'■J- j: ,^- S-* ^.,J-rvi. J-Njf^^ ..'^ f- not. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Gift in memory of MARY STEPHENS SHERMAN, '13 from JOHN H. SHERMAN, '11 Date Due r\ri fi flt WAB^iU-: SBWI^'r 11^^ S^SHsstM 0L^ n -ing^oM^ } f^^^^ ^^W^wm ' & 23 233 . Cornell University Library B1658.U5 L13 1912 olin 3 1924 029 047 863 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924029047863 AN EXAMINATION OP THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNKNOWABLE AS EXPOUNDED BY HERBERT SPENCER. BY WILLIAM M, LACY. PHILADELPHIA: SHERMAN & COMPANY, PRINTEES. /v V ^ ^ // f Entered according to Act ot Congress, in the year 1883, by WILLIAM M. LACY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 77X7 r/ PREFATORY NOTE 111 PREFATORY NOTE This book was published first in 1883. It may prove of interest to the reader to learn that all of the arguments herein contained — except the explanation of continued motion — were written on slates while the author was a stu- dent at Hastings' West Philadelphia Academy. During the year following graduation, these arguments appeared in a lengthy essay, which finally developed into the present work. Failing to secure a publisherj the author was obliged to set the type himself. This edition is printed from the original plates without a change. Other facts to which I wish to draw the reader's attention are that *^ The Conception of the Infinite," by Greorge S. FuUerton, was published in 1887 ; that the pivotal idea of that treatise — the idea that conception of the infinite is qualitative, not quantitative — will be found herein (pp. 33— 36) ; and that Fullerton was a subscriber to this " Exami- nation." Twenty-one years ago William M. Lacy diedj according to Dr. James E. Grarretson, from a fever brought on by overwork, and is buried I know not where. And that is the end of the story till I write in full the tragedy of this book. ERNEST LACY. January 21, 1912. OPINIONS OP THE PRESS OPINIONS OF THE PRESS [Letters expressing appreciation op this work in the highest TERMS WERE RECEIVED FROM ALEXANDER BAIN, NoAH PoRTER, AND OTHER PROMINENT THINKERS.] The Christian Union {N. Y.). Were we called upon to select a specimen nearly approaching the ideal of a philosophical polemic, we incline to think that we should take this book. It is certainly one of the cleanest, finest, most thorough pieces of metaphysical work which recent years have given us. It covers but one department of Mr. Spencer's vast system — his theory of the Unknow- able — but it covers this perfectly. Ko position which he takes, scarcely any of importance which his views conceivably involve, on this theme, is neglected in the analysis. His exposition is followed everywhere ; his thought is tracked into every elaborate labyrinth, advertised at every step, pointed to its logically inevitable lines of retrocession or advance^ bidden to take its choice, and as the result of whatever choice, crowded out of its obscurity into open light, or reduced from its ingenious com- plexity into its simple self. Considered in the light of mere reasoning, it is a case of philosophical persecution. The whole movement is of such easy force as almost to excite sympathy for Mr. Spencer's agnosticism, to which no argumentative refuge seems open. Many, not familiar with, this notorious system, might cry, " Is this helpless, unshapen thing the great dragon we have feared ? " We have spoken of this work as clean metaphysics. When we say that in this respect it matches Mr. Spencer's calmness, courtesy, guarded movement, and unswerving poise, we have likened it to one of the accepted models of recent literary art. In these respects we can give it no higher praise. There is no glow other than purely intellectual ; rhetoric is excluded ; appeals to prejudice or to fear are not even sug- gested ; the religious bias is not indicated ; it is a typical philosophic contest — struggle, we had first written ; but the attack is too steady in its unhasting, unpausing advance to be called by that term. . . . The criticism searches out both the thought and its terms, bringing to light in this so vaunted philosophy incongruity upon incongruity, and showing agnosticism to be nothing but an entanglement of fallacies presented with, a wonderful semblance of system. VI OPINIONS OF THE PRESS This remarkable work, though too analytic and profound for the reader not in some degree versed in metaphysical studies, is singularly clear and direct in its style. The style, indeed, is perfectly adapted to the thought and to the object of the work. As a treatise devoted to a single depart- ment, this may be pronounced, well-nigh faultless. Science, There is a self-confidence in his manner, but there is no merely preten- tious display of knowledge in his book. His style is Spencerian— Spen- cerian with a bit more of vigor, and without a bit less accuracy in form. The work is that of a mature thinker who has considered long and well. The London Quarterly Hevieio, The writer of this able work subjects Mr. Spencer's philosophy to a searching and, in our view-, destructive criticism. The criticism gains in effectiveness by its thoroughly courteous tone — a tone which Mr. Spen- cer might often imitate with advantage. . . . The second chapter, in which Mr. Lacy deals with Mr. Spencer's "fundamental fallacy/' and flhows "the impossibility of establishing unknowableness," is a fair specimen of the whole work. It is evident at once that Spencer's doctrine of the unknowable implies that the unknowable exists, and that it is known to be unknowable. How do we know so much ? What is the sign of unknowableness ? The only other predicate which the doctrine allows is that '*the something exists.*' Here is aminor premise. What is the major? "The only possible major is, whatever exists is unknowable." We need not pursue the argument. Curiously enough, Mr. Spencer also calls the unknowable by other names, such as *'the Beal, as distinguished from the Phenomenal, the First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute, the Creating, the Uncaused, the Actual, the Unconditioned." If all this is known about *'the unknowable," Mr. Lacy may well call in question the appro- priateness of the designation. The whole of this chapter is full of acute reasoning. Again, in arguing for the unthinkableness of space, Mr. Spencer says, " Extension and space are convertible terms." On this Mr. Lacy says : " There needs no vocabulary to tell us that Ihey are not. AVe never speak of matter as having space; we never speak of matter as occu- pying the quality extension. By extension, as we ascribe it to surround- ing objects, we do not mean occupancy of space, although these two qualities are almost always found together." Occupancy of space involves ideas of coextensiveness and exclusiveness, which are not contained in the notion of extension. "Occupancy of space thus proving to be far more than extension, it becomes evident that we can attribute extension to space, without ascribing to it occupancy of itself. Consequently, exten- sion may be claimed as one of the attributes of space." Under the head of "The Inductive Argument," Mr. Lacy criticises Spencer s teaching on causation, space, time, matter, motion, force, self-knowledge, extent of OPINIONS OF THE PRESS Vll consciousness and mental substance ; under " The Deductive Argu- ment" he analyses Spencer's views on the process of comprehen- sion, the unconditioned, the nature of life, the power of thought to transcend consciousness. A chapter on the proposed reconciliation between science and religion concludes a volume which is one of the ablest replies and best antidotes to "First Principles" that we have met with. Mr. Spencer's reconciliation consists, of course, in the abolition of religion. He makes a solitude and calls it peace. ^' The reconciliation proposed by Mr. Spencer would be no reconciliation at all. No sooner would it become the accepted doctrine that the cause of all things is un- knowable, than each thinker would frame a conception of it to suit him- self." Materialist, Spiritualist, Realist, would each maintain his own position, and with equal right — because of the unknowable all hypo- theses are equally admissible. The prophet of the unknowable must bring us better solutions than unknowables and ghost stories. I The Popular Science Monthly. This volume is a metaphysical onslaught on Herbert Spencer's meta- physics, and may be recommended to all interested in the subject as acute, subtile, ingenious, and very well stated. New York Observer, The author of this work confines himself strictly to the subject men- tioned on the title page, leaving entirely aside the doctrine of Evolution, with which, as he justly says, uuknowableness has no necessary connec- tion. To the theory that we can know nothing of the external world or of mental substance but their bare existence, he opposes an argument of very great force. This is what he justly styles the fundamental fallacy, for he declares and shows that Mr. Spencer's affirmations of nescience do in fact overthrow his own theory by assuming a certain degree of knowl- edge of the unknowable. . . This book is written in good temper and in direct and simple style. It makes no digressions and utters not a single personal reflection. It seems to us that the author has accomplished what he set out to perform, and fio has rendered a good service. Ihe Atlantic Monthly, Mr. Lacy opposes to Mr. Spencer's scheme of nescience the doctrine '''that we are capable of realizing something of the nature of things occupying the region outside of consciousness." He treats Mr. Spencer with great courtesy, but attacks his positions with great vigor. His book is one worth consideration. VIU OPINIONS OF THE PRESS The Independent {N. Y.), Mr. William M. Lacy grapples in manly fashion with the ultimate con- clusions and implications of Herbert Spencer, in his Examination of the Philosophy of the Unknowable. He reduces the voluminous discussions of Mr. Spencer to their lowest terms and to their essential signification, and shows the contradictions involved in them. We cannot recommend the work as a diverting one, nor one in which much progress would be made in a hot day ; but readers who delight in a task that requires the highest kind of intelligence and application, will be more than rewarded by the study of the acute and firmly reasoned Examination, The Churchman {N. Y.). In the examination of Mr. Spencer's philosophy presented in this work, the author is not only a realist, but believes and undertakes to show that the external world can be known in something more than its bare exist- ence ; that the power back of phenomena is not absolutely inscrutable — that Mr. Spencer's nescience theory is ''unproved and unthinkable." To show the existence and knowability of reality is the object of the work. At the very threshold Mr. Lacy clears the ground of a good deal of un- certainty and confusion generally indulged in by previous writers, by the categorical statement that the *' Doctrine of Evolution is not a party" to the issue, and then goes at once to the fundamental fallacy of Agnosti- cism, "The Impossibility of Establishing Unknowableness. " This he does with the skill of a practiced tactitian in the first chapter. Point after point of false reasoning, confusion of thought and gratuitous assump- tion, is exposed in a clear and unanswerable manner. , . . We should say "Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" this argument. Mr. Spencer's Transfigured Realism is fairly stared out of countenance by the Problems of Realism with which it is confronted, as arrayed by the author. ... In this book is to he found a valuable contribution towards establishing the knowability of the realities back of the external world. The University Quarterly (N. Y.), We have here a thorough and searching review of the philosophy of Spencer. At the outset the author directs attention to the conclusion of Spencer's reasoning touching * ' The Unknowable," and shows conclusively that in this lies the "fundamental fallacy" of the great philosopher's speculations, as it " is unthinkable and vitiates every argument from which it can be supposed to derive support." He then takes up Spencer's induc- tive and deductive arguments, and enters into a very close and careful analysis of them ; concluding with an examination of his theory as to the reconciliation of Science and Religion. The author's rigid logic and keen penetration of mind have brought to light many flaws in the reasoning of OPINIONS OP THE PRESS IX Spencer, and show many of his conclusions to be entirely unwarranted. Although not a new field there is here much that is really new ; and the author's method of reasoning and style of writing have an attraction which will undoubtedly secure for the book a very general and attentive perusal. Evening Bulletin (Phila.), AVhile not pretending, in the space we can spare, to describe or criticise Mr. Lacy's work, we must tell our readers who may be studying M*r. Spencer's writings that it is thoughtful, dignified, and well written, and that the new American author is entitled to a most respectful hearing from all the large class that is concerned about many of the questions that agi- tate the inquisitive mind. Mr. Lacy is not an extreme optimist, but he is far removed from the pessimists, and he writes sincerely and with the skill of a true logician concerning many abstruse moral, religious, philosophical, and metaphysical subjects on which Herbert Spencer has written with matchless perspicuity and force. Whoever is familiar with Mr. Spencer's views should be interested in this really able treatise. The Morning Star (Dover, N, H.). Mr. William M. Lacy has made a valuable contribution to modern thought. His book is not one to be caught up in an idle moment. He is a master in metaphysical science ; possesses logical accuracy ; proceeds from step to step with cautious exactness ; and leaves upon the mind of the studious reader the conviction that he makes an unanswerable plea for reconciliation between science and religion. The whole book tends to this admirable conclusion, . . . We commend this volume as particularly valuable to libraries and to students. The Evening Star (Phila.), The work is one showing on every page the evidence of profound thought, and the conclusions gain force by the logical form in which they have been grasped. , . , Persons with a taste for philosophic reflection and inquiry, will find ample material for thought in the volume. The Presbyterian Review (N, F.). Special notice of Mr. Lacy*s book we reserve until we find time for an extended review of Spencer's reviewers. Meanwhile it must suffice to say, that Mr. Lacy writes clearly, boldly, and with independence. His criticisms of Spencer, so far as we have read this book, are acute and just. The Times (Phila.), There can be no doubt that when the world has taken time to under- stand Mr. Herbert Spencer's philosophy and has it reduced to the briefest formulas of which it is capable, many vulnerable points will be discov- X OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ered and many parts of the elaborate structure will be tumbled to pieces. AJany atteraptg at this iconoclastic work have already been made. The latest, and in many respects the most capable, is "An Examination of the Philosophy of the Unknowable as Expounded by Herbert Spencer/' by "William M. Lacy. Any extended review of Mr. Lacy*s work might be tiresome, but students of modern philosophy may be commended to it as a healthy and vigorous reaction against empiricism, Herbert Spencer- ism and all that it stands for. American Inventor (Cineinnati,), The author of this work has laid out for himself a difficult task. The agnostic principles of Herbert Spencer, as fully set forth in his work, have gained such ground that it needed the application of a master hand for their successful refutation. ... In the progress of his argument to establish his position he very clearly exposes the incongruities of Mr. Spencer's arguments. The Evening Call (Phila.). While criticised with the utmost logical severity, Mr, Spencer cannot complain of the slightest discourtesy. On the contrary, it is evident ■ that the writer holds Mr. Spencer in high esteem, and is in nowise opposed to the theory of universal progression. Mr. Lacy's work is systematically and perspicuously written, and is free from anything vague and mystical. Many definite issues are raised and discussed, no more with a view to the refutation of Mr. Spencer's doctrines than to the establishment of rival theories, in many cases original with the writer himself. To numbers of puzzling questions, physical and metaphysical, logical and religious, solutions are advanced. To the questions, why an object made to move continues is motion? and what is gravitation? Mr. Lacy gives a single answer — an answer certainly ingenious and plau- sible, since it seems to account for both mysteries. The metaphysical will find in the work an explanation of how the mind can know things outside of itself, and the religious will be interested in the author's views regard- ing the reconciliation between science and religion. The Andover Review, The author's argument is throughout courteous, lucid, and fair, and at times vigorous. We think it will commend itself to most minds as decidedly successful. The Philadelphia Record, A thoroughly, well, and even eloquently written work. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS XI The American Journal of Physiology, To review the work of any great thinker, such as Mr. Spencer, is no little task; but the task becomes immensely greater when the ^vork to be reviewed is the combined thought of two great thinkers, especially when opposite views are held, and both deserving credit, justic, and consideration. Considering the almost insurmountable difficulty of placing both Mr. Spencer and the aiithor of th's book in the proper light they deserve lo be placed, we think it best in all probability that their arguments should be sufficiently reproduced that the reader may examine their weight and judge fur himself. ********* Thus throughout the book Mr. Lacy by force of logic attacks all of Mr. Spencer's agnostic views — views most of which apparently were expressed to stand as eternal pyramids, but which under the analytic process of reasoning are demolished and vanish into oblivion. Thb argu- mentative warfare is carried throughout the entire work, producing thoughts on both sides of this great theological question of "The Un- knowable," that perhaps were never produced before; and we can do no better than to refer the reader to the work itself as the proper exponent of the views advanced by Mr. Lacy. At least every American should, as a matter of pride as well as information, secure a copy of Mr. Lacy's woi'c and examine for himself the profoundness of his reasoning capacity in a fair polemic discussion with the great English celebrity. THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL XIU TWO LETTERS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL I Bear [E.] Lacy: Being a good Presbyterian, I believe aa firmly in predestination as jou do, and predestination through motives : this was Jonathan Edwards* argument in his famous Galvinistic work on ''the Will." I studied up that subject some years ago, and came to the conclusion that predestina- tion must be accepted. This I believe as thoroughly as you do, but I believe more. Studying Bain and Edwards leads me to believe in pre- destination ; studying myself, leads me to believe in free-will. Some time ago a number of learned mathematicians met in Berlin to prove that the minute-hand of a clock cannot overtake the hour-hand, and came mathe- matically to the conclusion that it could not. Yet we know it does. There is a higher authority [than] the reason, and that is consciousness, common sense, or what you may call it. I mean that fact that we know intuitively that a thing is so, though we may not be able to prove it. No reasoning can prove to you that you exist, and philosophy accepts it with- out proof, as a simple incontestable fact, a fact of consciousness ; you know that you exist. Just so Ifeel my personal responsibility to God and to my fellows, and the fact that men have remorse, and that the remorse is directly propor- tional to the feeling that it was his fault he swerved, cannot be explained except upon the supposition that the will is free. You know that it is your fault if you sin to-day, and this feeling, which is implanted in your nature, is worth more than any proof. I have given up trying to reconcile the two, and accept both, as I think you will when you come to read Lacy instead of Bain, and to look in instead of out. To my mind, the only conclusive, or, at least, the most conclusive proof of the existence of God is that internal one which is necessitated by our nature, and this too we must accept upon our intuitive feelings, upon the fact that we know that we are free. All that you believe, I accept, but believe more, and this I think yoji too will accept in time. Yours, GEO. S. FULLERTON. XIV THE FREEDOM OP THE WILL II Dear Fullebton : — As the strongest motive now present to mj brother's mind compels him to spend his time in writing his Valedictory Address, I, fearing that otherwise you might become impatient, take the liberty of replying to your controversial letter. On this subject my views and those of my brother, I believe, concur. I, therefore, take his place and, becoming responsible for all attacks which you have made upon his position, will answer your arguments in substan- tially the same way as, had he not been otherwise engaged, he would ere now have done. 1 am a Necessitarian. The conclusion at which I long ago arrived is the result of conversational discussion, observation of the general laws of nature, and introspection ; and not, as you seem to suppose, a study of the writings of Edwards, Bain, or any one else. Though I possess the work, I have never read over three pages of "Edwards on the Will," and as for Bain I know not whether he accepts or rejects the so-called doctrine of "Philosophical Necessity.'- I would not imply that I. am wholly in- different to the opinions of these philosophers, but merely that I have not yet found time to read their interesting and instructive works. I have always been led, partly by the force of circumstances and partly, I sup- pose, by natural predisposition, to think upon a subject first and "read up on" it afterwards — to trust rather to my own reasoning than to that of others. I do not regret that such has been the case. Thpse who rear a structure, and not those who inherit it, know best its worth and how to defend it. I will first state my position : I believe that the mind is constructed, or formed, or made, or whatever you may please to call it,' without any pre- vious knowledge, determination, or action on its part ; in other words, that the mind is not its own maker. If this be true, it follows that the mind does not give to itself its own original character, and also that it does not determine its own environment. Now the first mental action (of whatever character it be) is the product of two factors : the mind as it is (which includes its character) and the circumstances in which it is placed. Similarly the second mental operation is the product of the mind as it is before the operation (which includes the modifications of the first operation) and the surrounding conditions ; and so on through life. Thus is every mental operation predetermined. This is a doctrine Preeby- terian. From it th^re is no escape ; and you have attempted none. You say that you believe in predestination. I rejoice at this both be- cause I consider the doctrine of '* Philosophical Necessity" a sound one and because it relieves me of the trouble of establishing, as far as I might be able, the position above stated. If you believe in predestination, you THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL XV believe that every ac t of volition was determined before the mind came into existence ; consequently that the will is not free. (I should prefer to state such a belief thus: volition is caused.) But you say also that you believe that the Will is free ; that all that my brother believes you *'accept, but believe more j** and that you " have given up trying to rec- oncile the two and accept both." By these assertions you have totally disarmed yourself. You have disregarded the Law of Contradiction by asserting (speculatively, of course) to contradictory propositions ; and now I defy you to prove either of the propositions without appealing to this very law whose authority you have renounced. If you appeal to it to show that the Will is free, I shall appeal to it to prove that the Will cannot be both free and not free ; if you decline to recognise its authority, you are powerless to prove that the Will is free. As I say in an essay I am now writing (entitled ** Man's Power of Conception as a Test of Truth"), "If the Law of Contradiction is disregarded it (the mind) cannot, with all the evidence .that could possibly be furnished, prove the truth of either the first or the second proposition ; for any fact might be a fact and yet not a fact, or both, or all three ; and, though proving the truth of the proposition, might, nevertheless, prove it not true but un- true, or it might prove it both true and untrue, and yet neither true nor untrue, but, at the same time, all three." In fact, if the Law of Contra- diction is not binding, anything may be true, but nothing can be proved to be true ; therefore all of the arguments you have used avail you noth- ing. This truth will presently appear in a more definite form. , You attempt to s^how that there is a conflict between sounl reason and common f ense. There never was and never will be such a conflict j for the basis of all sound reason is common sense. But, dropping this, I am at a loss to know how it would be possible to prove that, in any case, sound reason and common sense conflict ; for the act of proving would be a dis- cursive process, or reasoningj and this reasoning, though as sound as reasoning could be, might, according to the admission implicate' I by ad- herence to the conclusion which you were trying to establish, be fallible and, therefore, inconclusive. You cannot lift yourself over the fence by your boot-straps, and you cannot use sound reason to overthrow the authority of sound reason. But if, which is totally impossible, you had proved that, in the case in hand, there is a conflict between reasoning which must be endorsed by all and common sense, what then ? You by implication admit that two contradictory propositions may be true. Now, were it proved that there is here a conflict between reason and common sense, you would still have to show that it is not true that there is here no such conflict. I will not consume time in enumerating what, until you cease trying to show that the Will is both free and not free, will be the impossible intellectual feats which you will be under the necessity of per- forming. They are infinite. But were I to remove a great part of the orms probcmdi by saying, as you do, that, though reason leads us to believe XVI. THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL that the Will is not free, common sense teaches us that it is, what next? You woul'l have f-till to prove that common sense does not teach us that the Will is not free also. Were I again to relieve you by admitting that common sense does not teach us that the Will is not free, but does teach us that the Will is free, and that this fact proves that the Will is free, you would still be obliged to show that the same fact does not prove that the Will is not free. In short, the propositions which have to be established before it can be shown that the Will is both free and not free grow more and more numerou-^. But it is impossible for you to make a beginning ; for the moment you appeal to the Law of Contradiction I shall appeal to it, and then you must bid farewell to your beloved conclusion. As chcFS- players say, you are check-mateJ. Your king is exposed, and no move that you can make will more than change the expos'ire. I will now pass to what you consider an instance of conflict between sound reason and common sense. You say ''Some time ago a number of learned mathematicians met in Berlin to prove that the minute-hand of a clock cannot overtake the hour-hand, and came mathematically to the concluson that it could not. Yet we know that it does." I fail to dis- cover the conflict. The explanation is obvious — the mathematicians reasoned incorrectly, as I will proceed to show. This problem id rendered needles-ly intricate ; and thus it is that it is so amusing to some and so deceiving to others. I will state it in another and a simpler form. A and B are to race. The course is two miles, A permits B to start one mile in advance. If A is twice as swift as B, at what place will they be together? The solution is as follows: They start simultaneously. In a certain time B runs one mile and reaches the goal. In the same time A runs twice as far, or two miles, and reaches the goal. At the end of the race, therefore, they would be together. Observe that I have reached this conclusion not by experiment — for I never witnessed a race of this kind — but by reasoning. Now let us amuse ourselves with the attempted solution of the "learned mathematicians." When A has run one mile and reached the place where B started, B will have run one-half of a mile farther. When A has run the next half of a mile, B will be one- quarter of a mile in advance. When A has run this one-quarter of a mile, B will be one-eighth of a mile ahead, and so on to infinity. Place them at any distance apart, no matter how insignificant it may seem, and when A has run the distance at first between them, B will have run one-half as far, and still be so much in advance. We may divide units into halves, and halves into quarters, and thus continue the division forever, but we cannot thereby bring A and B together. Why not? Simply because, though we move A a certain distance, and B one-half as far, and again move A a certain distance, and B one-half as far, and continue this for eternity, we never let A or B reach the end o^ the second mile, which is the only place where they would actually be together. In such reasoning we miss a factor, and so obtain a wrong conclusion. THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL XVll The following are your words intended to show that we know intuitively that the Will is free: ''No reisoning can prove to you that you exist, and Pliilosophy accepts it without proof, as a simple incontestable fact, a fact of consciousness ; you know that you exist. Just so I feel my responsibility to God and to my fellows." I should be sorry to oppose consciousness. If you will show me that we are conscious that the AVill is free, I will give up the discussion. I will not trouble you any longer by urging that, on your principles as before included in a general state- ment, the fact that we are conscious of freedom may not be a fact, or may be both, or all three ; and, though proving the truth of the assertion that the Will is free, may nevertheless, prove it not true but untrue ; and yet neither true or untrue, but, at the same time, all three. I will not perplex your mind by asking you to place a marble in the palm of your left hand and then, having crossed the second linger of the right hand over the first finger of the, same hand, to rub the ends of the two fingers thus crossed around over the marble, and then s.iy if you do not with your fingers feel two marbles in place of one. These are difficulties which you must surmount, whether you prove that we are conscious of freedom or merely of responsibility. In the former case I will not urge these objec- tions to your theory that the Will is free ; but in the latter I most certainly shall. You say that you feel your responsibility and expect this to be as conclusive as if you had said that you were conscious of a free Will ; but the two are widely different and to me appear to have little connection. I, too, believe in responsibility. For all of my sins I expect to suffer ; but what has this to do with the freedom of my Will? Free or not free, justly or unjustly, the punishment follows the sin. We not only suffer for our own sins, but for the sins of others. The sins of the fathers are visited on the children, you know. All this we can believe without believing in the freedom of the Will. When, therefore, we say that the Will is not free, we are not opposing consciousness. There is only one way in which the belief in responsibility can give rise to a belief in the freedom of the Will, and that is by making responsi- bility an object of thought and reasoning j but reason, )ou appear to think, is not to be trusted. But we are not conscious of responsibility. If your implicit assertion that you are conscious of responsibility is worth anything, it is canceled by mine, which is that no one was ever conscious of any such thing ; and now proof on both sides is in order. You have given none ; I will give mine. When I am held responsible for an act, I am accountable for the performance. Now, I can no more be conscious that I am to be held accountable than I can be conscious that I will go to New York to- morrow. Consciousness can be only of the present. Besponsibility is something of the present and the future, of the past and the future, of the present and the past, and sometimes of tlie present, past, and future. I can think that I am now being held responsible, only by thinking of the XVlll THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL past also : I can think that I will be held responsible for an act which I am performing, only by thinking of the future in connection with the present. I cannot ^be conscious of anything past or future, but only of the present. The consciousness of responsibility, therefore, includes the consciousness of what is absent from consciousness ; which means that you are conscious of that of which you are not conscious. Perhaps you will assent to both of these contradictories, also ; but I can draw but the one inference, and that is that we cannot be conscious of responsibility. What consciousness, then, did I mistake for the consciousness of responsibility? you may ask. Which I answer by saying that we can be conscious of a judgment, conviction, or belief that we are responsible, but. not of responsibility. It is your opinion that " the fact that men have remorse, and that the remorse is directly proportional to the feeling that it was his fault he swerved, cannot be explained except upon the supposition that the will is free/* 1 dissent from this. The explanations are as numerous as we have reason to expect. If a man merely thought that his Will were free, the fact that he would have remorse proportionate to his feeling that he might have done otherwise would need no elucidation. But this is not an explanation that is of universal application ; for those who do not believe in the freedom of the Will are, nevertheless, subject to remorse. The explanation is simply this : men know that they are responsible for their misdeeds; and, therefore, regret the performance of the latter. Our remorse is (other factors being equal) proportionate to the feeling that our sins are due to our own faults (by faults, I mean defects); but this does not show that our Wills are free. The stronger our conviction that if we had not possessed such faults (or defects), that had we only been different from what we were, we would never have sinned, and Bever be held accountable, the more plainly we see what our condition might have been if things had only been different from what they were, the greater be- comes our grief. Free or not free, such must be the case. Truly yours, W. M. LACY. CONTEJ^TS. CHAPTER I. PAGE. The Issue. Introductory 1 CHAPTER II. A Fundamental Fallacy. The Impossibility of Establishing Unknowableness. ... 5 CHAPTER III, The Inductive Argument. Origin of the Universe; Gausoiion 27 CHAPTER IV. The Inductive Argument Continued. Space, TiraCy Mattery Motion, Force 47 CHAPTER V. The Inductive Argument Continued. 8df-hnmoledge : Extent of Consciousness and Mental Substan^ 70 CONTEKTS. CHAPTER VI. PAQE. The Indtjctive Ahgument Concluded. Transfigured Realism Confronted by the Problems of Realism 75 CHAPTER VII. The Deductive Arguments. Ths Process of Comprehension 102 CHAPTER VIII. The Deductive Arguments Continued. The Unconditioned 113 CHAPTER IX. The Deductive Arguments Continued. The Nature of Life 145 CHAPTER X. The Deductive Arguments Concluded. The Power of Thought to Transcend Consdousn^s, . 158 CHAPTER XI. The Final Argument. The ReconciliaMon Between Science and Religion, . . 209 AN EXAMINATION OP THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNKNOWABLE AS EXPOUNDED BY HERBERT SPENCER. CHAPTER I. The Issue. Introductory Remarks, §. 1. Citations to be hereafter made will show that Mr. Spencer holds, and has endeavored to prove, that we can know nothing of the External World, save its bare existence ; nothing of Mental Substance, save its bare existence; and nothing of the Intrinsic Nature of mental modes, except that something of the kind exists. Otherwise stated, I conceive the theory to be, that, of reality external to consciousness, nothing but the exist- ence can be known. As stated in still a third form, the doctrine seems to consist in the belief that all without the sphere of consciousness is, in respect of its nature, — that is, the sum of its attributes minus its existence, — absolutely imknowable. Some realization of the equivalence of these three modes of expression is essential to an appreciation of the discussions which are to follow. To the scheme of nescience, substantially as above set forth, I oppose the doctrine that we are capable of realizing something of the nature of things occupying the region outside of con- sciousness. It is not meant by this that immediate knowledge of anything not present in consciousness is possible. No one is more firmly convinced than myself that there can be no con- sciousness, strictly so-called, of what is beyond consciousness. ^l THE ISSITE. But that there can be genuine thought of something not within consciousness, is an independent proposition, and the one here urged as true. It will be perceived, by those who have read thus far, that, as regards the question in dispute, Mr. Spencer is at great dis- advantage of position. To the disadvantage necessarily accru- ing to one who undertakes to establish a contested proposition, there is added, in Mr. Spencer's case, the greater disadvantage inherent in the effort to establish a rule as absolutely without exception. His task is far less arduous whose success is attain- able by breaking a single link in a chain af reasoning, or forcing recognition of a single exception to a rule. While, how- ever, it is obligatory upon any one to avail himself, in discussion, of every advantage which he can, in moderate self-gratu- lation, attribute to the greater justness of the views he has adopted, he should scorn to avail himself of any mere contro- versial formality. Ours is not the age of quibblings over the "the affirmative" and "the negative;" and no such quibblings shall the reader find. Wherever he finds denial, he shall find affirmation ; wherever he finds attempted refutation of an im- portant doctrine, he shall find an endeavor to establish another doctrine in its stead. In this connection it is also well to men- tion that the dry and rigid epitome, above presented, gives no adequate idea of the entertaining variety of important topics which Mr. Spencer subordinated to his main design. All these are to be drawn into the discussion. To the reader may be promised, therefore, something more substantial than mere log- ical statement of the issue would lead him to anticipate. § 2. The issue is not between Mr. Spencer, on the one hand, and a single opponent, on the other ; nor is it of recent advent. "The question of an external world," said Mr. Mill, "is the great battle-ground of metaphysics." Says an eminent con- temporary metaphysician: "In this border country there has been a war for ages in the past, and there is likely to be a war for ages in the future." Over all external to consciousness, let us add, the conflict extends, engaging about as many factions as THE ISSUE. 