[181] Die Philosophischen Schriften von Leibniz, ed. Gebhardt, Vol. VI, 1885, pp. 605, 606; and quotation in Gosselin’s Analyse, Œuvres de Fénelon, 1820, Vol. IV, pp. clxxviii, clxxvii.
[182] It is to Schweizer’s admirable monograph, Die Religions-Philosophie Kant’s, 1899, pp. 4-70, that I owe my clear apprehension of this very interesting doubleness in Kant’s outlook.
[183] Loc. cit. pp. 611, 614, 615, 616.
[184] Kant’s Werke, ed. Berlin Academy, Vol. IV, 1903, pp. 393, 394; 396.
[185] Kant, 1904, p. 131.
[186] The Problem of Conduct, pp. 336, 337; 329.
[187] Ibid. p. 327.
[188] See James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles, 1894, pp. 193-236, where this position, denominated there “Eudaemonism,” is contrasted with “Hedonism,” uniquely or at least predominantly occupied with the act’s sensational materials or concomitances, and “Rigorism,” with its one-sided insistence upon the rational form and end of action.
[189] Taylor, op. cit. p. 901.
[190] Seconde Lettre à Monsieur de Paris, Œuvres, Vol. V, pp. 268, 269. Lettres de M. de Cambrai à un de ses Amis, ibid., Vol. IV, p. 168.