that all objections against rational intuition on the ground that it is immediate and self-evident, unproved and unprovable knowledge, are equally valid against sense-perception and self-consciousness.

III. The mind, considered as capable of rational intuition, I shall call the Reason. Reason as thus used must be distinguished from reasoning, which is a process of reflective thought. So Plotinus speaks of "the transition from reason to reasoning."*

11. Knowledge by Representation.

Knowledge by representation is knowledge of a reality formerly presented in intuition and now re-presented in a mental image or concept. The mental image or concept is called a re-presentation.

When these mental images are not recognized as re-presentations of realities previously presented, they are known merely as mental images, and are the objects or material for the creations of imagination.

The recognition of a mental image or concept as a re-presentation of a reality previously known, is memory. Memory is the power of representing the past and of knowing it again through the re-presenta

tion.

Memory is self-evident knowledge. It stands independent of reasoning in its own self-evidence. In this respect it agrees with presentative intuition. It differs from it in that the knowledge is not immediate, but through a representation. It presupposes a reality formerly known intuitively, and now known again through a re-presentation.

The reality of knowledge through memory is essential to the reality of all knowledge which rests on a process of thought or involves any lapse of time. Without it observation and experiment can ascertain no facts, reasoning can reach no conclusion, experience can accumulate no knowledge; for the knowledge of this moment would vanish irrecoverably in the next.

The attempts to vindicate the trustworthiness of memory otherwise than as giving self-evident knowledge are futile. Mr. Huxley holds that certainty is limited to the present consciousness. Yet he says that "the general trustworthiness of memory" and "the general constancy of the order of nature" "are of the highest practical value, inasmuch as the conclusions logically drawn from them are always verified by experience." He argues that the present act of memory may be trusted, because in past experience a multitude of remembrances have been found to be correct. But he can have no knowledge of any past remembrance and its verification except the knowledge given by memory

* Meráẞaois áñó võv έis hoyioμóv; quoted by John Smith, Select Discourses; Cambridge, 1673, p. 94.

† Lay Sermons, p. 359.

itself. He cannot know in a single instance during his process of verification what he is verifying nor on what premises his logical conclusion rests, except as he remembers. How can an intelligent man gravely propound such a begging of the question as argument, and claim that he is scientific? The trustworthiness of memory cannot be established by experience, since it is itself a condition of the possibility of experi

ence.

James Mill explains our belief of memory as the result of the association of ideas. But this is an impossible explanation. A visit to a house in which I once dwelt may be the occasion of mental images of various scenes arising in my mind; but it does not in the least account for my knowledge that these are representations of scenes in my past life. Or when he says that the ideas of past experience are irresistibly associated with the idea of myself experiencing them, and this irresistibleness constitutes belief, in this statement itself he assumes a knowledge of past experience and of myself experiencing it as already existing and as the basis of the entire effect attributed to the association of ideas.

Physiology explains memory by "the organic registration of the results of impressions on our nervous centres." Whatever is present in consciousness is attended by action and waste of nerve, and leaves behind in the nerve itself a trace, which Dr. Maudsley compares to a scar, or a pit left by small-pox.* This implies that every object seen during a lifetime leaves a trace like a scar on the retina of the eye, that these innumerable scars imprinted on this exceedingly small surface and new ones momentarily added, are distinct and without confusion, and that each one remains identified with the object which originally caused it and ready at every moment to represent it in consciousness without commingling it with any other. This explanation is simply inconceivable, and itself needs explaining as much as the fact which it professes to explain. And the difficulty is multiplied by the five senses, by all the nerves of feeling and motion, and by the several parts of the brain if the theory is established that each of them has its special function. At the most, physiology can only describe the physical conditions of intellectual action. It cannot find thought and knowledge in the structure or functions of the nerves, nor explain them by molecular motion, or by the traces of its action which it leaves.

12. Knowledge through Reflection or Thought. I. Reflection or thought is the reflex action of the intellect attending to the reality known in presentative intuition, and apprehending, differentiating and integrating it under the regulation of the principles * Physiology and Pathology of the Mind, pp. 182, 183.

known in rational intuition, and concluding in a judgment. Discriminating or distinguishing may be used as synonymous with differentiating, and comprehending or unifying as synonymous with integrating.

1. It is a prerequisite to thought that both the reality about which we think and the principles which regulate our thinking be already given in intuition.

2. The objects of thought as presented in intuition are indeterminate. They lie before the mind in their reality, differences and relations. But they lie before the mind as indeterminate or nebulous matter, present to the consciousness but undefined.

Neither consciousness nor reason gives any ground for the theory of Reid, Kant and others that we first perceive the minima visibilia, and then proceed to unite them in thought, the mind passing from one to another so rapidly that the transition is not remembered; or that the object perceived is, as Kant calls it, "a synthesis of intuitions," or as J. S. Mill calls it, "a group of sensations." Every intuitive perception, according to Kant, being contained absolutely in one moment,* can be only a perception of an indivisible unit of extension and an indivisible unit of time. But we have no knowledge of an indivisible unit of extension or of time. We know the ego as the indivisible unit in the sphere of personality. We have an hypothesis of the existence of atoms as the ultimate indivisible units of matter; but these atoms are not the units of perception. This theory of successive perceptions of minima has no warrant. On the contrary the material for thought is presented by intuition in an undiscriminated whole. It is sometimes called the nebulous matter of intuition. The primitive knowledge is often associated with the feelings; the feelings themselves carry knowledge undiscriminated and unformulated in them. In the intuition all the elements of the reality are presented to the consciousness in solution; it is only at the touch of reflective thought that the solution crystallizes and all its parts stand out distinctly and in order. In the nebulous, unelaborated matter of intuition the mind by reflection notes the particular realities, their differences and relations, and thus attains clear, definite and complete cognition, which can be declared in a judgment or proposition.

