14G 
PHILO 
honour of its founder, as it derogates from the character 
of its meritorious opponents. 
“ It was requifite that the new principles, in order to 
be univerfally valid, and calculated for general adoption, 
fhould do ample juftice to every preceding philosophic 
fedt; that they ftiould embrace with the greateft precifion 
all that is true in the refpeffive principles of each fyftem ; 
exclude the falfe, and thus compofe a fyftem, in which 
every independent thinker might find again what he had 
feen correffiy from his point of view.'” As to this end, 
it was requifite in the development of the new principles 
to feek out and efpoufe many of the moll paradoxical 
pofitions, and on the other hand to doubt and refute many 
of the more firmly eftablifhed ; nothing could be more 
natural than that this firft eflay of the kind, however maf- 
terly it might turn out, ftiould revolt not only thofe who 
had imparted its form to the prefent ftate of philofophy, 
but thofe alfo who had derived from it the form of their 
philofophizing, or, in other words, that it ftiould be mif- 
underftood and attacked, as well by the united Popular 
Philofophers as by the jarring Metaphyficians. 
“In order to attain its lofty aim, it was neceflary that 
the new eflay ftiould purfue attack diametrically oppofite 
to that, along which the herd of popular philofophers are 
accuftomed to faunter unconcernedly and at their eafe. 
Inftead of the convenient and entertaining defcent from 
the general to the particular, from the abftracl to the 
concrete, from principles uninveftigated and taken for 
granted to fadts, Kant was not only obliged to choofe 
the more arduous and up-hill road, but, if he would ac- 
complifli fomething permanently decifive, to follow it to 
an elevation which the molt perlevering enquirer had 
never yet reached. To combine the principles of which 
he was in queft, with the true in all anterior fyftems, he 
was obliged to let out from pofitions which cannot be 
doubted by any lect; that is to fay, whatever was mojl 
general in previous philofophy he was forced to take as 
the particular, from which he had to rife to the more 
general and thence to the limits of the comprehenfible, and 
he had then to demonftrate that they were in reality thofe 
limits. How could the popular philofopher follow him 
without turning giddy ? 
“But what is there to induce the popular philofopher 
to confront and conquer the immenfe difficulties in which 
fuch an inveftigation muft involve him ? He has not even 
dreamt that philofophy is deficient in eflential principles. 
His is founded on formularies, which, fanffioned and 
verified by the felf-fubffient pradiical fundamental truths, 
for the de'monftration of which they are employed in all 
academies, have palled from the fchools into common life, 
and now, ftamped as the univerfal oracles of the human 
underftanding, have been taken back again from common 
life into the fchools; formularies which a man may not 
doubt without forfeiting all claim to common fenfe, and 
with all his right to the appellation of a philofopher. 
How abfurd then muft every attempt to appear to invef- 
tigate thefe formularies which he regards as inexplicable, 
becaufe, in his opinion, they muft be the ground work of 
every explanation ; and as not demonftrable, becaufe they 
muft conftitute the bafisof every demonftration ! Should 
he at length meet with refults which are irreconcileabie 
with thefe, to him, eternal truths, or rather with the f'enl'e 
in which he has taken thefe formularies, this circumftance 
of itfelfis in his view the molt complete refutation of the 
new eflay. He confiders it as the eafieft matter in the 
world to expofe fuch extravagancies, fupported only by 
their fophiftry, in all their nakednefs to the eye of the 
public. This he deems his moil facred duty, as he is 
convinced that with thofe formularies the foundations of 
religion and morality muft be fhaken, and that, by the 
prodigious arrogance of criiicifivg Underftanding and Rea- 
ion itfelf,an hitherto-unknown lpirit of fcepticilm muft be 
introduced. In this notion he is confirmed by the very cir¬ 
cumftance, which is the chief criterion of the accuracy of 
the new eflay, namely, that it adopts the truth which is to be 
SOP H Y. 
found in every fyftem ; and thus fets up again and confirms 
the peculiar difcoveries made by dogmatic fcepticifm, 
materialifm, and fupernaturalifm, from their limited 
points of view. In the eyes of the popular philofopher 
this is the fureft fign that the new principles deferve 
condemnation. He is accuftomed to confider thofe three 
fyftems as errors long fince exploded, as unhappy confe- 
quences of the lamentable aberration from right reafon, 
and as excurfions into the bottomlefs region of chimeras. 
