Hans Vaihinger

Start Free Trial

Autobiographical

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

SOURCE: "Autobiographical" in The Philosophy of 'As If': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind, translated by C. K. Ogden, Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc. 1924, pp. 23-48.

[In the following essay, Vaihinger explains his reasons for and method of writing The Philosophy of "As If."]

I was born in a Swabian parsonage near Tubingen in 1852 and so I grew up in a very religious atmosphere. It was not exactly bigoted, but it had a limited horizon, for instance, the names of the Liberal Hegelian theologian Baur of Tübingen, the so-called "Heathen Baur" and his disciple, David F. Strauss, were spoken of with horror in our home. My father, who was the author of a good many theological works, had written a pamphlet against Strauss. When I was twelve years old I was given into me charge of an excellent master and teacher in Leonberg, Sauer, who was at that time a tutor and who became many years later one of the prominent figures at the Stuttgart Grammar School. Sauer awakened the ambition of his pupils by telling them how Kepler in the 17m century and Schelling in the 18th century had sat on the benches of that ancient school of Latin. I was his favourite pupil and he used to tell me too about his Sanskrit studies, which he carried on under the influence of Professor Roth of Tubingen University. He was especially interested in the great Mahabharata epic and occasionally at the end of the lesson in religion he would tell us how this Indian epic contained the same sort of legends as the New Testament. The stories of the Old and New Testament had already awakened doubts in my mind, so I was gradually led to the conception of the ethical value of the myth. Generally speaking, Sauer's attitude was one of rationalistic theism with a solid moral basis. I had already reached this way of thinking at the time of my confirmation (1866). This ethical theism was a great help to me in those years, but from the time that I entered the Stuttgart Grammar School it gradually and imperceptibly evolved into pantheism, based on a deep love of Nature. During this period of transition, in 1868 I came across Herder's book on the History of Mankind, which appealed to my state of mind by its mixture of theism and pantheism, and to which I owe a great deal. It gives such a wide and lofty view of the whole development of the history of mankind, extending from the earliest origins onwards through all kinds and varieties of civilization. The idea of evolution became one of the fundamental elements of my mental outlook. Herder draws special attention to the evolution of spiritual life out of its first animal origins, and he regards man always as linked up with that Nature from which he has gradually evolved. Thus in 1869, when I first heard Darwin's name and when my school-friends told me about the new theory of man's animal ancestry, it was no surprise to me, because through my reading of Herder I was already familiar with the idea. In later years there has been much discussion as to whether Herder can be called a forerunner of Darwin. At any rate in my case Darwin's theory of descent added nothing new to what I had learnt from Herder.

Naturally I carried these studies further in later years, but from that time onwards one of the fundamentals in my philosophy has been this fact of man's animal ancestry. About this time I came under Plato's influence, which acted as a counter-balancing factor. I read the usual Dialogues and the Apology, but our Professor was old and though very thorough he was dull and kept us to the grammatical side. His routine teaching made nothing like the same impression on me as three lessons from a young teacher called Breitmaier, who came to replace him during an illness. He read to us in Greek the myth in the Phaedrus on the nature of the soul, and the description of the cave from the Republic. This opened up a new world to me, the world of "Ideas," and as he also spoke of Plato's myths, the seed was sown then of that conception which later I myself named the "World of 'As if".

The Introduction to Philosophy which was customary at that time in South Germany, with its bare outlines of logic, psychology and ethics, played quite an insignificant part compared with the revolutionary ideas which I was discovering for myself. This was all the more marked because our professor was Gustav Pfitzer, the poet made notorious by Heinrich Heine. But I should like to pay him a tribute of admiration here, because he was a man of noble character and my feeling for him as a personality was one of absolute reverence. The opposition which I expressed in 1905 to the Introduction to Philosophy as a separate branch of instruction derives from my own earlier experience. In the same dissertation Philosophy in State Examinations (1905) I urged on the other hand that philosophy should be the general principle of instruction in all subjects and I drew attention particularly to the "opportunist method" of philosophy, which emphasizes points of philosophical significance when the occasion arises in other branches of study. I found an example of this in 1870 in the excellent teaching of our Headmaster, K. A. Schmid, who has made a name for himself as the editor of a large Encyclopaedia of Education in many volumes. In an extra class of advanced pupils he used to hold grammatical discussions on complicated problems of Latin syntax and he taught us to overcome, difficulties by a strict logical analysis of conjunctions and their various uses. The double conjunction 'As if' was not mentioned, but it was this accurate logical training which later enabled me to recognize in the grammatical formation 'As if' the Fiction which has such logical significance.

Last but not least I must mention Schiller's poems and treatises, for they too had an important influence on me at that period. Every earnest young student is inspired and fired by Schiller, but this Swabian poet had a special appeal for me, because he had played a great part in the history of my mother's family. My great-grandfather, Professor Balthasar Haug, was Schiller's teacher and his son, me epigrammatic poet Friedrich Haug, was Schiller's friend. Schiller's philosophic poems, in which he contrasts the ideal world of pure form with the empirical world, were easily linked up with the Platonic influences mentioned above. Many of Schiller's verses made an indelible impression on me, for instance the words "In error only is there life, and knowledge must be death", words which in certain respects have become the foundation of my theory of Fiction. Schiller's philosophical treatises were of course still too difficult for me to attempt, but I understood his theory of play as the primary element of artistic creation and enjoyment; and it had great influence on the development of my thought, for later on I recognized in play the 'As if', as the driving force of aesthetic activity and intuition.

