to find within what narrow limits, after all, the intellect itself has
to work--it can do little more than make more or less certain
generalisations concerning the world of experience, and then to argue
from these, or from definitions that it itself has framed. Of course
some of the ancient philosophers did try through a course of rigid
reasoning to solve the great problems, and for a long time it was
customary to expect that all philosophers should proceed in the same
way.

Modern philosophers, of whom William James, Bergson, and Eucken are
conspicuous examples, have appreciated the futility of such a task, and
have sought other means of solving the problem. The mistake in the past
has been to forget that the intelligence is but one aspect of human
life, and that the experience of mankind is far more complicated a
matter than that of mere intellect, and not to be solved by intellect
alone. Intellect has to play a definite part in human life, but it does
not constitute the whole of life. Life itself is far greater than
intellect, and to live is a far more important thing than to know. The
great things are life and action; knowledge is ultimately useful in so
far as it contributes to the development of life and the perfection of
action. Philosophers have for too long a period made knowledge an aim in
itself, and have neglected to take proper account of the experiences of
mankind. Their intellectual abstractions have tended to leave actual
life more and more out of consideration, with the result that they have
been baffled at every turn. The more we think about it, the more we
become convinced that the mysterious universe in which we live will only
divulge just enough of its secrets to enable us to act, and this it
gives us with comparatively little trouble on our part. If we consider
an ordinary piece of wood, we find it is hard and offers a certain
resistance, and our knowledge of these elementary facts enables us to