insight, and accurate knowledge that is shown. There is no superficial
criticism, neither does he concern himself with the inessential details
of the theories.

Jest-books tell us of a defendant against whom a claim for compensation
was made by a complainant who alleged that the former's dog had bitten
him. The defence was, first, that the dog was lame, blind, and
toothless; second, that it had died a week before; and third, that the
defendant never possessed a dog. A sensible judge would wish to be
satisfied in regard to the third statement before wasting time
discussing the others; if it proved to be true, then the case would be
at an end. The defences of philosophical systems are often similar, and
the critic is tempted to waste time discussing details when he should go
to the root of the matter. Eucken does not fall into this error. His
special method is to seek the idea or ideas which lie at the root of the
proposed solution; if these are unsatisfactory, then he does not
consider it necessary to discuss them further. Hence his work is free
from the flippant and superficial argument so common to-day; he makes a
fair and serious endeavour to find out the truth (if any) that is at the
basis of the proposed solutions, and does not hesitate to give them
their due meed of praise even though he considers them to be ultimately
unsatisfactory.

Before a solution can be regarded as a satisfactory one, Eucken holds
that it should satisfy certain conditions. It should offer an
explanation for life which can be a firm basis for life, it must admit
of the possibility of human freedom, and must release the human being
from sordid motives--unless it satisfy these conditions, then it cannot
be accepted as final.

The solutions of the problem of life that have been offered he considers
to be five--Religion and Immanental Idealism, Naturalism, Socialism and
Individualism, the first two regarding the invisible world as the
reality in life, the others laying emphasis on man's life in the present
world. The reader will perhaps wonder how his choice has fallen upon
these systems of thought and these alone. The explanation is a simple
one: he considers it necessary to deal only with those theories which
can form, and have formed, bases for a whole system of life. Mere
theoretical ideas of life, especially negative ideas such as those of
agnosticism and scepticism, do not form such a basis, but the five
chosen for discussion can, and h