His studies of Kant date from his sixteenth year, and he really believes he is now capable of criticizing quite objectively, from the Kantian point of view, everything that has been put forward in this book. On this account, too, he might have left this book unwritten were he not fully aware of what moves a philosopher to pass the verdict of “childishness” whenever the critical standard of the day is applied. Yet one may actually know that in the Kantian sense the limits of possible knowledge are here exceeded: one may know in what way Herbart (who never arrived at an “arrangement of ideas”) would discover his “naive realism.” One may even know the degree to which the modern pragmatism of James and Schiller and others would find the bounds of “true presentments” transgressed—those presentments which we are able to make our own, to vindicate, enforce, and to verify. We may know 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.