the right of reason is turned round in an astonishing manner； so that it results in making knowledge
of the truth through reason an impossibility。 This so…called reason on the one hand has combated
religious faith in the name and power of thinking reason； and at the same time it has itself turned
against reason and is true reason's adversary。 Instinct and feeling are maintained by it against the
true reason； thus making the measure of true value the merely subjective…that is a particular
conviction such as each can form in and for himself in his subjective capacity。 A personal
conviction such as this is no more than the particular opinion that has become final for men。
If we begin with what meets us in our very first conceptions； we cannot neglect to make mention
of this aspect in the history of Philosophy。 In its results it permeates culture generally； being at once
the misconception and true sign of our times。 It is the principle through which men mutually
understand and know each other； an hypothesis whose value is established and which is the
ground of all the other sciences。 In theology it is not so much the creed of the church that passes
for Christianity； as that every one to a greater or less degree makes a Christianity of his own to
tally with his conviction。 And in history we often see theology driven into acquiring the knowledge
of various opinions in order that an interest may thus be furnished to the science； and one of the
first results of the attention paid them is the honour awarded to all convictions； and the esteem
vouchsafed to what has been constituted merely by the individual。 The endeavour to know the
Truth is then of course relinquished。 It is true that personal conviction is the ultimate and absolute
essential which reason and its philosophy； from a subjective point of view； demand in knowledge。
But there is a distinction between conviction when it； rests on subjective grounds such as feelings；
speculations and perceptions； or； speaking generally； on the particular nature of the subject； and
when it rests on thought proceeding from acquaintance with the Notion and the nature of the thing。
In the former case conviction is opinion。
This opposition between mere opinion and truth now sharply defined； we already recognize in the
culture of the period of Socrates and Plato…a period of corruption in Greek life…as the Platonic
opposition between opinion （doxa） and Science （episteme）。 It is the same opposition as that
which existed in the decadence of Roman public and political life under Augustus； and
subsequently when Epicureanism and indifference set themselves up against Philosophy。 Under this
influence； when Christ said； 〃I came into the world that I should bear witness unto the Truth；〃
Pilate answered； 〃What is Truth？〃 That was said in a superior way； and signifies that this idea of
truth is an expedient which is obsolete： we have got further； we know that there is no longer any
question about knowing the Truth； seeing that we have gone beyond it。 Who makes this statement
has gone beyond it indeed。 If this is made our starting point in the history of Philosophy； its whole
significance will consist in finding； out the particular ideas of others； each one of which is different
from the other： these individual points of view are thus foreign to me： my thinking reason is not
free； nor is it present in them： for me they are but extraneous； dead historic matter； or so much
empty content； and to satisfy oneself with empty vanity is mere subjective vanity itself。
To the impartial man； the Truth has always been a heart…stirring word and one of great import。 As
to the assertion that the Truth cannot be known； we shall consider it more closely in the history of
Philosophy itself where it appears。 The only thing to be here remarked is that if this assumption be
allowed； as was the case with Tennemann； it is beyond conception why anyone should still trouble
about Philosophy； since each opinion asserts falsely in its turn that it has found the truth。 This
immediately recalls to me the old belief that Truth consists in knowledge； but that an individual only
knows the Truth in so far as he reflects and not as he walks and stands： and that the Truth cannot
be known in immediate apprehension and perception； whether it be external and sensuous； or
whether it be intellectual perception （for every perception as a perception is sensuous） but only
through the labour of thought。
b。 Proof of the futility of Philosophical Knowledge obtained through the
History of Philosophy itself。
From another point of view another consequence ensues from the above conception of the history
of Philosophy which may at will be looked at as an evil or a benefit。 In view of such manifold
opinions and philosophical systems so numerous； one is perplexed to know which one ought to be
accepted。 In regard to the great matters to which man is attracted and a knowledge of which
Philosophy would bestow； it is evident that the greatest minds have erred； because they have been
contradicted by others。 〃Since； this has been so with minds so great； how then can ego homuncio
