Page:History of Modern Philosophy (Falckenberg).djvu/339

EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM. 3^7 ematics was joined the mistake of overlooking its synthetic character. The syllogistic method of presentation em- ployed in the Euclidean geometry led to the belief that the more special theorems had been derived from the sim- pler ones, and these from the axioms, by a process of con- ceptual analysis ; while the fact is that i n mathematics all / j)rogress is_by jntuition alone , the syllogism serving merely I toTarmulateand explain truths already attained, but not to : supply new ones. Following the example of mathematics thus misunderstood, the mission of philosophy was made to consist in the development of the truths slumbering in pregnant first principles by means of logical analysis. If only there were metaphysical axioms! If we only did not demand, and were not compelled to demand, of true science that |it increase our knowledge, and not merely give an analytical explanation of knowledge. When once the clear- ness and distinctness of conceptions had been taken in so purely formal a sense, it was inevitable that in the end, as productivity became less, the principle should be weakened down to a mere demand for the explanation and elucidation of the metaphysical ideas present in popular conscious- ness. Thus the rationalistic current lost itself in the shallow waters of the Illumination, which soon gave as ready a welcome to the empirical theories — since these also were able to legitimate themselves by clear and distinct conceptions — as it had given to the results of the rational- istic systems. It was thus easy to see that each of the contending parties had been guilty of one-sidedness, and that in order to escape this a certain mean must be assumed between the two extremes; but it was a much more difificult mat- ter to discover the due middle ground. Neither of the opposing standpoints is so correct as its defenders believe, and neither so false as its opponents maintain. Where, then, on either side, does the mistaken narrowness begin, and how far does the justification of each extend ? The conflict centers, first, about the question concerning the origin of human knowledge and the sphere of its validity. Rationalism is justified when it asserts that some ideas do not come from the senses. If knowledge is to be possible, J