414 



PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT. 



tinct currents of thought, which in Germany were 

 represented by two different schools, has helped to 

 give to recent works on Logic in this country notably 

 es. to those of F. H. Bradley and B. Bosanquet a char- 

 Bosanquet. acter of originality and comprehensiveness which places 

 them in the forefront of modern treatises on Logic and 

 the theory of Knowledge. As logic has, mainly through 

 their labours, fully justified its traditional position as 

 an independent science, the special doctrines elaborated 

 therein hardly enter into a general history of thought. 

 The latter, however, has to take note of the change 

 which has come over the general points of view from 

 which, and the interest in which, logical science has 

 been reconstructed. In this respect there are two 

 points which seem to me to have a general bearing on 

 the development of modern philosophical thought. 

 The first refers to the breaking down of the older 



written in the year 1882, and 

 in consequence does not embrace 

 the more recent developments 

 largely to be traced to the in- 

 fluence of Lotze. As being of 

 permanent value up to this point, 

 it is gratifying to know that it 

 has been republished. The second 

 is an article published in the 

 " New Volumes " just twenty years 

 later (1902). This article is writ- 

 ten by Prof. Case, and contains a 

 very trenchant criticism of recent 

 logic, which in its distinctive and 

 hopeful reforms is considered by 

 the author to be approaching the 

 position occupied by the genuine 

 Aristotelian logic in antiquity a 

 view which was held similarly by 

 Trendelenburg in Germany a gen- 

 eration earlier. In addition to 

 the strong recommendation of 

 the Aristotelian ' Organon,' it is 



strange to see the 'Novum Or- 

 ganum ' of Bacon recommended 

 for the study of inductive logic. 

 Prominent authorities on the Con- 

 tinent such as Prof. Alois Riehl 

 (see his article in ' Systematische 

 Philosophic,' 1907, p. 84) main- 

 tain that this distinction does not 

 belong to Bacon, " a schemer and 

 dilettante," but to Galileo a view 

 initiated on the Continent by a 

 celebrated pamphlet of Justus 

 Liebig (1862), and destructive of 

 the fable convenue of the Baconian 

 method so prevalent in this coun- 

 try. The third article*, in the llth 

 edition (1911), is by Mr H. W. 

 Blunt. It is thoroughly up to 

 date, and does full justice to the 

 influence of Lotze and the new era 

 in the science represented mainly 

 by Bradley and Bosanquet. 



