---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,transcrib]'s ,note3 ,?is v]sion ( ! text _c repres5t c]ta9 typographical effects4 ,italics are delimit$ ) ! #8' "* z italic4 ,sup]script$ *>act]s are prefix ) #8'4 ,footnotes h be5 mov$ to foll[ ! p>agraphs 9 :i* !y are ref]5c$4 ,m9or errors1 attributable to ! pr9t]1 h be5 correct$4 ,please see ! transcrib]'s note at ! end ( ?is text = details reg>d+ ! h&l+ ( any textual issues enc\nt]$ dur+ its prep>ation4 ,elem5ts ( ,metaphysics ,a4 ,e4 ,,taylor ,late ,pr(essor ( ,moral ,philosophy 9 ! ,univ]sity ( ,ed9burgh ,,univ]sity ,,pap]backs ------------------------------------ ,,me?u5 3 ,,london ,fir/ publi%$ by ,me?u5 ,co ,ltd 9 #aijc ,pr9t$ 9 ,great ,brita9 by ,morrison ,gibb ,ltd1 ,ed9burgh ,catalogue ,no #b_/fgge_/bg ,univ]sity ,pap]backs are publi%$ by ,,me?u5 ,,co ,,ltd #cf ,essex ,/reet1 ,/r&1 ,london ,,wc#b & ,,b>nes ,,noble ,,inc #aje ,fif? ,av5ue1 ,new ,york #c ,,to ,f4 ,h4 ,,bradley ,9 he>tfelt ackn[l$gm5t ( all t 8 example & 8 writ+s h be5 to ! m5 ( my g5]ation ,ante ,ar>im ,p>?us bibet1 aut ,g]mania ,tigrim1 ,quam no/ro illius labatur pectore vultus4 ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,,elem5ts ,,( ,,metaphysics ,,preface ,9 ackn[l$g+ my indebt$ness to rec5t writ]s = _m ( ! ideas conta9$ 9 ! foll[+ pages1 ,i h 9 ! fir/ place to express my deep & con/ant obligations to ! v>i\s works ( ,mr4 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley4 ,my *ief debt to o!r rec5t ,engli%-speak+ philosoph]s is to ,pr(essor ,royce & ,pr(essor ,w>d1 & ,i am p]haps sc>cely less indebt$ to ,pr(essor ,/\t4 ,my *ief obligations to ,cont95tal writ]s are to ,av5>ius & to ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g4 ,i tru/1 h[ev]1 t !re is n "o ( ! au?ors ) ^: views ,i h dealt 9 ! c\rse ( my "w f :om ,i h n le>n$ some?+4 ,at ! same "t ,i ought p]haps to say "h once = all t ,i make no claim to repres5t ! views ( any "o au?or or s*ool1 & ,i %all n be surpris$ if ! ?9k]s to :om ,i owe mo/ f9d !mselves unable to endorse all t ,i h writt54 ,) respect to ! ref]5ces giv5 at ! end ( ! sev]al *apt]s1 ,i may note t _! aim is simply to af=d ! read] "s prelim9>y guidance 9 ! fur!r prosecution ( 8 /udies4 ,!y make no pret5ce to complet5ess1 & are by no means exclusively drawn f writ]s :o support my own conclusions4 ,"o or two important works ( :i* ,i %\ld h o!rwise be5 glad to make ext5d$ use h appe>$ too rec5tly = me to avail myself ( !m4 ,i may m5tion especially ! late ,pr(essor ,adamson's ,lectures on ! ,developm5t ( ,mod]n ,philosophy1 ,pr(essor ,o/wald's ,vorlesung5 b] ,naturphilosophie1 & ,mr4 ,b4 ,russell's ,pr9ciples ( ,ma!matics1 vol4 #a4 ,f9ally1 ,i h to express my gratitude to my fri5ds ,pr(essor ,s4 ,alex&] & ,mr4 ,p4 ,j4 ,h>tog = _! k9dness 9 read+ l>ge portions ( my pro(s & (f]+ _m valuable corrections & sugge/ions4 #aijc -------------- ,! sudd5 dem& = a re-issue ( ?is volume prev5ts my mak+ any alt]ations beyond ! correction ( a numb] ( mispr9ts4 ,_h ! opportunity (f]$1 ,i %\ld h be5 glad1 :ile leav+ ! ma9 argum5t ess5tially z x /&s1 to h attempt$ c]ta9 improvem5ts 9 details4 ,i may m5tion 9 p>ticul>1 z ! mo/ important ( ! *anges ,i c\ld h wi%$ to make1 t ! treatm5t ( ! problem ( inf9ite regress & ( ! ,kantian ant9omies w\ld h be5 remodell$1 & ,i tru/ improv$1 z a consequ5ce ( /udy ( ! works ( ,mr4 ,b]tr& ,russell & ,m4 ,c\turat4 ,i %\ld l to take ?is opportunity ( ?ank+ all ^? :o h be5 k9d en\gh to fav\r me ) criticisms ( ! book4 ,,cont5ts ,,book ,i ,,g5]al ,,notions ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,! ,,metaphysician ,,page #a4 ,! g5]ality & simplicity ( ! metaphysical problem make x difficult to def9e ! /udy4 #b4 ,problem is sugge/$ by ! pres5ce ( contradictions 9 ord9>y exp]i5ce4 #c44 ,by mak+ a di/9ction betwe5 reality & appe>ance ! sci5ces remove "s ( ^! contradictions1 b !mselves lead to fur!r difficulties ( ! same sort2 h5ce ! ne$ = sy/ematic inquiry into ! mean+ ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t1 & ! g5]al "* ( reality z su*4 #d44 ,metaphysics1 z an inquiry into ! ultimate mean+ ( 8reality10 is ak9 to poetry & religion1 b diff]s f !m 9 its sci5tific "*1 f ! ma!matical & exp]im5tal sci5ces 9 its me?od1 f common scepticism 9 ! critical nature ( its me?ods z well z 9 its positive purpose4 #e44 ,! /udy is difficult 7a7 because ( ! g5]ality ( its problems1 7b7 & because we _c employ diagrams or physical exp]im5ts4 #f44 ,! objection t ,metaphysics is an impossibility may be %[n 9 all its =ms to re/ ^u self-contradictory assumptions ( a metaphysical k9d4 #g44 ,! m9or objections t1 if possible1 ! sci5ce is sup]flu\s1 or at lea/ /ation>y1 may be met ) equal ease4 #h4 ,metaphysics is p>tly ak9 to ! my/ical t5d5cy1 b diff]s f my/icism 9 virtue ( its positive int]e/ 9 ! _w ( appe>ances1 z well z by its sci5tific me?od4 #i44 ,x agrees ) logic 9 ! g5]ality ( its scope1 b diff]s 9 be+ conc]n$ ) ! real1 :]eas logic is prim>ily conc]n$ ) ! inf]rible4 #aj4 ,! problems ( ! s-call$ ,!ory ( ,k are really metaphysical4 #a ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,crit]ion ,,& ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,me?od #a4 ,9 ! pr9ciple t 8,reality is n self-contradictory0 we h a univ]sal & c]ta9 crit]ion ( reality :i* is n m]ely negative1 b implies ! positive ass]tion t reality is a consi/5t sy/em4 #b4 ,! validity ( ?is crit]ion is n affect$ by ! sugge/ion t x may be m]ely a ,logical ,law2 #c4 ,nor by ! rais+ ( d\bt :e!r all our k is n m]ely 8relative10 a d\bt :i* is itself mean+less4 #d4 ,z to ! mat]ial ( ! sy/em1 x is exp]i5ce or imm$iate psy*ical fact4 #e4 ,x mu/ be actual exp]i5ce1 n m]e 8possibilities0 ( exp]i5ce2 b actual exp]i5ce mu/ n be id5tifi$ ) 8s5sation40 #f4 ,nor mu/ we assume t exp]i5ce consi/s ( subjects & _! /ates2 nor aga91 t x is a m]e succession ( 8/ates ( consci\sness40 #g4 ,! diff]5tia ( matt] ( exp]i5ce is its imm$iacy1 i4e4 its comb9ation 9 a s+le :ole ( ! two aspects ( exi/5ce & cont5t4 #h4 ,?is union ( exi/5ce & cont5t is brok5 up 9 reflective k or ?\ght1 b may be re/or$ at a high] level4 #i4 ,exp]i5ce fur!r always appe>s to be implicitly complex 9 respect ( its cont5t4 #aj4 ,an adequate appreh5sion ( reality w\ld only be possible 9 ! =m ( a complete or 8pure0 exp]i5ce1 at once all-inclusive1 sy/ematic1 & direct4 ,! problem ( ,metaphysics is to asc]ta9 :at w\ld be ! g5]al or =mal "* ( su* an exp]i5ce1 & h[ f> ! v>i\s prov9ces ( our human exp]i5ce & k approximate to x4 ,! k ,metaphysics c give u ( ! ultimate nature ( reality z x w\ld be pres5t 9 a complete exp]i5ce1 ?\gh imp]fect1 is f9al z f> z x goes4 #aa4 ,z to ! me?od ( ,metaphysics1 x mu/ be analytical1 critical1 non-empirical1 & non-inductive4 ,x may also be call$ a priori if we c>efully avoid confus+ ! a priori ) ! psy*ologically primitive4 ,:y our me?od _c be ! ,hegelian ,dialectic #ah ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,sub-,,divisions ,,( ,,metaphysics #a4 ,! traditional sub-division ( ,metaphysics into ,ontology1 ,cosmology1 ,rational ,psy*ology1 common to all ! great mod]n con/ructive sy/ems4 #b4 ,precise s5se 9 :i* we adopt ^! divisions = ! purposes ( our own treatm5t ( ! subject4 #c4 ,relation ( ,cosmology & ,rational ,psy*ology to ! empirical sci5ces #db ,,book ,,ii ,,ontology--,,! ,,g5]al ,,/ructure ,,( ,,reality ,,*apt] ,i ,,reality ,,& ,,exp]i5ce #a4 ,9 a s5se 8reality0 = ea* ( u means t ( :i* he mu/ take acc\nt if 8 special purposes are to f9d fulfilm5t4 #b4 ,b ultimately ! _w mu/ possess a /ructure ( :i* all purposes1 ea* 9 its own way1 mu/ take acc\nt4 ,?is is ! 8,ultimate ,reality0 or 8,absolute0 ( ,metaphysics4 ,9 ,metaphysics we reg>d x f ! special /&po9t ( ! sci5tific intellect4 ,!re are o!r legitimate attitudes t[>ds x1 e4g41 t ( practical religion4 #c4 ,! insep>ability ( reality f imm$iate exp]i5ce involves ! recognition ( x z teleological & z uniquely individual4 #d4 ,! exp]i5ce )9 :i* all reality falls _c be my own1 nor yet ! 8collective0 exp]i5ce ( ! aggregate ( consci\s be+s4 ,x mu/ be an individual exp]i5ce :i* appreh5ds ! totality ( exi/5ce z ! h>moni\s embodim5t ( a s+le 8purpose40 ,! ne>e/ analogue our own life pres5ts to su* a type ( exp]i5ce is to be f\nd 9 ! satisfi$ insight ( p]sonal love4 #e4 ,! exp]i5ce ( su* an 8,absolute0 mu/ n be ?\ght ( z a m]e r$uplication ( our own1 or ( ! sci5tific hypo!ses by :i* we co-ord9ate facts = ! purposes ( inf]5ce4 #f4 ,our conception is closely connect$ ) t ( ,b]keley1 f :i* x diff]s by ! /ress x lays on ! purposive & selective aspect ( exp]i5ce4 #g4 ,realism1 bo? ( ! ,agno/ic & ( ! ,dogmatic type1 is incompatible ) ! mean+ we h be5 l$ to atta* to 8reality40 ,b ,agno/icism is ju/ifi$ 9 insi/+ on ! limitations ( our k ( ,reality1 & ,dogmatic ,realism 9 reject+ ! id5tification ( ,reality ) exp]i5ce z a m]ely cognitive function ( f9ite p]cipi5ts4 #h4 ,subjectivism1 accord+ to :i* all t ,i "k is /ates ( my own 8consci\sness10 is irreconcilable ) ! admitt$ facts ( life1 & arises f ! psy*ological fallacy ( 8introjection0 #ej ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,sy/ematic ,,unity ,,( ,,reality #a4 ,! problem :e!r ,reality is ultimately ,"o or ,_m is inevitably sugge/$ to u by ! div]se aspects ( our own direct exp]i5ce ( ! _w4 ,! diff]5t !ories may be class$1 accord+ to _! solution ( ?is problem1 z ,moni/ic1 ,plurali/ic1 & ,monadi/ic4 #b4 ,pluralism />ts f ! presum$ fact ( ! mutual indep5d5ce ( human selves1 & tea*es t ?is indep5d5ce ( ea* o!r belongs to all real be+s4 ,b 7a7 ! indep5d5ce ) :i* exp]i5ce pres5ts u is nev] complete1 nor ! unity ( ! 8selves0 p]fect4 7b7 ,! !ory is inconsi/5t ) ! sy/ematic "* ( all reality z presuppos$ 9 bo? k & action4 #c4 ,monadism aga9 makes ! sy/ematic unity ( ! real ei!r an illusion or an inexplicable accid5t4 #d4 ,reality1 because sy/ematic1 mu/ be ! expression ( a s+le pr9ciple 9 & ?r\gh a multiplicity4 ,! unity & multiplicity mu/ bo? be real1 & ea* mu/ necess>ily involve ! o!r4 #e4 ,if bo? are to be equally real1 ! :ole sy/em mu/ be a s+le exp]i5ce1 & its con/itu5ts mu/ also be exp]i5ces4 ,a p]fect sy/ematic :ole c be nei!r an aggregate1 nor a me*anical :ole ( p>ts1 nor an organism4 ,! :ole mu/ exi/ = ! p>ts1 & !y = x4 #f4 ,?is may also be express$ by say+ t ,reality is a subject :i* is ! unity ( subord9ate subjects1 or an individual ( :i* ! con/itu5ts are less] individuals4 #g4 ,! ne>e/ famili> analogue to su* a sy/ematic :ole w\ld be ! relation betwe5 our :ole 8self0 & ! p>tial m5tal sy/ems or less] 8selves40 #h4 ,! ne>e/ hi/oric p>allel to ?is view is to be f\nd 9 ,sp9oza's !ory ( ! relation ( ! human m9d to ! 8inf9ite intellect ( ,god0 #hd ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,reality ,,& ,,its ,,appe>ances--,,! ,,degrees ,,( ,,reality #a4 ,reality be+ a s+le sy/ematic :ole1 ! nature ( its con/itu5t elem5ts is only f9ally intelligible 9 ! light ( ! :ole sy/em4 ,h5ce ea* ( its 8appe>ances10 if consid]$ z a :ole 9 itself1 mu/ be m or less contradictory4 #b4 ,b "s 8appe>ances0 exhibit ! /ructure ( ! :ole m adequately ?an o!rs1 & h !re=e a high] degree ( reality4 #c4 ,?is conception ( degree ( reality may be illu/rat$ by comp>ison ) ! successive ord]s ( inf9ites & inf9itesimals 9 ,ma!matics4 ,x w\ld be ! task ( a complete ,philosophy to assign ! cont5ts ( ! _w to _! prop] place 9 ! s]ies ( 8ord]s0 ( reality4 #d4 ,9 g5]al any subord9ate :ole is real 9 proportion z x is a self-conta9$ :ole4 ,& x is a self-conta9$ :ole 9 proportion z x is 7a7 compreh5sive1 7b7 sy/ematic2 t is1 a ?+ is real j s f> z x is truly individual4 #e4 ,! two crit]ia ( individuality1 ?\gh ultimately co9cid5t1 t5d 9 p>ticul> cases to fall ap>t = our insight1 ow+ to ! limitation ( human k4 #f4 ,ultimately only ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5ce is completely individual1 all o!r individuality is approximate4 #g4 ,9 o!r words1 ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5ce is an inf9ite individual1 all subord9ate individuality is f9ite4 ,comp>ison ( t88 position ) ! doctr9es ( ,leibnitz4 #h4 ,recapitulatory /atem5t ( ! relation ( ,reality to its ,appe>ances #ajd ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,! ,,_w ,,( ,,?+s--7#a7 ,,sub/ance1 ,,quality1 ,,& ,,relation #a4 ,! natural or pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w reg>ds x z a plurality ( 8?+s10 ea* possess+ qualities1 /&+ 9 relation to o!rs1 & int]act+ ) !m4 #b4 ,h5ce arise f\r problems3 ^? ( ! ,unity ( ! ,?+1 ( ,sub/ance & ,quality1 ( ,relation1 ( ,causality4 #c4 ,no simple answ] c be giv5 to ! "q1 ,:at is "o ?+8 ,! ,unity ( ! ,?+ is "o ( teleological /ructure1 & ?is is a matt] ( degree1 & also l>gely ( our own subjective po9t ( view4 #d4 ,sub/ance & ,quality4 ,! id5tification ( ! sub/ance ( ?+s ) _! prim>y qualities1 ?\gh useful 9 physical sci5ce1 is metaphysically unju/ifiable4 #e4 ,sub/ance z an 8unkn[able sub/ratum ( qualities0 adds no?+ to our und]/&+ ( _! connection4 #f4 ,! ?+ _c be a m]e collection ( qualities )\t int]nal unity4 #g4 ,! conception ( a ?+ z ! law or mode ( relation ( its /ates useful b metaphysically unsatisfactory4 ,ultimately ! _m c be conta9$ 9 ! "o only by 8repres5tation02 ! unity 9 ?+s mu/ be t ( an individual exp]i5ce4 #h4 ,relation4 ,we c nei!r r$uce qualities to relations nor relations to qualities4 #i4 ,aga91 ! attempt to conceive ,reality z qualities 9 relation leads to ! indef9ite regress4 #aj4 ,we _c escape ?is difficulty by tak+ all relations z 8ext]nal40 ,& ,pr(essor ,royce's v9dication ( ! indef9ite regress seems to dep5d on ! uncriticis$ application ( ! inadequate category ( :ole & "p to ultimate ,reality4 ,! union ( ! "o & ! _m 9 concrete exp]i5ce is ultra-relational4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,note3 ,dr4 ,/\t's reply to ,mr4 ,bradley #abj ,,*apt] ,v ,,! ,,_w ,,( ,,?+s--7#b7 ,,*ange ,,& ,,causality #a4 ,! conception ( ?+s z int]act+ leads to ! two problems ( ,*ange & ,causality4 ,! p>adoxical "* ( *ange due to ! fact t only :at is p]man5t c *ange4 #b4 ,*ange is succession )9 an id5tity2 ?is id5tity1 l t ( ,sub/ance1 mu/ be teleological1 i4e4 mu/ be an id5tity ( plan or end p]vad+ ! process ( *ange4 #c4 ,?us all *ange falls "u ! logical category ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 :i* becomes 9 its application to succession 9 "t ! ,pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason4 #d4 ,causality4 ,cause--9 ! mod]n popul> & sci5tific s5se--means ! gr\nd ( a *ange :5 tak5 to be completely conta9$ 9 prec$+ *anges4 ,t e *ange has its complete gr\nd 9 prec$+ *anges is nei!r an axiom nor an empirically asc]ta9$ tru?1 b a po/ulate sugge/$ by our practical ne$s4 #e4 ,9 ! la/ resort ! po/ulate _c be true2 ! dep5d5ce betwe5 ev5ts _c be "o-sid$4 ,! real ju/ification = our use ( ! po/ulate is its practical success4 #f4 ,orig9 ( ! conception ( ,cause an?ropomorphic4 #g4 ,puzzles ab\t ,causation4 7#a7 ,cont9uity4 ,causation mu/ be cont9u\s1 & yet 9 a cont9u\s process !re c be no di/9ction ( cause f effect4 ,cause mu/ be & yet _c be prior 9 "t to effect4 #h4 7#b7 ,! indef9ite regress 9 causation4 #i4 7#c7 ,plurality ( ,causes4 ,plurality ( ,causes is ultimately a logical contradiction1 b 9 any =m 9 :i* ! causal po/ulate is ( practical use x mu/ recognise plurality4 #aj4 ,! 8necessity0 ( ! causal relation psy*ological & subjective4 #aa4 ,imman5t & ,transeunt ,causality3 ,consi/5t ,pluralism mu/ d5y transeunt ,causation2 b _c d s successfully4 #ab4 ,bo? transeunt & imman5t ,causality are ultimately appe>ance #aeh ,,book ,,iii ,,cosmology--,,! ,,int]pretation ,,( ,,nature ,,*apt] ,i ,,introductory #a4 ,di/9ction betwe5 ! exp]im5tal sci5ces & a ,philosophy ( ,nature & ,m9d4 ,! =m] conc]n$ ) ! description1 ! latt] ) ! int]pretation ( facts4 #b4 ,cosmology is ! critical exam9ation ( ! special *>act]i/ics ( ! physical ord]4 ,its ma9 problems are3 7#a7 ,! problem ( ! nature ( ,mat]ial ,exi/5ce2 7#b7 problem ( ! ju/ification ( ! concept ( ! ,me*anical ,uni=mity ( ,nature2 7#c7 problems ( ,space & ,"t2 7#d7 problem ( ! ,significance ( ,evolution2 7#e7 problem ( ! ,place ( descriptive ,physical ,sci5ce 9 ! sy/em ( ,human ,k #aia ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,matt] #a4 ,! physical ord]1 because dep5d5t = its p]ceiv$ qualities on ! s5se-organs ( ! p]cipi5t1 mu/ be ! appe>ance ( a m ultimate reality :i* is non-physical4 #b4 ,b]keley's criticism is fatal to ! id5tification ( ?is reality ) 8mat]ial sub/ance40 ,! logical consequ5ce ( ,b]keley's doctr9e t ! esse ( s5sible ?+s is p]cipi1 w\ld be ! subjectivi/ view t ! physical ord] is only a complex ( pres5tations4 #c4 ,b ?is is cle>ly n ! case ) t "p ( ! physical ord] :i* consi/s ( ! bodies ( my fell[-m54 ,^! h an exi/5ce1 z c5tres ( feel+1 ov] & above _! exi/5ce z pres5tations to my s5ses4 #d4 ,z ! bodies ( my fell[s are connect$ 9 "o sy/em ) ! re/ ( ! physical ord]1 t ord] z a :ole mu/ h ! same k9d ( reality :i* belongs to !m4 ,x mu/ be ! pres5tation to our s5se ( a sy/em or complex ( sy/ems ( exp]i5c+ subjects2 ! app>5t abs5ce ( life & purpose f inorganic nature mu/ be due to our inability to ent] into a direct communion ( int]e/ ) its memb]s4 #e4 ,"s consequ5ces ( ?is view #aih ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,mean+ ,,( ,,law #a4 ,! popul> conception ( ! physical ord] z exhibit+ a rigid me*anical con=mity to g5]al laws1 conflicts ) our metaphysical int]pretation4 #b4 ,our int]pretation w\ld1 h[ev]1 admit ( ! e/abli%m5t ( av]ages or approximately realis$ uni=mities by ! /ati/ical me?od1 :i* deals ) occurr5ce en bloc to ! neglect ( _! individual detail4 #c4 8,uni=mity0 9 nature is nei!r an axiom nor an empirically v]ifiable fact1 b a po/ulate4 ,a consid]ation ( ! me?ods actually employ$ = ! e/abli%m5t ( su* uni=mities or 8laws0 ( nature %[s t we h no gu>antee t actual concrete cases exhibit exact con=mity to law4 #d4 ,uni=mity is a po/ulate aris+ f our ne$ ( practical rules = ! control ( nature4 ,x ne$ n = ?is purpose be exact1 & 9 po9t ( fact our sci5tific =mul are only exact s long z !y rema9 ab/ract & hypo!tical4 ,!y d n enable u to det]m9e ! actual c\rse ( an individual process ) c]ta9ty4 #e4 ,! concept ( ! physical ord] z me*anical is ! ab/ract expression ( ! po/ulate1 & is !re=e ess5tial to ! empirical sci5ces :i* deal ) ! physical ord]4 #f4 ,consid]ation ( ! "* ( g5u9e ma*9es sugge/s t ! me*anical only exi/s z a subord9ate aspect ( processes :i*1 9 _! full nature1 are intellig5t & purposive #baf ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,space ,,& ,,"t #a4 ,are "t & space ultimately real or only ph5om5al8 #b4 ,! space & "t ( p]ception are limit$1 s5sibly cont9u\s1 & consi/ ( a quantitative elem5t toge!r ) a qualitative "* dep5d5t on relation to ! "h & n[ ( imm$iate individual feel+4 #c4 ,conceptual space & "t are creat$ f ! p]ceptual data by a comb9$ process ( syn!sis1 analysis1 & ab/raction4 #d4 ,!y are unlimit$1 inf9itely divisible1 & !re is valid positive gr\nd = reg>d+ !m z ma!matically cont9u\s4 ,?us !y =m inf9ite cont9u\s s]ies ( positions4 ,!y involve ab/raction f all ref]5ce to ! "h & n[ ( imm$iate feel+1 & are ?us homog5e\s1 i4e4 ! positions 9 !m are indi/+ui%able4 ,!y are also commonly tak5 to be unities4 #e4 ,p]ceptual space & "t _c be ultimately real1 because !y involve ref]5ce to ! "h & n[ ( a f9ite exp]i5ce2 conceptual space & "t _c be ultimately real1 because !y conta9 no pr9ciple ( int]nal di/9ction1 & are ?us n individual4 #f4 ,! attempt to take space & "t z real leads to ! difficulty ab\t qualities & relations1 & s to ! indef9ite regress4 #g4 ,space & "t conta9 no pr9ciple ( unity2 !re may be _m space & "t ord]s 9 ! ,absolute :i* h no spatial or temporal connection ) ea* o!r4 #h4 ,! ant9omies ( ! inf9ite divisibility & ext5t ( space & "t arise f ! indef9ite regress involv$ 9 ! s*eme ( qualities & relations1 & are insoluble s long z ! space & "t con/ruction is tak5 = ,reality4 #i4 ,! space & "t ord] is an imp]fect ph5om5al manife/ation ( ! logical relation betwe5 ! inn] purposive lives ( f9ite individuals4 ,"t is an inevitable aspect ( f9ite exp]i5ce4 ,h[ space & "t are transc5d$ 9 ! ,absolute exp]i5ce we _c say #bda ,,*apt] ,v ,,"s ,,conditions ,,( ,,evolution #a4 ,! concept ( evolution an attempt to int]pret natural processes 9 t]ms ( individual gr[?4 #b4 ,evolution means *ange culm9at+ 9 an end :i* is ! result ( ! process & is qualitatively new4 ,! concept is ?us teleological4 #c4 ,evolution1 be+ teleological1 is ess5tially ei!r progress or deg5]ation4 ,if x is m ?an illusion1 !re mu/ be real ends 9 ! physical ord]4 ,& ends c only be real z subjective int]e/s ( s5ti5t be+s :i* are actualis$ by ! process ( *ange4 #d4 ,?us all evolution mu/ take place )9 an individual subject4 #e4 ,fur!r1 ! subject ( evolution mu/ be a f9ite individual4 ,all attempts to make 8evolution0 a prop]ty ( ! :ole ( ,reality lead to ! inf9ite regress4 #f4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 progressive evolution & deg5]ation has an 8objective0 basis 9 ! metaphysical di/9ction betwe5 high] & l[] degrees ( individuality4 #g4 ,9 ! evolution>y process1 old individuals disappe> & fre% ones orig9ate4 ,h5ce evolution is incompatible ) ! view t ,reality consi/s ( a plurality ( ultimately indep5d5t f9ite individuals #bfe ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,! ,,logical ,,"* ,,( ,,descriptive ,,sci5ce #a4 ,sci5tific description may be contra/$ ) philosophical or teleological int]pretation1 b ! contra/ is n absolute4 #b4 ,! prim>y end ( all sci5tific description is int]communication ) a view to active co-op]ation4 ,h5ce all su* description is necess>ily re/rict$ to objects capable ( be+ exp]i5c$ 9 ! same way by a plurality ( individuals4 #c4 ,a second end ( sci5tific description is ! economis+ ( intellectual lab\r by ! creation ( g5]al rules = deal+ ) typical situations 9 ! environm5t4 ,9 ! c\rse ( evolution ?is object becomes p>tially indep5d5t ( ! =m]4 #d4 ,f ! int]e/ 9 =mulat+ g5]al rules arise ! ?ree fundam5tal po/ulates ( physical sci5ce1 ! po/ulates ( ,uni=mity1 ,me*anical ,law1 & ,causal ,det]m9ation4 #e4 ,! me*anical view ( physical ,nature det]m9$ by ^! ?ree po/ulates is sy/ematically c>ri$ out only 9 ! ab/ract sci5ce ( ,me*anics2 h5ce ! logical completion ( ! descriptive process w\ld mean ! r$uction ( all descriptive sci5ce to ,me*anics4 ,t ! *emical1 biological1 & psy*ological sci5ces conta9 elem5ts :i* _c be r$uc$ to me*anical t]ms1 is due to ! fact t _! descriptions are inspir$ by /hetic & hi/orical z well z by prim>ily 8sci5tific0 int]e/s4 #f4 ,! analysis ( su* lead+ concepts ( me*anical ,physics z ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass & ( ,en]gy %[s !m to h only relative validity #bgi ,,book ,,iv ,,rational ,,psy*ology--,,! ,,int]pretation ,,( ,,life ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,logical ,,"* ,,( ,,psy*ological ,,sci5ce #a4 ,! v>i\s sci5ces :i* deal ) ! int]pretation ( human life all avail !mselves ( ! fundam5tal categories ( ,psy*ology4 ,h5ce we mu/ ask h[ ! concepts ( ,psy*ology are relat$ to actual exp]i5ce4 #b4 ,psy*ology is a body ( ab/ract descriptive =mul1 n a direct transcript ( ! individual processes ( real life4 ,x presupposes ! previ\s con/ruction ( ! physical ord]4 #c4 ,! psy*ological conception ( consci\s life z a succession ( 8m5tal /ates0 or 8images0 is a trans=mation ( actual exp]i5ce devis$ prim>ily to acc\nt = ! exp]i5ce ( o!r subjects1 & subsequ5tly ext5d$ to my own4 ,! trans=mation is effect$ by ! hypo!sis ( 8introjection40 #d1 #e4 ,! logical ju/ification ( ! psy*ological trans=mation ( facts is tw(old4 ,! psy*ological s*eme s]ves p>tly to fill up ! gaps 9 our !ories ( physiological ,me*anism1 & also1 9 respect ( ! teleological categories ( ,psy*ology1 to describe ! c\rse ( human conduct 9 a =m capable ( e?ical & hi/orical appreciation4 ,psy*ology may legitimately employ bo? me*anical & teleological categories4 #f4 ,! objections sometimes br\ght aga9/ ! possibility ( 7a7 psy*ological1 7b7 teleological description are unt5able #bid ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,s\l ,,& ,,body #a4 ,! problem ( psy*ophysical connection has to d ) ! correlation ( sci5tific ab/ractions1 n ( giv5 facts ( exp]i5ce4 #b4 ,! 8consci\sness0 ( ,psy*ology is ?us n ! same ?+ z ! f9ite individual subject ( exp]i5ce1 & ,reality mu/ n be said to consi/ ( 8m9ds0 9 ! psy*ologi/'s s5se4 ,aga91 we mu/ n assume a priori t !re c be only "o work+ hypo!sis ( psy*ophysical connection4 #c4 ,! possible hypo!ses may be r$uc$ to ?ree1 ,epiph5om5alism1 ,p>allelism1 & ,int]action4 #d4 ,epiph5om5alism is legitimate z a me?odological pr9ciple 9 ,physiology2 x is unt5able z a basis = ,psy*ology because x implies ! r$uction ( psy*ical facts to me*anical law4 #e4 ,p>allelism4 ,! argum5ts = ,p>allelism z necess>ily valid to ,psy*ophysics because ( its congruity ) ! po/ulates ( me*anical ,physics1 are fallaci\s4 ,we _c assume t ,psy*ology mu/ necess>ily con=m to ^! po/ulates4 #f4 ,z a work+ hypo!sis ,p>allelism is available = _m purposes1 b breaks d[n :5 we attempt to apply x to ! case ( ! initiation ( fre% purposive reactions4 ,a teleological & a me*anical s]ies _c ultimately be 8p>allel40 #g4 ,we are ?us ?r[n back on ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action z ! only "o :i* af=ds a consi/5t s*eme = ! correlation ( ,physiology & ,psy*ology4 ,we h1 h[ev]1 to rememb] t :at ! hypo!sis correlates is sci5tific symbols1 n actual facts4 ,! actuality repres5t$ by bo? sets ( symbols is ! same ?+1 ?\gh ! psy*ological symbolism af=ds a wid] & m adequate repres5tation ( x ?an ! physiological #cac ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,place ,,( ,,! 8,,self0 ,,9 ,,reality #a4 ,! 8self0 is 7#a7 a teleological concept1 7#b7 implies a contra/$ n-self 7:]e ?is contra/ is abs5t f an exp]i5ce !re is no g5u9e s5se ( self72 7#c7 b ! limits :i* divide self & n-self are n fix$ b fluctuat+4 ,! n-self is n a m]ely ext]nal limit1 b consi/s ( discordant elem5ts )9 ! individual1 :i* are extrud$ f x by a m5tal con/ruction4 7#d7 ,! self is a product ( developm5t1 & has its be+ 9 ! "t-s]ies4 7#e7 ,! self is nev] giv5 complete 9 a mom5t ( actual exp]i5ce1 b is an ideal con/ruction2 probably self-hood implies "s degree ( intellectual developm5t4 #b4 ,! ,absolute or ,inf9ite ,individual1 be+ free f all int]nal discord1 c h no n-self1 & !re=e _c prop]ly be call$ a self4 #c4 ,/ill less c x be a p]son4 #d4 ,9 a society ( selves we h a m g5u9ely self-det]m9$ individual ?an 9 ! s+le self4 ,h5ce x w\ld be ne>] ! tru? to ?9k ( ! ,absolute z a ,society1 ?\gh no f9ite :ole adequately expresses ! ,absolute's full nature4 ,we mu/ rememb]1 h[ev]1 7a7 t probably ! individuals 9 ! ,absolute are n all 9 direct relation1 & 7b7 t 9 ?9k+ ( x z a ,society we are n d5y+ its real individuality4 #e4 ,! self is n 9 its own nature imp]i%able2 z to ! p>ticul> problem ( its cont9uance aft] dea?1 no decision c be arriv$ at on gr\nds ( ,metaphysics4 ,nei!r ! negative presumption drawn f our inability to und]/& ! conditions ( cont9uance1 nor ! lack ( empirical evid5ce1 is conclusive2 on ! o!r h&1 !re is n suffici5t metaphysical reason = tak+ immortality z c]ta9 #ccd ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,moral ,,fre$om #a4 ,! metaphysical problem ( free w has be5 hi/orically creat$ by extra-e?ical difficulties1 especially by !ological consid]ations 9 ! e>ly ,*ri/ian era1 & by ! influ5ce ( me*anical sci5tific conceptions 9 ! mod]n _w4 #b1 #c4 ,! analysis ( our moral exp]i5ce %[s t true 8fre$om0 means teleological det]m9ation4 ,h5ce to be 8free0 & to 8w0 are ultimately ! same ?+4 ,fre$om or 8self-det]m9ation0 is g5u9e b limit$1 & is capable ( v>iations ( degree4 #d4 ,det]m9ism & ,indet]m9ism bo? arise f ! false assumption t ! me*anical po/ulate ( causal det]m9ation by antec$5ts is an ultimate fact4 ,! "q !n arises :e!r m5tal ev5ts are an exception to ! suppos$ pr9ciple4 #e4 ,det]m9ism4 ,! det]m9i/ argum5ts /at$4 #f4 ,!y re/ p>tly ^u ! false assumption t me*anical det]m9ation is ! "o & only pr9ciple ( rational connection betwe5 facts2 #g4 ,p>tly ^u fallaci\s !ories ( ! actual proc$ure ( ! m5tal sci5ces4 ,fallaci\s nature ( ! argum5t t complete k ( "* & circum/ances w\ld enable u to pr$ict human conduct4 ,! assum$ data are su* z1 f _! own nature1 c\ld n be kn[n be=e ! ev5t4 #h4 ,indet]m9ism4 ,! psy*ical facts to :i* ! indet]m9i/ appeals d n w>rant 8 conclusion1 :i* is1 moreov]1 metaphysically absurd1 z involv+ ! d5ial ( rational connection4 #i4 ,bo? doctr9es agree 9 ! initial error ( conf\nd+ teleological unity ) causal det]m9ation #cei ,,*apt] ,v ,,"s ,,metaphysical ,,implications ,,( ,,e?ics ,,& ,,religion #a4 ,if ,reality is a h>moni\s sy/em1 x mu/ someh[ make provision = ! gratification ( our e?ical1 religi\s1 & /hetic int]e/s4 #b4 ,b we _c assume t e?ical & religi\s po/ulates are necess>ily true 9 ! =ms 9 :i* our practical int]e/s lead u to make !m4 #c4 ,?us1 :ile morality w\ld become impossible unless on ! :ole !re is co9cid5ce betwe5 virtue & happ9ess1 & unless social progress is a g5u9e fact1 8p]fect virtue10 8p]fect happ9ess10 8inf9ite progress0 are logically self-contradictory concepts4 #d4 ,b ?is does n impair ! practical usefulness ( our e?ical ideals4 #e4 ,9 religion we conceive ( ! ideal ( p]fection z already exi/+ 9 individual =m4 ,h5ce ultimately no "p ( ! temporal ord] c be an adequate object ( religi\s devotion4 #f4 ,?is leads to ! ,problem ( ,evil4 8,god0 _c be a f9ite be+ )9 ! ,absolute1 because1 if s1 ,god mu/ conta9 evil & imp]fection z "p ( ,8 nature1 & is ?us n ! already exi/+ realisation ( ! ideal4 #g4 ,?is difficulty disappe>s :5 we id5tify 8,god0 ) ! ,absolute1 because 9 ! ,absolute evil c be se5 to be m]e illusory appe>ance4 ,x may1 h[ev]1 be true t religi\s feel+1 to be practically effici5t1 may ne$ to imag9e its object 9 an ultimately incorrect an?ropomorphic =m4 #h4 ,! exi/5ce1 )9 ! ,absolute1 ( f9ite 8div9e0 p]sonalities1 c nei!r be affirm$ nor d5i$ on gr\nds ( g5]al ,metaphysics4 #i4 ,pro(s ( ! 8be+ ( ,god40 ,! pr9ciple ( ! 8ontological0 & 8cosmological0 pro(s c be def5d$ aga9/ ! criticism ( ,hume & ,kant only if we id5tify ,god ) ! ,absolute4 ,! 8physico!ological pro(0 c\ld only e/abli% ! reality ( f9ite sup]human intellig5ces1 & its =ce dep5ds purely ^u empirical consid]ations ( evid5ce #cha ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,conclusion #a4 ,c our ,absolute ,exp]i5ce be prop]ly call$ ! 8union ( ,?\ght & ,w08 ,! ,absolute is c]ta9ly ! f9al realisation ( our intellectual & our practical ideals4 ,b 7#a7 x includes aspects1 su* z1 e4g41 /hetic feel+1 pleasure1 & pa91 :i* are nei!r ,?\ght nor ,w4 7#b7 ,& x _c possess ei!r ,?\ght or ,w z su*4 ,bo? ,?\ght & ,w1 9 _! own nature1 presuppose a ,reality :i* transc5ds m]e ,?\ght & m]e ,w4 #b4 ,our conclusion may 9 a s5se be said to involve an elem5t ( ,agno/icism1 & aga9 ( ,my/icism4 ,b x is only agno/ic 9 hold+ t we d n "k ! precise nature ( ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce4 ,x implies no di/ru/ ( ! validity ( k1 s f> z x goes1 & bases its app>5tly agno/ic result on ! witness ( k itself4 ,simil>ly1 x is my/ical 9 transc5d+1 n 9 refus+ to recognise1 ! con/ructions ( und]/&+ & w4 #c4 ,metaphysics adds no?+ to our in=mation1 & yields no fre% spr+s ( action4 ,x is f9ally only ju/ifi$ by ! p]si/5cy ( ! impulse to speculate on ! nature ( ?+s z a :ole #djh ,,index #dag ,,elem5ts ,,( ,,metaphysics ,,book ,i ,,g5]al ,,notions ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,! ,,metaphysician #a4 ,! g5]ality & simplicity ( ! metaphysical problem make x difficult to def9e ! /udy4 #b4 ,problem is sugge/$ by ! pres5ce ( contradictions 9 ord9>y exp]i5ce4 #c4 ,by mak+ a di/9ction betwe5 reality & appe>ance ! sci5ces remove "s ( ^! contradictions1 b !mselves lead to fur!r difficulties ( ! same sort2 h5ce ! ne$ = sy/ematic inquiry into ! mean+ ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t1 & ! g5]al "* ( reality z su*4 #d4 ,metaphysics1 z an inquiry into ! ultimate mean+ ( 8reality10 is ak9 to poetry & religion1 b diff]s f !m 9 its sci5tific "*1 f ! ma!matical & exp]im5tal sci5ces 9 its me?od1 f common scepticism 9 ! critical nature ( its me?ods z well z 9 its positive purpose4 #e4 ,! /udy is difficult 7a7 because ( ! g5]ality ( its problems1 7b7 & because we _c employ diagrams or physical exp]im5ts4 #f4 ,! objection t ,metaphysics is an impossibility may be %[n 9 all its =ms to re/ ^u self-contradictory assumptions ( a metaphysical k9d4 #g4 ,! m9or objections t1 if possible1 ! sci5ce is sup]flu\s1 or at lea/ /ation>y1 may be met ) equal ease4 #h4 ,metaphysics is p>tly ak9 to ! my/ical t5d5cy1 b diff]s f my/icism 9 virtue ( its positive int]e/ 9 ! _w ( appe>ances1 z well z by its sci5tific me?od4 #i4 ,x agrees ) logic 9 ! g5]ality ( its scope1 b diff]s 9 be+ conc]n$ ) ! real1 :]eas logic is prim>ily conc]n$ ) ! inf]rible4 #aj4 ,! problems ( ! s-call$ ,!ory ( ,k are really metaphysical4 #a4 ,x is always difficult1 9 treat+ ( any bran* ( k1 to put be=e ! beg9n] a correct prelim9>y notion ( ! nature & scope ( ! /udy to :i* he is to be introduc$1 b ! difficulty is exceptionally great 9 ! case ( ! body ( inve/igations traditionally kn[n z ,metaphysics4#a ,! que/ions :i* ! sci5ce seeks to answ] are1 inde$1 9 pr9ciple ( ! simple/ & mo/ famili> k9d1 b x is _! v simplicity & famili>ity :i* con/itute ! *ief difficulty ( ! subject4 ,we are naturally sl[ to admit t !re is any?+ we d n und]/& 9 t]ms & ideas :i* we are con/antly us+1 n only 9 ! special sci5ces1 b 9 our non-sy/ematis$ ev]yday ?\ght & language ab\t ! c\rse ( ! _w4 ,h5ce1 :5 ! metaphysician beg9s to ask tr\blesome que/ions ab\t ! mean+ & validity ( ^! common & famili> notions1 ord9>y practical m51 & ev5 intellig5t /ud5ts ( ! special sci5ces1 are apt to compla9 t he is wa/+ 8 "t by rais+ idle & uncall$-= difficulties ab\t ! self-evid5t4 ,consequ5tly ! writ] on ,metaphysics is almo/ inevitably compell$ to beg9 by rebutt+ ! natural & curr5t prejudice :i* reg>ds 8 sci5ce z non-exi/5t & its problems z illusory4 ,! full v9dication ( metaphysical inquiry f ?is *>ge ( futility c only be furni%$ by su* a sy/ematic exam9ation ( ! actual problems ( ! /udy z w be attempt$1 9 outl9e1 9 ! succe$+ *apt]s ( ?is "w4 ,all t c be done 9 an ,introduction is to pres5t su* a g5]al description ( ! k9d ( que/ions to be subsequ5tly discuss$1 & _! relation to ! m special problems ( ! v>i\s sci5ces1 z may incl9e ! read] to give an imp>tial he>+ to :at is to foll[4 #b4 ,! c\rse ( our ord9>y exp]i5ce1 z well z our education 9 ! rudim5ts ( ! sci5ces1 has made u all famili> ) ! di/9ction betwe5 :at really is or exi/s & :at m]ely appe>s to be4 ,!re is no opposition m ?or\ghly en%r9$ 9 ! language & lit]ature ( civilis$ races ?an ! contra/ ( seem+ ) reality1 ( sub/ance ) %[4 ,we come ^u x alike 9 our /udy ( ! processes ( nature & our exp]i5ce ( human "* & purpose4 ,?us we contra/ ! seem+ /ability ( ! e>? ) its real motion1 ! seem+ cont9uity & sam5ess ( a lump ( solid matt] ) ! real discont9uity & v>iety ( its *emical con/itu5ts1 ! seem+ fri5dl9ess ( ! hypocritical self-seek] ) 8 real indiff]5ce to our welf>e4 ,9 all ^! cases ! motive :i* leads u to make ! di/9ction is ! same1 namely1 ! necessity to escape f ! admission ( a contradiction 9 exp]i5ce4 ,s long z our v>i\s direct p]ceptions are n felt to conflict ) "o ano!r1 we readily accept !m all z equally real & valid1 & no "q arises z to _! relative tru? or falsehood4 ,7 all our p]ceptions ( ?is k9d1 !re w\ld be no ne$ = ! correction1 by subsequ5t reflection1 ( our fir/ imm$iate impressions ab\t ! nature ( ourselves & ! _w2 error w\ld be a t]m ( no mean+ = u1 & sci5ce w\ld h no exi/5ce4 ,b :5 two imm$iate p]ceptions1 bo? app>5tly equally au!nticat$ by our s5ses1 /& 9 direct conflict ) "o ano!r1#b we _c1 )\t do+ viol5ce to ! fundam5tal law ( rational ?9k+1 reg>d bo? z equally & 9 ! same s5se true4 ,unless we ab&on once = all ! attempt to reconcile ! c\rse ( our exp]i5ce ) ! dem& ( our intellect = consi/5cy 9 ?9k+1 we are driv5 to make a mom5t\s di/9ction4 ,we h to recognise t ?+s are n always :at !y seem to be2 :at appe>s to u is1 sometimes at any rate1 n real1 & :at really is does n always appe>4 ,( our two conflict+ p]ceptions1 only "o at be/ c be a correct repres5tation ( ! real c\rse ( ?+s2 "o ( !m at lea/1 & possibly bo?1 mu/ be m]e seem+ or appe>ance1 & we are ?us ca/ ^u ! problem :i* e sci5ce tries1 9 its own sph]e & its own way1 to solve3 :at "p ( our conceptions ab\t ! _w gives u reality & :at "p only appe>ance8#c ,x is because ( ! importance ( ^! puzzles ( imm$iate p]ception z /imulat+ to su* sci5tific reflection t ,plato & ,ari/otle call$ philosophy ! *ild ( ,wond]1 & x is because ! processes ( *ange pres5t !m 9 a peculi>ly /rik+ =m t ! problem ( *ange has always be5 a c5tral "o 9 ,metaphysics4 #c4 ,! attempt to h>monise by reflection ! contradictions :i* beset imm$iate p]ception 9 all its =ms is "o :i* is n conf9$ to a s+le sci5ce2 ! common task ( all sci5ces is to say :at1 9 "s special dep>tm5t & = special purposes1 mu/ be tak5 z reality & :at z m]e appe>ance1 &1 by degrad+ ! contradictory to ! level ( appe>ance1 to satisfy ! in/9ctive dem& ( our intellect = coh]5cy & consi/5cy ( ?\ght4 ,b ! developm5t ( sci5tific reflection itself 9 its turn1 :ile x solves "s ( our difficulties1 is con/antly giv+ rise to fre% p]plexities ( a high] ord]4 ,our sci5tific pr9ciples !mselves frequ5tly seem to pres5t u ) contradictions ( a peculi>ly di/ress+ k9d4 ,?us we f9d ourselves =c$ 9 "s ( our geometrical reason+s to treat a curve z absolutely cont9u\s1 9 o!rs to reg>d x z made up ( a numb] ( po9ts4 ,or1 aga91 we are alt]nately compell$ to reg>d ! p>ticles ( matt] z in]t & only capable ( be+ mov$ by impact f )\t1 & yet aga9 z end[$ ) indwell+ 8c5tral =ces40 ,bo? ! oppos+ views1 9 su* a case1 cle>ly _c be ultimately true1 & we are !re=e compell$ ei!r to give up ! ef=t to ?9k consi/5tly1 or to face ! "q1 ,is ei!r view ultimately true1 & if s1 :i*8 ,aga91 ! pr9ciples ( "o bran* ( /udy may appe> to contradict ^? ( ano!r4 ,= in/ance1 ! absolute det]m9ation ( e movem5t by a s]ies ( antec$5t movem5ts :i* we assume z a pr9ciple 9 our me*anical sci5ce1 appe>s1 at lea/1 to conflict ) ! fre$om ( human *oice & reality ( human purpose :i* are fundam5tal facts = ! morali/ & ! hi/orian2 & we h ?us once m to ask1 :i* ( ! two1 me*anical necessity or intellig5t fre$om1 is ! reality & :i* ! m]e appe>ance8 ,f9ally1 ! results ( our sci5tific reflection sometimes seem to be 9 viol5t disagreem5t ) our deepe/ & mo/ *>act]i/ic aspirations & purposes1 & we _c avoid ! "q1 :i* ( ! two h ! bett] title to cr$it z witnesses to ! inmo/ nature ( reality8 ,9 all ^! cases ( p]plexity !re are1 %ort ( ! refusal to ?9k ab\t our difficulties at all1 only two c\rses op5 to u4 ,we may answ] ! "q at haphaz>d & z x suits our mom5t>y caprice1 or we may try to answ] x on an intelligible pr9ciple4 ,if we *oose ! second c\rse1 !n cle>ly be=e we =mulate our pr9ciple we mu/ und]take a sy/ematic & imp>tial inquiry z to :at we really mean by ! famili> di/9ction betwe5 8seems0 & 8is10 t is to say1 a sci5tific inquiry into ! g5]al *>act]i/ics by :i* reality or real be+ is di/+ui%$ f m]e appe>ance1 n 9 "s "o special sph]e ( /udy1 b univ]sally4 ,n[1 su* an inquiry into ! g5]al "* ( reality1 z oppos$ to m or less unreal appe>ance1 is precisely :at is meant by ,metaphysics4 ,metaphysics sets itself1 m sy/ematically & univ]sally ?an any o!r sci5ce1 to ask :at1 aft] all1 is meant by be+ real1 & to :at degree our v>i\s sci5tific & non-sci5tific !ories ab\t ! _w are 9 h>mony ) ! univ]sal *>act]i/ics ( real exi/5ce4 ,h5ce ,metaphysics has be5 call$ 8an attempt to become aw>e ( & to d\bt all preconceptions02 & aga91 8an unusually resolute ef=t to ?9k consi/5tly40 ,z we _c1 s long z we all[ ourselves to ?9k at all1 avoid ask+ ^! que/ions z to :at 8is0 & :at only 8seems10 x is cle> t ! attempt to disp5se ) metaphysical speculation altoge!r w\ld be futile4 ,we h really no *oice :e!r we %all =m metaphysical hypo!ses or n1 only ! *oice :e!r we %all d s consci\sly & 9 accord ) "s intelligible pr9ciple1 or unconsci\sly & at r&om4 #d4 ,our prelim9>y acc\nt ( ! g5]al "* ( ! metaphysician's problem w enable u to di/+ui% ,metaphysics f "s o!r closely relat$ =ms ( human ?\ght1 & to give x at lea/ a provisional place 9 ! g5]al s*eme ( k4 7a7 ,cle>ly1 ,metaphysics1 z an inquiry into ! mean+ ( reality1 w h "s aff9ity ) religion z well z ) imag9ative lit]ature1 bo? ( :i* aim at gett+ beh9d m]e appe>ances & int]pret+ ! reality :i* lies b5ea? !m4 ,9 "o important respect its relation to bo? is clos] ?an t ( any o!r dep>tm5t ( k1--inasmu* z x1 l !m1 is directly conc]n$ ) ultimate reality1 :]eas ! special sci5ces deal ea* ) "s "o p>ticul> aspect ( ?+s1 & av[$ly leave all ultimate que/ions on "o side4 ,:]e x diff]s f bo? is 9 its _s & me?od4 ,unlike religion & imag9ative lit]ature1 ,metaphysics deals ) ! ultimate problems ( exi/5ce 9 a purely sci5tific _s2 its object is intellectual satisfaction1 & its me?od is n "o ( appeal to imm$iate intuition or unanalys$ feel+1 b ( ! critical & sy/ematic analysis ( our conceptions4 ,?us x cle>ly belongs1 9 virtue ( its _s & me?od1 to ! realm ( sci5ce4 7b7 ,yet x diff]s widely 9 me?od f ! o!r types ( sci5ce ) :i* mo/ ( u are m famili>4 ,x diff]s f ! ma!matical sci5ces 9 be+ non-quantitative & non-num]ical 9 its me?ods4 ,= we _c employ ! num]ical & quantitative me?ods ( ,ma!matics except on ?+s & processes :i* admit ( measurem5t1 or1 at lea/1 ( enum]ation1 & x is = ,metaphysics itself1 9 ! c\rse ( its inve/igations1 to decide :e!r :at is ultimately real1 or any "p ( x1 is num]ical or quantitative1 & if s1 9 :at s5se4 ,x diff]s1 aga91 f ! exp]im5tal sci5ces 9 t1 l ,logic & ,e?ics1 x does no?+ to increase ! /ock ( our k ( p>ticul> facts or ev5ts1 b m]ely discusses ! way 9 :i* facts or ev5ts are to be int]pret$ if we wi% to ?9k consi/5tly4 ,its "q is n :at 9 detail we mu/ reg>d z ! reality ( any special set ( processes1 b :at are ! g5]al conditions to :i* all reality1 z su*1 con=ms4 7,j 9 ! same way1 x w be rememb]$1 ,logic does n discuss ! wor? ( ! evid5ce = p>ticul> sci5tific !ories1 b ! g5]al conditions to :i* evid5ce mu/ con=m if x is to prove its conclusion47 ,h5ce ,ari/otle correctly call$ ,metaphysics a sci5ce ( be+ qu be+1 1 7z oppos$1 = in/ance1 to ,ma!matics1 :i* only /udies exi/5ce 9 s f> z x is quantitative or num]ical74 ,aga91 z an attempt to discov] & get rid ( baseless preconceptions ab\t reality1 ,metaphysics may1 9 a s5se1 be said to be 8sceptical40 ,b x diff]s pr(\ndly f vulg> scepticism bo? 9 its me?od & 9 its moral purpose4 ,! me?od ( vulg> scepticism is dogmatic1--x takes x = grant$ )\t inquiry t two p]ceptions or two speculative pr9ciples :i* conflict ) "o ano!r mu/ be equally false4 ,because su* contradictions c be detect$ 9 all fields ( k & speculation1 ! sceptic dogmatically assumes t !re is no means ( gett+ beh9d ^! contradictory appe>ances to a coh]5t reality4 ,= ! metaphysician1 on ! contr>y1 ! assumption t ! puzzles ( exp]i5ce are insoluble & ! contradictions 9 our k irreconcilable is itself j "o ( ^? preconceptions :i* x is ! bus9ess ( 8 /udy to inve/igate & te/4 ,until aft] critical exam9ation1 he refuses to pron\nce :i* ( ! conflict+ views is true1 or1 suppos+ bo? false1 :e!r "o may n be ne>] ! tru? ?an ! o!r4 ,if he does n assume t tru? c be got & reality kn[n by our human faculties1 he does at any rate assume t x is wor? our :ile to make ! attempt1 & t no?+ b ! issue c decide z to its *ances ( success4 ,aga91 ! metaphysician diff]s f ! sceptic 9 respect ( moral purpose4 ,bo? 9 a s5se prea* ! duty ( a 8susp5se ( judgm5t0 9 ! face ( ultimate problems4 ,! diff]5ce is t ! sceptic treats 8susp5se10 & ! accompany+ m5tal indol5ce1 z an end 9 itself2 ! metaphysician reg>ds x z a m]e prelim9>y to 8 f9al object1 ! atta9m5t ( det]m9ate tru?4 #e4 ,we c n[ see "s ( ! reasons :i* make ! sci5ce ( ,metaphysics a peculi>ly difficult bran* ( /udy4 ,x is difficult1 9 ! fir/ place1 f ! v simplicity & g5]ality ( its problems4 ,!re is a g5]al conviction t e sci5ce1 if x is to be any?+ m ?an a body ( disputes ab\t m]e words1 mu/ deal ) "s def9ite subject-matt]1 & x is n easy to say precisely :at is ! subject dealt ) by ! metaphysician4 ,9 a c]ta9 s5se ?is difficulty c only be met by admitt+ x2 x is true1 z we h already se51 t ,metaphysics deals 9 "s way ) ev]y?+2 ?us x is q "r to say t y _c specify any p>ticul> class ( objects z its exclusive subject-matt]4 ,?is mu/ n1 h[ev]1 be und]/ood to mean t ,metaphysics is ano!r "n = ! :ole body ( ! sci5ces4 ,:at x does mean is t precisely because ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t affects e dep>tm5t ( our k & ent]s into e "o ( ! special sci5ces1 ! g5]al problem z to ! mean+ ( ?is di/9ction & ! pr9ciple on :i* x re/s _c be dealt ) by any "o special sci5ce1 b mu/ =m ! subject ( an indep5d5t inquiry4 ,! p>allel ) ,logic may p]haps help to make ?is po9t cle>]4 ,x is j because ! pr9ciples ( reason+ & ! rules ( evid5ce are1 9 ! la/ resort1 ! same = all ! sci5ces1 t !y h to be made !mselves ! subject ( a sep>ate inve/igation4 ,logic1 l ,metaphysics1 deals ) ev]y?+1 n 9 ! s5se ( be+ ano!r "n = ! :ole ( our k1 b 9 ! s5se t x1 unlike ! special sci5ces1 attacks a problem :i* confronts u 9 e ex]cise ( our ?\ght4 ,! "q ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two sci5ces w be discuss$ 9 a lat] section ( ?is *apt]4 ,!re are two o!r m9or s\rces ( difficulty1 aris+ out ( ! univ]sality ( ! metaphysical problem1 :i* ought p]haps to be m5tion$1 z !y pres5t a s]i\s ob/acle to ! /udy ( ,metaphysics by m9ds ( a c]ta9 /amp4 ,9 ,metaphysics we h no su* helps to ! imag9ation z ! figures & diagrams :i* are s useful 9 _m bran*es ( ,ma!matics2 & aga91 we are1 by ! nature ( ! problem1 entirely cut (f f ! aid ( physical exp]im5t4 ,all our results h to be rea*$ by ! unassi/$ ef=ts ( ?\ght 9 ! /ricte/ s5se ( ! ^w1 t is1 by ! rigid & sy/ematic m5tal analysis ( conceptions4 ,?us ,metaphysics /&s alone among ! sci5ces1 or alone ) ,logic1 9 ! dem& x makes on ! /ud5t's capacity = %e] h>d cont9u\s ?\ght ,?is may help to expla9 :y m5 :o are capable ( excell5t "w 9 ! doma9 ( ma!matical or exp]im5tal sci5ce sometimes prove incompet5t 9 ,metaphysics2 & aga91 :y em95t metaphysical ability does n always make its possessor a s\nd judge ( ! results & me?ods ( ! o!r sci5ces4 #f4 ,x is n[ "t to consid] "o or two objections :i* are v commonly urg$ aga9/ ! prosecution ( metaphysical /udies4 ,x is (t5 ass]t$1 ei!r t 7#a7 su* a sci5ce is1 9 its v nature1 an impossibility2 or 7#b7 t1 if possible1 x is useless & sup]flu\s1 s9ce ! o!r sci5ces toge!r ) ! body ( our practical exp]i5ce give u all ! tru? we ne$2 or1 aga91 7#c7 t at any rate ! sci5ce is ess5tially unprogressive1 & t all t c be said ab\t its problems has be5 said long ago4 ,n[1 if any ( ^! popul> objections are really s\nd1 x mu/ cle>ly be a wa/e ( "t to /udy ,metaphysics1 & we are !re=e b\nd to discuss _! =ce be=e we proce$ any fur!r4 7#a7 ,to ! objection t a sci5ce ( ,metaphysics is1 f ! nature ( ! case1 impossible1 x w\ld be 9 pr9ciple correct to reply t1 z ! prov]b says1 8,y nev] c tell till y try10 & t few1 if any1 ( ^? :o urge ?is objection mo/ l\dly h ev] s]i\sly made ! trial4 ,if any "o ?9ks ! task n wor? 8 :ile1 he is n call$ on to attempt x2 b 8 op9ion gives him no special claim to sit 9 judgm5t on ^? :o ?9k diff]5tly ( ! matt]4 ,/ill1 ! anti-metaphysical prejudice is s common1 & appe>s 9 s _m diff]5t =ms1 t x is necess>y to exhibit its gr\ndlessness r m 9 detail4 7a7 ,x is sometimes ma9ta9$ t ,metaphysics is an impossibility because ! metaphysician's problems1 9 _! own nature1 admit ( no solution4 ,to a mean+less "q1 ( c\rse1 !re c be no intelligible answ]1 & x is occasionally ass]t$1 & (t5 ins9uat$1 t ! que/ions ( ,metaphysics are ( ?is k9d4 ,b to call ! metaphysician's "q a s5seless "o is z mu* z to say t !re is no mean+ 9 ! di/9ction1 :i* we are all con/antly mak+1 betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t4 ,if !re is any mean+ at all 9 ! di/9ction1 x is cle>ly a necess>y z well z a prop] "q precisely by :at m>ks ! "o may be di/+ui%$ f ! o!r4 ,our "r to raise ?is "q c 9 fairness only be *all5g$ by an oppon5t :o is prep>$ to ma9ta9 t ! contradictions :i* lead u to make ! di/9ction may !mselves be ! ultimate tru? ab\t ?+s4 ,n[1 :e!r ?is view is def5sible or n1 x is cle>ly n "o :i* we h ! "r to assume )\t exam9ation z self-evid5t2 x is itself a metaphysical !ory ( fir/ pr9ciples1 & w\ld h to be def5d$1 if at all1 by an elaborate metaphysical analysis ( ! mean+ ( ! concepts 8tru?0 & 8reality40 ,aga91 ! objection1 if valid1 w\ld tell z mu* aga9/ exp]im5tal & ma!matical sci5ce z aga9/ ,metaphysics4 ,if ! self-contradictory c be true1 !re is no rational gr\nd = pref]r+ a coh]5t sci5tific !ory ( ! _w to ! wilde/ dreams ( sup]/ition or insanity4 ,?us we h no escape f ! foll[+ dilemma4 ,ei!r !re is no rational f\ndation at all = ! di/9ction betwe5 reality & appe>ance1 & !n all sci5ce is an illusion1 or !re is a rational f\ndation = x1 & !n we are logically b\nd to inquire into ! pr9ciple ( ! di/9ction1 & ?us to face ! problems ( ,metaphysics4#d 7b7 ,:at is ess5tially ! same objection is sometimes put 9 ! foll[+ =m4 ,metaphysics1 x is said1 c h no place 9 ! s*eme ( human k1 because all intelligible que/ions :i* we c ask ab\t reality mu/ fall )9 ! prov9ce ( "o or o!r ( ! 8sci5ces40 ,!re are no facts ) :i* "s "o or o!r ( ! sci5ces does n deal1 & !re is !re=e no room = a s]ies ( 8metaphysical0 inquiries ov] & above ^? inquiries :i* con/itute ! v>i\s sci5ces4 ,:]e !re are facts to inve/igate & intelligible que/ions to be put1 we are1 x is cont5d$1 9 ! doma9 ( 8sci5ce02 :]e !re are none1 !re c be no k4 ,plausible z ?is argum5t c be made to appe>1 x is easy to see t x is fallaci\s4 ,f ! po9t ( view ( pure ,logic x manife/ly conta9s a flagrant fallacy ( petitio pr9cipii4 ,= x simply assumes t !re is no 8sci5ce10 9 ! mo/ univ]sal acceptation ( ! t]m--i4e4 no body ( reason$ tru?--besides ^? exp]im5tal sci5ces :i* h = _! object ! accumulation & sy/ematisation ( facts1 & ?is is ! v po9t at issue betwe5 ! metaphysician & 8 critics4 ,:at ! metaphysician ass]ts is n t !re are facts ) :i* ! v>i\s special bran*es ( exp]im5tal sci5ce _c deal1 b t !re are que/ions :i* c be & ought to be rais$ ab\t ! facts ) :i* !y d deal o!r ?an ^? :i* exp]im5tal inquiry c solve4 ,leav+ x entirely to ! special sci5ces to tell u :at 9 p>ticul> are ! true facts ab\t any giv5 "p ( ! _w's c\rse1 he cont5ds t we /ill h to ask ! m g5]al "q1 :at we mean by 8real0 & 8fact10 & h[ 9 g5]al ! 8real0 is to be di/+ui%$ f ! unreal4 ,to d5\nce ! rais+ ( ?is "q z an attempt to exclude c]ta9 ev5ts & processes f ! 8prov9ce ( sci5ce10 is simply to misrepres5t ! issue at /ake4 ,incid5tally x may be add$1 ! objection reveals a s]i\s misund]/&+ ( ! true pr9ciple ( di/9ction betwe5 diff]5t sci5ces4 ,! v>i\s sci5ces diff] prim>ily1 n z deal+ ) diff]5t p>ts ( ! _w ( reality1 b z deal+ ) ! :ole ( x s f> z x c be br\ght "u diff]5t aspects4 ,!y are diff]5t1 n because !y deal ) diff]5t sets ( facts1 b because !y look at ! facts f diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,?us x w\ld be q wrong to suppose t ! diff]5ce betwe51 e4g41 ,physics1 ,physiology1 & ,psy*ology1 is prim>ily t ea* /udies a diff]5t gr\p ( facts4 ,! facts /udi$ may 9 great "p be ! same2 x is ! po9t ( view f :i* !y are reg>d$ by :i* ea* ( ! ?ree sci5ces is di/+ui%$ f ! o!rs4 ,?us e volunt>y movem5t may be look$ at ei!r z a l9k 9 a s]ies ( displacem5ts ( mass-p>ticles 7,physics71 z a comb9ation ( muscul> contractions initiat$ f a c5tre 9 ! cortex ( ! bra9 7,physiology71 or z a /ep to ! satisfaction ( a felt want 7,psy*ology74 ,s ,metaphysics does n pr(ess to deal ) a c]ta9 gr\p ( facts ly+ outside ! prov9ce ( ! 8sci5ces10 b to deal ) ! same facts :i* =m t prov9ce f a po9t ( view :i* is n t ( ! exp]im5tal sci5ces4 ,its claim to d s c only be ov]?r[n by prov+ :at ! criticism we are consid]+ assumes1 t !re is no intelligible way ( look+ at ! facts besides t ( exp]im5tal sci5ce4 7c7 ,m commonly /ill ! intr9sic intelligibility ( ! metaphysician's problem is admitt$1 b our p[] to solve x d5i$4 ,!re may be1 x is said1 realities :i* are m ?an m]e appe>ance1 b at any rate ) our human faculties we c "k no?+ ( !m4 ,all our k is /rictly limit$ to appe>ances1 or1 z !y are (t5 call$1 ph5om5a4#e ,:at lies beh9d !m is completely inaccessible to u1 & x is loss ( "t to speculate ab\t its nature4 ,we mu/ !re=e cont5t ourselves ) ! discov]y ( g5]al laws or uni=mities ( ! int]connection ( ph5om5a1 & dismiss ! problem ( _! real gr\nd z insoluble4 ,?is doctr9e1 te*nically kn[n z ,ph5om5alism1 enjoys at ! pres5t "t a widespread popul>ity1 :i* is hi/orically v l>gely due to an imp]fect assimilation ( ! negative elem5t 9 ! philosophy ( ,kant4 ,its m]its z a philosophical !ory we may leave = lat] consid]ation2 at pres5t we are only conc]n$ ) x z ! alleg$ gr\nd ( objection aga9/ ! possibility ( a sci5ce ( ,metaphysics4 ,z su* x has really no cog5cy :atev]4 ,n only d ! support]s ( ! doctr9e con/antly contradict _! own c>d9al assumption 7z1 = in/ance1 :5 !y comb9e ) ! ass]tion t we c "k no?+ ab\t ultimate reality1 su* ass]tions z t x is a c]ta9 & ultimate tru? t all 8ph5om5a0 are connect$ by g5]al laws1 or t 8! c\rse ( nature is1 )\t exception1 uni=m071 b ! assumption itself is self-contradictory4 ,! v /atem5t t 8we "k only ph5om5a0 has no mean+ unless we "k at lea/ en\gh ab\t ultimate realities to be sure t !y are unkn[able4 ,! ph5om5ali/ is committ$ to ! recognition ( at lea/ "o proposition z an absolute & ultimate tru?1 namely1 ! proposition1 8,i "k t :atev] ,i "k is m]e appe>ance40 ,& ?is proposition itself1 :atev] we may ?9k ( its value z a contribution to ,philosophy1 is a positive !ory z to fir/ pr9ciples ! tru? or falsity ( :i* is a prop] subject = metaphysical inve/igation4 ,?us ! argum5ts by :i* x has be5 s\ght to demon/rate ! impossibility ( ,metaphysics !mselves af=d unimpea*able evid5ce ( ! necessity = ! sci5tific exam9ation ( ! metaphysical problem4#f #g4 ,) ! o!r two anti-metaphysical cont5tions ref]r$ to at ! beg9n+ ( ! la/ section we may deal mu* m briefly4 7#b7 ,to ! objector :o ma9ta9s t ,metaphysics1 if possible1 /ill is useless1 because ! sci5ces & ! practical exp]i5ce ( life betwe5 !m already supply u ) a coh]5t !ory ( ! _w1 devoid ( contradictions1 we may reply3 7a7 ,! fact is d\btful4 ,=1 :atev] may be said by ! popul>is]s ( sci5ce :5 !y are engag$ 9 compos+ metaphysical !ories = ! multitude1 ! be/ repres5tatives ( e special bran* ( ma!matical & exp]im5tal sci5ce seem absolutely agre$ t ultimate que/ions z to fir/ pr9ciples are outside ! scope ( _! sci5ces4 ,! scope ( e sci5ce1 !y are c>eful to rem9d u1 is def9$ by c]ta9 initial assumptions1 & :at does n fall "u ^? assumptions mu/ be treat$ by ! sci5ce 9 "q z non-exi/5t4 ,?us ,ma!matics is 9 pr9ciple re/rict$ to deal+ ) ! problems ( numb] & quantity2 :e!r !re are realities :i* are 9 _! own nature non-num]ical & non-quantitative#g or n1 ! ma!matician1 z ma!matician1 is n call$ ^u to pron\nce2 if !re are su* realities1 8 sci5ce is by its initial assumptions deb>r$ f kn[+ any?+ ( !m4 ,s aga9 ) ,physics2 ev5 if r$uc$ to pure ,k9ematics1 x deals only ) displacem5ts involv+ ! dim5sions ( l5g? & "t1 & has no means ( asc]ta9+ :e!r or n ^! dim5sions are exhibit$ by all realities4 ,! notion t ! v>i\s sci5ces ( !mselves supply u ) a body ( in=mation ab\t ultimate reality is ?us1 = good reasons1 reject$ by _! s\nde/ expon5ts1 :o inde$ are usually s impress$ ) ! opposite conviction z to be prejudic$ 9 fav\r ( ! belief t ! ultimately real is unkn[able4 7b7 ,aga91 z we h already se51 ! results ( physical sci5ce1 & ! beliefs & aspirations :i* arise 9 ! c\rse ( practical exp]i5ce & take %ape 9 ! tea*+s ( poetry & religion1 (t5 appe> to be 9 %>p antagonism4 8,sci5ce0 frequ5tly seems to po9t 9 "o direction1 our deepe/ e?ical & religi\s exp]i5ce 9 ano!r4 ,we _c avoid ask+ :e!r ! contradiction is only app>5t or1 suppos+ x real1 :at degree ( au?ority belongs to ea* ( ! conflict+ influ5ces4 ,&1 ap>t f a s]i\s /udy ( ,metaphysics1 ?is "q _c be answ]$4 7c7 ,ev5 on ! mo/ fav\rable supposition1 t !re is no su* contradiction1 b t sci5ce & practical exp]i5ce toge!r af=d a s+le ultimately coh]5t !ory ( ! _w1 x is only aft] we h asc]ta9$ ! g5]al *>act]i/ics ( ultimate reality1 & satisfi$ ourselves by c>eful analysis t reality1 z conceiv$ 9 our sci5ces1 possesses ^? *>act]i/ics1 t we h ! "r to pron\nce our !ory f9ally true4 ,if ,metaphysics %\ld tum out 9 ! end to pres5t no fre% view z to ! nature ( ! real1 b only to confirm an old "o1 we %\ld /ill1 z metaphysicians1 h ! advantage ( kn[+ :]e we 7 previ\sly only entitl$ to conjecture4 7#c7 ,! *>ge ( unprogressiv5ess (t5 br\ght aga9/ our sci5ce is easily disprov$ by c>eful /udy ( ! ,hi/ory ( ,philosophy4 ,! problems ( ! metaphysician are no d\bt1 9 a s5se1 always ! same2 b ?is is equally true ( ! problems ( any o!r sci5ce4 ,! me?ods by :i* ! problems are attack$ & ! adequacy ( ! solutions !y receive v>y1 f age to age1 9 close correspond5ce ) ! g5]al developm5t ( sci5ce4 ,e great metaphysical conception has ex]cis$ its influ5ce on ! g5]al hi/ory ( sci5ce1 &1 9 return1 e important movem5t 9 sci5ce has affect$ ! developm5t ( ,metaphysics4 ,?us ! reviv$ int]e/ 9 me*anical sci5ce1 & ! great progress made 9 t bran* ( k :i* is s *>act]i/ic ( ! sev5te5? c5tury1 m ?an any?+ else det]m9$ ! philosophical me?od & results ( ,desc>tes2 ! ,metaphysics ( ,leibnitz 7 pr(\ndly affect$ by su* sci5tific influ5ces z ! inv5tion ( ! calculus1 ! recognition ( ! importance ( vis viva 9 dynamics1 ! contempor>y discov]ies ( ,leuw5hoeck 9 embryology2 :ile1 to come to our own "t1 ! metaphysical speculation ( ! la/ half-c5tury has con/antly be5 revolv+ r\nd ! two great sci5tific ideas ( ! cons]vation ( en]gy & ! orig9 ( species by gradual diff]5tiation4 ,! metaphysician c\ld n if he w\ld1 & w\ld n if he c\ld1 escape ! duty ( e/imat+ ! be>+ ( ! great sci5tific !ories ( 8 "t ^u our ultimate conceptions ( ! nature ( ! _w z a :ole4 ,e fundam5tal advance 9 sci5ce ?us calls = a re/atem5t & reconsid]ation ( ! old metaphysical problems 9 ! light ( ! new discov]y4#h #h4 ,?is introductory *apt] is p]haps ! prop] place = a ^w on ! relation ( ,metaphysics to ! widely diffus$ m5tal t5d5cy kn[n z ,my/icism4#i ,inasmu* z ! fundam5tal aim ( ! my/ic is to p5etrate beh9d ! veil ( appe>ance to "s ultimate & abid+ reality1 !re is manife/ly a close community ( purpose betwe5 him & ! metaphysician4 ,b _! div]sity ( me?od is no less m>k$ ?an _! p>tial community ( purpose4 ,once 9 t\* ) 8 reality1 :]ev] he may f9d x1 ! m]e my/ic has no long] any int]e/ 9 ! _w ( appe>ance4 ,appe>ance z su* is = him m]ely ! untrue & ultimately non-exi/5t1 & ! peculi> emotion :i* he d]ives f 8 contemplation ( ! real dep5ds = its special quality on an ev]-pres5t s5se ( ! contra/ betwe5 ! abid+ be+ ( ! reality & ! non-entity ( ! appe>ances4 ,?us ! m]ely my/ical attitude t[>ds appe>ance is purely negative4 ,! metaphysician1 on ! contr>y1 has only half complet$ 8 task :5 he has1 by :atev] me?od1 asc]ta9$ ! g5]al "* ( ! real z oppos$ to ! m]ely app>5t4 ,x /ill rema9s = him to re-exam9e ! realm ( appe>ance itself 9 ! light ( 8 !ory ( reality1 to asc]ta9 ! relative tru? :i* p>tial & imp]fect conceptions ( ! _w's nature conta91 & to arrange ! v>i\s appe>ances 9 ! ord] ( _! v>y+ approximation to tru?4 ,he mu/ %[ n only :at are ! m>ks ( reality1 & :y c]ta9 ?+s :i* are popul>ly accept$ z real mu/1 = ,philosophy be degrad$ to ! rank ( appe>ance1 b also h[ f> ea* appe>ance succe$s 9 reveal+ ! "* ( ! reality :i* is its gr\nd4 ,equally m>k$ is ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! my/ic's & ! metaphysician's attitude t[>ds ultimate reality itself4 ,! my/ic's object is prim>ily emotional r ?an intellectual4 ,:at he wants is a feel+ ( satisfaction :i* he c only get f imm$iate contact ) some?+ tak5 to be f9ally & abid+ly real4 ,h5ce1 :5 he comes to put 8 emotions into words1 he is always prone to use ! language ( vague imag9ative symbolism1 ! only language suitable to sugge/ feel+s :i*1 because imm$iate & unanalys$1 _c be ! subject ( logical description 9 g5]al t]ms4 ,= ! metaphysician1 ^: object is ! atta9m5t ( intellectual consi/5cy1 su* a me?od ( symbolism is radically unsuitable4 ,a symbol is always a s\rce ( dang] to ! intellect4 ,if y employ x = :at y already und]/&1 & might1 if y *ose1 describe 9 sci5tific language1 x is a m]e sub/itution ( ! obscure = ! cle>4 ,if y use x1 z ! my/ic commonly does1 = :at y d n und]/&1 its app>5t precision1 by bl9d+ y to ! vagu5ess ( its int]pretation1 is positively mis*iev\s4 ,h5ce1 ?\gh "s ( ! greate/ metaphysicians1 su* z ,plot9us & ,sp9oza1 & to a c]ta9 ext5t ,hegel1 h be5 p]sonally my/ics1 _! philosophical me?od has inv>iably be5 sci5tific & rationali/ic4 ,at ! same "t1 x is probably true t1 ap>t f ! my/ic's ne$ = ! satisfaction ( emotion by ! contemplation ( ! et]nal & abid+1 ! intellect w\ld be prone to ex]cise itself 9 less arid & m attractive fields ?an ^? ( ab/ract ,metaphysics4 ,! philosoph] seeks1 9 ! end1 ! same goal z ! my/ic2 8 peculi>ity is t he is s con/itut$ z to rea* 8 goal only by ! r\te ( intellectual speculation4 #i4 ,we h comp>$ ,metaphysics m ?an once ) ,logic 9 respect ( ! univ]sality ( its scope & ! analytical "* ( its me?ods4 ,x rema9s briefly to indicate ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! two sci5ces4 ,!re is1 inde$1 a !ory1 fam\s 9 ! hi/ory ( ,philosophy1 & n ev5 yet q obsolete1 accord+ to :i* no di/9ction c be drawn4 ,hegel held t ! successive /eps by :i* ! human m9d gradually passes f less adequate to m adequate1 & ultimately to a fully adequate1 conception ( ! nature ( reality necess>ily correspond1 /ep = /ep1 ) ! /ages ( a process by :i* ! reality itself is manife/$ ) ev]-increas+ adequacy 9 an asc5d+ ord] ( ph5om5a4 ,h5ce 9 8 sy/em ! discussion ( ! g5]al *>act]i/ics ( reality & ! g5]al =ms ( inf]5ce con/itutes a s+le dep>tm5t ( ,philosophy "u ! "n ( ,logic4 ,our motive 9 diss5t+ f ?is view _c be made fully intelligible at ! pres5t /age ( our inquiry1 b we may at lea/ foll[ ,lotze 9 giv+ a prelim9>y reason = ! sep>ation ( ! two sci5ces4 ,logic is cle>ly 9 a s5se a m g5]al inquiry ?an ,metaphysics4 ,= 9 ,logic we are conc]n$ ) ! univ]sal conditions "u :i* ?9k+1 or1 to speak m accurately1 inf]5ce1 is possible4 ,n[ ^! conditions may be fulfill$ by a comb9ation ( propositions :i* are mat]ially false4 ,! same relations :i* give rise to an inf]5ce mat]ially true f true premisses may yield a false inf]5ce :]e ! premisses are mat]ially false4 ,valid reason+ ?us does n always lead to true conclusions4 ,h5ce we may say t1 :]eas ,metaphysics deals exclusively ) ! *>act]i/ics ( reality1 ,logic deals ) ! *>act]i/ics ( ! validly inf]rible1 :e!r real or unreal4 ,! di/9ction ?us e/abli%$1 h[ev]1 ?\gh real z f> z x goes1 is n necess>ily absolute4 ,= x may v well be t 9 ! end ! conditions ^u :i* ! possibility ( inf]5ce dep5ds are id5tical ) or consequ5t ^u ! /ructure ( reality4 ,ev5 ! fact t1 "u c]ta9 conditions1 we c imag9e an unreal /ate ( ?+s & !n proce$ to reason validly z to ! results :i* w\ld foll[ if ?is imag9>y /ate 7 actual1 may itself be a consequ5ce ( ! actual nature ( ?+s4 ,&1 z a matt] ( fact1 logicians h always f\nd x impossible to inquire v deeply into ! f\ndations & fir/ pr9ciples ( _! own sci5ce )\t be+ l$ to face fundam5tal issues ( ,metaphysics4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! two /udies mu/ ?us1 accord+ to ! well-kn[n simile ( ,bacon1 be comp>$ r ) a ve9 9 a cont9u\s block ( m>ble ?an ) an actual l9e ( cleavage4 ,/ill x is at lea/ s f> effectual1 t :ile _m metaphysical que/ions h no direct be>+ on ,logic1 ! details ( ! !ory ( evid5ce are likewise be/ /udi$ z an indep5d5t bran* ( k4 #aj4 ,9 rec5t ye>s consid]able prom95ce has be5 atta9$ by a bran* ( /udy kn[n z ,epi/emology1 or ! ,!ory ( ,k4 ,! ,!ory ( ,k1 l ,logic1 is prim>ily conc]n$ ) ! "q ( ! conditions ^u :i* ! validity ( our ?9k+1 z a body ( k ab\t reality1 dep5ds4 ,x diff]s f ord9>y ,logic 9 n inquir+ into ! details ( ! v>i\s processes ( pro(1 b conf9+ its att5tion to ! mo/ g5]al & ultimate conditions "u :i* valid ?9k+ is possible1 & discuss+ ^! g5]al pr9ciples m ?or\ghly & sy/ematically ?an common ,logic usually does4 ,s9ce ! conditions "u :i* tru? is obta9able dep5d1 9 ! la/ resort1 on ! "* ( t reality :i* k appreh5ds1 x is cle> t ! problems ( ! ,!ory ( ,k1 s f> z !y d n come "u ! scope ( ord9>y ,logic 7! !ory ( ! e/imation ( evid5ce71 are metaphysical 9 _! nature4 ,z actually treat$ by ! writ]s :o give ?is "n to _! discussions1 ! /udy appe>s to consi/ ( a mixture ( ,metaphysics & ,logic1 ! metaphysical elem5t pr$om9at+4 ,!re is p]haps no s]i\s h>m 9 our giv+1 if we *oose1 ! "n ,epi/emology or ,!ory ( ,k to our discussions ( ultimate pr9ciples1 b ! old] title ,metaphysics seems on ! :ole pref]able = two reasons4 ,! discussion ( ! implications ( k is only "o "p ( ! metaphysician's task4 ,! truly real is n only ! kn[able1 x is also t :i*1 if we c obta9 x1 realises our aspirations & satisfies our emotions4 ,h5ce ! !ory ( ! real mu/ deal ) ! ultimate implications ( practical conduct & /hetic feel+ z well z ^? ( k4 ,! ,good & ! ,beautiful1 no less ?an ! ,true1 are ! objects ( our /udy4 ,aga91 if ! "n ,!ory ( ,k is und]/ood1 z x sometimes has be51 to sugge/ t x is possible to /udy ! nature & capabilities ( ! kn[+ faculty ap>t f ! /udy ( ! cont5ts ( k1 x becomes a s\rce ( positive & dang]\s mi/ake4 ,! capabilities & limitations ( ! kn[+ faculty c only be asc]ta9$ by inquir+ into ! tru? ( its k1 reg>d$ z an appreh5sion ( reality2 !re is no possible way ( sev]+ ! faculty1 z x 71 by ab/raction f ! results ( its ex]cise1 & exam9+ its /ructure1 z we might t ( a me*anical appliance1 be=e inve/igat+ ! value ( its a*ievem5ts4 ,! in/rum5t c only be /udi$ 9 its "w1 & we h to judge ( its possibilities by ! nature ( its products4 ,x is !re=e advisable to indicate1 by our *oice ( a "n = our subject1 t ! !ory ( ,kn[+ is necess>ily also a !ory ( ,be+4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 ,introduction2 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,! ,!ory ( ,k1 ,introduction2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 ,introduction 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 i4 pp4 #a-cj7 ----- ,footnote #a3 ,! "n simply means 8:at comes aft] ,physics10 & probably owes its orig9 to ! fact t e>ly editors ( ,ari/otle plac$ 8 writ+s on ultimate philosophical que/ions imm$iately aft] 8 physical treatises4 ,footnote #b3 ,= an example ( ^! puzzles1 comp>e ! passage 7,republic1 #ebd7 :]e ,plato ref]s to cases 9 :i* an app>5t contradiction 9 our s5sations is correct$ by c\nt+4 ,footnote #c3 ,( c\rse we mu/ n assume t 8e appe>ance is only appe>ance10 or t 8no?