,,! ,,philosophy ,,( ,,! ,,condition$ ,repr9t$1 ) ,additions1 f ,! ,contempor>y ,review4 ,compris+ "s ,rem>ks on ,sir ,william ,hamilton's ,philosophy & on ,mr4 ,j4,s4 ,mill's ,exam9ation ( t ,philosophy ,,by ,h4,l4 ,,mansel1 ,b4,d4 ,,waynflete ,,pr(essor ,,( ,,moral ,,& ,,metaphysical ,,philosophy ,,9 ,,! ,,univ]sity ,,( ,,ox=d ,,alex&] ,,/rahan1 ,,publi%] ,,london ,,& ,,new ,,york #ahff ,,muir ,,& ,,pat]son1 ,,pr9t]s1 ,,ed9burgh4 ,,preface ,! circum/ance t ! foll[+ rem>ks 7 orig9ally publi%$ z an anonym\s article 9 a ,review1 w be/ expla9 ! /yle 9 :i* !y are writt54 ,abs5ce f ,engl& prev5t$ me f becom+ acqua9t$ ) ,mr4 ,mill's ,exam9ation ( ,sir ,william ,hamilton's ,philosophy till "s "t aft] its publication2 & :5 ,i 0 reque/$ to und]take ! task ( review+ x1 ,i 0 /ill ignorant ( its cont5ts4 ,on proce$+ to fulfil my engagem5t1 ,i soon discov]$1 n only t ! "* ( ! book 0 v diff]5t f :at ! au?or's reputation _h l$ me to expect1 b also t my task w\ld be "o1 n m]ely ( criticism1 b1 9 "s degree1 ( self-def5ce4 ,! rem>ks on myself1 com+ f a writ] ( ,mr4 ,mill's ability & reputation1 7 su* z ,i c\ld n pass ov] )\t notice2 :ile1 at ! same "t1 ,i felt t my pr9cipal duty 9 ?is in/ance 0 ! def5ce ( "o :o 0 no long] liv+ to def5d himself4 ,"u ^! circum/ances1 ! be/ c\rse appe>$ to be1 to devote ! great] portion ( my article to an exposition & v9dication ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's tea*+2 &1 9 ! additional rem>ks :i* x 0 necess>y to make on ! m p]sonal "p ( ! controv]sy1 to speak ( myself 9 ! ?ird p]son1 z ,i %\ld h spok5 ( any o!r writ]4 ,! =m ?us adopt$ has be5 reta9$ 9 ! pres5t republication1 ?\gh ! article n[ appe>s ) ! "n ( its au?or4 ,my orig9al int5tion ( writ+ a review ( ! entire book 0 necess>ily ab&on$ z soon z ,i became acqua9t$ ) its cont5ts4 ,to h done ju/ice to ! :ole subject1 or to ,mr4 ,mill's treatm5t ( x1 w\ld h requir$ a volume ne>ly z l>ge z 8 own4 ,i !re=e det]m9$ to conf9e myself to ! ,philosophy ( ! ,condition$1 bo? z ! mo/ orig9al & important portion ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's tea*+1 & z t :i* occupies ! fir/ place 9 ,mr4 ,mill's ,exam9ation4 ,,! ,,philosophy ,,( ,,! ,,condition$4 ,! read] ( ,plato's ,republic w readily recall to m9d t wond]ful passage at ! end ( ! six? book1 9 :i* ! philosoph]1 "u ! image ( geometrical l9es1 exhibits ! v>i\s relations ( ! intelligible to ! s5sible _w2 especially 8 l(ty aspirations ) reg>d to t second segm5t ( ! intelligible _w1 :i* reason ( itself grasps by ! p[] ( dialectic1 employ+ hypo!ses1 n z pr9ciples1 b z v]itable hypo!ses1 t is to say1 z /eps & />t+-po9ts1 9 ord] t x may asc5d z f> z ! uncondition$ 7,greek3 me*ri t\ anypo!t\71 to ! fir/ pr9ciple ( ! univ]se1 & hav+ grasp$ ?is1 may !n lay hold ( ! pr9ciples next adjac5t to x1 & s g d[n to ! end1 us+ no s5sible aids :atev]1 b employ+ ab/ract =ms ?r\gh\t1 & t]m9at+ 9 =ms4 ,?is quotation is important = our pres5t purpose 9 two ways4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 x may s]ve1 at ! outset ( our rem>ks1 to propitiate ^? pla9-spok5 ,engli% critics :o look ^u new t]ms 9 philosophy ) ! same suspicion ) :i* ,jack ,cade reg>d$ a n\n & a v]b1 & su* abom9able words z no ,*ri/ian e> c endure to he>1 by %[+ t ! head & front ( our (f5d+1 ! ,uncondition$1 is no mod]n inv5tion ( ,teutonic b>b>ism1 b sanction$ ev5 by ! ,attic elegance ( a ,plato4 ,& 9 ! second place1 x conta9s almo/ a hi/ory 9 m9iature ( ! highe/ speculations ( philosophy1 bo? 9 e>li] & 9 lat] times1 & po9ts out1 ) a cle>ness & precision ! m valuable because un9flu5c$ by rec5t controv]sies1 ! exact field on :i* ! philosophies ( ! ,condition$ & ! ,uncondition$ come into collision1 & ! nature ( ! problem :i* !y bo? approa* f opposite sides4 ,:at is ! mean+ ( ?is problem1 ! solution ( :i* ,plato proposes z ! highe/ aim ( philosophy--to asc5d to ! uncondition$1 & !nce to d$uce ! univ]se ( condition$ exi/5ce8 ,! problem has assum$ diff]5t =ms at diff]5t times3 at pres5t we mu/ cont5t ourselves ) /at+ x 9 t 9 :i* x w mo/ naturally sugge/ itself to a /ud5t ( mod]n philosophy1 & 9 :i* x has ! mo/ direct be>+ on ! subject ( ! pres5t article4 ,all consci\sness mu/ 9 ! fir/ in/ance pres5t itself z a relation betwe5 two con/itu5t p>ts1 ! p]son :o is consci\s1 & ! ?+1 :atev] x may be1 ( :i* he is consci\s4 ,?is contra/ has be5 indicat$1 directly or indirectly1 by v>i\s names--m9d & matt]2 p]son & ?+2 subject & object2 or1 la/ly1 9 ! di/9ction1 mo/ conv5i5t = philosophy1 h[ev] unc\? 9 s\nd1 betwe5 self & n self--! ego & ! non-ego4 ,9 ord] to be consci\s at all1 ,i mu/ be consci\s ( some?+3 consci\sness ?us pres5ts itself z ! product ( two factors1 ,i & some?+4 ,! problem ( ! uncondition$ is1 briefly /at$1 to r$uce ^! two factors to "o4 ,= x is manife/ t1 s long z !y rema9 two1 we h no uncondition$1 b a pair ( condition$ exi/5ces4 ,if ! some?+ ( :i* ,i am consci\s is a sep>ate reality1 hav+ qualities & modes ( action ( its own1 & !reby det]m9+1 or contribut+ to det]m9e1 ! =m :i* my consci\sness ( x %all take1 my consci\sness is !reby condition$1 or p>tly dep5d5t on some?+ beyond itself4 ,x is no matt]1 9 ?is respect1 :e!r ! influ5ce is direct or indirect--:e!r1 = in/ance1 ,i see a mat]ial tree1 or only ! m5tal image ( a tree4 ,if ! nature ( ! ?+ 9 any degree det]m9es ! "* ( ! image--if ! visible =m ( a tree is diff]5t f t ( a h\se because ! tree itself is diff]5t f ! h\se1 my consci\sness is1 h[ev] remotely1 influ5c$ by some?+ diff]5t f itself1 ! ego by ! non-ego4 ,& on ! o!r h&1 if ,i1 :o am consci\s1 am a real be+1 di/9ct f ! ?+s ( :i* ,i am consci\s--if ! consci\s m9d has a con/itution & laws ( its own by :i* x acts1 & if ! mode ( its consci\sness is 9 any degree det]m9$ by ^? laws1 ! non-ego is s f> condition$ by ! ego2 ! ?+ :i* ,i see is n se5 absolutely & p] se1 b 9 a =m p>tly dep5d5t ^u ! laws ( my vision4 ,! fir/ /ep t[>ds ! r$uction ( ^! two factors to "o may obvi\sly be made 9 ?ree diff]5t ways4 ,ei!r ! ego may be repres5t$ z a mode ( ! non-ego1 or ! non-ego ( ! ego1 or bo? ( a t]tium quid1 di/9ct f ei!r4 ,9 o!r words3 x may be ma9ta9$1 fir/1 t matt] is ! only real exi/5ce2 m9d & all ! ph5om5a ( consci\sness be+ really ! result solely ( mat]ial laws2 ! bra91 = example1 secret+ ?\ght z ! liv] secretes bile2 & ! di/9ct p]sonal exi/5ce ( :i* ,i am app>5tly consci\s be+ only ! result ( "s su* secretion4 ,?is is ,mat]ialism1 :i* has !n to address itself to ! fur!r problem1 to r$uce ! v>i\s ph5om5a ( matt] to "s "o absolutely fir/ pr9ciple on :i* ev]y?+ else dep5ds4 ,or x may be ma9ta9$1 secondly1 t m9d is ! only real exi/5ce2 ! int]c\rse :i* we app>5tly h ) a mat]ial _w be+ really ! result solely ( ! laws ( our m5tal con/itution4 ,?is is ,idealism1 :i* aga9 has next to attempt to r$uce ! v>i\s ph5om5a to "s "o immat]ial pr9ciple4 ,or x may be ma9ta9$1 ?irdly1 t real exi/5ce is to be s\ght nei!r 9 m9d z m9d nor 9 matt] z matt]2 t bo? classes ( ph5om5a are b qualities or modes ( op]ation ( some?+ di/9ct f bo?1 & on :i* bo? alike are dep5d5t4 ,h5ce arises a ?ird =m ( philosophy1 :i*1 = want ( a bett] "n1 we w call ,indiff]5tism1 z be+ a sy/em 9 :i* ! *>act]i/ic diff]5ces ( m9d & matt] are suppos$ to disappe>1 be+ m]g$ 9 some?+ high] ?an bo?4 ,9 us+ ! two =m] ( ^! t]ms1 we are n speak+ ( ,mat]ialism & ,idealism z !y h always actually manife/$ !mselves1 b only ( ! di/+ui%+ pr9ciple ( ^! sy/ems :5 pu%$ to its extreme result4 ,x is q possible to be a mat]iali/ or an ideali/ ) respect to ! imm$iate ph5om5a ( consci\sness1 )\t attempt+ a philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$ at all4 ,b x is also possible1 & 9 itself natural1 :5 su* a philosophy is attempt$1 to attempt x by means ( ! same me?od :i* has approv$ itself 9 relation to subord9ate inquiries2 to make ! relation betwe5 ! human m9d & its objects ! type & image ( t betwe5 ! univ]se & its fir/ pr9ciple4 ,& su* attempts h actually be5 made1 bo? on ! side ( ,mat]ialism & on t ( ,idealism2 & probably w\ld be made (t5]1 did n c\nt]act+ causes frequ5tly h9d] ! logical developm5t ( speculative pr9ciples4 ,9 mod]n times1 & "u ,*ri/ian influ5ces1 ^! sev]al sy/ems are almo/ necess>ily id5tifi$ ) inquiries conc]n+ ! exi/5ce & nature ( ,god4 ,! influ5ce ( ,*ri/ianity has be5 indirectly felt1 ev5 9 speculations prosecut$ 9 app>5t indep5d5ce ( x2 & ! admission ( an absolute fir/ pr9ciple ( all ?+s di/9ct f ,god1 or ! ackn[l$gm5t ( a ,god sep>ate f or d]iv$ f ! fir/ pr9ciple ( all ?+s1 is an absurdity :i*1 s9ce ! preval5ce ( ,*ri/ianity1 has become almo/ impossible1 ev5 to anti*ri/ian sy/ems ( ?\ght4 ,9 e>li] times1 inde$1 ?is union ( philosophy ) !ology 0 by no means s imp]ative4 ,a philosophy l t ( ,greece1 :i* inh]it$ its speculations f a poetical !ogony1 w\ld see no difficulty 9 attribut+ to ! god or gods ( its religi\s belief a second>y & d]iv$ exi/5ce1 dep5d5t on "s high] & m orig9al pr9ciple1 & 9 sep>at+ t pr9ciple itself f all imm$iate connection ) religion4 ,x 0 possible to assume1 ) ! ,ionian1 a mat]ial sub/ance1 or1 ) ! ,eleatic1 an indiff]5t ab/raction1 z ! fir/ pr9ciple ( ?+s1 )\t hold+ t pr9ciple to be ,god1 or1 z ! only alt]native1 d5y+ ! exi/5ce ( a ,god2 & ?us1 z ,ari/otle,a has obs]v$1 !ologians endeav\r$ to evade ! consequ5ces ( _! ab/ract pr9ciples1 by attribut+ to ! *ief good a lat] & d]iv$ exi/5ce1 z ! poets suppos$ ! supreme ,god to be ( y\ng] bir? ?an night & *aos & sea & sky4 ,b to a ,*ri/ian philosophy1 or to a philosophy 9 any way influ5c$ by ,*ri/ianity1 ?is me?od ( evasion is no long] possible4 ,if all condition$ exi/5ce is dep5d5t on "s "o fir/ & uncondition$ pr9ciple1 ei!r t pr9ciple mu/ be id5tifi$ ) ,god1 or our philosophical speculations mu/ fall into op5 & av[$ a!ism4 ,a ,metaph41 xiv4 #d4 ,b at ?is po9t ! philosophical inquiry comes 9 contact ) ano!r l9e ( ?\ght1 sugge/$ by a diff]5t class ( ! facts ( consci\sness4 ,z a religi\s & moral be+1 man is consci\s ( a relation ( a p]sonal "*1 di/9ct f any sugge/$ by ! ph5om5a ( ! mat]ial _w1--a relation to a supreme ,p]sonal ,be+1 ! object ( 8 religi\s wor%ip1 & ! s\rce & judge ( 8 moral obligations & conduct4 ,to adopt ! "n ( ,god 9 an ab/ract speculation m]ely z a conv5tional d5om9ation = ! highe/ l9k 9 ! *a9 ( ?\ght1 & to believe 9 ,him = ! practical purposes ( wor%ip & ob$i5ce1 are two v diff]5t ?+s2 & = ! latt]1 ?\gh n = ! =m]1 ! conception ( ,god z a ,p]son is indisp5sable4 ,7 man a be+ ( pure intellect1 ! problem ( ! ,uncondition$ w\ld be dive/$ ( its *ief difficulty2 b he is also a be+ ( religi\s & moral faculties1 & ^! also h a claim to be satisfi$ by any valid solution ( ! problem4 ,h5ce ! "q assumes ano!r & a m complex =m4 ,h[ is ! "o absolute exi/5ce1 to :i* philosophy aspires1 to be id5tifi$ ) ! p]sonal ,god dem&$ by our religi\s feel+s8 ,%all we boldly assume t ! problem is already solv$1 & t ! p]sonal ,god is ! v ,uncondition$ ( :i* we 7 9 se>*8 ,?is is to beg ! "q1 n to answ] x4 ,our conception ( a p]sonal be+1 d]iv$ z x is f ! imm$iate consci\sness ( our own p]sonality1 seems1 on exam9ation1 to involve conditions incompatible ) ! desir$ assumption4 ,p]sonal ag5cy1 simil> to our own1 seems to po9t to some?+ v diff]5t f an absolutely fir/ l9k 9 a *a9 ( ph5om5a4 ,our actions1 if n det]m9$1 are at lea/ influ5c$ by motives2 & ! motive is a prior l9k 9 ! *a91 & a condition ( ! action4 ,our actions1 moreov]1 take place 9 "t2 & "t1 z we conceive x1 _c be reg>d$ z an absolute blank1 b z a condition 9 :i* ph5om5a take place z pa/1 pres5t1 & future4 ,e act tak+ place 9 "t implies some?+ antec$5t to itself2 & ?is some?+1 be x :at x may1 h9d]s u f reg>d+ ! subsequ5t act z absolute & uncondition$4 ,nay1 ev5 "t itself1 ap>t f ! ph5om5a :i* x implies1 has ! same "*4 ,if an act _c take place except 9 "t1 "t is ! condition ( its tak+ place4 ,to conceive ! uncondition$1 z ! fir/ l9k 9 a *a9 ( condition$ consequ5ces1 x seems necess>y t we %\ld conceive some?+ out ( "t1 yet foll[$ by "t2 /&+ at ! beg9n+ ( all duration & succession1 hav+ no antec$5t1 b foll[$ by a s]ies ( consequ5ts4 ,philosophical !ologians h be5 consci\s ( ?is difficulty1 almo/ f ! e>lie/ date at :i* philosophy & ,*ri/ian !ology came 9 contact ) ea* o!r4 ,f a numb] ( te/imonies ( simil> import1 we select "o or two ( ! mo/ /rik+4 ,( ! ,div9e ,nature1 ,gregory ,nyss5 says3 ,x is nei!r 9 place nor 9 "t1 b be=e ^! & above ^! 9 an unspeakable mann]1 contemplat$ itself by itself1 ?r\gh fai? alone2 nei!r measur$ by ages1 nor mov+ along ) times4,b ,9 ! *anges ( ?+s1 says ,augu/9e1 y w f9d a pa/ & a future2 9 ,god y w f9d a pres5t :]e pa/ & future _c be4,c ,et]nity1 says ,aqu9as1 has no succession1 b exi/s all toge!r4,d ,among div9es ( ! ,*ur* ( ,engl&1 we quote two names only1 b ^? ( ! highe/3--,! duration ( et]nity1 says ,bi%op ,pe>son1 is completely indivisible & all at once2 s t x is ev] pres5t1 & excludes ! o!r diff]5ces ( "t1 pa/ & future4,e ,& ,b>r[ enum]ates among natural modes ( be+ & op]ation f> above our rea*1 ,god's et]nity )\t succession1 c\pl+ x ) ,8 presci5ce )\t necessitation ( ev5ts4,f ,b x is ne$less to multiply au?orities = a doctr9e s famili> to e /ud5t ( !ology4 ,b ,c4 ,eunom41 i41 p4 #ih1 ,ed4 ,grets]4 ,c ,9 ,joann4 ,evang41 tract4 xxxvii4 #aj4 ,d ,summa1 p>s4 i41 qu4 x41 art4 #a4 ,e ,m9or ,!ol4 ,works1 vol4 i41 p4 #aje4 ,f ,s]mon on ! ,unse>*abl5ess ( ,god's ,judgm5ts4 ,?us1 !n1 our two l9es ( ?\ght h l$ u to conclusions :i*1 at fir/ sight1 appe> to be contradictory ( ea* o!r4 ,to be conceiv$ z uncondition$1 ,god mu/ be conceiv$ z exempt f action 9 "t3 to be conceiv$ z a p]son1 if ,8 p]sonality resembles ours1 ,he mu/ be conceiv$ z act+ 9 "t4 ,c ^! two conclusions be reconcil$ ) ea* o!r2 & if n1 :i* ( !m is to be ab&on$8 ,! true answ] to ?is "q is1 we believe1 to be f\nd 9 a di/9ction :i* "s rec5t critics reg>d ) v little fav\r1--! di/9ction betwe5 ,reason & ,fai?2 betwe5 ! p[] ( conceiv+ & t ( believ+4 ,we _c1 9 our pres5t /ate ( k1 reconcile ^! two conclusions2 yet we are n requir$ to ab&on ei!r4 ,we _c conceive ! mann] 9 :i* ! uncondition$ & ! p]sonal are unit$ 9 ! ,div9e ,nature2 yet we may believe t1 9 "s mann] unkn[n to u1 !y are s unit$4 ,to conceive ! union ( two attributes 9 "o object ( ?\ght1 ,i mu/ be able to conceive !m z unit$ 9 "s p>ticul> mann]3 :5 ?is _c be done1 ,i may nev]!less believe t ! union is possible1 ?\gh ,i am unable to conceive h[ x is possible4 ,! problem is ?us repres5t$ z "o ( ^? ,div9e my/]ies1 ! "* ( :i* is cle>ly & well describ$ 9 ! language ( ,leibnitz3--,il en e/ de mme des autres my/res1 o les esprits modrs tr\v]ont t\j\rs une explication suffisante p\r croire1 et jamais autant qu'il en faut p\r compr5dre4 ,il n\s suffit d'un c]ta9 ce que c'e/ 7,greek3 ti e/i7 mais le comm5t 7,greek3 ps7 n\s passe1 et ne n\s e/ po9t ncessaire4,g ,g ,?odice1 ,disc\rs de la ,con=mit de la ,foi avec la ,raison1 #ef4 ,leibnitz1 x w be obs]v$1 uses ! expression p\r compr5dre1 = :i*1 9 ! prec$+ rem>ks1 we h sub/itut$ to conceive4 ,! *ange has be5 made int5tionally1 on acc\nt ( an ambiguity 9 ! =m] ^w4 ,sometimes x is us$1 z ,leibnitz "h uses x1 to d5ote an appreh5sion ( ! mann] 9 :i* c]ta9 attributes c coexi/ 9 an object4 ,b sometimes 7to say no?+ ( o!r s5ses7 x is us$ to signify a complete k ( an object 9 all its prop]ties & _! consequ5ces1 su* z x may be que/ion$ :e!r we h ( any object :atev]4 ,?is ambiguity1 :i* has be5 ! s\rce ( mu* confusion & mu* capti\s criticism1 is well po9t$ out by ,norris 9 8 ,reason & ,fai? 7writt5 9 reply to ,tol&71 p4 #aah1 ,ed4 #afig3 ,:5 we say t above reason is :5 we d n compreh5d or p]ceive ! tru? ( a ?+1 ?is mu/ n be meant ( n compreh5d+ ! tru? 9 its :ole latitude & ext5t1 s t z _m tru?s %\ld be said to be above reason z we _c ?us ?or\ghly compreh5d & pursue ?r\gh\t all _! consequ5ces & relations to o!r tru?s 7= !n almo/ ev]y?+ w\ld be above reason71 b only ( n compreh5d+ ! union or connection ( ^? imm$iate ideas ( :i* ! proposition suppos$ to be above reason consi/s4 ,compreh5sion1 z ?us expla9$1 answ]s exactly to ! ord9>y logical use ( ! t]m conception1 to d5ote ! comb9ation ( two or m attributes 9 an unity ( repres5tation4 ,9 ! same s5se1 ,m4 ,peisse1 9 ! preface to 8 translation ( ,hamilton's ,fragm5ts1 p4 #ih1 says1--,compr5dre1 c'e/ voir un t]me en rapport avec un autre2 c'e/ voir comme un ce qui e/ donn comme multiple4 ,?is is exactly ! s5se 9 :i* ,hamilton himself uses ! ^w conception4 7,see ,reid's ,works1 p4 #cgg47 ,b ?is di/9ction involves a fur!r consequ5ce4 ,if ! my/]ies ( ! ,div9e ,nature are n appreh5d$ by reason z exi/+ 9 a p>ticul> mann] 79 :i* case !y w\ld be my/]ies no long]71 b are accept$ by fai? z exi/+ 9 "s mann] unkn[n to u1 x foll[s t we d n "k ,god z ,he is 9 ,8 absolute nature1 b only z ,he is imp]fectly repres5t$ by ^? qualities 9 ,8 creatures :i* are analog\s to1 b n id5tical )1 ,8 own4 ,if1 = example1 we _h a k ( ! ,div9e ,p]sonality z x is 9 itself1 we %\ld "k x z exi/+ 9 a c]ta9 mann] compatible ) uncondition$ action2 & ?is k ( ! mann] w\ld at once trans=m our conviction f an act ( fai? to a conception ( reason4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 ! only p]sonality ( :i* we h a positive k is our own1 & if our own p]sonality c only be conceiv$ z condition$ 9 "t1 x foll[s t ! ,div9e ,p]sonality1 9 s f> z x is exempt f conditions1 does n resemble ! only p]sonality :i* we directly "k1 & is n adequately repres5t$ by x4 ,?is necessitates a confession1 :i*1 l ! di/9ction :i* gives rise to x1 has be5 vehem5tly condemn$ by mod]n critics1 b :i* has be5 concurr$ 9 ) s+ul> unanimity by e>li] div9es ( v>i\s ages & c\ntries1--! confession t ! k :i* man 9 ?is life c h ( ,god is n a k ( ! ,div9e ,nature z x is 9 itself1 b only ( t nature z imp]fectly repres5t$ ?r\gh analog\s qualities 9 ! creature4 ,7 x n t ?is doctr9e has be5 frequ5tly d5\nc$ ( late z an h]etical novelty1 we %\ld h>dly h ?\ght x necess>y to cite au?orities 9 pro( ( its antiquity & ca?olicity4 ,z x is1 we w v5ture to produce a few only out ( _m1 select+ n always ! mo/ important1 b ^? :i* c be be/ exhibit$ v]batim 9 a %ort extract4 ,,*ryso/om4--,de ,incompr4 ,dei ,natura1 ,hom4 i4 #c3 ,t ,god is ev]y:]e1 ,i "k2 & t ,he is :olly ev]y:]e1 ,i "k2 b ! h[1 ,i "k n3 t ,he is )\t beg9n+1 ung5]at$ & et]nal1 ,i "k2 b ! h[1 ,i "k n4 ,,basil4--,ep4 ccxxxiv43 ,t ,god is1 ,i "k2 b :at is ,8 ess5ce ,i hold to be above reason4 ,h[ !n am ,i sav$8 ,by fai?2 & fai? is compet5t to "k t ,god is1 n :at ,he is4 ,,gregory ,,nazianz54--,orat4 xxxiv43 ,a !ologian among ! ,greeks ,plato has said 9 8 philosophy1 t to conceive ,god is difficult1 to express ,him is impossible4 444 ,b ,i say t x is impossible to express ,him1 & m impossible to conceive ,him4 ,comp>e ,patrick1 ,works1 vol4 iii41 p4 #ci4 ,,cyril ,,( ,,j]usalem4--,cate*4 vi4 #b3 ,we decl>e n :at ,god is1 b c&idly confess t we "k n accurately conc]n+ ,him4 ,= 9 ^? ?