Thus, we are still discussing the distinction between “appearance” and “reality,” and many and varied are the opinions at which philosophers arrive.  But Thales, who heads the list of the Greek philosophers, had quite enough material, given in his own experience, to enable him to solve this problem as well as any modern philosopher, had he been able to use the material.  He who is familiar with the history of philosophy will recognize that, although one may smile at Augustine’s accounts of the races of men, and of the spontaneous generation of small animals, no one has a right to despise his profound reflections upon the nature of time and the problems which arise out of its character as past, present, and future.

The fact is that metaphysics does not lag behind because of our lack of material to work with.  The difficulties we have to face are nothing else than the difficulties of reflective thought.  Why can we not tell clearly what we mean when we use the word “self,” or speak of “knowledge,” or insist that we know an “external world”?  Are we not concerned with the most familiar of experiences?  To be sure we are—­with experiences familiarly, but vaguely and unanalytically, known and, hence, only half known.  All these experiences the great men of the past had as well as we; and if they had greater powers of reflection, perhaps they saw more deeply into them than we do.  At any rate, we cannot afford to assume that they did not.

One thing, however, I must not omit to mention.  Although one man cannot turn over bodily the results of his reflection to another, it by no means follows that he cannot give the other a helping hand, or warn him of dangers by himself stumbling into pitfalls, as the case may be.  We have an indefinite advantage over the solitary thinkers who opened up the paths of reflection, for we have the benefit of their teaching.  And this brings me to a consideration which I must discuss in the next section.

85.  THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.—­The man who has not read is like the man who has not traveled—­he is not an intelligent critic, for he has nothing with which to compare what falls within the little circle of his experiences.  That the prevailing architecture of a town is ugly can scarcely impress one who is acquainted with no other town.  If we live in a community in which men’s manners are not good, and their standard of living not the highest, our attention does not dwell much upon the fact, unless some contrasted experience wakes within us a clear consciousness of the difference.  That to which we are accustomed we accept uncritically and unreflectively.  It is difficult for us to see it somewhat as one might see it to whom it came as a new experience.

Of course, there may be in the one town buildings of more and of less architectural beauty; and there may be in the one community differences of opinion that furnish intellectual stimulus and keep awake the critical spirit.  Still, there is such a thing as a prevalent type of architecture, and there is such a thing as the spirit of the times.  He who is carried along by the spirit of the age may easily conclude that what is, is right, because he hears few raise their voices in protest.