3 there are philosophers. Whoever enlists in it will find that the greatest are his allies and the greatest hLs opponents. This is, therefore, no attack upon Mr. Spencer personally. He is the most dangerous of adversaries, and one of the most worthy of men. But, as the latest authoritative exponent of a certain philosophic tendency, there is no proper alternative be- tween attacking his reasonings or refraining from the attack. Again, the sentiments here upheld are not peculiar to myself. They are those of a numerous class of enquirers, and are even entertained by niankind at large. It can scarcely be presumpt- uous to side with so many, although to do so is to decide against the rest. One thing that may seem presumptuous is to risk the defeat which has been repeatedly visited upon the strong. But if the contest is to be continued, and its antiquity and present unsettled state imply that it is, there must be a continual coming of recruits. He who thinks he has novel tactics to try should come forward and give them trial. § 3. To the issue, the Doctrine of Evolution is not a party. There is, it is true, a connection between what I have called the "Philosophy of the Unknowable" and the Philosophy of Evolution ; but it is not that of foundation and superstructure. Mr. Spencer has, indeed, prefaced the exposition of his System of Philosophy by a systematic treatise on " The Un- knowable;" and he does, moreover, return to the subject again and again throughout his writings, to give his views thereon further expression, elucidation, and confirmation. His theory of knowledge he considers, not a doctrine of metaphysics only, but a biological, psychological, and even a sociological doctrine as well. Under the title of " Transfigured Realism," too, he gives it consideration not otherwise bestowed. Yet it is not indispensable to the Philosophy of Evolution, but is rather a complication from which that philosophy should , be glad to extricate itself. That evolution is only a law of ap- pearances, not a law of things, is a thought fraught with dis- heartenment and burdened by a weight of complex subtilties. No evolutionist should harbor sentiment repugnant to the tenet 4 THE ISSUE. that realities axe the subject-matter of the process of evolution and of the Evolution Philosophy. But if he must entertain a prejudice, let it not lead him into suspicion that he hears a voice from the hostile camp. In my own case, at least, I find the fullest acceptance of criticisms to be propounded not incompat^ ible with estimation of the "Synthetic Philosophy" as perhaps the noblest speculative product of a single mind. A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. CHAPTER II. A Fundamental Fallacy. The Impossibility of Establishing Unhnowableness. § 4, On slightest acquaintance with Mr. Spencer's agnostic conclusions, there is enough to raise the question, How is it possible to establish the proposition that something is unknow- able? Accordingly with this question the examination shall begin. Incidentally to the search for an answer, the reader shall be introduced to the whole line of argument which it is my intention to investigate. The following is an epitome of the treatise on "The Un- knowable :" *•' Common Sense asserts the existence of a reality ; Objective Science proves that this reality cannot be what we think it; Subjective Science shows why we cannot think of it as it is J and yet are compelled to think of it as existing; and in this assertion of a Reality utterly inscrutable in nature, Religion finds an assertion essentially coinciding with her own," ( First Prin., § 27.) § 5, Granting that "Common Sense asserts the existence of a reality/' which shall be provisionally called " The Unknow- able/' we will first enquire in what manner Objective Science is supposed to aid in proving that this reality is so far from being what we think it, that it is "utterly inscrutable in nature." To deduce unknowableness from knowledge of " The Unknow- able/' would have been absurd, so what doubtless appeared to be an alternative method was adopted. It seemed to Mr. Spencer that if successful in showing that every idea, vulgarly supposed to be representative of the nature of " The Unknow- able," conflicts with itself, he would have the testimony of Objective Science in support of his position. Pursuant to such 6 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. view, he makes an attack upon all possible conceptions of the Origin of the Universe. These, if he commits no error, are demonstrated self-conflicting. Next, he grapples with the mental representation of Causation, and brings it before us, de- nuded of obscurity, that Mansel may point out its self-opposing tendencies. This disposition of "Ultimate Religious Ideas" being made, " Ultimate Scientific Ideas " are treated in a similar manner. The notions expressed by the terms, " Space, " " Time," "Matter," " Motion," "Force," "Extent of Consciousness," and "Mental Substance," are severally examined for the purpose of ;showing that each, when expanded, combats itself. We can afford to be very generous with Mr. Spencer. Let it, for experiment, be conceded that he has been entirely success- ful in showing, that what we have heretofore deemed knowledge •of " The Unknowable," the knowledge that it exists excepted, "proves on examination to be utterly irreconcilable with itself." (First Prin., § 22.) Nevertheless a gap effectually separates the premise from the conclusion.^ A certain portion of the universe was to be proved unknowable. Our ideas of it are, with one exception, shown to be utterly incongruous. The con- clusion is, that there is a total non-resemblance between these ideas and the part of the universe in question. But what shall be said to the polemic who will argue that this, the so-called "Unknowable," may, in exact correspondence with what have been esteemed its representatives in the world of mind, sustain necessary conflicts among its parts ? Worse than hopeless would it be to rely upon the declaration that it is impossible to pronounce this assertion true or false; for, if its falsity is not known, none can deny its truth ; and if true, " The Unknow- able" is known. Of one defence, and one only, can Mr. Spencer avail himself. He must maintain that "The Un- knowable" is free from the conflicts which overwhelm the ideas commonly thought to represent it — that the notion of its self- consistency is as legitimate as the notion of its existence. The defence, that existence involves self-consistency, is not open to him ; because he denies this in the case of the contested ideas. Such an inconsistency as the ideas have, may realities be sup- A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 7 posed to have, unless the contrary be shown. Understand that if the proposition missing from Mr. Spencer's argument is im- plied, he has not only afi&rmed of "The Unknowable" a gen- eral and abstract consistency, but also denied that it possesses any of a multitude of special and concrete inconsistencies. Every time he showed, or tried to show, us an imperfection in the ideas which he impugned, he said, by implication, " The Unknowable is -not subject to an imperfection answering to this one." Justice will be done if he be permitted to speak his own accusation. " In all imaginable ways we find thrust upon us the truth, that we are not permitted to know — -nay are not even permitted to conceive ---that Reality which is behind the veil of Appearance; and yet it is said to be our duty to believe (and in so far to conceive) that this Reality exists in a certain de- fined manner." (First Prin., § 31.) The "certain defined manner," in the case before us, is the possession of congruity and the freedom from certain incongruities. Thus it appears that the first proof that something is un- knowable, rests on the supposition that more of it than its ex- istence is known. Of course all would more willingly hear ^^The Unknowable" called congruous than incongruous. It is not this description, but the name and something said to justify its application, to which objection is made. That the objection has been sustained by criticism, that there has been discovered, in the reasoning of Mr. Spencer, a difiiculty from which he can- not extricate himself, they who still doubt may satisfy them- selves by considering what answers he can offer to the question, Is the unknowable portion of the universe a chaos correspond- ing to that mental chaos which you tell us our thoughts of something beyond the knowable compose? Refusing to an- swer, he would abandon his argument. Should he say "yes," he would deny his conclusion. Should he say " no," he would be thereby debarred its affirmation. He must answer to avoid a surrender ; yet any answer will defeat his cause. § 6. Although Objective Science has just taught us, by its example, to think of the inscrutable reality as congruous, we 8 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. are now to learn how " Subjective Science shows why we cannot think of it as it is." Reduced to syllogistic fornij the argument to be next investigated seems, a minor premise being supplied, to stand thus: There can be no knowledge of what is unconditioned ; "The Unknowable" is unconditioned; .'.There can be no knowledge of "The Unknowable." To which, one objection is that the minor premise destroys the conclusion. Asserting that " The Unknowable " is uncon- ditioned, carries the implication that it is known to be uncon- ditioned. Lest it be thought unfair to present so briefly an elaborate argument, and particularly unfair to summarily sup- ply a minor premise, it will be well to go further into detail. First, however, it must be premised that the author has, because of supposed appropriateness, given to "The Unknowable" several titles, not yet mentioned, each of which is significant of a part of what is imported by "unconditioned," — significant of the absence of certain particular conditions. Assisted by Hamilton and Mansel, Mr. Spencer, in the chapter entitled " The Relativity of All Knowledge," puts forth considerable efibrt to convince us that " a thought involves reku- tion, difference^ likeness" (First Prin., § 24.) By this is meant that every thought involves a relation of subject and object; also a difference and a likeness between the object and something else. So much being granted, it would follow that whatever cannot exist in relation to the thinking mind, and be known as different from something else, and as like something else, cannot be thought of at all. Because seeming not to fulfill the specified conditions of the thinkable, "the Real, as distinguished from the Phenomenal;" "the First Cause;" "the Infinite;" "the Absolute," or non-relative; "the creating;" "the un- caused;" "the Actual," as opposed to the "Apparent" — in short, "the Unconditioned" — is pronounced unthinkable, and the conclusion that "The Unknowable" can never be an object of thought is treated as too obvious to need definite expression. From his own words we may best learn how Mr. Spencer A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 9 passes to the ultimate conclusion from the law of relativity. After quoting largely to show that "the Unconditioned'' has been put to the first and second tests and found unthink- able, he proceeds (First Prin,, § 24 ) to apply the "third axiom — what can be known can be classed. "A cognition of the Real, as distinguished from the Phenomenal, must, if it exists, conform to this law of cognition in general. The First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute, to be known at all, must b^ classed. To be positively thought of, it must be thought of as such or such — as of this or that kind. Can it be like in kind to any- thing of which we have sensible experience? Obviously not. Between the creating and the created, there must be a distinction transcending any of the distinctions existing between different divisions of the created. That which is uncaused cannot be assimilated to that which is caused : the two being, in the very naming antithetically opposed. The Infinite cannot be grouped along with something that is finite; since, in being so grouped, it must be regarded as not-infinite. It is impossible to put the Absolute in the same category with anything relative, so long as the Absolute is defined as that of which no necessary relation can be predicated. Is it then that the Actual, though unthink- able by classification with the Apparent, is thinkable by classifi- cation with itself? This supposition is equally absurd with the other. It implies the plurality of the First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute; and this implication is self-contradictory. There cannot be more than one First Cause; seeing that the ex- istence of more than one would involve the existence of something necessitating more than one, which something would be the true First Cause. How self-destructive is the assumption of two or more infinities, is manifest on remembering that such Infinities, by limiting each other, would become finite. And similarly, an Absolute which existed not alone but along with other absolutes, would no longer be an absolute but a relative. The Unconditioned therefore, as classible neither with any form of the conditioned nor with any other Unconditioned, cannot be classed at all. And to admit that it cannot be known as of such or such kind, is to admit that it is unknowable." A few 10 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY, words morCj and the entire argument is thus summarized and ended : " a thought involves relation, difference, likeness. Whatever does not present each of these does not admit of cog- nition. And hence we may say that the Unconditioned, as presenting none of them is trebly unthinkable." What, if we assent to all this, does it establish in regard to " The Unknowable?" A multiplicity of names, signifying the possession of certain characteristics, has been given to it; and these characteristics have, it is thought, been proved incogni- zable. Does "The Unknowable" possess these characteristics? is now the all-important question. To profess ignorance, is to yield the argument. To deny, is to leave a gap in the argu- ment and violate the conclusion. To affirm, is to complete the argument by violating the conclusion. Mr. Spencer has indi- cated a willingness to seize the last horn of the trilemma. By indulging in reasoning which postulates such knowledge, he has asserted that " The Unknowable " is real ( not phenomenal ), a first cause, infinite, absolute (non-relative), creating, uncaused, actual (not apparent): in brief, unconditioned. Surely this is an amount of information which we do not possess concerning many things that are called knowable. Not yet, however^ have the limits been reached. All that has been affirmed of that possessing its alleged attributes, has been affirmed of "The Unknowable." It is, we are to understand, of such a nature that it cannot exist in relation to the knowing mind. In other words, we know "The Unknowable" as so conditioned that it is incapable of that relative existence without which any knowl- edge of it is impossible. Add to the intelligence already ac- cumulated the knowledge that " The Unknowable " is neither like nor unlike anything else existing; and consider the number- less implications which might be developed and added to the sum. Should not "The Unknowable" be called by another name? Mr. Spencer must answer affirmatively or disavow many beliefs essentially implied in his mode of proof; but in the latter case he has proved nothing in regard to "The Unknowable." What matters it, as far as the question before us is concerned, whether a long list of attributes is conceivable or inconceivable, if they A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 11 are not known to belong to "The Unknowable?" Admit that "The Unknowable" is not known to be unconditioned, and we care not if " the Unconditioned " is unthinkable. Concede it impossible to say knowingly that " The Unknowable " has peculiarities which must forever prevent its existing relative to something knowing it, and in relations of likeness and un- likeness, and it will be necessary to consider all that has been so far said about the relativity of knowledge utterly irrelevant. Ineffective from end to end is the argument, unless the thought that "The Unknowable" is unconditioned, is as legitimate as the thought that it exists. § 7. Notwithstanding the premise, above implied, and elsewhere repeatedly expressed, that "The Unknowable" transcends all relation, we are now to be shown how it is related to the mind ; and the purpose is to farther convince us that " we cannot think of it as it is," From a point of view widely separated from that which he lately occupied, Mr. Spencer, in additional support of his theory of the unknowableness of something which exists, directs our attention (First Prin., § 25) to what purports to be the relativity of knowledge presenting another aspect. " Life," he says, " is definable as the continuous-. adjustment of internal relations to external relations," "If then," he argues, " Life, in all its manifestations, inclusive of Intelligence in its highest forms, consists in the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations, the necessarily relative character of our knowledge becomes obvious." "If every act of knowing is the formation ot a relation in consciousness parallel to a relation in the environment, then the relativity of knowledge is self-evident — becomes indeed a truism." Judging from what has been cited, one might be led to suppose that the relativity spoken of consists of relations be- tween phenomena, relations between noumena, relations between ■phenomena and noumena, and relations between phenomenal and noumenal relations. Taking, however, all that is said intO' consideration, the meaning seems to be, that only phenomenal relationsj or relations in consciousness, can ever come "within 12 A FUNDAMENTAL FALIiACY. the reach of intelligence;" and that the impossiblity of trans- cending these relations proves noumena and their relations un- knowable. Witness the following: "The knowledge within our reach, is the only knowledge that can be of service to us. This maintenance of a correspondence between internal actions and external actions, which both constitutes our life at each moment and is the means whereby life is continued through subsequent moments, merely requires that the agencies acting upon us shall be known in their co-existences and sequences, and not that they shall be known in themselves.'^ Remarks immediately following show this to mean that the necessities of life require a knowledge, not of noumena, but merely of the co- existences and sequences of the effects which noumena produce in consciousness. " If x and y are two uniformly connected properties in some outer object, while a and b are the effects they produce in our consciousness; and if while the property x produces in us the indifferent mental state a, the property y produces in us the painful mental state b (answering to a physical injury); then, all that is requisite for our guidance, is, that x being the uniform accompaniment of y externally, a shall be the uniform accompaniment of 6 internally; so that when, by the presence of X, a is produced in consciousness, b, or rather the idea of b, shall follow it, and excite the motions by which the effect of y may be escaped. The sole need is that a and 6 and the relation between them, shall always answer to x and y and the relation between them. It matters nothing to us if a and b are like x and y or not. Could they be exactly identical with them, we should not be one whit the better off; and their total dissimi- larity is no disadvantage to us." Immediately after comes the conclusion of the argument. "Deep down then in the very nature of Life, the relativity of our knowledge is discernible. The analysis of vital actions in general, leads not only to the conclusion that things in themselves cannot be known to us ; but also to the conclusion that knowledge of them, were it possible, would be useless." What has all this to do with " The Unknowable ? " Are we to understand that it is believed to comprise "things in them- A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 13 selves " which are known to be so constituted and connected with consciousness that a knowledge of their nature would not enable us to better procure the desirable and avoid the unde- sirable effects which they may produce upon us ? Silence on Mr. Spencer's part means death to the argument; negation, abortion; affirmation, self-destruction. Implicitly he affirms. "In the very definition of Life," he tells us, " when reduced to its most abstract shape," the "ultimate implication becomes visible." According to this definition. Life is "the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations." Because in this view of life is involved the belief that "every act of knowing is the formation of a relation in consciousness parallel to a re- lation in the environment," it is deemed beyond dispute that the mind can and need contemplate relations in consciousness only, and that therefore the environment is unknowable. But stop : it is impossible to realize that life is "the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations," or that "every act of knowing is the formation of a relation in consciousness par- allel to a relation in the environment," without forming a rela- tion in consciousness that is not parallel to a relation in the en- vironment, but representative of a relation between the environ- ment and the environed mind. Now, as in the author's words, " the consciousness of a relation implies a consciousness of both the related members " (First Prin., § 26), the knowledge of a relation between them proclaims the mind and its environment knowable and known. " In the very definition of life," then, as in everything which we have found Mr. Spencer employing for the same purpose, "this ultimate implication becomes vis- ible" — the nature of "The Unknowable" is partly known. Besides being known as one of the terms of a certain kind of relation, it is, according to implications of remarks concerning the necessities of life, minutely understood. Knowing that promotion of life "merely i-equu^es that the agencies acting upon us shall be known in their co-existences and sequences, and not that they shall be knoAvn in themselves" — that the record of pa^st manifestations of "The Unknowable" will just as well enable us to regulate the character of future manifesta- 14 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. ' tions, as would a perfect understanding of " The Unknowable " and all the relations which it may possibly bear to us — is impossible unless "The Unknowable" is exceedingly well known. Repeatedly we discover the one unlawful implication. Again Mr. Spencer has thwarted his own design. § 8. With the assertion that we cannot think of "The Un- knowable" as it is, fresh in our memory, we are called upon to listen to an argument, supplementaiy of those preceding, yet based on the supposition that we may rightly think of it as a cause. An entire chapter (First Prin., Part I., Chap. I.) is devoted principally to establishment of the doctrine that "there must be a fundamental harmony" between Science and Religion; and another ( First Prin,, Part L, Chap. V.) to showing that this fundamental harmony is to be found in the conclusion that " the reality underlying appearances is totally and for ever incon- ceivable by us." The former chapter is almost unobjectionable; the latter is open to destructive criticism. In it we are told that in the " assertion of a Reality utterly inscrutable in nature, Religion finds an assertion essentially coinciding with her own ; " and this is what we question. How Science, represented by Mr. Spencer, proves the conclusion which is to end the war between Scientists ajid Religionists, by contradicting it, — how she uncovers something, to show it to be totally and eternally hidden from our view, has been observed. Forgetting this, as best we may, let us suppose that Science supports the conclusion that promises to harmonize her and her great antagonist. Will religious thought tend to the acceptance of the same belief? Religion is represented as having been forced to abandon position after position, retreating before advancing Science, until the impregnable point, the ultimate conclusion, was reached. "Leaving out the accompanying moral code, which is in all cases a supplementary growth, a religious creed is de- finable as a theory of original causation." (First Prin., § 14.) As religions developed, existing theories of causation gave way to others. " Each higher religious creed, rejecting those defi- A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 15 nite and simple interpretations of nature previously given, has become more religious by doing this. As the quite concrete and conceivable agencies alleged as the causes of things, have been replaced by agencies less concrete and conceivable, the element of mystery has of necessity become more predominant." (First Prin., § 28.) "And now observe that all along, the agent which has effected the purification has been Science." (First Prin., § 29.) Here we must pause to consider of what the alleged development consists. It is asserted that Religion, pressed by Science, has, from time to time, abandoned causes relatively conceivable and assumed causes less conceivable. Note that Religion is not shown to have ever given up the hy- pothesis of causation. That the contrary is true, we are fre- quently reminded. Defining religious creeds as theories of original causation, is the same as affirming that they will be something else than religious creeds when they exclude belief in a cause. What says the author? " Be it in the primitive Ghost-theory which assumes a human personality behind each unusual phenomenon; be it in Polytheism, in which these per- sonalities are partially generalized; be it in Monotheism, in which they are wholly generalized ; or be it in Pantheism, in which the generalized personality becomes one with the phenomena; we equally find an hypothesis which is supposed to render the universe comprehensible. Nay, even that which is commonly regarded as the negation of all Religion — even positive Atheism, comes within the definition; for it, too, in asserting the self-existence of Space, Matter, and Motion, which it regards as adequate causes of every appearance, propounds an a priori theory from which it holds the facts to be deducible." (First Prin., § 14.) Elsewhere, as well as here, the assertion is withheld, that Religion has consented, or will consent, to dis- pense with all causes. No more is said than that "instead of the specific comprehensible agency before assigned, there is sub- stituted a less specific and less comprehensible agency." (First Prin., § 29.) Could any doubt in regard to Mr. Spencer's meaning remain, it would be dispelled by the words of the alleged ultimate religious conclusion. To this we now pass. 16 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY, "We are obliged to regard every phenomenon as a manifesta- tion of some Power by which we are ax5ted upon ; though Om- nipresence is unthinkable, yet, as experience discloses no bounds to the diifusion of phenomena, we are unable to think of limits to the presence of this Power; while the criticisms of Science teach us that this Power is Incomprehensible. And this con- sciousness of an Incomprehensible Power, called Omnipresent from inability to assign its limits, is just that consciousness on which Religion dwells." (First Prin., § 27.) Science proves that there is "a Reality utterly inscrutable in nature." Religion teaches us to believe that there is an agency producing all the phenomena we know, the cause of all known effects, a never-absent power. Mr. Spencer informs us that here is an agreement between Science and Religion: which means that "The Unknowable" of Science and the Cosmical Cause of Religion are identical. In the "assertion of a Reality utterly inscrutable in nature, Religion finds an assertion essen- tially coinciding with her own." Once more we learn much about "The Unknowable." It is an ever-present power, a universal cause, an all-working agency. Admit this, and it is possible to partially describe a nature called wholly indescrib- able, to conceive a natiu-e said to be wholly inconceivable, and to know a nature deemed absolutely unknowable ; deny it, and Religion does not contribute to the belief in something unknoAv- able. Even supposing that both Science and Religion were, as alleged, moving towards this belief, the fact is useless for the purposes of the argument unless a certain correspondence be- tween the general tendency of thought and " The Unknowable " be assumed ; but, again, to so assume, is to assume knowledge , which the assumption is to prove impossible. § 9. Every leading argument by which Mr. Spencer attempts to enforce acceptance of the conclusion, " tlmt we cannot know the ultimate nature of that which is manifested to us/^ (First Prin., § 35) has now been considered. Examining the conclusion itself, none can fail to notice the fatal implication — we do know something of the ultimate nature of that which is manifested A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 17 to US. Strike out ever3^hing descriptive of the ultimate nature of "The Unknowable," and, having substituted something which will ( as nearly as is possible ) convey the idea of existence only, observe what is left of the conclusion. "We must drop the words, " that which is manifested to us ; " for by describing "The Unknowable" thus, we imply that it is properly con- ceived, not merely as something capable of producing phe- nomena, but also as something that actually causes certain well known effects. Neither can "the ultimate nature" of "The Unknowable" be spoken of: the possession of a noumenal nature, by an object, is something belonging to its noumenal nature; without doubt, then, we cannot speak of anything's noumenal nature without implying some knowledge of the same. Supplying the proposed substitute for what criticism compels us to exclude, the conclusion stands — "We cannot know some- thing which exists." Still it is suicidaL Denial that we can know something, is both a denial that it can exist in a certain relation to the mind and an affirmation that it must bear to the mind an opposite relation; therefore the phrase, "we cannot know," larrA be stricken out. There is left, not a conclusion, but what may be called by the more general name, " conception " — the conception of something existing. Such is the only thought that can be entertained of what is " utterly inscrutable in nature;" and it is a thought which does not express un- knowableness, but consists with the reverse. Some such modi- fications as those which have been dropped are essential to Mr. Spencer's conclusion; yet any, however vague, would render that conclusion self-contradicting. Without them, there is no conclusion ; with them, there is worse than none. § 10. "Have we not," Mr. Spencer confidently asks (First Prin., § 31), "seen how utterly incompetent our minds are to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena?" It seems not. An attempt to translate the conclusion into thought has confirmed us in the observation that, "after it has been shown that every supposition respecting the genesis of the Universe commits us to alternative impossi- 18 A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. bilities of thought — after it has been shown that each attempt to conceive real existence ends in an intellectual suicide — after it has been shown why, by the very constitution of our minds, we are eternally debarred from thinking of the Absolute; it is still asserted that we ought to think of the Absolute thus and thus." (First Prin., § 31.) Throughout we have found reason for believing that Mr. Spencer's Science of Nescience, as he says of the religion which is, he thinks, ultimately to support it, " has all along professed to have some knowledge of that which transcends knowledge; and has so contradicted its own teachings. While with one breath it has asserted that the Cause of all things passes understanding, it has, with the next breath, asserted that the Cause of all things possesses such or such attributes — can be in so far understood." ( First Prin., § 28.) Yes, it will even, as was seen before, consent to call that which transcends knowledge " the Cause of all things ; " not realizing that power to cause, acts of causing, and the bearing of relations of universal cause to numberless effects, are attributes. The philosophical dissertation which we have casually surveyed, while seeming with loud voice to banish " The Unknowable " from the realm of speculation, silently acknowledges its title to a place in philosophy. The abstract truth that we cannot rea- son about that of which we know nothing, it seems, occurred to Mr. Spencer ; but it appears that he took no pains to determine just whoi knowledge was required to prove his particular proposition. He would have us observe, "that every one of the arguments by which the relativity of our knowledge is demon- strated, distinctly postulates the positive existence of something beyond the relative. To say that we cannot know the x^bsolute, is, by implication, to affirm that there is an Absolute. In the very denial of our power to learn what the Absolute is, there lies hidden the assumption that it is." (First Prin., § 26.) But care has been taken to show that the ultimate proposition con- cerning " The Unknowable " is without meaning and without support, unless we know, not only that something besides the knowable is, but also, to some extent, what it is. It is admitted that we are compelled to form representations of " The Un- A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY. 19 knowable" which are not representative of its existence only; but asserted that all such conceptions must be treated as entirely illusive. "Very likely there will ever remain a need to give shape to that indefinite sense of an Ultimate Existence, which forms the basis of our intelligence. We shall always be under the necessity of contemplating it as some mode of being; that is — of representing it to ourselves in some form of thought, however vague. And we shall not err in doing this so long as we treat every notion we thus frame as merely a symbol utterly without resemblance to that for which it stands. Perhaps the constant formation of such symbols and constant rejection of them as inadequate, may be hereafter, as it has hitherto been, a means of discipline. Perpetually to construct ideas requiring the utmost stretch of our faculties, and perpetually to find that such ideas must be abandoned as futile imaginations, may realize to us more fully than any other course, the greatness of that which we vainly strive to grasp." (First Prin.. § 31.) Treat •every notion of "The Unknowable" which has been found in Mr. Spencer's speculations, as "a symbol utterly without resem- blance to that for which it stands," and you will be obliged to first cause," we are unable to give a reason. Shall we suppose a first cause? Criticism will tell us that we cannot. A first cause would be one that precedes and produces all others; but no cause can fulfill these conditions. It is a matter of fact, that there is, in the sequence of causation, change and something which changes. No one is likely to consider the change as the first cause, since it could not exist before that which sustains change, and could not, for that reason if for no other, have produced the latter. There is, however, a tendency to credit that which changes with being the first cause. Yet this sup- position is no better than the other. That which changes can- not have existed before change, which, as it can have sprung from nothing but change, is eternally persistent; nor can it have produced change, for the additional reason that the change- less cannot Ifeve spontaneously begun to change. Is it, then, some particular mode of permanence and change combined, which is the first cause? This cannot be: for the eternal persistence of this mode would imply the eternal persistence of THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. 