Admittedly, these strained relations were never as bitter as they were in their early phase. Through a rapid succession of astounding discoveries and application, the natural sciences proved to everyone that they were fruitful; one could deny them neither attention nor recognition. And in other branches of learning, too, conscientious researchers of facts raised their objections to the Icarus flights of speculation. Yet we should not forget to take note of this philosophical system's positive influences. We dare not deny that, since the appearance of Hegel and Schelling, scholars in different branches of the humanities have shown a livelier and more lasting interest in their spiritual content and goals than had been the case in previous centuries. The great work of this philosophy has certainly not been in vain.
[ . . . ]
If we now examine the different sciences with respect to the way they reach their conclusions, we note a thoroughgoing difference between the natural sciences and the humanistic disciplines. The natural sciences are best situated to develop their inductions into clearly defined general rules and laws. By contrast, the humanities have more to do with judgments made according to a psychological sense of tact. Historians, for example, need to examine the reliability of the authors who have handed down the facts. Thus, they begin the difficult and important business of researching the very intricate and complex motives of the individuals and peoples who are the historical agents. Both can essentially only be determined through psychological insight. The philological disciplines, in so far as they are concerned with the elucidation and improvement of texts handed down to us – with literature and the history of art – must try to sense the meaning that the writer tried to express, the many associations he tried to evoke with his words. From beginning to end they need a correct understanding of the individuality of a writer as well as of the genius of the language which is his medium. All of these are examples of artistic rather than logical induction. A judgment can only be arrived at if a great number of individual facts of a similar type are kept ready in mind, so that they can be connected with the question immediately at hand. One of the first requirements for this type of study is, therefore, a trustworthy and well-prepared memory. In fact, many celebrated historians and philologists have astounded their contemporaries with the power of their memory. Of course, memory alone would be insufficient without the ability to quickly identify what is similar in essence, without a refined and well-developed insight into the human soul, something that cannot be reached without a certain warmth of feeling and interest in observing the emotional and spiritual condition of others. Whereas vibrant contact with people in everyday life provides the necessary basis for this sort of psychological insight, the study of history and art extends this basis and enriches it, in that these disciplines show us humans in extraordinary circumstances, and we learn from them the huge spectrum of powers which lay buried within ourselves.
print version
return to list
previous document