+ is bo? reality & appe>ance40 ,?is is j ! uncritical k9d ( preconception :i* x is ! bus9ess ( ,metaphysics to te/4 ,:e!r 8e appe>ance is only appe>ance0 is a po9t we %all h to discuss lat]4 ,footnote #d3 ,cf4 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 pp4 #a-d4 ,footnote #e3 ,i may be p>don$ = rem9d+ ! read] :o may be new to our subject1 t 8facts0 & 8processes0 are only prop]ly call$ ph5om5a :5 x is int5d$ to imply t z !y /& !y are n g5u9e realities b only ! p>tially mislead+ appe>ance ( reality :i* is non-ph5om5al or ultra-ph5om5al4 7,we %all d well to avoid ! pret5ti\s error ( call+ ! ultra-ph5om5al1 z su*1 8n\m5al407 ,footnote #f3 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #ab1 p4 #abi 7ed4 #a74 ,footnote #g3 ,z1 = in/ance1 all m5tal /ates are1 accord+ to c]ta9 psy*ologi/s1 non-quantitative4 ,footnote #h3 ,! /ud5t w f9d ,hffd+'s ,hi/ory ( ,mod]n ,philosophy 7,engli% translation 9 #b vols41 ,macmillan7 p>ticul>ly valuable = ! way 9 :i* ! au?or br+s out ! intimate hi/orical connection betwe5 ! developm5t ( ,metaphysics & ! g5]al progress ( sci5ce4 ,footnote #i3 ,= fur!r discussion ! read] may be ref]r$ to ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies1 ,lects4 #b & #d4 ,see also infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #f1 #b4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,crit]ion ,,& ,,! ,,metaphysical ,,me?od #a4 ,9 ! pr9ciple t 8,reality is n self-contradictory0 we h a univ]sal & c]ta9 crit]ion ( reality :i* is n m]ely negative1 b implies ! positive ass]tion t reality is a consi/5t sy/em4 #b4 ,! validity ( ?is crit]ion is n affect$ by ! sugge/ion t x may be m]ely a ,logical ,law4 #c4 ,nor by ! rais+ ( d\bt :e!r all our k is n m]ely 8relative10 a d\bt :i* is itself mean+less4 #d4 ,z to ! mat]ial ( ! sy/em1 x is exp]i5ce or imm$iate psy*ical fact4 #e4 ,x mu/ be actual exp]i5ce1 n m]e 8possibilities0 ( exp]i5ce2 b actual exp]i5ce mu/ n be id5tifi$ ) 8s5sation40 #f4 ,nor mu/ we assume t exp]i5ce consi/s ( subjects & _! /ates2 nor1 aga91 t x is a m]e succession ( 8/ates ( consci\sness40 #g4 ,! diff]5tia ( matt] ( exp]i5ce is its imm$iacy1 i4e1 its comb9ation 9 a s+le :ole ( ! two aspects ( exi/5ce & cont5t4 #h4 ,?is union ( exi/5ce & cont5t is brok5 up 9 reflective k or ?\ght1 b may be re/or$ at a high] level4 #i4 ,exp]i5ce fur!r always appe>s to be implicitly complex 9 respect ( its cont5t4 #aj4 ,an adequate appreh5sion ( reality w\ld only be possible 9 ! =m ( a complete or 8pure0 exp]i5ce1 at once all-inclusive1 sy/ematic1 & direct4 ,! problem ( ,metaphysics is to asc]ta9 :at w\ld be ! g5]al or =mal "* ( su* an exp]i5ce1 & h[ f> ! v>i\s prov9ces ( our human exp]i5ce & k approximate to x4 ,! k ,metaphysics c give u ( ! ultimate nature ( reality z x w\ld be pres5t 9 a complete exp]i5ce1 ?\gh imp]fect1 is f9al z f> z x goes4 #aa4 ,z to ! me?od ( ,metaphysics1 x mu/ be analytical1 critical1 non-empirical1 & non-inductive4 ,x may also be call$ a priori if we c>efully avoid confus+ ! a priori ) ! psy*ologically primitive4 ,:y our me?od _c be ! ,hegelian ,dialectic4 #a4 ,if we are1 9 ! end1 to atta* any def9ite intelligible mean+ to ! di/9ction betwe5 ?+s z !y really are & ?+s z !y m]ely appe> to be1 we mu/ cle>ly h "s univ]sal crit]ion or te/ by :i* ! di/9ction may be made4 ,?is crit]ion mu/ be1 9 ! fir/ place1 infallible2 t is1 mu/ be su* t we _c d\bt its validity )\t fall+ into a contradiction 9 our ?\ght2 &1 9 ! next1 x mu/ be a *>act]i/ic belong+ to all reality1 z su*1 & to no?+ else4 ,?us our crit]ion mu/1 9 ! te*nical language ( ,logic1 be ! pr$icate ( an exclusive proposition ( :i* reality is ! subject2 we mu/ be able to say1 8,only ! real possesses ! quality or m>k ,x40 ,! argum5t ( our la/ *apt] %\ld already h sugge/$ t we h su* a crit]ion 9 ! pr9ciple t 8:at is real is n self-contradictory1 & :at is self-contradictory is n real40 ,fre$om f contradiction is a *>act]i/ic :i* belongs to ev]y?+ t is real & ultimately to no?+ else1 & we may !re=e use x z our te/ or crit]ion ( reality4 ,=1 z we h se5 9 ! la/ *apt]1 x is precisely our inability1 )\t do+ viol5ce to ! fundam5tal /ructure ( our intellect1 to accept ! self-contradictory z real :i* fir/ leads to ! draw+ ( a di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! m]ely app>5t2 on ! o!r h&1 :]e we f9d no contradiction 9 ?\ght or exp]i5ce1 we h no valid gr\nd = d\bt+ t ! cont5ts ( our exp]i5ce & ?9k+ are truly real4 ,9 e application1 ev5 ! mo/ simple & rudim5t>y1 ( ! di/9ction betwe5 :at really is & :at only seems1 we are proce$+ ^u ! assumption t1 if ?+s z we f9d !m are self-contradictory1 we are n yet 9 possession ( ! tru? ab\t !m2 :ile1 on ! o!r h&1 we may legitimately treat ! results ( our ?9k+ & exp]i5ce z fully true until !y are %[n to involve contradiction4 ,?us1 9 sett+ up ! proposition 8,:at is real is nev] self-contradictory0 z a univ]sal crit]ion1 we are only putt+ into explicit =m1 & propos+ to apply univ]sally1 a pr9ciple involv$ 9 all rational reflection on ! c\rse ( ?+s4 ,audaci\s z ! attempt to make su* a g5]al /atem5t ab\t ! :ole univ]se ( be+ appe>s1 x is an audacity to :i* we are fully committ$ f ! fir/ mom5t ( our refus+ to accept bo? sides ( a contradiction z true4 ,! pr9ciple t 8,reality is n self-contradictory0 at fir/ sight might appe> to be m]ely negative2 we might object t x only tells u :at reality is n1 & /ill leaves u q 9 ! d>k z to :at x is4 ,?is w\ld1 h[ev]1 be a s]i\s misconception4 ,z we le>n f mod]n sci5tific ,logic1 no true & significant negative judgm5t is m]ely negative2 all significant negation is really exclusion re/+ ^u a positive basis4 ,i c nev]1 t is1 truly decl>e t ,a is n ,b1 except on ! /r5g? ( "s piece ( positive k :i* is inconsi/5t )1 or excludes1 ! possibility ( ,a be+ ,b4#aj ,my own ignorance or failure to f9d suffici5t gr\nd = ! ass]tion ,a is ,b is nev] ( itself logical w>rant = ! judgm5t ,a is n ,b2 t ,a is n ,b ,i c nev] truly ass]t1 except on ! gr\nd ( "s o!r tru? :i* w\ld be contradict$ if ,a 7 affirm$ to be ,b4 ,h5ce to say 8,reality is n self-contradictory0 is z mu* z to say t we h true & c]ta9 k t reality is positively self-consi/5t or coh]5t2 t is to say t1 :atev] else x may be1 x is at lea/ a sy/ematic :ole ( "s k9d or o!r4 ,h[ mu* fur!r our k ab\t reality goes1 :at k9d ( a :ole we c c]ta9ly "k x to be1 x w be ! bus9ess ( succe$+ portions ( ?is "w to discuss2 b ev5 at ! pres5t /age ( ! inquiry we c confid5tly say t unless ! di/9ction betwe5 ! real & ! app>5t is purely mean+less1 x is positively c]ta9 t ,reality1#aa or ! univ]se1 is a self-consi/5t sy/ematic :ole4 #b4 ,our decl>ation t ! pr9ciple ( ! self-consi/5cy ( ! real af=ds a c]ta9 & infallible crit]ion ( reality1 may probably provoke a sceptical d\bt :i* is ( su* importance t we mu/ give x full consid]ation be=e mak+ any fur!r advance4 ,i /ate ! difficulty 9 :at appe>s to me its mo/ reasonable & tell+ =m4 8,y\r alleg$ crit]ion10 x w be said1 8is simply ! logical ,law ( ,contradiction express$ 9 a novel & mislead+ way4 ,n[1 ! ,law ( ,contradiction1 l all purely logical laws1 is conc]n$ n ) real ?+s1 b exclusively ) ! concepts by :i* we ?9k ( !m4 ,:5 ! logician lays x d[n z a fundam5tal tru? ( 8 sci5ce t ,a _c be bo? ,b & n ,b1 8 ,a & ,b /& n = ?+s 89 ! real _w to :i* our ?\ghts h ref]5ce10 b = concepts :i* we frame ab\t ! ?+s4 ,8 law is ?us purely :at he calls x1 a ,law ( ,?\ght2 he says1 & says truly1 8y _c1 at ! same "t1 & 9 ! same s5se1 ?9k bo? t ,a is ,b1 & t x is n ,b02 z to :e!r su* a /ate ( ?+s1 ?\gh un?9kable to u1 may be real 8z a fact10 he makes no ass]tion4 ,y take ?is law ( our ?9k+1 sil5tly assume t x is also a law ( ! ?+s ab\t :i* we ?9k1 & g on to set x up z an infallible crit]ion ( _! reality4 ,y\r proc$ure is ?us illegitimate1 & y\r pret5d$ crit]ion a ?+ ( n\ght40#ab ,our reply to ?is common sceptical objection w incid5tally ?r[ an int]e/+ light on :at 0 said 9 ! la/ *apt] ( ! close connection betwe5 ! problems ( ,logic & ^? ( ,metaphysics4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 we may at lea/ meet ! sceptic ) an effective tu quoque4 ,x is y y\rself1 we may say1 :o are mo/ op5 to ! *>ge ( illegitimate assumption4 ,y\r :ole cont5tion re/s ^u ! assumption1 = :i* y (f] no ju/ification1 t because ! ,law ( ,contradiction is admitt$ly a law ( ?\ght1 x is !re=e only a law ( ?\ght2 if y wi% u to accept su* a mom5t\s conclusion1 y ought at lea/ to (f] u some?+ 9 ! nature ( a reason = x4 ,nor %all we /op "h2 we %all g on to argue t ! sceptic's int]pretation ( ! ,law ( ,contradiction re/s on a positive confusion4 ,by a ,law ( ,?\ght may be meant ei!r 7a7 a psy*ological law1 a true g5]al /atem5t z to ! way 9 :i* we actually d ?9k1 or 7b7 a logical law1 a true g5]al /atem5t z to ! conditions "u :i* our ?9k+ is valid2 ! plausibility ( ! sceptical argum5t arises f an unconsci\s confusion betwe5 ^! two v diff]5t s5ses ( ! t]m4 ,n[1 9 ! fir/ place1 x seems d\btful :e!r ! pr9ciple ( contradiction is ev5 true1 if x is put =w>d z a psy*ological law4 ,x w\ld be1 at lea/1 v h>d to say :e!r a human be+ is capable or n ( hold+ at once & ) equal conviction ! tru? ( two contradictory propositions4 ,c]ta9ly x is n uncommon to meet p]sons :o d f]v5tly pr(ess equal belief 9 propositions :i* we c see to be inconsi/5t2 on ! o!r h&1 !y are usually !mselves unaw>e ( ! inconsi/5cy4 ,:e!r1 9 all cases1 !y w\ld1 if made aw>e ( ! inconsi/5cy1 revise _! belief1 is a "q :i* x is easi] to ask ?an to answ]4 ,b x is at any rate c]ta9 t ! logician does n int5d 8 ,law ( ,contradiction to be tak5 z a psy*ological proposition z to :at ,i c or _c succe$ 9 believ+4 ,he means x to be und]/ood 9 a purely logical s5se1 z a /atem5t ab\t ! conditions "u :i* any ?\ght is valid4 ,:at he says is n t ,i _c at once ?9k t ,a is ,b & t x is n ,b1 b t1 if ,i ?9k s1 my ?9k+ _c be true4 ,n[1 to ?9k truly ab\t ?+s is to ?9k 9 accord ) _! real nature1 to ?9k ( !m z !y really are1 n z !y m]ely appe> to an imp]fect appreh5sion to be2 h5ce to say t non-contradiction is a fundam5tal condition ( true ?9k+ is z mu* z to say t x is a fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( real exi/5ce4 ,j because ! ,law ( ,contradiction is a logical law1 x _c be only a logical law1 b mu/ be a metaphysical law z well4 ,if ! sceptic is to reta9 8 sceptical position1 he mu/ include ,logic along ) ,metaphysics 9 ! compass ( 8 d\bts1 z ! ?or\gh-go+ sceptics ( antiquity _h ! c\rage to d4 #c4 ,b n[ suppose ! sceptic takes ?is l9e4 ,all our tru?1 he may say1 is only relatively tru?1 & ev5 ! fundam5tal conditions ( true ?\ght are only valid relatively & = u4 ,:at "r h y to assume _! absolute validity1 & to argue f x to ! real con/itution ( ?+s8 ,n[1 :at does su* a d\bt mean1 & is x rational8 ,! answ] to ?is "q foll[s easily f :at we h already le>nt ab\t ! logical "* ( d5ial4 ,d\bt1 :i* is t5tative d5ial1 l negation1 :i* is complet$ d5ial1 logically presupposes positive k ( "s k9d or o!r4 ,x is nev] rational to d\bt ! tru? ( a specific proposition except on ! /r5g? ( y\r possession ( positive tru? ) :i* ! sugge/$ judgm5t appe>s to be 9 conflict4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 obvi\s 9 cases :]e we hesitate to accept a /atem5t z true on ! gr\nd t we d n see h[ to reconcile x ) ano!r specific /atem5t already kn[n1 or believ$1 to be true4 ,x is less obvi\s1 b equally cle> on reflection1 9 ! cases :]e we susp5d our judgm5t on ! plea ( insuffici5t evid5ce4 ,ap>t f positive k1 h[ev] defective1 z to ! k9d & am\nt ( evid5ce :i* w\ld1 if =?com+1 be suffici5t to prove ! proposition1 expressions ( d\bt & ( belief are equally imp]t95t2 unless ,i "k1 to "s ext5t at lea/1 :at evid5ce is want$1 h[ inde$ am ,i to judge :e!r ! evid5ce produc$ is suffici5t or n8#ac ,?us we see t ! p>adox ( ,mr4 ,bradley1 t rational d\bt itself logically implies infallibility 9 respect ( "s "p ( our k1 is no m ?an ! simple tru?4 ,we see also t ! d\bt :e!r ! ultimate presuppositions ( valid ?9k+ may n be m]ely 8relatively0 valid1 has no mean+4 ,if ! sceptic's d\bt :e!r ,reality is ultimately ! self-consi/5t sy/em t x mu/ be if any ( our ?9k+ c be true is to lay any claim to rationality1 x mu/ take ! =m ( ! ass]tion1 8,i positively "k some?+ ab\t ! nature ( ,reality :i* makes x reasonable to ?9k t ,reality is incoh]5t10 or 8,self-consi/5cy is inconsi/5t ) :at ,i positively "k ( ! nature ( ,reality40 ,?us ! sceptic is =c$1 n m]ely to lay claim to absolute & c]ta9 k1 b to use ! te/ ( consi/5cy itself = ! purpose ( disprov+ or que/ion+ its own validity4 ,our crit]ion ( ,reality1 !n1 has be5 prov$ infallible by ! sure/ ( me?ods2 we h %[n t its tru? has to be assum$ 9 ! v process ( call+ x 9 "q4 #d4 ,reality1 !n1 9 spite ( ! sceptic's objections1 is truly kn[n to be a connect$ & self-consi/5t1 or int]nally coh]5t1 sy/em2 c we ) equal confid5ce say any?+ ( ! data ( :i* ! sy/em is compos$8 ,reflection %\ld conv9ce u t we c at lea/ say z mu* z ?is3 all ! mat]ials or data ( reality consi/ ( exp]i5ce1 exp]i5ce be+ provisionally tak5 to mean psy*ical matt] ( fact1 :at is giv5 9 imm$iate feel+4 ,9 o!r words1 :atev] =ms "p ( pres5tation1 w1 or emotion1 mu/ 9 "s s5se & to "s degree possess reality & be a "p ( ! mat]ial ( :i* reality1 z a sy/ematic :ole1 is compos$2 :atev] does n include1 z "p ( its nature1 ?is indissoluble relation to imm$iate feel+1 & !re=e does n ent] into ! pres5tation1 w1 & emotion ( :i* psy*ical life is compos$1 is n real4 ,! real is exp]i5ce1 & no?+ b exp]i5ce1 & exp]i5ce consi/s ( 8psy*ical matt] ( fact40#ad ,pro( ( ?is proposition c only be giv5 9 ! same way z ( any o!r ultimate tru?1 by mak+ trial ( x2 if y d\bt x y may be *all5g$ to p]=m ! exp]im5t ( ?9k+ ( any?+ :atev]1 no matt] :at1 z real1 & !n expla9+ :at y mean by its reality4 ,?us suppose y say 8,i c ?9k ( ,a z real10 ,a be+ any ?+ 9 ! univ]se2 n[ ?9k1 z y always c1 ( an imag9>y or unreal ,a1 & !n try to /ate ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! ,a :i* is ?\ght ( z real & ! ,a :i* is ?\ght ( z m]ely imag9>y4 ,z ,kant prov$1 9 ! fam\s case ( ! real & ! imag9$ hundr$ doll>s1 ! diff]5ce does n lie 9 any ( ! qualities or prop]ties ( ! two ,a's2 ! qualities ( ! imag9$ hundr$ doll>s are precisely ! same z ^? ( ! real sum1 only t !y are 8imag9>y40 ,l ! real doll>s1 ! imag9$ doll>s are ?\ght ( z possess+ su* & su* a size1 %ape1 & weight2 /amp$ ) su* & su* an effigy & inscription2 conta9+ su* & su* a proportion ( silv] to alloy2 hav+ su* & su* a pur*as+ p[] 9 ! pres5t condition ( ! m>ket1 & s =?4 ,! only diff]5ce is t ! real doll>s are1 or "u specifi$ & kn[n conditions may be1 ! objects ( direct p]ception1 :ile ! imag9>y ones1 because imag9>y1 _c be giv5 9 direct p]ception4 ,y _c see or h&le !m2 y c only imag9e y\rself do+ s4 ,x is 9 ?is connection ) imm$iate psy*ical fact t ! reality ( ! real co9s lies4 ,s ) any o!r in/ance ( ! same exp]im5t4 ,%[ me1 we might say1 any?+ :i* y reg>d z real1--no matt] :at x is1 a /one wall1 an /hetic effect1 a moral virtue1--& ,i w ask y to ?9k ( an unreal & imag9>y c\nt]p>t ( t same ?+1 & w und]take to prove to y t :at makes ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! reality & ! imag9ation is always t ! real ?+ is indissolubly connect$ ) ! psy*ical life ( a s5ti5t subject1 &1 z s connect$1 is psy*ical matt] ( fact4 #e4 ,two po9ts %\ld be c>efully not$ if we wi% to avoid s]i\s misappreh5sion4 ,x might be object$1 by a disciple ( ,kant or ( ,mill1 t a ?+ may be real )\t ev] be+ giv5 z actual psy*ical fact 9 imm$iate appreh5sion1 s long z its nature is su* t x w\ld be psy*ical fact "u kn[n & specifi$ conditions4 ,_m1 if n mo/1 ( ! objects ( sci5tific k1 x may be said1 are ( ?is k9d2 !y h nev] ent]$1 possibly nev] w ent]1 into ! cont5ts ( any man's direct appreh5sion1 yet we rightly call !m real1 9 ! s5se t !y w\ld be appreh5d$ "u c]ta9 kn[n conditions4 ,?us ,i h nev] se51 & d n expect t any "o ev] w see1 ! c5tre ( ! e>?1 or1 to take a /ill /rong] case1 no "o has ev] se5 8 own bra94 ,yet ,i call ! c5tre ( ! e>? or my own bra9 real1 9 ! s5se t if ,i c\ld1 )\t ceas+ to live1 p5etrate to a c]ta9 dep? bel[ ! soil1 ,i %\ld f9d ! c5tre ( ! e>?2 if an op5+ 7 made 9 my skull1 & a suitable arrangem5t ( mirrors devis$1 ,i %\ld see ! reflection ( my own bra94 ,a comet may be ru%+ ?r\gh unpeopl$ space entirely unbeheld2 yet x does n cease = all t to be real1 = if ,i 7 !re ,i %\ld see x1 & s =?4 ,h5ce ! ,kantian w tell u t reality is con/itut$ by relation to possible exp]i5ce2 ! foll[] ( ,mill1 t x means 8a p]man5t possibility ( s5sation40 ,n[1 !re is1 ( c\rse1 an elem5t ( tru? 9 ^! argum5ts4 ,x is true t :at imm$iately ent]s into ! c\rse ( my own direct p]ception is b a fragm5t ( ! full reality ( ! univ]se4 ,x is true1 aga91 t !re is mu* :i* 9 its own nature is capable ( be+ p]ceiv$ by human be+s1 b w1 z f> z we c judge1 nev] be p]ceiv$1 ow+ to ! physical impossibility ( plac+ ourselves "u ! conditions requisite = p]ception2 !re are o!r ?+s :i* c\ld only be p]ceiv$ if "s modification c\ld be effect$ 9 ! /ructure ( our p]ceptive organs4 ,& x may !re=e be q suffici5t = ! purposes ( "s sci5ces to def9e ^! unp]ceiv$ realities z 8possibilities ( s5sation10 processes :i* we d n p]ceive b might p]ceive "u kn[n or kn[able conditions4 ,b ! def9ition1 x w be se51 is a purely negative "o2 x takes note ( ! fact t we d n actually p]ceive c]ta9 ?+s1 )\t tell+ u any?+ positive z to _! nature4 ,9 ,metaphysics1 :]e we are conc]n$ to discov] ! v mean+ ( reality1 we _c avoid ask+ :e!r su* a purely negative acc\nt ( ! reality ( ! great] "p ( ! univ]se is f9ally satisfactory4 ,& we c easily see t x is n4 ,= :at d we mean :5 we talk ( ! 8possible08 ,n simply 8t :i* is n actual10 = ?is includes ! m]ely imag9>y & ! demon/rably impossible4 ,! ev5ts ( next week1 ! con/itution ( ,utopia1 & ! squ>+ ( ! circle are all alike 9 n be+ actual4 ,%all we say1 !n1 t ! possible diff]s f ! imag9>y 9 be+ :at w\ld1 "u kn[n conditions1 be actual8 ,b aga91 we may make correct inf]5ces z to :at w\ld be actual "u conditions suspect$1 or ev5 kn[n1 to be m]ely imag9>y1 & no "o w ma9ta9 t su* consequ5ces are realities4 ,if ,i 7 at ! ,s\? ,pole ,i %\ld see ! ,pol> ice1 & x is !re=e real1 y say1 ?\gh no "o actually sees x2 b if wi%es 7 horses1 begg>s w\ld ride1 yet y d n say t ! rid+ ( begg>s is real4 ,consid]ations ( ?is k9d lead u to modify our fir/ def9ition ( ! 8possible0 :i* is to be also real4 ,we are driv5 to say t1 9 ! case ( ! unp]ceiv$ real ?+1 all ! conditions ( p]ception except ! pres5ce ( a p]cipi5t ) suitable p]ceptive organs1 really exi/4 ,?us ! ice at ! ,s\? ,pole really exi/s1 because ! only unfulfill$ condition = its p]ception is ! pres5ce at ! ,pole ( a be+ ) s5se-organs ( a c]ta9 type4 ,b once m1 :at d we mean by ! di/9ction betwe5 conditions ( p]ception :i* are imag9>y & conditions :i* really exi/8 ,we come back once m to our orig9al exp]im5t1 & once m1 try z we w1 we %all f9d t by ! real condition z di/+ui%$ f ! imag9>y we c mean no?+ b a /ate ( ?+s :i* is1 9 ! la/ resort1 gu>ante$ by ! evid5ce ( imm$iate appreh5sion4 ,if we take ! t]m 8actual0 to d5ote t :i* is ?us indissoluble f imm$iate appreh5sion1 or is psy*ical matt] ( fact1 we may sum up our result by say+ we h f\nd t ! real is also actual1 or t !re is no reality :i* is n at ! same "t an actuality4 ,we %all ?us be /&+ on ! same gr\nd z ! mod]n logicians :o tell u t !re is no possibility outside actual exi/5ce1 & t /atem5ts ab\t ! possible1 :5 !y h any mean+ at all1 are always an indirect way ( imp>t+ in=mation ab\t actualities4#ae ,?us 8,!re really exi/s ice at ! ,s\? ,pole1 ?\gh no human eye beholds x10 if x is to mean any?+1 mu/ mean ei!r t ! ice itself1 z we %\ld p]ceive x if we 7 !re1 or t c]ta9 unkn[n conditions :i*1 comb9$ ) ! pres5ce ( a human spectator1 w\ld yield ! p]ception ( ! ice1 actually exi/ z "p ( ! cont5ts ( an exp]i5ce :i* is n our own4#af ,! second po9t to :i* we mu/ be c>eful to att5d may be dismiss$ m briefly4 ,9 def9+ exp]i5ce z 8imm$iate feel+0 or 8! cont5t ( imm$iate feel+0 or 8appreh5sion10#ag we mu/ n be und]/ood to mean t x is 9 p>ticul> s5sation4 ,s5sation is only "o feature ( imm$iate feel+ or appreh5sion1 a feature :i* we only di/+ui% f o!rs by means ( a labori\s psy*ological analysis4 ,a pleasure or pa91 an emotion ( any k9d1 ! satisfaction ( a crav+ :ile actually pres5t1 are felt or appreh5d$ no less imm$iately ?an a s5se-p]ception4 ,i am aw>e ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 actually feel+ pleasure or pa91 actually be+ mov$ by love or ang]1 actually gett+ ! satisfaction ( a want1 & m]ely ?9k+ ( ^! processes1 9 precisely ! same way 9 :i* ,i am aw>e ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 actually see+ a blue expanse & m]ely ?9k+ ( see+ x4 ,a real emotion or wi% diff]s f an imag9$ "o precisely z a real s5sation diff]s f an imag9>y s5sation4 ,h[ exactly ! diff]5ce is to be describ$ is a "q1 & un=tunately at pres5t an unduly neglect$ "q1 = ,psy*ology2 = our pres5t purpose we mu/ be cont5t to indicate x z "o :i* c be exp]i5c$ at w by any read] :o w take ! tr\ble to comp>e an actual /ate ( m9d ) ! m]e ?\ght ( ! same /ate4 ,( ! epi/emological or metaphysical int]pretation ( ! di/9ction m w be said 9 ! c\rse ( ! next few p>agraphs4 ,z an in/ance ( its applicability to o!r aspects ( m9d ?an ! purely s5sational1 we may take ,kant's own example ( ! hundr$ doll>s4 ,! real hundr$ doll>s may be di/+ui%$ f ! imag9>y1 if we please1 by ! fact t !y c be actually t\*$ & se52 b we might equally make ! di/9ction turn on ! fact t ! real co9s w enable u to satisfy our desires1 :ile ! imag9>y w n4#ah #f4 ,9 ! pres5t /ate ( philosophical op9ion1 ! proposition t 8:atev] is real consi/s ( exp]i5ce10 or aga91 8( psy*ical matt] ( fact10 is 9 dang] n s mu* ( be+ reject$1 z ( be+ accept$ 9 a fundam5tally false s5se4 ,if we are to avoid ! dang] ( su* misund]/&+1 we mu/ be c>eful to insi/ t our pr9ciple does n ass]t t m]e actuality is a complete & suffici5t acc\nt ( ! nature ( reality4 ,:5 we say t !re is no?+ real outside ! _w ( psy*ical fact1 we are n say+ t reality is m]ely psy*ical fact z su*4 ,:at we d say is t1 h[ev] mu* m x may be1 x is at lea/ t4 ,h[ mu* m we c say ( reality1 beyond ! b>e /atem5t t x is made up ( exp]i5ces or psy*ical matt]s ( fact1 x is ! task ( our metaphysical sci5ce to det]m9e2 at pres5t our problem1 ?\gh giv5 to u 9 its g5]al elem5ts1 /ill awaits solution4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we mu/ take c>e n to fall into ! error ( s-call$ 8,subjective ,idealism40 ,we mu/ n say t reality consi/s ( 8! /ates ( consci\sness ( s5ti5t subjects0 or ( 8subjects1 & _! /ates40 ,we mu/ n falsify our data z metaphysicians by />t+ ) ! assumption t ! psy*ical facts ( :i* reality is made up are directly exp]i5c$ z 8/ates0 or 8modifications0 ( 8subjects0 :i* are _! possessors4 ,su* a !ory w\ld 9 fact contradict itself1 = ! 8subject0 or 8,i10 :o am by ! hypo!sis ! own] ( ! 8/ates10 is nev] itself giv5 z a 8/ate ( consci\sness40 ,h5ce ,hume 0 p]fectly correct :5 he argu$ f ! pr9ciple t no?+ exi/s b /ates ( consci\sness1 to ! conclusion t ! ?9k] or 8subject10 n be+ himself a /ate ( consci\sness1 is an illusion4 ,yet1 on ! o!r h&1 if !re is no ?9k] or subject to 8own0 ! pass+ /ates1 !y are n prop]ly 8/ates0 or 8modifications0 ( any?+4 ,ap>t f ?is explicit contradiction 9 ! =mulation ( ! !ory t all ?+s are 8/ates ( consci\sness10 we mu/ also object t ! !ory itself is n a /atem5t ( ! data ( exp]i5ce1 b a hypo!sis ab\t _! connection4 ,! division ( exp]i5ce into ! self or ! subject on ! "o side & its /ates on ! o!r is n giv5 9 our imm$iate appreh5sion1 b made 9 ! progress ( reflection on ! cont5ts ( appreh5sion4 ,s5sible ?+s & _! prop]ties nev] appe> to u 9 our direct appreh5sion ( !m to be /ates or modifications ( ourselves2 t !y really are ?is & no?+ m is simply "o hypo!sis among o!rs :i* we devise to meet c]ta9 difficulties 9 our ?\ght4 ,reality comes to u f ! fir/ 9 ! guise ( pieces ( psy*ical fact2 we feel c]ta91 aga91 t ^! pieces mu/ someh[ =m "p ( a coh]5t :ole or sy/em4 ,we try to und]/& & acc\nt = ?is sy/ematic "* ( ! real on ! supposition t ! matt]s ( fact ( :i* x consi/s are connect$ ) "o ano!r ?r\gh ! p]man5t "* ( ! 8subjects0 to :i* !y belong z tempor>y 8/ates0 or 8modifications40 ,b ?is special int]pretation ( ! way 9 :i* ! facts ( exp]i5ce =m a sy/em is no "p ( our initial po/ulate z to ! g5]al nature ( ! real2 x is simply "o among o!r !ories ( ! concrete "* ( ! univ]se1 & x is = ,metaphysics itself to te/ its m]its4 ,simil>ly1 we %\ld be mak+ an unw>rant$ addition to our initial po/ulate ab\t ,reality if we id5tifi$ x ) ! doctr9e ( ,hume & 8 foll[]s1 accord+ to :om :at really exi/s is m]ely a s]ies ( 8impressions & ideas0 connect$ by c]ta9 psy*ological laws ( succession1 any pr(\nd] /ructural unity ( exp]i5ce be+ dismiss$ z a 8fiction ( ! m9d40 ,! secret ( ! fallacy "h lies 9 ! petitio pr9cipii committ$ by ! introduction ( ! ^w 8m]ely0 into our /atem5t4 ,f ! id5tification ( reality ) psy*ical facts :i* someh[ =m a sy/ematic unity1 x does n 9 ! lea/ foll[ t ! only unity possess$ by ! facts is t ( con=mity to a c]ta9 law or laws ( sequ5ce4 ,t all reality consi/s ( psy*ical facts1 & t ^! facts mu/ =m a sy/em1 we are1 z we h already se51 entitl$ to ass]t z a fundam5tal metaphysical pr9ciple :i* _c be d\bt$ )\t fall+ into contradiction2 h[ !y d s we h yet to discov]1 if we c4 ,! m]its ( ! ,humian solution ( ! problem w come be=e u = consid]ation at a lat] /age2 ! impossibility ( assum+ x )\t inquiry z a pr9ciple1 may p]haps be br\ght home to ! m9d ( ! read] by a simple illu/ration4 ,take ! case ( any /hetic :ole1 su* z1 = in/ance1 ! play ( ,hamlet4 ,! play ( ,hamlet consi/s1 = ! /ud5t :o reads x 9 8 closet1 ( a succession ( pr9t$ words4 ,^! words =m ! :ole mat]ial ( ! play2 x is compos$ ( !m all & ( no?+ else4 ,aga91 ! words :i* are ! mat]ial ( ! play are connect$ by ! grammatical & euphonic laws :i* regulate ! con/ruction ( ,engli% s5t5ces1 & ! metrical laws ( ,engli% dramatic v]sification4 ,?us x w\ld be a true description ( ! play1 z f> z x goes1 to say t x is a s]ies ( words put toge!r 9 accordance ) grammatical & metrical laws4 ,x w\ld1 h[ev]1 be positively false to say t ,hamlet is no?+ m ?an su* a succession ( words2 its "* z a "w ( art dep5ds entirely on ! fact t x possesses1 z a :ole1 a fur!r unity ( /ructure & aim1 t ! words & s5t5ces :i* are its mat]ial embody an int]nally coh]5t repres5tation ( human "* & purpose4 ,ap>t f ?is inn] unity ( mean+1 m]e uni=mity ( grammatical & metrical con/ruction w\ld n ( !mselves con/itute a "w ( art4 ,x w be "o object ( our lat] discussions to %[ t :at is ?us obvi\sly true ( an /hetic :ole is univ]sally true ( e g5u9e sy/em or totality4 #g4 ,! data or mat]ial ( reality1 !n1 are facts ( exp]i5ce1 & no?+ b facts ( exp]i5ce4#ai ,& exp]i5ce1 we h said1 means = our purposes imm$iate feel+ or appreh5sion4 ,:at imm$iacy means1 z we h already se51 we _c fur!r expla9 9 psy*ological t]ms1 except by say+ t x is :at di/+ui%es an actual m5tal /ate f ! m]e ?\ght ( t /ate4 ,! reason :y1 9 ,psy*ology1 we h to be cont5t ) su* an acc\nt is manife/4 ,to *>act]ise imm$iate feel+ fur!r1 we %\ld h to id5tify ! qualities by :i* x is univ]sally m>k$ (f f :at is n imm$iate4 ,we %\ld1 9 fact1 h to describe x 9 g5]al t]ms1 & be=e we c d ?is we mu/ cease to feel or appreh5d directly1 & g on to reflect ^u & analyse ! cont5ts ( our appreh5sion4 ,:at our psy*ological description depicts is nev] ! exp]i5ce z x actually 0 :ile we 7 hav+ x1 b ! exp]i5ce z x appe>s f ! po9t ( view ( subsequ5t reflection1 int]pret$ 9 ! light ( all sorts ( consci\s or unconsci\s hypo!ses ab\t its conditions & its con/itu5ts4 ,?us our psy*ological descriptions dep5d = _! v possibility ^u ! recognition ( di/9ctions :i* are n pres5t1 z su*1 9 ! exp]i5ce itself z directly pres5t$ to u b creat$ by lat] reflection ab\t x ,f ! po9t ( view ( ,metaphysics1 h[ev]1 x is possible to specify "o univ]sal *>act]i/ic ( imm$iate feel+1 :i* is ( ! utmo/ importance = our !ories ( reality & ( k4 ,:5 we reflect ^u any psy*ical fact :atev]1 we may di/+ui% )9 x two v diff]5t aspects4 ,!re is1 9 ! fir/ place1 ! fact t x does happ51 t x is a g5u9e psy*ical occurr5ce1--! exi/5ce or t1 z we may call x1 ( ! piece ( psy*ical fact 9 "q2 & !re is also ! peculi> "* or quality :i* gives ?is m5tal occurr5ce its unique nature z di/+ui%$ f any o!r :i* might conceivably h be5 pres5t$ 9 its /ead1--! cont5t or :at ( ! psy*ical fact4 ,?us a simple col\r-s5sation1 say t ( gre51 has its t1--x is actually pres5t1 & is ?us di/+ui%$ f a m]ely rememb]$ or anticipat$ s5sation2 x has also its :at1--! peculi> quality by :i* x is di/+ui%$1 = example1 f a s5sation ( blue4 ,s aga9 ) an imag9$ s5sation2 x is actually imag9$1 ! imag9+ ( x is an actual occurr5ce ) its p>ticul> place 9 ! c\rse ( ! occurr5ces :i* toge!r make up my m5tal life2 & aga91 x is ! imag9ation ( "s cont5t ) qualities ( its own by :i* x is di/+ui%$ f any o!r cont5t4 ,! mo/ /rik+ illu/ration ( ! pres5ce ( ^! di/+ui%able aspects 9 all psy*ical occurr5ces is1 ( c\rse1 af=d$ by ! case ( error or illusion1 ! ess5ce ( :i* is ! false appreh5sion ( ! :at4 ,?us1 :5 an ignorant villag] sees a gho/1 or a hypo*ondriac is torm5t$ by 8imag9>y0 symptoms ( disease1 ! gho/ or ! malady is n simply non-exi/5t2 some?+ is actually se5 or felt1 b ! error consi/s 9 a mi/ake z to ! nature ( :at is se5 or felt4 ,n[1 ! peculi>ity by :i* direct & imm$iate appreh5sion is di/+ui%$1 = ! metaphysician1 f subsequ5t reflection ab\t ! cont5ts ( appreh5sion1 is t 9 imm$iate appreh5sion itself we are n consci\s ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ^! two aspects ( psy*ical fact4 ,! imm$iately exp]i5c$ is always a ?is-:at or process-cont5t#bj 9 :i* ! di/9ction ( ! ?is f ! :at does n ent] into consci\sness4 ,9 any act ( reflection1 on ! o!r h&1 ! :at is explicitly di/+ui%$ f ! t1 & !n ascrib$ to x z some?+ :i* c be truly said ab\t x4 ,! judgm5t or proposition1 :i* is ! *>act]i/ic =m 9 :i* ! result ( reflection f9ds its expression1 consi/s1 9 its mo/ rudim5t>y %ape1 ( ! embodim5t ( ?is di/9ction 9 ! sep>ation ( pr$icate f subject1 & ! subsequ5t affirmation ( ! fir/ ab\t ! second4 ,! "w ( ?\ght or k 9 mak+ our _w m intelligible to u ess5tially consi/s 9 ! progressive analysis ( a cont5t or :at1 consid]$ 9 ab/raction f ! ?is to :i* x belongs4 ,! ?is may1 z 9 ! s+ul> judgm5t or ! p>ticul> judgm5t ( p]ception1 actually appe> 9 our propositions z ! subject to :i* ! :at is explicitly ascrib$2 or aga91 z 9 ! true univ]sals ( sci5ce1 bo? ! pr$icate & ! o/5sible subject ( ! proposition may belong to ! cont5t analys$1 & ! ?is1 or directly appreh5d$ reality ( :i* ! cont5t =ms an attribute1 may n appe> 9 ! proposition at all4 ,?is is :y ! true univ]sal judgm5t has long be5 se5 by logicians to be ess5tially hypo!tical1 & :y1 aga91 ?\ght or k always appe>s to ! common-s5se man to be deal+ ) realities :i* h previ\sly be5 giv5 indep5d5tly ( ! 8"w ( ! m9d40 ,he is only wrong 9 ?is view because he =gets t :at is giv5 9 ?is way is m]ely ! t or exi/5ce ( ! _w ( real be+1 n its :at or cont5t 9 its true "* z ultimately asc]ta9$ by sci5tific ?\ght4#ba #h4 ,! fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( exp]i5ce1 !n1 = ! metaphysician1 is its imm$iacy3 ! fact t 9 exp]i5ce z su* ! exi/5ce & ! cont5t ( :at is appreh5d$ are n m5tally sep>at$4 ,?is imm$iacy may be due1 z 9 ! case ( m]e un9t]pret$ s5sation1 to ! abs5ce ( reflective analysis ( ! giv5 into its con/itu5t aspects or elem5ts4 ,b x may also be due1 z we %all h opportunities to see m fully lat] on1 to ! fusion at a high] level into a s+le directly appreh5d$ :ole ( results orig9ally won by ! process ( ab/raction & reflection4 ,!re is an imm$iacy ( exp]i5ce :i* is bel[ m$iate reflective k b !re is also a high] imm$iacy :i* is above x4 ,to expla9 & ju/ify ?is /atem5t w be ! "w ( subsequ5t *apt]s2 = ! pres5t we may be cont5t to illu/rate x by a simple example4 ,a "w ( art ) an intricate int]nal /ructure1 su*1 = in/ance1 z a musical composition or a *ess problem1 z directly pres5t$ to ! arti/ically uncultivat$ man1 is little m ?an a m]e succession ( imm$iately giv5 data 9 :i* ! aspects ( exi/5ce & cont5t are z yet h>dly sep>at$2 x has no significance or mean+1 b m]ely is4 ,z education 9 ! p]ception ( arti/ic =m proce$s1 ! sep>ation becomes at fir/ m & m prom95t4 ,ea* subord9ate "p ( ! /ructure n[ acquires a mean+ or significance 9 virtue ( its place 9 ! :ole1 & ?is mean+ is at fir/ some?+ ov] & above ! directly pres5t$ "* ( ! "p1 some?+ :i* has to be grasp$ by reflective analysis & comp>ison ( "p ) "p4 ,! individual "p has n[1 ?r\gh analysis ( its cont5t1 come to mean or /& = some?+ outside itself1 namely1 its relation to all ! o!r p>ts4 ,b ) ! completion ( our /hetic education ! imm$iacy ?us de/roy$ is once m re/or$4 ,to ! fully tra9$ p]ception ! mean+ ( ! composition or ! problem1 its /ructure z an arti/ic :ole1 is no long] some?+ :i* has to be piec$ toge!r & inf]r$ by reflective comp>ison3 x is n[ directly appreh5d$ z a /ructural unity4 ,! composition has a mean+1 & ?us ! results ( ! int]m$iate /age ( reflection & comp>ison are n lo/1 b tak5 up into ! complet$ exp]i5ce4 ,b ! mean+ is no long] ext]nal to ! exi/5ce ( ! composition2 x is :at x means1 & x means :at x is4#bb ,we may subsequ5tly see t :at is ?us /rik+ly illu/rat$ by ! case ( arti/ic p]ception holds good1 to a great] or less degree1 ( all advance 9 ! und]/&+ ( reality4 ,x is p]haps ! fundam5tal philosophical defect ( :at is popul>ly call$ ,my/icism t x ignores ?is diff]5ce betwe5 a high] & a l[] imm$iacy1 & ?us attempts to re/ore ! direct contact ) felt reality :i* sci5tific reflection inevitably loos5s by simply undo+ ! "w ( analytic ?\ght & rev]t+ to ! /&po9t ( m]e un9t]pret$ feel+4#bc #i4 ,we may p]haps specify "o fur!r *>act]i/ic :i* seems1 at lea/1 to belong to e datum ( imm$iate exp]i5ce4 ,e exp]i5ce seems to be implicitly complex1 t is1 its aspect ( cont5t appe>s nev] to be absolutely simple1 b always to conta9 a plurality ( aspects1 :i*1 z directly felt1 are n di/9ct1 b are at ! same "t di/+ui%able z soon z we beg9 by reflection to describe & analyse x4 ,f ! nature ( ! case ?is complexity _c be directly asc]ta9$ by inspection1 = ! inspection itself presupposes t we are deal+ ) ! exp]i5ce n z imm$iately felt1 b z already suffici5tly analys$ & reflect$ ^u to be describ$ 9 g5]al t]ms4 ,indirectly1 h[ev]1 our result seems to be e/abli%$ by ! consid]ation t1 z soon z we reflect ^u ! giv5 at all1 we f9d ^! di/+ui%able aspects )9 its cont5t1 & t1 unless !y 7 !re implicitly f ! fir/1 x is h>d to see h[ ! m]e process ( reflection c\ld h giv5 bir? to !m4 ,?us1 = in/ance1 9 ev5 ! mo/ rudim5t>y exp]i5ce !re w\ld appe> to be some?+ answ]+ to ! di/9ction betwe5 ! pres5tational quality ( a s5sation & its accompany+ tone ( pleasure or pa94 ,x is difficult1 aga91 n to ?9k t 9 any s5ti5t exp]i5ce !re mu/ be "s diff]5ce betwe5 elem5ts :i* correspond to m or less /able conditions ( ! s5ti5t organism itself 78organic s5sation07 & ^? :i* correspond to relatively novel & infrequ5t features ( ! environm5t4 ,"s philosoph]s w\ld inde$ be prep>$ to g fur!r1 & to ma9ta9 t a m or less explicit consci\sness ( di/9ction betwe5 self & n-self1 or aga9 betwe5 subject & object1 is logically involv$ 9 ! v possibility ( an exp]i5ce4 ,! "q1 z a psy*ological "o1 ne$ n be rais$ "h2 x mu/1 h[ev]1 be c>efully rem>k$ t :atev] view we may adopt z to ! numb] & "* ( ! aspects :i* analysis reveals )9 ! cont5ts ( ! simple/ exp]i5ce1 ^? aspects1 z directly appreh5d$1 orig9ally con/itute an unanalys$ :ole4 ,our v>i\s subsequ5t analyses all presuppose !ories z to ! ultimate :at ( exp]i5ce :i* x is ! bus9ess ( ,metaphysics to te/4 #aj4 ,our =ego+ discussion ( ! metaphysical crit]ion w sugge/ a fairly def9ite ideal ( :at a completely adequate appreh5sion ( ! :ole ( reality w\ld be4 ,a completely adequate appreh5sion ( reality w\ld be "o :i* conta9$ all reality & no?+ b reality1 & ?us involv$ no elem5t :atev] ( deceptive appe>ance4 ,z su* x w\ld1 9 ! fir/ place1 be all-embrac+2 x w\ld include 9 itself e datum ( direct exp]i5ce1 &1 s9ce no?+ b data ( exp]i5ce1 or1 z we h also call$ !m1 matt]s ( psy*ical fact1 are ! mat]ials ( reality1 x w\ld conta9 no?+ else4 ,9 ! second place1 x w\ld conta9 all its data )\t contradiction or discrepancy z "p ( a s+le sy/em ) a h>moni\s int]nal /ructure ( its own4 ,= :]ev] !re is discrepancy1 z we h already se51 !re is imp]fect & !re=e p>tially false appe>ance4 ,&1 9 ! ?ird place1 su* an all-embrac+ h>moni\s appreh5sion ( ! :ole data ( exp]i5ce w\ld cle>ly transc5d t sep>ation ( exi/5ce f cont5t :i* is tempor>ily effect$ by our own ef=ts to re/ate our exp]i5ce 9 a consi/5t =m4 ,x w\ld1 because complete 9 itself1 involve at a high] level t imm$iacy :i*1 at a l[] level1 we "k z *>act]i/ic ( feel+4 ,x w\ld ?us exp]i5ce ! :ole ( real exi/5ce directly z a sy/em ) int]nal consi/5cy & /ructure1 b )\t any ref]5ce to any?+ beyond itself4 ,z we said ( ! arti/ic :ole1 s we may say ( ! :ole ( exi/5ce z x might be appreh5d$ by a complet$ insight1 x w\ld be :at x meant1 & mean :at x 04 ,to su* an ideally complete exp]i5ce ( reality z a s+le sy/em1 by way ( m>k+ its exclusively exp]i5tial nature1 we may give ! "n1 introduc$ into ,philosophy by ,av5>ius1 ( a 8pure0 exp]i5ce1 t is1 an exp]i5ce :i* is 9 all its p>ts exp]i5ce & no?+ else4 ,( c\rse1 9 adopt+ ! "n1 we are n necess>ily id5tify+ ourselves ) ! fur!r views ( ,av5>ius z to :at 9 p>ticul> ! /ructure ( su* an exp]i5ce w\ld be4 ,our own human exp]i5ce cle>ly falls f> %ort ( su* an ideal1 & t = two reasons4 ,to beg9 )1 our exp]i5ce is incomplete 9 respect ( its data3 !re is mu* 9 reality :i* nev] directly ent]s into ! /ructure ( our exp]i5ce at all4 ,( mu* ( :at falls )9 ! scope ( our k we c only say1 9 a g5]al way1 h[ x w\ld appe> to ourselves suppos+ c]ta9 conditions ( its p]ceptibility to be realis$1 & ev5 ^! conditions are usually only mo/ imp]fectly kn[n4 ,:at ! actual matt]s ( psy*ical fact correspond+ to ^! conditions & to ! appe>ance :i* !y w\ld det]m9e = u are1 we are totally unable to say4 ,aga91 !re may well be mu* 9 ! real _w :i* nev]1 ev5 9 ?is indirect way1 ent]s into ! /ructure ( human k at all4 ,h5ce our human exp]i5ce & ! intellectual con/ructions by :i* we seek to int]pret x h always ! "* ( be+ piecemeal & fragm5t>y4 ,p]fect appreh5sion ( sy/ematic reality z a :ole w\ld be able to d$uce f any "o fact 9 ! univ]se ! nature ( e o!r fact4 ,or r1 z ! :ole w\ld be pres5t$ at once 9 its entirety1 !re w\ld be no ne$ = ! d$uction2 e fact w\ld be directly se5 z l9k$ ) e o!r by ! directly intuit$ nature ( ! sy/em to :i* all facts belong4 ,b 9 our imp]fect human appreh5sion ( ! _w our facts appe> to be l>gely giv5 u 9 isolation & indep5d5ce ( "o ano!r z b>e 8casual conjunctions0 or 8collocations10 & ! hypo!ses by :i* we seek to weld !m into a sy/em1 h[ev] l>gely det]m9$ by ! "* ( our data1 nev] q get rid ( an elem5t ( arbitr>y 8free0 con/ruction4 ,!y are nev] fully necessitat$ z to _! entirety by ! nature ( ! facts !y s]ve to connect4 ,h5ce we c nev] be c]ta9 t our hypo!tical con/ructions !mselves are true 9 ! s5se ( consi/+ ( /atem5ts ( :at = a complet$ exp]i5ce w\ld be matt]s ( fact4 ,our ideal is to connect our pres5t$ facts by con/ructions 9 :i* ea* l9k is itself matt] ( fact1 or exp]i5ce1 9 ! s5se t x w\ld "u kn[n conditions =m ! cont5t ( a direct appreh5sion4 ,b x is an ideal :i*1 ow+ to ! fragm5t>y "* ( our own exp]i5ce1 we are nev] able adequately to realise4 ,9 all our sci5ces we are con/antly compell$ to use hypo!tical con/ructions1 :i* (t5 are1 & = all we "k always may be1 m]ely 8symbolic10 9 ! s5se t1 ?\gh useful 9 ! co-ord9ation ( exp]i5c$ data1 !y c\ld nev] !mselves become objects ( direct exp]i5ce1 because !y conflict ei!r ) ! g5]al nature ( exp]i5ce z su*1 or ) ! special nature ( ! p>ticul> exp]i5ces 9 :i* !y w\ld h to be pres5t$4 ,our sci5tific hypo!ses ?us pres5t a close analogy ) ! un9t]pretable /ages 9 ! application ( an algebraical calculus to a num]ical or geometrical subject-matt]4 ,_! usefulness 9 enabl+ u to co-ord9ate & pr$ict facts ( direct exp]i5ce ne$ no m gu>antee _! own reality1 ?an ! usefulness ( su* a calculus gu>antees our ability to f9d an intelligible int]pretation = all ! symbolic op]ations x involves4#bd ,9 a pure or complet$ exp]i5ce1 at once all-compreh5d+ & sy/ematic1 :]e exi/5ce & cont5t1 fact & con/ruction1 7 no long] sep>at$1 !re c\ld ( c\rse be no place = su* ultimately un9t]pretable symbolism4 ,our fundam5tal metaphysical problem1 !n1 is t ( discov]+1 if we c1 ! g5]al or =mal *>act]i/ics ( su* a complete or 8pure0 exp]i5ce1 i4e4 ^? *>act]i/ics :i* belong to x simply 9 virtue ( its all-conta9+ & completely sy/ematic nature4 ,fur!r1 x w\ld be ! "w ( a complet$ ,metaphysic to asc]ta9 :i* among ! univ]sal *>act]i/ics ( our own human exp]i5ce ( ! _w are su* z mu/ belong to any coh]5t exp]i5ce 9 virtue ( its nature1 & are ?us id5tifiable ) ! =mal *>act]i/ics ( a 8pure0 exp]i5ce4 ,also1 our sci5ce w\ld h to decide :at features ( human exp]i5ce1 among ^? :i* d n possess ?is "*1 approximate mo/ ne>ly to x1 & w\ld ?us require lea/ modification 9 ord] to enable !m to take _! place 9 an absolutely complete & h>moni\s exp]i5ce ( reality4 ,if we c\ld completely c>ry out our programme1 we %\ld1 9 ! fir/ place1 h a g5]al conception ( :at 9 outl9e ! con/itution ( exp]i5c$ reality z a sy/ematic :ole is2 &1 9 ! second1 we %\ld be able to arrange ! v>i\s concepts & categories by :i* we seek1 alike 9 ev]yday ?9k+ & 9 ! v>i\s sci5ces1 to int]pret ! _w ( our exp]i5ce1 9 an asc5d+ ord] ( degrees ( tru? & reality1 accord+ to ! ext5t to :i* !y w\ld require to be modifi$ be=e !y c\ld become adequate to express ! nature ( a sy/ematic exp]i5c$ reality4 ,! k convey$ by su* a sci5ce w\ld1 ( c\rse1 n be itself ! pure or all-embrac+ exp]i5ce ( ,reality1 b m]ely m$iate k ab\t ! g5]al nature ( su* an exp]i5ce1 & w\ld !re=e1 s f>1 be l all m]e k ab\t an object1 ab/ract & imp]fect4 ,x w\ld /ill ref] to some?+ beyond itself1 & ?us h a mean+ o!r ?an its own exi/5ce4 ,b1 unlike all o!r k1 our metaphysical k ( ! =mal "* ( an all-inclusive exp]i5c$ :ole w\ld be f9al1 9 ! s5se t no addition ( fre% k c\ld modify x 9 pr9ciple4 ,fre% k1 :i* 9 all o!r cases involves at lea/ ! possibility ( a trans=mation ( exi/+ !ories1 w\ld "h d no m ?an fill 9 & make m concrete our conception ( ! sy/em ( ,reality1 )\t affect+ our insight into its g5]al /ructure4 ,we may p]haps illu/rate ?is conception ( a k :i*1 ?\gh imp]fect1 is yet f9al1 by an in/ance borr[$ f elem5t>y ,ma!matics4 ,we "k absolutely & precisely1 e4 g41 :at ! symbol /&s =4 is completely det]m9$ = u by ! def9ition t x is ! ratio ( ! circumf]5ce ( a circle to its diamet]4 ,& aga91 we c def9e unequivocally bo? ! t]ms1 circumf]5ce & diamet] ( ! circle1 :i* we h employ$ 9 our def9ition ( 4 ,?us our k ( ! mean+ ( ! symbol is cle>ly f9al2 no fre% accretion to our k w make any modification 9 x4 ,at ! same "t1 our k ( 1 ?\gh f9al1 is imp]fect4 ,= ! quantity is incomm5surable1 & ?us we c nev] precisely evaluate x4 ,all we c d is to assign its value correctly )9 any desir$ degree ( approximation4 ,aga91 :ile no approximation gives an absolutely correct value = ! quantity1 "o approximation is1 ( c\rse1 clos] ?an ano!r4 ,because no approximation is m ?an approximately ! tru?1 x by no means foll[s t all are equally wide ( ! m>k4 ,simil>ly1 x may well be t1 ?\gh we c say ) f9ality :at ! g5]al nature ( exp]i5ce & exp]i5c$ ,reality z a sy/ematic :ole is1 yet1 :5 we come to ask aft] ! "* ( ! sy/em 9 detail1 we h to dep5d on sci5ces :i* are m]ely approximate 9 _! results2 x w n foll[1 z is sometimes assum$1 t ! categories ( "o sci5ce d n pres5t u ) a ne>] approximation to ! absolute tru? ?an ^? ( ano!r4#be #aa4 ,we may end ?is *apt] ) "s g5]al reflections on ! me?od requir$ = su* a sci5ce ( ,metaphysics z we h describ$ 9 ! prec$+ p>agraphs4 ,! true "* ( any sci5tific me?od c1 ( c\rse1 only be discov]$ by ! actual use ( x2 a prelim9>y disquisition on ! nature ( a me?od n previ\sly exhibit$ 9 actual use is apt to be at be/ /]ile1 & at wor/ a positive s\rce ( prejudices :i* may subsequ5tly s]i\sly hamp] ! process ( inve/igation4 ,/ill1 !re are c]ta9 g5]al *>act]i/ics ( ! me?od impos$ on u by our conception ( ! problems to be solv$ :i* may conv5i5tly be po9t$ out at ?is /age ( our inquiry4 ,our me?od w1 9 ! fir/ place1 cle>ly be analytical & critical 9 its "*4 ,we analyse exp]i5ce ) a view to discov]+ its implications1 & we analyse our v>i\s sci5tific & unsci5tific !ories ( ! cont5ts ( ! _w-sy/em = ! same purpose4 ,also1 once hav+ det]m9$ :at are ! =mal *>act]i/ics ( an all-embrac+1 sy/ematic :ole ( exp]i5c$ fact1 we criticise our v>i\s concepts & !ories by ref]5ce to ^! *>act]i/ics z an ultimate /&>d ( reality & tru?4 ,negatively1 we may add t our me?od is non-empirical1 & also non-inductive1 9 ! same s5se 9 :i* pure ,ma!matics1 = in/ance1 may be call$ non-inductive4 ,x is non-empirical inasmu* z we are call$ ^u to analyse all our data & criticise all our pre-conceiv$ !ories4 ,we are n all[$ to accept any fact )\t analysis1 or any concept )\t criticism1 z an un*all5g$ datum ^u :i* we may build )\t prelim9>y ju/ification4 ,h5ce our me?od is non-empirical4 ,also1 z our analysis is conc]n$ entirely ) ! int]nal "* & self-consi/5cy ( ! data analys$1 x is1 l ! reason+s ( pure ,ma!matics1 indep5d5t ( ext]nal confirmation outside ! analys$ data !mselves1 & is !re=e non-inductive4#bf ,9 precisely ! same s5se our me?od & its results may be call$1 if we please1 a priori2 t is to say1 we proce$ entirely by int]nal analysis ( c]ta9 data1 & are1 alike 9 proc$ure & result1 indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce outside ! exp]i5ce we are conc]n$ ) analys+4 ,we c1 ( c\rse1 add t our me?od is con/ructive1 t is1 if successfully c>ri$ out x w\ld culm9ate 9 an intellectual attitude t[>ds ! _w :i*1 z an intellectual attitude1 we did n possess be=e ent]+ on our /udy ( ,metaphysics2 b z con/ruction1 9 ?is s5se1 is *>act]i/ic ( all sci5tific me?od1 x does n seem necess>y to specify x z a peculi>ity ( metaphysical proc$ure 9 p>ticul>4 ,hi/orically1 our conception ( metaphysical me?od z fundam5tally analytical & direct$ to ! detection & removal ( int]nal contradictions 9 ! categories ( ord9>y ?\ght1 is p]haps ne>] to ! view ( ,h]b>t ?an to t ( any o!r great philosoph] ( ! pa/4 ,9 our insi/5ce ^u ! non-empirical &1 9 a s5se1 a priori "* ( ,metaphysics1 we are aga91 ( c\rse1 l>gely 9 agreem5t ) ! position ( ,kant4 ,!re is1 h[ev]1 a mo/ important diff]5ce betwe5 our own & ! ,kantian conception ( ! a priori ^u :i* x is ess5tial to insi/4 ,a-priority1 z we h us$ ! t]m1 /&s m]ely = a peculi>ity ( ! me?od ( ,metaphysics2 by an a priori me?od we und]/ood "o :i* is conf9$ to ! int]nal analysis ( a datum & indep5d5t ( ext]nal ref]5ce to outside facts4 ,) ,kant ! a priori is a "n = c]ta9 =ms ( p]ception & ?\ght :i*1 because reveal$ by analysis z pres5t 9 e exp]i5ce1 are suppos$ to be giv5 indep5d5tly ( all exp]i5ce :atsoev]1 & s come to be id5tifi$ by him z 8! "w ( ! m9d10 9 opposition to ! empirical factor 9 exp]i5ce1 :i* is held to be ! product ( an ext]nal sy/em ( 8?+s-9-!mselves40 ,h5ce ,kant's :ole discussion ( ! a priori is vitiat$ by a con/ant confusion betwe5 :at is metaphysically necess>y 7i4e4 impli$ 9 ! exi/5ce ( k7 & :at is psy*ologically primitive4 ,?is confusion1 p]plex+ en\gh 9 ,kant1 rea*es a climax 9 ! works ( writ]s l ,mr4 ,sp5c]1 :o appe> to ?9k t ! :ole "q ( ! pres5ce ( a non-empirical factor 9 k c be decid$ by an appeal to g5etic ,psy*ology4 ,x is cle> t1 f our po9t ( view1 ! id5tification ( ! a priori ) ! 8"w ( ! m9d0 w\ld involve a metaphysical !ory z to ! con/itution ( exp]i5ce :i* we are n entitl$ to adopt )\t pro(4#bg ,a ^w ought p]haps to be said ab\t our attitude t[>ds ! 8dialectical0 me?od z employ$ by ,hegel & 8 foll[]s4 ,x 0 ,hegel's conviction t ! :ole s]ies ( concepts or categories by :i* ! m9d attempts to grasp ! nature ( exp]i5c$ ,reality z a :ole1 f ! mo/ rudim5t>y to ! mo/ adequate1 c be exhibit$ 9 a fix$ ord] :i* arises f ! v nature ( ?\ght itself4 ,we beg91 he held1 by ! affirmation ( "s rude & "o-sid$ conception ( ! "* ( :at is2 ! v imp]fection ( our concept !n =ces u on to affirm its opposite z equally true4 ,b ! opposite1 9 its turn1 is no less "o-sid$ & inadequate to express ! full "* ( concrete reality4 ,h5ce we are driv5 to negate our fir/ negation by affirm+ a concept :i* includes bo? ! orig9al affirmation & its opposite z subord9ate aspects4 ,! same process repeats itself aga9 at a high] /age ) our new category1 & ?us we gradually pass by a s]ies ( successive triads ( categories1 ea* consi/+ ( ! ?ree /ages ( affirmation1 negation1 & negation ( ! negation1 f ! beg9n+ ( an intellectual int]pretation ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce1 ! ?\ght ( x z m]e a 8,be+10 n fur!r def9$1 to ! appreh5sion ( x z ! 8,absolute ,idea10 or concrete sy/em ( spiritual exp]i5ce4 ,x 0 ! task ( ab/ract ,metaphysics 7call$ by ,hegel1 ,logic7 to exhibit ! successive /ages ( ?is process z a sy/ematic ord]ly advance1 9 :i* ! nature ( ea* /age is det]m9$ by its place 9 ! :ole4 ,z ,hegel also held t ?is 8dialectic0 process is someh[ n conf9$ to ! 8subjective0 or private intellig5ce ( ! /ud5t ( ,philosophy1 b also realis$ 9 ! /ructure ( ! 8objective0 univ]se1 x foll[$ t its successive /ages c\ld be detect$ 9 physical nature & 9 ,hi/ory 9 ! same ord] 9 :i* !y occur 9 8,logic10 & _m ( ,hegel's be/-kn[n works are devot$ to exhibit+ ! facts ( ,physics1 ,e?ics1 ,religion1 & ,hi/ory 9 ! light ( ?is doctr9e4 ,! subsequ5t advances ( ! v>i\s sci5ces h s completely prov$ ! arbitr>9ess & untru/wor?9ess ( ! results obta9$ by ^! 8d$uctions0 t "s ( ! be/ expon5ts ( ! ,hegelian type ( ,philosophy are n[ agre$ to ab&on ! claim ( ! ,dialectic to be m ?an a sy/ematisation ( ! /ages ?r\gh :i* ! individual m9d mu/ pass 9 its advance t[>ds a f9ally satisfactory conception ( ,reality4 ,b ev5 )9 ^! limits its pret5sions are probably exagg]at$4 ,no satisfactory pro( c be produc$ t1 ev5 9 ab/ract ,metaphysics1 ! succession ( categories mu/ be precisely t adopt$ by ,hegel4 ,!re are "s categories ( ! fir/ importance1 e4g41 t ( ord] 9 ,ma!matics1 :i* h>dly get any recognition at all 9 8 sy/em1 & o!rs1 su* z ^? ( 8,me*anism0 & 8,*emism10 :i* play a prom95t "p1 are obvi\sly l>gely dep5d5t = _! position ^u ! actual developm5t ( ! v>i\s sci5ces 9 ,hegel's own "t4 ,h5ce ! me?od seems unsuitable = ! orig9al atta9m5t ( philosophical tru?4 ,at be/ x might s]ve1 z ,lotze has rem>k$1 z a conv5i5t me?od = ! arrangem5t ( tru? already obta9$ by o!r means1 & ev5 = ?is purpose x seems cle> t ! succession ( categories actually adopt$ by ,hegel w\ld require con/ant modification to adapt ! g5]al s*eme to lat] developm5ts ( ! v>i\s special sci5ces4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #ac1 #ad2 ,b4 ,bosanquet1 ,ess5tials ( ,logic1 ,lect4 #b2 ,%adwor? ,hodgson1 ,metaphysic ( ,exp]i5ce1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #a2 ,j4 ,s4 ,mack5zie1 ,outl9es ( ,metaphysics1 bk4 i4 *aps4 #b & #d4 ,& = criticism ( ! ,hegelian dialectic3 ,j4 ,e4 ,m#8,tagg>t1 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,dialectic1 *aps4 #a-c2 ,j4 ,b4 ,baillie1 ,! ,orig9 & ,significance ( ,hegel's ,logic1 *aps4 #h-ab1 especially *ap4 #ab2 & also ,adamson1 ,developm5t ( ,mod]n ,philosophy1 bk4 i4 pp4 #bga ff4 ----- ,footnote #aj3 ,see ,bosanquet1 ,ess5tials ( ,logic1 ,lect4 #h4 ,z an illu/ration we may take an extreme case3 8,! ,jabb]wock 0 n kill$ ye/]day40 ,:at is ! gr\nd ( ?is d5ial8 ,at fir/ sight x appe>s to be m]ely negative1 8!re are no su* ?+s z ,jabb]wocks to kill40 ,b be=e ,i c say 8!re are no su* ?+s z ,jabb]wocks0 ) confid5ce1 ,i mu/ h en\gh positive in=mation ab\t ! /ructure & habits ( animals to be aw>e t ! qualities ascrib$ to ! ,jabb]wock conflict ) ! laws ( animal life4 ,or1 if ,i d5y ! exi/5ce ( ,jabb]wocks simply on ! gr\nd t ,i h nev] come across a specim51 ?is involves a positive judgm5t z to ! relation betwe5 ! animal _w & ! "p ( x ,i h exam9$1 su* z1 8if !re 7 ,jabb]wocks1 ,i %\ld h come across "o02 or1 8my acqua9tance ) ! v>ieties ( animals is suffici5tly exhau/ive to af=d gr\nd = a valid g5]alisation40 ,! fact t symbolic ,logic f9ds x conv5i5t to treat ! univ]sal affirmative z a d\ble negative mu/ n mislead u z to its actual priority 9 ?\ght4 ,footnote #aa3 ,to meet ! k9d ( criticism :i* f9ds x humor\s to je/ at ! exp5se ( ^? :o 8take consolation f spell+ ,reality ) a big ,r10 may ,i once = all say t :5 ,i spell ,reality ?us x is simply z a conv5i5t way ( di/+ui%+ ! ultimately f ! m]ely relatively real8 ,footnote #ab3 ,we %all meet ?is same difficulty aga9 lat] on z ! pr9ciple ( ! fam\s ,kantian objection to ! 8ontological pro(0 ( ,god's exi/5ce4 ,infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #e4 #h4 ,footnote #ac3 ,take a concrete example4 ,a !ory z to ! e>ly religi\s hi/ory ( ! ,hebrews1 let u say1 is put =w>d ^u gr\nds d]iv$ f ,semitic philology4 ,?\gh unacqua9t$ ) ,semitic philology 9 p>ticul>1 ,i may be able to =m "s sort ( e/imate ( ! cog5cy ( ! pr(ess$ reason+ if ,i already h an adequate acqua9tance ) ! use & value ( philological evid5ce 9 p>allel cases1 say1 9 ! /udy ( ,greek antiquities4 ,b if ,i h no positive acqua9tance at all ) ! use ( philology 9 antiqu>ian rese>*1 x w\ld be ! m]e/ imp]t95ce = me to (f] any op9ion :atev]4 ,footnote #ad3 ,:at foll[s mu/ be reg>d$ z a m]e outl9e :i* awaits subsequ5t fill+ up by ! m concrete results ( ,bk ,,ii4 *ap4 #a4 ,footnote #ae3 ,= ! mod]n logical doctr9e ( possibility consult ,bradley1 ,pr9ciples ( ,logic1 #aib-bja2 ,bosanquet1 ,logic1 i4 *ap4 #i4 ,footnote #af3 ,?is is--ap>t f non-ess5tial !ological accretions--! pr9ciple ( ,b]keley's argum5t = ! exi/5ce ( ,god 7,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k1 #adf1 #adg74 ,footnote #ag3 ,i %\ld expla9 t ,i use 8feel+0 & 8appreh5sion0 indiff]5tly = imm$iate & non-reflective aw>5ess ( any psy*ical cont5t4 ,! exclusive re/riction ( ! t]m to aw>5ess ( pleasure & pa9 seems to me to re/ on a s]i\s mi/ake 9 psy*ology1 & ,i !re=e avoid x4 ,footnote #ah3 ,9 fact1 we %all see 9 ,bk4 ,,ii4 *ap4 #a t 9 virtue ( its unity ) imm$iate feel+1 all exp]i5ce is ess5tially connect$ ) purpose4 ,footnote #ai3 ,i take 8fact0 z equival5t to 8:at is directly appreh5d$ 9 a s+le mom5t ( consci\sness40 ,9 a previ\s "w 7,! ,problem ( ,conduct1 *ap4 #a7 ,i us$ ! ^w 9 a diff]5t s5se = 8! cont5ts ( a true description ( exp]i5ce40 ,?is employm5t ( ! ^w1 h[ev]1 seems at v>iance ) e/abli%$ philosophical usage1 & ,i !re=e ab&on x z likely to lead to misappreh5sion4 ,footnote #bj3 ,( c\rse1 ! appreh5d$ 8cont5t0 may itself be a 8process10 z is ! case 9 all in/ances ( ! appreh5sion ( *ange2 b ! appreh5d$ process is always di/+ui%able f ! process ( appreh5sion4 ,footnote #ba3 ,we %all see 9 ,bk4 ,,ii4 *ap4 #a t ! 8t0 ( an exp]i5ce implies relation to a unique individual int]e/ or purpose4 ,footnote #bb3 ,( c\rse ?is is only p>tly true4 ,z we %all see 9 ! sequel1 to 8be :at x means & mean :at x is0 is an ideal nev] fully realis$ 9 ! /ructure ( any f9ite piece ( reality1 precisely because ! f9ite1 z its "n implies1 is nev] a completely sy/ematic :ole4 ,footnote #bc3 ,on ! psy*ological processes by :i* mean+ is acquir$1 see ,/\t1 ,manual ( ,psy*ology#c1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #c2 & on ! appreh5sion ( =m1 ! same au?or's ,analytic ,psy*ology1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #c4 ,mu* int]e/+ discussion ( ! diff]5ce betwe5 8ext]nal0 & 8int]nal0 mean+ w be f\nd 9 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies4 ,footnote #bd3 ,= "s good obs]vations on ! fallacy ( assum+ t ma!matical symbolism mu/ always be int]pretable1 see ,b4 ,russell1 ,f\ndations ( ,geometry1 p4 #de-df2 or ,:itehead1 ,univ]sal ,algebra1 vol4 i p4 #aj ff4 ,= a fur!r elaboration ( ! argum5t ( ! =ego+ section ,i may ref] to my ,problem ( ,conduct1 pp4 #ad-ba4 ,i ne$ h>dly w>n ! read] aga9/ confus+ a 8symbolic0 concept 9 my s5se ( ! ^w1 i4e4 "o :i* _c be fully int]pret$ 9 t]ms ( direct exp]i5ce1 ) a 8symbolic0 idea 9 ,mr4 ,sp5c]'s s5se1 i4e4 "o :i* is n1 psy*ologically1 a copy ( ! pres5tations = :i* x /&s4 ,our use ( ! ^w is1 ( c\rse1 purely logical1 & has no?+ to d ) ! psy*ological "* ( m5tal images1 b only ) _! mean+4 ,footnote #be3 ,comp>e my ,problem ( ,conduct1 pp4 #bb-ci4 ,footnote #bf3 ,! fundam5tal peculi>ity ( 8inductive0 proc$ure1 9 fact1 is t1 :ile its object is ! int]nal analysis ( its data1 :i*1 if complet$1 w\ld p]mit ( a univ]sal conclusion be+ drawn f ! s+le case1 x is nev] able to effect ! analysis1 & is driv5 to re9=ce x by ext]nal comp>ison ) 8simil>0 cases4 ,footnote #bg3 ,on ! confusion betwe5 ! metaphysical & psy*ological /&po9t 9 ,kant's own treatm5t ( ! a priori1 see ,b4 ,russell1 ,f\ndations ( ,geometry1 pp4 #a-d1 & ,adamson1 ,developm5t ( ,mod]n ,philosophy1 bk4 i4 pp4 #bdd-bdg4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,sub-,,divisions ,,( ,,metaphysics #a4 ,! traditional sub-division ( ,metaphysics into ,ontology1 ,cosmology1 ,rational ,psy*ology1 common to all ! great mod]n con/ructive sy/ems4 #b4 ,precise s5se 9 :i* we adopt ^! divisions = ! purposes ( our own treatm5t ( ! subject4 #c4 ,relation ( ,cosmology & ,rational ,psy*ology to ! empirical sci5ces4 #a4 ,engli% philosoph]s1 :o h usually be5 imbu$ ) a :olesome di/ru/ ( delib]ate sy/em-mak+1 h commonly paid comp>atively little att5tion to ! "q ( ! numb] & "* ( ! sub-divisions ( metaphysical philosophy4 ,!y h be5 cont5t to raise ! que/ions :i* int]e/$ !m 9 ! ord] ( _! occurr5ce to _! own m9ds1 & h gladly left x to ! sy/ematic hi/orians ( ,philosophy1 :o h r>ely be5 ,engli%m51 to discuss ! prop] arrangem5t ( ! p>ts ( ! subject4 ,cont95tal ?9k]s1 :o are naturally m prone to consci\s sy/ematisation1 h be/[$ m ?\ght on ! problem ( me?od & ord]1 ) ! result t ea* great indep5d5t philosoph] has t5d$ to make 8 own special arrangem5t ( ! p>ts ( 8 subject4 ,! diff]5t arrangem5ts1 h[ev]1 seem all to agree 9 con=m+ to a g5]al type1 :i* 0 mo/ cle>ly exhibit$ by ! o!rwise r arid ,wolffian dogmatism ( ! eighte5? c5tury4 ,all ! con/ructive sy/ems 7^?1 e4g41 ( ,hegel1 ,h]b>t1 ,lotze17 feel ! necessity ( giv+ ! fir/ place to a g5]al discussion ( ! mo/ univ]sal *>act]i/ics :i* we f9d ourselves con/ra9$ to ascribe 9 ?\ght to any reality :i* is to be an intelligible & coh]5t sy/em & n a m]e *aos4 ,?is division ( ! subject is commonly kn[n by ! title x be>s alike 9 ! ,wolffian ,metaphysic & ! sy/ems ( ,h]b>t & ,lotze1 z ,ontology1#bh or ! g5]al doctr9e ( ,be+2 ) ,hegel x con/itutes1 z a :ole1 ! cont5ts ( ! sci5ce ( ,logic1 z di/+ui%$ f ! o!r two great dep>tm5ts ( speculative ?\ght1 ! ,philosophies ( ,nature & ,m9d2 & its mo/ =mal & g5]al p>ts1 aga91 compose1 )9 ! ,hegelian ,logic itself1 ! special fir/ section entitl$ 8,doctr9e ( ,be+40 ,fur!r1 e sy/em ( metaphysical philosophy is b\nd to deal ) m special problems1 :i* readily fall into two pr9cipal classes4 ,x has to consid] ! mean+ & validity ( ! mo/ univ]sal conceptions ( :i* we seek to und]/& ! nature ( ! individual objects :i* make up ! exp]i5c$ physical _w1 8ext5sion10 8succession10 8space10 8"t10 8numb]10 8magnitude10 8motion10 8*ange10 8quality10 & ! m complex categories ( 8matt]10 8=ce10 8causality10 8int]action10 8?+hood10 & s =?4 ,aga91 ,metaphysics has to deal ) ! mean+ & validity ( ! univ]sal pr$icates by :i* we seek to int]pret ! nature ( ! exp]i5c+ m9d itself1 & its relation bo? to o!r m9ds & to ! objects ( ! physical _w1 8! s\l10 8! self10 8! subject10 8self-consci\sness10 8e?ical purpose10 & s =?4 ,h5ce x has be5 cu/om>y to recognise a second & ?ird "p ( ,metaphysics1 deal+ respectively ) ! mo/ g5]al *>act]i/ics ( ext]nal ,nature & ( consci\s ,m9d4 ,^! sections ( ! subject are commonly kn[n z ,cosmology & ,rational ,psy*ology4 ,9 ,hegel's sy/em !y appe> 9 a d\ble =m3 9 _! mo/ ab/ract g5]ality !y con/itute ! 8,doctr9e ( ,ess5ce10 & ! 8,doctr9e ( ! ,notion0 9 ! ,hegelian ,logic2 9 _! m concrete detail !y =m ! second & ?ird p>ts ( 8 complete sy/em or 8,encyclopdia0 ( ! philosophical sci5ces1 ! previ\sly m5tion$ ,philosophies ( ,nature & ,m9d4 ,9 ! pre-,kantian eighte5? c5tury x 0 n unusual to add yet a f\r? division to ,metaphysics1 ,rational ,!ology1 ! doctr9e ( ! exi/5ce & attributes ( ,god1 s f> z !y c be d$uc$ f g5]al philosophical pr9ciples ap>t f ! appeal to specific revelation4 ,kant's onslaught on ! :ole ,wolffian s*eme 9 ! 8,dialectic ( ,pure ,reason10 :ile pr(\ndly modify+ = ! future ! view tak5 by metaphysicians ( ,cosmology & ,rational ,psy*ology1 prov$ annihilat+ s f> z eighte5?-c5tury ,deism & its philosophical (fspr+1 ,rational ,!ology1 7 conc]n$1 & t sub-division may fairly be said to h disappe>$ f subsequ5t philosophical sy/ems4#bi #b4 ,!re are good & obvi\s reasons :y we %\ld adh]e1 9 ! =m ( our inquiry1 to ! ma9 outl9es ( ?is traditional s*eme4 ,x is true t x is l>gely a "q ( simple conv5i5ce :at ord] we adopt 9 a sy/ematic metaphysical inve/igation4 ,a g5u9ely philosophical survey ( ! g5]al "* ( k & exp]i5ce w\ld exhibit s complete a sy/ematic unity1 t y might />t f any po9t 9 x & rea* ! same results1 mu* z y may g r\nd a circle equally well f any po9t ( ! p]iph]y4 ,b = ! beg9n]1 at any rate1 x is advantage\s to />t ) ! g5]al "q :at we mean by ,be+ or ,reality1 & :at "* is to be ascrib$ to ! :ole ( ,be+ z su*1 be=e attack+ ! problem ( ! p>ticul> k9d ( ,be+ :i* belongs to ! v>i\s 8realities0 ( common life & ! special sci5ces4 ,?us we h to discuss 9 ! fir/ "p ( our programme su* que/ions z ! relation ( ,be+ 9 g5]al to exp]i5ce1 ! s5se 9 :i* ,be+ may be said to be insep>able f1 & yet aga9 to transc5d1 exp]i5ce2 ! problem ( ! exi/5ce ( diff]5t k9ds or degrees ( ,be+2 ! "q :e!r ,be+ is ultimately "o or _m2 ! relation betwe5 ,real ,be+ & its appe>ances4 ,all ^! problems correspond ) reasonable clos5ess to ! cont5ts ( :at 0 traditionally kn[n z ,ontology4 ,x is only :5 we h rea*$ "s def9ite conclusion on ^! mo/ fundam5tal que/ions t we %all be 9 a position to deal ) ! m special problems sugge/$ by ! v>i\s dep>tm5ts ( sci5ce & common life2 h5ce we %all d well to acquiesce 9 ! arrangem5t by :i* ,ontology 0 made to prec$e ! o!r divisions ( ! subject4 ,aga91 9 deal+ ) ! m complex special problems ( ,metaphysics1 x is natural to recognise a di/9ction correspond+ to ! sep>ation ( ,cosmology f ,rational ,psy*ology4 ,common language %[s t = mo/ ( ! purposes ( human ?\ght & action ! cont5ts ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce t5d to fall into ! two gr\ps ( m]e ?+s & ?+s :i* are s5ti5t & purposive--,physical ,nature on ! "o h&1 & ,m9ds or ,spirits on ! o!r4 ,we mu/1 ( c\rse1 be c>eful n to confuse ?is division ( ! objects ( exp]i5ce ) ! di/9ction betwe5 an exp]i5c$ object z su* & ! subject ( exp]i5ce4 ,we are to />t1 9 our critical inve/igation1 n ) ! artificial po9t ( view ( ,psy*ology1 :i* sets ! 8subject0 ( pres5tations ov]-aga9/ ! pres5tations consid]$ z convey+ in=mation ab\t 8objects ( k10 b ) ! /&po9t ( practical life1 9 :i* ! individual ag5t is oppos$ to an environm5t itself consi/+ l>gely ( simil> individual ag5ts4 ,x is n 8,nature0 on ! "o side & a 8p]ceiv+ m9d0 on ! o!r1 b an environm5t compos$ p>tly ( physical ?+s1 p>tly ( o!r human & animal m9ds1 t furni%es ! anti!sis on :i* ! di/9ction ( ,cosmology f ,rational ,psy*ology is f\nd$4 ,!re is no confusion aga9/ :i* we %all ne$ to be m on our gu>d ?an ?is fallaci\s id5tification ( ,m9d or ,_s ) ! ab/ract subject ( psy*ological /ates1 & ( ! 8environm5t0 ( ! individual ) ,physical ,nature4 ,( c\rse1 x is true t we necess>ily int]pret ! inn] life ( o!r m9ds 9 t]ms ( our own incommunicably individual exp]i5ce1 b x is equally true t our own direct exp]i5ce ( ourselves is ?r\gh\t det]m9$ by int]action ) o!r ag5ts ( ! same type z ourselves4 ,x is a pure delusion to suppose t we beg9 by f9d+ ourselves 9 a _w ( m]e physical ?