Thus equipped, I entered the University of Tubingen in the autumn of 1870, as a student at the residential Theological College there. At Tübingen memories still linger of the many great figures who have passed through its University: Schelling, Hegel, Hölderlin, Waiblinger, Baur, Strauss, Vischer, Zeller and many others. In my time the University was run on very liberal lines and great freedom was, and still is, given to the students to allow them to develop in their own way. In the first four terms especially, they are given a very thorough grounding in philosophy. My first term was devoted to ancient philosophy, the second to later philosophy up to Kant, the third to the period from Kant to Hegel, and the fourth from Schleiermacher onwards to the philosophic foundations of dogmatism. First-rate coaches gave us careful instruction on an independent scientific basis and they also supervised the working out of philosophic treatises by the students, who were encouraged to think freely for themselves. No obstacles were placed in the path of my philosophical development. On the contrary, I was encouraged on all sides, especially when I started a prize essay for the faculty of philosophy on "Recent Theories of Consciousness." For this work, which took me a year, I received first prize in the autumn of 1873, and this enabled me to travel in Switzerland and North Italy. This prize essay was also the decisive factor in making me abandon my theological studies which I had started with much hesitation. My transition to pure philosophy was made easy for me in every way. Thus I have good reason to remember the Theological College of Tubingen with gratitude, particularly Professor Buder, the open-minded and kind-hearted Director at that time.

Sigwart was of course the most prominent of all the lecturers on philosophy. His lectures on the History of Philosophy, on Psychology, and above all naturally on Logic were splendid and I owe much to them. In exercises also, particularly on Schleiermacher, I learnt to admire his penetrating mind and his broad outlook. Yet I cannot say that I was a disciple of Sigwart, in the sense that I accepted the fundamentals of his philosophy. What did not appeal to me was his absolutely teleological conception of the universe, which was bound up with the theological, or rather theologising metaphysic that he had derived from Schleiermacher. Therefore, unlike me, who was spending more and more time in scientific study, he had little sympathy with the new scientific theory of evolution. Sigwart certainly revolutionized logic, but in the real problems of philosophy, particularly in the question of the mechanical conception of Nature, he was too timid for my taste.

With regard to this latter problem, Liebmann who was then a lecturer, helped me much, but unfortunately for me he was shortly called away. The other regular professor, Reeff, had built up a system of his own on the foundations of Schelling's teaching, but this had only a passing effect on my philosophical development. What I did retain, however, was the view which he frequently expressed, namely, that a philosophic system need not be regarded as true simply because it satisfies the emotions; whoever seeks this satisfaction must not go to the philosopher to find it; philosophy must give light, but it need not give warmth. Köstlin, an enthusiastic Hegelian, gave us brilliant and inspiring lectures on aesthetic questions, but when he tried to win me over to Planck, I refused to follow him.

So really I had only myself to fall back upon. In my first term the teaching of the Greek nature-philosophers made a great impression on me, because of their close similarity with the modern theory of evolution. Anaximander appealed to me especially also because of his profound words on the vengeance which all separate existences must suffer. An incomplete treatise Anaximander and the Indeterminate resulted, and in it I anticipated much of what Teichmüller afterwards said about him. I also worked at Aristotle very thoroughly. In my second term Spinoza absorbed me by his consistency and his dispassionate conception of the universe.

But the impression made upon me by Kant was very different from the rest. In every respect he freed my mind, without fettering it. The bold theory of the ideality of space and time always liberates the mind from immediacy, from the pressure of the material world, even although one soon recognizes that in the long run it is not tenable in that form. But what impressed me most was Kant's discovery of the contradictions with which human thought is faced when it ventures into the realm of meta-physics. Kant's theory of antinomies had a profound influence on me. I derived permanent value not only from his theory of the limitation of knowledge to experience, but also from his doctrine that action, the practical, must take the first place, in other words the so-called supremacy of practical reason. This seemed to appeal to my innermost being.

Thus it was natural that the systems of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, in spite of their wonderful architecture and their wide range, could not hold me for long, although in accordance with the plan of studies of the College I had concentrated on these three systems. It was Fichte's preference for the practical and Hegel's theory of contradiction and its significance for human thought and reality that appealed to me most.

The official plan of studies passed from the "German Idealism" of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel direct to Schleiermacher. But I followed my own course and turned to Schopenhauer, who until then had been ignored, even despised by the Faculty. But I had got hold of E. von Hartmann's Philosophy of the Unconscious, which was making a great stir at the time, but which of course was officially non-existent for the College, and it led back to Schopenhauer, whose name was constantly being mentioned in all current literature. So I went straight to the source and studied Schopenhauer very thoroughly.

Schopenhauer's teaching gave me much that was new and great and lasting, pessimism, irrationalism and voluntarism. The impression which he made upon me was, although not extensively, yet certainly intensively greater than that of Kant. In order to explain this, I must go further afield. In all the systems of philosophy which I had hitherto met, the irrational aspect of the world and of life had not received attention, or at least adequate attention. The ideal of philosophy was to explain everything rationally, that is to say, by logical conclusions to prove it rational, in other words logical, significant, fitting. The Hegelian philosophy came nearest to this ideal, and it was considered the supreme achievement of philosophy. This ideal of knowledge, however, had failed to satisfy me, for my mind was far too keen and critical not to see the irrational element in Nature as well in history. From my earliest days I had come across countless manifestations of the irrational in my immediate surroundings. It may sound strange, but it is a fact that my physical constitution had much to do with this also. From the very beginning, extreme short-sightedness has hindered me in all my activities. Whereas my nature impelled me to action, to energetic movement, to activity in every form and aspect, this physical defect forced me into reserve, passivity, loneliness. This glaring contrast between my physical constitution and temperament has always struck me as absolutely irrational, and it has sharpened my senses to notice all the other irrational aspects of existence. I therefore considered it to be a lack of sincerity in most systems of philosophy, that they tried more or less to hide the irrational side. Now for the first time I came across a man who recognized irrationality openly and honourably, and who attempted to explain it in his system of philosophy. Schopenhauer's love of truth was a revelation to me. I did not follow his metaphysical constructions, because since I had studied Kant the impossibility of all metaphysics had seemed to me to be obvious. But that part of Schopenhauer's teaching which can be established empirically became my lasting possession and a source of fruitful inspiration, particularly in so far as it could be linked up with the theory of evolution, which was then much to the fore, and with the theory of the struggle for existence.

