網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Definition of pantheism. - How it differs from theism and atheism. – Wherein

atheism and pantheism agree. - Language of pantheists often ambiguous. -

Many names for one thing. – Knowledge of Spinozism which the purpose

of this work requires. - Descartes was Spinoza's guide, – This doubted.

Opinion of Saisset. Parentage of Descartes. – Early purpose. Criterion

of truth. — Not original with Descartes. — Testimony as to Descartes' posi-

tion.– Four main points in Cartesianism. -" I think, therefore I am.” - Crit-

icism of Gassendi and Huxley. - Descartes to be taken as he understood

himself. - The Cartesian method. - Descartes' first step. - A foothold for

Spinozism. — The recognition of Reid's doctrine of necessary truths would

have saved Descartes. · The Cartesian argument for the divine existence

favors Spinozism. — The argument for a God which now tends to prevail. -

Descartes only seems to anticipate this. – How his argument legitimates

pantheism. — The Cartesian method aids the tendency to pantheism. - The

tendency further strengthened by his denial of second causes. — Spinoza's

logic faultless. - The premises of pantheism untenable. The central posi-

tion of Spinozism. The dogmatic result. – Three kinds of knowledge. –

Some account of the Ethics. - Subject of the Second Part. – Of Part Third.

- Of Part Fourth. – Of Part Fifth, - Of the First Part. - Definitions.

Axioms. - A demonstration. Persection of superstructure. – Two attri-

butes of substance. — Bearing on question of immortality. - Fatalism.

The a priori philosophy not to be judged by Spinozism. Malcbranche. -

Leibnitz. – The safeguard.

74-110

A reaction. — Empiricism. - This movement to be passed over for the present,

- Revival of Spinozism. — What is here attempted. — Relation of Leibnitz

to the new movement. — The Leibnitz-Wolfian philosophy. - Kant's earlier

views. The need of a critic suggested by Hume. – Critique of the pure

reason. – Relation of the reason to the understanding. - Space and time

forms of the reason. - The categories of the understanding. - Ideas of the

reason. - What they are. — Their subjective nature. – Where this critique

leaves us.

Kant's plan broader than this sphere of the reason. – Another

faculty.— Function of the practical reason. – Result not satisfactory. – Cri-

tique of the judgment. – The object not attained. — Three distinct tendencies

in Kant. – Reinhold. — Jacobi. — His mystical tendency. Argues against

Kant's first critique. - The thinkers of his time not with him. - The inter-

view with Lessing. — Character of Jacobi. — Hegel's criticism. — F'ichte. –

Thought-activity the only knowable thing.– The non-ego. — A product of

the ego. - The alternative of atheism or pantheism. — Accused of atheism. —

Becomes a pantheist. – Unlike Spinoza. — The true wisdom. — Fichte's pan-

theism considered defective. – Schelling. – Grand objection to Fichte. –

Schellingian doctrine of knowledge. - How Schelliag reaches the position

of the pantheist. – His system described. — Agreement with Spinoza. –

Three potences. How they work in the evolution of spirit. — Distinction

between nature and spirit. - How Schelling would account for Christianity.

- The spirit of Schelling's system. — Short continuance of this school of

pantheism. — Schelling and Edgar A. Poe. — Culminated in Hegel. – The

best resutation of error its clear statement. — An anachronism. — Hegel. –

The absolute idea. – Use of Kant's antinomies: - The logical movement.

Natural philosophy. — Philosophy of spirit. — Its theological result. – - Hegel

and Kant. - Consequences of the system. — Strauss. - Schleiermacher. – Net

result. – Lesson of the survey now taken. – Testimony of Müller. 111–149

Philosophy and religion inseparable. — This more manifest in the a-priori

philosophy. – Two uses of the word “religion.” — When pantheism is a
religion. -- Religions to which pantheism may be applied. -- Re-statement of

Hegelianism. — The absolute idea. - A triplicate process. - Compared with

Comte's “ three states." — Illustrated in history of civilization. – In art.

Progress and conservatism. — The absolute idea in religion.-- Christianity a

form of the absolute idea. – Different views of Hegelianism. — The “right.”