+s :i* conc]n ,god1 x is great k to confess our ignorance4 ,,augu/9e4--,en>r4 9 ,psalm1 lxxxv4 #h3 ,god is ineffable2 we m easily say :at ,he is n ?an :at ,he is4 ,s]m1 cccxli43 ,i call ,god j1 because 9 human words ,i f9d no?+ bett]2 = ,he is beyond ju/ice4444 ,:at !n is wor?ily said ( ,god8 ,"s "o1 p]haps1 may reply & say1 t ,he is j4 ,b ano!r1 ) bett] und]/&+1 may say t ev5 ?is ^w is surpass$ by ,8 excell5ce1 & t ev5 ?is is said ( ,him unwor?ily1 ?\gh x be said fitt+ly accord+ to human capacity4 ,,cyril ,,( ,,alex&ria4--,9 ,joann4 ,evang41 #a4 ii41 c4 #e3 ,= ^? ?+s :i* are spok5 conc]n+ x ! ,div9e ,nature are n spok5 z !y are 9 v tru?1 b z ! tongue ( man c int]pret1 & z man c he>2 = he :o sees 9 an enigma also speaks 9 an enigma4 ,,damasc5us4--,de ,fide ,or?od41 i4 #d3 ,t ,god is1 is manife/2 b :at ,he is 9 ,8 ess5ce & nature is utt]ly incompreh5sible & unkn[n4 ,,aqu9as4--,summa1 p>s4 i41 qu4 xiii41 art4 #a3 ,we _c s "n ,god t ! "n :i* d5otes ,him %all express ! ,div9e ,ess5ce z x is1 9 ! same way z ! "n man expresses 9 its signification ! ess5ce ( man z x is4 ,ibid41 art4 #e3 ,:5 ! "n wise is said ( a man1 x 9 a mann] describes & compreh5ds ! ?+ signifi$3 n s1 h[ev]1 :5 x is said ( ,god2 b x leaves ! ?+ signifi$ z uncompreh5d$ & exce$+ ! signification ( ! "n4 ,:5ce x is evid5t t ?is "n wise is n said 9 ! same mann] ( ,god & ( man4 ,! same is ! case ) o!r names2 :5ce no "n c be pr$icat$ univocally ( ,god & ( creatures2 yet !y are n pr$icat$ m]ely equivocally4444 ,we mu/ say1 !n1 t su* names are said ( ,god & ( creatures accord+ to analogy1 t is1 proportion4 ,,hook]4--,ecc4 ,pol41 ,i41 ii4 #b4--;,dang]\s x 7 = ! feeble bra9 ( man to wade f> into ! do+s ( ! ,mo/ ,high2 :om al?\gh to "k be life1 & joy to make m5tion ( ,8 "n1 yet our s\nde/ k is to "k t we "k ,him n z inde$ ,he is1 nei!r c "k ,him4 ,,u%]4--,body ( ,div9ity1 p4 #de1 ,ed4 #afde3 ,nei!r is x ! wisdom ( ,god communicat$ to any creature1 nei!r c be2 = x is unconceivable1 z ! v ess5ce ( ,god ,himself is unconceivable1 & unspeakable z x is4 ,,leighton4--,!ol4 ,lect4 ,,xxi41 ,works1 vol4 iv41 p4 #cbg1 ,ed4 #ahcj3 ,?\gh 9 ! s*ools !y di/+ui% ! ,div9e attributes or excell5ces1 & t by no means improp]ly1 into communicable & incommunicable2 yet we ought s to gu>d ?is di/9ction1 z always to rememb] t ^? :i* are call$ communicable1 :5 appli$ to ,god1 are n only to be und]/ood 9 a mann] incommunicable & q peculi> to ,himself1 b also1 t 9 ,him !y are 9 reality inf9itely diff]5t 9 ! orig9al1 aliud omn9o1 imm5sum aliud f ^? virtues1 or r1 9 a matt] :]e ! disp>ity ( ! subjects is s v great1 ^? %ad[s ( virtues t g "u ! same "n1 ei!r 9 m5 or angels4 ,,pe>son4--,m9or ,!ol4 ,works1 vol4 i41 p4 #ac3 ,god 9 ,himself is an absolute be+1 )\t any relation to creatures1 = ,he 0 f et]nity )\t any creature1 & c\ld1 _h ,he will$1 be to et]nity )\t creature4 ,b ,god _c naturally be kn[n by u o!rwise ?an by relation to creatures1 z1 = example1 "u ! aspect ( dom9ion1 or ( cause1 or 9 "s o!r relation4,h ,,bev]idge4--,on ! ,?irty-n9e ,articles1 p4 #af1 ,ed4 #ahdf3 ,b see+ ! prop]ties ( ,god d n s mu* d5ote :at ,god is1 z :at we appreh5d ,him to be 9 ,himself2 :5 ! prop]ties ( ,god are pr$icat$ "o ( ano!r1 "o ?+ 9 ,god is n pr$icat$ ( ano!r1 b our appreh5sions ( ! same ?+ are pr$icat$ "o ( ano!r4 ,,leslie4--,me?od ) ! ,dei/s1 p4 #fc1 ,ed4 #agde3 ,:at we call faculties 9 ! s\l1 we call ,p]sons 9 ! ,godhead2 because !re are p]sonal actions attribut$ to ea* ( !m4444 ,& we h no o!r ^w :]eby to express x2 we speak x aft] ! mann] ( m52 nor c\ld we und]/& if we he>d any ( ^? unspeakable words :i* express ! ,div9e ,nature 9 its prop] ess5ce2 !re=e we mu/ make all[ances1 & great ones1 :5 we apply words ( our nature to ! ,inf9ite & ,et]nal ,be+4 ,ibid41 p4 #fd3 ,by ! ^w ,p]son1 :5 appli$ to ,god 7= want ( a prop] ^w :]eby to express x71 we mu/ mean some?+ inf9itely diff]5t f p]sonality among m54 ,h ,bi%op ,pe>son's language is yet m explicit 9 ano!r passage ( ! same "w1 :i* we give 9 ! orig9al ,lat93--,non dantur pro hoc /atu nom9a qu ,deum significant quidditative4 ,patet2 quia nom9a sunt conceptuum4 ,non autem dantur 9 hoc /atu conceptus quidditativi de ,deo4--7,p4 #acf47 ,! sy/em ( !ology repres5t$ by ^! extracts may1 z we ?9k1 be fairly summ$ up z foll[s3 ,we believe t ,god 9 ,8 own nature is absolute & uncondition$2 b we c only positively conceive ,him by means ( relations & conditions sugge/$ by creat$ ?+s4 ,we believe t ,8 own nature is simple & uni=m1 admitt+ ( no di/9ction betwe5 v>i\s attributes1 nor betwe5 any attribute & its subject2 b we c conceive ,him only by means ( v>i\s attributes1 di/9ct f ! subject & f ea* o!r4,i ,we believe t 9 v]um1 aut bonum esse1 aut omn9o ipsum esse4 ,8 own nature ,he is exempt f all relations ( "t2 b we c conceive ,him only by means ( ideas & t]ms :i* imply temporal relations1 a pa/1 a pres5t1 & a future4,j ,our ?\ght1 !n1 mu/ n be tak5 z ! measure & limit ( our belief3 we ?9k by means ( relations & conditions d]iv$ f creat$ ?+s2 we believe 9 an ,absolute ,be+1 9 ^: nature ^! conditions & relations1 9 "s mann] unkn[n to u1 disappe> 9 a simple & indivisible unity4 ,i ,?is w be f\nd mo/ di/9ctly /at$ 9 ! context ( ! extract f ,bev]idge1 & 9 ! citations f ,/4 ,augu/9e giv5 9 8 notes2 to :i* may be add$ ! foll[+ f ,de ,tr9itate1 vi4 #g3--;,deus v]o multiplicit] quidem dicitur magnus1 bonus1 sapi5s1 beatus1 v]us1 et quidquid aliud non indigne dici videtur2 s$ eadem magnitudo ejus e/ qu sapi5tia1 non enim mole magnus e/1 s$ virtute2 et eadem bonitas qu sapi5tia et magnitudo1 et eadem v]itas qu illa omnia3 et non e/ ibi aliud beatum esse et aliud magnum1 aut sapi5tem1 aut v]um1 aut bonum esse1 aut omn9o ipsum esse4 ,j ,comp>e ! rem>kable words ( ,bi%op ,bev]idge1 l4c41 ,& !re=e1 ?\gh ,i _c appreh5d ,8 m]cy to ,abel 9 ! beg9n+ ( ! _w1 & ,8 m]cy to me n[1 b z two di/9ct expressions ( ,8 m]cy1 yet z !y are 9 ,god1 !y are b "o & ! same act1--z !y are 9 ,god1 ,i say1 :o is n measur$ by "t1 z our appreh5sions ( ,him are1 b is ,himself et]nity2 a c5tre )\t a circumf]5ce1 et]nity )\t "t4 ,! mo/ important feature ( ?is philosophical !ology1 & ! "o :i* exhibits mo/ cle>ly ! practical diff]5ce betwe5 reason & fai?1 is t1 9 deal+ ) !oretical difficulties1 x does n appeal to our k1 b to our ignorance3 x does n pr(ess to (f] a def9ite solution2 x only tells u t we might f9d "o if we knew all4 ,x does n pr(ess1 = example1 to solve ! app>5t contradiction betwe5 ,god's =ekn[l$ge & man's free w2 x does n say1 ,?is is ! way 9 :i* ,god =ekn[s1 & 9 ?is way ,8 =ekn[l$ge is reconcileable ) human fre$om2 x only says1 ,! contradiction is app>5t1 b ne$ n be real4 ,fre$om is incompatible ) ,god's =ekn[l$ge1 only on ! supposition t ,god's =ekn[l$ge is l man's3 if we knew exactly h[ ! "o diff]s f ! o!r1 we might be able to see t :at is incompatible ) ! "o is n s ) ! o!r4 ,we _c solve ! difficulty1 b we c believe t !re is a solution4 ,x is ?is op5 ackn[l$gm5t ( our ignorance ( ! highe/ ?+s :i* makes ?is sy/em ( philosophy di/a/eful to _m m9ds3 x is ! abs5ce ( any simil> ackn[l$gm5t :i* =ms ! attraction & ! s$uctiv5ess ( ,pan!ism 9 "o way1 & ( ,positivism 9 ano!r4 ,! pan!i/ is n tr\bl$ ) ! difficulty ( reconcil+ ! philosophy ( ! absolute ) belief 9 a p]sonal ,god2 = belief 9 a p]sonal ,god is no "p ( 8 cre$4 ,l ! ,*ri/ian1 he may pr(ess to ackn[l$ge a fir/ pr9ciple1 "o1 & simple1 & indivisible1 & uncondition$2 b he has no ne$ to give to ?is pr9ciple ! "n ( ,god1 or to inve/ x ) su* attributes z are necess>y to satisfy man's religi\s wants4 ,8 ,god 7s f> z he ackn[l$ges "o at all7 is n ! fir/ pr9ciple & cause ( all ?+s1 b ! aggregate ( ! :ole--an univ]sal sub/ance und]ly+ ! _w ( ph5om5a1 or an univ]sal process1 c>ri$ on 9 & by ! *anges ( ?+s4 ,h5ce1 z ,ari/otle said ( ! ,eleatics1 t1 by ass]t+ all ?+s to be "o1 !y annihilat$ causation1 :i* is ! production ( "o ?+ f ano!r1 s x may be said ( ! v>i\s s*ools ( ,pan!ism1 t1 by ma9ta9+ all ?+s to be ,god1 !y evade r ?an solve ! great problem ( philosophy1 t ( ! relation betwe5 ,god & ,8 creatures4 ,! positivi/1 on ! o!r h&1 escapes ! difficulty by an opposite c\rse4 ,he decl9es all inquiry into reality & causation1 & ma9ta9s t ! only (fice ( philosophy is to obs]ve & regi/] ! inv>iable relations ( succession & similitude 9 ph5om5a4 ,he does n necess>ily d5y ! exi/5ce ( ,god2 b 8 p]sonal belief1 be x :at x may1 is a matt] ( utt] indiff]5ce to 8 sy/em4 ,religion & philosophy may p]haps g on side by side2 b _! prov9ces are :olly di/9ct1 & !re=e !re is no ne$ to attempt a reconciliation betwe5 !m4 ,god1 z a fir/ cause1 lives l an ,epicurean deity 9 undi/urb$ ease1 ap>t f ! _w ( ph5om5a1 ( :i* alone philosophy c take cognisance3 philosophy1 z ! sci5ce ( ph5om5a1 cont5ts itself ) obs]v+ ! actual /ate ( ?+s1 )\t tr\bl+ itself to inquire h[ t /ate ( ?+s came into exi/5ce4 ,h5ce1 nei!r ,pan!ism nor ,positivism is tr\bl$ to expla9 ! relation ( ! ,"o to ! ,_m2 = ! =m] ackn[l$ges only ! ,"o1 & ! latt] ackn[l$ges only ! ,_m4 ,x is betwe5 ^! two sy/ems1 bo? s$uctive f _! app>5t simplicity1 & bo? simple only by mutilation1 t ! ,philosophy ( ! ,condition$1 ( :i* ,sir ,william ,hamilton is ! repres5tative1 endeav\rs to /e] a middle c\rse1 at ! risk ( %>+ ! fate ( mo/ m$iators 9 a qu>rel1--be+ repudiat$ & d5\nc$ by bo? combatants1 because x decl>es !m to be bo? 9 ! wrong4 ,aga9/ ,pan!ism1 :i* is ! natural developm5t ( ! pr9ciple ( ,indiff]5tism1 x ent]s a solemn prote/1 by ass]t+ t ! ,absolute mu/ be accept$ 9 philosophy1 n z a problem to be solv$ by reason1 b z a reality to be believ$ 91 ?\gh above reason2 & t ! pseudo-absolute1 :i* ,pan!ism pr(esses to exhibit 9 a positive conception1 is %[n1 by ! v fact ( its be+ s conceiv$1 n to be ! true ,absolute4 ,aga9/ ,positivism1 :i* is virtually ,mat]ialism1 x prote/s no less /rongly1 ma9ta9+ t ! philosophy :i* pr(esses to expla9 ! :ole ( nature by ! aid ( mat]ial laws alone1 proce$s ^u an assumption :i* does n m]ely disp5se ) ,god z a sci5tific hypo!sis1 b logically involves consequ5ces :i* lead to a d5ial ( ,8 v exi/5ce4 ,betwe5 bo? extremes1 x holds an int]m$iate position1 nei!r aspir+1 ) ,pan!ism1 to solve ! problems ( ! ,absolute1 nor neglect+ !m1 ) ,positivism1 z altoge!r remote f ! field ( philosophical inquiry2 b ma9ta9+ t su* problems mu/ necess>ily arise1 & mu/ necess>ily be tak5 into acc\nt 9 e adequate survey ( human nature & human ?\ght1 & t philosophy1 if x _c solve !m1 is b\nd to %[ :y !y are insoluble4 ,let u he> ,hamilton's own words 9 relation to bo? ! sy/ems :i* he opposes4 ,aga9/ ,pan!ism1 & ! ,philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$ 9 g5]al1 he says3-- ,! ,condition$ is ! mean betwe5 two extremes1--two inconditionates1 exclusive ( ea* o!r1 nei!r ( :i* c be conceiv$ z possible1,k b ( :i*1 on ! pr9ciples ( contradiction & exclud$ middle1 "o mu/ be admitt$ z necess>y4 ,on ?is op9ion1 !re=e1 our faculties are %[n to be weak1 b n deceitful4 ,! m9d is n repres5t$ z conceiv+ two propositions1 subv]sive ( ea* o!r1 z equally possible2 b only z unable to und]/& z possible ei!r ( ! two extremes2 "o ( :i*1 h[ev]1 on ! gr\nd ( _! mutual repugnance1 x is compell$ to recognise z true4 ,we are ?us taught ! salut>y lesson1 t ! capacity ( ?\ght is n to be con/itut$ into ! measure ( exi/5ce2 & are w>n$ f recognis+ ! doma9 ( our k z necess>ily co-ext5sive ) ! horizon ( our fai?4 ,& by a wond]ful revelation1 we are ?us1 9 ! v consci\sness ( our inability to conceive aught above ! relative & f9ite1 inspir$ ) a belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( some?+ uncondition$ beyond ! sph]e ( all compreh5sible reality4--,discussions1 p4 #ae4 ,k ,x mu/ be rememb]$ t1 to conceive a ?+ z possible1 we mu/ conceive ! mann] 9 :i* x is possible1 b t we may believe 9 ! fact )\t be+ able to conceive ! mann]4 ,_h ,hamilton di/9ctly express$ ?is1 he might h avoid$ "s v gr\ndless criticisms1 ) :i* he has be5 assail$ = ma9ta9+ a di/9ction betwe5 ! prov9ces ( conception & belief4 ,aga9/ ,mat]ialism1 & virtually aga9/ ,positivism 9 g5]al1 he says3-- ,if 9 man1 intellig5ce be a free p[]1--9 s f> z its lib]ty ext5ds1 intellig5ce mu/ be indep5d5t ( necessity & matt]2 & a p[] indep5d5t ( matt] necess>ily implies ! exi/5ce ( an immat]ial subject--t is1 a _s4 ,if1 !n1 ! orig9al indep5d5ce ( intellig5ce on matt] 9 ! human con/itution--9 o!r words1 if ! spirituality ( m9d 9 man be suppos$ a datum ( obs]vation1 9 ?is datum is also giv5 bo? ! condition & ! pro( ( a ,god4 ,= we h only to inf]1 :at analogy entitles u to d1 t intellig5ce holds ! same relative supremacy 9 ! univ]se :i* x holds 9 u1 & ! fir/ positive condition ( a ,deity is e/abli%$1 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( ! absolute priority ( a free creative intellig5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 let u suppose ! result ( our /udy ( man to be1 t intellig5ce is only a product ( matt]1 only a reflex ( organization1 su* a doctr9e w\ld n only n af=d no basis on :i* to re/ any argum5t = a ,god1 b1 on ! contr>y1 w\ld positively w>rant ! a!i/ 9 d5y+ ,8 exi/5ce4 ,= if1 z ! mat]iali/ ma9ta9s1 ! only intellig5ce ( :i* we h any exp]i5ce be a consequ5t ( matt]1--on ?is hypo!sis1 he n only _c assume ?is ord] to be rev]s$ 9 ! relations ( an intellig5ce beyond 8 obs]vation1 b1 if he argue logically1 he mu/ positively conclude t1 z 9 man1 s 9 ! univ]se1 ! ph5om5a ( intellig5ce or design are only 9 _! la/ analysis ! products ( a brute necessity4 ,psy*ological ,mat]ialism1 if c>ri$ out fully & fairly to its conclusions1 ?us inevitably results 9 !ological ,a!ism2 z x has be5 well express$ by ,dr4 ,h5ry ,m1 ,nullus 9 microcosmo spiritus1 nullus 9 macrocosmo ,deus4 ,i d n1 ( c\rse1 mean to ass]t t all mat]iali/s d5y or actually disbelieve a ,god4 ,=1 9 v _m cases1 ?is w\ld be at once an unm]it$ complim5t to _! reason+1 & an unm]it$ reproa* to _! fai?4--,lectures1 vol4 i1 p4 #ca4,l ,l ,?is "p ( ,hamilton's tea*+ is altoge!r repudiat$ by a rec5t writ]1 :o1 /rangely en\gh1 pr(esses to be 8 disciple1 :ile reject+ all t is really *>act]i/ic ( 8 philosophy4 ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]1 9 8 "w on ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 endeav\rs to press ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton into ! s]vice ( ,pan!ism & ,positivism toge!r1 by adopt+ ! negative portion only ( 8 philosophy--9 :i*1 9 common ) _m o!r writ]s1 he decl>es ! absolute to be inconceivable by ! m]e intellect1--& reject+ ! positive portions1 9 :i* he mo/ emphatically ma9ta9s t ! belief 9 a p]sonal ,god is imp]atively dem&$ by ! facts ( our moral & emotional consci\sness4 ,mr4 ,sp5c] reg>ds religion z no?+ m ?an a consci\sness ( natural facts z be+ 9 _! ultimate g5esis unacc\ntable--a !ory :i* is simply a comb9ation ( ! positivi/ doctr9e1 t we "k only ! relations ( ph5om5a1 ) ! pan!i/ assumption ( ! "n ( ,god to d5ote ! sub/ance or p[] :i* lies beyond ph5om5a4 ,no !ory c be m oppos$ to ! philosophy ( ! condition$ ?an ?is4 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's fundam5tal pr9ciple is1 t consci\sness mu/ be accept$ entire1 & t ! moral & religi\s feel+s1 :i* are ! prim>y s\rce ( our belief 9 a p]sonal ,god1 are 9 no way invalidat$ by ! m]ely negative inf]5ces :i* h delud$ m5 into ! assumption ( an imp]sonal absolute2 ! latt] n be+ legitimate d$uctions f consci\sness rightly int]pret$4 ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 on ! o!r h&1 takes ^! negative inf]5ces z ! only basis ( religion1 & ab&ons ,hamilton's great pr9ciple ( ! di/9ction betwe5 k & belief1 by quietly dropp+ out ( 8 sy/em ! facts ( consci\sness :i* make su* a di/9ction necess>y4 ,8 :ole sy/em is1 9 fact1 a p]t95t illu/ration ( ,hamilton's rem>k1 t ! ph5om5a ( matt] & ( m9d1 he might add1 treat$ by mat]iali/ic me?ods1 tak5 by !mselves 7y w obs]ve ! qualification1 tak5 by !mselves71 s f> f w>rant+ any inf]5ce to ! exi/5ce ( a ,god1 w\ld1 on ! contr>y1 gr\nd ev5 an argum5t to 8 negation4 ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 l ,mr4 ,mill1 d5ies ! fre$om ( ! w2 & ?is1 accord+ to ,hamilton1 leads by logical consequ5ce to ,a!ism4 ,9 ! few places 9 :i* ,hamilton speaks directly z a !ologian1 8 language is 9 agreem5t ) ! g5]al voice ( ,ca?olic !ology d[n to ! end ( ! sev5te5? c5tury1 "s specim5s ( :i* h be5 giv5 on a previ\s page4 ,?us he says 7,discussions1 p4 #ae73 ,true1 !re=e1 are ! decl>ations ( a pi\s philosophy1--',a ,god und]/ood w\ld be no ,god at all2' ',to ?9k t ,god is1 z we c ?9k ,him to be1 is blasphemy4' ,! ,div9ity1 9 a c]ta9 s5se1 is reveal$2 9 a c]ta9 s5se is conceal$3 ,he is at once kn[n & unkn[n4 ,b ! la/ & highe/ consecration ( all true religion mu/ be an alt> ,greek3 ,agn/ ,!--',to ! unkn[n & unkn[able ,god4' ,a little lat] 7p4 #bj7 he says3 ,we %\ld n recoil to ! opposite extreme2 & ?\gh man be n id5tical ) ! ,deity1 /ill is he 'creat$ 9 ! image ( ,god4' ,x is1 inde$1 only ?r\gh an analogy ( ! human ) ! ,div9e nature1 t we are p]cipi5t & recipi5t ( ,div9ity4 ,9 ! fir/ ( ^! passages we h an e*o ( ! language ( ,basil1 ! two ,cyrils1 & ,john ,damasc5e1 & ( our own ,hook] & ,u%]2 :ile 9 ! second we f9d ! c\nt] tru?1 intimat$ by ,augu/9e & o!r ,fa!rs1,m & cle>ly /at$ by ,aqu9as1 & :i* 9 ! la/ c5tury 0 elaborately exp\nd$ 9 ! ,div9e ,analogy ( ,bi%op ,br[ne1--namely1 t ?\gh we "k n ,god 9 ,8 own nature1 yet are we n :olly ignorant ( ,him1 b may atta9 to an imp]fect k ( ,him ?r\gh ! analogy betwe5 human ?+s & ,div9e4 ,m ,z e4g41 by ,t]tullian 7,adv4 ,m>c41 l4 ii41 c4 #af73 ,et hc ergo imago c5s5da e/ ,dei 9 hom9e1 quod eosdem motos et s5sus habeat humanus animus quos et ,deus1 licet non tales quales ,deus3 pro sub/antia enim1 et /atus eorum et exitus di/ant4 ,& by ,gregory ,nazianz51 ,orat4 xxxvii43 ,greek3 nomasam5 g> hs hm9 ephikton ek tn hmet]n ta t\ ,!\ ,& by ,hil>y1 ,de ,tr941 i4 #ai3 ,comp>atio enim t]r5orum ad ,deum nulla e/2 s$ infirmitas no/r intellig5ti cogit species quasdam ex inf]ioribus1 tanquam sup]iorum indices qur]e2 ut r]um famili>ium consuetud9e admov5te1 ex s5sus no/ri consci5tia ad insoliti s5sus op9ionem educ]emur4 ,z reg>ds !ological results1 !re=e1 !re is no?+ novel or peculi> 9 ,hamilton's tea*+2 nor 0 he "o :o w\ld h reg>d$ novelty 9 !ology z a recomm5dation4 ,! peculi>ity ( 8 sy/em1 by :i* 8 reputation z a philosoph] mu/ ultimately /& or fall1 is ! mann] 9 :i* he endeav\r$ to connect ^! !ological conclusions ) psy*ological pr9ciples2 & ?us to v9dicate on philosophical gr\nds ! position :i* ,ca?olic div9es _h be5 compell$ to take 9 ! int]e/s ( dogmatic tru?4 ,t ! absolute nature ( ,god1 z a sup]temporal & yet p]sonal ,be+1 mu/ be believ$ 9 z a fact1 ?