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　Universal　finds　its　actuality；
  will　not　grasp　or　even　allow　this　universal　nature；　I　have　elsewhere　（4）　likened　to　an　invalid
  recommended　by　the　doctor　to　eat　fruit；　and　who　has　cherries；　plums　or　grapes；　before　him；　but
  who　pedantically　refuses　to　take　anything　because　no　part　of　what　is　offered　him　is　fruit；　some　of　it
  being　cherries；　and　the　rest　plums　or　grapes。
  But　it　is　really　important　to　have　a　deeper　insight　into　the　bearings　of　this　diversity　in　the　systems　of
  Philosophy。　Truth　and　Philosophy　known　philosophically；　make　such　diversity　appear　in　another
  light　from　that　of　abstract　opposition　between　Truth　and　Error。　The　explanation　of　how　this　comes
  about　will　reveal　to　us　the　significance　of　the　whole　history　of　Philosophy。　We　must　make　the　fact
  conceivable；　that　the　diversity　and　number　of　philosophies　not　only　does　not　prejudice　Philosophy
  itself；　that　is　to　say　the　possibility　of　a　philosophy；　but　that　such　diversity　is；　and　has　been；
  absolutely　necessary　to　the　existence　of　a　science　of　Philosophy　and　that　it　is　essential　to　it。
  This　makes　it　easy　to　us　to　comprehend　the　aim　of　Philosophy；　which　is　in　thought　and　in
  conception　to　grasp　the　Truth；　and　not　merely　to　discover　that　nothing　can　be　known；　or　that　at
  least　temporal；　finite　truth；　which　also　is　an　untruth；　can　alone　be　known　and　not　the　Truth　indeed。
  Further　we　find　that　in　the　history　of　Philosophy　we　have　to　deal　with　Philosophy　itself。　The　facts
  within　that　history　are　not　adventures　and　contain　no　more　romance　than　does　the　history　of　the
  world。　They　are　not　a　mere　collection　of　chance　events；　of　expeditions　of　wandering　knights；　each
  going　about　fighting；　struggling　purposelessly；　leaving　no　results　to　show　for　all　his　efforts。　Nor　is　it
  so　that　one　thing　has　been　thought　out　here；　another　there；　at　will；　in　the　activity　of　thinking　mind
  there　is　real　connection；　and　what　there　takes　place　is　rational。　It　is　with　this　belief　in　the　spirit　of
  the　world　that　we　must　proceed　to　history；　and　in　particular　to　the　history　of　Philos