RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY TO PSYCHOLOGY. 37 
lie and condition the phenomena of free spirit, and there¬ 
fore must the philosopher understand psychology. 
If these views be correct, then Des Cartes and Huxley are 
right in regarding animals as in some sense conscious au¬ 
tomata, and very much of human action also undoubtedly 
comes in the same category. But there is this difference 
between these two thinkers: Des Cartes excludes man in his 
highest activities from this automatism. In this I think he 
is right. Huxley, on the contrary, extends automatism to 
include all the activities of man. In this I think he is wrong. 
The phenomena of self-conscious spirit alone are free and 
self-determined. 
Finally, we have said that philosophy alone is the science 
of free spirit. Is there, then, it may be asked, no activity of 
free spirit in other departments of thought besides philoso¬ 
phy ? Surely there is. All science and fine art, all ethics 
and religion, as well as all philosophy, are the products of 
the activity of free spirit, and are therefore strictly confined 
to man. But there is this difference: Science, as we usually 
define it, and art are the result of the activity of free spirit 
on materials furnished in the first instance from without by 
the external world. Philosophy is the result of the activity 
of the same free spirit on materials furnished by itself from 
within—from the inner world of self-consciousness. Ethics 
and religion deal with materials of both kinds. The dif¬ 
ference is only in the subject-matter, not in the kind of 
activity. 
Will some one say that the view above presented is a re¬ 
turn to the old, high, metaphysical view of philosophy, and 
therefore a step backward from the new scientific view ? 
Well, perhaps it is so to some extent, but it is also a limit¬ 
ing it to its proper domain and placing it on a rational basis. 
At the same time it gives full play to the new psychology 
and defines also its domain. It differentiates these two from 
one another and places each on its true line of progress. 
Evolution and progress are not made, as many suppose, by 
exploding of old views and substitution of new, created at 