\gh inaccessible to reason z reg>ds ! mann] ( its possibility1 is a position admitt$1 almo/ )\t exception1 by div9es :o ackn[l$ge ! my/]y ( a p]sonal ,absolute--/ill m by ^? :o ackn[l$ge ! yet deep] my/]y ( a ,tr9ity 9 ,unity4 ,we believe & "k1 says ,bi%op ,s&]son ( ! my/]ies ( ! ,*ri/ian fai?1 & t ) fulness ( assurance1 t all ^! ?+s are s z !y are reveal$ 9 ! ,holy ,scriptures1 because ! m\? ( ,god1 :o is ,tru? itself1 & _c lie1 ha? spok5 !m2 & our own reason ^u ?is gr\nd tea*e? u to submit ourselves & x to ! ob$i5ce ( fai?1 = ! ,greek3 to hoti1 t s x is4 ,b !n1 = ! ,greek3 to ps1 ,nicodemus 8 "q1 ,h[ c ^! ?+s be8 x is no m possible = our weak und]/&+s to compreh5d t1 ?an x is = ! eyes ( bats or owls to look /eadfa/ly ^u ! body ( ! sun1 :5 he %9e? =? 9 8 greate/ /r5g?4,n ,?is di/9ction ,hamilton endeav\r$ to ext5d f ! doma9 ( ,*ri/ian !ology to t ( philosophical speculation 9 g5]al2 to %[ t ! uncondition$1 z x is sugge/$ 9 philosophy1 no less ?an z x connects itself ) reveal$ religion1 is an object ( belief1 n ( positive conception2 &1 consequ5tly1 t m5 _c escape f my/]y by reject+ revelation4 ,above all1 he says1 ,i am confirm$ 9 my belief by ! h>mony betwe5 ! doctr9es ( ?is philosophy1 & ^? ( reveal$ tru?4444 ,= ?is philosophy is pr(ess$ly a sci5tific demon/ration ( ! impossibility ( t 'wisdom 9 high matt]s' :i* ! ,apo/le prohibits u ev5 to attempt2 & x proposes1 f ! limitation ( ! human p[]s1 f our impot5ce to compreh5d :at1 h[ev]1 we mu/ admit1 to %[ articulately :y ! 'secret ?+s ( ,god1' _c b be to man 'pa/ f9d+ out4',o ,fai? 9 ! inconceivable mu/ ?us become ! ultimate refuge1 ev5 ( ! pan!i/ & ! a!i/1 no less ?an ( ! ,*ri/ian2 ! diff]5ce be+1 t :ile ! la/ takes 8 /& on a fai? :i* is 9 agreem5t alike ) ! au?ority ( ,scripture & ! ne$s ( human nature1 ! two =m] are driv5 to "o :i* is equally oppos$ to bo?1 z well z to ! pret5sions ( _! own philosophy4 ,n ,works1 vol4 i41 p1 #bcc4 ,o ,discussions1 p4 #fbe4 ,d5y ! ,tr9ity2 d5y ! ,p]sonality ( ,god3 !re yet rema9s t :i* no man c d5y z ! law ( 8 own consci\sness--,"t4 ,condition$ exi/5ce is exi/5ce 9 "t3 to atta9 to a philosophy ( ! uncondition$1 we mu/ rise to ! conception ( exi/5ce out ( "t4 ,! attempt may be made 9 two ways1 & 9 two only4 ,ei!r we may endeav\r to conceive an absolutely fir/ mom5t ( "t1 beyond :i* is an exi/5ce hav+ no duration & no succession2 or we may endeav\r to conceive "t z an unlimit$ duration1 conta9+ an inf9ite s]ies ( successive antec$5ts & consequ5ts1 ea* condition$ 9 itself1 b =m+ altoge!r an uncondition$ :ole4 ,9 o!r words1 we may endeav\r1 ) ! ,eleatics1 to conceive pure exi/5ce ap>t & di/9ct f all ph5om5al *ange2 or we may endeav\r1 ) ,h]aclitus1 to conceive ! univ]se z a sy/em ( incessant *anges1 immutable only 9 ! law ( its own mutability2 = ^! two sy/ems may be reg>d$ z ! type ( all subsequ5t attempts4 ,bo?1 h[ev]1 alike aim at an object :i* is beyond positive conception1 & :i* c be accept$ only z some?+ to be believ$ 9 spite ( its inconceivability4 ,to conceive an exi/5ce beyond ! fir/ mom5t ( "t1 & to connect t exi/5ce z cause ) ! subsequ5t temporal succession ( effects1 we mu/ conceive "t itself z non-exi/5t & !n comm5c+ to exi/4 ,b :5 we make ! ef=t to conceive "t z non-exi/5t1 we f9d x impossible to d s4 ,"t1 z ! univ]sal condition ( human consci\sness1 cl+s r\nd ! v conception :i* /rives to de/roy x1 cl+s r\nd ! language 9 :i* we speak ( an exi/5ce be=e "t4 ,nor are we m successful :5 we attempt to conceive an inf9ite regress ( "t1 & an inf9ite s]ies ( dep5d5t exi/5ces 9 "t4 ,to say no?+ ( ! direct contradiction involv$ 9 ! notion ( an uncondition$ :ole1--a some?+ complet$1--compos$ ( inf9ite p>ts--( p>ts nev] complet$1--ev5 if we ab&on ! ,:ole1 & ) x ! ,uncondition$1 & attempt m]ely to conceive an inf9ite succession ( condition$ exi/5ces--condition$1 absurdly en\gh1 by no?+ beyond !mselves1--we f9d1 t 9 ord] to d s1 we mu/ add mom5t to mom5t = ev]--a process :i* w\ld require an et]nity = its accompli%m5t4,p ,moreov]1 ! *a9 ( dep5d5t exi/5ces 9 ?is inf9ite succession is n1 l a ma!matical s]ies1 compos$ ( ab/ract & homog5e\s units2 x is made up ( div]s ph5om5a1 ( a regressive l9e ( causes1 ea* di/9ct f ! o!r4 ,:]ev]1 !re=e1 ,i /op 9 my addition1 ,i d n positively conceive ! t]ms :i* lie beyond4 ,i appreh5d !m only z a s]ies ( unkn[n some?+s1 ( :i* ,i may believe t !y are1 b am unable to say :at !y are4 ,p ,see ,discussions1 p4 #bi4 ,( c\rse by ?is is n meant t no duration c be conceiv$ except 9 a duration equally long--t a ?\s& ye>s1 e4g41 c only be conceiv$ 9 a ?\s& ye>s4 ,a ?\s& ye>s may be conceiv$ z "o unit3 inf9ity _c2 = an unit is some?+ complete1 & !re=e limit$4 ,:at is meant is1 t any p]iod ( "t1 h[ev] long1 is conceiv$ z capable ( fur!r increase1 & !re=e z n inf9ite4 ,an inf9ite duration c h no "t be=e or aft] x2 & ?us _c resemble any portion ( f9ite "t1 h[ev] great4 ,:5 we dream ( conceiv+ an inf9ite regress ( "t1 says ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 we only deceive ourselves by sub/itut+ ! indef9ite = ! inf9ite1 ?an :i* no two notions c be m oppos$4 ,?is caution has n be5 att5d$ to by "s lat] critics4 ,?us1 ,dr4 ,:ewell 7,philosophy ( ,discov]y1 p4 #cbd7 says3 ,! def9ition ( an inf9ite numb] is n t x conta9s all possible unities2 b ?is--t ! progress ( num]ation1 be+ begun accord+ to a c]ta9 law1 goes on )\t limit4 ,?is is precisely ,desc>tes' def9ition1 n ( ! inf9ite1 b ( ! indef9ite4 ,pr9cipia1 i4 #bf3 ,nos autem illa omnia1 9 quibus sub aliqua consid]atione nullum f9em pot]imus inv5ire1 non quidem affirmabimus esse inf9ita1 s$ ut indef9ita spectabimus4 ,an indef9ite "t is t :i* is capable ( p]petual addition3 an inf9ite "t is "o s great z to admit ( no addition4 ,surely no two notions c be m oppos$4 ,! c>d9al po9t1 !n1 ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's philosophy1 expressly ann\nc$ z su* by himself1 is ! absolute necessity1 "u any sy/em ( philosophy :atev]1 ( ackn[l$g+ ! exi/5ce ( a sph]e ( belief beyond ! limits ( ! sph]e ( ?\ght4 ,! ma9 scope ( my speculation1,q he says1 is to %[ articulately t we mu/ believe1 z actual1 mu* t we are unable 7positively7 to conceive z ev5 possible4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 beyond ! range ( su* a speculation1 by itself1 to ent] on an exam9ation ( ! positive evid5ces 9 support ( "o =m ( belief r ?an ano!r4 ,s f> z x aims only at exhibit+ an univ]sal law ( ! human m9d1 x is ( c\rse compatible ) all special =ms ( belief :i* d n contradict t law2 & none1 :atev] _! pret5sions1 c really contradict x4 ,h5ce ! s]vice :i* su* a philosophy c r5d] to ! ,*ri/ian religion mu/ necess>ily1 f ! nature ( ! case1 be ( an indirect & negative "*4 ,x prep>es ! way = a fair exam9ation ( ! prop] evid5ces ( ,*ri/ianity1 by %[+ t !re is no gr\nd = any priori prejudice aga9/ revelation1 z appeal+1 = ! acceptance ( its highe/ tru?s1 to fai? r ?an to reason2 = t ?is appeal is common to all religions & to all philosophies1 & _c !re=e be urg$ aga9/ "o m ?an ano!r4 ,s f> z c]ta9 difficulties are inh]5t 9 ! con/itution ( ! human m9d itself1 !y mu/ necess>ily occupy ! same position ) respect to all religions alike4 ,to exhibit ! nature ( ^! difficulties is a s]vice to true religion2 b x is ! s]vice ( ! pione]1 n ( ! build]2 x does n prove ! religion to be true2 x only cle>s ! gr\nd = ! production ( ! special evid5ces4 ,q ,lett] to ,mr4 ,cald]wood4 ,see ,lectures1 vol4 ii1 p4 #ecd4 ,:]e ^? evid5ces are to be f\nd1 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton has n fail$ to tell u4 ,if m]e intellectual speculations on ! nature & orig9 ( ! mat]ial univ]se =m a common gr\nd 9 :i* ! !i/1 ! pan!i/1 & ev5 ! a!i/1 may alike expatiate1 ! moral & religi\s feel+s ( man--^? facts ( consci\sness :i* h _! direct s\rce 9 ! s5se ( p]sonality & free w--plead ) ov]:elm+ evid5ce 9 behalf ( a p]sonal ,god1 & ( man's relation to ,him1 z a p]son to a p]son4 ,we h se51 9 a previ\s quotation1 ,hamilton's emphatic decl>ation t psy*ological mat]ialism1 if c>ri$ out fully & fairly to its conclusions1 inevitably results 9 !ological a!ism4 ,9 ! same _s he tells u t x is only z man is a free intellig5ce1 a moral p[]1 t he is creat$ aft] ! image ( ,god2,r t ) ! pro( ( ! moral nature ( man1 /&s or falls ! pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( a ,deity2 t ! possibility ( morality dep5ds on ! possibility ( lib]ty2 t if man be n a free ag5t1 he is n ! au?or ( 8 actions1 & has !re=e no responsibility1 no moral p]sonality at all2,s &1 f9ally1 t he :o disbelieves ! moral ag5cy ( man1 mu/1 9 consi/5cy ) t op9ion1 disbelieve ,*ri/ianity4,t ,we h ?us1 9 ! positive & negative sides ( ?is philosophy1 bo? a reasonable gr\nd ( belief & a w>n+ aga9/ presumption4 ,by our imm$iate consci\sness ( a moral & p]sonal nature1 we are l$ to ! belief 9 a moral & p]sonal ,god3 by our ignorance ( ! uncondition$1 we are l$ to ! fur!r belief1 t beh9d t moral & p]sonal manife/ation ( ,god !re lies conceal$ a my/]y--! my/]y ( ! ,absolute & ! ,inf9ite2 t our intellectual & moral qualities1 ?\gh indicat+ ! ne>e/ approa* to ! ,div9e ,p]fections :i* we are capable ( conceiv+1 yet indicate !m z analog\s1 n z id5tical2 t we may naturally expect to f9d po9ts :]e ?is analogy w fail u1 :]e ! function ( ! ,inf9ite ,moral ,gov]nor w be di/9ct f t ( ! f9ite moral s]vant2 & :]e1 consequ5tly1 we %all be liable to error 9 judg+ by human rules ( ! ways ( ,god1 :e!r manife/$ 9 nature or 9 revelation4 ,su* is ! true lesson to be le>nt f a philosophy :i* tells u ( a ,god :o is 9 a c]ta9 s5se reveal$1 9 a c]ta9 s5se conceal$--at once kn[n & unkn[n4 ,r ,lectures1 vol4 i41 p4 #cj4 ,s ,lectures1 vol4 i1 p4 #cc4 ,t ,ibid41 p4 #db4 ,x is n surpris+ t ?is philosophy1 :5 comp>$ ) t ( a critic l ,mr4 ,mill1 %\ld /& out 9 cle> & %>p antagonism4 ,mr4 ,mill is "o ( ! mo/ di/+ui%$ repres5tatives ( t s*ool ( ,mat]ialism :i* ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton d5\nces z virtual ,a!ism4 ,we d n mean t he consci\sly adopts ! gross] t5ets ( ! mat]iali/s4 ,we are n aw>e t he has ev] positively d5i$ ! exi/5ce ( a s\l di/9ct f ! body1 or ma9ta9$ t ! bra9 secretes ?\ght z ! liv] secretes bile4 ,b he is ! advocate ( a philosophical me?od :i* makes ! belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( an immat]ial pr9ciple sup]flu\s & incongru\s2 he n only ackn[l$ges no su* di/9ction betwe5 ! ph5om5a ( m9d & ^? ( matt] z to require ! hypo!sis ( a free intellig5ce to acc\nt = x2 he n only reg>ds ! asc]ta9$ laws ( coexi/5ce & succession 9 mat]ial ph5om5a z ! type & rule accord+ to :i* all ph5om5a :atev]--^? ( int]nal consci\sness no less ?an ( ext]nal obs]vation--are to be te/$2 b he ev5 expressly d5ies ! exi/5ce ( t free w :i* ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton reg>ds z ! indisp5sable condition ( all morality & all religion4,u ,?us1 in/ead ( recognis+ 9 ! facts ( intellig5ce an ord] ( exi/5ce diametrically 9 contra/ to t display$ to u 9 ! facts ( ! mat]ial univ]se1,v he reg>ds bo? classes ( facts z ( ! same k9d1 & explicable by ! same laws2 he aboli%es ! prim>y contra/ ( consci\sness betwe5 ! ego & ! non-ego--! p]son & ! ?+2 he r$uces man to a ?+1 in/ead ( a p]son1--to "o among ! _m ph5om5a ( ! univ]se1 det]m9$ by ! same laws ( inv>iable antec$5ce & consequ5ce1 includ$ "u ! same =mul ( empirical g5]alization4 ,he ?us makes man ! slave1 & n ! ma/] ( nature2 passively c>ri$ along 9 ! curr5t ( successive ph5om5a2 unable1 by any act ( free w1 to arre/ a s+le wave 9 its c\rse1 or to div]t x f its orda9$ direction4 ,u ,t ?is is ! real battle-gr\nd betwe5 ! two philosoph]s is virtually admitt$ by ,mr4 ,mill himself at ! end ( 8 criticism4 ,he says3--,! :ole philosophy ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton seems to h _h its "* det]m9$ by ! requirem5ts ( ! doctr9e ( ,free-w2 & to t doctr9e he clung1 because he _h p]suad$ himself t x af=d$ ! only premises f :i* human reason c\ld d$uce ! doctr9es ( natural religion4 ,i believe t 9 ?is p]suasion he 0 ?or\ghly 8 own dupe1 & t 8 speculations h weak5$ ! philosophical f\ndation ( religion fully z mu* z !y h confirm$ x4--,p4 #edi4 ,mr4 ,mill's :ole philosophy1 on ! o!r h&1 is det]m9$ by ! requirem5ts ( ! doctr9e ( ,necessity2 & to t doctr9e he intrepidly adh]es1 9 utt] defiance ( consci\sness1 & sometimes ( 8 own consi/5cy4 ,:i* ( ! two philosoph]s is really 8 own dupe1 ,mr4 ,mill 9 believ+ t morality & religion c exi/ )\t free w--t a necess>y ag5t c be responsible = 8 acts--or ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton 9 ma9ta9+ ! contr>y1 is a "q :i* ! =m] has by no means satisfactorily settl$ 9 8 own fav\r4 ,v ,hamilton1 ,lectures1 vol4 i1 p4 #bi4 ,?is diametrical antagonism betwe5 ! two philosoph]s is n limit$ to _! fir/ pr9ciples1 b ext5ds1 z might naturally be expect$1 to e subord9ate sci5ce ( :i* ! imm$iate object is m5tal1 & n mat]ial4 ,logic1 in/ead ( be+1 z ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton reg>ds x1 an priori sci5ce ( ! necess>y laws ( ?\ght1 is ) ,mr4 ,mill a sci5ce ( obs]vation1 inve/igat+ ^? op]ations ( ! und]/&+ :i* are subs]vi5t to ! e/imation ( evid5ce4,w ,! axioms ( ,ma!matics1 :i* ! =m] philosoph] reg>ds1 ) ,kant1 z necess>y ?\ghts1 bas$ on ! priori intuitions ( space & "t1 ! latt],x decl>es to be exp]im5tal tru?s2 g5]alizations f obs]vation4 ,psy*ology1 :i* ) ,hamilton is especially ! philosophy ( man z a free & p]sonal ag5t1 is ) ,mill ! sci5ce ( ! uni=mities ( succession2 ! laws1 :e!r ultimate or d]ivative1 accord+ to :i* "o m5tal /ate succe$s ano!r4,y ,& f9ally1 9 ! place ( ,e?ics1 z ! sci5ce ( ! priori laws ( man's moral obligations1 we are pres5t$1 9 ,mr4 ,mill's sy/em1 ) ,e?ology1 ! sci5ce :i* det]m9es ! k9d ( "* produc$1 9 con=mity to ! g5]al laws ( m9d1 by any set ( circum/ances1 physical & moral4,z ,w ,mill's ,logic4 ,introduction1 #g4 ,x ,ibid41 book ii4 #e1 #d4 ,y ,mill's ,logic1 book vi4 #d1 #c4 ,z ,ibid41 book vi4 #e1 #d4 ,! contra/ betwe5 ! two philosoph]s be+ ?us ?or\ghgo+1 x 0 natural to expect be=eh& t an ,exam9ation ( ,sir ,william ,hamilton's ,philosophy1 by ,mr4 ,mill1 w\ld conta9 a %>p & vigor\s assault on ! pr9cipal doctr9es ( t philosophy4 ,& ?is expectation has be5 amply fulfill$4 ,b !re 0 also reason to expect1 f ! ability & critical p[] display$ 9 ,mr4 ,mill's previ\s writ+s1 t 8 assault1 :e!r successful or n 9 ov]?r[+ 8 enemy1 w\ld at lea/ be guid$ by a cle> k ( t enemy's position & purposes2 t 8 diss5t w\ld be accompani$ by an intellig5t appreh5sion1 & an accurate /atem5t1 ( ! doctr9es diss5t$ f4 ,9 ?is expectation1 we regret to say1 we h be5 disappo9t$4 ,n only is ,mr4 ,mill's attack on ,hamilton's philosophy1 ) ! exception ( "s m9or details1 unsuccessful2 b we are compell$ to add1 t ) reg>d to ! ?ree fundam5tal doctr9es ( t philosophy--! ,relativity ( ,k1 ! ,incognisability ( ! ,absolute & ,inf9ite1 & ! di/9ction betwe5 ,reason & ,fai?--,mr4 ,mill has1 ?r\gh\t 8 criticism1 altoge!r miss$ ! mean+ ( ! !ories he is attempt+ to assail4 ,?is is a s]i\s *>ge to br+ aga9/ a writ] ( su* em95ce z ,mr4 ,mill1 & "o :i* %\ld n be advanc$ )\t ample pro(4 ,fir/1 !n1 ( ! ,relativity ( ,k4 ,! ass]tion t all our k is relative1--9 o!r words1 t we "k ?+s only "u su* conditions z ! laws ( our cognitive faculties impose ^u u1--is a /atem5t :i* looks at fir/ sight l a truism1 b :i* really conta9s an answ] to a v important "q1--,h we reason to believe t ! laws ( our cognitive faculties impose any conditions at all8--t ! m9d 9 any way reacts on ! objects affect+ x1 s z to produce a result diff]5t f t :i* w\ld be produc$ 7 x m]ely a passive recipi5t8 ,! m9d ( man1 says ,bacon1 is f> f ! nature ( a cle> & equal glass1 :]e9 ! beams ( ?+s %all reflect accord+ to _! true incid5ce2 nay1 x is r l an en*ant$ glass1 full ( sup]/ition & impo/ure1 if x be n deliv]$ & r$uc$4 ,c :at ,bacon says ( ! fallacies ( ! m9d be also said ( its prop] cognitions8 ,does ! m9d1 by its own action1 9 any way di/ort ! appe>ance ( ! ?+s pres5t$ to x2 & if s1 h[ f> does ! di/ortion ext5d1 & 9 :at mann] is x to be rectifi$8 ,to trace ! c\rse ( ?is inquiry1 f ! day :5 ,plato comp>$ ! objects p]ceiv$ by ! s5ses to ! %ad[s ?r[n by fire on ! wall ( a cave1 to ! day :5 ,kant decl>$ t we "k only ph5om5a1 n ?+s 9 !mselves1 w\ld be to write ! hi/ory ( philosophy4 ,we c only at pres5t call att5tion to "o movem5t 9 t hi/ory1 :i*1 01 9 effect1 a revolution 9 philosophy4 ,! old] philosoph]s 9 g5]al di/+ui%$ betwe5 ! s5ses & ! intellect1 reg>d+ ! =m] z deceptive & conc]n$ ) ph5om5a alone1 ! latt] z tru/wor?y & conv]sant ) ! realities ( ?+s4 ,h5ce arose ! di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sible & ! intelligible _w--betwe5 ?+s z p]ceiv$ by s5se & ?+s z appreh5d$ by intellect--betwe5 ,ph5om5ology & ,ontology4 ,kant reject$ ?is di/9ction1 hold+ t ! intellect1 z well z ! s5se1 imposes its own =ms on ! ?+s pres5t$ to x1 & is !re=e cognisant only ( ph5om5a1 n ( ?+s 9 !mselves4 ,! logical result ( ?is position w\ld be ! abolition ( ontology z a sci5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 &1 =tiori1 ( t highe/ bran* ( ontology :i* aims at a k ( ! ,absolute,,aa ,greek3 kat' exo*n1 ( ! uncondition$ fir/ pr9ciple ( all ?+s4 ,if ! m9d1 9 e act ( ?\ght1 imposes its own =ms on its objects1 to ?9k is to condition1 & ! uncondition$ is ! un?9kable4 ,su* 0 ! logical result ( ,kant's pr9ciples1 b n ! actual result4 ,= ,kant1 by di/+ui%+ betwe5 ! ,und]/&+ & ! ,reason1 & giv+ to ! latt] an indirect yet positive cognition ( ! ,uncondition$ z a regulative pr9ciple ( ?\ght1 prep>$ ! way = ! sy/ems ( ,s*ell+ & ,hegel1 9 :i* ?is indirect cognition is conv]t$ into a direct "o1 by inve/+ ! reason1 ?us di/+ui%$ z ! special faculty ( ! uncondition$1 ) a p[] ( intuition emancipat$ f ! conditions ( space & "t1 & ev5 ( subject & object1 or a p[] ( ?\ght emancipat$ f ! laws ( id5tity & contradiction4 ,,aa ,! t]m absolute1 9 ! s5se ( free f relation1 may be us$ 9 two applications2--#a/1 ,to d5ote ! nature ( a ?+ z x is 9 itself1 z di/+ui%$ f its appe>ance to u4 ,"h x is us$ only 9 a subord9ate s5se1 z mean+ out ( relation to human k4 #bndly1 ,to d5ote ! nature ( a ?+ z indep5d5t ( all o!r ?+s1 z hav+ no relation to any o!r ?+ z ! condition ( its exi/5ce4 ,"h x is us$ 9 its highe/ s5se1 z mean+ out ( relation to any?+ else4 ,! !ory ( ,hamilton is a modification ( t ( ,kant1 int5d$ to obviate ^! consequ5ces1 & to relieve ! ,kantian doctr9e itself f ! inconsi/5cy :i* gave rise to !m4 ,s long z ! reason is reg>d$ z a sep>ate faculty f ! und]/&+1 & ?