I have already mentioned that what appealed to me most in Kant and in Fichte was their emphasis on the practical aspect. In Schopenhauer I found this same tendency, but much clearer, much stronger, much more comprehensive. With him it was not the rather nebulous "practical reason", but the empirical psychological element of "the will" which was placed in the forefront. To me much that had hitherto been inexplicable seemed suddenly to be explained or at least explicable.

What struck me most was his proof of the fact that originally thought is only used by the will as a means to its own ends, and that only in the course of evolution does thought free itself from the bonds of the will and become an end in itself. Schopenhauer has already shown how the brain of animals is quite small, yet is large enough to act as an organ for the execution of the will's purposes, whereas in the higher animals, and particularly in man, it has grown out of all proportion. Darwin's theory of evolution, which was being worked out at this time, corroborated Schopenhauer's contention, which gave me a fundamental insight into reality.

This theory of Schopenhauer's seemed to me to be so fruitful that it called for expansion and general application. In my notes of the years from 1872 onwards this universal "Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End" is constantly recurring. Everywhere I found evidence that an original means working towards a definite end has the tendency to acquire independence and to become an end in itself. Thought, which originally serves the purposes of the will and only gradually becomes an end in itself was the most obvious special case of a universal law of Nature that manifests itself in new forms always and everywhere, in all organic life, in the processes of the mind, in economic life, and in history. Unfortunately at that period I never managed to publish this "Law" and said nothing more about it when many years later Wundt produced his theory of the "Heterogeny of Purpose," which expresses the same idea. I maintain, however, that the expression "Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End" gives the idea of the theory much more clearly and distinctly.

This theory of Schopenhauer's, that fundamentally thought is dependent on the purposes of the Life-will and has developed into an end in itself only as it were against all laws, became linked up in my mind with Kant's theory that human thought is bound by certain limits and that meta-physical knowledge is impossible. This limitation of human knowledge to experience, which Kant emphasizes over and over again, no longer struck me as a deplorable deficiency in the human mind, compared with a potential higher form of mind, not bound by these limits. This limitation of human knowledge seemed to me now to be a necessary and natural result of the fact that thought and knowledge are originally only a means to attain the Life-purpose, so that their actual independence signifies a breaking-away from their original purpose; indeed, by the fact of this breaking-loose, thought is confronted by impossible problems, which are not merely insoluble to human thought while possibly soluble to a higher form of thought, but problems which are utterly impossible to all forms of thought as such. This conviction has become one of the most solid foundations of my conception of the universe, and since that time it has grown within me and has crystallized with the years into an ever clearer form.

Another powerful influence on these same lines made itself felt about this time (1872-73), when Adolf Horwicz' book Psychologische Analysen auf physiologischer Grundlage came into my hands. In this work Horwicz showed that all psychology is based on the so-called scheme of reflexes: sense-impressions following upon stimulation, ideas leading up to thought, expressive movement and volitional action. The simplest reflexes are motor phenomena following upon stimulation. These stimuli must result in elementary feelings, which release corresponding movements, representing the most elementary beginning of volitional actions. In the interval between these impressions on the one hand and the motor expression on the other hand ideas come to the surface, first in an elementary form, but growing more and more complicated, so that in their highest form they may be described as Thought-processes. Thus the idea and later on the thought appear as merely a bridge, an intermediary between impression on the one hand and expression on the other hand. This theory, which Horwicz worked out most carefully and comprehensively, fitted in very well with the idea that I had derived from Schopenhauer, namely that thought originally is only a means for the purposes of the will, and both ideas coincided with the conviction that I had gained from Kant as to the supremacy of the practical.

As I have already mentioned, I was at this time not only working at the study of philosophy and its history, but was chiefly occupied with the great ideas which were revolutionizing science at this time. Firstly, I was interesting myself in the application, in every sphere of Nature, of the mechanical theory, with special reference to the "Law of the Conservation of Energy," secondly I was studying the new aspect taken on by the organic sciences as a result of Darwin's theory of evolution and the theory of selection involved in this, namely the mechanical, automatic selection of the fittest through the so-called "Struggle for Existence". In all branches of inorganic and organic science I endeavoured to get not only a general survey, but so far as conditions allowed, a special knowledge of the most important aspects. I seized every opportunity of keeping abreast of the movement, not only by reading the special books, but also by getting into personal touch with scientists. Thus I came into contact with Hüfner, the Professor of Physiology, and one day I had an interesting discussion with him, on the Life-force. With youthful prejudice I spoke very strongly against it, as an antiquated and useless theory. He granted that my objections were in part justified, but he pointed out that the application of this idea was expedient on practical grounds and might be not only permissible, but even necessary, although it might be regarded as false or at least not quite theoretically justified. He gave me his book on the Life-force which had just appeared.

A new seed was sown in my mind by all this and it has proved to be of the most lasting and decisive importance. It made me look carefully for arguments on the same lines and I collected examples from all the sciences. I had all the more opportunity for this, because I was not only studying many branches of science, but with real universality I was seizing every occasion of exploring new scientific fields, in which personal acquaintances had to help me as much as books.