+s to "s ( :i* we aft]w>ds come by an aft]-?\ght1 bas$ on 8analogy10 to ascribe 8consci\sness0 ak9 to our own4 ,h5ce1 to avoid possible misund]/&+s1 x w\ld be bett] to drop ! traditional appellations 8,cosmology0 & 8,rational ,psy*ology10 & to call ! divisions ( appli$ ,metaphysics1 z ,hegel does1 ! ,philosophy ( ,nature & ( ,_s or ,m9d respectively4#cj ,9 recognis+ ?is sub-division ( appli$ ,metaphysics into two sections1 deal+ respectively ) ,physical ,nature & ) ,m9d or ,_s1 we d n mean to sugge/ t !re is an absolute disp>ity betwe5 ^! two classes ( ?+s4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 a matt] = philosophical criticism itself to decide :e!r ?is diff]5ce may n 9 ! end turn out to be m]ely app>5t4 ,?is w cle>ly be ! case if ei!r m9ds c be %[n1 z ! mat]iali/ holds1 to be simply a peculi> class ( highly complex physical ?+s1 or physical ?+s to be1 z ! ideali/ cont5ds1 really m9ds ( an unfamili> & non-human type4 ,x is suffici5t = u t ! diff]5ce1 :e!r ultimate or n1 is m>k$ en\gh to give rise to di/9ct classes ( problems1 :i* h to be treat$ sep>ately & on _! own m]its4 ,we may feel conv9c$ on g5]al philosophical gr\nds t m9ds & physical ?+s are ultimately exi/5ces ( ! same g5]al type1 :e!r we conceive t type aft] ! fa%ion ( ! mat]iali/ or ( ! ideali/1 b ?is conviction does n 9 ! lea/ affect ! fact t ! special metaphysical problems sugge/$ by our exp]i5ce ( physical ?+s are l>gely diff]5t f ^? :i* are =c$ on u by our int]e/ 9 ! m9ds ( our fell[s4 ,9 ! "o connection we h1 = in/ance1 to discuss ! que/ions connect$ ) su* categories z ^? ( uni=m spatial ext5sion1 uni=m ob$i5ce to g5]al law1 ! con/itution ( a :ole :i* is an aggregate ( p>ts2 9 ! o!r1 ^? connect$ ) ! mean+ & value ( e?ical1 arti/ic1 & religi\s aspiration1 ! concept ( moral fre$om1 ! nature ( p]sonal id5tity4 ,ev5 ! categories :i* seem at fir/ sight mo/ readily applicable bo? to physical ?+s & to m9ds1 su* z ^? ( quality & numb]1 lead to special difficulties 9 ! two contra/$ cases4 ,?is consid]ation seems to ju/ify u 9 sep>at+ ! metaphysics ( ,m9d f ! metaphysics ( ,nature1 & ! sup]ior difficulty ( _m ( ! problems :i* belong to ! =m] is a fur!r reason = foll[+ ! traditional ord] ( ! two sub-divisions1 & plac+ ,rational ,psy*ology aft] ,cosmology4 ,9 s f> z ! problems ( ,rational ,!ology c be sep>at$ f ^? ( g5]al ,ontology1 ! prop] place = !m seems to be t section ( ,rational ,psy*ology :i* deals ) ! mean+ & wor? ( our religi\s exp]i5ces4 #c4 ,x rema9s1 9 conclud+ ! pres5t *apt]1 to utt] a ^w ( caution z to ! relation betwe5 ! two divisions ( appli$ ,metaphysics & ! body ( ! empirical sci5ces4 ,x is p]haps h>dly necess>y to w>n ! /ud5t t ,rational ,cosmology & ,psy*ology w\ld become worse ?an useless if conceiv$ ( z furni%+ 9 any s5se a sub/itute = ! exp]im5tal /udy ( ! physical1 psy*ological1 & social sci5ces4 ,!y are ess5tially dep>tm5ts ( ,metaphysics1 & = t v reason are incapable ( add+ a s+le fact to ! sum ( our k ( asc]ta9$ fact4 ,no d\bt ! discr$it into :i* ,metaphysics--except 9 ! =m ( tacit & unconsci\s assumption--has fall5 among /ud5ts ( positive sci5ce1 is l>gely due to ! un=tunate presumption ) :i* ,s*ell+1 & to a less degree ,hegel1 attempt$ to put metaphysical discussion 9 ! place ( ! exp]im5tal inve/igation ( ! facts ( nature & ( m9d4 ,at ! pres5t day ?is mi/ake is less likely to be committ$2 ! dang] is r t appli$ ,metaphysics may be decl>$ purely valueless because x is incapable ( add+ to our /ore ( facts4 ,! tru? is1 t x has a real value1 b a value ( a diff]5t k9d f t :i* has sometimes be5 ascrib$ to x4 ,x is conc]n$ n ) ! accumulation ( facts1 b ) ! int]pretation ( previ\sly asc]ta9$ facts1 look$ at broadly & z a :ole4 ,:5 ! facts ( physical ,nature & ( ,m9d & ! special laws ( _! connection h be5 discov]$ & sy/ematis$ by ! mo/ adequate me?ods ( exp]im5t1 obs]vation1 & ma!matical calculation at our disposal1 ! "q /ill rema9s1 h[ we are to conceive ( ! :ole realm ( su* facts consi/5tly ) ! g5]al conditions ( logical & coh]5t ?\ght4 ,if we *oose to def9e positive sci5ce z ! sy/ematic e/abli%m5t ( ! special laws ( connection betwe5 facts1 we may say t ov] & above ! sci5tific problem ( ! sy/ematisation ( facts !re is ! fur!r philosophical problem ( _! int]pretation4 ,?is latt] problem does n cease to be legitimate because x has be5 illegitimately conf\nd$ by c]ta9 ?9k]s ) ! =m]4 ,or we may put ! case 9 ano!r way4 ,! :ole process ( sci5tific sy/ematisation involves c]ta9 assumptions z to ! ultimate nature ( ! facts :i* are sy/ematis$4 ,?us ! v p]=mance ( an exp]im5t = ! purpose ( v]ify+ a sugge/$ hypo!sis involves ! assumption t ! facts ) :i* ! hypo!sis is conc]n$ con=m to g5]al laws1 & t ^! laws are su* z to be capable ( =mulation by human intellig5ce4 ,if 8nature0 is n 9 "s s5se 8uni=m10 ! conclusive =ce ( a successful exp]im5t is logically nil4 ,h5ce ! necessity = an inquiry into ! "* ( ! presuppositions involv$ 9 sci5tific proc$ure1 & ! am\nt ( ju/ification :i* c be f\nd = !m4 ,= practical purposes1 no d\bt1 ! presuppositions ( inductive sci5ce are suffici5tly ju/ifi$ by its actual successes4 ,b ! "q = u z metaphysicians1 z we h already se51 is t n ( _! usefulness b ( _! tru?4 ,x may be said t ! inquiry ought 9 any case to be left to ! special /ud5t ( ! physical & psy*ological sci5ces !mselves4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 w\ld involve s]i\s neglect ( ! great pr9ciple ( division ( lab\r4 ,x is true1 ( c\rse1 t1 o!r ?+s be+ equal1 ! bett] /or$ ! m9d ( ! philosoph] ) sci5tific facts1 ! s\nd] w be 8 judgm5t on ! int]pretation & implications ( ! :ole body ( facts4 ,b1 at ! same "t1 ! gifts :i* make a successful exp]im5tali/ & inve/igator ( facts are n altoge!r ! same :i* are requir$ = ! philosophical analysis ( ! implications ( facts1 nor are bo? always conjo9$ 9 ! same man4 ,!re is no reason1 on ! "o h&1 :y ! able exp]im5t] %\ld be compell$ to desi/ f ! discov]y ( facts ( nature until he c solve ! philosophical problems pres5t$ by ! v exi/5ce ( a _w ( physical facts1 nor1 on ! o!r1 :y ! ?9k] end[$ by nature ) p[]s ( philosophical analysis %\ld be =bidd5 to ex]cise !m until he has ma/]$ all ! facts :i* are kn[n by ! speciali/s4 ,:at ! philosoph] ne$s to "k1 z ! />t+-po9t = 8 inve/igation1 is n ! speciali/'s facts z su*1 b ! g5]al pr9ciples :i* ! speciali/ uses = _! discov]y & correlation4 ,8 /udy is a 8sci5ce ( sci5ces10 n 9 ! s5se t x is a sort ( univ]sal encyclopdia ( in/ructive & ent]ta9+ k1 b 9 ! m mode/ s5se ( be+ a sy/ematis$ reflection ^u ! concepts & me?ods ) :i* ! sci5ces1 & ! less me?odical ?\ght ( ev]yday practical life "w1 & an attempt to try !m by ! /&>d ( ultimate coh]5ce & intelligibility4 ,note4--,if we reta9 ,psy*ology1 z is done1 e4g41 by ,lotze1 z ! title ( our ,metaphysic ( ,m9d1 we ought 9 consi/5cy to give ! ^w a greatly ext5d$ s5se4 ,! facts :i* ! ,metaphysic ( ,m9d attempt to int]pret1 comprise n only ^? ( ,psy*ology 9 ! /rict] s5se 7! ab/ract /udy ( ! laws ( m5tal process71 b ^? ( all ! v>i\s sci5ces :i* deal ) ! concrete manife/ation ( m9d 9 human life 7,e?ics1 /hetics1 ,sociology1 ! /udy ( ,religion1 etc474 ,?is is "o reason = pref]r+ ! ,hegelian designation 8,philosophy ( ,m9d0 to ! traditional "o ( ,rational ,psy*ology4 ,! associations ( ! ^w ,philosophy 9 ,engli% are1 h[ev]1 s vague t ! adoption ( ! ,hegelian title might p]haps be und]/ood z id5tify+ ?is division ( ,metaphysics ) ! :ole cont5t ( ! m5tal sci5ces4 ,b = ! unfamili>ity ( ! expression1 ,i %\ld recomm5d "s su* phrase z ,metaphysics ( ,human ,society z ! mo/ adequate description ( ?is bran* ( our sci5ce4 ----- ,footnote #bh3 ,! "n is ultimately d]iv$ f ,ari/otle's def9ition ( 8,fir/ ,philosophy0--:i* along ) ,ma!matics & ,physics con/itutes accord+ to 8 sy/em1 ! :ole ( ,!oretical ,sci5ce--z ! k ( 1 i4e4 ( ! g5]al "* ( ! real z real1 z di/+ui%$ f ! k ( ! ma!matician & ! physici/1 :o only deal ) ! real 9 s f> z x exhibits numb] & magnitude1 & s5sible *ange respectively4 ,footnote #bi3 ,less effective 9 imm$iate results1 b no less ?or\gh & acute ?an ! ,kantian 8,critique ( ,speculative ,!ology10 7 ,hume's po/hum\s ,dialogues on ,natural ,religion1 a "w :i* has h>dly receiv$ its full me$ ( consid]ation f ! pr(essional hi/orians ( ,philosophy4 ,footnote #cj3 ,! fallacy ( ! assumption t our environm5t is directly giv5 9 exp]i5ce z m]ely physical is be/ br\ght out by ,av5>ius 9 8 ma/]ly little "w ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff1 :i* %\ld be famili> to all /ud5ts ( ,philosophy :o are able to read ,g]man4 ,! purely ,engli% read] w f9d _m fruitful sugge/ions 9 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 pt4 iv41 8,refutation ( ,dualism40 ,mu* confusion is caus$ 9 philosophical discussion by ! uns*ol>ly use ( ! epi/emological t]m 8object0 7:i* prop]ly signifies 8object ( cognition07 in/ead ( ! m famili> 8?+0 to d5ote ! con/itu5t elem5ts ( our environm5t z x is actually exp]i5c$ 9 practical life4 ,9 /rictness ! elem5ts ( ! environm5t are 8objects0 only = an imag9>y consci\sness :i* is ?\ght ( z m]ely cognisant ( pres5t$ fact1 a po9t :i* ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g has emphasis$4 ,= practical life ! ess5tial "* ( ! environm5t is n m]ely t x is 8pres5t$10 b t x int]acts ) our own purposive activity2 x ?us consi/s n ( 8objects10 b ( 8?+s40 ,9 includ+ ! m9ds ( our fell[s among ! ?+s :i* con/itute our environm5t1 we mu/ n commit ! mi/ake ( suppos+ 8m9ds0 z factors 9 imm$iate exp]i5ce to be 8incorporeal realities10 or 8complexes ( /ates ( consci\sness40 ,! di/9ction betwe5 m9d & body1 & ! concept ( m9d z 8)9 ! body10 or aga9 z a 8function0 ( ! body1 are psy*ological hypo!ses :i* only arise 9 ! c\rse ( subsequ5t reflective analysis ( exp]i5ce4 ,( ! wor? ( ^! hypo!ses we %all h to speak lat]4 ,at pres5t x is en\gh to note t = direct exp]i5ce a 8m9d0 means simply a ?+ ) individual purpose4 ,:at = my direct exp]i5ce di/+ui%es my fell[-man f a /ock or /one1 is n ! pres5ce )9 him ( an incorporeal 8s\l0 or 8consci\sness10 b ! fact t ,i mu/ take acc\nt ( 8 individual purposes & adapt myself to !m if ,i wi% to a*ieve my own4 ,"h aga9 ! read] ( ,g]man w d well to consult ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g 7,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 vol4 i4 *aps4 #a-c74 ,see also a pap] on 8,m9d & ,nature0 by ! pres5t writ] 9 ,int]national ,j\rnal ( ,e?ics = ,octob] #aijb4 ----- ,,book ,,ii ,,ontology--,,! ,,g5]al ,,/ructure ,,( ,,reality ,,*apt] ,i ,,reality ,,& ,,exp]i5ce #a4 ,9 a s5se 8reality0 = ea* ( u means t ( :i* he mu/ take acc\nt if 8 special purposes are to f9d fulfilm5t4 #b4 ,b ultimately ! _w mu/ possess a /ructure ( :i* all purposes1 ea* 9 its own way1 mu/ take acc\nt4 ,?is is ! 8,ultimate ,reality0 or 8,absolute0 ( ,metaphysics4 ,9 ,metaphysics we reg>d x f ! special /&po9t ( ! sci5tific intellect4 ,!re are o!r legitimate attitudes t[>ds x1 e4g41 t ( practical religion4 #c4 ,! insep>ability ( reality f imm$iate exp]i5ce involves ! recognition ( x z teleological & z uniquely individual4 #d4 ,! exp]i5ce )9 :i* all reality falls _c be my own1 nor yet ! 8collective0 exp]i5ce ( ! aggregate ( consci\s be+s4 ,x mu/ be an individual exp]i5ce :i* appreh5ds ! totality ( exi/5ce z ! h>moni\s embodim5t ( a s+le 8purpose40 ,! ne>e/ analogue our own life pres5ts to su* a type ( exp]i5ce is to be f\nd 9 ! satisfi$ insight ( p]sonal love4 #e4 ,! exp]i5ce ( su* an 8,absolute0 mu/ n be ?\ght ( z a m]e r$uplication ( our own1 or ( ! sci5tific hypo!ses by :i* we co-ord9ate facts = ! purposes ( inf]5ce4 #f4 ,our conception is closely connect$ ) t ( ,b]keley1 f :i* x diff]s by ! /ress x lays on ! purposive & selective aspect ( exp]i5ce4 #g4 ,realism1 bo? ( ! ,agno/ic & ( ! ,dogmatic type1 is incompatible ) ! mean+ we h be5 l$ to atta* to 8,reality40 ,b ,agno/icism is ju/ifi$ 9 insi/+ on ! limitations ( our k ( ,reality1 & ,dogmatic ,realism 9 reject+ ! id5tification ( ,reality ) exp]i5ce z a m]ely cognitive function ( f9ite p]cipi5ts4 #h4 ,subjectivism1 accord+ to :i* all t ,i "k is /ates ( my own 8consci\sness10 is irreconcilable ) ! admitt$ facts ( life1 & arises f ! psy*ological fallacy ( 8introjection40 #a4 ,9 ! prec$+ book we h se5 t ! v nature ( ! metaphysical problem pr$et]m9es ! g5]al "* ( ! answ] we are to give to x4 ,:at our intellect c accept z f9ally real1 we saw1 mu/ be indissolubly "o ) actual exp]i5ce1 & x mu/ be an int]nally coh]5t sy/em4 ,9 ! pres5t book we h to discuss m 9 detail ! /ructure :i* mu/ belong to any reality possess+ ^! g5]al *>act]i/ics4 ,! pres5t *apt]1 !n1 w be devot$ to an exam9ation ( ! implications ( ! exp]i5tial "* ( real ,be+2 9 ! next1 we %all deal ) ! nature ( its unity z a s+le sy/em4 ,we may p]haps mo/ conv5i5tly beg9 our discussion ) a re-def9ition ( "s ( our pr9cipal t]ms4 ,we h hi!rto spok5 ( ! object ( metaphysical k indiff]5tly z 8,be+10 8,:at is10 8,:at truly exi/s10 & z 8,reality10 8! ultimately real40 ,s f> z x is possible to draw a di/9ction betwe5 ^! two sets ( names = ! same ?+1 we may say t ea* s]ies lays special /ress on a some:at diff]5t aspect ( our object4 ,:5 we say t a ?+ 8is0 or 8has ,be+10 we seem prim>ily to mean t x is an object = ! kn[+ consci\sness1 t x has its place 9 ! sy/em ( objects :i* coh]5t ?\ght recognises4 ,:5 we call ! same object 8real0 or a 8reality10 we lay ! emphasis r on ! consid]ation t x is some?+ ( :i* we categorically mu/ take acc\nt1 :e!r we l x or n1 if "s purpose ( our own is to get its fulfilm5t4#ca ,?us aga9 ! 8non-exi/5t0 prim>ily means t :i* f9ds no place 9 ! s*eme ( objects contemplat$ by consi/5t sci5tific ?\ght2 ! 8unreal10 t ) :i* we h n1 = any human purpose1 to reckon4 ,?is is :at is (t5 express$ by say+ t reality means :at is indep5d5t ( our own w1 :at ex]cises resi/ance1 :at con/ra9s or compels our recognition1 :e!r we l x or n4 ,philosoph]s h po9t$ out t ?is way ( putt+ ! case is only half ! tru?4 ,! 8/ubborn0 facts or realities :i*1 z we commonly say1 =ce u to recognise !m1 only d s 9 consequ5ce ( ! pres5ce 9 u ( def9ite int]e/s & purposes :i* we _c effect )\t adapt+ ourselves to ! situation express$ by our /atem5t ( ! 8facts40 ,:at lies entirely outside my int]e/s & plans gets no k9d ( recognition f me2 x is 8unreal0 = me precisely because ,i h no ne$ to take acc\nt ( x z a factor to be reckon$ ) 9 ! pursuit ( my special ends4 ,?us1 s long z we use ! t]m 9 a relative s5se & ) ref]5ce to ! special ends ( ?is or t p>ticul> ag5t1 !re may be z _m diff]5t ord]s ( 8reality0 z !re are special purposes1 & :at is 8real0 = ! ag5t inspir$ by "o purpose may be unreal = 8 fell[s ^: purposes are diff]5t4 ,?us1 = example1 to an ,engli% ,*ri/ian liv+ at home 9 ,engl& ! rules ( 8ca/e0 9 ,india are usually = all practical purposes unreal2 he has no ne$ to take _! exi/5ce into acc\nt z a condition ( ! successful prosecution ( any ( 8 aims & int]e/s2 = him !y h no m significance ?an ! rules ( legal proc$ure adopt$ 9 ,wond]l&4 ,b = ! hi/orian ( ,indian society1 ! native ,h9du ,*ri/ian1 & ! dev\t wor%ipp] ( ,%iva1 ! rules ( ca/e are a true reality4 ,n "o ( ! ?ree c execute 8 special purposes )\t tak+ !m into acc\nt & all[+ !m to op]ate 9 det]m9+ 8 way ( proce$+ to 8 goal4 ,aga91 ! k9d ( reality :i* ! rules ( ca/e possess = ea* ( our ?ree m5 is diff]5t1 9 accord ) ! diff]5ces 9 _! *>act]i/ic purposes4 ,= ! hi/orian1 !y are real z a sy/em ( ideas :i* h influ5c$ & d influ5ce ! conduct ( ! society ( :i* he is writ+ ! hi/ory1 9 su* a way t )\t und]/&+ !m he _c get a cle> insight into ! social /ructure ( ,h9duism4 ,to ! native ,*ri/ian1 !y are real z a /&+ s\rce ( difficulty & a /&+ temptation to be false to 8 highe/ ideals ( conduct4 ,to ! ,%ivaite1 !y are real z ! div9ely appo9t$ means to bodily & spiritual purification f ! evil t is 9 ! _w4 #b4 ,s f>1 !n1 x might seem t 8reality0 is a purely relative t]m1 & t our previ\s *oice ( ultimate fre$om f contradiction z our /&>d ( reality 0 an arbitr>y "o1 due to ! m]e accid5t t our special purpose 9 sitt+ d[n to /udy ,metaphysics is to ?9k consi/5tly4 ,( c\rse1 x might be said1 :atev] game y *oose to play at1 ! rules ( t p>ticul> game mu/ be y\r supreme reality1 s long z y are engag$ 9 x4 ,b x dep5ds on y\r own *oice :at game y w play & h[ long y w keep at x4 ,!re is no game at :i* we all1 irrespective ( p]sonal *oice1 h to play1 & !re is !re=e no su* ?+ z an ultimate reality :i* we mu/ all recognise z su*2 !re are only ! special realities :i* correspond to our special individual purposes4 ,y h no "r to set up ! p>ticul> rules ( ! game ( sci5tific ?\ght z a reality unconditionally dem&+ recognition f ^? :o d n *oose to play t p>ticul> game4#cb ,su* an argum5t w\ld1 h[ev]1 be beside ! po9t4 ,x is true t ! special nature ( ! facts :i* any "o ( u recognises z real dep5ds on ! special nature ( 8 individual purposes4 ,& x is true t1 precisely because we are1 to "s ext5t1 g5u9e individuals1 no two m5's abid+ purposes are id5tically ! same4 ,x is !re=e true1 s f> z x goes1 t ,reality we>s a diff]5t & an individual aspect = ea* ( u4 ,b x is emphatically n true t !re is no id5tical "* at all ab\t ! purposes & int]e/s ( diff]5t individuals4 ,! v recognition ( ! fact t any "o individual purpose or int]e/ c only get expression by accommodat+ itself to a def9ite set ( conditions1 :i* con/itute ! reality correspond+ to t purpose1 c>ries ) x ! implication t ! _w is ultimately a sy/em & n a *aos1 or1 9 o!r words1 t !re is ultimately a c]ta9 con/itution ( ?+s :i*1 "u "o aspect or ano!r1 is ( mom5t = all individuals1 & mu/ be tak5 into acc\nt by e k9d ( purpose t is to get fulfilm5t4 ,if ! _w is sy/ematic at all1--& unless x is s !re is no place 9 x = def9ite purpose ( any k9d1--x mu/ f9ally h a /ructure ( su* a k9d t any purpose :i* ignores x w be defeat$4 ,all coh]5t pursuit ( purpose1 ( :atev] type1 mu/ !re=e 9 ! end re/ on ! recognition ( "s *>act]i/ics ( ! _w-ord] :i* are unconditionally & absolutely to be tak5 into acc\nt by all individual ag5ts1 no matt] :at ! special nature ( _! p>ticul> purposes4 ,?is is all t is meant :5 x is said t ! reality inve/igat$ by ,metaphysics is absolute1 or :5 ! object ( metaphysical /udy is spok5 ( z ! ,absolute4 ,we may1 9 fact1 conv5i5tly def9e ! ,absolute z t /ructure ( ! _w-sy/em :i* any & e int]nally consi/5t purpose mu/ recognise z ! condition ( its own fulfilm5t ,to d5y ! exi/5ce ( an ,absolute1 ?us def9$1 is 9 pr9ciple to r$uce ! _w & life to a m]e *aos4 ,x is important1 h[ev]1 to be> 9 m9d t 9 ,metaphysics1 ?\gh we are c]ta9ly conc]n$ ) ! ultimate or absolute ,reality1 we are conc]n$ ) x f a special po9t ( view4 ,our special purpose is to "k1 or to ?9k coh]5tly1 ab\t ! conditions :i* all intellig5t purpose has to recognise4 ,n[ ?is attitude ( sci5tific inve/igation is cle>ly n ! only "o :i* we c take up t[>ds ! ultimately real4 ,we may1 = in/ance1 seek to ga9 emotional h>mony & peace ( m9d by yield+ up ! conduct ( our practical life to ! unque/ion$ guidance ( :at we directly feel to be ! deepe/ & mo/ abid+ elem5ts 9 ! /ructure ( ! univ]se4 ,?is is ! well-kn[n attitude ( practical religion4 ,prim facie1 :ile x seems to be j z p]missible z ! purely sci5tific attitude ( ! seek] aft] tru?1 ! p]5nial 8conflict ( religion & sci5ce0 is suffici5t to %[ t ! two are n id5tical4 ,h[ !y are relat$ is a problem :i* we %all h1 9 outl9e1 to consid] t[>ds ! end ( our inquiry2 at pres5t x is en\gh = our purpose to recognise !m z div]g5t b prim facie equally ju/ifi$ attitudes t[>ds :at mu/ 9 ! end be ?\ght ( z ! same ultimate reality4 ,z ,mr4 ,bradley well says1 !re is no s9 :i* is metaphysically less ju/ifiable ?an ! metaphysician's own besett+ s9 ( treat+ 8 special way ( reg>d+ ! 8,absolute0 z ! only legitimate "o4 #c4 ,to return to our detail$ inve/igation ( ! connection betwe5 ,reality z n[ def9$ = ! metaphysician1 & ,exp]i5ce4 ,we c n[ see m completely ?an be=e :y x is only 9 imm$iate exp]i5ce t reality is to be f\nd4 ,our reason = id5tify+ reality ) imm$iate exp]i5ce has no?+ to d ) ! !ory accord+ to :i* 8s5sations10 be+ ! product ( a some?+ 8)\t ! m9d10 are suppos$ to c>ry ) !m a direct c]tificate ( ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( _! 8ext]nal0 cause4 ,= we h se53 7#a7 t imm$iacy means simply indissoluble union ) a :ole ( feel+1 & t ?is imm$iacy belongs to e m5tal /ate z actually liv$ ?r\gh2 7#b7 t ! dep5d5ce ( s5sations 9 p>ticul> on an 8ext]nal0 cause1 is 9 no s5se an imm$iate datum ( exp]i5ce1 b a reflective hypo!sis :i*1 l all su* hypo!ses1 dem&s exam9ation & ju/ification be=e x c be pron\nc$ legitimate2 7#c7 t x is a philosophical blund] to id5tify ! real ) ! m]ely 8indep5d5t0 ( ourselves4 ,:at is m]ely indep5d5t1 z we h n[ se51 w\ld = u be ! m]ely unreal4 ,pres5ce 9 imm$iate exp]i5ce is a univ]sal "* ( all t is real1 because x is only 9 s f> z any?+ is ?us pres5t$ 9 imm$iate unity ) ! concrete life ( feel+ t x c be giv5 z a condition or fact ( :i* an individual int]e/ mu/ take acc\nt1 on pa9 ( n rea*+ accompli%m5t4 ,actual life1 z we h already le>n$1 is always a concrete unity ( feel+ 9 :i* ! two di/+ui%able aspects ( a psy*ical fact1 its exi/5ce & its cont5t1 ! t & ! :at1 ?\gh di/+ui%able1 are insep>able4 ,sci5tific reflection on ! giv5 we f\nd to be always ab/ract1 9 ! s5se t its v ess5ce is ! m5tal sep>ation ( ! cont5t f ! process4 ,by su* sep>ation we m$iately get to "k ! "* ( ! sep>at$ cont5t bett]1 b our k1 ) all its fulness1 /ill rema9s ab/ract2 x is /ill k ref]r+ to & ab\t an object outside itself4 ,x is only :51 z a result ( ! reflective process1 we f9d fre% mean+ 9 ! individual process-cont5t on its recurr5ce t we return once m to ! concrete actuality ( real exi/5ce4 ,n[1 we may express ?is same result 9 ano!r & an ev5 m significant way4 ,to say t reality is ess5tially "o ) imm$iate feel+1 is only ano!r way ( say+ t ! real is ess5tially t :i* is ( significance = ! atta9m5t ( purpose4 ,= feel+ is ess5tially teleological1 z we may see ev5 9 ! case ( simple pleasure & pa94 ,amid all ! confusion & complexity ( ! psy*ological problems :i* c be rais$ ab\t ^! mo/ simple =ms ( feel+1 "o ?+ seems cle>1 t pleasure is ess5tially connect$ ) unimp$$1 pa9 ) imp$$1 dis*>ge ( n]v\s activity4 ,pleasure seems to be insep>able f successful1 pa9 f ?w>t$ or baffl$1 t5d5cy4#cc ,& if we consid] n s mu* ! ab/ractions 8pleasure 9 g5]al10 8pa9 9 g5]al10 z a specific pleasure or pa91 or aga9 a complex emotional /ate1 ! case seems ev5 cle>]4 ,only a be+ ^: behavi\r is consci\sly or unconsci\sly det]m9$ by ends or purposes seems capable ( f9d+ exi/5ce1 accord+ z ^? purposes are advanc$ or h9d]$1 pleasant or pa9ful1 glad or wret*$1 good or bad4 ,h5ce our orig9al decision t reality is to be f\nd 9 :at is imm$iately exp]i5c$1 z oppos$ to :at is sev]$ by subsequ5t reflective analysis f its union ) feel+1 & our lat] /atem5t t t is real ( :i* we are con/ra9$ to take acc\nt = ! fulfilm5t ( our purposes1 fully co9cide4 ,?is po9t may p]haps be made cle>] by a concrete example4 ,suppose t "s purpose ( m or less importance requires my imm$iate pres5ce 9 ! next t[n4 ,!n ! v>i\s r\tes by :i* ,i may rea* t t[n become at once circum/ances ( :i* ,i h to take note & to :i* ,i mu/ adapt my conduct1 if my important purpose is n to be fru/rat$4 ,x may be t !re are alt]native r\tes1 or x may be t !re is only "o4 ,9 any case1 & ?is is fundam5tal = u1 ! numb] ( alt]natives :i* my purpose leaves op5 to me w be /rictly limit$4 ,i c1 z a matt] ( m]e ma!matical possibility1 g f ,a to ,b 9 an indef9ite numb] ( ways4 ,if ,i h to make ! j\rney 9 actual fact on a giv5 day1 & ) exi/+ means ( transit1 ! !oretical inf9ity ( possible ways is spe$ily r$uc$ to1 at ! outside1 two or ?ree4 ,= simplicity's sake we w consid] ! case 9 :i* !re happ5s to be only "o available way4 ,?is "o available way is 8real0 to me1 z contra/$ ) ! inf9ity ( ma!matically possible r\tes1 precisely because ! execution ( my purpose re/ricts me to x & no o!r4 ,! ma!matically possible inf9ity ( r\tes rema9 unreal j because !y are ?\ght ( z all alike m]e possibilities2 no actual purpose limits me to "s "o or "s def9ite numb] out ( ! inf9ity1 & compels me to adapt myself to _! peculi>ities or fail ( my end4 ,!y are 8imag9>y0 or 8m]ely possible0 j = want ( specific relation to an exp]i5ce :i* is ! expression ( a def9ite purpose4 ,?is illu/ration may lead u on to a fur!r po9t ( ! utmo/ importance1 = x illu/rates ! pr9ciple t ! real z oppos$ to ! m]ely 8possible0 or 8m]ely ?\ght (0 is always individual4 ,!re 0 an indef9ite numb] ( ma!matically conceivable ways f ,a to ,b2 !re 0 only "o1 or at lea/ a precisely det]m9ate numb]1 by :i* ,i c\ld fulfil a concrete individual purpose4 7,?us1 if ,i h to make ! j\rney to ,b 9 a giv5 "t1 ,i mu/ take ! r\te foll[$ by ! railway47 ,s univ]sally x is a curr5t common-place t :ile ?\ght is g5]al1 ! reality ab\t :i* we ?9k & ( :i* we pr$icate ! results ( our ?\ght is always individual4 ,n[1 :at is ! s\rce or pr9ciple ( ?is individuality ( ! real z oppos$ to ! g5]ality ( ! m]ely conceivable8 ,x is precisely t connection ( reality ) actual purpose ( :i* we h spok54 ,! results ( ?\ght are g5]al because = ! purposes ( sci5tific ?9k+ we isolate ! :at ( exp]i5ce f its t2 we consid] ! "* ( :at is pres5t$ to u ap>t f ! unique purpose express$ 9 ! exp]i5ce 9 :i* x comes to u4 ,9 o!r words1 ! problems ( sci5tific ?\ght are all ( ! =m1 8,h[ mu/ our g5]al purpose to make our ?\ght & action coh]5t be c>ri$ out "u su* & su* typical conditions80 nev] ( ! =m1 8,( :at mu/ ,i take acc\nt = ! execution ( ?is "o def9ite purpose80 ,! reason = ?is diff]5ce is at once app>5t4 ,9 mak+ 8?is def9ite purpose0 a topic = reflection1 ,i h ipso facto ab/ract$ its :at f its t & conv]t$ x into a m]e in/ance or example ( a c]ta9 type4 ,x 0 only :ile x rema9$ ?is purpose z actually imman5t 9 & det]m9+ ! imm$iate exp]i5ce ( actual life t x 0 a completely det]m9ate unique ?is2 z reflect$ on x becomes a type ( an indef9ite numb] ( simil> possibilities4 ,n[1 x is necess>y "h to obs]ve v c>efully t x is f ! unique individuality ( ! purpose express$ 9 an actual exp]i5ce t ! objects or facts ( imm$iate exp]i5ce d]ive ! individuality 9 virtue ( :i* we contra/ !m ) ! g5]alities or ab/ract possibilities ( sci5ce4 ,x is ! m necess>y to dwell explicitly on ?is po9t1 because !re is a common b errone\s doctr9e t ! individuality ( actual exi/5ce is d]iv$ f its occupy+ a p>ticul> place 9 ! space & "t ord]s4 ,sci5tific tru? is g5]al1 x is (t5 said1 because x ref]s alike to all places & times2 actual 8fact0 is individual because x is :at is "h & n[4 ,b we %\ld be able to see t su* an acc\nt directly inv]ts ! real ord] ( logical dep5d5ce4 ,m]e position 9 space & "t c nev] be a true 8pr9ciple ( individuation10 = ! simple reason t "o po9t 9 space & "o mom5t 9 "t1 consid]$ ap>t f ! ?+s & ev5ts :i* fill !m1 are1 at any rate = our p]ception1#cd indi/+ui%able f all o!r po9ts & mom5ts4 ,x is1 on ! o!r h&1 precisely by _! correlation ) unique /ages 9 lives :i* are ! embodim5t ( unique & individual purpose1 t places & times & ! ?+s & ev5ts :i* occupy !m become = u !mselves unique & individual4 ,"h1 = me1 means :]e ,i n[ am1 & n[1 ?is unique & det]m9ate /age 9 ! execution ( ! purposes :i*1 by _! uniqu5ess1 make me unique 9 ! _w4 ,?us we seem to h rea*$ ! significant conclusion t to say 8,reality is exp]i5ce0 involves ! fur!r propositions1 8,reality is ?r\gh & ?r\gh purposive0 & 8,reality is uniquely individual40 #d4 ,we h already se5 t to id5tify reality ) exp]i5ce does n mean id5tify+ x ) my own exp]i5ce j z x comes to me 9 actual life1 /ill less ) my own exp]i5ce z ,i m5tally recon/ruct x 9 ! light ( "s consci\s or unconsci\s philosophical !ory4 ,my own exp]i5ce1 9 fact1 is v f> f satisfy+ ! conditions ( complet5ess & h>mony :i* we f\nd 9 our la/ book to be ess5tial to a 8pure0 or p]fect exp]i5ce4 ,its defectiv5ess is pr9cipally manife/$ 9 ?ree ways4 7#a7 ,z we h already se51 its cont5ts are always fragm5t>y4 ,x nev] conta9s m ?an ! poore/ fragm5t ( ! :ole weal? ( exi/5ce4 ,! purposes or int]e/s :i* make up my consci\s life are n>r[ly limit$4 ,! major portion ( ! facts ( ! univ]se1 i4e4 ( ! conditions ( :i* note has to be tak5 by its inhabitants if _! aims are to be fulfill$1 lie outside ! range ( my individual int]e/s--at lea/1 ( ^? :i* ,i ev] become explicitly aw>e4 ,h5ce1 be+ )\t significance = my individual purposes1 !y d n directly ent] into my special exp]i5ce4 ,i ei!r "k no?+ ( !m at all1 or "k ( !m only indirectly & ?r\gh ! te/imony ( o!rs = ^: lives !y h real & direct significance4 ,& ^! o!rs aga9 are1 9 virtue ( ! individual int]e/s :i* diff]5tiate !m f me1 only p>tially cognisant ( ! same factual reality z ,i am4 7#b7 ,aga91 my insight ev5 into my own aims & int]e/s is ( a v limit$ k9d4 ,= "o ?+1 x is only a fragm5t ( !m :i* is ev] giv5 9 ! =m ( :at is imm$iately felt 9 an actual mom5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,i h l>gely to int]pret ! actually felt by !oretical intellectual con/ructions :i* rea*1 9 ! =m ( memory1 into ! pa/1 &1 9 ! =m ( anticipation1 into ! future4 ,& bo? ^! types ( intellectual con/ruction1 ?\gh indisp5sable1 are notori\sly vitiat$ by fallacies4 ,= ano!r1 ev5 ) ! fulle/ aid ( su* intellectual con/ruction1 ,i nev] succe$ 9 completely grasp+ ! :ole mean+ ( my life z ! embodim5t ( a s+le coh]5t purpose4 ,_m ( my purposes nev] rise suffici5tly into cle> consci\sness to be di/9ctly realis$1 & ^? t d (t5 we> ! appe>ance ( hav+ no sy/ematic connection ) "o ano!r4 ,small wond]1 !n1 t ! realities or 8facts0 ( :i* ,i le>n to take note = ! execution ( my aims m (t5 ?an n appe> to belong to a *aos r ?an to ! ord]ly sy/em :i* we _c help believ+ ! _w to be1 c\ld we see x z x truly is4 7#c7 ,f9ally1 ,i h ! grave/ gr\nds = ! conviction t ev5 ( ! realities ( :i* ,i d take note ,i nev] p]ceive m ?an j ^? aspects :i* attract my att5tion j because !y happ5 to be significant = my special int]e/s4 ,:at />tl+ exp]i5ces tea* u 9 ! case ( our fell[-m5 may be true ev]y:]e1 namely1 t ev]y?+ t is has an inf9ity ( sides to x1 ov] & above ^? ( :i* we become aw>e because ( _! special importance = our own purposes2 !re may be an inf9ite weal? ( "* 9 ! mo/ famili> ?+s1 to :i* we are bl9d only because1 s to speak1 x has no 8economic value0 = ! human m>ket4 ,= all ^! reasons we are absolutely =bidd5 to id5tify our own limit$ exp]i5ce ) ! exp]i5ce ( :i* we h said1 t to be real is to be b\nd up ) x1 & to be b\nd up ) x is to be real4 ,nei!r1 aga91 c we id5tify ?is exp]i5ce ) ! 8collective exp]i5ce0 ( ! aggregate ( human or o!r f9ite s5ti5t be+s 9 ! univ]se4 ,?is is obvi\s = m reasons ?an "o4 ,to beg9 )1 8collective exp]i5ce10 if x has any mean+ at all1 is a contradictory expression4 ,= exp]i5ce1 z we h se51 is ess5tially *>act]is$ by unique individuality ( aim & int]e/2 9 ?is s5se at lea/1 a true exp]i5ce mu/ be t ( an individual subject1 & no collection or aggregate c be an individual subject4 ,! s-call$ 8collective exp]i5ce0 is n "o exp]i5ce at all1 b simply an indef9ite multiplicity ( exp]i5ce1 ?r[n toge!r "u a s+le designation4 ,& ev5 if we c\ld get ov] ?is difficulty1 !re rema9s a /ill m =midable "o4 ,! v>i\s exp]i5ces ( f9ite individuals are all1 we h said1 fragm5t>y & m or less incoh]5t4 ,y _c1 !re=e1 get an exp]i5ce :i* is all-compreh5sive & all-h>moni\s by add+ !m toge!r4 ,if _! defect 7 m]ely _! fragm5t>9ess1 x w\ld be conceivable t1 giv5 an outside obs]v] :o c\ld see all ! fragm5ts at once1 !y might con/itute a :ole by m]ely supplem5t+ "o ano!r's defici5cies4 ,b our f9ite exp]i5ces are n only fragm5t>y1 b also l>gely contradictory & int]nally *aotic4 ,we may inde$ believe t ! contradictions are only app>5t1 & t if we c\ld become fully consci\s ( our own inmo/ aims & purposes we %\ld at ! same mom5t be aw>e ( all ,reality z a h>moni\s sy/em2 b we nev] d1 & we %all see lat] t j because ( our f9itude we nev] c1 atta9 ?is complet$ insight into ! significance ( our own lives4 ,h5ce ! exp]i5ce = :i* all reality is pres5t z a h>moni\s :ole _c be any m]e duplicate ( ! p>tial & imp]fect exp]i5ces :i* we possess4 ,we ?us seem driv5 to ass]t ! necess>y exi/5ce ( a sup]human exp]i5ce to :i* ! :ole univ]se ( be+ is directly pres5t z a complete & h>moni\s sy/em4 ,= 8reality0 has be5 se5 to h no mean+ ap>t f pres5ce 9 a s5ti5t exp]i5ce or :ole ( feel+1 :ile x has also be5 se5 inf9itely to transc5d all t c be giv5 z directly pres5t to any limit$ exp]i5ce4 ,if ?is conclusion is s\nd1 our 8,absolute0 c n[ be said to be a consci\s life :i* embraces ! totality ( exi/5ce1 all at once1 & 9 a p]fect sy/ematic unity1 z ! cont5ts ( its exp]i5ce4 ,su* a conception cle>ly has its difficulties2 h[ su* an all-conta9+ exp]i5ce mu/ be ?\ght to be relat$ to ! realm ( physical nature1 & aga9 to our own f9ite exp]i5ces1 are problems :i* we %all h to take up 9 our two succe$+ books4 ,we %all f9d !m f> f simple1 & x is z well = u f ! fir/ to face ! possibility t our k ( ! "* ( ! absolute exp]i5ce may prove to be v limit$ & v t5tative4 ,t x is we seem compell$ to ass]t by ! v ef=t to give a coh]5t mean+ to our notion ( reality1 b ( :at x is we may h to confess ourselves l>gely ignorant4 ,b we may at lea/ g s f> z ?is1 at ! pres5t /age ( our argum5t4 ,h[ev] diff]5t an all-conta9+ coh]5t exp]i5ce may be 9 its detail$ /ructure f our own piecemeal & l>gely incoh]5t exp]i5ce1 if x is to be exp]i5ce at all1 x mu/ appreh5d its cont5ts 9 ! g5]al way :i* is *>act]i/ic ( direct exp]i5ce z su*4 ,x mu/ take note or be aw>e ( !m1 & x mu/--if x is to be a direct exp]i5ce at all--be aw>e ( !m z exhibit+ a /ructural unity :i* is ! embodim5t ( a consi/5t plan or purpose4 ,we h to ?9k ( x z conta9+ 9 a sy/ematic unity n only all ! 8facts0 ( :i* our v>i\s exp]i5ces h to take note1 b all ! purposes :i* !y express4 ,h5ce x is natural = u1 :5 we attempt to =m "s approximate concept ( su* an ultimate exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( our own consci\s life1 to conceive x z ! union ( p]fect$ k 9 an indivisible :ole ) supreme w4 ,we mu/1 h[ev]1 rememb] t1 = su* an exp]i5ce1 precisely because ( its all-compris+ "*1 ! :at & ! t are insep>able4 ,h5ce its k mu/ be ( ! nature ( direct insight into ! individual /ructure ( ! _w ( fact1 n ( g5]alisation ab\t possibilities1 & its w mu/ h ! =m ( a purpose :i*1 unlike our own1 is always consci\sly express$ ) p]fect h>mony & complet5ess 9 ! 8facts0 ( :i* x is aw>e4#ce ,h5ce k & w1 involv+ z !y d = u discrepancy betwe5 ! :at & ! t ( exp]i5ce1 are n :olly satisfactory t]ms by :i* to *>act]ise ! life ( ! ,absolute4#cf ,! mo/ adequate analogue to su* a life w probably be f\nd 9 ! comb9ation ( direct insight ) satisfi$ feel+ :i* we exp]i5ce 9 ! relation ( intimate & intellig5t love betwe5 p]sons4 ,! insight ( love may be call$ 8k10 b x is k ( a q o!r type ?an ! hypo!tical univ]sals ( sci5ce4 ,i "k my fri5d1 n z "o case ( ?is or t g5]al class ab\t :i* c]ta9 propositions 9 ,physiology1 ,psy*ology1 or ,e?ics c be made1 b z--= me at lea/--a unique individual c5tre ( p]sonal int]e/4 ,aga91 9 my relations ) my fri5d1 s f> z !y rema9 ^? ( satisfi$ love1 my individual int]e/s f9d _! fulle/ embodim5t4 ,b ! w to love is n fir/ !re 9 an unsatisfi$ =m1 & ! embodim5t aft]w>ds add$ z ! result ( a process ?r\gh means to an end4 ,! purpose & its embodim5t are ?r\gh\t pres5t toge!r 9 an unbrok5 unity1 & :]e ?is is n s1 true mutual fri5d%ip does n z yet exi/4#cg ,aft] "s su* g5]al fa%ion we %all be/ repres5t to ourselves ! k9d ( consci\sness :i* we mu/ attribute to an all-embrac+ _w-exp]i5ce4 ,only1 we mu/ be> 9 m9d t1 ow+ to ! fragm5t>9ess ( our own lives1 ! id5tity ( purpose on :i* human fri5d%ip re/s c nev] be close & intimate en\gh to be an adequate repres5tative ( ! ultimate unity ( all exp]i5ce 9 ! ,absolute4#ch #e4 ,x may be well to add a ^w ( caution aga9/ a plausible fallacy "h4 ,if !re is su* an ,absolute ,exp]i5ce z we h dem&$1 all ! realities t we "k z ! cont5ts ( our environm5t mu/ be pres5t to x1 & pres5t to x z !y really are 9 _! complet5ess4 ,b we mu/ be c>eful n to suppose t 8our0 environm5t1 z x appe>s to an exp]i5ce :i* appreh5ds x z x really is1 is a m]e replica or r$uplication ( ! way 9 :i* x appe>s to u4 ,= example1 ,i mu/ n assume t :at ,i p]ceive z a physical ?+1 made up ( sep>able p>ts ext]nal to "o ano!r & app>5tly comb9$ 9 a me*anical way into a :ole :i* is a m]e collection or aggregate ( p>ts1 is necess>ily appreh5d$ by ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce z an aggregate ( simil> or correspond+ p>ts4 ,! ?+ z x appe>s to my limit$ insight may be no less diff]5t f ! ?+ z appreh5d$ 9 its true nature by su* an exp]i5ce1 ?an y\r body1 z x exi/s = my p]ception f y\r body z y appreh5d x 9 organic s5sation4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we mu/ n assume t ?+s exi/ = ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce 9 ! =m into :i* we analyse !m = ! purpose ( g5]al sci5tific !ory1 = in/ance1 t physical ?+s are = x assemblages ( atoms or individual m9ds successions ( 8m5tal /ates40 ,9 fact1 )\t anticipat+ ! results ( succe$+ books1 we may safely say at once t ?is w\ld be 9 pr9ciple impossible4 ,= all sci5tific analysis is 9 its v nature g5]al & hypo!tical4 ,x deals solely ) types & ab/ract possibilities1 nev] ) ! actual con/itution ( individual ?+s4 ,b all real exi/5ce is individual4 ,to put ! same ?+ 9 a diff]5t way1 sci5tific !ory deals always ) ^? features ( ! :at ( ?+s ( :i* we take note because ( _! significance = our human purposes4 ,& 9 deal+ ) ^! features ( ?+s1 x seeks to e/abli% g5]al laws ( l9kage betwe5 !m ( :i* we may avail ourselves1 = ! practical purpose ( realis+ our v>i\s human int]e/s4 ,?is practical motive1 ?\gh (t5 n app>5t1 implicitly controls our :ole sci5tific proc$ure f fir/ to la/4 ,h5ce ! "o te/ ( a sci5tific hypo!sis is its success 9 enabl+ u to inf] "o set ( facts f ano!r set1 ,:e!r ! int]m$iate l9ks by :i* we pass f ! "o set to ! o!r h any c\nt]p>t 9 ! _w ( real exp]i5ce or are m]e creations ( !ory1 l ! 8un9t]pretable0 symbols 9 a ma!matical calculus1 is f ?is po9t ( view a matt] ( indiff]5ce4 ,all we require ( our hypo!sis is t :5 y />t ) facts capable ( exp]im5tal v]ification1 ! application ( x %all lead to o!r facts capable ( exp]im5tal v]ification4 ,= ?is reason we may ju/ifiably conclude t to any exp]i5ce :i* is aw>e ( ?+s 9 _! concrete individuality !y mu/ pres5t aspects :i* are n repres5t$ 9 our sci5tific hypo!ses1 & aga9 _c appe> to x z ! precise c\nt]p>t ( ! s*emes accord+ to :i* we q legitimately recon/ruct !m = ! purpose ( sci5tific inve/igation4 ,we %all ne$ to be> ?is 9 m9d 9 future :5 we come to discuss ! real "* ( :at appe>s to u z ! _w ( physical nature4#ci #f4 ,! conclusion we h rea*$ s f> is l>gely id5tical ) t ( ! anti-mat]iali/ic argum5t ( ,b]keley's well-kn[n ,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k & ,?ree ,dialogues betwe5 ,hylas & ,philon\s4 ,b !re is "o important diff]5ce betwe5 ! two results :i* w lead to mom5t\s consequ5ces4 ,b]keley's argum5t aga9/ ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( unp]ceiv$ matt] proce$s ?r\gh\t on ! pr9ciple t to be means to be pres5t 9 an exp]i5ce1 & 8 exhibition ( ! contradictions into :i* ! d5ial ( ?is pr9ciple leads ! support] ( sci5tific mat]ialism rema9s ! classic demon/ration ( ! tru? ( ! oppos+ or 8ideali/ic0 view4 ,b x is to be not$ t he works ?r\gh\t ) an inadequate conception ( 8exp]i5ce0 & 8pres5ce 9 exp]i5ce40 ,he treats exp]i5ce z equival5t to m]e passive 8aw>5ess0 ( a quality pres5t$ to p]ception4 ,to exp]i5ce ) him means simply to be consci\s ( a pres5t$ quality2 exp]i5ce is treat$ z hav+1 9 psy*ological t]m9ology1 a m]ely pres5tational "*4 ,h5ce he is l$ to inf] t ! ?+s ) :i* exp]i5ce confronts u are no?+ m ?an complexes ( pres5t$ qualities1 or1 z he phrases x1 t _! :ole be+ consi/s 9 be+ p]ceiv$4 ,! full ext5t ( ! p>adox :i* ?is id5tification ( ! esse ( mat]ial ?+s ) p]cipi involves1 w be m app>5t :5 we come to deal 9 our next book ) ! problem ( matt]4 ,at pres5t ,i m]ely wi% to call att5tion to "o ( its _m aspects4 ,on ! !ory t exp]i5ce is purely passive & pres5tational1 consi/+ m]ely 9 ! reception ( c]ta9 s5sations1 ! "q at once arises1 ,:at det]m9es :at 9 p>ticul> ! s5sations we at any giv5 mom5t receive %all be8 ,on ! ,b]keleian view1 _! ord] mu/ be det]m9$ altoge!r f )\t by a pr9ciple =eign to ! exp]i5ce :i*1 he assumes1 has no?+ to d b to cognise ! qualities put be=e x4 ,h5ce he is l$ to appeal to ! ag5cy ( ,god1 :om he supposes directly & imm$iately to cause p]ceptions to succe$ "o ano!r 9 my exp]i5ce 9 a c]ta9 def9ite ord]4 ,n[1 ap>t f fur!r difficulties ( detail1 ?is doctr9e at once leads to ! result t ! attitude ( ,god to ! _w ( ?+s is totally diff]5t f t ( u :o exp]i5ce x4 ,exp]i5ce is to me a purely passive receptivity ( pres5tations2 ,god's relation to ! pres5t$ objects1 on ! o!r h&1 is "o ( active production4 ,!re is no common elem5t 9 ^! fundam5tally contra/$ relations2 h5ce x is really a p>alogism :5 ,b]keley all[s himself to br+ ,god "u ! same categories :i* he applies to ! int]pretation ( human exp]i5ce1 & to attribute to ,him a consci\sness ( ! ?+s :i* h be5 decl>$ to be only ! pres5tations ,8 ag5cy raises 9 ! human m9d4#dj ,b]keley is1 9 fact1 inconsi/5tly comb9+ two conflict+ l9es ( ?\ght4 ,he argues1 on ! "o h&1 t s9ce !re mu/ be "s reason = ! ord] 9 :i* pres5tations succe$ "o ano!r 9 my m5tal life1 t reason is to be f\nd 9 a s\rce indep5d5t ( myself4 ,?is s\rce he id5tifies ) ,god1 b1 z f> z ! argum5t goes1 x might equally well h be5 f\nd1 z by ,locke1 9 ! orig9al con/itution ( matt]2 all t ! argum5t requires is t x %all be plac$ 9 some?+ outside ! succession ( pres5tations !mselves4 ,on ! o!r h&1 he also argues t s9ce ! exi/5ce ( ! physical _w means simply ! fact ( its be+ pres5t$ to consci\sness1 :5 its cont5ts cease to be pres5t to my consci\sness !y mu/ be pres5t to t ( ,god4 ,& "h aga9 ! objection might be sugge/$1 t if pres5ce to my own exp]i5ce1 :ile x la/s1 is an adequate acc\nt ( ! esse ( a ?+1 x does n appe> :y ,i %\ld recognise ! reality ( any o!r exp]i5ce4 ,if ,i am to hold t disappe>ance f my exp]i5ce does n de/roy ! reality ( any?+1 ,i mu/ logically also hold t its be+1 :ile ,i p]ceive x1 is n exhau/$ by my aw>5ess ( x4 ,its esse _c be m]ely p]cipi4 ,! complete solution ( ,b]keley's difficulty w\ld be premature at ?is po9t ( our discussion4 ,b we may at once po9t out its pr9cipal s\rce4 ,x arises f 8 failure to take adequate acc\nt ( ! purposive aspect ( exp]i5ce4 ,exp]i5ce1 z we h se51 is n m]e aw>5ess ( a succession ( pres5t$ objects1 x is aw>5ess ( a succession det]m9$ by a controll+ int]e/ or purpose4 ,! ord] ( my exp]i5ces is n some?+ simply giv5 me f )\t1 x is controll$ & det]m9$ by subjective int]e/ f )94 ,b]keley1 9 fact1 omits selective att5tion f 8 psy*ological e/imate ( ! cont5ts ( ! human m9d4 ,he =gets t x is ! int]e/s = :i* ,i take note ( facts t 9 ! ma9 det]m9e :i* facts ,i %all take note (1 an ov]sight :i* is ! m rem>kable1 s9ce he expressly lays /ress on 8activity0 z ! di/+ui%+ prop]ty ( 8spirits40#da ,:5 we make good ! omission by emphasis+ ! teleological aspect ( exp]i5ce1 we see at once t ! radical disp>ity betwe5 ! relation ( ! supreme & ! subord9ate m9d to ! _w ( facts disappe>s4 ,i d n simply receive my pres5t$ facts passively 9 an ord] det]m9$ = me f )\t by ! supreme m9d2 9 virtue ( my p[] ( selective att5tion1 on a limit$ scale1 & v imp]fectly1 ,i recreate ! ord] ( _! succession = myself4 ,aga91 recognition ( ! teleological aspect ( all exp]i5ce goes f> to remove ! dissatisfaction :i* we may reasonably feel ) ! o!r half ( ,b]keley's argum5t4 ,:5 ,i conceive ( ! 8facts0 ( exp]i5ce z m]ely objects pres5t$ to my appreh5sion1 !re seems no suffici5t reason = hold+ t !y exi/ except z s pres5t$4 ,b ! mom5t ,i ?9k ( ! succession ( pres5t$ facts z itself det]m9$ by ! subjective int]e/s express$ 9 selective att5tion1 ! case becomes diff]5t4 ,! v expression 8selective att5tion0 itself c>ries ) x a rem9d] t ! facts :i* respond to my int]e/s are b a selection out ( a l>g] :ole4 ,& my practical exp]i5ce ( ! way 9 :i* my own mo/ cle>ly def9$ & consci\s purposes dep5d = _! fulfilm5t ^u connection ) ! int]e/s & purposes ( a wid] social :ole possess$ ( an organic unity1 %\ld help me to und]/& h[ ! totality ( int]e/s & purposes det]m9+ ! selective att5tion ( diff]5t p]cipi5ts c =m1 z we h held t x mu/1 ! h>moni\s & sy/ematic unity ( ! absolute exp]i5ce4 ,! full] work+ out ( ?is l9e ( ?\ght mu/ be left = lat] *apt]s1 b x is h>dly too mu* to say t ! teleological "* :i* exp]i5ce possesses 9 virtue ( its unity ) feel+ is ! key to ! ideali/ic int]pretation ( ! univ]se4#db ,idealism1 i4e4 ! doctr9e t all reality is m5tal1 z we %all h repeat$ opportunities ( le>n+1 becomes un9telligible :5 m5tal life is conceiv$ ( z a m]e aw>5ess ( 8giv50 pres5tations4 #g4 ,we may n[1 be=e attempt+ to c>ry out 9 detail our g5]al view ( :at is involv$ 9 be+ real1 enum]ate "o or two philosophical doctr9es ab\t ! nature ( real exi/5ce :i* our conclusion z to ! connection ( reality ) exp]i5ce ju/ifies u 9 sett+ aside4 ,&1 fir/ ( all1 we c at once see t our previ\s result1 if s\nd1 proves fatal to all =ms ( :at is commonly kn[n z ,realism4 ,by ,realism is meant ! doctr9e t ! fundam5tal "* ( t :i* really is1 z di/+ui%$ f t :i* is only imag9$ to be1 is to be f\nd 9 its indep5d5ce ( all relation to ! exp]i5ce ( a subject4 ,:at exi/s at all1 ! reali/ holds1 exi/s equally :e!r x is exp]i5c$ or n4 ,nei!r ! fact ( its exi/5ce nor ! k9d ( exi/5ce x possesses dep5ds 9 any way ^u its pres5ce to an exp]i5ce4 ,be=e x 0 exp]i5c$ at all x _h j ! same k9d ( be+ t x has n[ y are exp]i5c+ x1 & x w /ill be ! same :5 x has pass$ out ( exp]i5ce4 ,9 a ^w1 ! circum/ance t a m9d--:e!r y\rs or m9e or ,god's is indiff]5t to ! argum5t--is aw>e ( x z "o ( ! con/itu5ts ( its exp]i5ce1 makes no diff]5ce to ! reality ( ! real ?+2 exp]i5ce is :at is te*nically call$ a relation ( "o-sid$ dep5d5ce4 ,t !re may be exp]i5ce at all1 & t x may h ?is or t "*1 !re mu/ be real ?+s ( det]m9ate "*1 b t !re may be real ?+s1 x is n necess>y t !re %\ld be exp]i5ce4 ,?is is1 9 brief1 ! ess5ce ( ! reali/ cont5tion1 & any philosophy :i* accepts x z valid is 9 its _s a reali/ philosophy4 ,z to ! numb] & nature ( ! suppos$ indep5d5t real ?+s1 v diff]5t views may be held & h be5 held by diff]5t repres5tatives ( ,realism4 ,?us "s reali/s h ma9ta9$ ! exi/5ce ( a s+le ultimate reality1 o!rs ( an indef9ite plurality ( indep5d5t 8reals40 ,p>m5ides1 ) 8 doctr9e t ! real _w is a s+le uni=m un*ang+ mat]ial sph]e1 is an in/ance 9 ! anci5t1 & ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]1 ) 8 ,unkn[able1 an in/ance 9 ! mod]n _w ( a reali/ ( ! =m] or 8moni/ic0 type4 ,! anci5t atomi/s1 & 9 m rec5t times ,leibnitz ) 8 inf9ite plurality ( indep5d5t & disconnect$ monads1 & ,h]b>t ) 8 _w ( simple 8reals10 af=d ! be/ kn[n in/ances ( a doctr9e ( plurali/ic ,realism4 ,s aga91 ! mo/ div]se !ories h be5 prop\nd$ z to ! nature ( ! 8reals40 ,anci5t & mod]n atomi/s h ?\ght ( !m z mat]ial1 & ?is is p]haps ! =m ( reali/ic doctr9e :i* appeals mo/ readily to ! ord9>y imag9ation4 ,b ?\gh a mat]iali/ic metaphysician is necess>ily a reali/1 a reali/ ne$ n be a mat]iali/4 ,h]b>t ?\ght ( ! indep5d5t 8reals0 z qualitatively simple be+s ( a nature n capable ( fur!r def9ition1 ,leibnitz z m9ds1 :ile ,agno/ic philosoph]s ( ! type ( ,sp5c] conceive _! ultimate reality z a sort ( neutral t]tium quid1 nei!r m5tal nor mat]ial4 ,! only po9t on :i* all ! !ories agree is t ! reality ( t :i* !y recognise z true ,be+ consi/s 9 its n dep5d+ = its exi/5ce or its "* on relation to an exp]i5ce4 ,! diff]5ces ( detail z to ! numb] & nature ( indep5d5t 8reals10 ?\gh ( great importance = our complete e/imate ( an individual reali/'s philosophical position1 d n affect our g5]al v]dict on ! t5ability ( ! fir/ pr9ciple ( ,realism4 ,! "o po9t ( div]g5ce among reali/s :i* may be consid]$ z ( m ?an second>y importance = our pres5t purpose1 is ! diff]5ce betwe5 :at we may call ,agno/ic & ,dogmatic ,realism4 ,agno/ic ,realism1 :ile ass]t+ ! ultimate dep5d5ce ( our exp]i5ce ^u a reality :i* exi/s indep5d5tly ( exp]i5ce1 d5ies t we c h any k ( ! nature ( ?is indep5d5t reality4 ,! indep5d5t reality by :i* all exp]i5ce is condition$ is1 on ?is view1 an ,unkn[able or ,?+-9-itself1#dc ( :i* we are only logically entitl$ to say t x c]ta9ly is1 b t we d n 9 ! lea/ "k :at x is4 ,! doctr9e ( ,agno/ic ,realism has probably nev] be5 c>ri$ out by any ?9k] ) rigid consi/5cy1 b x =ms a lead+ feature ( ! philosophy ( ,kant z exp\nd$ 9 8 ,fir/ ,critique1 & ?r\gh ,kant has pass$ into ,engli% ?\ght z ! f\ndation ( ! sy/ems ( ,sir ,william ,hamilton & ,mr4 ,h]b]t ,sp5c]4#dd ,dogmatic ,realism1 ( :i* ,leibnitz &1 at a lat] date1 ,h]b>t are ! mo/ important repres5tatives 9 mod]n philosophy1 on ! contr>y1 :ile ma9ta9+ t real be+ is indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce1 at ! same "t holds t x is possible to h positive k n only ( its exi/5ce b ( its nature4 ,9 pr9ciple1 bo? ^! =ms ( ,realism h be5 already exclud$ by ! argum5t ( ,book ,i4 *ap4 #b1 #d4 ,! supreme importance ( ! pr9ciple on :i* ! argum5t re/s may p]haps w>rant u 9 once m briefly recurr+ to x4 ,our reason+1 x w be rememb]$1 took ! =m ( a *all5ge4 ,produce any in/ance y please1 we said to ! reali/1 :om we _h n !n le>n$ to "k by t "n1 ( :at y p]sonally reg>d z reality1 & we w und]take to %[ t x d]ives its reality = y f ! v fact t x is n ultimately sep>able f ! exp]i5ce ( a subject4 ,a ?+ is real = y1 & n m]ely imag9>y1 precisely because 9 "s aspect ( its "* x ent]s into & affects y\r own exp]i5ce4 ,or1 :at is ! same ?+ 9 o!r words1 x is real = y because x affects fav\rably or o!rwise "s subjective int]e/ ( y\r own4 ,to be sure1 ! ?+ z x ent]s into y\r exp]i5ce1 z x affects y\r own subjective int]e/s1 is n ! ?+ z x is 9 its fulness2 x only t\*es y\r life ?r\gh "s "o ( its _m sides4 ,& ?is may lead y to argue t ! real ?+ is ! unexp]i5c$ 8condition0 ( a modification ( y\r exp]i5ce4 ,b !n we _h aga9 to ask :at y mean by say+ t facts :i* y d n exp]i5ce are real z 8conditions0 ( :at y d exp]i5ce4 ,& we saw t ! only mean+ we c\ld atta* to ! reality ( ! 8condition0 0 pres5ce to an exp]i5ce :i* transc5ds y\r own4 ,to ?is g5]al argum5t we may add two coroll>ies or supplem5t>y consid]ations1 :i*1 )\t introduc+ any?+ fre%1 may help to make its full =ce m app>5t4 7#a7 ,! argum5t1 z orig9ally pres5t$1 0 conc]n$ directly ) ! t ( reality1 ! m]e fact ( its exi/5ce4 ,b we may also /ate x1 if we please1 f ! side ( ! :at1 ! nature possess$ by ! real4 ,y _c affirm any doctr9e ab\t ! real exi/5ce ( any?+ )\t at ! same "t imply+ a doctr9e ab\t its nature4 ,ev5 if y say 8,reality is unkn[able10 y are attribut+ some?+ beyond m]e indep5d5ce ( exp]i5ce to y\r reality2 y are ass]t+ t :at is ?us indep5d5t possesses ! fur!r positive quality ( transc5d+ cognition4 ,n[ :at1 9 logic1 mu/ be y\r gr\nd = attribut+ ?is r ?an any o!r quality to y\r indep5d5t reality8 ,x c only be ! fact or suppos$ fact--:i* is inde$ regul>ly appeal$ to by ! ,agno/ic z ! f\ndation ( 8 belief--t our exp]i5ces !mselves are all f\nd to be self-contradictory4 ,!re is no gr\nd = tak+ ! unkn[ability ( ,reality to be true unless y mean by x a "* :i* belongs n to some?+ :i* /&s outside all exp]i5ce1 b to exp]i5ce itself4 ,! same cont5tion applies to any o!r pr$icate :i* ! reali/ affirms z true ( 8 ultimate reality4 7#b7 ,aga91 we may ) effect pres5t our argum5t 9 a negative =m4 ,try1 we may say1 to ?9k ( ! utt]ly unreal1 & see h[ y w h to conceive x4 ,c y ?9k ( %e] unreality o!rwise ?an z t ( :i* no m9d is ev] aw>e1 ( :i* no purpose has ev] to take acc\nt z a condition ( its fulfilm5t8 ,b to ?9k ( x ?us is to attribute to x1 z its def9ition1 precisely t indep5d5ce 9 :i* ! reali/ f9ds ! m>k ( ultimate reality4 ,& if 8indep5d5ce0 con/itutes unreality1 pres5ce to & union ) exp]i5ce mu/ be :at con/itutes reality4 ,yet1 h[ev] fatal ?is l9e ( argum5t may be to ! pr9ciple ( ! reali/ic cont5tion1 we ought n to be satisfi$ ) su* a m]e g5]al refutation4 ,we mu/ try to see :at is ! elem5t ( tru? 9 ! reali/ic views to :i* !y owe ! plausibility !y h always possess$ = m9ds ( a c]ta9 type4 ,9 ,philosophy we are nev] really rid ( an error until we h le>n$ h[ x arises & :at modicum ( tru? x conta9s4 7#a7 ,agno/ic ,realism4 ,we may beg9 ) ,agno/icism1 ) :i* we ought n[ to h no s]i\s difficulty4 ,agno/ic ,realism1 z we h se51 is 9 pr9ciple a d\bly self-contradictory !ory4 ,= x comb9es 9 "o brea? ! irreconcilable decl>ations t ! reality ( ?+s is unkn[able & t x kn[s x to be s4#de ,fur!r1 z we h j said1 x makes alleg$ contradictions :i* only exi/ 9 & = exp]i5ce1 its sole gr\nd = affirm+ t some?+1 ( :i* we c only specify t x is outside all exp]i5ce1 transc5ds cognition4 ,to h grasp$ ^! two po9ts is to h dispos$ ( ,agno/icism z a metaphysical !ory4 ,yet ) all its defects ,agno/icism /ill en%r9es "o piece ( tru? :i* ! metaphysician is peculi>ly prone to =get4 ,( all m5 ! metaphysician1 j because 8 special int]e/ is to "k some?+ f9al & c]ta9 ab\t ,reality1 is ! mo/ apt to exagg]ate ! am\nt ( 8 c]ta9 k4 ,x is well to be rem9d$ t ! c]ta9ty ) :i* we may say t ,reality is exp]i5ce is compatible ) a v imp]fect & limit$ !oretical insight into exp]i5ce itself4 ,9 actual life ?is is a f> f unfamili> fact2 ! lit]ature ( common s5se is full ( obs]vations to ! effect t we nev] really "k our own he>ts1 t ! mo/ difficult task ( ! sage is to und]/& himself1 & s =?1--compla9ts :i* all turn on ! po9t t ev5 our own limit$ direct exp]i5ce ( our own mean+s & purposes goes f> beyond :at we c at any mom5t express 9 ! =m ( reflective k4 ,yet x is easy1 :5 we come to deal 9 ,metaphysics ) ! nature ( ultimate ,reality1 to =get ?is1 & to suppose t ! c]ta9ty ) :i* we c say t ! ultimately ,real is an exp]i5ce ju/ifies u 9 :olesale dogmatis+ ab\t ! special "* ( t exp]i5ce4 ,z a prote/ aga9/ su* exagg]at$ e/imates ( ! ext5t ( our !oretical k ( ! nature ( ,reality1 ,agno/icism ?us conta9s a g]m ( g5u9e & important tru?1 & arises f a ju/ifiable reaction aga9/ ! undue emphasis+ ( ! m]ely intellectual side ( our exp]i5ce1 ( :i* we h already se51 & %all h]eaft] /ill m fully see1 gr\nd to compla9 z a besett+ weakness ( ! metaphysically m9d$4 7#b7 ,dogmatic ,realism1 t is1 ,realism ) admitt$ly kn[able indep5d5t 8reals10 is a mu* m workable doctr9e1 & 9 "o ( its =ms1 t ( ! s-call$ 8nave realism0 :i* supposes ! _w ( exp]i5c$ ?+s ) all its p]ceiv$ qualities to exi/ indep5d5tly ( any relation to an exp]i5c+ subject 9 precisely ! same =m 9 :i* we exp]i5ce x1 fairly repres5ts ! ord9>y views ( unphilosophical 8common-s5se0 m54 ,no?+ seems m obvi\s to 8common s5se0 ?an t my p]ception ( a ?+ does n br+ x out ( no?+ into exi/5ce1 & aga9 does n create = x new qualities :i* x _h n be=e4 ,x is because ! ?+ is already !re1 & has already su* & su* a nature1 says 8common s5se10 t ,i p]ceive x z ,i d4 ,!re=e ! :ole _w ( p]ceiv$ ?+s mu/ exi/ indep5d5tly 9 ! same =m 9 :i* !y are p]ceiv$1 z a condition ( my p]ception ( !m4 ,:5 ?is view comes to be work$ out z a philosophical !ory1 x usually und]goes "s trans=mation4 ,! fact ( illusion1 & ! exp]im5tally asc]ta9$ subjective diff]5ces betwe5 individual p]cipi5ts1#df or betwe5 diff]5t /ates ( ! same p]cipi5t1 make x h>d = ! reali/ :o wi%es to be sci5tific to ma9ta9 t all ! p]ceiv$ qualities ( exp]i5c$ ?+s are equally indep5d5t ( ! exp]i5c+ subject4 ,reflection usually sub/itutes = ! 8nave0 realism ( ev]yday life1 a !ory ( 8sci5tific0 realism accord+ to :i* ! exi/5ce & "s ( ! kn[n prop]ties ( ! exp]i5c$ _w are indep5d5t ( ! exp]i5c+ subject1 :ile o!rs are reg>d$ z m]e second>y effects aris+ f ! action ( an indep5d5t reality on ! subject's consci\sness4 ,) ! fur!r diff]5ces betwe5 ! v>i\s types ( sci5tific realism1 accord+ to ! special prop]ties :i* are held to belong to ?+s indep5d5tly ( ! p]cipi5t subject1 we are n at pres5t conc]n$4#dg ,x is1 ( c\rse1 cle> t our g5]al argum5t aga9/ ! exi/5ce ( any reality except z 9 an exp]i5ce tells j z mu* aga9/ 8nave0 realism & its m reflective outgr[? 8sci5tific0 realism z aga9/ ,agno/icism4 ,b ! v plausibility & wide diffusion ( reali/ic views ( ?is type make x all ! m necess>y to re9=ce our cont5tion by %[+ :at ! tru? ,realism conta9s is1 & j :]e x div]ges f tru? into fallacy4 ,nor is x specially difficult to d ?is4 ,! important elem5ts ( tru? conta9$ 9 ,realism seem to be 9 ! ma9 two4 7i7 ,x is c]ta9 t a ?+ may be real )\t be+ consci\sly pres5t z a di/+ui%able aspect 9 my exp]i5ce4 ,?+s d n beg9 to exi/ :5 ,i beg9 to be aw>e ( !m1 or cease to exi/ :5 ,i cease to be aw>e ( !m4 ,& aga91 ! fact t ,i make mi/akes & am subject to illusion %[s t ! qualities ( ?+s are n necess>ily 9 reality :at ,i take !m to be4 7#b7 ,fur!r1 z is %[n by ! fact ( my imp]fect und]/&+ ( my own feel+s & purposes1 some?+ may actually be an integral "p ( my own life z an exp]i5c+ subject )\t my cle>ly & consci\sly recognis+ x z su* :5 ,i reflect on ! cont5ts ( my exp]i5ce4 ,b precisely h[ mu* d ^! two consid]ations prove8 ,all t is e/abli%$ by ! fir/ is ! po9t on :i* we h already insi/$1 t x is n my exp]i5ce :i* con/itutes ,reality2 & all t is e/abli%$ by ! second1 t exp]i5ce1 z we h already repeat$ly se51 is n m]ely cognitive4 ,b ! admission ( bo? ^! positions br+s u n "o /ep ne>] ! conclusion :i* ! reali/ draws f !m1 t real exi/5ce is indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce4 ,because x is easy to %[ t ! reality ( a ?+ does n dep5d on its be+ explicitly recognis$ by any "o f9ite p]cipi5t or any aggregate ( f9ite p]cipi5ts1 & aga91 t !re is m 9 any exp]i5ce ( f9ite p]cipi5ts ?an ^? p]cipi5ts "k1 ! reali/ ?9ks he may inf] t !re are realities :i* w\ld /ill be real ?\gh !y ent]$ into no exp]i5ce at all4 ,b !re is really no logical connection :atev] betwe5 ! premisses ( ?is inf]5ce & ! conclusion :i* is drawn f !m4 ,?is may be made cle>] by a c\ple ( examples4 ,take1 to beg9 )1 ! case ( ! m5tal life ( my fell[ human be+s4 ,&1 to /ate ! case 9 ! =m 9 :i* x appe>s mo/ fav\rable to ! reali/ conclusion1 let u imag9e an ,alex&] ,selkirk /r&$ on a b>r5 rock 9 ! mid/ ( ! ocean4 ,! hopes & fe>s ( our ,selkirk are indep5d5t ( my k ( !m j z completely & 9 j ! same s5se 9 :i* ! exi/5ce & con=mation ( ! rock on :i* he is /r&$ are s4 ,i & all o!r inhabitants ( ! e>? may be j z ignorant ( ,selkirk's exi/5ce & ( :at is pass+ 9 8 m9d z we are ( ! exi/5ce & geological /ructure ( 8 rock4 ,& aga91 :at ,selkirk explicitly cognises ( 8 own inn] life may be> z small a proportion to ! :ole z :at he explicitly cognises ( ! prop]ties ( 8 rock to ! :ole nature ( ! rock4 ,yet all ?is 9 no wise %[s t ,selkirk's hopes & fe>s & ! re/ ( 8 m5tal life are n exp]i5ce or h a reality 8indep5d5t ( exp]i5ce40 ,hopes & fe>s :i* are n exp]i5ce1 n psy*ical matt] ( fact1 w\ld inde$ be a contradiction 9 set t]ms4 ,& :at ! argum5t fails to prove ( ,selkirk's m5tal life1 x fails1 = ! same reason1 to prove ( ,selkirk's rock4 ,we may pass f ! case ( ! m5tal life ( a fell[-man to ! case ( unp]ceiv$ physical reality4 ,a rec5t reali/ philosoph]1 ,mr4 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 has br\ght =w>d z a cle> in/ance ( an indep5d5t physical reality1 ! case ( a railway tra9 j em]g+ f a tunnel4 ,i d n p]ceive ! tra91 he says1 until x issues f ! tunnel1 b x 0 j z real :ile x 0 runn+ ?r\gh ! tunnel4 ,its reality is !re=e indep5d5t ( ! "q :e!r x is p]ceiv$ or n4 ,b1 9 ! fir/ place1 ! argum5t requires t ! tra9 %all be empty2 x mu/ be a runaway tra9 )\t driv]1 gu>d1 or pass5g]s1 if ! conditions presum$ 9 ! premisses are to be fulfill$4 ,&1 9 ! second place1 we may retort t ev5 an empty runaway tra9 mu/ h be5 despat*$ f some:]e by somebody4 ,x mu/ /& 9 "s relation to ! g5]al s*eme ( purposes & int]e/s express$ 9 our sy/em ( railway traffic1 & x is precisely ?is connection1 ) a s*eme ( purposes & int]e/s1 :i* makes ! runaway tra9 a reality & n a m]e fiction ( an +5i\s philosoph]'s imag9ation4 ,if ,mr4 ,hobh\se's argum5t proves ! indep5d5t reality ( ! tra9 9 ! tunnel1 x ought equally to prove1 & does equally prove1 ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( ,selkirk's fluctuations f hope to despair & back aga9 on 8 isolat$ rock4 ,& precisely because x proves bo? conclusions equally1 ! sort ( indep5d5ce x e/abli%es _c be indep5d5ce ( exp]i5ce4 ,l all reali/ argum5ts1 x turns on ! id5tification ( exp]i5ce ) ! cognitive aspect ( exp]i5ce1 an id5tification too (t5 sugge/$ by ! language ( ! 8ideali/s0 !mselves4#dh #h4 ,! p]si/5t vitality ( ,realism is due to its prote/ aga9/ ! fallacies ( an oppos+ !ory :i* has ( late especially f\nd fav\r ) "s di/+ui%$ /ud5ts ( natural sci5ce1 & :i* we may conv5i5tly call ,subjectivism4#di ,realism1 z we saw1 />t$ f ! true premisses1 t !re are real facts ( :i* my exp]i5ce does n make me explicitly aw>e1 & t my cognition ev5 ( my own exp]i5ce is incomplete1 & argu$ to ! false conclusion t !re are !re=e realities indep5d5t ( any exp]i5ce4 ,subjectivism reasons 9 ! opposite way4 ,x ass]ts truly t !re is no reality outside exp]i5ce1 & !n falsely concludes t ,i c "k ( no reality except my own cognitive /ates4 ,its fav\rite =mula are expressions su* z1 8,we "k only ! modifications ( our own consci\sness10 8,all we "k is our own p]ceptions10 8,no?+ exi/s b /ates ( consci\sness40 ,^! =mul are n all obvi\sly id5tical 9 mean+1 b ! expon5ts ( ,subjectivism seem to use !m )\t any consci\s di/9ction1 & we %all probably d ! !ory no inju/ice if we criticise x on ! assumption t ! expressions are meant to be ( id5tical signification4 ,n[ x is cle> t ! logical consequ5ces ( ! subjectivi/ doctr9e are s subv]sive ( all ! practical assumptions ^u :i* daily life is bas$1 t !y %\ld require ! mo/ /r+5t pro( be=e we give our ass5t to !m4 ,if ,subjectivism is true1 x foll[s imm$iately t n m]ely ! 8:ole *oir ( heav5 & furniture ( e>?10 b ! :ole ( humanity1 s f> z ,i h any k ( its exi/5ce1 is a m]e subjective affection ( my own 8consci\sness10 or1 z ! sci5tific subjectivi/ usually1 = "s n v obvi\s reason1 pref]s to say1 ( my own bra94 ,e argum5t :i* ! subjectivi/ c produce to %[ t 8?+s0 are1 = my k at any rate1 8modifications ( my own consci\sness10 applies to ! case ( my fell[-m5 ) z mu* =ce z to ! case ( ! inorganic _w4 ,! logical inf]5ce f ! subjectivi/'s premisses1 an inf]5ce :i* he is r>ely or nev] will+ to draw1 w\ld be t he is himself ! sole real be+ 9 a _w ( phantoms1 n "o ( :i* c ) any c]ta9ty be said to correspond to a real object4 ,& conv]sely1 any valid gr\nd = recognis+ ! exi/5ce ( my fell[-m5 z m ?an 8/ates ( my own consci\sness10 mu/ equally af=d gr\nd = admitt+ ! reality1 9 ! same g5]al s5se1 ( ! re/ ( ! _w ( ?+s famili> to u f ! exp]i5ces ( ev]yday life4#ej ,= if any "o ( ! ?+s compos+ ! _w ( practical life has a reality :i* is n dep5d5t ^u its pres5ce to my p>ticul> exp]i5ce1 !n !re is ! same reason = believ+ t e o!r su* ?+ has a l reality1 unless !re happ5 to be special gr\nds = reg>d+ ! p]ception to :i* x is pres5t z an halluc9ation4 ,we mu/ n1 h[ev]1 simply dismiss ! subjectivi/ !ory 9 ?is summ>y way4 ,we mu/ exam9e ! doctr9e 9 detail suffici5tly to discov] :]e ! fallacy comes 91 h[ x arises1 & :at modicum ( s\nd philosophic insight x may possibly conta94 ,to take ^! ?ree po9ts 9 logical ord]-- 7a7 ,! curr5t argum5ts = ,subjectivism are (t5 s /at$ z to confuse toge!r two q di/9ct positions4 ,:5 x is said t :at we p]ceive is 8our own subjective /ates10 ! mean+ int5d$ may be ei!r t !re is1 at lea/ s f> z ,i am able to "k1 no real exi/5ce 9 ! univ]se except t ( my 8/ates ( consci\sness02 or aga91 t !re are su* realities1 b t ! prop]ties :i* ,i p]ceive d n belong to !m 9 _! own nature b are only subjective effects ( _! action ^u my 8consci\sness10 or1 if y pref] to speak 9 physiological language ^u my n]v\s sy/em4 ,n[1 _m ( ! argum5ts commonly urg$ by ! subjectivi/ w\ld at mo/ only prove ! second conclusion1 9 :i* ! subjectivi/ agrees to a l>ge ext5t ) ! sci5tific reali/4 ,?us x is an ignoratio el5*i to reason z if ! facts ( halluc9ation1 illusion1 & discrepancy betwe5 ! reports ( diff]5t p]cipi5ts or diff]5t s5se-organs ( ! same p]cipi5t gave any support to ! special doctr9e ( ,subjectivism4 ,^! facts1 :i*1 z we h se51 are equally appeal$ to by sci5tific reali/s1 prove no m ?an t we d n always p]ceive ! _w ( ?+s z x is1 & z x mu/ be ?\ght ( if we w\ld ?9k truly1--9 o!r words1 t !re is su* a ?+ z error4 ,n[ ! problem 8,h[ is x possible = u to ?9k or p]ceive falsely80 is1 z ! /ud5t ( ,greek philosophy kn[s1 bo? difficult & important4 ,b ! exi/5ce ( error 9 no way %[s t ! ?+s :i* ,i p]ceive are 8/ates ( my own consci\sness02 on ! contr>y1 error is h>d] to expla9 on ! subjectivi/ !ory ?an on any o!r4 ,= if :at ,i p]ceive has "s k9d ( exi/5ce di/9ct f ! m]e fact ( my p]ceiv+ x1 !re is at lea/ a possibility ( und]/&+ h[ ! reality & my p]ception ( x may be discrepant2 b if ! exi/5ce ( a ?+ is only ano!r "n = ! fact t ,i p]ceive x1 x seems impossible t ,i %\ld p]ceive any?+ except z x is4 ,on ! subjectivi/ !ory1 z ,plato %[$ 9 ! ,!aetetus1 e p]cipi5t be+ ought1 at e mom5t ( 8 exi/5ce1 to be infallible4 ,we may conf9e our att5tion1 !n1 to ! gr\nds :i* ! subjectivi/ alleges = ! =m] conclusion1 t no?+ c be kn[n to exi/ except my own 8/ates ( consci\sness10 & may dismiss ! :ole problem ( errone\s p]ception z irrelevant to ! "q4 ,n[ ! g5]al argum5t = ,subjectivism1 h[ev] diff]5tly x may be /at$ by diff]5t writ]s1 consi/s1 9 pr9ciple1 ( a s+le allegation4 ,x is alleg$ z a fact 9 ! ,psy*ology ( cognition1 t ?