Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/551

 JAMES H. STIKUNd, Yh,,t is 7V;,-,,,,/,// meaning into an author, the first duty of a critic, whim, loavinB the style, he approaches the subject-matter, is to attempt some logical analysis of the thesis and the reasoning in support of tho thesis. In this case the thesis is twofold : (a) Reality. Thought the I- Me, (6) all German philosophy teaches this truth. The first part of this double thesis admits of short though not easy statement ; but to demonstrate the truth of the second part Dr. Stirling must necessarily prove, to begin with, that all German philosophy is one ; to do this requires its identification with the teaching of the " great Quadrilateral "Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel who, in their turn, must be shown to have had the same Lehre, or at least to have formed four stages in one single move- ment : this movement, further, must be Kantian, not Heg> and to identify Fichte, Schelling and Hegel completely with Kant necessitates a proof of two propositions, (a) that the three later teachers woefully misunderstood both Kant and each other (also to some extent themselves), (b) that commentators in general have misunderstood them. In the demonstration of these points Dr. Stirling must be pro- nounced, to a great extent, successful from his own point of view. But would these great thinkers have admitted the correctness of his point of view ? Would they have granted the premisses he claims for each of them, or accepted the explanations he gives of what, in this passage or that, they really meant (though they did not know it) '.' It is doubtful. Nevertheless the discussion of these questions will be found very stimulating to philosophical readers, and full of valuable suggestion, in regard to particular passages, to the special student of any one thinker. It is here perhaps that the chief value certainly the practical usefulness of the book lies. In this reference too the portions which form absolutely irrelevant digressions become as valuable as the pages dealing more or less directly with the questions at issue. Other or greater commendation cannot unfortunately be given. 1 Upon this special point, one surelv in the main, if Dr. Stirling's con- tention be true, of nomenclature merely, he is specially emphatic. ' '/'. p. ">'.' : " Nevertheless, I say, too, that the whole of philosophy that deserves the name since Kant is so absolutely due to Kunt that it can propi-rly arid comprehensively receive no other name than his. Fichte has worked, Schelling has worked, Hegel has worked each of them has worked, no one of them has worked but in the quarry of Kant. There is no product in Fichte, there is no product in Schelling, there is no product in Hi -^ 1. that is not to be named Kantian. Fichte's philosophy, Schellin^s philo- sophy, Hegel's philosophy each of these, in accurate and precise imnir. is Kantian philosophy. And with Kant and these we have in modern times all all that is capita] ; gratefully counting in, as well, an intro- ductory few, and leaving prattle individually t the- in .-^.oiisiblc Of. also p. 379. " We get sight here of another very important point, this, that Hegel maybe held to have given in the end the iminr of Kantian Philosophy to the whole general movement that culminated in him-'-lf And that is the truth."