In my last year at Tubingen, from the autumn of 1873 till the summer of 1874, I studied principally the classical languages, Greek archaeology and Germanic philology. As I was able in the autumn of 1873 formally to give up the study of theology, which I had nominally carried on ex professo until then, according to the wishes of my parents, I had to become reconciled to the plan of lecturing in a university. So in this last year I attended classes in classical and Germanic philology. What attracted me most in classical philology was Greek art and in Germanic philology the evolution of language, which at that time, thanks to Schleicher's Indo-Germanic Grammar was being treated in accordance with the theory of evolution. I also began the study of Sanskrit under Roth.

What interested me most in these classes and in the history class which I also attended, was the practical contact with the exact methods of science. Ever since I had come under Sigwart's influence, I had been interested in Logic, not only for its formal aspect but especially for methodology, and now I had a welcome opportunity of collaborating in the practice of scientific methods and the formulation of theoretical conclusions from them.

In the summer of 1874 I graduated from Tubingen with a prize dissertation on "Recent Theories of Consciousness", in which classical and Germanic philology appeared as subordinate sections.

But now the ground was burning under my feet. I had spent four years in Tubingen. According to the regulations of the College I had to spend eight sessions there. All that I could get out of Tubingen I had richly gained with hard, honest work. Now it seemed advisable to complete my one year of voluntary military service, and for this, according to the custom of many of my South German countrymen, I chose Leipzig, in whose celebrated University I could learn so much that was new and important.

Before leaving my home, however, I was anxious to consult some men of learning about a question that was troubling my mind. At the grammar school in Stuttgart I had turned from theism to pantheism, and at the University of Tubingen I had evolved from pantheism by way of Kantian agnosticism to a position closely approaching Schopenhauer's atheism. Now the question arose, as to what attitude one should take on this basis of theoretical atheism towards the historical forms of the Church, and to religious dogma with its historical origins, and whether one was obliged to adopt an absolutely negative attitude towards the positive Church. To my mind this did not seem to be necessary. My studies in Greek mythology, particularly its expression in ancient works of art (at that time called "Art Mythology") had taught me mat, according to the custom of the cultured Greeks and Romans, and as I had noticed earlier in Plato, one may regard and treat these myths as "myths" and yet (or rather just because of this) continue to esteem such fictions for their ethical and aesthetic value. On this matter I wanted to hear the opinion of the three wise men of Swabia, at that time her most famous sons:—David F. Strauss, who had analysed the stories of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament, and the formulae of dogma as "myths"; Friedrich T. Vischer, who earlier had made a strong attack on the Church but who, as an historian of art, could not get on without the myths of the Church; and lastly Robert Mayer, who discovered the law of the Conservation of Energy and who combined a strictly mechanical conception of Nature with a strong religious sense. I already had relations with Strauss, whose Old Faith and the New was making a great stir at the time. It was easy for me to see him, but I found him on a bed of sickness which a few months later was his death-bed. So our talk could not go very deep, but he gave me an introduction to his old friend Vischer. This latter, however, would only talk on his one favourite subject of those days, "the decline of the German people since 1871", on which he had publicly spoken on various occasions. He wanted to hear my opinion as a representative of the younger generation. I would not at that time quite agree that it was a "decline", but I had to admit that even I had noticed signs in the younger generation of boasting and arrogance and also an underestimation of the neighbouring civilizations. The French, who had been so gloriously defeated, were underestimated both on the ethical and cultural side. But what seemed to me much more dangerous was the universal misunderstanding and even contempt felt for the English. From my earliest years I had known many English people, and I had learnt to recognize, together with their peculiarities, their ability and reliability. Moreover, I had the greatest admiration for their literature, and the names of Hume and Darwin had made the English doubly dear to me. But here in Vischer there seemed to me to be something lacking, because he only knew the English from a distance and had no admiration for Hume and Darwin. My visit to R. Mayer was accidentally prevented.

When I arrived in Leipzig, in September 1874, I presented myself at once for military service. But because of my eyes, which even then were abnormal, I was not accepted. From one point of view this was a great blow to me, because I was fond of all sports and particularly of the military gymnastics which the Swabian Professor Jager had introduced, and I should have liked to develop this side of my active nature. On the other hand, I naturally welcomed with enthusiasm the free time which I saw ahead of me, and at once employed my leisure in carrying out a long-standing desire. In Tübingen I had become acquainted with nearly all the sciences, but of one I still knew no more than what I had learnt at school, namely mathematics; and this was a source of growing distress. Our teacher of mathematics in Stuttgart was Professor Reuschle (also a friend of David F. Strauss) who had made a name for himself by his theory of the prime numbers, but who had no gift for teaching. I had tried to get on by studying alone (I got the suitable text-books out of the public library), and I had achieved considerable success, but in Tübingen I had no time to follow up these studies. Now with real avidity I threw myself into analytic geometry and the infinitesimal calculus. Both these lines of study revealed wonderful new truths to me that had originated in the minds of Descartes and Leibniz. Besides this, they gave me striking examples of methodic fictions, which were of great importance for the continuation of the methodological investigations which I had started in Tübingen. So altogether these studies were very fruitful.