+s 9 !mselves z ideas ( ! reason1 s long ! app>5t contradictions1 :i* encumb] ! attempt to conceive ! uncondition$1 mu/ be reg>d$ z inh]5t 9 ! con/itution ( ! reason itself1 & z ! result ( its legitimate ex]cise on its prop] objects4 ,?is sceptical conclusion ,hamilton endeav\r$ to avoid by reject+ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! und]/&+ & ! reason z sep>ate faculties1 reg>d+ ! "o z ! legitimate & positive1 ! o!r z ! illegitimate & negative1 ex]cise ( "o & ! same faculty4 ,he ?us ann\nces1 9 opposition to ,kant1 ! fundam5tal doctr9e ( ! ,condition$1 z ! di/9ction betwe5 intellig5ce )9 its legitimate sph]e ( op]ation1 impeccable1 & intellig5ce beyond t sph]e1 af=d+ 7by abuse7 ! occasions ( error4,,ab ,hamilton1 l ,kant1 ma9ta9$ t all our cognitions are comp\nd$ ( two elem5ts1 "o contribut$ by ! object kn[n1 & ! o!r by ! m9d kn[+4 ,b ! v conception ( a relation implies ! exi/5ce ( ?+s to be relat$2 & ! k ( an object1 z 9 relation to our m9d1 necess>ily implies its exi/5ce out ( t relation4 ,b z s exi/+1 x is unkn[n3 we believe t x is2 we "k n :at x is4 ,h[ f> x resembles1 or h[ f> x does n resemble1 ! object appreh5d$ by u1 we _c say1 = we h no means ( comp>+ ! two toge!r4 ,,ab ,discussions1 p4 #fcc4 ,in/ead2 !re=e1 ( say+ ) ,kant1 t reason is subject to an inevitable delusion1 by :i*1 x mi/akes ! regulative pr9ciples ( its own ?\ghts = ! repres5tations ( real ?+s1 ,hamilton w\ld say t ! reason1 :ile compell$ to believe 9 ! exi/5ce ( ^! real ?+s1 is n legitimately entitl$ to make any positive repres5tation ( !m z ( su* or su* a nature2 & t ! contradictions into :i* x falls :5 attempt+ to d s are due to an illegitimate attempt to transc5d ! prop] b\nd>ies ( positive ?\ght4 ,?is !ory does n1 9 itself1 conta9 any /atem5t ( ! mode 9 :i* we p]ceive ! mat]ial _w1 :e!r directly by pres5tation1 or indirectly by repres5tative images2 & p]haps x might1 )\t any great viol5ce1 be adapt$ to m ?an "o ( ! curr5t hypo!ses on ?is po9t4 ,b t to :i* x mo/ easily adju/s itself is t ma9ta9$ by ,hamilton himself "u ! "n ( ,natural ,realism4 ,to speak ( p]ception z a relation betwe5 m9d & matt]1 naturally implies ! pres5ce ( bo? correlatives2 ?\gh ea* may be modifi$ by its contact ) ! o!r4 ,! acid may act on ! alkali1 & ! alkali on ! acid1 9 =m+ ! neutral salt2 b ea* ( ! +r$i5ts is z truly pres5t z ! o!r1 ?\gh ea* ent]s into ! comp\nd 9 a modifi$ =m4 ,& ?is is equally ! case 9 p]ception1 ev5 if we suppose v>i\s m$ia to int]v5e betwe5 ! ultimate object & ! p]ceiv+ m9d1--su*1 e4g41 z ! rays ( light & ! s5sitive organism 9 vision1--s long z ^! m$ia are mat]ial1 l ! ultimate object itself4 ,:e!r ! object1 prop]ly s call$1 9 vision1 be ! rays ( light 9 contact ) ! organ1 or ! body emitt+ or reflect+ ^? rays1 is indiff]5t to ! pres5t "q1 s long z a mat]ial object ( "s k9d or o!r is suppos$ to be p]ceiv$1 & n m]ely an inmat]ial repres5tation ( su* an object4 ,to speak ( our p]ceptions z m]e modifications ( m9d produc$ by an unkn[n cause1 w\ld be l ma9ta9+ t ! acid is modifi$ by ! influ5ce ( ! alkali )\t ent]+ into comb9ation ) x4 ,su* a view might p]haps be tol]at$1 9 connection ) ! !ory ( relativity1 by an indulg5t int]pretation ( language1 b x is c]ta9ly n t :i* ! language ( ! !ory mo/ naturally sugge/s4 ,all ?is ,mr4 ,mill entirely misappreh5ds4 ,he quotes a passage f ,hamilton's ,lectures1 9 :i* ! above !ory ( ,relativity is cle>ly /at$ z ! mean betwe5 ! extremes ( ,idealism & ,mat]ialism1 & !n proce$s to comm5t z foll[s3-- ,! proposition1 t our cognitions ( objects are only 9 "p dep5d5t on ! objects !mselves1 & 9 "p on elem5ts sup]add$ by our organs or our m9ds1 is n id5tical1 nor prima facie absurd4 ,x _c1 h[ev]1 w>rant ! ass]tion t all our k1 b only t ! "p s add$1 is relative4 ,if our au?or _h gone z f> z ,kant1 & _h said t all :i* con/itutes k is put 9 by ! m9d itself1 he w\ld h really held1 9 "o ( its =ms1 ! doctr9e ( ! relativity ( our k4 ,b :at he does say1 f> f imply+ t ! :ole ( our k is relative1 di/9ctly imports t all ( x :i*1 is real & au!ntic is ! rev]se4 ,if any "p ( :at we fancy t we p]ceive 9 ! objects !mselves1 orig9ates 9 ! p]ceiv+ organs or 9 ! cognis+ m9d1 ?us mu* is purely relative2 b s9ce1 by supposition1 x does n all s orig9ate1 ! "p t does n is z mu* absolute z if x 7 n liable to be mix$ up )1 ^! delusive subjective impressions4--7,p4 #cj47 ,mr4 ,mill1 !re=e1 supposes t :olly relative mu/ mean :olly m5tal2 9 o!r words1 t to say t a ?+ is :olly due to a relation betwe5 m9d & matt] is equival5t to say+ t x is :olly due to m9d alone4 ,on ! contr>y1 we ma9ta9 t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's language is f> m accurate ?an ,mr4 ,mill's1 & t ! above !ory c ) p]fect correctness be describ$ z "o ( total relativity2 & ?is f two po9ts ( view4 ,fir/1 z oppos$ to ! !ory ( p>tial relativity g5]ally held by ! pre-,kantian philosoph]s1 accord+ to :i* our s5sitive cognitions are relative1 our intellectual ones absolute4 ,secondly1 z ass]t+ t ! object ( p]ception1 ?\gh compos$ ( elem5ts p>tly mat]ial1 p>tly m5tal1 yet exhibits bo? alike 9 a =m modifi$ by _! relation to ea* o!r4 ,! composition is n a m]e me*anical juxtaposition1 9 :i* ea* "p1 ?\gh act+ on ! o!r1 reta9s its own *>act]i/ics un*ang$4 ,x may be r lik5$ to a *emical fusion1 9 :i* bo? elem5ts are pres5t1 b ea* ( !m is affect$ by ! composition4 ,! mat]ial "p1 !re=e1 is n z mu* absolute z if x 7 n liable to be mix$ up ) subjective impressions4 ,b we mu/ he> ! cont9uation ( ,mr4 ,mill's criticism3-- ,! admixture ( ! relative elem5t n only does n take away ! absolute "* ( ! rema9d]1 b does n ev5 7if our au?or is "r7 prev5t u f recognis+ x4 ,! confusion1 accord+ to him1 is n inextricable4 ,x is = u to 'analyse & di/+ui% :at elem5ts' 9 an 'act ( k' are contribut$ by ! object1 & :at by our organs1 or by ! m9d4 ,we may neglect to d ?is1 & z f> z ! m9d's %>e is conc]n$1 we c only d x by ! help ( philosophy2 b x is a task to :i*1 9 8 op9ion1 philosophy is equal4 ,by ?us /ripp+ (f su* ( ! elem5ts 9 our app>5t cognitions ( ?+s z are b cognitions ( some?+ 9 u1 & consequ5tly relative1 we may succe$ 9 uncov]+ ! pure nucleus1 ! direct intuitions ( ?+s 9 !mselves2 z we correct ! obs]v$ positions ( ! heav5ly bodies by all[+ = ! error due to ! refract+ influ5ce ( ! atmosph]ic m$ium1 an influ5ce :i* does n alt] ! facts1 b only our p]ception ( !m4 ,surely ,mr4 ,mill "h dem&s mu* m ( philosophy ?an ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton deems x capable ( accompli%+4 ,:y may n ,hamilton1 l ,kant1 di/+ui% betwe5 ! p]man5t & necess>y1 & ! v>iable & cont+5t--9 o!r words1 betwe5 ! subjective & ! objective elem5ts ( consci\sness1 )\t !re=e obta9+ a direct intuition ( ?+s 9 !mselves8 ,:y may he n di/+ui% betwe5 space & "t z ! =ms ( our s5sitive cognitions1 & ! ?+s p]ceiv$ 9 space & "t1 :i* con/itute ! matt] ( ! same cognitions1 )\t !reby hav+ an intuition1 on ! "o h&1 ( pure space & "t ) no?+ 9 !m1 or on ! o!r1 ( ?+s 9 !mselves out ( space & "t8 ,if c]ta9 elem5ts are always pres5t 9 p]ception1 :ile c]ta9 o!rs *ange ) e act1 ,i may surely inf] t ! "o is due to ! p]man5t subject1 ! o!r to ! v>iable object1 )\t !reby kn[+ :at ea* w\ld be if x c\ld be disc]n$ ap>t f ! o!r4 ,a direct intuition ( ?+s 9 !mselves1 accord+ to ,kant & ,hamilton1 is an intuition ( ?+s out ( space & "t4 ,does ,mr4 ,mill suppose t any natural ,reali/ pr(esses to h su* an intuition8 ,! same error ( suppos+ t a doctr9e ( relativity is necess>ily a doctr9e ( ,idealism1 t matt] kn[n only 9 relation to u c mean no?+ m ?an matt] kn[n only ?r\gh ! m5tal impressions ( :i* x is ! unkn[n cause1,,ac runs ?r\gh ! :ole ( ,mr4 ,mill's argum5t aga9/ ?is portion ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's tea*+4 ,t argum5t1 ?\gh repeat$ 9 v>i\s =ms1 may be briefly summ$ up 9 "o !sis2 namely1 t ! doctr9e t our k ( matt] is :olly relative is incompatible ) ! di/9ction1 :i* ,hamilton expressly makes1 betwe5 ! prim>y & second>y qualities ( body4 ,,ac ,! assumption t ^! two expressions are or ought to be synonym\s is tacitly made by ,mr4 ,mill at ! op5+ ( ?is *apt]4 ,he op5s x ) a passage f ! ,discussions1 9 :i* ,hamilton says t ! exi/5ce ( ?+s 9 !mselves is only indirectly reveal$ to u ?r\gh c]ta9 qualities relat$ to our faculties ( k2 & !n proce$s to %[ t ! au?or did n hold ! doctr9e :i* ^! phrases seem to convey 9 ! only sub/antial mean+ capable ( be+ atta*$ to !m2 namely1 t we "k no?+ ( objects except _! exi/5ce1 & ! impressions produc$ by !m ^u ! human m9d4 ,hav+ ?us quietly assum$ t ?+s 9 !mselves are id5tical ) objects1 & relations ) impressions on ! human m9d1 ,mr4 ,mill bases 8 :ole criticism on ?is tacit petitio pr9cipii4 ,he is n aw>e t ?\gh ,reid sometimes uses ! t]m relative 9 ?is inaccurate s5se1 ,hamilton expressly po9ts out ! inaccuracy & expla9s ! prop] s5se4--7,see ,reid's ,works1 pp4 #cac1 #cbb47 ,! mo/ curi\s circum/ance ab\t ?is criticism is1 t1 if n directly borr[$ f1 x has at lea/ be5 c>efully anticipat$ by1 ,hamilton himself4 ,( ! di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities1 z ackn[l$g$ by ,desc>tes & ,locke1 ^: !ory ( ext]nal p]ception is id5tical ) t :i* ,mr4 ,mill w\ld =ce on ,hamilton himself1 ,hamilton says3 ,on ! g5]al doctr9e1 h[ev]1 ( ^! philosoph]s1 bo? classes ( qualities1 z kn[n1 are confess$ly only /ates ( our own m9ds2 & :ile we h no "r f a subjective affection to inf] ! exi/5ce1 f> less ! correspond+ "* ( ! exi/5ce1 ( any objective reality1 x is evid5t t _! doctr9e1 if fairly evolv$1 w\ld result 9 a dogmatic or 9 a sceptical negation ( ! prim>y no less ?an ( ! second>y qualities ( body1 z m ?an appe>ances 9 & = u4,,ad ,x is a/oni%+ t ,mr4 ,mill1 :o p\nces eag]ly on e imag9able in/ance ( ,hamilton's inconsi/5cy1 %\ld h neglect$ to notice ?is1 :i*1 if 8 criticism be true1 is ! mo/ gl>+ inconsi/5cy ( all4 ,,ad ,reid's ,works1 p4 #hdj4 ,b ,hamilton cont9ues3 ,x is !re=e manife/ t ! fundam5tal position ( a consi/5t !ory ( duali/ic realism is--t our cognitions ( ,ext5sion & its modes are n :olly ideal--t al?\gh ,space be a native1 necess>y1 priori =m ( imag9ation1 & s f>1 !re=e1 a m]e subjective /ate1 t !re is1 at ! same "t1 compet5t to u1 9 an imm$iate p]ception ( ext]nal ?+s1 ! consci\sness ( a really exi/5t1 ( a really objective1 ext5d$ _w4 ,"h we h enunciat$ 9 "o brea?1 fir/ ! subjectivity ( space1 :i* is ! logical basis ( ! relative !ory ( p]ception2 & secondly1 ! objectivity ( ! ext5d$ _w1 :i* is ! logical basis ( ! di/9ction betwe5 prim>y & second>y qualities4 ,x is manife/1 !re=e1 t ,hamilton _h n1 z ,mr4 ,mill supposes1 ceas$ to hold ! "o !ory :5 he adopt$ ! o!r4,,ae ,,ae ,see ,exam9ation1 p4 #bh4 ,! key to all ?is is n difficult to f9d4 ,x is simply t objective exi/5ce does n mean exi/5ce p] se2 & t a ph5om5on does n mean a m]e mode ( m9d4 ,objective exi/5ce is exi/5ce z an object1 9 p]ception1 & !re=e 9 relation2 & a ph5om5on may be mat]ial1 z well z m5tal4 ,! ?+ p] se may be only ! unkn[n cause ( :at we directly "k2 b :at we directly "k is some?+ m ?an our own s5sations4 ,9 o!r words1 ! ph5om5al effect is mat]ial z well z ! cause1 & is1 inde$1 t f :i* our prim>y conceptions ( matt] are d]iv$4 ,matt] does n cease to be matt] :5 modifi$ by its contact ) m9d1 z iron does n cease to be iron :5 smelt$ & =g$4 ,a horse%oe is some?+ v diff]5t f a piece ( iron ore2 & a man may be acqua9t$ ) ! =m] )\t ev] hav+ se5 ! latt]1 or kn[+ :at x is l4 ,b w\ld ,mr4 ,mill !re=e say t ! horse%oe is m]ely a subjective affection ( ! skill ( ! smi?--t x is n iron modifi$ by ! workman1 b ! workman or 8 art impress$ by iron8 ,if1 inde$1 ,hamilton _h said ) ,locke1 t ! prim>y qualities are 9 ! bodies !mselves1 :e!r we p]ceive !m or no1,,af he w\ld h laid himself op5 to ,mr4 ,mill's criticism4 ,b he expressly rejects ?is /atem5t1 & contra/s x ) ! m cautions language ( ,desc>tes1 ut sunt1 vel saltem esse possunt4,,ag ,! second>y qualities are m]e affections ( consci\sness1 :i*1 _c be conceiv$ z exi/+ except 9 a consci\s subject4 ,! prim>y qualities are qualities ( body1 z p]ceiv$ 9 relation to ! p]cipi5t m9d1 i4e41 ( ! ph5om5al body p]ceiv$ z 9 space4 ,h[ f> !y exi/ 9 ! real body out ( relation to u1 ,hamilton does n attempt to decide4,,ah ,!y are insep>able f our conception ( body1 :i*1 is d]iv$ exclusively f ! ph5om5on2 !y may or may n be sep>able f ! ?+ z x is 9 itself4 ,,af ,essay1 ii #h1 #bc4 ,,ag ,reid's ,works1 p4 #hci4 ,,ah ,we h be5 cont5t to argue ?is "q1 z ,mr4 ,mill himself argues x1 on ! supposition t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton held t we are directly p]cipi5t ( prim>y qualities 9 ext]nal bodies4 ,/rictly speak+1 h[ev]1 ,hamilton held t ! prim>y qualities are imm$iately p]ceiv$ only 9 our organism z ext5d$1 & inf]r$ to exi/ 9 extra-organic bodies4 ,! ext]nal _w is imm$iately appreh5d$ only 9 its secundo-prim>y "*1 z resi/+ our locomotive en]gy4 ,b z ! organism1 9 ?is !ory1 is a mat]ial non-ego equally ) ! re/ ( matt]1 & z to press ?is di/9ction w\ld only affect ! v]bal accuracy1 n ! sub/antial ju/ice1 ( ,mr4 ,mill's criticisms1 we h pref]r$ to meet him on ! gr\nd he has himself *os54 ,! same error1 ( suppos+ t pres5tationism is id5tical ) n\m5alism1 & ph5om5alism ) repres5tationism1 runs ?r\gh ! :ole ( ,mr4 ,/irl+'s rec5t criticism ( ,hamilton's !ory ( p]ception4 ,x is curi\s1 h[ev]1 t ! v passage 7,lectures1 i41 p4 #adf7 :i* ,mr4 ,mill cites z prov+ t ,hamilton1 9 spite ( 8 pr(ess$ ph5om5alism1 0 an unconsci\s n\m5ali/1 is employ$ by ,mr4 ,/irl+ to prove t1 9 spite ( 8 pr(ess$ pres5tationism1 he 0 an unconsci\s repres5tationi/4 ,! two critics tilt at ,hamilton f opposite qu>t]s3 he has only to /& aside & let !m run aga9/ ea* o!r4 ,"u ?is explanation1 x is manife/ t ! doctr9e1 t matt] z a subject or sub/ratum ( attributes is unkn[n & unkn[able1 is totally diff]5t f t ( cosmo!tic idealism1 ) :i* ,mr ,mill conf\nds x2,,ai & t a philosoph] may )\t inconsi/5cy accept ! =m] & reject ! latt]4 ,! =m]1 :ile x holds ! mat]ial sub/ance to be unkn[n1 does n d5y t "s ( ! attributes ( matt] are p]ceiv$ imm$iately z mat]ial1 ?\gh1 x may be1 modifi$ by contact ) m9d4 ,! latt] ma9ta9s t ! attributes1 z well z ! sub/ance1 are n p]ceiv$ imm$iately z mat]ial1 b m$iately ?r\gh ! int]v5tion ( immat]ial repres5tatives4 ,x is also manife/ t1 9 answ] to ,mr4 ,mill's "q1 :i* ( ,hamilton's two c>d9al doctr9es1 ,relativity or ,natural ,realism1 is to be tak5 9 a non-natural s5se1,,aj we mu/ say1 nei!r4 ,! two doctr9es are q compatible ) ea* o!r1 & nei!r requires a non-natural int]pretation to reconcile x to its companion4 ,,ai ,exam9ation1 p4 #bc4 ,,aj ,exam9ation1 p4 #bj4 ,! doctr9e ( relativity d]ives its *ief practical value f its connection ) ! next great doctr9e ( ,hamilton's philosophy1 ! incognisability ( ! ,absolute & ! ,inf9ite4 ,= ?is doctr9e br+s ,ontology into contact ) ,!ology2 & x is only 9 relation to !ology t ontology acquires a practical importance4 ,) respect to ! o!r two ideas ( ! pure reason1 z ,kant calls !m1 ! human s\l & ! _w1 ! "q1 :e!r we "k !m z realities or z ph5om5a1 may assi/ u 9 deal+ ) c]ta9 metaphysical difficulties1 b ne$ n affect our practical conduct4 ,= we h an imm$iate intuition ( ! attributes ( m9d & matt]1 at lea/ z ph5om5al objects1 & by ^! intuitions may be te/$ ! accuracy ( ! conceptions d]iv$ f !m1 suffici5tly = all practical purposes4 ,a man w equally avoid walk+ ov] a precipice1 & is logically z consi/5t 9 avoid+ x1 :e!r he reg>d ! precipice z a real ?+1 or z a m]e ph5om5on4 ,b 9 ! prov9ce ( !ology ?is is n ! case4 ,we h no imm$iate intuition ( ! ,div9e attributes1 ev5 z ph5om5a2 we only inf] _! exi/5ce & nature f c]ta9 simil> attributes ( :i* we are imm$iately consci\s 9 ourselves4 ,& h5ce arises ! "q1 ,h[ f> does ! simil>ity ext5d1 & to :at ext5t is ! accuracy ( our conceptions gu>ante$ by ! intuition1 n ( ! object to be conceiv$1 b ( some?+ m or less ne>ly resembl+ x8 ,b ?is is n all4 ,our k ( ,god1 orig9ally d]iv$ f p]sonal consci\sness1 receives accession f two o!r s\rces--f ! ext]nal _w1 z ,8 "w2 & f revelation1 z ,8 ^w2 & ! conclusions d]iv$ f ea* h to be comp>$ toge!r4 ,%\ld any discrepancy arise betwe5 !m1 are we at once w>rant$ 9 reject+ "o class ( conclusions 9 fav\r ( ! o!r two1 or two 9 fav\r ( ! ?ird8 or are we at lib]ty to say t our k 9 respect ( all alike is ( su* an imp]fect & indirect "* t we are w>rant$ 9 believ+ t "s reconciliation may exi/1 ?\gh our ignorance prev5ts u f discov]+ :at x is8 ,"h at lea/ is a practical "q ( ! v highe/ importance4 ,9 ! e>ly "p ( our previ\s rem>ks1 we h endeav\r$ to %[ h[ ?is "q has be5 answ]$ by or?odox !ologians ( v>i\s ages1 & h[ ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's philosophy supports t answ]4 ,we h n[ to consid] ,mr ,mill's *apt] ( criticisms4 ,x is always un=tunate to make a /umble on ! ?re%old2 & ,mr4 ,mill's op5+ p>agraph makes two4 ,! "n ( ,god1 he says1 is veil$ "u two extremely ab/ract phrases1 '! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute4'444 ,b x is "o ( ! mo/ unque/ionable ( all logical maxims1 t ! mean+ ( ! ab/ract mu/ be s\ght 9 ! concrete1 & n conv]sely4,,ak--,n[1 9 ! fir/ place1 ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute1 ev5 9 ! s5se 9 :i* !y are bo? pr$icable ( ,god1 are no m names ( ,god ?an ! creature & ! f9ite are names ( man4 ,!y are ! names ( c]ta9 attributes1 :i* fur!r inquiry may1 p]haps1 %[ to belong to ,god & to no o!r be+1 b :i* d n 9 _! signification express ?is1 & d n con/itute our prim>y idea ( ,god1 :i* is t ( a ,p]son4 ,m5 may believe 9 an absolute & inf9ite1 )\t 9 any prop] s5se believ+ 9 ,god2 & ?\s&s ^u ?