Objection has been taken to the fact that he starts upon his task with a
definite bias in a certain direction. He candidly admits from the outset
that his aim is to find a meaning for life, and in doing this he of
course tacitly assumes that life has a deep and profound meaning. Strict
scientists aver that the investigator must set out without prejudice, to
examine the phenomena he observes; and Eucken's initial bias may form a
fatal stumbling-block to the acceptance of his philosophy by these, or
indeed, by any who are not disposed to accept this fundamental position.
If we deny that life has a meaning, then Eucken has little for us; but
if we are merely doubtful on the matter, the reading of Eucken will
probably bring conviction.

Many critics point to the far-reaching assumptions he makes. He assumes
as axiomatic certainties and insoluble mysteries the existence of the
spiritual life in man, the union of the human and divine, and the
freedom of the spiritual personalities, though in a sense dependent upon
the Universal Spiritual Life. This of course does not mean that he is in
the habit of making unjustifiable assumptions. This is far from being
the case; on the contrary, he takes the greatest care in the matter of
his speculative bases. There are some fundamental facts of life,
however, which according to Eucken are proved to us by life itself; we
feel they must be true, but they are not truths that can be reasoned
about, nor proved by the intellect alone. These are the three great
facts mentioned above, which, while not admitting of proof, must be
regarded as certainties.

His contention that they cannot be reasoned about has led to the further
charge of irrationalism. The question that has to be decided is, whether
Eucken in emphasising the fact that great truths must be solved by life
and action, is underestimating the part that intellect must play in