COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



science (!) cannot be proved, they must be appre- 

 hended ; for those who cannot apprehend them 

 there is nothing but pity; argument is useless/"^ 

 Here in the expHcit rejection of the fundamen- 

 tal conception of Cosmic Philosophy as a fur- 

 ther organization of science, which is itself a 

 further organization of common knowledge, we 

 see at the same time the most explicit adoption 

 of the subjective method. And it is worthy of 

 note that, in this emphatic declaration, modern 

 metaphysics ends in precisely the same reductio 

 ad absurdum in which ancient metaphysics met 

 its doom. The incompetence of ordinary reason 

 to construct a science of ontology having been 

 fully demonstrated, the task is transferred, by 

 Schelling as by Proklos, to a " divine light," 

 which is supposed to irradiate the souls of a few 

 privileged teachers. Obviously this is equiva- 

 lent to the confession that, as a process of ra- 

 tional investigation, the subjective method has 

 been definitely tried in the balance and found 

 wanting. For to recur to a " divine light," or 

 to seek refuge in the identity of contradictories, 

 is only to show the more convincingly that hu- 

 man thought cannot, save by a mere jugglery 

 of words, even appear to escape from the con- 

 ditions under which alone is valid thinking pos- 

 sible. 



We have now sufficiently illustrated, by con- 

 * Lewes, History of Philosophy , 3d edition, vol. ii. p. 522. 

 184 