+s are imm$iately p]ceiv$ by u z modifications ( our own s5sibility1 or 8/ates ( our own consci\sness10 & t x is !re=e impossible to get beh9d ?is ultimate condition ( all p]ception4 ,aga9/ ?is psy*ological doctr9e we h to urge 7#a7 t x is 9 flagrant contradiction ) ! c]ta9 facts ( actual life2 & 7#b7 t1 z a doctr9e 9 ,psy*ology1 x is demon/rably false4 7#a7 ,!re are c]ta9 realities1 admitt$ by ! subjectivi/ himself1 :i* are manife/ly n 8/ates ( my consci\sness10 & ( :i* ,i yet1 z ! subjectivi/ himself admits1 h a g5u9e ?\gh imp]fect k2 su* realities are1 e4g41 ! ends & purposes ( my fell[-m51 & aga9 _m ( my own ends & purposes4 ,x is all[$ on all h&s t ,i c "k n only ! fact ( ! exi/5ce ( o!r m51 b also1 to "s ext5t at lea/1 ! "* ( _! v>i\s purposes & int]e/s4 ,?is is involv$1 = in/ance1 9 ! simple fact t :5 ,i read a lett] x is normally possible = me to und]/& ! writ]'s mean+4 ,x is equally involv$ 9 ! fact t ,i c "k ! tru? ( any ord9>y hi/orical matt] ( fact1 e4g41 ! date ( ! great fire ( ,london4 ,nei!r ! date ( ! fire ( ,london nor ! mean+ ( my correspond5t's s5t5ces is a 8/ate ( my consci\sness0 9 any intelligible s5se ( ! words1 yet bo? are typical in/ances ( ! k9d ( facts ( :i* our ord9>y k ( ! _w ( ev]yday life & practice :olly consi/s4 ,& :at is true ( facts relat+ to ! de$s & purposes ( o!rs is equally true ( my own de$s & purposes4 ,! facts :i* make up my own life _c1 )\t viol5ce to language1 be r$uc$ to 8/ates ( my consci\sness40 ,= in/ance1 ,i may "k t ,i h a c]ta9 temp]am5t or disposition1 e4g41 t ,i am irascible by temp]am5t or ( a s5tim5tal disposition2 b ?\gh my kn[+ ^! tru?s ab\t myself may 9 a s5se be call$ a /ate ( my consci\sness1 ! tru?s !mselves _c be call$ 8/ates ( my consci\sness0 )\t a s]i\s logical fallacy ( equivocal middle t]m4 7#b7 ,?is w be made cle>] by a consid]ation ( ! psy*ological pr9ciple invok$ by ! subjectivi/4 ,:at ! subjectivi/ means :5 he says t 9 p]ception ,i am aw>e only ( ! /ates1 or subjective modifications1 ( my own consci\sness1 is t ! object ( :i* ea* p]ceptive /ate is aw>e is simply itself z a p]ceptive /ate2 ! p]ception p]ceives itself & no?+ else4 ,e4g41 :5 ,i say ,i see r$1 :at ,i am really aw>e ( is t ,i am 9 a /ate ( p]ceiv+ r$2 :5 ,i say ,i he> a noise1 :at ,i am aw>e ( is t ,i am 9 a /ate ( he>+ a noise1 & s univ]sally4 ,n[ ?is is s f> f be+ a tru?1 t x is absolutely & demon/rably false4 ,we may1 9 fact1 def9itely lay x d[n t ! "o ?+ ( :i* no "o1 except ! introspective psy*ologi/1 is ev] aw>e is 8 own p]ceptive /ate 9 ! act ( p]ceiv+1 & t1 ev5 9 ! case ( ! psy*ologi/ :o sets himself purposely to /udy 8 own /ates1 no p]ceptive /ate ev] p]ceives itself4 ,:at ,i am aw>e ( :5 ,i look at a r$ surface is n 8myself-z-p]ceiv+-r$10 b ! spla% ( r$ col\r itself4 ,:5 ,i see a man1 ,i d n p]ceive 8myself-z-see+-a-man10 b ,i p]ceive ! o!r man4 ,s :5 ,i take a resolution to act 9 a c]ta9 way or realise t ,i am 9 a c]ta9 mood1 :at ,i am directly aw>e ( is n 8myself-z-=m+-!-resolution0 or 8myself-z-9-!-mood10 b ! resolution or ! mood4 ,ev5 :51 z an introspective psy*ologi/1 ,i sit d[n to /udy ! =mation ( resolutions or ! peculi>ities ( emotional moods by reflection on my own exp]i5ce1 ! /ate 9 :i* ,i /udy ! =mation ( a resolution or ! nature ( a mood is n itself ! /ate ( resolv+ or ( exp]i5c+ ! mood 9 "q4 ,we _c too /rongly insi/ t1 if by 8self-consci\sness0 is meant a cognitive /ate :i* is its own object1 !re is no su* ?+1 & x is a psy*ological impossibility t !re %\ld be any su* ?+1 z self-consci\sness4 ,no cognitive /ate ev] has itself = its own object4 ,e cognitive /ate has = its object some?+ o!r ?an itself4#ea ,ev5 :]e ,i make an ass]tion ab\t my subjective condition1 z :5 ,i say 8,i "k ,i am v angry10 ! /ate ( kn[+ ab\t my feel+ is z di/9ct f ! feel+ itself z ! /ate ( kn[+ t ,i see r$ is f ! r$ col\r t ,i see4 ,:at ! subjectivi/ does is to confuse ! two4 ,because ! act ( kn[+ is itself a /ate ( ! kn[+ subject1 & because 9 "s cases ! k may aga9 h ref]5ce to "s o!r /ate ( ! same subject1 he inf]s t :at ,i "k at any mom5t is my own subjective condition 9 ! act ( kn[+4 ,9 o!r & m te*nical words1 he confuses ! cognitive act or /ate ) its own object4 ,to :at absurd results ?is confusion w\ld lead him1 if he 7 logical 9 ! inf]5ces he makes f x1 we h already se54 ,we c n[ see t psy*ologically ! confusion is a d\ble "o4 7#a7 ,! subjectivi/ confuses exp]i5ce ) m]e aw>5ess ( a pres5t$ cont5t4 ,he ignores ! pres5ce ( ! true 8subjective0 factor ( selective att5tion ?r\gh\t exp]i5ce1 & is ?us l$ to =get t all exp]i5ces imply an elem5t :i* is 9 ! exp]i5c+ m9d b n pres5t$ to x4 7#b7 ,& 9 conf9+ 8 att5tion to ! pres5tational aspect ( exp]i5ce1 he goes on to conf\nd ! pres5t$ cont5t ) ! fact ( its pres5tation4 ,z aga9/ ?is second confusion x is ess5tial to a true !ory ( k to emphasise ?ree po9ts ( di/9ction betwe5 ! pres5t$ cont5t or object ( a cognitive /ate & ! /ate itself1 consid]$ z a process 9 ! hi/ory ( an exp]i5c+ subject4 7#a7 ,! cognitive /ate is nev] its own object1 x ref]s to or cognises an object di/9ct f its own exi/5ce z a psy*ical occurr5ce4 ,?is is ! tru? :i* ,realism di/orts into ! doctr9e t ! object ( k mu/ h a reality ( 8indep5d5t (0 exp]i5ce4 7#b7 ,! object ( k is nev] creat$ by ! occurr5ce ( ! psy*ical /ate 9 :i* a p>ticul> p]cipi5t becomes aw>e ( its exi/5ce4 ,?is is j z true ( s-call$ 8m]ely ideal0 objects z ( physical ?+s4 ,! prop]ties ( ! natural log>i?ms or ( ! circul> functions 9 trigonometry are j z indep5d5t ( my k ( !m z ! qualities ( ! trees & animals ,i %\ld see if ,i turn$ f my writ+ desk & look$ out at ! w9d[4 7#c7 ,! object ( k has always a "* ( :i* only a fragm5t is ev] pres5t$ to my p]ception or reflection 9 any cognitive /ate4 ,e cognitive /ate ref]s to or /&s = a great deal m ?an x directly means to me4 7#c7 ,! orig9 ( ! subjectivi/ fallacy1 z has be5 brilliantly %[n by ,av5>ius1#eb is to be f\nd 9 ! 8intrasubjective int]c\rse0 ( a plurality ( p]cipi5ts capable ( communicat+ _! exp]i5ce to ea* o!r4 ,s long z ,i am deal+ solely ) myself z an exp]i5c+ be+ & my relation to my own environm5t1 !re is no possibility ( a subjectivi/ int]pretation4 ,9 my own direct exp]i5ce ,i h to d nei!r ) 8m5tal /ates0 nor ) m]e 8objects ( cognition10 b ) ?+s :i* 9 v>i\s ways by _! int]f]5ce assi/ or h9d] ! accompli%m5t ( my v>i\s purposes1 & ( :i* ,i h !re=e to take note1 s z to adapt my ways ( rea*+ my ends to _! ways ( behavi\r4 ,h5ce ! 8natural0 view ( ! _w1 = a s+le exp]i5c+ be+1 w\ld be t ( 8nave realism10 to :i* ! ?+s =m+ my environm5t are real 9 precisely ! same s5se 9 :i* ,i am real myself4 ,b z soon z ,i h to take acc\nt ( ! exp]i5ces ( o!r p]cipi5ts1 !re arises an inevitable fallacy :i* leads to philosophical consequ5ces ( ! grave/ k9d4 ,/>t+ ) ! assumption t ! ?+s ,i p]ceive are ! real ?+s1 ,i feel a difficulty z to h[ ! same ?+s c be p]ceiv$ by ! o!r p]cipi5ts ar\nd me4 ,e4g41 if ! sun ,i see is ! real sun1 :at ab\t ! sun se5 by "s "o else8 ,in/ead ( f9d+ ! true explanation1 t all ! p]cipi5ts are 9 relation to a common environm5t :i* is indep5d5t ( its pres5ce to any "o p]cipi5t's exp]i5ce1 ,i v naturally fall into ! mi/ake ( ?9k+ ! ?+s p]ceiv$ by o!r m5 to be 8ideas0 or 8p]cepts0 ( ! real ?+s p]ceiv$ by me4 ,^! p]ceptual copies ( ! real ?+s ,i1 = obvi\s reasons1 locate some:]e 890 ! organisms ( my fell[-p]cipi5ts4 ,!n ,i g on to int]pret my own exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( ! !ory ,i orig9ally devis$ to meet ! case ( my fell[-m51 & inf] t :at ,i myself p]ceive is a set ( 8p]cepts0 or 8ideas0 produc$ 890 my organism by a reality 8outside0 all exp]i5ce4 ,& x is !n an easy /ep to ! f9al conclusion t1 inasmu* z all kn[n & kn[able ?+s are m]e 8ideas 9 "s "o's head10 no?+ else exi/s4 ,subjectivism is ?us ! la/ /ep 9 ! developm5t ( ! fallacy :i* beg9s ) :at ,av5>ius calls 8introjection40 ,j z we le>n$ t ! exi/5ce ( our fell[-m5 is ! c>d9al fact ( exp]i5ce :i* af=ds ! mo/ imm$iate refutation ( ! subjectivi/ !ory1 s ! orig9al s\rce ( ! subjectivi/ fallacy is failure to recognise _! exp]i5ce z be+ on ! same level ( reality z our own4 7#d7 ,we ne$ n say mu* on ! elem5t ( tru? :i* ,subjectivism pres]ves 9 a di/ort$ =m4 ,we h se5 t1 z aga9/ ,realism1 ,subjectivism is "r 9 ma9ta9+ ! indissoluble unity ( real be+ ) exp]i5ce1 ?\gh x twi/s ?is tru? into an absurdity by fir/ id5tify+ exp]i5ce ) my own limit$ & imp]fect exp]i5ce & !n giv+ a false psy*ological int]pretation ( ! nature ( t exp]i5ce itself4 ,h[ a reality c be indep5d5t ( pres5tation 9 my exp]i5ce & yet be 9 its v nature dep5d5t ^u exp]i5ce = its exi/5ce & "*1 has already be5 suffici5tly illu/rat$4 ,b we may p]haps say t ev5 9 ! id5tification ( exp]i5ce ) my own exp]i5ce !re is an und]ly+ sub/ratum ( g5u9e philosophic tru?4 ,=1 z we h m ?an once insi/$1 !re is manife/ly a great deal m 9 my own exp]i5ce ?an :at is at any "t pres5t z ! object ( consci\s cognition4 ,or1 z ,mr4 ,bradley is fond ( putt+ x1 !re is always m 9 my m9d ?an be=e x4 ,i am nev] fully aw>e at any mom5t ev5 ( ! full nature ( my own purposes & feel+s4 ,?is is :y ! deceitfulness ( my own he>t has become a common-place ( religi\s self-exam9ation z well z ( worldly wisdom4 ,aga91 e increase ( insight into our own real feel+s & purposes involves increas$ insight into ! feel+s & purposes ( ! o!r feel+ be+s ) :om we /& 9 ! v>i\s relations ( social int]c\rse4#ec ,h5ce x might fairly be cont5d$ t fully to "k y\r own mean+1 fully to und]/& :at y want1 w\ld imply complete insight into ! /ructure ( ! :ole _w ( reality1--9 fact1 t self-k & k ( ! univ]se mu/ ultimately be ! same ?+4 ,! sy/ematic unity ( ! :ole _w ( exp]i5ce may be s complete t !re is no?+ 9 x any:]e :i* does n correspond to "s elem5t 9 ! exp]i5ce ( e "o ( its memb]s4 ,ea* memb] may1 l ! monads ( ,leibnitz1 repres5t ! :ole sy/em ?\gh at v diff]5t levels ( coh]5cy & f v diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,b su* a conception1 ?\gh x w\ld conc$e to ,subjectivism t :atev] =ms a "p ( ! sy/em ( real be+ someh[ falls )9 my individual exp]i5ce1 w\ld take z ! f\ndation ( its ass]tion t v di/9ction betwe5 :at is implicitly pres5t 9 my exp]i5ce & :at is explicitly be=e x :i* ,subjectivism consi/5tly ignores4 ,:e!r ! doctr9e z ?us re-/at$ c be affirm$ z m ?an a fasc9at+ possibility1 we %all be bett] able to judge :5 we h discuss$ 9 our next *apt] ! sy/ematic unity ( ,reality4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #ac1 #ad2 ,t4 ,case1 ,physical ,realism1 pt4 #a2 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,! ,!ory ( ,k1 pt4 #c1 *ap4 #c1 ,! ,conception ( ,ext]nal ,reality2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #g 7pp4 #bjg-bca ( vol4 i4 9 ,eng4 trans472 ,j4 ,s4 ,mack5zie1 ,outl9es ( ,metaphysics1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #c1 ,!ories ( ,metaphysics2 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies 7,lecture on ! ,fir/ ,conception ( ,be+74 ----- ,footnote #ca3 ,see1 9 p>ticul>1 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 ,lecture #a1 = a tell+ elaboration ( ?is ?\ght4 ,i %\ld note t ,i d n myself use ! t]m 8exi/5ce10 z is sometimes done1 ) special re/riction to ! s5se ( pres5ce z a s5sible ev5t at a p>ticul> po9t ( space & "t4 ,:5 s us$1 x is1 ( c\rse1 mu* n>r[] 9 scope ?an ! t]m 8,be+40 ,footnote #cb3 ,comp>e ! brilliant b n altoge!r conv9c+ argum5t ( ,pr(essor ,james1 9 ,! ,w to ,believe4 ,footnote #cc3 ,see ! :ole treatm5t ( "q ( feel+ 9 ,dr4 ,/\t's ,manual ( ,psy*ology4 ,i d n1 ( c\rse1 mean t 8consci\sness ( activity0 successful or ?w>t$ z a fact prec$es & conditions pleasure-pa94 ,on ! contr>y1 x is a famili> fact ( exp]i5ce t we (t5 le>n :at our purposes are = ! fir/ "t by ! pa9 :i* att5ds _! defeat4 ,e4g41 a man may fir/ realise t he is1 & has be51 9 love by 8 pa9 at 8 mi/ress's pref]5ce ( a rival suitor4 ,& no?+ seems m c]ta9 ?an t _m pleasures are q indep5d5t ( 8actual conation10 z ,plato long ago recognis$4 ,i mu/ take ?is opportunity to gu>d once = all aga9/ "s plausible misconceptions4 7a7 ,:5 ,i speak ( feel+ z 8purposive0 or 8teleological10 ,i d n mean to make :at1 to my own m9d1 w\ld be ! mon/r\s assumption1 t x necess>ily presupposes consci\s anticipation ( its guid+ end or purpose4 ,all t ,i mean is t ! processes ( consci\s life are z a matt] ( fact only intelligible ) ref]5ce to ! results 9 :i* !y culm9ate & :i* !y s]ve to ma9ta92 or aga91 t !y all involve ! k9d ( cont9uity ( int]e/ :i* belong to att5tion4 7b7 ,if att5tive int]e/ is n necess>ily actual conation1 actual consci\s ef=t1 /ill less is x necess>ily actual w4 ,= me1 z = ,mr4 ,bradley 7see 8 article 9 ,m9d = ,octob] #aijb71 :]e !re is no ideal anticipation ( ! result ( a process !re is nei!r actual desire nor actual w4 ,& s9ce ,i _c see t all att5tion implies ideal anticpation1 ,i c]ta9ly c\ld n agree ) ,pr(4 ,royce t ultimate ,reality is simply ! 8int]nal mean+ ( an idea40 ,my own mean+ w be made cle>] by ref]5ce to ! illu/ration giv5 at ! beg9n+ ( ?is note4 ,a man fir/ realises t he has be5 9 love because he feels pa9$ at a rival's success4 ,s f> z ?is is s1 ,i %\ld say1 !re has be5 no actual conation1 & a =tiori1 no actual w or desire4 ,b--& ?is is my po9t--he w\ld n feel ! pa9 unless ! success ( ! rival ?w>t$ ! successful issue ( a specific psy*ophysical t5d5cy ( an ess5tially =w>d-rea*+ or teleological k9d4 ,! failure may = ! fir/ "t make him aw>e ( ! pres5ce ( ! t5d5cy1 b x mu/ previ\sly h be5 !re z a condition ( its own failure4 ,footnote #cd3 ,?is qualification has to be add$ to avoid prejudg+ ! v difficult "q :e!r 8position0 itself is 8relative0 or 8absolute40 ,=tunately our argum5t is indep5d5t ( ! det]m9ation ( ! problem4 ,ev5 if !re %\ld be diff]5ces betwe5 po9ts z 8absolute0 z ! diff]5ce betwe5 r$ & blue1 our cont5tion w\ld reta9 its =ce4 ,footnote #ce3 ,= o!rwise ! facts :i* lay outside ! purposes or int]e/s ( ! ,absolute w\ld be 8=eign0 facts 8giv50 f )\t & n 9 sy/ematic h>mony ) its exp]i5ce z a :ole4 ,! complete sy/ematic unity ( all facts w\ld ?us fall outside :at 0 to be1 ex hypo!si1 an all-conta9+ exp]i5ce4 ,q4,e4,a4 ,footnote #cf3 ,= fur!r reflections ^u ! unsatisfactor9ess ( su* a conception ( ! ,absolute z ! 8union ( ,?\ght & ,w10 see ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #f1 #a1 :]e x is %[n t k & w alike1 z actual k & actual w1 belong only to f9ite be+s4 ,footnote #cg3 ,i4e4 if w be tak5 /rictly to mean an actual volition1 love & a 8w to love0 _c co-exi/2 if we take w improp]ly to mean a 8/&+0 int]e/ ( purpose1 ! case is diff]5t4 ,footnote #ch3 ,! /ud5t ( ! hi/ory ( ,philosophy w be rem9d$ ( ! gr\nds on :i* ,sp9oza objects to ascribe 8intellect0 & 8w0 9 ! prop] s5se ( ! t]ms to 8 ,god1 z well z ( ! 8k ( ! ?ird or intuitive k9d0 & ! 8inf9ite intellectual love0 ( ,god = ,himself :i* are s prom95t 9 ! fif? "p ( ! ,e?ics4 ,simil> consid]ations h sometimes l$ to a pref]5ce = ! t]m 8organic0 r ?an 8purposive0 or 8teleological10 z expressive ( ! ultimate unity ( exp]i5ce4 ,! ^w 8organic10 h[ev]1 might sugge/ biological conceptions ( gr[?1 dep5d5ce on an ext]nal environm5t1 etc41 :i* w\ld be out ( place4 ,b ! /ud5t may comp>e ) :at has be5 said ( ! 8purposive0 "* ( individuality ,sp9oza's conception ( ! be+ ( a ?+ z a conatus 9 suo esse p]sev]&i4 ,footnote #ci3 ,= a full exam9ation ( ! relation betwe5 reality & sci5tific symbolism1 consult ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 "p #a4 ,! m cle>ly x is realis$ t sci5tific hypo!ses are ess5tially a sy/em ( ma!matical symbolism1 ! m impossible x becomes to suppose t !y deal directly ) ! concrete nature ( ?+s4 ,footnote #dj3 ,9 ,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k1 #gj-ge1 ,b]keley inde$ seems on ! v v]ge ( d5y+ t ,god ,himself 8p]ceives0 ! 8ideas0 :i* by ,8 action ,he excites 9 u4 ,b at #aci we f9d t a 8_s0 means 8t :i* p]ceives ideas1 & wills & reasons ab\t !m10 & 9 ! ?ird ,dialogue x is expressly /at$ t s5sible ?+s are 8p]ceiv$ by ,god0 ,works1 ,edit4 9 ,bohn's ,libr>ies1 vol4 i4 p4 #cfh4 ,9 fact1 f ! psy*ological /&po9t ( ,b]keleian s5sationalism1 to d5y ,god's possession ( 8ideas0 7i4e4 s5se-cont5ts7 w\ld h be5 tantam\nt to d5y+ ,8 spirituality4 ,footnote #da3 ,un=tunately ,b]keley1 l s _m philosoph]s1 ?\ght ( 8activity0 z prim>ily an ext]nal relation betwe5 a 8cause0 & ! mat]ial on :i* x 8works40 ,?is is probably :y he fail$ to realise ! 8active0 "* ( ! p]ceptual process4 ,footnote #db3 ,! read] w d well to comp>e ) ! :ole ( ! =ego+ section ! treatm5t ( p]ception z ess5tially teleological 9 ,dr4 ,/\t's ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c bk4 iii4 pt4 #a1 *ap4 #b4 ,i ne$ h>dly obs]ve t recognition ( ! fundam5tal significance ( purpose & selection = m5tal life does n ( itself entail ! adoption ( 8volunt>i/0 views 9 ,psy*ology4 ,:at is fundam5tal = real m5tal life may p]fectly well admit ( analysis into hypo!tical simpl] elem5ts = ! purpose ( ! psy*ologi/4 ,?us ! admission t all m5tal life is teleological & selective ne$ n involve ! adoption ( su* metaphysical !ories ( activity z are adv]sely criticis$ by ,mr4 ,bradley 9 8 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #g1 or ! introduction ( a peculi> 8consci\sness ( activity0 z an unanalysable datum into ,psy*ology4 ,! anti!sis betwe5 ! actualities ( life & ! data ( ,psy*ology ma9ta9$ by ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g 9 8 ,psy*ology & ,life1 & ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 if unt5able 9 ! extreme =m 9 :i* he /ates x1 is important z a corrective ( ! opposite t5d5cy to treat z ultimate = psy*ological analysis :atev] is ( supreme importance = life4 ,footnote #dc3 ,?+-9-itself1 i4e4 n affect$ by !--accord+ to ?is doctr9e--extrane\s conditions impos$ ^u x by relation to an exp]i5c+ m9d4 ,footnote #dd3 ,! inconsi/5cies ( bo? ,kant & ,sp5c] w illu/rate ! reluctance ( ! human m9d to acquiesce 9 a g5u9e ,agno/icism4 ,9 ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason itself ,kant s f> contradicts himself z to treat ! ,?+-9-itself z ! cause ( s5sation1 ?\gh x is a fundam5tal doctr9e ( 8 sy/em t ! concept ( causal relation c only be legitimately appli$ to connect facts inside exp]i5ce2 & 9 a lat] "w1 ! ,critique ( ,judgm5t1 he t5tatively sugge/s its id5tity ) ,w4 ,( ,mr4 ,sp5c] x has be5 truly said 7,i believe by ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,s4 ,s*ill] 9 ,riddles ( ! ,sph9x7 t 9 ! c\rse ( 8 t5 volumes ( ,syn!tic ,philosophy he speaks mu* m positively ab\t ! nature ( ! ,unkn[able ?an dogmatic !ology v5tures to speak ab\t ! nature ( ,god4 ,footnote #de3 ,! sceptics ( antiquity1 :o 7 m alive to ?is contradiction ?an mo/ ( our mod]n ,agno/ics1 tri$ to evade ! difficulty by say+ t !y ma9ta9$ ! unkn[ability ( ?+s n z a demon/rat$ c]ta9ty1 b z a 8probable op9ion40 ,b ?is di/9ction is itself illogical1 = unless "s propositions are c]ta9 !re is no gr\nd = consid]+ any "o proposition m probable ?an ano!r4 ,e4g4 if ,i "k t a die ) six faces has f\r pips on ea* ( two faces1 & five pips on only "o1 ,i c logically say 8x is probable t ) ?is die f\r w be ?r[n (t5] ?an five40 ,if ,i am totally unc]ta9 :at numb] ( pips is m>k$ on ! v>i\s faces1 ,i _c reg>d "o ?r[ z m probable ?an ano!r4 ,footnote #df3 ,e4g41 peculi>ities ( ! individual's col\r-spectrum1 total & p>tial col\r-bl9dness1 v>iations 9 s5sibility to musical pit*1 etc41 etc4 ,footnote #dg3 ,! be/ kn[n & mo/ popul> v]sion ( ! !ory is t ( ,locke & ( a great deal ( our popul> sci5ce1 accord+ to :i* ! 8prim>y0 qualities ( matt]1 i4e4 ^? :i* h to be treat$ z fundam5tal 9 ! physical sci5ces1 are indep5d5tly real1 :ile ! re/ are m]e effects produc$ by _! action on our s5se-organs4 ,! m ?or\gh-go+ metaphysical doctr9es ( reali/s l ,leibnitz & ,h]b>t1 be+ mu* fur!r remov$ f ! 8nave realism0 ( unreflective common s5se1 h nev] enjoy$ ! same curr5cy4 ,footnote #dh3 ,comp>e ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 ii4 p4 #agh ff41 & ,royce1 ,_w & ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies1 ,lect4 #c4 ,pr(4 ,royce's treatm5t ( ,realism1 ?\gh int]e/+ & sugge/ive1 is p]haps a little too mu* ( a 8%ort & easy way0 ) ! antagoni/ to be q conv9c+4 ,mr4 ,hobh\se's anti-ideali/ic argum5t 7,!ory ( ,k1 #eag-eci7 seems to me only to hold good aga9/ ! 8,subjectivism0 discuss$ 9 our next section1 b ! read] w d well to exam9e x ?or\ghly = himself4 ,footnote #di3 ,we might also suitably call x ,pres5tationism1 if ! "n 7 n already appropriat$ 9 a diff]5t s5se z di/9ctive ( c]ta9 psy*ological !ories4 ,! ,engli% read] w f9d a confus$ b typical exposition ( ,subjectivism 9 ! op5+ *apt]s ( ,pr(4 ,k>l ,pe>son's ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce4 ,subjectivi/ writ]s usually call !mselves 8ideali/s10 & reg>d !mselves z disciples ( ,b]keley & ,hume4 ,b]keley 01 h[ev]1 a subjectivi/1 if at all1 only 9 respect to ! physical _w1 :ile ,hume's conclusions are purely sceptical4 ,! read] ( ,pr(4 ,pe>son mu/ c>efully obs]ve t ! 8descriptive0 !ory ( physical sci5ce has no special connection ) ,subjectivism1 & is1 9 fact1 held by philosoph]s l ,pr(s4 ,w>d & ,royce1 :o are n subjectivi/s4 ,footnote #ej3 ,on ! exi/5ce ( my fell[-m5 z ! "o real pro( ( ! objective exi/5ce ( ! physical _w1 see ,royce1 ,/udies 9 ,good & ,evil1 essay on 8,nature1 ,consci\sness1 & ,self-,consci\sness10 & 8,m9d & ,nature10 by ! pres5t writ]1 9 ,int]national ,j\rnal ( ,e?ics = ,octob] #aijb4 ,9 ! latt] essay ,i h1 ,i ?9k1 suffici5tly expos$ ! flimsy reason+ by :i* subjectivi/s attempt to ju/ify belief 9 ! exi/5ce ( o!r human be+s f ! subjectivi/ po9t ( view4 ,footnote #ea3 ,! self-k :i* is a fact 9 real life1 z di/+ui%$ f ! fictiti\s self-consci\sness ( "s psy*ologi/s1 is q a diff]5t ?+ & involves two di/9ct acts ( cognition3 7#a7 ! aw>5ess ( c]ta9 objects ( cognition1 & 7#b7 ! recognition ( ^? objects z 9 "s way qualify+ my 8self40 ,& ! 8self0 :i* ,i recognise z ?us qualifi$ is aga9 no imm$iate datum ( exp]i5ce1 b a l>gely hypo!tical intellectual con/ruction1 z we %all h opportunity to see lat] on4 ,?is is p]haps ! place to add ! fur!r rem>k1 t if we w\ld be rigidly accurate 9 psy*ological t]m9ology1 we ought to bani% ! v expression 8consci\sness0 or 8/ate ( consci\sness0 f our language4 ,:at are really giv5 9 exp]i5ce are att5tive processes ) a c]ta9 common "*4 ,we ab/ract ?is "* & give x ! "n ( 8consci\sness10 & !n fall into ! blund] ( call+ ! concrete processes 8/ates0 or 8modifications0 ( ?is ab/raction1 j z 9 deal+ ) physical ?+s we fir/ make ab/raction ( _! common prop]ties1 "u ! "n ( 8matt]10 & !n talk z if ! ?+s !mselves 7 8=ms0 ( 8matt]04 ,prop]ly speak+1 !re are physical ?+s & !re are m9ds1 b !re are no su* ?+s 9 ! actual _w z 8matt]0 & 8consci\sness10 & we d well to avoid us+ ! words :]e we c help x4 ,footnote #eb3 ,see ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff1 pp4 #ba-fb2 &1 = ! m]ely ,engli% read]1 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 ii p4 #afh ff4 ,footnote #ec3 ,?is is true ev5 9 :at seems at fir/ ! ! exceptional case ( advance 9 m]e !oretical insight4 ,! m cle>ly y realise ! "* ( ! problems :i* y\r own intellectual pursuits lead up to & ! nature ( _! solution1 ! cle>] becomes y\r insight into ! problems & purposes ( o!r work]s 9 ! same field4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,sy/ematic ,,unity ,,( ,,reality #a4 ,! problem :e!r ,reality is ultimately ,"o or ,_m is inevitably sugge/$ to u by ! div]se aspects ( our own direct exp]i5ce ( ! _w4 ,! diff]5t !ories may be class$1 accord+ to _! solution ( ?is problem1 z ,moni/ic1 ,plurali/ic1 & ,monadi/ic4 #b4 ,pluralism />ts f ! presum$ fact ( ! mutual indep5d5ce ( human selves1 & tea*es t ?is indep5d5ce ( ea* o!r belongs to all real be+s4 ,b 7a7 ! indep5d5ce ) :i* exp]i5ce pres5ts u is nev] complete1 nor ! unity ( ! 8selves0 p]fect4 7b7 ,! !ory is inconsi/5t ) ! sy/ematic "* ( all reality z presuppos$ 9 bo? k & action4 #c4 ,monadism aga9 makes ! sy/ematic unity ( ! real ei!r an illusion or an inexplicable accid5t4 #d4 ,reality1 because sy/ematic1 mu/ be ! expression ( a s+le pr9ciple 9 & ?r\gh a multiplicity4 ,! unity & multiplicity mu/ bo? be real1 & ea* mu/ necess>ily involve ! o!r4 #e4 ,if bo? are to be equally real1 ! :ole sy/em mu/ be a s+le exp]i5ce1 & its con/itu5ts mu/ also be exp]i5ces4 ,a p]fect sy/ematic :ole c be nei!r an aggregate1 nor a me*anical :ole ( p>ts1 nor an organism4 ,! :ole mu/ exi/ = ! p>ts1 & !y = x4 #f4 ,?is may also be express$ by say+ t ,reality is a subject :i* is ! unity ( subord9ate subjects1 or an individual ( :i* ! con/itu5ts are less] individuals4 #g4 ,! ne>e/ famili> analogue to su* a sy/ematic :ole w\ld be ! relation betwe5 our :ole 8self0 & ! p>tial m5tal sy/ems or less] 8selves40 #h4 ,! ne>e/ hi/oric p>allel to ?is view is to be f\nd 9 ,sp9oza's !ory ( ! relation ( ! human m9d to ! 8inf9ite intellect ( ,god40 #a4 ,! problem ( ! ,"o & ! ,_m is z old z ,philosophy itself1 & inevitably arises f ! e>lie/ & simple/ attempts to ?9k 9 a consi/5t way ab\t ! nature ( ! _w 9 :i* we play our "p4 ,on ! "o h&1 our exp]i5ce1 9 ! piecemeal %ape 9 :i* x fir/ appe>s z we beg9 to reflect on x1 seems to exhibit an indef9ite plurality ( m or less indep5d5t ?+s1 ea* pursu+ its own c\rse & behav+ 9 its own way1 & connect$ at be/ ) only a few ( ! o!r memb]s ( our environm5t4 ,!re is1 = in/ance1 no obvi\s connection betwe5 "o man's c>e] & ^? ( mo/ ( 8 contempor>ies1 to say no?+ ( ! innum]able ho/ ( 8 pr$ecessors & successors 9 ! race ( life4 ,&1 simil>ly1 ! behavi\r ( "o inanimate ?+ seems at fir/ sight to be unaffect$ by t ( mo/ ( ! o!r ?+s ar\nd x4 ,! _w seems to u at times to be made up ( an indef9ite multiplicity ( be+s :o m]ely happ5 to be actors on ! same /age1 b h1 9 ! majority ( cases1 no influ5ce ^u ea* o!r's p>ts4 ,yet1 on ! o!r h&1 !re are equally /rong prim facie reasons = reg>d+ ! _w z a s+le unity4 ,e addition to our !oretical insight into ! /ructure ( ?+s adds to our recognition ( ! intimate connection betwe5 ?+s & processes :i* previ\sly seem$ m]ely disconnect$4 ,physical sci5ce1 z x gr[s1 le>ns m & m to look ^u nature z a realm ( int]connect$ ev5ts :]e no "o fact is ultimately entirely indep5d5t ( any o!r fact2 political exp]i5ce & social sci5ce alike reveal ! intimate int]dep5d5ce ( human lives & purposes4 ,&1 ov] & above ! asc]ta9$ empirical facts :i* po9t to ! ultimate unity ( ! _w1 !re is ano!r pot5t influ5ce :i* we might call ! 8in/9ctive0 basis = ! belief 9 unity4 ,h[ev] discont9u\s my environm5t may appe>1 x is nev] a m]e disconnect$ multiplicity4 ,! v circum/ance t x is ?r\gh\t my environm5t1 & ?us relative to ! ends by :i* my att5tion is det]m9$1 gives x to a c]ta9 degree ! "* ( a coh]5t sy/em4 ,at ! l[e/ level ( philosophic reflection1 we _c p]man5tly fail to appreh5d our _w z 9 pr9ciple "o1 precisely because x is our _w1 & we ourselves are all 9 "s degree be+s ( /eady sy/ematic purpose1 n m]e bundles ( disconnect$ & conflict+ impulses4 ,:ile yet aga91 x is ! v limitation ( our own int]e/s & our lack ( cle> insight into _! full import :i* leads u at o!r times to f9d app>5t disconnect$ multiplicity & lack ( cohesion 9 our _w4 ,! problem ( ,philosophy 9 deal+ ) ^! rival aspects ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce !n becomes t ( decid+ :e!r ei!r ( !m c be adopt$ z ! tru? 9 isolation f ! o!r4 ,or if nei!r is ! :ole tru?1 we mu/ ask ourselves 9 :at way ! _w c be at once ,"o & ,_m1 h[ ! *>act]s ( sy/ematic unity & ( indef9ite v>iety c be consi/5tly ?\ght ( z belong+ to ! same ,reality4 ,is ,reality1 we h to ask1 ,"o or is x ,_m1 & if x is bo?1 h[ are ! unity & multiplicity connect$8 ,! answ]s :i* diff]5t philosophical sy/ems h giv5 to ?is "q may conv5i5tly be classifi$ "u ?ree g5]al d5om9ations4 ,!re are 7#a7 ! ,moni/ic views1 :i* lay ! pr9cipal /ress ^u ! unity ( ! real1 & t5d to treat ! aspect ( plurality & v>iety z illusory1 or at lea/ z ( second>y importance2 7#b7 ! v>i\s =ms ( ,pluralism1 accord+ to :i* ! v>iety & multiplicity ( real be+s is ! prim>y fact1 & _! sy/ematic unity ei!r an illusion1 or at any rate a subord9ate aspect ( _! nature2 7#c7 ,monadism1 :i* aims at h>monis+ ! positions ( ! moni/ & plurali/1 by treat+ ! _w z a multiplicity ( really indep5d5t ?+s or 8monads10 :i* are someh[ comb9$ f )\t into a sy/em4 ,f ?is la/ po9t ( view ! plurality & ! sy/ematic unity are alike real & alike important = ! und]/&+ ( ! _w1 b are ( diff]5t orig91 ! plurality be+ inh]5t 9 ! ?+s !mselves1 ! unity ext]nal to !m & com+ f a =eign s\rce4 ,)9 ea* ( ! ?ree ma9 types ( !ory !re is1 ( c\rse1 room = ! greate/ div]g5ce ( view z to ! special nature ( ! real4 ,a moni/ic sy/em may be purely mat]iali/ic1 l t ( ,p>m5ides1 :o taught t ! _w is a s+le homog5e\s solid sph]e1 or ideali/ic l t1 e4g41 ( ,s*op5hau]2 or aga91 x may treat m9d & 8matt]0 z 8aspects0 ( a common reality4 ,a plurali/ or monadi/1 aga91 may conceive ( ea* ( 8 indep5d5t real ?+s z a physical atom1 z a s\l ( any degree ( organisation1 or ev51 9 ! fa%ion ( "s contempor>y ?\ght1 z a p]son4 ,) reg>d to ! relation betwe5 ?is classification ( philosophical !ories & t ( ! la/ *apt]1 ,i may j obs]ve t1 :ile a moni/ is n necess>ily an ideali/1 a consi/5t plurali/ or monadi/ ought logically to be a reali/4 ,= ! mutual indep5d5ce ( ! v>i\s real ?+s _c exi/ )\t involv+ 9 itself _! indep5d5ce ( exp]i5ce4 ,if ,a & ,b are two completely indep5d5t ?+s1 !n ! exi/5ce & "* ( ,a mu/ be indep5d5t ( pres5ce to ! exp]i5ce ( ,b1 & simil>ly ,a mu/ be equally indep5d5t ( pres5ce to ! exp]i5ce ( ,c1 or ( any?+ 9 ! _w b itself4 ,& we h already se5 t !re is always m 9 ! nature ( any f9ite p]cipi5t ?an c be pres5t to 8 own exp]i5ce4 ,?us ultimately ! exi/5ce & qualities ( ,a mu/ be indep5d5t ( all exp]i5ce1 includ+ ,a's own4#ed ,= ?is reason ,i _c b ?9k t ! v>i\s attempts to comb9e ,pluralism ) ,idealism by ma9ta9+ t ! univ]se consi/s ( a numb] ( indep5d5t 8s\ls0 or 8p]sons10 re/ on confusion ( ?\ght4 ,^! doctr9es appe> to be ess5tially reali/ 9 _! _s4 #b4 ,we may conv5i5tly attempt to con/ruct our own !ory ( ! ,"o & ! ,_m by fir/ exclud+ views :i* appe> mi/ak5 9 pr9ciple1 & ?us gradually n>r[+ ! issues4 ,among ^! mi/ak5 views ,i am =c$ to reckon all =ms ( consi/5t & ?or\gh-go+ ,pluralism4 ,pluralism1 s f> at lea/ z ,i am able to see1 beg9s by misappreh5d+ ! facts ^u :i* x pr(esses to base itself1 & ends by giv+ an int]pretation ( !m :i* is ess5tially irrational4 ,! fundam5tal fact f :i* ,pluralism />ts z an ultimate datum ( all exp]i5ces is ! famili> "o t !re are o!r m5 9 ! _w besides myself4 ,my _w is n simply a !atre = ! execution ( my own aims & ! satisfaction ( my own wants4 ,!re are int]e/s 9 x :i* are n m9e1 & to :i* ,i mu/ adapt myself if ,i mean to a*ieve my own purposes4 ,! _w ?us conta9s m9ds o!r ?an my own1 & :at makes !m o!r is t ! int]e/s & purposes by :i* _! lives are det]m9$ are1 l my own1 unique & incommunicable4 ,n[1 ,pluralism bids u take ! facts1 z ?us /at$1 z ! model = our conception ( ! univ]se4 ,! patt]n ^u :i* ! plurali/ views ( ,reality are con/ruct$ is t ( a community consi/+ ( a great numb] ( selves or p]sons1 ea* ) its own unique int]e/s1 & ea* !re=e at once int]nally simple & indivisible & exclusive ( all ! re/4 ,9 :atev] special =m ! plurali/ ?9ks ( 8 ultimate realities1 :e!r z physically indivisible p>ticles1 z ma!matical po9ts1 or z s5ti5t be+s1 x is always f ! facts ( human social life conceiv$ 9 ?is ultra-individuali/ way t he 9 ! la/ resort d]ives 8 concept ( _! simplicity & mutual repulsion4 ,b 7a7 ! facts !mselves are n correctly /at$4 ,! human exp]i5ces ^u :i* ! plurali/ relies = 8 conclusion pres5t at once too mu* & too little unity = ! purposes ( 8 !ory4 ,on ! "o h&1 ! selves or p]sons compos+ society are n !mselves simple1 undiff]5tiat$ unities4 ,j z y\r int]e/s & m9e may (t5 collide1 s )9 :at ! plurali/ assumes z ! indivisible unit ( my own p]sonality !re may be a simil> collision4 ,:at ,i call my 8own int]e/s0 or my own 8app]ceptive sy/ems0 or 8tra9s ( ?\ght0 may exhibit ! same k9d ( incompatibility & ! same sort ( conflict = sup]iority z is f\nd :]e y\r ideas & m9e cla%4 ,?us ,e?ics & ,psy*ology are l$ to di/+ui% betwe5 my 8true0 self & ! false selves by :i* x may on occasion be dom9at$1 betwe5 my 8high]0 self & ! 8l[]0 selves :i*1 9 morality1 h to be repress$ by ! high]1 my 8p]man5t0 self1 & ! tempor>y int]e/s by :i* x is (t5 ov]p[]$1 to say no?+ ( 8sublim9al0 consci\sness & 8dual0 or 8alt]nat+ p]sonality40 ,! 8self0 is s f> f be+ a m]e unit1 t ! v>iety &1 :at is m1 ! incompatibility ( its cont5ts is a matt] ( ev]yday exp]i5ce4#ee ,pluralism may1 ( c\rse1 & (t5 does1 v]bally admit ?is4 ,! units ( ! plurali/1 we are (t5 told1 are n m]e units devoid ( v>iety1 b :oles :i* are ! union ( diff]5ces4 ,b to conc$e ?is is to cut away ! gr\nd f "u ! plurali/'s feet4 ,if ! v>iety & ! mutual /ruggle betwe5 ! elem5ts ( ! self are n en\gh to de/roy its unity1 by p>ity ( reason+ ! multiplicity ( selves 9 ! _w & _! mutual repulsions are n en\gh to prove t ! :ole ( ,reality is n1 9 spite ( its multiplicity ( detail1 a unity m complete ?an any ( ! p>tial unities to be met ) 9 our exp]i5ce4 ,9 fact1 ! plurali/ has to meet ! foll[+ dilemma4 ,ei!r 8 units are m]e units )\t int]nal v>iety1 & !n x is easy to %[ t !y are ! m]e/ no?+s1 or !y h int]nal v>iety ( _! own1 & !re=e simply repeat )9 !mselves ! problem !y are suppos$ to solve4 ,on ! o!r h&1 j z ! facts ( exp]i5ce %[ u int]nal /ruggle & repulsion )9 ! suppos$ units1 s !y also exhibit o!r relations ?an t ( mutual exclusion betwe5 ! diff]5t units4 ,human p]sonal int]e/s1 = in/ance1 are nev] m]ely mutually exclusive4 ,no society consi/s ( individuals ^: purposes & int]e/s are simply reciprocally repell5t4 ,my aims & purposes may nev] completely co9cide ) ^? ( o!r memb]s ( ! same community1 yet !y h no mean+ & c\ld get no realisation b = ! fact t !y are1 p>tially at any rate1 compris$ 9 ! wid] :ole ( social int]e/s & purposes :i* makes up ! life ( ! social organisations to :i* ,i belong4 ,z ! v etymology ( su* words z 8society0 & 8community0 %[s--to say no?+ ( ! results ( psy*ological inquiry into ! process ( le>n+ by imitation--! conception ( human selves z indep5d5t units :i* someh[ happ5 to /& 9 m]ely accid5tal or ext]nal relations is 9 flagrant conflict ) ! mo/ fundam5tal facts ( our social exp]i5ce4 ,x is only by ! sy/ematic suppression ( fact t p]sonal & social life c be made to support ! hypo!sis ( ,pluralism4 7b7 ,aga91 ev5 if we c\ld accept ! plurali/ acc\nt ( ! facts1 ! !ory :i* ,pluralism puts =w>d to acc\nt = !m is 9 ! end un9telligible4 ,:at ,pluralism does1 consci\sly or unconsci\sly1 is to sep>ate ! unity ( ! _w f its multiplicity4 ,! multiplicity is suppos$ to be gr\nd$ 9 ! ultimate nature ( ! real ?+s !mselves1 _! unity z a sy/em1 if !y really are a sy/em1 to be impos$ ^u !m f )\t4 ,we are1 9 fact1 left to *oose betwe5 two alt]natives4 ,ei!r ! _w is n a sy/ematic :ole at all1 b a m]e *aos ( purely indep5d5t atoms1 9 :i* case ! :ole ( our ?\ght1 ) its indisp5sable presupposition ( ! sy/ematic unity ( ! object ( k1 is an illusion1 or else ! _w really is a sy/em1 b a sy/em1 s to say1 by accid5t4 ,! ?+s ( :i* ! sy/em is compos$ are real z deta*$ sep>ate units1 b by a =tunate *ance !y happ5 all to possess "s common relation to an ext]nal t]tium quid 7= in/ance1 to ,god71 by :i* !y are comb9$ into a sy/em & ?us become kn[able z a connect$ :ole4 ,n[ we _c1 if we are intellectually consci5ti\s1 re/ f9ally cont5t ) a /atem5t ( ?is k9d1 :i* leaves ! plurality & ! sy/ematic unity ( ! real _w side by side z two indep5d5t unconnect$ facts4 ,if ! cont5ts ( ! _w really =m a sy/em at all1 9 any way :atev]1 t is itself "o fact among o!rs :i* a s\nd metaphysical !ory mu/ recognise1 & ( :i* x mu/ (f] "s intelligible acc\nt4 ,e4g41 suppose y say1 ) "s rec5t plurali/s1 t ! _w consi/s ( a numb] ( indep5d5t p]sons or spirits1 :o nev]!less =m a connect$ sy/em or 8moral k+dom10 9 virtue ( ! fact t !y all f9d _! moral ideal 9 ,god1 ! mo/ p]fect among !m4 ,y h n[ n "o ultimate fact be=e y1 ! multiplicity ( indep5d5t selves1 b two1 ?is multiplicity & ! relation ( ea* elem5t 9 x to ,god4 ,unless y are go+ to treat ?is second fact z an 8ultimate inexplicability10 i4e4 a =tunate accid5t1 y are n[ b\nd to treat ! sy/ematic relation ( ! selves to ,god & ?r\gh ,god to ea* o!r z no less a "p ( _! ultimate nature ?an _! di/9ction f ea* o!r4 ,_! sep>at5ess & indep5d5ce is ?us no long] = y ! ultimate tru?2 !y are j z truly "o by y\r acc\nt z !y are _m4 ,_! union 9 a sy/em is no long] an ext]nal relation =eign to _! own nature1 b ! deepe/ tru? ab\t t nature itself4 ,i w repeat ! ess5ce ( ?is argum5t 9 ano!r =m4 ,any g5u9e ,pluralism mu/ be resolute en\gh to dismiss ! idea ( a sy/ematic int]connection betwe5 its indep5d5t realities z an illusion ( ! human m9d4 ,b 9 do+ s x mu/1 to be consi/5t1 d5y ! possibility ( _! mutual k ( ea* o!r's /ates4 ,ea* real ?+ mu/ be a little _w to itself1 %ut up )9 ! clos$ circle ( its own int]nal cont5t4 ,& ?us1 suppos+ ,pluralism to be true1 & suppos+ myself to be "o ( ! real ?+s ( ! plurali/ s*eme1 ,i %\ld h no means ( kn[+ x to be true4 ,pluralism is unable to /& ! "q prop\nd$ by ,mr4 ,bradley z ! te/ ( a philosophical doctr9e1 8,is ! tru? ( ?is !ory consi/5t ) ! fact t ,i "k x to be true80 ,! p]si/5t popul>ity ( ,pluralism 9 _m qu>t]s is 9 fact due to ! intrusion into ,metaphysics ( o!r ?an g5u9ely philosophical int]e/s4 ,x is ma9ta9$1 n on its philosophical m]its z a consi/5t !ory1 b because x is believ$ by its adh]5ts to safegu>d c]ta9 int]e/s ( morality & religion4 ,x gives u1 we are told1 a 8real ,god0 & 8real moral fre$om40 ,b1 ap>t f ! "q :e!r ^! claims are ju/ifi$ by c&id exam9ation ( ! doctr9e1#ef we mu/ prote/ aga9/ _! be+ all[$ any place at all 9 a metaphysical discussion4 ,metaphysics is1 f fir/ to la/1 a purely speculative activity2 its "o conc]n is to ?9k logically ab\t ! con/itution ( ,reality1 & ! only int]e/s x has a "r to consid] are ^? ( consi/5t logical ?\ght4 ,if consi/5t logical ?\ght ab\t e?ical & religi\s problems involves ! recognition ( a 8real ,god0 & 8real fre$om10 & if ^! aga9 are only possible on ! plurali/ic !ory1 !n ! m]e process ( consi/5t ?\ght is b\nd 9 ! end to lead u to a plurali/ic result1 & x is sup]flu\s to appeal to extra-logical int]e/s 9 ! matt]4 ,b if ^? :o def5d ,pluralism on ! gr\nd t x gives u a 8real ,god0 & 8real fre$om0 mean t1 ap>t f ! "q ( _! intellectual ju/ification1 ^! beliefs ought to be ma9ta9$ 9 ,metaphysics because c]ta9 p]sons w be less moral or less happy )\t !m1 we mu/ answ] t ,metaphysics has no?+ to d ) mak+ u moral or happy4 ,x is no pro( ( ! tru? ( a belief t x increases my p]sonal virtue or happ9ess1 nor ( its falsity t x dim9i%es !m4 ,& if ! /udy ( ,metaphysics c\ld be %[n to make c]ta9 p]sons less virtu\s or less happy1 ,metaphysics w\ld /ill be 9 no worse case ?an ,e?ics or ,m$ic9e4 ,!re may be p]sons = :om x is undesirable1 on gr\nds ( happ9ess or morality1 to devote !mselves to ! pursuit ( speculative tru?1 b x is none ! less a lapse f intellectual s+le-m9d$ness = ! man :o has elect$ to play ! game ( speculation to violate its rules by indulg+ 9 con/ant appeals to speculatively irrelevant issues4#eg #c4 ,! ,monadism ( ,leibnitz 0 an attempt to effect a compromise betwe5 ,pluralism & ,monism4 ,accord+ to ?is view1 ! univ]se consi/s ( an inf9ite plurality ( fundam5tally sep>ate be+s4 ,^! be+s are at once simple & indivisible1 & at ! same "t ea* ( !m conta9s an inf9ite v>iety ( int]nal /ates4 ,be+ mutually indep5d5t1 ! monads h no g5u9e relations ) ea* o!r2 ea* is consci\s only ( ! succession ( its own /ates4 ,z ,leibnitz express$ x 9 a metaphor :i* has become classic1 ! monad has no w9d[s4 ,s f> ! sy/em is pure ,pluralism4 ,b at ! same "t ! unity ( ! :ole sy/em ( monads1 ?\gh 8ideal0 & n 8real10 is to be g5u9e4 ,!y =m a sy/em 8ideally10--i4e4 = ! und]/&+ ( an omnisci5t spectator1--inasmu* z ! int]nal /ates ( ea* monad are adju/$ to ^? ( all ! re/1 or1 z ,leibnitz also puts x1 inasmu* z ea* monad 8repres5ts0 ! same sy/ematic /ructure f its own special po9t ( view4 ,h5ce1 ?\gh no monad really p]ceives or acts ^u any o!r1 e monad behaves z x w\ld if !re 7 mutual p]ception & int]action betwe5 all4 ,:5 we ask aft] ! s\rce ( ?is 8pre-e/abli%$ h>mony10 we meet ) a d\ble answ]4 ,on ! "o h&1 its actual exi/5ce z a fact is due to ! creative w ( ,god4 ,on ! o!r1 x 0 precisely ! complete adju/m5t ( ! int]nal /ates ( its v>i\s monads :i* det]m9$ ,god to w ! exi/5ce ( ! actual _w-ord] 9 pref]5ce to t ( any o!r ( ! indef9itely num]\s logically possible arrangem5ts :i* ,he =esaw & might h *os54 ,?is relation betwe5 ,god & ! _w-ord] is fur!r complicat$ by ! fact t on occasion ,leibnitz treats ,god z simply "o1 ?\gh ! supreme "o1 among ! monads4 ,n[ a sy/em ( ?is k9d seems to exhibit all ! defects ( ,pluralism ) c]ta9 sup]add$ difficulties ( its own4 ,we might reasonably object t exp]i5ce pres5ts u ) no example ( a g5u9e sy/em 9 :i* all ! elem5ts are actually indep5d5t4 ,! ne>e/ approa* to su* a case seems to be f\nd 9 ! classes ( an 8artificial classification10 9 :i* ?+s /&+ 9 no relation ( int]action among !mselves are put toge!r by u because x is conv5i5t = "s extrane\s purpose ( our own to compreh5d !m "u a s+le po9t ( view4 ,b1 ap>t f ! impossibility ( con/ruct+ a classification :i* %all be m ?an relatively artificial1 su* a m]e aggregate or collection is n a real sy/em4 ,9 a true sy/em1 z di/9ct f a m]e collection1 ! pr9ciple ( unity has always "s sort ( significance = ! memb]s ( ! sy/em !mselves4 ,x repres5ts1 at ! lea/1 ! way 9 :i* ! memb]s int]act ) ea* o!r4 7,?us1 to take an extreme case1 ! s]ial arrangem5t ( cutt+ implem5ts 9 a museum1 f ! flak$ /one ( ! ,paloli?ic age to ! late/ specim5 ( ,%effield cutl]y1 is m ?an a m]ely 8artificial0 classification1 precisely because x is m ?an a m]e gr\p+ ( sep>ate objects accord+ to _! lik5ess & unlik5ess2 x repres5ts ! /ages ( a cont9u\s hi/orical evolution47 ,n[1 x is ess5tial to ,monadism t ! monads1 because ultimately indep5d5t1 %all only seem to int]act4 ,!y appe> to =m a s+le _w ) a hi/ory 9 :i* ea* di/9ct /ate ( ea* monad is a /age4 ,b really1 :ile ! successive /ates ( ! individual monad are1 :at !y seem to be1 a connect$ process ( developm5t1 ! v>i\s processes d n make up a s+le-_w hi/ory at all4 ,!y only seem to d s by an inevitable illusion4 ,h5ce ! unity ( ! :ole sy/em mu/ aft] all be n only ideal1 b1 /rictly speak+1 imag9>y4 ,simil> difficulties arise f ! ambigu\s position accord$ to ,god 9 ! s*eme4 ,if ! 8pre-e/abli%$ h>mony0 betwe5 ! /ates ( ! individual monads 7 simply due to a creative fiat ( ,god1 we %\ld be ?r[n back ^u m]e arbitr>y *ance z ! reason1 if x c be call$ a reason1 :y exi/5ce is n a *aos4 ,b if ,god's *oice to create ?is s*eme ( ?+s r ?an ano!r 0 due to ! sup]ior attraction :i* a _w ) at lea/ ! appe>ance ( connect$ sy/em _h = ! div9e intellect1 !n x is ultimately 9 ! con/itution ( ! div9e m9d t we h to f9d ! reason :y ! alt]native possibilities be=e creation 7 :at !y 72#eh & aga91 :y j ?is "o 0 pref]r$ to all ! re/4 ,& ?us ! monads cease to be any long] ultimate & indep5d5t1 & ! nature ( ,god becomes ! s+le det]m9ate gr\nd ( all reality4 ,x is sc>cely necess>y to add t ,monadism suff]s besides f all ! defects :i* we f\nd 9 ,pluralism4 ,if ! monad be made into a m]e unit )\t int]nal v>iety1 x ceases to be a ?+ ) a def9ite nature at all2 & if its unity is compatible ) ! v>iety ( its /ates1 !re seems to be no special reason :y ! weal? ( v>i$ exi/5ce 9 ! _w %\ld lead u to assume a plurality ( indep5d5t pr9ciples z its gr\nd4 ,x has be5 po9t$ out t ,leibnitz 0 app>5tly det]m9$ 9 fav\r ( ,monadism aga9/ ,monism by ! assumption t individual human selves are int]nally simple units & ext]nally entirely exclusive ( ea* o!r1 an assumption we h already se5 reason to reject4 #d4 ,we seem driv51 !n1 to reject ! view t ! ord]$ _w ( exp]i5ce c be ! expression ( a plurality ( ultimately di/9ct & het]og5e\s pr9ciples4 ,because ! _w z kn[n1 or aga9 z provid+ = ! coh]5t realisation ( practical purposes1 is an ord]ly sy/em1 & on any o!r supposition coh]5t k & consi/5t action are alike impossible1 ! _w mu/ = ,metaphysics be reg>d$ z ! complete embodim5t & expression ( a s+le ultimate pr9ciple4 ,we are ?us committ$ to "s =m ( !ory ( ! type g5]ally kn[n z ,monism4 ,! "n ,monism we may p]haps be all[$ to avoid1 z x has ga!r$ ab\t x associations :i* are apt to mislead4 ,among ! doctr9es mo/ frequ5tly spok5 ( z moni/ic are "s :i* treat ! app>5t v>iety & multiplicity ( exi/5ce z purely illusory4 ,aga91 ! "n has ( late be5 widely us$ z ! self-*os5 designation ( ! doctr9e accord+ to :i* 8m9d0 & 8matt]0 are alike 8aspects0 or 8manife/ations0 ( a ?ird pr9ciple :i* is nei!r mat]ial nor m5tal4 ,x %\ld already be cle> t ! doctr9e indicat$ by our previ\s discussions diff]s widely f bo? ^! types ( ,monism4 ,we h insi/$ t ! s\rce ( fallacy 9 ,pluralism & ,monadism 0 "o-sid$ emphasis ^u "o t]m 9 ! anti!sis ( ! ,_m & ! ,"o to neglect ( ! o!r1 & we h no int5tion ( repeat+ ! mi/ake = ourselves4 ,also1 we h already come to ! conclusion t ,reality1 :atev] its detail$ /ructure1 is m5tal 9 its g5]al "*2 we c h no?+ !re=e to d ) a 8neutral0 or 8agno/ic0 ,monism4 ,our detail$ !ory ( ! relation betwe5 ! unity ( ! _w & its multiplicity mu/ d equal ju/ice to bo?1 & x mu/ be consi/5t ) our previ\s recognition ( ! exp]i5tial nature ( ! real4 ,we may p]haps "w out our !ory 9 detail z foll[s4 ,! _w = k mu/1 we h se51 be an ord]ly :ole or sy/em4 ,to be a sy/em at all1 x mu/ be ! developm5t or expression 9 detail ( a s+le pr9ciple4 ,!re=e x mu/ mo/ c]ta9ly be "o2 x _c be a m$ley ( indep5d5t elem5ts :i* someh[ luckily happ5 to =m a coh]5t collection4 ,b aga91 because x is a sy/em1 x _c be a m]e unit2 x mu/ be ! expression ( a s+le pr9ciple 9 & ?r\gh a multiplicity ( t]ms or con/itu5ts4 ,n only mu/ x be bo? "o & _m1 b x mu/ be _m precisely because x is truly "o1 & "o because x is truly _m4#ei ,fur!r1 we mu/ add t because ! _w-sy/em is a p]fectly sy/ematic :ole1 n only is multiplicity 9 g5]al necess>y to its unity1 b ea* p>ticul> elem5t 9 ! multiplicity is necessitat$ or logically impli$ by ! "* ( ! unity4 ,9 a complete sy/em no s+le memb] c be miss+ or be o!r ?an x is )\t ! fundam5tal law ( con/ruction ( ! :ole be+ *ang$4 ,also1 we may incid5tally obs]ve t 9 a complete sy/em ! numb] ( di/9ct t]ms may be actually endless1 :ile ! law ( con/ruction is p]fectly det]m9ate4 ,to ?9k ( ! _w z a s+le sy/ematic unity1 !n1 means to ?9k ( x z ! manife/ation 9 a possibly inf9ite multiplicity ( detail ( "o p]fectly det]m9ate pr9ciple4 ,&1 ( c\rse1 :at we h call$ ! individual elem5ts ( ! multiplicity may on inspection !mselves turn out to be sy/ems ( inf9ite complexity det]m9$ by a law ( con/ruction d]iv$ 9 a det]m9ate way f t ( ! complete sy/em1 & s on lit]ally ad inf9itum4 ,?us ! unity ( ultimate pr9ciple we dem& = ,reality 9 no way excludes its possession ( a weal? ( detail inf9itely inf9ite4 #e4 ,we may take a fur!r mo/ important /ep =w>d4 ,9 ! all-embrac+ sy/ematic :ole ! unity & ! multiplicity mu/ be equally real & ea* mu/ be real ?r\gh ! o!r4 ,h[ is ?is possible8 ,only on condition t ! :ole sy/em =ms a s+le exp]i5ce1 & t ! con/itu5t factors aga9 are s+le exp]i5ces4 ,?is w p]haps be be/ br\ght out by exam9+ "s typical case ( ! k9d ( unity 9 multiplicity :i* is insuffici5t = our purpose4 7a7 ,! unity ( ! _w _c be t ( a m]e collection or aggregate4 ,9 a m]e aggregate ! elem5ts are real indep5d5tly ( _! relation to "o ano!r z elem5ts 9 ?is aggregate4 ,s long z we keep /rictly to ! case ( :at is no m ?an an aggregate1 ! quality ( ! elem5ts is entirely unaffect$ by _! inclusion 9 ! aggregate4 ,! aggregate has no unit>y "* ( its own :i* reveals itself 9 & ?r\gh ! behavi\r ( its elem5ts4 ,its unity consi/s 9 no?+ m ?an ! fact t we h f\nd x conv5i5t to ?9k ( its elem5ts toge!r4 ,an aggregate ( t5 bricks1 = in/ance1 has no "* z a :ole beyond ! m]e fact ( be+ ?\ght ( 9 "o m5tal act4 ,x has n ev5 a collective weight until y put y\r t5 bricks into ! same c>t1 or on ! same scale-pan1 & !n !y h ceas$ to be a m]e aggregate 9 ! v mom5t ( ex]t+ pressure ^u ! same surface1 & h become a true mat]ial sy/em4 7b7 ,nor c ! _w ( ,reality be satisfactorily ?\ght ( z a m]e :ole ( p>ts4 ,a :ole ( p>ts approa*es inde$ m ne>ly to ! ideal ( a true sy/ematic unity ?an a m]e aggregate1 inasmu* z x has a det]m9ate s+le "* z a :ole1 :i* manife/s itself 9 ! /ructure ( ! v>i\s p>ts4 ,= ?is reason a geometrical figure or a ma*9e is mu* m ?an a m]e aggregate2 x has a "* z a :ole1 & ?is "* is diff]5tly express$ by ! con/ruction ( ! diff]5t p>ts4 ,! figure or ma*9e is ?us a true unity ( diff]5ces4 ,yet 9 ?is case we _c really say t ! unity & ! v>iety are equally real4 ,= ! :ole _c exi/ )\t ! p>ts1 :]eas ! p>ts may cont9ue to exi/1 ?\gh n1 ( c\rse1 z p>ts ( ?is :ole1 )\t ! :ole4 ,! :ole is con/itut$ by ! successive g5]ation or con/ruction ( ! p>ts1 & ?us may be said to be =m$ out ( pre-exi/+ p>ts1 & ! p>ts aga9 may survive ! de/ruction ( ! :ole4 ,!re is n t equal reality & complete mutual implication ( ! two sides :i* we h deem$ necess>y to a g5u9e sy/ematic unity4 7c7 ,an organism is 9 "s respects a tru] sy/ematic unity ?an a m]e :ole ( p>ts4 ,x has a sy/ematic "* ( its own :i* manife/s itself 9 & ?r\gh ! diff]5ce ( its v>i\s memb]s4 ,& "h1 ! :ole is n hi/orically subsequ5t to & g5]at$ by ! memb]s4 ,x is n _! resultant b _! liv+ unity4 ,! memb]s only come into be+ along ) ! :ole1 & 9 ! c\rse ( its gr[? z a :ole2 & ?\gh !y may1 9 a s5se1 cont9ue to exi/ aft] sev]ance f ! :ole1 x is n ) ! same k9d ( exi/5ce :i* belong$ to !m z memb]s4#fj ,b an organism1 l a ma*9e1 fails to exhibit ! p]fect sy/ematic unity ( ! ,"o & ! ,_m ( :i* we are 9 que/4 ,9 ! ma*9e ! aspect ( multiplicity 0 relatively m real ?an t ( unity2 9 ! fully evolv$ organism ! unity seems m completely real ?an ! multiplicity4 ,= ! unity is a consci\s "o2 9 "s degree at lea/ x exi/s = itself1 & its memb]s aga9 = x4 ,:]eas x mu/ be v d\btful :e!r ! memb] exi/s = itself1 & /ill m d\btful :e!r ! :ole exi/s 9 any s5se = ! memb]s4 ,& ?\gh ! memb] _c reta9 its peculi> =m ( exi/5ce except z a memb] 9 ! :ole1 yet 9 ev5 ! highe/ organism ! unity is s f> relatively indep5d5t t x is unaffect$ by ! removal ( "s ( ! memb]s4 ,n e memb] is ( vital significance = ! life ( ! :ole4 ,b 9 a complete sy/ematic unity1 z we saw1 ! unity & ! multiplicity ( ! sy/em mu/ be equally real & equally int]dep5d5t4 ,?is c only be ! case if ! :ole is = its memb]s z well z ! memb]s = ! :ole4 ,& t ?is may be s1 j z ! all-embrac+ :ole ( reality mu/1 z we h le>n$1 be an exp]i5ce1 s ea* ( its memb]s mu/ be itself an exp]i5ce4 ,& because ! memb]s =m a s+le sy/em1 j z !re c be no?+ 9 ! exp]i5ce ( any memb] :i* is n conta9$ 9 ! exp]i5ce :i* is ! :ole1 s1 on ! o!r side1 !re c be no?+ 9 ! :ole :i* does n 9 "s way affect ! exp]i5ce ( e memb]4 ,only 9 ?is way c we conceive ( a sy/ematic ,reality 9 :i* ! unity & ! multiplicity ( ! sy/em are alike real & equally real4 ,su* a view is1 /rictly speak+1 h>dly to be call$ ei!r ,pluralism or ,monism4 ,x is n ,pluralism1 = x does n make ! unity ( ! sy/em an illusion or an inexplicable accid5t2 x is n ,monism1 9 ! curr5t s5se ( ! ^w1 because x does n make ! multiplicity deceptive4 ,if a "n is want$1 we might p]haps agree to call x ,sy/ematic ,idealism4 #f4 ,we may say1 !n1 t ,reality is a sy/ematic ,exp]i5ce ( :i* ! compon5ts are likewise exp]i5ces4 ,x w\ld be mu* ! same ?+ if we call$ x a subject :i* is ! unity ( subord9ate subjects4 ,x is tempt+ aga91 at fir/ sight1 to say x is a self ( selves4 ,b ! extreme ambiguity ( ! t]m 8self0 z us$ 9 contempor>y ,psy*ology makes x desirable to avoid an expression :i* is capable ( ! grave/ misuse4#fa ,x is sc>cely possible to say ) any precision :at we mean by "o 8self10 :]eas x is possible 9 a g5]al way to say :at we mean by "o exp]i5ce4 ,an exp]i5ce may be call$ "o & ! same 9 s f> z x is ! sy/ematis$ expression ( a s+le coh]5t purpose or int]e/1 9 s f>1 9 fact1 z x has a teleological unity4 ,9 practice x may be impossible to say precisely :5 ?is condition is fulfill$1 b ! slighte/ acqua9tance ) ! psy*ological facts ( ! /ruggle betwe5 compet+ sy/ems ( ideas 9 normal1 & ( 8dual0 & 8multiple0 p]sonality 9 abnormal1 m5tal life is suffici5t to %[ t ! limits ?us set by our def9ition to ! s+le exp]i5ce d n co9cide ) ^? ascrib$ to my 8self0 or 8p]sonality0 9 any ( ! %ift+ s5ses ( ! t]ms4 ,! limits )9 :i* exp]i5ce rema9s "o exp]i5ce accord+ to our def9ition are1 z ! facts j allud$ to %[1 (t5 n>r[]1 b aga91 ! def9ition sugge/s t !y may also be wid]1 ?an any :i* w\ld curr5tly be giv5 to ! 8self40 ,moreov]1 :at we h already said z to ! possibility ( ea* 8memb]0 ( our sy/em be+ itself a sy/em ( less] sy/ems1 =bids u to id5tify our view ) any doctr9e :i* ass]ts m]ely atomic & simple 8selves0 z ! elem5ts ( ,reality4 ,ano!r way ( express+ ! same ?\ght w\ld be to say t ,reality is an ,individual ( :i* ! elem5ts are less] individuals4 ,! advantage ( ?is =m ( expression is t x emphasises ! fundam5tally teleological "* ( ! unity ( ! real1 & also ( ea* & all ( its con/itu5ts4 ,a ?+1 z we h already se51 is individual j s f> z x is unique1 & only t :i* is ! embodim5t ( a s+le purpose or int]e/ c be unique4 ,a s+le :ole ( exp]i5ce1 ow+ its unity z a :ole precisely to ! complet5ess & h>mony ) :i* x expresses a s+le purpose or int]e/1 is necess>ily an individual4 ,! all-embrac+ exp]i5ce :i* con/itutes ,reality is ?us 9 its inmo/ nature a complete individual4 ,& ! less] exp]i5ces :i* =m ! elem5ts or mat]ial cont5t ( ,reality are ea*1 j s f> z ea* is truly "o exp]i5ce1 individual 9 ! same s5se z ! :ole4 ,we may ?us call ,reality a complete or p]fect individual ( m9or or incomplete individuals4 ,:at ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ! supreme individual :ole & ! less] individuals mu/ be tak5 to consi/ 9 we %all discuss 9 our next *apt]4 ,mean:ile we may note two po9ts3--7#a7 ,! important ?+ ab\t an individual is n its m]e num]ical unity1 b its qualitative uniqu5ess4 ,any exp]i5ce :i* we c pron\nce to be individual mu/ be call$ s1 n m]ely because x is num]ically "o & n _m1 b because x is ! consi/5t & h>moni\s embodim5t ( a coh]5t purpose4 ,num]ically consid]$1 e su* individual is necess>ily _m z well z "o1 precisely because x is a sy/em4 ,?is applies especially to ! supreme or absolute individual1 ! complete sy/em ( exp]i5ce4 ,x is individual prim>ily n because x is num]ically "o1 b because x is ! complete expression ( a coh]5t idea or purpose4 ,x has be5 ! defect ( too _m moni/ic !ories to ov]look ?is1 & to lay ! ma9 /ress on ! num]ical on5ess ( ! real4 7#b7 ,an exp]i5ce individual 9 ! s5se already expla9$ is :at we mean by a 8_s40 ,_s _c be prop]ly def9$ by contradi/9ction f a suppos$ non-spiritual reality1 su* z 8matt]10 = su* a def9ition w\ld only am\nt to ! ass]tion t _s is :at is n o!r ?an _s2 & w\ld tell u no?+ ( ! t]m to be def9$4 ,nor1 aga91 is _s prop]ly def9$ z a s]ies ( /ates or modifications ( ! ab/raction 8consci\sness40 ,! positive *>act]i/ic by :i* spiritual exi/5ce may be recognis$ is t 9 x ! :at & ! t are comb9$ 9 ! unity ( imm$iate feel+4 ,& imm$iate feel+1 z we h se51 is ess5tially teleological4 ,:]e y h a connect$ sy/em ( factors :i* c only be und]/ood z a :ole by ref]5ce to an explicit or implicit end1 :i* con/itutes _! unity1 y h _s1 & :]e y h _s y h su* a sy/em4 ,s t to call reality an individual ( individuals is ! same ?+ z to say t x is a spiritual sy/em ( :i* ! elem5ts1 con/itu5ts1 or t]ms1 are 9 _! turn spiritual sy/ems4#fb ,our doctr9e may ?us be se5 to be fairly entitl$ to ! "n ,idealism1 :i* curr5t usage has appropriat$ to ! view t all exi/5ce is ultimately m5tal4 #g4 ,su* a relation z we h ass]t$ betwe5 ! individual :ole ( ,reality & ! elem5ts or t]ms )9 ! :ole is necess>ily unique1 & _c be adequately illu/rat$ f any less p]fect type ( sy/ematic unity recognis$ by ev]yday or by sci5tific ?\ght4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we mu/ c>efully avoid ! mi/ake ( conceiv+ ! relation ( ! elem5ts to ! totality 9 a me*anical way z t ( 8p>ts0 to a 8:ole ( p>ts02 or1 aga91 9 a m]ely biological way1 z t ( 8memb]s0 to an organism4 ,all su* analogies lose sight ( ! intimate "* ( a union 9 :i* ! elem5ts & ! totality exi/ n m]ely 9 & ?r\gh1 b also = ea* o!r4 ,! individual exp]i5ces :i* compose ! supreme exp]i5ce h a g5u9e1 if an imp]fect & p>tial1 individuality ( _! own4 ,!y are n 9 x m]ely 8ideally0 or implicitly1 z ! po9ts on a curve may be said to be 9 ! p]iph]y4 ,& ! :ole1 aga91 is a real individual1 n a m]e aggregate 9 :i* ! p>ts are real b _! unity m]ely imag9>y4 ,we may1 if we l1 say t x is made up ( exp]i5ces or m9ds1 b we mu/ n say t x is a collection ( m9ds4 ,= a m]e collection1 z we h se51 9 s f> z x is a collection & no?+ m1 _c be said to h any g5u9e individuality1 precisely because x has no teleological unity ( /ructure beyond t :i* we arbitr>ily1 & ) ref]5ce to ends ly+ outside its own nature1 impose ^u x 9 ! v act ( c\nt+ its memb]s1 i4e4 arrang+ !m 9 s]ial ord]4 ,:e!r we c\ld prop]ly speak ( ! absolute :ole z a society ( m9ds is a fur!r & a m difficult "q4 ,a society is mu* m ?an a m]e collection3 x has a purposive unity ( /ructure :i* exi/s n m]ely = ! sociological obs]v] f )\t1 b = its own memb]s z active 9 assign+ to ea* ( !m 8 own special place 9 relation to all ! re/4 ,h[ f> society c be said to h su* a unity = itself is a "q :i* we _c answ] until we h dealt m fully ) ! problem ( ! relation betwe5 selfhood & individuality4 ,& until we h answ]$ x1 we mu/ def] ! decision z to :e!r ! sy/ematic individuality ( ! ,absolute w\ld be adequately recognis$ if we ?\ght ( x z a society4 7,see infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #c47 ,if we are to look at ?is /age = "s analogue )9 our p>tial exp]i5ce = ! k9d ( unity ( individuals 9 a s+le supreme individual :i* we h dem&$ = ! sy/em ( ,reality1 we %all probably d be/ to turn to :at is aft] all ! mo/ famili> ?+ 9 ! _w1--our own p]sonal exp]i5ce4 ,if we consid] ! nature ( any coh]5t purpose or 8m5tal sy/em10 we %all f9d t1 z ! coh]5t embodim5t ( a purpose1 x possesses a degree ( individuality ( its own4 ,9 proportion to ! compreh5siv5ess1 & aga9 to ! inn] h>mony or sy/ematic /ructure ( ! int]e/ x embodies1 x con/itutes a g5u9e self-exi/+ individual :ole ( ! k9d :i* psy*ologi/s recognise z a 8self40 ,& aga91 9 s f> z my life exhibits det]m9ate "*1 s f> d ^! sy/ematic purposes or m9or 8selves0 =m a l>g] sy/em1 also individual1 :i* may be call$ my 8total self40 ,& bo? ! _m less] 8selves0 & ! l>g] 8self0 are real 9 ! same s5se ( ! ^w4 ,nei!r exi/s m]ely 9 or = ! o!r2 ! wid] or :ole 8self0 is no m]e collection or resultant or product ( ! m special 8selves10 nor are !y aga9 m]e results ( a !oretical process ( analysis & ab/raction4 ,9 s f> z !y are g5u9e sy/ems at all1 !y are n m]e 8p>ts0 ( a :ole1 b ea* is ! expression1 9 a concrete consci\s life1 ( ! nature ( a l>g] :ole f a special 8po9t ( view40 ,! :ole1 if n equally 9 e "p1 is yet z a :ole pres5t 9 e "p1 & precisely = t reason ! category ( "p & :ole is inadequate to express _! relation4 ,some:at aft] ?is fa%ion we mu/ conceive ! /ructure ( any individual :ole ( less] individuals4 ,:y1 9 spite ( ! analogy1 x is desirable n to speak ( ! :ole ( ,reality z a 8,self10 w be made cle>] z we proce$4#fc #h4 ,! view we h =mulat$ is p]haps m closely ak9 to ,sp9oza's conception ( ! relation ( ! human m9d to ! 8inf9ite intellect ( ,god10 ?an to any o!r hi/orically fam\s !ory4 ,accord+ to ,sp9oza1 ! individual human m9d is an 8et]nal mode ( consci\sness :i*1 tak5 toge!r ) all o!r su* #8modes1' makes up ! inf9ite intellect ( ,god40 ,! mean+ ( ! epi!t 8et]nal0 we _c1 ( c\rse1 ent] into until we h discuss$ ! relation ( ! "t-process to exp]i5ce4 ,! re/ ( ! def9ition pretty cle>ly co9cides 9 its g5]al s5se ) ! view we h tri$ to exp\nd ( ! nature ( ! relation betwe5 ! supreme exp]i5ce & its con/itu5t exp]i5ces4 ,= ! 8modes0 ( ,sp9oza are def9itely ?\ght ( z g5u9ely individual manife/ations ( ! nature ( 8 ultimate reality1 8sub/ance0 or 8,god40 ,_! individuality & _! inf9ite multiplicity is no result ( illusion or illegitimate ab/raction4 ,&1 on ! o!r h&1 8sub/ance0 itself is g5u9ely individual2 x is no m]e ab/ract "n = ! common prop]ties ( a numb] ( ultimately indep5d5t ?+s4 ,mo/ ( ! adv]se criticism :i* ,sp9ozism has met )1 z f> at lea/ z reg>ds its doctr9e ( ! nature ( ! human m9d1 seems to be bas$ on misappreh5sion ab\t ! fir/ ( ^! po9ts4 ,f 8 use ( ! num]ical category ( :ole & "p to express ! relation betwe5 sub/ance & its modes1 ,sp9oza has incorrectly be5 tak5 to be d5y+ ! fact ( ! g5u9e individuality ( ! f9ite exp]i5ce1 & !re=e to be decl>+ ! v exi/5ce ( ! f9ite to be m]e baseless illusion4 ,) 8 doctr9e z ?us mis9t]pret$1 ours has1 ( c\rse1 no simil>ity4 ,no?+ is expla9$ away by call+ x 8illusion02 ! 8illusory0 fact is !re 9 spite ( ! h>d names y *oose to be/[ on x1 & dem&s explanation no less ?an any o!r fact4 ,our !ory aims n at dismiss+ f9ite individuality z illusion1 b at asc]ta9+ :at x means1 :at are its limits1 & h[ x /&s relat$ to ! complete individual :ole ( exp]i5ce :i* ,sp9oza calls ! inf9itus intellectus ,dei4#fd ,! m5tion ( ,sp9oza w no d\bt sugge/ to ! read] ! fam\s doctr9e1 :i* has play$ s l>ge a "p 9 ! subsequ5t developm5t ( philosophical ,monism1 ( ! d\ble 8aspects0 or 8attributes0 ( ,reality4 ,x is f ,sp9oza t mod]n ,monism has le>n$ ! view t ! m5tal & physical ord]s are relat$ z two p>allel b di/9ct manife/ations ( a common und]ly+ reality1 s t to e memb] ( "o ord] !re corresponds a det]m9ate memb] ( ! o!r4 ,! two are ?us ev]y:]e insep>able & ev]y:]e irr$ucible 8p>allel0 expressions ( a nature :i* is nei!r m5tal nor physical4 ,on ?is fundam5tal po9t our !ory1 z w h be5 se5 already1 completely p>ts company ) ,sp9ozism4 ,t ! nature ( "o & ! same common :ole %\ld be equally manife/$ 9 two entirely irr$ucible =ms1 is a pat5t impossibility4 ,ei!r ! unity ( ! :ole or ! absolute disp>at5ess ( its tw9 manife/ations mu/ be surr5d]$ if we are to ?9k consi/5tly4 ,h5ce we _c avoid ask+ 9 :i* ( ! two s]ies ! assum$ common nature is m adequately express$4 ,accord+ z we answ] ?is "q we %all f9d ourselves l$ 9 ! end ei!r to ?or\gh-go+ ,mat]ialism or to ?or\gh-go+ ,idealism4 ,= our own "p1 ! p]ception t ,reality is exp]i5ce & no?+ else has already committ$ u to ! view t bo? ( ! seem+ly disp>ate s]ies mu/ 9 ! end be m5tal4 ,?us our doctr9e may be said to be mu* :at ,sp9oza's w\ld be if ! attribute ( 8ext5sion0 7 remov$ f 8 s*eme1 & ! :ole ( ,reality id5tifi$ ) ! 8inf9ite intellect ( ,god40#fe ,consult fur!r3--,b4 ,bosanquet1 ,ess5tials ( ,logic1 lect4 #b2 ,logic1 vol4 ii4 *ap4 #g2 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #ac1 #ad1 #bj2 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,!ory ( ,k1 pt4 #c1 *ap4 #f1 8,reality z a ,sy/em02 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #f 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 i4 pp4 #afc-aia72 ,j4 ,s4 ,mack5zie1 ,outl9es ( ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 *aps4 #b1 #c2 bk4 iii4 *ap4 #f2 ,j4 ,e4 ,m#8,tagg>t1 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology1 *ap4 #b4 ----- ,footnote #ed3 ,?is consid]ation obvi\sly influ5c$ ,leibnitz4 ,x is a mu*-decri$ doctr9e 9 8 sy/em t e 8monad10 or simple real ?+1 p]ceives no?+ b its own int]nal /ates2 !re are no 8w9d[s0 ?r\gh :i* "o monad c behold ! /ates ( ano!r4 ,x is easy to %[ t ?is doctr9e leads to extremely f>-fet*$ & fanta/ic hypo!ses to acc\nt = ! app>5t communication betwe5 diff]5t monads1 b n s easy to %[ t ,pluralism c af=d to disp5se ) x4 ,see 9 p>ticul> ,leibnitz's ,new ,sy/em ( ! ,nature ( ,sub/ances 7,works1 ed4 ,erdmann1 #abd ff42 ed4 ,g]h>dt1 iv4 #dgg ff42 ,eng4 trans4 9 ,latta's ,leibnis3 ! ,monadology1 etc41 p4 #big ff471 especially #ac-ag & ,monadology1 #g-i1 #ea4 ,footnote #ee3 ,see = a rec5t treatm5t ( ?is po9t 9 its be>+ ^u ! !ory ( volition & moral acc\ntability1 ,mr4 ,bradley's article on 8,m5tal ,conflict & ,imputation0 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb4 ,!re is probably no "p ( ,psy*ology :i* suff]s m f an improp] ov]-simplification ( awkw>d facts4 ,footnote #ef3 ,z ! read] w readily collect f ! prec$+ discussion1 ,i d n myself admit t !y are ju/ifi$4 ,on ! contr>y1 ,i %\ld hold t any consi/5t ,pluralism mu/ issue 9 :at1 if ,i held x myself1 ,i %\ld feel compell$ to describe z ,a!ism1 & ! doctr9e ( bl9d *ance z ! arbit] ( all ?+s4 ,9 ?is matt] ,i %\ld l to associate myself entirely ) ! emphatic prote/ ( ,mr4 ,bradley1 9 ,m9d ,july #aijb1 p4 #cac1 & ) ! rem>ks ( ,mr4 ,b4 ,russell 9 8 "w on ,! ,philosophy ( ,leibniz1 p4 #agb4 ,i ne$ n say t ,i d n make ^! rem>ks = ! purpose ( disp>agem5t4 ,by all means1 if ,a!ism is ! logical outcome ( consi/5t ?9k+1 let u say s2 :at ,i object to is ! con/ant appeal to !i/ic beliefs on ! "p ( metaphysicians :o1 s f> z ,i c see1 ought to be a!i/s if !y 7 9 e>ne/ ) _! own position4 ,footnote #eg3 ,= a popul> exemplification ( ! k9d ( appeal to religi\s & e?ical int]e/s "h object$ to1 see ! fir/ essay 9 ,pr(4 ,james's ,w to ,believe4 ,i h nev] be5 able to und]/& :y ^! appeals1 if legitimate1 %\ld n be all[$ 9 ,psy*ology or any o!r sci5ce z readily z 9 ,metaphysics4 ,w\ld ,pr(4 ,james reg>d x z a valid argum5t = ! 