4S all its effects ; and if it has not been eternally persistent, that is a prior cause upon which its last state is consequent. And so on to infinity. It is observable that we went along smoothly until we tried to postulate a first cause, and that we then became overwhelmed with difficulties. We will, therefore, abandon the hypothesis of a first cause. Being unable to find a beginning to the chain of causation, we know that retrogression, cannot bring us to a cause preceding and producing all other causes. This is a con- ceivable conclusion ; and, contrary to the supposition of its fals- ity, it is least, resistible when viewed in the concrete. Sensations are felt, and causes are looked for. No matter what the sensation, the cause is always found to be substance acting. The activity may be on the part of the body, or extra- organic matter, or both ; and in such cases, it is undoubtedly the activity of material substance. Sometimes the mind itself is- looked upon as the chief factor; but analysis leads us to believe that the mind is but an activity of something which we call mental substance. Again, when it is said that all things else are to be attributed to the agency of a spiritual substance, the same generalization is exemplified. The cause of sensations may, then, be assumed to be substance in activity, and of course whatever this implies, as relation and change of relation, space and time. To the question — what is the cause of this cause? and of the next? and the next? and so on without end, — we have the answer — Substance in action back in the past without beginning. Analyzing this cause, the questions may arise, whence the substance? and whence its activity? To both these interrogatories, satisfactory answers are at hand. Substance is conceived as self-existent. The conviction is unavoidable that at no point in past time was its existence derived from, or, we may say, caused by anything but its previous existence. Its self-existence is thought of as infinite in past temporal extent. Activity does not hold so strong a title to the attribute of self- existence; for, while it is evident that substance can be thought to exist in the absence of activity, activity cannot be thought to exist in the absence of substance capable of action. Yet in 44 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. isome respects does activity fulfill the conditions of self-exist- ence : inactive substance cannot be conceived as starting spon- taneously into activity. Activity, then, must be believed to have been at no time derived from anything but preceding, activity of substance. We have been led to belief in a cause which may be con- sidered as at any moment the effect of what it was in an im- mediately preceding state, and the cause of what it will be in an immediately succeeding state. Such doctrine is novel, but necessary to a reconciliation between the abstract and the concrete view of causation ; for as in the first we can discover no beginning to the chain, so. in the second we must not think we discover something with which the chain began. By look- ing upon that which constantly persists as ever consequent upon its prior being, we bring our thoughts of causation into even verbal congruity. Yet it may not be always expedient that verbal congruity should be scrupulously maintained. The self-existent may be called the Uncaused, if it is borne in mind that the meaning is that it is uncaused by anything other than its previous self. It may also be called the First Cause, mean- ing that it existed prior to any passing phase discoverable, no matter how far back we look ; but suppressing the thought that it brought about a beginning. Far better, however, would it be to call it the Eternal Cause; for eternality, not beginning, is its distinguishing attribute. Is this cause infinite or finite? In some respects, one; in some, the other; not infinite in all. Mr. Spencer reasons to the contrary. "To think of the First Cause as finite, is to think of it as -limited. To think of it as limited, necessarily implies a conception of something beyond its limits : it is absolutely impossible to conceive a thing as bounded, without conceiving a region surrounding its boundaries." The argument is appli- cable to the temporal extent of the First Cause, and to little else. The First Cause cannot, for example, be infinitely harmonious : it can be absolutely (completely) harmonious, and no more. To think of harmony as complete, does not imply a conception of greater completeness. But supposing we can imagine some- THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. 45 thing more, it does not follow that the First Cause should em- brace the something more ; for much that we can picture we know not to exist. For instance, we limit its homogeneity in thought, as it is limited in reality, when we think that it might have had this quality in a higher degree. Nevertheless we do not think of the lacking degrees, supplied by the imagina- tion, as existing external to the cause and encroaching on its sphere. It should also be remarked, that the existence of the finite marks limitations to the infinite. While, then, the First Cause is infinite in temporal extent, it is in many respects limited. The Infinite which Mr. Spencer submits to Mansel's criticism is, by supposition, infinite in every particular. Ours, being free from its pretensions, ,will escape its fate. Is our First Cause absolute, in the sense of being out of relation? It certainly bears relations, and necessarily so. While it does not depend for its being upon any relation to something else, it could not exist without bearing relations within itself. These relations are not something more fundamental than that which sustains them; for they depend upon it as much as it upon them. In fact so far as relation is immutable, and only thus far is it necessary, it is a component of the First Cause. Neither is the principle of necessity which determines what relations shall obtain in the constitution or conduct of the First Cause "a higher cause, or the true First Cause." This prin- ciple is not self-dependent. It is but a part of the First Cause which could not exist without the other parts. The compo- nents of the First Cause reciprocally sustain each other. To- gether they form a unit ; divided, they are not at all. Our First Cause, being comparatively independent, may be called absolute. It does not pretend to be free from all relation ; and so does not call down upon itself the logical chastisement which Mansel inflicts upon its more pretentious rival. Vehement condemnation of the idea of causation does not prevent Mr. Spencer from employing that very idea when it seems favorable to his cause. Once did we find him reasoning from the postulate that "The Unknowable" is the cause of sensations {supra, § 7); and once, from the postulate that it is 46 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. the cause of all things {sv^ra, § 8). Often, too, throughout his writings, does he speak of it as a cause, and far more often does he imply as much. I submit that if causation is unthinkable^ causation by "The Unknowable" is pre-eminently so; and that if we cannot think of "The Unknowable" as causing, we cannot assert that it does cause, much less make this a postulate in our reasoning. Mr. Spencer's example shows that the con- ception of causation is so persistent that it cannot be repressed. THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 47 CHAPTER IV. The Inductive Argument Continued. Space, Timey Matter, Motion, Force, § 17. Mr. Spencer next directs his critical powers to expo- sure of the entire fallacy of the various conceptions of Space and Time. Of such conceptions^ those which represent Space and Time as realities, being the only ones the writer deems de- fensible, shall be the only ones defended. What then has Mr, Spencer said against conceiving Space and Time as realities? This is his first argument. "But while, on the hypothesis of their objectivity, Space and Time must be classed as things, we find, on experiment, that to represent them in thought as things is impossible. To be conceived at all, a thing must be conceived as having attributes. We can distinguish something from nothing, only by the power which the something has to act on our consciousness; the several affections it produces on our consciousness (or else the hypothetical causes of them), we attribute to it, and call its attributes; and the absence of these attributes is the absence of the terms in which the something is conceived, and involves the absence of a conception. What now are the attributes of Space? The only one which it is possible for a moment to think of as belonging to it, is that of extension; and to credit it with this implies a confusion of thought. For extension and Space are convertible terms: by extension, as we ascribe it to surrounding objects, we mean occupancy of Space; and thus to say that Space is extended is to say that Space occupies Space. How we are similarly unable to assign any attribute to Time, scarcely needs point- ing out." (First Prin., § 15.) But is it true that " extension," ( meaning the quality ) , and "Space" are convertible terms? There needs no vocabulary to 48 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. tell US that they are not. We never speak of matter as having Space; we never speak of matter as ocowpying the quality ex- tension. By extension J as we ascribe it to surrounding objects, we do not mean occupancy of Space; although these two qual- ities are almost always found together. The idea of extension is, indeed, involved in the idea of the occupancy of Space ; but it is not all that is contained therein. Besides being extensive, an object occupying Space is known as being co-extensive — co- extensive with the Space which it occupies. Another element, moreover, is noticeable in occupancy of Space, which is not only lacking to bare extension, but repugnant to it. To occupy, as its etymology discloses, signifies to keep something "so that it cannot be held by others." This an object occupying Space is believed to do, and is what we have in view when we say that no two portions of matter can occupy the same portion of Space at the same instant of time. Occupancy of Space thus proving to be far more than extension, it becomes evident that we can attribute extension to Space without ascribing to the same occupancy of itself. Consequently extension may be claimed as one of the attributes of Space. In the case of Time, there is an analogous justification for an analogous claim. This truth cannot be realized without ani- madverting to a striking dissimilarity between the aifections which Space and Time respectively produce on our conscious- ness; that is, by Mr. Spencer's admission, a striking dissimi- larity of attributes. While Space is occupied by things, Time is occupied by events. Space is extended in all directions; Time in only two. The extension of Space is spoken of liter- ally; that of Time, more or less metaphorically; as is observed , when we reflect that a line extended in Space is that by which we commonly symbolize the extent of Time. Diiferences like these must have forced themselves upon Mr. Spencer when he said (First Prin., § 15) that "to deny that Space and Time are things, and so by implication to call them nothings, involves the absurdity that there are two kinds of nothing." ■ They are also perceived to diifer from other things, no less than from each other. A child shows no more liability than Mr. Spencer THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 49 to confound Space and Time with Matter^ Motion, or Force. We have been looking upon attributes of Space and Time while contemplating their contrast, both mutual and with other ob- jects. Some of these attributes have names, and some have not; but we must not conclude that therefore the latter are less deserving to be treated as attributes. While it seemed more thorough to thus point out how many of the contested attributes are to be discovered, there was no imperative necessity to do so, as numbers of these attributes are already much remarked. To Time belong mutability, ob- jectivity and subjectivity; to Space, immobility, objectivity, penetrability. Common to both are the attributes — self-exist- ence, conditionality, limitedness in many respects, relativeness, the quality of being inclusive of other things, likeness and unlil^eness of parts, continuity, divisibility, inseparability, and others. That infinity, too, is of their number will, it is hoped, soon appear, notwithstanding the second and last argument which Mr. Spencer has directed against the belief that Space and Time are entities, "Nor," he says, "are Time and Space unthinkable as entities only from the absence of attributes; there is another peculiarity, familiar to readers of metaphysics, which equally excludes them from the category. All entities which we actually know as such are limited ; and even if we suppose ourselves either to know or to be able to conceive some unlimited entity, we of necessity in so classing it positively separate it from the class of limited entities. But of Space and Time we cannot assert either limitation or the absence of limitation. We find ourselves totally unable to form any mental image of unbounded Space; and yet totally unable to imagine bounds beyond which there is no Space. Similarly at the other extreme : it is impossible to think of a limit to the divisibility of Space; yet equally impossible to think of its infinite divisibility. And, without stating them, it will be seen that we labor under like impotencies in respect to time." (First Prin., § 15.) Concerning the doctrine, that a thing to be known must be classed, something critical shall be said when we enter upon a con- 50 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. sideration of the deductive arguments. Here it will be sufficient to remark, that if Space and Time were the only infinities they could be classed together; but that, in fact, they may be classed with anything else we know as extended; for the latter is an infinity, inasmuch as it has an infinite number of parts. Concerning the other difficulty, — the difficulty of picturing infinity, — enough was S&id before (§ 15), could it be easily remembered and applied. Briefly let us recapitulate. Time was the example before; now the example shall be Space. All Space is inconceivable, because there is nothing answering the description. The assertion of an all is the denial of infin- ity. The infinity of Space is represented by means of the quality not the quantity of the Space we picture, though we cannot have quality without some quantity. The same mode of representation is employed when we think of all thought as essentially relative ; for we cannot picture all thought in bulk. And now take in mind that these remarks will apply whether we have in view the absence of limit to extent or the absence of limit to divisibility, § 18. Immediately after the discussion of Space and Time, the author proceeds (First Prin., § 16) with an attempt to dis- close to his readers the self-destructibility of the idea of Matter. "Matter," he says, "is either infinitely divisible or it is not." "We cannot think that it is not, as no part can be thought indi- visible. We cannot think that it is ; for really to conceive the infinite divisibility of matter, " is mentally to follow out the divisions to infinity." Here is an infinity which may be classed with the other in- finities whose conceivability has been explained. To conceive the infinite divisibility of Matter is but to realize that Matter and indivisibility cannot exist together as substance and attri- bute ; which is done when one division is perceived to be essen- tially like any other division, in that it must leave parts capable of division. Conception of the infinite divisibility of Matter owes its appearance of impossibility largely to being confounded with the conception of Matter infinitely divided. The two THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 51 conceptions are so repugnant in nature as to be exclusive of each other. Matter infinitely divided would admit of no farther division ; would thus present a limit to divisibility. In- finite divisibility, on the other hand, precludes infinite division; precludes us from following out the division to infinity, — that is, until all divisions have been traced in thought. The next charge is that absurdities are involved in the thought of Matter as at any place in contact with Matter, " Were Matter thus absolutely solid, it would be, what it is not — absolutely incompressible; since compressibility, imply- ing the nearer approach of constituent parts, is not thinkable unless there is unoccupied space between the parts. Nor is this all. It is an established mechanical truth, that if a body, moving at a given velocity, strikes an equal body at rest in such wise that the two move on together, their joint velocity will be but half that of the striking body. Now it is a law of which the negation is inconceivable, that in passing from any one degree of magnitude to any other, all intermediate degrees must be passed through. Or, in the case before us, a body moving at velocity 4, cannot by collision, be reduced to velocity 2, without passing through all velocities between 4 and 2. But were Matter truly solid — were its units absolutely incom- pressible and in absolute contact — this ^law of continuity^ as it is called, would be broken in every case of collision. For when, of two such units, one moving at velocity 4 strikes another at rest, the striking unit must have its velocity 4 in- stantaneously reduced to velocity 2; must pass from velocity 4 to velocity 2 without any lapse of time and without passing through intermediate velocities; must be moving with velocities 4 and 2 at the same instant, which is impossible. "The supposition that Matter is absolutely solid being unten- able, there presents itself the Newtonian supposition, that it con- sists of solid atoms not in contact but acting on each other by attractive and repulsive forces, varying with the distances. To assume this, however, merely shifts the difficulty: the problem is simply transferred from the aggregated masses of matter to these hypothetical atoms. ' • * Exactly the same inquiries may 52 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. be made respecting the parts of which each atom consists; while exactly the same difficulties stand in the way of every answer," Two ways of reconciling the compressibility of a sensible portion of Matter with its contiguity of parts are likely to occur to any one contemplating the problem. One is to suppose that a quantity of Matter escaped in the so-considered act of compression; the other is to assume that within the portion of Matter compressed there were spaces unoccupied. Either theory may be accepted alone, or they may be blended, with- out adopting Newton's hypothesis that atoms act upon each other through such a medium as unfilled space. Remark, moreover, that when we have to deal with the ultra-micro- scopic portions of Matter, we shall not be troubled by the phe- nomenon of compression. But we shall be confronted by the above-quoted appeal to the law of continuity, which, if con- sidering perceptible aggregates of matter, the assumption of empty spaces within would empower us to withstand. If at any place Matter touches Matter, we can carve out imaginatively, and the proper influences might carve out physically, a portion in which there shall be no point where there is an absence of contact. We may consider this block of any size, but for our purposes it will be convenient to give it the name of atom. Now, supposing, as Mr, Spencer sug- gests, that one such atom in motion should strike another such atom at rest, what would take place? Were each of these atoms, as visible Matter is supposed to be, composed of many minute particles, not in unbroken contact, though not every- where apart, we might imagine that, as one atom strikes the other, the components of each at the place of contact are forced back upon their next neighbors, these in turn upon those still more remote, and so on througliout. Thus would we avoid the implication that a body can go from one velocity to another without passing through intermediate velocities. For as the bodies come from no contact into the closest contact they attain, resistance is gradually exerted upon the striking body, and, therefore, its velocity gradually reduced ; while motion is grad- THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 53 ually imparted to the body struck, and, therefore, its velocity gradually initiated and increased. But the experiment is to be with absolutely solid atoms. How shall it be shown that, under the given circumstances, they will not violate the law of con- tinuity as Mr. Spencer understands it? Shall it be by explaining that, after the contact begins by the atoms becoming so close that they cannot longer be said to be apart, an interim, during which they draw still nearer, in- tervenes before they can be said to touch? Unsatisfactory as . this explanation certainly is, it may yet be so used as to dis- concert Mr. Spencer. If the contact cannot be conceived as continuous, but must be conceived as instantaneous, as in fact it is, we conceive an essential breach of continuity, — something as having widely contrasted states in contiguous points of time. Mr. Spencer dare not admit that change from the state of ab- solute separation to the state of absolute union is thinkable as an entirely gradual change, because he would thereby deny the necessity of imagining an immediate imparting of motion. On the other hand, if he would maintain that gradual touch- ing is inconceivable, he is bound to establish such proposition; and this can be done only by pointing out that we cannot avoid conceiving the change from no contact to some contact as in- stantaneous. After it has been granted that change from separation to slightest contact cannot be conceived except as being suddenly ended by the production of some contact, we are prepared to bring forward stronger instances of like implication — instances which manifest most clearly that it is not "inconceivable that in passing from any one degree of magnitude to any other, all intermediate degrees must be passed through," Between no contact of cubes and contact extending throughout their adja- cent sides, many quantities of contact might intervene; as if they should be brought precisely face to face by touching the corner of the one to the corner of the other and gradually bringing them more and more together, by sliding the first upon the second. Mr. Spencer would not hesitate to allow that by clashing them together we could produce the greatest quan- 54 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. tity of contact at a point in time, and without producing a plurality of degrees. And again: consider that the objects are of different sizes ; that the smaller is a unit, and the larger an aggregate of matter; and that when they come together they will form a larger aggregate. Evidently, if they can be con- ceived to unite, as the portions of time in which their different relations severally endure unite, the aggregate may be con- ceived as passing from one magnitude to another many degrees greater without ever having any of the magnitudes that poten- tially lie between. In all the instances given, we have seen our ability to con- ceive what Mr. Spencer said we could not conceive. Is it so in the case in question? Introspection discloses that it is. Nothing is more definitely representable than motion as in- stantly lost and instantly acquired. No one ever doubted the fact except those who, like Mr. Spencer, looking at it in the abstract, thought it implied an exception to a rule which they deemed invariable. By comparison with the concrete, the ab- straction has been corrected. The difficulty of conceiving an in- stantaneous transition from one state to another, so unlike that we symbolically picture them as in the distance, has been shown not to be universal. While this is so, there has been no denial that the difficulty is very general. No such denial was neces- sary. Mr. Spencer has been completely answered, if it now appears that velocity can be thought to be acquired and lost, as a man may acquire a dollar or lose his hat — all at once. Supposing himself successful in exposing the self-contra- diction of other conceptions of Matter, Mr. Spencer takes in hand that of Boscovich ; which is, " that the constituents of Matter are centres of force — points without dimensions, which attract and repel each other in suchwise as to be kept at specific distances apart." Over this absurdity, Mr. Spencer gains a speedy victory ; but one not as extensive as he seems to think it^ "A disciple of Boscovich," he argues, "may reply that his master's theory is involved in that of Newton; and cannot in- deed be escaped. ^ What/ he may ask, ^is it that holds together the paints of these ultimate atoms?' ^A cohesive force,' his THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 55 opponent must answer. ^And what/ he may continue, 'is it that holds together the parts of any fragments into which, by sufficient force, an ultimate atom might be broken?^ Again tlie answer must be — a cohesive force. 'And what,' he may still ask, ' if the ultimate atom were, as we can imagine it to be, reduced to parts as small in proportion to it, as it is in pro- portion to a tangible mass of matter — what must give each part- the ability to sustain itself, and to occupy space?' Still there is no answer but — a cohesive force. Carry the process in thought as far as we may, • * ' and we can find no limit until we arrive at the conception of centres of force without any extension," (First Prin., § 16.) To the acceptance of centres of force without any exten- sion, there is, for those who follow Newton, an alternative; namely, to accept an infinite series. If a cohesive force sus- tains an atom, there is no reason for not saying that it sustains half an atom, quarter of an atom, any part of an atom, though we divide forever. § 19. After Matter, Motion is put upon the rack. ("First Prin., § 17.) "Here, for instance," says the author, "is a ship which, for simplicity's sake, we will suppose to be anchored at the equator with her head to the West. When the captain walks from stem to stern, in what direction does he move? East is the obvious answer — an answer which for the moment may pass without criticism. But now the anchor is heaved, and the vessel sails to the West with a velocity equal to that at which the captain walks. In what direction does he now move when he goes from stem to stern? You cannot say East, for the vessel is carrying him as fast towards the West as he walks to the East; and you cannot say West for the converse reason. In respect to surrounding space he is stationary ; though to all on board the ship he seems to be moving. But now are we quite sure of this conclusion? — Is he really stationary?" The author answers this question by showing us that we have not allowed for the earth's rotary and orbital motions, or for the 56 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. motion of the whole solar system, or for the possible motion of our whole sidereal system ; and that when we do this we must confess that "that which seems moving proves to be stationary; tiiat which seems stationary proves to be moving; while that which we conclude to be going rapidly in one direction, turns out to be going much more rapidly in the opposite direction." We have, in the above example, a very good specimen of false inference from partial premises. The captain is first per- ceived to move with respect to the ship, and secondly perceived not to move with respect to the water. To the untaught child he would be thought motionless in respect to space. How do we know that he is not motionless? Not by finding that there is something in the perception which vitiates it; not by being led by the perception into conceptions which prove self-destruc- tive ; but by considering that the earth is moving variously, and that the captain is moving with it. The error of the child, then, arises from a mere mistake of fact. Explain the mistake, and the child will follow you in thought until you reach a combina- tion of facts too complicated for its faculties. At some point it would, of course, stop bewildered; and so would Mr. Spencer, if he should attempt to follow out, in all their complications, the phenomena of evolution. Now, if nothing has been shown to prevent our conceiving Motion, except its complications and our ignorance of what they are, it does not yet appear that we may not form of Motion, as we do of other facts, a conception always corresponding with what might be, and always coming more and more into correspondence with what is. It is probably owing to a sense of the inefficiency of the argument before us that it was supplemented by the following, "We take for granted that there are fixed points in space with respect to which all motions are absolute ; and we find it impossible to rid ourselves of this idea. Nevertheless, absolute motion cannot even be imagined, much less known. Motion as taking place apart from those limitations of space which we habitually associate with it is totally unthinkable. For motion is change of place ; but in unlimited space, change of place is inconceivable, because place itself is inconceivable. Place can THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 57 be conceived only by reference to other places; and in the absence of objects dispersed through space, a place could be conceived only in relation to the limits of space; whence it follows that in unlimited space^ place cannot be conceived — all places musjb be equidistant from boundaries that do not exist." Try the experiment of imagining a body moving from point to point in space. You do not meet the least suggestion of a difficulty. This is, as far as it goes, good evidence, and raises a favorable presumption. Moreover you have not contemplated Motion as a change of relation with respect to the limits of space, but with respect to points. Were it not so, however, you would not be involved in perplexities; for the limitations which we habitually associate with extensive Motion are them- selves real. They are nothing but the outskirts of that district of space which for the moment chiefly engages the mind. The district is an actuality, and so are its confines. The latter, it is true, appear to recede, when the mind, with a fresh impulse, seeks to pierce with its vision a region still more remote; but close observation shows that the limits to the first region fade out of contemplation as those of the second become distinct. They are not thought of as going out of existence, or as chang- ing place. You know, then, of some realities which, in the absence of matter, would enable you to conceive place. Had these escaped you, you would still have been able to find others which would do as well; for instance, the spacial point of view we occupy. Nothing illusive has so far appeared in the habit- ual conception of Motion. But Mr. Spencer would say that the conception is not of absolute Motion^ because nothing ^' fixed " can be pointed out. Think, if you can, of anything appertaining to void space that is not fixed. Think of a point moving, of a line shifting its direction, of a spherical portion of space flying through an infinite vacuum, and revolving as it goes. Here is an object, and here the place it occupies. Think of the object leaving its place. Now think of the place leaving the object. You at once perceive a difference. The place is immovable. The relations which it bears to other places are necessary and eternal. We do not seem to be 58 THE INDUCTIVE AEGUMENT CONTINUED. deprived of the means of location. Everything within the universe may be located by reference to any point, line, figure, place, or object holding place. We may start with any one of these; knowing that in relation to it every object has absolute situation, and all motion is absolute, "Another insuperable difficulty," our author continues, "pre- sents itself when we contemplate the transfer of Motion. • • ■ In what respect does a body after impact differ from itself before impact? What is this added to it which does not sensibly affect any of its properties and yet enables it to traverse space? Here is an object at rest and here is the same object moving. In one state it has no tendency to change its place; but in the other it is obliged at each instant to assume a new position. What is it which will forever go on producing this effect with- out being exhausted? and how does it dwell in the object? The motion, you say, has been communicated. But how? — What has been communicated? The striking body has not trans- ferred a thing to the body struck; and it is equally out of the question to say that it has transferred an attribute. What then has it transferred?" I will suggest what seems to me to be the explanation of the phenomenon. A boy wields a bat, and striking a ball sends it flying through the air. What has taken plaxse? The activity called willing has set free and given direction to certain nervous ^ energies, which in turn have produced a co-ordination of muscu- lar movements. By these movements, the bat was impelled and the ball struck. It being impossible for the ball to share with the bat any portion of the space it occupied, it was under the necessity of stopping the bat or being pushed along by it. Both effects were in a measure produced. But lo ! in a moment more the ball left the bat and flew onward. While we per- ceived an urging we did not marvel; but when this ceased to be perceived the mystery began. The solution, like the problem itself, is not given in perception. It is the answer to the query — what took place that was not perceived? As usual, no account has yet been taken of the atmospheric or ethereal mediums. May not the initial moving of the ball have given THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 59 direction to and increased their activities, thus ioducing a con- tinuance of the propulsion which the bat began? May not the ball, also, have been given an internal activity, which, by acting upon surrounding mediums, promotes motion? There is no other conceivable hypothesis; which is the best reason that could be had for accepting either one or both of these. In respect to details we are liable to err, but concerning the abstract proposition there can be no mistake. Motion, in the absence of propulsion is unthinkable; Propulsion must con- sist in the action of the object on something in contact with it, or in the action of the latter upon the object, or in^ both; and this is the essence of our conclusion. In its most abstract form it is as readily realized as was that concerning the mental, ner- vous, and muscular antecedents of the balFs motion. What- ever is said to render it more definite, must be understood to be advanced as a provisional elaboration. According to a law which seems to be exemplified by all orders of phenomena, anything afiected by motion — as an ob- ject made to move and a medium around about it — would tend to acquire the combination of state and activity most consistent with the affecting motion; and this would be a combination eventually promotive of such motion. This proposition, like the other, is not to be prejudiced by what follows it. With this caution, we shall leave the more for the less abstract, the general for the particular. Little as is known of the action of air and the ethereal sub- stance under an infiuence which, in the important particular, transcends observation, and novel as is the thought of them as continuers of motion, no violence is done to the current un- derstanding of their nature by imagining them as in the act of urging forward an object enveloped in them. The object can- ' not be made to move without causing much that is before it to move in the same direction, and much also to be dissipated laterally. Thus, by opening a path, is resistance lessened. The lessening of resistance obviously affects the ease with which the motion of the object may be continued after the initiatory im- pulse. Now consider what must simultaneously take place in 60 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. the rear. A space must be vacated by the object, and as quickly filled by an in-rushing from all directions except that of the object. To the confluence of forces so formed there is no outlet except in the direction of the object; consequently this direction they take, impelling the object forward. Thus far the explanation postulates no other external activity than that derived from propulsion of the object itself; for the filling in behind might be attributed to the forcing out from the path be- fore — to alternative compression here and expansion there. Important agencies there are, however, which, existing inde- pendent of the object's motion, powerfully aid in its prolongation. One of these is gravity. Supposing a vacuum to be formed, gravity would cause it to be filled to overflowing. The momen- tum acquired by an in-rushing medium would be expended in the direction in which resistance is already overcome. Other activities besides those of gravity would be similarly diverted in the same direction. Minute perturbations of the atmos- phere or of the less stable substance which is supposed to per- vade it — and there must be many of them besides heat and light — would, taking the line of least resistance, ultimately make their contribution too. It needs but a statement to carry conviction that such a concatenation of activities as that de- scribed must, when once established, repeat itself until by resistance overcome. Internal activities we cannot so exhaustively conceive. In the case of a ball, we may imagine a compression, caused by resistance on one side and propulsion on the other, alternated by an expansion which inclines from the propulsive toward the less powerful resistant force. The action of compression and expansion may be realized by pressing an elastic ball down upon the floor and then gradually taking the hand away. This shows how expansion in the line of least resistance may change the relation of an object to space. In the case of an arrow we may superadd the notion of a shiver or of a lateral expansion running from end to end, or of such undulations as an eel makes in moving through the water. In the case of a clot of mud, on the contrary, we cannot go far towards imagining any internal activities whatever. Examples, THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 61 however, we have which enable us to conceive very definitely how an object may aid in propelling itself. Is not the explanation arrived at more in harmony with ob- servation than that which is universally accepted? No answer can be based on the supposition that an object once started in an infinity of unoccupied space would journey on alone forever. Such a fact has never been, and can never be, observed ; and Mr. Spencer's argument rests on its inconceivability. It is pleasing to have such good authority for the proposition that we are unable to realize that there can be something dwelling in an object, which, in the absence of anything else, impels it onward ; since if there is no such entity or property our con- clusion is necessitated- Mr. Spencer's last resort appears to be the paradox, that, although nothing can be imagined as continu- ing motion in vacuo, nothing can be imagined as bringing it to an end. The problem at once disappears when it is observed, that motion of matter, not in contact with other matter, cannot be thought of as beginning ; and that therefore questions in re- gard to its termination are idle. Should we suppose an object to be pushed into a region of space absolutely void, we could not suppose it to break contact with that which pushes it, upon the stoppage of the latter. If it be asked what there is to hinder it from going on, the answer is,^ — nothing but the want of something to make it move. It could not acquire an inher- ent tendency to move under such conditions, and would there- fore be stopped by the withdrawal of external influence, inde- pendent of any inherent tendency to come to rest. With renewed confidence, we may proceed with the comparison of fact and theory from which we have digressed. It is an observed law of Motion that, other conditions being the same, the greater the extent of surface which an object in motion presents in the direction of resistance, the sooner it' will be brought to rest. One might think that, as the same amount of surface must be presented in the direction of the propulsive force, an exact compensation would be made. This would be ^approximately true in respect to the less stable medium, but far from true in respect to the more stable medium. The 62 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. larger the surfaces in questioiij and the faster the rate of speed, the more resistance the atmosphere would oppose in front, and, after reaching a certain maximum^ the less assistance it would afford behind. Where the speed is great, its action may be compared to that of water stoutly resisting and slowly filling in behind a moving oar. Of the ethereal fluid the same is doubtless true, only in a different degree; that is, its maximum of propulsion is greater. That a heavy object is, other things being equal, more diffi- cult to stop than a light one, is a rule which, though possibly not without exception, must not be ignored. The prevalent notion of inertia will not explain it. No one can answer why, on the old hypothesis, there should be found a stronger tend- ency to continue motion in a heavy object than in a light one. To think that that which has the most power to refrain from motion must have the most power to resist stoppage, is but to formulate the reverse of an explanation; for that which at first chiefly hinders the object^s motion — gravity — continues all along to act. Inertia is pn internal passive procliviiy. Why should a moving object have a greater internal passive pro- clivity to fly onwards whenever there exists a greater external tendency to bring it to rest? Why should the surplus of tend- ency to move, over resistance to motion, be small where the resistance is small, and great where the resistance is great? What is this secret, inactive, yet acting, perversity? Is an in- ternal, passive proclivity to act, is inertia even thinkable? Any conceivable explanation would be preferable to the old one. It may be to offer but a vague solution, but it is certainly to offer what is, to some extent, a solution, to say that a body's suscep- tibility to aerial and ethereal impulses must depend, in a great degree, upon its internal structure — for instance, upon its den- sity. And it will as surely carry this solution further to remark that a body's ability to promote its own motion must depend largely upon the same condition — for example, upon vibratory peculiarities. In the last remark we have an explanation of what the inherent tendency, which we find it almost impossible to banish from our thoughts, really is. THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 63 The next question is, — Why is a moving object more diffi- cult to stop in proportion as its speed is great? We totally fail to comprehend how a stronger inactive tendency to change place can be stored up inside an object by starting it rapidly, than by starting it slowly; but we are far from being unable to realize how, by starting motion with a more rapid impulse, a greater quantity of both external and internal activity is in- duced to act in a given time. On the theory of Motion here advanced, some would expect to feel a rush of air and ether following every moving object. They must be reminded that the older theory involves the same filling-in, and with about the same force and rapidity. Con- cerning its imperceptibility, the same explanation must be given, whichever theory we adopt. In the first place, the phe- nomenon is frequently noticeable; and in the second place, it is more often too slow or too inextensive to be perceived. Experience and theory seem in perfect harmony; and if so, our conclusion is unassailable. One more puzzle connected with motion confronts us. We cannot, Mr. Spencer assures us, represent the transition from rest to motion, and from motion to rest. " Truly to represent these transitions in thought, we fi;ad im- possible. For a breach of the law of continuity seems neces- sarily involved ; and yet no breach of it is conceivable. A body traveling at a given velocity cannot be brought to a state of rest, or no velocity, without passing through all intermediate velocities. At first sight, nothing seems easier than to imagine it doing this. It is quite possible to think of its Motion as diminishing insensibly until it becomes infinitesmal; and many will think equally possible to pass in thought from infinitesmal motion to no motion. But this is an error. Mentally follow out the decreasing velocity as long as you please, and there still remains some velocity. Halve and again halve the rate of movement forever, yet movement still exists. • • • " Whoever admits, as Mr Spencer has, the possibility of con- ceiving a loss of the first half of the velocity, can allege no obstacle to conceiving a loss of the second. If in the one case 64 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. the alternative is between passing in thought over an infinite series and thinking of the sudden loss of a quantity of motion, so is it in the other. Waiving this tacit admission, there are grounds for believing either alternative conceivable. Some pages back it was shown that to the rule, that in passing from one degree of magnitude to another all intermediate de- grees must be passed through, there are exceptions, and that the transition between velocities is of their number. That an infinite number of degrees potentially lie between some velocity and no velocity, and between any two velocities, must be granted by all who believe infinite divisibility thinkable; but that each must be actually passed through whenever there is a transition between states of which it is a Conceivable mean, is as untrue as that three apples cannot at once be taken from a lot of five. The other alternative is likewise con- ceivable. The infinity, of which unlike velocities are the ex- tremes, is not an infinity in respect of extent but in respect of divisibility. Now it is the extent which the mind is supposed to glance over, and not the possible divisions thereof. An in- finitude of parts is indeed traversed, but without contemplation as such. In thought itself, however, there is a corresponding infinitude. Change from one mental state to another, if it be gradual, is infinitely divisible. So we find subjective infinity representative of objective infinity ; and this is Avhat Mr. Spencer thought could not be. § 20. The conception of Force was the next to be assailed. (First Prin., § 18.) " On lifting a chair, the force exerted we regard as equal to that antagonistic force called the weight of the chair; and we cannot think of these as equal without thinking of them as like in kind; since equality is conceivable only between things that are connatural,'' "Yet, contrariwise, it is incredible that the force as existing in the chair really resembles the force as present to our minds." " So that it is absurd to think of Force as in Itself like our sensation of it, and yet necessary so to think of it if we realize it in consciousness at all." THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 65 To avoid the imputation of accepting a very questionable proposition, it must be said that it is not the force known in consciousness that is thought to be equal to the force by which the chair is drawn downwards. The effort of volition necessary to the lifting of the chair, probably acts by directing into cer- tain channels forces that are not present in consciousness. But after this correction has been made, the fact remains that we are compelled to attribute to volitional and extra- volitional force a certain likeness of nature. On this fact, however, the refuta-. tion may be made to rest. A resemblance of causes is inferred because there is observed a likeness of their effects. Such in- ference is legitimate. What matters it that one agency is an ingredient of consciousness and the other not? Their difference in some respects is not repugnant to their similarity in others. Mr. Spencer's unexpressed major premise is, that things which are equal in any particular are like in all. He would shrink from relying on this premise; and if he does not rely on it, his conclxision fails. But Mr. Spencer does not permit the preceding argument to go forth alone. The next is, that when we contemplate either attraction between objects separated or the transmission of light aad heat from the Sun to the Earth, " we are obliged to conclude that matter • • • acts upon matter through absolutely vacant space; and yet this conclusion is positively unthinkable." Of course it was impossible to justify such a position without dis- posing of the hypothesis of an intervening fluid. This is what he says of it. " Remembering that this ether is imponderable, we are obliged to conclude that the ratio between the interspaces of these atoms" (those of ether) "and the atoms themselves, is incommensurably greater than the like ratio in ponderable matter ; else the densities could not be incommensurable. In- stead then of a direct action by the Sun upon the Earth with- out anything intervening, we have to conceive the Sun's action propagated through a medium whose molecules are probably as small relatively to their interspaces as are the Sun and the Earth compared with the space between them : we have to con- ceive these infinitesmal molecules acting on each other through 66 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. absolutely vacant spaces which are immense in comparison with their own dimensions." Strange the thought that ethereal units are made to convey force by projecting them upon each other through the spaces interven- ing should have escaped one who was bound to show its incon- ceivability. What has been here neglected, let an admission supply. The real key to the problem is the fact that there is no necessity of concluding that the ethereal fluid is less dense than the hardest metal. If it is only sufficiently less coherent than other fluids, it will consist with all that we actually know about it. That it is imponderable proves nothing. A sub- stance which permeates all other substances is necessarily incapable of being weighed. But that it has no weight is a very different proposition, and one not admitting of the ordinary proof nor easy to believe. How delusive is our supposed knowledge of the nature of the force of gravitation, Mr. Spencer, in the next paragraph, proceeds to show. "That the gravitation of one particle of matter towards another, and towards all others, should be absolutely the same whether the intervening space is filled with matter or not, is incomprehensible. I lift from the ground, and continue to hold, a pound weight. Now, into the vacancy between it and the ground, is introduced a mass of matter of any kind what- ever, in any state whatever — hot or cold, liquid or solid, trans- parent or opaque, light or dense ; and the gravitation of the weight is entirely unaffected. The whole Earth, as well as each individual of the infinity of particles composing the Earth, acts on the pound in absolutely the same way, whatever inter- venes, or if nothing intervenes. Through eight thousand miles of the Earth^s substance, each molecule at the antipodes affects each molecule of the weight I hold, in utter indifference to the fullness or emptiness of the space between them. So that each portion of matter, in its dealings with remote portions, treats all intervening portions as though they did not exist; and yet, at the same time it recognizes their existence with scrupulous exactness in its du'ect dealings with them." THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 67 If we dismiss^ as manifestly gratuitous, the assertion that objects attract each other where nothing intervenes, our first defence may be a demurrer — a provisional admission of the facts alleged, coupled with a denial that they make out a case of essential incomprehensibility. The truth to be ascer- tained is, not what we know, but what we are capable of know- ing. It is lawful for us to admit that gravitation is, as yet, nothing to us but a fact, and to nevertheless believe that its cause will some time be known. The only way in which the facts asserted could be effectively used to deprive us of this belief is by showing every possible conception of the nature of gravity to be inconsistent with them. This has not been attempted. In the popular understanding of attraction, — in the thought of the exercise of force upon distant things independ- ent of anything intervening, — absurd as it is, there is nothing to imply that it should make any difference whether there be or be not a substance intervening, or whether an intervening substance be "hot or cold, liquid or solid, transparent or opaque, light or dense." Indeed consistency demands the contrary in- ference. The theory that a fluid which permeates everything else is the medium of attraction has also little to fear from Mr. Spencer's criticism. Such fluid could not be intercepted in its work of communication by grosser forms of matter. This theory may be elaborated into greater strength. If the ulti- mate form of all matter is the very fluid in question, then no difference what is inserted between two objects the space be- tween them is filled, and solely filled, by the medium of attrac- tion. I have in mind another theory which is similarly capable of defence; namely, that the intervening object, attracting and attracted by both objects which it intercepts, forms a link in the chain of attraction equivalent to the one or ones supplanted by it. Many theories being consistent with them, we may con- clude that, granting Mr. Spencer's facts, his case proves prima facie incomplete. Were it not so, we could still show that he is estopped from asserting the facts on which he relies. For this purpose, the following is quoted. " Throughout the investigations leading 68 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. the chemist to the conclusion that of the carbon which has dis- appeared during combustion, no portion has been lost, what i& his repeatedly assigned proof? That afforded by the scales. In what terms is the verdict of the scales given? In grains — in units of weight — in units of gravitative force. And what is the total content of the verdict? That as many units of gravitative force as the carbon exhibited at first it exhibits stilL The validity of the inference, then, depends entirely upon the constancy of the units of force. " ' • Everything turns on the truth of the assumption that the gravitation of the weights is persistent, and of this no proof is assigned, or can be assigned^' (First Prin., § 61.) Without accepting this to its full extent, it is competent to say that the difficulties which are here held to preclude the demonstration that the weight of a body of matter is unchanged by combustion, will, as far as they are real, similarly prevent us from satisfying ourselves that the body's weight is unaffected by interposing heat, for instance, between it and the earth. In the latter case, moreover, there is the additional feature that the change of condition is likely to modify the scales and the weights. But dropping these considerations, there may, nay, there must be differences of weight, infinitely im- portant, which the finest scales, though unaffected by change of surroundings and used in combination with unchanging weights, cannot indicate. The allegations in question are refutable. It is not known that attraction between separated objects is the same "whatever intervenes, or if nothing intervenes," The latter condition is never, to our knowledge, fulfilled : something always intervenes. With this in view, we must conclude that what intervenes is a matter of great moment. Where much extent of matter inter- venes between objects, their attraction is small. It is therefore untrue "that each portion of matter in its dealings with remote portions, treats all intervening portions as though they did not exist." Exactly the reverse is true : portions of matter which are near are dealt with to the partial exclusion of portions which are remote. And again; were Mr, Spencer right in saying that attraction is not affected by what intervenes THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 69 between attracting objects^ he would be compelled to deny that buch attraction may be added to by substituting for the interven- ing matter, matter of greater density. Air at first intervening between the pound weight and the earth, their attraction towards each other should be increased by inserting between them a mass of solid metal. Undoubtedly Mr. Spencer would assent to both these corrections. He no doubt holds that the gravity of a pound weight is increased by inserting between it and the earth matter of greater density; and would explain that the difference is too slight to be detected. On the other hand, it is equally probable he would concede that the gravity of the weight would be lessened by bringing between it and the earth matter of greater extent. To thus correct himself, however, would be to allow that attraction is af- fected by the character of that through which the line of attraction runs.* * Until the preceding had been electrotyped, I thought to reserve entire for future elaboration, but will here in part disclose, a theory of gravitation to which I have been led, or rather helped, by my theory of motion above expounded. I regard that tendency to move which we call gravity, as well as the motion resulting from it and all other perceptible motion, as due (principally) to ethereal impulses. The fact that substances are susceptible to the force of gravitation just in proportion as they are susceptible to a tendency to move imparted to them by other agencies, is what led me to suspect that one explanation might serve to account for the two phenomena. In the case of gravity, the theory is that the motion or tendency to move is due to pre-existing and continuous perturbations of the inter-stellar medium, urging what it envelops and permeates towards centres of attraction, or repulsion, or, more properly, propulsion. That the lines of attraction converge, elucidates the increase of gravity towards the centres. Such lines may be straight or spiral. Bodies doubtless take an active part in their own gravitation, as they do in other motion; which is one part of the explanation of why gravitation is increased by gravitating. Constituted subject to the influence of gravity, perhaps constituted mainly by it, allbodies must be of nature consistent with, and suscep- tible to its tendencies. Probably those most susceptible to it pass its influence most readily on: if so Mr. Spencer's attack and my defence stand much as they stood before; for then the chain of attraction must be strongest where its links are most weighty and compact. 70 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, CHAPTEE V. The Inductive Argument Continued. Self-knowledge: Extent of Consciousness and Mental Substance, § 21. Before proceeding, a short explanation must be inter- polated. Hitherto the contest has been over ideas of what we call the "External World." That upon which we are about to enter, will concern ideas of the Substance of Mind and the Intrinsic Nature of its modes. In other words, Mr. Spencer maintains that we can have no legitimate ideas of Mental .Substance or even of the Noumenal Nature of states of conscious- ness; and it is a defence of ideas purporting to be such that is next to engage us. Mr. Spencer's object, it is hardly necessary to remind the reader, is to show States of Mind to be partly, and Substance of Mind wholly, unknowable — components of "The Unknowable." His method, it must be observed, is not as thorough as was that employed to prove the External "World unknowable; for, whereas he aimed to dispose of every possible idea of it, he has not sought to experiment with more than a partial concep- tion of the Real Nature of conscious states, or with more than a partial conception of the underlying Substance. Almost all thoughts of the Intrinsic Nature of the Mental World ai-e left in oblivion, and therefore in integrity. The reader ^^'ill observe how few are noticed. § 22. What has Mr. Spencer to say (First Prin., § 19) about the unthinkableness of the Intrinsic Nature of mental affections? Notwithstanding that the inconceivability of an infinite series prevents us from thinking of the chain of consciousness as in- finite, he argues, we are as conclusively prevented from thinking it finite. " Go back in memory as far as we may, we are wholly THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 71 unable to identify our first states of consciousness: the per- spective of our thoughts vanishes in a dim obscurity where we can make out nothing. Similarly at the other extreme. We have no immediate knowledge of a termination to the series at a future time ; and we cannot really lay hold of that temporary termination of the series reached at the present moment. For the state of consciousness recognized by us as our last^ is not truly our last. That any mental affection may be contemplated as one of the series, it must be remembered — represented in thought, not presented. The truly last state of consciousness is that which is passing in the very act of contemplating a state just passed — that in which we are thinking of the one before us as the last. So that the proximate end of the chain eludes us as well as the remote end." As Mr. Spencer has not attempted to show that a first state of consciousness is unthinkable, and as we have seen that in- finite continuance is thinkable, we might, in the face of his argument, take the position that consciousness had a beginning but will have no end. To those who choose to do this, it will not matter whether a last state is or is not conceivable. Or we might assert that a last state will occur without being con- templated, just as he maintains that a state, temporarily the last, occurs without being contemplated. But this supposition, that a state of consciousness occurs before it is perceived — that it cannot be contemplated until it is represented — is the central fallacy in the author's reasoning. There exists in the mind a conception of a series of feelings, while there arises a feeling to take its place as one of the series. Can it be denied that rela- tions between present feeling and feelings present by represen- tation may establish themselves simultaneously with its estab- lishment? As it cannot, we are convinced of our ability to lay hold of the temporary termination of the series as com- pletely as we should expect to lay hold of a point in continuous change. Having this power, we can as easily conceive a future termination as we can a past beginning. There remains no assigned reason why we cannot conceive a future termination, after dispelling the delusion that a mental affection and its 72 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. recognition cannot co-exist; for this delusion is all that gives the following extension of the argument the air of plausibility, "'But/ it may be said, 'though we cannot directly know consciousness to be finite in duration, because neither of its limits can be actually reached ; yet we can very well conceive it to be so/ No : not even this is true. In the first place, we cannot conceive the terminations of that consciousness which alone we really know — our own — any more than we can per- ceive its terminations. For in truth the two acts are here one. In either case such terminations must be, as above said, not presented in thought, but represented; and they must be repre- sented as in the act of occurring, Now to represent the termi- nation of consciousness as occurring in ourselves, is to think of ourselves as contemplating the cessation of the last state of con- sciousness; and this implies a supposed continuance of con- sciousness after its last state, which is absurd. In the second place, if we regard the matter objectively — if we study the phenomena as occurring in others, or in the abstract, we are equally foiled. Consciousness implies perpetual change and the perpetual establishment of relations between its successive phases. To be known at all, any mental affection must be known as such or such — as like these foregoing ones or unlike those: if it is not thought of in connection with others — not distinguished or identified by comparison with others, it is not recognized — is not a state of consciousness at all, A last state of consciousness, then, like any other, can exist only through a perception of its relations to previous states. But such per- ception of its relations must constitute a state later than the last, which is a contradiction." They who hold that a state of consciousness cannot be per- ceived while it exists, must face this difficulty. It is theirs ex- clusively. They may, if they prefer, avoid it by embracing the belief that consciousness is unending, or that a last state may occur unperceived. But they are recommended to the doctrine that the perception of a state of consciousness is not subsequent to, but contemporaneous with, the state perceived. It is not easy to discover how any can object to this view^ THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 73 seeing that to have consciousness and to know that we have it form not distinct acts, but one indivisible act. The supposed diificulty is put in still another form. " If ceaseless change of state is the condition on which alone con- sciousness exists, then when the supposed last state has been reached by the completion of the preceding change, change has ceased; therefore consciousness has ceased; therefore the sup- posed last state is not a state of consciousness at all; there- fore there can be no last state of consciousness." Either of two replies may be made, accordingly as the person replying holds one or the other of two alternative positions. If he thinks that consciousness follows after change in Mental Substance, he can say consistently that consciousness may exist after such change has ceased. If, on the other hand, he thinks that consciousness consists in, and is simultaneous with, change of substance, he need only suggest that when the last change is completed, the last state is completed and at an end. Neither opinion obliges the holder to think of consciousness as persisting after the. termination of its conditions, § 23, Confident of having demonstrated that any notion of the extent of consciousness is essentially incongruous, Mr. Spencer next ostensibly takes in hand the notion of Mental Substance. "Nor do we meet," he says, "with any greater success when, instead of the extent of consciousness, we con- sider its substance." According to his usual practice, he devotes a paragraph to showing that, " belief in the reality of self, is, indeed, a belief which no hypothesis enables us to escape," and and then concludes with the following argument. "But now, unavoidable as is this belief — established though it is not only by the assent of mankind at large, endorsed by ■divers philosophers, but by the suicide of the sceptical argu- ment — it is yet a belief admitting of no justification by reason : nay, indeed, it is a belief which reason, when pressed for a distinct answer, rejects. * " ' The fundamental condition to all consciousness, emphatically insisted upon by Mr. Mansel in com- mon with Sir William Hamilton and others, is the antithesis of 74 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, subject and object. And on this ^ primitive dualism of conscious- ness/ ' from which the explanations of philosophy must take their start/ Mr. Mansel founds his refutation of the German abso- lutists. But now, what is the corollary from this doctrine, as bearing on the consciousness of self? The mental act in which self is known implies, like every other mental act, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. If, then, the object perceived is self, what is the subject that perceives? or if it is the true self which thinks, what other self can it be that is thought of? Clearly a true cognition of self implies a state in which the knowing and the known are one — in which subject and object are identified; and this Mr. Mansel rightly holds to be the annihilation of both." A mistaken application of the foregoing argument has re- sulted from the confounding of self with the Substance of Mind. This substance is truly a part of self; but it is not all of self; nor is it that part in regard to which the difficulty arises. It is inferred from the fact of consciousness. Only that part of self Avhich is immediately known in what is called "self-con- sciousness" is involved in the perplexity. The question is, how can this present at once the contrast between the subject and object of cognition? Obviously it is not sufficient to say that in self-consciousness we contemplate two sides of the same fact; for, in this case, the subject and object present absolutely the same appearance. The mind, looking upon itself, sees but one thing — the mind thus looking upon itself. One other propo- sition is available; namely, that what is known in self-con- sciousness is the same thing under two sets of relations ; and this is the theory which analysis justifies. In the first place, self is classed with other objects of thought. It is perceived to differ with them in other respects, but to resemble them in being an object. In the second place, self as knowing, self is classed with, although at the same time, distinguished from, self as knowing other objects. By the process postulated, the same aggregate of consciousness is made to present at once the contrast between the subject and the object of thought. THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 75 CHAPTER VI. The Inductive Argument Concluded. Transfigured Realism Confronted by the Problems of Realism. § 24. The preceding three chapters were confined to a con- futation of certain reasons given by Mr. Spencer for "having repudiated as impossible the Philosophy which professes to formulate Being as distinguished from Appearance.^' (First Prin.^ § 35.) In the present one it is to be shown that these reasons, if adequate for the purpose to which they were directed^ are similarly adequate to prove impossible a Philosophy which professes to formulate Appearances. Upon a theory of the function of Philosophy, which none can gainsay, and which Mr, Spencer asserts, I ground the charge. " Besides," he says (Pirst Prin., § 41 ), "seeing that the unified knowledge consti- tuting a completed Philosophy, is a knowledge composed of parts that are universally congruous ; and besides seeing that it is the business of Philosophy to establish their universal congruity; we also see that every act of the process by which this universal congruity is to be established, down even to the components of every inference and every observation, consists in the establish- ment of congruity," Could there be a complete congruity among phenomena while Mr. Spencer's puzzles remain un- solved? To this question we shall now address ourselves, § 25. "When we are self-conscious, we are conscious of noth- ing not phenomenal. If we are conscious of more, if we are conscious of the Substance of Mind, then must Philosophy take this " component of observation " in hand and find it a place in the universal congruity. But Mr. Spencer is not one who will assert that Mental Substance is immediately known in self-consciousness. In his " Principles of Psychology " (§ 59) 76 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED, he employs several arguments to confirm the contrary. How, then, could he excuse the philosophy, which is to establish congruity among phenomena, from showing the congruity among the phenomena -composing self-consciousness? Not, certainly, by distinguishing between the apparent and intrinsic natures of mental affections, and saying that the latter are the authors of the difficulty: if they are, they are given in con- sciousness, and therefore necessitate a philosophy of more than appearances; or they are not given in consciousness, and from this we know that there is no incongruity in self-consciousness. Accepting this latter conclusion, would be equivalent to- admit- ting the entire congruity of a state of consciousness, in which subject and object are completely identified. By refusing to make this admission, he would assert an incompatibility of ap- pearances. Escape would be possible if the doctrine that there can be no identification of subject and object were peculiar to Ontology. That Ontology, as we have seen, is in a position to reject such a doctrine, is scarcely less to be doubted than that the prevailing Phenomenal Philosophy accepts it. Mr. Spen- cer would no more affirm that the same phenomena can be at once the subject and object of cognition, than he would deny that in the act of self-consciousness they seem to be the same. He must therefore acknowledge the paradox to be, until ex- plained away, an obstacle to the establishment of phenomenal congruity. The stumbling-block, which he has placed in the path of those who search for an understanding of Mental Substance, constantly rises in his own path as an impassable barrier. Having seen that a mental state aware of itself is a mystery similar to a mental substance aware of itself, we are prepared to appreciate the remark, that there is an element in conscious- ness which Mr. Spencer will consent to call metaphorically the Substance of Mind. Meaning this, he will allow (Prin, of Psy., § 58) that "we do know something about the substance of Mind, and may eventually know more." This element is the primordial element of consciousness — the unit of feeling, whose various combinations constitute those states of mind THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 77 which to introspection seem indecomposable. He is desirous of showing that the ultimate unit of phenomena in a feeling akin to a nervous shock, "It is possible, then — /^ he says (Prin. Psy.j § 60), "may we not even say probable — that something of the same order as that which we call a nervous shock is the ultimate unit of consciousness; and that all the unlikenesses among our feelings result from unlike modes of integration of this ultimate unit." Undoubtedly; but if so, we have a mental substance which is more closely involved than any other is supposed to be with the perplexities of self-consciousness. Mr. Spencer is as much under necessity of explaining self-con- sciousness as they who assert that we can be conscious of the noumenal Substance of Mind. He is far more under such necessity than one who deals with this Mental Substance as lying wholly out of consciousness. In a very different instance, we shall find Mr. Spencer con- fronted by the problem of self-consciousness. The hypothesis that like units of feeling, differently combined, form a phe- nomenal substratum of states of consciousness, is supported (Prin. of Psy., § 60) by pointing out "the complete congruity between this view and the known character of nerve action." He explains that "if each wave of molecular motion brought by a nerve fibre to a nerve-centre, has for its correlative a shock or pulse of feeling ; then we can comprehend how distinguish- able differences of feeling may arise from differences in the rates of recurrence of the waves, and we can frame a general idea of the way in which, by the arrival through other fibres, of waves recurring at other rates, compound waves of molec- ular motion may be formed, and give rise to units of compound feelings : which process of compounding of waves and produc- tion of correspondingly-compounded feelings, we may imagine to be carried on without limit, and to produce any amount of heterogeneity of feelings," Of course Mr. Spencer is careful to explain that he has not been guilty of here striving to comprehend the noumenal something which underlies mind — that nerve-substance and nerve-action are nothing but phenomena. For present purposes, the caution is immaterial, 78 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. save as it tends to modify our language. It merely tells of two substrata under consciousness, instead of one. In the above example, as in multitudes that might have been chosen, Mr. Spencer is found endeavoring to explain the phenomena of mind through the phenomena of matter. What is noteworthy is that he attempts this, leaving self-cognition unexplained. His objective elucidation of consciousness can never, he is com- pelled to admit, explain self-consciousness. He is therefore in a position analogous to that of one who, being unable to offer an explanation of self-consciousness, yet holds the belief in a substance of mind which does much to render consciousness in general comprehensible. The incompleteness of the one explanation is equivalent to the incompleteness of the other. Let us turn, from what may be thought more or less adven- titious, back to essentials of Mr, Spencer's philosophy. Phe- nomena distinguished as external are no less real than phenomena distinguished as internal. Moreover, the phenomenon of the externality of the former is no more readily suppressed than the phenomenon of the internality of the latter. Mr. Spencer speaks (Prin. of Psy., § 62) of the "distinction of Subject and Object" as "the consciousness of a difference transcending all other differences." Now, if Philosophy can neither banish from its realm external manifestations, nor resolve them into internal manifestations, by banishing so much of them as characterizes them external, she must entertain the question — Can internal manifestations be resolved into external manifes- tations? Having shown our warrant for propounding this question, we are entitled to an answer. Whether it be "yes" or " no," we need not accept it unless it be justified. In either case, the justification must be that a comparison of internal and external phenomena was' made, and that the answer given is authorized by the result. In either case, however, we can inter- pose the