take place within the psychical processes; the soul is subject to changes as a whole; and the concept of the soul — like its correlative concept, the body — is formed only by abstraction. Psychological concepts can therefore no more express absolute reality than the concepts of natural science.
When Bradley insists on the idea of the absolute, even though there is no concept that can give it adequate expression, he appears at once as a mystic and a sceptic. The unifying bond of these two sides of his nature lies in the idea of a constant striving which is the lot of all finite beings. Our thought, says Bradley, is always striving for something which is more than thought, — our personality for something which is more than personality, — our morality for something which is more than morality! The only thing which philosophy can do for us is to furnish us a criterion to serve as a guide whenever we distinguish between higher and lower degrees of reality. Religion can do no more at this point than philosophy. It too must express the highest by means of ideas which have their source in the sphere of the finite. The advantage of religion consists in the fact that it is capable of allowing the recognition of a highest reality to permeate our entire being.
Bradley has no points of contact with the special sciences, as is the case with Fechner, Lotze and Wundt. He has no interest in purely empirical considerations. He is completely absorbed in the idea of his ideal criterion. This gives energy and depth to his mode of thought, but it likewise frequently makes him unjust towards other viewpoints, even such as he could really appropriate with advantage. When, e. g., he calls the viewpoints and hypotheses of the special sciences "useless fictions" and
