Difference between revisions of "Philosophy"

<p> is the highest department of human speculation, the most abstract knowledge of which the human mind is capable. </p> <p> Importance of the Subject. — The character of the investigations with which philosophy is concerned, and still more the superabundance during the last century of what has professed itself to be philosophy, render it excessively difficult either to define this branch of inquiry, or to determine what may be legitimately included under the wide designation. Sir [[William]] [[Hamilton]] devoted seven lectures of his course of metaphysics to the discussion of this single topic. The vagueness of the term, the instability and indistinctness of the boundaries of this department of knowledge, and the dissensions in regard to all its details, have led many quick and ingenious minds to repudiate the study altogether, and to deny to it any valid existence. Nevertheless it is necessary to recognise its reality, in spite of the uncertainty of its nature, of the confusion thus produced, and of the pretensions sheltered under its honorable name. It was a profound and keen reply, which was said to have been made by Aristotle to the assailants and abnegators of philosophy, that "whether we ought to philosophize or ought not to philosophize, we are compelled to philosophize" (εἴτε φιλοσοφητέον φιλοσοφητέον, εἴτε μὴ φιλοσοφητέον φιλοσοφητέον, πάντως δὲ φιλοσοφητέον , David. Prolegom. Phil., ap. Schol. Aristot. page 13, ed. Acad. Berol.), for philosophy is required to demonstrate the inanity and nugatoriness of philosophy: "But the mother of demonstrations is philosophy." The same deep sense of the irrecusable obligation is manifested by Plotinus, when, in a rare access of humor, he utters the paradoxical declaration that all things, rational and irrational — animals, plants, and even minerals, air and water too — alike yearn for theoretical perfection (or the philosophical completion of their nature, Ennead. 3:8:1); and that nature, albeit devoid of imagination and reason, has its philosophy within itself, and achieves whatever it effects by theory, or the philosophy which it does not itself possess. "There is reason in roasting eggs," and philosophy in all things, if we can only get at it: </p> <p> "the meanest flower that blows can give Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears." Philosophy is, like death, one of the few things that we can by no means avoid, whether we welcome or reject it; whether we regard the irresistible tendencies of our intellectual constitution to speculative inquiry, or the latent regularity, order, and law controlling all things that fall under our notice, when they develop themselves in accordance with their intrinsic nature (see Sir W. Hamilton, Metaphysics, lecture 4, page 46; Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, volume 1, § 1, page 5). </p> <p> There is no longer reason to dread the rarity of philosophy; there has been no occasion for such alarm for more than two thousand years; the terror has been produced by the redundance of what claims this name. There are philosophers of all sorts, who deal with all varieties of subjects. There is mental, moral, political, economical, and natural philosophy; there is the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of enthusiasm, and the philosophy of insanity; the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of rhetoric, the philosophy of language, and the philosophy of grammar; there is the philosophy of history, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of the inductive sciences; there is the philosophy of colors, the philosophy of music, the philosophy of dress, the philosophy of manners, the philosophy of cookery, the philosophy of building, etc. All imaginable topics reveal an aptitude for philosophic treatment, and pretend to furnish a basis for some special philosophy. It would occasion no surprise to encounter a philosophy of jack-straws, and other infantile amusements. There must be some legitimacy, however slight, in these numerous pretensions, some semblance of truth in such easy assumption, or such professions would not continue to be repeated and tolerated. There must be some common element, some cord of similitude, uniting together under one category these multitudinous forms of inquiry, and the unnumbered inquiries which are left unnamed. </p> <p> Scope of the Term. — The word philosophy first appears in the Father of History. It is applied by [[Croesus]] to Solon, in his travels in search of knowledge and information, and is used as almost equivalent to theory, which in the context means scarcely anything more than sight-seeing or observation (Herodot. 