In another direction, these winter days of 1874-75 were of decisive importance. It was about this time that the second edition of Friedrich Albert Lange's History of Materialism appeared in its enlarged form and with the addition of much scientific material. I had come across the first edition of this work in Tübingen, and it had filled me with admiration, but it made no deeper impression on me because the scientific apparatus of the book in its original form was inadequate. Now, with that defect remedied, the material fell into my hands at the right moment. Now at last I had found the man for whom I had sought in vain during those four years in Tübingen. I found a master, a guide, an ideal teacher. The spirit which urged me onwards more or less vaguely, dominated him with complete clearness and perfection of form. On the one hand he had the highest respect for facts, and an exact knowledge of the natural sciences, together with mastery over the whole history of civilization; on the other hand he was an expert in Kantian criticism, with views modified and extended by Schopenhauer. Above all, he was a man of high ethical ideals, and with regard to religious dogma he combined the strongest radicalism in theory with the most broad-minded tolerance in practice. I had striven for this myself, but never before had I found all these qualities in one person. All that I had striven for and aimed at stood before my eyes as a finished masterpiece. From this time onwards I called myself a disciple of F. A. Lange. Naturally I read his other publications, particularly his book on the "Labour question", and his activity in this sphere also showed me that he was a man of wide vision and warm heart.

What gave the History of Materialism its particular value for my special studies of this period was that from my point of view F. A. Lange was on right lines even in regard to the methodic problem of fictions. On the other hand he showed a certain hesitation and vagueness on this point, so that I hoped, on the basis of my further thorough research, to be able to go further than he in this special question.

About this time I found another source of help in the same direction. The two old disciples of Herbart, Drobisch and Struempell were then teaching in Leipzig. Herbart's name had hardly ever been mentioned in Tubingen, but now my studies led me to him and I found in him very valuable examples of a theory of fiction, which he tried to apply in a practical form to his own philosophy. At the same time I was naturally drawn to a much deeper study of Herbart's psychology, and psychology in general; and through the influence of that ardent disciple of Herbart, Dr Susanna Rubinstein, who was then living in Leipzig, I got to know Volkmann and Lazarus. All this strengthened me in the conviction that, without psychology, philosophy and also epistemology are and can only be a methodic abstraction, which can be brought to no systematic conclusion.

Avenarius, whom I got to know at "The Academic Philosophical Society" which he had founded, influenced me in the same direction. He advised me to read Steinthal, whose Introduction to Psychology became one of the bases of my philosophy. His theory of the transformation by apperception of the material given to the senses has remained with me ever since.

I derived great profit from Avenarius in so far as he was a pungent critic of Kant's theories. This prevented me from regarding Kant's philosophy as dogma, but anyway I was not inclined to do this. I could not follow Avenarius, however, in his radical empiricism, or rather positivism. He realized quite rightly that the ideas of substance, causality etc. are imposed subjectively by the psyche on the given, yet for this very reason, according to "the principle of the least energy", he wanted to eliminate them completely from human thought. But I held that they are suitable fictions, which must be retained because of their utility.

In the autumn of 1875 Wundt came to Leipzig. His first lecture was on logic and I listened to it with great interest and profit. He appealed to me in every way. For his sake I should have liked to remain on in Leipzig, and I had already planned a Journal of Pure and Applied Logic, in which I hoped to interest him. But family matters called me back to South Germany. I was only able to have one more term in the North, and that was to be in Berlin, where the Swabian, Eduard Zeller, was actively at work. The help which I got from him and from his friend Helmholtz, and also from Steinthal, Lazarus, Lasson and Paulsen was more or less valuable to me, but what was really important was that I came across the writings of Gruppe, who had died shortly before this, and they were most useful for my theory of fiction. My private studies were devoted mostly to David Hume and John Stuart Mill, whose exact knowledge was decisive for my philosophic attitude.

At the same time, during my Berlin days in the summer of 1876, my first book on philosophy was published, Hartmann, Dühring and Lange—a critical Essay on the History of Philosophy in the Nineteeth Century. It consisted of lectures which I had given in the Academic Philosophical Society at Leipzig. The author of the History of Materialism, with his Kantian tendencies, seemed to me to strike the happy medium between the spiritualistic metaphysics of E. von Hart-mann on the one hand and the materialistic positivism of E. Dühring on the other hand. In Berlin I had got to know these two men personally. In my book I also announced the early publication of my investigation of Fictions.

For family reasons I had to choose a University near my South German home in which to take up my residence as a lecturer; so in the autumn of 1876 I moved to Strassburg, where I received a welcome from Laas. In his recent work on Kant's Analogies of Experience he had drawn a sharp line between himself and the Kantian, or rather Neo-Kantian, A-priorism or "Transcendentalism," and he was gradually approaching that radical attitude which he took up some years later in his three-volume treatise on Idealism and Positivism. He was the unprejudiced man of whom I stood in need. He was able to do justice to my own attitude. He was busy just then with the study of John Stuart Mill's Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, in which I joined him, all the more readily because this was really a continuation of my Berlin studies of Hume and Mill. The resolution of so-called reality, from an epistemological or psychological point of view, into "Sensations and possibilities of sensation" seemed both to him and to me to be the correct analytical way. On the other hand Laas resembled Avenarius, who was related to him, in his positivist tendency to eliminate all further subjective additions as unjustified and useless, whereas I was always anxious to emphasize and keep hold of the practical value and use of these theoretically unjustifiable conceptions of the older idealism.

During the latter part of the year 1876, for my inaugural dissertation, I wrote down my thoughts in a large manuscript, to which I gave the title "Logical Studies. Part I: The Theory of Scientific Fictions." As I had been carefully collecting the material for several years and had gone into it most thoroughly many times, the writing of it did not take me long. I handed in my MS. in the New Year and at the end of February 1877 I received my venia legendi. The work which received this recognition from the Faculty is exactly the same as what was published in 1911 as the "Part I: Basic Principles" of The Philosophy of 'As If'. In it I developed the whole system of scientific fictions, that is to say the 'As if' treatment, applied practically to the most varied aspects of science, and I tried to give an exhaustive theory of this manifold 'As if' process.

