252 
of natura l agen c i es and existences, i.e. of potential and actual 
when, as is often the case, he seems to personify 
hl s language is plainly metaphorical. He likens the 
e y of the final cause (form, idea, reason) in nature to that 
oi art As art works in view of an end, so also does nature. 
(( f ( in P 1 oportion to its perfection) works spontaneously 
Without deliberation,” so too nature. We can pardon much 
to the powerfui mind of the former pupil of Plato, who, in 
opposition to the mechanical and atheistic philosophy of his 
i SUCh 7v. a i ? nt J service in the defence of the doctrine of 
' f s the fundamental and ruling, nay, more, the con- 
titutxve element in the concrete universe. Yet it is evident 
t m Ins separation of the divine thought from the world, and 
* ? ractical -treatment of reason (the ideal “form”) as an 
uoLp7i mdepe ? d I nt any Clear relation t0 a conscious subject 
early naved tho directly or indirectly controlling it, Aristotle 
or Jlfp d 1 Wa ‘ V f ° r the vague m °dern theories of pantheism 
oi atheism concerning a so-called unconscious intelligence. If 
tl.P "i 1 ?- 18 t0 , SaK m hls defenee, it is that the question of 
work w ° f 16 " ldea '” whic h is metaphorically said to 
° f nature > , to consciousness could not have that signifi- 
c ice foi him which it has for the anthropocentric philosophy 
of to d ayj and m the light of the purified conception of God 
which we owe to the influence of Christianity. Notwithstand- 
SoerIfp a r T Ut I° n 1U P hllos <>phy, through the Sophists and 
tn mi 1 'I ie - G i greater attention than before was directed 
man, yet with Plato, and no less with Aristotle, the problem 
hli Tr 7 6St 7 aS the ontological one. What is true 
* g ’, Vas rather the question than what is the relation of 
„‘ a Phenomena (all of which, great and small, were held to 
snirit a T , fuuda “ ental ldeal aspect) to intelligent, knowing 
spirit. the fatal consequences of the failure duly to consider 
and answer the latter question, are seen in the fact that Strato 
the second successor of Aristotle in the leadership of the Peril 
thlt he SC d h p°° 80 far UntFUe t0 the tea ching of his master, 
nature define f i™ tence of God ; or identified God with 
iature, defined the latter as a universal force, operating with 
intrinsic and unconscious necessity, and sought to explain all 
things as resulting from the universal attributes of gravity and 
pir^- F / o r ' ?* S rr beck (in llis Untersuchungen zur 
fn ZZ T % iec1 A ien > Halle > 18 ~3) has recently pointed out 
LfO Tf Wlth demonstrative evidence, how the material- 
stic pantheism of the Stoics, on its physical side, was in the 
most important particulars the direct child of Aristotle's 
pi! j Cfc • 
