 but where the positive and   
the negative gradually flow into one    
another4  ,the philosophers produced a  
very good conception of understanding by
 developing the concept of truth step by
 step and finally coming to quite exact 
results4 ,but this quite exact must only
 be accepted in a reasonable sense1 not 
in an extravagant one4 ,truth as the    
infinite1 as the sum total of all things
 and qualities1 is in itself quite      

right1 but it cannot be accurately      
reproduced1 not even by means of the    
mind1 of reason1 or understanding4 ,the 
means is smaller than the purpose1 is   
subordinate to purpose4 ,so is our      
faculty of understanding only a         
subordinate servant of truth1 of the    
universe4 ,the latter is absolutely     
evident1 true1 indubitable1 and         
positive4 ,it does not vitiate the      
sublimity of this world in the least    
that it is veiled by appearances1 by    
error1 by untruth4 ,on the contrary4    
,without sin there is no virtue1 and    
without error there is no understanding1
 no truth4 ,the negative1 the weakness1 
the sin and error1 are overcome1 and    
thereby truth shines in full splendor4  
,the universe1 the general truth1 is a  
progressive thing4 ,it is absolute1 but 
not at any fixed time or place1 but only
 in the combined unity of all time and  
space4  ,it is sometimes said that this 
is too much for our intellect1 that we  
cannot understand this4 ,it is true that

 we cannot squeeze this into any of our 
categories1 of our fundamental          
conceptions1 unless we place the        
category of illimited and indeterminable
 and infinite truth at the beginning of 
them4 ,if that is not quite clear and   
plain1 it should serve to teach us that 
the category of clear and plain human   
understanding is destined to recognize  
its function as a subordinate factor of 
nature4  ,such an understanding of      
understanding1 such a higher            
consciousness standing ever behind us1  
promotes a meek pride or a proud        
meekness which is well distinguished    
from the mental poverty of theologians1 
from the transcendental distinction     
between ,god and the world1 between     
creator and creature4 ,to us the        
perishable soul is not a narrow-minded  
servant for whom the plans of the       
imperishable monster soul are           
incomprehensible4 ,a philosophically    
educated and self-understanding mind is 
a part of absolute nature4 ,this mind is

 not only a limited human mind1 but the 
mind of the infinite eternal1 omnipotent
 universe from which it derived the     
faculty of knowing everything knowable4 
,but when this mind demands the ability 
to absolutely know everything1 it       
demands that knowledge should be        
everything1 it becomes transcendental   
and insolent1 it misconceives the       
relation of science to infinity4 ,the   
latter is more than science1 it is the  
object of science4     ,,xv             
,,conclusion   ,the philosopher ,herbart
 declares3 ,if the meaning of a word    
were determined by the use to which it  
is put by this or that person1 then the 
term metaphysics would be ambiguous and 
scarcely comprehensible4 ,if one wishes 
to know what meaning of this term has   
been handed down to us by tradition1 he 
should read the ancient metaphysicians  
and their followers1 from ,aristotle to 
,wolff and his school4 ,it will then be 
found that the concepts of being1 of its
 quality1 of cause and effect1 of space 

and time1 have been the objects of this 
science everywhere 444 that it has been 
attempted to analyze them logically and 
that this has led to all sorts of       
disputes4 ,these disputes 444 determined
 the concept of metaphysics4  ,such a   
declaration is right enough to furnish1 
by the help of a little criticism on our
 part1 a sketch of the positive outcome 
of philosophy4  ,metaphysics has always 
been the principal part of philosophy4  
,in the first sentence of his ,handbook 
for the ,elements of ,philosophy1       
,herbart defines philosophy as the      
analysis of ideas4 ,according to this1  
metaphysics would have to analyze the   
special ideas of being1 etc4 ,now it    
must be remembered that the idea of     
being is not so much a special concept  
as the general idea which comprises all 
ideas and all things4 ,everything       
belongs to being1 and to understand that
 is too much for metaphysics4 ,hence it 
came into difficulties4 ,now our        
authority has just explained to us that 

the concept of metaphysics was not so   
much determined by the work it          
accomplished as by disputes4 ,it did not
 work1 but only made the logical attempt
 to analyze the concept of being4 ,in so
 doing it led to disputes and did not   
distinguish itself very much as a       
science4 ,the latter1 ,kant has told us 
in his preface to his ,critique of ,pure
 ,reason1 is recognized by its          
agreements1 not by its disputes4  ,the  
metaphysical disputes were overcome by  
philosophic science1 which is the study 
of ideas or understanding1 by arriving  
at a clear and plain theory of          
understanding1 the demonstration of     
which ,i have here attempted4  ,the     
faculty of understanding had been       
transmitted to us by our superstitious  
ancestors as a thing of another world4  
,but the illusion of another world is a 
metaphysical one and led to disputes    
about the idea of being4  ,the positive 
outcome of philosophy assures us and    
demonstrates that there is only one     

