INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION xlix
always been painful, and pregnant with consequences. To illustrate: the transition from papal control to non-papal control, passing through murderous religious persecutions and slaughters, including the devastating Thirty Years' War, etc.; from French royalism to republicanism, passing through the ferocious French Revolution and Commune; from czarism to state capitalism, passing through the latest bloody Russian Revolution and a period of so-called 'communism'. Now we are witnessing the struggles of 'democracies' with 'totalitarian states', passing as yet through the recent ruthless Spanish War, second World War, etc., etc.
Similarly we can give illustrations of painful transitions from one system to another from the history of science, which were also accompanied by bewilderment and labour: for instance, the passing from the ptolemaic to the copernican, from euclidean to non-euclidean, newtonian to non-newtonian (einsteinian), etc., systems.
In all these transitions it took one or more generations before the upheaval subsided and an adjustment was made to the new conditions.
No matter how painful and disturbing these transitions were, they were still changes and revisions within the then most general, intensional aristotelian system. This system was imposed on the white race by the 'church fathers'. Its strength and influence was due to its academically rationalized general verbal formulations which were set forth in textbooks, and thus became teachable. From the beginning the aristotelian system as formulated was inadequate and many attempts at corrections were made. The white race was impressed by the church that 'Aristotle ipake', and there was nothing more to be said. In fact, attempts to revise this system were prohibited even up to very recent times. Just the same, new facts which would not fit the aristotelian and church patterns were accumulating and so new methods, languages of special structure, etc., were required.
Perhaps an illustration from the history of mathematics will help. For more than 2,000 years by necessity mathematicians differentiated and integrated in some clumsy fashion in order to solve individual problems. But only after the formulation of a general theory by Newton and by Leibnitz did the general method become teachable and communicable at a general practical discipline (see p. 574) which provided the foundations for future developments in mathematics.
The aristotelian system had been formulated in a very rationalized way. Non-aristotelian attempts have been and are being made continually in limited areas. The difficulty was that no methodological gen-aral theory based on the new developments of life and science had been formulated until general semantics and a general, extensional, teachable