of the vital flame, the general vital
principle. Like heat, it passes from one to another, and is finally
reabsorbed or reunited in the universal principle from which it came.
Hence we must not expect annihilation, but reunion; and, as the tired
man looks forward to the insensibility of sleep, so the philosopher,
weary of the world, should look forward to the tranquillity of
extinction. Of these things, however, we should think doubtingly, since
the mind can produce no certain knowledge from its internal resources
alone. It is unphilosophical to inquire into first causes; we must deal
only with phenomena. Above all, we must never forget that man cannot
ascertain absolute truth, and that the final result of human inquiry
into the matter is, that we are incapable of perfect knowledge; that,
even if the truth be in our possession, we cannot be sure of it.

What, then, remains for us? Is it not this--the acquisition of
knowledge, the cultivation of virtue and of friendship, the observance
of faith and truth, an unrepining submission to whatever befalls us, a
life led in accordance with reason?

PLATONISM IN THE MUSEUM. But, though the Alexandrian Museum was
especially intended for the cultivation of the Aristotelian philosophy,
it must not be supposed that other systems were excluded. Platonism was
not only carried to its full development, but in the end it supplanted
Peripateticism, and through the New Academy left a permanent impress on
Christianity. The philosophical method of Plato was the inverse of that
of Aristotle. Its starting-point was universals, the very existence of
which was a matter of faith, and from these it descended to particulars,
or details. Aristotle, on the contrary, rose from particulars to
universals, advancing to them by inductions.

Plato, therefore, trusted to the imagination, Aristotle to reason.
The former descended from the decomposition of a primitive idea into
particulars, the latter united particulars into a general conception.
Hence the method of Plato was capable of quickly producing what seemed
to be splendid, though in reality unsubstantial results; that of
Aristotle was more tardy in its operation, but much more solid. It
implied endless labor in the collection of facts, a tedious resort
to experiment and observation, the application of demonstration. The
philosophy of Plato is a gorgeous castle in the air; that of Aristotle
a solid structure, laboriously, and with many failures, fou