1:30). It next appears in Thucydides. [[Pericles]] speaks of the [[Athenians]] as "philosophizing without effeminacy," where the term seems to denote the acquisition of information and culture (Thuc. 2:40). The origination of the word is ascribed to Pythagoras in a familiar anecdote, which reports that, being asked by Leon, the chief of Phlius, "What were philosophers?" he replied, with a happy allusion to the concourse at the Olympic Games, that " they were those who diligently observed the nature of things," calling themselves " students, or lovers of wisdom," and occupied with "the contemplation and knowledge of things" (Cicero, Tusc. Qu. 5:3, 9). He is supposed to have thus repudiated the designation of "wise man," or "sophister," previously in vogue, and to have modestly proposed in its stead the appellation of "philosopher," a lover of wisdom. The authenticity of the anecdote has been gravely questioned; and the designation, alleged to have been rejected in this manner, continued in habitual use, with no invidious sense, and was applied to Socrates and the chiefs of the Socratic schools (Grote, Hist. of Greece, part 2, volume 8, chapter 67, page 350). To the numerous passages cited by Grote may be added Androtion, Fr. 39; Phan. Eretrius, Fr. 21; and Synesii Dio, apud Dion Chrysostom, 2:329, ed. Teubner). The censures of the [[Sophists]] by Plato and Aristotle, the character of the Socratic teaching, and the almost exclusively inquisitive and indeterminate complexion of the Platonic speculation, appear to have given currency to the designation of philosophy, as a more modest and inconclusive appellative than "sophia," or wisdom. </p> <p> Originally, then, philosophy imported only the loving pursuit of knowledge, without any implication of actual attainment; but it soon acquired a more positive and distinct acceptation. In the [[Republic]] Plato defines philosophy as "the circuit, or beating about of the soul in its ascending progress towards real existence;" and declares those to be philosophers "who embrace the really existent," and "who are able to apprehend the eternal and unchanging." In the Euthydemus he goes farther, and describes philosophy as "the acquisition of true knowledge." In the definitions ascribed to Plato, which, though not his, may preserve the tradition of his teaching, it is only "the desire of the knowledge of eternal existences." Xenophon rarely employs the term, but applies "sophia" to the Socratic knowledge. In one passage where he uses it it signifies the knowledge and practice of the duties of life (Mem. 4:2, page 23). </p> <p> A great step towards the definite restriction of the meaning of philosophy was made by the Platonic writings, though the name continued, and has always continued, to be employed with great latitude. Aristotle, who gave a sharp, scientific character to nearly everything which he touched, first confined the term to special significations, and gave to it a limited and, in some cases, a purely technical meaning. He calls philosophy "the knowledge of truth;" and he endeavored to discover a "first philosophy," or body of principles common to all departments of speculative inquiry, and dealing solely with the primary elements and affections of being (Met. 1:1, page 993; Phys. 1:9, page 5; Simplicii Schol. page 345). This first philosophy, or "knowledge of the philosopher," corresponds to metaphysics in its stricter sense — a division of speculative science receiving its name from the remains of Aristotle, and, in great measure, constituted by his labors. It is the science of being as being (τὸ ὀν ἠ ὄν , Met. 6:1, page 1026; 11:3, page 1060; 4, page 1061). Thus, with the Peripatetics, philosophy included all science, but especially theoretical science, and was peculiarly attached to metaphysical science. With this accords the definition of Cicero, which is evidently derived from Peripatetic sources (De Off. 2:2, 5). </p> <p> This historical deduction is not unnecessary. Many words grow in meaning with the growth of civilization. Many gradually lose with the advancement of knowledge their original vague amplitude, and acquire a definite and precise significance. The real import of either class of words can be ascertained only by tracing their development through their successive changes. The history of the term philosophy enables us to understand the still subsisting vacillation in its employment, and to detect the common principle which runs through all its various and apparently incongruous applications. It brings us, at the same time, to the recognition of the mode and measure of its most rigorous employment. </p> <p> Philosophy is the earnest investigation of the principles of knowledge, and most appropriately of the first principles, or principles of abstract being. It is not science, but search (Kant, Program. 1765-66; Sir William Hamilton, Metaph. lectures 1, 3; Discussions, page 787). It is distinctively zetetic, or inquisitive, rather than dogmatic. Its chief value consists in the zeal, perspicacity, simplicity, and unselfishness of the persevering desire for the highest truth, not in its attainment; for the highest truth is, in its nature, unattainable by the finite intelligence of man. It has not, or ought not to have, the pretension or confident assurance of knowledge, though this claim has frequently been made (ἡ φιλοσοφία γνῶσίς ἐστι πάντων τῶν ὄντων , David. Interpr. x. Categ. Schol. Aristot. page 29, ed. Acad. Berol.). It is only a systematic craving and continuous effort to reach the highest knowledge. </p> <p> "For man loves knowledge, and the beams of truth </p> <p> More welcome touch his understanding's eye </p> <p> Than all the blandishments of sound his ear, </p> <p> Than all of taste his tongue" (Akenside). </p> <p> Philosophy was called by the schoolmen "the science of sciences;" and wherever the recondite principles of knowledge are sought, there is philosophy, in a faint and rudimentary, or in a clear and instructive form. Hence it admits of being predicated of investigations far remote from those higher exercises of abstract contemplation to which it is most properly applied. </p> <p> What is man? What are his faculties and powers? [[Whence]] is he? [[Whither]] is he going? How shall he guide himself? What is this vast and varied universe around him? How did it arise? How is it ordered and sustained? What