system itself, but are obtained by considering its general scope and tendency.
14. When we look to the system itself, when we try it by its letter and not by its spirit, in other words, when we regard it as a dogmatic statement of facts, it is seen at once to be exceedingly imperfect; to be destitute, indeed, of all philosophical value. There is no rational proof given, no sufficient evidence adduced, to show that water is the principle of all things. Still less is any rational explanation afforded as to how the various forms of actual existence are evolved by means of a thickening and a thinning of water; and the system leaves us completely in the dark in regard to the active or formative energy by which things are produced. But, setting these imperfections aside, the two objections most fatal to the system are these: first, that the universal which it sets forth is a mere sensible universal; and, secondly, being such, it is not a true universal, not a universal at all. The consideration of these two points will conclude what I have to say on the philosophy of Thales, and will open the way for the system of his successor Anaximander, in which an attempt is made to obviate the objections referred to. You will thus perceive how the system of Anaximander is affiliated to that of Thales. This connection, this genesis of one system out of another, is in fact the most important matter to be attended to and kept in view in studying the history of philosophy.