\s&s ( pi\s m5 h pray$ to a p]sonal ,god1 :o h nev] he>d ( ! absolute & ! inf9ite1 & :o w\ld n und]/& ! expressions if !y he>d !m4 ,b1 9 ! second place1 ! absolute & ! inf9ite1 9 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's s5se ( ! t]ms1 _c bo? be names ( ,god1 = ! simple reason t !y are contradictory ( ea* o!r1 & are propos$ z alt]natives :i* _c bo? be accept$ z pr$icates ( ! same subject4 ,= ,hamilton1 :atev] ,mr4 ,mill may d1 did n fall into ! absurdity ( ma9ta9+ t ,god 9 "s ( ,8 attributes is absolute )\t be+ inf9ite1 & 9 o!rs is inf9ite )\t be+ absolute4,,al ,,ak ,exam9ation1 p4 #cb4 ,,al ,see ,exam9ation1 p4 #ce4 ,b we h n yet done ) ?is s+le p>agraph4 ,aft] ?us mak+ two errors 9 8 exposition ( 8 oppon5t's doctr9e1 ,mr4 ,mill imm$iately proce$s to a ?ird1 9 8 criticism ( x4 ,by foll[+ 8 mo/ unque/ionable ( all logical maxims1 & sub/itut+ ! "n ( ,god 9 ! place ( ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute1 he exactly rev]ses ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's argum5t1 & makes 8 own attempt$ refutation ( x a gl>+ ignoratio el5*i4 ,"o ( ! purposes ( ,hamilton's argum5t is to %[ t we h no positive conception ( an ,inf9ite ,be+2 t :5 we attempt to =m su* a conception1 we d b produce a di/ort$ repres5tation ( ! f9ite2 & h5ce1 t our s-call$ conception ( ! inf9ite is n ! true inf9ite4 ,h5ce x is n to be wond]$ at--nay1 x is a natural consequ5ce ( ?is doctr9e1--t our positive conception ( ,god z a ,p]son _c be includ$ "u ?is pseudo-concept ( ! ,inf9ite4 ,:]eas ,mr4 ,mill1 by lay+ d[n ! maxim t ! mean+ ( ! ab/ract mu/ be s\ght 9 ! concrete1 quietly assumes t ?is pseudo-inf9ite is a prop] pr$icate ( ,god1 to be te/$ by its applicability to ! subject1 & t :at ,hamilton says ( ?is inf9ite _c be true unless x is also true ( ,god4 ,( ?is refutation1 ,hamilton1 7 he liv+1 might truly say1 z he said ( a =m] criticism on ano!r "p ( 8 writ+s1--,?is elaborate p>ade ( argum5t is lit]ally answ]$ 9 two words--,quis dubitavit8 ,b if ! sub/itution ( ,god = ! ,inf9ite be ?us a p]v]sion ( ,hamilton's argum5t1 :at %all we say to a simil> sub/itution 9 ! case ( ! ,absolute8 ,hamilton di/9ctly tells u t !re is "o s5se ( ! t]m absolute 9 :i* x is contradictory ( ! inf9ite1 & !re=e is n pr$icable ( ,god at all4 ,mr4 ,mill admits t ,hamilton1 ?r\gh\t ! great] "p ( 8 argum5ts1 employs ! t]m 9 ?is s5se2 & he !n actually proce$s to te/ ^! argum5ts by sub/itut+ ! concrete1 ,god1 = ! ab/ract1 ,absolute2 i4e41 by sub/itut+ ,god = some?+ :i* ,hamilton def9es z contradictory to ! nature ( ,god4 ,c ! =ce ( confusion g fur!r8 ,is x possible = p]v]se criticism m utt]ly1 we d n say to misrepres5t1 b lit]ally to inv]t an au?or's mean+8 ,! s\rce ( all ^! errors1 & ( a great _m m1 is simply ?is4 ,mr4 ,mill is aw>e1 f ,hamilton's express ass]tion1 t ! ^w absolute may be us$ 9 two di/9ct & ev5 contradictory s5ses2 b he is :olly unable to see :at ^? s5ses are1 or :5 ,hamilton is us+ ! t]m 9 ! "o s5se1 & :5 9 ! o!r4 ,let u endeav\r to cle> up "s ( ?is confusion4 ,hamilton's article on ! ,philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$ is a criticism1 p>tly ( ,s*ell+1 p>tly ( ,c\s92 & ,s*ell+ & ,c\s9 only attempt$ 9 a new =m1 "u ! influ5ce ( ! ,kantian philosophy1 to solve ! problem ) :i* philosophy 9 all ages has attempt$ to grapple1--! problem ( ! ,uncondition$4 ,! uncondition$ is a t]m :i*1 :ile reta9+ ! same g5]al mean+1 admits ( v>i\s applications1 p>ticul> or univ]sal4 ,x may be ! uncondition$ z reg>ds "s special relation1 or ! uncondition$ z reg>ds all relations :atev]4 ,?us !re may be ! uncondition$ 9 ,psy*ology--! human s\l consid]$ z a sub/ance2 ! uncondition$ 9 ,cosmology--! _w consid]$ z a s+le :ole2 ! uncondition$ 9 ,!ology--,god 9 ,8 own nature1 z di/+ui%$ f ,8 manife/ations to u2 or1 f9ally1 ! uncondition$ p> excell5ce--! uncondition$ 9 ,ontology--! be+ on :i* all o!r be+ dep5ds4 ,x is ( c\rse possible to id5tify any "o ( ! ?ree fir/ ) ! la/4 ,x is possible to adopt a sy/em ( ,egoism1 & to ma9ta9 t all ph5om5a are modes ( my m9d1 & t ! sub/ance ( my m9d is ! only real exi/5ce4 ,x is possible to adopt a sy/em ( ,mat]ialism1 & to ma9ta9 t all ph5om5a are modes ( matt]1 & t ! mat]ial sub/ance ( ! _w is ! only real exi/5ce4 ,or x is possible to adopt a sy/em ( ,pan!ism1 & to ma9ta9 t all ph5om5a are modes ( ! ,div9e exi/5ce1 & t ,god is ! only reality4 ,b ! sev]al notions are 9 !mselves di/9ct1 ?\gh "o may ultimately be pr$icat$ ( ano!r4 ,! g5]al notion ( ! ,uncondition$ is ! same 9 all ^! cases1 & all mu/ f9ally culm9ate 9 ! la/1 ! ,uncondition$ p> excell5ce4 ,! g5]al notion is t ( ! ,"o z di/+ui%$ f ! ,_m1 ! sub/ance f its accid5ts1 ! p]man5t reality f its v>iable modifications4 ,?\ght1 w1 s5sation1 are modes ( my exi/5ce4 ,:at is ! ,i t is "o & ! same 9 all8 ,ext5sion1 figure1 resi/ance1 are attributes ( matt]4 ,:at is ! "o sub/ance to :i* ^! attributes belong8 ,b ! g5]alisation _c /op "h4 ,if matt] diff]s f m9d1 ! non-ego f ! ego1 z "o ?+ f ano!r1 !re mu/ be "s special po9t ( diff]5ce1 :i*1 is ! condition ( ! exi/5ce ( ea* 9 ?is or t p>ticul> mann]4 ,uncondition$ exi/5ce1 !re=e1 9 ! highe/ s5se ( ! t]m1 _c be ! exi/5ce ( ?is z di/+ui%$ f t2 x mu/ be exi/5ce p] se1 ! gr\nd & pr9ciple ( all condition$ or special exi/5ce4 ,?is is ! ,uncondition$1 prop]ly s call$3 ! uncondition$ 9 ,s*ell+'s s5se1 z ! indiff]5ce ( subject & object3 & x is aga9/ ?is t ,hamilton's argum5ts are direct$4 ,! "q is ?is4 ,is ?is ,uncondition$ a m]e ab/raction1 ! product ( our own m9ds2 or c x be conceiv$ z hav+ a real exi/5ce p] se1 &1 z su*1 c x be id5tifi$ ) ,god z ! s\rce ( all exi/5ce8 ,hamilton ma9ta9s t x is a m]e ab/raction1 & _c be s id5tifi$2 t1 f> f be+ a "n ( ,god1 x is a "n ( no?+ at all4 ,by ab/raction1 he says1 we annihilate ! object1 & by ab/raction we annihilate ! subject ( consci\sness4 ,b :at rema9s8 ,no?+4 ,:5 we attempt to conceive x z a reality1 we hypo/atise ! z]o4,,am ,,am ,discussions1 p4 #ba4 ,9 ord] to conceive ! ,uncondition$ exi/+ z a ?+1 we mu/ conceive x z exi/+ out ( relation to ev]y?+ else4 ,= if no?+ beyond itself is necess>y z a condition ( its exi/5ce1 x c exi/ sep>ate f ev]y?+ else2 & its pure exi/5ce z ! uncondition$ is s sep>ate4 ,x mu/ !re=e be conceivable z ! sole exi/5ce1 hav+ no plurality beyond itself2 & z simple1 hav+ no plurality )9 itself4 ,= if we _c conceive x z exi/+ ap>t f o!r ?+s1 we _c conceive x z indep5d5t ( !m2 & if we conceive x z a comp\nd ( p>ts1 we h fur!r to ask z be=e1 :at is ! pr9ciple ( unity :i* b9ds ^! p>ts into "o :ole8 ,if !re is su* a pr9ciple1 ?is is ! true uncondition$2 if !re is no su* pr9ciple1 !re is no uncondition$2 = t :i* _c exi/ except z a comp\nd is dep5d5t = its exi/5ce on t ( its sev]al con/itu5ts4 ,! uncondition$ mu/ !re=e be conceiv$ z "o1 z simple1 & z univ]sal4 ,is su* a conception possible1 :e!r 9 ord9>y consci\sness1 z ,c\s9 says1 or 9 an extraord9>y intuition1 z ,s*ell+ says8 ,let u try ! =m]4 ,consci\sness is subject to ! law ( ,"t4 ,a ph5om5on is pres5t$ to u 9 "t1 z dep5d5t on "s previ\s ph5om5on or ?+4 ,i wi% to pursue ! *a9 9 ?\ght till ,i arrive at some?+ indep5d5t4 ,if ,i c\ld rea* 9 ?\ght a beg9n+ ( "t1 & discov] "s fir/ fact ) no?+ prec$+ x1 ,i %\ld conceive "t z absolute--z complet$1--& ! uncondition$ z ! fir/ ?+ 9 "t1 & !re=e z complet$ also1 = x may be consid]$ by itself1 ap>t f :at dep5ds ^u x4 ,or if "t be consid]$ z hav+ no beg9n+1 ?\ght w\ld /ill be able to repres5t to itself t inf9ity1 c\ld x foll[ out ! s]ies ( antec$5ts = ev]4 ,b is ei!r ( ^! alt]natives possible to ?\ght8 ,if n1 we mu/ confess t ! uncondition$ is inconceivable by ord9>y consci\sness2 & we mu/ f\nd philosophy1 ) ,s*ell+1 on ! annihilation ( consci\sness4 ,b ?\gh ,hamilton himself di/+ui%es betwe5 ! uncondition$ & ! absolute1 us+ ! =m] t]m g5]ally1 = t :i* is out ( all relation1 & ! latt] specially1 = t :i* is out ( all relation z complete & f9i%$1 8 oppon5t ,c\s9 uses ! latt] t]m 9 a wid] s5se1 z synonym\s ) ! =m]1 & ! inf9ite z coext5sive ) bo?4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 does n affect ! validity ( ,hamilton's argum5t4 ,= if x c be %[n t ! absolute & ! inf9ite 79 ,hamilton's s5se7 are bo? inconceivable1 ! uncondition$ 7or absolute 9 ,c\s9's s5se71 :i* mu/ be conceiv$ z "o or ! o!r1 is inconceivable also4 ,or1 conv]sely1 if x c be %[n t ! uncondition$1 ! unrelat$ 9 g5]al1 is inconceivable1 x foll[s t ! absolute & ! inf9ite1 z bo? involv+ ! unrelat$1 are inconceivable also4 ,we may n[ proce$ ) ,mr4 ,mill's criticism4 ,he says3-- ,absolute1 9 ! s5se 9 :i*1 x /&s relat$ to ,inf9ite1 means 7con=mably to its etymology7 t :i* is f9i%$ or complet$4 ,!re are "s ?+s ( :i* ! utmo/ ideal am\nt is a limit$ quantity1 ?\gh a quantity nev] actually rea*$4444 ,we may speak ( absolutely1 b n ( inf9itely1 pure wat]4 ,! purity ( wat] is n a fact ( :i*1 :atev] degree we suppose atta9$1 !re rema9s a great] beyond4 ,x has an absolute limit3 x is capable ( be+ f9i%$ or complete1 9 ?\ght1 if n 9 reality4--7,p4 #cd47 ,?is criticism is ei!r incorrect or nihil ad rem4 ,if meant z a /atem5t ( ,hamilton's use ( ! t]m1 x is incorrect3 absolute1 9 ,hamilton's philosophy1 does n mean simply complet$1 b out ( relation z complet$2 i4e41 self-exi/5t 9 its complet5ess1 & n imply+ ! exi/5ce ( any?+ else4 ,if meant 9 any o!r s5se ?an ,hamilton's1 x is irrelevant4 ,c ,mr4 ,mill really h believ$ t ,s*ell+ ?\ght x necess>y to inv5t an intellectual intuition out ( "t & out ( consci\sness1 9 ord] to contemplate an ideal limit$ quantity1 su* z ! complete purity ( wat]8 ,mr4 ,mill cont9ues3-- ,?\gh ! idea ( ,absolute is ?us contra/$ ) t ( ,inf9ite1 ! "o is equally fitt$ ) ! o!r to be pr$icat$ ( ,god2 b n 9 respect ( ! same attributes4 ,!re is no incorrectness ( spee* 9 ! phrase ,inf9ite ,p[]3 because ! notion x expresses is t ( a ,be+ :o has ! p[] ( do+ all ?+s :i* we "k or c conceive1 & m4 ,b 9 speak+ ( k1 ,absolute is ! prop] ^w1 & n ,inf9ite4 ,! highe/ degree ( k t c be spok5 ( ) a mean+1 only am\nts to kn[+ all t !re is to be kn[n3 :5 t po9t is rea*$1 k has atta9$ its utmo/ limit4 ,s ( goodness or ju/ice3 !y _c be m ?an p]fect4 ,!re are n inf9ite degrees ( "r4 ,! w is ei!r entirely "r1 or wrong 9 diff]5t degrees4--7,p4 #ce47 ,surely1 :atev] ,div9e p[] c d1 ,div9e k c "k z possible to be done4 ,! "o1 !re=e1 mu/ be z inf9ite z ! o!r4 ,& :at ( ,div9e goodness8 ,an angel or a glorifi$ sa9t is absolutely good 9 ,mr4 ,mill's s5se ( ! t]m4 ,8 w is entirely "r4 ,does ,mr4 ,mill mean to say t !re is no diff]5ce1 ev5 9 degree1 betwe5 ! goodness ( ,god & t ( "o ( ,8 creatures8 ,b1 ev5 suppos+ 8 /atem5t to be true1 h[ is x relevant to ! matt] "u discussion8 ,c ,mr4 ,mill possibly be ignorant t all ^! attributes are relations2 t ! ,absolute 9 ,hamilton's s5se1 ! unconditionally limit$1 is n pr$icable ( ,god at all2 & t :5 div9es & philosoph]s speak ( ! absolute nature ( ,god1 !y mean a nature 9 :i* !re is no di/9ction ( attributes at all8 ,mr4 ,mill !n proce$s to give a summ>y ( ,hamilton's argum5ts aga9/ ,c\s91 prep>atory to refut+ !m4 ,9 ! c\rse ( ?is summ>y he says3-- ,let me ask1 en passant1 :]e is ! necessity = suppos+ t1 if ! ,absolute1 or1 to speak pla9ly1 if ,god1 is only kn[n to u 9 ! "* ( a cause1 he mu/ !re=e 'exi/ m]ely z a cause1' & be m]ely 'a mean t[>ds an end8' ,x is surely possible to ma9ta9 t ! ,deity is kn[n to u only z he :o fe$s ! rav5s1 )\t suppos+ t ! ,div9e ,intellig5ce exi/s solely 9 ord] t ! rav5s may be f$4,,an--7,p4 #db47 ,,an ,9 a note to ?is passage1 ,mr4 ,mill makes "s s>ca/ic comm5ts on an argum5t ( ,hamilton's aga9/ ,c\s9's !ory t ,god is necess>ily det]m9$ to create4 ,on ?is hypo!sis1 says ,hamilton1 ,god1 z necess>ily det]m9$ to pass f absolute ess5ce to relative manife/ation1 is det]m9$ to pass ei!r f ! bett] to ! worse1 or f ! worse to ! bett]4 ,mr4 ,mill calls ?is argum5t a curiosity ( dialectics1 & answ]s1 ,p]fect wisdom w\ld h begun to w ! new /ate at ! precise mom5t :5 x began to be bett] ?an ! old4 ,hamilton is n speak+ ( /ates ( ?+s1 b ( /ates ( ! ,div9e nature1 z creative or n creative2 & ,mr4 ,mill's argum5t1 to refute ,hamilton1 mu/ suppose a "t :5 ! new nature ( ,god beg9s to be bett] ?an ! old6 ,mr4 ,mill w\ld p]haps h spok5 ( ,hamilton's argum5t ) m respect _h he kn[n t x is tak5 f ,plato4 ,on ?is we w\ld rem>k1 en passant1 t ?is is precisely ,hamilton's own doctr9e1 t ! sph]e ( our belief is m ext5sive ?an t ( our k4 ,! purport ( ,hamilton's argum5t is to %[ t ! ,absolute1 z conceiv$ by ,c\s91 is n a true ,absolute 7,inf9ito-,absolute71 & !re=e does n repres5t ! real nature ( ,god4 ,8 argum5t is ?is3 ,c\s9's ,absolute exi/s m]ely z a cause3 ,god does n exi/ m]ely z a cause3 !re=e ,c\s9's ,absolute is n ,god4 ,mr4 ,mill actually mi/akes ! position :i* ,hamilton is oppos+ = t :i* he is ma9ta9+4 ,su* an error does n lead u to expect mu* f 8 subsequ5t refutation4 ,8 fir/ criticism is a curi\s specim5 ( 8 read+ 9 philosophy4 ,he says3-- ,:5 ! ,true or ! ,beautiful are spok5 (1 ! phrase is meant to include all ?+s :atev] t are true1 or all ?+s :atev] t are beautiful4 ,if ?is rule is good = o!r ab/ractions1 x is good = ! ,absolute4 ,! ^w is devoid ( mean+ unless 9 ref]5ce to pr$icates ( "s sort4444 ,if we are told1 !re=e1 t !re is "s ,be+ :o is1 or :i* is1 ! ,absolute1--n some?+ absolute1 b ! ,absolute itself1--! proposition c be und]/ood 9 no o!r s5se ?an t ! suppos$ ,be+ possesses 9 absolute complet5ess all pr$icates2 is absolutely good & absolutely bad2 absolutely wise & absolutely /upid2 & s =?4,,ao--7,p4 #dc47 ,,ao ,9 support ( ?is position1 ,mr4 ,mill cites ,hegel--,:at k9d ( an absolute ,be+ is t :i* does n conta9 9 itself all t is actual1 ev5 evil includ$8 ,we are n conc]n$ to def5d ,hegel's position2 b he 0 n q s absurd z to mean :at ,mr4 ,mill supposes him to h meant4 ,does n ,mr4 ,mill "k t x 0 "o ( ,hegel's fundam5tal positions1 t ! ,div9e nature _c be express$ by a plurality ( pr$icates8 ,plato expressly di/+ui%es betwe5 ! beautiful & ?+s t are beautiful1 z ! ,"o 9 contra/ to ! ,_m--! ,real 9 contra/ to ! ,app>5t4,,ap ,x is1 ( c\rse1 q possible t ,plato may be wrong1 & ,mr4 ,mill "r2 b ! m]e fact ( _! antagonism is suffici5t to %[ t ! mean+ ( ! phrase ne$ n be :at ,mr4 ,mill supposes x mu/ be4 ,9 fact1 ! ,absolute 9 philosophy always has meant ! ,"o z di/+ui%$ f ! ,_m1 n ! ,"o z includ+ ! ,_m4 ,b1 z appli$ to ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 ,mr4 ,mill's rem>ks on ! ,absolute1 & 8 subsequ5t rem>ks on ! ,inf9ite1 n only misrepres5t ,hamilton's position1 b exactly rev]se x4 ,hamilton ma9ta9s t ! t]ms absolute & inf9ite are p]fectly intelligible z ab/ractions1 z mu* s z relative & f9ite2 = correlatives sugge/ ea* o!r1 & ! k ( contradictories is "o2 b he d5ies t a concrete ?+ or object c be positively conceiv$ z absolute or inf9ite4 ,mr4 ,mill repres5ts him z only prov+ t ! unmean+ ab/ractions are unkn[able1--ab/ractions :i* ,hamilton does n ass]t to be unmean+2 & :i* he reg>ds z kn[able 9 ! only s5se 9 :i* su* ab/ractions c be kn[n1 viz41 by und]/&+ ! mean+ ( _! names4,,aq ,,ap ,republic1 book v41 p4 #dgi4 ,,aq ,?is confusion betwe5 conceiv+ a concrete ?+ & kn[+ ! mean+ ( ab/ract t]ms is z old z ,tol&'s ,*ri/ianity n ,my/]i\s1 &1 inde$1 has its g]m1 ?\gh n its developm5t1 9 ! tea*+ ( 8 assum$ ma/]1 ,locke4 ,locke taught t all our k is f\nd$ on simple ideas1 & t a complex idea is m]ely an accumulation ( simple ones4 ,h5ce ,tol& ma9ta9$ t no object c\ld be my/]i\s or inconceivable if ! t]ms 9 :i* its sev]al attributes are express$ h ideas correspond+ to !m4 ,b1 9 po9t ( fact1 no simple idea c be conceiv$ z an object by itself1 ?\gh ! ^w by :i* x is signifi$ has a p]fectly intelligible mean+4 ,i _c1 e4g41 conceive :it5ess by itself1 ?\gh ,i c conceive a :ite wall1 i4e41 :it5ess 9 comb9ation ) o!r attributes 9 a concrete object4 ,to conceive attributes z coexi/+1 h[ev]1 we mu/ conceive !m z coexi/+ 9 a c]ta9 mann]2 = an object ( conception is n a m]e heap ( ideas1 b an organiz$ :ole1 ^: con/itu5t ideas exi/ 9 a p>ticul> comb9ation ) & relation to ea* o!r4 ,to conceive1 !re=e1 we mu/ n only be able to appreh5d ea* idea sep>ately 9 ! ab/ract1 b also ! mann] 9 :i* !y may possibly exi/ 9 comb9ation ) ea* o!r4 ,some?+ inf9ite1 says ,mr4 ,mill1 is a conception :i*1 l mo/ ( our complex ideas1 conta9s a negative elem5t1 b :i* conta9s positive elem5ts also4 ,inf9ite space1 = in/ance2 is !re no?+ positive 9 t8 ,! negative "p ( ?is conception is ! abs5ce ( b\nds4 ,! positive are1 ! idea ( space1 & ( space great] ?an any f9ite space4--7,p4 #de47 ,?is def9ition ( inf9ite space is exactly t :i* ,desc>tes gives u ( indef9ite ext5sion1--,ita quia non possumus imag9>i ext5sionem tam magnam1 qu9 intelligamus adhuc majorem esse posse1 dicemus magnitud9em r]um possibilium esse indef9itam4,,ar ,s too1 ,cudwor?1--,!re appe>e? no suffici5t gr\nd = ?is positive inf9ity ( space2 we be+ c]ta9 ( no m ?an ?is1 t be ! _w or any figurative body nev] s great1 x is n impossible b t x might be /ill great] & great] )\t end4 ,:i* indef9ite increasabl5ess ( body & space seems to be mi/ak5 = a positive inf9ity !re(4,,z ,& ,locke1 a philosoph] = :om ,mr4 ,mill w probably h m respect ?an = ,desc>tes or ,cudwor?1 writes m pla9ly3 ,to h actually 9 ! m9d ! idea ( a space inf9ite1 is to suppose ! m9d already pass$ ov]1 & actually to h a view ( all ^? repeat$ ideas ( space1 :i* an endless repetition c nev] totally repres5t to x1--:i* c>ries 9 x a pla9 contradiction4,,at ,mr4 ,mill ?us unwitt+ly illu/rates1 9 8 own p]son1 ! tru? ( ,hamilton's rem>k1 ,if we dream ( effect+ ?is conceiv+ ! inf9ite 9 "t or space1 we only deceive ourselves by sub/itut+ ! indef9ite = ! inf9ite1 ?an :i* no two notions c be m oppos$4 ,9 fact1 ,mr4 ,mill does n seem to be aw>e t :at ! ma!matician calls inf9ite1 ! metaphysician calls indef9ite1 & t argum5ts drawn f ! ma!matical use ( ! t]m inf9ite are :olly irrelevant to ! metaphysical4 ,h[1 inde$1 c\ld x be o!rwise8 ,c any man suppose t1 :5 ! ,div9e attributes are spok5 ( z inf9ite1 x is meant t !y are indef9itely increasable8,,au ,,ar ,pr9cipia1 i41 #bf4 ,,z ,intellectual ,sy/em1 ed4 ,h>rison1 vol4 iii41 p4 #aca4 ,,at ,essay1 ii41 #ag1 #g4 ,,au ,"o ( ! able/ ma!maticians1 & ! mo/ p]sev]+ ,hamiltono-ma/ix ( ! day1 ma9ta9s ! applicability ( ! metaphysical notion ( inf9ity to ma!matical magnitudes2 b ) an assumption :i* un9t5tionally v9dicates ,hamilton's position m fully ?an c\ld h be5 done by a pr(ess$ disciple4 ,i %all assume1 says ,pr(essor ,de ,morgan1 9 a pap] rec5tly pr9t$ among ! ,transactions ( ! ,cambridge ,philosophical ,society1 ! notion ( inf9ity & ( its reciprocal inf9itesimal3 t a l9e c be conceiv$ inf9ite1 & !re=e hav+ po9ts at an inf9ite di/ance4 ,image ap>t1 :i* we _c h1 x seems to me cle> t a l9e ( inf9ite l5g?1 )\t po9ts at an inf9ite di/ance1 is a contradiction4 ,n[ x is easy to %[1 by m]e reason+1 )\t any image1 t ?is assumption is equally a contradiction4 ,= if space is f9ite1 e l9e 9 space mu/ be f9ite also2 & if space is inf9ite1 e po9t 9 space mu/ h inf9ite space beyond x 9 e direction1 & !re=e _c be at ! greate/ possible di/ance f ano!r po9t4 ,or ?us3 ,any two po9ts 9 space are ! extremities ( ! l9e connect+ !m2 b an inf9ite l9e has no extremities2 !re=e no two po9ts 9 space c be connect$ toge!r by an inf9ite l9e4 ,9 fact1 x is ! concrete reality1 ! some?+ inf9ite1 & n ! m]e ab/raction ( inf9ity1 :i* is only conceivable z a negation4 ,e some?+ t has ev] be5 intuitively pres5t to my consci\sness is a some?+ f9ite4 ,:51 !re=e1 ,i speak ( a some?+ inf9ite1 ,i mean a some?+ exi/+ 9 a diff]5t mann] f all ! some?+s ( :i* ,i h _h exp]i5ce 9 intuition4 ,?us x is appreh5d$1 n positively1 b negatively--n directly by :at x is1 b indirectly by :at x is n4 ,a negative idea is n negative because x is express$ by a negative t]m1 b because x has nev] be5 realis$ 9 intuition4 ,if inf9ity1 z appli$ to space1 means ! same ?