 On the whole, he comes off as a “classical” philosopher in a time when philosophical fashion seemed to demand anything but that. The explosion of philosophical schools and movements in the early twentieth century, eager for novelty and controversy, seemed to have had little tolerance or interest in patient investigations into major traditional problems of philosophy. He was strongly shaped by late nineteenth century Neo-Kantianism and its issues, including the controversies over materialism, the limits of science, historicism (relativism), and pessimism, and was at least inspired by empirically oriented metaphysicians such as Hermann Lotze (1817–1881), August Trendelenburg (1802–1872), and Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906) (see Beiser 2014). Recent work has also examined the influence of Russian philosophers on him (Tremblay 2017; Tremblay 2019). He thought of himself as a more faithful Kantian than the German Idealists as well as his Neo-Kantian teachers and peers, honored Kant’s memory by taking seriously the claim that that there are some problems that reason cannot solve, but criticized Kant himself for his dogmatic idealist assumptions. Aristotle and Hegel were also major sources of inspiration.