is man's relation to it, and to the great Power behind the veil, manifested by its wondrous movements and changes? What is the nature of this power? What are man's duties to it, to himself, and to his fellow-men? What knowledge of these things can he acquire? What are his destinies, and his aids for their achievement? These questions, and questions like these, constitute the province of philosophy proper. They present themselves dimly or distinctly to every reflecting mind; and they will not be gainsaid. Our intellectual constitution compels us to think of them; and to think of them, however weakly and spasmodically, is the beginning of philosophy. They all admit of partial solution of an answer at least, which stimulates further investigation. None of them can receive a full and complete reply from the human reasonthey stretch beyond its compass. All of them, in every age, have met with some response, either in the poetic and bewildering fancies of the prevalent mythology, or in the wild guesses of popular credulity; either in the aphorisms of the prudent, or in the conclusions of those who have sedulously devoted themselves to the unravelling of these enigmas. This latter class have been the philosophers of each generation, from the commencement of rational inquiry to the current day, as they will continue to be till the closing of the great roll of time; for of philosophy there is no end. </p> <p> This constant disappointment and continual renewal of effort are strange phenomena, and have often proved utterly disheartening. Hence has proceeded tie objection so frequently urged that philosophy is ever in restless and fretful activity, but does not advance. The allegation of an entire failure of progress is unjust; but the same questions constantly reappear with changed aspects, and the same solutions are offered under altered forms. But the change in the aspects and the alteration in the forms are themselves an advancement. The true source of encouragement is, however, to be derived less from the progress which can never pass the boundaries imposed by the same old questions than from the knowledge that the pursuit is more than the impracticable attainment — the race more important than the arrival at the goal could be — at least in this finite life, with our finite powers. From this habitual disappointment, and the apparent failures which bring the disappointment, have arisen, too, this variety of solutions which have been proposed for the numerous riddles that philosophy propounds to man. Varro enumerated two hundred and eighty- eight possible sects, apparently on the basis of ethics alone (August. De Civ. Dei, 19:1); and the number of distinguishable schemes of philosophy, to say nothing of diversities of opinion in regard to details, is countless. Yet each of these has contributed something to our knowledge: in the more precise statement of the problems to be solved, in the clearer determination of their conditions, in the refutation of former errors, in the exposure of previous misapprehensions, in presenting the inquiries under new and brighter lights, or in adding to our positive information in regard to these dark and difficult subjects. The gratitude which Aristotle expresses, in a remarkable passage (Met. 1), towards his predecessors, who had gone astray, or who had failed to see the truth, is due to all philosophical inquirers. They have contributed something towards the result, however incomplete that result may remain (καὶ γὰρ ουτοι συνεβάλοντο τι τὴν γὰρ ἕξιν προήσκησαν ἡμῶν ; and see [[Alexander]] Aphrodis. Schol. Aristot. ad loc. ἡ γὰρ τὼν καταβεβλημένων δοξῶν εὐπορία εὑρετικωτερους ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀληθείας παρασκευάσει). </p> <p> History of the Subject. — The hopelessness of satisfactory attainment, with the inevitable persistency of the search, and the gradual approximation, or appearance of approximation, to a goal which is never reached, but is ever receding, eventuate in changes, expansions, fluctuations, and revolutions in opinion, which are recorded and appreciated in the history of philosophy. This history chronicles the origins and original phases of philosophical inquiry, its mutations, progresses, and recessions, and the causes of them; it notes the introduction of new doctrines, new methods of procedure, new modes of exposition; the dissensions and controversies which spring up and minister to new developments; the reduction of kindred views to a coherent body, and the constitution of sects and schools; the fortunes of such schools, the development or perversion of the sev. eral successive or contemporaneous schemes of speculation in the bosom of the schools themselves, either in consequence of their own internal activity, or of the necessities suggested or enforced by external attack. In this manner, and from these motives of change, philosophy exhibits unceasing activity and frequent novelty of form, notwithstanding the substantial identity of the questions debated, and the sameness of the ground surveyed. In these vicissitudes of opinion there is, however, an element which ought never to be overlooked, and which gives an immediate and urgent interest to all the variations. The philosophy of an age or sect is largely influenced by recent experiences, and by the present demands of the society or circle to which it is addressed; and, in turn, it exercises a most potent influence in determining the views of the rising and succeeding generations, not only within the range of theoretical inquiry, but