+ z be+ great] ?an any f9ite space1 bo? conceptions are equally positive or equally negative4 ,if x does n mean ! same ?+1 !n1 9 conceiv+ a space great] ?an any f9ite space1 we d n conceive an inf9ite space4 ,mr4 ,mill's next /r+ ( criticisms may be v briefly dismiss$4 ,fir/1 ,hamilton does n1 z ,mr4 ,mill ass]ts1 say t ! ,uncondition$ is inconceivable1 because x includes bo? ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute1 & ^! are contradictory ( "o ano!r4 ,8 argum5t is a common disjunctive syllogism4 ,! uncondition$1 if conceivable at all1 mu/ be conceiv$ ei!r z ! absolute or z ! inf9ite2 nei!r ( ^! is possible2 !re=e ! uncondition$ is n conceivable at all4 ,nor1 secondly1 is ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton guilty ( ! /range confusion ( ideas :i* ,mr4 ,mill ascribes to him1 :5 he says t ! ,absolute1 z be+ absolutely ,"o1 _c be kn[n "u ! conditions ( plurality & diff]5ce4 ,! absolute1 z su*1 mu/ be out ( all relation1 & consequ5tly _c be conceiv$ 9 ! relation ( plurality4 ,! plurality requir$1 says ,mr4 ,mill1 is n )9 ! ?+ itself1 b is made up betwe5 itself & o!r ?+s4 ,x is1 9 fact1 bo?2 b ev5 grant+ ,mr4 ,mill's assumption1 :at is a plurality betwe5 a ?+ & o!r ?+s b a relation betwe5 !m8 ,!re is und\bt$ly a /range confusion ( ideas 9 ?is p>agraph2 b ! confusion is n on ! "p ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton4 ,aga91 cont9ues ,mr4 ,mill1 ev5 if we conc$e t a ?+ _c be kn[n at all unless kn[n z plural1 does x foll[ t x _c be kn[n z plural because x is also ,"o8 ,s9ce :5 h ! ,"o & ! ,_m be5 incompatible ?+s1 in/ead ( diff]5t aspects ( ! same ?+8444 ,if !re is any mean+ 9 ! words1 mu/ n ,absolute ,unity be ,absolute ,plurality likewise8 ,mr4 ,mill's s9ce :58 may be answ]$ 9 ! words ( ,plato3--,greek3 ,oud5 emoige atopon dokei he9ai ei h5 hapanta apopha9ei tis t mete*e9 t\ h5os kai tauta tauta polla t pl?\s au mete*e92 all' ei ho e/9 h51 auto t\to polla apodeixei1 kai au ta polla d h51 t\to d ?aumasomai4,,av ,"h we are expressly told t absolute unity _c be absolute plurality4 ,mr4 ,mill may say t ,plato is wrong2 b he w h>dly g s f> z to say t !re is no mean+ 9 8 words4 ,9 po9t ( fact1 h[ev]1 x is ,mr4 ,mill :o is 9 error1 & n ,plato4 ,9 diff]5t relations1 no d\bt1 ! same concrete object may be reg>d$ z "o or z _m4 ,! same measure is "o foot or twelve in*es2 ! same sum is "o %ill+ or twelve p5ce2 b x no m foll[s t absolute unity mu/ be absolute plurality likewise1 ?an x foll[s f ! above in/ances t "o is equal to twelve4 ,&1 ?irdly1 :5 ,mr4 ,mill accuses ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton ( dep>t+ f 8 own mean+ ( ! t]m absolute1 9 ma9ta9+ t ! ,absolute _c be a ,cause1 he only %[s t he does n himself "k :at ,hamilton's mean+ is4 ,if ,absolute1 he says1 means f9i%$1 p]fect$1 complet$1 may !re n be a f9i%$1 p]fect$1 & complet$ ,cause8 ,hamilton's ,absolute is t :i* is out ( relation1 z f9i%$1 p]fect1 complete2 & a ,cause1 z su*1 is bo? 9 relation & incomplete4 ,x is 9 relation to its effect2 & x is incomplete )\t its effect4 ,f9ally1 :5 ,mr4 ,mill *>ges ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton ) ma9ta9+ t ext5sion & figure are ( ! ess5ce ( matt]1 & p]ceiv$ z su* by intuition1 we mu/ briefly reply t ,hamilton does no su* ?+4 ,he is n speak+ ( ! ess5ce ( matt] p] se1 b only ( matt] z appreh5d$ 9 relation to u4 ,,av ,p>m5ides1 p4 #abi4 ,mr4 ,mill concludes ?is *apt] ) an attempt to discov] ! mean+ ( ,hamilton's ass]tion1 to ?9k is to condition4 ,we h already expla9$ :at ,hamilton meant by ?is expression2 & we recur to ! subject n[1 only to %[ ! easy mann] 9 :i* ,mr4 ,mill manages to miss ! po9t ( an argum5t ) ! clue ly+ /raight be=e him4 ,did any1 he says 7( ^? :o say t ! ,absolute is ?9kable71 pr(ess to ?9k x 9 any o!r mann] ?an by di/+ui%+ x f o!r ?+s8 ,n[ ?is is ! v ?+ :i*1 accord+ to ,hamilton1 ,s*ell+ actually did4 ,mr4 ,mill does n attempt to %[ t ,hamilton is wrong 9 8 int]pretation ( ,s*ell+1 nor1 if he is "r1 :at 7 ! reasons :i* l$ ,s*ell+ to s p>adoxical a position3 he simply assumes t no man c\ld hold ,s*ell+'s view1 & !re is an end ( x4,,aw ,hamilton's purpose is to reass]t 9 sub/ance ! doctr9e :i* ,kant ma9ta9$1 & :i* ,s*ell+ d5i$2 & ! natural way to asc]ta9 8 mean+ w\ld be by ref]5ce to ^! two philosoph]s4 ,b ?is is n ! me?od ( ,mr4 ,mill1 "h or else:]e4 ,he g5]ally endeav\rs to asc]ta9 ,hamilton's mean+ by rang+ ! wide field ( possibilities4 ,he tells u :at a phrase means 9 c]ta9 au?ors ( :om ,hamilton is n ?9k+1 or 9 ref]5ce to c]ta9 matt]s :i* ,hamilton is n discuss+2 b he h>dly ev] attempts to trace ! hi/ory ( ,hamilton's own view1 or ! tra9 ( ?\ght by :i* x sugge/$ itself to 8 m9d4 ,& ! result ( ?is is1 t ,mr4 ,mill's int]pretations are g5]ally 9 ! pot5tial mood4 ,he wa/es a good deal ( conjecture 9 discov]+ :at ,hamilton might h meant1 :5 a little att5tion 9 ! "r qu>t] w\ld h %[n :at he did mean4 ,,aw ,mr4 ,mill does n expressly "n ,s*ell+ 9 ?is s5t5ce3 b he does s %ortly aft]w>ds2 & 8 rem>k is ( ! same "* ) ! previ\s "o4 ,ev5 ,s*ell+1 he says1 0 n s gratuit\sly absurd z to d5y t ! ,absolute mu/ be kn[n accord+ to ! capacities ( t :i* kn[s x--?\gh he 0 =c$ to inv5t a special capacity = ! purpose4 ,b if ?is capacity is an inv5tion ( ,s*ell+'s1 & if he 0 =c$ to inv5t x1 ,hamilton's po9t is prov$4 ,to ?9k1 accord+ to all ! real op]ations ( ?\ght :i* consci\sness makes kn[n to u1 is to condition4 ,& ! faculty ( ! uncondition$ is an inv5tion ( ,s*ell+'s1 n kn[n to consci\sness4 ,9 o!r words3 all our real faculties be> witness to ! tru? ( ,hamilton's /atem5t2 & ! only way ( controv]t+ x is to inv5t an imag9>y faculty = ! purpose4 ,! ?ird feature ( ,hamilton's philosophy :i* we *>g$ ,mr4 ,mill ) misund]/&+1 is ! di/9ction betwe5 ,k & ,belief4 ,9 ! e>ly "p ( ?is article1 we endeav\r$ to expla9 ! true nature ( ?is di/9ction2 we h n[ only a v limit$ space to notice ,mr4 ,mill's criticisms on x4 ,hamilton1 he says1 admitt$ a second s\rce ( intellectual conviction call$ ,belief4 ,n[ ,belief is n a s\rce ( any conviction1 b ! conviction itself4 ,no man w\ld say t he is conv9c$ ( ! tru? ( a proposition because he believes x2 8 belief 9 its tru? is ! same ?+ z 8 conviction ( its tru?4 ,belief1 !n1 is n a s\rce ( conviction1 b a conviction hav+ s\rces ( its own4 ,! "q is1 h we legitimate s\rces ( conviction1 di/9ct f ^? :i* con/itute ,k prop]ly s call$8 ,n[ "h x %\ld be rememb]$ t ! di/9ction is n "o inv5t$ by ,hamilton to meet ! exig5cies ( 8 own sy/em4 ,he enum]ates z _m z tw5ty-two au?ors1 ( ! mo/ v>i\s s*ools ( philosophy1 :o all ackn[l$g$ x be=e him4 ,su* a concurr5ce is no slight argum5t 9 fav\r ( ! reality ( ! di/9ction4 ,we d n say t ^! writ]s1 or ,hamilton himself1 h always express$ ?is di/9ction 9 ! be/ language1 or appli$ x 9 ! be/ mann]2 b we say t x is a true di/9ction1 & t x is valid = ! pr9cipal purpose to :i* ,hamilton appli$ x4 ,we d n agree ) all ! details ( ,hamilton's application4 ,we d n agree ) him1 ?\gh he is support$ by v em95t au?orities1 9 classify+ our conviction ( axiomatic pr9ciples z belief1 & n z k4,,ax ,b ?is "q does n directly be> on ,mr4 ,mill's criticism4 ,! po9t ( t criticism is1 t ,hamilton1 by admitt+ a belief 9 ! inf9ite & unrelat$1 nullifies 8 own doctr9e1 t all k is ( ! f9ite & relative4 ,let u see4 ,,ax ,hamilton's di/9ction is 9 pr9ciple ! same z t :i* we h giv5 9 our previ\s rem>ks 7pp4 #ah1 #ai74 ,he says1 ,a conviction is incompreh5sible :5 !re is m]ely giv5 to u 9 consci\sness--,t its object is 7,greek3 hoti e/i71 & :5 we are unable to compreh5d ?r\gh a high] notion or belief ,:y or ,h[ x is 7,greek3 dioti e/i74--7,reid's ,works1 p4 #ged47 ,we w\ld di/+ui% betwe5 :y & h[1 betwe5 ,greek3 dioti1 & ,greek3 ps4 ,we c give no reason :y two /raight l9es _c enclose a space2 b we c compreh5d h[ !y _c4 ,we h only to =m ! correspond+ image1 to see ! mann] 9 :i* ! two attributes coexi/ 9 "o object4 ,b :5 ,i say t ,i believe 9 ! exi/5ce ( a spiritual be+ :o sees )\t eyes1 ,i _c conceive ! mann] 9 :i* see+ coexi/s ) ! abs5ce ( ! bodily organ ( sight4 ,we believe t ! true di/9ction betwe5 k & belief may ultimately be ref]r$ to ! pres5ce or abs5ce ( ! correspond+ intuition2 b to %[ ?is 9 ! v>i\s in/ances w\ld require a long] diss]tation ?an our pres5t limits w all[4 ,we may believe t a ?+ is1 )\t be+ able to conceive h[ x is4 ,i believe t ,god is a p]son1 & also t ,he is inf9ite2 ?\gh ,i _c conceive h[ ! attributes ( p]sonality & inf9ity exi/ toge!r4 ,all my k ( p]sonality is d]iv$ f my consci\sness ( my own f9ite p]sonality4 ,i !re=e believe 9 ! coexi/5ce ( attributes 9 ,god1 9 "s mann] diff]5t f t 9 :i* !y coexi/ 9 me z limit+ ea* o!r3 & ?us ,i believe 9 ! fact1 ?\gh ,i am unable to conceive ! mann]4 ,s1 aga91 ,kant br+s c]ta9 c\nt] argum5ts1 to prove1 on ! "o side1 t ! _w has a beg9n+ 9 "t1 &1 on ! o!r side1 t x has n a beg9n+4 ,n[ suppose ,i am unable to refute ei!r ( ^! c\rses ( argum5t1 am ,i !re=e compell$ to h no belief at all8 ,may ,i n say1 ,i believe1 9 spite ( ,kant1 t ! _w has a beg9n+ 9 "t1 ?\gh ,i am unable to conceive h[ x c h s begun8 ,:at is ?is1 aga91 b a belief 9 an absolute reality beyond ! sph]e ( my relative k8 ,i am n n[ consid]+1 says ,mr4 ,mill1 :at x is t1 9 our au?or's op9ion1 we are b\nd to believe conc]n+ ! unkn[able4 ,:y1 ?is 0 ! v ?+ he ought to h consid]$1 be=e pron\nc+ ! position to be unt5able1 or to be irreconcilable ) some?+ else4 ,mean:ile1 x is in/ructive to obs]ve t ,mr4 ,mill himself believes1 or requires 8 read]s to believe1 some?+ conc]n+ ! unkn[n4 ,he does n "k1 or at any rate he does n tell 8 read]s1 :at ,hamilton requires !m to believe conc]n+ ! unkn[able2 b he himself believes1 & requires !m to believe1 t ?is unkn[n some?+ is incompatible ) ! doctr9e t k is relative4 ,we _c reg>d ?is z a v satisfactory mode ( refut+ ,hamilton's !sis4,,ay ,,ay ,9 a subsequ5t *apt] 7p4 #abj71 ,mr4 ,mill endeav\rs to ov]?r[ ?is di/9ction betwe5 ,k & ,belief1 by means ( ,hamilton's own !ory ( ,consci\sness4 ,hamilton ma9ta9s t we _c be consci\s ( a m5tal op]ation )\t be+ consci\s ( its object4 ,on ?is ,mr4 ,mill retorts t if1 z ,hamilton admits1 we are consci\s ( a belief 9 ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute1 we mu/ be consci\s ( ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute !mselves2 & su* consci\sness is ,k4 ,! fallacy ( ?is retort is transp>5t4 ,! imm$iate object ( ,belief is a proposition :i* ,i hold to be true1 n a ?+ appreh5d$ 9 an act ( conception4 ,i believe 9 an inf9ite ,god2 i4e41 ,i believe t ,god is inf9ite3 ,i believe t ! attributes :i* ,i ascribe to ,god exi/ 9 ,him 9 an inf9ite degree4 ,n[1 to believe ?is proposition1 ,i mu/1 ( c\rse1 be consci\s ( its mean+2 b ,i am n !re=e consci\s ( ! ,inf9ite ,god z an object ( conception2 = ?is w\ld require fur!r an appreh5sion ( ! mann] 9 :i* ^! inf9ite attributes coexi/ s z to =m "o object4 ,! :ole argum5t ( ?is eigh? *apt] is confus$1 ow+ to ,mr4 ,mill n hav+ di/+ui%$ betwe5 ^? passages 9 :i* ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton is m]ely us+ an argum5tum ad hom9em 9 relation to ,reid1 & ^? 9 :i* he is reason+ f g5]al pr9ciples4 ,b if ,mr4 ,mill is unju/ t[>ds ! di/9ction betwe5 ,k & ,belief1 z held by ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 he makes ample am5ds to ! injur$ !ory 9 ! next *apt]1 by enl>g+ ! prov9ce ( cr$ibility f> beyond any ext5t :i* ,hamilton w\ld h dream$ ( claim+ = x4 ,conceivability or inconceivability1 he tells u1 are usually dep5d5t on association2 & x is q possible t1 "u o!r associations1 we might be able to conceive1 & !re=e to believe1 any?+ %ort ( ! direct contradiction t ! same ?+ is & is n4 ,x is n 9 itself incr$ible1 t a squ>e may at ! same "t be r\nd1 t two /raight l9es may enclose a space1 or ev5 t two & two may make five4,,az ,b :atev] concessions ,mr4 ,mill may make on ?is po9t1 he is at lea/ fully det]m9$ t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton %all d]ive no b5efit f !m2 = he =?) proce$s to *>ge ,sir ,william ) confus+ ?ree di/9ct s5ses ( ! t]m conception--a confusion :i* exi/s solely 9 8 own imag9ation1,,ba--& to ass]t t ! ,philosophy ( ! ,condition$ is entirely f\nd$ on a mi/ake1 inasmu* z inf9ite space on ! "o h&1 &1 on ! o!r1 bo? an absolute m9imum & an inf9ite divisibility ( space1 are p]fectly conceivable4 ,) reg>d to ! =m] ( ^! two ass]tions1 ,mr4 ,mill's :ole argum5t is vitiat$1 z we h already %[n1 by 8 confusion betwe5 inf9ite & indef9ite2 b x is wor? :ile to quote "o ( 8 special in/ances 9 ?is *apt]1 z a specim5 ( ! k9d ( reason+ :i* an em95t writ] on logic c sometimes employ4 ,9 ref]5ce to ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's ass]tion1 t inf9ite space w\ld require inf9ite "t to conceive x1 he says1 ,let u try ! doctr9e ^u a complex :ole1 %ort ( inf9ite1 su* z ! numb] #fie1ghh4 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton w\ld n1 ,i suppose1 h ma9ta9$ t ?is numb] is inconceivable4 ,h[ long did he ?9k x w\ld take to g ov] e sep>ate unit ( ?is :ole1 s z to obta9 a p]fect k ( ! exact sum1 z diff]5t f all o!r sums1 ei!r great] or less8 ,,az ,9 ref]5ce to ?is la/ p>adox1 ,mr4 ,mill quotes f ,essays by a ,b>ri/]3 ,!re is a _w 9 :i*1 :5ev] two pairs ( ?+s are ei!r plac$ 9 proximity or are contemplat$ toge!r1 a fif? ?+ is imm$iately creat$ & br\ght )9 ! contemplation ( ! m9d engag$ 9 putt+ two & two toge!r4444 ,9 su* a _w surely two & two w\ld make five4 ,t is1 ! result to ! m9d ( contemplat+ two twos w\ld be to c\nt five4 ,! answ] to ?is reason+ has be5 already giv5 by ,ar*deacon ,lee 9 8 ,essay on ,miracles4 ,! five 9 ?is case is n ! sum ( two & two1 b ( two & two plus ! new creature1 i4e41 ( two & two plus "o4 ,,ba ,! s5se 9 :i* ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton himself uses ! ^w conception is expla9$ 9 a note to ,reid's ,works1 p4 #cgg--namely1 ! comb9ation ( two or m attributes 9 a unity ( repres5tation4 ,! second s5se :i* ,mr4 ,mill imag9es is simply a mi/ake ( 8 own4 ,:5 ,hamilton speaks ( be+ unable to conceive z possible1 he does n mean1 z ,mr4 ,mill supposes1 physically possible "u ! law ( gravitation or "s o!r law ( matt]1 b m5tally possible z a repres5tation or image2 & ?us ! suppos$ second s5se is id5tical ) ! fir/4 ,! ?ird s5se may also be r$uc$ to ! fir/2 = to conceive two attributes z comb9$ 9 "o repres5tation is to =m a notion subord9ate to ^? ( ea* attribute sep>ately4 ,we d n say t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton has be5 uni=mly accurate 9 8 application ( ! te/ ( conceivability2 b we say t 8 inaccuracies1 su* z !y are1 d n affect ! !ory ( ! condition$1 & t 9 all ! long extracts :i* ,mr4 ,mill quotes1 ) footnotes1 indicat+ fir/ s5se1 second s5se1 ?ird s5se1 ! au?or's mean+ may be m accurately expla9$ 9 ! fir/ s5se only4 ,x is m>vell\s t x %\ld n h occurr$ to ,mr4 ,mill1 :ile he 0 writ+ ?is passage1 ,h[ comes ?is l>ge numb] to be a ':ole' at all2 & h[ comes x t '?is :ole1' ) all its units1 c be writt5 d[n by means ( six digits8 ,simply because ( a conv5tional arrangem5t1 by :i* a s+le digit1 accord+ to its position1 c express1 by "o m>k1 t5s1 hundr$s1 ?\s&s1 c41 ( units2 & ?us c exhau/ ! sum by deal+ ) its items 9 l>ge masses4 ,b h[ c su* a process exhau/ ! inf9ite8 ,we %\ld l to "k h[ long ,mr4 ,mill ?9ks x w\ld take to "w out ! foll[+ problem3--,if two figures c repres5t t51 ?ree a hundr$1 f\r a ?\s&1 five t5 ?\s&1 c41 f9d ! numb] ( figures requir$ to repres5t inf9ity4,,bb ,,bb ,precisely ! same misconception ( ,hamilton's position occurs 9 ,pr(essor ,de ,morgan's pap] 9 ! ,cambridge ,transactions1 to :i* we h previ\sly ref]r$4 ,he speaks 7p4 #ac7 ( ! notion1 :i* runs ?r\gh _m writ]s1 f ,desc>tes to ,hamilton1 t ! m9d mu/ be big en\gh to hold all x c conceive4 ,?is notion is c]ta9ly n ma9ta9$ by ,hamilton1 nor yet by ,desc>tes 9 ! p>agraph quot$ by ,mr4 ,de ,morgan2 nor1 z f> z we are aw>e1 9 any o!r "p ( 8 works4 ,inf9ite divisibility /&s or falls ) inf9ite ext5sion4 ,9 bo? cases ,mr4 ,mill conf\nds inf9ity ) indef9it5ess4 ,b ) reg>d to an absolute m9imum ( space1 ,mr4 ,mill's argum5t requires a sep>ate notice4 ,x is n d5i$1 he says1 t !re is a portion ( ext5sion :i* to ! nak$ eye appe>s an indivisible po9t2 x has be5 call$ by philosoph]s ! m9imum visibile4 ,?is m9imum we c indef9itely magnify by means ( optical in/rum5ts1 mak+ visible ! /ill small] p>ts :i* compose x4 ,9 ea* successive exp]im5t !re is /ill a m9imum visibile1 any?+ less ?an :i* _c be discov]$ ) t in/rum5t1 b c ) "o ( a high] p[]4 ,suppose1 n[1 t z we increase ! magnify+ p[] ( our in/rum5ts1 & be=e we h rea*$ ! limit ( possible increase1 we arrive at a /age at :i* t :i* seem$ ! smalle/ visible space "u a giv5 microscope1 does n appe> l>g] "u "o :i*1 by its me*anical con/ruction1 is adapt$ to magnify m1 b /ill rema9s app>5tly indivisible4 ,i say1 t if ?is happ5$1 we %\ld believe 9 a m9imum ( ext5sion2 or if "s priori metaphysical prejudice prev5t$ u f believ+ x1 we %\ld at lea/ be enabl$ to conceive x4--7,p4 #hd47 ,! natural conclusion ( mo/ m5 "u su* circum/ances w\ld be1 t !re 0 "s fault 9 ! microscope4 ,b ev5 if ?is conclusion 7 reject$1 we presume ,mr4 ,mill w\ld all[ t1 "u ! suppos$ circum/ances1 ! exact magnitude ( ! m9imum ( ext5sion w\ld be calculable4 ,we h only to measure ! m9imum visibile1 & "k :at is ! magnify+ p[] ( our microscope1 to det]m9e ! exact dim5sions4 ,suppose1 !n1 t we assign to x "s def9ite magnitude--say ! t5 billion? "p ( an in*1--%\ld we !n conclude t x is impossible to conceive ! tw5ty billion? "p ( an in*8--9 o!r words1 t we h arriv$ at a def9ite magnitude :i* has no conceivable half8 ,surely ?is is a some:at ra% concession to be made by a writ] :o has j told u t numb]s may be conceiv$ up to inf9ity2 & !re=e1 ( c\rse1 d[n to inf9itesimality4 ,mr4 ,mill concludes ?is *apt] ) an ass]tion :i*1 ev5 by itself1 is suffici5t to %[ h[ v little he has att5d$ to or und]/ood ! philosophy :i* he is attempt+ to criticise4 ,! law ( ,exclud$ ,middle1 he says1 z well z t ( ,contradiction1 is common to all ph5om5a4 ,b x is a doctr9e ( our au?or t ^! laws are true1 & _c b be kn[n to be true1 ( ,n\m5a likewise4 ,x is n m]ely ,space z cognisable by our s5ses1 b ,space z x is 9 itself1 :i* he affirms mu/ be ei!r ( unlimit$ or ( limit$ ext5t 7p4 #hf74 ,at ?is s5t5ce we fairly /& agha/4 ,space z x is 9 itself6 ! ,n\m5on ,space6 ,has ,mr4 ,mill be5 all ?is :ile exam9+ ,sir ,william ,hamilton's philosophy1 9 utt] ignorance t ! object ( t philosophy is ! ,condition$ 9 ,"t & ,space2 t he accepts ,kant's analysis ( "t & space z =mal necessities ( ?\ght1 b pron\nces no op9ion :atev] z to :e!r "t & space c exi/ z ,n\m5a or n8 ,x is ! ph5om5al space1 space z cognisable by our s5ses1 :i* ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton says mu/ be ei!r limit$ or unlimit$3 conc]n+ ! ,n\m5on ,space1 he does n haz>d an op9ion :e!r su* a ?