- The “ left.” — The “ centre.” – Strauss. - His Life of Jesus.- The idea

in religion alone important. — The question of historic truth trivial. – Essen-

tial Christianity. - How the idea produced the so-called record. — Criticism

deals with the non-essential. – Evidence that Strauss was a pantheist. — His

view of the incarnation. — The origin of the Gospels. — Accepts Spinoza's

view of Christ. - Thinks his criticism true to the spirit of the narrative. —

The gospel record a piece of cloud scenery. - Advantage of this pantheistic

position. – The Paulists. — Evemerus. His method revived by Lessing in

Wolfenbüttel fragments. - How used by Paulus. Results of the theory.

Regarded as a failure. — Eichhorn. – De Wette. — Strauss finds germs of his

theory in them. – Also in Origen and Philo.- Relation to other schools of

criticism. - Secret of popularity. - Three principles of interpretation. – The

position of Strauss. – - The myth. - How he makes room for it. — The idea

produces the story. - What follows if the Gospels are post-apostolic. - In-

ternal evidence against Strauss. – Also external evidence. - How he would

evade it. — The argument against him overwhelming. — Baur. - - Differs from

Strauss. – How he accounts for the Gospels. — Traces of a conflict. — Pauline

party favored. — Peter overborne. — Paul triumphs. — The reasoning of Raur

not admissible. – No special refutation needed. — There were parties in thu

early church.-- Baur's treatment unfair. - An argument for inspiration.

Renan. – Requires no special treatment. - Spirit of his criticism pantheistic.

- An irreverent comparison. — Free religion. — Its peculiarity. -- May be

traced to Hegel: — Christianity triumphant.

150-182

A feature of modern thought. Spontaneity. — Authority.- - New theory un-

tenable. - Relation to pantheism. - Goethe. - Why chosen. – Viewed only
in one aspect. - Relation to other thinkers of his age. · Ignorance of his
speculative views. - Early scepticism. - Proofs that he was a pantheist. —
Meets with Jacobi. · Wished to be known as a Spinozist. Fatalism, - Di-
vineness of nature. – Free necessity. – Tone of his writings. - The two
Goethes. — As a student of nature. – Works in which he shows to advantage.
- Shorter poems. - Iphigenia in Tauris. — Egmont. -- Hermann and Doro-
thea. – Wherein his theory works evil. — Faust. — Goetz von Berlichingen.

Individualism. - Represented by Emerson. Method of treatment. Con
trasted with Carlyle. – His excellent temper. – Of purer tone than Goethe.
- Monotony.- Nomenclature. “Old Two-Face,” — Comprehensive state-

nese,

ments of pantheism. — All things are God. – History. - Literature. - God a
gentleman. - Love. — Prayer. - What Emerson has to say of personality.-
An ignis fatuus. — God impersonal. – But one conclusion possible. - Emer-
son's method. - Consciousness the way to all truth. No mean egotism. —
Definition of man. — The varieties of genius forms of the divine conscious-

- Teaches the pantheistic fatalism. — All things subject to fate. - No
one can do otherwise than he does. — All life natural. – Emerson's use of
words literal rather than rhetorical. – Even fate a mystery. – The objective
world in the light of Emerson's philosophy. – History absorbed into the
soul. -

:- All literature the biography of each man. – A practical result. – Na-
ture an evolution of the soul. — The world man externized. – Knowledge of
nature but self knowledge, Emerson's theory of nature that of every sub-
jective idealist. - More specific injunctions. — Duty of self-reverence.

- Self-
reliance, Self-assertion. The moral law wholly subjective. - Duty of
self-isolation. – To be wholly self-absorbed the highest blessedness. — “Men
descend to meet.” - Misanthropy.- Attitude towards the Bible and Christian-
ity.- Insinuates that Christ was a pantheist. - Spirit of the two contrasted.

Emerson would unsettle all things. — No philanthropist. Scorn of the

masses. – No moral distinctions. - Better than his theory.- Inconsistency

recommended. — The good man forced to be a hypocrite. — Transcendentalism

not to be judged by Emerson.-Christian faith the grand safeguard. 268–316

« 上一頁繼續 »