8timeless self0 or ! ,inn]vationsgefhle1 t "s m5 may be bett] or happi] = believ+ 9 !m8 ,or aga91 is x 9 itself an objection to ! /udy ( ,e?ics t c]ta9 p]sons may become bo? less moral & less happy z a consequ5ce ( /udy+ x8 ,footnote #eh3 ,n4,b4--,^! possibilities1 x mu/ be rememb]$1 ?\gh num]ically inf9ite1 are assum$ to be qualitatively det]m9ate1 be+ con/itut$ ( ! condition ( con=mity to ! logical pr9ciple ( non-contradiction4 ,n[ !re is no reason 9 ! nature ( a plurality ( indep5d5t ?+s :y ?is pr9ciple %\ld be recognis$ r ?an n4 ,footnote #ei3 ,a m$ley ( indep5d5t ?+s w\ld n ev5 be really 8_m40 ,= until y c c\nt 8fir/1 second1 ?ird44440 y h n y\r ,_m4 ,& no?+ b ! t]ms ( a coh]5t connect$ s]ies c be c\nt$4 ,:at y c c\nt z _m is %[n by ! v fact ( y\r ability to c\nt x to h a common nature or gr\nd :i* p]mits ( its ord]ly arrangem5t1 & ?us to be "p ( "o sy/em4 ,comp>e ,plato1 ,p>m5ides1 #afd1 #afe4 ,footnote #fj3 ,z ,ari/otle m ?an once says1 a human h&1 = in/ance1 is n :5 sev]$ f ! re/ ( ! body a 8h&0 at all1 except 8equivocally10 any m ?an ! 8h&0 ( a /atue is a true h&4 7,i4e4 x is only a 8true h&0 s long z x does ! "w ( a h&4 ,capta9 ,cuttle's hook probably des]v$ ! "n ( 8h&0 bett] ?an ! sev]$ memb] x replac$74 ,footnote #fa3 ,i %all attempt to %[ 9 a lat] *apt] 7,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #c7 t1 9 any useful signification ( ! t]m 8self10 ,reality is n a 8self0 nor yet a m]e community ( 8selves40 ,footnote #fb3 ,aga91 ,i mu/ rem9d ! read] t ?is recognition ( ! teleological "* ( m9d does n 9 ! lea/ preclude ! necessity = psy*ological analysis ( m5tal /ates4 ,/ill less does x require u to include 9 our analysis a volitional elem5t z "o di/+ui%able aspect or compon5t ( ! isolat$ m5tal /ate by ! side ( o!rs1 su* z ! pres5tational & emotional aspects4 ,x might ev5 be cont5d$ t a 8trip>tite0 or ?ree-aspect ,psy*ology commits ! mi/ake ( c\nt+ 9 ! :ole psy*ical fact z "o ( its own compon5ts4 ,footnote #fc3 ,see infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #c1 :]e we %all f9d t ! relation ( ! individual self to a social :ole probably furni%es a /ill bett]1 ?\gh n altoge!r satisfactory1 illu/ration ( our pr9ciple4 ,footnote #fd3 ,= ,sp9oza's doctr9e see especially ,e?ics1 ,i4 #ae1 #be2 ,,ii4 #aa1 #dj2 ,,iii4 #f-i2 ,v4 #bb1 #bc1 ) ! explanations ( any good exposition ( 8 sy/em1 su* z t ( ,pollock or ,joa*im4 ,footnote #fe3 ,see fur!r on ! 8,p>alleli/ic0 doctr9e1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #b4 ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,reality ,,& ,,its ,,appe>ances--,,! ,,degrees ,,( ,,reality #a4 ,reality be+ a s+le sy/ematic :ole1 ! nature ( its con/itu5t elem5ts is only f9ally intelligible 9 ! light ( ! :ole sy/em4 ,h5ce ea* ( its 8appe>ances10 if consid]$ z a :ole 9 itself1 mu/ be m or less contradictory4 #b4 ,b "s 8appe>ances0 exhibit ! /ructure ( ! :ole m adequately ?an o!rs1 & h !re=e a high] degree ( reality4 #c4 ,?is conception ( degree ( reality may be illu/rat$ by comp>ison ) ! successive ord]s ( inf9ites & inf9itesimals 9 ,ma!matics4 ,x w\ld be ! task ( a complete ,philosophy to assign ! cont5ts ( ! _w to _! prop] place 9 ! s]ies ( 8ord]s0 ( reality4 #d4 ,9 g5]al any subord9ate :ole is real 9 proportion z x is a self-conta9$ :ole4 ,& x is a self-conta9$ :ole 9 proportion z x is 7a7 compreh5sive1 7b7 sy/ematic2 t is1 a ?+ is real j s f> z x is truly individual4 #e4 ,! two crit]ia ( individuality1 ?\gh ultimately co9cid5t1 t5d 9 p>ticul> cases to fall ap>t = our insight1 ow+ to ! limitation ( human k4 #f4 ,ultimately only ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5ce is completely individual1 all o!r individuality is approximate4 #g4 ,9 o!r words1 ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5ce is an inf9ite individual1 all subord9ate individuality is f9ite4 ,comp>ison ( ?is position ) ! doctr9es ( ,leibnitz4 #h4 ,recapitulatory /atem5t ( ! relation ( ,reality to its ,appe>ances4 #a4 ,reality1 we h se51 is to be ?\ght ( z a sy/ematic :ole =m+ a s+le individual exp]i5ce1 :i* is compos$ ( elem5ts or con/itu5ts :i* are 9 _! turn individual exp]i5ces4 ,9 ea* ( ^! con/itu5ts ! nature ( ! :ole sy/em manife/s itself 9 a special way4 ,ea* ( !m contributes its own peculi> cont5t to ! :ole sy/em1 & z ! suppression or *ange ( any "o ( !m w\ld alt] ! "* ( ! :ole1 s x is ! nature ( ! :ole :i* det]m9es ! "* ( ea* ( its con/itu5ts4 ,9 ?is way ! :ole & its con/itu5t memb]s are 9 complete int]p5etration & =m a p]fect sy/ematic unity4 ,9 ! happy phrase ( ,leibnitz1 we may say t ea* ( ! p>tial exp]i5ces reflects ! :ole sy/em f its own peculi> 8po9t ( view40 ,if we call ! complet$ sy/em1 z x is = itself1 ,reality p> excell5ce1 we may appropriately speak ( ! p>tial exp]i5ces 9 :i* its nature is div]sely manife/$ z its ,appe>ances4 ,we mu/ rememb]1 h[ev]1 t to call !m appe>ances is n to /amp !m z illusory or unreal4 ,!y w only be illusory or unreal :5 we =get t !y are "o & all p>tial aspects or manife/ations ( a :ole ( :i* none ( !m adequately exhau/s ! cont5ts4 ,:5 we =get ?is & treat any p>tial exp]i5ce z ?\gh x 7 ! complete & adequate expression ( ! :ole nature ( ,reality1--9 o!r words1 :5 we try to apply to exi/5ce or ! univ]se z a :ole conceptions :i* are only valid = special aspects ( exi/5ce1--we %all inevitably f9d ourselves l$ to contradictory & absurd results4 ,ea* p>tial aspect ( a total sy/em c only be ultimately und]/ood by ref]5ce to ! :ole to :i* x belongs1 & h5ce any attempt to treat ! "p 9 ab/raction z itself a self-conta9$ :ole1--or1 9 o!r words1 to treat ! concepts ) :i* we h to "w 9 deal+ ) "s special aspect ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce z ultimately valid 9 _! application to ! :ole sy/em1--is b\nd to issue 9 contradiction4 ,aga91 j because our k ( ! /ructure ( ! sy/em z a :ole is s imp]fect z x is1 our insight into ! /ructure ( its con/itu5ts is also necess>ily limit$4 ,h5ce x w commonly happ5 t1 ev5 )9 ! limits ( _! applicability1 ! special concepts ( our v>i\s sci5ces are n1 :5 ?\ght out1 free f int]nal contradiction4 ,= in/ance1 we are l$ to absurd results :5 we try1 z ,mat]ialism does1 to int]pret ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( ! concepts us$ 9 ! purely physical sci5ces2 & aga91 ev5 9 _! re/rict$ use z physical categories1 ^! concepts seem incapable ( be+ s def9$ z to involve no elem5t ( contradiction4 ,9 bo? ^! s5ses all ,appe>ance implies an elem5t ( contradiction2 only = an insight :i* c\ld take 9 at once ! :ole sy/em ( exi/5ce w\ld its details be completely coh]5t & h>moni\s4 ,b ?is does n alt] ! fact t1 s f> z our insight into any "p ( ! :ole & its connection ) o!r p>ts is self-consi/5t1 x does convey g5u9e1 ?\gh imp]fect1 k ( ! :ole4 ,?\gh our detail$ insight into ! /ructure ( ! :ole may nev] rea* ! ideal ( p]fect self-consi/5cy1 yet x may approximate to t ideal 9 diff]5t degrees1 at diff]5t /ages1 or ) ref]5ce to diff]5t aspects4 ,& ! clos] ! approximation ! less ! modification :i* our k w\ld require to br+ x into complete h>mony ) itself1 & ! great] !re=e ! elem5t ( tru? ab\t ,reality :i* x conta9s4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we mu/ c>efully avoid fall+ into ! mi/ake ( ?9k+ ( ! ,reality & ! _w ( its appe>ances z ?\gh !y =m$ two di/9ct realms4 ,9 a sy/ematic unity1 we mu/ rememb]1 ! :ole c exi/ only 9 s f> z x expresses its nature 9 ! sy/em ( its p>ts1 & aga9 ! p>ts c h no be+ except z ! :ole expresses itself ?r\gh !m4 ,to ! degree to :i* ?is condition is dep>t$ f by any ( ! types ( sy/em famili> to u1 ^? sy/ems fall %ort ( be+ p]fectly sy/ematic4 ,reality1 !n1 be+ a sy/ematic :ole1 c h no be+ ap>t f its appe>ance1 ?\gh nei!r any ( !m tak5 s+ly1 nor yet ! sum ( !m ?\ght ( collectively1#ff c exhau/ its cont5ts4 ,& ?\gh no appe>ance is ! :ole ( ,reality1 9 none ( !m all does ! :ole ,reality fail to manife/ itself z a :ole4 ,! :ole is truly1 z a :ole1 pres5t 9 ea* & e "p1 :ile yet no "p is ! :ole4#fg ,we may once m illu/rate by an appeal to our own direct exp]i5ce4 ,consid] ! way 9 :i* we set to "w to execute any sy/ematic s*eme or purpose1 e4g4 ! ma/]y ( a p>ticul> sci5ce or a p>ticul> bus9ess4 ,we h 9 su* a case a c5tral aim or purpose1 :i* 9 ! process ( execution spreads out into a connect$ sy/em ( subord9ate ideas & int]e/s weld$ into "o by ! ref]5ce to a common end :i* p]vades ! :ole4 ,! supreme or c5tral aim is only realis$ 9 ! successive realisation ( ! subord9ate /ages2 at ! same "t1 :ile x is :at su/a9s all ! memb]s ( ! sy/em1 x has no exi/5ce ap>t f !m1 ?\gh x is id5tical nei!r ) any "o ( !m nor yet ) _! sum collectively consid]$4 #b4 ,if our conviction t ,reality is a s+le sy/ematic unity p]vad+ & manife/+ itself 9 less] sy/ematic unities is correct1 we %all expect to f9d t "s ( ! less] sy/ematic unities ) :i* we h to deal 9 practical life & 9 ! v>i\s sci5ces exhibit m ( ! full "* ( ! :ole to :i* !y belong ?an o!rs4 ,! 8po9ts ( view0 f :i* ea* m9or sy/em reflects ! :ole1 ?\gh all true1 ne$ n be all equally true4 ,?\gh ! :ole1 9 a g5u9e sy/em1 mu/ be pres5t z a :ole 9 e "p1 x ne$ n be equally pres5t 9 all2 x may well n be 8z full1 z p]fect 9 a hair z he>t40 ,to take a concrete example1 a clu/] ( mass-p>ticles1 a ma*9e1 a liv+ organism1 & a human m9d engag$ 9 ! consci\s sy/ematic pursuit ( tru?1 are all to "s degree or o!r sy/ematic unities1 & all to "s degree1 !re=e1 repeat ! /ructure ( ! univ]sal :ole to :i* !y all belong4 ,b x does n foll[ t all manife/ ! /ructure ( t :ole ) equal adequacy & fulness4 ,inde$1 any philosophy :i* admits developm5t z a g5u9e feature ( ! _w-process mu/ ma9ta9 t !y d n1 t ! nature ( ! :ole sy/em ( ,reality is exhibit$ ) inf9itely great] adequacy & cle>ness 9 ! work+ ( ! consci\s m9d ?an 9 ! *anges ( configuration ( ! sy/em ( mass-p>ticles or ev5 ! vital processes ( ! physical organism4 ,9 practical life1 too1 "o ( our mo/ in]adicable convictions is t !re are degrees ( wor? :i* co9cide ) degrees ( ! adequacy ) :i* p>tial sy/ems exhibit ! nature ( ! l>g] :oles to :i* !y belong4 ,= in/ance1 among ! diff]5t m5tal sy/ems :i* may be call$ my p>tial 8selves10 !re are "s :i* ,i call 8tru]0 ?an o!rs1 on ! gr\nd t !y m fully reveal my :ole "* z an individual human be+4 ,my :ole "* und\bt$ly appe>s 9 & det]m9es all ! subord9ate sy/ems :i* make up my m5tal life4 ,ea* ( !m is ! :ole "* 9 a special aspect1 or z react+ ^u a special sy/em ( sugge/ions1 b "s ( !m conta9 ! :ole 9 a m develop$ & explicit =m ?an o!rs4 ,i am 9 "o s5se myself :]ev] ,i may be & :atev] ,i may be do+1 & yet ,i am 8m myself0 9 heal? ?an 9 sickness1 9 ! free pursuit ( self-*os5 /udies ?an 9 ! =c$ dis*>ge ( uncong5ial tasks impos$ on me by ! necessity ( e>n+ an income4 ,we ought1 !n1 to be prep>$ to f9d ! same /ate ( ?+s univ]sally 9 ! relation ( ,reality to its ,appe>ances4 ,9 a _w :]e 8high]0 & 8l[]10 8m0 & 8less0 true h a mean+1 "s ( ! less] sy/ems 9 :i* ! nature ( ! :ole is express$ mu/ be full] & m adequate repres5tations ( t nature ?an o!rs4 ,?is is z mu* z to say t x w\ld require comp>atively little trans=mation ( "s ( ! p>tial sy/ems recognis$ by our k to %[ h[ ! common nature ( ! :ole sy/em ( ,reality is express$ 9 !m2 9 o!r cases ! am\nt ( trans=mation requir$ to %[ h[ ! :ole repeats itself 9 ! "p w\ld be mu* m ext5sive4 ,to take a s+le in/ance1 if our prec$+ analysis ( ! g5]al nature ( ,reality is s\nd1 we c see mu* m cle>ly h[ t nature reappe>s 9 ! /ructure ( a human m9d ?an h[ x is exhibit$ 9 :at we call a physical ?+1 & we may !re=e say ! human m9d expresses ! fundam5tal "* ( ! :ole sy/em mu* m fully & adequately ?an physical nature1 z x exi/s = our appreh5sion4 ,m briefly1 ! same ?\ght may be express$ by say+ t ,reality has degrees1 & t ! =ms ( ,appe>ance 9 :i* its common nature is mo/ fully & cle>ly manife/$ h ! highe/ degrees ( reality4 #c4 ,?is conception ( ,reality z capable ( degrees may at fir/ seem p>adoxical4 ,h[ c any?+1 x w be ask$1 be m or less 8real0 ?an any?+ else8 ,mu/ n any?+ ei!r be entirely real or n real at all8 ,b ! same difficulty might be rais$ ab\t ! recognition ( degree 9 o!r cases :]e its validity is n[ univ]sally admitt$4 ,?us to "s m9ds x has appe>$ t !re c be no degrees ( ! inf9ite or ! inf9itesimal2 all inf9ites1 & aga9 all z]os1 h be5 decl>$ to be manife/ly equal4 ,yet x h>dly seems possible to escape ! conclusion t ! concept ( successive ord]s ( inf9itely great1 & aga9 ( inf9itely small1 magnitudes is n only intelligible b absolutely necess>y if our ?\ght on quantitative subjects is to be consi/5t 7,:5 ! sides ( a rectangle1 = in/ance1 become inf9itely great or inf9itely small relatively to :atev] is our /&>d ( comp>ison1 x /ill rema9s a rectangle1 & its area !re=e is /ill det]m9$ by ! product ( its sides1 & is !re=e inf9itely great or small1 z ! case may be1 9 relation n only to our orig9al /&>d b to ! sides !mselves4#fh7 ,:at is 9 "o s5se n a matt] ( degree1 may yet 9 ano!r n only admit b positively require ! di/9ction ( degrees ( m & less4 ,& ?is is precisely ! case ) ,reality z x manife/s itself 9 its v>i\s appe>ances4 ,9 ! s5se t x is ! same s+le exp]i5ce-sy/em :i* appe>s z a :ole & 9 its :ole nature 9 e "o ( ! subord9ate exp]i5ce-sy/ems1 !y are all alike real1 & ea* is z indisp5sable z e o!r to ! exi/5ce ( ! :ole4 ,9 ! s5se t ! :ole is m explicitly pres5t 9 "o ?an 9 ano!r1 !re is an inf9ity ( possible degrees ( reality & unreality4 ,we %\ld be ju/ifi$ 9 borr[+ a t]m f ma!matical sci5ce to m>k ?is d\ble relation ( ! appe>ances to _! ,reality1 & speak+ ( !m z successive ord]s ( ,reality4 ,& we might !n say t x is "o ( ! pr9cipal problems ( a complete ,philosophy to asc]ta9 & arrange 9 _! prop] sequ5ce1 z f> z ! limitations ( our k p]mit1 ! ord]s ( ,reality4 #d4 ,su* a task z ?is c\ld only be c>ri$ out by an intellig5ce equally at home 9 metaphysical analysis & 9 ! results ( ! special sci5ces1 & w\ld =m ! prop] "w ( appli$ ,metaphysics4 ,9 a discussion ( g5]al metaphysical pr9ciples x is suffici5t to indicate ! g5]al nature ( ! crit]ia by :i* ! degree ( reality exhibit$ by any special p>tial sy/em mu/ be det]m9$4 ,n[1 ?is g5]al nature has be5 already made fairly cle> by ! =ego+ inquiry into ! unity ( ,reality4 ,reality1 we h se51 is "o 9 ! s5se ( be+ an individual self-conta9$ :ole ( exp]i5ce4 ,& its individuality means t x is ! sy/ematic embodim5t ( a s+le coh]5t /ructure 9 a plurality ( elem5ts or p>ts1 :i* dep5d = _! :ole "* ^u ! fact t !y are ! embodim5t ( precisely ?is /ructure4 ,if ?is is s1 we may say t degrees ( reality mean ! same ?+ z degrees ( individuality1 & t a ?+ is real precisely to ! same ext5t to :i* x is truly individual4 ,a ?+1 t is1 no matt] ( :at k9d1 is really :at x appe>s to be1 j 9 s f> z ! ?+1 z x appe>s = our k1 is itself a self-conta9$ & !re=e unique sy/ematic :ole4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 j 9 s f> z :at we recognise z "o ?+ %[s itself1 9 ! face ( philosophical criticism & analysis1 to be a self-conta9$ sy/ematic :ole1 s f> are we truly appreh5d+ t ?+ z a manife/ation ( ! fundam5tal "* ( ,reality1 ( see+ x z x really is1 & s f> does our k give u g5u9e ,reality4 ,on ! o!r h&1 j s f> z :at at fir/ seem$ a self-conta9$ :ole is discov]$ by subsequ5t analysis n to be s1 s f> h we fail$ to see ! facts 9 _! true place 9 ! s+le :ole ( ,reality1 & s f> is our k affect$ ) error & unreality4 ,or1 aga91 ! m truly any?+ is a self-conta9$ individual :ole1 ! high] its place 9 ! scale ( ,reality4 ,:5 we ask :at are ! m>ks by :i* "o ?+ may be %[n to be m ( a true individual :ole ?an ano!r1 we %all f9d t !y may be r$uc$ to two1 bo? ( :i* we c easily see to be 9 pr9ciple ! same1 ?\gh1 ow+ to ! limitations ( our insight1 !y d n always appe> to co9cide 9 a giv5 case4 ,"o ?+ is cet]is p>ibus m truly an individual :ole ?an ano!r3 7#a7 :5 ! weal? ( detail$ cont5t x embraces is great]2 7#b7 :5 ! complet5ess ( ! unity ) :i* x embraces t detail is great]4 ,or1 ! degree ( individuality possess$ by any sy/em dep5ds3 7#a7 on its compreh5siv5ess2 7#b7 on its int]nal sy/ematisation4 ,! m a ?+ includes ( exi/5ce & ! m h>moni\sly x includes x1 ! m individual x is4 ,x is manife/1 ( c\rse1 t ^! two *>act]i/ics ( a sy/ematic :ole are mutually int]dep5d5t4 ,=1 precisely because all ,reality is ultimately a s+le coh]5t sy/em1 ! m !re is outside any p>tial sy/em ! great] mu/ be ! dep5d5ce ( its con/itu5ts = _! "* ^u _! connection ) reality outside1 & ! less capable mu/ ! sy/em be ( complete explanation f )9 itself4 ,! m ! p>tial sy/em embraces1 ! less w its con/itu5ts be det]m9$ by relation to any?+ outside itself1 & ! m completely w its organisation be explicable by ref]5ce to its own int]nal pr9ciple ( /ructure4 ,t is1 ! great] ! compreh5siv5ess ( ! sy/em1 ! complet] 9 g5]al w be its int]nal coh]5ce4 ,&1 conv]sely1 ! m completely ! work+ ( ! :ole sy/em 9 its details is explicable f )9 z ! expression ( a s+le pr9ciple ( int]nal /ructure1 ! less mu/ be ! dep5d5ce ( its cont5ts on any ext]nal reality2 & !re=e1 see+ t all reality is ultimately int]connect$1 ! less mu/ be ! ext5t ( :at lies outside ! sy/em 9 "q4 ,t is1 ! great] ! int]nal unity1 ! great] 9 g5]al ! compreh5siv5ess ( ! sy/em4 ,?us ultimately ! two crit]ia ( individuality co9cide4 #e4 ,9 practice1 h[ev]1 x con/antly happ5s1 z a consequ5ce ( ! fragm5t>y way 9 :i* our exp]i5ces come to u1 t compreh5siv5ess & ?or\gh-go+ sy/ematic unity seem to be oppos$ to "o ano!r4 ,?us we c see1 z a g5]al pr9ciple1 t ! sy/ematic organisation ( k dep5ds ^u its ext5t4 ,! wid] our k1 ! great] on ! :ole ! degree to :i* x exhibits organic /ructure2 ! sy/ematisation ( sci5ce & its ext5sion ultimately g toge!r4 ,yet at any "o mom5t 9 ! developm5t ( k ! recognition ( fre% tru?s may necessitate a tempor>y introduction ( disorganisation & discrepancy among ! accept$ pr9ciples ( sci5ce4 ,?us 9 ! hi/ory ( geometry ! recognis$ pr9ciples ( ! sci5ce 7 tempor>ily disorganis$ by ! admission ( incomm5surable magnitudes :i* 0 =c$ ^u ! e>ly ,greek ma!maticians by ! discov]y t ! side & diagonal ( a squ>e h no common measure1 & ! discrepancy 0 only remov$ :5 x became possible to revise ! pr9ciples ( ! !ory ( numb]s itself4 ,s aga9 at ! pres5t day !re is a real dang] t premature anxiety to give ! /udy ( ,psy*ology precise sy/ematic "* by an exact def9ition ( its subject & its relation to ! v>i\s physical & m5tal sci5ces1 may /& 9 ! way ( ! ext5sion ( our k ( ! facts ( psy*ical life4 ,we h (t5 to pur*ase an important ext5sion ( k at ! co/ ( tempor>y confusion ( pr9ciples1 & to be cont5t to wait = ! future readju/m5t ( facts to pr9ciples 9 ! c\rse ( subsequ5t progress4 ,s 9 our moral life we judge "o man's "* m individual ?an ano!r's1 ei!r on ! gr\nd ( ! sup]ior bread? ( 8 int]e/s1 or ( ! sup]ior consi/5cy ) :i* 8 int]e/s are wr\ght into a self-consi/5t :ole4 ,! man ( _m int]e/s has s f> a tru] individuality ?an ! man ( few1 & aga9 ! man ( /eady purpose ?an ! man ^: en]gies are dissipat$ 9 seem+ly conflict+ pursuits4 ,b ! two crit]ia d n always1 = our insight1 co9cide4 ,an increase 9 v>iety & bread? ( int]e/s may be accompani$ by a dim9ution 9 coh]5cy ( aim1 & a ga9 9 coh]5cy ( aim appe>s (t5 to be b\ght by conc5tration ^u a few special objects4 ,& we %\ld f9d x h>d or impossible to decide1 :]e ! two aspects ( individuality appe> to fall ?us ap>t1 :e!r ! man ( _m int]e/s & relatively dissipat$ en]gies1 or ! man ( few int]e/s & int5se conc5tration ^u !m1 exhibits ! high] individuality4 ,= :at look$ l self-dissipation 9 ! pursuit ( disconnect$ objects might really be ! sy/ematic pursuit ( a consi/5t purpose too wide to be cle>ly appreh5d$ 9 its unity ei!r by contempor>y obs]v]s or by ! actor himself1 yet app>5t en\gh to ! reflective hi/orian read+ ! significance ( a life by its :ole effect ^u society1 & :at seem$ at ! "t ! s+le object ( ! man ( "o idea might simil>ly be f\nd 9 ! light ( ! sequel to be ! ha/y comb9ation ( radically inconsi/5t aims4#fi ,su* reflections1 h[ev]1 only %[ t our limit$ insight is insuffici5t to assign to e appe>ance ) c]ta9ty its own place 9 ! ord]$ sy/em ( appe>ances ?r\gh :i* ! s+le ,reality expresses itself4 ,!y d n t\* our g5]al position1 t :]e compreh5siv5ess & h>mony c be se5 to g toge!r1 we are ju/ifi$ 9 us+ !m z ! measure ( ! individuality & !re=e ( ! reality ( ! p>tial sy/em 9 :i* we discov] !m4 ,x is on su* gr\nds1 = in/ance1 t we may safely pron\nce t an organism1 :i* is ! liv+ unity ( its memb]s1 is m individual & !re=e a high] reality t a m]e aggregate ( pre-exi/+ units1 9 :i* ! nature ( ! p>ts is :olly or ma9ly indep5d5t ( ! /ructure ( ! :ole2 & aga91 t a m9d consci\sly & sy/ematically pursu+ a coh]5t self-*os5 sy/em ( ends is m individual1 & !re=e aga9 a high] reality1 ?an an organism react+ accord+ to ! tempor>y "* ( its environm5t or its mom5t>y int]nal condition 9 ways :i* =m no sy/ematic execution ( a connect$ s*eme ( ends4 ,& x is cle> t1 if only on ?is gr\nd1 we %\ld h to say t we are ne>] ! tru? 9 ?9k+ ( ! individual :ole ( complete ,reality z an organism ?an 9 ?9k+ ( x z an aggregate1 & ne>] ! tru? /ill 9 ?9k+ ( x z a m9d4 ,simil>ly 9 our judgm5ts ^u our own lives & "*4 ,s f> z "o life possesses m bread? & aga9 m consci\s unity ( aim ?an ano!r1 s f> x is m truly individual1 & !re=e a m adequate type ( complete reality4 ,j s f> z ,i am individual1 ,i am truly real4 ,& j s f> z ,i fall %ort ( sy/ematic individuality1 :e!r f ! pov]ty ( my int]e/s or _! mutual incompatibility1 ! appe>ance ( unity 9 my life is illusory1 & ,i mu/ be pron\nc$ an unreal appe>ance4 ,at ?is po9t we may obs]ve our metaphysical crit]ion ( reality co9cides ) our e?ical crit]ion ( moral wor?4 ,= 9 morality too we e/eem "o life wor?i] ?an ano!r1 ei!r = ! sup]ior compreh5siv5ess ( its ideals or = ! ?or\ghness ) :i* !y are wr\ght into a h>moni\s :ole ( coh]5t purpose4 ,! bett] man is ei!r ! man ( ! wid] ideal1 or aga9 ! man ( complet] & pur] self-devotion to 8 ideal4 ,& ?us = ,morality ! measure ( our wor?1 z = ,metaphysics ! measure ( our reality1 lies 9 our individuality4 ,& = ,morality no less ?an = ,metaphysics individuality is pre-em95tly a ?+ ( degrees4 ,9 bo? cases1 aga91 ! same difficulty besets u z soon z we attempt to use our crit]ion = application to p>ticul> cases4 ,its two aspects fall ap>t2 x is n always ! m compreh5sive ideal :i* is s]v$ ) ! high] fidelity ( purpose4 ,& s our actual moral judgm5ts on ! wor? ( p>ticul> m51 l our metaphysical judgm5ts on ! ord] ( reality to :i* p>ticul> ?+s belong1 are (t5 necess>ily unc]ta9 & fluctuat+4 ,we rate "o man morally high = ! compreh5sive rationality ( 8 ideals1 ?\gh he suff]s f a lack ( conc5trat$ en]gy1 ano!r = ! /eady & e>ne/ purpose ) :i* he foll[s :at we p]haps deplore z a contract$ ideal4 #f4 ,"o m po9t ( supreme importance conc]n+ ! relation ( ! less] individuals to ! p]fect individual :i* is ! absolute :ole ( ,reality4 ,n[ t we h le>n$ :at is meant by degrees ( individuality1 we c see t !re c1 9 ! la/ resort1 be only "o p]fect & complete individual1 ! :ole ( ,reality itself1 & t ! subord9ate individuals c nev] be :olly & entirely individual 9 !mselves4 ,= to be a complete individual w\ld be1 z we h se51 to be a :ole sy/em absolutely self-conta9$ & explicable solely by ref]5ce to int]nal /ructure4 ,:atev] requires1 = ! full und]/&+ ( its sy/ematic "*1 ref]5ce to exi/5ce outside itself1 we h se51 mu/ also1 s long z x is consid]$ ap>t f ! re/ ( exi/5ce1 be int]nally want+ 9 complete sy/ematic h>mony1 & ?us mu/ fall d\bly %ort ( ! ideal ( individuality4 ,& precisely because ! :ole ( exp]i5ce is a s+le sy/em1 no less] sy/em )9 ! :ole is entirely explicable 9 t]ms ( its own int]nal /ructure4 ,= a full und]/&+ ( ! nature ( ! less] sy/em1 & ( ! way 9 :i* x manife/s a common "* ?r\gh ! v>iety ( its elem5ts1 y h always1 9 ! la/ resort1 to g outside ! sy/em itself1 & take into acc\nt its relation to ! re/ ( ! :ole sy/em ( exi/5ce4 ,& = t v reason no subord9ate individual1 consid]$ 9 itself1 is a completely coh]5t self-det]m9$ :ole4 ,= a limit$ k l our own1 :i* has 9 ! ma9 to deal ) subord9ate sy/ems z we f9d !m1 & )\t t complete und]/&+ ( ! :ole /ructure ( ,reality :i* w\ld enable u to see _! precise place 9 ! :ole1 ! subord9ate sy/ems !mselves1 :5 closely scann$ by a resolute philosophical analysis1 w inevitably exhibit "s degree ( discrepancy & want ( sy/ematic unity4 ,consid]1 = in/ance1 su* a sy/em z is =m$ by ! life-"w ( a man ( m>k$ 8individuality40 ,on ! :ole1 ! life ( su* a man may fairly be said to be ! sy/ematic work+ out ( a consi/5t s*eme ( purposes4 ,b ?is is1 aft] all1 only approximately ! tru?4 ,x is n ! case t ! nature ( ! c5tral or dom9ant purpose ( ! s*eme is ( itself en\gh to det]m9e ! nature & ord] ( ! successive /ages by :i* x f9ds expression4 ,we h to take into acc\nt factors 9 ! man's 8h]$ity10 & aga9 9 8 social & physical environm5t :i* =m no "p ( ! nature ( 8 c5tral dom9ant ideal & yet influ5ce ! mann] ( its fulfilm5t4 ,we are ?us ?r[n back = our full und]/&+ ( ! 8individual0 sy/em 9 "q ^u circum/ances :i* are1 s f> z t sy/em is conc]n$1 8accid5tal10 i4e4 :i* are equally ) itself "p ( ! :ole sy/em ( exp]i5c$ fact1 )\t our be+ able to see h[ x & !y =m a wid] coh]5t :ole4 ,! subord9ate individual1 because incapable ( explication solely f )91 is 9 ! end only approximately 8individual10 & we !re=e fall into contradictions :5ev] we isolate x f ! re/ ( ,reality & treat x z absolutely individual & self-conta9$4 ,9 deal+ ) subord9ate :oles1 we always1 if we g f> en\gh1 come to a po9t :]e we h to recognise _! dep5d5ce ^u a realm ( ext]nal fact :i* our k fails to see 9 its sy/ematic relation ) !m1 & has !re=e to treat z accid5tal or z an ultimate 8collocation40 ,?is is :y1 z has already be5 said1 full k ( our own aims & int]e/s z a g5u9e sy/ematic :ole w\ld co9cide ) complete insight into ! /ructure ( ! :ole univ]se4 ,we may inv]t ! s5tim5t ( a hackney$ v]se1 & say ) equal tru? t until y "k :at ,god & man is1 y _c really "k :at ! 8fl[] 9 ! cranni$ wall0 is4 ,?is is z mu* z to say t e appe>ance mu/ involve "s elem5t ( contradiction = our philosophical analysis precisely because we _c 9 ! end see fully h[ any appe>ance is relat$ to ! :ole ( ,reality4 ,b we mu/ c>efully rememb] t if appe>ances1 tak5 by !mselves1 are contradictory1 ?is is n because !y are appe>ances1 b because1 z s tak51 !y are all to "s ext5t m]e appe>ance4 ,! conclusion ( ! :ole matt] is1 t ! individuality ( any?+ less ?an ! ultimate :ole ( be+ is a matt] ( degree & approximation4 ,we %all be equally 9 error if we assume t because no subord9ate sy/em is fully individual1 "s are n m individual & !re=e m real ?an o!rs or if we decl>e t1 because :atev] is real at all mu/ be 9 its degree individual1 !re=e e elem5t ( ,reality is completely real 9 its isolation4 ,! fir/ error is t ( a "o-sid$ ,monism1 ! second t ( an equally "o-sid$ ,pluralism4 ,once m we may note a po9t ( co9cid5ce betwe5 our g5]al metaphysical !ory ( individuality & our p]sonal exp]i5ce z moral ag5ts4 ,9 s f> z ea* ( u is truly an individual1 8 aims & ends =m a sy/em ) an int]nal unity p]vad+ its /ructure1 & !re=e capable ( progressive realisation z a sy/em4 ,yet aga91 because ea* ( u is less ?an ! :ole ( ,reality1 or1 :at is ! same ?+1 because ! sy/ematic unity ( our inn] life is nev] complete1 & our totality ( int]e/s relations1 & aspirations nev] a completely self-conta9$ ord]$ :ole1 our ideals w always be f\nd to conta9 aspects :i* w n fully h>monise1 elem5ts :i* fall outside su* a unity ( /ructure z x is possible to effect )9 ! limit ( our s+le p]sonality4 ,& ?us all our victories conta9 an insep>able elem5t ( defeat4 ,! defeat$ aspects ( ! self may no d\bt1 & 9 g5]al d1 9 proportion to ! degree ( our individuality1 belong to ! 8l[]0 & relatively m 8untrue0 self1 yet !y are elem5ts 9 ! :ole self1 & _! suppression is a g5u9e if necess>y self-suppression4 ,!re is a s5se 9 :i* an aspect ( failure is an inevitable feature 9 ! life ( e subord9ate & !re=e imp]fect individual4 ,human life1 ev5 9 ! mill5nium1 z we rightly feel1 w\ld n be human life if ! note ( sadness 7 altoge!r abs5t f x4 ,only 9 ! s+le exp]i5ce ( ! absolute :ole c ! discordant notes be f9ally resolv$ into a faultless h>mony4 #g4 ,te*nically1 we may m>k ! di/9ction betwe5 complete & approximate individuality by say+ t ! absolute :ole is an inf9ite individual1 :]eas all less] :oles are b f9ite individuals4 ,& "h x is important to note c>efully ! true mean+ ( ^! (t5 mu*-abus$ t]ms4 ,! inf9ite mu/ n be conf\nd$ ) ! indef9ite or unf9i%$4 ,its fundam5tal prop]ty is n ! m]ely negative "o ( hav+ no end or 8la/ t]m10 b ! positive "o ( hav+ an int]nal /ructure :i* is ! h>moni\s & complete expression ( a s+le self-consi/5t pr9ciple4 ,! f9ite1 aga91 is f9ite n prim>ily m]ely because x has a 8la/ t]m10 i4e4 because !re is some?+ else outside x1 b because its 8la/ t]m0 is arbitr>ily det]m9$1 i4e4 det]m9$ by some?+ o!r ?an ! pr9ciples ( its int]nal /ructure4 ,9 o!r words1 ! ess5tial defect ( ! f9ite is t x is n solely det]m9$ by its own /ructural pr9ciple4 ,we c see ?is ev5 9 ! simple case ( ! famili> 8inf9ite s]ies0 ( ari?metic & algebra4 ,su* a s]ies z #a1 #a_/b1 #a_/d 444 is 8inf9ite0 n m]ely because y nev] come to ! la/ t]m1 b because its "* is det]m9$ f )91 solely by ! pr9ciple accord+ to :i* ea* t]m is d]iv$ f ! "o be=e x2 t ! s]ies has no end is a simple consequ5ce ( ?is positive prop]ty ( self-det]m9ation4 ,b suppose ,i take n t]ms ( ?is s]ies & no m1 :]e n is a specifi$ numb]1 ! result+ s]ies is n[ f9ite1 n prim>ily because !re are m t]ms ( ! same k9d outside x1 b because ! numb] ( t]ms to be tak5 is n prescrib$ by ! law ( =mation ( ! s]ies1 b fix$ ) ref]5ce to "s object indep5d5t ( ! pr9ciple ( ! s]ies itself4 ,9 o!r words1 only ! inf9ite is 9 ! full s5se ( ! words a completely self-det]m9$ :ole4 ,! f9ite is ! imp]fect1 n prim>ily because !re is some?+ outside x1 b because its cont5ts are n solely prescrib$ by ! pr9ciple ( /ructure :i* !y embody4 ,i1 = in/ance1 am a f9ite be+1 n pr9cipally or m]ely because !re are o!r m5 9 ! _w1 b because my ideas & purposes are n a fully coh]5t sy/ematic :ole 9 !mselves4#gj ,! view we h tak5 ( individuality & ! di/9ction betwe5 f9ite & inf9ite individuality is closely ak9 to "s ( ! mo/ fundam5tal ideas 9 ! philosophy ( ,leibnitz4 ,x 0 ! doctr9e ( ,leibnitz t ea* ( 8 monads 8repres5t$0 ! nature ( ! :ole sy/em ( exi/5ce1 i4e4 repeat$ ! /ructure ( ! :ole 9 its own special /ructure1 f a p>ticul> 8po9t ( view40 ,accord+ to ! fulness & cle>ness ( ! 8repres5tation10 i4e4 ! adequacy ) :i* ! /ructure ( ! monad repeat$ ! /ructure ( ! :ole sy/em1 ! monads 7 class$ z high] or l[] 9 ! scale ( exi/5ce4 ,! cle>] a monad's repres5tation ( ! :ole )9 itself1 ! great] ! monad's 8activity02 ! m confus$ ! repres5tation1 ! great] its 8passivity40 ,x foll[$ t1 inasmu* z no creat$ monad fully exhibits ! sy/ematic /ructure ( ! :ole ( ,reality )9 itself1 e "o conta9s "s elem5t ( 8passivity10 & t to be 8passive0 prim>ily means n to be affect$ by extrane\s influ5ces1 b to conta9 int]nal 8confusion40 ,?us ! 8activity0 ( ,leibnitz exactly corresponds to :at we h call$ individuality1 & 8 8passivity0 to t want ( complete int]nal sy/ematisation :i* we h f\nd insep>able f f9ite exi/5ce4 ,! imm5se significance ( ?is def9ition ( activity & passivity 9 t]ms ( int]nal sy/ematisation w be m app>5t :5 we come1 9 our conclud+ book1 to discuss ! mean+ ( human fre$om1 & its connection ) det]m9ation & 8causality40 ,= ! pres5t x is en\gh to note t our own doctr9e is sub/antially t ( ,leibnitz fre$ f ! inconsi/5cy :i* is introduc$ into x by ! monadi/ic assumption ( ! complete indep5d5ce ( ! v>i\s f9ite individuals4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 impossible to unite1 z ,leibnitz tri$ to d1 ! two ?\ghts4 ,ei!r !re is ultimately only "o indep5d5t individual1 ! inf9ite individual :ole1 or !re is no mean+ 9 speak+ ( high] & l[] degrees ( individuality4 ,leibnitz's inconsi/5cy on ?is po9t seems due entirely to 8 desire to ma9ta9 ! absolute individuality ( ! p>ticul> human 8s\l10 a desire :i* is expla9$1 p>tly at lea/1 by 8 anxiety n to come into collision1 z ,sp9oza & o!rs _h done1 ) ! (ficial !ology ( ! p]iod4 #h4 ,! def9ition ( inf9ite & f9ite individuality completes ! g5]al outl9e ( our conception ( ,reality z a :ole1 & its relation to its con/itu5t elem5ts4 ,recapitulat+ t doctr9e1 we may n[ say t ! real is a s+le all-embrac+ :ole ( exp]i5ce or psy*ical matt] ( fact1 det]m9$ entirely f )9 by a pr9ciple ( int]nal /ructure1 & !re=e completely individual4 ,because ! matt] ( ! sy/em is 9 all its p>ts exp]i5ce1 ! pr9ciple ( its /ructure mu/ be teleological 9 "*4#ga ,t is1 ! sy/em mu/ be ! embodim5t1 9 a h>moni\s unity ( consci\s feel+1 ( a consi/5t int]e/ or m5tal attitude4 ,z su* we may call x ! realisation indiff]5tly ( a purpose or idea1 & we may speak ( ! absolute exp]i5ce z ! complet$ expression ( an absolute k or an absolute w4 ,b if we d s1 we mu/ be> 9 m9d t !re c be "h no "q ( a ?\ght :i* works ^u & recon/ructs into sy/ematic h>mony a body ( data orig9ally suppli$ to x 9 a relatively un9telligible & disconnect$ =m f "s =eign s\rce1 or ( a volition :i* gradually translates into reality an end or purpose orig9ally pres5t to x z an unrealis$ idea4 ,! processes ( ?\ght & volition c cle>ly h no place 9 an exp]i5ce = :i* ! :at & ! t are nev] disjo9$2 z we %all by & by see m fully1 !y involve exi/5ce 9 "t1 & exi/5ce 9 "t c belong only to ! f9ite & imp]fect4 ,h5ce x is be/1 9 ! int]e/ ( intellectual cl>ity & c&\r1 to avoid ! use ( su* expressions z k & w 9 speak+ ( ! absolute exp]i5ce2 at be/ !y are 9 l>ge "p metaphorical1 & at wor/ pot5t weapons ( intellectual di%one/y4#gb ,! con/itu5ts ( ! sy/em1 aga91 are less] exp]i5ce sy/ems ( ! same g5]al type1 9 ea* ( :i* ! nature ( ! :ole manife/s itself1 ?\gh to diff]5t degrees4 ,!y are ?us all f9ite individuals ( v>y+ degrees ( individuality4 ,! m compreh5sive & ! m int]nally unifi$ by an imman5t pr9ciple ( teleological /ructure su* a sy/em1 ! m fully individual x is1 & ! m adequately does x reveal ! /ructure ( ! all-p]vad+ :ole4 ,?is is ! intellectual ju/ification = our in/9ctive belief t :at is = our human exp]i5ce highe/ & be/ is ultimately 9 ! con/itution ( ! univ]se mo/ completely real4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bd1 8,degrees ( ,tru? & ,reality02 ,plato1 ,republic1 vi4 #eji ff41 ) ! comm5t>y 9 ,r4 ,l4 ,nettle%ip's ,lectures on ,plato's ,republic1 or ,bosanquet's ,companion to ! ,republic4 ----- ,footnote #ff3 ,n ! sum ( !m1 because ! sy/ematic :ole ( ,reality is n a sum b a s+le exp]i5ce4 ,to id5tify x ) ! sum ( its appe>ances w\ld be ! same error :i* occurs 9 ,e?ics z ! id5tification ( happ9ess 7a qualitative :ole7 ) ! sum ( pleasures 7a quantitative collection74 ,footnote #fg3 ,! read] w f9d x in/ructive to obs]ve h[ ,pr(4 ,sidgwick unconsci\sly assumes t ! di/9ction betwe5 ,reality & ,appe>ance means a di/9ction betwe5 two m or less indep5d5t 8worlds0 or 8?+s0 7,philosophy3 its ,scope & ,relations1 ,lectures #a & #d71 & ?us deprives 8 own criticism ( ! anti!sis ( all validity z aga9/ a view l our own4 ,footnote #fh3 ,s1 aga91 a velocity :i* is already inf9itesimal may receive an accel]ation :i* is inf9itesimal 9 relation to ! velocity itself4 ,! read]'s own /udies w no d\bt furni% him ) num]\s o!r illu/rations ( ! same k9d4 ,footnote #fi3 ,see = illu/rations ( ! impossibility ( c>ry+ out a s+le pr9ciple 9 our actual judgm5ts ( p>ticul> cases1 ,mr4 ,bradley's already quot$ article 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb4 ,footnote #gj3 ,= a full] exposition ( ! conception ( inf9ity "h adopt$ ,i may ref] ! read] to ! fam\s essay ( ,d$ek9d1 ,0 s9d und 0 soll5 die ,zahl51 especially pp4 #ag-bj4 ,! ,engli% read] w f9d an acc\nt ( ,d$ek9d's "w1 ) an acute discussion ( its metaphysical significance1 9 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies1 ,supplem5t>y ,essay4 ,x does n seem necess>y = ! purpose ( ?is *apt] to specify ! po9ts 9 :i* ,i f9d myself unable to foll[ ,pr(essor ,royce 9 8 use ( ! !ory4 ,see infra1 *ap4 #d1 #aj4 ,footnote #ga3 ,x w\ld n be h>d to %[ t 9 ! end all sy/ematic /ructure is teleological4 ,= all su* /ructure 9 ! la/ resort is a =m ( ord]1 & dep5ds on ! possibility ( say+ 8"h ?is is fir/1 t is second40 ,& :]ev] we pr$icate ord] we are ass]t+ ! embodim5t 9 detail ( "s dom9ant purpose4 ,footnote #gb3 ,9 fact1 x is cle> t if we speak ( 8idea0 or 8volition0 9 connection ) ! absolute individual1 we _c mean actual 8ideas0 or actual 8volitions40 ,we mu/ be us+ ! psy*ological t]ms improp]ly 9 some?+ ( ! same s5se 9 :i* we speak ( a man's 8guid+ ideas0 or 8settl$ w0 to d5ote :at cle>ly1 :atev] x may be1 is n actual ideational or volitional process4 ,see fur!r1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #f1 #a4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,! ,,_w ,,( ,,?+s--7#a7 ,,sub/ance1 ,,quality1 ,,& ,,relation #a4 ,! natural or pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w reg>ds x z a plurality ( 8?+s10 ea* possess+ qualities1 /&+ 9 relation to o!rs1 & int]act+ ) !m4 #b4 ,h5ce arise f\r problems3 ^? ( ! ,unity ( ! ,?+1 ( ,sub/ance & ,quality1 ( ,relation1 ( ,causality4 #c4 ,no simple answ] c be giv5 to ! "q1 ,:at is "o ?+8 ,! ,unity ( ! ,?+ is "o ( teleological /ructure1 & ?is is a matt] ( degree1 & also l>gely ( our own subjective po9t ( view4 #d4 ,sub/ance & ,quality4 ,! id5tification ( ! sub/ance ( ?+s ) _! prim>y qualities1 ?\gh useful 9 physical sci5ce1 is metaphysically unju/ifiable4 #e4 ,sub/ance z an 8unkn[able sub/ratum ( qualities0 adds no?+ to our und]/&+ ( _! connection4 #f4 ,! ?+ _c be a m]e collection ( qualities )\t int]nal unity4 #g4 ,! conception ( a ?+ z ! law or mode ( relation ( its /ates useful b metaphysically unsatisfactory4 ,ultimately ! _m c be conta9$ 9 ! "o only by 8repres5tation20 ! unity 9 ?+s mu/ be t ( an individual exp]i5ce4 #h4 ,relation4 ,we c nei!r r$uce qualities to relations nor relations to qualities4 #i4 ,aga91 ! attempt to conceive ,reality z qualities 9 relation leads to ! indef9ite regress4 #aj4 ,we _c escape ?is difficulty by tak+ all relations z 8ext]nal40 ,& ,pr(essor ,royce's v9dication ( ! indef9ite regress seems to dep5d on ! uncriticis$ application ( ! inadequate category ( :ole & "p to ultimate ,reality4 ,! union ( ! "o & ! _m 9 concrete exp]i5ce is ultra-relational4 ,,supplem5t>y ,,note3 ,dr4 ,/\t's reply to ,mr4 ,bradley4 #a4 ,:5 we turn f ! inquiry into ! /ructure ( ,reality z x mu/ be conceiv$ by a consi/5t ,philosophy1 to consid] ! aspect 9 :i* x appe>s to ord9>y non-philosophical ?\ght1 ! sy/ematic unity :i* has dem&$ our att5tion 9 ! two prec$+ *apt]s seems to be replac$ by a bewild]+ & almo/ incalculable v>iety4 ,accord+ to ! nave pre-sci5tific !ory ( exi/5ce to :i* ! exp]i5ces ( practical life naturally give rise1 & :i* s]ves z ! po9t ( dep>ture = all ! m sci5tific & sy/ematic !ories ( ! physici/1 ! psy*ologi/1 & ! metaphysician1 ! _w is compos$ ( a multitude ( app>5tly indep5d5t ?+s1 p>tly animat$1 l ourselves1 p>tly inanimate4 ,ea* ( ^! ?+s1 :ile 9 "s s5se a unit1 is ?\ght ( z possess+ an indef9ite multiplicity ( qualities or prop]ties1 z capable ( /&+ 9 a v>iety ( relations to o!r ?+s1 & z act+ ^u o!r ?+s & be+ influ5c$ by !m 9 a v>iety ( ways4 ,9 all ^! respects1 x %\ld be obs]v$1 ! navely reali/ic ?\ght ( ! pre-sci5tific m9d treats :at f a m develop$ po9t ( view w\ld be di/+ui%$ z m5tal & physical exi/5ces alike4 ,human p]sons1 l ! o!r ?+s ( :i* my environm5t is compos$1 are ?\ght ( z be+ at once units & ! possessors ( div]se prop]ties1 z capable ( a v>iety ( relations to "o ano!r & to o!r ?+s1 & z int]act+ ) ea* o!r & ! re/ ( ! environm5t4 ,! recognition ( ! psy*ical z an ord] di/9ct f ! physical1 ) its mom5t\s consequ5ces = g5]al metaphysical !ory1 belongs to a lat] & mu* m sophi/icat$ /age ( intellectual developm5t4 ,also1 x mu/ be not$1 = ! navely reali/ic intellig5ce1 ,i am myself ?\ght ( z simply "o object or ?+ 9 an environm5t ( ?+s ( a simil> nature1 & my relations to t environm5t are conceiv$ z be+ ( ! same type z ! relations betwe5 its v>i\s compon5t p>ts4 ,i too am1 = my own ?\ght1 s long z x rema9s at ?is primitive level1 simply a ?+ ) num]\s prop]ties1 9 v>i\s relations to o!r ?+s1 & int]act+ ) !m 9 div]se ways4#gc ,we h call$ ?is exce$+ly primitive way ( conceiv+ ! nature ( exi/5ce 8pre-sci5tific10 on ! gr\nd t bo? 9 ! m5tal developm5t ( ! individual & 9 t ( a community ( individuals x prec$es ev5 ! mo/ t5tative consci\s ef=ts to organise ?\ght ab\t ! _w into a coh]5t :ole4 ,all sci5tific & philosophical con/ructions may be reg>d$ z s _m artificial modifications ( ?is e>li] po9t ( view1 in/itut$ & c>ri$ out = ! purpose ( r5d]+ x m coh]5t & sy/ematic4 ,at ! same "t1 our use ( ! epi!t 8pre-sci5tific0 mu/ n be all[$ to mislead4 ,! 8pre-sci5tific0 view may & does co-exi/ 9 ! same m9d ) ! v>i\s modifications ( x :i* arise 9 ! ef=t to ?9k consi/5tly4 ,we are all ( u habitually 8nave reali/s0 9 respect ( ^? aspects ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce :i* lie outside ! limits ( our p]sonal sci5tific /udies2 & ev5 z reg>ds ^? aspects ( exi/5ce 9 respect ( :i* our !oretical views may be ( a mu* m develop$ type1 we habitually relapse into ! 8pre-sci5tific0 attitude :5 our imm$iate object is practical#gd success 9 action r ?an logical consi/5cy 9 ?9k+4 ,= ! purposes ( ev]yday life1 ! mo/ 8advanc$0 man ( sci5ce is cont5t to be a nave reali/ outside 8 laboratory4 ,aga91 pre-sci5tific z ! primitive attitude t[>ds exi/5ce is1 9 ! s5se ( be+ unaffect$ by ! delib]ate ef=t aft] sy/em & coh]5cy ( ?\ght1 x is s f> sci5tific z to be a real ?\gh rudim5t>y & unconsci\s product ( our intellectual ne$ = ord] & sy/em ( "s k9d 9 our ?\ght ab\t ?+s4 ,x is a g5u9e ?\gh an unconsci\s result ( our e>lie/ reflection on ! c\rse ( exp]i5ce1 & ?us a true ?\ght-con/ruction1 n a passive reproduction ( a m]ely 8giv50 mat]ial4 ,x p]=ms 9 rudim5t>y fa%ion1 & )\t explicit purpose1 ! same task ( sy/ematis+ exp]i5ce :i* ! v>i\s sci5tific & philosophical !ories ( ! m develop$ m9d und]take m elaborately & ) consci\s int5t4 ,x is ?us pre-sci5tific1 b n prop]ly speak+ unsci5tific4 ,z ! mass ( asc]ta9$ fact accumulates & reflection ^u x becomes m sy/ematic & delib]ate1 our primitive conception ( ! sy/ematic nature ( ! real inevitably proves unsatisfactory = two reasons4 ,new facts are discov]$ :i* we _c fit into ! old s*eme )\t modification ( its /ructure1 &1 aga91 ! concepts 9 t]ms ( :i* ! s*eme 0 orig9ally con/ruct$ prove on exam9ation to be !mselves obscure & ambigu\s 9 _! mean+4 ,!re is ?us a d\ble motive p]petually op]ative 9 br++ ab\t recon/ruction ( ! orig9al s*eme4 ,to ! v>i\s sci5ces x falls 9 ! ma9 to devise su* alt]ation ( ! old s*ematism z is necess>y = ! inclusion ( fre% facts2 x is ! special prov9ce ( metaphysical criticism to exam9e ! v>i\s t]ms bo? ( ! orig9al s*eme & its subsequ5t modifications1 ) a view to det]m9+ h[ f> !y =m an ultimately intelligible & coh]5t sy/em4 #b4 ,:5 we scrut9ise ! orig9al 8pre-sci5tific0 !ory ( ! _w f ?is po9t ( view1 we %all f9d t its f\r lead+ features give rise to f\r metaphysical problems ( great g5]ality & consid]able difficulty4 ,! conception ( ! _w z made up ( a multiplicity ( ?+s1 ea* ( :i* is "o1 gives rise to ! problem ( ! unity ( ! ?+2 ! plurality ( ! qualities1 & aga9 ( ! relations ascrib$ to ! s+le ?+1 gives rise to ! problems ( ,sub/ance & ,quality & ( ,relation2 ! belief 9 ! int]action betwe5 diff]5t ?+s f9ally gives rise to ! exceptionally important & difficult problem ( ,causality4 ,! f\r problems are n altoge!r disconnect$2 9 p>ticul>1 x is h>d to discuss ! s5se 9 :i* a ?+ c be spok5 ( z 8"o10 )\t at ! same "t rais+ ! "q h[ ! 8"o0 ?+ /&s to its _m prop]ties1 & aga9 discuss+ ! g5]al mean+ ( relation4 ,& ! problem ( ,causality may be rais$ 9 s g5]al a =m z to include ! o!r ?ree4 ,/ill1 = ! sake ( hav+ a def9ite ord] ( discussion1 x w be well to take !m z f> z may be sep>ately1 & to proce$ f ! simpl] to ! m complex4 ,:5 we h indicat$ 9 outl9e our solution ( ^! problems1 we %all h to ask :at is ! g5]al conception ( a ?+ :i* our results e/abli%1 & :e!r & on :at gr\nds we are w>rant$ 9 believ+ 9 ! actual exi/5ce ( ?+s answ]+ to our conception4 ,! pres5t *apt] w be devot$ to ! exam9ation ( ! fir/ ?ree problems2 9 ! succe$+ *apt] we %all discuss ! mean+ ( ,causality1 & indicate our g5]al conclusion z to ! exi/5ce ( 8?+s40 ,) ?is result our survey ( ! g5]al /ructure ( ,reality w be complet$1 & we %all !n proce$ 9 our ?ird & f\r? books to exam9e ! mo/ important ( ! special problems sugge/$ by ! exi/5ce ( physical nature & consci\s m9d respectively4 #c4 ,! ,unity ( ! ,?+4--,! problem we h to face is z foll[s3 9 :at s5se d we call any ?+ 8"o ?+10 & :at gives x its "* z a unity8 ,x is obvi\s t we may attack ?is "q f ei!r ( two r diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,we may ask ei!r1 :y d we m>k (f j ?is portion ( our environm5t f all ! re/ z a s+le ?+ among _m ?+s2 or1 aga91 h[ is ! on5ess :i* we pr$icate ( any "p ( ! environm5t s m>k$ (f compatible ) ! multiplicity ( its prop]ties8 ,! "q we propose to deal ) 9 ?is section is ! =m] ( ! two j prop\nd$2 ! latt] %all be dealt ) next z ! problem ( sub/ance & its qualities4 ,:at1 !n1 d we mean by ! unity :i* we ascribe to :atev] we recognise z "o ?+ among a multiplicity ( o!rs8 ,we h1 9 a way1 implicitly answ]$ ?is "q already by ! result arriv$ at 9 our discussion ( ! "* ( ! elem5ts or con/itu5ts ( ! sy/em ( ,reality4 ,b :]eas1 9 our =m] inve/igation1 we />t$ f ! g5]al notion ( ,reality z a sy/ematic :ole ( exp]i5ce1 & w5t on to ask :at "* is impos$ on ! elem5ts ( su* a sy/em by _! pres5ce 9 x z its elem5ts1 we h n[ to raise ! same "q f ! o!r side2 />t+ ) our ev]yday recognition ( our environm5t z divid$ into ?+s1 we h to ask h[ f> ^! ?+s possess ! "* :i* mu/ belong to ! g5u9ely individual memb]s ( an individual :ole ( subord9ate individuals4 ,= ! purpose ( ! inquiry we mu/ beg9 by tak+ ! t]m ?+ 9 ! same wide & ambigu\s s5se 9 :i* ev]yday ?\ght & disc\rse use x4 ,we mu/ reckon among ! ?+s :i* are ! topic ( discussion1 human p]sons1 animals1 plants1 great] & small] inorganic masses1 9 a ^w1 :atev] ! mo/ matt]-(-fact common-s5se ?9k+ recognises z possess$ ( a "* 9 virtue ( :i* x c z a :ole det]m9e ! c\rse ( exp]i5ce at a giv5 mom5t4 ,! "* or aspect 9 virtue ( :i* su* a :ole det]m9es ! c\rse ( exp]i5ce 9 ?is "o special way r ?an ano!r1 is by ?is def9ition exclud$ f our conception ( a ?+2 x is n ! ?+ itself b its quality or prop]ty or relation to "s o!r ?+1 & =ms ! subject ( our second & ?ird problems4 ,?us we may say ( a ?+1 9 ! s5se 9 :i* we are us+ ! t]m1 t x is :at has exi/5ce z a :ole "h & n[ 9 ! s]ies ( exp]i5ces1 ?\gh 9 say+ s we mu/ be c>eful to be> 9 m9d t ! "h & n[ ( ! ?+'s exi/5ce are n indivisible po9ts ( space or "t1 b cont9u\s /ret*es ( ext5sion & duration4 ,n[1 :5 we ask 9 :at s5se su* a ?+ is "o1 & :y we m>k (f ! limits :i* sep>ate ! "o ?+ f ! o!r ?+s j :]e we d1 x at once becomes app>5t t ! on5ess is a matt] ( degree4 ,we seem at fir/ sight able ) comp>atively little difficulty to decide t ! organism ( a human be+ or ( "o ( ! high] animals is "o ?+2 :5 we come to deal ) ! l[] organisms :i* consi/ ( loosely aggregat$ colonies ( l>gely indep5d5tly function+ cells1 we beg9 to feel m diffid5ce 9 pron\nc+ :at is "o organism1 ?\gh we /ill ?9k we c say :at is "o cell4 ,s1 9 deal+ ) inanimate masses1 :ile we might be ready to say )\t mu* misgiv+ t a ma*9e ( our own con/ruction is "o1 we %\ld f9d x mu* h>d] to decide :e!r :at we p]ceive z a m]e inorganic mass is "o or _m1 & h>d] /ill to give reasons = our decision 9 a p>ticul> case4 ,& ev5 9 ! cases :]e our decision is mo/ unhesitat+ly pron\nc$1 subsequ5t reflection w %[ t ! matt] may n be s obvi\s z x seems4 ,= in/ance1 a pair ( sep>at$ ,siamese tw9s w\ld und\bt$ly be g5]ally held to be two organisms & n "o2 b :e!r !y 7 "o or two be=e ! sev]ance is a "q we %\ld f9d x easi] to ask ?an to answ]4 ,:5 we try to detect "s common pr9ciple 9 our v>i\s judgm5ts z to :e!r a ?+ is "o ?+ or sev]al1 ! foll[+ results seem to em]ge3--7#a7 ,a ?+ is cle>ly n made "o1 z is sometimes assum$1 by ! possession ( an unbrok5 cont\r or an un9t]rupt$ temporal exi/5ce4 ,! succession ( my m5tal /ates may make up "o m5tal life1 & aga9 my organism f ! cradle to ! grave may be pron\nc$ 9 "s s5se "o1 ?\gh no "o c prove t !re are no gaps 9 _! temporal exi/5ce4 ,aga91 ev5 if we leave out ( acc\nt ! corpuscul> !ories ( body accord+ to :i* e ?+ t looks to u l a spatially cont9u\s :ole ) an unbrok5 cont\r is really compos$ ( discrete p>ticles ) int]/ices betwe5 !m1 x is abundantly cle> t common s5se reg>ds z "o ?+ ! p>ts ( a sy/em :i* works z a connect$ :ole1 q indep5d5tly ( ! exi/5ce or non-exi/5ce ( imm$iate contact betwe5 !m4 7#b7 ,aga91 ! unity ( ! "o ?+ does n dep5d ^u id5tity ( mat]ial1 :atev] t phrase may mean4 ,my organism /ill rema9s "o ?+1 ?\gh its mat]ial is con/antly *ang+ by ! loss ( "s elem5ts & ! acquisition ( o!rs4 7#c7 ,on ! positive side1 x is cle> t ! unity we attribute to "o ?+ is t ( teleological /ructure4 ,a ?+ is "o or _m accord+ to ! po9t ( view f :i* y look at x1 i4e4 accord+ to ! idea or purpose 9 ! light ( :i* y /udy x4 ,t is "o ?+ :i* functions z "o1 9 o!r words1 :i* is ! sy/ematic embodim5t ( a coh]5t s*eme ( /ructure4 ,?us1 :5 we are consid]+ ! :ole ( an organism z subs]vi5t to ! realisation ( a unique individual aim or int]e/1 ! organism is necess>ily judg$ to be "o1 because 9 respect ( t int]e/ x behaves z a :ole2 :5 we are /udy+ ! specific mode ( reaction ( a p>ticul> n]ve1 = in/ance1 ! same organism j z naturally appe>s to u a multiplicity ( di/9ct b int]connect$ ?+s4 ,simil>ly1 a sy/em ( mat]ial p>ticles appe>s "o ?+ to u s long z our int]e/ 9 ! sy/em is direct$ to ^? ways 9 :i* x behaves z "o1 e4g41 ! ex*anges ( en]gy betwe5 x & o!r sy/ems ext]nal to x4 ,g5]ally we may say t :atev] is call$ "o is call$ s because x is ! sy/ematic expression ( a s+le aim or int]e/4 ,a ?+1 9 fact1 is "o j 9 s f> z x has ! "* we ascrib$1 9 our la/ *apt]1 to a f9ite individual4 ,its unity is nev] m]ely num]ical1 b always qualitative1 ! unity ( coh]5t /ructure4 ,ev5 9 our r\gh-&-ready way ( treat+ cont9uity ( cont\r z evid5ce ( on5ess 9 inanimate & app>5tly /ructureless masses1 we may detect ! influ5ce ( ?is pr9ciple4 ,we judge ! s5sibly cont9u\s mass to be "o r ?an _m ?+s1 because 9 _m obvi\s respects x functions z "o 7e4g41 9 respect ( its weight1 ! simultane\s displacem5t ( its p>ts 9 rotation or translation ?r\gh space74 ,also1 no d\bt1 our judgm5t is influ5c$ by ! analogy ( our own bodies1 :i* are s5sibly cont9u\s4 ,we project 9 imag9ation into ! s5sibly cont9u\s inanimate mass ! same k9d ( teleological unity :i* we f9d 9 our own m5tal life4 ,! s5sibly discont9u\s1 on ! o!r h& 7e4g41 two inorganic masses sep>at$ by an app>5tly empty int]val71 is judg$ to be _m ?+s r ?an "o1 because1 9 imag9ation1 we project su* an inn] m5tal life into ea* ( ! discont9u\s p>ts4 ,if all ?is is s1 x w\ld foll[ t ! l9e ( dem>cation betwe5 "o ?+ & ano!r c nev] be drawn ) h>d & fa/ precision4 ,= if "o ?+ ultimately means "o individual1 ! embodim5t ( a unique self-consi/5t idea1 ! only ?+ :i* is fully & absolutely "o w be ! inf9ite individual ,reality itself4 ,! ext5t to :i* any less] portion ( ! :ole c be pron\nc$ "o ?+ w dep5d on ! ext5t to :i* x exhibits self-conta9$ sy/ematic individuality1 & ?us w be a matt] ( degree4 ,! highe/ k9d ( f9ite unity we c conceive w be t ( a life :i* is ! consci\s progressive realisation ( coh]5t purpose4 ,su* a life is "o n m]ely = ! outside obs]v] :o detects its und]ly+ unity ( aim1 b = itself4 ,its on5ess may ?us be said to be bo? objective & subjective4 ,?us ! m completely our own inn] life is ! sy/ematic expression ( consi/5t purpose1 ! great] ! "r ) :i* we may reg>d ourselves z be+ ea* truly 8"o ?+0 & z su* truly individual4 ,b :5 we rememb] h[ f> :at any "o ( u calls 880 inn] life is f exhibit+ su* complete int]nal coh]5cy ( /ructure1 we %all realise t ev5 9 ! highe/ case ! unity is /ill a matt] ( degree4 ,?is is /ill m palpably ! case ) ! l[] =ms ( organic life4 ,n to speak ( ! well-kn[n puzzles :i* arise :5 we seek to det]m9e :e!r a creature :i* is a colony ( l>gely indep5d5t cells is "o animal or _m1 our difficulties beg9 z soon z we h to deal ) any type ( life bel[ ! mo/ fully self-consci\s4 ,we c say1 to "s ext5t1 t a human "* is "o s long z x is ! consci\s expression ( sy/ematic purpose1 b x is less easy to say 9 :at s5se we call an animal's consci\s life "o4 ,! abs5ce ( any?+ l sy/ematic unity ( aim & int]e/ f ! life ( animal impulse makes x appe>1 at lea/ at fir/ sight1 m reasonable to speak ( x z a bundle or collection ( di/9ct impulses & in/9cts r ?an z "o4#ge ,if1 9 spite ( ?is1 we /ill habitually speak & ?9k ( ! p>ticul> high] animal z "o r ?an _m1 ! reason no d\bt is t we tacitly ascribe to x some?+ l ! consci\s unity ( int]e/ :i* we f9d 9 our own m5tal life1 ?\gh ) a dim9i%$ cle>ness4 ,:5 we come to ! inanimate _w1 x seems to become purely a matt] ( our own subjective int]e/ :at we %all call "o ?+ & :at we %all call _m4 ,t is "o :i* may be reg>d$ z act+ z "o :ole 9 respect ( its be>+ ^u any int]e/ ( ours2 t _m :i*1 9 respect ( our int]e/s1 does n behave z a :ole4 ,?us1 except :]e we are deal+ ) =ms ( life to :i* we c ) m or less plausibility ascribe "s degree ( consci\s unity ( aim & int]e/1 !re seems no valid reason = draw+ ! l9e betwe5 diff]5t ?+s 9 "o place r ?an 9 ano!r1 except reasons ( conv5i5ce4 ,x is important to be> ?is 9 m9d 9 apply+ our ideali/ic !ory ( exi/5ce to ! case ( ! inanimate _w4 ,if ! f\ndations ( ! ideali/ic !ory are s\nd1 e real exi/5ce mu/ be a f9ite individual exp]i5ce ( "s ord] ( individuality1 & ?is mu/ ( c\rse hold good ( t "p ( exi/5ce :i* appe>s to u z ! inanimate _w4 ,! inanimate _w mu/ be--z we %all see m fully 9 ! succe$+ book--a sy/em ( individual exp]i5ces1 :i* appe>s to u lifeless & purposeless m]ely because ! k9d ( life x possesses is too f> remov$ f our own = u to recognise x4 ,b we mu/ mo/ c>efully obs]ve t ! l9e ( dem>cation betwe5 ! diff]5t individual exp]i5ces :i* con/itute ! reality ( t _w ne$ n 9 ! lea/ co9cide ev]y:]e ) ! l9e :i* we1 = purposes ( our own1 draw betwe5 diff]5t ?+s4 #d4 ,! ,problem ( ,sub/ance & ,quality4--,m important1 9 ! hi/ory ( metaphysical !ory1 has be5 ! o!r aspect ( ! problem ( ! unity ( ?+s4 ,:at we call "o ?+ is said1 9 spite ( its unity1 to h _m qualities4 ,x is1 e4g41 at once r\nd1 :ite1 %9y1 & h>d1 or at once gre51 s(t1 & r\gh4 ,n[1 :at d we und]/& by ! x to :i* ^! num]\s attributes are alike ascrib$1 & h[ does x possess !m8 ,to use ! traditional te*nical names1 :at is ! sub/ance to :i* ! sev]al qualities belong or 9 :i* !y inh]e1 & :at is ! mann] ( _! inh]5ce8 ,! full difficulty ( ?is problem may be mo/ easily exhibit$ by consid]+ ! ways 9 :i* popul> ?\ght commonly tries to solve x4 7#a7 ,"o ( ! commone/ & mo/ obvi\s solutions is to id5tify ! 8sub/ance0 :i* has ! qualities 7or1 to use ! m g5]al s*ola/ic expression1 ! accid5ts7 ) "s "o gr\p ( ! ?+'s prop]ties :i* we reg>d z specially important or p]man5t4 ,! 8sub/ance0 is !n tak5 to be j ?is gr\p ( 8prim>y0 qualities1 & is said to h or possess ! less p]man5t 8second>y qualities40 ,= obvi\s reasons1 ! 8prim>y0 qualities h 9 mod]n ,philosophy usually be5 id5tifi$1 z by ,galileo1 ,desc>tes1 & ,locke1 ) ^? ma!matical prop]ties ( body :i* are ( fundam5tal importance = ! sci5ce ( me*anical ,physics4#gf ,& usually1 ?\gh n always1 ! way 9 :i* ! sub/ance1 z ?us def9$1 has ! second>y qualities1 has be5 fur!r expla9$ by say+ t ^! latt] are subjective *anges 9 our s5sibility produc$ by ! action ( ! prim>y qualities ^u our v>i\s s5se-organs4 ,nei!r ( ^! special views is1 h[ev]1 necess>ily involv$ 9 ! id5tification ( ! sub/ance ( ?+s ) _! fundam5tal qualities4 ,! ess5tial pr9ciple ( ! !ory consi/s simply 9 ! recognition ( "s gr\ps ( qualities z ( prim>y importance1 & ! id5tification ( ! "o 8sub/ance0 :i* has ! _m prop]ties ) ?is gr\p4 ,n[1 x w\ld be imp]t95t = u to raise any objection to ! use ( su* a !ory z a work+ hypo!sis 9 ! physical sci5ces1 s long z x does 9 ^? sci5ces ! "w = :i* x is requir$4 ,! object ( ! physical sci5ces z a body is simply to enable u to describe & calculate ! c\rse ( ev5ts 9 nature ) ! highe/ degree ( accuracy & ! lea/ complicat$ set ( =mul4 ,if ?is end is mo/ successfully atta9$ by treat+ a c]ta9 gr\p ( ! prop]ties ( s5sible ?+s z ( prim>y importance & all ! re/ z m]e d]ivatives ( !m1 ?is fact ( itself af=ds suffici5t ju/ification = ! sci5tific use ( ! di/9ction4 ,= ! special objects ( physical sci5ce any gr\p ( prop]ties :i* ?us l5ds itself to ! purposes ( description & calculation is ( prim>y importance4 ,b x is no less true t its importance = physical purposes does n af=d ! lea/ gr\nd = reg>d+ x z equally valuable z a solution ( ! metaphysical problem ( ! mean+ ( sub/ance4 ,= in/ance1 "o reason :y ! ma!matical prop]ties ( body are ( su* supreme importance = ,physics is t 9 respect ( !m bodies c be treat$ z diff]+ n 9 k9d b only 9 numb]4 ,?is is :y !y are ( su* ine/imable s]vice z ! basis ( our calculations z to ! behavi\r ( ?+s4 ,b x might v well be t ! true nature ( ?+s is mo/ fully manife/$ j 9 ^? po9ts 9 :i* !y are diff]5t 9 k9d2 f ! /&po9t ( ! metaphysician1 a view ( non-human nature1 h[ev] s]viceable1 :i* re/s entirely ^u ! aspects 9 :i* ?+s are mo/ alike1 may be z sup]ficial z ! /ati/ical sociologi/'s view ( human nature4 ,! true be+ ( a concrete ?+ may be z inadequately express$ by its ma!matical prop]ties z ! true "* ( an individual man by a li/ ( an?ropometrical results4#gg ,9 po9t ( fact1 we c readily see t ! di/9ction betwe5 8prim>y0 & 8second>y0 qualities1 :5 prop\nd$ z an answ] to ! problem ab\t sub/ance1 leaves u j :]e we 7 be=e4 ,= 7#a7 we ascribe ! prim>y qualities to ! 8sub/ance0 ( ! ?+ 9 j ! same fa%ion z ! second>y4 ,! ?+ is ( su* & su* a configuration1 is ( su* & su* a mass1 is solid1 etc42 j z x is r\gh1 or heavy1 or gre54 ,or1 aga91 x has configuration1 mass1 solidity2 j z x has weight1 ta/e1 col\r4 ,h5ce ! old problem breaks out aga9 ) respect to ! prim>y qualities !mselves1 h[ev] ! li/ ( !m may be con/ruct$4 ,aga9 we h to ask1 :at is ! x :i* possesses %ape1 mass1 velocity1 etc48 7#b7 ,moreov]1 ! !ory fails to expla9 ! nature ( t 8possession0 ( ! second>y qualities :i* x ascribes to ! gr\p ( prim>y qualities4 ,9 :at way1 we ask1 d ! prim>y qualities h or possess ! second>y8 ,! only s]i\s attempt to answ] ?is "q seems to be t ( ! num]\s philosoph]s 7,desc>tes1 ,galileo1 ,locke1 etc47 :o treat ! second>y qualities z 8subjective0 effects ( ! prim>y qualities ^u our s5se-organs4 ,n[1 ?is famili> solution ( ! problem seems defici5t 9 logic4 ,= ! "o solid argum5t :i* has be5 advanc$ 9 fav\r ( ! subjectivity ( second>y qualities seems to be ! cont5tion t !y _c be p]ceiv$ )\t s5se-organs ( a special type4 ,col\rs1 x is said1 exi/ only = an eye1 s\nds = an e>1 ta/e = a tongue1 & s =?4 ,& diff]5ces ( /ructure or tempor>y condition 9 ! s5se-organ lead to ! p]ception ( diff]5t second>y qualities1 z :51 to take ! /ock examples1 ev]y?+ looks yell[ to ! jaundic$ eye1 ! same wat] feels w>m to "o h& & cold to ! o!r1 & s =?4 ,b ^! consid]ations seem j z applicable to ! suppos$ 8prim>y0 z to ! 8second>y0 qualities ( ?+s4 ,geometrical =m1 = in/ance1 is imp]ceptible ap>t f sight or t\*2 motion1 aga91 & consequ5tly *ange ( configuration1 & simil>ly mass1 :i* is a ratio ( accel]ations1 require ei!r sight or t\* = _! p]ception4 ,( c\rse1 we c ?9k ( motions & masses :i* we are n actually p]ceiv+1 j z we c ?9k ( an abs5t col\r or smell1 & 9 bo? cases we c 9 reason+ ab\t motions or masses or col\rs or smells ab/ract altoge!r f ! pres5ce ( a p]cipi5t4 ,b ?is does n affect ! fact t ! ma!matical qualities ( body are j z dep5d5t = p]ception ^u ! pres5ce ( a p]cipi5t ) suitable s5se-organs z any?+ else4 ,configurations1 ext5sions1 & motions :i* no "o p]ceives by sight or t\* or any o!r s5se are exactly 9 ! same case z a col\r :i* no "o sees or a s\nd :i* no "o he>s4 ,! argum5t f ! indisp5sability ( a p]ceiv+ organ ought logically to tell j z mu* 9 ! "o case z ! o!r4#gh ,aga91 & ?is is a po9t ( ! fir/ importance1 exp]i5ce nev] gives u ! 8prim>y quality0 by itself4 ,:at we get 9 actual exp]i5ce is always ! conjunction ( prim>y & second>y qualities 9 a concrete p]ception4 ,?us we nev] p]ceive ext5sion ap>t f "s special visual or tactual fill+ ( ! 8second>y0 k9d4 ,! ext5d$ has always "s quality ( col\r1 or texture1 or resi/ance4 ,an ext5sion :i* is totally devoid ( col\r1 tactual quality1 & ev]y?+ :i* belongs to ! s-call$ s5sible1 non-ma!matical1 or 8second>y0 prop]ties ( body1 is an unreal ab/raction1 got by leav+ out an aspect :i* 9 actual exp]i5ce appe>s insep>able f x1 & !re=e presumably illegitimate4 ,illegitimate1 t is1 :5 (f]$ z an acc\nt ( ! fundam5tal reality ( body1 h[ev] useful = ! special purposes ( natural sci5ce4 ,?us ! attempt to take ! s-call$ prim>y qualities z ! unit>y 8sub/ance0 :i* has or 8possesses0 ! second>y qualities1 & to dispose ( ^! latt] z 8subjective10 leads to no satisfactory result4 ,! =m]1 too1 mu/ be m]ely qualities possess$ by a m ultimate sub/ance4 #e4 ,h5ce x con/antly happ5s t ! same writ]s :o treat sub/ance z id5tical ) ! prim>y qualities ( ?+s1 alt]nate ?is view ) ano!r accord+ to :i* sub/ance is an unkn[able unit ( :i* we c say no m ?an t x1 :atev] x may be1 is :at is presuppos$ 9 all propositions ab\t ! behavi\r ( ?+s z ! 8unkn[n sub/ratum0 ( _! v>i\s qualities4 ,accord+ to ?is view1 ! _m qualities ( ! ?+ 9 "s inexplicable mann] 8fl[0 ei!r f ! nature ( its own unkn[n sub/ratum or sub/ance1 or f ! relations 9 :i* ?is sub/ratum /&s ) t ( o!r ?+s4#gi ,our k is !n held to be conf9$ to ^! consequ5ces ( ! unkn[n ultimate "* ( real ?+s2 we are ignorant1 x is said1 ( ! sub/ance bo? ( physical & ( m5tal exi/5ce1 we "k only its attributes or manife/ations4 ,or x is o!rwise phras$ ?us3 we d n "k :at ?+s really are1 we "k only _! effects on "o ano!r & on our own s5ses4 ,?is is1 = in/ance1 ! view repres5t$ by ^? portions ( ,locke's ,essay 9 :i* emphasis is laid ^u our inability 9 ! la/ resort to "k ! true sub/ance ( ?+s4 ,n[1 su* a g5]al doctr9e z ?is is manife/ly op5 to grave objections4 7#a7 ,if we are s]i\s 9 ma9ta9+ ! unkn[able "* ( ! sub/ratum ( a ?+'s qualities1 x is h>d to see h[ ! ass]tion ( its exi/5ce c be any addition to our k ( ! ?+4 ,to say t we are entirely ignorant ( ! nature ( ?is sub/ratum only am\nts to say+ 9 o!r words1 t we h really no idea h[ ! _m qualities c be qualities ( a s+le ?+4 ,if ?is is s1 x does n appe> :at we ga9 by talk+ ( ! s+le ?+ at all z ! own] or possessor ( its qualities4 ,x w\ld1 we might ?9k1 be bett] to ab&on ! confess$ly un9telligible notion ( a s+le sub/ratum 9 :i* ! qualities 8inh]e10 & say t ! ?+1 = our intellect1 is simply ! _m qualities !mselves4 ,h[ ?is view w\ld h to be reconcil$ ) ! tacit assumption ( ! ?+'s unity z a sub/ance1 :i* und]lies all ! judgm5ts 9 :i* its attributes are pr$icat$ ( x1 we %all h to discuss m fully 9 ! next section4 7#b7 ,a /ill m s]i\s difficulty rema9s beh9d4 ,n only is an 8unkn[able sub/ratum ( qualities0 a sup]flu\s luxury 9 metaphysical !ory1 b ! nature ( ! suppos$ relation betwe5 su* a sub/ratum & ! attributes :i* 8fl[0 f x is un9telligible4 ,we c und]/& nei!r :at a sub/ance or sub/ratum totally devoid ( qualities c\ld possibly be1 nor yet h[ ! v>i\s qualities ( ! _w ( ?+s pres5t$ to our exp]i5ce c\ld 8fl[0 z second>y consequ5ces f "o or m su* sub/rata4 ,we _c conceive h[ ?+s c\ld fir/ 8be0 )\t ?is be+ ( !irs possess+ any def9ite "*1 & !n subsequ5tly1 9 virtue ( _! relations among !mselves1 give rise to _! qualities or *>act]i/ic modes ( be+4 ,no?+ c be at all )\t be+ 9 "s det]m9ate way1 & ?is 8be+ 9 "s det]m9ate way0 is precisely :at we mean by ! qualities ( a ?+4 ,a ?+ _c be )\t behav+ 9 special ways t[>ds its environm5t1 & ^! special ways ( behav+ are ! ?+'s qualities4 ,we _c1 !re=e1 divorce ! be+ or t ( a ?+ f its det]m9ate mode ( be+ or :at1 & reg>d ! latt] z some?+ :i* sup]v5es on or is d]iv$ f ! =m]1 or ! =m] z some?+ :i* c exi/ )\t & ap>t f ! latt]4 ,?+s are n fir/ !re & aft]w>ds 9 "s my/]i\s way clo!d ) qualities2 _! qualities are simply _! special way ( be+ !re4 ,z ,lotze well puts x1 all su* attempts to =mulate a !ory ( ! way 9 :i* ! :at ( ?+s fl[s f a m]e t1 are attempts to answ] ! absurd "q h[ ,be+ is made4#hj ,! notion t ?+s h a t or sub/ance prior to _! :at or quality1 & consi/+ simply 9 8be+0 :i* is n ?is or t det]m9ate mode ( be+1 is ?us unmean+ z well z sup]flu\s4 #f4 ,accord+ly ! :ole notion ( a sub/antial unity 9 ?+s beh9d ! multiplicity ( _! /ates or qualities has be5 reg>d$ ) disfav\r by _m /ud5ts ( positive sci5ce4 ,! qualities be+ all t int]e/s u 9 ?+s1 & ! notion ( an indet]m9ate sub/ratum contradictory1 we ought1 x is argu$1 to id5tify ! ?+ & ! s]ies ( its /ates & qualities )\t m ado4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! ?+ ceases to be an unkn[n some:at1 :i* 9 "s my/]i\s way has prop]ties2 x becomes ! prop]ties !mselves ?\ght ( z a collection4 ,x is no long] ! unp]ceiv$ ?is :i* has w>m?1 r$ness1 etc41 x is ! w>m?1 ! r$ness1 & ! re/ ( ! s5sible qualities tak5 collectively4 ,= ph5om5ali/ ,metaphysics1 z = associationi/ ,psy*ology1 ! ?+ is a 8bundle ( attributes0 & no?+ m4 ,:5 we ask h[1 if a 8?+0 is m]ely ! s]ies or sum ( its attributes1 & possesses no und]ly+ unity to :i* ! attributes belong1 ! :ole ( our ord9>y language ab\t ?