also in government, social organization, manners, habits of thought, arts, and in everything which concerns the daily life of the people. The condition of [[Athenian]] politics and morals directly engendered the Socratic inquiries and the Socratic schools. The personal degradation and servility of the Romans under the empire provoked the revival and ardent advocacy of stoicism. The repugnance to Islamism, and the dialectical needs of Christendom, gave birth to medieval scholasticism. The antagonism which issued in the English commonwealth furnished the hotbed in which germinated the philosophy of Hobbes. Locke and the encyclopaedists were the prophets and guides of the French revolutionary spirit; and the materialism of the current years has received form as well as vitality from the predominance and achievements of the physical sciences, and the enormous fascinations of material interests and gratifications. Thus the alternations of philosophy explain and are explained by the concurrent modifications of society. </p> <p> The history of philosophy admits of two distinct principles of division, both of which are simultaneously employed. It may be divided either with reference to its special subject-matter, as a part of the general domain of philosophy, or with reference to its chronological successions. Each of these distributions of course permits further subdivision. </p> <p> Plato practically, though not expressly, divided philosophy into dialectics, physics, and ethics, including theology and much of metaphysics, along with natural philosophy, under the head of physics. (See [[Platonic Philosophy]]) </p> <p> The division of Aristotle is indistinct and apparently variable. But he did not complete his system. His metaphysics, which corresponds nearly with his first philosophy, or with philosophy in its strictest sense, was an incomplete collection of unfinished papers, gathered and arranged after his death. Science, or knowledge, he distributes between practice, production, and theory (Metaph. 6:1, Frag. 137, page 94, ed. Didot). Ueberweg mistakes this for a formal division of philosophy, but the third head is the only one to which Aristotle would have assigned the name of philosophy. He elsewhere distinguishes theory into physical, mathematical, and theological-the last corresponding with philosophy proper (Metaph. 11:7). In one of his fragments, philosophical problems are declared to be of five kinds: political, dialectical, physical, ethical, and rhetorical (Aristot. Frag. 137, page 108). This division excludes the greater part of philosophy. The uncertainty and confusion which these several divisions are calculated to produce may be accounted for and excused by the loose acceptation of the term physics in the Socratic schools; and by the fact that metaphysics, or philosophy, in Aristotle's estimation, lay beyond the domain of physics. [[Dividing]] philosophy into metaphysics,physics, and ethics, we now habitually exclude physics, or natural philosophy, and set it apart as the realm of exact science. The other two are assigned to philosophy. But metaphysics and ethics may be united as together constituting philosophy, or they may be kept distinct and variously subdivided. Sir William Hamilton, who, in deference to the narrowness of the Scotch school, at times almost identifies psychology with philosophy, enumerates, by a strained construction, five branches of the former: logic, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and theology (Metaph. lecture 3, page 44). Remusat incidentally distributes philosophy under the five heads of psychology, logic, metaphysics, theodicy (or the philosophy of religion — theology), and morals (Vie d'Ablard, liv. 2, chapter 3, volume 1, page 351 sq.). Ampere, in his ingenious and fantastic classification of human knowledge, by a septuple series of violent dichotomies, manufactures eightyfour distinct departments of philosophical inquiry. For the present purpose, the sufficiency or the insufficiency, the validity or the invalidity, of these various divisions and subdivisions is unimportant. The history of philosophy includes them all, either as definite members or as subordinate parts. Each may be treated separately, or all may be embraced in one treatment, or a distinct discussion may be bestowed upon several of them combined in one view. Thus there may be a history of mental philosophy, and a history of ethics, like the supplements of Dugald Stewart and Sir James Mackintosh to the Encyclopedia Britannica; or a history of logic, like Mr. Blakey's very feeble treatise on that subject; or a history of heretical opinions, like those so common in the earlier ages of the Christian Charch; or a general history of philosophy, like Brucken's or Tennemann's or Ueberweg's. This is. the mode in which the history of philosophy may be divided. </p> <p> The other process of division regards primarily the Succession of philosophical systems, or of philosophical schools, where the systems are identified with particular schools. A very loose and general distribution of this kind is.into ancient, mediseval, and modern, each of which has often been handled separately. The distinction between these divisions is mainly the difference of time. They frequently run into each other. In many characteristics, both of doctrine and method, they repeat each other. The scholastic procedure is discernible in [[Plotinus]] and [[Joannes]] Damascenus, while John Scotus Erigena approached more nearly to the NeoPlatonists than to the schoolmen. [[Occam]] and [[Gerson]] exhibit many modern features; and among the moderns there are many wide differences, not only in doctrine, but in character. Hence other divisions, more precise than are attainable by these indistinct chronological periods, have latterly won more favor. The following may be offered as an example of such distribution : </p> <p> I. The commencements of philosophy, chiefly among the Orientals, with whom philosophy, mythology, and the ology were inseparably intertwined. </p> <p> II. The philosophy of the Greeks, which comprehends of course the philosophy of the Romans, as it was essen tially Greek from Cicero to Boethius. </p> <p> III. The philosophy of the Schoolmen, which in part overlaps modern systems. To this the philosophy of the Jews and [[Saracens]] may be joined as an appendix, since it affords the transition to it from the Greeks. </p> <p> IV. The philosophy of the Renaissance, or Transition Age, commencing with Gemistus Pletho and the Medicean Academy, and ending with [[Pascal]] and Gassendi. </p> <p> V. The philosophy of Modern Times — from Francis Bacon and Descartes. Each of these periods has many subdivisions, which have been variously constituted by different historians, and necessarily vary with the variation of the aspects urder which philosophy is contemplated by the several chroniclers of its fluctuations. </p> <p> Literature. — The fullest repertory of works on the several schemes of philosophy, on its general and special history, and on the history of the philosophers themselves, and of particular doctrines, may be found in Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, translated by [[George]] S. Morris (N.Y. 1875, 2 volumes, 8vo). Up to the date of that work the fullest treatise on the subject was H. Ritter's Geschichte der Philosophie (Gotha, 1854, 12 volumes, 8vo). A convenient summary is Maurice's Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (Lond. 1850-56, and later 4 volumes, 8vo), which gives a historical review of the whole subject. (G.F.H.) </p>

<p> ''''' fi ''''' - ''''' los´ṓ ''''' - ''''' fi ''''' ( <i> ''''' philosophı́a ''''' </i> ): </p> <p> 1. Definition and Scope </p> <p> (1) Intuitive Philosophy Is Universal </p> <p> (2) Speculative Philosophy Belongs Mainly to Western [[Thought]] </p> <p> 2. Greek Philosophy </p> <p> 3. Philosophy in Old Testament and [[Judaism]] </p> <p> (1) Of Nature </p> <p> (2) Of History </p> <p> (3) Post-exilic </p> <p> (4) [[Alexandrian]] </p> <p> 4. Philosophy in the New Testament </p> <p> (1) The Teaching of Jesus Christ </p> <p> (2) Apostolic Teaching </p> <p> (3) [[Attitude]] of New Testament Writers toward Philosophy </p> <p> [[Literature]] </p> 1. Definition and Scope: <p> Only found in Colossians 2:8; literally, the love and pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. In its technical sense, the term is now used for the conscious endeavor of thought, by speculative process, to interpret the whole of human experience, as a consistent and systematic unity, which would be the ultimate truth of all that may be known. The term is also used, in a wider sense, of all interpretations of experience, or parts of experience, however obtained, whether by revelation, intuition or unconscious speculation. No hard-and-fast line can be drawn between the two kinds of philosophy. Some of the ruling conceptions of speculation, such as God, spirit, order, causation, true and false, good and evil, were not discovered by reason, but given in experience. </p> <p> <b> (1) Intuitive Philosophy Is Universal. </b> </p> <p> The human mind has always and everywhere furnished itself with some kind of explanation of the universe. From the lowest animism and fetishism up to the higher religions, ideas are found which served men as explanations of those features of experience which attracted their attention. They were often regarded as given by vision, intuition or some other method of revelation. In the higher religions, the mind reflected upon these ideas, and elaborated them into systems of thought that bear some resemblance to the speculative theories of western thought. In China, both Confucianism and [[Taoism]] developed theories of human life and destiny that bear some resemblance to Stoicism. The religions of [[Assyria]] and [[Babylonia]] enshrined in their legends theories of the world and of man and his institutions. In India, men's belief in the Nature-gods gradually developed into pantheistic Brahmanism, which reduced the multiplicity of experience into one ultimate being, Brahma. But the desire for moral salvation and the sense of pain and evil produced a reaction, and led to the pessimistic and nihilistic philosophy of Buddhism. In Persia, the moral consciousness awoke earlier, and the attempt to systematize the multiplicity of polytheism issued in the dualistic philosophy of later Zoroastrianism. The whole realm of being was divided into two kingdoms, created and ruled by two lords: <i> ''''' Ahura ''''' </i> <i> ''''' Mazda ''''' </i> , the creator of light and life, law, order and goodness, and <i> ''''' Aǹrō ''''' </i> <i> ''''' Mainyuš ''''' </i> , the author of darkness, evil and death. Each was surrounded by a court of spiritual beings kindred to himself, his messengers and agents in the world (see [[Persian]] Religion (ANCIENT)). Of all these religious philosophies, only those of Assyria and Babylonia, and of Persia, are likely to have come into any contact with Biblical thought. The former have some affinity with the accounts of creation and the flood in