individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests of mankind."

§ 5. Another problem which has exercised the minds of moral philosophers is that of the moral standard and the sanction of moral conduct. It is the problem of moral principle in relation to man's will, the nature of moral law and obligation as distinct from motive. This problem treats of the basis and binding quality of moral obligation. "I feel," says Mill, in his "Essay on Utilitarianism,' ," "that I am bound not to rob or murder, betray or deceive; but why am I bound to promote the general happiness? If my own happiness lies in something else, why may I not give that the preference? Questions of duty and the judgment of conduct vary with individuals and their characters. The responsibilities are different in each case. May not our judgment be involved in confusion, and lead us astray? And while thinking we do the right, may we not be doing the wrong? Where do we find the rule and sanction of our moral conduct-the moral law? To this question, again, two answers have been given. Some_philosophers find the standard moral law in ourselves. It is a voice within us that tells us how to distinguish truth from falsehood. The moral law is derived from authority within us; it dwells in the inmost recesses of our nature, and helps us to penetrate through the mist of appearances to a clear perception of duty. This moral law serves us as a guide in our actions, and exercises a sovereign authority over every other spring of authority. This theory is called the Autonomous (Greek, autós, self, and vóuos, law), as it finds the moral law in man's own nature. Some philosophers consider this inward voice as that of Reason and Intelligence, and are known as Rationalists. The ancient philosophers, and those of the century of the Great Revolution, were rationalists in this respect, and considered reason as the supreme judge and sovereign authority in moral conduct. Foremost among the exponents of the Autonomous theory is Kant. Reason, however, had to make room for feeling. The sovereign authority is to be found in ourselves, as Hume, Schopenhauer, Adam Smith, and others maintained; it is,

The

however, not centred in reason, but in feeling. ultimate sanction of all morality is a feeling innate or implanted in our mind. "It is a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properly cultivated natures rises, in the more serious cases, into a shrinking from it as an impossibility." Opposed to the Autonomous theory is the Heteronomous, which locates the sanction of moral conduct and the moral law in external authority. The fear of God, the supreme Ruler of the universe, or of our fellow creatures, the hope or finding favour before the eternal Judge or approval from our neighbours, are the bases of the moral duty. The moral law, or the rules and duties of moral conduct, are accepted from an authority other than ourselves, either the will of God, the sovereign, or the law of society.

Closely related to these ethical problems is that of selfcontrol or free-will. Is the supremacy of moral law such as to influence our will and make it subservient? Does our obedience to moral law pre-suppose a deliberate resolution, leaving the moral agent free to contemplate the law, but to shape his action as he pleases, and to apply the law in accordance with circumstances? Or are we bound by nature to act in a given case in a certain way and not otherwise, our will being a chain in the law of causality? and our determination, seemingly taken freely by ourselves, only the necessary result of an existing cause pre-determining the events to follow? Two philosophical schools have discussed, and are still discussing, this momentous problem. The first upholds the absolute freedom of the will, as not determined by any cause, and is known as the Indeterminist School. The other adheres to the theory of causality, making the will of the moral agent and his determination dependent upon some preceding cause, and is known as the Determinist School. Indeterminism and Determinism form one of the most important problems, to solve which has been the interest not only of Philosophy, but also of Theology.

CHAPTER XIII

THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS; OR, THE THEORY OF

KNOWLEDGE

§ 1. PHILOSOPHY has often been defined as the theory of "being and knowing." Metaphysics or Ontology inquires into the essence and origin of Being, and the questions dealing with Knowledge in itself-its essence, origin, and limitation-form a new branch of Philosophy, that of the Theory of Knowledge, or Epistemology. The first Greek philosophers turned their attention to the question of what things really are, and what is the intrinsic nature of things. This philosophizing and reflection, however, transcending the existing current and naive conceptions and ideas, gradually led the thinker, searching for truth behind and above things, to another question: Why are my views different from those of the mass of mankind? Why do my theories, based on reflection, differ from the views current in ordinary life? I know that the multitude is in error, and that my explanations are true. There is a world of things" without" me, and my mind knows them. Yet, how did this knowledge of things enter my mind, giving rise to the ideas which reproduce the world of things within it? How have I gained this knowledge, and why does the multitude think differently? Where is the source of the truth which I have gained, where is the origin of knowledge and its limitations, and what is its nature and essence? These epistemological inquiries further led to doubt as to the trustworthiness and validity of knowledge. Is it at all possible to know the truth, to find a universally valid criterion? Thus, while the first inclination of the human mind is to