He now holds modern philofophy refponfible for thefum 
total of the herefies and mifchiefs by which each of thofe 
fyftems has drawn upon it his execration. 
“Still worfe, if poflible, muft be the reception which 
awaits our univerfally-valid principles from the metaphy¬ 
ficians, who are engaged in the folution of fpeculative 
problems. Ontology, which has hitherto forgiven alike 
the Materialifts and the Spiritualifts, the Spinozifts and 
the Theifts, the Fatalifts and the Determinifts, with their 
principles, and may therefore confidently reckon on the 
Support of them all, muft be degraded by the new eflay 
from the rank of the fcience of the Elementsxif Knowledge, 
and accufed and convifted, in its mod firmly-eftabliftied 
principles, as the fource of a general mifunderftanding of 
reafon. How is a man to be made fenfible of this by a 
/ingle booh, who is the more thoroughly convinced of the 
validity of the principles of his mode of reprefentation, 
the more time and pains the latter had coft him, and the 
more he has fupported and embellifhed it by the folidity 
and the richnefs of his talents. His principles have l’uf- 
ficiencly proved their ftrength by having fo longfupported 
the fuperftru&ure which he has raifed upon them. He is 
the lefs difpofed to fufpeft that they can be overthrown, 
the lefs they are vifible to him as the foundation, on a 
furvey of the finifhed building, or the more he is confcious 
that, in laying this foundation, they have had appropriate 
deftinations allotted to them through his penetration and 
induftry, by which they are fkreened from the ufual 
objections advanced againft the principles of his party. 
“ The moll vehement and obftinate refiftance could not 
but be expedited to the i'ntroduffion of univerfally-valid 
principles into univerfilies, leaving the paflions of the aca¬ 
demic teacher quite out of the queftion;—-and yet they 
feem to aCt no unimportant part; when, for example, the 
felf-fame celebrated man, who imagined that he had pro¬ 
nounced condemnation on a philofophical work by decla¬ 
ring that he did not underftand it, is enraged when ano¬ 
ther proves to him that he really did not underftand 
it; leaving his paflions out of the queftion, we will fup- 
pofe that no ambition dazzles him by the falfe reprefen¬ 
tation, that his well-earned fame muft be overthrown 
with his fyftem ; that no fecret envy indifpofes him to do 
jultice to a difcovery that is not his own; that no jea- 
louly of a junior colleague, who naturally finds it eafier 
to adopt an entirely-new mode of reprefentation, urges 
him to feek in it nothing but defeats : ltill the ftudy of 
the new philofophy will be attended with difficulties for 
him, which even fpring from his own inconteftible merits, 
and which but very few in his fituation are capable of fur¬ 
mounting. Theoftener and the better he has orally and 
in writing developed his fyftem, the more luminous, the 
more familiar, and the dearer, it muft have become to him. 
He poffelfes extraordinary readinefs at enforcing the ar¬ 
guments in its favour, and controverting the objections 
alleged againft it; for both have been the chief bufinefs 
of his life; and, as he knows that he has confuted all that 
his adverfarieshave hitherto beenableto urge againft it, he 
is the moreinclined toafiume that it is not liable to any ob¬ 
jection which may not be referred to a mifconception of his 
fyftem, with which few indeed can be fo intimately ac¬ 
quainted as liimfelf. The more fields of philofophy he 
has cultivated, the more their fertility and harmony have 
juftified his principles in his eyes, fo much the more have 
they become interwoven with the mals of his ideas, and 
identified, if I may fo exprefs myfielf, with the nature of 
his reafon. I think it therefore no paradox to aflert, be¬ 
caufe 