objection, that, as there can be no comparison between something inscrutable and something else, the conclusion that self-consciousness is, or the conclusion that it is not, identical with objective manifestations, can never be justified. Thus is Mr, Spencer's philosophy brought face to face with a question THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 79 which it cannot answer. The charge is, the reader must ob- serve, not that there is a question to which his philosophy has not found an answer, but that any answer which can be found is, in its mouth, illegitimate. It will clarify our ideas somewhat to learn how Mr. Spencer actually deals with the question raised. "Let it be granted," he says (Prin. of Psy., § 62), "that all existence distinguished as objective, may be resolved into the existence of units of one kind. Let it be granted that every species of objective activity, may be understood as due to the rhythmical motions of such ultimate units, and that among the objective activities so understood, are the waves of molecular motion propagated through nerves and nerve-centres. And let it further be granted that all existence distinguished as sub- jective, is resolvable into units of consciousness similar in nature to those which we know as nervous shocks; each of which is the correlative of a rhythmical motion of a material unit or group of such units. Can we then think of the subjective and objective activities as the same? Can the oscillation of a molecule be represented in consciousness side by side with a nervous shock, and the two be recognized as one? No effort enables us to assimilate them. That a unit of feeling has noth- ing in common with a unit of motion, becomes more than ever manifest when we bring the two into juxtaposition." Mr. Spencer can hardly consider this a solution of the question. " When we recall the fact that molecules are never at rest, and that by carrying their individual rhythmical motions into the compound molecules formed of them, they produce compound rhythms — when we recollect the extreme complexity of the molecules of nervous matter, and imagine how various and in- volved must be the rhythms of which they are the seats — when, further, we infer the countless modifications of rhythms that must under such conditions become possible" (Prin. of Psy., § 61); we shall doubt whether Mr. Spencer really made a serious endeavor to compare a unit of feeling with each dis- tinct phase of neural modes. When also we reflect that he is ever pointing out similarities between nervous and mental phe- nomena; when we add to this that we have recently found him 80 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. giving a material explanation of mental heterogeneity, and think of his theory that all explanation is assimilation; we shall be inclined to doubt his complete acceptance of his own conclusion. If he had seriously attempted to make the com- parison, he would have discovered an obstacle of his own cre- ation. The feeling, called a nervous shock, involves self-con- sciousness. Concerning their relations to each other, two sup- positions may be made, either of which will answer our purpose. If we argue that, as to have a feeling and to know that we have it constitute but one feeling, the self-consciousness in which a unit of feeling is known, is that feeling or a considerable part of it, we assert a mental mode which cannot, if self-conscious- ness is beyond our grasp, be compared with material phenomena. If, on the contrary, we ^ assert a distinction between a unit of feeling and the self-consciousness which accompanies it, we nevertheless allow a kind of consciousness similarly incapable of comparison. In fine : in whatever way we strive to reduce consciousness, subjectively consideredj into its elements, there must always remain at least one element, of which Mr. Spencer can affirm neither materiality nor immateriality. After the answer that the phenomena of consciousness are not contained in the phenomena of matter, surprise must be called forth by the declaration that Mr. Spencer deals with mental phenomena as entirely included in those that are phys- ical. Yet the declaration must be made. Evolution, as Mr. Spencer sets it forth, purports to include every knowable activ- ity. What is Evolution? Here is his definition. "Evolution is an integration of matter^ and concomitant dissipation of motion] during which the matter passes from an indefinite, in- coherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel trans- formation." (First Prin., § 145.) This process includes all phenomenal activity; includes the activity, consciousness; in- cludes the evolving of consciousness ; includes the production and maintenance of every element in consciousness. Again is Mr. Spencer met by self-consciousness. Is this produced by, and does it consist in, the above-described activity of matter? THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 81 is a question to which he, not being cognizant of self-conscious- ness, can give no answer. The collateral importance of some of the foregoing criticisms must not cause us to lose sight of the main issue. An impeach- ment, which had been brought against the Noumenal Philos- ophy, we have found it possible to reiterate in many ways against the Phenomenal Philosophy, Confining ourselves to internal phenomena, we observed that self-consciousness never- theless demanded explanation. From the same point of view, we saw Mr. Spencer occupying a position as objectionable, as far as self-consciousness is concerned, as that of those who assert consciousness of Mental Substance. Assuming next an objec- tive stand-point, we learned that Mr. Spencer's attempts to ex- plain mental affections through material manifestations were as much restricted by the difficulties of self-consciousness as is the attempt to accomplish the explanation by means of Mental Substance. Next it was shown that the question of identity or non-identity of subjective with certain objective phenomena was a question for the Phenomenal Philosophy; and that there are but two answers, neither of which, on Mr. Spencer's prin- ciples, it can advance. Lastly we find that Mr. Spencer has given both answers, but that he had no right to give either; the problem of self-consciousness not being, in his opinion, soluble. § 26. The Extent of Consciousness will not require as much discussion as was given to Mental Substance. "Difficult as we find it distinctly to separate and individualize them, it is nevertheless beyond question that our states of consciousness occur in succession." (First Prin., § 19.) Feeling justified by the deliverance of consciousness in making this statement, Mr. Spencer is obligated, if any one is, to ascertain whether the succession of consciousness is of finite or infinite extent. Here is the fact that the phenomena of consciousness occur in suc- cession. Here is the belief, itself a phenomenon, that in the succession there must have been a state or no state which all others follow, and necessarily will be a state or no state which all others precede. And here are the imagined absurdities to ^2 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. which any of these suppositions leads. How is Mr. Spencer to establish congruity? He is both powerless and unwilling to dispute the fact of succession. The belief in extremes or no extremes he has not ability to suppress. It may be called speculative, but still it will remain as a phenomenon which will persist in repugnance until reconciliation. Moreover it is a speculative difficulty which arises on the contemplation of phe- nomena solely, and has no necessary reference to their intrinsic nature. There remains no course but to establish congruity be- tween the fact and the belief. In doing this, Mr. Spencer will be met by the precise difficulties which he presented to us, and will be compelled to adopt precisely the same means of over- coming them. If he cannot believe the series infinite, he must believe it finite. He can have no experience of a beginning or a termination. Of a temporary termination he cannot be con- scious, as such, unless relations between states and the states themselves can exist together. When he tries to conceive a future ending of his own conscioasness, he is confronted by the same difficulty : he must conceive an affection and perception of it as simultaneous, or the perception as intercepted and pre- vented from occurring. Upon consciousness presented objec- tively and in the abstract he cannot refuse to look. When we think of consciousness as depending for all its modes upon something out of consciousness, (though it be "The Unknow- able"), we view it objectively. When we think of conscious- ness as characterized by changes, and class these changes "u ith other changes, we view it objectively. When we think of con- sciousness as always manifesting changes, without regard to any particular change, we view it in the abstract. Since these views are necessitated, Mr. Spencer cannot but entertain them; and when he does, he will find for himself the problems which he found for us, and be obliged to resort to our solutions. As unworthy of notice, Mr, Spencer treats the incongruities of extended consciousness when they tend to circumscribe his speculations. He has virtually decided, and from an objective and abstract point of view, that the extent of consciousness is finite. Somewhere in the process of evolution, he must recog- THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 83 nize for it a beginning, and in the state of stable equilibrium, which he predicts, he must recognize for it an end. § 27. By considering Force as a mere shadow thrown from beyond upon the screen of consciousness, Mr. Spencer expects to eliminate the problems which it otherwise presents. We shall see that the expectation is not to be realized. On lifting a chair, two phenomena present themselves : one objective, the other subjective; one an effort of volition, the other a downward pulling of the chair. Contemplating the two phenomena as such, we wonder whether, if realized more fully (as phenomena maybe), they would or would not present similarity. As they exhibit some equivalence, we should incline to think they would, had not Mr, Spencer told us that so to think is impossible. Here, again, unless a former explanation be applicable, we have a phenomenal incongruity — an inclination to . think phenomena like, opposed by inability to conceive the same. When it comes his turn to explain this equivalence, he duly adopts our explanation. According to him, mental forces are nothing but transformed physical forces, capable of being re- transformed, I quote his words. "Various classes of facts thus unite to proye that the law of metamorphosis, which holds among the physical forces, holds equally between them and the mental forces. Those modes of the Unknowable which we call motion, heat, light, chemical affinity, &c,, are alike transformable into each other, and into those modes of the Unknowable which we distinguish as sensation, emotion, thought: these, in their turns, being directly or indirectly re- transformable into the original shapes. That no idea or feeling arises, save as a result of some physical force expended in producing it, is fast becoming a common place of science; and whoever duly weighs the evidence will see, that nothing but an overwhelming bias, in favor of a preconceived theory, can explain its non-acceptance. How this metamorphosis takes place — how a force existing as motion, heat, or light, can be- •€ome a mode of consciousness — how it is possible for aerial vibrations to generate the sensation we call sound, or for the 84 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. forces liberated by chemical changes in the brain to give rise to emotion — these are mysteries which it is impossible to fathom. But they are not prOfounder mysteries than the transformations of the physical forces into each other," (First Prin., § 71.) Judging from this^ Mr. Spencer must be understood to assert a conceivable likeness between mental and material forces ; and this whether the force we know is like anything in the nou- menal world or not. Presence of the Sun^ and sensations of heat and light, are co- existent phenomena. The latter two seem consequent upon the the first ; yet we cannot trace out the connection of dependence. PerhapSj we think, if the phenomena were on a very much larger scale, or if our perception of them were more minute, we could do this. But the fact is, the phenomena are not contigu- ous, and there can be no connection in the absence of contiguity. We must, therefore, submit to the perplexity, or set about supplying, by means of the imagination, the intervening phe- nomena. We must surrender to incongruity, or think that if the shadows upon the screen could only be intensified (as with other phenomena often is the case), something now unper- ceived would be perceptible, and would connect the phenomena in perception as they are now connected in thought. The phe- nomena to be supplied, can be nothing but what we call the activities of a medium; and it is as necessary to make them contiguous as it was to complete the contiguity of the original phenomena. Which does Mr. Spencer prefer : incongruity of thought, or the conception which brings about congruity? This implies his answer: "the elevation of water to the height whence it fell, is due to solar heat, as is also the genesis of those aerial currents which drift it about when evaporated, and agitate its surface when condensed. That is to say the molecular motion of the ethereal medium is transformed into the motion of gases," &c. ( First Prin., § 139.) Shortly after this he speaks of " molecular movements propagated by the Sun to the Earth." The hypoth- esis of an ethereal medium, notwithstanding the phenomenon of imponderability, seems both conceivable and acceptable to him. THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 85 In the fact of gravitation there is a latent problem for even those who think with Mr. Spencer. Call the fact an appear- ance, if you please, and consider it as taking place entirely ■within the mind. You cannot by this means eradicate the thought of another appearance which, were our faculties (as they are ever becoming) more acute, would be found con- nected with this one, and would render it comprehensible. The possibility of another appearance is as persistent as the actuality of the one we know. We should conceive the pos- sible appearance to be some so-called activity of the ethereal medium, but then we would be met by other actual appear- ances, which Mr. Spencer has pronounced conflicting with it. What should we do? Mr. Spencer shall decide. He explains (First Prin., § 57) that gravity "is probably a resultant of actions pervading the ethereal medium." This is the conclusion we once found it necessary to defend against his charges. He justifies us by professing it. § 28. Motion as a phenomenon, is no more readily brought into philosophical congraity than Motion as a noumenon. Owing to vast and unknown complications, "that which seems moving proves to be stationary; that which seems station- ary proves to be moving; while that which we conclude to be going rapidly in one direction, turns out to be going much more rapidly in the opposite direction," All this appears upon comparison of phenomena. To realize the confusion, and to resolve it into consistency, it is necessary to imagine absolute direction ; that is, direction through positions that are fixed. If, as Mr. Spencer claims, to do this is impossible, the phenomena of Motion must ever remain a mass of incongruities, " Motions, visible and invisible, of masses and of molecules," says he (Pirst Prin,, § 55), "form the larger half of the phe- nomena to be interpreted. • • ■ " It is, therefore, of great moment to know whether Motion, as a phenomenon, can be congruously conceived. What the conception involves, Mr. Spencer explains. "A something that moves; a series of positions occupied in succession; and a group of co-existent 86 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. positions united in thought with the successive ones — these are the constituents of the idea." ( First Prin., § 49. ) It is not to be pretended that Mr. Spencer conceives^ or thinks he con- ceives, positions as not fixedly related to other positions; whence it follows that he conceives motion as absolute. To see that he invariably does this, nothing more is necessary than a reference to his chapter on "The Direction of Motion," (First Prin., Part II., Chap. IX.), where he will be found conceiving direction as fixed and as congruous with other manifestations. To the ball which I hold in my hand I can very readily im- part motion. What continues the motion of the ball? we ask; meaning what new phenomena would be presented, if the phe- nomenon before us were (as phenomena often are) expanded? The question is one which we cannot suppress. It is impossible to conceive that under the conditions described no new phenom- ena would appear; and Mr. Spencer thinks, equally impossible to conceive such phenomena. It is for him to reconcile the conflict. The reconciliation could be brought about only by an expla- nation essentially like the one called for and given when the supposition was that we contemplated noumena. Phenomena involved in that phenomenon, the ball, or phenomena external and contiguous with it, or both, must be imagined. Mr. Spencer advances no explanation; but does what is less allowable. He accepts (;First Prin., § 49) "the necessity which the moving body is under to go on changing its position" as the "funda- mental element" of the idea of motion, regardless of the per- plexities to which the acceptance leads. This is only another instance in which he does what he insists we have no right to do. " We daily witness the gradual retardation and final stoppage of things projected from the hand or otherwise impelled, * • " (First Prii3., § 17.) Can we construe the phenomenon in thought without conceiving a breach of continuity? We will argue that the phenomenon of motion cannot change into the phenomenon of rest without taking the forms of each of the nu- merous phenomena that potentially intervene , and that to follow out the transmutation is impossible, because there must always remain some intermediate phenomenon which might be THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 87 presented. What escape is there for Mr. Spencer? Is he not committedj if ever we were^ to a choice between a breach of graduality and an infinite series? What his explanation would be is problematical, since he has given none. Perhaps, as his philosophy is the one threatened, he would explain that, in the case presented, continuity does not mean graduality; and that the second choice is notto/oZ^ow? out infinite divisibility, but to pass over something capable of unending division. Whatever the answer, it would be no de- nial of the late assertion that "we daily witness the gradual retardation and final stoppage" of moving things. The per- ception occurring daily, the conception must be possible. One, no less than the other, is a subjective thing infinitely divisible. It would be far better for Mr. Spencer to accept some explana- tion suggested than to proceed, as he has been doing, in utter disregard af a supposed phenomenal incongruity, § 29. The conclusion that what we contemplate when per- ceiving Matter is nothing but an aggregate of manifestations, will not dispel the mysteries of its infinite divisibility and ultimate constitution. Not only any phenomenon called a portion of matter, but any phenomenon whatever, objective or subjective, having ex- tent, is either infinitely divisible or not infinitely divisible. The manifestation Matter can be conceived as dividing into two such manifestations; either partial manifestation may be con- ceived to similarly divide; and so on. When parts too small to be distinguished have been reached, we can imagine them magnified into perceptibility (as phenomena sometimes are), and proceed with the division. The query is, can we, or rather could we if eternity were given us, reach parts which, having no extent, cannot be divided? We cannot think so, and Mr. Spencer insists that we cannot think the contrary ; yet one or ' the other we must think, if we think congruously. Which maintains in Mr. Spencer's thoughts? I quote from him. "We are obliged to conceive every portion of matter as containing more than one resistant position — that is, as occupy- 88 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. ing Space. Hence the necessity we are under of representing- to qurselves the ultimate elements of Matter as being at once extended and resistant: this being the universal form of our experiences of Matter, becomes the form which our conception of it cannot transcend, however minute the fragments which imaginary subdivisions produce/' (First Prin,, § 48.) The preference here indicated is for an infinite series of conceptions, rather than a terminal conception of an indivisible part. The thought of such infinite series contains ^11 that was considered objectionable in the thought of infinite divisibility. If Mr. Spencer imagined that he either could or would refrain from all inquiry into the ultimate constitution of Matter, he was guilty of considerable inadvertence. We cannot but think that accompanying that mode of "The Unknowable" which produces in us the appearance Matter, there are other modes which, were our faculties more susceptible, would prove in the manifestation Matter the quality of unbroken or broken con- tinuity. If we conclude that unbroken continuity would ap- pear, we cannot imagine how the manifestation can be made to contract its limits. To the same conclusion another fact is repugnant. It is an established mechanical truth that when a material aggregate of manifestations, to which is joined, the manifestation motion, is brought into a certain dynamical rela- tion with an equal material aggregate of manifestations, to which a manifestation of motion is not joined, the two aggregates divide the manifestation of motion equally between them. This division cannot be gradual unless the parts of the aggregates ( supposing the whole phenomenon to be, as phenomena may be, expanded) are capable of closer approximation; and if the division is not gradual, it contravenes the law of continuity, as Mr. Spencer understands it. Confining ourselves now to a part, we see that we have the same reason for believing that, imagin- ing it magnified, its parts cannot be in unbroken contact; and so we may proceed unendingly. Is this result satisfactory to Mr. Spencer? Will he consent to reject the atomic hypothesis, because solid atoms will not observe the law of continuity? What he says on the subject (First Prin., § 48) is very THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 89 satisfactory. " We may therefore deliver ourselves over with- out hesitation, to those terms of thought which experience has organized in us. We need not in our physical, chemical, or other researches, refrain from dealing with Matter as made up of extended and resistant atoms; for this conception, necessarily resulting from our experiences of Matter, is not less legitimate than the conception of aggregate masses as extended and resist- ant. The atomic hypothesis, as well as the kindred hypothesis of an all-pervading ether, consisting of molecules, is simply a necessary development of those universal forms which the actions of the Unknowable have wrought in us. The conclu- sions, logically worked out by the aid of these hypotheses, are sure to be in harmony with all others which these same forms involve, and will have a relative truth that is equally complete." Considering Mr. Spencer's strenuous, and it may be said suc- cessful, endeavor to convince us that one of " the conclusions logically worked out" from the atomic hypothesis is that, in the transfer of motion, matter violates his notion of continuity, a pleasurable surprise is awakened by the assertion that such conclusions "are sure to be in harmony with all others which these same forms involve," Banish noumena from the sphere of legitimate inquiry, and the problem of the coherence and incompressibility of Matter will remain. In contemplation there is a phenomenon which will not be, like some others, metamorphosed into a less exten- sive phenomenon, or into two or more. The conviction is strong within us that, could the noumenal mode which pro- duces this phenomenon affect us more deeply, — or more properly, were the phenomenon (as phenomena may be) magnified, — we should be able to distinguish what makes it impossible to comprass or rend. That which we think would be disclosed is some force manifestation; and we imagine that this would be found to pervade any part of the material phenomenon, any part's part, and so on eternally ; unless we could eventually reach parts which are centres of force without extension. Shall we say that parts of matter ad infinitum are extended, and thus accept an infinite series; or shall we say that the ultimate 90 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. components of matter are extensionless centres of force? This is the author's solution of the problem. " Centres of force attracting and repelling each other in all directions, are simply insensible portions of matter having the endowments common to sensible portions of matter — endowments of which we can- not, by any mental effort, divest them," (First Prin., § 74.) So it appears that no matter how far the division of the mani- festation Matter be pursued, we can never arrive at parts which are the phenomena known as extensionless centres of force — that insensible portions of the manifestation Matter have the endowments common to its sensible portions, though divided for ever and ever. This is essentially like a conviction which Mr. Spencer once sought to prove absurd. We have escaped no difficulty by considering Matter a phenomenon, nor have we found any explanation other than the ones we had before. § 30, Between Space manifestations and Time manifestations, a distinction must be drawn. All of the former are thought to be objective; while many of the latter are considered subjective. Time being given in subjective manifestations, does not depend fot its recognition on objective manifestations. Neither, there- fore, does the question concerning the character of its attributes, the quantity of its extent, and its infinite divisibility. These questions will obviously arise, even if we exclude from the mind thought of anything beyond its limits. What, for instance, are the attributes of Space manifestations? What, in other words, are their peculiar manners of affecting that which contemplates them? Shall the answer be, that Space manifestations present the attribute extension? Such answer will not be sufficient; for to give an object but one attri- bute is to identify it with that attribute. We must say what there is in Space besides extension, or we must say what are the attributes of extension. Finding their attributes difficult to name, must we conclude that Space and Time manifestations have no peculiar ways of appearing in consciousness — are not distinguishable from each other and from other manifestations? What does Mr. Spencer do? THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 91 His writings abound with proof that he does not do this. " The abstract of all sequences is Time. The abstract of all co-existences is Space." ( First Prin., § 47. ) The chapter in which this occurs sets forth the antithesis between the manifes- tations called Space and Time; and between these respectively and those called Matter, Motion, and Force. Yet the Realist was denied the means of an antithesis. Supposing self to travel out into Space is but imagining a certain sequence of experiences. Might such sequence, as far as it depends upon Space experiences, be prolonged forever? We cannot believe that the sequence could be terminated by the want of a Space experience. There is, then, no limit to the manifestation. Space, Conceive this and you conceive the infinite. " Similarly at the other extreme." Dividing a portion of Space is but dividing an appearance, and dividing an appear- ance is but causing or imagining one appearance to take (as they readily will) the form of several. The division always leaves more appearances than it found, and so long as there is an appearance left, it may continue or be imagined to continue. Conceive this, and you again conceive infinity. Now if infin- iteness of extent and divisibility are unthinkable, we are in- evitably committed to the unthinkable by contemplation of the appearance Space and, let us add, the appearance Time; from which the inference is that these appearances are delusive. Mr. Spencer does not treat either as delusive. Throughout his endeavor to establish universal congruity, he makes frequent use of them, never hesitating, because to expand them is to in- duce perplexities. The problem of their infinite divisibility, I believe, he entirely ignores ; the question of their infinity of extent he has dared to pronounce upon. In a recent article in the Popular Science Monthly (Oct., 1882) he declares that " The Unknowable " is " without limit in space, and without beginning or end in time." This means that Space and Time manifestations of " The Unknowable " are potentially without limit. But the potentially limitless is no more readily conceived than that which is actually limitless. If the one conception is possible, so is the other. 92 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. § 31. At this point we are brought back to the difficulties dealt with in the third chapter. It is to be shown that they, like the rest, are not born to Realism only. It is not possible for Mr. Spencer to suppose that when a sensation has been attributed to the agency of " The Unknow- able," all inquiry concerning its antecedents is at an end. Feel- ing a tap on his shoulder, he would look around to ascertain, as he must explain, what knowable antecedent occasioned the sensation felt. Seeing a friend, he would cease to wonder ; or, if surprised to find his friend so near, a disclosure of remoter antecedents would afford solution. All this without a single thought of " The Unknowable : " illustrating that even if a sen- sation has unknowable antecedents, it nevertheless has a chain of antecedents that are knowable. Is this chain infinite or finite? Apprehending that some real or imaginary knowable antecedent of an3/ effect upon the mind must precede such effect, we should prefer to call the chain infinite. Mr. Spencer repu- diates an infinite series; consequently he must accept the alter- native, which is a First Cause, that is, a first knowable antece- dent of an effect upon any mind. His own arguments should be sufficient to convince him that his phenomenal First Cause is Infinite in backward extent, and Absolute in the sense of being independent of other phenomena. In his favor it must be said that he does not seek to avoid the question. "Be it in a single object or the whole universe, any account which begins with it in a concrete form, or leaves off with it in a concrete form, is incomplete; since there remains an era of its knowable existence undescribed and unexplained. Admitting, or rather asserting, that knowledge is limited to the phenomenal, we have, by implication, asserted that the sphere of knowledge is co-extensive with the phenomenal — co-exten- sive with all modes of the Unknowable that can affect con- sciousness. ■ • • These preceding and succeeding existences under sensible forms, are possible subjects of knowledge and knowledge has obviously not reached its limits until it has united the past, present, and future histories into a whole." (First Prin.j § 93.) Thus are the past, present, and future THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 93 histories united into a whole : " if, as we have seen reason to think, there is an alternation of Evolution and Dissolution in the totality of things— if, as we are obliged to infer from the Persistence of Force, the arrival at either limit of this vast rhythm brings about the conditions under which a counter- movement commences — if we are hence compelled to entertain the conception of Evolutions that have filled an immeasurable past, and Evolutions that will fill an immeasurable future; we ean no longer contemplate the visible creation as having a definite beginning or endf or being isolated. It becomes unified with all existence before and after; and the Force which the Universe presents, falls into the same category with its Space and Time, as admitting of no limitation in thought." (First Prin., § 190.) Here is another passage to the same effect. " Apparently, the universally-co-existent forces of attraction and repulsion, which, as we have seen, necessitate rhythm in all minor changes through- out the Universe, also necessitate rhythm in the totality of its ■changes — produce now an immeasurable period during which the attractive forces predominating, cause universal concentra- tion, and then an immeasurable period during which the repulsive forces predominating, cause universal diffusion — alternate eras of Evolution and Dissolution, And thus there is suggested the conception of a past, during which there have been successive Evolutions analogous to that which is now going on; and a future during which successive other such Evolutions may go on — ever the same in principle, but never the same in concrete result." (First Prin., § 183.) Ever the same fundamentally but otherwise ever in change — this was our history of the past :and prophecy for the future. § 32. The last of our analogies is one of peculiar interest and isupreme importance. It has been supposed by both the adherents and opponents of Mr. Spencer, that by considering that through which all things exist as unknowable, it is possible to preclude the old question of self-existence or creation. We have seen that this question arises with regard to "The Unknowable;" we have yet to see that, in regard to appearances, it will not subside. 