OF THE THE HAMILTON ASSOCIATION. 49 



Philosophy in the strict sense with which he is here dealing. 

 Schwegler on the other hand disposes of the whole period in a single 

 chapter of three pages. What then was the character of the thinking 

 of this looo years, and why does the record of it not stricily belong 

 to a History of Philosophy ? The thinking of this period was all 

 in the interest of dogmatic theology. The dogma was accepted 

 as starting point and the effort was to show its rationality — to show 

 up Theology in philosophic form, to make Plato and Aristotle sub- 

 servient to the exposition of the dogmas of the church, to procure 

 for these dogmas a scientific system, — this was the character of 

 Scholasticism. We detract not one iota from the importance and 

 necessity of all this, we simply say it is not Philosophy in the strictsense. 

 The bringing together ot dogma and reason may be a more import- 

 ant interest than that of pure Philosophy. But pure Philosophy must 

 start with no dogma presupposed, by which it is to be controlled 

 and in whose interest it is to work. Philosophy's only starting point 

 is human consciousness, and from this it seeks to get at the under- 

 lying principle and explanation of man and of nature— not by any 

 means an easy task. After 2,400 years, the end which Philosophy seeks 

 still seems far away, the battle between Idealism and Materialism is 

 still going on. 



Coming then to Early Greek Philosophy, one may say that in 

 early times there was really no Philosophy outside that of the 

 Greeks. Whatever else may have been achieved, and certainly great 

 things were achieved in the founding of Empires, in Architecture, in 

 Poetry, in Religion, in many ways, — it is just as certain that prior to 

 600 B. C, man did no philosophic thinking. Up to this time he 

 remained contented with the directly theological, or the purely 

 mythical explanation of things. And indeed to this day, so far as 

 the strictly oriental mind is concerned, it has never done anything of 

 importance for Philosophy, Nor was there any native growth of this 

 sort in mighty Rome. A few slips, especially of Epicureanism and 

 Stoicism, were carried over from Greece and planted in Italy and 

 grew fairly well, but no new elements were added to them ; Rome 

 originated nothing in this regard. Lucretius, Seneca, Cicero, may be 

 called Philosophers, but hardly in as true a sense as Democritus, 

 Plato and Aristotle. ' About two-thirds of a page suffices Schwegler 

 wherein to dispose of Philosophy amongst the Romans. 