But like Laas I regarded this dissertation only as a rough outline, in need of much supplementing and correction, so I made use of the next two years, so far as my lectures allowed me, to work at my MS. My father's death compelled me to look out for some more remunerative occupation, and so I made a very advantageous agreement with the generous and far-sighted Stuttgart publisher, W. Spemann, to produce a Commentary on Kant for the centenary in 1881 of his Critique of Pure Reason. I had then just started a far more thorough study of Kant, particularly his 'As if' theory, and in the course of this I had found in his Prolegomena that "misplacement of pages" which had passed unnoticed by many thousands of Kant readers for nearly a hundred years, but which is generally recognized by science nowadays. So I hoped, by application of the philological method, and by penetrating logical analysis, to further the study of Kant. But, as I have said, this new work was only a means to an end, and I hoped in a few years to be able to return to my researches on Fiction.

The above-mentioned "Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End", which unfortunately I neglected to formulate theoretically and publish at the right moment, has proved in a practical sense very momentous in my own life. When, in 1884, the first volume of my Commentary on Kant brought me an appointment as special Professor at Halle, I hoped soon to be able to finish the other volumes there. But my lectures on the one hand and bad health on the other held up the publication of the second volume until 1892. In 1894 I was appointed regular Professor in Halle, and in 1896 I founded the Kantstudien as a means of helping on my work. But even this means preponderated over its own end. My work on the Commentary became secondary to the new periodical. When in 1904 the centenary of Kant's death was celebrated, circumstances seemed to make it my duty, in order to promote the Kantstudien, to start a Fund to defray the costs. This Fund was a success, but its organization necessitated the foundation of a Kant Society and this gradually became more and more an end in itself and took up too much of my time and strength, although I was fortunate in having most efficient help in all these undertakings. Thus the means always triumphed over the end for whose sake it had been called into being, and robbed the original end of its life-force.

In 1906, in the midst of all these curious complications and crossings of my original intentions, a misfortune unexpectedly brought a happy solution, and enabled me after twenty-seven years to return to my original plan, which I had given up in 1879. The misfortune was the weakening of my eyesight, so that it became impossible for me to continue my lectures, or the special classes which I particularly enjoyed. So I had to give up my official duties. The eyesight still remaining to me was just sufficient to allow me to publish my MS. I got my Dissertation of 1876 copied, and introduced a number of small editorial alterations. This comprehensive MS. now forms "Part I: Basic Principles" of The Philosophy of 'As If' I also completed the revision which I had made between 1877 and the beginning of 1879 on the basis of the reviews of that time, and this forms the Part II (Special) of the complete work. This part took me two and a half years because of my bad eyesight, and Part III (Historical) took me another two and a half years. Between 1877 and 1879 I had made a note of the most important 'As if' passages in Kant's works, and I now completed this in an exhaustive manner, so that I was able to produce a monograph on Kant's 'As if' theory of nearly one hundred pages. The exposition of Forberg's religion of 'As if' also took me a long time, and so did the development of F. A. Lange's "Standpoint of the Ideal," with which I had much in common. But what took longer still was the final section on Nietzsche's theory of Fictions, which he had condensed into a few pages. It was the Spring of 1911 before the work appeared.

I called this work, The Philosophy of 'As If'. because it seemed to me to express more convincingly than any other possible title what I wanted to say, namely that 'As if', i.e. appearance, the consciously-false, plays an enormous part in science, in world-philosophies and in life. I wanted to give a complete enumeration of all the methods in which we operate intentionally with consciously false ideas, or rather judgments. I wanted to reveal the secret life of these extraordinary methods. I wanted to give a complete theory, an anatomy and physiology so to speak, or rather a biology of 'As if'. For the method of fiction which is found in a greater or lesser degree in all the sciences can best be expressed by this complex conjunction 'As if'. Thus I had to give a survey of all the branches of science from this point of view.

But it was not only a methodological investigation that I was attempting. The study of fictional thought in all branches of science had led me gradually to extend these investigations to philosophy itself, particularly to epistemology, ethics and the philosophy of religion. Just as my investigations into the function of 'As if' had arisen out of a definite view of the world so again this developed independently into a universal system of philosophy—I gave it the name of "Positivist Idealism" or "Idealistic Positivism". As I have already mentioned, Ernst Laas had published between 1884 and 1886 a three-volume work on Idealism and Positivism, in which he attacked Idealism and championed Positivism. The positivist attitude was also represented in Germany by Mach, Avenarius and to a certain extent by Schuppe, and it found particular favour with the scientifically inclined (but the name Positivism was never placed in the forefront of any programme). The chief currents of German philosophy, however, were certainly idealistic, though in different ways. Between these one-sided views it seemed to me that a compromise was necessary, all the more so because attempts of this kind had met with success in other countries. I considered that the time had come to announce the union of Idealism and Positivism. The result has proved that the right word was spoken at the right moment.

The term "Scepticism" has occasionally been applied to the Philosophy of 'As if' and its systematic doctrines; but this is not correct, for scepticism implies a theory which raises doubt or questioning to the dignity of a principle. The Philosophy of 'As if', however, has never had a trace of this attitude. In a simple and straightforward investigation it proves that consciously false conceptions and judgments are applied in all sciences; and it shows that these scientific Fictions are to be distinguished from Hypotheses. The latter are assumptions which are probable, assumptions the truth of which can be proved by further experience. They are merefore verifiable. Fictions are never verifiable, for they are hypotheses which are known to be false, but which are employed because of their utility. When a series of hypotheses in mathematics, mechanics, physics, chemistry, ethics or the philosophy of religion are shown in this way to be useful fictions and so justify themselves, surely this does not imply scepticism. The reality of these hypotheses is not doubted; it is denied on the basis of the positive facts of experience. The expression "Relativism" would be more applicable to the Philosophy of "As if', in so far as it denies all absolute points (in mathematics just as in metaphysics) and shows a natural affinity with the theory of relativity both of the past and the present.