94 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. In addition to sequence of the knowable from " The Un- knowable/^ and of "The Unknowable" from "The Unknow- able," ad finem or ad infinitum, there is a sequence of the knowable from the knowable, with or without limit. This stupendous mass of partly constant, partly variable manifes- tations, known as the universe, must have had a beginning or no beginning. Absence of a beginning implies infinity, and infinity cannot be detailed in thought. Moreover want of a beginning is not a complete history of any manifestation ; par- ticularly such as have had a beginning. Turn now to the hypothesis of creation. The phenomenon of a beginning im- plies a phenomenon from which the beginning is a consequent. Try to think, for example, of the phenomenon of nebular dif- fusion as the first phenomenon, and learn how signally you will fail. There arises in consciousness a vague conception of a manifestation back of this one, and essential to its occur- rence. To think congruously that any phenomenon is the first belonging to the universe, we must think of it as due to some prior phenomenon not belonging to the universe. Such prior phenomenon may be deemed as either external to tlie universe or as not actual. First suppose it to have been primarily potentially actual, and to have contained some element which caused it to develop actuality. In making such a supposition^ we trifle with words. Potential actuality, if it be thinkable, is nothing but actuality. The element which is said to cause the transmutation from non-existence into existence is as unthinkable as the transmutation itself. Besides potential actu- ality, whatever its nature, must have had antecedents, and an inquiry into them would bring us around again into the same difficulties which it is the object of the hypothesis to avoid. Next we will suppose the first manifestation belonging to the universe to have been the sequence of some manifestation not included in the manifestations of the universe. That we may deal, as much as possible, in familiar thoughts, let us imagine that at the inauguration of the universe there were present manifestations to which, when viewed collectively, we can attri- bute personality, just as we attribute personality to those collec- THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 95 tions of manifestations called our fellows. And let us imagine also that one of the manifestations belonging to this personality was the act of creation — a manifestation from which followed the initiatory manifestation of the universe. You are asked to frame a thought that will baffle your powers. There are some manifestations^ belonging to the universe, which can have had no creation — which are sequences from nothing but their former selves. No first material manifestation can be imagined. Matter in its remotest known form, is always thought of as the product of Matter in some unknown form. The same is true of Motion. If the phenomenon, Space, was brought about by some preceding phenomena, it must have been sometime absent. A time when Space was absent, however, is inconceivable. Indeed the phenomenon of creation is always imagised as tak- ing place somewhere in Space. Time calls for the same com- ments as Space. One more difficulty, inherent in the last hy- pothesis, remains. Turning to pre-universal phenomena, we cannot but entertain the question of derivation; yet if we do, we find the difficulties we struggle to escape again confronting us. Who shall lead us out of this maze? Perhaps the author. Let us see what solution he has to offer. " All the apparent proofs that something can come out of nothing, a wider knowledge has one by one cancelled. The comet that is suddenly discovered in the heavens and nightly waxes larger, is proved not to be a newly created body, but a body that was until lately beyond the range of vision. The cloud which in the course of a few minutes forms in the sky, consists not of substance that has just begun to be, but of substance that previously existed in a more diffiised and transparent form. And similarly with a crystal or precipitate in relation to the fluid depositing it. ■ Conversely, the seeming annihilations of Matter turn but, on closer observa- tion, to be only changes of state." (First Prin., § 52.) "The annihilation of Matter is unthinkable for the same reason that the creation of Matter is unthinkable." ( First Prin., § 53.) " Could it be shown, or could it with any rationality be even sup- posed, that Matter, either in its aggregates or in its units,, ever became non-existent, there would be need either to ascertain 96 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. under what conditions it became non-existent, or else to confess that Science and Philosophy are impossible.'' (First Prin.j § 52.) Of Motion he speaks similarly. " Motions, visible and invis- ible, of masses and of molecules, form the larger half of the phe- nomena to be interpreted; and if such motions might either proceed from nothing or lapse into nothing, there could be no scientific interpretation of them." (First Prin., § 55.) In another place (First Prin., 53) he explains that "it is impos- sible to think of something becoming nothing, for the same reason that it is impossible to think of nothing becoming some- thing. • ■ • " The eternal persistence, or self-existence, of manifestations of Matter and Motion is, then, firmly believed in by Mr. Spencer. He manifests no repugnance to the infinite series involved, which is something of which he warned us to beware. How near he comes to occupying our former position may be best known from the following comprehensive state- ment of the universal retrospect and prospect. "This rhythm of evolution and dissolution, completing itself during short periods in small aggregates, and in the vast aggregates distributed through space completing itself in periods which are immeasur- able by human thought, is, so far as we can see, universal and eternal. • • • " (Pop. Sci. Monthly, Oct., 1882.) Thus Mr. Spencer professes belief that the Universal Manifestation is a rhythmical activity of substance pervading all Space and per- sisting throughout beginningless and unending Time. § 33. It appears, then, that all the perplexities which were pointed out as resulting from the attempt to formulate Being, are similarly consequent upon the endeavor to formulate Appearances* And, which is more remarkable, it appears that Mr. Spencer has been detected in disregarding every one of them. In consistency, therefore, he could not have complained if we had chosen to do the same. But the fact is, that the choice was to attempt the very opposite, and we see we have happened upon a justification for so doing. Every philosophy aims at the establishment of congruity. No philosophy can attain congruity while these perplexities remain; consequently THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED, 97 if any philosophy is to reach its goal, they are explicable. On the supposition that they are explicable, unless other explana- tions are to be had, those given must be received. Further important results are to be gathered. Perhaps we have been tracing an analogy applicable to more than the in- stances that have come before us. Perhaps we have reached a generalization which, if duly realized, would put an end to the kind of argument we have been reviewing. We will inquire if the likeness of the mysteries, which confront respectively the Noumenal and the Phenomenal Philosophies, does not result from some likeness between these two Philosophies. In this they may be said to agree : that we perceive nothing but appearances. Without noting a disagreement, the concurrence is inappreciable. The one holds that we look upon things in a measure appearing as they are ; the other that the appearances which we look upon are not in any measure components or semblances of things. The one persists in partly identifying the appearance with the reality outside of consciousness, while the other wholly "transfers the appearance into consciousness and leaves the reality outside." (First Prin., § 46.) Unknown appearances are a necessary and legitimate subject of inquiry for each. This truth is much obscured by its com- plexity. It is sufficiently obvious that if appearances are modes of things, we can philosophize about appearances absent in space, and appearances absent in time; appearances too great for our faculties, and appearances which cannot be presented to us because they are too minute. But it is far from sufficiently obvious that if appearances are only modes which things pro- duce within the mind, a purely inferential appearance is not an absurdity. Consequently this last truth must be elucidated. It is well known that neither Mr. Spencer nor any other agnostic philosopher confines his speculations within the limits of perception. It is readily realized that to do so would be to preclude the possibility of a philosophy. On what theory, then, do these philosophers proceed? Their theory I shall now attempt to set forth. Besides the appearances wrought in us directly through our 98 THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. senses, there are appearances wrought in us indirectly through other appearances. Thus, when the appearance hardness is perceived in total darkness, it carries with it the appearance color. Though we cannot say that the mode of the External Cause which wrought the hardness^ wrought also the color con- templated ; we can say that the External Cause, considered as a whole, wrought both effects^ because, by previous uniformity, it caused one to be produced upon production of the other. Be- sides this simple example, others might be given in which, through appearances indirectly produced, others are similarly produced ; in which the inference made is not the only one that could be made; and in which the appearances inferred are not such as have ever been directly produced. In addition, it might be shown how, from the constant verification of inferred appear- ances, we learn to place implicit reliance on inferred appearances which can never be verified. But it is the meaning of reliance on inferred appearances which alone needs much explanation. It means that the mental mode present in the act of conception is regarded as no less the obverse of some extra-mental mode than the mental affection present in the act of perception. It may mean belief that the inferred appearance would be directly produced if certain other appearances were directly produced; or it may not mean so much. It may mean no more than con- fidence that the inferred appearance is, in the world of thought, the equivalent of some mode in the world beyond. Thus much, at least, it always means. Now we know why we were so well able to turn the questions addressed to us, back upon the questioner. Now we have an explanation of that irresistible tendency to seek appearances answering (as they say) to even those modes of things which do not, and never can, affect the senses. They are constituents of the world of thought; and thought can never be completely organized while the least of them is lacking. By means of them, we reason from experience to experience, separated by a gap which experience could never fill. By means of them, we pass beyond the circumference of all possible experience. Constructed by analogy with direct impressions, they bear the same relation to insensible external THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 99 modes, as direct impressions bear to the external modes which make them. They are the obverse of whatever is external and insensible; and as such, must be sought for until none remain unknown, but not finally accepted until they are reduced to complete congruity. We may now proceed with our analogy. However our theories of knowledge may difier, we contemplate precisely the same direct appearances. Though we may differ as to which of such appearances are real, yet, were the truth known, the same would be pronounced real by all. Exactly the same is true of our inferred appearances. While we differ as to which are properly inferred, the difference is due to some one's inad- vertence. There is not one set of appearances with which the Noumenal Philosophy must start, and one set of inferences which it must make; and another set of appearances with which the Phenomenal Philosophy may start, and another set of inferences which it may make; but they must, from the same direct appearances, obtain the same inferred appearances. Should there, then, occur, in the synthesis of appearances, an incongruity or an omission which is necessitated by irrepressible direct appearances and unavoidable inferences from them, it would be equally preclusive of the two Philosophies. Neither can obtain the advantage by arbitrarily limiting its sphere to certain kinds of appearances, because the same appearances are thrust upon the cognizance of both. Neither can do otherwise than synthetize all persistent appearances into a complete and harmonious whole, or confess its own incompleteness. There is another, perhaps a better, method of presenting the fundamental analogy now in* view. Realism and Transfigured Realism may concur in calling all ideas of things external to consciousness symbols. They disagree, of course, concerning the natures of these symbols and what they empower us to do. Realism holds that the symbols, being in many respects like things, are, in many respects, substitutes of things forpurposes of contemplation. Transfigured Realism holds that the symbols resemble noumena in respect of existence only, and therefore enable us to contemplate nothing noumenal besides existence. 100 THE INDUCrrVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. Notwithstanding so great a variance, there is concurrence in that the symbols of thought must form a complete set and admit of congruous combination. Whenever a symbol is wholly or partly wanting, the deficiency must be supplied; whenever one is found incongruous internally or with the pre- ponderance of the rest, it must be rejected as illegitimate. For one Philosophy to ask the other to reject a number of symbols because there is a vacancy or an incompatibility among them, is to acknowledge its own obligation to reject them. If it will not reject them, it cannot compel its antagonist to do so. A number of persistent symbols presenting irremediable deficiency and conflict, would be an everlasting obstruction to the comple- tion of even an idealistic philosophy. § 34. Conformably to necessity, Mr. Spencer elects to retain the symbols which he denies to the Realist. As we have seen, he endeavors, in a manner which E-ealism approves, to develop them into harmonious completeness. It must be added that he encounters one problem which Realism escapes, and leaves it unsolved. Choose any symbol of reality beyond consciousness, and ask yourself — How does the mode of "The Unknowable" which this symbolizes differ from it? To answer this, you must form another symbol, in regard to which the same question arises ; and so on ad infinitum, unless you can sometime reach a symbol which is like the thing for which it stands. Suppose you try to evade this infinite series of problems by employing the same symbol as often as the question is put — suppose you say with Mr. Spencer, that, the consciousness of Force being the ultimate symbol, all modes of "The Unknowable" must be symbolized by Force. Then when we ask you how you symbolize the non-resemblance of "The Unknowable" to its symbol, you must answer — by Force. Force, then, is the symbol of the contrast with itself. This is very absurd; but it does not reach the climax of absurdity. When you are asked how you symbolize the consciousness of Force you must, unless you will allege that a state of consciousness is symbolized by something THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED. 101 unlike itself in the very respect in which it is symbolized, answer — by Force. Force is, then, the symbol of itself and the symbol of "The Unknowable": hence Force and "The Unknowable," the symbol and the thing, are like. Thus there proves no alternative for Transfigured Realism but to proceed with its infinite series of problems, giving a different answer every time. It cannot make any symbol of externality the second time the symbol of the mode for which it stands; it cannot make any permanent symbol of externality the symbol of the symbol. Always there will be a question ahead and a necessity to answer it. Realism encounters no such difficulties; since, in as far as the symbol is likened to the thing, the question of how to symbolize the thing anew is erased from thought. Assert an Unknowable and you encounter all the problems of Realism and more. 102 THE DEDrCTIVE ARGUMENTS. CHAPTER VII. The Deductive Arguments. The Process of Comprehension, § 35, We pass now to the author's deductive considerations. The following (First Prin., § 23) is the first of this class. " If, when walking through the fields some day in September, you hear a rustle a few yards in advance, and on observing the ditch-side where it occurs, see the herbage agitated, you will probably turn towards the spot to learn by what this sound and motion are produced. As you approach there flutters into the •ditch, a partridge; on seeing which your curiosity is satisfied — you have what you call an explanation of the appearances. The explanation, mark, amounts to this; that, whereas through- out life you have had countless experiences of disturbances among small stationary bodies, accompanying the movement of other bodies among them, and have generalized the relation between such disturbances and such movements, you consider this particular disturbance explained on finding it to present au instance of the like relation. Suppose you catch the par- tridge ; and, wishing to ascertain why it did not escape, examine it, and find at one spot, a slight trace of blood upon its feathers. You now midefrstand, as you say, what has disabled the par- tridge. It has been wounded by a sportsman — adds another case to the many cases already seen by you, of birds being killed or injured by the shot discharged at them from fowling- pieces. And in assimilating this case to other such cases con- sists your understanding of it." In like manner, Mr. Spencer carries the reader through several further steps of investigation, to illustrate a generalization which we shall permit him to disclose. " Observe now what we have been doing. Turning to the general question, let us note where these successive interpreta- THE DEDUCITVE ARGUMENTS. 103 tions have carried us. We began with quite special and con- crete facts. In explaining each, and afterwards explaining the more general facts of which they are instances, we have got down to certain highly general facts, ' • * The particular phenomena with which we set out, have been merged in larger and larger groups of phenomena; and as they have been so merged, we have arrived at solutions that we consider profound in proportion as this process has been carried far. Still deeper explanations are simply further steps in the same direction." From the induction thus set forth, Mr. Spencer proceeds to deduce the unknowableness of noumena. " Is this pxocess limited or unlimited? Can we goon for ever explaining classes of facts by including them in larger classes ; or must we eventually come to a largest class? The supposition that the process is unlimited, were any one absurd enough to espouse it, would still imply that an ultimate explanation could not be reached; since infinite time would be required to reach it. While the unavoidable conclusion that it is limited ( proved not only by the finite sphere of observation open to us, but also by the diminution in the number of generalizations that necessarily accompanies increase of their breadth) equally im- plies that the ultimate fact cannot be understood. For if the successively deeper interpretations of nature which constitute advancing knowledge, are merely successive inclusions of special truths in general truths, and of general truths in truths still more general ; it obviously follows that the most general truth, not admitting of inclusion in any other, does not admit of interpretation. Manifestly, as the . most general cognition at which we arrive cannot be reduced to a more general one, it cannot be understood. Of necessity, therefore, explanation must eventually bring us down to the inexplicable. The deepest truth which we can get at, must be unaccountable. Comprehension must be something other than comprehension before the ultimate fact can be comprehended." Muse awhile upon the dogma to which we have been intro- duced. Can the author mean to tell us that a fact is to be explained only by likening it to the less intelligible? Can he 104 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. mean to say that the first step towards the comprehension of a fact consists in assimilating it to facts not so capable of com- prehension? that further steps of the process are but further inclusions of the fact with obscurer facts? and that the clearest understanding is attained upon categorizing the fact with the ab- solutely inscrutable? He can mean nothing else. Strange, then, and numerous are his oversights. A moment's reflection, had he thought it necessary, would have suggested to him that a fact cannot become comprehensible in proportion as it ceases to be comprehensible. Classification, making one fact comprehen- sible, should, by the same magic, make its fellow members comprehensible also. Consequently the largest class should be the best understood; or, to vary the expression, the most gen- eral truth should ( it having no existence apart from the facts which are its exemplifications) be the one most completely realized. Out of the implications of the argument may we thus weave its refutation. It may be disposed of by reductio ad absurdum. At every step in the direction of more extensive classification of facts, some of their individual elements must be dropped. Extension and intension accompany each other in inverse proportion. The consequence of this principle is, that when the maximum of classification, and consequently of comprehension, has been reached, there will be retained a minimum of elements. Such minimum of elements must be a single element; for if it were a plurality of elements, the cognition of them would be a cog- nition of facts not to be assimilated to each other or to other facts — not to be assimilated at all. As each other element has already been cast aside as unclassible, each has proved incom- prehensible. The universal element must, then, be the only element of a fact that the mind can grasp. But neither, on the other hand, can it be known ; for it can be classed with nothing. Nothing, therefore, can be known. The same result, in its concrete form, may be arrived at by another process. There is no attribute which Mr. Spencer will assert to be possessed by all things actual except existence. Similarity in this respect is, he would say, the only one by which they can be bound together THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. 105 in a universal class. From this it is inferable that the most thorough comprehension of facts consists in contemplating their existence only. Existence seems, indeed, to be all that we can comprehend about them. In the process of constructing the most general class, all other attributes have been rejected as unclassible. Though we have classed facts together because of their common possession of some of these attributes, yet we have at the end of such classifications been compelled to reject them as of no aid to comprehension. In as far as the facts grouped together were unlike, there was, by admission, no comprehension ; and in as far as they were alike, they consisted of an element which, being unique, could not be comprehended. We have the same grounds, however^ for pronouncing the universal element incomprehensible. Existence cannot be identified with what is not existence; and if it could, we would obtain an unclassible something by the fusion. If existence or what is not existence cannot be comprehended, nothing can. Surely the conclusions to which the argument leads proclaim its great absurdity. We may meet it by a direct denial. Comprehension of a fact does not necessarily consist in merging it " in larger and larger groups of phenomena." Wishing to illustrate this truth, I shall employ the instances cited by Mr. Spencer. On hear- ing a rustle and seeing the herbage agitated, you seek an expla- nation. When you have learned that the disturbance was due to the movements of the bird, you consider the explanation found. What, in this case, is the explanatory act? It is the reduction of an instance of disturbances in general to an instance of disturbance caused by a partridge. You have ceased to contemplate the fact as one of the vast and indefinite class of disturbances, and learned to contemplate it as one of the less general, but more definite, class of a particular kind of disturbance. " Suppose you" catch the partridge ; and, wishing to ascertain why it did not escape, examine it, and find at one spot, a slight trace of blood upon its feathers. You now under- stand, as you say, what has disabled the partridge. It has been wounded by a sportsman. • • • " At first you did not 106 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. understand the bird's disability, because you could not abstract it from the large class of disabilities. But now you have a better understanding of it, having found it to belong to the comparatively restricted class of wounds on the wing. What caused the wound? This you do not understand while the cause is thought of only as one of the very extensive class of probable causes. The understanding comes when the cause is recognized as belonging to a much less extensive class — the class composed exclusively of discharges from fowling-pieces in the hands of sportsmen. In these instances, comprehension is forwarded by merging the fact to be explained in a less numerous group of facts than that to which it was first recog- nized as belonging. Enough has been elicited to put us upon inquiry. Classification seems to be an aid to compre- hension; but not in proportion to its generality. Other things being equal, there would doubtless be a direct correspondence between the degree in which a truth is known and the number of truths to which it is perceived to bear a resemblance. But, then, these other things, Avhich are usually very unequal, are of preponderating importance. It is very sure that one analogous truth, clearly and firmly grasped, will afford more aid than a thousand vaguely apprehended. No one expects to solve a mys- tery by determining that it is one of a class of mysteries. The reason that the observation of analogy so often facilitates the understanding of a truth is because it is an assimilation of that which we strive to understand to that which is, in a further de- gree, understood. Again, there is an aid to comprehension which, besides being complementary to classification, is exclusive of it. This aid is distinction. Before long Ave shall find Mr. Spencer arguing that nothing can be known except what presents contrast with everything else. On adherence to such doctrine I here insist. The complete assimilation of all truths would leave no truth known. As long as a single truth is indistinguishable from all others, we cannot be said to have a cognition of it The moment it becomes distinguishable in any degree, a smaller class only will include all that is distinguishable in it. Its peculiarities are not embraced in the largest class because all THE DEDUCaiVE ARGUMENTS. 107 things have not the same peculiarities. Likewise it is evident that what is indistinguishable from the other members of a very large class cannot be very thoroughly understood. It may be better understood by bringing to view its contrasts with fellow members; but if this be done, there will be observed peculiarities about it which are common to only the members of a still smaller class. Every step towards more complete distinction is a step from universal assimilation. Some attribute appears at every stage which will not merge in the class last contemplated. The more completely a fact is distinguished, the more completely it is brought within the mental grasp. The difficulty of understanding the cause of the wound, for instance, was due to its indistinguishability from other suppos- able causes. By relegating it to a sub-class, it was made to manifest the distinctions common to that class, and so became better known. In this way is classification often employed aa an auxiliary of distinction; but usually when it is, it will be found to be less general classification. Proceeding with the process of distinction, whether aided or not aided by classifica- tion, a point must be reached at which further assimilation is impossible, but past which, distinction must and does advance. While even two facts are indistinguishable, neither is known ; since when we think we know one we may be really nearer knowing the other, and vice versa. As a matter of fact, too^ that which is spoken of as known is distinguished not only from something else, but from all things else. Even that, which is in the least degree known, is so distinguished. The cause of the wound was set apart in the imagination before as well as after recognition. It was known to be, inter alia, what no other cause could be, the cause of the particular effect in contemplation. Something distinguishes any fact which can be named from everything else in the universe which has been observed or can be imagined. We, in every case, realize this something but cannot classify it. It is no answer to say that qualities which exclude a fact from one class admit it to some other, and so all that is known of it is classed. Admitting the verity of this proposition is an allowance that all things known 108 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. are classed; but not that all distinction may be eliminated. By no means, however, is it to be admitted. The same attri- bute is not absolutely the same in two objects. The existence of this is not the existence of that. Stronger vindication is forthcoming. Calling, as we may do, the combination of attri- butes belonging to anything, an attribute, we are able to recog- nize in any fact an attribute of which there is no counterpart among all that is. Attributes of this attribute need not be dwelt upon; for they too are involved in the last remark. After all similarities have been cancelled, something must re- main. Whatever remains is known independent of assimil- ation. Nor is it insignificant: it belongs not only to every in- dividual object of cognition, but to every class; it is found not only in every whole, but in every part. Knowledge of the unlike is more extensive than knowledge of the like. Sum- ming up what has been said regarding distuiction, by the observation that truth, being heterogeneous, cannot be reduced to homogeneity, let us note that there are relations, heretofore left out of consideration, of which comprehension is not entirely independent. The relations of cause and effect, whole and part are such. It is probable Mr. Spencer would include them in relations of unlikeness. In them, nevertheless, may be dis- covered more than mere unlikeness. Sufficient for the argument, is it that they are not relations of likeness. No longer need we hesitate to repudiate the exorbitant claims made on behalf of classification. As it depends upon them, the argu- ment is null. It may be nullified by citing Mr. Spencer to the contrary. Something over a hundred pages after the argument in hand, the reader's curiosity to know what the most general truth is supposed to be, is gratified. Says Mr. Spencer: "As before shown (§ 23), we cannot go on merging derivative truths in those wider and wider truths from which they are derived, without reaching at last a widest truth which can be merged in no other, or derived from no other. And whoever contemplates the relation in which it stands to the truths of science in gen- eral, will see that this truth transcending demonstration, is the THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. 109 Persistence of Force." (First Prin., § 61.) On the next page he discloses what he means by the "Persistence of Force." ^^By the Persistence of ForcCj Ave really mean the persistence of some Cause which transcends our knowledge and conception." To avoid the suspicion of having asserted of the Ultimate Cause more than existence, he explains (First Prin., § 65) the meaning of "persistence." "The assertion of an existence beyond consciousness, is itself an assertion that there is some- thing beyond consciousness which persists ; for perdstence is noth- ing more than continued existence, and existence cannot be thought of as other than continued." This is not what we had a right to expect. The continued existence of an unknowable cause is not the denomination to which all truth belongs. We have not been made acquainted with a universal class. The cause is not to be assimilated to the effect. Mr. Spencer must have given up the relation of likeness* as the fundamental aid to comprehension. In its stead he must have adopted the rela- tion of cause and effect. All effects are to be explained by the continued existence of the cause. A very meagre basis of ex- planation it would seem, on reflecting that we are denied a knowledge of the kind of existence which is continued. But it is something other than the sufficiency of the explanation which is to be here arraigned. The variance between what Mr. Spencer demanded and what he has produced is the subject of present animadversion. Formerly the highest degree of comprehension of facts was to be attained by classing them with the incomprehensible; latterly it is to be attained by attributing them to the incomprehensible. Mark, also, that they are to be made understandable by attributing them to that attribute of "The Unknowable" which is the only one known — its con- tinued existence. Through a known cause, not through unknown doubles, are things to be understood. I have no wish to hold Mr. Spencer to his professed theory of the process of comprehension. If he will, let him cling to the one implied. When we are called upon to oppose the proposition that all knowledge is through the relation of cau- sality, we shall have no difficulty in meeting it. In the first 110 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. place, we may put in the claims of many other relations. Sec- ondly, we may show how little is really known through this relation. Thirdly, we may maintain that only a known cause will explain its effects. And fourthly, we may argue that the uncaused can sometimes (as indeed the caused may) be known through its effects; and that, as it exists independent of a cause, there is nothing in its nature which it requires a cause to ex- plain, A more abstract proposition — one that will apply to any and all relations — is more likely to be urged against us. Not many would think it absurd to insist that truth can be known only through other truth, and that, there- fore, the most important truth cannot be known. The present is a good occasion for disposing of an entire class of arguments which, alone and together, are fitted to annoy us. It is a jxrioH absurd that a known truth should be derived from that which is unknown. The mutuality of relation suggests a better sup- position. A's being known through its relation to B, does not preclude B's being known through its relation to A, Distinction is a relation that illuminates both its terms. So do all others. Needless, then, is it to find a fact underlying all other facts. If, however, any seek it, they should expect to learn that it needs no explanation. That through which all else is realized, be it one truth or many, must itself be fitted for independent realization. § 36, Special applications of the doctrine that a thing can be known only in so far as it is classed, must be duly examined. Of these there are two: one relating to the Substance of Mind, and one relating to "The Unknowable" in general. The latter will be discussed in the succeeding chapter ; the former shall be considered here. Attempts to disprove an immediate knowledge of Mental Substance I pass over as, although questionable in method, at least laudable in aim. On denial of the conceivabiliiy of Mental Substance, however, I join issue. What is now to be cited opposes alike the perceptibility which I deny and the conceivability which I afiirm. THE DEDUCllVE ARGUMENTS. Ill " Agairij to know anything is to distinguish it as such or such — to class it as of this or that order. An object is said to be but little known, when it is alien to objects of which we have had experience; and it is said to be well known, when there is great community of attributes between it and objects of which we have had experience. Hence, by implication, an object is completely known when this recognized community is complete; and completely unknown when there is no recognized commu- nity at all. Manifestly, then, the smallest conceivable degree of knowledge implies at least two things between which some community is recognized. But if so, how can we know the substance of Mind? To know the substance of Mind is to be con- scious of some community between it and some other substance. If, with the Idealist, we say that there exists no other substance ; then, necessarily, as there is nothing with which the substance of Mind can be even compared, much less assimilated, it remains unknown. While, if we hold with the Realist that Being is fundamentally divisible into that which is present to us as Mind, and that which, lying outside of it, is not Mind ; then, as the proposition itself asserts a difference and not a likeness, it is equally clear that Mind remains unclassible, and therefore unknowable." (Prin. of Psy., § 59.) As opposed to the Realist, the argument is that, since Sub- stance of Mind must be contrasted with everything else, it is unknowable. For the same reason — for the reason that there is nothing else with which to class it — it follows that what is not Substance of Mind is unknowable, that nothing is knowable. Sufficient as this reduction to absurdity is, we do not depend on it alone. We have seen that everything we do know is contrasted with all and everything else within our knowledge. We have seen also that contrast is one of the greatest aids which struggling comprehension finds. We are not now to be persuaded that Substance of Mind is unthinkable merely because it is unlike something, in that the latter is external to its sphere. To these considerations may be added others not previously advanced. Mr. Spencer was bound to prove Mental Substance totally inconceivable. Granting his mode of reasoning sound, 112 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS. ' it was not sufficient to point out a slight contrast: an absolute unlikeness was called for. But an absolute unlikeness was not to be shown. Mental Substance is supposed to be the sub- vStratum of states of Mind^ sustaining them in a manner at least analogous to that in which matter sustains very complicated systems of motion. Some go so far as to think that Substance of Mind is a kind of matter, and that consciousness is a kind of motion. Either view is exempt from Mr. Spencer's strict^ ure, since either asserts the required resemblance. From his point of view, as well as our own, we may point out to him further analogy. As other substance is external to Mental Substance and internal to its own realm, so is Mental Substance external to other substance and internal to its own realm. Both present quantity, whole and part. Both present quality and relation. Both present change and permanence; for each is substance. Though the argument proves bad in both premises, — though no ignorance of Mental Substance has been demonstrated, we should be ever ready to confess it in a comparative degree. While the Mind is wonderfully familiar with what lies beyond, it is wofuUy ignorant of its own constitution. Nevertheless, we must persist in retaining and employing the conception of Mental Substance which has grown up within us. Vague it is, but not void; lacking form, but not formless. Inchoate it may be, but promising great development. THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 113 CHAPTER VIII. The Deductive Arguments Continued. The Unconditioned. § 37, The next specimen of agnostic argumentation is rather three than one. But its components are so well co-ordinated that it shall be considered, what its propounder considered it, one composed of three parts. The last of these was, in the preceding chapter, partly disposed of. What familiarity with it we have acquired will be of service when we meet it again. In stating the three-fold argument with which we are about to come face to face, Mr. Spencer has availed himself of con- siderable quotation from Hamilton and Mansel. This a courtesy to them, which is no kindness to the reader. To the reviewer, the circumstance is still less propitious. He must sift out for discussion only what is of the essence of the argument, reject- ing not only what Mr, Spencer afterwards expressly repudiates, but all that he is at liberty to repudiate. As he has summar- ized the argument, we have the advantage of knowing what he intended its general character to be. With this recapitulation, he brings it to an end: "A thought involves relation^ difference^ likeness. Whatever does not present each of these does not admit of cognition. And henc^ we may say that the Uncon- ditioned, as presenting none of them, is trebly unthinkable.'' (First Prin., §24.) § 38. First of difference. What on this subject is quoted from Sir William Hamilton is the following: "all that we know either of subject or object, either of mind or matter, is only a knowledge in each of the particular, of the plural, of the different, of the modified, of the phsenomenal." (First Prin., § 24.) 