Genesis; and the influence of the latter may be traced in the dualism and angelology and demonology of later Judaism, and again in the [[Gnostic]] systems that grew up in the Christian church, and through both channels it was perpetuated, as a dualistic influence, in the lower strata of Christian thought down through the Middle Ages. </p> <p> <b> (2) Speculative Philosophy Belongs Mainly to Western Thought. </b> </p> <p> It arose in Greece about the beginning of the 6th century BC. It began with the problem of the general nature of being, or <i> ontology </i> . But it was soon forced to consider the conditions of knowing anything at all, or to <i> epistemology </i> . These two studies constitute <i> metaphysics </i> , a term often used as synonymous with philosophy in the stricter sense. Speculation about ideal truth again led to inquiries as to the ultimate nature of the kindred ideas of the good ( <i> ethics </i> ) and the beautiful ( <i> aesthetics </i> ). And as these ideas were related to society as well as to the individual, the Greeks developed theories of the ideal organization of society on the basis of the true, the good and the beautiful, or <i> politics </i> and <i> pedagogics </i> . The only branch of speculation to which the Greeks made no appreciable contribution was the <i> philosophy of religion </i> , which is a modern development. </p> <p> The progress of philosophy in history divides itself naturally into three main periods: ( <i> a </i> ) <i> ancient </i> , from the 6th century Bc to the 3century AD, when it is almost exclusively Greek, with some practical adaptations of Greek thought by Roman writers; ( <i> b </i> ) <i> medieval </i> , from the 3to the 16th century, where some of the ruling conceptions of Greek thought were utilized for the systematization of Christian dogma, but speculation was mainly confined within the limits of ecclesiastical orthodoxy; there were, however, some independent [[Arabian]] and Jewish speculations; ( <i> 100 </i> ) <i> modern </i> , from the 16th century to the present time, in which thought becomes free again to speculate upon all the problems presented by experience, though it only realized its liberty fully in the hands of Locke, Hume and Kant. </p> 2. Greek Philosophy: <p> Greek philosophy was the only speculative system that could have had any influence upon Biblical thought. Its main development was contemporaneous with the later Old Testament writers, but the two peoples were in every way so remote one another that no interchange of ideas was probable. </p> <p> During the last two centuries BC, Greek thought spread so widely that it came to dominate the cultured thought of the world into which Christianity entered, and it would have been strange if no trace of its influence were found in the New Testament. In the first stage of its development, from Thales to Socrates, it was concerned almost entirely with attempts to explain the nature of reality by reducing the phenomenal world into some one of its elements. Socrates changed its center of gravity, and definitely raised the problems of morality and knowledge to the position of first importance. His principles were developed by Plato into a complex and many-sided system which, more than any other, has influenced all subsequent thought. He united ultimate reality and the highest good into one supreme principle or idea which he called the Good, and also God. It was the essence, archetype and origin of all wisdom, goodness and beauty. It communicated itself as intermediary archerypal ideas to produce all individual things. So that the formative principles of all existence were moral and spiritual. But it had to make all things out of preexisting matter, which is essentially evil, and which therefore was refractory and hostile to the Good. That is why it did not make a perfect world. Plato's system was therefore rent by an irreconcilable dualism of mind and body, spirit and matter, good and evil. And his mediating ideas could not bridge the gulf, because they belonged only to the side of the ideal. Aristotle was Plato's disciple, and he started from Plato's idealistic presuppositions, but endeavored to transcend his dualism. He thus applied himself to a closer and more accurate study of actual experience, and added much to the knowledge of the physical world. He organized and classified the methods and contents of knowledge and created the science of logic, which in the Christian Middle Ages became the chief instrument of the great systematic theologians of the church. He tried to bring Plato's ideas "down from heaven," and to represent them as the creative and formative principles within the world, which he conceived as a system of development, rising by spiritual gradations from the lower to the higher forms, and culminating in God, who is the uncaused cause of all things. But underneath all the forms still remained matter as an antithetical element, and Aristotle rather concealed than solved the dualism of Plato. </p> <p> Meanwhile, the moral principles of Socrates were being developed with a more directly ethical interest, by the Cyrenaics and Epicureans , into a system of Hedonism, and, by the [[Cynics]] and Stoics , into a doctrine of intuitive right and duty, resting inconsistently upon a pantheistic and materialistic view of the universe. But the spiritual and ethical elements in Stoicism became only second to Platonism in the preparation of the Greek world for Christianity. During the last two and a half centuries BC, Greek philosophy showed signs