The use of the term "Scepticism" as applied to the Philosophy of 'As if', has no doubt been partly due to the doubt with which this philosophy regards metaphysical realities, particularly God and immortality. But the above consideration applies in this case also. In the Philosophy of 'As if' I have never attempted to hide the fact that I regard these conceptions as Fictions of ethical value. My conviction in this respect is clear, simple and decided.

Many people of course confuse the technical expression involved here and think that they can discover in the Philosophy of 'As if' not exactly "Scepticism", but "Agnosticism". This latter system teaches that human knowledge is confined within more or less narrow limits and speaks of the Unintelligible, the Unknowable, according to Spencer's definition. Naturally the Philosophy of 'As if' also holds that knowledge has certain limits, but not in the sense that these limits bound only human knowledge, while they are non-existent for a superhuman knowledge. This is the theory of Kant and Spencer. It is the old complaint that the human mind is confined by narrow boundaries, which do not limit the higher forms of mind. My opinion is that these boundaries of knowledge are not implicit in the specific nature of man as compared with other possible minds of a higher order, but that such limitations are part of the nature of thought itself; that is to say, if there are higher forms of mind, these limitations will affect them and even the highest Mind of all. For thought originally only serves the Will to Life as a means to an end, and in this direction also it fulfils its function. But when thought has broken loose from its original aim, according to the Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End, and has become an end in itself, it sets itself problems to which it is not equal because it has not developed for this purpose; and finally the emancipated thought sets itself problems which in themselves are senseless, for instance, questions as to the origin of the world, the formation of what we call matter, the beginning of motion, the meaning of the world and the purpose of life. If thought is regarded as a biological function, it is obvious that these are impossible problems for thought to solve, and quite beyond the natural boundaries which limit thought as such. From this point of view, we have no inclination to fall back on the favourite old grievance about the limitations of human knowledge. At most we may complain that the Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End has led us to ask questions which are as unanswerable as the problem of -1. A moment of reflection will show that all knowledge is a reduction of the unknown to the known, that is to say a comparison. This proves therefore that this comparison or reduction will somewhere stop automatically. In no sense, therefore, can the Philosophy of 'As if' be called scepticism or agnosticism.

In the same way we can dispose of another objection which is raised against the Philosophy of 'As if', namely that the concept of reality implied in it is not uniform: on the one hand all reality is reduced to sensations, or sensational contents (in the sense of Mill's theory of "Sensations and possibilities of sensation"); on the other hand the concept of reality in the natural sciences, which reduce everything to the movement of matter and the smallest constituents of matter, is constantly being employed, sometimes tacitly, sometimes expressly. And with this is bound up the question, how to unify these two concepts of reality represented by the Philosophy of 'As if'.

One might admire the perspicacity of this discovery of a twofold concept of reality in the Philosophy of 'As if', if one were not surprised at the short-sightedness of the subsequent question. I am going to ask a question in return. Has any philosophical system of ancient, modern or present times ever succeeded in bringing these two spheres into a logical, rational relation? These two hemispheres of reality, expressed briefly on the one hand as the world of motion and on the other hand the world of consciousness, have never been brought into a logically satisfactory relation by any philosopher. They will never be brought into a definitely unified association by any rational formula. We stand here at a point where an impossible problem confronts our reason. This question is just as impossible of solution by rational methods as the question of the purpose of existence. Although we, who ask this question, permanently unite in our nature these two halves of reality, or rather just because the divergence, or the obvious contradiction, between motion and consciousness runs all through our own being, our mind is not in a position to answer satisfactorily this fundamental question or this so-called world-riddle.

Therefore he who would criticize any system of philosophy, or the philosophy of "As if' in particular, for not answering this question, is in the same intellectual position as a man who would reproach a mathematician for not solving the problem of the squaring of the circle in his text-book of geometry, or a technical engineer for not dealing with the construction of the perpetuum mobile in his text-book of engineering.

In discussing ultimate world-problems, one is always coming up against this rationally insoluble antithesis between motions of matter and particles of matter on the one hand and on the other hand sensations, or rather contents of consciousness. For the philosopher who deals with the analysis of our contents of consciousness, this analysis ends everywhere with our sensations on the psychological plane and with our sensational contents on the epistemological plane. The world is to him an endless accumulation of sensational contents which, however, are not given to us and to him without plan, but in which certain regularities of co-existence and succession can be found. These sensational data—what Windelband calls "Gegebenheiten" and Ziehen "Gignomene"—these events crowd upon us more or less irresistibly; indeed they even cast a lasting fear over us, for we have to rule our lives according to them, in constant expectation of their appearance. This world of sensational contents is the material with which alone the philosopher as such can deal. But on the other hand, the philosopher must recognize for good or ill that the scientist constructs quite a different sphere of reality, the world of motion, the mobile world. To construct a rational relation between these two worlds is an impossible desire of our understanding, which fundamentally is not fitted for the theoretical solution of world problems, but only for the practical service of the will to live.

Naturally the human mind is tormented by this insoluble contradiction between the world of motion and the world of consciousness, and this torment can eventually become very oppressive. One would be well advised to remember how Kant had already pointed out that there are problems which mock us perpetually, but which we cannot get rid of. But there is one solution of this and similar torturing questions; for in intuition and in experience all this contradiction and distress fades into nothingness. Experience and intuition are higher than all human reason. When I see a deer feeding in the forest, when I see a child at play, when I see a man at work or sport, but above all when I myself am working or playing, where are the problems with which my mind has been torturing itself unnecessarily? We do not understand the world when we are pondering over its problems, but when we are doing the world's work. Here too the practical reigns supreme.

