In no other department is a thorough knowledge of history so important as in philosophy. Like historical science in general, philosophy is, on the one hand, in touch with exact inquiry, while, on the other, it has a certain relationship with art. With the former it has in common its methodical procedure and its cognitive aim; with the latter, its intuitive character and the endeavor to compass the whole of reality with a glance. Metaphysical principles are less easily verified from experience than physical hypotheses, but also less easily refuted. Systems of philosophy, therefore, are not so dependent on our progressive knowledge of facts as the theories of natural science, and change less quickly; notwithstanding their mutual conflicts, and in spite of the talk about discarded standpoints, they possess in a measure the permanence of classical works of art, they retain for all time a certain relative validity.

Question

(from ,begin underline,History of Modern Philosophy,end underline, by Richard Falckenberg)

Question
According to the passage, why do systems of philosophy retain a certain relative validity?

Answer options with 4 options
1.
Aspects of the systems are difficult to disprove.

2.
Important tenets of the systems have been proven to be infallible.

3.
The systems are based on rigorously tested proofs and theorems.

4.
The systems draw on both the arts and natural science.

Answer 1

According to the passage, systems of philosophy retain a certain relative validity for the reason that:

1. Aspects of the systems are difficult to disprove.

This aligns with the statement in the text that metaphysical principles are less easily verified or refuted compared to physical hypotheses, leading to their relative permanence and validity over time.