of rapid decline. On the one hand, [[Pyrrho]] and his school propounded a thoroughgoing skepticism which denied the possibility of all knowledge whatsoever. On the other hand, the older schools, no longer served by creative minds, tended to merge their ideas into a common eclecticism which its teachers reduced into an empty and formal dogmatism. The most fruitful and fateful product of Greek thought in this period was its amalgamation with Jewish and oriental ideas in the great cosmopolitan centers of the Greek world. There are evidences that this process was going on in the cities of Asia, [[Syria]] and Egypt, but the only extensive account of it remaining is found in the works of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (see [[Philo Judaeus]] ). He tried to graft Plato's idealism upon Hebrew monotheism. </p> <p> He starts with Plato's two principles, pure being or God, and preexisting matter. In his endeavor to bridge the gulf between them, he interposed between God and the world the powers of God, goodness and justice; and to gather these into a final unity, he created his conception of the Loges of God. In the formation of this conception, he merged together the Platonic idea of the good, the Stoic world-reason, and a number of Jewish ideas, the glory, the word, the name, of God, the heavenly man and the great high priest, and personified the whole as the one mediator between God and the world. Christian thought laid hold of this idea, and employed it as its master-category for the interpretation of the person of Christ. See [[Logos]] . </p> 3. Philosophy in Old Testament and Judaism: <p> There is no speculative philosophy in the Old Testament nor any certain trace of its influence. Its writers and actors never set themselves to pursue knowledge in the abstract and for its own sake. They always wrought for moral purposes. But moral activity proceeds on the intellectual presuppositions and interpretations of the experiences within which it acts. Hence, we find in the Old Testament accounts of the origin and course of nature, a philosophy of history and its institutions, and interpretations of men's moral and religious experiences. They all center in God, issue from His sovereign will, and express the realization of His purpose of righteousness in the world. See [[God]] . </p> <p> <b> (1) Of Nature: </b> </p> <p> All nature originated in God's creative act (Genesis 2 ) or word (Genesis 1 ). In later literature the whole course and order of Nature, its beauty and bounty, as well as its wonders and terrors, are represented as the acts of God's will (Isaiah 40 through 45; Psalm 8:1-9 :19; 29; 50; 65; 68; 104, etc.). But His action in Nature is always subordinated to His moral ends. </p> <p> <b> (2) Of History: </b> </p> <p> Similarly, the course and events of the history of [[Israel]] and her neighbors are the acts of Yahweh's will (Amos 1:1-15; 2; Isaiah 41:2; Isaiah 43:3; Isaiah 45:9 , Isaiah 45:10 , Isaiah 45:14 ) In the historical books of Samuel and Kings, and still more of Chronicles, all the events of history are represented as the acts of God's moral government. In a more general way, the whole of history is set forth as a series of covenants that God, of His free grace, made with man (see [[Covenant]] ). The Noachic covenant fixed the order of Nature. The covenant with Abraham, [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] accounted for the origin and choice of Israel. The covenants with Moses and [[Aaron]] established the Law and the priesthood, and that with David, the kingship. And the hope of the future lies in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-35 ). God's covenants were all acts of His sovereign and gracious will. </p> <p> <b> (3) Post-Exilic: </b> </p> <p> In post-exilic times, new experiences, and perhaps new intellectual influences, drove the Jews to probe deeper into the problem of existence. They adhered to the cardinal principle of He thought, that God's sovereign will, working out His purpose of righteousness, was the first cause of all things (see [[Righteousness]] ). But they found it difficult to coordinate this belief with their other ideas, in two ways. Ethical monotheism tended to become an abstract deism which removed God altogether out of the world. And the catastrophes that befell the nation, in the exile and after, raised the problem of suffering and evil over against God's goodness and righteousness. Therefore in the Wisdom literature we find some conscious speculation on these subjects. See [[Wisdom]] . </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) The Book of Job discusses the problem of evil, and repudiates the idea that life and history are the process of God's rewards and punishments. ( <i> b </i> ) Ecclesiastes comes to the conclusion that all phenomenal experience is vanity. Yet its ultimate philosophy is not pessimistic, for it finds an abiding reality and hope in the fear of God and in the moral life ( Ecclesiastes 12:13 , Ecclesiastes 12:14 ). The same type of thought appears in Ecclesiasticus. Both books have been attributed to the circle of the Sadducees. Some would find in them traces of the influence of Epicureanism. ( <i> c </i> ) In Proverbs a more optimistic side prevails. Wisdom is gathered up into a conception or personification which is at once God's friend, His agent in creation, His vicegerent in the world, and man's instructress and guide (chapter 8). ( <i> d </i> ) The teaching of the Pharisees especially reveals the tendency to dualism or deism in later