+s comes to be con/ruct$ on ! contr>y assumption1 h[ x is t we always talk & ?9k z if e 8bundle0 ( attributes 7 own$ by some?+ ( :i* we c say t x has ! quality1 we are met by ! ph5om5ali/ ) a ref]5ce to ,psy*ology4 ,ow+ to ! fact1 :i* ,ph5om5alism & ,associationism are cont5t to accept z ultimate1 t s5sible qualities are always pres5t$ to our p]ception 9 def9ite gr\ps1 x is argu$ t ! ?\ght ( any "o memb] ( su* a gr\p is en\gh to revive by association ! ?\ght ( ! o!r qualities :i* h regul>ly be5 pres5t$ simultane\sly ) itself or 9 imm$iate succession to x4 ,h5ce1 because ?us associat$ 9 our p]ception1 ! gr\p comes naturally1 ?\gh illegitimately1 by "o ( ^? m5tal fictions ( :i* ,hume treats s fully1 to be ?\ght ( z "o1 ?\gh x is actually a discrete multiplicity4 ,! unity ( ! ?+ ?us lies n 9 itself1 b solely 9 our way ( p]ceiv+ & ?9k+4 ,a m rec5t v]sion ( ! same doctr9e1 :i* avoids ! old associationi/ mi/ake ( treat+ p]ception z a m]ely passive reception ( a giv5 mat]ial1 is t ! unity ( ! "o subject ( _m pr$icates is ultimately d]iv$ f ! unity ( our own acts ( att5tion4 ,! qualities appe> to belong to 8"o0 ?+ because we att5d to !m toge!r z "o 9 a s+le mom5t ( att5tion4 ,?us ! unity ( sub/ance :i* common s5se believes itself to f9d 9 its objects has really be5 put into !m by ! p]ceiv+ m9d itself4 ,:at is 8giv50 to x is a disconnect$ plurality ( qualities2 by att5d+ to gr\ps ( !m z "o x makes ^? gr\ps into ! attributes ( a s+le reality4 ,?is is ! ess5ce ( ! doctr9e ( ,kant1 accord+ to :i* ! concept ( 8sub/ance0 is simply "o =m ( ! 8syn!tic unity ( app]ception0 i4e4 ! process by :i* we project ! unity ( our own acts ( att5tion into _! objects1 & ?us create an ord]ly _w = our own ?\ght out ( s5sations :i* z !y are giv5 to u are a *aos4 ,9 pr9ciple1 ,kant's doctr9e1 ?\gh int5d$ z a refutation ( ,hume's ,associationism1 only diff]s f ,hume's 9 ! /ress x rightly lays on ! elem5t ( subjective int]e/ 9 p]ception2 ! two !ories agree on ! ma9 po9t1 t ! bond :i* unites ! _m qualities ( s5se p]ception into "o ?+ is a subjective "o1--9 ,hume's expressive phrase1 a 8fiction ( ! m9d40#ha ,) ! psy*ological aspects ( ?is doctr9e we are n directly conc]n$ 9 ! pres5t inquiry4 ,= u ! problem is n by :at precise /eps ! m9d comes to 8feign0 a unity 9 its objects :i* is n really !re1 b :e!r ?is conception ( a feign$ or subjective unity impos$ by ! m9d ^u a numb] ( actually disconnect$ qualities is itself ultimately intelligible4 ,?us ! metaphysical issue may be n>r[$ d[n to ! foll[+ "q3 ,c we intelligibly hold t a ?+ is 9 reality simply a numb] ( qualities1 n 9 _! own nature connect$1 :i* we arbitr>ily reg>d = our own purposes z "o8#hb ,9 o!r words1 c we say ! ?+ is simply id5tical ) its qualities consid]$ z a m]e sum or collection1 & any fur!r unity ( ! k9d ! old ,metaphysics d5otes by 8sub/ance0 a m5tal addition ( our own to ! facts8 ,n[ !re are two consid]ations--bo? ultimately r$ucible 9 pr9ciple to "o--:i* seem fatal to ! id5tification ( a ?+ ) its qualities1 consid]$ z m]ely discrete4 7#a7 ,!re c be no d\bt t x is l>gely true to say t a giv5 gr\p ( qualities appe> to u to be ! qualities ( "o ?+ because we att5d to !m z "o4 ,& aga91 att5tion is und\bt$ly det]m9$ by1 or1 to put x 9 a bett] way1 is an expression (1 our own subjective int]e/s4 ,b ^! consid]ations d n 9 ! lea/ %[ t att5tion is purely arbitr>y4 ,if we take any gr\p ( qualities to =m "o ?+ because we att5d to x z "o1 x is equally true t we att5d to x z "o because x affects our subjective purposes or int]e/s z "o4 ,t gr\p ( qualities is 8"o ?+0 = u :i* functions z "o 9 its be>+ ^u our subjective int]e/s4 ,:at p>ticul> int]e/ we consid] 9 pron\nc+ su* a gr\p "o1 9 :at int]e/ we att5d to x1 may be l>gely indep5d5t ( ! qualities ( ! gr\p1 b ! fact t ! gr\p does function z "o 9 respect to ?is int]e/ is no 8fiction0 or creation ( our own ?\ght2 x is ! expression ( ! nature ( ! gr\p itself1 & is indep5d5t ( 8our m9d0 9 precisely ! same s5se 9 :i* ! exi/5ce & "* ( any s+le memb] ( ! gr\p ( qualities is indep5d5t4 ,!re is no s5se 9 assign+ ! s+le quality to 8! giv510 & ! union ( ! qualities into a s+le gr\p to 8! "w ( ! m9d02 9 "o s5se bo? are ! 8"w ( ! m9d10 9 ano!r bo? are ! expression ( ! nature ( ! 8giv540#hc 7#b7 ,aga91 ! insuffici5cy ( ! simple id5tification ( ! ?+ ) its qualities consid]$ z a m]e collection1 may be illu/rat$ by consid]+ :at ! gr\p ( qualities mu/ conta94 ,! gr\p ( qualities is obvi\sly nev] pres5t 9 its entirety at any mom5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,= ! majority ( :at we call ! qualities ( a ?+ are simply ! ways 9 :i* ! 8?+0 behaves 9 ! pres5ce ( v>i\s o!r ?+s1 its modes ( reaction ^u a numb] ( /imuli4 ,n[1 at any mom5t ( ! 8?+'s0 exi/5ce x is only actually react+ ^u a few ( ! possible /imuli1 & ?us only exhibit+ a few ( its qualities4 ,! va/ majority ( its qualities are at any mom5t :at ,locke calls 8p[]s10 i4e4 ways 9 :i* x w\ld behave if c]ta9 abs5t conditions 7 fulfill$4 ,?us ! ?+ to :i* we ascribe a numb] ( pr$icates z its qualities is nev] ! actual gr\p ( pr$icates !mselves4 ,grass is gre51 b its gre5ness is n a fact 9 ! d>k2 ! sun is capable ( melt+ ! wax1 & ?is capacity qualifies x p]man5tly1 b x does n actually melt ! wax unless ! wax is !re1 & v>i\s o!r conditions are also giv52 a man is temp]am5tly *ol]ic1 b he is n actually at e mom5t ( 8 exi/5ce 9 a passion4 ,he is only pr$ispos$ to fly into a passion readily on ! occurr5ce ( provocation4 ,mo/ ( a ?+'s qualities ?us are m]e possibilities2 ! nature ( ! ?+ is to act 9 ?is or t way "u c]ta9 def9ite conditions :i* may or may n be realis$ 9 actual exi/5ce4 ,?us ! collection ( qualities ) :i* ,ph5om5alism id5tifies a ?+ has itself no real exi/5ce z a collection4 ,! collection is j z mu* a 8fiction ( ! m9d0 z ! unity :i* we attribute to x4 ,yet ! fact t ! ?+'s qualities are ma9ly m]e possibilities does n de/roy ! exi/5ce ( ! ?+4 ,x actually is1 & is someh[ qualifi$ by ^! possibilities4 ,& = t v reason its exi/5ce _c be id5tifi$ ) ! actual realisation ( ^! possibilities 9 a gr\p or collection ( ev5ts4 ,we might add z a fur!r consid]ation1 t ! numb] ( su* possibilities is indef9ite1 includ+ n only ! ways 9 :i* ! ?+ has behav$ or w behave on ! occurr5ce ( conditions at pres5t non-exi/5t1 b also all ! ways 9 :i* x w\ld behave on ! occurr5ce ( conditions :i* are nev] realis$ 9 actual exi/5ce4 ,b ! previ\s argum5t is already 9 itself suffici5t1 ! mom5t its significance is fairly grasp$1 to dispose ( ! notion t any?+ c be m]ely id5tical ) a gr\p ( actually exi/+ s5sible qualities4 ,! be+ ( ! ?+s mu/ be s\ght n 9 ! actual exi/5ce ( ! gr\p ( s5sible qualities1 b 9 ! law or laws /at+ ! qualities :i* w\ld be exhibit$ 9 response to v>y+ sets ( conditions4#hd #g4 ,consid]ations ( ?is k9d compel u to =ego ! attempt to f9d ! sub/ance or be+ ( a ?+ 9 ! m]e sequ5ce ( its diff]5t /ates consid]$ z an aggregate4 ,to make ,ph5om5alism workable1 we are =c$ to say at lea/ t ! ?+ or sub/ance to :i* ! v>i\s attributes are assign$ is ! 8law ( its /ates10 or aga9 is 8! mode ( relation ( its v>i\s qualities40 ,su* a def9ition has obvi\sly a great advantage ov] ei!r ( ! two we h j reject$4 ,x is sup]ior to ! conception ( ! ?+ z an unkn[n sub/ratum ( qualities1 s9ce x explicitly excludes ! absurd notion ( a _w ( ?+s :i* fir/ are1 )\t be+ 9 any det]m9ate way1 & !n subsequ5tly set up det]m9ate ways ( exi/+ among !mselves4 ,= a law1 :ile n ! same ?+ z ! m]e collection ( occurr5ces 9 :i* x is realis$1 has no exi/5ce ( its own ap>t f ! s]ies ( occurr5ces :i* con=m to x4 ,aga91 e law is a /atem5t ( possibilities1 a =mula describ+ ! l9es :i* ! c\rse ( ev5ts w foll[ if c]ta9 conditions are op]ative2 no law is a m]e regi/] ( actually obs]v$ sequ5ces4#he ,h5ce1 9 def9+ ! ?+ z ! 8law ( its /ates10 we avoid ! difficulty dealt ) 9 ! la/ p>agraph1 t ! collection ( ! ?+'s /ates nev] actually exi/s z a 8giv50 collection4 ,?us = ord9>y practical purposes ! def9ition is probably a satisfactory "o4 ,yet x %\ld be evid5t t 9 call+ ! ?+ ! 8law0 ( its /ates1 we m]ely repeat ! metaphysical problem ( ! unity ( sub/ance )\t (f]+ any solution ( x4 ,=1 n to dwell on ! m9or difficulty t we might f9d x impossible to =mulate a s+le law connect+ all ! ways 9 :i* "o ?+ reacts ^u o!rs1 & ?us ought m prop]ly to speak 9 ! plural ( ! laws ( ! /ates1 we are n[ left ) two di/9ct elem5ts or aspects ( ! be+ ( ! ?+1 namely1 ! successive /ates & ! law ( _! succession1 & h[ ^! two aspects are unit$ ! !ory fails to expla94 ,we h ! v>iety & multiplicity on ! "o h& 9 ! /ates or qualities ( ! ?+1 its unity on ! o!r 9 ! =m ( ! law connect+ ^! /ates1 b h[ ! v>iety belongs to or is possess$ by ! unity we "k no bett] ?an be=e4 ,?us ! old problem ( sub/ance returns ^u u2 ! _m qualities mu/ someh[ be ! qualities ( a s+le ?+1 b precisely h[ are we to conceive ?is union ( ! "o & ! _m8#hf ,at ?is po9t light seems to be ?r[n on ! puzzle by ! doctr9e ( ,leibnitz1#hg t ! only way 9 :i* a unity c1 )\t ceas+ to be su*1 conta9 an indef9ite multiplicity is by 8repres5tation40 ,exp]i5ce1 9 fact1 pres5ts u ) only "o example ( a unity :i* rema9s indubitably "o :ile embrac+ an indef9ite multiplicity ( detail1 namely1 ! /ructure ( our exp]i5ce itself4 ,= ! s+le exp]i5ce regul>ly consi/s ( a multiplicity ( m5tal /ates1 bo? 8focal0 & 8m>g9al10 simultane\s & successive1 :i* are nev]!less felt z "o s+le :ole because !y =m ! expression ( a coh]5t purpose or int]e/4 ,& ?is consci\s unity ( feel+1 det]m9$ by ref]5ce to a unique int]e/1 is ! only in/ance to :i* we c po9t :5 we desire to %[ by an actual illu/ration h[ :at is _m c at ! same "t be "o4 ,if we c ?9k ( ! ?+'s qualities & ! law ( _! connection z /&+ to "o ano!r 9 ! same way z ! detail$ s]ies ( acts embody+ a subjective int]e/ ( our own1 & ! int]e/ itself :i* by its unity conf]s a felt unity on ! s]ies1 we c 9 pr9ciple compreh5d h[ ! _m qualities belong to ! "o ?+4 ,9 t case ! ?+ w be "o 8sub/ance0 z ! embodim5t ( an individual exp]i5ce1 det]m9$ by a unique subjective int]e/1 & !re=e possess+ ! unity ( imm$iate feel+4 ,its _m qualities w 8belong0 to x 9 ! same s5se 9 :i* ! v>i\s con/itu5ts ( an exp]i5ce ?us unifi$ by imm$iate feel+ are said to 8belong0 to ! s+le exp]i5ce !y con/itute4 ,& ?us our ideali/ic int]pretation ( ! g5]al nature ( ,reality w be f\nd to conta9 ! solution ( ! problem ( ,sub/ance & ,quality4 ,n[ x is fairly cle> t "s su* ideali/ic solution is already conta9$ 9 g]m 9 ! pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w ( ?+s4 ,!re c be little d\bt t our orig9al notion ( ! unity ( ! ?+ z contra/$ ) ! multiplicity ( its qualities has be5 obta9$ by 8introjectively0 ascrib+ to :atev] gr\ps ( qualities act ^u u z "o 9 respect ( "s int]e/ ( our own1 ! same consci\s unity ( feel+ :i* we "k 9 ourselves & our fell[s4 ,we %all h frequ5t opportunities1 z we proce$1 ( discov]+ ! enorm\s ext5t to :i* ! :ole pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w is bas$ ^u ! int]pretation ( all exi/5ce 9 t]ms ( our own4 ,sy/ematic ,idealism w ?us gradually be f\nd to be no m ?an ! consi/5t & delib]ate c>ry+ ?r\gh ( t an?ropomorphic int]pretation ( ,reality :i* lies at ! bottom ( all man's attempts to make 8 surr\nd+s intelligible to himself4 ,x w foll[1 if our g5]al attitude t[>ds ! problem ( sub/ance is t5able1 t only :at we h already def9$ z an individual exp]i5ce c truly be call$ a 8sub/ance10 & t su* exp]i5ces are 8sub/ances10 if ! ^w is to be reta9$ 9 our philosophical vocabul>y1 to ! same degree to :i* !y are truly individual4 ,& ?us we %\ld be l$ 9 ! end to ! di/9ction betwe5 ! "o inf9ite sub/ance :i* =ms ! :ole ( ,reality & ! f9ite & imp]fect sub/ances :i* are its compon5ts4 ,aga91 we %\ld h once m to rememb] t s9ce1 9 g5]al1 we call t gr\p ( qualities "o :i* acts on our int]e/s z "o1 & our insight into ^? int]e/s !mselves is limit$ & confus$1 ! b\nd>ies assign$ by u to ! gr\p ( qualities we ascribe to a s+le sub/ance z 8its0 /ates w be m or less arbitr>y1 & dep5d5t ^u ! degree ( our actual insight4 ,x is possible = u to gr\p toge!r z /ates ( ! same ?+ qualities :i* a pr(\nd] insight w\ld h disjo9$1 & vice v]s4 ,& 9 ! end1 if all t is is conta9$ 9 a s+le coh]5t self-det]m9$ sy/em1 x is cle> t1 speak+ rigor\sly1 !re w ultimately be only "o 8sub/ance0--! c5tral nature or pr9ciple ( ! sy/em itself--( :i* all subord9ate aspects or p>ts ( exi/5ce w be ! attributes4 #h4 ,! ,problem ( ,relation4--,m p]plex+ ?an ! problem ( ,sub/ance & its ,qualities is ! "q to :i* ! pre-sci5tific assumption t ! _w consi/s ( a numb] ( int]relat$ ?+s gives rise4 ,?is problem ( ,relation becomes /ill m prom95t :5 reflection ^u ! problem ( ,sub/ance & ,quality has made x manife/ t :at we call ! qualities ( ?+s are "o & all dep5d5t ^u _! relations ei!r to our p]ceptive organs or to o!r ?+s4 ,put q simply ! problem is z foll[s3 ,?+s /& 9 a v>iety ( relations to "o ano!r1 & :at we commonly call ! qualities ( ea* are dep5d5t on 7a7 its modes ( relation to o!r ?+s1 7b7 its relation to our p]cipi5t organism4 ,aga91 ! v>i\s qualities ( "o ?+ /& 9 relation among !mselves4 ,to beg9 )1 !y all exhibit ! relations ( id5tity & diff]5ce4 ,!y all s f> possess a common nature z to be capable ( be+ comp>$ 9 respect ( ! special ways 9 :i* !y manife/ t nature1 & are ?us s f> id5tical2 aga91 !y c be discrim9at$ & di/+ui%$1 & are s f> 9 ! relation ( diff]5ce4 ,fur!r1 ! qualities ( "o ?+ are int]connect$1 z we h already se51 by v>i\s special laws or modes ( relation1 :i* exhibit ! *anges 9 ! behavi\r ( ! ?+ correspond+ to *anges 9 ! surr\nd+ circum/ances4 ,?us ,ph5om5alism1 :5 x has bani%$ ! notion ( a sub/antial unity 9 ?+s1 has to id5tify ! _w ( ?+s1 z we h already se51 ) qualities 9 relation to "o ano!r4 ,b n[ ! "q arises1 ,h[ are we to und]/& ! conception ( qualities 9 relation8 ,c we1 on ! "o h&1 r$uce all qualities to relations or all relations to qualities1 or1 on ! o!r1 c we =m an intelligible idea ( ! way 9 :i* a s+le :ole or sy/em c be =m$ by ! union ( ! two8 ,!re are1 ( c\rse1 o!r que/ions ( great ?\gh relatively second>y importance connect$ ) ! problem ( relation1 e4g41 ! "q z to ! numb] ( ultimately irr$ucible k9ds ( relation1 b ! scope ( ! pres5t "w w p]mit ( no?+ beyond a brief discussion ( ! c5tral difficulty4 ,we w take ! v>i\s alt]natives 9 ord]4 7#a7 ,philosoph]s h (t5 be5 tempt$ to evade ! difficulty ( %[+ h[ qualities & relations toge!r c make up a sy/em by suppress+ "o memb] ( ! anti!sis altoge!r4 ,?us x has be5 ma9ta9$1 on ! "o h&1 t ! _w ( real ?+s consi/s entirely ( simple unrelat$ qualities1 & t :at we call relations betwe5 ^! qualities are m]ely our own subjective ways ( appreh5d+ !m4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x has be5 sugge/$ t !re may be no?+ 9 ! real _w except relations1 & t :at we call qualities ( v>i\s k9ds are no?+ b =ms ( relation4 ,b nei!r ( ^! views seems s]i\sly t5able4 ,= 7a7 reality _c consi/ ( m]e relations4 ,e relation implies two or m t]ms :i* are relat$4 ,& ^! t]ms _c be creat$ by ! relation itself4 ,9 e relation ! t]ms h "s "* ( _! own ov] & beyond ! m]e prop]ty ( be+ t]ms 9 t relation4 ,?us1 to take a simple example1 ! successive t]ms ( ! s]ies ( ord9al numb]s express 9 !mselves no?+ beyond det]m9ate position 9 an ord]$ s]ies1 b :5 !y are appli$ to ! actual arrangem5t ( any cont5t 9 s]ial ord]1 t cont5t is 7c7 n creat$ by ! arrangem5t ( x 9 an ord]$ s]ies ( t]ms1 & 7b7 is dep5d5t = ! actual ord] ( its t]ms ^u "s positive "* ( its own4 ,9 o!r words1 :5ev] y actually c\nt y c\nt some?+ o!r ?an ! names ( ! numb]s y employ1 & y c\nt x 9 an ord] :i* dep5ds on ! "* ( ! p>ticul> ?+s c\nt$4#hh ,& s g5]ally ( all relations4 ,a "q has be5 rais$ :i* pres5ts consid]able difficulty & _c be discuss$ "h1 :e!r !re are or are n m]ely ext]nal relations 7i4e4 relations :i* are indep5d5t ( ! special qualities ( _! t]ms74 ,b ev5 if we admit t !re may be su* m]ely ext]nal relations1 :i* d n dep5d ^u ! nature ( ! t]ms betwe5 :i* !y subsi/1 x is at lea/ cle> t !re _c be relations )\t any t]ms1 & t ! t]ms are n creat$ out ( no?+ by ! relation betwe5 !m4#hi ,p]haps x might be rejo9$ t :at ,i call ! t]ms ( a c]ta9 relation1 ?\gh no d\bt n creat$ by t p>ticul> relation1 may be !mselves analys$ into o!r relations1 & ^? aga9 into o!rs ad indef9itum4 ,?us x might be said t ! t]m ,a ( ! relation ,a-,b may no d\bt h a quality ( its own :i* is n creat$ by ?is relation4 ,b ?is quality1 call x ,a#a1 is f\nd on analysis to be resoluble into ! relation ,c-,d1 & ! quality ,c#a ( ,c aga9 into ! relation ,e-,f1 & s on )\t end4 ,?is w\ld n1 h[ev]1 am\nt to a r$uction ( qualities to m]e relations4 ,= x w\ld give u1 z ! unit ( our s*eme ( ?+s1 a pair ( t]ms or qualities 9 relation2 & h[ev] (t5 we repeat$ ! process ( analysis1 we %\ld /ill always be left ) ! same type ( triad1 two t]ms & a relation1 z ! result ( analysis4 ,:atev] its wor?1 ?is p>ticul> solution falls "u our second alt]native1 & mu/ be consid]$ 9 connection ) x4 7#b7 ,b aga91 x is ev5 m manife/ t we _c r$uce all reality to qualities1 & dismiss ! relations betwe5 !m z simply our subjective mode ( appreh5sion4 ,?is l9e ( ?\ght is capable ( be+ work$ out 9 two slightly diff]5t ways4 ,we might hold t :at really exi/s is disconnect$ simple qualities1 ea* di/9ct f all o!rs z r$ is f sweet1 or l\d f hot1 & t ! :ole network ( relations by :i* ev]yday & sci5tific ?\ght br+ ^! 8reals0 into connection is a m]e intellectual scaffold+ to :i* no?+ 9 ! real _w corresponds4 ,some?+ l ?is w\ld be ! logical outcome ( ! ,humian doctr9e t all relations are 8! "w ( ! m9d10 & t reality is ! residuum left aft] we h remov$ f our conception ( ! _w ev]y?+ :i* is ( our own m5tal fabrication4 ,! gr\nds ^u :i* ?is doctr9e 0 advanc$ by ,hume & 8 foll[]s h already be5 de/roy$ by ! progress ( ,psy*ology & ! consequ5t ab&onm5t ( ! old h>d-&-fa/ di/9ction betwe5 s5sation & m5tal con/ruction4 ,x 0 ! belief ( ,hume1 & app>5tly ( ,kant1 t :at is giv5 9 8s5sation0 is s+le uncomp\nd$ qualities1 & t all relations betwe5 ^! psy*ical atoms are produc$ by a subsequ5t process ( subjective syn!sis4 ,b ! advance ( ,psy*ology1 by lead+ to ! recognition t s5sation itself is a cont9u\s process conta9+ a multiplicity ( 8m>g9al0 elem5ts :i* 9 all sorts ( ways modify ! "* ( its c5tral or 8focal0 elem5t1 has made x impossible any long] to ma9ta9 an absolute di/9ction betwe5 ! s5sory & ! intellectual factor 9 cognition4 ,& ap>t f ! illusory nature ( ! di/9ction on :i* ! !ory 0 bas$1 x is suffici5tly condemn$ = ,metaphysics by its own inh]5t absurdity4 ,= ! fundam5tal presupposition ( ,metaphysics1 z ( all s]i\s sci5ce1 is t ,reality is a coh]5t sy/em4 ,b1 accord+ to ! view :i* reg>ds relations z pure 8fictions ( ! m9d10 j t elem5t 9 our ?\ght :i* gives x its sy/ematic "* is an unw>rant$ addition ( our own to ! real4 ,ord] & sy/em are 9 fact1 on ?is view1 m]e illusion4 ,&1 z has (t5 be5 po9t$ out by ! critics ( ,hume1 x is q inconceivable h[1 9 a _w :]e no?+ b disconnect$ simple qualities exi/1 ! illusion %\ld ev] h aris54 ,if ev5 our own inn] life is simply incoh]5t1 x is q impossible to see h[ we c ev] h come1 ev5 by a fiction1 to read sy/em into ! _w ( fact4 ,a m plausible attempt to r$uce all relations to qualities proce$s on ! foll[+ l9es4 ,relations1 x is said1 are ( subjective manufacture1 b !y are1 = all t1 n m]e fictions4 ,= e relation betwe5 two t]ms1 say ,a & ,b1 is bas$ ^u ! pres5ce 9 ,a & ,b ( c]ta9 qualities1 :i* are call$ ! fundam5ta relationis or basis ( ! relation4 ,^! qualities may be ! same 9 bo? ! t]ms1 9 :i* case ! relation is call$ symmetrical2 su* a case is t1 e4g41 ( ! equality ( ,a & ,b1 a relation hav+ = its fundam5tum ! fact t ,a & ,b h bo? ! same magnitude4 ,"h ! real fact is tak5 to be t ,a has ?is magnitude1 & aga9 t ,b has x4 ,! subjective addition to ! facts is ?\ght to come 9 9 ! volunt>y comp>ison ( ,a & ,b 9 respect ( ?is prop]ty & ! consequ5t ass]tion ( _! equality4 ,or ! qualities :i* are ! f\ndation ( ! relation may be diff]5t 9 ea* ( ! t]ms1 9 :i* case ! relation is te*nically call$ asymmetrical4 ,examples ( su* asymmetrical relations are1 e4g41 ,a great] ?an ,b1 ,b less ?an ,a1 or aga91 ,a fa!r to ,b1 ,b son to ,a4 ,"h ! actual facts w\ld be tak5 to be ,a possess$ ( magnitude x1 ,b ( magnitude x-y1 ,a qualifi$ by ! circum/ance ( begett+ ,b1 ,b by ! circum/ance ( be+ begott5 by ,a4 ,! subjective addition w\ld come 91 z be=e1 :5 we br\ght ,a & ,b "u "o jo9t ( view by comp>+ !m 9 respect ( ^! prop]ties4 ,! inh]5t difficulties ( ! r$uction ( relations to qualities are1 h[ev]1 only ?9ly disguis$ 9 ?is v]sion ( ! doctr9e4 ,to argue t ! e/abli%m5t ( judgm5ts ( relation presupposes subjective comp>ison ( ! relat$ t]ms f a m or less arbitr>ily *os5 po9t ( view1 is metaphysically irrelevant4 ,! :ole "q is z to :e!r ! result ( ! process is to make ?+s m intelligible z a sy/ematic :ole2 if x is1 ! subjectivity ( ! process is no gr\nd = discr$it+ ! result z tru? ab\t ! real4 ,if x is n1 ! philosoph]s :o insi/ on ! subjectivity ( relations %\ld expla9 h[ we c coh]5tly ?9k ( a sy/ematic :ole ( reality 9 t]ms ( quality ap>t f relation4 ,?is !y h nev] be5 able to d1 & t = obvi\s reasons4 ,x is manife/ly impossible to give any intelligible acc\nt ( ! qualities :i* we recognise z fundam5ta ( relations )\t introduc+ previ\s relations4 ,?us ! possession ( ! common magnitude x may be assign$ z ! f\ndation ( ! relation ( equality betwe5 ,a & ,b2 b :5 we ask :at is meant by pr$icat+ ( ,a & ,b possession ( ! magnitude x1 we f9d t we are ?r[n back ^u a relation betwe5 ,a1 ,b1 & "s ?ird t]m ,s1 :i* we take z our unit ( measurem5t4 ,a & ,b are bo? ( magnitude x because ea* conta9s ,s1 let u say1 x times exactly4 ,s aga9 ! fact 8,a begett] ( ,b0 0 assign$ z ! fundam5tum ( ! asymmetrical relation ( pat]nity betwe5 ,a & ,b1 & ! same fact "u ano!r "n z ! fundam5tum ( ! asymmetrical relation ( filiation betwe5 ,b & ,a4 ,b n[ :at is meant by say+ t ! same fact qualifies ,a & ,b 9 diff]5t ways8 ,any answ] to ?is "q plunges u back at once into a p]fect network ( relations4 ,= fir/1 t a fact x may be kn[n to qualify ,a & ,b diff]5tly1 ,a & ,b mu/ !mselves be discrim9at$1 i4e4 !y mu/ be comp>$ & f\nd diff]5t1 & )\t relation diff]5ce is unmean+4 ,= ultimately two t]ms are diff]5t only :5 !y also possess a common "* :i* admits ( _! comp>ison ) ref]5ce to a common /&>d4 ,?us only ?+s :i* are l c be diff]5t1 & ! problem ( ! relation ( _! lik5ess to _! diff]5ce is inevitably =c$ ^u u by ! v exi/5ce ( ! diff]5ce4 ,& simil>ly1 ! common fact x qualifies ei!r t]m 9 a def9ite way1 :i* c be discrim9at$ f ! ways 9 :i* o!r facts qualify ! same t]m1 & ?is discrim9ation leads 9 precisely ! same mann] to ! ass]tion ( v>i\s relations among ! diff]5t qualities ( ,a & aga9 ( ,b4#ij ,x is n difficult to see ! common s\rce ( ! difficulties :i* beset bo? ! attempt to r$uce all reality to qualities1 & ! attempt to id5tify x ) m]e relations4 ,9 actual exp]i5ce our _w always comes to u z at once _m & "o1 nev] z m]ely s+le nor z m]ely discrete4 ,if y pay exclusive reg>d to ! aspect ( unity & int]connection1 y w naturally be tempt$ to dwell on ! relations betwe5 y\r elem5ts to ! exclusion ( ! v>i\s elem5ts !mselves2 if y ?9k solely ( ! aspect ( v>iety1 x is equally natural to treat ! elem5ts z real & _! relations z fictions4 ,b 9 ei!r case y arbitr>ily conc5trate y\r att5tion on a s+le aspect ( ! exp]i5c$ fact tak5 9 isolation f ! o!r1 & are ?us l$ to results :i* are b\nd to collide ) ! :ole facts4 ,a true view1 if possible at all1 c only be got by imp>tial adh]5ce to ! :ole ( ! facts4 #i4 ,we are ?us br\ght to ! second ( our alt]natives4 ,c we conceive ( ,reality z qualities 9 relation or qualities & _! relations8 ,?is is really1 9 a some:at m develop$ =m1 ! same problem z t sugge/$ by ! def9ition ( a ?+ z ! 8law ( its /ates40 ,we are n[ to take ! qualities z fix$ t]ms ) a "* ( _! own :i* /& 9 or support fur!r relations1 & we h to ask if ! view ( ! _w ?us =mulat$ is entirely intelligible4 ,& x spe$ily becomes cle> t su* a view is confront$ by a =midable difficulty4 ,= suppose t ,a & ,b are two qualities :i* /& 9 any relation ,c4 7,= simplicity's sake we might suppose ?is relation ,c to be1 e4g41 t ( be+ discrim9at$1 & we might take z in/ances ( ,a & ,b1 say1 two def9itely discrim9at$ %ades ( ! same col\r47 ,!n ,a & ,b1 /&+ 9 ! relation ,c1 are n id5tical ) ,a & ,b z !y w\ld be ap>t f ?is relation4 7,a1 = in/ance1 z qualifi$ by contradi/9ction f ,b1 is n ! same ?+ z m]e ,a n 9 any way affect$ by ,b1 a fact :i* is frequ5tly br\ght home to u ) />tl+ =ce by ! effects ( contra/47 ,at ! same "t ! relation ,c _c create its own t]ms2 ,a1 :i* is qualifi$ 9 "s special way by its /&+ to ,b 9 ! relation ,c1 may also exi/ out ( ?is relation1 & ! m]e fact ( our recognis+ x z ,a %[s t1 bo? 9 ! relation ,c & outside x1 x has a recognisable id5tical "*4 7,e4g41 ,a z discrim9at$ f ,b is n precisely ! same ?+ z ,a be=e discrim9ation1 b ! diff]5ce ( ,a f ,b has n be5 creat$ by ! act ( discrim9ation2 x mu/ previ\sly h be5 diff]5t 9 ord] to be discrim9at$47 ,?us we seem =c$ to split up ! quality ,a1 :i* we took z "o ( ! t]ms ( our relation1 into two aspects1 ,a 7,a#a7 ! quality z x 0 be=e ! e/abli%m5t ( ! relation1 & ,a 7,a#b7 ! quality z x is aft] ! e/abli%m5t ( ! relation4 ,& ! two aspects ?us discov]$ 9 :at we took = ! s+le quality ,a mu/ aga9 be someh[ 9 relation to "o ano!r4 ,h5ce )9 ,a 7,a#a7 & ,a 7,a#b7 itself ! same process w be repeat$1 & :at we began by reg>d+ z ! fix$ t]ms ( ! relation w turn out to be !mselves sy/ems ( qualities 9 relation1 & ?is process w h no limit4 ,! classification ( ! cont5ts ( exp]i5ce into fix$ t]ms ) relations betwe5 !m1 x is cont5d$1 is no solution ( ! problem h[ ! exp]i5c$ _w c be bo? "o & _m b a m]e re/atem5t ( x4 8,we h to take reality z _m & to take x z "o1 & to avoid contradiction4444 ,& we succe$1 b succe$ m]ely by %utt+ ! eye :i* if left op5 w\ld condemn u40 ,h5ce ! conclusion is drawn t 8a relational way ( ?\ght 444 mu/ give appe>ance & n tru?4 ,x is a make%ift1 a device1 a m]e practical compromise1 mo/ necess>y b 9 ! end mo/ indef5sible40#ia #aj4 ,! =ego+ reason+1 :i* has be5 cond5s$ f ! full] exposition 9 ,mr4 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley's ,appe>ance & ,reality1 dem&s mo/ c>eful exam9ation1 z ! consequ5ce to :i* x leads is ( supreme importance = our :ole metaphysical view ( ! nature ( ultimate ,reality4 ,if ! conclusion ( ,mr4 ,bradley is s\nd1 x is cle> t our discursive ?\ght ) its s*eme ( pr$ication1 :i* is f fir/ to la/ relational1 c nev] give u adequate insight into ! nature ( ! union ( ! "o & ! _m4 ,we %all !n h to conclude t x is n 9 ?\ght ab\t ,reality1 b 9 "s mode ( exp]i5ce1 if su* !re is1 :i* enables u to transc5d ! sep>ation ( subject f pr$icate1 & is !re=e supr>elational1 t we come ne>e/ to exp]i5c+ ! real z x really is4 ,we %\ld ?us be m or less 9 sympa?y ) ! traditional ,my/icism :i* has always made ! transc5d+ ( ! di/9ction ( subject f pr$icate ! keynote ( its special way ( exp]i5c+ ! ,div9e4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ! relational s*eme ( ord9>y k c\ld be def5d$ z a self-consi/5t way ( reg>d+ ! facts1 we %\ld h ! advantage ( be+ able to con/rue ! absolute ,exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( our own intellectual life mu* m completely ?an ,my/icism all[s4 ,h[1 !n1 might ! int]pretation ( ! _w z a sy/em ( qualities 9 relation be def5d$ aga9/ ,mr4 ,bradley's p[]ful =mulation ( ! my/ic's objection1 & :at is ! wor? ( ! def5ce8 ,two possible l9es ( argum5t sugge/ !mselves z suffici5tly plausible to call = exam9ation4 7#a7 ,! edge ( ! objection w\ld be turn$1 z f> z x re/s ^u ! unsatisfactor9ess ( ! indef9ite regress1 if we c\ld reg>d all relations z 8ext]nal10 t is1 z mak+ no diff]5ce 9 ! qualities !y relate4 ,n[1 "s relations1 x has be5 ass]t$1 are m]ely ext]nal1 e4g41 relations ( position & aga9 ( s5se 9 ! geometrical mean+ ( ! ^w 7l ! diff]5ce betwe5 a "r-h& & a left-h& glove74 ,:y1 !n1 may ?is n ultimately be ! case ) all relations8 ,b if all relations are ext]nal1 we c no long] argue t ! relat$ t]ms mu/ conta9 a fur!r relation betwe5 !mselves z ! basis & !mselves z ! result ( ! fir/ relation1 & s ! :ole anti-relational case falls to ! gr\nd4 ,su* a view seems1 h[ev]1 to suff] f fatal defici5cies4 ,= 7a7 x is at lea/ h>d to see h[ any relation c be ultimately ext]nal to its t]ms4 ,= y _c hold two t]ms 9 a relation ( any sort )\t discrim9at+ !m2 until !y are at lea/ discrim9at$ z two !y _c be t]ms ) a relation betwe5 !m4 ,?us discrim9ation1 & !re=e ! relation ( di/9ction1 is fundam5tal 9 all relation4 ,b :]e we c di/+ui% !re mu/ already be 9 ! discrim9at$ t]ms "s diff]5ce to af=d a basis = discrim9ation4 ,only :at is already diff]5t c be di/+ui%$4 ,& ) ?is admission ! door is once m op5$ = ! indef9ite regress4 7b7 ,& ev5 if ?is 7 n s1 x seems un?9kable t all relations %\ld be 9 ! end ext]nal to _! t]ms4 ,if no relation 9 ! end makes any diff]5ce to its t]ms1 & ?us has no f\ndation 9 _! nature1 x becomes a /&+ miracle h[ or :y ! t]ms %\ld ent] into relations to :i* !y are all ! "t absolutely indiff]5t4 ,! logical consequ5ce ( su* a view w\ld surely be ! dismissal ( all relations z pure illusion1 & ! r$uction ( real exi/5ce to a *aos ( disconnect$ reals :i* we by "s inexplicable intellectual p]v]sity p]si/ 9 tak+ = a sy/em4 ,! n[ univ]sally recognis$ failure ( ,h]b>t's attempt to "w out a !ory ( ,realism on ^! l9es seems om9\s = ! success ( any future doctr9e ( ! same k9d4 7#b7 ,mu* m subtle is ! l9e ( ?\ght sugge/$ by ,pr(essor ,royce 9 ! ,supplem5t>y ,essay app5d$ to 8 book1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies4 ,pr(essor ,royce admits ! indef9ite regress z an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! r$uction ( ! _w to t]ms 9 relation1 b d5ies t x affects ! s\ndness ( ! r$uction4 ,on ! contr>y1 he reg>ds x r z a pro( ( ! positive correctness ( ! int]pretation ( exi/5ce :i* gives rise to x4 ,8 argum5t1 :i* is bas$ ^u ! mod]n doctr9e ( inf9ite s]ies1 may be briefly summ>is$ z foll[s3--,x is a recognis$ *>act]i/ic ( an inf9ite s]ies 7& ( no o!rs7 t x c be adequately 8repres5t$0 by a "p ( itself4 ,t is to say1 if y take any inf9ite s]ies y please1 y c always con/ruct a second s]ies su* t x consi/s ( a selection1 & only ( a selection1 f ! t]ms ( ! fir/ s]ies1 & t e t]m is d]iv$ f & answ]s to ! correspond+ t]m ( ! fir/ s]ies accord+ to a def9ite law4 ,& ?is second s]ies1 z x is easy to prove1 is itself inf9ite1 & !re=e capable ( be+ itself repres5t$ adequately 9 a ?ird s]ies d]iv$ f x 9 ! same mann] z x 0 d]iv$ f ! fir/1 & s on indef9itely4 ,= in/ance1 let ! fir/ s]ies be ! inf9ite s]ies ( ! natural integ]s #a1 #b1 #c1 #d1 444 !n if1 e4g41 we con/ruct a second s]ies1 #ab1 #bb1 #cb 444 ( ! second p[]s ( ^! integ]s1 ! t]ms ( ?is second s]ies are d]iv$ by a def9ite law f ^? ( ! fir/ to :i* !y correspond1 & aga9 !y con/itute a selection out ( ! t]ms ( ! fir/ s]ies4 ,e "o ( !m is a t]m ( ! fir/ s]ies1 b !re are also t]ms ( ! fir/ s]ies :i* are n repeat$ 9 ! second4 ,aga91 if we make a ?ird s]ies f ! second 9 ! same way z ! second 0 made f ! fir/1 by tak+ ! t]ms 7#ab7b1 7#bb7b1 7#cb7b1 & s on1 ! t]ms ( ?is ?ird s]ies fulfil ! same conditions2 !y correspond accord+ to a fix$ law ) ! t]ms ( ! second1 & are also !mselves a selection f ^? t]ms4 ,& ?us we may g on )\t end to con/ruct successive inf9ite s]ies ea* ( :i* 8adequately repres5ts0 ! prec$+ "o4 ,& we are l$ into ?is indef9ite regress by ! v attempt to c>ry out consi/5tly a s+le def9ite pr9ciple ( correspond5ce betwe5 our orig9al inf9ite s]ies & its fir/ d]ivative4 ,9 con/ruct+ ! fir/ d]iv$ s]ies 9 our illu/ration #ab1 #bb1 #cb 444 we necess>ily also con/ruct ! s]ies 7#ab7b1 7#bb7b1 7#cb7b1 444 & ! o!r successive d]ivatives4 ,!re=e ,pr(4 ,royce claims t any consi/5t attempt to make an ord]ly arrangem5t ( ! t]ms ( an inf9ite :ole mu/ lead to ! indef9ite repetition ( itself4 ,h5ce t ea* t]m ( e relation on analysis turns out itself to consi/ ( t]ms 9 relation1 is no valid objection to ! s\ndness ( our pr9ciple ( int]pretation1 b a necess>y consequ5ce ( ! inf9ity ( ,reality4#ib ,any consi/5t attempt to exhibit an inf9ite :ole z an ord]ly sy/em ( t]ms mu/ lead to ! indef9ite regress4 ,n[ x /rikes "o at once t ,pr(essor ,royce's conclusion is 9 dang] ( prov+ too mu*4 ,y c]ta9ly d n %[ a me?od ( deal+ ) facts to be s\nd by %[+ t x leads to ! indef9ite regress4 ,x is a common exp]i5ce t ! li> :o tells 8 fir/ lie mu/ tell a second to back x1 & a ?ird to support ! second1 & s on indef9itely4 ,& y _c put a qu>t ( liquor into a p9t pot )\t fir/ putt+ half ! qu>t into half ! space1 & s =? ad indef9itum4 ,yet ^! consid]ations d n prove t ly+ or putt+ qu>ts ( liquor into p9t pots is a consi/5t way ( deal+ ) reality4 ,a purpose may lead 9 execution to ! indef9ite regress because x is self-contradictory & !re=e self-defeat+1 z ^! famili> illu/rations sugge/4 ,& ?is raises ! "q :e!r ! purpose to arrange an inf9ite :ole 9 an ord]$ sy/em ( t]ms may n lead to ! indef9ite regress = ! same reason1 namely1 t ! treatm5t ( a true :ole z a sequ5ce ( t]ms is incompatible ) its real nature4 ,x is at lea/ wor? :ile to ask :e!r ,pr(essor ,royce's own treatm5t ( ! subject does n conta9 indications t ?is is actually ! case4#ic ,to beg9 )1 we may note "o po9t ( "s importance 9 ref]5ce to :i* ,pr(4 ,royce's language is at lea/ ambigu\s4 ,he speaks ( ! indef9ite succession ( inf9ite s]ies :i* arise f ! s+le purpose ( 8repres5t+0 ! s]ies ( natural integ]s adequately by a selection out ( itself z if !y c\ld be actually con/ruct$ 9 pursuance ( ?is purpose4 ,b ?is is cle>ly n ! case4 ,all t y c actually d is to con/ruct ! v>i\s s]ies implicitly by giv+ a rule = _! =mation4 ,! actual con/ruction ( ! s]ies w\ld be a typical in/ance ( a self-defeat+ & !re=e int]nally contradictory purpose1 inasmu* z x w\ld involve ! actual completion ( an un5d+ process4 ,h5ce we seem =c$ to make a di/9ction :i* ,pr(4 ,royce has p]haps unduly neglect$4 ,if y\r purpose ( ord]+ ! numb] s]ies on a def9ite plan means no m ?an ! =mulation ( a rule = obta9+ any requir$ numb] ( t]ms ( ! successive s]ies1 x c be execut$1 b does n involve ! indef9ite regress2 if x means ! actual completion ( ! process ( =mation ( ! s]ies1 x does involve ! indef9ite regress1 b is !re=e self-contradictory & _c be realis$ 9 act4 ,simil>ly1 we may say ( ! s*eme ( qualities 9 relation1 t if x is tak5 = no m ?an a rule = ! sy/ematic arrangem5t & organisation ( a f9ite mat]ial1 x does n involve ! completion ( an inf9ite process1 & is bo? workable & useful2 b if pres5t$ z an acc\nt ( ! way 9 :i* a complet$ all-embrac+ & p]fectly h>moni\s exp]i5ce ( ! :ole ( ,reality is int]nally organis$1 x involves ! completion ( ! inf9ite process1 & is !re=e self-contradictory & f9ally inadequate4#id ,?is reflection may s]ve to lead up to ano!r :i* seems to take u into ! he>t ( ! matt]4 ,! rese>*es ^u :i* ,pr(4 ,royce's def5ce ( ! relational s*eme is bas$ 7 9 ! fir/ in/ance inve/igations into ! significance ( ! numb]-s]ies4 ,z su* !y />t ) ! conception ( a sy/em :i* is a :ole ( p>ts ext]nal to "o ano!r#ie z ! object ( inquiry4 ,consequ5tly1 :ile su* inve/igations are ( ! highe/ philosophical importance z br++ out ! implications ( ?is concept1 !y are only valid z an analysis ( ultimate ,reality1 provid$ t ! concept ( :ole & "p is an adequate expression ( ! way 9 :i* ! :ole ,reality is pres5t 9 its con/itu5ts & !y 9 x4 ,b if1 z we ourselves urg$ 9 a previ\s *apt]1 ! conception ( a :ole ( p>ts is entirely inadequate to express ! intimate union betwe5 ! absolute exp]i5ce & f9ite exp]i5ces1#if ! pro( t ! indef9ite process is logically impli$ 9 ! relation ( :ole & "p does n %[ x to belong to ! /ructure ( ultimate ,reality4 ,r1 we %\ld be incl9$ to urge1 ! fact t ! relational s*eme leads to ! indef9ite process proves t ! conception ( :ole & "p ^u :i* x is bas$ does n truly repres5t ! mode ( union betwe5 a complet$ exp]i5ce & its compon5ts4 ,& !re=e ! attempt to int]pret ?is union 9 t]ms ( ! numb]-s]ies _c /& ! te/ ( criticism4 ,at ! same "t1 ,pr(essor ,royce's argum5t 9 any case ?r[s consid]able light ^u ! problem ( relation4 ,= x %[s :y ! attempt to con/ruct ! _w z a sy/em ( qualities 9 relation leads to ! indef9ite regress4 ,= a complete exp]i5ce embody+ at "o /roke ! :ole ( exi/5ce1 su* a con/ruction w\ld1 z we h se51 because ess5tially incomplete1 be impossible4 ,b :5 we try to piece toge!r ! data ( our fragm5t>y exp]i5ce into a connect$ :ole1 we inevitably h to />t ) m or less isolat$ facts z fix$ t]ms & weld !m toge!r by a relation4 ,9 do+ s we unavoidably put ourselves at ! po9t ( view f :i* ! num]ical s]ies arises2 we unavoidably treat exi/5ce z if x 7 a :ole ( mutually ext]nal p>ts4 ,& s ! indef9ite regress involv$ 9 ! nature ( ! numb]-sy/em inevitably p>ades ! :ole ( our discursive & relational ?9k+ ab\t exi/5ce4 ,b its pres5ce is due to ! inadequacy ( ! conception ( ,reality ) :i* discursive ?\ght has to "w4 ,on ! :ole1 !n1 x seems t ,pr(4 ,royce's inve/igations only make x m app>5t ?an be=e t ! relational s*eme :i* discursive ?\ght uses does n adequately express ! true nature ( ! real1 & t ! my/ics ( all ages h be5 s f> ju/ifi$ 9 _! cont5tion t ! =m ( our exp]i5ce :i* pres5ts ! true/ analogy to ! exp]i5ce ( ! ,absolute mu/ be supra-relational1 or1 9 o!r words1 t ! mo/ real type ( f9ite exp]i5ce mu/ be "o :i* transc5ds ! di/9ction ( subject & pr$icate4 ,to admit ?is is1 h[ev]1 n to admit t we are altoge!r ignorant h[ ! "o & ! _m are unit$ 9 ,reality4 ,= !re are _m o!r types ( human exp]i5ce besides t :i* is dom9at$ by ! discursive & relational intellect4 ,9 imm$iate simple feel+ we h obvi\sly a type ( consci\s exp]i5ce 9 :i* di/9ction & relation h z yet n em]g$4 ,& ,i h tri$ 9 ,bk4 ,i4 *ap4 #b to %[ h[ 9 ! direct intuition ( an /hetic :ole by tra9$ arti/ic p]ception we h at a high] level an exp]i5ce :i* conta9s ! results ( an elaborate process ( di/9ction & relation1 b conta9s !m 9 a way :i* transc5ds ! relational =m & rev]ts 9 its directness to ! unity ( imm$iate feel+4 ,:ile aga9 we h 9 ! p]sonal love :i* is "o ) mutual insight a =m ( exp]i5ce t1 if translat$ into ! language ( ! intellect1 w\ld require = its description a :ole _w ( relations & pr$icates1 & is yet1 z exp]i5c$1 an intimate unity no relational s*eme c m ?an fa9tly adumbrate4 ,& x is wor?y ( consid]ation t religi\s emotion 9 all ages has borr[$ f ^! =ms ( exp]i5ce its fav\rite expressions = ! highe/ modes ( communion betwe5 ! f9ite & ! inf9ite1 ! 8beatific vision10 ! 8love ( ,god10 etc4 ,x seems inde$ z if ! function ( ! m]e intellect 7 always t ( a necess>y & valuable int]m$i>y betwe5 a l[] & a high] level ( imm$iate appreh5sion4 ,x breaks up1 by ! relations & di/9ctions x introduces1 ! orig9al union ( ! :at & ! t ( simple feel+1 & proce$s to make ! :at1 :i* x deals ) 9 its isolation1 ev] m & m complex4 ,b ! ultimate issue ( ! process is only rea*$ & its ultimate aim only satisfi$ s f> z x conducts u at a high] /age ( m5tal developm5t to ! direct intuition ( a ri*] & m compreh5sive :ole 9 ! imm$iate unity ( its t & its :at4 ,! besett+ philosophical s9 ( ! m]e my/ic is n s mu* 8 refusal to accept ! "w ( ! m]e intellect z ! highe/ & true/ type ( human exp]i5ce1 z 8 t5d5cy to satisfy 8 dem& = ! full] union ( ! :at ) ! t by rev]t+ to ! l[] =ms ( imm$iacy ^u :i* intellectual reflection has n done its "w1 in/ead ( press+ on to ! high] 9 :i* ! effect ( t "w is pres]v$ ?\gh its =m is transc5d$4 ,^! reflections may s]ve to obviate ! objection t to reject ! relational s*eme :5 x is (f]$ z ! ultimate tru? is to d5y ! value & significance ( ! sci5tific "w we accompli% by means ( x4 ,?\gh ! s*eme ( relations _c adequately express ! mode ( union betwe5 ! f9ite & ! inf9ite1 !re is no fre% addition to ! sy/em ( relations into :i* sci5tific analysis translates ! real _w ( exp]i5ce t does n increase our k ( :at ! real _w mu/ conta91 ?\gh x may fail to expla9 h[ x conta9s x4 ,&1 9 conclusion1 let x be rememb]$ t x is true n only ( ! religi\s my/ic's special exp]i5ce ( union ) deity1 b ( all direct exp]i5ce1 t ! relational s*eme is q inadequate to expla9 h[ x holds its d\ble aspects1 its unity & its multiplicity1 its t & its :at1 9 complete int]p5etration4 ,= no liv+ exp]i5ce is a m]e :ole ( p>ts1 & none1 !re=e1 c be fully repres5t$ by a s*eme bas$ ^u ! concept ( :ole & "p4#ig ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #a-c1 #ae1 #bg2 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,!ory ( ,k1 pp4 #agb-aha 7,qualities & ,relations71 #edj-eeg 7,sub/ance72 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #a 7,! ,be+ ( ,?+s71 *ap4 #b 7,! ,quality ( ,?+s71 *ap4 #c 7,! ,real & ,reality72 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,fir/ ,s]ies1 ,supplem5t>y ,essay2 ,b4 ,russell1 8,! ,concept ( ,ord]0 7,m9d1 ,janu>y #aija71 & article on 8,position 9 ,space & ,"t0 7,m9d1 ,july #aija72 ,g4 ,f4 ,/\t1 8,alleg$ ,self-contradictions 9 ! ,concept ( ,relation0 7,proce$+s ( ! ,ari/otelian ,society1 ,new ,s]ies1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #a-ad1 ) ! accompany+ discussion1 pp4 #ae-bd74 ----------------------- ,,supplem5t>y ,,note ,,to ,,*apt] ,,iv4 ,,dr4 ,,/\t',s ,,reply ,,to ,,mr4 ,,bradley',s ,,criticism ,,( ,,! ,,concept ,,( ,,relation4 ,s9ce ! prec$+ *apt] 0 writt51 ,i h _h ! opportunity ( /udy+ ,dr4 ,/\t's pap] 9 ! curr5t volume ( ,proce$+s ( ! ,ari/otelian ,society4 ,i h n ?\ght x necess>y to make any alt]ations 9 ! text ( ,*apt] #d1 9 consequ5ce ( ,dr4 ,/\t's criticism1 b ,i may p]haps be p]mitt$ to add ! foll[+ rem>ks1 :i* mu/ n be reg>d$ z a sy/ematic appreciation or exam9ation ( ,dr4 ,/\t's views4 ,! latt]1 z he himself pleads1 _c inde$ be f9ally judg$ until he has work$ out ! !ory ( ,pr$ication = :i* 8 pres5t pap] m]ely prep>es ! way4 #a4 ,dr4 ,/\t beg9s by admitt+ :at to my own m9d is ! ess5ce ( ! anti-relational argum5t4 8,no relation or sy/em ( relations c ev] con/itute a self-subsi/5t & self-conta9$ ,reality4 ,! all-inclusive univ]se _c ultimately consi/ 9 78 (7 a collection ( int]relat$ t]ms0 7op4 cit41 p4 #b74 ,?is be+ once conc$$1 ,i %\ld h ?\ght x an inevitable consequ5ce t a 8collection ( int]relat$ t]ms0 _c give u ! f9al tru? ab\t ! nature ( any?+4 ,= ! :ole ideali/ cont5tion1 z ,i und]/& x & h tri$ to su/a9 x 9 ! pres5t "w1 is t ! /ructure ( ! :ole is s repeat$ 9 any & e "o ( its memb]s t :at is n ! tru? ab\t ! :ole is nev] ! ultimate tru? ab\t any?+4 precisely because !re is ultimately no?+ ap>t f ! :ole1 & ! :ole aga9 is no?+ ap>t f its memb]s4 ,s mu*1 ,i _h ?\ght1 we h all le>n$ f ,hegel1 & !re=e ,dr4 ,/\t's dilemma t any proposition ass]t+ relation 7p4 #e7 mu/ be false1 unless ! relational s*eme1 s long z x is n affirm$ ( ! ultimate :ole itself1 gives u tru?1 does n seem to me to possess any real cog5cy4 ,) ,mr4 ,bradley himself1 z quot$ by ,dr4 ,/\t1 ,i %\ld urge t if ! relational s*eme is n itself int]nally discrepant1 !re rema9s no valid gr\nd = disput+ its applicability to ! :ole4 #b4 ,dr4 ,/\t's introduction into a 8relational unity0 ( ! ?ird t]m1--relat$ness does n seem to me to remove ! difficulties inh]5t 9 our problem4 ,& ! illu/ration by :i* he supports x appe>s to be uns\nd4 ,he argues t :5 my hat is on my head ?is /ate ( ?+s implies 7#a7 ! two relat$ t]ms1 ! hat & ! head17#b7 a relation ( on & "u4 7#c7 ! fact t ! t]ms /& 9 ?is relation--_! relat$ness4 ,= 7#a7 & 7#b7 by !mselves w\ld be compatible ) my hat be+ on ! peg & my head b>e4 ,b surely !re is "h a confusion betwe5 ! relation ( above & bel[1 & ! v diff]5t relation ( on & "u4 ,! latt] relation includes1 z ! =m] does n1 imm$iate contact z "p ( its mean+4 ,if !re are 7#a7 a hat & a head1 & 7#b7 ! relation on & "u--9 ?is s5se--betwe5 ! two1 !re is surely no ne$ ( a ?ird factor to complete ! concrete actuality ( 8hat on head40 ,if ! hat is n actually on ! head1 !n 7#b71 ! suppos$ relation1 is n !re at all4 ,& if 7#b7 is !re ! :ole fact is already !re4 ,9 a ^w1 ,dr4 ,/\t seems to me to c\nt 9 ! concrete fact ( 8?+ exhibit+ relat$ aspects0 z a ?ird con/itu5t 9 itself1 precisely z popul> ,logic sometimes c\nts 9 ! actual judgm5t1 "u ! "n ( ,copula1 z "o factor ( itself4#ih ,!n to ,dr4 ,/\t's use ( 8 di/9ction betwe5 ! relation & ! fact ( relat$ness1 ,i ?9k x may be repli$ t x leaves u precisely :]e we 7 be=e4 ,! hat is qualifi$ by be+ on ! head1 ! head by be+ 9 or "u ! hat1 & hat & head toge!r by ! relation ( on & "u betwe5 !m4 ,b h[ ^! v>i\s aspects ( ! fact are to be comb9$ 9 a s+le consi/5t view we are no ne>] kn[+4 #c4 ,! endless regress4 ,i ?9k x w be se5 f ! prec$+ *apt] t 9 my own view a g5u9e endless regress is evid5ce ( ! falsity ( ! conception :i* gives rise to x1 & t ,i hold ?is on ! gr\nd t ! endless regress always presupposes ! self-contradictory purpose to sum an admitt$ly inf9ite s]ies4 ,h5ce ,i c\ld n concur1 s f> z ,i c see at pres5t1 9 ,dr4 ,/\t's di/9ction betwe5 ! endless regress :i* does & t :i* does n involve self-contradiction4 ,z to 8 illu/ration ( endless regress ( ! second k9d1 ! inf9ite divisibility ( space 7p4 #aa71 ,i %\ld h ?\ght t !re is no actual endless regress 9 "q until y sub/itute = inf9ite divisibility inf9ite actual subdivision1 & t :5 y make ?is sub/itution x commits y at once to ! self-contradictory completion ( an un5d+ task4 7,cf4 :at 0 said above1 #aj1 ) ref]5ce to inf9ite num]ical s]ies47 #d4 ,dr4 ,/\t goes on to d5y t !re is any endless regress1 self-contradictory or n1 involv$ 9 ! relational s*eme4 ,accord+ to him1 :at connects ! relation ) its t]ms is n ano!r relation 7:i* w\ld ( c\rse give rise to an endless regress71 b _! relat$ness1 :i* is 8a common adjective bo? ( ! relation & ! t]ms0 7p4 #aa74 ,i h already expla9$ :y ?is solution appe>s to me m]ely to repeat ! problem4 ,! relat$ness1 s f> z ,i c see1 is a "n = ! concrete fact ) its d\ble aspect ( quality & relation1 & ,i _c und]/& h[ m]e insi/5ce ^u ! concrete unity ( ! fact makes ! conjunction ( its aspects m intelligible4 #e4 ,dr4 ,/\t fur!r supports 8 cont5tion by a !ory ( ! nature ( cont9u\s connection :i* ,i h p]haps fail$ to und]/&4 ,reply+ 9 anticipation to ! possible objection ( an oppon5t1 t if ! 8relat$ness0 connects ! t]ms ) _! relation !re mu/ be a second l9k to connect ! t]m ) its relat$ness1 he says 8!re is no int]m$iate l9k & !re is ne$ = none4 ,= ! connection is cont9u\s1 & has its gr\nd 9 t ultimate cont9uity :i* is presuppos$ by all relational unity0 7p4 #ab1 cf4 pp4 #b-d74 ,&1 z he has previ\sly told u1 8s f> z !re is cont9u\s connection !re is no?+ betwe5 i4e4 betwe5 ! connect$ t]ms1 & !re is !re=e no relation40 ,n[ !re seems to me to be a contradiction lat5t "h4 ,cont9u\s connection1 ( c\rse1 implies di/9ct b connect$ t]ms :i* =m a s]ies4 ,:]e !re are no su* di/9ct t]ms !re is no?+ to connect4 ,n[ x is1 z ,i und]/& x1 "p ( ! v nature ( a cont9u\s s]ies t any two t]ms ( ! s]ies h always a numb] ( possible int]m$iate t]ms betwe5 !m4 ,& !re=e1 9 a cont9u\s s]ies1 !re are no imm$iately adjac5t t]ms4 ,dr4 ,/\t's own illu/ration br+s ?is out-- a b ,m ,9 a diagram l ! accompany+ b & are1 he argues1 8m$iately conjo9$10 b a & are 8imm$iately co-adjac5t40 ,surely ,dr4 ,/\t =gets "h t :at c be intelligibly call$ 8co-adjac5t0 are n l9es b po9ts or positions on ! l9es4 ,& betwe5 any po9t 9 & any po9t 9 a !re are a plurality ( int]m$iate positions1 except = ! special case ( ! extreme left po9t ( a & ! extreme "r po9t ( 4 ,^!1 ( c\rse1 coalesce 9 ! s+le po9t ,m1 & !re is !re=e no connection1 m$iate or imm$iate1 left 9 ?is case4#ii ,! illu/ration1 ,i ?9k1 may s]ve to reveal a s]i\s discrepancy 9 ,dr4 ,/\t's !ory4 ,he sees t relations presuppose a unity :i* is supra-relational1 & :i* he calls 8cont9u\s10 on ! gr\nd ( its supra-relational "*4 ,at ! same "t1 to save ! relational s*eme f condemnation z lead+ to ! endless regress1 he has to turn ?is supra-relational unity itself into a sort ( relation by call+ x an imm$iate connection betwe5 adjac5t t]ms1 & ?us ascrib+ to x ! fundam5tal "* ( a discont9u\s s]ies4 ,& ,i _c help reg>d+ ?is proc$ure z unconsci\s evid5ce to ! tru? ( ! pr9ciple1 t :at is n ! tru? ab\t ! :ole ( ,reality is n ultimately ! tru? ab\t any reality4 ----- ,footnote #gc3 ,see ! admirable acc\nt ( ! 8natural conception0 ( ! _w 9 ! f9al *apt] ( ,av5>ius1 ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff4 ,footnote #gd3 ,may ,i say "h once = all1 t :5 ,i oppose practice to intellectual speculation1 ,i mu/ be und]/ood to mean by practice ! alt]ation by myself ( "s datum ( giv5 exi/5ce4 ,! activity ( ?\ght is ?us = me n practical1 precisely because ! 8tru?s0 :i* ,i "k or contemplate are n qu tru?s giv5 exi/5ces op]at$ ^u & alt]$ by ! act ( ?9k+4 ,footnote #ge3 ,su* a view ( ! m5tal life ( ! animal seems to h be5 actually held1 = in/ance1 by ! late ,pr(essor ,t4 ,h4 ,gre54 ,yet see ,gre51 ,works1 ii4 #bag4 ,footnote #gf3 ,/rictly speak+1 ! 8solidity0 or 8imp5etrability0 ( ! ultimate p>ticles ( matt]1 :i* is ) ,locke & ,newton "o ( ! mo/ prom95t 8prim>y0 qualities1 is n a 8ma!matical0 prop]ty1 b x /ill owes its inclusion 9 ! li/ to ! conviction ( ^! philosoph]s t x is1 l ext5sion & =m1 fundam5tally important = ma!matical ,physics4 ,! explanation ( ! 8second>y0 qualities z subjective appe>s to g back to ,democritus4 ,footnote #gg3 ,see ! fur!r elaboration ( ?is analogy 9 ,bk4 ,,iii4 *ap4 #c1 #b ff4 ,footnote #gh3 ,pr(essor ,sidgwick's def5ce ( ! ,lockian view 7,philosophy3 its ,scope & ,relations1 p4 #fc ff47 seems to me to ignore ! po9t at issue4 namely1 t 9 any s5se 9 :i* 8second>y0 qualities get _! mean+ f ! cont5t ( s5sation1 prim>y qualities d ! same4 ,! :ole po9t is t ! s5sation is n m]ely 7z process7 ! occasion ( our cognition (1 e4g41 h>dness or s(tness1 b also 7z cont5t7 furni%es ! v mean+ ( 8h>d0 or 8s(t40 ,cf4 ) :at foll[s1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #a4 ,footnote #gi3 ,! =m] alt]native is t ( s*ola/icism2 9 mod]n sci5ce ! latt] has be5 m or less consci\sly adopt$ by ^? ?9k]s :o reta9 ! notion ( sub/ances4 ,! v>i\s qualities are on ?is view consequ5ces ( ! relations 9 :i* ea* sub/ance /&s 7a7 to o!r int]act+ sub/ances1 & 7b7 9 p>ticul> to ! unkn[n sub/ratum ( our 8consci\sness40 ,footnote #hj3 ,see *aps4 #a & #b ( bk4 i4 ( 8 ,metaphysic4 ,footnote #ha3 ,! read] :o desires to /udy ,kant's doctr9e 9 detail may beg9 by tak+ up ,kant's own ,prolegom5a to ! ,/udy ( any future ,metaphysic1 :i* may be pr(itably consult$ ev5 by ^? :o f9d ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason too diffuse & te*nical4 ,! late/ & *eape/ translation is t includ$ 9 ! ,op5 ,c\rt ,publi%+ ,co4's s]ies ( ,philosophical ,classics4 ,footnote #hb3 8,arbitr>ily0 because x is1 z all rec5t psy*ology insi/s1 ! direction ( our att5tion :i* det]m9es :at qualities %all be pres5t$ toge!r1 & ?us become 8associat$40 ,footnote #hc3 ,9 ,psy*ology ?is comes out 9 ! rejection by ! be/ rec5t writ]s ( ! :ole associationi/ acc\nt ( ! process ( p]ception1 accord+ to :i* ! p]ception ( a ?+ z a :ole 0 tak5 to mean ! actual pres5ce 9 s5sation ( "o ( its qualities plus ! re9/atem5t by association ( ! 8ideas0 ( ! o!rs4 ,= ! mod]n doctr9e ( ! p]ception ( a :ole1 z di/9ct f ! m]e p]ception ( its con/itu5t p>ts1 consult ,/\t1 ,analytic ,psy*ology1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #c1 or ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c bk4 i4 *ap4 #c4 ,footnote #hd3 ,?is is j z true ( ! s-call$ prim>y qualities ( ?+s z ( any o!rs4 ,?us ! mass & aga9 ! k9etic en]gy ( a cons]vative mat]ial sy/em are prop]ly names = ! way 9 :i* ! sy/em w behave "u det]m9ate conditions1 n ( modes ( behavi\r :i* are necess>ily actually exhibit$ ?r\gh\t its exi/5ce4 ,! laws ( motion1 aga91 are /atem5ts ( ! same hypo!tical k9d ab\t ! way 9 :i*1 z we believe1 p>ticles move if c]ta9 conditions are fulfill$4 ,! doctr9e accord+ to :i* all ev5ts 9 ! physical _w are actual motions1 re/s on no m ?an a metaphysical blund] ( a peculi>ly b>b>\s k9d4 ,cf4 ,/allo1 ,concepts & ,!ories ( ,mod]n ,physics1 *aps4 #aj-ab4 ,footnote #he3 ,?us1 e4g41 s fundam5tal a proposition 9 our curr5t me*anical sci5ce z ! 8fir/ law ( motion0 is av[$ly a /atem5t z to :at w\ld be ! behavi\r ( ?+s "u a condition :i*1 s f> z we "k1 is nev] actually realis$4 ,on ! ?+ z ! 8law ( its /ates10 see ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 ,i4 #c4 #cb ff4 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 i4 p4 #hh ff471 & ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,! ,!ory ( ,k1 pp4 #ede-eeg4 ,footnote #hf3 ,mr4 ,hobh\se 7op4 cit41 p4 #eda ff47 ?9ks t ! solution is simply t ^? qualities belong to "o 8sub/ance10 :i* are appreh5d$ toge!r z occupy+ "o space4 ,z a work+ crit]ion ( :at we mean by "o bodily ?+1 ?is acc\nt seems satisfactory1 & has probably sugge/$ itself spontane\sly to mo/ ( u4 ,b x leaves unt\*$ ! m fundam5tal "q h[ ! id5tification ( a c]ta9 sight-space ) a c]ta9 t\*-space is effect$1 & :at are ! motives :i* lead to x4 ,mr4 ,hobh\se is cont5t to take ! id5tification z 8giv5 9 adult p]ception10 b x seems to me to em]ge f 8 own good acc\nt ( ! matt] t x is ! /ill m primitive appreh5sion ( my own body z a felt unity ^u :i* ! syn!sis betwe5 sight & t\* spaces is bas$4 ,if s1 ! ultimate s\rce ( ! 8unity ( sub/ance0 mu/ be s\ght deep] ?an ,mr4 ,hobh\se is will+ to g = x4 ,& qua]e1 :e!r 8 acc\nt1 if accept$ z ultimate1 w\ld n lead to ! id5tification ( sub/ance ) space8 ,= ! difficulties :i* arise :5 y say ! sub/ance is ! space & its fill+ ( qualities1 see ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #b1 pp4 #ai1 #bj 7#a/ ed474 ,footnote #hg3 ,monadology1 #h-af1 #eg-fb4 ,footnote #hh3 ,?is is true ev5 :]e we m]ely c\nt a numb] ( qualitatively equival5t units 9 ord] to asc]ta9 _! sum4 ,x is _! positive "* ( be+ qualitatively equival5t :i* makes x p]missible 9 ?is case to take any "o ( !m indiff]5tly z fir/1 any o!r z second1 etc4 ,:5ev] y apply ! num]ical s]ies to ! arrangem5t 9 ord] ( ! qualitatively dissimil>1 ! nature ( y\r mat]ial z relat$ to ! "* ( y\r special int]e/ 9 x decides = y :at y %all call fir/1 second1 ?ird1 etc4 ,footnote #hi3 ,z to ! possibility ( relations :i* are 9 ?is s5se ext]nal to _! t]ms1 see ,b4 ,russell1 ,! ,philosophy ( ,leibniz1 p4 #acj1 & ! articles by ! same writ] 9 ,m9d = ,janu>y & ,july #aija4 ,footnote #ij3 ,see ! elaborate discussion ( ! relational s*eme impli$ 9 any ass]tion ( diff]5ce 9 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lect #b4 ,footnote #ia3 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #c4 ,comp>e also *ap4 #ae1 8,?\ght & ,reality40 ,footnote #ib3 ,! read] :o desires fur!r k ( ! rese>*es 9 ! !ory ( ,numb]s ^u :i* ,pr(4 ,royce's doctr9e is bas$1 may pr(itably consult ,d$ek9d1 ,0 s9d und 0 soll5 die ,zahl51 & ,c\turat1 ,l',inf9i ,ma?matique4 ,footnote #ic3 ,pr(essor ,royce's own illu/ration ( ! map ( ,engl& execut$ ^u a portion ( ! surface ( ! c\ntry is really a typical in/ance ( a self-contradictory purpose4 ,he argues t su* a map1 to be !oretically p]fect1 mu/ conta9 a r$uc$ facsimile ( itself z "p ( ! c\ntry mapp$1 & ?is aga9 ano!r1 & s on indef9itely4 ,b ! :ole =ce ( ! reason+ dep5ds on ov]look+ ! di/9ction betwe5 ! surface ( ,engl& z x is be=e ! map is made1 & ! surface ( ,engl& z alt]$ by ! pres5ce ( ! map4 ,pr(4 ,royce assumes t y set out to repres5t 9 ! map a /ate ( ?+s :i* c 9 fact h no exi/5ce until aft] ! map is made4 ,! previ\s exi/5ce ( ! map at a c]ta9 spot is falsely tak5 to be "o ( ! conditions to :i* ! map-mak] is to con=m 9 execut+ x4 ,e "o ( ! suppos$ 8maps )9 ! map0 w ?us involve di/ortion & misrepres5tation ( ! di/rict x proposes to map4 ,x is z if ,hamlet _h *os5 8,hamlet0 z ! subject ( ! 8play )9 ! play40 ,! pr(essor's illu/ration ?us does less ?an ju/ice to 8 !ory4 ,footnote #id3 ,! fundam5tal defect 9 ,pr(essor ,royce's reason+ seems to me to lie 9 ! tacit transition f ! notion ( an inf9ite s]ies to t ( an inf9ite complet$ sum4 ,?us he speaks ( ! s]ies ( prime numb]s z a 8:ole0 be+ pres5t at once to ! m9d ( ,god4 ,b are ! prime numb]s1 or any o!r inf9ite s]ies1 an actual sum at all8 ,!y are surely n prov$ to be s by ! exi/5ce ( g5]al tru?s ab\t any prime numb]4 ,footnote #ie3 ,see1 e4g41 ,d$ek9d1 op4 cit41 #b3 8,x frequ5tly happ5s t diff]5t ?+s a1 b1 c 444 are appreh5d$ ^u :atsoev] occasion "u a common po9t ( view1 m5tally put toge!r1 & x is !n said t !y =m a sy/em2 ! ?+s a1 b1 c 444 are nam$ ! elem5ts ( ! sy/em02 & #c 7def9itions ( :ole & "p74 ,footnote #if3 ,ante1 ,bk4 ,,ii4 *ap4 #b1 #e4 ,footnote #ig3 ,x is no answ] to ?is view to urge t z soon z ! intellect und]takes to reflect ^u & describe ,reality x unavoidably does s 9 relational t]ms4 ,= x is our cont5tion t ! same intellect :i* uses ^! relational me?ods sees :y !y are inadequate1 & to "s ext5t at lea/ h[ !y are ultimately m]g$ 9 a high] type ( exp]i5ce4 ,?us ! sy/ematic use ( ! intellect 9 ,metaphysics itself leads to ! conviction t ! m]e intellect is n ! :ole ( ,reality4 ,or1 9 /ill m p>adoxical language1 ! highe/ tru? = ! m]e intellect is ! ?\ght ( ,reality z an ord]$ sy/em4 ,b all su* ord] is bas$ 9 ! end on ! numb]-s]ies ) its category ( :ole & "p1 & _c1 !re=e1 be a p]fectly adequate repres5tation ( a supra-relational ,reality4 ,h5ce ,tru?1 f its own nature1 c nev] be q ! same ?+ z ,reality4 ,footnote #ih3 ,or does ,dr4 ,/\t m]ely mean t !re may be a hat & a head1 & also a relation ( on & "u 7e4g41 betwe5 ! hat & ! peg71 & yet my hat n be on my head8 ,if ?is is 8 mean+1 ,i reply we h n really got ! relation & its t]ms2 if ! hat is n on ! head1 hat & head are n t]ms 9 ! relation at all4 ,i d n see :y1 on 8 own pr9ciples1 ,dr4 ,/\t %\ld n add a f\r? factor to 8 analysis1 namely1 qualifi$ness1 or ! fact t ! qualities are !re1 & s on indef9itely4 ,footnote #ii3 ,if y consid] ! l9es a & 1 z ,dr4 ,/\t pref]s to d1 ,i %\ld h ?\ght two views possible4 7a7 ,!re are n two l9es at all1 b "o1 ! 8junction0 at ,m be+ m]ely ideal4 ,!n !re rema9s no?+ to connect & !re is no relation ( 8imm$iate connection40 ,or 7b71 ! junction may be tak5 z real1 & !n y h a p]fectly ord9>y case ( relation1 ! t]ms be+ ! t]m9at$ l9es a & 1 & ! relation be+ "o ( contact at ,m4 ,on e gr\nd 7a7 seems to me ! "r view1 b x is incompatible ) ! r$uction ( cont9uity to 8imm$iate connection40 ,?us ! s\rce ( ! difficulty is t 7#a7 imm$iate connection c only hold betwe5 ! imm$iately successive t]ms ( a discont9u\s s]ies1 & yet 7#b7 _c hold betwe5 !m precisely because !y are discont9u\s4 ----- ,,*apt] ,v ,,! ,,_w ,,( ,,?+s--7#b7 ,,*ange ,,& ,,causality #a4 ,! conception ( ?+s z int]act+ leads to ! two problems ( ,*ange & ,causality4 ,! p>adoxical "* ( *ange due to ! fact t only :at is p]man5t c *ange4 #b4 ,*ange is succession )9 an id5tity2 ?is id5tity1 l t ( ,sub/ance1 mu/ be teleological1 i4e4 mu/ be an id5tity ( plan or end p]vad+ ! process ( *ange4 #c4 ,?us all *ange falls "u ! logical category ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 :i* becomes 9 its application to succession 9 "t ! ,pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason4 #d4 ,causality4 ,cause--9 ! mod]n popul> & sci5tific s5se--means ! gr\nd ( a *ange :5 tak5 to be completely conta9$ 9 prec$+ *anges4 ,t e *ange has its complete gr\nd 9 prec$+ *anges is nei!r an axiom nor an empirically asc]ta9$ tru?1 b a po/ulate sugge/$ by our practical ne$s4 #e4 ,9 ! la/ resort ! po/ulate _c be true2 ! dep5d5ce betwe5 ev5ts _c be "o-sid$4 ,! real ju/ification = our use ( ! po/ulate is its practical success4 #f4 ,orig9 ( ! conception ( ,cause an?ropomorphic #g4 ,puzzles ab\t ,causation4 7#a7 ,cont9uity4 ,causation mu/ be cont9u\s1 & yet 9 a cont9u\s process !re c be no di/9ction ( cause f effect4 ,cause mu/ be & yet _c be prior 9 "t to effect4 #h4 7#b7 ,! indef9ite regress 9 causation4 #i4 7#c7 ,plurality ( ,causes4 ,plurality ( ,causes is ultimately a logical contradiction1 b 9 any =m 9 :i* ! causal po/ulate is ( practical use x mu/ recognise plurality4 #aj4 ,! 8necessity0 ( ! causal relation psy*ological & subjective4 #aa4 ,imman5t & ,transeunt ,causality3 ,consi/5t ,pluralism mu/ d5y transeunt ,causation2 b _c d s successfully1 #ab4 ,bo? transeunt & imman5t ,causality are ultimately appe>ance4 #a4 ,! f\r? ( ! features :i* *>act]ise ! pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w we f\nd to be ! belief t ?+s act & are act$ ^u by "o ano!r4 ,! problems to :i* ?is belief gives rise are s va/1 & h be5 hi/orically ( su* significance = ,metaphysics1 t !y w require a sep>ate *apt] = _! discussion4 ,9 ! conception ( ! int]action ( ?+s z x exi/s = ! nave pre-sci5tific m9d1 we may di/+ui% at lea/ two aspects4 ,!re is 7#a7 ! belief t ?+s *ange1 t )9 ! unity ( ! "o ?+ !re is a succession ( diff]5t /ates2 & 7#b7 ! belief t ! *anges ( /ate ( v>i\s ?+s are s int]-connect$ t ! *anges 9 "o ?+ s]ve z occasions = def9ite *anges 9 o!r ?+s4 ,we ?us h to discuss1 fir/1 ! g5]al notion ( *ange z an insep>able aspect ( ! be+ ( ?+s1 & next ! concept ( sy/ematic int]-connection betwe5 ! *anges ( /ate ( diff]5t ?+s4 7a7 ,*ange4 ,! problem pres5t$ by ! app>5tly unceas+ mutability ( exi/5ce is "o ( ! e>lie/ z well z "o ( ! mo/ p]si/5t 9 ! :ole range ( ,philosophy4 ,9 itself x might seem t ! successive pres5tation 9 "t ( v>i\s /ates is nei!r m nor less notewor?y a feature ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce ?an ! simultane\s pres5tation ( a l v>iety1 b ! problem ( mutability has always appeal$ ) special =ce to ! human imag9ation f its intimate connection ) our p]sonal hopes & fe>s1 ambitions & disappo9tm5ts4 ,tempora mutantur1 nos et mutamur 9 illis2 !re is ! secret ( ! p]si/5ce ) :i* our philosophic ?\ght has f ! fir/ revolv$ r\nd ?is special problem4 ,!re1 too1 we may f9d a pregnant h9t ( ! c5tral p>adox impli$ 9 all mutability--namely1 t only ! id5tical & p]man5t c *ange4 ,x is because ! self :i* *anges ) ! flux ( "t & circum/ance is /ill 9 "s measure ! same old self t we feel its *anges to be s replete ) matt] = exultation & despair4 ,7 we completely new-made ) ea* successive *ange 9 our self1 !re w\ld no long] be gr\nd = joy 9 transition to ! bett] or grief at alt]ation = ! worse4 ,! ?\ght t only :at is p]man5t c *ange has affect$ ,philosophy 9 diff]5t ways at diff]5t p]iods ( its hi/ory4 ,at ! v dawn ( ,greek ,philosophy x 0 ! guid+ pr9ciple ( ! ,ionian physici/s :o s\ght to compreh5d ! app>5t v>iety ( successive ph5om5a z ! trans=mations ( a s+le bodily reality4 ,z ! difficulties inh]5t 9 su* a mat]iali/ic ,monism became m app>5t1 ! felt necessity ( ascrib+ unity ( "s k9d to exi/5ce l$ ,p>m5ides & 8 ,eleatic successors to ! extreme view t *ange1 be+ impossible 9 a p]man5t homog5e\s bodily reality1 mu/ be a m]e illusion ( our deceptive s5ses4 ,:ile yet aga9 ! lat] ,ionian physici/s1 & _! ,sicilian c\nt]p>t ,emp$ocles1 s\ght to reconcile ! app>5t mutability ( ?+s ) ! criticism ( ,p>m5ides by ! !ory t :at appe>s to ! s5ses z qualitative *ange is 9 reality ! m]e regr\p+ 9 space ( qualitatively unalt]able 8elem5ts0 or 8atoms0-- 4 ,at a m develop$ /age ( ,hell5ic ?\ght1 ! necessity ( tak+ "s acc\nt ( ! mutability z well z ( ! p]man5ce ( exi/5ce impell$ ,plato to draw ! mom5t\s di/9ction betwe5 two worlds or ord]s ( be+--! real1 ) its et]nal unv>y+ self-id5tity1 & ! m]ely app>5t1 :]e all is *ange1 confusion1 & in/ability4 ,9 spite ( ,plato's manife/ failure to make x intelligible h[ ^! two ord]s1 ! et]nal & ! temporal1 are ultimately connect$1 ?is di/9ction 9 "o =m or ano!r has cont9u$ ev] s9ce to haunt all subsequ5t metaphysical con/ruction4 ,ev5 our mod]n sci5tific ,mat]ialism1 ) its l\dly av[$ scorn = all m]ely metaphysical que/ions1 %[s by its con/ant endeav\r to r$uce all mat]ial exi/5ce to a succession ( *anges 9 a homog5e\s m$ium1 bo? ! p]si/5ce ) :i* ! intellect dem&s a p]man5t backgr\nd = *ange1 & ! difficulty ( f9d+ logical satisfaction = ! dem&4 ,yet !re h n be5 want+ attempts to get rid ( ! p>adox by d5y+ its tru?4 ,z ! ,eleatics s\ght to escape x by r$uc+ *ange itself to a baseless illusion1 s "s at lea/ ( ! disciples ( ,h]acleitus seem to h evad$ x by refus+ to admit any p]man5t id5tity 9 ! *angeable1 & !y h n be5 entirely )\t imitators 9 ! mod]n _w4 ,incessant *ange )\t und]ly+ unity has _h its def5d]s 9 ! hi/ory ( ,metaphysics1 ?\gh !y h n be5 num]\s1 & we mu/ !re=e briefly consid] :at c be urg$ = & aga9/ su* a concept4 ,ap>t f ! g5]al difficulty ( see+ h[ :at *anges c at ! same "t be p]man5tly id5tical ) itself1 ! only special argum5t 9 fav\r ( ! doctr9e t only incessant *ange is real seems to be ! appeal to direct exp]i5ce4 ,9 any actual exp]i5ce1 x is cont5d$1 h[ev] contract$ its limits1 we are always pres5t$ ) ! fact ( *ange & transition2 we nev] appreh5d an absolutely un*ang+ cont5t4 ,ev5 :]e ! object be=e u exhibits no succession1 self-exam9ation w always detect at lea/ alt]nat+ t5sion & relaxation ( att5tion ) ! accompany+ fluctuations ( bodily s5sation4 ,n[ !re c1 ( c\rse1 be no ga9say+ ^! facts ( exp]i5ce1 b ! conclusion bas$ on !m evid5tly goes mu* fur!r ?an ! premisses w>rant4 ,if exp]i5ce nev] gives u m]e p]si/5ce ( an un*ang+ cont5t1 nei!r does x ev] give u m]e *ange )\t p]si/5ce4 ,:at we actually exp]i5ce always exhibits ! two aspects ( id5tity & transition toge!r4 ,usually !re w be1 side by side ) ! elem5ts :i* s5sibly *ange 9 ! c\rse ( ! exp]i5ce1 o!rs :i* rema9 s5sibly con/ant ?r\gh\t x4 ,& ev5 :51 ?r\gh inatt5tion1 we fail to detect ^! con/ant elem5ts1 ! successive /ates ( ! *ang+ cont5t itself are n m]ely mom5t>y2 ea* has its own s5sible duration ?r\gh :i* x reta9s its "* )\t p]ceptible *anges4 ,exp]i5ce ?us entirely fails to sub/antiate ! notion ( m]e *ange ap>t f a backgr\nd ( p]man5t id5tity4 ,! positive dispro( ( ! notion mu/1 h[ev]1 be f\nd 9 its own inh]5t absurdity4 ,*ange by itself1 ap>t f a backgr\nd ( id5tity1 is impossible = ! reason t :]e !re is no und]ly+ id5tity !re is no?