58 THE LIFE OF SCIENCE 



quality) ; nor is it for the mere intellectual joy of understanding 

 life better. We are not disinterested enough for that. No; we wish 

 to understand, to foresee more clearly; we wish to be able to act 

 with more precision and wisdom. History itself is of no concern 

 to us. The past does not interest us but for the future. 



To build up this future, to make it beautiful, as were those 

 glorious times of synthetic knowledge, for instance that of Phidias 

 or of Leonardo da Vinci, it is necessary to prepare a new synthesis. 

 We propose to realize it by bringing about a new and more inti- 

 mate collaboration between scientist, philosopher and historian. 

 If that could be accomplished, it would give birth to so much 

 beauty that the collaboration of the artist would also, necessarily, 

 be secured; an age of synthesis is always an age of art. This syn- 

 thesis is what I call ff the new humanism." It is something in the 

 making — not a dream. We see it growing, but no one can tell 

 how big it will grow. 



The writer is convinced that the history of science — that is to 

 say, the history of human thought and civilization in its broadest 

 form — is the indispensable basis of any philosophy. History is but 

 a method — not an aim ! 