act without questioning itself, man's doubt and mistrust are awakened as soon as he falls into error, especially when he discovers the contradictions of human opinions. Thought, after having been directed to external things, turns upon itself, questioning its own validity. It asks: What is knowledge, and what is its relation to reality? Is there a possibility of knowledge, and is the human mind capable of attaining it, and if so, how does it reach that knowledge? Such are the questions and inquiries to which the human mind, in its desire to know, turns from its metaphysical speculations.

"Philosophy," says Paulsen, "everywhere began with Metaphysics; questions as to the shape, form and origin of the universe, the nature and origin of Being, the essence of the soul and its relation to the body, form the first subject-matter of philosophical reflection. After long occupation, however, with such investigations, the question arises as to the nature of Knowledge and its possibility. The human mind has to face the philosophical problem, as to whether it is at all possible for the human mind to solve these questions. Epistemology, or the Theory of Knowledge, is thus evolved as a critical reflection upon Metaphysics." Thus the problems arising from the questions as to the validity and limit of man's faculty of Knowledge and its relation to the reality of things to be known, form the subject-matter of Epistemology (from émioτnun (episteme), Knowledge, and óyos (logos), discourse), or the Theory of Knowledge.

The scope and function of Epistemology and its problems can, however, be reduced to three principal questions : 1. What is Knowledge? or the question of the nature of Knowledge;

2. How do we obtain our Knowledge? or the question of the origin of Knowledge; and

3. Is there a possibility of Knowledge? or the question of the validity and limits of Knowledge.

§ 2. To these questions various answers have been given in the course of the history of thought, according to Einleitung in die Philosophie," 9th ed., 1903,

1 Cf. Paulsen,

p. 365.

the systems and schools of Philosophy. Knowledge, some philosophers thought, is the exact copy and representation in our mind of reality. Things are exactly so in reality as they appear to us through the medium of our perceptive faculties. The world "without" is as real as, and exists independently of, our consciousness which perceives it. Appearance and reality are absolutely identical, and the perception of things as they really are is Knowledge, This doctrine, viz. That reality exists apart from its presentation to, or conception by, consciousness is called Realism. What we perceive with a degree of certitude or probability and recognize by reflection, thus constituting our Knowledge of the things, is the product of an objective, really existent factor, independently of our own consciousness. Knowledge is therefore, according to the doctrine of Realism, the perception of things as they really are, through the medium of our physical and psychical organism. A thing is black or red, because it possesses those qualities which make it appear black or red when reflected in the human eye. Those qualities are really existent, whether or not the thing is reflected in a human eye. In contradistinction to the doctrine of Realism, Epistemological Idealism (or Phenomenalism) maintains that "perceptions of things" and "things in themselves," that "thought" and "existence," or reality, are widely different. Knowledge, according to the Idealists, is not at all the perception of things as they really are the exact copy and repetition of things in themselves-but as they appear to us. Knowledge being an inner, psychical process, there can be no similarity between it and the things "without." The world around us is only the product of our mind. All that we know of the world and the things without-be it through our sense-perception or by means of reflection-is only imagination, the product of our own mind. Whilst therefore the Realist considers that in sense-perception we have a certainty, and a guarantee of the reality of existence, the Idealist is of opinion that “the only reality of the external world is its perceptibility."

§ 3. To the second question, viz. the origin and sources of our knowledge, two answers have been given.