114 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. Erase the word " phenomenal," or use it in a certain sense, and we shall have no reason for denying this. It certainly im- plies that "The Unconditioned" is unthinkable; but this is rather favorable to our view that nothing is unconditioned. In both the material and mental worlds, we expect to find partic- ularity, plurality, heterogeneity y and the quality of being modi- fied. They who hold a contrary opinion of the nature of realities are the only ones whom the above-quoted dictum does not favor. Let us hear what Mr. Mansel has to say for Mr. Spencer on the subject of difference. "The very conception of consciousness, in whatever mode it may be manifested, necessarily implies disUnction between one object and another. To be conscious, we must be conscious of something; and that something can only be known, as that which it is, by being distinguished from that M^hich it is not. But distinction is necessarily limitation; for, if one object is to be distinguished from another, it must possess some form of existence which the other has not, or it must not possess some form which the other has. But it is obvious the Infinite cannot be distinguished, as such, from the Finite, by the absence of any quality which the Finite possesses; for such absence would be a limitation. Nor yet can it be distinguished by the presence of an attribute which the Finite has not; for, as no finite part can be a constituent of an infinite whole, this differential char- acteristic must itself be infinite; and must at the same time have nothing in common with the finite. We are thus thrown back upon our former impossibility ; for this second infinite will be distinguished from the finite by the absence of qualities which the latter possesses. A consciousness of the Infinite as such thus necessarily involves a self-contradiction; for it im- plies the recognition, by limitation and difference, of that which can only be given as unlimited and indifferent." ( First Prim, §24.) The application of these remarks will be known when it is said that one of the supposed peculiarities of " The Uncon- ditioned," is infiniteness in respect of every attribute of every THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, 115 thing. "Willingly will we predicate of it infiniteness in the number and degree of its absurdities. Unhesitatingly will we carry further Mr. Hansel's criticism. That is infinitely removed from possibility^ which has contradictory attributes in an infi- nite number and degree. Stranger yet does it seem^ when we reflect that this, which must have so many attributes, can have only one. Had it more, each would limit the other and limit the whole. Nor can it have both substance and attribute; for each, and their sum, would be limited by the other; yet not either can exist alone. Consciousness, too, has a word to say. We have immediate knowledge of finite things ; and the existence of these implies the non-existence of the Infinitely Infinite, But the Infinite which thus proves to be unlimitedly ridic- ulous, is not identical with those external things of which we assert infiniteness. Space, we say, is infinite ; meaning, not that it is infinite in every quality imaginable, nor even that it is in- finite in every quality belonging to itself, but that it is infinite in extent. Mr. Spencer, when in quest of evidence that infi- nite space is inconceivable, did not think it pertinent to suggest that we cannot conceive space as infinitely righteous, infinitely active, or infinitely hot. If, however, that which is infinitely something must be infinitely everything, such reasoning would be conclusive. It is as inconclusive as could well be, for the reason that there is no tendency to attribute to anything infi- niteness in respect of more than a very limited number of qual- ities. To Divinity even are ascribed but a few qualities unlim- ited in degree. The majority of attributes are not ascribed to Divinity at all. We conceive anything infinite to be in some way limited. This is true of the whole External Universe. Call it infinite, but keep in view in what respects it is, and in what it is not infinite. Do not from infiniteness in spacial or temporal extent drift to the conclusion that it is incongruous with the limitedness which contrast indicates. The part of the argument which relates to difference we have found to show the absurdities of something which we •deem both unthinkable and non-existent; but to leave unaf' fected all that we consider existent and known. 116 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. § 39. Next of Relation — the relation between subject and object. This is the way Sir William Hamilton reasons from it. "Thought cannot transcend consciousness; consciousness is only possible under the antithesis of a subject and object of thought, known only in correlatioUj and mutually limiting each other." (First Prin., §24.) By this, it is supposed, the Infinite is proved incognizable. As above it was contended that other objects limited it, so it is here contended that it is limited by the subject. The answer before given is efficient here. The Infinite in every respect cannot exist at all; the infinite in some respects can co-exist with other things. The subject is not exclusive of it. By the considerations last cited, the Absolute also is supposed to be proved incognizable. The reason of the attempt to estab- lish the incognoscibility of the Absolute is that it, like the Infinite, is presumed to be comprehended in "The Uncondi- tioned." ' Since an object of thought is "known only in corre- lation" with the subject, it is argued that the " Unrelated" or Absolute cannot be an object of thought. The argument would be relevant if we believed in the existence of something unre- lated; but we do not, and cannot. Everything we believe existent, we believe to be related to every other thing; though we consider some things not to be dependent upon the relation in which we find them, and for this reason call them absolute. Thought does not create its object, but the object exists before, after, and independent of the thought. Correlated, but inde- pendent of the correlation, is what we predicate of the Absolute. Further discussion of the Absolute will be necessary after we have listened to Mr. Mansel on the subject of relation. " A second characteristic of Consciousness is that it is only possible in the form of a relation. There must be a Subject, or person conscious, and an Object, or thing of which he is con- scious. There can be no consciousness \vithout the union of these two factors; and in that union each exists only as it is related to the other. The subject is a subject, only in so far as it is conscious of an object: the object is an object, only ia so far as it is apprehended by a subject: and the destruction of THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, 117 either is a destruction of consciousness itself. It is thus mani- fest that a consciousness of the Absolute is equally self-contra- dictory with that of the Infinite. To be conscious of the Absolute as such, we must know that an object, which is given in relation to our consciousness, is identical with one which exists in its own nature, out of all relation to consciousness. But to know this identity, we must be able to compare the two together; and such a comparison is itself a contradiction. We are in fact required to compare that of which we are conscious with that of which we are not conscious; the comparison itself being an act of consciousness, and only possible through the consciousness of both its objects. It is thus manifest that, even if we could be conscious of the absolute, we could not possibly know that it is the absolute : and, as we can be conscious of an object as such, only by knowing it to be what it is, this is equivalent to an admission that we cannot be conscious of the absolute at all. As an object of consciousness, everything is necessarily relative ; and what a thing may be out of conscious- ness, no mode of consciousness can tell ns." "An object of thought exists, as such, in and through its relation to a thinker ; while the Absolute, as such, is independent of all relation." (First Prin., §24.) "WTiat is the substance of that said about the Absolute? It has not been described, we must first observe, as that which is out of all relation, but merely as that which is "independent of all relation." Being independent of relation, Mr. Mansel thinks it cannot be known as it is. Assuredly it cannot be known out of relation to consciousness. Neither, reasons Mr. Mansel, can it be known in such relation ; for " the object is an object, only in so far as it is apprehended by a subject;" "an object of thought exists, as such, in and through its relation to a thinker." Here the fallacy emerges. How would those of Mr. ManseFs persuasion content themselves with the conclusion that an object of thought, as such, presents no attribute except that of being an object of thought? Not at all; yet this is the conclusion to which his reasoning leads. In and through its relation to thought, an object of thought is an object oi 118 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. thought and nothing more. ^ But it is more; therefore^ it is something independent of this relation. Did objects of thought present nothing but objectivity, nothing that is objective, they would be all alike: that they are unlike shows that they do present something besides objectivity. May not this some- thing be, in some cases, not dependent upon anything else? Undoubtedly, unless we imagine that what depends upon other things for one attribute depends upon them for all. This we cannot do. Though the Absolute depend upon a thinker for its being an object of thought, it does not depend upon a thinker, as such, for its being whatever it is more than this. So much of it is independent that we call it absolute. As the Absolute is further known than as a mere object of thought, there is no incongruity in saying that it is known as absolute. But is not a knowledge of its absoluteness a knowledge of it out of relation to the mind? By no means: while in such relation we can perceive that cognition depends upon its being, not its being upon cognition. To the objection that from this may be deduced the conclusion that it would exist €ven if it were not known, the reply is that this conclusion is legitimate. We can think of an object's co-existing with our utter ignorance of it. If I had not found a pretty pebble on the beach, I would never have given it a thought; yet it would have continued to exist as it existed before I found it. This is no difficult thought. The relation in which the object was once known seems, on contemplation, not to be the occasion of the object's existence. " Still," it may be said, " the object is even now in a relation fundamentally like the one contemplated," So much the better: the relation contemplated being essentially like the relation of contemplation, and in fact like all other relations of cognition, stands for them all. The object exist- ing independent of it, independent of its essence, exists inde- pendent of anything essentially like it. The conclusion is one which we cannot resist, and one which we can congruously oonceive. Two ways of knowing that an object of thought is independent of cognition have been found. The knowledge is given immediately, in perception, and mediately, by conception. THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. . 119 Not even by defining the Absolute as that which cannot exist in relation, can Mr. Mansel's argument be made effective. We have the best evidence which the nature of the case permits, that there exists nothing answering the description. It is a strange absolute that depends upon the absence of relation for the possibility of its existence. If the Absolute is independent, it can exist in relation ; and if it is not independent, it may as well depend upon relation as the want of it. Very much better, we may say, considering that it must exist in relation or not at all. Everything existing must be related in many ways to everything else. Relation does not conflict with independence. Space is independent of matter, though related to it. Within itself, too, it has, and must have, relations ; but it is not in the ordinary sense dependent on them, nor they on it. The relation which the Absolute transcends is that of effect to cause. When- ever we find something which is not related to anything else as an effect to its cause, however it may be otherwise related, we may call it absolute. That part of the argument which concerns relation, is very conclusive, as opposed to what we deny; but very inefficient, as opposed to what we affirm. § 40. Lastly of Likeness. On this subject, Mr. Spencer is the one who speaks. His theory of comprehension is presented in the conclusion, "that a thing is perfectly known only when it is in all respects like certain things previously observed ; that in proportion to the number of respects in which it is unlike them, is the extent to which it is unknown; and that hence when it has absolutely no attribute in common with anything else, it must be absolutely beyond the bounds of knowledge." Following this is the application. "Observe the corollary which here concerns us. A cogni- tion of the Real, as distinguished from the Phenomenal, must, if it exists, conform to this law of cognition in general. The First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute, to be known at all, must be classed: To be positively thought of, it must be thought of as such or such — as of this or that kind. Can it be like in 120 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. kind to anything of which we have had sensible experience? Obviously not. Between the creating and the created^ there must be a distinction transcending any of the distinctions exist- ing between different divisions of the created. That which is uncaused cannot be assimilated to that which is caused : the two being, in the very naming, antithetically opposed. The Infi- nite cannot be grouped along with something that is finite; since, in being so grouped, it must be regarded as not-infinite- it is impossible to put the Absolute in the same category with anything relative, so long as the Absolute is defined as that of which no necessary relation can be predicated. Is it then that the Actual, though unthinkable by classification with the Ap- parent, is thinkable by classification with itself? This suppo- sition is equally absurd with the other. It implies the plurality of the First Cause, the Infinite, the Absolute; and this impli- cation is self-contradictory. There cannot be more than one First Cause; seeing that the existence of more than one would involve the existence of something necessitating more than one, which something would be the true First Cause. Plow self- destructive is the assumption of two or more Infinites, is manifest on remembering that such Infinites, by limiting each other would become finite. And similarly, an Absolute which existed not alone but along with other Absolutes, would no longer be an absolute but a relative. The Unconditioned, therefore, as classible neither with any form of the conditioned nor with any other Unconditioned, cannot be classed at all. And to admit that it cannot be known as of such or such kind, is to admit that it is unknowable." (First Prin., § 24.) The above calls for nothing in the nature of explanation except, perhaps, the remark that "The Unconditioned" is con- sidered to be the First Cause, "tl^ie Real as distinguished from the Phenomenal," the Actual as contrasted with the Apparent, as well as the Infinite and the Absolute. Some distance back, we were given to understand that "The Unconditioned" can bear no relations of difference. Now comes out the implica- tion that it is not without them. "Between the creating and the created, there mud be a duitinction transcending any of the THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 121 distinctions existing between different divisions of the created. That which is uncaused eannot be assimilated to that which is caused ; the two being, in the very naming, antithetically opposed. The Infinite cannot be grouped along with something that is finite; since, in being so grouped, it must be regarded as not-infinite. It is impossible to put the Absolute in the same category with anything relative, so long as the Absolute is defined as that of which no necessary relation can be predi- cated." Why, theuj the endeavor to show that a distinguishable unconditioned is an absurdity? If "The Unconditioned" really is, to the extent which Mr Spencer claims, distinct from the Conditioned, to think of it as distinguished, is to think of it as it is. One of the two arguments must devour the other : if "The Unconditioned" transcends likeness, it is all distinction ; if it transcends distinction, it is all likeness. Regard for Mr. Spencer would compel us to construe the arguments into an attempt to show the folly of trying to believe in the existence of an unconditioned, were it not that he actually believes that there is something without conditions, and believes that it is dis- tinguished from the Conditioned to the extent which he implies. The argument from the necessity of distinguishing objects of thought is, therefore, the one which fails. Into the independent conclusiveness of the other we shall proceed to inquire. The premise that a thing is comprehended in direct propor- tion to the generality, and in inverse proportion to the particu- larity, of the class to which it is thought of as belonging, warrants the conclusion that "The Unconditioned" is compre- hended. The First Cause^ the Infinite, the Absolute, the Noumenal, belong to the most general class; which, remember, includes whatever has existence. Even their distinctions belong to this class. To it all classes, including itself, belong. Every thing real belongs to it. In it "The Unconditioned " is classed with the Conditioned. According, then, to Mr. Spencer's test, nothing is better known than "The Unconditioned." The above premise also warrants the conclusion that the Conditioned cannot be known, and therefore nothing can be known. The ■Conditioned, as much as "The Unconditioned," presents abso- 122 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. lute particularity. It cannot be classed with any other Con- ditioned, because there is none ; nor with any part, for between whole and part there must be an insuppressible distinction. For no portion, even, may an exact counterpart be found. There is nothing which is like everything else; nothing which is not unlike everything else. Point out all the resemblances you can find, and there will remain something which nothing resembles. Likeness upon likeness will not exhaust the un- likeness. Go back and examine any attribute which you have laid aside as matehed. It cannot be completely likened to that which most resembles it. After all its similarities to other things have been noted, there will always remain a dissimilarity which can never be resolved into similarity. Begin again with any subdivision you may select, but you will end where you did before. There is no absolute similarity, and relative simi- larity proves to be only a less degree of dissimilarity. Analysis shows every thing and every attribute to be absolutely, though often not conspicuously, unique. That the mind cannot grasp the unique, means that it can grasp nothing. Besides reductiones ad absurdum, we have found a direct refutation possible. So far is distinction from being an impediment to comprehension, that it is to comprehension a most propitious circumstance. Were that which Mr. Spencer has called uncon- ditioned, without distinction it would baffle even our apprehen- sion. We should then be under the constant liability of confounding it with anything and everything, or we would take no cognizance of it at all. Fortunate for us that it is dis- tinguishable. Mr. Spencer should have shown, but did not show, that "The Unconditioned '' is entirely unclassible. Does "The Un- conditioned " consist of the peculiarities he has told us of, and nothing else? Unless we know it all, there is something more belonging to it. This, then, notwithstanding all said, may be capable of being classed. Giving Mr. Spencer's words the greatest weight which he could think of claiming for them, they do not carry conviction that "The Unconditioned" is entirely unclassible. THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 123 To other charges, may be added that of the argument's irrelevancy. It is not difficult to show that existences beyond consciousness may, without violating our conception of them, be classed with regard to the very attributes which have called forth so much discussion. The First Cause, we will con- cede, cannot be classed with any other. Why this concession? Because all things self-existent and productive of effects, are (in abstract speculation) grouped together and called "the First Cause ; " leaving, of course, no like group. In the same way, phenomena may be grouped together and called " the Phe- nomenal World." In the first case, no less than in the second, the problem is given ready solved. If the First Cause is a group, its components are already classed. Let us view this in the concrete. Time and Space are uncaused, or, if we prefer, perpetually self-caused. Either description gives us what we seek — the means of grouping components of the First Cause. Both Time and Space may be considered creating; since, besides perpetuating themselves, they are factors in the continual change of temporal and spacial relations : so we find a second attribute by which components of the First Cause are grouped. But the strongest position accessible to us has not yet been reached. In addition to classing component with component, we may class the whole with its components. Its description is, that which is self-existent and creating; and this is the description of every part. There cannot, we must also concede be two things infinite in every regard; because, as Mr, Spencer says, " such Infinites, by limiting each other, would become finite." The concession is but a yielding of what we are anxious to repudiate- Such infinites as we think we discern in the realm of realities, are not supposed to have no limitations of nature. The point is gained if infinite Time and Space are not exclusive of each other, and may be classed together as limitless. A class of absolutes may also be asserted. This remark is not supposed to be true of absolutes which cannot exist in relation. It is true so long as the Absolute is defined as that which depends on no relation to any other thing for its existence. There is no relation to any thing else from which Space or Substance derive 124 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. their existence ; and in view of this likeness they may be classed together as absolutes. Already it is shown that there are various groupings of the Actual or Real^ as distinguished from the Phenomenal or Apparent; for they include self-existent ■causeSj infinites, and absolutes. Instances of other groupings of things believed to lie out of consciousnesSj are so numerous that the mention of one might suggest a thousand. While Horse may be classed with Dog, Mr. Spencer should not flatter himself that he has proved that there can be no assimilation of things in themselves. It is remarkable that his argument treats of those outward realites which are in the extreme minority. To mankind at large, the External Universe pre- sents little more than effects which are finite and relative ; un- caused causes, infinites, and absolutes are in a high degree exceptional. Instead of the fallacious reasoning which he employed, Mr. Spencer might have premised that "The Unconditioned" must be like everything else even to its parts, because distinction is condition ; and then pointed out that the First Cause, the Infi- nite, and the Absolute, components of "The Unconditioned," do present distinction. Thus, might the unthinkability of "The Unconditioned" have been demonstrated. But we require no demonstration. The want of distinction is, as well as distinction, a condition. Nothing, we believe, can transcend either; nothing, we are sure, can transcend both. "The Un- conditioned " is to us a non-existence, and we welcome anything which tends to banish it from thought. That part of the general argument which deals with likeness proves to be as inefficient as the rest. It may be so reformed as to oppose what we deny ; but it cannot be made to dispute what we proclaim. § 41. And now let us take a glance at the argument as a whole. Besides objections peculiar to certain portions, there is one which is applicable to each of its three divisions, and con- sequently to it all. Admitting that it proves a conception of *^ The Unconditioned" self-destructive, the objection is never- THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 125 theless sustainable that it does not attach to a certain realistic conception of the universe. Before we will admit that it proves something that exists unknowable, we must be satisfied that there exists an Unconditioned. And before admitting that it proves the Noumenal World unknowable, it must appear that " The Unconditioned " and the world outside of consciousness are co-extensive and identical. How much Mr. Spenc>er does towards filling up these gaps in his argument, will be the next subject of investigation. § 42. He will not agree with Hamilton that "the absolute is conceived merely by a negation of conceivability/' nor with Mansel that "the Absolute and the Infinite^^ are, "like the In- conceivable and the Imperceptible^ names indicating, not an object of thought or consciousness at all, but the mere absence of the conditions under which consciousness is possible." What are his reasons? "Observe in the first place, that every one of the arguments by which the relativity of our knowledge is demon- strated, distinctly postulates the positive existence of something beyond the relative. To say that we cannot know the Absolute, is, by implication, to affirm that there is an Absolute." (First Prin., § 26.) How so? Surely it will not be contended that proof of the impossibility of a certain conception, amounts to proof that there is something answering to such conception. To point out the contradictions involved in the thought of a round square, is not to assert, by implication, that there is a round square. One very important proposition, of which we remarked the want of proof, is that there exists an absolute answering Mr. Spencer's description. The use which he made of certain arguments, assuredly assumed the existence of such an absolute; but is it not a justification of the assumption of which we are even now in search ? We have interrupted the author in the middle of a paragraph, and must read further. "The Noumenon, everywhere named as the antithesis of the Phenomenon, is throughout necessarily thought of as an actu- ality. It is rigorously impossible to conceive that our knowledge is a knowledge of Appearances only, without at the same time 126 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. conceiving a Reality of which they are appearances ; for appear- ance without reality is unthinkable." Again we must be guilty of interruption. We cannot suffer Mr. Spencer to omit proof that "The Unconditioned" and the Noumenal are the same. That they are, is the second proposition which we observed he had yet to establish. While they may be supposed to differ, belief in the reality of the last will not be accepted as equivalent to belief in the reality of the first. Now we will hear Mr. Spencer out. " Strike out from the argument the terms Unconditioned, Infinite, Absolute, with their equivalents, and in place of them write, ^negation of conceivability,^ or ^absence of the conditions under which consciousness is pos- sible/ and you find that the argument becomes nonsense. Truly to realize in thought any one of the propositions of which the argument consists, the Unconditioned must be repre- sented as positive and not negative. ' ' ' Clearly, then, the very demonstration that a definite consciousness of the Absolute is impossible to us, unavoidably presupposes an indefinite con- sciousness of it." Suppose that, with intent to demonstrate our inability to conceive intersecting parallel lines, we argue that the intersection of parallel lines is a contradiction in terms — that their intersection conflicts with their parallelism; their parallelism, with their intersection. If Mr. Spencer's prin- ciples are to be relied on, we have proved the reality of parallel lines which intersect,. Strike out everything that stands for the subject of discussion; in its place write "an unreality;" and see if the argument does not lose its intelligibility. By like reasoning, every proof that something is inconceivable is a proof that it exists. The indefinite consciousness which Mr. Spencer remarks is not consciousness of that of which the con- ceivability is denied ; but the construing of several predicates without the power of affirming them of a single subject. In- somuch as there is a certain bond of union among them, they may be dealt with as an integer; in as much as they exclude each other, the union is incomplete. The denial of conceiv- ability does not exclude all predicates from the mind, but merely the co-affirmation of some of them. While they dis- THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 127 place one another, there persists a sense of their kinship, and thus is formed the indefinite consciousness in question. This vague and protean mode may be contemplated in one relation and another, in this aspect and in that; but it cannot be said to represent any reality, since it is marked by absence of the very peculiarity essential to the supposed reality, — that is, the union of certain attributes. The indefinite consciousness which arises 6n mention of the name " Unconditioned," is no more the con- sciousness of a reality than that w^hich responds to the mention of equidistant^crossing lines, or any other absurdity. § 43. A second attempt to show that we have some conscious- ness of "The Unconditioned," follows the one just examined. " It is a doctrine called in question by none," premises the author, "that such antinomies of thought as Whole and Part, Equal and Unequal, Singular and Plural, are necessarily con- ceived as correlatives: the conception of a part is impossible without the -conception of a whole; there can be no idea of equality without one of inequality. And it is admitted that in the same manner, the Relative is itself conceivable as such, only by opposition to the Irrelative or Absolute." (First Prin., § 26.) To carry on the argument to its conclusion, it was necessary to refute a doctrine expressed by Sir William Hamilton as follows. "Correlatives certainly suggest each other, but correlatives may, or may not, be equally real and positive. In thought contradictories necessarily imply each other, for the knowledge of contradictories is one. But the reality of one contradictory, so far from guaranteeing the reality of the other, is nothing else than its negation." Accordingly Mr. Spencer attempts the refutation. " In such correlatives as Equal and Unequal, it is obvious enough that the negative concept contains something besides the negation of the positive one; for the things of which equality is denied are not abolished from consciousness by the denial. And the fact overlooked by Sir William Hamilton, is, that the like holds even with those cor- relatives of which the negative is inconceivable, in the strict sense of the word. Take for example the Limited and the 128 THE BEPUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. Unlimited. Our notion of the Limited is composed, firstly of a consciousness of some kind of being, and secondly of a conscious- ness of the limits under which it is known. In the antithetical notion of the Unlimited, the consciousness of limits is abolished ; but not the consciousness of some kind of being. It is quite true that in the absence of conceived limits, this consciousness ceases to be a concept properly so called ; but it is none the less true that it remains as a mode of consciousness. If, in such cases, the negative contradictory were, as alleged ^nothing else' than the negation of the other, and therefore a mere nonentity, then it would clearly follow that negative contradictories could be used interchangeably : the Unlimited might be thought of as antithetical to the Divisible; and the Indivisible as antithetical to the Limited. While the fact that they cannot be so used, proves that in consciousness the Unlimited and the Indivisible are qualitatively distinct, and therefore positive or real; since distinction cannot exist between nothings. The error, (very naturally fallen into by philosophers intent on demonstrating the limits and conditions of cousciousnefes,) consists in assuming that consciousness contains nothing but limits and conditions; to the entire neglect of that which is limited and conditioned. It is forgotten that there is something which alike forms the raw material of definite thought and remains after the definiteness which thinking gave to it has been destroyed. Now all this applies by change of terms to the last and highest of these antinomies — that between the Relative and the Non-Relative." I think, nevertheless, that there are unanswerable reasons for siding with Sir William Hamilton. Contradictories may, or may not be equally real and positive. In the instances wliich Mr. Spencer has cited, they are; in an infinite majority of instances which might be cited, they are not. For our examples we shall take such antinomies as Extent which is infinitely divisible, and Extent which is not infinitely divisible ; Motion which is communicated gradually, and Motion which is communicated suddenly; Force, operating through a medium, and Force oper- ating through no medium. Or if these are not sufficient, we will mention Mental Effects which are caused, and Mental THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 129 Effects which are uncaused ; Phenomena of which we are con- scious, and Phenomena of which we are unconscious; Appear- ances known as internal to consciousness, and Appearances known as external to consciousness. Will Mr. Spencer admit that both terms of each of these contradictions are true? Nay, is he ready to embrace the conclusion that the consciousness of every possibility, to which there is a correlative impossibility, carries with it a consciousness of the latter which proves its reality? Absurd though it is, he comes near expressly affirm- ing this very conclusion. Speaking of the correlatives Equal and Unequal, he says that "the things of which equality is denied are not abolished from consciousness by the denial; " and follows this remark with the assertion that "the like holds even with those correlatives of which the negative- is inconcciv- able, in the strict sense of the word." If Mr. Spencer will say that it holds with all of them, and that therefore their con- traries are as real as they, it will be unnecessary to make further comment. He would say nothing so self-evidently ridiculous; hence we may argue that "The Unconditioned's" being a correlative does not imply a consciousness of it. "We demand some other datum. It has been given. The Unlimited cannot be thought of as antithetical to the Divisible; whence it is inferred that there is a mode of consciousness answering to something unlimited. We should have been pleased to have Mr. Spencer tell us this when the subject was unlimited Space and unlimited Time. Though they are not interchangeable, he struggled hard to con- vince us that our thoughts of them in no manner correspond to realities. We shall not be as inconsistent as he, — we will not say one word to prove that there is no positive consciousness of the Unlimited. That we can prove there is such consciousness, by a method satisfactory to Mr. Spencer, is a matter of con- gratulation. Our present concern is with that which exists out of relation. This, we maintain, we are not conscious of. The argument opposed to us is substantially this : the Irrelative is antithetical to the Relative, and to no other correlative; but if it were not positively thought of, it would be as much antithetical 130 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, to one thing as to another; therefore there is consciousness of the Irrelative. An analogous case will furnish complete refutation. To portions of matter which are not co-extensive, there is the verbally intelligible correlative^ — portions of matter which are co-extensive. Try to make this correlative seem the antithetical correlative of two twos which do not make five. The effort must be unavailing, because portions of matter occupying the same space and two twos which make five are more to consciousness than zeros; proving a genuine con- sciousness of them both, or proving Mr. Spencer's mode oi reasoning unreliable. His aberration is undoubtedly attributable to a misunder- standing of the indefinite consciousness which is, so to speak, the symbol of the inconceivable. If he had reflected that in different cases it consists of different groups of incompatible affirmations, he would not have thought that if it has various forms, it must, in each of them be a consciousness of a reality. The same reflection might have saved him from a gross inconsistency. He describes consciousness of the Absolute as " something which alike forms the raw material of definite thought and remains after the definiteness which thinking gave to it has been de- sti'oyed;" and, further on, speaks of the impossibility of giving "to this consciousness any qualitative or quantitative expression whatever." This can scarcely be thought to consist with the argument that consciousness of the Absolute and consciousness of other correlatives "are qualitatively distinct, and therefore positive or real." Being distinguishable, they ar^ qualified; or being unqualified, they are indistinguishable, and therefore interchangeable. The former position is j)referable. In sup- port of it, we have Mr. Spencer's proof that inconceivable correlatives are distinct from one another. In further support of it, we have the fact that the "raw material" of thought would not support the antithesis which exists between the Ab- solute and the Relative. What has no qualities cannot support the antithesis issuing from the quality of being out of relation. There is no escape from the conclusion, once urged by Mr. Spencer, that the indefinite consciousness which is antithetical THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 131 to consciousness of the Related, is more than unmodified material of definite thought. As before explained, it is a collection of definite materials, but incapable of proper combination. The impossibility of constructing from its components a congruous idea, is its mark of spuriousness. It will not avail Mr. Spencer to reject this explanation; for consciousness of the Unrelated, being distinguished from other consciousness, is not uncondi- tioned consciousness — is much less consciousness of "The Unconditioned." § 44. A third endeavor to prove that we have consciousness of " The Unconditioned " remains. "Still more manifest will this truth become when it is ob- served that our conception of the Relative itself disappears, if our conception of the Absolute is a pure negation. It is admitted, or rather it is contended, by the writers I have quoted above, that contradictories can be known only in relation to each other — that Equality, for instance, is unthinkable apart from its correlative, Inequality; and that thus the Relative can itself be conceived only by opposition to the Non-relative. It is also admitted, or rather contended, that the consciousness of a relation implies a consciousness of both the related members." "If the Non-relative or Absolute, is present in thought only as a mere negation, then the relation between it and the Relative becomes unthinkable, because one of the terms of the relation is absent from consciousness. And if this