attempt to form a judgment？〃 This consequence； which ensues from the diversity in philosophical
systems； is； as may be supposed； the evil in the matter； while at the same time it is a subjective
good。 For this diversity is the usual plea urged by those who； with an air of knowledge； wish to
make a show of interest in Philosophy； to explain the fact that they； with this pretence of good…will；
and； indeed； with added motive； for working at the science； do in fact utterly neglect it。 But this
diversity in philosophical systems is far from being merely an evasive plea。 It has far more weight
as a genuine serious ground of argument against the zeal which Philosophy requires。 It justifies its
neglect and demonstrates conclusively the powerlessness of the endeavour to attain to philosophic
knowledge of the truth。 When it is admitted that Philosophy ought to be a real science； and one
Philosophy must certainly be the true； the question arises as to which Philosophy it is； and when it
can be known。 Each one asserts its genuineness； each even gives different signs and tokens by
which the Truth can be discovered； sober reflective thought must therefore hesitate to give its
judgment。
This； then； is the wider interest which the history of Philosophy is said to afford。 Cicero （De
natura Deorum I。 8 sq。） gives us from this point of view； a most slovenly history of philosophic
thought on God。 He puts it in the mouth of an Epicurean； but he himself knew of nothing more
favourable to say； and it is thus his own view。 The Epicurean says that no certain knowledge has
been arrived at。 The proof that the efforts of philosophy are futile is derived directly from the usual
superficial view taken of its history； the results attendant on that history make it appear to be a
process in which the most various thoughts arise in numerous philosophies； each of which
opposes； contradicts and refutes the other。 This fact； which cannot be denied； seems to contain
the justification； indeed the necessity for applying to Philosophy the words of Christ； 〃Let the dead
bury their dead； arise； and follow Me。〃 The whole of the history of Philosophy becomes a
battlefield covered with the bones of the dead； it is a kingdom not merely formed of dead and
lifeless individuals； but of refuted and spiritually dead systems； since each has killed and buried the
other。 Instead of 〃Follow thou Me；〃 here then it must indeed be said； 〃Follow thine own self 〃…that
is； hold by thine own convictions； remain steadfast to thine own opinion； why adopt another？
It certainly happens that a new philosophy makes its appearance； which maintains the others to be
valueless； and indeed each one in turn comes forth at first with the pretext that by its means all
previous philosophies not only are refuted； but what in them is wanting is supplied； and now at
length the right one is discovered。 But following upon what has gone before； it would rather seem
that other words of Scripture are just as applicable to such a philosophy…the words which the
Apostle Peter spoke to Ananias； 〃Behold the feet of them that shall carry thee out are at the door。〃
Behold the philosophy by which thine own will be refuted and displaced shall not tarry long as it
has not tarried before。
c。 Explanatory remarks on the diversity in Philosophies。
Certainly the fact is sufficiently well established that there are and have been different philosophies。
The Truth is； however； one； and the instinct of reason maintains this irradicable intuition or belief。 It
is said that only one Philosophy can be true； and； because philosophies are different； it is
concluded that all others must be erroneous。 But； in fact； each one in turn gives every assurance；
evidence and proof of being the one and true Philosophy。 This is a common mode of reasoning
and is what seems in truth to be the view of sober thought。 As regards the sober nature of the
word at issue…thought…we can tell from everyday experience that if we fast we feel hunger either at
once or very soon。 But sober thought always has the fortunate power of not resulting in hunger
and desire； but of being and remaining as it is； content。 Hence the thought expressed in such an
utterance reveals the fact that it is dead understanding； for it is only death which fasts and yet rests
satisfied。 But neither physical life nor intellectual remains content with mere abstention； as desire it
presses on through hunger and through thirst towards Truth； towards knowledge itself。 It presses
on to satisfy this desire and does not allow itself to feast and find sufficiency in a reflection such as
this。
As to this reflection； the next thing to be said of it is that however different the philosophies have
been； they had a common bond in that they were Philosophy。 Thus whoever may have studied or
become acquainted with a philosophy； of whatever kind； provided only that it is such； has thereby
become acquainted with Philosophy。 That delusive mode of reasoning which regards diversity
alone； and from doubt of or aversion to the particular form in which a Uni