world1 that this world is the essence of
 all being1 that there are many modes of
 being1 but that they all belong to the 
same common nature4 ,thus philosophy has
 unified the concept of being and       
overcome metaphysics and its disputes4  
,universal being has only one quality1  
the natural one of general existence4   
,at the same time this quality is the   
essence of all special qualities4 ,just 
as the concept of herbs includes all    
herbs1 even weeds1 so the concept of    
being comprises not only that which is1 
but also that which is not1 which was   
once upon a time and which will be in   
the future4  ,to free the concept of    
being from its metaphysical disputes1 is
 a very difficult thing for those who   
attribute an extravagant meaning to the 
first principle of logic which says3    
,any subject can have only one of two   
radically different predicates1 because 
it cannot be at the same time ,a and    
not-,a4  ,all previous science of       
understanding has really revolved around

 this statement4 ,it is based on        
something plausible1 but still more on  
misunderstanding4 ,only when we have    
become aware of what has finally been   
the outcome of the science of           
understanding1 only when this statement 
is backed up by the positive product of 
philosophy1 does this stubbornly        
maintained and much contested statement 
receive a lasting value by its just     
modification4  ,in the first place1 a   
subject is not a fixed1 but a variable  
concept4 ,in the last analysis1 as we   
have sufficiently explained in this     
work1 there is only one sole universal  
subject which is nowhere radically      
different4  ,the first principle of the 
old and tried ,aristotlean logic tells  
us that a man1 a subject1 who is lame   
cannot move about with alacrity4 ,but ,i
 have a friend who was totally lame and 
who today jumps about briskly2 there is 
no contradiction in this4 ,but if ,i    
tell another man about my lame friend   
and in the course of my story have this 

lame subject all of a sudden jumping    
over chairs and tables1 then such a     
thing is inconceivable and ,i contradict
 myself4 ,such a contradiction is a     
violation of all logic1 but not because 
agility and lameness are totally        
different predicates which cannot be    
attributed to the same subject1 nor     
because the contradiction cannot exist4 
,being is full of contradictions1 but   
they are not simultaneous or without    
mediation4 ,a logical speech or story   
must not forget to mediate4 ,by         
mediation1 all contradictions are       
solved4 ,and this is the outcome of     
philosophy4  ,in discordant metaphysics1
 being and not being are irreconcilable 
and mutually exclusive contradictions4  
,metaphysics is in doubt whether this   
common existence is real or only        
apparent1 or whether there is not       
somewhere in a heaven above the clouds  
an entirely different life4 ,but        
philosophy is now fully aware that even 
the most fictitious being is so         

positively real that any negation which 
appearances may attribute to it is      
outclassed by affirmation to the utter  
discomfiture of the former4 ,being and  
its affirmation is absolute1 negation   
and not being are only relative4 ,being 
is everywhere and always dominant1 so   
that there is no non-existence4 ,though 
we may say that this or that is nothing1
 yet we must remain conscious that      
anything we may call nothing is still   
something very positive4 ,there cannot  
be any ignorance which does not at least
 know a little4 ,there is no evil which 
cannot be transformed into good4 ,the   
things that have been1 will be1 and are1
 all of them are4 ,there is no          
non-existence4 ,it is at least a word1  
though it does not convey any meaning4  
,the world and our language are of so   
positive a character that even a        
meaningless word still means something4 
,nothing cannot be expressed4  ,the     
superstition of another true world which
 floats above this world of phenomena or

 is secretly hidden behind it has so    
vitiated logic that it is now difficult 
to remove the discordant metaphysical   
concept of being from the human mind4   
,the belief in something absolutely     
different will not easily disappear4 ,it
 is especially difficult to demonstrate 
that conceived things are of the same   
nature as real things1 that both of them
 really belong to true nature4          
,conceived things are pictures1 real    
pictures1 pictures of reality4 ,all the 
limbs of an imaginary dragon are copied 
from nature4 ,such creations of         
imagination are distinguished from      
truths only by their fanciful           
composition4 ,to connect nature and     
human life according to the given order1
 that is the whole function of          
understanding4 ,knowing1 thinking1      
understanding1 explaining1 has not1 and 
cannot have1 any other function but that
 of describing the processes of         
experience by division or               
classification4 ,the famous scientist   

