level of History.

But our question now is, Does the nature of man himself confirm such
statements as have already been made? And it is to man's own nature and
its content we now turn, as these are presented in Eucken's teaching.

It is probable that Eucken has done less justice to psychology from the
side of the [p.92] connection of consciousness with the external world.
He is aware, and points out the fact in several of his books, of the
close connection between mind and body; but seems to think that the fact
is sufficiently brought out by text-books on psychology that some kind
of dualism or parallelism is absolutely necessary to be held in order to
account for the content of consciousness. What exact meaning and
province should be assigned to psychology is to-day a matter of serious
dispute. Textbooks of the nature of William James's _Principles of
Psychology_ present a double aspect of the subject-matter as well as of
its mode of treatment. It is often difficult to differentiate in James's
works where one aspect ends and another begins. Psychology is presented
by him as a natural science on one page, and on the opposite page we
discover ourselves in the region of ethics and even of metaphysics and
religion. On the one side, we find the _connection_ of consciousness and
its mode of operation with the physical organism presented in terms
which emphasise the mechanical and chemical sides. On the other side,
the _content_ of consciousness itself, _after_ the connection has taken
place, is presented as a psychology as well. So that several important
writers on psychology have emphasised the need of differentiating one
aspect from the other, and of confining the meaning of psychology to the
description and explanation of the _connection_ [p.93] of mind and
body.[26] But when we pass to the content of consciousness, something
more than a mere connection of mind and body is discovered. The content