Nevertheless,  an  answer  given  in  terms  of  myth  is
not  philosophy,  though  the  principle  invoked  falls  within
the  noumenal  field.  Philosophy  interprets  the  meaning
of  experience  in  terms  of  a  system  of  logical  concepts,
and,  in  this  regard,  is  not  different  from  science  in  its
point  of  view — that  is  to  say,  philosophy  no  less  rigidly
than  science  conceives  the  world  as  an  object  for  the
understanding.  It  is  a  logical  inquiry  into  the  ultimate
nature  of  things  and  the  place  of  the  world  of  experi-
ence in  reality  at  large,  in  the  course  of  which  the
thinker  is  called  upon  to  scrutinize  the  conditions  under
which  such  an  inquiry  is  possible  and  the  relation  in
which  human  knowledge  stands  to  these  conditions.
Its  appeal,  like  that  of  science,  is  to  reason;  and  its
conclusions  are  presented  in  abstract  terms.  Philosophy
and  science  alike  find  expression  in  a  system  of  laws.
It  is  religion  which  interprets  experience  in  terms
of  personality — of  intelligence,  purpose,  and  will.  Yet
myth  is  not  properly  religion.  The  object  of  religion
represents  the  idealization  of  the  moral  will.  Strictly
speaking,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  understanding
and  its  logical  problems.  God,  for  metaphysics,  is  the
ground  of  existence,  a  logical  concept.  God,  for  religion,
is  a  purposive  will,  the  object  of  worship.  The  mythical
attitude  confuses  the  two  relations;  for  the  primitive
myth  expressed  in  a  single  conception  man's  explanation
of  the  world-process  and  the  attitude  of  his  will  toward


156   THE  GENERAL  PROBLEMS  OF  PSYCHOLOGY

reality.  It  represents  in  a  poetical  form  both  the  object
of  his  worship  and  the  ground  of  changes  in  the  world.
The  myth  is  a  religious  symbol  introjected  into  philo-
sophicoscientific  theory.
