|History of Philosophy
by William Turner, S.T.D.
Ginn and Company
Boston - New York - Chicago - London
Atlanta - Dallas - Columbus - San Francisco
ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL
COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Athenaeum Press
GINN AND COMPANY
PROPRIETORS. BOSTON. USA.
The purpose of the writer in compiling this text-book has been so to
set forth the succession of schools and systems of philosophy as to
accord to Scholasticism a presentation in some degree adequate to its
importance in the history of speculative thought.
Of the text-books that are at present available for use in the lecture
room, some dismiss the Scholastic period with a paragraph; others,
while dealing with it more sympathetically, treat it from the point of
view of German transcendentalism. The result is that even works which
succeed in doing justice to the schoolmen are practically useless to
students who are more familiar with the terminology of Scholasticism
than with that of Hegelianism.
The scope of the work has determined not only the general arrangement
of the volume, but also the selection of material and of
bibliographical references. Under the title "Sources," the student will
find mention of the most recent publications and of one or two standard
works which have heen selected as being most easy of access.
Bibliography is rapidly becoming a distinct branch of study in the
different departments of philosophy. Dr. Rand's Bibliography of
Philosophy, which is to be published as the third volume of
Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, will
doubtless meet the demand as far as completeness is concerned, and will
render unnecessary the attempt to furnish complete lists of sources in a text-book such as this is intended to
be. It is, therefore, with a view to inculcate a proper idea of
historical method rather than to supply a complete bibliography that a
paragraph entitled "Sources" is prefixed to each chapter.
Similarly, it is for the purpose of impressing on the student the
importance of estimating the value of systems and schools of philosophy
that, at the end of each chapter, suggestions for criticism are offered
under the title "Historical Position." No one is more keenly alive than
the author himself to the absurdity of regarding such criticisms as
possessing more than a relative value. If they sometimes convey to the
reader a sense of intended finality, allowance will perhaps be made for
the impossibility of finding, within the limits of a text-book, space
for a more ample discussion of questions which are far from being
finally and incontrovertibly settled.
The plan of the work precludes much claim to originality. Use has been
made of primary sources wherever it was possible to do so. In dealing
with Scholastic philosophy, especially, recourse has been had to the
works of the schoolmen, experience having abundantly shown the danger
of relying on secondary authorities for this period. The frequent
mention, both in the text and in the notes, of Zeller's Philosophie
der Griechen, of Stöckl's Lehrbuch der Geschichte der
Philosophie, of the Geschichte der Philosophie des
Mittelalters by the same author, of De Wulf's Histoire de la
philosophie médiévale, of González'
Historia de la filosofia, and of Falckenberg's and
Höffding's histories of modern philosophy, indicates the principal
secondary sources which have been used, but does not represent the full
extent of the writer's indebtedness to those works. In revising the
manuscript and in reading the proofs use has been made of the
Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology edited by Professor J.
The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the Rev. J. M.
Prendergast, S.J., of Holy Cross College, Worcester, to the Rev. J. M.
Reardon of the St. Paul Seminary, and to the Rev. T. E. Judge for many
helpful suggestions in the course of their revision of some of the
proofs. He is, moreover, indebted in a special manner to the Rev. H.
Moynihan, S.T.D., of the St. Paul Seminary, for careful and scholarly
reading of all the proofs, and to Professor Frank Thilly, Ph.D., of the
University of Missouri, whose valuable criticisms and suggestions have
been the more appreciated because they come from one whose view point
is so different from that of the writer. He gratefully . acknowledges
also the care and accuracy of the proof readers of the Athenaeum Press.
ST. PAUL, April 7, 1903.