STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PUBLISHED BY TH E INSTITUTE OF SOC IALRESEARC H MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS NEW YORK CITY CONTENTS. Articles. PAGE FOREWORD... 321 MAX HORKHEIMER, The Social Function of Philosophy... 322 FRANZ NEUMANN, Types of Natural Law.. 338 BERNARD GROETHUYSEN, Les origines sociales de l'incredulite bour· geoise en France. 362 HERBERT MARCUSE, An Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy.. 394 THEODORE W. ADoRNo, On Kierkegaard's Doctrine of Love 413 MAX HORKHEIMER, The Relation hetween Psychology and Sociology in the work of Wilhelm Dilthey 430 OTTO KIRCHHEIMER, Criminal Law in National Socialist Germany . 444 Reviews. Christoph Steding, Das Reich und die Krankheit der euro· päischen Kultur (Stern). 464 Robert S. Lynd, Knowledge for What (Neumann) 469 Rohert M. Maclver, Leviathan and the People (Bradley).. 474 Carl G. Jung, The Integration of the Personality (Löwenthal) 479 Franz Boas, Race, Language and Culture.--General Anthropology, ed. by Franz Boas.-Ralph Linton, Acculturation (Witt/ogel) 481 Technological Trends and National Policy.-Consumer Incomes in the United States.-Maurice Leven, The Income Structure of the United States.-Studies in Income and Wealth.--Gardiner C. Means, Patterns of Resource Use.-Gardiner C. Means, The Structure of the American Economy.-Does Distribution Cost Too Much?-Mordecai J. B. Ezekiel, Johs for AII.­ Simon Kuznets, Commodity Flow and Capital Formation.­ Solomon Fabricant, Capital Consumption and.Adjustment.­ Charles A. Bliss, The Structure of Manufacturing Production. -Conference Board Studies in Enterprise and Social Progress (Pollock) ............. .. 483 L. P. Ayres, Turning Points in Business Cycles (Grossman). 490 Carleton Beals, The Coming Struggle for Latin America.­ Duncan Aikman, The AlI·American Front.-Katherine Carr, South American Primer (Weil) 492 Studies in Phüosophy and Social Science are published three times a year by the Institute of Social Research, 429 West 117th Street, New York City, N. Y. The price of a single issue is $1.00, and the annual subscription is $3.00. Editorial communications should be addressed to the Institute of Social Research, 429 West 117th Street, New York City, N. Y. Subscriptions and business communications should be sent to William Salloch, 344 East 17th Street, New York City, N. Y. Copyright, 1940, by the Social Studies Association, Inc. This Puhlication constitutes Number 3 of Volume VIII (1939) of the former Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, puhlishedby the Librairie Felix Alcan, Paris (France). INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 429 West 117th Street, New York City Director: Assistant Director : MAX HORKHEIMER FREDERICK POLLOCK Members: THEODORE W. AnORNO WALTER BENJAMIN HENRYK GROSSMAN JULIAN GUMPERZ LEO LOWENTHAL HERBERT MARCUSE FRANZ NEUMANN FELIX WEIL KARL A. WITTFOGEL Research Associates: MAXIMILIAN BECK HANS K. BRILL HANS FRIED FRITZ KARSEN OTTO KIRCHHEIMER OLGA LANG PAUL F. LAZARSFELD WILLIAM C. MACKAUER KURT PINTHUS J OSEPH . SOUDEK EDGAR ZILSEL 321 FOREWORD Up to the present the journal of the Institute 01 Social Research has heen puhlished, three times a year, in Paris, hy the Librairie Felix Alcan. The articles and reviews for both the third section of the 1939 volume and the first section of the 1940 volume are in the hands of the French printers who, in May, were still promising us that the journal would be puhlished as usual. But because of what has happened since then, we must now assume that neither the Librairie Felix Alcan nor the printers-the Presses Universitaires de F:rance-will be in a position to fulfil their promise in the neae future. We have, consequently, decided to publish the third section of the 1939 volume in America. In any case, most of the contributors made this country their new horne some years ago. We did not pre· viously puhlish the journal in America largely because for the last eight years most of our readers have been Europeans. As most of the contributions were printed in German, the journal ful· filled its own special purpose; philosophie and scientific traditions which could no longer be pursued in Germany were continued here in their native language. The actual language in which articles are published is not without influence on the contents of the thought. Both our Institute and the publishers hoped, therefore, to help science by enabling authors to write in their own tongue. But this consideration must now be secondary to our desire to devote our work-even in its external form-to American social life. Philosophy, art and science have lost their horne in most of Europe. England is now fightingdesperately against the domination of the totalitarian states. America, especially the Uni ted States, is the only continent in which the continuation of scientific life is pos· sible. Within the framework of this country's democratic institu· tions, culture still enjoys the freedom without which, we believe, it is unable to exist. In publishing our journal in its new form we wish to give this belief its concrete expression. MAX HORKHEIMER. New York City, luly, 1940. 