OF THE BEAUTIFUL. 69 



to note the treatment of the problem of the Beautiful 40. 



Schopeu- 



in the writings of Schopenhauer and in those of iiaueran-i 



" ^ von Hart- 



von Hartmann. Both these thinkers started from the "*''""• 

 idealistic conception elaborated by Schelling, although 

 Schopenhauer ignores the influence of the latter, and 

 leads his readers back to Kant, of whopi he professes to 

 be the only true follower, having, as he thinks, drawn 

 the one inevitable conclusion which presents itself, 

 Hartmann, on the other side, does full justice to the 

 work of Schelling, especially to the latest phase of his 

 speculation. It can, nevertheless, not be denied that 

 both Schopenhauer and Hartmann prejudiced the treat- 

 ment of the cesthetical as well as of other philosophical 

 problems, by introducing, at the outset of their exposi- 

 tions, rigid conceptions of a very definite kind, to the 

 proof and explanation of which the rest of their lives 

 and writings were exclusively devoted. It will be easiest 

 to understand this if we look upon the main object both 

 of Schopenhauer and Hartmann as having been to give a 

 definite answer to the question stated by Kant — viz. : 

 What is the " Thing in itself " ? Schopenhauer answers 

 this question by saying the thing in itself is " the Will " ; 

 Hartmann answers the question by saying it is " the 

 Unconscious." 



Both thinkers arrived at their respective solutions 

 comparatively early in life. In this they differ from 

 Kant, whose whole writing and thinking may be looked 

 upon as merely a preparation for a future positive philo- 

 sophy ; and from Hegel, who in his thirty- seventh year 

 had published only the programme of his future system. 

 Their youthful attitude towards the problem of philo- 

 sophy resembles more that of Fichte and Schelling, who 