3. Reflection or thought consists of Apprehension, Differentiation and Integration. t. the cha

The reflex act of thought is primarily attention, alike in apprehending, discriminating and comprehending. The mind turns back or reflects on the reality presented in intuition, and notes what it is. Real

*Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Analytic, Book II. Chap. II. Sect. III. 2.

"Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis." J. G. Fichte.

ity consists of beings, their differences, and the relations by which they are in unity. The mind as it reflects on this reality notes the beings which are presented in it, traces out their differences, and notes their unity in various relations. These are the three acts of thought, apprehension, differentiation and integration or comprehension. The unit of thought is a particular being, simple or complex. The first act of thought is the apprehension of a particular being in the qualities, acts and modes of existence in which it is presented to us in intuition. For according to a necessary law of thought we do not apprehend qualities and acts as appearances merely, but we apprehend the being that appears and acts in them. Hence apprehension is sometimes called identification, because it is the identifying of the qualities and acts with the being that appears and acts in them. I cannot apprehend color, form, solidity, motion or thought except as I know some being existing (ex-sisto) or standing out to view in the color, form, solidity, motion or thought. Conversely, I cannot apprehend being except as existing in some quality, action or mode.

Apprehension, therefore, is the reflex act of the mind attending to some particular portion of the reality given in intuition, noting what it is, and thus making it an object or unit of thought. Thus one walking in the evening has the starry sky before his eyes, spread out as an undiscriminated expanse. Presently he fixes his attention on Sirius, notes its size, brightness and bluish tint, and thus apprehends it. In a busy city he hears a confused mingling of sounds, discriminating none; presently he attends to a particular sound and apprehends it as a charcoalvender's cry. Or he feels at once the chair on which he sits, the table on which he leans, the pen which he holds in his hand, without noticing any. Presently he attends to one of these things, notes something about it which interests him for the moment and so apprehends it. He attends (at-tendo), stretches his mind, as it were, about the object and grasps it as an object of thought. His apprehension may go no further than to note its figure in space, or it may extend to a more careful and complete observation of its qualities; but in either case he apprehends or grasps it in his mind. The first act of thought, then, is attending to some portion of reality presented in intuition and apprehending or grasping what it is which the intuition presents to the mind.

Language recognizes this distinction between the mere presentation of a reality in sense-perception or self-consciousness, and the intelligent apprehension of it by the mind; as in the significance of look as distinguished from see; listen as distinguished from hear; touch, handle as distinguished from feel; and in the French language the same distinction is extended to the other senses; flairer and sentir; savourer and gouter. Apprehension by taste is exemplified in a taster of teas. He

tastes the infusion in one of a row of cups, attends to it and apprehends what the flavor is. He then distinguishes or differentiates it from teas of different flavors already known to him; he then integrates or comprehends it in a unity or class of teas of the same flavor and pronounces it Souchong of the second quality. A delicate eater attends to or apprehends the flavor of every morsel and thus gets pleasure, while another, intent on other objects, eats without noticing the flavor of his food.

Differentiation or discrimination is the reflex act in which the mind turning its attention on the reality given in intuition, notes the peculiarities of an object already apprehended and thus distinguishes it from other objects.

Integration or comprehension is the reflex act in which the mind, after having apprehended two or more objects and distinguished them from one another, continues to fix its attention on them, and takes cognizance of them in their real relations and thus integrates or comprehends them in a unity.

A relation is any real connection between two or more objects by attending to which the mind comprehends them in a unity of thought. Having differentiated them, by perception of this relation it brings them back (re-lation) into unity of thought. The relation is not created by the mind as a mere subjective thought, but it is objectively real and perceived as such. Thus we discover relations of distance and position in space, of antecedence, sequence and simultaneousness in time, of degree and equality in quantity, of resemblance in quality, of causal efficiency, of knowledge connecting a subject knowing and an object known, and many others.

The process of thought may be compared to the resolving of a nebula with a telescope. In the faintly luminous mist as it appears to the naked eye, the astronomer finds the stars, distinguishes them from one another, comprehends them in the unity of a cluster, and is able to comprehend them in the profounder unity of their astronomical relations. So in the nebulous matter of intuition, thought apprehends the particular realities, distinguishes them from one another, and then comprehends them intelligently in the unity of their real relations. The process of thought may be compared to the development of life in the incubation of an egg; the homogeneous yolk is diversified into lines and parts distinguished from each other, and these parts are then integrated in the living organism of the chick.

Ulrici makes all thought to consist of differentiation.* Hamilton makes it all to consist of comparison. But it is evident that before two objects can be compared or comprehended in a unity, they must have

* System der Logik, S. 66 and ante.