Page:Philosophical Review Volume 23.djvu/235

219 contrary, I am inclined to think that it will defeat its own end. Instead of helping the student for whom the book is presumably written, this historical introduction will rather confuse him. In my opinion, it is simply impossible to give in one Part of an Introduction to Philosophy a summary of the whole history of philosophical speculation, even though one hundred and seven pages be devoted to that purpose, which will be of very much assistance to the average student in comprehending problems discussed in another Part. This arrangement presupposes powers of synthesis which the uninitiated student does not possess.

This criticism is not to be interpreted as implying that I object to an historical introduction to the independent discussion of philosophical problems. On the contrary, I should be inclined to insist, and in my own teaching I proceed upon the assumption, that the historical introduction is essential. What I am objecting to here is only the manner in which the historical introduction is treated in the present volume. I believe the treatment is unpedagogical; the historical summary will, I am convinced, prove practically useless so far as the student is concerned, despite its general accuracy. There is too much material included in it, in the first place; and the opinions of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and the rest are separated by too many pages from the particular problems where these opinions would be of assistance to the struggling undergraduate. I can well see the bewilderment of students as they wander through these one hundred and more pages, packed full of the thoughts of the great thinkers of the past, wondering what it all has to do with an introduction to the discussion of philosophical problems; and when at the end of the semester's labors they have finished the book, I dare say few, if any, would be able to tell on the basis of their own experience why the historical part of the book should have been written at all.

A better method, it seems to me, would have been to give a clear and concise account of the historical side of each problem as it comes up for consideration. Despite his extended historical introduction, the author finds this method necessary in his discussion of some of the categories, as, for example, that of Substantiality. Here (pp. 265 ff.) we find a summary of the views of both ancient and modern philosophers concerning Substance inserted as an introduction to the author's (and the student's) independent investigation of the problem; and here the historical part of the discussion seems vital and meaningful, as I have no doubt the student will find it to be. Had all the other categories, as well as the problem of knowledge and reality, been