+ exi/s or n4 ,he says1 inde$ 7& ?is is probably :at has misl$ ,mr4 ,mill71 t ! laws ( ,id5tity1 ,contradiction1 & ,exclud$ ,middle1 are laws ( ?+s z well z laws ( ?\ght2,,bc b he says no?+ ab\t ^! laws z pr$icat+ inf9ite or f9ite ext5sion4 ,on ! contr>y1 he expressly classifies ,space "u ! law ( ,relativity1 ! violation ( :i* indicates :at may exi/1 b :at we are unable to conceive z exi/+4 ,briefly1 ! law ( ,exclud$ ,middle 7to take ?is in/ance alone7 is a law ( ?+s only 9 its ab/ract =m1 ,ev]y?+ mu/ be ,a or n ,a 7ext5d$1 if y please1 or n ext5d$72 b 9 its subord9ate =m1 ,ev]y?+ ext5d$ mu/ be ext5d$ inf9itely or f9itely1 x is only applicable1 & only int5d$ by ,hamilton to be appli$1 to ^? ph5om5a :i* are already giv5 z ext5d$ 9 "s degree4 ,,bc ,discussions1 p4 #fjc4 ,we h n[ exam9$ ! fir/ six *apt]s ( ,mr4 ,mill's book1 conta9+ 8 rem>ks on t portion ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's philosophy :i* he ju/ly reg>ds z compris+ ! mo/ important ( ! doctr9es :i* specially belong to ,hamilton himself4 ,! next *apt] is an episode1 9 :i* ,mr4 ,mill turns aside f ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton to criticise ,mr4 ,mansel's ,bampton ,lectures4 ,z our limits d n p]mit u to c>ry on ! argum5t at pres5t ?r\gh ! rema9d] ( ,mr4 ,mill's rem>ks on ,hamilton himself1 we %all conclude our notice ) a few words on ?is *apt]1 z clos+ ! prop]ly metaphysical portion ( ,mr4 ,mill's book1 & z af=d+ ample pro( t1 9 ?is dep>tm5t ( philosophy at lea/1 ,mr4 ,mill's p[]s ( misappreh5sion d n cease :5 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton is no long] _! object4 ,mr4 ,mill's me?od ( criticism makes x g5]ally necess>y to comm5ce ) a /atem5t ( ! criticis$ !ory z x really is1 be=e proce$+ to 8 exposition ( x z x is n4 ,! pres5t in/ance (f]s no exception to ?is rule4 ,mr4 ,mansel's argum5t may be briefly /at$ z foll[s4 ,! prim>y & ess5tial conception ( ,god1 imp]atively dem&$ by our moral & religi\s consci\sness1 is t ( a p]son4 ,b p]sonality implies intellectual & moral attributes2 & ! only direct & imm$iate k :i* we h ( su* attributes is d]iv$ f ! te/imony ( self-consci\sness1 be>+ witness to _! exi/5ce 9 a c]ta9 mann] 9 ourselves4 ,b :5 we endeav\r to transf] ! conception ( p]sonality1 ?us obta9$1 to ! doma9 ( !ology1 we meet ) c]ta9 difficulties1 :i*1 :ile !y are n suffici5t to h9d] u f believ+ 9 ! ,div9e ,p]sonality z a fact1 yet h9d] u f conceiv+ ! mann] ( its exi/5ce1 & prev5t u f exhibit+ our belief z a philosophical conclusion1 prov$ by irrefragable reason+ & secur$ aga9/ all objections4 ,^! difficulties are occasion$1 on ! "o h&1 by ! s-call$ ,philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$1 :i* 9 all ages has %[n a t5d5cy t[>ds ,pan!ism1 & :i*1 9 "o ( its late/ & mo/ f9i%$ manife/ations1 ann\nces itself z ! exhibition ( ,god z ,he is 9 ,8 et]nal nature be=e creation2 &1 on ! o!r h&1 by ! limitations & conditions to :i* our own p]sonality is subject1 & :i*1 z we h po9t$ out 9 ! e>li] "p ( ?is article1 h1 f ! v beg9n+ ( ,*ri/ian !ology1 prev5t$ !ologians f accept+ ! limit$ p]sonality ( man z an exact image & c\nt]p>t ( ! unlimit$ p]sonality ( ,god4 ,^! difficulties ,mr4 ,mansel endeav\rs to meet 9 two ways4 ,on ! "o side1 he ma9ta9s1 9 common ) ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 t ! ,philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$1 by reason ( its own incongruities & self-contradictions1 has no claim to be accept$ z a compet5t witness 9 ! matt]2 & on ! o!r side1 he ma9ta9s1 9 common ) _m !ologians be=e him1 t human p]sonality _c be assum$ z an exact copy ( ! ,div9e1 b only z t :i* is mo/ ne>ly analog\s to x among f9ite ?+s4 ,b ^! two positions1 if admitt$1 involve a correspond+ practical conclusion z reg>ds ! crit]ion ( religi\s tru? or falsehood4 ,7 we capable1 ei!r1 on ! "o h&1 ( a cle> conception ( ! ,uncondition$1 or1 on ! o!r1 ( a direct intuition ( ! ,div9e ,attributes z objects ( consci\sness1 we might be able to con/ruct1 d$uctively or inductively1 an exact sci5ce ( ,!ology4 ,z x is1 we are compell$ to reason by analogy2 & analogy furni%es only probabilities1 v>y+1 x may be1 f slight presumptions up to moral c]ta9ties1 b ^: weight1 9 any giv5 case1 c only be det]m9$ by comp>ison ) o!r evid5ces4 ,!re are ?ree di/9ct s\rces f :i* we may =m a judgm5t ab\t ! ways ( ,god--fir/1 f our own moral & intellectual consci\sness1 by :i* we judge priori ( :at ,god ought to d 9 a giv5 case1 by det]m9+ :at we %\ld ?9k x wise or "r = ourselves to d 9 a simil> case2 secondly1 f ! con/itution & c\rse ( nature1 f :i* we may le>n by exp]i5ce :at ,god's provid5ce 9 c]ta9 cases actually is2 & ?irdly1 f revelation1 atte/$ by its prop] evid5ces4 ,:]e ^! ?ree agree 9 _! te/imony 7z 9 ! great majority ( cases !y d7 we h ! moral c]ta9ty :i* results f ! h>mony ( all accessible evid5ces3 :]e !y appe> to diff]1 we h no "r at once to conclude t ! second or ! ?ird mu/ give way to ! fir/1 & n vice v]s2 because we h no "r to assume t ! fir/ alone is infallible4 ,9 ! au?or's own words3 ,! lesson to be le>nt f an exam9ation ( ! ,limits ( ,religi\s ,?\ght is n t man's judgm5ts are wor?less 9 relation to ,div9e ?+s1 b t !y are fallible3 & ! probability ( error 9 any p>ticul> case c nev] be fairly e/imat$ )\t giv+ _! full weight to all collat]al consid]ations4 ,we are inde$ b\nd to believe t a ,revelation giv5 by ,god c nev] conta9 any?+ t is really unwise or unrighte\s2 b we are n always capable ( e/imat+ exactly ! wisdom or righte\sness ( p>ticul> doctr9es or precepts4 ,& we are b\nd to be> 9 m9d t exactly 9 proportion to ! /r5g? ( ! rema9+ evid5ce = ! ,div9e orig9 ( a religion1 is ! probability t we may be mi/ak5 9 suppos+ ?is or t portion ( its cont5ts to be unwor?y ( ,god4 ,tak5 9 conjunction1 ! two argum5ts may confirm or correct ea* o!r3 tak5 s+ly & absolutely1 ea* may vitiate ! result :i* %\ld foll[ f _! jo9t application4,,bd ,,bd ,bampton ,lectures1 p4 #aef1 #d? edition4 ,9 criticis+ ! fir/ "p ( ?is argum5t--t :i* is direct$ aga9/ ! d$uctive philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$--,mr4 ,mill manife/s ! same want ( acqua9tance ) its mean+s1 & ) ! previ\s hi/ory ( ! "q2 :i* he _h be=e exhibit$ 9 8 attack on ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton4 ,he beg9s by f9d+ fault ) ! def9ition ( ! ,absolute1 :i* ,mr4 ,mansel 7h]e9 dep>t+1 & purposely dep>t+1 f ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's use ( ! t]m7 def9es z t :i* exi/s 9 & by itself1 hav+ no necess>y relation to any o!r ,be+4 ,on ?is1 ,mr4 ,mill rem>ks3 ,! fir/ words ( 8 def9ition w\ld s]ve = ! description ( a ,n\m5on2 b ,mr4 ,mansel's ,absolute is only meant to d5ote "o ,be+1 id5tifi$ ) ,god1 & ,god is n ! only ,n\m5on4 ,! description ( a ,n\m5on6 ,?is is almo/ equal to ! discov]y ( a ,n\m5on ,space4 ,does ,mr4 ,mill really suppose t all n\m5a are self-exi/5t8 ,a n\m5on 79 ! s5se 9 :i* we suppose ,mr4 ,mill to und]/& ! t]m1 = x has diff]5t mean+s 9 diff]5t philosophies7 implies an exi/5ce out ( relation to ! human m9d4,,be ,b is ?is ! same z be+ out ( all relation :atev]1 z exi/+ 9 & by itself8 ,does ,mr4 ,mill mean to say t a creature1 :e!r p]ceiv$ by u or n1 has no relation to its ,creator8 ,b ,mr4 ,mill1 z we h se5 be=e1 is n mu* at home :5 he gets among n\m5a4 ,we mu/ proce$ to 8 criticism ( ! second "p ( ! def9ition1--hav+ no necess>y relation to any o!r be+4 ,( ^! words he says1 t !y admit ( two con/ructions4 ,! words 9 _! natural s5se only mean1 capable ( exi/+ out ( relation to any?+ else4 ,! argum5t requires t !y %\ld mean incapable ( exi/+ 9 relation ) any?+ else4 ,& :y is ?is non-natural s5se to be =c$ ^u v pla9 words8 ,because1 says ,mr4 ,mill1-- ,,be ,/rictly speak+1 ! t]m n\m5on1 z mean+ t :i* c be appreh5d$ only by ! intellect1 implies a relation to ! intellect appreh5d+ x2 & 9 ?is s5se ,greek3 to no\m5on is oppos$ by ,plato to ,greek3 to horm5on--! object ( intellect to ! object ( sight4 ,b z ! intellect 0 suppos$ to take cognisance ( ?+s z !y are1 9 opposition to ! s5sitive p]ception ( ?+s z !y appe>1 ! t]m n\m5on became synonym\s ) ?+ 9 itself 7,greek3 to hon ka?' hauto74 ,& ?is mean+ is reta9$ 9 ! ,kantian philosophy1 9 :i* ! n\m5on is id5tical ) ! ,d+ an si*4 ,b z ,kant d5i$ to ! human intellect any imm$iate intuition ( ?+s z !y are 7?\gh su* an intuition may be possible to a sup]human intellect71 h5ce ! t]m n\m5on 9 ! ,kantian philosophy is oppos$ to all ( :i* ! human intellect c take positive cognisance4 ,hamilton1 9 ?is respect1 agrees ) ,kant4 ,b nei!r ,kant nor ,hamilton1 9 oppos+ ! ?+ 9 itself to ! ph5om5on1 meant to imply t ! =m] is necess>ily self-exi/5t1 & !re=e uncreat$4 ,9 :at mann] is a possible exi/5ce out ( all relation1 incompatible ) ! notion ( a cause8 ,h n causes a possible exi/5ce ap>t f _! effects8 ,w\ld ! sun1 = example1 n exi/ if !re 7 no e>? or planets = x to illum9ate8 ,mr4 ,mansel seems to ?9k t :at is capable ( exi/+ out ( relation1 _c possibly be conceiv$ or kn[n 9 relation4 ,b ?is is n s4444 ,fre$ f ?is confusion ( ideas1 ,mr4 ,mansel's argum5t resolves itself into ?is1--,! same ,be+ _c be ?\ght by u bo? z ,cause & z ,absolute1 because a ,cause z su* is n ,absolute1 & ,absolute1 z su*1 is n a ,cause2 :i* is exactly z if he _h said t ,newton _c be ?\ght by u bo? z an ,engli%man & z a ma!matician1 because an ,engli%man1 z su*1 is n a ma!matician1 nor a ma!matician1 z su*1 an ,engli%man4--7,p4 #ib47 ,! confusion ( ideas is entirely ( ,mr4 ,mill's own mak+1 & is ow+ to 8 hav+ mutilat$ ! argum5t be=e criticis+ x4 ,! argum5t 9 its orig9al =m consi/s ( two p>ts2 ! fir/ int5d$ to %[ t ! ,absolute is n conceiv$ z su* 9 be+ conceiv$ z a ,cause2 ! second to %[ t ! ,absolute _c be conceiv$ "u diff]5t aspects at diff]5t times--fir/ z ,absolute1 & !n z ,cause4 ,x 0 ! impossibility ( ?is latt] alt]native :i* drove ,c\s9 to ! hypo!sis ( a necess>y causation f all et]nity4 ,mr4 ,mill entirely omits ! latt] "p ( ! argum5t1 & treats ! =m] "p z if x 7 ! :ole4 ,! "p criticis$ by ,mr4 ,mill is int5d$ to prove exactly :at x does prove1 & no m2 namely1 t a cause z su* is n ! absolute1 & t to "k a cause z su* is n to "k ! absolute4 ,we presume ,mr4 ,mill himself w admit t to "k ,newton z a ma!matician is n to "k him z an ,engli%man4 ,:e!r he c be kn[n sep>ately z bo?1 & :e!r ! ,absolute 9 ?is respect is a p>allel case1 dep5ds on ano!r consid]ation1 :i* ,mr4 ,mill has n notic$4 ,! cont9uation ( ,mr4 ,mill's criticism is equally confus$4 ,he says3-- ,! :ole ( ,mr4 ,mansel's argum5t = ! inconceivability ( ! ,inf9ite & ( ! ,absolute is "o long ignoratio el5*i4 ,x has be5 po9t$ out 9 a =m] *apt] t ! words ,absolute & ,inf9ite h no real mean+1 unless we und]/& by !m t :i* is absolute or inf9ite 9 "s giv5 attribute2 z space is call$ inf9ite1 mean+ t x is inf9ite 9 ext5sion2 & z ,god is t]m$ inf9ite1 9 ! s5se ( possess+ inf9ite p[]1 & absolute 9 ! s5se ( absolute goodness or k4 ,x has also be5 %[n t ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's argum5ts = ! unkn[abl5ess ( ! ,uncondition$ d n prove t we _c "k an object :i* is absolute or inf9ite 9 "s specific attribute1 b only t we _c "k an ab/raction call$ ',! ,absolute' or ',! ,inf9ite1' :i* is suppos$ to h all attributes at once4--7,p4 #ic47 ,! fallacy ( ?is criticism1 z reg>ds ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 has be5 already po9t$ out3 z reg>ds ,mr4 ,mansel1 x is /ill m gl>+1 inasmu* z t writ] expressly /ates t he uses ! t]m absolute 9 a diff]5t s5se f t :i* ,mr4 ,mill attributes to ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton4 ,:5 ,mr4 ,mill *>ges ,mr4 ,mansel ) und]tak+ to prove ! impossibility ( conceiv+ a ,be+ absolutely j or absolutely wise,,bf 7i4e41 z he supposes1 p]fectly j or wise71 he actually =gets t he has j be5 criticis+ ,mr4 ,hansel's def9ition ( ! ,absolute1 z some?+ hav+ a possible exi/5ce out ( all relation4 ,w ,mr4 ,mill h ! k9dness to tell u :at he means by goodness & k out ( all relation2 i4e41 a goodness & k relat$ to no object on :i* !y c be ex]cis$2 a goodness :i* is good to no?+1 a k :i* kn[s no?+8 ,mr4 ,mill _h bett] be cauti\s 9 talk+ ab\t ignoratio el5*i4 ,,bf ,exam9ation1 p4 #ie4 ,f ! ,absolute1 ,mr4 ,mill proce$s to ! ,inf9ite2 & "h he commits ! same mi/ake z be=e1 treat+ a portion ( an argum5t z if x 7 ! :ole1 & cit+ a portion int5d$ to prove "o po9t z if x 7 int5d$ to prove ano!r4 ,he cites a passage f ,mr4 ,mansel1 9 :i* x is said t ! ,inf9ite1 if x is to be conceiv$ at all1 mu/ be conceiv$ z pot5tially ev]y?+ & actually no?+2 = if !re is any?+ 9 g5]al :i* x _c become1 x is !reby limit$2 & if !re is any?+ 9 p>ticul> :i* x actually is1 x is !reby exclud$ f be+ any o!r ?+4 ,b1 aga91 x mu/ also be conceiv$ z actually ev]y?+ & pot5tially no?+2 = an unrealis$ pot5tiality is likewise a limitation4 ,if ! ,inf9ite c be t :i* x is n1 x is by t v possibility m>k$ out z incomplete1 & capable ( a high] p]fection4 ,if x is actually ev]y?+1 x possesses no *>act]i/ic feature by :i* x c be di/+ui%$ f any?+ else1 & disc]n$ z an object ( consci\sness4 ,on ?is passage ,mr4 ,mill rem>ks1 ,c a writ] be s]i\s :o bids u conjure up a conception ( some?+ :i* possesses inf9itely all conflict+ attributes1 & because we _c d ?is )\t contradiction1 w\ld h u believe t !re is a contradiction 9 ! idea ( inf9ite goodness or inf9ite wisdom8 ,! answ] to ?is criticism is v simple4 ,! argum5t is n employ$ = ! purpose :i* ,mr4 ,mill supposes4 ,x is employ$ to %[ t ! metaphysical notion ( ! absolute-inf9ite1 z ! sum1 pot5tial or actual1 ( all possible exi/5ce1 is inconceivable "u ! laws ( human consci\sness2 & ?us t ! absolutely fir/ exi/5ce1 relat$ to no?+ & limit$ by no?+1 ! ens realissimum ( ! old] philosoph]s1 ! pure be+ ( ! ,hegelians1 _c be atta9$ z a />t+-po9t f :i* to d$uce all relative & d]iv$ exi/5ce4 ,h[ f> ! empirical conception ( c]ta9 m5tal attributes1 su* z goodness or wisdom1 d]iv$ 9 ! fir/ in/ance f our own p]sonal consci\sness1 c be positively conceiv$ z ext5d$ to inf9ity1 is consid]$ 9 a sep>ate argum5t1 :i* ,mr4 ,mill does n notice4 ,mr4 ,mill cont9ues1 ,in/ead ( '! ,inf9ite1' sub/itute 'an inf9itely good ,be+' i4e41 sub/itute :at is n int5d$1 & ,mr4 ,mansel's argum5t reads ?us3--',if !re is any?+ :i* an inf9itely good ,be+ _c become--if he _c become bad--t is a limitation1 & ! goodness _c be inf9ite4 ,if !re is any?+ :i* an inf9itely good ,be+ actually is 7namely1 good71 he is exclud$ f be+ any o!r ?+1 z be+ wise or p[]ful4' ,to ! fir/ "p ( ?is objection we reply by simply ask+1 ,is becom+ bad a 'high] p]fection8' ,to ! second "p we reply by ,mr4 ,mill's fav\rite mode ( reason+--a p>allel case4 ,a writ] ass]ts t a creature :i* is a horse is !reby exclud$ f be+ a dog2 & t1 9 s f> z x has ! nature ( a horse1 x has n ! nature ( a dog4 ,:at6 exclaims ,mr4 ,mill1 is x n ! nature ( a dog to h f\r legs8 & does ! man mean to say t a horse has n f\r legs8 ,we v5ture respectfully to ask ,mr4 ,mill :e!r he supposes t be+ wise is be+ a ?+1 & be+ good is be+ ano!r ?+8 ,b1 s]i\sly1 x is mu* to be wi%$ t :5 a writ] l ,mr4 ,mill und]takes to discuss philosophical que/ions1 he %\ld acquire "s slight acqua9tance ) ! hi/ory ( ! que/ions discuss$4 ,_h ?is be5 done by our critic 9 ! pres5t case1 x might possibly h occurr$ to him to d\bt :e!r a doctr9e support$ by philosoph]s ( su* diff]5t s*ools ( ?\ght z ,sp9oza1 ,malebran*e1 ,wolf1 ,kant1 ,s*ell+1 c\ld be q su* a piece ( transp>5t nons5se z he supposes x to be4 ,all ^! writ]s are cit$ 9 ,mr4 ,mansel's note1 z ma9ta9+ ! !ory t ! ,absolute is ! ens realissimum1 or sum ( all exi/5ce2 & _! names might h sav$ ,mr4 ,mill f ! absurdity ( suppos+ t by ?is expression 0 meant some?+ absolutely good & absolutely bad2 absolutely wise & absolutely /upid2 & s =?4 ,! real mean+ ( ! expression has be5 already suffici5tly expla9$ 9 our e>li] rem>ks4 ,! problem ( ! ,philosophy ( ! ,uncondition$1 z sket*$ by ,plato & g5]ally adopt$ by subsequ5t philosoph]s1 is1 z we h se51 to asc5d up to ! fir/ pr9ciple ( all ?+s1 & !nce to d$uce1 z f _! cause1 all dep5d5t & d]iv$ exi/5ces4 ,! ,uncondition$1 z ! "o fir/ pr9ciple1 mu/ necess>ily conta9 9 itself1 pot5tially or actually1 all t is d]iv$ f x1 & ?us mu/ compreh5d1 9 embryo or 9 developm5t1 ! sum ( all exi/5ce4 ,to reconcile ?is conclusion ) ! ph5om5al exi/5ce ( evil & imp]fection1 is ! difficulty ) :i* philosophy has _h to /ruggle ev] s9ce philosophy began4 ,! ,mani*ean1 by ref]r+ evil to an indep5d5t cause1 d5ies ! exi/5ce ( an absolute fir/ pr9ciple at all2 ! ,leibnitzian1 ) 8 hypo!sis ( ! be/ possible _w1 virtually sets b\nds to ! ,div9e omnipot5ce3 ! ,pan!i/ id5tifies ,god ) all actual exi/5ce1 & ei!r d5ies ! real exi/5ce ( evil at all1 or m]ges ! di/9ction betwe5 evil & good 9 "s high] indiff]5ce4 ,all ^! conclusions may be alike unt5able1 b all alike te/ify to ! exi/5ce ( ! problem1 & to ! va/ ?\gh unsuccessful ef=ts :i* man's reason has made to solve x4 ,! read] may n[1 p]haps1 und]/& ! reason ( an ass]tion :i* ,mr4 ,mill reg>ds z supremely absurd1--namely1 t we mu/ believe 9 ! exi/5ce ( an absolute & inf9ite ,be+1 ?\gh unable to conceive ! nature ( su* a ,be+4 ,to believe 9 su* a ,be+1 is simply to believe t ,god made ! _w3 to decl>e ! nature ( su* a ,be+ inconceivable1 is simply to say t we d n "k h[ ! _w 0 made4 ,if we believe t ,god made ! _w1 we mu/ believe t !re 0 a "t :5 ! _w 0 n1 & :5 ,god alone exi/$1 out ( relation to any o!r be+4 ,b ! mode ( t sole exi/5ce we are unable to conceive1 nor 9 :at mann] ! fir/ act took place by :i* ! absolute & self-exi/5t gave exi/5ce to ! relative & dep5d5t4 ,! contradictions1 says ,mr4 ,mill1 :i* ,mr4 ,mansel ass]ts to be involv$ 9 ! notions1 d n foll[ f an imp]fect mode ( appreh5d+ ! ,inf9ite & ! ,absolute1 b lie 9 ! def9itions ( !m1 9 ! mean+ ( ! words !mselves4 ,!y d no su* ?+3 ! mean+ ( ! words is p]fectly intelligible1 & is exactly :at is express$ by _! def9itions3 ! contradictions arise f ! attempt to comb9e ! attributes express$ by ! words 9 "o repres5tation ) o!rs1 s z to =m a positive object ( consci\sness4 ,:]e is ! incongruity ( say+1 ,i believe t a be+ exi/s possess+ c]ta9 attributes1 ?\gh ,i am unable 9 my pres5t /ate ( k to conceive ! mann] ( t exi/5ce8 ,mr4 ,mill1 at all ev5ts1 is ! la/ man 9 ! _w :o has any "r to compla9 ( su* a di/9ction--,mr4 ,mill1 :o consid]s x n incr$ible t 9 "s "p ( ! univ]se two /raight l9es may enclose a space1 or two & two make five2 ?\gh he is compell$ to all[ t "u our pres5t laws ( ?\ght1 or1 if he pleases1 ( association1 we are unable to conceive h[ ^! ?