OF REALITY. 



485 



who had lost or never taken part in the inspiration 

 which characterised the age that gave birth and sub- 

 stance to the whole idealistic movement. Outside of 

 this ethical interpretation, which forms by far the most 

 popular — though not the most important — side of 

 Schopenhauer's teaching, the points of contact which 

 unite his treatment of the problem of reality with that 

 contained in the writings of Fichte are numerous and 

 striking.^ For Fichte had already emphasised the active 



^ These relations are well brought 

 out by Herbart himself in the 

 only really important Review, so 

 far as I know, of Schopenhauer's 

 great work which appeared at the 

 time of its publication, 1819. In 

 quite recent times, notably through 

 the iniluence of Windelband, the 

 philosophies of Herbart and 

 Schopenhauer have been placed 

 in contrast and appreciated in 

 this position. This is very sugges- 

 tively done in the two brilliant chap- 

 ters written on these philosophers 

 in the 2nd vol. of ' Grosse Denker ' 

 (ed. E. von Aster, p. 269, &c.), 

 by Prof. Rud. Lehmann. Herbart's 

 ' Review,' however, is so exhaustive, 

 and brings out so clearly the funda- 

 mental difference of his and Schopen- 

 hauer's points of view, that it should 

 be read by every student interested 

 in the subject. The Reviewer re- 

 commends Schopenhauer's work as 

 a fine literary production, well 

 worth reading, and as a stimulating 

 reflection and criticism, though he 

 fundamentally disagrees with the 

 principles as well as the result of 

 his doctrine. With great know- 

 ledge he shows how nearly Schopen- 

 hauer agrees with some of Fichte's 

 earliest enunciations. He remarks 

 that Fichte's doctrine might quite 

 as suitably be entitled : ' Die Welt 

 als Vorstelluug und Wille,' so much 

 so that " the Reviewer believed, at 



first, that he had to do with a 

 Fichtian, and was much surprised 

 when, in reading further, he came 

 upon the hardest judgment of 

 Fichte which has probably ever 

 been put in writing." He blames 

 the author further for apparently 

 not having read Fichte's ' Sitten- 

 lehre,' and goes on to say : "' In 

 truth the Wissenschaftslekre is no 

 more than an ingenious exercise 

 which should have remained un- 

 printed because it frightens away 

 the reader from the more mature 

 works of Fichte. Neverthele.ss 

 Fichte may be illustrated through 

 Schopenhauer. The same meta- 

 morphosis of Kantian doctrine 

 which occurred twenty years earlier 

 in Fichte's mind has . . . repeated 

 itself in Schopenhauer ; and may, 

 after another twenty years, occur 

 for a third time ; but a better 

 result will never proceed from it 

 than hitherto. Invariably the 

 theoretical side of Kantian doctrine 

 will develop itself more completely 

 into idealism ; ever also the last 

 foundation of a true realism will be 

 wanting, — and then the gap will be 

 filled by the Will which the 

 ' Critique of Practical Reason,' if 

 not in so many words, had already 

 stamped as the 'Thing in itself: 

 ever also a mystical yearning for 

 the One which is considered to be 

 the Raal will be the last sentiment 



