richest　and　deepest。　I　call　this　to　remembrance　because　the　designation；　new　or　newest　of　all　in
  reference　to　Philosophy；　has　become　a　very　common　by…word。　Those　who　think　they　express
  anything　by　using　such　terms　might　quite　easily　render　thanks　respecting　any　number　of
  philosophies　just　as　fast　as　their　inclination　directs；　regarding　either　every　shooting…star　and　even
  every　candle…gleam　in　the　light　of　a　sun；　or　else　calling　every　popular　cry　a　philosophy；　and
  adducing　as　proof　that　at　any　rate　there　are　so　many　philosophies　that　every　day　one　displaces
  another。　Thus　they　have　the　category　in　which　they　can　place　any　apparently　significant
  philosophy；　and　through　which　they　may　at　the　same　time　set　it　aside；　this　they　call　a
  fashion…philosophy。
  Scoffer；　thou　call'st　this　but　a　fleeting　phase
  When　the　Spirit　of　Man　once　again　and　anew；
  Strives　earnestly　on；　towards　forms　that　are　higher。
  A　second　consequence　has　regard　to　the　treatment　of　the　older　philosophies。　Such　insight　also
  prevents　us　from　ascribing　any　blame　to　the　philosophies　when　we　miss　determinations　in　them
  which　were　not　yet　present　to　their　culture；　and　similarly　it　prevents　our　burdening　them　with
  deductions　and　assertions　which　were　neither　made　nor　thought　of　by　them；　though　they　might
  correctly　enough　allow　themselves　to　be　derived　from　the　thought　of　such　a　philosophy。　It　is
  necessary　to　set　to　work　on　an　historical　basis；　and　to　ascribe　to　Philosophy　what　is　immediately
  given　to　us；　and　that　alone。　Errors　crop　up　here　in　most　histories　of　Philosophy；　since　we　may　see
  in　them　a　number　of　metaphysical　propositions　ascribed　to　a　philosopher　and　given　out　as　an
  historical　statement　of　the　views　which　he　has　propounded；　of　which　he　neither　thought　nor　knew　a
  word；　and　of　which　there　is　not　the　slightest　trace　found　in　history。　Thus　in　Brucker's　great　History
  of　Philosophy　（Pt。　I。　pp。　465…478　seq。）　a　list　of　thirty；　forty；　or　a　hundred　theorems　are　quoted
  from　Thales　and　others；　no　idea　of　which　can　be　traced　in　history　as　having　been　present　to　these
  philosophers。　There　are　also　propositions　in　support　of　them　and　citations　taken　from　discussions
  of　a　similar　kind　with　which　we　may　occupy　ourselves　long　enough。　Brucker's　method　is　to　endow
  the　single　theorem　of　an　ancient　philosopher　with　all　the　consequences　and　premises　which　must；
  according　to　the　idea　of　the　Wolffian　Metaphysics；　be　the　premises　and　conclusions　of　that
  theorem；　and　thus　easily　to　produce　a　simple；　naked　fiction　as　if　it　were　an　actual　historical　fact。
  Thus；　according　to　Brucker；　Thales　said；　Ex　nihilo　fit　nihil；　since　he　said　that　water　was　eternal。
  Thus；　too；　he　was　to　be　counted　amongst　the　philosophers　who　deny　creation　out　of　nothing；　and
  of　this；　historically　at　least；　Thales　was　ignorant。　Professor　Ritter；　too；　whose　history　of　Ionic
  Philosophy　is　carefully　written；　and　who　on　the　whole　is　cautious　not　to　introduce　foreign　matter；
  has　very　possibly　ascribed　to　Thales　more　than　is　found　in　history。　He　says　（pp。　12；　13）；　〃Hence
  we　must　regard　the　view　of　nature　which　we　find　in　Thales　as　dynamic　in　principle。　He　regarded
  the　world　as　the　all…embracing；　living　animal　which　has　developed　from　a　germ　like　every　other
  animal；　and　this　germ；　like　that　of　all　other　animals；　is　either　damp　or　water。　Thus　the　fundamental
  idea　of　Thales　is　that　the　world　is　a　living　whole　which　has　developed　from　a　germ　and　carries　on
  its　life　as　does　an　animal；　by　means　of　nourishment　suitable　to　its　nature〃　（cf。　p。　16）。　This　is　quite　a
  different　account　from　that　of　Aristotle；　and　none　of　it　is　communicated　by　the　ancients　regarding
  Thales。　The　sequence　of　thought　is　evident；　but　historically　it　is　not　justified。　We　ought　not　by　such
  deductions　to　make　an　ancient　philosophy　into　something　quite　different　from　what　it　originally
  was。
  We　are　too　apt　to　mould　the　ancient　philosophers　into　our　own　forms　of　thought；　but　this　is　just　to
  constitute　the　progress　of　development；　the　difference　in　times；　in　culture　and　in　philosophies；
  depends　on　whether　certain　reflections；　certain　thought　determinations；　and　certain　stages　in　the
  Notion　have　come　to　consciousness；　whether　a　consciousness　has　been　developed　to　a　particular
  point　or　not。　The　history　of　Philosophy　has　simply　to　deal　with　this　development　and　bringing　forth
  of　thought。　The　determinations　involved　certainly　follow　from　a　proposition；　but　whether　they　are
  put　forth　as　yet　or　not　is　quite　another　thing；　and　the　bringing　forth　of　the　inner　content　is　the　only
  matter　of　importance。　We　must　therefore　only　make　use　of　the　words　which　are　actually　literal；　for
