terize different sides of phenomena, and so cannot contradict, much less negate, one another. Habitually, authors (e.g., Schopenhauer) have pointed out the error in their opposition, but have themselves relapsed into similar errors. Schopenhauer makes Freedom consist in Being, not in Activity. What is properly an act, is made a quality of an unchangeable essence.
Another formulation is the 'liberum arbitrium indifferentiae.' This does not differ from the first formulation. It means the indifferent or unmotived choice of actions, which is a 'contradictio in adjecto.' Free Will is further defined as 'self-determination.' But how does this happen? If in consequence of a motive the Will is subject to the principle of causality. If not, the Will is anarchistic. Free Will is sometimes described as an inner creative act. But what precedes this secret act? Either it has an inner ground, and so is conditioned; or it is absolutely accidental, and all attempt at explanation is given up. The source of error lies in the modern formulation of the causal principle or ground as "force which is the source of phenomena." This Force is not the final solution of the question. Does the force act without occasion? We shall try to show that the concept of Freedom, kept within natural limits, contains nothing irrational.
History is generally regarded as a science dealing with objective facts which it sets in their causal connection. But objective information is impossible. For the historian's material consists chiefly of subjective views of the events he deals with. Again, every exponent of a past supplies motives for the actions he describes. Consequently, the material can be construed only ideally. Again, personalities are dealt with in history. Their valuations are given, and these valuations are always subjective. In fact, each one tests an entire historical period from his own ethical or other standpoint, and this, again, depends on his place and education. Our postulates are not objectively valid, and we never restate anything without falsifying it. If science be the complete statement of a causal process, then history is hardly a science.
