But they are more interested in universal astronomical laws. Making surveys on a certain so-called uncivilized tribe, an anthropologist wants to know better about the particular phenomena concerning that very tribe. But being a scientist, he also wants to position them within a certain general universal theory of anthropology. Empirical scientists are at one end, and speculative philosophers are at the other. Empiricists prefer to deal with individual, concrete or particular matters and their relations.
Philosophers prefer to deal with general, abstract or universal matters from the beginning.
Experimental-psychological studies in aesthetic experiences for example belong to the former. Philological studies in the history of aesthetics, which have usually been regarded as a kind of philosophical aesthetics, should be regarded as one of the former, too, so far as philologicalarguments are made by means of giving empirical evidence. Philosophical speculations on aesthetic phenomena, on aesthetic experiences, or on the ontology of the work of art, for example, belong to the latter. It must be because you believe that individual, empirical or particular matters must have derived themselves from something universal. You have forgotten that anything particular is not the same as the universal matter from which it might have come out, even if that anything particular has come out from this universal matter in fact.