The various attempts which have been made to de- rive Western philosophy from Eastern sources have signally failed. The external evidence in favor of this opinion is wholly insufficient to establish it (Ritter, >,, sch. ,1. Phil, i, 159, etc. ; Thirlwall, Hist, of Gr. ii, 130 ; Zeller, Gesch. d. Phil. d. Griechen, i, 18-34; *Max Midler, On Language, 84 note), and on internal grounds it is most improbable. It is true that in some degree the character of Greek speculation may have been influ- enced, at least in its earliest stages, by religious ideas which were originally introduced from the East; but this indirect influence does not affect the real original- it}' of the great Greek teachers. The spirit of pure philosophy, distinct from theology, is wholly alien from Eastern thought; and it was comparatively late when even a Greek ventured to separate philosophy from re- ligion. But in Greece the separation, when it was once effected, remained essentially complete. The opinions of the ancient philosophers might or might not be out- wardly reconcilable with the popular faith ; but philos- ophy and faith were independent. The very value of Greek teaching lies in the fact that it was, as far as is possible, a result of simple reason, or, if faith asserts its prerogative, the distinction is sharply marked. In this we have a record of the power and weakness of the hu- man mind written at once on the grandest scale and in the fairest characters.
Of the various classifications of the Greek schools which have been proposed, the simplest and truest seems to be that which divides the history of philosophy into three great periods, the first reaching to the «ra of the Sophists, the next to the death of Aristotle, the third to the Christian sera:. In the first period the world ob- jectively is the great centre of inquiry; in the second, the "ideas" of things, truth, and being; in the third, the chief interest of philosophy falls back upon the practical conduct of life. Successive systems overlap each other, both in time and subjects of speculation, but broadly the sequence which has been indicated will hold good (Zeller, Die Philosophic d< r Griechen, i, 111, etc.). After the Christian »ra philosophy ceased to have any true vitality in Greece, but it made fresh ef- forts to meet the changed conditions of life at Alexan- dria and Rome. At Alexandria Platonism was vivified by the spirit of Oriental mysticism, and afterwards of Christianity; at Rome Stoicism was united with the vigorous virtues of active life. Each of these great divisions must be passed in rapid review.
1. The pre-Socratic Schools. — The first Greek philos- ophy was little more than an attempt to follow out in thought the mythic cosmogonies of earlier poets. Grad- ually the depth and variety of the problems included in
PHILOSOPHY
123
PHILOSOPHY
the idea of a cosmogony became apparent, ami, after each clew had been followed out, the period ended in tlie teaching of the Sophists. The questions of creation, of the immediate relation of mind ami matter, were pn nounced in fact, if not in word, insoluble, and speculation was turned into a new direction.
What is the one permanent element which underlies tin- changing forms of things ? — t his was the primary inquiry t" which the Ionic school endeavored to find an answer. Thales (B.C. fir. 625 610), following, as it Beems, the genealogy of Hesiod, pointed to moisture (water) astheom source and supporter of life. Anax- imenes (B.C. cir. 520 180) substituted air for water, as the more subtle and all-pervading element : but equally with Thales he neglected all consideration of the force w Inch might be supposed to modify the one primal sub- stance. At a much later date (B.C. cir. 150) Diogenes of Apollonia, i<> meet this difficulty, represented this el- ementary --air" as endowed with intelligence (vorjmc), luii even la1 makes n<> distinction between the material and tin' intelligent. The atomic theory of Democritus
(B.C. cir, 160 357), which stands in cloa nection
with this form of [onic teaching, offered another and more plausible solution. The motion of Ids atoms in- cluded the action of force, but he wholly omitted i<> ac- count fur its source. Meanwhile another mode of spec- ulation had arisen in tin' same scl 1. In place of one
definite element, Anaximandert B.C. 610 ."» 1 7 | suggi sted the unlimited (to aireipov) as the adequate origin of ial existences. Somewhat more than a century later Anaxagoras summed up tin- result of such a line nf speculation: "All things were together; then mind mil' and disposed them in order" (Diog. Laert ii. 6). Thus we are left face to face with an ultimate dualism.
I hi i 'eatic school started from an opposite point of view, rhales saw moisture present in material things, and pronounced this t<> be their fundamental principle; Xenophanes i B.C.cir. 550 530 | " looked up i,, the whole ind -aid thai the < me is God" | Arist Met. i. ■'>. rb ev tlvcu i;njTt rbv l-i.'ii'i. "Thales -aw gods ill all things; Xenophanes saw all things in God" (Thirlwall, Hist.ofGr. ii. 136). That which w, according to Xen- ophanes. must he one. eternal, infinite, immovable, mi- le. Parmenides ofElea (B.C. 500) substituted abstract "being" lor "God" in the system of Xeno- phanes, and distinguished with precision the functions u:>\ reason. Sense teaches us of -the many." the false (phenomena); Reason of -the one." the true (the absolute). Zeno of Elea (B.C. cir. 450) developed wiili logical ingenuity the contradictions involved in our pi rceptions ol things (in the idea of mot in,,, for in- stauce), and thus formally prepared the waj for Bcep- [f the One alone is, the phenomenal world is an illusion. The sublime aspiration of Xenophanes. when followed out Legitimately to its consequences, end- ed in blank negation.