I will end by summarizing all the conclusions which are expressed in the Philosophy of 'As if', or which form its basis or arise out of it, as follows:—

(1) Philosophical analysis leads eventually, from an epistemological standpoint, to sensational contents, and from a psychological to sensations, feelings and strivings or actions. Scientific analysis leads to another concept of reality, to matter and the smallest constituents and motions of matter. Naturally it is impossible for the mind as such to bring these two spheres of reality into a rational relation, although in intuition and experience they form a harmonious unity.

(2) The strivings which probably exist in the most elementary physical processes develop in organic beings into impulses. In man, who has sprung from the animal (and to a certain extent in all the higher animals) these impulses have evolved into will and action, which is expressed in movements and caused by stimuli or by the sensations arising from stimuli.

(3) Ideas, judgments and conclusions, that is to say thought, act as a means in the service of the Will to Live and dominate. Thought is originally only a means in the struggle for existence and to this extent only a biological function.

(4) It is a universal phenomenon of nature that means which serve a purpose often undergo a more complete development than is necessary for the attainment of their purpose. In this case, the means, according to the completeness of its self-development, can emancipate itself partly or wholly and become established as an end in itself (Law of the Preponderance of the Means over the End).

(5) This Preponderance of the Means over the End has also taken place in thought, which in the course of time has gradually lost sight of its original practical purpose and is finally practised for its own sake as theoretical thought.

(6) As a result, this thought which appears to be independent and theoretical in its origins, sets itself problems which are impossible, not only to human thought, but to every form of thought; for instance, the problems of the origin and meaning of the universe. To this category belongs also the question of the relation between sensation and motion, popularly known as mind and matter.

(7) These endless, and, strictly speaking, senseless questions cannot be answered by looking forwards but only by looking backwards, by showing how they arose psychologically within us. Many of these questions are just as meaningless, as for instance the problem of -1.

(8) If intellectualism or rationalism be identified with the assumption of an original theoretical reason as an inherent human faculty with certain problems to be determined by it, then my exposition must be termed anti-rationalism or even irrationalism, in the same sense in which histories of modern philosophy, for instance that of Windelband, speak of "idealistic irrationalism".

(9) From this standpoint all thought-processes and thought constructs appear a priori to be not essentially rationalistic, but biological phenomena.

(10) In this light many thought-processes and thought-constructs appear to be consciously false assumptions, which either contradict reality or are even contradictory in themselves, but which are intentionally thus formed in order to overcome difficulties of thought by this artificial deviation and reach the goal of thought by roundabout ways and by-paths. These artificial thought-constructs are called Scientific Fictions, and distinguished as conscious creations by their 'As if' character.

(11) The 'As if' world, which is formed in this manner, the world of the "unreal" is just as important as the world of the so-called real or actual (in the ordinary sense of the word); indeed it is far more important for ethics and aesthetics. This aesthetic and ethical world of 'As if', the world of the unreal, becomes finally for us a world of values which, particularly in the form of religion, must be sharply distinguished in our mind from the world of becoming.

(12) What we usually term reality consists of our sensational contents which press forcibly upon us with greater or lesser irresistibility and as "given" can generally not be avoided.

(13) In these given sensational contents (which include what we call our body) there is an abundance of regularity in co-existence and succession, investigation of which forms the content of science. By means of the sensational contents which we call our body, we can exercise greater or lesser influence on the rich world of the other sensational contents.

(14) In this world we find on the one hand a very great number of relations of fitness, on the other hand much that is not fitting. We have to take this as we find it, for there is little that we can alter. It is a satisfying Fiction for many to regard the world as if a more perfect Higher Spirit had created or at least regulated it. But this implies the supplementary Fiction of regarding a world of this sort as if the order created by the Higher Divine Spirit had been destroyed by some hostile force.

(15) It is senseless to question the meaning of the universe, and this is the idea expressed in Schiller's words: "Know this, a mind sublime puts greatness into life, yet seeks it not therein" (Huldigung der Künste, 1805). This is positivist idealism.

The journal which I founded in 1919 with Dr Raymund Schmidt, Annalen der Philosophic ("with particular reference to the problems of the 'As if' approach"), has been very useful in spreading and intensifying this positivist idealism or idealistic positivism. It represents quite a new type of journal, for its contributors include not only professional philosophers (Cornelius, Groos, Becher, Bergmann, Koffka, Kowalewski) but also eminent representatives of the most important branches of science, the theologian Heim, the lawyer Krückmann, the doctor Abderhalden, the mathematician Pasch, the physicist Volkmann, the biological botanist Hansen the economist Pohle, and the art-historian Lange. It thus demonstrates in a practical way that philosophy can only advance in the closest co-operation with the individual sciences and that philosophy, although it has much to give to the individual sciences, yet has much more to learn from them. It is from this interactivity alone that a fruitful and lasting compromise and reconciliation between positivism and idealism can take place—at least in the manner in which this is the deliberate and fundamental aim of the Philosophy of 'As if'. The critical examination of the use of the different methods of the 'As if' system in the most varied branches of science must on the one hand promote the scientific theory of method; and on the other hand the right method must also be found of finally reconciling the positivism of facts with the "Standpoint of the Ideal" (F. A. Lange). This analysis and this synthesis must be mutually complementary.

Get Ahead with eNotes

Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Previous

With Benefit of Fiction

Next

Reviews of Books

Loading...