  to　use　further　thought　determinations　which　do　not　yet　belong　to　the　consciousness　of　the
  philosopher　in　question；　is　to　carry　on　development。　Thus　Aristotle　states　that　Thales　has　defined
  the　principle　（archi）　of　every　thing　to　be　water。　But　Anaximander　first　made　use　of　archi；　and
  Thales　thus　did　not　possess　this　determination　of　thought　at　all；　he　recognized　arch　i　as
  commencement　in　time；　but　not　as　the　fundamental　principle。　Thales　did　not　once　introduce　the
  determination　of　cause　into　his　philosophy；　and　first　cause　is　a　further　determination　still。　There　are
  whole　nations　which　have　not　this　conception　at　all；　indeed　it　involves　a　great　step　forward　in
  development。　And　seeing　that　difference　in　culture　on　the　whole　depends　on　difference　in　the
  thought　determinations　which　are　manifested；　this　must　be　so　still　more　with　respect　to
  philosophies。
  Now；　as　in　the　logical　system　of　thought　each　of　its　forms　has　its　own　place　in　which　alone　it
  suffices；　and　this　form　becomes；　by　means　of　ever…progressing　development；　reduced　to　a
  subordinate　element；　each　philosophy　is；　in　the　third　place；　a　particular　stage　in　the　development　of
  the　whole　process　and　has　its　definite　place　where　it　finds　its　true　value　and　significance。　Its　special
  character　is　really　to　be　conceived　of　in　accordance　with　this　determination；　and　it　is　to　be
  considered　with　respect　to　this　position　in　order　that　full　justice　may　be　done　to　it。　On　this　account
  nothing　more　must　be　demanded　or　expected　from　it　than　what　it　actually　gives；　and　the
  satisfaction　is　not　to　be　sought　for　in　it；　which　can　only　be　found　in　a　fuller　development　of
  knowledge。　　We　must　not　expect　to　find　the　questions　of　our　consciousness　and　the　interest　of　the
  present　world　responded　to　by　the　ancients；　such　questions　presuppose　a　certain　development　in
  thought。　Therefore　every　philosophy　belongs　to　its　own　time　and　is　restricted　by　its　own
  limitations；　just　because　it　is　the　manifestation　of　a　particular　stage　in　development。　The　individual　is
  the　offspring　of　his　people；　of　his　world；　whose　constitution　and　attributes　are　alone　manifested　in
  his　form；　he　may　spread　himself　out　as　he　will；　he　cannot　escape　out　of　his　time　any　more　than　out
  of　his　skin；　for　he　belongs　to　the　one　universal　Mind　which　is　his　substance　and　his　own　existence。
  How　should　he　escape　from　this？　It　is　the　same　universal　Mind　that　is　embraced　by　thinking
  Philosophy；　that　Philosophy　is　Mind's　thought　of　itself　and　therefore　its　determinate　and　substantial
  content。　Every　philosophy　is　the　philosophy　of　its　own　day；　a　link　in　the　whole　chain　of　spiritual
  development；　and　thus　it　can　only　find　satisfaction　for　the　interests　belonging　to　its　own　particular
  time。
  On　this　account　an　earlier　philosophy　does　not　give　satisfaction　to　the　mind　in　which　a　deeper
  conception　reigns。　What　Mind　seeks　for　in　Philosophy　is　this　conception　which　already　constitutes
  its　inward　determination　and　the　root　of　its　existence　conceived　of　as　object　to　thought；　Mind
  demands　a　knowledge　of　itself。　But　in　the　earlier　philosophy　the　Idea　is　not　yet　present　in　this
  determinate　character。　Hence　the　philosophy　of　Plato　and　Aristotle；　and　indeed　all　philosophies；
  ever　live　and　are　present　in　their　principles；　but　Philosophy　no　longer　has　the　particular　form　and
  aspect　possessed　by　that　of　Plato　and　of　Aristotle。　We　cannot　rest　content　with　them；　and　they
  cannot　be　revived；　hence　there　can　be　no　Platonists；　Aristotelians；　Stoics；　or　Epicureans　today。　To
  re…awaken　them　would　be　to　try　to　bring　back　to　an　earlier　stage　the　Mind　of　a　deeper　culture　and
  self…penetration。　But　this　cannot　be　the　case；　it　would　be　an　impossibility　and　as　great　a　folly　as
  were　a　man　to　wish　to　expend　his　energies　in　attaining　the　standpoint　of　the　youth；　the　youth　in
  endeavouring　to　be　the　boy　or　child　again；　whereas　the　man；　the　youth；　and　the　child；　are　all　one
  and　the　same　individual。　The　period　of　revival　in　the　sciences；　the　new　epoch　in　learning　which
  took　place　in　the　fifteenth　and　sixteenth　centuries；　began　not　only　with　the　revived　study　of；　but
  also　with　the　re…animation　of　the　old　philosophies。　Marsilius　Ficinus　was　a　Platonist；　an　Academy
  of　Platonic　philosophy　was　established　and　installed　with　professors　by　Cosmos　de　Medici；　and
  Ficinus　was　placed　at　the　head　of　it。　There　were　pure　Aristotelians　like　Pomponius：　Gassendi　later
  on　maintained　the　Epicurean　philosophy；　for　his　philosophy　dealt　with　Physics　after　the　manner　of
  the　Epicureans；　Lipsius　wished　to　be　a　Stoic；　and　so　on。　The　sense　of　opposition　was　so　great；
  anci