Judaism; they interposed between God and the world various agents of mediation, the law, the word, the name, the glory of God and a host of angels, good and bad. They also fostered a new hope of the future, under the double form of the Messianic kingdom, and of resurrection and immortality. How far these tendencies were due to the influence of Persian dualism cannot here be considered. ( <i> e </i> ) Essenism represents another effort to get from the world to God by a crude kind of mysticism and asceticism, combined with an extensive angelology. </p> <p> <b> (4) Alexandrian: </b> </p> <p> Among the [[Hellenistic]] Jews in Alexandria, Aristobulus, the authors of The Wisdom of Solomon and 4 Maccabees, and preeminently Philo, all deal with the two chief problems of Judaism, dualism and evil. But they approach them under the direct influence of Greek thought. The Hebrew idea of wisdom was merged into the Greek conception of the <i> ''''' [[Logos]] ''''' </i> , and so it becomes the mediator of God's thought and activity in the world. </p> 4. Philosophy in the New Testament: <p> Philosophy appears in the New Testament as intuitive, speculative and eclectic. </p> <p> <b> (1) The Teaching of Jesus Christ: </b> </p> <p> Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and, out of His filial consciousness of God, He propounded answers to the practical demands of His time. His doctrine of God the Father was a philosophy of Nature and life which transcended all dualism. In the kingdom of heaven, the good would ultimately prevail over the evil. The law of love expressed the ideal of conduct for man as individual, and in his relation to society and to God, the supreme and ultimate reality. This teaching was given in the form of revelation, without any trace of speculation. </p> <p> <b> (2) Apostolic Teaching: </b> </p> <p> The apostolic writings built upon the teaching and person of Jesus Christ. Their ruling ideas are the doctrines which He taught and embodied. In Paul and John, they are realized as mystical experiences which are expressed in doctrines of universal love. But we may also discover in the apostolic writings at least three strands of speculative philosophy. ( <i> a </i> ) Paul employed arguments from natural theology, similar to those of the Stoics ( Acts 14:15-17; Acts 17:22-31; Romans 1:19 ff), which involved the principles of the cosmological and teleological arguments. ( <i> b </i> ) John employs the Philonic term " <i> '''''Logos''''' </i> " to interpret the person of Christ in His universal relation to God, man and the world; and the main elements of Philo's scheme are clearly present in his doctrine, though here it is no abstract conception standing between God and man, but a living person uniting both (Jn 1:1-18). Although the term " <i> '''''Logos''''' </i> " is not mentioned, in this sense, in Paul or Hebrews, the Philonic conception has been employed by both writers (Romans 5:8; Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:24 , 1 Corinthians 15:25; 2 Corinthians 5:18 , 2 Corinthians 5:19; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Colossians 2:9 , Colossians 2:10; Hebrews 1:1-3 , Hebrews 1:5 , Hebrews 1:6 ). Paul also expresses his conception of Christ as the manifestation of God under the category of wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:8; Colossians 2:3 ). ( <i> c </i> ) Both in Paul and He appear original speculations designed to interpret individual experience and human history as they culminate in Christ. Paul's interpretation consists of a series of parallel antitheses, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, law and grace, works and faith, [[Adam]] and Christ. But the author of He adopts the Platonic view that the world of history and phenomena is but the shadow or suggestion of the spiritual and eternal reality which lies behind it, and which partially expresses itself through it. </p> <p> <b> (3) Attitude of New Testament Writers Toward Philosophy: </b> </p> <p> In the one place in which the term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8 ), it seems to mean "subtle dialectics and profitless speculation ... combined with a mystic cosmogony and angelology" (Lightfoot, at the place), the first beginnings of Gnosticism in the Christian church. Paul warns his readers against it, as he also does the Corinthians against the "wisdom" of the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:19 ff; 1 Corinthians 2:5 , 1 Corinthians 2:6 ). A similar tendency may be in view in the warning to Timothy against false doctrines (1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:3; 2 Timothy 1:14 , 2 Timothy 1:16 ff). But with the true spirit of philosophy, as the pursuit of truth, and the endeavor to express more fully and clearly the nature of reality, the spirit and work of the New Testament writers were in complete accord. </p> Literature. <p> Introductions to philosophy by Kulpe, Paulsen, Hoffding, Watson and Mackenzie. [[Histories]] of Greek philosophy by Ritter and Preller, Burnet, and Zeller, and of general philosophy by Erdmann, Ueberweg, Windelband and Rogers; E. Caird, <i> The [[Evolution]] of [[Theology]] in the Greek Philosophies </i> ; Hists of the Jews by Schurer, Graetz and Kent; Old Testament Theologies by Schultz and Davidson; New Testament Theologies by Beyschlag and Weinel; Philo's works and treatises thereon by Dahne, Gfrorer and Drummond; Harnack, <i> What Is Christianity? </i> Bigg, <i> The Christian [[Platonists]] of Alexandria </i> ; Lightfoot, Colossians. </p>