+ to *ange4 ,all *ange mu/ be *ange ( & 9 "s ?+4 ,a m]e succession ( entirely disconnect$ cont5ts held toge!r by no common p]man5t nature p]si/+ 9 spite ( ! transition1 w\ld n be *ange at all4 ,if ,i simply h be=e me fir/ ,a & !n ,b1 ,a & ,b be+ absolutely devoid ( any po9t ( community1 !re is no s5se 9 say+ t ,i h appreh5d$ a process ( *ange4 ,! *ange has be5 at mo/ a *ange 9 myself z ,i pass$ f ! /ate ( p]ceiv+ ,a to ! /ate ( p]ceiv+ ,b1 & ?is subjective transition aga9 c only be call$ *ange on ! assumption t ! ,i :o am qualifi$ fir/ by ! p]ception ( ,a & its v>i\s emotional & o!r accompanim5ts1 & !n by t ( ,b & its accompanim5ts1 am ! same4 ,& :]e y h n m]ely a *ange ( p]ception b an actual p]ception ( *ange1 ! case is ev5 cle>]4 ,:at we p]ceive 9 su* a case is 8,a *ang+ into ,b10 ! two successive /ates ,a & ,b be+ held toge!r by ! fact t !y are successive /ates ( "s m p]man5t unity gamma4 ,ap>t f ! pres5ce ( ?is id5tical gamma 9 bo? ! e>li] & lat] /ages ( ! process1 !re w\ld be no mean+ 9 speak+ ( x z "o ( *ange4 #b4 ,*ange1 !n1 may be def9$ z succession )9 an id5tity1 ! id5tity be+ z ess5tial to ! "* ( ! process z ! succession4 ,9 :at way1 !n1 mu/ we ?9k ( ?is id5tity or common nature :i* is pres5t ?r\gh\t ! :ole succession ( *anges8 ,x %\ld be cle> t ?is "q--h[ t :i* *anges c be p]man5t8--is simply our old problem ( quality & sub/ance1 h[ ! _m /ates c belong to "o ?+1 consid]$ ) special ref]5ce to ! case ( /ates :i* =m a succession 9 "t4 ,?us1 :atev] is ! true nature ( ! unity to :i* ! _m /ates ( "o ?+ belong1 w also be ! true nature ( ! id5tity :i* connects ! successive /ages ( a process ( *ange4 ,n[ we h already se5 9 :at ! unity to :i* ! _m /ates belong mu/ be tak5 to consi/4 ,we f\nd t ?is unity is ess5tially teleological2 t gr\p ( /ates1 we saw1 is "o ?+ :i* functions z "o 9 reg>d to an end or int]e/1 or1 z we may also say1 is ! embodim5t ( coh]5t /ructure4 ,! same is true ( ! process ( *ange4 ,! e>li] & lat] /ages ( ! process are diff]5ces 9 an id5tity precisely because !y con/itute "o process4 ,& a process is "o :5 x is ! sy/ematic realisation ( a s+le coh]5t end4 ,to be "o process means to be ! sy/ematic expression 9 a succession ( /ages ( a s+le coh]5t plan or law4 ,! succession ( /ages is ?us weld$ into a unity by ! s+l5ess ( ! plan or law :i* !y embody1 & x is ?is sy/ematic connection ( ea* /age ) all ! re/ :i* we express by say+ t :atev] *anges possesses an und]ly+ p]man5t id5tity ( "*4 ,x w\ld am\nt to precisely ! same ?+ if we said ! successive /ates ( any?+ t *anges =m a connect$ sy/em4 ,we mu/ be c>eful "h1 z we 7 9 deal+ ) ! problem ( ,sub/ance1 n to be misl$ by tak+ symbolic aids to imag9ation = philosophical tru?s4 ,j z x is easy to imag9e ! 8sub/ance0 ( ?+s z a sort ( mat]ial sub/ratum1 x is easy to imag9e ! id5tity :i* p]vades all *anges z t ( a numb] ( pieces ( matt]1 & to ?9k ( ! *anges z con/itut$ by _! motion ?r\gh space4 ,b su* a repres5tation mu/ n be tak5 = any?+ m ?an an aid to imag9ation4 ,x helps u to make a m5tal diagram1 b x ?r[s absolutely no light ^u ! real nature ( ! connection betwe5 ! id5tity & ! succession4 ,= ! same problem breaks out )9 ea* ( ! 8self-id5tical0 pieces ( matt]2 we h to say :at we mean by call+ x "o & ! same ?r\gh\t ! s]ies ( its *ang+ positions1 & ! necessity ( answ]+ ?is "q %[s u at once t ! id5tity ( a mat]ial p>ticle ?r\gh\t its motion is only "o case ( t id5tity p]vad+ succession :i* belongs to all *ange1 & 9 no s5se af=ds any explanation ( ! pr9ciple x illu/rates4#ajj ,z a rec5t writ] puts x1 8x seems to be a deeply root$ infirmity ( ! human m9d 444 t x c h>dly conceive activities ( any sort ap>t f mat]ial bases1 444 ?r\gh habitually seek+ to repres5t all ph5om5a 9 me*anical t]ms1 9 t]ms ( ! motion ( little bits ( matt]1 _m ( u h come to believe t 9 s do+ we describe ! actual ev5ts und]ly+ ph5om5a40#aja ,?is 8disease ( ! intellect10 z ! same writ] aptly calls x1 is n[h]e m insidi\s ?an :]e we are deal+ ) ! problem ( ,*ange4 ,*ange1 !n1 involves two aspects4 ,x is a succession ( ev5ts 9 "t1 & ^! ev5ts are connect$ by a sy/ematic unity 9 su* a way t !y =m ! expression ( a plan or law ( /ructure4 ,! s]ies ( successive /ates :i* make up ! hi/ory ( a ?+ are ! expression ( ! ?+'s nature or /ructure4 ,to und]/& ! ?+'s /ructure is to possess ! key to ! succession ( its /ates1 to "k on :at pr9ciple ea* gives way to its successor4 ,& simil>ly1 to h complete insight into ! nature or /ructure ( ,reality z a :ole w\ld be to und]/& ! pr9ciples accord+ to :i* e transitory ev5t 9 ! hi/ory ( ! ,univ]se1 reg>d$ z a s]ies ( ev5ts 9 "t1 is foll[$ by its own special successor4 ,x is evid5t t1 9 proportion z our k ( any ?+ or sy/em ( ?+s approa*es ?is insight into ! laws ( its /ructure1 ! processes ( *ange acquire a new "* = u4 ,!y lose _! appe>ance ( p>adox1 & t5d to become ! self-evid5t expression ( ! id5tity :i* is _! und]ly+ pr9ciple4 ,*ange1 once r$uc$ to law & appreh5d$ z ! embodim5t 9 succession ( a pr9ciple we und]/&1 is no long] *ange z an un9telligible my/]y4 ,we %\ld be> ?is 9 m9d :5 we reflect on ! doctr9e ( ,plato t ! physical _w mu/ be unreal because ! sc5e ( incessant *ange4 ,su* a view is only to be und]/ood by rememb]+ t be=e ! inv5tion ( ! ma!matical me?ods :i* h enabl$ u ) su* conspicu\s success to r$uce physical ph5om5a to ord]ly sequ5ce accord+ to law1 ! physical _w necess>ily appe>$ to ! philosoph] a sc5e ( arbitr>y *ange foll[+ no recognisable pr9ciple4 ,*ange1 s f> z und]/ood 9 ! light ( its pr9ciple1 has already ceas$ to be m]e *ange4#ajb #c4 ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,9 ! te*nical language ( ,logic1 ! und]ly+ pr9ciple ( any sy/em is call$ its ,gr\nd1 ! detail 9 :i* ! pr9ciple f9ds sy/ematic expression is call$ its ,consequ5ce4 ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce are ?us "o & ! same sy/ematic :ole1 only consid]$ f two diff]5t po9ts ( view4 ,! ,gr\nd is ! p]vad+ common nature ( ! sy/em1 ?\ght ( z an id5tity p]vad+ & det]m9+ ! "* ( its detail2 ! ,consequ5ce is ! same sy/em1 look$ at f ! po9t ( view ( ! detail1 z a plurality ( diff]5ces p]vad$ & det]m9$ by an id5tical pr9ciple4 ,! und]/&+ ( a process ( *ange ?us cle>ly consi/s 9 br++ x "u ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,9 s f> z we are successful 9 detect+ a pr9ciple 9 ! app>5tly arbitr>y succession ( ev5ts1 ^! ev5ts become = u a sy/em ) a common pr9ciple ( /ructure = its ,gr\nd1 & a plurality ( successive /ates z its ,consequ5ce4 ,*ange is n1 h[ev]1 ! only in/ance ( ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,^! two aspects may also be f\nd 9 sy/ematic :oles :i* conta9 no elem5t ( succession 9 "t1 e4g4 9 a body ( logical d$uctions f a few fundam5tal premisses4 ,! special peculi>ity ( ! case ( ,*ange is t x is ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce z appli$ to a mat]ial :i* is successive 9 "t4 ,z ?us appli$1 ! pr9ciple has receiv$ ! special "n ( ! ,pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason1 & may be =mulat$ ?us3 ,no?+ takes place unless !re is a suffici5t reason :y x %\ld occur r ?an n4 ,x is cle> t su* a proposition is a m]e result ( ! application ( ! conception ( ,reality z a sy/ematic :ole to ! special case ( ! exi/5ce ( ! successive 9 "t4 ,x is !re=e simply "o case ( ! fundam5tal axiom ( all k1 ! axiom t :at truly exi/s is a coh]5t :ole4#ajc ,we mu/ ( c\rse obs]ve t ! pr9ciple does no?+ to solve ! p]haps insoluble problem :y succession 9 "t %\ld be a feature ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is is a "q :i* c\ld only be answ]$ if we c\ld %[ t succession 9 "t is a logical consequ5ce ( ! exi/5ce ( any multiplicity =m+ a sy/ematic :ole4 ,until we are able to e/abli% ?is result1 we h simply to accept succession z a datum ( our exp]i5ce4 7,yet = "s light ^u ! problem1 see infra1 ,bk4 ,,iii *ap4 #d1 #i7 #d4 ,causality4 ,s f> we h said no?+ ( a concept :i* is mu* m famili> 9 ! popul> treatm5t ( ! problem ( ,*ange ?an t ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 ! concept ( ,cause4 ,9 proce$+ to discuss ?is concept1 x is necess>y 9 ! fir/ place to expla9 :i* ( ! num]\s s5ses ( ! ^w we are tak+ = exam9ation4 ,!re 0 an old s*ola/ic di/9ction1 :i* /ill reappe>s occasionally 9 philosophical writ+s1 betwe5 ! ,causa cognosc5di1 or reason = affirm+ a tru?1 & ! ,causa exi/5di or fi5di1 ! cause ( ! occurr5ce ( an ev5t4 ,x is ?is latt] mean+ ( ! ^w 8cause10 ! mean+ :i* is pr$om9ant :]ev] ! t]m is us$ 9 mod]n sci5tific language1 t we %all h 9 view 9 ! foll[+ sections4 ,! ,causa cognosc5di1 or logical reason = ! affirmation ( a tru?1 z di/+ui%$ f ! psy*ological factors :i* lead a p>ticul> individual to affirm x1 is cle>ly id5tical ) :at mod]n logicians call ! ,gr\nd4 ,a giv5 proposition mu/ logically be affirm$ z true 9 ! la/ resort1 because x fills a place 9 a wid] sy/em ( tru?s :i* no o!r proposition w\ld fill4 ,?us1 e4g41 a special proposition ab\t ! relation betwe5 ! sides & angles ( a triangle is logically necessitat$1 because x is an integral elem5t 9 ! developm5t ( a sy/em ( geometrical ideas :i* repose z a :ole ^u c]ta9 fundam5tal assumptions z to ! "* ( spatial ord]4 ,! orig9al presuppositions _c be work$ out to _! logical consequ5ce 9 a body ( int]nally coh]5t geometrical notions unless ! proposition 9 "q is includ$ 9 t body4 ,& reciprocally1 ! logical ju/ification = reg>d+ ^! presuppositions r ?an any o!rs z s\nd1 lies 9 ! fact t !y yield a body ( int]nally consi/5t consequ5ces4 ,incid5tally1 we see by means ( ?is illu/ration t ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce are mutually conv]tible1 :i* is :at we might h inf]r$ f ! way 9 :i* we def9$ !m z mutually complem5t>y aspects ( a s+le sy/ematic :ole4 ,:at we are conc]n$ ) 9 ! ev]yday & sci5tific treatm5t ( ,causation1 is n ?is purely logical relation ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 b some?+ p>tly id5tical ) x1 p>tly diff]5t4 ,! ,causa fi5di has no significance except 9 connection ) occurr5ces or ev5ts 9 "t1 & may r\ghly be said to correspond ) :at ,ari/otle d5otes ! 8,s\rce ( ,*ange0-- or --& 8 m$ival foll[]s nam$ ! ,effici5t ,cause4 ,cause1 9 ! popul> s5se ( ! ^w1 d5otes ! attempt to c>ry out ! pr9ciple ( ! int]connection ( ev5ts 9 a sy/em along special l9es by reg>d+ e ev5t z completely det]m9$ by conditions :i* are !mselves previ\s ev5ts4 ,widely z ! popul> & ! sci5tific uses ( ! t]m 8cause0 div]ge 9 m9or respects1 !y agree 9 ! ess5tial po9t4 ,t e ev5t has its cause is und]/ood1 bo? 9 ev]yday life & 9 ! sci5ces :i* use ! concept ( causation1 to mean t ! occurr5ce & ! "* ( e ev5t 9 ! "t-s]ies is completely det]m9$ by prec$+ ev5ts4 ,9 m te*nical language1 causation = ev]yday ?\ght & = ! sci5ces means "o-sid$ dep5d5ce ( ! pres5t on ! pa/1 & ! future on ! pres5t4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 obvi\s t ! pr9ciple ( ,causation z ?us und]/ood is n a necess>y logical d$uction f ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,x might be ! case t all occurr5ces =m a coh]5t plan or sy/em1 su* t if y once grasp$ ! pr9ciple ( ! sy/em y c\ld inf] f x :at precise occurr5ce mu/ take place at any "o mom5t1 & yet x might be impossible to discov] ?is pr9ciple by an exam9ation ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts up to ! pres5t mom5t4 ,9 o!r words1 ! pr9ciple ( ! sy/ematic int]connection ( ev5ts might be valid1 & yet ! ev5ts ( ! pres5t might dep5d on ^? :i* w succe$ !m 9 ! future no less ?an on ^? :i* h prec$$ !m 9 ! pa/4 ,9 t case x w\ld be impossible ) absolute logical c]ta9ty to inf] :at w occur at a giv5 mom5t f ! m]e exam9ation ( :at has prec$$1 i4e4 ! pr9ciple ( ,causation z us$ 9 ! sci5ces w\ld n be logically valid4#ajd ,cause1 z curr5tly und]/ood1 is ?us id5tical n ) ! :ole true logical gr\nd1 b ) ! gr\nd s f> z x c be discov]$ 9 ! tra9 ( temporally antec$5t circum/ances1 i4e4 cause is incomplete gr\nd4 ,?is po9t is important1 z x %[s t ! pr9ciple ( ,causation is n1 l ! pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason1 axiomatic4 ,x is no necess>y logical consequ5ce ( ! kn[ability or sy/ematic "* ( ! ,real t an ev5t %\ld be completely det]m9$ by temporally antec$5t ev5ts2 = any?+ t is impli$ 9 ! sy/ematic "* ( ! ,real1 ! ev5t may be equally dep5d5t on subsequ5t occurr5ces4 ,aga91 ! pr9ciple ( ,causation _c be empirically e/abli%$ by an appeal to ! actual c\rse ( exp]i5ce4 ,actual exp]i5ce is c]ta9ly n suffici5t to %[ t e ev5t is absolutely det]m9$ by its antec$5t conditions2 at mo/ ! success ( our sci5tific hypo!ses bas$ ^u ! assumption ( causality only avails to %[ t ev5ts may be inf]r$ f _! antec$5ts ) suffici5t accuracy to make ! causal assumption practically useful4 ,reg>d$ z a univ]sal pr9ciple ( sci5tific proc$ure1 ! causal assumption mu/ be pron\nc$ to be nei!r an axiom nor an empirical tru? b a po/ulate1 9 ! /rict s5se ( ! ^w1 i4e4 an assumption :i* _c be logically ju/ifi$1 b is made because ( its practical value1 & dep5ds ^u ! success ) :i* x c be appli$ = confirmation4 ,9 ! s5se t x is a po/ulate :i* exp]i5ce may confirm b _c prove1 x may prop]ly be said to be a priori1 b x is manife/ly n a priori 9 ! m famili> ,kantian s5se ( ! ^w4 ,t is1 x is n a necess>y & indisp5sable axiom )\t :i* sy/ematic k w\ld be impossible4 ,=1 z we h already se5 & %all see m fully 9 ! imm$iate sequel1 x may n be1 & inde$ 9 ! la/ resort _c be1 true4 #e4 ,?is la/ /atem5t w possibly appe> />tl+ to ! read] :o is unacqua9t$ ) ! hi/ory ( metaphysical inve/igations into ,causality4 ,b x is easy to %[ t x is really ! expression ( an obvi\s tru?4 ,= ! causal pr9ciple1 z we h j se51 is an imp]fect expression ( ! really axiomatic pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason or ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,& x is readily se5 t ! expression x gives to t pr9ciple1 because imp]fect1 mu/ be p>tially false4 ,:at ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce says is1 t ! :ole ( exi/5ce is a s+le coh]5t sy/em 9 :i* e "p is det]m9$ by ! nature ( ! :ole z reveal$ 9 ! complete sy/em4 ,b if ?is is true1 ea* con/itu5t ( ! sy/em c only be completely det]m9$ by its connections ) all ! re/4 ,no con/itu5t c be entirely det]m9$ by its relations to a less] "p ( ! :ole sy/em1 9 ! way presuppos$ by ! notion ( "o-sid$ causal dep5d5ce4 ,! 8cause0 mu/1 if ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce be valid1 be det]m9$ by ! 8effect0 no less ?an ! 8effect0 by ! 8cause40 ,& !re=e ! causal po/ulate _c be ! :ole tru?4 ,h[ ?is fatal logical defect 9 ! pr9ciple ( ,causation makes itself felt 9 ! logic ( ! inductive sci5ces1 & h[ logicians h s\ght )\t success to avoid x1 we %all incid5tally see z our discussion proce$s4 ,at pres5t we mu/ be cont5t to note t1 ow+ to ?is flaw1 ,causation1 :]ev] x is ass]t$1 c only be ,appe>ance & nev] complete ,reality1 & t no sci5ce :i* works ) ! concepts ( cause & effect c give u ! highe/ tru?4 ,( c\rse1 ! logical defects ( ! concept ne$ n impair its practical usefulness4 ,?\gh x c nev]1 = ! reason giv5 already1 be ultimately true t any ev5t is absolutely det]m9$ by antec$5t ev5ts1 ! assumption may be suffici5tly ne> ! tru? to yield useful d$uctions z to ! c\rse ( occurr5ces1 precisely z a ma!matical approximation to ! value ( a surd quantity may1 )\t be+ ! exact tru?1 be close en\gh = practical use4 ,also1 x might well be ! case t ! causal po/ulate approximates m ne>ly to ! tru? 9 "s sph]es ( inve/igation ?an 9 o!rs1 a consid]ation :i* is n )\t its be>+ on ! e?ical problems ( fre$om & responsibility4 ,if we ask h[ ! causal po/ulate1 be+ z x mu/ be only imp]fectly true1 comes to be made1 ! answ] is obvi\s4 ,! :ole conception is an?ropomorphic 9 orig91 & owes its exi/5ce to our practical ne$s4 ,to take ! latt] po9t fir/1 logically !re is no bett] reason = treat+ an ev5t z det]m9$ solely by antec$5ts1 ?an = treat+ x z solely det]m9$ by subsequ5t ev5ts4 ,yet :5 ! latt] supposition is made1 z x is by all believ]s 9 om5s & presages1 we all agree to condemn x z sup]/iti\s4 ,:y is ?is8 ,two reasons may be assign$4 7a7 ,ev5 grant+ t an ev5t may be det]m9$ by subsequ5t ev5ts1 yet1 z we d n "k :at ^! ev5ts are until aft] _! occurr5ce1 we %\ld h no means ( inf]r+ by :at p>ticul> ev5ts yet to come any pres5t ev5t 0 condition$1 & ?us %\ld be ?r[n back ^u m]e unpr9cipl$ guess-"w if we attempt$ to assign its1 z yet future1 conditions4 7b7 ,a m important consid]ation is t our se>* = causes is ultimately d]iv$ f ! se>* = means to ! practical realisation ( results 9 :i* we are int]e/$4 ,we desire to "k ! conditions ( occurr5ces prim>ily1 9 ord] to produce ^? occurr5ces = ourselves by sett+ up _! conditions4 ,x is !re=e ess5tial to u = our practical purposes to seek ! conditions ( an occurr5ce exclusively among its antec$5ts1 & ! causal po/ulate :i* ass]ts t ! complete conditions ( ! ev5t are compris$ some:]e 9 ! s]ies ( antec$5t ev5ts is ?us ! intellectual expression ( ! dem& made by our practical ne$s ^u ,reality4 ,we po/ulate x because1 unless ! po/ulate is approximately realis$1 we _c int]v5e ) success 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,we refuse1 except z a pure speculation1 to ent]ta9 ! notion t an ev5t may be det]m9$ by subsequ5t z well z by antec$5t ev5ts1 because t notion leads to no practical rules = op]ation ^u our environm5t4 #f4 ,z might be expect$ ( a po/ulate s obvi\sly orig9at$ by our practical ne$s1 ! concept ( cause on exam9ation reveals its an?ropomorphic "*4 ,?is is p>ticul>ly obvi\s :5 we consid] ! concept ( ,causation z x figures 9 ev]yday unsci5tific ?\ght4 ,! v>i\s sci5tific sub/itutes = ! popul> notion ( cause all exhibit traces ( ! endeav\r to purge ! conception ( its m an?ropomorphic elem5ts4 ,9 ! popul> use ( ! concept ?is an?ropomorphism comes out mo/ /rik+ly 9 two ways4 7a7 ,a cause1 z popul>ly conceiv$1 is always a p]son or ?+1 i4e4 some?+ we c imag9e z a :ole1 & into :i* we c m5tally project a consci\s life ak9 to our own4 ,to ! sci5tific m9d x seems obvi\s t causes & effects are alike ev5ts & ev5ts only1 b = popul> ?\ght1 :ile ! effect is always a quality or /ate 7e4g41 dea?1 fev]1 etc471 ! cause is regul>ly a ?+ or p]son 7! bullet1 ! poison1 ! tropical sun1 etc474 7b7 ,closely connect$ ) ?is is ! emphasis popul> ?\ght lays ^u :at x calls ! activity ( ! cause4 ,! cause is nev] ?\ght ( z m]ely prec$+ ! effect z an 8insep>able antec$5t02 x is suppos$ to make ! effect occur1 to br+ x ab\t by an ex]cise ( activity4 ,accord+ to ! mo/ coh]5t expositions ( ?is type ( ?\ght1 9 causation "o ?+ is always active 9 produc+ a *ange 9 ano!r ?+ :i* is passive4 ,! orig9 ( ?is notion is suffici5tly obvi\s4 ,z all philosoph]s s9ce ,hume h recognis$1 ! 8activity0 ( ! cause results f ! ascription to x ( ! *>act]i/ic feel+ ( self-ass]tion & self-expansion :i* accompanies our own volunt>y int]f]5ce 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,simil>ly1 ! 8passivity0 ( ! ?+ 9 :i* ! effect is produc$ is only ano!r "n = ! feel+ ( co]cion & ?w>t$ self-ass]tion :i* arises 9 u :5 ! c\rse ( nature or ! behavi\r ( our fell[s represses our volunt>y execution ( our designs4 ,sci5ce1 9 its attempt to ext5d ! concept ( causal det]m9ation ov] ! :ole doma9 ( exi/5ce1 has naturally felt ^! an?ropomorphic implications z ob/acles4 ,f ! ef=t to expel !m arises :at we may call ! common sci5tific view ( causation1 z ord9>ily adopt$ = ! purposes ( exp]im5tal inve/igation & =mulat$ 9 ! works ( inductive logicians4 ,! concept ( a ?+1 except z ! mode ( int]connection ( /ates1 be+ unnecess>y = ! sci5ces :i* aim simply at ! r$uction ( ! sequ5ce ( occurr5ces to ord]1 ! notion ( causation z a transaction betwe5 two ?+s is replac$ 9 ! exp]im5tal sci5ces by ! conception ( x z m]ely ! det]m9ation ( an ev5t by antec$5t ev5ts4 ,simil>ly1 ) ! disappe>ance ( ?+s z ! vehicles ( causal processes falls ! :ole di/9ction betwe5 an active & a passive factor4 ,z x becomes m & m app>5t t ! antec$5t ev5ts :i* condition an occurr5ce are a complex plurality & include /ates ( :at is popul>ly call$ ! ?+ act$ ^u z well z processes 9 ! s-call$ ag5t1 sci5ce sub/itutes = ! di/9ction betwe5 ag5t & pati5t ! concept ( a sy/em ( reciprocally dep5d5t int]act+ factors4 ,^! two sub/itutions give u ! curr5t sci5tific conception ( a cause z ! 8totality ( ! conditions0 9 ! pres5ce ( :i* an ev5t occurs1 & 9 ! abs5ce ( any memb] ( :i* x does n occur4 ,m briefly1 causation 9 ! curr5t sci5tific s5se means sequ5ce "u def9itely kn[n conditions4 ,indisp5sable z ?is notion ( ! det]m9ation ( e ev5t by a def9ite collection ( antec$5ts & by no?+ else is = practice1 reg>d$ z a logical =mulation ( ! pr9ciple ( ! sy/ematic unity ( exi/5ce1 x is op5 to grave objections1 mo/ ( :i* w be f\nd to h made !mselves felt 9 ! logic ( ! inductive sci5ces q indep5d5tly ( consci\s metaphysical analysis4 ,9 deal+ ) ^! difficulties1 we %all f9d t _! g5]al effect is to place u 9 ! foll[+ dilemma4 ,if we wi% to /ate ! causal pr9ciple 9 su* a way z to avoid manife/ speculative falsehood1 we f9d t x has to be modifi$ until x becomes id5tical ) ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce 9 its mo/ univ]sal =m1 b z ?us modifi$ x is no long] ( any s]vice = ! purposes ( ! exp]im5tal sci5ces4 ,y seem driv5 to take x ei!r 9 a =m 9 :i* x is true b practically useless1 or 9 "o 9 :i* x is useful b n true4 ,to illu/rate ! way 9 :i* ?is dilemma arises1 we may exam9e ?ree ( ! ma9 problems :i* h actually be5 creat$ by ! sci5tific use ( ! pr9ciple1--7a7 ! puzzle ( cont9uity2 7b7 ! puzzle ( ! indef9ite regress1 7c7 ! puzzle ( ! plurality ( causes4 #g4 7a7 ,! ,puzzle ( ,cont9uity4 ,cont9uity is1 /rictly speak+1 a prop]ty ( c]ta9 s]ies1 & may be def9$ = purposes ( ref]5ce mu* z foll[s4 ,a s]ies is cont9u\s :5 any t]m divides ! :ole s]ies unambigu\sly into two mutually exclusive p>ts :i* betwe5 !m comprise all ! t]ms ( ! s]ies1 & :5 e t]m :i* s divides ! s]ies is itself a t]m ( ! s]ies4 ,f ?is second condition x obvi\sly foll[s t a numb] ( int]m$iate t]ms c always be ins]t$ betwe5 any two t]ms :atev] ( a cont9u\s s]ies2 no t]m ( ! s]ies has a next t]m4 ,?is is ! peculi>ity ( ! cont9u\s ) :i* we %all be specially conc]n$4 ,?us ! s]ies ( po9ts on a /raight l9e is cont9u\s because 7#a7 any po9t ,p on ! l9e divides x into two collections ( po9ts 9 su* a way t e po9t ( ! "o is to ! left ( e po9t ( ! o!r1 & e po9t ( ! second to ! "r ( e po9t ( ! =m]2 & 7#b7 e po9t :i* divides ! l9e 9 ?is way is a po9t on ! l9e4 ,aga91 ! :ole s]ies ( real numb]s is cont9u\s = ! same reason4 ,e memb] ( ! numb]-s]ies divides x into two classes1 s t e numb] ( "o is less ?an e numb] ( ! o!r1 & e numb] :i* ?us divides ! s]ies is itself a t]m ( ! numb]-s]ies4 ,b ! s]ies ( rational real numb]s is n cont9u\s1 because x c be divid$ into mutually exclusive classes by t]ms :i* are n !mselves memb]s ( ! s]ies4 7,e4g4 #b is n a memb] ( ! s]ies ( rational numb]s1 b we c exhau/ively divide all rational numb]s into ! two mutually exclusive classes1 rational numb]s less ?an #b & rational numb]s n less ?an #b47aje ,f ! cont9uity ( ! s]ies ( real numb]s x foll[s t any o!r s]ies :i* corresponds po9t = po9t ) ! t]ms ( ! numb]-s]ies w be cont9u\s4 ,n[ "o su* s]ies is t ( ! successive p>ts ( "t4 ,e mom5t ( "t divides ! :ole s]ies ( mom5ts into two mutually exclusive classes1 ! mom5ts be=e itself & ! mom5ts :i* are n be=e itself4 ,& :atev] ?us divides ! "t-s]ies is itself a mom5t 9 t s]ies4 ,h5ce f ! cont9uity ( ! "t-s]ies x foll[s t any puzzles creat$ by ?is prop]ty ( cont9u\sness w apply to ! case ( ,causation4 ,9 :at foll[s ,i %all n discuss ! g5]al problem ( ! cont9u\s1 a problem :i* requires special ma!matical equipm5t = its effici5t h&l+1 b %all conf9e myself to ! difficulties introduc$ by cont9uity into ! sci5tific concept ( causal relation4 ,we may conv5i5tly attack ! problem by tak+ x up 9 ! =m 9 :i* ,hume bequea!d x to mod]n sci5ce4 ,z any c>eful read] ( ,hume mu/ p]ceive1 ,hume's :ole doctr9e ( ,causation is bas$ on ! assumption t ! causal process is n cont9u\s4 ,exp]i5ce is suppos$ by him to come to u n 9 an unbrok5 /ream1 b 9 isolat$ sep>ate pieces :i* we subsequ5tly proce$ to l9k toge!r artificially by ! notion ( ,causation4 ,we are suppos$ to beg9 by obs]v+ ! sequ5ce ( an ev5t ,b on a previ\s di/9ct ev5t ,a1 & ! problem ( ,causation ?us becomes t ( discov]+ ! nature ( ! l9k by :i* ! orig9ally di/9ct ,a & ,b are connect$ 9 our sci5tific ?\ght4 ,9 m te*nical language1 ,hume ?\ght ( ! s]ies ( ev5ts z "o 9 :i* e memb] has a next t]m1 & ?is way ( conceiv+ x has col\r$ ! :ole subsequ5t treatm5t ( ,causation by ! inductive logicians :o h commonly got _! metaphysical doctr9es f ,hume4 ,n[1 rec5t ,psy*ology1 9 des]t+ ! old notion ( ! atomic s5sation = t ( ! 8/ream ( consci\sness10 has completely de/roy$ ! suppos$ empirical f\ndation = ?is ,humian !ory ( ! discont9uity ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,! real problem = ! inductive logician we c n[ see to be n to discov] ! l9k by :i* an orig9ally sep>ate ,a & ,b h got jo9$ toge!r 9 ?\ght1 b to f9d ! s\rce ( ! di/9ction we habitually draw )9 :at comes to u z "o cont9u\s process betwe5 an e>li] /age ,a :i* we call cause1 & a lat] /age ,b :i* we call effect4 ,we are n1 h[ev]1 conc]n$ "h ) ! psy*ological weakness ( ,hume's doctr9e1 b ) ! logical difficulty to :i* x gives rise4 ,we may /ate ! difficulty ?us3 7#a7 ,causation _c possibly be ?\ght ( z discont9u\s1 i4e4 z ! sequ5ce ( "o di/9ct ev5t ^u an assemblage ( o!r ev5ts )\t gross contradiction4 ,to ?9k ( x z discont9u\s1 we mu/ conceive ! cause ,a to exi/ fir/ 9 its complet5ess1 & !n to be sudd5ly foll[$ by ! effect ,b4 7,t ! cause ,a consi/s ( a numb] ( conditions1 a1 b1 c 444 :i* !mselves come into exi/5ce successively1 & t ,a is n !re until ! la/ ( ^! conditions has be5 realis$1 makes no diff]5ce to ! pr9ciple47 ,n[ ?is seems to be :at is actually impli$ by ! language ( ^? inductive logicians :o insi/ t 9 all ,causation ! cause mu/ prec$e ! effect4 ,b :at c su* prec$5ce mean8 ,x c only mean t aft] ! complete realisation ( ! conditions includ$ 9 ! cause ,a1 !re mu/ int]v5e a space ( empty "t be=e ! effect ,b ent]s on ! sc5e4 ,h[ev] brief & 8mom5t>y0 y take ?is gap 9 ! /ream ( ev5ts to be1 ! gap mu/ be !re if y\r language ab\t ! cause z be+ be=e ! effect is to h any mean+4 ,= if !re is no su* gap1 & ! entrance ( ,b is simultane\s ) ! complete realisation ( its conditions ,a1 x is no long] true to say t ! cause ,a is be=e ! effect ,b4 ,a does n exi/ z ,a until a1 b1 c 444 are all pres5t1 & z soon z !y are pres5t ,b is pres5t too4 ,& ?us ! relation betwe5 ,a & ,b is n t ( ! sequ5ce ( a lat] ev5t on an e>li]4 ,!y are actually toge!r4 ,9 fact1 ! doctr9e t ! cause prec$es ! effect re/s ^u ! notion t ! "t-s]ies is "o 9 :i* ea* memb] has a next t]m4 ,& ?is seems inconceivable4 ,= n only c y subdivide any f9ite "t1 h[ev] small1 into two mutually exclusive p>ts1 b ! po9t at :i* ! division is effect$ is itself a mom5t 9 ! "t-s]ies ly+ betwe5 ! beg9n+ & ! end ( ! orig9al int]val4 ,"t !re=e mu/ be cont9u\s1 & if causation is n equally cont9u\s1 we mu/ suppose t gaps ( empty "t are :at sep>ate ! fir/ ev5t1 ! cause1 f ! subsequ5t ev5t1 ! effect4 ,yet if ?is c\ld be reg>d$ z a def5sible doctr9e on o!r gr\nds1 x w\ld !n foll[ t ! assemblage ( ev5ts ,a is n ! totality ( conditions requisite = ! occurr5ce ( ,b4 ,! 8totality ( conditions10 i4e4 ! cause z previ\sly def9$1 w\ld be ! ev5ts ,a plus a c]ta9 lapse ( empty "t4#ajf ,& s ! cause w\ld once m turn out n to prec$e ! effect1 or we %\ld h to suppose ! end ( ! int]val ( empty "t includ$ 9 x z sep>at$ f ! beg9n+ ( ,b by a second lapse1 & s on indef9itely4 7#b7 ,^! difficulties1 9 a m or less cle>ly appreh5d$ =m1 h l$ _m rec5t writ]s on inductive ,logic to modify ! def9ition :i* 0 /ill satisfactory to ,mill4 ,cause & effect1 we are n[ told1 are n di/9ct ev5ts1 b e>li] & lat] /ages 9 a cont9u\s process4 ,! real bus9ess ( sci5ce is n to discov] 8laws ( connection0 betwe5 di/9ct ev5ts or 8ph5om5a10 b to inv5t g5]al ma!matical =mulae by ! aid ( :i* we may trace ! c\rse ( cont9u\s processes4 ,! discov]y ( causes1 f ?is po9t ( view1 is r$uc$ to ! con/ruction ( =mul :i* exhibit "s quantity z a function ( a "t-v>iable4 ,fully work$ out1 ?is view ( ! nature ( exp]im5tal sci5ce leads to ! s-call$ 8descriptive0 ideal ( sci5tific explanation1 advocat$ by su* em95t ?9k]s z ,kir*h(f1 ,ma*1 & ,o/wald among physici/s1 &1 ) v>i\s modifications1 ,av5>ius1 ,mn/]b]g1 ,royce1 & ,james ,w>d among rec5t philosoph]s4 ,accord+ to ?is doctr9e1 ! ultimate ideal ( sci5ce1 or at any rate ( physical sci5ce1 is simply ! description ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts by ! aid ( ! fewe/ & simple/ g5]al =mul4 ,:y ?+s happ5 z !y d1 x is n[ said1 is no prop] "q = sci5ce2 its sole bus9ess is to enable u to calculate h[ !y w happ54 ,) ! g5]al epi/emological que/ions rais$ by ?is doctr9e we mu/ deal lat] 9 our ?ird & f\r? books4 ,at pres5t we are conc]n$ only ) its be>+ on ! notion ( ,causal ,relation4#ajg ,! important po9t = our imm$iate purpose is t ! r$uction ( all ev5ts to cont9u\s processes really does away ) ,causation altoge!r1 z is recognis$ by ^? adh]5ts ( ! !ory :o op5ly propose to expel ! ^w 8cause0 f ! language ( sci5ce4#ajh ,= 9 a cont9u\s process x is purely arbitr>y :]e we %all m5tally draw ! divid+ l9e :i* is to m>k ! b\nd>y betwe5 ! 8e>li]0 & ! 8lat]0 /age4 ,:at ! descriptive =mula1 ) ! aid ( :i* we trace ! c\rse ( ! process by giv+ a s]ies ( successive values to our "t-v>iable pres5ts1 is n ! 8cause0 ( ! process b ! 8law0 ( x4 ,in/ead ( look+ ^u ! lat] /ages ( ! process z det]m9$ by ! e>li]1 we are n[ look+ ^u ! process z a :ole z ! expression 9 detail ( a s+le pr9ciple4 ,we h1 9 fact1 ab&on$ ! category ( cause & effect = t ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,we are seek+ ! gr\nd ( ! :ole process n 9 a set ( temporally prec$+ ev5ts1 b 9 its own p]vad+ pr9ciple4 ,f ?is po9t ( view ! "o-sid$ dep5d5ce ( effect on cause1 *>act]i/ic ( ! causal relation1 disappe>s4 ,:e!r we %all inf] ! lat] /ages ( ! process f ! e>li]1 or ! e>li] f ! lat]1 dep5ds simply ^u our *oice ( positive or negative values = our "t-v>iable4 ,= 8descriptive0 sci5ce1 :at we sugge/$ at fir/ z a p>adoxical possibility is ! actual fact4 ,! pa/ is det]m9$ by ! future 9 precisely ! same s5se 9 :i* ! future is det]m9$ by ! pa/1 namely1 t z bo? are /ages ( ! same cont9u\s process1 if once y "k ! pr9ciple ( ! process y c />t equally well ) ei!r & reason to ! o!r4#aji ,?us1 )9 ! limits ( exp]im5tal sci5ce itself1 ! conception ( causal relation has giv5 way to ! conception ( ev5ts z logically connect$ into a sy/em 9 virtue ( _! und]ly+ gr\nd or pr9ciple4 ,= practical purposes exp]im5tal sci5ce has1 9 its application ( ?is conception1 to be guid$ by two po/ulates1 nei!r ( :i* c be metaphysically ju/ifi$4 ,x has to assume 7a7 t ! c\rse ( ev5ts is compos$ ( a plurality ( m or less indep5d5t cont9u\s processes1 ea* ( :i* has its own gr\nd )9 itself1 at lea/ to su* an ext5t z to be capable ( be+ treat$ = our purpose z indep5d5t ( o!rs2 7b7 t ! und]ly+ gr\nd or gr\nds ( all ev5ts c be adequately express$ 9 t]ms ( ma!matical symbolism4 ,z to ! fir/ ( ^! po9ts1 our discussion ( ! unity ( ,reality conv9c$ u t !re mu/ 9 ! end be a s+le gr\nd ( all exi/5ce1 & !re=e ! complete reason ( any p>tial process _c be entirely )9 itself4 ,! indep5d5ce ( ! v>i\s processes mu/ be relative1 & ev5 ! belief t x is suffici5t to enable u to treat !m = our own special purposes z self-conta9$ & indep5d5t1 mu/ be a po/ulate prompt$ by our practical ne$s1 & ju/ifi$ 9 ! end by its success4 ,! second po9t w engage our att5tion m fully 9 subsequ5t *apt]s4 ,at pres5t "o rem>k ^u x mu/ suffice4 ,! calculability ( ! laws ( cont9u\s processes dep5ds ^u our ability to r$uce !m to num]ical & quantitative =ms4 ,:]ev] we h ! appe>ance1 at any /age 9 a process1 ( a new quality1 we h 9 fact an app>5t brea* ( cont9uity1 & x ceases to be 9 our p[] to exhibit ! new /age ( ! process z a m]e trans=mation ( :at 0 already express$ 9 =m] /ages4 ,h5ce ! success ( natural sci5ce 9 r$uc+ all sequ5ces ( ev5ts to cont9u\s processes dep5ds ^u ! assumption t we c e/abli% equations betwe5 qualitatively diff]5t magnitudes4 ,n[ ?is assumption is ev5 m evid5tly ?an ! prec$+ a po/ulate4 ,we h to make x1 if we are to calculate ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 b we h no gu>antee t x w succe$ beyond ! fact ( its actual success4 ,if x fails any:]e1 z we %all h]eaft] cont5d t x does 9 ! critical case ( ! sequ5ce ( psy*ical on physical ev5ts1 & vice v]s1 two results w foll[1 "o practical1 ! o!r speculative4 ,! practical consequ5ce ( ! failure is t 9 su* cases we _c apply ! concept ( cont9u\s process1 & h to fall back ^u ! crud] notion ( causal sequ5ce4 ,?us1 9 attempt+ to create a sci5ce ( ,psy*ophysics we _c hope to exhibit ! :ole ( a psy*ophysical process z ! cont9u\s realisation ( a s+le pr9ciple2 we mu/ be cont5t to e/abli% laws ( causal connection betwe5 ! physical & ! psy*ical sides ( ! process4 ,! speculative consequ5ce is t ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce is only imp]fectly repres5t$ by ! conception ( a cont9u\s process1 inasmu* z t conception is only applicable :]e qualitative diff]5ces )9 ! consequ5ces ( a s+le gr\nd c be disreg>d$4 ,?is h9t w prep>e u = subsequ5t criticism ( ! concept ( cont9uity :5 we come to deal ) ! metaphysics ( ! "t-process4#aaj #h 7b74 ,! ,indef9ite ,regress4 ,! defects ( ! causal po/ulate z a pr9ciple ( explanation may also be exhibit$ by %[+ ! d\ble way 9 :i* x leads to ! indef9ite regress4 ,! indef9ite regress 9 ! causal s]ies is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! /ructure ( "t1 &1 z we please1 may be detect$ bo? outside & inside any causal relation ( two ev5ts1 or two /ages ( a cont9u\s process4 ,= x foll[s f ! /ructure ( ! "t-s]ies 7a7 t !re are an indef9ite numb] ( t]ms ( ! s]ies betwe5 any two memb]s1 betwe5 :i* !re is a f9ite int]val1 & 7b7 t !re is also an indef9ite numb] ( t]ms be=e or aft] any giv5 memb] ( ! s]ies4 ,l ! s]ies ( real numb]s1 ! "t-s]ies1 because x satisfies ! def9ition ( a cont9u\s inf9ite s]ies1 c h nei!r a fir/ nor a la/ t]m1 nor c any memb] ( x h a next t]m4#aaa ,apply+ ?is to ! case ( ,causation1 we may reason z foll[s3-- 7#a7 ,! same reasons :i* lead u to dem& a cause ,a = any ev5t ,b1 & to f9d t cause 9 an assemblage ( antec$5t ev5ts1 require t ,a %\ld be simil>ly det]m9$ by ano!r assemblage ( antec$5t ev5ts1 & t ?is cause ( ,a %\ld itself h its own antec$5t cause1 & s on indef9itely4 ,?us ! causal pr9ciple1 logically appli$1 nev] yields an intelligible explanation ( any ev5t4 ,in/ead ( exhibit+ ! transition ,a-,b z ! logical expression ( a coh]5t pr9ciple1 x ref]s u = ! explanation ( ?is transition to a previ\s in/ance ( ! same k9d ( transition1 & !n to ano!r1 & s =? )\t end4 ,b x is impossible t :at is n intelligible 9 "o in/ance %\ld become intelligible by ! m]e multiplication ( simil> un9telligibilities4 7#b7 ,simil>ly if we look )9 ! transition ,a-,b4 ,?is transition be+ cont9u\s mu/ h its int]m$iate /ages4 ,a becomes ,b because x has already become ,c1 & ! transition ,a-,c-,b is aga9 8expla9$0 by %[+ t ,a became ,d :i* became ,c :i* became ,e :i* became ,b4 ,& ea* ( ! /ages ,a-,d1 ,d-,c1 ,c-,e1 ,e-,b c be once m submitt$ to ! same sort ( analysis4 ,b 9 all ?is int]polation ( int]m$iate /ages !re is no?+ to %[ ! nature ( ! common pr9ciple 9 virtue ( :i* ! /ages =m a s+le process4 ,we are1 9 fact1 try+ to d :at we try to d :]ev] we e/abli% a relation betwe5 t]ms1 to answ] a "q by repeat+ x4 ,& we decid$ at ! end ( our la/ *apt] t ?is k9d ( repetition is nev] an answ] to any "q4 ,h[ entirely x fails to answ] ! "q we ask :5ev] we look = a cause is obvi\s4 ,we want to "k :y ,b exi/s1 & we are told t ,b exi/s because x is det]m9$ by ! previ\s exi/5ce ( ,a4 ,b :y does ,a exi/8 ,because ( ! previ\s exi/5ce ( ,c4 ,& s ultimately ! exi/5ce ( ev]y?+ dep5ds on ! exi/5ce ( some?+ else1 & ?is aga9 on ! exi/5ce ( /ill some?+ else4 ,if ?is is s1 s9ce no?+ c exi/ until its cause has exi/$1 & ! cause aga9 n until its cause has exi/$1 !n1 z ?is un5d+ s]ies has no fir/ t]m1 no?+ c ev] come into exi/5ce at all4 ,?is inevitable introduction ( ! indef9ite regress :5ev] we try to ?9k out ! causal pr9ciple to its logical consequ5ces1 has sometimes be5 treat$ z prov+ ! inh]5t defectiv5ess ( ! human m9d4 ,:at x proves r is t ,causality is n a prop] =mulation ( ! real pr9ciple ( ! unity ( all exp]i5ce4 ,a ^w may be said ab\t ! attempts :i* philosoph]s h made to extricate !mselves f ! difficulty )\t giv+ up ,causality z an ultimate pr9ciple ( explanation4 ,! lea/ philosophical me?od ( escape is t ( arbitr>ily po/ulat+ a fir/ cause ) no prec$+ cause1 :i* am\nts to ! same ?+ z a beg9n+ ( exi/5ce or a fir/ mom5t ( "t4 ,?is way out ( ! difficulty obvi\sly am\nts to an arbitr>y des]tion ( ! causal pr9ciple at ! po9t :]e x becomes inconv5i5t to rema9 fai?ful to x4 ,:atev] ! nature ( ! ev5t y pit* ^u z y\r 8fir/ cause10 ! causal pr9ciple1 if logically valid at all1 is j z applicable "h z any:]e else ,y\r 8fir/ cause0 mu/ h _h a previ\s cause1 or else ! :ole causal s*eme mu/ be1 z we h cont5d$ t x is1 ! illogical & imp]fect p]v]sion ( a g5u9e pr9ciple ( sy/ematic connection1 useful & inde$ indisp5sable 9 practice1 b q indef5sible 9 !ory4 ,x w\ld n help y out ( ! difficulty to di/+ui% betwe5 a fir/ ev5t & a fir/ mom5t ( "t1 by po/ulat+ a fir/ cause ) an indef9ite lapse ( empty "t be=e x4 ,= ! causal pr9ciple w\ld !n require y to look = ! det]m9+ conditions ( ! fir/ ev5t 9 ! prec$+ lapse ( empty "t4 ,b ?is lapse1 because m]ely empty1 _c conta9 ! det]m9+ conditions = any special occurr5ce 9 pref]5ce to o!rs4 ,?is is :y ! conception ( a beg9n+ ( ! causal s]ies 9 "t1 ) an empty lapse be=e x1 has always l$ to ! insoluble riddle1 8,:y did ,god create ! _w :5 ,he did1 r ?an at "s o!r po9t ( "t80 ,nor c ! difficulty be escap$ by tak+ refuge 9 ! cont9uity ( ! /ream ( ev5ts4 ,= 7#a7 z we h se51 ! recognition ( ev5ts z cont9u\s processes necess>ily leads to ! surr5d] ( ! causal pr9ciple z inadequate to express ! real connection ( facts4 ,causality1 z a special =m ( ! category ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 mu/ /& or fall ) ! view ( occurr5ces z sequ5ces ( discont9u\s ev5ts4 ,& 7#b7 ev5 ap>t f ?is consid]ation1 ! appeal to cont9uity c at be/ only be work$ z a rejo9d] to ! int]nal analysis ( a sequ5ce into an inf9ite process4 ,:5 x is urg$ t1 on ! causal pr9ciple1 !re mu/ be an inf9ite numb] ( int]m$iate /ages betwe5 ! cause & ! effect 9 any giv5 case1 x is possible to retort t ! /ages are n 8really0 di/9ct1 b only di/+ui%$ by an artificial ab/raction1 t ! process is actually "o & cont9u\s1 & !re=e does n involve an inf9ite regress1 except = ! logician :o errone\sly con/rues x z discont9u\s4 ,b ) ! ext]nal regress 9 indef9itum y _c deal 9 ?is way4 ,! abs5ce ( a beg9n+ foll[s z necess>ily f ! pr9ciple ( expla9+ ! lat] /ages ( a cont9u\s process z condition$ by ! e>li]1 z x does :5 ! /ages are tak5 to be di/9ct ev5ts4 7,?is is easily se5 f ! simple consid]ation t ! "t-v>iable 9 y\r =mula = ! successive /ages ( ! process may h an unlimit$ range ( possible values f -inf9ity to inf9ity47 ,9 %ort1 :e!r ! succession ( ev5ts be tak5 z cont9u\s or n1 ! attempt to translate ! axiom t :atev] happ5s has its gr\nd 9 ! nature ( ! :ole sy/em to :i* x belongs1 into ! doctr9e t ! po/]ior 9 "t is completely det]m9$ by & dep5d5t on ! prior1 leads /raight to ! inf9ite regress4 ,&1 z we said 9 our la/ *apt]1 ! occurr5ce ( ! inf9ite regress is always a sign t !re is imp]fection some:]e 9 ! ?\ght :i* sets x up4 ,= x always implies ! =mal contradiction ( ! actual summation by successive increm5ts ( an inf9ite s]ies4 ,fur!r consid]ations on ?is po9t may be def]r$ till we come to treat ( ! cont9uity ( "t4#aab #i 7c74 ,! ,plurality ( ,causes4 ,! indef9ite regress may be %[n to be inh]5t 9 ,causation by a diff]5t l9e ( argum5t1 )\t appeal+ to ! pr9ciple ( ! cont9uity ( "t4 ,z ! read] is d\btless aw>e1 x 0 a fav\rite doctr9e ( ,john ,/u>t ,mill1 t :]eas ! same cause is always foll[$ by ! same effect--9 ! abs5ce ( c\nt]act+ circum/ances--! same effect ne$ n be prec$$ by ! same cause4 ,an effect may be 8produc$0 on diff]5t occasions by entirely diff]5t sets ( antec$5ts4 ,?us dea? may be due ei!r to disease or to viol5ce1 & bo? ! disease & ! viol5ce may h v diff]5t =ms1 yet ! result is ! same1 namely1 dea?4 ,heat may ensue f friction1 p]cussion1 *emical comb9ation1 & s =?4 ,?is doctr9e ( ! ,plurality ( ,causes is an obvi\s result ( g5]alisation f ! important practical consid]ation t diff]5t means w (t5 lead u to ! same end1 s t :]e we _c employ "o we c (t5 fall back on ano!r4 ,mill's critics h n fail$ to po9t out t 8 doctr9e is bas$ on ! r illogical comb9ation ( a concrete cause ) an ab/ract effect4 ,he consid]s ! 8effect0 9 its utmo/ g5]ality simply z a /ate or quality1 e4g41 8heat10 8dea?10 & rightly cont5ds t ?is g5]al /ate or quality may issue on diff]5t occasions f diff]5t comb9ations ( conditions4 ,b he fails to obs]ve t 9 any concrete case ?is effect exi/s 9 a special =m1 & ) special modifications correspond+ to ! special "* ( ! antec$5ts4 ,dea?1 = in/ance1 may result f a ?\s& circum/ances1 b ! total effect 9 ea* case is nev] m]e dea?1 b dea? 9 "s "o special %ape4 ,a man :o is %ot & a man :o is dr[n$ are bo? dead1 b "o is dead ) ! special symptoms ( dea? by dr[n+1 ! o!r ) ^? ( dea? by %oot+4 ,! wat] w kill y & a bullet w kill y1 b dea? ) a bullet-hole does n come f dr[n+1 nor dea? ) "o's lungs fill$ ) wat] f a gun%ot4 ,if y take cause & effect at ! same level ( concret5ess1 !y are always /rictly correlative4 ,any v>iation 9 ! "o mu/ h a correspond+ v>iation 9 ! o!r1 = circum/ances :i* v>y )\t affect+ a result are by def9ition no "p ( its conditions4 ,s f> ,mill's critics among ! inductive logicians4 ,b we c pu% ! argum5t a /ep fur!r1 & %[ t x leads logically to a dilemma4 7#a7 ,!re _c really be m ?an "o 8cause0 = "o 8effect02 yet 7#b7 9 any s5se 9 :i* we c s+le out "o 8effect0 f ! re/ ( ! cont5ts ( ! univ]se1 & assign x its 8cause10 !re is always a possibility ( ! ,plurality ( ,causes4 ,we w consid] ! alt]native ( ?is dilemma sep>ately4 7#a7 ,cause & effect mu/ be /rictly correlative4 ,= to say t !re may be v>iations 9 ! cause n foll[$ by correspond+ v>iations 9 ! effect1 is to say t !re c be conditions :i* condition no?+2 & to admit v>iation 9 ! effect )\t v>iation 9 ! cause1 is to all[ t !re are occurr5ces :i* are at once1 z effects1 det]m9$1 & yet aga9 are n det]m9$1 by ! assemblage ( _! antec$5ts4 ,?us ,plurality ( ,causes is exclud$ by ! v conception ( a cause z ! totality ( conditions4 ,foll[+ up ?is l9e ( ?\ght fur!r1 we see t x leads to a p]plex+ result4 ,! 8totality ( conditions0 is nev] a real totality4 ,= !re are no su* ?+s z isolat$ effects & causes 9 ! _w ( ev5ts4 ,! :ole fact :i* we call an effect is nev] complete until we h tak5 into acc\nt its entire connection ) ev]y?+ else 9 ! univ]se4 ,& simil>ly1 ! :ole assemblage ( conditions includes ev]y?+ :i* goes to make up ! univ]se4 ,b :5 we h ?us wid5$ our conception ( ! cause & ! effect1 bo? cause & effect h become id5tical ) "o ano!r & ) ! :ole cont5ts ( ! univ]se4 ,& ?us ,causation itself has disappe>$ z a =m ( int]connection betwe5 ! elem5ts ( ,reality 9 our attempt to "w out its logical implications4 ,?is is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! cont9u\s int]connection ( all ,reality e/abli%$ by our exam9ation ( ! problem ( ! ,"o & ! ,_m 9 ,*apt] ,,ii4 ,9 o!r words1 y nev] h rea*$ ! full cause ( any ev5t until y h tak5 into acc\nt ! totality ( its conditions1 i4e4 ! totality ( its connections ) all ! re/ ( exi/5ce4 ,b ?is totality _c be obta9$ 9 ! =m presuppos$ by ! phrase 8totality ( conditions0 z a plurality ( ev5ts4 ,= to obta9 x 9 ?is fa%ion w\ld mean to sum an inf9ite s]ies4 ,b :5 y ab&on ! =m ( ! inf9ite s]ies1 cause & effect alike become id5tical ) ! sy/ematic :ole ( ,reality4 7#b7 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! usefulness ( ! causal po/ulate dep5ds entirely ^u our ability to e/abli% s+le ?reads ( ,causality )9 ! /ream ( ev5ts1 i4e4 on our ability to assign p>ticul> assemblages ( ev5ts1 less ?an ! 8totality10 to p>ticul> subsequ5t ev5ts z _! necess>y & suffici5t condition4 ,unless we c d ?is we c =mulate no rules = ! practical employm5t ( means = ! production ( a desir$ result1 &1 z we h already se51 x is ! necessity ( kn[+ ! means to our ends :i* is ! prim>y1 & inde$ ! sole1 motive = ! e/abli%m5t ( ! causal po/ulate4 ,n[1 to effect ?is assignation ( p>ticul> causes to p>ticul> effects1 we h to make use ( a di/9ction :i* is m practically necess>y ?an !oretically def5sible4 ,we di/+ui% betwe5 indisp5sable conditions & accessory circum/ances1 :i* may or may n be pres5t )\t affect+ ! nature ( ! special result 9 "q4 ,n[ x is cle> t ! mak+ ( ?is di/9ction dep5ds ^u ! sep>ation ( a c]ta9 "p ( ! 8total0 /ream ( ev5ts f ! re/1 & its isolation z 8! special result 9 "q40 ,& ?is isolation1 z we h se51 mu/ always re/ ^u arbitr>y ab/raction4 ,:5 once ?is arbitr>y ab/raction ( "s "o "p or aspect ( ! /ream ( ev5ts f its context has be5 made1 we are compell$ to recognise ! exi/5ce ( ! context f :i* we h ab/ract$ by say+ t any effect may ent] into or =m "p ( a v>iety ( diff]5t l>g] effects1 accord+ to ! nature ( ! context 9 :i* x occurs4 ,&1 f ! v pr9ciple ( ! complete correlation ( condition & condition$1 x foll[s t :at we call ! special or p>tial effect w be prec$$ by v>y+ conditions1 accord+ z x ent]s into diff]5t l>g] :oles or contexts4 ,?us any =m ( ! causal po/ulate ( :i* we c make effective use necessitates ! recognition ( t v ,plurality ( ,causes :i* we h se5 to be logically exclud$ by ! conception ( cause ) :i* sci5ce works4 ,z we cont5d$ above1 any =m ( ! pr9ciple 9 :i* x is true is useless1 & any =m 9 :i* x is useful is untrue4 ,! f9al result ( our discussion1 !n1 is t ! causal po/ulate accord+ to :i* ev5ts are completely det]m9$ by antec$5t ev5ts leads to ! belief t ! /ream ( ev5ts is discont9u\s4 ,?is belief is inh]5tly self-contradictory1 & !re=e ultimately untrue4 ,! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce _c !re=e be adequately repres5t$ by ! causal po/ulate1 h[ev] indisp5sable t po/ulate may be 9 practice4 ,:e!r ! conception ( a cont9u\s /ream ( ev5ts af=ds any bett] =mulation ( ! pr9ciple ( ! sy/ematic int]connection ( all ,reality1 we %all be bett] able to judge aft] ! discussions ( our ?ird book4 ,if x does n1 we %all h to recognise t ! conception ( temporal succession itself is n adequate to express ! way 9 :i* ! ,_m & ! ,"o ( real exi/5ce are unit$1 i4e4 t "t is n real1 b only ph5om5al4 #aj4 ,a ^w may be said "h z to ! nature ( ! 8necessity0 :i* we ascribe to ! connection ( cause & effect4 ,!re c be little d\bt t ! orig9 ( ?is 8necessity0 mu/ be f\nd 9 our own feel+s ( con/ra9t :5 our action is dictat$ f )\t4 ,x is cle>1 h[ev]1 t we h no "r to ascribe ?is feel+ ( con/ra9t to ! ev5t :i* is det]m9$ by its connection ) ! re/ ( ! sy/em ( ,reality4 ,all t is meant 9 sci5ce by ! 8necessity0 ( ! causal relation is t giv5 ! conditions ! result foll[s1 & n o!rwise4 ,9 o!r words1 if y ass]t ! exi/5ce ( ! conditions1 y are logically b\nd to ass]t ! exi/5ce ( ! result4 ,! con/ra9t ?us falls )9 ourselves1 & is ( a hypo!tical k9d4 ,s long z y\r purpose is to ?9k logically1 y feel con/ra9t or compulsion :51 aft] ass]t+ ! condition1 y seek = any reason to escape ass]t+ ! result4 ,x is "o ( ! conspicu\s s]vices ( ,hume to philosophy1 t he = ! fir/ "t br\ght out cle>ly ?is subjective "* ( ! 8necessity0 ( ! causal relation1 ?\gh x mu/ be admitt$ t he w5t on to complicate 8 argum5t by an admixture ( error :5 he s\ght to base ! necessity ( ! logical inf]5ce f ,gr\nd to ,consequ5ce on ! psy*ological pr9ciple ( ,association4 #aa4 ,be=e clos+ our discussion ( ,causality1 we mu/ briefly take note ( c]ta9 special difficulties by :i* ! problem has be5 complicat$ 9 ! sy/ems ( "s em95t philosoph]s4 ,a di/9ction has (t5 be5 drawn betwe5 ,transeunt & ,imman5t ,causality4 ,9 s f> z ! *anges ( /ate ( "o ?+ are reg>d$ z occasions ( *ange ( /ate 9 o!rs1 ! relation has be5 te*nically call$ "o ( ,transeunt ,causality2 ! det]m9ation ( a ?+'s *ange ( /ate by its own previ\s *anges has1 on ! o!r h&1 be5 nam$ ,imman5t ,causality4 ,z a consequ5ce ( ?is di/9ction1 grave difficulties h aris5 9 connection ) ! notion ( ,transeunt ,causality4 ,su* ,causality1 i4e4 ! det]m9ation ( ! *anges ( "o ?+ by ! *anges ( o!rs1 is ( c\rse an ess5tial feature 9 ! pre-sci5tific view ( ! _w ( exp]i5ce z a multiplicity ( int]act+ ?+s4 ,= sy/ematic ,pluralism ?is conception inevitably pres5ts insoluble difficulties4 ,= x is impossible to reconcile ! ultimate absolute indep5d5ce ( ! v>i\s real ?+s ) ! admission t ! sequ5ce ( /ates 9 any "o dep5ds ^u sequ5ces ( /ates 9 any ( ! o!rs4 ,if a plurality ( ?+s are ultimately indep5d5t ( ea* o!r1 x is manife/ t ea* mu/ =m a complete :ole1 self-det]m9$ & conta9+ ! gr\nd ( its details entirely )9 itself4 ,conv]sely1 if a ?+ _c be expla9$ by a pr9ciple ( purely int]nal sy/ematic connection1 b requires = its complete explanation ref]5ce to an outside reality ) :i* x /&s 9 int]connection1 its indep5d5ce c be only p>tial4 ,h5ce ,pluralism1 9 its m consi/5t =ms1 has always s\ght to d5y ! reality ( ,transeunt ,causality1 & to r$uce all causal relations to ! int]nal det]m9ation ( ! /ates ( a ?+ by its own previ\s /ates4 ,hi/orically1 ! pr9cipal devices :i* h be5 adopt$ = ?is purpose are 7a7 ,occasionalism1 & 7b7 ! !ory ( a ,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony4 7a7 ,occasionalism4 ,occasionalism has appe>$ 9 ! hi/ory ( ,philosophy z a pr(ess$ solution ( ! special problem ( ! app>5t int]action betwe5 body & m9d1 tak5 z two entirely disp>ate & indep5d5t realities1 ?\gh x is equally applicable 9 a wid] s5se to ! m g5]al problem ( ! app>5t connection ( any two indep5d5t real ?+s4 ,! doctr9e is mo/ closely associat$ ) ! names ( ! ,c>tesians1 ,arnold ,geul9cx & ,n4 ,malebran*e1 b 0 9 "p also adopt$ by ,b]keley z a consequ5ce ( 8 belief 9 ! pure passivity ( non-m5tal ?+s4 ,/>t+ f ! ,c>tesian conception ( m9d & body z two entirely indep5d5t & disp>ate k9ds ( reality1 ,geul9cx & ,malebran*e 7 confront$ by ! app>5t fact t m5tal /ates lead to modifications ( bodily /ate 9 volunt>y motion1 & vice v]s1 bodily /ates det]m9e ! occurr5ce ( m5tal /ates :5ev] a s5sation foll[s ^u a /imulus4 ,! 8natural view ( ! _w0 unhesitat+ly accepts ^! cases z in/ances ( int]action or ,transeunt ,causality on exactly ! same level z ! orig9ation ( *ange ( /ate 9 "o body by *ange 9 ano!r1 & ,desc>tes himself _h acquiesc$ 9 ?is int]pretation4 ,b su* a view1 z 8 successors saw1 is q incompatible ) ! alleg$ disp>at5ess & indep5d5ce ( ! two ord]s ( exi/5ce1 ! bodily & ! m5tal4 ,geul9cx & ,malebran*e accord+ly took refuge 9 ! doctr9e t ! int]action is only app>5t4 ,9 reality !re is a complete solution ( cont9uity :]ev] ! s]ies ( *anges 9 ! "o ord] t]m9ates & t 9 ! o!r beg9s4 ,:at really happ5s1 !y taught1 is t ,god adapts ! "o s]ies to ! o!r4 ,on ! occurr5ce ( ! bodily /imulus1 ,god int]v5es to produce ! s5sation or emotion :i* is requir$ to h>monise our action ) our environm5t4 ,simil>ly1 on ! occurr5ce ( a volition1 ,god int]f]es to set ! correspond+ movem5t go+ 9 our bodily organism4 ,?us ! *ange 9 ! "o ord] is m]ely an occasion = ! int]v5tion ( ,god1 :o is ! actual cause ( ! correspond+ *ange 9 ! o!r4 ,)9 ea* ord] ! s]ies ( *anges once initiat$ are !n suppos$ to be causally connect$4 ,! div9e int]f]5ce only comes 9 :]e ! two ord]s come into contact4 ,b]keley adopt$ half ( ?is doctr9e )\t ! complem5t>y half4 ,inasmu* z1 accord+ to him1 physical or non-m5tal ?+s are m]e complexes ( pres5tations1 or1 9 8 own t]m9ology1 8ideas10 & ideas are purely in]t1 ! real cause ( e s5sation mu/ be ,god1 :o ?us directly int]v5es to give u an indication ( ! fur!r s5sations we %all receive accord+ to ! action we take on ! pres5t pres5tation4 ,transeunt ,causality 9 ! rev]se direction1 ! imm$iate orig9ation ( bodily movem5t by volition1 ,b]keley seems to h admitt$ )\t criticism z a self-evid5t fact4#aac ,x w n be necess>y "h to discuss ! half-he>t$ v]sion ( ,occasionalism adopt$ by ,b]keley4 ,x is cle> t ! admission ( direct orig9ation ( bodily *ange by m5tal _c be consi/5tly comb9$ ) ! d5ial ( all ,transeunt ,causality 9 ! rev]se direction4 ,if all physical exi/5ce1 my own body includ$1 is no?+ m ?an an in]t complex ( pres5tations1 x is j z h>d to see h[ x c be ! recipi5t ( m5tally orig9at$ *ange z to see h[ x c orig9ate m5tal *ange4 ,:at is n 9 any s5se active _c be passive1 = passivity is simply repress$ & ?w>t$ activity4 ,we conf9e ourselves1 !n1 to ,occasionalism ( ! ?or\gh-go+ type4 ,n[1 aga9/ su* ,occasionalism !re is ! obvi\s objection t x trans=ms ! :ole c\rse ( our exi/5ce into "o long succession ( miracles1 a po9t ^u :i* ,leibnitz is fond ( insi/+ 9 8 criticisms ( ,malebran*e4 ,& ! doctr9e is n really consi/5t ) itself = two reasons4 7#a7 ,x is cle> t1 accord+ to any possible def9ition ( ,causation1 ! doctr9e ( ,occasionalism involves causal int]action betwe5 ,god on ! "o h& & bo? ! suppos$ly disp>ate ord]s ( reality on ! o!r4 ,*anges 9 ei!r ord] def9itely det]m9e ! int]v5tion ( ,god to orig9ate def9itely det]m9$ *anges 9 ! o!r ord]4 ,?us ,god's int]nal det]m9ations are at once causes & effects ( *anges 9 ei!r ord]4 ,b if1 e4g41 a mat]ial *ange ( /ate c be ! cause ( a det]m9ation 9 ,god1 ! :ole basis ( ! d5ial t a *ange 9 ! mat]ial ord] c orig9ate *ange 9 ano!r ord] ( reality1 is swept away4 ,! net result ( ! !ory is simply to re-e/abli% ! transeunt action ( ! two ord]s on ea* o!r by means ( a r\ndab\t circuit ?r\gh ! m9d ( ,god4 ,:at ,geul9cx & ,malebran*e really _h 9 m9d 0 ! simple reflection t we _c tell h[ a physical *ange c br+ ab\t a m5tal *ange1 or vice v]s4#aad ,b ?is problem is n advanc$ 9 ! lea/ by introduc+ ,god z a ?ird factor4 ,h[ a *ange 9 ! "o ord] c br+ ab\t a det]m9ation 9 ! m9d ( ,god1 & h[ aga9 ,god br+s ab\t ! correspond+ *ange 9 ! o!r ord]1 are simply two insoluble problems ( ! same k9d z t !y 7 int5d$ to expla94 ,aft] ! introduction ( ,god z ?ird factor 9 ! causal process1 ! fact /ill rema9s z be=e1 t c]ta9 def9ite *anges 9 ! "o ord] ensue ^u def9ite *anges 9 ! o!r1 & ?is is precisely ! fact :i* is d5ot$ by ! "n ( ,transeunt ,causality4 ,( c\rse ! problem w\ld alt] its "* if ,god 7 conceiv$ z ano!r expression = ! total sy/em ( ,reality4 ,! doctr9e ( ,occasionalism w\ld !n become simply a /atem5t ( ! view t no two ?+s are really indep5d5t1 & t x is 9 virtue ( _! inclusion 9 a l>g] sy/ematic :ole t :at we call sep>ate ?+s c influ5ce ea* o!r4 ,b1 9 spite ( num]\s pass+ utt]ances :i* po9t to ?is view1 x is q c]ta9 t ,occasionalism 0 s]i\sly int5d$ by its au?ors z a solution ( ! problem ( ,causality on /rictly traditional !i/ic l9es4 7#b7 ,a second defect ( ! doctr9e lies 9 ! failure ( its orig9ators to ext5d x to all cases ( causal relation4 ,x is a m]e prejudice :5 ,geul9cx & ,malebran*e all[ !mselves to assume t ! sequ5ce ( physical *ange on prec$+ physical *ange1 or m5tal *ange on prec$+ m5tal *ange1 is m self-explanatory ?an ! sequ5ce ( a m5tal *ange on a physical4 ,9 bo? cases we c asc]ta9 t "o /ate def9itely foll[s a previ\s "o2 9 nei!r c we answ] ! ultimately unmean+ "q1 by :at ma*9]y ?is sequ5ce is br\ght ab\t4 ,= any answ] mu/ obvi\sly consi/ 9 ! int]polation ( an int]m$iate l9k1 & ) reg>d to ! production ( ?is int]m$iate l9k ! same "q arises1 & ?us we come to ! indef9ite regress1 ! inv>iable indication t we h be5 ask+ an unmean+ "q4 7b7 ,! ,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony4 ,m philosophical 0 ! attempt ( ,leibnitz to reconcile ,pluralism ) ! app>5t int]action ( ?+s4 ,accord+ to ,leibnitz1 e ultimately real ?+ or monad is a self-conta9$ :ole2 x conta9s1 !re=e1 9 itself ! gr\nd ( ! sequ5ce ( its own /ates4 ,h5ce !re c be no real orig9ation ( *ange 9 "o monad by ! occurr5ce ( *ange 9 ano!r4 ,! life ( e monad mu/ consi/ purely 9 ! developm5t ( its own int]nal nature4 ,z ,leibnitz phrases x1 !re are no w9d[s 9 ! monads ?r\gh :i* /ates & qualities c fly f "o to ano!r4 ,yet "s acc\nt mu/ be tak5 ( ! app>5t fact t1 s9ce ! _w ( exp]i5ce is n a *aos1 ! *anges 9 "o ?+ seem to be connect$ by def9ite law ) ! *anges 9 o!rs4 ,n[1 accord+ to ,leibnitz1 ?is app>5t int]action c only be acc\nt$ =1 if we decl9e to tol]ate ! p]petual miracle ( ,occasionalism1 by ! !ory ( a ,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony betwe5 monads4 ,if ! :ole ( ! indep5d5t monads are ( su* a nature t ea*1 :ile actually foll[+ ! law ( its own developm5t1 behaves 9 ! way requir$ by ! int]nal developm5t ( all ! re/1 !n1 ?\gh ea* is really self-conta9$1 !re w be ! appe>ance ( int]action4 ,leibnitz illu/rates ! possibility ( su* a h>mony by ! case ( two clocks :i* keep "t ) ea* o!r1 )\t ei!r ! actual regulation ( ! "o by ! o!r1 or ! ma9t5ance ( a connection betwe5 !m1 simply because ea* is prop]ly con/ruct$2 & aga91 by ! case ( a numb] ( musicians play+ f ! same music b conceal$ f ea* o!r's obs]vation1 :o keep "t & tune simply because ea* is play+ 8 own score correctly4 ,probably ?is is ! mo/ satisfactory hypo!sis :i* c be devis$ = ! conciliation ( app>5t int]action ) a radical ,pluralism4 ,b its logical defects are app>5t on ! face ( x4 ,:5 we ask to :at ! h>mony betwe5 ! int]nal /ates ( ! sev]al monads is ultimately due1 ,leibnitz hesitates betwe5 two answ]s4 ,x is due1 accord+ to "o acc\nt1 to ! *oice ( ,god1 :o 9 ,8 wisdom saw fit to e/abli% ! be/ ( all ! possible worlds4 ,b at ! same "t x 0 ,god's recognition ( ! h>mony betwe5 ! monads ( ?is special _w-sy/em :i* l$ ,him to give x ! pref]5ce ov] o!r antec$5tly possible sy/ems1 & to br+ x r ?an any o!r f m]e possibility into actual exi/5ce4 ,n[ x seems cle> t1 if ! creative activity ( ,god is to be tak5 s]i\sly1 ! relation ( ,god to ! sy/em mu/ be "o ( ,transeunt ,causality4 ,b if ,transeunt ,causality is admitt$ 9 ! s+le case ( ,god's attitude t[>ds ! monads1 x no long] seems obvi\s :y x %\ld be d5i$ z reg>ds ! attitudes ( ! monads among !mselves4 ,= !re is n[ at lea/ "o prop]ty ( ea* monad ( :i* ! gr\nd lies n 9 itself b 9 ,god1 namely1 its actual exi/5ce2#aae & ! pr9ciple t e monad is ! gr\nd ( all its own prop]ties once be+ des]t$1 !re rema9s no fur!r reason = d5y+ int]action4 ,if1 on ! o!r h&1 we lay /ress on ! view t ! h>mony is no m]e result ( an arbitr>y creative act1 b is a prop]ty conta9$ 9 ! concept ( ! _w ( monads1 ?\ght ( z m]ely possible1 :y may we n equally well ?9k ( a _w ( int]act+ & int]connect$ & !re=e n ultimately indep5d5t ?+s z possess+ equal claims to realisation8 ,! ,pluralism ( ,leibnitz1 f :i* 8 d5ial ( ,transeunt ,causality logically foll[s1 seems to re/ ^u no?+ bett] ?an uncriticis$ prejudices4#aaf #ab4 ,we may briefly indicate ! view z to ! problem ( ,transeunt ,causality :i* is involv$ 9 our discussion ( ! causal po/ulate4 ,= any purpose = :i* x is possible & desirable to ?9k ( ! _w z a plurality ( ?+s1 ,transeunt ,causality mu/ be ma9ta9$4 ,= precisely because ! ?+s 9 ! _w 9 ! end =m a connect$ sy/em1 ! complete gr\nd ( ! /ates ( a ?+ _c lie 9 itself b only 9 ! :ole sy/em4 ,9 any s5se 9 :i* !re are a plurality ( ?+s1 & 9 :i* ! pr9ciple ( gr\nd & consequ5ce c be approximately repres5t$ by ! causal det]m9ation ( subsequ5t occurr5ces by ant]ior occurr5ces1 we mu/ be prep>$ to f9d t ! /ates ( "o ?+ appe> among ! conditions ( ! subsequ5t /ates ( o!r ?+s4 ,b aga91 s9ce ! app>5tly sep>ate ?+s are n entirely indep5d5t1 b are ! detail$ self-expression ( a s+le sy/em1 ,transeunt ,causality mu/ 9 ! end be appe>ance4 ,inasmu* z all int]connection betwe5 ?+s dep5ds ^u _! inclusion 9 ! s+le sy/em ( ,reality1 x may be said t1 :5 y take ! :ole into acc\nt1 all ,causality is ultimately imman5t4 ,b aga91 z we h already se51 ,imman5t ,causality is an imp]fect way ( express+ ! sy/ematic connection ( all exi/5ce accord+ to ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,fully ?\ght out1 ,imman5t ,causality1 z ! det]m9ation ( "o /ate ( ! :ole by a prec$+ /ate1 is trans=m$ into ! concept ( ! int]connection ( ! v>i\s /ates by ! purely logical pr9ciple t !y =m toge!r ! detail$ expression ( a s+le coh]5t pr9ciple ( /ructure4 ,& ?us all ,causality is f9ally imp]fect appe>ance4 ,a po9t ( "s int]e/ is ! foll[+4 ,z we h se51 only individual exp]i5ces c 9 ! end possess ! k9d ( relative indep5d5ce & int]nal unity :i* ?\ght seeks to express 9 ! notion ( a ?+4 ,we may add t j 9 ! degree to :i* any exi/5ce has ?is individuality1 & ?us =ms a self-conta9$ :ole1 w its behavi\r h its gr\nd )9 ! ?+ itself4 ,h5ce ! m completely individual a ?+ is1 ! m w ! conditions ^u :i* its /ates dep5d appe> :5 we apply ! po/ulate ( ,causality1 to be includ$ 9 o!r /ates ( ! same ?+4 ,?us ! m individuality a ?+ has1 ! m fully w x appe> to exhibit ,imman5t z di/+ui%$ f ,transeunt ,causality 9 its int]nal /ructure1 t is1 ! less w be ! modifications t /ructure und]goes 9 its int]c\rse ) o!r ?+s4 ,if we l to d5ote ! ma9t5ance ( un*ang$ int]nal /ructure aga9/ in/igations to *ange f )\t by ! t]m 8empirical activity10 we may express our result by say+ t ! m individual a ?+ is1 ! m empirically active x is4 ,:5 we come to deal ) ! special problems ( moral & social life1 we %all h to face fur!r que/ions z to ! connection ( causal det]m9ation ) moral fre$om & responsibility1 & aga9 ) consci\s purposive action = ends4 ,our previ\s discussion w !n be f\nd to h cle>$ ! way = ^! m complex que/ions1 by remov+ ! difficulties :i* arise :5 ! causal po/ulate is mi/ak5 = an axiomatic pr9ciple ( ! int]pretation ( ! sy/ematic nature ( ,reality4 ,consult fur!r3--,b4 ,bosanquet1 ,ess5tials ( ,logic1 pp4 #afd1 #afe2 ,logic1 vol4 i p4 #bec ff41 vol4 ii4 p4 #bab ff42 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #e 7,motion & ,*ange71 #f 7,causation71 #g 7,activity71 #h 7,?+s72 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 *aps4 #d 7,becom+ & ,*ange71 #e 7,nature ( ,physical ,action72 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,!ory ( ,k1 pt4 #b1 *aps4 #h1 #ae 7= discussion ( 8,plurality0 ( ,causes72 ,k>l ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 *aps4 #c & #d2 ,b4 ,russell1 ,philosophy ( ,leibniz1 *aps4 #d1 #aa 7,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony72 ,james ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 pt4 #a1 lectures #b-f2 ,hume's fam\s discussion ( ,causation 7,treatise ( ,human ,nature1 bk4 i4 pt4 #c1 #c-ae7 seems to me to h lo/ little ( its value1 & to be /ill p]haps ! mo/ important s+le contribution ( mod]n ,philosophy to ! sy/ematic discussion ( ,causality4 ----- ,footnote #ajj3 ,= a discussion ( ! same po9t 9 deal+ ) en]gy1 see ,pr(essor ,s*u/]1 ,briti% ,association ,report1 #ahib1 p4 #fca4 ,footnote #aja3 ,w4 ,m#8,d\gall 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb1 p4 #cej4 ,footnote #ajb3 ,see ! admirable rem>ks ( ,bosanquet 9 ,companion to ,plato's ,republic1 pp4 #bge1 #bgf4 ,footnote #ajc3 ,on ! category ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5t & ! pr9ciple ( ,suffici5t ,reason1 consult ,bosanquet1 ,logic1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #f1 & bk4 ii4 *ap4 #g4 ,footnote #ajd3 ,x is no answ] to ?is sugge/ion to urge t ! pres5t1 be+ real1 _c be condition$ by ! future1 :i* is unreal4 ,su* a rejo9d] commits ! metaphysical petitio pr9cipii ( tak+ = grant$ t only ! pres5t is real4 ,x is obvi\s t "o might say ) equal cog5cy t ! pa/1 be+ ov] & gone1 is n[ unreal & !re=e _c influ5ce ! real pres5t4 ,footnote #aje3 ,= a full] explanation ( :at is meant by cont9uity1 consult ,d$ek9d1 ,/etigkeit und irrationale ,zahl51 specially #c-e1 or ,lamb's ,inf9itesimal ,calculus1 *ap4 #a4 ,read]s :o h be5 accu/om$ to ! treatm5t ( cont9uity by ! old] philosophical writ]s %\ld specially rem>k 7#a7 t cont9uity is prop]ly a *>act]i/ic ( s]ies1 & 7#b7 t ?\gh cont9uity implies indef9ite divisibility1 ! rev]se is n1 z 0 sometimes assum$ by e>li] writ]s1 true4 ,! s]ies ( rational numb]s is a famili> illu/ration ( endless divisibility )\t cont9uity4 ,footnote #ajf3 ,!re w\ld arise fur!r difficulties z to :e!r ! magnitude ( ?is lapse is a function ( ,a1 or :e!r x is ! same 9 all cases ( causal sequ5ce4 ,b until "s "o c be f\nd to def5d su* a g5]al !ory ( causal sequ5ce x is premature to discuss difficulties ( detail4 ,footnote #ajg3 ,= ! ,engli% read] ! be/ s\rces ( in=mation z to ! 8descriptive0 !ory ( sci5ce are probably volume i4 ( ,pr(essor ,w>d's ,naturalism & ,agno/icism2 & ,ma*1 ! ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics 7,eng4 trans474 ,/ud5ts :o read ,g5nan may advantage\sly add ,av5>ius1 ,philosophie als ,d5k5 d] ,welt gemss dem ,pr9cip des kle9/5 ,kraftmasses4 ,pr(essor ,j4 ,a4 ,/ew>t is surely mi/ak5 7,m9d1 ,july #aijb7 9 treat+ ! doctr9e z a discov]y ( 8ideali/0 metaphysicians4 ,:atev] may be ?