and religion. And we find the same theory repeated with modifications by many writers in the present day, without adhering closely to Kantian principles, who, without adopt his general conception of the limits of know-
To such writers science seems to be confined ledge.
to the task of tracing out the lines of natural necessity by which one phenomenon, or phase of existence, is bound to another; and the possibility of escape from this iron circle of causation supposed be opened it. Thus up by the revolt of human hearts against it. the feeling of inconsistency between the conditions of finite existence and the obligations laid upon us by our spiritual nature, the demand of the soul for a good more Complete and enduring than any of the changing objects of sense, or the aspiration after an ideal beauty is never adequately realised in the world—are which
sufficient for casting aside the ordinary tests of credibility and basing belief upon the will to lelieve. In many different ways the will, or
emanci heart, or the imagination, is
us from the limitations of sense and experience, and to put us in relation to ends and objects which
cannot be brought
the scope of are
Now it is easy to see that the two theories or ases of theories, represented by Aristotle and Kant, i • (
to each other, and it is
instructive to draw out the points of contrast between them. With Kant science is confined to the discovery
Was this article helpful?