,haeckel may call this contemptuously   
museum zoology and herbarium botany1 but
 he simply shows that he has not grasped
 the secret of the intellect1 but still 
wonders at it in a metaphysical way1 the
 same as his predecessors4  ,what       
,darwin ascertained about the origin of 
species and about the transitions and   
evolutions in organic life is a very    
valuable expansion of museum zoology4   
,whoever expects anything else from the 
nature of intellectual faculties1 shows 
that he is not familiar with the outcome
 of philosophy1 that he has not         
emancipated himself from the vain       
wondering and its accompanying          
edification1 which the wonder of human  
intelligence caused to primitive        
ignorance4  ,understanding has hitherto 
been in error about itself and was1     
therefore1 inadequately equipped for the
 task of giving a true account of its   
relatives1 of the phenomena of nature   
and life4 ,nevertheless it has acquired 
training in the course of culture and   

has progressively accomplished better   
things4 ,its errors have never been     
valueless1 and its truths will never be 
sufficient4 ,that this is so1 is not due
 to the defective condition of our      
intelligence1 but to the                
inexhaustibleness of being1 the         
indescribable wealth of nature4  ,the   
self-conscious1 philosophically trained 
understanding and intelligence has now  
the means of knowing that the accuracy  
of all investigation is limited1 that   
for this reason all its future results  
will be affected by error4 ,but a       
science which is backed up by such an   
enlightened understanding1 is reconciled
 to its limitations and transforms them 
into a hall of glory4 ,self-conscious   
limitation is aware of its partnership  
in the absolute perfection of the       
universe4  ,the self-conscious intellect
 improved by the positive product of    
philosophy knows that it can understand1
 describe1 the whole world in a natural1
 sensible way4 ,there is nothing that   

can resist it4 ,but in the sense of a   
transcendental metaphysics1 our         
understanding is not worthy of that     
name4 ,in return1 this metaphysics is   
pure vagary in the eyes of critical     
reason4  ,taking its departure from     
fantastical ideals1 from contradictions1
 especially between being and not being1
 metaphysics has gradually transformed  
itself in the course of civilization and
 become philosophy1 which in its turn   
has progressed step by step the same as 
all other science4  ,philosophy was at  
first impelled by the nebulous desire   
for universal world wisdom and has      
finally assumed the form of a lucid     
special investigation of the theory of  
understanding4  ,this theory is part1   
and the most essential part at that1 of 
psychology or the science of the soul4  
,modern psychologists have at least     
divined1 if not recognized1 that the    
human soul is not a metaphysical thing1 
but a phenomenon4 ,like ,professor      
,haeckel1 they also complain about the  

dead classification in their specialty4 
,the human soul is presented to them as 
a multitude of faculties4 ,there is the 
faculty of understanding1 of feeling1 of
 perceiving1 etc41 without number and   
end4 ,but how is life infused into them8
 ,where is the consistent connection8   
,there is1 for instance1 the conception 
and feeling of beauty in the human soul4
 ,the beautiful again is divided into   
the artistically beautiful and the      
ethically beautiful1 and each of these  
into other subdivisions4 ,there is      
beside the beautiful also the pretty1   
the charming1 the graceful1 the         
dignified1 the noble1 the solemn1 the   
splendid1 the pathetic1 the touching4   
,psychology also treats of the          
ridiculous1 of the joke1 the wit1 the   
satire1 the irony1 the humor1 of a      
thousand subtleties and distinctions1   
the ideological separation of which it  
attempts just as do botany1 zoology1 and
 every other science in their field4    
,to all of them1 being is the object of 

study4 ,what is the use of metaphysics  
under these circumstances8 ,only because
 it had in mind a different being1 a    
transcendental one1 could it induce     
,kant to sum up all his studies in the  
question3 ,how is metaphysics possible  
as a science8  ,it is the merit of      
philosophy to have demonstrated that    
metaphysics is possible only as         
fantastical speculation4  ,it is the    
business of metaphysics to treat being  
transcendentally4 ,it is the business of
 special sciences to classify being     
after the manner of herbarium botany4   
,classical order is already present in  
the vegetable kingdom1 otherwise no     
specialist in botany could classify it4 
,but the objective arrangement of the   
vegetable kingdom in infinitely more    
multiform than the subjective           
arrangement of botany4 ,the latter is   
always excellent1 if it corresponds to  
the scientific progress of its period4  
,whoever is looking for absolute botany 
or psychology1 or for any other absolute

 science1 misunderstands the universally
 natural character of the absolute as   
well as the relative special character  
of the human faculty of understanding4  
,philosophy familiar with its historical
 achievement understands being as the   
infinite material of life and science   
which is taken up by the special        
sciences and classified by them4 ,it    
teaches the specialists to remember     
throughout all their classifications    
according to departments and concepts   
that all specialties are connected by   
life and not so separated in life as    
they are in science1 but that they are  
flowing and passing into one another4   
,thus our science of understanding      
finally culminates in the rule3 ,thou   
shalt sharply divide and subdivide and  
farther subdivide to the utmost the     
universal concept1 the concept of the   
universe1 but thou shalt be backed up by
 the consciousness that this mental     
classification is a formality by which  
man seeks for the sake of his           

information to register and to place his
 experience2 thou shalt furthermore     
remain aware of thy liberty to          
progressively improve the experience    
acquired by thyself in the course of    
time1 by modifying thy classification4  
,things are ideas1 ideas are names1 and 
things1 ideas1 and names are subject to 
continuous perfection4  ,stable motion  
and mobile stability constitute the     
reconciling contradiction which enables 
us to reconcile all contradictions4     
,,the ,,end