The Chinese philosophers were not only averse to epistemology, they had an almost gallic disdain for prolonged metaphysics. No young metaphysician could admit that Confucius is a philosopher, for he says nothing about metaphysics and less about epistemology; he is as positivistic as Spencer or Comte; his concerns is always for morals and the state. Worse than that, he is disreputably intelligible; and nothing could be so damaging to a philosopher. But we "moderns" have become so accustomed to windy verbiage in philosophy that when philosophy is presented without the verbiage we can, with difficulty, recognize it. One must pay a penalty for having a prejudice against obscurity. The story tried to salt itself with a seasoning of humor, not only because of wisdom is not wise if it scares away merriment, but because a sense of humor being born of perspective bears a near kinship to philosophy; each is the soul of the other. But this appears to have displeased the pundits; nothing so hurt the book with them as it smiles. A reputation for humor is disastrous to statesman and philosophers. Germany could not forgive Schopenhauer his story of Lluzelwann, only France has recognized the depth behind the wit and brilliance of Voltaire. I trust that the book never misled its reader into supposing that by reading it they would become philosophers overnight, or that they would be saved the trouble, or pleasure, of reading the philosophers themselves. God knows there is no shortcut to knowledge; after forty years of seeking her one finds 'Truth' still veiled and what she shows of herself most disconcerting. Instead of aiming to be a substitute for philosophers, the story implicitly offered itself as an introduction and an invitation; it quoted the philosophers lavishly, so that the taste for them might linger when the book was closed; time and again it prodded the readers to the original texts; and warning was given that one reading of them would hardly be enough.

The Chinese philosophers were not only averse to epistemology, they had an almost gallic disdain for prolonged metaphysics. No young metaphysician could admit that Confucius is a philosopher, for he says nothing about metaphysics and less about epistemology; he is as positivistic as Spencer or Comte; his concerns is always for morals and the state. Worse than that, he is disreputably intelligible; and nothing could be so damaging to a philosopher.

But we "moderns" have become so accustomed to windy verbiage in philosophy that when philosophy is presented without the verbiage we can, with difficulty, recognize it. One must pay a penalty for having a prejudice against obscurity.

The story tried to salt itself with a seasoning of humor, not only because of wisdom is not wise if it scares away merriment, but because a sense of humor being born of perspective bears a near kinship to philosophy; each is the soul of the other. But this appears to have displeased the pundits; nothing so hurt the book with them as it smiles. A reputation for humor is disastrous to statesman and philosophers. Germany could not forgive Schopenhauer his story of Lluzelwann, only France has recognized the depth behind the wit and brilliance of Voltaire.

I trust that the book never misled its reader into supposing that by reading it they would become philosophers overnight, or that they would be saved the trouble, or pleasure, of reading the philosophers themselves. God knows there is no shortcut to knowledge; after forty years of seeking her one finds 'Truth' still veiled and what she shows of herself most disconcerting.

Instead of aiming to be a substitute for philosophers, the story implicitly offered itself as an introduction and an invitation; it quoted the philosophers lavishly, so that the taste for them might linger when the book was closed; time and again it prodded the readers to the original texts; and warning was given that one reading of them would hardly be enough.