“Therefore an ideal aim must be present in the mind of the educator. Possibly he can obtain information and help from Pestalozzi, whose nature evinced such ideal tendencies. Pestalozzi wished the welfare of mankind to be sought in the harmonious cultivation of _all_ powers. If one only knew what is to be understood by a multiplicity of mental powers, and what is meant by the _harmony_ of various powers. These phrases sound very attractive, but give little satisfaction. The purely _formal_ aims of education will appeal just as little to the educator: ‘Educate the pupil to independence’; or, ‘Educate the pupil to be his own educator’; or, ‘Educate the pupil so that “it” will become better than “its” educator.’ (_Hermann and Dorothea_, Hector and Astyanax in the _Iliad_.) Such and similar attempts to fix the purpose of education are abundant in the history of pedagogy; but they do not bring us nearer the goal. In their formal character they do not say, for example, of what kind the independence shall be, what content it shall have, what aims it shall have in view, or in what directions its course shall lie. For the pupil that has become independent can use his freedom rightly for good just as well as misuse it for evil.” =Herbart’s Theory, Ethical.=—Herbart’s own theory of education, so far as we may venture to formulate it, is strictly ethical as opposed to intellectual, that is, the development and sustenance of the intellect is of secondary importance to the educator for two reasons: character building is the matter of first importance to human beings; and this because, (_a_) train character and intellectual ‘development’ largely takes care of itself, and (_b_) the lessons designed for intellectual culture have high ethical value, whether stimulating or disciplinary. This is familiar ground to us: we too have taught, in season and out of season, that the formation of character is the aim of the educator. So far, we are at one with the philosopher; but, may we venture to say it? we have arrived, through the study of Physiology, at the definiteness of aim which he desires but does not reach. =Obscurity of Psychology.=—We must appeal, he says, to Psychology, but then, he adds, “of course we cannot expect a concordant answer from all psychologists; and in view of the obscurity which still prevails in this sphere, the different views as to the nature of the human soul and the extraordinary difficulty with which the empirical method of investigation meets, an absolutely indubitable explanation can hardly be expected.”