w all these things and yet, for this very reason, feel justified
in holding the views here presented. The writer has dealt with the
tendencies of philosophic thought in his works: "The Theory of Cognition
of Goethe's World-Concept"; "Truth and Science"; "Philosophy of Freedom";
"Goethe's World Concept" and "Views of the World and Life in the
Nineteenth Century."

Many other criticisms might be suggested. Any one who had read some of the
writer's earlier works: "Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth
Century," for instance, or a smaller work on _Haeckel and his Opponents_,
might think it incredible that one and the same man could have written
those books as well as the present work and also his already published
"Theosophy." "How," he might ask, "can a man throw himself into the breach
for Haeckel, and then, turn around and discredit every sound theory
concerning monism that is the outcome of Haeckel's researches?" He might
understand the author of this book attacking Haeckel "with fire and
sword"; but it passes the limits of comprehension that, besides defending
him, he should actually have dedicated "Views of the World and Life in the
Nineteenth Century" to him. Haeckel, it might be thought, would have
emphatically declined the dedication had he known that the author was
shortly to produce such stuff as _An Outline of Occult Science_, with all
its unwieldy dualism.

The writer of this book is of the opinion that one may very well
understand Haeckel without being bound to consider everything else as
nonsense which does not flow directly from Haeckel's own presentments and
premises. The author is further of the opinion that Haeckel cannot be
understood by attacking him with "fire and sword," but by trying to grasp
what he has done for science. Least of all does he hold those opponents of
Haeckel to be in the right, against whom he has in his book, _Haeckel and
his Opponents_, sought to defend the great naturalist; for surely, the
fact of his having gone beyond Haeckel's premises by placing the spiritual
conception of the world side by side with the merely natural one conceived
by Haeckel, need be no reason for assuming that he was of one mind with
the latter's opponents. Any one taking the trouble to look at the matter
in the right light must see that the writer's recent books are in perfect
accord with those of an earlier date.

But the author can also conceive of a critic who in general and offhand
looks upon