322 Max Horkheimer The Social Function of Philosophy. By Max Horkheimer. When the words physics, chemistry, medicine, or history are mentioned in a conversation, the participants usually have something very definite in mind. Should any difference of opinion arise, we could consult an encyclopaedia or accepted textbook or turnto one or more outstanding specialists in the field in question. The defini· tion of any one of these sciences derives immediately from its pi ace in present day society. Though these sciences may make the great· est advances in the future, though it is even conceivable that several of them, physics and chemistry for example, may some day be merged, no one is really interested in defining these concepts in any other way than by reference to the scientific activities now being carried on under such headings. It is different with philosophy. Suppose we ask a professor of philosophy what philosophy iso If we are lucky and happen to find a specialist who is not averse to definitions in general, he will give us one. If we then adopt this definition, we should probably soon discover that it is by no means the universally accepted meaning of the word. Wemight then appeal to other authorities, and pore over textbooks, modem and old. The confusion would only increase. Many thinkers, accepting Plato and Kant as their authorities, regard philosophy as an exact science in its own right, with its own field and subject lllatter. In our epoch this conception is chiefly represented by the late Edmund Husserl. Other thinkers, like Ernst Mach, con· ceive philosophy as the critical elaboration and synthesis of the special sciences into a unified whole. Bertrand RusseU, too, holds that the task of philosophy is "that of logical analysis, foUowed by logical synthesis.'H) He thus fuUy agrees with L. T. Hobhouse, who declares that "Philosophy ... has a synthesis of the sciences as its goal."2) This conception goes back to Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, for whom philosophy constituted the total system of human knowl· ') Bertrand RusseIl, Logical atomism, in: Contemporary British Philosophy, ed. by J. H. Muirhead, I, 1925, p. 379. ') L. T. Hobhouse, The philosophy of development, in: Contemporary British Phüosophy, ed. by J. H. Muirhead, I, 1925, p. 152. The Social Funetion of Philosophy 323 edge. Philosophy, therefore, is an independent science for some, a subsidiary or auxiliary discipline for others. If most writers of philosophical works agree on the scientific character of philosophy, a few, but by no means the worst, have emphatically denied it. For the German poet Schiller, whose phil­ osophical essays have had an influence perhaps even more profound than his dramas, the purpose of philosophy was to bring aesthetic order into our thoughts and actions. Beauty was the criterion of its results. Other poets, like Hölderlin and Novalis, held a similar position, and even pure philosophers, Schelling for instance, came very elose to it in some of their formulations. Henri Bergson, at any rate, insists that philosophy is elosely related to art, and is not a SClence. As if the different views on the general character of philosophy were not enough, we also find the most diverse notions about its content and its methods. There are still some thinkers who hold that philosophy is concerned exelusively with the highest concepts and laws of Being, and ultimately with the cognition of God. This is true of the Aristotelian and Neo-Thomist schools. Then there is the related view that philosophy deals with the so-called apriori. Alexander describes philosophy as "the experiential or empirical study of the non-empirical or apriori, and of such questions as arise out oI the relation oI the empirical to the apriori" (space, time and deity) .1) Others, who derive Irom the English sensualists and the German school oI Fries and Apelt, conceive oI it as the science oI inner experience. According to logical empiricists like Carnap, philosophy is concerned essentially with scientific language; accord­ ing to the school oI Windelband and Rickert (another school with many American followers), it deals with universal values, above all with truth, beauty, goodness, and holiness. Finally, everyone knows that there is no agreement in method. The neo-Kantians all believe that the procedure of philosophy must consist in the analysis oI concepts and their reduction to the. ultimate elements oI cognition. Bergson and Max Scheler consider intuition ("Wesensschau, 117esenserschauung") to be the decisive philosophical act. The phenomenological method oI Husserl and Heidegger is flatly opposed to the empirio-criticism oI Mach and Avenarius. The logistic oI Bertrand RusselI, Whitehead, and their Iollowers, is the avowed enemy oI the dialectic oI Hege!. The kind oI philosophizing one prefers depends, according to William James, on one's character and experience. ') s. Alexander, Space, Time and Deitr, vol.