+s c be4 ,x is we>isome "w to wade ?r\gh ?is mass ( misconceptions2 yet we mu/ entreat ! read]'s pati5ce a little long]1 :ile we say a few words 9 conclusion on p]haps ! greate/ misconception ( all--?\gh t is bold language to use ) reg>d to ,mr4 ,mill's metaphysics1--at any rate1 ! "o :i* he expresses 9 ! mo/ vehem5t language4 ,mr4 ,mansel1 z we h said1 ass]ts1 z _m o!rs h ass]t$ be=e him1 t ! relation betwe5 ! communicable attributes ( ,god & ! correspond+ attributes ( man is "o n ( id5tity1 b ( analogy2 t is to say1 t ! ,div9e attributes h ! same relation to ! ,div9e nature t ! human attributes h to human nature4 ,?us1 = example1 !re is a ,div9e ju/ice & !re is a human ju/ice2 b ,god is j z ! ,creator & ,gov]nor ( ! _w1 hav+ unlimit$ au?ority ov] all ,8 creatures & unlimit$ jurisdiction ov] all _! acts2 & man is j 9 c]ta9 special relations1 z hav+ au?ority ov] "s p]sons & "s acts only1 s f> z is requir$ = ! ne$s ( human society4 ,s1 aga91 !re is a ,div9e m]cy & !re is a human m]cy2 b ,god is m]ciful 9 su* a mann] z is fitt+ compatibly ) ! righte\s gov]nm5t ( ! univ]se2 & man is m]ciful 9 a c]ta9 limit$ range1 ! ex]cise ( ! attribute be+ guid$ by consid]ations affect+ ! welf>e ( society or ( individuals4 ,or to take a m g5]al case3 ,man has 9 himself a rule ( "r & wrong1 imply+ subjection to ! au?ority ( a sup]ior 7= consci5ce has au?ority only z reflect+ ! law ( ,god72 :ile ,god has 9 ,himself a rule ( "r & wrong1 imply+ no high] au?ority1 & det]m9$ absolutely by ,8 own nature4 ,! case is ! same :5 we look at moral attributes1 n ext]nally1 9 _! active manife/ations1 b int]nally1 9 _! psy*ological con/itution4 ,if we d n attribute to ,god ! same complex m5tal con/itution ( reason1 passion1 & w1 ! same relation to motives & inducem5ts1 ! same delib]ation & *oice ( alt]natives1 ! same temporal succession ( facts 9 consci\sness1 :i* we ascribe to man1--x w foll[ t ^? psy*ological relations betwe5 reason1 w1 & desire1 :i* are impli$ 9 ! conception ( human action1 _c repres5t ! ,div9e excell5ces 9 !mselves1 b c only illu/rate !m by analogies f f9ite ?+s4 ,& if man is liable to error 9 judg+ ( ! conduct ( 8 fell[-m51 9 proportion z he is unable to place himself 9 _! position1 or to realise to himself _! modes ( ?\ght & pr9ciples ( action--if ! *ild1 = in/ance1 is liable to error 9 judg+ ! actions ( ! man1--or ! savage ( ! civilis$ man1--surely !re is f> m room = error 9 m5's judgm5t ( ! ways ( ,god1 9 proportion z ! diff]5ce betwe5 ,god & man is great] ?an ! diff]5ce betwe5 a man & a *ild4 ,?is doctr9e elicits f ,mr4 ,mill ! foll[+ extraord9>y outbur/ ( rhetoric3-- ,if1 in/ead ( ! glad tid+s t !re exi/s a ,be+ 9 :om all ! excell5ces :i* ! highe/ human m9d c conceive1 exi/ 9 a degree inconceivable to u1 ,i am in=m$ t ! _w is rul$ by a be+ ^: attributes are inf9ite1 b :at !y are we _c le>n1 nor :at are ! pr9ciples ( 8 gov]nm5t1 except t '! highe/ human morality :i* we are capable ( conceiv+' does n sanction !m2 conv9ce me ( x1 & ,i w be> my fate z ,i may4 ,b :5 ,i am told t ,i mu/ believe ?is1 & at ! same "t call ?is be+ by ! names :i* express & affirm ! highe/ human morality1 ,i say 9 pla9 t]ms t ,i w n4 ,:atev] p[] su* a be+ may h ov] me1 !re is "o ?+ :i* he %all n d3 he %all n compel me to wor%ip him4 ,i w call no be+ good1 :o is n :at ,i mean :5 ,i apply t epi!t to my fell[-creatures2 & if su* a be+ c s5t5ce me to hell = n s call+ him1 to hell ,i w g4--7,p4 #ajc47 ,we w n pause to comm5t on ! temp] & ta/e ( ?is declamation2 we w simply ask :e!r ,mr4 ,mill really supposes ! ^w good to lose all community ( mean+1 :5 x is appli$1 z x con/antly is1 to diff]5t p]sons among our fell[-creatures1 ) express ref]5ce to _! diff]5t duties & diff]5t qualifications = p]=m+ !m8 ,! duties ( a fa!r are n ! same z ^? ( a son2 is ! ^w !re=e :olly equivocal :5 we speak ( "o p]son z a good fa!r1 & ano!r z a good son8 ,nay1 :5 we speak g5]ally ( a man z good1 has n ! epi!t a tacit ref]5ce to human nature & human duties8 & yet is !re no community ( mean+ :5 ! same epi!t is appli$ to o!r ,creatures8 ,greek3 ,h aret pros to ergon to oikeion--! goodness ( any be+ :atev] has relation to ! nature & (fice ( t be+4 ,we may !re=e te/ ,mr4 ,mill's declamation by a p>allel case4 ,a wise & exp]i5c$ fa!r addresses a "y & inexp]i5c$ son3 ,my son1 he says1 !re may be "s ( my actions :i* d n seem to y to be wise or good1 or su* z y w\ld d 9 my place4 ,rememb]1 h[ev]1 t y\r duties are diff]5t f m9e2 t y\r k ( my duties is v imp]fect2 & t !re may be ?+s :i* y _c n[ see to be wise & good1 b :i* y may h]eaft] discov] to be s4 ,fa!r1 says ! son1 y\r pr9ciples ( action are n ! same z m9e2 ! highe/ morality :i* ,i c conceive at pres5t does n sanction !m2 & z = believ+ t y are good 9 any?+ ( :i* ,i d n pla9ly see ! goodness1--,we w n repeat ,mr4 ,mill's alt]native2 we w only ask :e!r x is n j possible t !re may be z mu* diff]5ce betwe5 man & ,god z !re is betwe5 a *ild & 8 fa!r8 ,?is declamation is foll[$ by a sne]1 :i* is wor? quot+1 n on its own acc\nt1 b z an evid5ce ( ! g5]osity ) :i* ,mr4 ,mill deals ) ! suppos$ motives ( 8 antagoni/s1 & ( ! accuracy ( 8 acqua9tance ) ! subject discuss$4 ,he says3-- ,x is wor?y ( rem>k1 t ! d\bt :e!r words appli$ to ,god h _! human signification1 is only felt :5 ! words relate to 8 moral attributes2 x is nev] he>d ( ) reg>d to 8 p[]4 ,we are nev] told t ,god's omnipot5ce mu/ n be suppos$ to mean an inf9ite degree ( ! p[] we "k 9 man & nature1 & t p]haps x does n mean t he is able to kill u1 or consign u to et]nal flames4 ,! ,div9e ,p[] is always int]pret$ 9 a completely human signification2 b ! ,div9e ,goodness & ,ju/ice mu/ be und]/ood to be su* only 9 an un9telligible s5se4 ,is x unfair to surmise t ?is is because ^? :o speak 9 ! "n ( ,god1 h ne$ ( ! human conception ( 8 p[]1 s9ce an idea :i* c ov]awe & en=ce ob$i5ce mu/ address itself to real feel+s2 b are cont5t t 8 goodness %\ld be conceiv$ only z some?+ inconceivable1 because !y are s (t5 requir$ to tea* doctr9es respect+ him :i* conflict irreconcilably ) all goodness t we c conceive8--7,p4 #ajd47 ,on ! latt] "p ( ?is p>agraph we w n attempt to comm5t4 ,b z reg>ds ! =m] "p1 we meet ,mr4 ,mill's confid5t ass]tion ) a direct d5ial1 & take ! opportunity ( in=m+ him t ! conception ( inf9ite ,p[] has sugge/$ ! same difficulties2 & has be5 discuss$ by philosoph]s & !ologians 9 ! same mann]1 z ^? ( inf9ite ,wisdom & inf9ite ,goodness4 ,has ,mr4 ,mill nev] he>d ( su* que/ions z1 ,:e!r ,omnipot5ce c rev]se ! pa/8--,:e!r ,god c d t :i* ,he does n w to d8--,:e!r ,god's p]fect =ekn[l$ge is compatible ) 8 own p]fect lib]ty8--,:e!r ,god c\ld h made a bett] _w ?an ! exi/+ "o8 ,nay1 has n our critic1 9 ?is v *apt]1 be5 argu+ aga9/ ,mr4 ,mansel on ! "q1 :e!r ! ,absolute c be conceiv$ z a ,cause act+ 9 "t3 & :at is ?is b a =m ( ! "q1 :e!r p[]1 :5 pr$icat$ ( ,god is exactly ! same ?+ z p[] :5 pr$icat$ ( man8 ,or :y has x be5 said t creation ex nihilo--an absolutely fir/ act ( causation1 is inconceivable by u1 b f ! impossibility ( f9d+ 9 human p[] an exact type ( ,div9e p[]8 ,to attribute discr$itable motives to an oppon5t1 ev5 to acc\nt = unque/ionable facts1 is usually consid]$ z an abuse ( criticism4 ,:at %all we say :5 ! facts are fictiti\s z well z ! motives8 ,) reg>d to ,mr4 ,mansel1 ! only p]son :o is includ$ by "n 9 ?is accusation1 x is wor?y ( rem>k1 t ! e>lie/ m5tion ( ! obnoxi\s !ory 9 8 writ+s occurs 9 connection ) a difficulty relat+ solely to ! conception ( inf9ite p[]1 & n at all to ! moral attributes ( ,god4,,bg ,,bg ,see ,prolegom5a ,logica1 p4 #gg 7#bnd ed41 p4 #he47 ,mr4 ,mill concludes ?is *apt] ) ano!r in/ance ( t ignoratio el5*i :i* has be5 s abundantly manife/$ ?r\gh\t 8 previ\s criticisms4 ,8 oppon5t1 he all[s1 w\ld & does admit t ! qualities z conceiv$ by u be> "s lik5ess to ! ju/ice & goodness :i* belong to ,god1 s9ce man 0 made 9 ,god's image4 ,b he consid]s t ?is semi-concession de/roys ! :ole fabric ( ,mr4 ,mansel's argum5t4 ,! ,div9e goodness1 he says1 :i* is said to be a diff]5t ?+ f human goodness1 b ( :i* ! human conception ( goodness is "s imp]fect reflexion or resemblance1 does x agree ) :at m5 call goodness 9 ! ess5ce ( ! quality--9 :at con/itutes x goodness8 ,if x does1 ! ',rationali/s' are "r2 x is n illicit to reason f ! "o to ! o!r4 ,if n1 ! div9e attribute1 :atev] else x may be1 is n goodness1 & ought n to be call$ by ! "n4 ,n[ ! "q really at issue is n :e!r ! ,rationali/ argum5t is licit or illicit1 b :e!r1 9 its lawful use1 x is to be reg>d$ z infallible or fallible4 ,we h already quot$ a portion ( ,mr4 ,mansel's language on ?is po9t2 we w n[ quote two m passages1 :i*1 )\t any comm5t1 w suffici5tly %[ h[ utt]ly ,mr4 ,mill has mi/ak5 ! purport ( ! argum5t :i* he has und]tak5 to exam9e4 ,we d n c]ta9ly "k ! exact nature & op]ation ( ! moral attributes ( ,god3 we c b inf] & conjecture f :at we "k ( ! moral attributes ( man3 & ! analogy betwe5 ! ,f9ite & ! ,inf9ite c nev] be s p]fect z to preclude all possibility ( error 9 ! process4 ,b ! possibility becomes almo/ a c]ta9ty1 :5 any "o human faculty is elevat$ by itself into an au?oritative crit]ion ( religi\s tru?1 )\t reg>d to ^? collat]al evid5ces by :i* its decisions may be modifi$ & correct$4,,bh444 ,beyond "q1 e d\bt :i* our reason may sugge/ 9 matt]s ( religion is entitl$ to its due place 9 ! exam9ation ( ! evid5ces ( religion2 if we w treat x z a "p only1 & n ! :ole2 if we w n insi/ on a positive solution ( t :i*1 x may be1 is giv5 u = ano!r purpose ?an to be solv$4 ,x is reasonable to believe t1 9 matt]s ( belief z well z ( practice1 ,god has n ?\ght fit to annihilate ! free w ( man1 b has p]mitt$ speculative difficulties to exi/ z ! trial & ! discipl9e ( %>p & subtle intellects1 z ,he has p]mitt$ moral temptations to =m ! trial & ! discipl9e ( /rong & eag] passions4444 ,we d n d\bt t ! conditions ( our moral trial t5d t[>ds good1 & n t[>ds evil2 t human nature1 ev5 9 its fall5 /ate1 be>s traces ( ! image ( its ,mak]1 & is fitt$ to be an in/rum5t 9 ,8 moral gov]nm5t4 ,& we believe ?is1 not)/&+ ! exi/5ce ( passions & appetites :i*1 isolat$ & uncontroll$1 appe> to lead 9 an opposite direction4 ,is x !n m reasonable to d5y t a sy/em ( reveal$ religion1 ^: unque/ionable t5d5cy z a :ole is to promote ! glory ( ,god & ! welf>e ( mank9d1 c h proce$$ f ! same ,au?or1 m]ely because we may be unable to detect ! same "* 9 "s ( its m9ut] features1 view$ ap>t f ! sy/em to :i* !y belong8,,bi ,,bh ,bampton ,lectures1 p4 #aeg1 ,f\r? ,edition4 ,,bi ,bampton ,lectures1 p4 #aff1 ,f\r? ,edition4 ,surely ?is is v diff]5t f d5\nc+ all reason+ f human goodness to ,div9e z illicit4 ,to take a p>allel case4 ,! manufacture ( gunp[d] is a dang]\s process1 &1 if c>ri$ on )\t due precautions1 is v likely to lead to disa/r\s consequ5ces4 ,surely x is "o ?+ to po9t out :at precautions are necess>y1 & :at evils are to be appreh5d$ f ! neglect ( !m1 & ano!r to =bid ! manufacture altoge!r4 ,mr4 ,mill does n seem to see ! diff]5ce4 ,we h n[ consid]$ 9 detail all t "p ( ,mr4 ,mill's book :i* is devot$ to ! exam9ation ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's *ief & mo/ *>act]i/ic doctr9es--^? :i* con/itute ! ,philosophy ( ! ,condition$4 ,! rema9d] ( ! "w1 :i* deals *iefly ) subord9ate que/ions ( psy*ology & logic1 conta9s mu* f :i* we widely diss5t1 b :i* we _c at pres5t submit to a special exam9ation4 ,nor is x necess>y1 s f> z ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's reputation is conc]n$1 t we %\ld d s4 ,if ! ,philosophy ( ! ,condition$ is really no?+ bett] ?an ! mass ( crudities & blund]s :i* ,mr4 ,mill supposes x to be1 ! w>me/ admir]s ( ,hamilton w d little 9 8 behalf1 ev5 %\ld !y succe$ 9 v9dicat+ "s ( ! m9or details ( 8 tea*+4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 x c be %[n1 z we h attempt$ to %[1 t ,mr4 ,mill is utt]ly incapable ( deal+ ) ,hamilton's philosophy 9 its high] bran*es1 8 read]s may be left to judge = !mselves :e!r he is implicitly to be tru/$ z reg>ds ! l[]4 ,9 po9t ( fact1 !y w d ,mr4 ,mill no inju/ice1 if !y reg>d ! above specim5s z samples ( 8 entire criticism4 ,we gladly except1 z ( a f> high] ord]1 ^? *apt]s 9 :i* he is cont5t ) /at+ 8 own views2 b 9 ! p]petual bait+ ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 :i* occupies ! great] "p ( ! volume1 we recognise1 9 g5]al1 ! same capti\sness & ! same incompet5ce :i* we h s (t5 _h occasion to po9t out 9 ! c\rse ( our previ\s rem>ks4 ,x is1 we confess1 an unpleasant & an invidi\s task1 to pick to pieces1 bit by bit1 ! "w ( an au?or ( high reputation4 ,b ,mr4 ,mill has *os5 to put ! "q on ?is issue1 & he has left ^? :o diss5t f him no alt]native b to foll[ 8 example4 ,he has task$ all ! res\rces ( m9ute criticism to de/roy piece-meal ! reputation ( "o :o has hi!rto borne an hon\r$ "n 9 philosophy3 he has no "r to compla9 if ! same measure is met$ to himself3-- ,neque enim lex quior ulla ,quam necis artifices arte p]ire sua4 ,b x is n s mu* ! ju/ice z ! necessity ( ! case :i* we w\ld plead z our excuse4 ,mr4 ,mill's me?od ( criticism has r$uc$ ! "q to a v n>r[ compass4 ,ei!r ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 in/ead ( be+ a great philosoph]1 is ! v]ie/ blund]] t ev] put p5 to pap]1 or ! blund]s are ,mr4 ,mill's own4 ,to ^? :o accept ! fir/ ( ^! alt]natives x mu/ always rema9 a m>vel h[ ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton c\ld ev] h acquir$ t reputation :i* compels ev5 8 critic to admit t he alone1 ( our metaphysicians ( ?is & ! prec$+ g5]ation1 has acquir$1 m]ely z su*1 an ,european celebrity2 h[ he c\ld h be5 designat$ by 8 illu/ri\s oppon5t1 ,c\s91 z ! greate/ critic ( our age1 or describ$ by ! le>n$ ,br&is z almo/ unp>allel$ 9 ! pr(\nd k ( anci5t & mod]n philosophy4 ,! m>vel may p]haps disappe>1 %\ld x be ! case1 z we believe x to be1 t ! second alt]native is ! true "o4 ,b ev5 9 ?is case1 x %\ld be borne 9 m9d t ! bl[ w by no means fall on ,mr4 ,mill ) ! same weight ) :i* he design$ x to fall on ! object ( 8 criticism4 ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton _h devot$ 8 :ole life to ! /udy ( metaphysics2 he 0 probably m deeply read 9 t /udy ?an any ( 8 contempor>ies2 & if all 8 read+ c\ld produce no?+ bett] ?an ! confusion & self-contradiction :i* ,mr4 ,mill imputes to him1 ! result w\ld be pitiable inde$4 ,mr4 ,mill1 on ! o!r h&1 we /rongly suspect1 despises metaphysics too mu* to be at ! pa9s ( /udy+ !m at all1 & seems to ?9k t a critic is duly equipp$ = 8 task ) t am\nt ( k :i*1 l ,dogb]ry's read+ & writ+1 comes by nature4 ,8 "w has a sup]ficial clev]ness :i*1 toge!r ) ! au?or's previ\s reputation1 w insure x a c]ta9 k9d ( popul>ity2 b we v5ture to pr$ict t its e/imation by its read]s w be 9 ! inv]se ratio to _! k ( ! subject4 ,b ,mr4 ,mill's g5]al reputation re/s on gr\nds q di/9ct f 8 p]=mances 9 metaphysics2 & ?\gh we c\ld h>dly "n "o ( 8 writ+s f ^: ma9 pr9ciples we d n diss5t1 !re is h>dly "o :i* is n bett] fitt$ to su/a9 8 "* z a ?9k] ?an ?is la/1 9 :i* ! fatal *>ms ( ! goddess ,necessity seem to h betray$ h] *ampion into an unusual excess ( polemical zeal1 c\pl$1 x mu/ be add$1 ) an unusual defici5cy ( philosophical k4 ,,po/script4 ,x 0 n till aft] ! prec$+ pages _h be5 s5t to press t ,i became acqua9t$ ) a little "w rec5tly publi%$ "u ! title ( ,! ,battle ( ! two ,philosophies1 by an ,inquir]4 ,! au?or appe>s to h be5 a p]sonal pupil ( ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton's1 z well z a dilig5t /ud5t ( 8 writ+s4 ,at all ev5ts1 he has inquir$ to "s purpose1 & obta9$ a f> m intellig5t k ( ,hamilton's sy/em ?an is exhibit$ by ! majority ( rec5t critics4 ,x is gratify+ to f9d _m ( my rem>ks confirm$ by ! concurr5t te/imony ( s compet5t a witness4 ,! foll[+ w\ld h be5 notic$ 9 _! prop] places _h ,i be5 soon] acqua9t$ ) !m4 ,( ! popul> confusion betwe5 ! inf9ite & ! indef9ite1 notic$ above1 pp4 #ej1 #aab1 ,an ,inquir] obs]ves3-- ,if we c\ld realise 9 ?\ght inf9ite space1 t conception w\ld be a p]fectly def9ite "o2 b ! notion t is "h (f]$ u 9 its place1 ?\gh x may be real1 is c]ta9ly n def9ite2 x is m]ely ! conception ( an indef9ite ext5sion4444 ,9 tru?1 :5 we /rive to ?9k ( inf9ite space1 ! ne>e/ approa* we c make to x is ?is notion ( an indef9ite space1 :i* ,mr4 ,mill has sub/itut$ = x4 ,b ^! two conceptions are n only v]bally1 !y are really :olly di/9ct4 ,an indef9ite space is a space ( ! ext5t ( :i* we ?9k vaguely1 )\t kn[+ or )\t ?9k+ :]e its b\nd>ies are4 ,inf9ite space has c]ta9ly1 & q di/9ctly1 no b\nd>ies any:]e4--7,pp4 #ah-bj47 ,on ,mr4 ,mill's /range di/9ction betwe5 ! ,div9e ,attributes1 z "s inf9ite & o!rs absolute1 ! au?or's rem>ks are sub/antially 9 agreem5t ) :at has be5 said above on pp4 #aje-f4 ,mr4 ,mill argues t all ! attributes ( ,god _c be inf9ite2 b t "s1 z p[]1 may be inf9ite2 & "s1 z goodness & k1 mu/ be absolute1 because nei!r c k be m ?an complete1 nor goodness m ?an p]fect4 ,:5 we "k all !re is to be kn[n1 he says1 k has atta9$ its utmo/ limit4 ,b ?is is m]ely begg+ ! :ole "q4 ,if !re be an ,inf9ite ,be+1 ,he _c "k all !re is to be kn[n unless ,he "k ,himself2 & adequately to "k :at is inf9ite is to h inf9ite k4 ,! same ?+ w\ld be true if !re c\ld be a ,be+ ^: p[] & duration only 7 inf9ite4 ',! w1' he adds1 'is ei!r entirely "r1 or wrong 9 diff]5t degrees3 d[nw>ds !re are z _m gradations z we *oose to di/+ui%2 b upw>ds !re is an ideal limit4 ,goodness c be imag9$ complete1--su* t !re c be no great] goodness beyond x1'444 ,b a ,be+ ( inf9ite p[] & f9ite goodness w\ld n be p]fectly good1 because ,8 p[] w\ld n be :olly1 b only 9 "p direct$ by ,8 goodness4 ,nay1 z t :i* is f9ite be>s no proportion :atev] to :at is inf9ite3 z1 h[ev] great x be absolutely1 x is /ill inf9itely less ?an inf9ity1 su* a ,be+ w\ld be p>tly good & yet inf9itely evil1 :i* is absurd 9 reason & impossible 9 fact4--7,pp4 #bd1 #be47 ,! foll[+ e/imate ( ,mr4 ,mill's m]its z a metaphysician co9cides ) t :i*1 contr>y to my expectation1 ,i f\nd =c$ ^u myself aft] a c>eful exam9ation ( 8 book4--7,see above1 ,pp4 #fb1 #ahb47 ,we _c b ?9k t ,mr4 ,mill 9 ?is1 8 fir/ "w 9 pure metaphysics1 has disappo9t$ j expectation4 ,9 leav+ ! fields ( practical philosophy1 he seems to h left 8 g5ius beh9d him4 ,ev5 ! peculi> 'cunn+ ( 8 "r h&'--ev5 8 unexcell$ logical p[] avails him little1 s cont9ually does he fail to see di/9ctly ! conception ) :i* he is f5c+4444 ,z long z he is apply+ giv5 pr9ciples to ! solution ( practical que/ions2 z long z he has to d ) ! process ( an argum5t1 he proves himself a mo/ able in/ructor & guide4 ,b :5 he has to grapple ) a metaphysical problem1 x almo/ inv>iably arrives t ! c5tral1 ! metaphysical difficulty1 escapes him4--7,pp4 #gh-hj47 ,,muir ,,& ,,pat]son1 ,,pr9t]s1 ,,ed9burgh4