relation is unthink- able, then is the Relative itself unthinkable, for want of its antithesis: whence results the disappearance of all thought whatever." (First Prin., § 26.) Before us is an attack upon consciousness of the Related which, it is supposed, may be repelled only by asserting con- sciousness of the Unrelated. Many other ways of accomplish- ing the defence are available. Were nothing necessary to make the Relative thinkable, but to find it an antithesis, there would be no occasion to call in the Absolute. To something related, anything differently related is antithetical. That which exists in certain relations is 132 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. sufficiently contrasted with that which exists out of these relations, though it exist in others. For the sum of things related there is a similar antithesis. It is related differently from its components, and they from it. But Mr. Spencer's demands are not to be so easily appeased. He must have the strongest antithesis verbally expressible. Nothing but absolute contradiction is enough for him. As the Relative is a sphere of reality sustaining relations, he will not grant that anything is so strongly contrasted with it as to exhibit its relationship, except a sphere of reality sustaining no relation. With equal propriety, might we claim that Extended Space is inconceivable apart from the consciousness of Unextended Space, With equal propriety, indeed, might we claim that nothing having a contradictory can be known unless in connec- tion with consciousness of the latter. What knowledge is there that would not be swept away by the requirement? Grant us a license to use his mode of reasoning, and we will sub- stantiate a set of conclusions still less agreeable to Mr. Spencer. How easy, for instance, to prove that the External Universe is self-existent. Other things are known as not self-existent; but that which is not self-existent cannot be known independent of a consciousness of that which is self-existent; therefore we are conscious of something self-existent. How easy to prove, in the next breath, that the External Universe is self-created. This last proposition manifestly conflicts with its predecessor. It also conflicts with the doctrine that the External Universe is unrelated; for, as self-creation can only be in time, the self- created must sustain temporal relations. Causal relations are likewise to be predicated of it. Sufficiently refuted is the argument by its reduction to absurdity. Next comes the ex- posure of an inconsistency. While the subject of the relations of the Unrelated is before us, let it be noted, that the passage last quoted proclaims that the Absolute is related, and known as related. Something having no relation, bears a relation of contrariety to something that has relations. Mr. Spencer argues that the something which is related, cannot be known out of relation to the some- THE DEBUGTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 133 thing which is not related ; and that their relation is unthinkable unless both its terms are present in thought. Both terms being present in thought, the Unrelated is known as a term of a relation. The explanation that the Irrelative is present merely as raw material of thought, is entirely unsatisfactory. How- ever symbolized, the Irrelative is symbolized as related, so far as it is symbolized at all. By Mr. Spencer's admission, the raw material and its relations, stand for the Irrelative and its rela- tions. Could anything be more remarkable than the position, that "The Unconditioned" is known, and is, so far as it is known, known as conditioned? If the imagined correlative of the Related, is itself related, what is there antithetical to the quality of relativeness? Towards finding the required antithesis, we can do more than Mr. Spencer. Here again must be introduced the correc- tion, that the thought corresponding to the word "Unrelated" is far more than unmodified thought. The predications which it contains, although incapable of complete union, present much that is positive. Their union itself, far as it must stop short of completion, is not entirely negative. Such being the case, it is legitimate for us to claim that the thought of the Unrelated, spurious though it is, is more strongly antithetical than any other mental mode, to the thought of the Related. Something very nearly meeting Mr. Spencer's requirement may, it seems, thus be pointed out without prejudice to ourselves. Hence they may, who choose, speak of the antithesis between the Relative and the Irrelative, with immunity from the charge of asserting the latter's existence. Finding an antithesis for the Relative is to some extent a work of supererogation, I think that philosophers are prone to assign too much prominence to certain relations. Being con- ditions of the object, these relations are mistaken for conditions of the subject, because they modify cognition. Being general, they are deemed universal. Being auxiliary to comprehension, they are regarded as essential to it. That "contradictories can be known only in relation to each other," is not a deduction from any knowledge in our possession, and multiplicity of facts 134 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. prevents its being anything like a complete induction. Nor is it unopposed by {acts. Experience is rarely, very rarely, appealed to in order to decide the point in dispute, because, among other reasons, of the difficulty of obtaining and inter- preting the answer. Whenever an appeal is made, instances are chosen which are most favorable to the appellant. Thus it is that the majority of instances are never subjected to the slightest examination. Those selected are, moreover, seldom, if ever, examined to ascertain whether the things which occur together are dependent or merely concomitant. Contraries, instead of being simultaneously recognized usually only suggest each other. Some do not even do this. When we read of the quiet path, the green grass, the running brook, we find some- thing which the mind would ordinarily grasp without a thought of contradiction. The conception which has been defended is of the Relative as such. Perhaps it may be better to describe it as still less comprehensive. It is of the E-elative in the extreme sense in which the latter is said to be the correlative of the Unrelated. It might consequently have been given up without parting with any attribute of the Relative, but its contrast with the Irrelative. The Related as the antithesis of the Unrelated, in the latter's absence from the universe, we do not need to know. § 45. Mr. Spencer has more to say about consciousness of " The Unconditioned," but by way of description rather than substantiation. What he sometimes considers the character of such consciousness to be, may be gathered from the following. ^^One of the arguments used to prove the relativity of our knowledge, is that we cannot conceive Space or Time as either limited or unlimited. It is pointed out that when we imagine a limit, there simultaneously ai'ises the consciousness of a space or time existing beyond the limit. - This remoter space or time, though not contemplated as definite, is yet contemplated as real. Though we do not form of it a conception proper, since we do not bring it within bounds, there is yet in our minds the un- ■shaped material of a conception. Similarly with our conscious- THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, 135 ness of Cause. We are no more able to form a circumscribed idea of Cause than of Space or Time; and we are consequently obliged to think of the Cause which transcends the limits of our thought as positive though indefinite. Just in the same manner that on conceiving any bounded space^ there arises a nascent consciousness of a space outside the bounds ; so when we think of any definite cause, there arises a nascent conscious- ness of a cause behind it : and in the one case as in the other, this nascent consciousness is in substance like that which suggests it, though without form. The momentum of thought inevitably carries us beyond conditioned existence to uncondi- tioned existence; and this ever persists in us as the body of a thought to which we can give no shape." (First Prin., § 26.) The analogy which Mr. Spencer uses is one exceedingly hostile to his purpose. From the very peculiarities of the conceptions of Space and Time which renders them analogous to the conception of Causation, was drawn support for the conclusion that they do not represent anything outside of con- sciousness. Suppose the same rule be applied to the conception described as consciousness of the External Cause. It will then result, if the rule be valid, that this conception corresponds to no reality — is no consciousness of "The Unconditioned." An alternative stricture will suit us better. Conception of the Cause being held to answer, as far as it goes, to reality, the author is unable to resist the conviction that the same is true of the conceptions of Space and Time, It is granted that there is a conception which Mr. Spencer very well describes. But he describes it as more than raw material of thought, which is what he has told us consciousness - of "The Unconditioned" is. Consciousness of a cause, as such, is not unmodified consciousness. Again 5 he has told us that we are conscious of " The Unconditioned " as antithetical to the Relative in being Non-relative. What now does he mean by saying that we are conscious of "The Unconditioned" as a cause? — that is, as bearing relations of causation? According to the author's last account, the consciousness of an unconditioned cause follows from the consciousness of 136 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. conditioned causes. Does he contemplate these causes as phe- nomena? If he does, his argument is that if we retrace their lineage we shall arrive at unconditioned phenomena. This is evidently not what he wishes to establish. An unconditioned noumenon is to be the ultimate object of contemplation. Con- sciousness of " The Unconditioned," not merely unconditioned consciousness, is to be the ultimatum. To direct Mr. Spencer's argument against his opponents and not against himself, it is necessary to understand the proximate "definite cause," of which he speaks, to be something external to consciousness. Yet by doing this we do not help him. If the supposed con- sciousness of the first definite cause is a pseudo-consciousness^ the consciousness derived from it ^ the consciousness of "The Unconditioned " — is probably the same. Supposing, on the other hand, the latter consciousness genuine, is an implied con- cession that it is possible to conceive the proximate end of the chain of noumenal causation. Effects wrought on con- sciousness are, then, not all that we know. We know causes; even causes external to consciousness. "The Unconditioned" is not all beyond consciousness: only a remote portion of it. There are many Realists who hold this view. As Mr. Spencer observes, the conception of a definite cause raises a "nascent consciousness of a cause beyond it." His mistake is in supposing that the remote cause is as unshapen as our conception of it. The constant observation of causes becoming more definitely known, should be sufficient to teach that the modifications of consciousness are usually less numerous and less marked than its object. Though equally absurd, there is a vast difference between unconditioned consciousness and consciousness of something unconditioned. Conceptions Kke the one in question are so common that we need not look far for an analogy. One thinking of the line of his ancestors, can picture definitely his father's appearance. His grand- father's appearance he is unable to represent with so much definiteness. Of his great-grandfather, and an endless line of predecessors, he can probably call to mind neither form nor feature. Shall he then say that he can trace his pedigree back THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 137 to ancestors devoid of form and feature ? To do so, is no more preposterous than to declare that tracing back the chain of causation brings us to a cause without form, because its repre- sentation is so far from completely formed. " When we think of any definite cause there arises a nascent consciousness of a cause behind it/' says Mr. Spencer. This is true of those causes which are most likely to come to mind on mention of the name; but is far from being universally true. Space is a cause; yet we think of no cause, other than its former self, back of it. The same is true of Time and of the essence of both Substance and Activity. For nothing, but evanescent modes of Substance and Activity, and evanescent spacial and temporal relations, do we seek causes that are not quite as definitely conceived as their effects, being identical with them. The External Cause, we see, does not appear half so indefinite when we cease to contemplate exclusively its indefinite modes. Its vaguest forms, we may add, are presented with some definiteness. Very remote causes, which Mr. Spencer thinlvS must be regarded without any definiteness whatever, may be, and in fact are, looked upon as some Activity of Sub- stance taking place somewhere in Space and Time. The "momentum of thought" can never carry us into the presence of what is less than this. § 46. Still another description of consciousness of "The Unconditioned" is given by the author. Very pertinently he asks : " How can there possibly be constituted a consciousness of the unformed and unlimited, when, by its very nature, con- sciousness is possible only under forms and limits? If every consciousness of existence is a consciousness of existence as conditioned, then how, after the negation of conditions, can there be any residuum?" And he answers — "Such consciousness is not, and cannot be, constituted by any single mental act; but is the product of many mental acts. In each concept there is an element which persists. It is alike impossible for this element to be absent from consciousness, and for it to be present in consciousness alone : either alternative 138 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. involves unconsciousness — the one from the want of the sub- stance; the other from the want of the form. But the per- sistence of this element under successive conditionSj necessitates a sense of it as distinguished from the conditions^ and independent of them. The sense of a something that is conditioned in every thought^ cannot be got rid of, because the something cannot be got rid of. How then must the sense of this something be constituted? Evidently by com- bining successive concepts deprived of their limits and condi- tions. • * • By fusing a series of states of consciousness, in each of which, as it arises the limitations and conditions are abolished, there is produced a consciousness of something un- conditioned. To speak more rigorously: — this con- sciousness is not the abstract of any one group of thoughts, ideas or conceptions; but it is the abstract of all thoughts, ideas or conceptions. That which is common to them all, and can- not be got rid of, is what we predicate by the word existence. Dissociated as this becomes from each of its modes by the perpetual chano-e of those modes, it remains as an indefinite consciousness of soiliething constant under all modes — of being apart from its appearances." "Our consciousness of the unconditioned being literally the unconditioned consciousness, or raw material of thought to which in thinking we give definite forms, it follows that an ever-present sense of real existence is the very basis of our intelligence. As we can in successive mental acts get rid of all particular conditions, and replace them by others, but cannot get rid of that undifferentiated substance of conscious- ness which is conditioned anew in every thought; there ever remains with us a sense of that which exists persistently and independently of conditions." (First Prin., § 26.) Mr. Spencer has the power of bestowing on error a force of expression which few men can give to the truth. "Raw material of thought" would be an admirable phrase, were there anything answering to it; but there is not, at least in Mr. Spencer's sense. There is no consciousness, or material of con- sciousness, without form, any more than there is raw material of any thing else, without form. Consciousness devoid of THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 139 form, would be consciousness of nothing. Marvelous is it that a sense of existence should be mistaken for unconditioned con- sciousness. Existence has its modifications, its attributes. It has the attribute of being; it is distinguishable from what is not existence; it is some particular existence; it is known in the cognitive relation. Demonstrably, then, consciousness of existence is, after all, consciousness of the Conditioned, and not consciousness of " The Unconditioned." Although Mr, Spencer calls consciousness of " The Uncon- ditioned" a "sense of real existence," he, in another place,^ calls it " a sense of that which exists persistently and indepen- dently of conditions." By what right he treats these descriptions as equivalent is not disclosed. They are so far from equivalent as to be conflicting. The latter is more comprehensive than the former. Which will he retain? Consideration reveals little preference. Recently it has appeared that a sense of existence is not consciousness of anything unconditioned. The same remark will apply, even more extensively, to a sense of that which exists thus and so. The existence of " that which exists " as described, is conditioned; and, moreover, so is whatever is presented besides existence. This last is conditioned in being related to the subject, in being joined to existence, in differing from existence, in differing from other things existing. Strive as we may, we can be conscious of the Conditioned only. Both descriptions of consciousness of "The Unconditioned," represent it as consciousness of something conditioned. In respect of their other absurdities they are about equal. A sense of existence merely (supposing it possible) is a sense of the existence of nothing in particular. There is no possibility of determining to what the existence belongs — no way of knowing it to be the existence, not of this or that which is conditioned, but of something else which is unconditioned. Unless its existence be all there is of "The Unconditioned," we have^ then, no consciousness of anything unconditioned. If it be, however, all of "The Unconditioned" is within the grasp of thought. Sincerely as he would repudiate it, this very absurd proposition, that "The Unconditioned" comprises nothing but 140 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, existence, seems implied in the author's . reasoning. He calls ^' The Unconditioned " "the unformed ; " thereby implying that it is an existence having no attribute except existence. Indeed he is obliged to think it unformed^ if he would believe it un- conditioned; for that which has modifications is conditioned. Thus it appears that he is driven to the admission, that in knowing " The Unconditioned " as a pure existence, we know it all. We shall find an equivalent objection to the description of consciousness of "The Unconditioned" as "a sense of that which exists persistently and independently of conditions." This affirms something besides existence, it is true ; but it affirms as well a knowledge of the something additional. Such affirmation is a direct denial of the author's doctrine, that nothing noumenal but existence is knowable. There is a way of avoiding this difficulty. It is by returning to the preceding one. Mr. Spencer might explain, that in speaking of " that which exists persistently and independently of conditions," he had reference to something which is unmodified existence. Existence may, of course, be alluded to as something which exists. Using this explanation is a return to the position, that the entire "Unconditioned" is within our knowledge. AV hatever attributes it may enable us to contemplate, con- sciousness of "The Unconditioned" is said to be an abstraction. "In each concept there is an element which persists," and " the persistence of this element under successive conditions, necessitates a sense of it as distinguished from the conditions, and independent of them." Has not Mr. Spencer fallen into the error of supposing that because elements can be separately named, and separately contemplated, they can be disconnected in fact? The notion of hardness in the abstract is not con- stituted by a single mental act. By attending to the hardness of a number of objects of various shapes, there is formed a notion of hardness as distinguished from shape, aud independ- ent of any particular shape. Following the example set us, we might assert a consciousness of something hard but shape- less. To do this would be absurd. So also is it to say that because an element is uniform under all conditions, it is inde- THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 141 pendent of condition. One important peculiarity of the uni- versal element is that in the concrete it is invariably subject to some conditions. In the abstractiouj therefore, this peculiarity should find expression. Mr. Spencer takes into his abstraction an element (existence) fitted for his use, but leaves out an equally persistent element (conditionality) which will not con- form to Lis necessity. When this element has found due recognition, it will be perceived that the sense of general exist- ence is a sense of it as conditioned. Now another consideration is equally important. Having formed the notion of existence, it is obligatory upon us to consider how far the notion corresponds to reality, reality to the notion. In other cases, we do not imagine that there is an entity answering to the concept. The most that we do imagine is that there are attributes which the concept connotes. A proposal to consider these attributes as composing a separate existence, instead of belonging to the concrete things from which they were theoret- ically taken, would in other cases be disposed of by a summary exercise of the prerogative to smile. Mr. Spencer's anomaly of abstraction will be only prejudiced by further illu- mination. What we contemplate in perceptions and conceptions are, he thinks, phenomena. The element, then, which is recog- nized as common to them all must, we should think, be phe- nomenal. But according to his account, we abstract its existence from each, and, when we have fused the abstractions, we have a notion of the existence of something lying back of all, back of even their existence. § 47. All advanced in proof that there exists something unconditioned has been noticed, and its inadequacy, it is hoped, made sufficiently manifest. That it may not be thought that the arguments examined are remediable or capable of efficient substitution, a few words more are necessary. Mr. Spencer's method of proving the existence of "The Unconditioned" is to prove consciousness of it. Such con- sciousness as he alleged, observe, is not in strictness conscious- ness of the object; but is no more, though it may be less, than an 142 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED, idea of the object. Proof of immediate knowledge of a thing is proof that it exists ; but proof that an idea of it exists does not remove all doubt of its existence. It is not enough that the idea is necessarily formed^ unless the necessity is of a peculiar kind. The necessity of forming an abstraction does not^ as we have lately seen, bespeak an abstract entity, but rather favors the reverse. The necessity of forming vague ideas of remote causes does not vouch for the existence of causes that are as vague as their symbols. Inability to think of a conceived existence without thinking of its correlative^ does not, if real, evidence the actuality, but only the think- ability, of this correlative. If it be true that arguments to prove the inconceivability of an alleged existence become mean- ingless if all thought of this existence be suppressed, it may nevertheless be true that to the thought there is nothing corre- sponding. There are many ideas which we cannot but form,, but upon which we cannot rely. We demand, besides proof that we are obliged to conceive an unconditioned, proof that we are compelled to believe that it exists, Neither has been given. Some reliance on a very strange method of proving a con- sciousness of "The Unconditioned" is evinced by Mr. Spencer. It is by proving an unconditioned consciousness. One objection is, that unconditioned consciousness cannot disclose that there is something beyond consciousness of which it is the consciousness. Known merely as a state of mind, it cannot be known as a representative state. To know vicariously that it is consciousness of something, is to have some other consciousness of that some- thing. Another objection is, that there is no consciousness which is unconditioned : in no state of mind is there recognized an unmodified element. It could be distinguished only by its peculiarities ; and peculiarities are peculiar modifications. Apropos of the present criticism, are a few words which appear in one of the author's quotations from Mansel: "we can be conscious of an object, as such, only by knowing it to be what it is." Mr. Spencer would have us conscious of "The Unconditioned," as unconditioned; and yet not conscious of the quality of being unconditioned, but only of the quality of THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 143 existence. Either we-are not conscious of " The Unconditioned " as such (and if we are not, we have no knowledge of its being unconditioned ) ; or we are conscious of the very attribute which is the only one said to be beyond the bounds of knowledge. No matter that the consciousness is called indefinite : if it is so indefinite as not to be a realization of the quality of being un- conditioned, it is not the consciousness in question. No matter that there persists in us a sense of something more than we definitely know: unless it is a sense of something as being unconditioned, it is not sufficient. The consciousness is spurious, if it is not consciousness of "The Unconditioned" as it is. Because he attempted the impossible, Mr. Spencer failed. To reason about anything, is to bring it into* relation. To reason about it, is to give it distinetion. To reason about it, is to view it in more than one relation, and therefore to give it likeness. The product of Mr. Spencer's speculations is as bad as -the process. It is the conclusion that we know something unconditioned. Yet, by implication, this something is related to the subject; and at the same time assimilated to, and con- trasted with, other things which are objects. Would it not be well for philosophers to refrain from the attempt to prove that there exists an unconditioned? Nay; would it not be well for all to repudiate belief in such an entity? The answer has been given and confirmed. Acqui- escing in reductions to absurdity of all pretended knowledge of "The Unconditioned," the effort was to carry them still farther. It would be easy to protract the criticism but to no purpose; for, to those who can adopt a myriad of absurdities, absurdity is a recommendation. Whoever decides in accordance with the best evidence procurable, will decide against the existence of anything unconditioned. I think that even Mr. Spencer would deny that External Reality is any such thing, if his reasonings in regard to it would permit. They will not, however. If a thing is not in every particular infinite, the necessity of contemplating it as not in every particular infinite, does not preclude knowing it as it is. If it is not entirely lacking in relativity, knowing it as related, is not necessarily 144 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. knowing it as it is not. If it is not absolutely unmodified, the conditions under which it is presented, or some of them, may- belong to itself. Mr. Spencer must maintain belief in some- thing which is in itself uncx>nditioned, accepting its absurdities, or abandon the argument. The alleged incongruities of ultimate religious and ultimate scientific ideas were thought to show the non-existence of objects corresponding. Let the same rule be applied to the belief in " The Unconditioned." § 48. Had the existence of "The Unconditioned" been established, Mr. Spencer's argument would still be wanting. No more than assertion has been advanced to show that all outside of cortsciousness is unconditioned. Consciousness of " The Unconditioned " has not been described as consciousness of " The Unconditioned " as all external to consciousness. It was not considered as consciousness of so much. So much, however, it must be shown to be, in order to complete the argument. The requirement is impossible to meet. Exter- nality is a condition. Aside from this, it is impossible, while ignorant of things, to know that all are this or all are that. The consequence is that the Theistic Realist may affirm con- sciousness of an unconditioned God, together with a conscious- ness of certain of his conditioned works; believing both to be external to the mind. A further consequence is that an Athe- istic Realist may imagine that he discerns in the external world both qualified material things and an unqualified substratum. Both might affirm with Mr. Spencer the existence of an Un- conditioned, and nevertheless maintain, without conflict with his argument, that some noumena are conditioned. In as much as the argument fails to establish that all noumena are unconditioned, it fails to establish that all are unknowable. THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 145 CHAPTER IX. The Deductive Arguments Continued. The Nature of Life, § 49. There is an important deductive argument yet to be investigated. From his conception of Life, Mr, Spencer de- duces, as follows, the unknowableness of things outside of consciousness. "Divesting this conception of all superfluities, and reducing it to its most abstract shape, we see that Life is definable djs the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations. And when we so define it, we discover that the physical and the psychical life are equally comprehended by the definition. "We perceive that this which we call Intelligence, shows itself when the external relations to which the internal ones are adjusted, begin to be numerous, complex, and remote in time or space; that every advance in Intelligence essentially consists in the establishment of more varied, more complete, and more involved adjustments; and that even the highest achievements- of science are resolvable into mental relations of co-existence and sequence, so co-ordinated as exactly to tally with certain relations of co-existence and sequence that occur externally. A caterpillar, wandering at random and at length finding its way on to a plant having a certain odor, begins to eat — has inside of it an organic relation between a particular impression and a particular set of actions, answering to the relation outside of it, between scent and nutriment. The sparrow, guided by the more complex correlation of impression which the color, form, and movements of the caterpillar gave it; and guided also by other correlations which measure the position and dis- tance of the caterpillar; adjusts certain correlated muscular movements in such way as to seize the caterpillar. • • • And 146 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. lastly, let it be noted that what we call truthy guiding us to successful action and the consequent maintenance of life, is simply the accurate correspondence of subjective to objective relations ; while error, leading to failure, and therefore towards death, is the absence of such accurate correspondence. "If, then, Life, in all its manifestations, inclusive of Intelli- gence in its highest forms, consists in the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations, the necessarily rela- tive character of our knowledge becomes obvious. The simplest cognition being the establishment of some connection between subjective states, answering to some connection between objective agencies; and each successively more complex cog- nition being the establishment of some more involved connection of such states, answering to some more involved connection of such agencies ; it is clear that the process, no matter how far it be carried, can never bring within the reach of Intelligence either the states themselves or the agencies themselves. Ascer- taining which things occur along with which, and what things follow what, supposing it to be pursued exhaustively, must still leave us with co-existences aud sequences only. If every act of knowing is the formation of a relation in consciousness par- allel to a relation in the environment, then the relativity of knowledge is self-evident — becomes indeed a truism. Think- ing being relationing, no thought can ever express more than relations. "And here let us not omit to mark how that to which our intelligence is confined, is that with which alone our intelli- gence is concerned. The knowledge within our reach, is the only knowledge that can be of service to us. This maintenance of a correspondence between internal actions and external actions, which both constitutes our life at each moment and is the means whereby life is continued thi'ough subsequent mo- ments, merely requires that the agencies acting upon us shall be known in their co-existences and sequences, and not that they shall be known in themselves. If x and y are two uni- formly connected properties in some outer object, while a and b are the effects they produce in our consciousness; and if while THE DEDUCTIVE ARUUMENTS CONTINUED. 147 the property x produces in us the indifferent mental state a, the property y produces in us the painful mental state b (answering to a physical injury ) ; then, all that is requisite for our guidance, is, that X being the uniform accompaniment of y externally, a shall be the uniform accompaniment of b internally; so that when by the presence of x^ a is produced in conscious- ness, 6, or rather the idea of 6, shall follow it and excite the motions by which the effect of y may be escaped. The sole need is that a and b and the relation between them, shall always answer to x and 3/ and the relation between them. It matters nothing to us if a and b are like x and y or not. Could they be exactly identical with them, we should not be one whit the better off; and their total dissimilarity is no disadvantage to us. "Deep down in the very nature of Life, the relativity of our knowledge is discernible. The analysis of vital actions in general, leads not only to the conclusion that things in them- selves cannot be known to us ; but also to the conclusion that knowledge of them, were it possible, would be useless." ( First Prin., §25.) § 50, Let us be careful to imderstand the author. Does he mean to say that intellection is the establishment of relations in the mind parallel to relations in "The Unknowable?" He cannot mean this. Throughout those chapters in his Biology and Psychology which exhibit Life as correspondence, there is no intimation that the environment, so often mentioned, is other than phenomenal. Indeed his views will not permit such an intimation. Were he to grant that light, heat, air, earth, water, and other elements of a plant's environment are noumena, he could not conceive them save at the expense of his theory of knowledge. Should he concede that any of the multitudinous objects^ properties, activities, relations, to which as he shows us, animal life corresponds, is an extra-mental reality, he would thereby concede to us a knowledge of such a reality. If he will maintain the impossibility of knowing things beyond the mind, he must consider the mind^s environ- ment, including the bodily organism, as lying wholly within the 148 THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. mind's circumference. What^ then, is the portent of his defi- nition of intelligence? It must be that every act of intellec- tion is the establishment of relations in one ( the subjective ) order of mental states, so as to correspond with relations which establish themselves in another (the objective) order of mental states. Such being its interpretation, the definition will not support the deduction Mr. Spencer would make, without an identification which he would not make — an identification of "The Unknowable" with objective appearances. For what is it that cannot be transcended but relations among states belong- ing to the subjective order of mental affections? This brings the objective order into that relation to the subjective order which "The Unknowable'' was to be proved to bear. To re- tain the objective order as objects of cognition — and, as they are said to lie within consciousness, they must be so retained — it must be admitted that relations among states of the subjective order are transcended by thought. But this again, leaves room for the supposition that "The Unknowable" may be an object of thought. The argument from the nature of life, as we have interpreted it, means nothing, unless objective appearances are (as far as they go) to be identified with "The Unknowable." It seems that unless we adopt the interpretation which at first we rejected, Mr. Spencer's reasoning must appear unintelli- gible. We will do so. We will suppose that he means to define intellectual life as the establishment of mental relations correspondent to the relations of things in themselves. The definition before us is not the one which he has in so many places taken so much pains to establish. Declaring, arguing, reiterating, again and again, that life, including mind, is correspondence, he has not advanced one word to prove that mental activity corresponds to more than mental affectabilit}\ Wisely so, it would seem on inquiring what could be said to the purpose. Induction can bear no testimony while experience of things in themselves is denied. Deduction is equally mute, unless the nature of things out of consciousness be drawn into the reasoning process. What brings us intelligence that "The Unknowable" is not an entirely homogeneous and inert entity, THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 149 by acting upon which in various ways, the mind induces, as reactions, what are called "The Unknowable^s" effects? If unmodified, external reality is homogeneous. If homogeneous, it is inert; for activity, being different from its substance, is inconsistent with absolute homogeneity. To illustrate: when percipient of hardness, none can readily decide whether he perceives the force of something external acting upon the mind, or the mind's activity reflected back upon itself. We have reached a conception of mental a