\ght ( "s ( ! uses to :i* 8ideali/s0 put ! !ory1 !y _c claim ! cr$it ( its inv5tion4 ,footnote #ajh3 ,cf4 ,ma*1 op4 cit41 p4 #dhc ff42 ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 *ap4 #d4 ,footnote #aji3 ,e4g41 eclipses c be calculat$ equally well = ! future or ! pa/4 ,footnote #aaj3 ,infra1 ,bk4 ,,iii4 *ap4 #d4 ,x w be en\gh to ref] 9 pass+ to ! curi\s blund] :i* is committ$ :5 ! pr9ciple ( ,causality is conf\nd$ ) ! doctr9es ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass & ,en]gy4 ,t ! pr9ciple ( ,causality has no?+ to d ) ^! special physical !ories is manife/ f ! consid]ations3 7#a7 ,t x is at lea/ n self-evid5t t all causal relation is physical4 ,philosoph]s h inde$ d5i$ t "o m5tal /ate directly causes ano!r1 b no "o has bas$ 8 d5ial on ! ass]tion t !re c be no causality )\t mass & en]gy4 7#b7 ,! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 z we h se51 is a po/ulate4 ,if we are ev] to int]v5e successfully 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 x mu/ be possible ) at lea/ approximate accuracy to reg>d ev5ts z det]m9$ by _! antec$5ts4 ,! doctr9es ( cons]vation ( mass & en]gy are1 on ! contr>y1 empirical g5]alisations f ! obs]v$ behavi\r ( mat]ial sy/ems4 ,nei!r sci5ce nor practical life 9 ! lea/ requires !m z an indisp5sable condition ( success4 ,9 practical life !y are nev] appeal$ to1 & ! able/ expon5ts ( sci5ce are mo/ ready to admit t we h no pro( ( _! validity except s f> z x c be e/abli%$ by actual obs]vation4 ,9 %ort1 !y are l>gely a po/]iori1 :ile ! pr9ciple ( ,causality is1 z already expla9$1 a priori4 ,see infra1 ,bk4 ,,iii4 *ap4 #f1 #f4 ,footnote #aaa3 ,nei!r c h a fir/ t]m1 because ea* has two opposite s5ses1 positive & negative 9 ! "o case1 be=e & aft] 9 ! o!r4 ,footnote #aab3 ,i suppose ,i ne$ n rem9d my read] t :5 a numb] is spok5 ( z ! actual sum ( an inf9ite s]ies 7z :5 #b is call$ ! sum ( ! s]ies #a #a_/b #a_/d #a_/h 444 to inf9ity71 ! ^w sum is us$ 9 a d]ivative & improp] s5se = ! limit+ value assum$ by ! sum ( n t]ms z n increases indef9itely4 ,see ,lamb1 ,inf9itesimal ,calculus1 p4 #aa4 ,footnote #aac3 ,= ! v>i\s views "h summ>is$1 see z orig9al s\rces1 ,geul9cx1 ,metaphysica ,v]a1 ,p>s ,prima1 #e-h2 ,malebran*e1 ,entreti5s sur la ,metaphysique et sur la ,religion1 #g? dialogue2 ,b]keley1 ,new ,!ory ( ,vision1 pp4 #adg1 #adh2 ,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k1 #be-cc1 #ea-ec1 #eg1 #aej2 ,second ,dialogue betwe5 ,hylas & ,philon\s4 ,footnote #aad3 ,geul9cx expresses ! pr9ciple 9 ! foll[+ =mula 7op4 cit41 pt4 #a1 #e73 quod nescis quomodo fiat1 id non facis4 ,footnote #aae3 ,n t exi/5ce c intelligibly be treat$ z a prop]ty2 on ?is po9t ,kant's fam\s criticism ( ! 8ontological pro(0 seems conclusive4 ,b f ! po9t ( view ( ,leibnitz x mu/ be imag9$ z an additional pr$icate1 someh[ add$ by ! creative act ( ,god to ^? already conta9$ 9 ! concept ( ! _w z 8possible40 ,footnote #aaf3 ,= ,leibnitz's doctr9e consult fur!r1 ,! ,monadology etc41 ( ,leibniz1 edit4 by ,r4 ,latta1 ,introduction1 pts4 #b & #c1 & translations ( ,monadology1 ,new ,sy/em ( ! ,communication ( ,sub/ances1 ) ! ,fir/ & ,?ird ,explanations ( ! ,new ,sy/em4 ,also see ! elaborate criticisms ( ,b4 ,russell1 ,! ,philosophy ( ,leibniz1 *ap4 #d & foll[+ *apt]s4 ----- ,,book ,,iii ,,cosmology--,,! ,,int]pretation ,,( ,,nature ,,*apt] ,i ,,introductory #a4 ,di/9ction betwe5 ! exp]im5tal sci5ces & a ,philosophy ( ,nature & ,m9d4 ,! =m] conc]n$ ) ! description1 ! latt] ) ! int]pretation1 ( facts4 #b4 ,cosmology is ! critical exam9ation ( ! special *>act]i/ics ( ! physical ord]4 ,its ma9 problems are3 7#a7 ! problem ( ! nature ( ,mat]ial ,exi/5ce2 7#b7 problem ( ! ju/ification ( ! concept ( ! ,me*anical ,uni=mity ( ,nature2 7#c7 problems ( ,space & ,"t2 7#d7 problem ( ! ,significance ( ,evolution2 7#e7 problem ( ! ,place ( descriptive ,physical ,sci5ce 9 ! ,sy/em ( ,human ,k4 #a4 ,9 our two rema9+ ,books we %all h to deal ) ! m elem5t>y ( ! problems creat$ by ! app>5t exi/5ce ( two ord]s ( ,reality1 a physical & a psy*ical1 :i* aga9 at lea/ seem to /& 9 reciprocal int]action4 ,9 ! pres5t ,book we %all discuss "s ( ! lead+ *>act]i/ics :i* ev]yday ?\ght & sci5tific ?\ght respectively assign to ! physical ord]1 & %all ask h[ ^! *>act]i/ics comp>e ) ^? we h se5 gr\nd to ascribe to ,reality1 i4e4 we %all attempt to =m a !ory ( ! place ( physical exi/5ce 9 ! :ole sy/em ( ,reality4 ,9 ! ,f\r? ,book we %all discuss 9 ! same way "s ( ! lead+ *>act]i/ics ( ! psy*ical ord] z curr5tly conceiv$1 & ! nature ( its connection ) ! physical ord]4 ,our treatm5t ( ^! topics w necess>ily be imp]fect & elem5t>y = m reasons ?an "o3 n only are ! facts ( :i* "s acc\nt mu/ be tak5 s num]\s & complicat$ t !y w\ld require = _! ma/]y some?+ l an encyclopdic acqua9tance ) ! :ole range ( ! exp]im5tal sci5ces1 physical & psy*ological1 b _! adequate int]pretation1 especially on ! cosmological side1 w\ld dem& a famili>ity ) ! ultimate f\ndations ( ma!matical !ory :i* is r>ely possess$ ei!r by ! exp]im5tali/ or by ! metaphysician4 ,! utmo/ we c hope to accompli% 9 ?is "p ( our "w is to e/abli% "o or two broad results z reg>ds g5]al pr9ciples3 any sugge/ions we may make z to ! details ( int]pretation mu/ be av[$ly t5tative4 ,we mu/ be c>eful to di/+ui% ! task ( a ,philosophy ( ,nature & a ,philosophy ( ,m9d f ^? ( ! exp]im5tal sci5ces :i* deal directly ) ! fact ( ! physical & psy*ical ord]s4 ,! fundam5tal bus9ess ( ! latt] is1 z we h already se51 ! discov]y ( descriptive =mul by ! aid ( :i* ! v>i\s processes :i* make up ! physical & psy*ical ord]s may be depict$ & calculat$4 ,! few] & simpl] ^! =mul1 ! m !y economise ! lab\r ( calculation1 ! m completely d ! exp]im5tal sci5ces p]=m ! "w = :i* we look to !m4 ,& s long z our =mul adequately accompli% ?is "w ( calculation1 x is indiff]5t = ! exp]im5tal sci5ces :e!r ! language 9 :i* !y are c\*$ repres5ts a 8reality0 or n4 ,! 8atoms10 8=ces10 & 8e!rs0 ( our physical1 ! 8s5sations0 ( our psy*ological =mul1 might be z purely symbolic creations ( our own imag9ation z ! 8imag9>y quantities0 ( ma!matics1 )\t _! unreality 9 any way int]f]+ ) _! sci5tific usefulness4 ,9 ! words ( an em95t physici/1 8! atomic !ory plays a "p 9 physics simil> to t ( c]ta9 auxili>y concepts 9 ma!matics1 444 al?\gh we repres5t vibrations by ! h>monic =mula1 ! ph5om5a ( cool+ by expon5tials1 falls by squ>es ( times1 etc41 no "o w fancy t vibrations 9 !mselves h any?+ to d ) ! circul> functions1 or ! motion ( fall+ bodies ) squ>es0 7,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 p4 #dib74 ,:5 x is ass]t$ t ! usefulness ( a sci5tific hypo!sis1 su* z1 e4g41 ! atomic !ory or ! hypo!sis ( ! exi/5ce ( an e!rial undulat+ m$ium1 ( itself proves ! real exi/5ce ( ?+s correspond+ to ! concepts employ$ by ! hypo!sis1 ! same fallacy is committ$ z :5 x is cont5d$ t if an algebraical calculus is g5]ally capable ( geometrical int]pretation1 e /ep 9 its op]ations mu/ be int]pretable4 ,! "w ( ! ,philosophy ( ,nature & ( ,m9d only beg9s :]e t ( ! exp]im5tal sci5ces leaves (f4 ,its data are n p>ticul> facts1 z directly amass$ by exp]im5t & obs]vation1 b ! hypo!ses us$ by exp]im5tal sci5ce = ! co-ord9ation & description ( ^? facts4 ,& x exam9es ^! hypo!ses1 n ) ! object ( modify+ _! /ructure s z to include new facts1 or to include ! old facts 9 a simpl] =m1 b purely = ! purpose ( e/imat+ _! value z an acc\nt ( ultimately real exi/5ce4 ,:e!r ! hypo!ses are adequate z implem5ts = ! calculation ( natural processes is a "q :i* ,philosophy1 :5 x und]/&s its place1 leaves entirely to ! special sci5ces2 :e!r !y c claim to be m ?an useful =mul = calculation1 i4e4 :e!r !y give u k ( ultimate ,reality1 is a problem :i* c only be dealt ) by ! sci5ce :i* sy/ematically analyses ! mean+ ( reality1 i4e4 by ,metaphysics4 ,we may p]haps foll[ ! usage ( "s rec5t writ]s 9 m>k+ ?is diff]5ce ( object by a diff]5ce 9 t]m9ology1 & say t ! goal ( exp]im5tal sci5ce is ! ,description ( facts1 ! goal ( ,metaphysics _! ,int]pretation4 ,! diff]5ce ( aim is1 h[ev]1 n ultimate4 ,description ( facts1 :5 once we cease to be cont5t ) su* description z w subs]ve ! purpose ( calculation & call = description ( ! fact z x really is1 ( itself becomes metaphysical int]pretation4 ,! *ief dang] aga9/ :i* we mu/ gu>d 9 ?is "p ( our metaphysical /udies is t ( expect+ too mu* f our sci5ce4 ,we c\ld nev]1 ( c\rse1 hope = su* a complete int]pretation ( facts z might be possible to omnisci5ce4 ,at mo/ we c only expect to see 9 a g5]al way h[ ! physical & aga9 h[ ! psy*ical ord] mu/ be ?\ght ( if our view z to ! ultimate /ructure ( ,reality is s\nd4 ,= an exact und]/&+ ( ! way 9 :i* ! details ( physical & psy*ical exi/5ce are wov5 into ! all-embrac+ patt]n ( ! real1 we mu/ n look4 ,& ! value ( ev5 a g5]al int]pretation w ( c\rse dep5d l>gely ^u our famili>ity ) ! actual use ! v>i\s sci5ces make ( _! hypo!ses4 ,) ! be/ goodwill 9 ! _w we _c hope to avoid all misappreh5sions 9 deal+ ) ! concepts ( sci5ces ) :i* we h no practical famili>ity4 ,?\gh ?is g5]al caution is at lea/ equally applicable to ! amateur excursions ( ! /ud5t ^: m5tal tra9+ has be5 conf9$ to "s special gr\p ( exp]im5tal sci5ces into ! field ( metaphysical criticism1 x w\ld be a good rule = practice if e /ud5t ( ,metaphysics w\ld consid] x "p ( 8 duty to make himself some?+ m ?an an amateur 9 at lea/ "o bran* ( empirical sci5ce2 probably ,psy*ology1 f its hi/orical connection ) philosophical /udies1 pres5ts unique advantages = ?is purpose4 ,& conv]sely1 no speciali/ 9 exp]im5tal sci5ce %\ld v5ture on ultimate metaphysical con/ruction )\t at lea/ a respectable acqua9tance ) ! pr9ciples ( ,logic1 an acqua9tance h>dly to be ga9$ by ! p]usal ( ,jevons's ,elem5t>y ,lessons ) a supplem5t ( ,mill4 #b4 ,cosmology1 !n1 means ! critical exam9ation ( ! assumptions involv$ 9 ! recognition ( ! physical z a di/9ct ord] ( exi/5ce1 & ( ! mo/ g5]al hypo!ses employ$ by popul> ?\ght & sci5tific reflection respectively = ! description ( specially physical exi/5ce4 ,x is cle> t ?is v recognition ( a di/9ction betwe5 ! physical & o!r conceivable =ms ( exi/5ce implies a degree ( reflective analysis m advanc$ ?an t embodi$ 9 ! nave pre-sci5tific view ) :i* we />t$ 9 our la/ two *apt]s4 ,9 ! simple conception ( ! _w ( exi/5ce z consi/+ ( ! *ang+ /ates ( a plurality ( int]act+ ?+s1 !re 0 n z yet any gr\nd = a di/9ction betwe5 ! psy*ical & ! purely physical4 ,t !re really exi/s a widespread type ( ?\ght = :i* ?is di/9ction has nev] aris51 is put beyond d\bt by ! /udy ( ! psy*ology ( ! *ild & ! savage4 ,bo?1 z we "k1 draw no h>d-&-fa/ l9e betwe5 ! animat$ & ! inanimate1 & ! savage1 9 8 attempts to acc\nt = ! ph5om5a ( life1 does s habitually by suppos+ ! physical organism to be t5ant$ by "o or m less] organisms ( ! same ord] ( exi/5ce4 ,! 8s\l0 he ascribes to ?+s is simply a small] & consequ5tly less readily p]ceptible body )9 ! body4 ,= civilis$ m5 ?is conception ( all exi/5ce z be+ ( ! same ord]1 an ord] :i* we might describe f our own m develop$ /&po9t z at once animat$ & physical1 has become s remote & inadequate1 t we f9d x h>d to realise h[ x c ev] h be5 univ]sally accept$ z self-evid5t tru?4 ,physical sci5ce1 & "u its guidance ! curr5t ?\ght ( civilis$ m51 has come to draw a m>k$ di/9ction betwe5 ! great majority ( s5sible ?+s1 :i* x reg>ds z purely physical1 & a m9ority :i* exhibit ! pres5ce ( 8consci\sness40 ,?us has aris5 a !ory ( ! division ( exi/5ce into two great ord]s1 ! physical & ! psy*ical1 :i* s dom9ates our ord9>y ?\ght ab\t ! _w1 t all ! ef=ts ( philosoph]s1 bo? spirituali/ & mat]iali/1 to r$uce ! two ord]s once m to "o seem p[]less to make any impression on ! great majority ( m9ds4 ,:5 we ask :at are ! di/+ui%+ m>ks ( ! physical ord] z curr5tly conceiv$1 ! precise answ] we obta9 w dep5d on ! degree ( sci5tific atta9m5ts possess$ by ! p]son to :om our "q is address$4 ,b 9 ! ma9 bo? curr5t sci5ce & ev]yday ?\ght1 s f> z x has reflect$ on ! problem1 w\ld probably agree z to ! foll[+ po9ts4 7a7 ,physical exi/5ce is purely mat]ial or non-m5tal1 or aga9 is unconsci\s4 ,! exact significance ( ^! pr$icates is probably r>ely cle> ev5 to ^? :o make ! free/ use ( !m4 ,on ! face ( x1 su* epi!ts convey only ! in=mation t exi/5ce ( ! physical k9d diff]s 9 "s important respect f exi/5ce ( a m5tal k9d2 ! nature ( ! diff]5ce !y leave obscure4 ,reflection1 h[ev]1 may ?r[ "s light on ! matt]4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 p]sons & animals on ! "o side & m]e ?+s on ! o!r seems to re/ 9 ! la/ resort on an important practical consid]ation4 ,among ! ?+s :i*1 accord+ to ! nave ,realism ( ! pre-sci5tific !ory1 =m my environm5t1 !re are "s :i* regul>ly behave 9 mu* ! same g5]al way 9 response to v diff]5t types ( behavi\r on my own "p4 ,!re are o!rs aga9 :i* behave diff]5tly t[>ds me accord+ to ! diff]5ces 9 my behavi\r t[>ds !m4 ,9 o!r words1 "s ?+s exhibit special individual purposes1 dep5d5t 9 v>i\s ways on ! nature ( my own individual purposes1 o!rs d n4 ,h5ce = practice x becomes v important to "k :at ?+s c be c\nt$ on always to exhibit ! same g5]al type ( behavi\r1 & :at _c1 b require individual /udy be=e ,i c tell h[ !y w respond to diff]5t purposive behavi\r ( my own4 ,x is on ?is practical diff]5ce t ! di/9ction ( m5tal & consci\s f purely physical & unconsci\s exi/5ce seems to be bas$4 ,we %all probably n be f> wrong 9 int]pret+ ! unconsci\sness ( purely mat]ial exi/5ce to mean t x exhibits no traces ( purposive individuality1 or at lea/ none t we c recognise z su*4 ,m briefly1 ! physical ord] consi/s ( ! ?+s :i* d n manife/ recognisable individuality4 7b7 ,closely connect$ ) ?is peculi>ity is a second4 ,! physical ord] is made up ( ev5ts :i* con=m rigidly to c]ta9 univ]sal ,laws4 ,?is is an obvi\s consequ5ce ( its lack ( purposive individuality4 ,! elem5ts ( :i* x is compos$1 be+ devoid ( all purposive "* ( _! own1 always behave 9 ! same surr\nd+s 9 ! same regul> uni=m way4 ,h5ce we c =mulate precise g5]al ,laws ( _! behavi\r4 ,orig9ally1 no d\bt1 ?is uni=mity ( ! physical ord] is ?\ght ( z a po9t ( contra/ ) ! irregul> behavi\r ( purposive be+s1 :o respond diff]5tly to ! same ext]nal surr\nd+s accord+ z _! own int]nal purposes v>y4 ,) ! gr[? ( ,psy*ology z an exp]im5tal sci5ce ( m5tal processes !re inevitably arises ! t5d5cy to ext5d ?is concept ( uni=m con=mity ) g5]al ,law to ! processes ( ! psy*ical ord]1 & we are !n confront$ by ! fam\s problem h[ to reconcile sci5tific law ) human 8fre$om40 ,! same anti!sis betwe5 ! app>5tly regul> & purposeless behavi\r ( ! elem5ts ( ! physical ord] & ! app>5tly irregul> & purposive behavi\r ( ! memb]s ( ! psy*ical ord] is also express$ by say+ t ! sequ5ce ( ev5ts 9 ! physical ord] is me*anically det]m9$ by ! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 :]eas t ( ! psy*ical ord] is teleological1 i4e4 det]m9$ by ref]5ce to end or purpose4 7c7 ,e elem5t ( ! physical ord] fills a position 9 space & 9 "t4 ,h5ce any metaphysical problems ab\t ! nature ( space & "t are b\nd to affect our view ( ! nature ( ! physical ord]4 ,"h1 aga91 !re is a po9t ( at lea/ possible contra/ betwe5 ! physical & ! psy*ical4 ,z ! accumulation ( exp]i5ce makes x increas+ly cle>] t ! bodies ( my fell[-m5 & my own body1 9 s f> z x is an object p]ceiv$ l o!rs by ! organs ( ! special s5ses1 exhibit 9 _m respects ! same con=mity to c]ta9 g5]al laws1 & are compos$ ( ! same con/itu5t p>ts z ! re/ ( ! s5sible _w1 su* animat$ bodies ( purposive ag5ts h to be includ$ along ) ! re/ ( s5sible exi/5ce 9 ! physical ord]4 ,! individual's purposive individuality has n[ to be ?\ght ( z resid+ 9 a di/9ct factor 9 8 composition ( a k9d =eign to ! physical ord]1 & !re=e imp]ceptible by ! s5ses1 i4e4 z a m9d or s\l or /ream ( consci\sness 9 ! curr5t psy*ological s5se4 ,su* a m9d or s\l or /ream ( consci\sness is !n usually reg>d$ z n fill+ a s]ies ( positions 9 space1 & sometimes z n fill+ a s]ies ( positions 9 "t4 7d7 ,! physical ord]1 z ?us f9ally con/itut$ by ! introduction ( ! concept ( an imp]ceptible s\l or m9d1 n[ comprises all s5sible exi/5ce#aag z an aggregate ( ev5ts 9 "t & space1 l9k$ toge!r by ! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 & exhibit+ con=mity ) g5]al law4 ,to ?is conception rec5t sci5ce has made an important addition 9 ! notion ( a cont9u\s evolution or developm5t z manife/+ itself ?r\gh\t ! s]ies4 ,s t we may ultimately def9e ! physical ord] z a body ( ev5ts occupy+ position 9 "t & space1 con=m+ to g5]al laws ) rigid & undeviat+ uni=mity1 & exhibit+ cont9u\s evolution4#aah ,f ^! g5]al *>act]i/ics ( ! physical ord]1 z conceiv$ by curr5t sci5ce & curr5t popul> ?\ght1 arise ! fundam5tal problems ( ,cosmology4 ,we h to discuss--7#a7 ! real nature ( mat]ial exi/5ce1 i4e4 ! ultimate significance ( ! di/9ction betwe5 ! two ord]s1 & ! possibility ( r$uc+ !m to "o2 7#b7 ! ju/ification = ! di/9ction betwe5 me*anical & teleological processes1 & = ! conception ( ! physical ord] z rigidly con=mable to uni=m law2 7#c7 ! lead+ difficulties ( ! conceptions ( "t & space1 & _! be>+ on ! degree ( reality to be ascrib$ to ! physical ord]2 7#d7 ! philosophical implications ( ! application ( ! notion ( evolution or developm5t to ! ev5ts ( ! physical ord]2 7#e7 f9ally1 we ought p]haps to deal v briefly & 9 a v elem5t>y fa%ion ) ! problem ( ! real position ( descriptive physical sci5ce z a :ole 9 its relation to ! re/ ( human k4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bf 7pp4 #dif-dig1 #a/ ed472 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,outl9es ( ,metaphysic1 pp4 #gg-gi2 ,j4 ,s4 ,mack5zie1 ,outl9es ( ,metaphysics1 bk4 iii4 *ap4 #b2 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism4 lect4 #a4 ----- ,footnote #aag3 ,i4e4 exi/5ce ( ! same k9d z t p]ceiv$ by ! s5ses1 :e!r actually s p]ceiv$ or n4 ,9 ?is s5se ! solid imp5etrable ext5d$ atoms ( ,newton or ,locke are 8s5sible0 exi/5ce1 inasmu* z _! prop]ties are ! same 9 k9d z c]ta9 p]ceptible prop]ties ( l>g] masses1 ?\gh !y are n !mselves actually p]ceptible4 ,footnote #aah3 ,( c\rse ! evolution mu/ be m]e subjective appe>ance if1 z is sometimes assum$1 ! processes ( ! physical ord] are "o & all purely me*anical4 ,b ?is only %[s t ! curr5t concept ( ! physical ord] is n free f inconsi/5cies4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,matt] #a4 ,! physical ord]1 because dep5d5t = its p]ceiv$ qualities on ! s5se-organs ( ! p]cipi5t1 mu/ be ! appe>ance ( a m ultimate reality :i* is non-physical4 #b4 ,b]keley's criticism is fatal to ! id5tification ( ?is reality ) 8mat]ial sub/ance40 ,! logical consequ5ce ( ,b]keley's doctr9e t ! esse ( s5sible ?+s is p]cipi w\ld be ! subjectivi/ view t ! physical ord] is only a complex ( pres5tations4 #c4 ,b ?is is cle>ly n ! case ) t "p ( ! physical ord] :i* consi/s ( ! bodies ( my fell[-m54 ,^! h an exi/5ce1 z c5tres ( feel+1 ov] & above _! exi/5ce z pres5tations to my s5ses4 #d4 ,z ! bodies ( my fell[s are connect$ 9 "o sy/em ) ! re/ ( ! physical ord]1 t ord] z a :ole mu/ h ! same k9d ( reality :i* belongs to !m4 ,x mu/ be ! pres5tation to our s5se ( a sy/em or complex ( sy/ems ( exp]i5c+ subjects2 ! app>5t abs5ce ( life & purpose f inorganic nature mu/ be due to our inability to ent] into a direct communion ( int]e/ ) its memb]s4 #e4 ,"s consequ5ces ( ?is view4 #a4 ,9 ! prec$+ *apt] we h v briefly indicat$ ! nature ( ! /eps by :i* reflective ?\ght comes to di/+ui% %>ply betwe5 a physical & a psy*ical ord] ( exi/5ce4 ,! physical ord]1 :5 ! concept has be5 br\ght into its complete %ape by ! inclusion ( my own body & all its p>ts1 is ?\ght ( z a sy/em compris+ all ! bodies 9 ! univ]se1 t is1 all ! exi/5ces :i* are ( ! same k9d z ^? :i* ,i directly p]ceive by means ( ! special s5ses4#aai ,n[1 ) reg>d to ! :ole physical ord] ?us conceiv$ two ?+s seem fairly obvi\s ^u ! lea/ reflection1 t x does n dep5d = its exi/5ce ^u ! fact ( my actually p]ceiv+ x1 & t x does dep5d ^u my p]ception = all ! qualities & relations :i* ,i f9d 9 x4 ,its t appe>s indep5d5t ( ! p]cipi5t1 b its :at1 on ! o!r h&1 ess5tially dep5d5t on & relative to ! /ructure ( ! p]ceiv+ organ4 ,z we h already se51 ! famili> exp]i5ce ( ! v>iations 9 p]ception :i* accompany diff]5ces 9 ! p]man5t /ructure or tempor>y function+ ( ! organs ( s5se l$1 v e>ly 9 ! hi/ory ( ,philosophy1 to ! recognition ( ?is relativity1 s f> z ! s-call$ 8second>y0 qualities1 i4e4 ^? :i* c only be p]ceiv$ by "o special s5se-organ1 are conc]n$4 ,we h also se5 suffici5tly 79 ,bk4 ,,ii4 *ap4 #d7 t ! same consid]ation holds equally good ( ^? 8prim>y0 qualities :i* are p]ceptible by m s5ses ?an "o1 & h probably = t reason be5 s (t5 suppos$ to be unaffect$ by ?is relativity to a p]ceiv+ organ4 ,)\t wa/+ ! read]'s "t by unnecess>y repetition ( our =m] reason+1 x may be wor? :ile to po9t out "h h[ ?is ?or\gh-go+ relativity ( ! qualities ( ! physical ord] to a p]cipi5t organ leads directly to ! indef9ite regress1 ! app>5tly inv>iable consequ5ce ( all contradictions 9 ,metaphysics1 :5 we try to take ^? qualities z indep5d5tly real4 ,i p]ceive ! prop]ties ( physical exi/5ce by special s5se-organs1 & ! prop]ties z p]ceiv$ are condition$ by ! /ructure ( ^? organs4 ,b ea* s5se-organ is itself a memb] ( ! physical ord]1 & z su* is p]ceiv$ by & dep5d5t = its p]ceiv$ qualities ^u ano!r organ4 ,?is second s5se-organ 9 its turn is also a memb] ( ! physical ord]1 & is p]ceiv$ by a ?ird1 or by ! fir/ organ aga94 ,& !re is no end to ?is mutual dep5d5ce4 ,! physical ord]1 z a :ole1 mu/ be a 8/ate0 ( my n]v\s sy/em1 :i* is itself a "p ( t ord]4 ,we %all see m fully 9 our f9al ,book1 :5 we come to discuss ! problem ( ,m9d & ,body1 t ?is contradiction is an inevitable result ( ! inconsi/5cy involv$ 9 ! inclusion ( my own body 9 ! physical ord]1 an inconsi/5cy :i* is1 9 its turn1 a necess>y consequ5ce ( ! h>d-&-fa/ sep>ation ( ! two ord]s ( exi/5ce4#abj ,consid]ations ( ?is k9d h l$ to ! g5]al recognition t ! physical ord] mu/ be reg>d$ z ph5om5al1 z ! manife/ation to s5se-p]ception ( a reality :i* is 9 its own nature inaccessible to s5se-p]ception1 & !re=e1 9 ! /ricte/ s5se ( ! words1 n physical4 ,:5 we ask1 h[ev]1 h[ ?is non-physical reality ( :i* ! physical ord] is ! ph5om5al manife/ation to our s5ses1 is to be ?\ght (1 we f9d ourselves at once plung$ into ! same difficulties :i* we h already met1 9 a m g5]al =m1 9 discuss+ ! concept ( ,sub/ance4 ,popul> ?\ght1 & sci5ce s f> z x is cont5t to accept ! notions ( popul> ?\ght )\t criticism1 h commonly fall5 back on ! idea ( ! non-ph5om5al gr\nd ( ! physical ord] z an unp]ceiv$ 8sub/ratum40 ,to ?is sub/ratum x has giv5 ! "n ( matt]1 & has ?us int]pret$ ! physical ord] z ! effect produc$ by ! causal action ( an unp]ceiv$ matt] ^u our s5se-organs1 or r1 to speak ) m precision1 ^u _! unkn[n mat]ial sub/ratum4 ,frequ5tly1 z might h be5 expect$1 ! attempt has be5 made to id5tify ?is sub/ratum ) ^? ( ! kn[n qualities ( ! physical ord] :i* appe> lea/ liable to modification ) ! v>y+ /ates ( ! p]cipi5t organs1 & l5d !mselves mo/ readily to measurem5t & calculation1 ! s-call$ 8prim>y0 qualities ( me*anical sci5ce4 ,?is is ! /&po9t adopt$ by ,newton &1 9 ! ma91 by ,locke1 & l>gely ?r\gh ! influ5ce ( _! "w /ill rema9s ! mo/ famili> to ! ord9>y ,engli% m9d4 ,b ! inconsi/5cies we h already f\nd inh]5t 9 su* a conception ( ,sub/ance z is "h presuppos$1 s inevitably make !mselves felt ^u any s]i\s exam9ation1 t ! doctr9e regul>ly appe>s 9 ! hi/ory ( ?\ght z a m]e tempor>y halt+-place 9 ! advance to ! m radical notion ( matt] z ! entirely unkn[n non-ph5om5al sub/ratum ( ! s5sible prop]ties ( bodies4 #b4 ,?is latt] notion is aga9 manife/ly op5 to all ! objections previ\sly br\ght aga9/ ! m g5]al concept ( sub/ance z an unkn[n sub/ratum or support ( prop]ties4 ,x is f ^! objections t ,b]keley's fam\s criticism ( ! concept ( matt]1 ! mo/ orig9al attempt at a con/ructive !ory ( ! real nature ( ! physical ord] 9 ! hi/ory ( ,engli% ,philosophy1 />ts4 ,b]keley fir/ takes ! id5tification ( mat]ial sub/ance ) ! prim>y qualities ( body1 :i* ,locke _h made curr5t 9 ,engli% speculation1 & %[s1 by insi/+ ^u ! relativity ( p]ceiv$ quality to p]cipi5t organ1 t x is unt5able4 ,hav+ ?us driv5 8 oppon5t to surr5d] ?is id5tification1 & to def9e matt] z ! unkn[n sub/ratum ( ! physical ord]1 he proce$s to argue t ?is notion ( an unkn[n sub/ratum is bo? useless & un9telligible4 ,x is useless1 because our k ( ! actual prop]ties & processes ( ! physical ord] c nei!r be ext5d$ nor made cle>] by ! addition ( an unkn[able2 x is un9telligible1 because we c give no acc\nt to ourselves ( ! nature ( ! 8support0 suppos$ to be be/[$ by ! sub/ratum or ! prop]ties4 ,mat]ial sub/ance be+ ?us dismiss$ z an unmean+ fiction1 :at is left z ! reality ( ! physical ord]8 ,accord+ to ,b]keley1 no?+ b ! actual pres5tations1 or 8ideas10 9 :i* ! p]cipi5t subject is aw>e ( ! prop]ties ( bodies4 ,a body is simply su* a complex ( pres5tations to a p]cipi5t2 except z s pres5t$ x has no exi/5ce4 ,z ,b]keley is fond ( putt+ x1 ! esse ( ! mat]ial ?+ is simply p]cipi1 ! fact ( its be+ pres5t$4 ,b j :5 we expect ,b]keley to accept ! complete subjectivi/ cont5tion t bodies are simply 8/ates ( ! p]cipi5ts' consci\sness0 & no?+ m1 he rememb]s t he has to acc\nt bo? = ! fact t we _c p]ceive :at we please & :]e we please1 b t our p]ceptions =m an ord] l>gely indep5d5t ( our own *oice1 & = ! deep-seat$ conviction ( ! common-s5se m9d t ?+s d n cease to exi/ :5 my p]ception ( !m is int]rupt$4 ,to reconcile 8 !ory ) ^! app>5tly conflict+ facts1 he has rec\rse1 z is ! cu/om ( philosoph]s & o!rs 9 a difficulty1 to div9e assi/ance4 ,! cont9u$ exi/5ce ( ! physical _w 9 ! int]vals ( p]ception1 & its sy/ematic "* & p>tial indep5d5ce ( our volition1 he expla9s by ! hypo!ses t ,god produces p]ceptions 9 u 9 a fix$ ord]1 & t ,god cont9ues to be aw>e ( ! sy/em ( pres5tations :i* ,i call ! physical _w1 :5 my p]ception ( x is susp5d$4 ,! same explanation w\ld1 ( c\rse1 h to be invok$ to acc\nt = ! exi/5ce ( physical realities :i* no human subject p]ceives4#aba ,x is fairly obvi\s t ! two halves ( ,b]keley's !ory w n fit toge!r into a coh]5t :ole4 ,if ! :ole esse ( physical ?+s is m]ely p]cipi1 !re c be no reason :y ,i %\ld suppose !m to exi/ at all except 9 s f> z & s long z !y are pres5t$ to my p]ception4 ,! :ole hypo!sis ( an omnipres5t div9e p]ception :i* rema9s aw>e ( ! cont5ts t h vani%$ f my own p]ception1 ?us becomes purely gratuit\s4 ,x also lab\rs "u ! disadvantage ( be+1 on ,b]keley's !ory1 int]nally inconsi/5t4 ,= if x is necess>y to invoke ! ag5cy ( ,god to acc\nt = ! occurr5ce ( pres5tations to my exp]i5ce1 x is n cle> :y we h n to suppose a second deity :o causes ! s]ies ( pres5tations 9 ! exp]i5ce ( ,god1 & s on indef9itely4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ,god's exp]i5ce may be tak5 z uncaus$1 x is n cle> :y my own exp]i5ce might n h be5 tak5 s 9 ! fir/ in/ance1 & ! introduction ( ,god into ! !ory avoid$4 ,?us ! logical outcome ( ! doctr9e t ! esse ( physical ?+s is m]ely p]cipi1 w\ld h be5 ei!r ,solipsism1 ! doctr9e accord+ to :i* ,i h no c]ta9 k ( any exi/5ce except my own1 ev]y?+ else be+ a m]e /ate or modification ( myself2 or ! ,humian scepticism1 :i* resolves my own exi/5ce1 z well z t ( ! ext]nal _w1 into a m]e sequ5ce ( fleet+ m5tal processes4 ,conv]sely1 if ,i h adequate reason to believe t any memb] ( ! physical ord] :atev] is m ?an a pres5tation1 & has an exi/5ce 9 "s s5se indep5d5t ( my p]ception1 ,i h no "r to decl>e ( any memb] ( t ord]1 unless = special reasons1 t its be+ consi/s m]ely 9 be+ p]ceiv$4 #c4 ,:y1 !n1 did ,b]keley1 z a matt] ( fact1 accept nei!r ! solipsi/ nor ! sceptical conclusion8 ,:y does he1 aft] all1 cr$it ! memb]s ( ! physical ord] ) an exi/5ce indep5d5t ( ! fact ( my p]ceiv+ !m1 & ?us introduce a pat5t contradiction into 8 sy/em8 ,x is n h>d to see ! reasons by :i* he mu/ h be5 influ5c$4 ,! :ole physical ord] _c be dismiss$ z a m]e subjective illusion1 because !re are "s memb]s ( x :i* und\bt$ly h an exi/5ce indep5d5t ( ! fact ( be+ p]ceiv$ by my s5se-organs4 ,su* memb]s are my own body & ! bodies ( my fell[-m54 ,bo? my own body & ^? ( my fell[-m51 z !y are p]ceiv$ by ! v>i\s special s5ses1 belong to ! physical ord]1 & %>e its qualities4 ,b ov] & above its exi/5ce z a memb] ( ! p]ceiv$ physical ord]1 my own body has fur!r ano!r q diff]5t k9d ( exi/5ce4 ,x is1 9 s f> z ,i p]ceive its p>ts1 z ,i d o!r bodily exi/5ce1 by ! s5sations ( ! v>i\s special s5se-organs1 a complex ( pres5tations1 l ev]y?+ else 9 ! physical _w4 ,b my body is n m]ely an object pres5t$ to me by ! organs ( ! special s5ses2 x is also some?+ :i* ,i feel z a :ole 9 common or organic s5sation1 & 9 ! *ang+ organic ?rills ( my v>i\s emotional moods4 ,?is unique feel+ ( my body z a :ole accompanies e mom5t ( my consci\s life & gives ea* its peculi> tone1 & !re seems to be no d\bt t x =ms ! f\ndation ( ! s5se ( p]sonal id5tity4 ,if we recollect ! ess5tially teleological "* ( feel+1 we %all be incl9$ to say t my body z ?us appreh5d$ is no?+ o!r ?an myself z a /riv+ purposive individual1 & t my exp]i5ce ( x is ! same ?+ z ! exp]i5ce ( my purposive attitudes t[>ds my environm5t4 ,x is1 9 fact1 ?is exp]i5ce ( my body z appreh5d$ by imm$iate feel+1 t ,psy*ology describes z ! 8subject0 ( ! v>i\s 8m5tal /ates0 ( :i* x =mulates ! laws4 ,= ,metaphysics1 x does n seem too mu* to say1 ?is d\ble exi/5ce ( my own body1 z a pres5t$ object ab\t :i* ,i h k 9 ! same way z ab\t ev]y?+ else1 & z an imm$iately felt unity1 af=ds ! key to ! :ole problem ( ! 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce ( a reality beyond my own pres5tations4 ,to see h[ ?is comes ab\t1 we mu/ fir/ consid] ! influ5ce x has on our conception ( "o v special "p ( ! physical ord]1 ! bodies ( our fell[s4 ,! bodies ( our fell[-m5 are1 ( c\rse1 f "o po9t ( view complexes ( pres5tations :i* we receive ?r\gh our s5se-organs2 s f> _! esse1 z ,b]keley w\ld h said1 is p]cipi4 ,b all practical communion ) my fell[s ?r\gh ! v>i\s in/itutions ( society is bas$ ^u ! conviction t1 ov] & above _! exi/5ce z pres5tation-complexes1 or cont5ts ( my p]ceptive /ates1 ! bodies ( my fell[s h ! same k9d ( exi/5ce z directly appreh5d$ 9 imm$iate feel+ :i* ,i ascribe to my own4 ,9 o!r words1 all practical life is a m]e illusion1 unless my fell[-m5 are1 l myself1 c5tres ( purposive exp]i5ce4 ,by ! exi/5ce indep5d5t ( my own p]ception :i* ,i ascribe to !m1 ,i mean precisely exi/5ce z feel+ purposive be+s4 ,h5ce1 unless all social life is an illusion1 !re is at lea/ "o "p ( ! physical ord]1 ext]nal to myself1 ( :i* ! esse is n m]e p]cipi1 b p]cip]e1 or r s5tire4 ,if my fell[-m5 are m ?an complexes ( pres5tations or 8ideas 9 my head10 !n ! subjectivi/ r$uction ( all reality to /ates ( my 8consci\sness0 breaks d[n1 at lea/ = ?is "p ( ! physical ord]4 ,h5ce ! acceptance or rejection ( ! subjectivi/ !ory w ultimately dep5d on ! nature ( ! evid5ce = ! indep5d5t exi/5ce ( human feel+s & purposes beyond my own4 ,on :at gr\nds1 !n1 d we attribute su* 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce z exp]i5c+ subjects to our fell[s8 ,accord+ to ! curr5t subjectivi/ explanation1 we h "h a conclusion bas$ on ! argum5t f ! analogy betwe5 ! /ructure ( my own body1 z pres5t$ 9 s5se-p]ception1 & ^? ( o!rs4 ,i inf] t o!r m5 h a m5tal life l my own1 because ( ! visible resemblances betwe5 _! physical /ructure & my own1 & ?is inf]5ce receives additional support f e fre% increase 9 our anatomical & physiological k ( ! human frame4 ,b1 be+ an argum5t f analogy1 x c nev] am\nt to a true sci5tific induction1 & ! exi/5ce ( human exp]i5ce1 n my own1 mu/ always rema9 = ! subjectivi/ a probability & c nev] become a c]ta9ty4 ,i am conv9c$ t ?is popul> & sup]ficially plausible view is radically false1 & t its logical consequ5ce1 ! belief t ! real exi/5ce ( our fell[s is less c]ta9 ?an our own1 is a grave philosophical error4 ,t ! argum5t f analogy is no suffici5t basis = ! belief 9 human exp]i5ce beyond my own1 c easily be se5 f ! foll[+ consid]ations3--7#a7 ,z ord9>ily /at$1 ! data ( ! suppos$ inf]5ce d n actually exi/4 ,= :at ,i p]ceive is n1 z ! subjectivi/ assumes1 ?ree t]ms--my own m5tal life1 my own anatomical /ructure1 & ! anatomy ( my neighb\r1 b two1 my own m5tal life & my neighb\r's anatomy4 ,if ,i _c be sure ( ! reality ( my neighb\r's exp]i5ce until ,i h comp>$ ! anatomy & physiology ( 8 organism ) t ( my own1 ,i %all h to rema9 9 d\bt at lea/ until sci5ce c devise a me*anism by :i* ,i c see my own n]v\s sy/em4 ,at pres5t "o ( ! t]ms on :i* ! analogical argum5t is said to be bas$1 namely1 my own int]nal physical /ructure1 has to be mo/ly tak5 on tru/4 ,x w\ld be little less ?an ! tru? to inv]t ! subjectivi/'s position1 & say t1 until sci5ce c devise means = see+ our own bra9s1 we inf] ! resemblance ( our own anatomy to our neighb\r's f ! previ\sly kn[n resemblance ( 8 inn] exp]i5ce & ours4 7#b7 ,& ev5 suppos+ ?is difficulty already surm\nt$1 z x conceivably w be 9 ! future1 !re is a /ill m s]i\s flaw 9 ! presum$ analogical inf]5ce4 ,if ,i once h good gr\nd = ! conviction t simil>ity ( inn] exp]i5ce is att5d$ by simil>ity ( physical /ructure1 !n ( c\rse ,i c 9 any special case treat ! degree ( /ructural resemblance betwe5 "o organism & ano!r z a suffici5t reason = inf]r+ a l degree ( resemblance betwe5 ! correspond+ inn] exp]i5ces4 ,b ^u :at gr\nds is ! g5]al pr9ciple itself bas$8 ,obvi\sly1 if my own inn] exp]i5ce is ! only "o kn[n to me orig9ally1 ,i h absolutely no means ( judg+ :e!r ! ext]nal resemblances betwe5 my own organism & y\rs af=d reason = cr$it+ y ) an inn] exp]i5ce l my own or n4 ,if ! inf]5ce by analogy is to h any =ce :atev] 9 a p>ticul> case1 ,i mu/ already "k indep5d5tly t lik5ess ( outw>d =m & lik5ess ( inn] exp]i5ce at lea/ 9 "s cases g toge!r4 ,! plausibility ( ! usual subjectivi/ acc\nt ( ! way 9 :i* we come to ascribe real exi/5ce to our fell[s1 is simply due to its tacitly ignor+ ?is vital po9t4 ,h[1 !n1 d we actually le>n ! exi/5ce ( feel+ purposive exp]i5ce outside our own8 ,! answ] is obvi\s4 ,we le>n x by ! v same process by :i* we come to ! cle> consci\sness ( ourselves4 ,x is a pure blund] 9 ! subjectivi/ psy*ology to assume t someh[ ! fact ( my own exi/5ce z a c5tre ( exp]i5ce is a primitive revelation4 ,x is by ! process ( putt+ our purposes into act t we come to be aw>e ( !m z our purposes1 z ! mean+ ( our lives1 ! secrets ( :at we want ( ! _w4 ,&1 f ! v fact ( our exi/5ce 9 a society1 e /ep 9 ! execution ( a purpose or ! satisfaction ( a want involves ! adju/m5t ( our own purposive acts to ^? ( ! o!r memb]s ( our social :ole4 ,to realise y\r own ends1 y h to take note ( ! p>tly co9cid5t1 p>tly conflict+1 ends ( y\r social fell[s1 precisely z y h to take note ( y\r own4 ,y _c come to ! k ( ! "o )\t com+ by ! same r\te & 9 ! same degree to ! k ( ! o!r4 ,precisely because our lives & purposes are n self-conta9$1 self-expla9+ :oles1 we _c possibly "k our own mean+ except 9 s f> z we "k ! mean+ ( our imm$iate fell[s4 ,self-k1 ap>t f ! k ( myself z a be+ ) aims & purposes condition$ by ^? ( l be+s 9 social relations ) myself1 is an empty & s5seless ^w4 ,! rec5t psy*ological /udies ( ! "p :i* imitation plays 9 all le>n+ make ?is result /ill m palpably manife/4 ,= !y reveal ! fact t1 to an enorm\s ext5t1 x is by fir/ repeat+ )\t consci\s aim ( its own ! significant purposive acts ( o!rs t a *ild fir/ comes to behave ) consci\s significance itself4 ,x is l>gely by le>n+ :at o!rs mean :5 !y utt] a ^w or execute a movem5t t ! *ild comes to "k 8 own mean+ 9 us+ ! same ^w or p]=m+ ! same movem5t4 ,?us we may confid5tly say t ! reality ( purposive significant exp]i5ce :i* is n my own is z directly c]ta9 z ! reality ( my own exp]i5ce1 & t ! k ( bo? realities is inevitably ga9$ toge!r 9 ! process ( com+ to cle> insight into my own practical aims & int]e/s4 ,! inn] exp]i5ce ( my fell[s is indubitably real to ! same degree z my own1 because ! v exi/5ce ( my own purposive life is mean+less ap>t f ! equal exi/5ce ( !irs4#abb #d4 ,we may n[ apply ! results obta9$ 9 ! previ\s section to ! g5]al "q z to ! 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce ( ! physical ord]4 ,9 do+ s we obs]ve two consequ5ces ( ! highe/ importance4 7#a7 ,n[ t we h f\nd t at lea/ a "p ( t ord]1 namely1 ! bodies ( our fell[-m51 are n m]e complexes ( pres5tations 9 our own exp]i5ce1 b h a fur!r exi/5ce z !mselves exp]i5c+ subjects1 & are s f> 8indep5d5t0 ( _! actual pres5tation 9 our own exp]i5ce1 we c no long] conclude1 f ! dep5d5ce ( ! physical ord] = its s5sible prop]ties ^u pres5tation to ourselves1 t x has no fur!r exi/5ce ( its own4 ,if "o "p ( t ord]1 :i* z pres5t$ /&s on ! same foot+ ) ! re/1 & is1 l x1 dep5d5t on pres5tation = its s5sible prop]ties1 is c]ta9ly kn[n to be m ?an a m]e pres5tation-complex1 ! same may at lea/ be true ( o!r p>ts4 ,we c no long] ass]t ( any "p ( ! physical ord]1 )\t special pro(1 t its esse is m]ely p]cipi4 ,we may g a /ep fur!r4 ,n only may o!r p>ts ( ! physical ord] possess a reality beyond ! m]e fact ( be+ pres5t$ to our s5se-p]ception1 b !y mu/4 ,= 7a7 we h to take note1 = ! obta9+ ( our own practical ends1 ( ! factors 9 our mat]ial environm5t precisely z we h to take note ( ! purposive behavi\r n our own :i* =ms our social environm5t4 ,j z our own inn] life has no coh]5t significance except z "p ( a wid] :ole ( purposive human life1 s human society z a sy/em ( significant conduct direct$ to ! atta9m5t ( ends1 _c be und]/ood )\t ref]5ce to its non-human surr\nd+s & conditions4 ,to und]/& my own exp]i5ce1 ref]5ce mu/ be made to ! aims1 ideals1 beliefs1 etc4 ( ! social :ole 9 :i* ,i am a memb]2 & to und]/& ^!1 ref]5ce has aga9 to be made to geographical1 climatic1 economical1 & o!r conditions4 ,?us ( ! physical ord] at l>ge1 no less ?an ( t special "p ( x :i* consi/s ( ! bodies ( my fell[s1 x is true to say t its exi/5ce means a great deal m ?an ! fact ( its pres5tation4 ,unp]ceiv$ physical exi/5ce mu/ be real if ,i am myself real1 because my own inn] life is un9telligible )\t ref]5ce to x4 7b7 ,?is conclusion is fur!r /r5g!n$ by ! evid5ce suppli$ by ! v>i\s sci5ces1 t human life =ms "p ( a great sy/em *>act]is$ by evolution or developm5t4 ,if "o "p ( a connect$ hi/orical developm5t is m ?an a complex ( pres5tations1 ! o!r /ages ( t developm5t _c possibly be m]e pres5tation-complexes4 ,aga9/ any 8,idealism0 :i* is m]e ,subjectivism or ,pres5tationism call+ itself by a less suspici\s "n1 x w\ld be a s\nd & fair argum5t to cont5d t x r$uces evolution to a dream1 & mu/ !re=e be false4#abc ,x _c1 !n1 be true ( ! physical ord] z a :ole1 t x has no reality beyond ! fact ( its pres5tation to my s5ses4 ,elem5ts 9 x n s pres5t$ mu/ yet h reality1 inasmu* z my own inn] life requires ! recognition ( _! reality z a fundam5tal condition ( ! realisation ( my own 8subjective0 ends4 ,z ! facts ( halluc9ation1 8sugge/ion10 & subjective s5sation %[1 :at appe>s to u z an elem5t 9 ! physical ord] may sometimes h no reality beyond ! fact ( its appe>ance2 !re may be pres5t$ cont5ts ( :i* x w\ld be true to say t _! esse is p]cipi4 ,b ! v possibility ( di/+ui%+ su* halluc9atory pres5tations f o!rs z illusory1 is en\gh to prove t ?is _c be true ( ! :ole physical ord]4 ,x is precisely because physical exi/5ce 9 g5]al is some?+ m ?an a collective halluc9ation1 t we are able 9 ,psy*ology to recognise ! occurr5ce ( su* halluc9ations4 ,z has be5 already obs]v$1 y are nev] ju/ifi$ 9 dismiss+ an app>5t fact ( ! physical ord] z m]e pres5tation )\t any fur!r reality beh9d x1 unless y c produce special gr\nds = mak+ ?is inf]5ce bas$ ^u ! circum/ances ( ! special case4 7#b7 ,! second important consequ5ce ( our previ\s conclusion is ?is1--,we h n[ se5 :at 0 really meant1 9 ! crucial case ( our fell[-m51 by ma9ta9+ an exi/5ce 8indep5d5t0 ( ! fact ( pres5tation to our s5se-organs4 ,_! 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce meant exi/5ce z c5tres ( exp]i5ce1 z feel+1 purposive be+s4 ,! :ole concept ( 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce 0 ?us social 9 its orig94 ,we h also se5 t ! gr\nds on :i* an 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce mu/ be ascrib$ to ! re/ ( ! physical ord] are ess5tially ( ! same k9d z ^? on :i* we ass]t$ ! 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce ( our fell[-m54 ,x appe>s pat5t1 !n1 t 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce mu/ h ! same g5]al s5se 9 bo? cases4 ,x c & mu/ mean ! exi/5ce ( c5tres ( s5ti5t purposive exp]i5ce4 ,if we are s]i\s 9 hold+ t ! esse ( ! physical ord]1 l t ( ourselves & our fell[s1 is n m]e p]cipi1 we mu/ hold t x is p]cip]e or s5tire4 ,:at appe>s to u 9 s5se-p]ception z physical nature mu/ be a community1 or a complex ( communities ( s5ti5t exp]i5c+ be+s3 beh9d ! appe>ance ! reality#abd mu/ be ( ! same g5]al type z t :i* we1 = ! same reasons1 ass]t to be beh9d ! appe>ances we call ! bodies ( our fell[s4 ,?is conclusion is n 9 ! lea/ invalidat$ by our own inability to say :at 9 p>ticul> are ! special types ( s5ti5t exp]i5ce :i* correspond to t "p ( ! physical ord] :i* lies outside ! n>r[ circle ( our own imm$iate human & animal cong5]s4 ,our failure to detect specific =ms ( s5ti5ce & purpose 9 :at we commonly call 8inorganic0 nature1 ne$ mean no m ?an t we are "h deal+ ) types ( exp]i5ce too remote f our own = detection4 ,! app>5t deadness & purposelessness ( s mu* ( nature may easily be illu/rat$ by comp>ison ) ! app>5t s5selessness ( a composition 9 a language ( :i* we are p]sonally ignorant4 ,mu* ( nature presumably appe>s lifeless & purposeless to u = ! same reason t ! spee* ( a =eign] seems s5seless j>gon to a ru/ic :o kn[s no language b 8 own4 ,x w\ld be easy1 b sup]flu\s1 to develop ^! ideas m 9 detail by ! free use ( imag9ative conjecture4 ,! "o po9t ( vital pr9ciple involv$ is t on :i* we h already insi/$1 t exi/5ce 8indep5d5t0 ( s5se-p]ception has only "o intelligible mean+4 ,h5ce x mu/ h ?is same mean+ :5ev] we are compell$ to ascribe to any "p ( ! p]ceiv$ physical ord] a reality :i* goes beyond ! m]e fact ( its be+ p]ceiv$4 ,! ass]tion t ! physical ord]1 ?\gh dep5d5t = its p]ceiv$ qualities ^u ! pres5ce ( a p]cipi5t ) s5se-organs ( a p>ticul> type1 is n dep5d5t on any su* relation = its exi/5ce1 if x is to h any def9ite mean+ at all1 mu/ mean = u t t ord] is ph5om5al (1 or is ! appe>ance to our special human s5se-organs (1 a sy/em or complex ( sy/ems ( be+s possess+ ! same g5]al k9d ( s5ti5t purposive exp]i5ce z ourselves1 ?\gh conceivably inf9itely v>i\s 9 ! degree ( cle>ness ) :i* !y are aw>e ( _! own subjective aims & int]e/s1 & 9 ! special nature ( ^? int]e/s4 #e4 ,we may end ?is *apt] by draw+ c]ta9 conclusions :i* foll[ naturally f ! acceptance ( ?is doctr9e4 7#a7 ,x is cle> t ! result we h rea*$ by analysis ( :at is impli$ 9 ! 8indep5d5t0 exi/5ce ( ! physical ord] agrees ) our previ\s conclusions z to ! g5]al /ructure ( ,reality4 ,= we saw 9 our la/ ,book t x seem$ necess>y to hold n only t ,reality z a :ole =ms a s+le individual exp]i5ce1 b also t x is compos$ ( memb]s or elem5ts :i* are !mselves s5ti5t exp]i5ces ( v>y+ degrees ( individuality4 ,& 9 our discussion ( ! unity ( ! ?+ we saw reason to hold t no?+ b a s5ti5t exp]i5ce c be individual2 ?us we _h already conv9c$ ourselves t if !re are ?+s :i* are m ?an complexes ( pres5tations arbitr>ily ?r[n toge!r = ! conv5i5ce ( human p]cipi5ts 9 deal+ ) !m z unities1 ^? ?+s mu/ be s5ti5t exp]i5ces on subjects ( "s k9d4 ,we h n[ inf]r$ f ! actual consid]ation ( ! physical ord] t x does1 9 po9t ( fact1 consi/ ( ?+s ( ?is k9d4 ,our result may ?us be said to am\nt 9 pr9ciple to ! logical application to physical exi/5ce ( ! previ\sly asc]ta9$ conclusion1 t only :at is to "s degree truly individual c be real4 ,x is int]e/+ to contra/ ) ?is consequ5ce ( our metaphysical attempt to int]pret ! c\rse ( physical nature1 ! result :i* inevitably foll[s f consi/5t adh]5ce to ! proc$ure ( descriptive sci5ce4 ,! :ole proc$ure ( descriptive sci5ce dep5ds ^u our will+ness to %elve1 = c]ta9 purposes1 ! problem :]e9 consi/s ! reality ( ! physical ord]1 & to conc5trate our int]e/ ^u ! task ( adequately & ) ! greate/ possible economy ( hypo!sis describ+ ! sy/em ( pres5t$ cont5ts 9 :i* x reveals itself to our s5ses4 ,= purely descriptive purposes1 our sole int]e/ 9 ! physical ord] is to "k accord+ to :at laws ( sequ5ce "o pres5t$ cont5t foll[s ^u ano!r4 ,h5ce1 s long z we c e/abli% su* laws ( connection betwe5 pres5t$ cont5ts1 x is = purely sci5tific purposes indiff]5t h[ we imag9e ! ,reality 9 :i* ! sequ5ce ( pres5tation has its gr\nd4 ,:e!r we ?9k ( x z a sy/em ( f9ite subjects1 ! w ( a p]sonal ,deity1 a complex ( prim>y qualities1 or an unkn[n sub/ratum1 or :e!r we decl9e to raise any "q :atev] ab\t ! matt]1 ! results are ! same1 s long z our sole object is to exhibit ! sequ5ce ( pres5t$ s5se-cont5ts z regulat$ by laws :i* admit ( calculation4 ,sci5ce c g its way 9 entire indiff]5ce to all ^! alt]native metaphysical int]pretations ( ! ,reality :i* is beh9d ! ph5om5al ord]4 ,! logical consequ5ce ( ?is absorption 9 ! problem ( describ+ ! ph5om5al sequ5ce ( ev5ts1 ap>t f inquiry into _! gr\nd1 is t ! m ?or\ghly ! task is c>ri$ out ! m completely does individuality disappe> f ! physical ord] z sci5tifically describ$4 ,ev]yday ?\ght looks on ! physical ord] z compos$ ( int]act+ ?+s1 ea* ( :i* is a unique individual2 curr5t sci5ce1 ) its insi/5ce on ! uni=m behavi\r ( ! diff]5t elem5ts ( ! mat]ial _w1 inevitably dissolves ?is appe>ance ( individuality4 ,9 ! m famili> atomic !ories1 ?\gh ! diff]5ces betwe5 ! behavi\r ( ! atoms ( diff]5t elem5ts are /ill reta9$ z ultimate1 ! atoms ( ! same elem5t are commonly ?\ght ( z exact replicas ( ea* o!r1 devoid ( all individual uniqu5ess ( behavi\r4 ,& 9 ! attempts ( contempor>y sci5ce to get beh9d atomism1 & to r$uce all mat]ial exi/5ce to motions 9 a homog5e\s m$ium1 we see a /ill m radical consequ5ce ( ! exclusive adoption ( an attitude ( description4 ,individuality has "h disappe>$ entirely1 except 9 s f> z ! orig9ation ( diff]5tial motion 9 a p]fectly homog5e\s m$ium rema9s an ultimate inexplicability :i* has to be accept$ z a fact1 b _c be reconcil$ ) ! !oretical assumptions :i* h l$ to ! insi/5ce ^u ! homog5eity ( ! suppos$ m$ium4 ,! logical reason = ?is progressive elim9ation ( individuality f sci5tific descriptions ( ! processes ( ! physical ord] %\ld n[ be manife/4 ,if all individuality is t ( individual subjects ( exp]i5ce1 x is cle> t 9 disreg>d+ ! "q ( ! metaphysical gr\nd ( ! physical ord] we h already 9 pr9ciple exclud$ all t gives x individuality f our purview2 ! m rigor\sly logical our proc$ure 9 deal+ exclusively ) ! ph5om5al cont5ts ( ! physical ord]1 ! less room is left = any recognition ( an elem5t ( individuality )9 x4 ,our purpose to describe ! ph5om5al logically involves description 9 purely g5]al t]ms4 ,x is only :51 9 ,metaphysics1 we seek to conv]t description ( ! ph5om5al into int]pretation ( x z ! appe>ance to s5se ( a m ultimate ,reality1 t ! pr9ciple ( ! individuality ( all real exi/5ce c come once m to its rights4 7#b7 ,x is p]haps necess>y at ?is po9t to repeat1 ) special ref]5ce to ! int]pretation ( ! physical ord]1 :at has already be5 said ( all int]pretation ( ! detail ( exi/5ce by ref]5ce to its gr\nd4 ,we mu/ be c>eful n to assume t l9es ( division :i* we f9d x conv5i5t = practical or sci5tific purposes to draw betwe5 ?+s1 correspond to ! m vital di/9ctions betwe5 ! diff]5t individual subjects ( exp]i5ce :i* we h se5 reason to reg>d z ! m real exi/5ces ( :i* ! physical ord] is ph5om5al4 ,?is is1 e4g41 an error :i* is committ$ by confid5t !ories ( ! animation ( matt] :i* attribute a 8s\l0 to ea* *emical atom4 ,we mu/ rememb] t _m ( ! divisions betwe5 ?+s :i* we adopt 9 our descriptive sci5ce may be m]ely subjective dem>cations1 conv5i5t = our own special purposes b possibly n answ]+ to any m fundam5tal di/9ctions f\nd$ on ! nature ( ! realities ( ! physical ord] !mselves4 ,x does n 9 ! lea/ foll[ f our view ( nature z ! manife/ation to our s5ses ( a sy/em ( s5ti5t individuals1 t ! relations betwe5 ^? individuals are adequately repres5t$ by ! relations betwe5 ! diff]5t factors ( ! mat]ial _w z x is con/ruct$ 9 our v>i\s sci5tific hypo!ses4 ,?us1 e4g41 our own self-k & k ( our fell[s %[ t 9 "s s5se !re is a s+le exp]i5ce correspond+ to :at1 = physical sci5ce1 is ! enorm\s complex ( elem5ts =m+ ! dom9ant c5tres ( ! human n]v\s sy/em4 ,b ap>t f our direct insight into human exp]i5ce1 if we only knew ! human n]v\s sy/em z we "k a "p ( inorganic nature1 we %\ld be q unable to det]m9e t ?is p>ticul> complex 0 ?us connect$ ) an individual exp]i5ce4 ,9 g5]al we h to admit t1 except = t small portion ( physical nature 9 :i* we c directly read purposive exp]i5ce ( a type specially ak9 to our own1 we are q unable to say ) any confid5ce h[ nature is organis$1 & :at portions ( x are 8organic0 to an individual exp]i5ce4 ,?is caution mu/ be con/antly borne 9 m9d if we are to avoid ! abuse ( our g5]al !ory ( ! mean+ ( ! physical ord] 9 ! int]e/s ( 8spirituali/ic0 & o!r sup]/itions4 ,x may also s]ve to gu>d aga9/ ov]-ha/y 8,philosophies ( ,nature10 l ^? ( ,s*ell+ & ,hegel1 :i* />t ) ! unprov$ assumption t approximation to ! human ext]nal =m ( organisation is a tru/wor?y indication ( ! degree 9 :i* intellig5t exp]i5ce is pres5t 9 physical nature4 7#c7 ,"o m po9t may receive pass+ notice4 ,x is cle> t if physical nature is really a society or a numb] ( societies#abe ( exp]i5c+ subjects1 we mu/ admit t1 f ! special "* ( our human exp]i5ce ) its peculi> int]e/s & purposes1 we are normally deb>r$ f social communion ) any memb]s ( ! sy/em except ^? :o are mo/ ak9 9 _! special type ( purposive life to ourselves4 ,( ! va/ majority ( ! con/itu5ts ( ! physical ord] x mu/ always be true t1 :ile we may be conv9c$1 on gr\nds ( g5]al metaphysical !ory1 t !y possess ! "* we h ascrib$ to !m1 we h no means ( v]ify+ ?is conclusion 9 specific cases by ! actual direct recognition ( ! individual life to :i* !y belong1 & consequ5t e/abli%m5t ( actual social relations ) !m4 ,yet x does n foll[ t we are always absolutely deb>r$ f su* direct social relations ) extra-human s5ti5t life4 ,! 8?re%old ( int]communicability0 betwe5 physical nature & human intellig5ce may conceivably be liable to fluctuations "u conditions at pres5t almo/ entirely unkn[n4 ,conceivably ! type ( exp]i5ce repres5t$ 9 lit]ature by ! great poets to :om ! s5ti5t purposive "* ( physical nature has appeal$ ) ! =ce ( a direct revelation ( tru?1 & kn[n 9 "s degree to mo/ m5 9 c]ta9 moods1 may dep5d ^u a psy*ological l[]+ ( ?is ?re%old4 ,x is ?us at lea/ a possibility t ! poet's 8communion ) nature0 may be m ?an a metaphor1 & may repres5t "s degree ( a social relation z real z our m normal relations ) our human fell[s & ! high] animals4 ,x may be true t 9 ! relations ( man ) nature1 z 9 8 relations ) man1 x is ! id5tity ( purpose & int]e/ we call love :i* is ! great remov] ( b>ri]s4 7#d7 ,x %\ld h>dly be ne$ful to po9t out t su* a view ( ! mean+ ( nature z has be5 def5d$ 9 ?is *apt] is 9 no way oppos$ to1 or design$ to set artificial re/rictions on1 ! unfett]$ developm5t ( descriptive physical sci5ce4 ,:atev] our view ( ! ultimate nature ( ! physical ord]1 x is equally necess>y on any !ory = ! practical control ( natural processes 9 ! s]vice ( man to =mulate laws ( connection betwe5 ^! processes4 ,& ! "w ( =mulat+ ^? laws c only be satisfactorily done :5 ! analysis ( ! physical ord] z a sy/em ( s5se-cont5ts is c>ri$ on ) complete disreg>d ( all metaphysical problems z to its non-ph5om5al gr\nd4 ,x w\ld n ev5 be correct to say t1 if our metaphysical int]pretation is valid1 ! view ( nature pres5t$ 9 descriptive physical sci5ce is untrue4 ,= a proposition is nev] untrue simply because x is n ! :ole tru?1 b only :51 n be+ ! :ole tru?1 x is mi/ak5ly tak5 to be s4 ,if we sometimes speak 9 ,philosophy z ?\gh :atev] is less ?an ! :ole tru? mu/ be untrue1 t is because we mean x is untrue = our special purposes z metaphysicians1 ^: bus9ess is n to /op %ort ( ! :ole tru?4 ,= purposes ( ano!r k9d x may be n only true1 b ! tru?4#abf ,our metaphysical int]pretation ( ! physical ord] is no m incompatible ) full belief 9 ! value & validity = _! own purposes ( ! results ( ab/ract descriptive sci5ce1 ?an ! recognition ( ! s+l5ess & purposiv5ess ( a human exp]i5ce ) ! equal recognition ( ! value ( physiological & anatomical inve/igation into ! functions & me*anism ( ! human body4 ,( c\rse a man1 z he really exi/s1 is some?+ q diff]5t f ! physiologi/'s or anatomi/'s object ( /udy4 ,no man is a m]e walk+ specim5 ( ! 8human organism02 e man is really fir/ & =emo/ a purposive s5ti5t ag5t4 ,b ?is consid]ation 9 no way affects ! practical value ( anatomical & physiological rese>* into ! /ructure ( ! man z he appe>s 9 ano!r man's sy/em ( s5se-pres5tations4 ,:at is true 9 ?is case is1 ( c\rse1 equally applicable 9 all o!rs4 ,we h yet to discuss ! mo/ s]i\s /umbl+-block 9 ! way ( ! ideali/ int]pretation ( nature1 ! app>5t con=mity ( its processes to rigid laws ( sequ5ce1 :i* at fir/ sight might seem to exclude ! possibility ( _! be+ really ! acts ( purposive subjects4 ,?is difficulty w =m ! topic ( our succe$+ *apt]4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bb2 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,!ory ( ,k1 pt4 #c1 *ap4 #c2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 ii4 *aps4 #e1 #f2 ,h4 ,mn/]b]g1 ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 i4 pp4 #fe-ib2 ,k4 ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 *ap4 #b 7,! ,facts ( ,sci5ce71 #h 7,matt]7 ma9ly writt5 f ! 8ph5om5ali/0 /&po9t1 b ) unconsci\s lapses into a m mat]iali/ic view2 ,j4 ,royce1 ,nature1 ,consci\sness1 & ,self-,consci\sness0 79 ,/udies ( ,good & ,evil72 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 ,lect4 #d2 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 ,lects4 #a-e1 #ad1 #ai4 ,( ! old] philosophical lit]ature1 ,desc>tes1 ,m$itation #f2 ,leibnitz1 ,monadology & ,new ,sy/em2 ,locke1 ,essays1 bk4 iv4 *ap4 #aa2 ,kant's 8,refutation ( ,idealism10 9 ! second edition ( ! ,critique ( ,pure ,reason1 9 addition to ! already cit$ works ( ,b]keley w probably be f\nd mo/ important4 ----- ,footnote #aai3 ,?is def9ition ( ! physical ord] approximates v closely to t adopt$ by ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g 9 8 ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 vol4 i4 pp4 #fe-gg4 ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g def9es a physical fact z "o :i* is directly accessible to ! p]ception ( a plurality ( s5ti5t individuals1 z oppos$ to ! psy*ical fact :i* c be directly exp]i5c$ only by "o individual4 ,x mu/ be rememb]$1 ( c\rse1 t my body z directly exp]i5c$ 9 8common s5sation0 & 8emotional mood0 belongs to ! psy*ical ord]4 ,x is only my body z p]ceptible by o!r m5 t is a memb] ( ! physical ord]4 ,footnote #abj3 ,cf4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bb1 pp4 #bfj-bfg 7#a/ ed474 ,! attempts :i* h be5 made to exempt 8prim>y0 qualities f ?is relativity d n seem to dem& s]i\s criticism4 ,! argum5t 9 ! text applies z directly to ext5sion & %ape z to col\r or smell4 ,x is n def5sible to cont5d1 z ,mr4 ,hobh\se does1 t qualities1 :e!r prim>y or second>y1 dep5d on ! p]cipi5t organ only = _! p]ception1 n = _! exi/5ce4 ,! cont5tion re/s ^u tak+ two aspects ( exp]i5ce :i* are always giv5 toge!r1 ! t & ! :at ( a s5se-cont5t1 & argu+ t because ^! two aspects ( a s+le :ole c be di/+ui%$1 !re=e ! "o c exi/ 9 actual sep>ation f ! o!r4 ,x w\ld be q z logical to inf] by ! same me?od & f ! same premisses t !re c be a p]ceptive /ate )\t any cont5t1 z t ! cont5ts c exi/ z we "k !m1 ap>t f ! /ate4 ,footnote #aba3 ,see p>ticul>ly ! detail$ /atem5t ( 8 cont5tion & ! elaborate exam9ation ( objections 9 ! ,?ree ,dialogues betwe5 ,hylas & ,philon\s1 :i* =m a comm5t>y on ! brief] exposition ( ,pr9ciples ( ,human ,k1 #a-acd4 ,footnote #abb3 ,see ! full] exposition ( ?is l9e ( argum5t 9 ,royce1 ,/udies 9 ,good & ,evil1 essay on 8,nature1 ,consci\sness & ,self-,consci\sness10 to :i* ,i am l>gely indebt$ ?r\gh\t ! pres5t *apt]1 & = a detail$ criticism ( ! alleg$ 8analogical0 inf]5ce ! closely relat$ reason+ ( my own essay on 8,m9d & ,nature0 9 ,int]national ,j\rnal ( ,e?ics1 ,octob] #aijb4 ,! simil> b brief] criticism 9 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lecture #d1 8,physical & ,social ,reality10 p4 #agj1 ,i _h n _h ! opportunity to /udy :5 ! above 0 writt54 ,= ! :ole subject ( imitation1 see 9 p>ticul> ,pr(essor ,baldw9's ,m5tal ,developm5t 9 ! ,*ild & ! ,race4 ,footnote #abc3 ,= a /udy ( ! significance ( ! 8p>tial indep5d5ce0 ( ! physical _w on my w z a factor 9 produc+ belief 9 its 8ext]nal reality10 see ,/\t1 ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c bk4 iii4 pt4 #b1 *aps4 #a-b1 8,! ,p]ception ( ,ext]nal ,reality40 ,footnote #abd3 ,! doctr9e ( degrees ( reality mu/ be borne 9 m9d ?r\gh\t ?is discussion4 ,! reality ( :i* ! physical ord] is ph5om5al may itself be ph5om5al ( a high] reality4 ,footnote #abe3 ,societies w\ld be ! m natural supposition4 ,we h no reason to d5y t ! v>i\s types ( non-human intellig5ce may be cut (f f social int]c\rse ) ea* o!r1 z !y are f int]c\rse ) ourselves4 ,footnote #abf3 ,t is1 !re are degrees ( tru? z well z ( reality1 & ! two d n necess>ily co9cide4 ,! degree ( tru? a doctr9e conta9s _c be det]m9$ ap>t f consid]ation ( ! purpose x is meant to fulfil4 ,= ! special purposes ( ,metaphysics1 ! purpose ( ?9k+ ( ! _w 9 a f9ally consi/5t way1 :atev] is n ! :ole tru? is untrue4 ,b :at ! metaphysician reg>ds z ! less] tru? may be ! high] tru? relatively to o!r purposes ?an 8 own4 ,comp>e ! doctr9e ( ,dr4 ,/\t's essay on 8,error0 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,mean+ ,,( ,,law #a4 ,! popul> conception ( ! physical ord] z exhibit+ a rigid me*anical con=mity to g5]al laws1 conflicts ) our metaphysical int]pretation4 #b4 ,our int]pretation w\ld1 h[ev]1 admit ( ! e/abli%m5t ( av]ages or approximately realis$ uni=mities by ! /ati/ical me?od1 :i* deals ) occurr5ce en bloc to ! neglect ( _! individual detail4 #c4 8,uni=mity0 9 nature is nei!r an axiom nor an empirically v]ifiable fact1 b a po/ulate4 ,a consid]ation ( ! me?ods actually employ$ = ! e/abli%m5t ( su* uni=mities or 8laws0 ( nature %[s t we h no gu>antee t actual concrete cases exhibit exact con=mity to law4 #d4 ,uni=mity is a po/ulate aris+ f our ne$ ( practical rules = ! control ( nature4 ,x ne$ n = ?is purpose be exact1 & 9 po9t ( fact our sci5tific =mulae are only exact s long z !y rema9 ab/ract & hypo!tical4 ,!y d n enable u to det]m9e ! actual c\rse ( an individual process ) c]ta9ty4 #e4 ,! concept ( ! physical ord] z me*anical is ! ab/ract expression ( ! po/ulate1 & is !re=e ess5tial to ! empirical sci5ces :i* deal ) ! physical ord]4 #f4 ,consid]ation ( ! "* ( g5u9e ma*9es sugge/s t ! me*anical only exi/s z a subord9ate aspect ( processes :i*1 9 _! full nature1 are intellig5t & purposive4 #a4 ,9 our view ( ! und]ly+ reality ( ! physical ord]1 z expla9$ 9 ! la/ *apt]1 we h sc>cely gone fur!r1 except 9 ! explicitness ( our phraseology1 ?an we %\ld be foll[$ by _m :o pr(ess a complete disbelief 9 metaphysical con/ruction & an exclusive devotion to positive natural sci5ce4 ,f ! side ( positive sci5ce we h (t5 be5 rem9d$ t no h>d-&-fa/ l9e c logically be drawn betwe5 ! organic & ! inorganic1 t we are n entitl$ to assume t ! cont9uity ( evolution ceases :5 we are no long] able to foll[ x ) our microscopes1 t we are1 ) ! eye ( sci5tific fai?1 to disc]n 9 ! meane/ p>ticle ( matt] ! 8promise & pot5cy0 ( all life1 & s =?4 ,all :i* /atem5ts seem to be confus$ ways ( sugge/+ "s su* conception ( ! physical ord] z we h attempt$ to put into m precise & logical =m4 ,x is n until we come to deal ) ! problem indicat$ by ! title ( ?is *apt] t our mo/ s]i\s difficulties beg94 ,we h to face ! objections :i* may be urg$ aga9/ our view ( ! physical ord] on ! /r5g? ( ! pr9ciple kn[n 9 inductive ,logic z ! 8,uni=mity ( ,nature40 ,! ev5ts ( ! physical ord]1 x may be urg$1 _c be expressions ( ! m or less consci\s purposes & int]e/s ( individual c5tres ( exp]i5ce1 & t = a simple reason4 ,h[ a purposive ag5t w behave is always a my/]y1 except to ^? :o actually und]/& 8 purposes4 ,x is impossible1 ap>t f actual insight into ^? purposes1 to inf] f ! m]e exam9ation ( 8 pa/ behavi\r :at 8 behavi\r 9 ! future w be4 ,= ! special *>act]i/ic ( purposive action is its p[] to f9d new ways ( response to /imulus4 ,h5ce x is t we rightly reg>d ! p[] to le>n by exp]i5ce1 t is1 to acquire m & m appropriate reactions to /imulus1 z ! te/ ( a creature's intellig5ce4 ,:]e !re is no progressive adaptability !re is no gr\nd to assume intellig5ce & purpose4 ,h5ce aga9 ! impossibility ( calculat+ be=eh& ) any c]ta9ty :at c\rse ! behavi\r ( an intellig5t be+ w take1 unless y are actually aw>e ( ! purposes he is seek+ to realise4 ,n[1 except 9 ! case ( ! organic _w1 x may be urg$1 we d n f9d progressive adaptability 9 ,nature4 ,! inorganic con/itu5ts ( ! physical ord] always react ) absolute uni=mity 9 ! same way ^u ! same environm5t4 ,_! behavi\r exhibits absolutely undeviat+ con=mity to g5]al r\t9e laws ( sequ5ce1 & c !re=e be calculat$ be=eh&1 provid$ t ! res\rces ( our ma!matics are adequate to deal ) ! problems x pres5ts1 ) absolute exactitude & c]ta9ty4 ,t ?is r\t9e uni=mity exi/s 9 physical nature is1 9 fact1 a fundam5tal pr9ciple 9 ! logic ( inductive sci5ce4 ,e indication ( s5ti5ce & purpose is ?us abs5t f physical nature1 outside ! _w ( liv+ organisms2 x is a realm ( rigid con=mity to laws ( sequ5ce4 ,& ^! sequ5ces1 because absolutely )\t exception & incapable ( modification1 are purely me*anical1 i4e4 non-purposive & non-intellig5t4 ,nature is1 9 fact1 a complicat$ me*anism1 9 :i* e ev5t foll[s f its conditions ) undeviat+ necessity4 ,views ( ?is k9d are (t5 suppos$ to be logically necessitat$ by ! pr9ciples ( physical sci5ce4 ,x is manife/ t if !y are s\nd our :ole prec$+ int]pretation ( ! physical ord] is invalidat$4 ,= ?is reason1 z well z because ( ! f>-rea*+ consequ5ces (t5 drawn f !m z to human fre$om & moral responsibility1 x w be necess>y to exam9e _! f\ndation 9 "s detail4 #b4 ,! ma9 problems confront+ u 9 ?is exam9ation w !n be--7#a7 ,h[ f> is calculable uni=mity ( sequ5ce really incompatible ) ! pres5ce ( purpose & intellig5ce8 7#b7 ,h we any real gr\nd = ascrib+ su* uni=mity to ! actual sequ5ces ( physical nature8 7#c7 if n1 ,:at is ! real logical "* ( ! pr9ciple ( ! s-call$ uni=mity ( nature8 7#d7 & ,:at am\nt ( tru? is conta9$ 9 ! conception ( ! physical ord] z a me*anism8 ,into ! problem sugge/$ by ! popul> contra/ betwe5 ! necessity ( me*anical sequ5ce & ! fre$om ( purposive action1 x w be ne$less to ent] at any l5g?4 ,=1 z we saw 9 deal+ ) ! popul> view ( necess>y causal relation1 ! necessity ( a me*anical sequ5ce is a purely subjective & logical "o4 ,! sequ5ce is necess>y only 9 ! s5se t we are con/ra9$1 s long z we adh]e to ! purpose ( ?9k+ logically1 to affirm ! consequ5t :5 we affirm ! antec$5t4 ,true necessity is always compulsion1 & !re=e1 s f> f be+ oppos$ to purposive action1 c only exi/ :]e an actual purpose is ov]rul$ or ?w>t$4#abg ,s long z we are deal+ solely ) ph5om5al sequ5ce 9 ! physical ord]1 necessity is a m]e an?ropomorphic "n = r\t9e undeviat+ uni=mity ( sequ5ce4 7#a7 ,calculable ,uni=mity & ,intellig5t ,purpose4 ,x is sometimes assum$ t all successful pr$iction ( a ?+'s behavi\r is incompatible ) ! ascription ( intellig5ce or purpose to ! ?+4 ,?us x has be5 argu$1 & cont9ues to be argu$ 9 moral philosophy ( a popul> type1 t if we are intellig5t be+s ) purposes ( our own1 x mu/ always be impossible = an onlook] to pr$ict h[ we %all behave 9 circum/ances :i* h n yet aris54 ,?is extreme view ( ! incompatibility ( calculability ) intellig5t purpose1 h[ev]1 manife/ly re/s on a d\ble confusion4 ,to beg9 )1 ^? :o ass]t ?is view commonly make ! mi/ake ( suppos+ t pr$iction ( ! future /&s someh[ on a diff]5t logical level f calculation ( ! pa/ f pres5t data4 ,pr$iction ( my future behavi\r is suppos$ someh[ to conflict ) my "* z a purposive be+ 9 a way 9 :i* inf]5ce z to my pa/ behavi\r does n4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 an elem5t>y fallacy 9 ,logic4 ,! conditions requir$ = ! successful inf]5ce ( ! abs5t f ! pres5t are id5tical 9 ! two cases1 z we h already se5 9 deal+ ) ! problems ( ,causality4 ,precisely ! same k9d ( insight is requisite to judge h[ a giv5 man mu/ h behav$ 9 a c]ta9 situation 9 8 pa/ hi/ory z are ne$$ to det]m9e h[ he w behave 9 a situation :i* is yet to arise4 ,we may ?us dismiss f consid]ation ! special case ( pr$iction1 & conf9e ourselves to ! g5]al "q1 h[ f> ! g5]al calculability ( ! c\rse ( a process is incompatible ) its purposive & intellig5t "*4 ,an answ] to ?is "q is at once sugge/$ by reflection ^u our ord9>y attitude t[>ds su* attempts to calculate ! c\rse ( our own behavi\r4#abh ,x is by no means e su* calculation t we res5t4 ,s f> f be+ affront$ by ! assumption t our conduct exhibits suffici5t uni=mity to admit ( calculation1 we expect our p]sonal fri5ds to h suffici5t reliance on its uni=mity to assume ) confid5ce t we %all c]ta9ly d "s ?+s & refuse to d o!rs1 t we mu/ h act$ 9 c]ta9 ways & _c h act$ 9 o!rs4 8,y ought to "k me bett] ?an to suppose me capable ( t0 is betwe5 fri5ds a tol]ably ke5 expression ( reproa*1 8,i "k ,i c c\nt on y to d x10 a common expression ( confid5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 we %\ld c]ta9ly res5t ! assumption on ! "p ( a comp>ative /rang] ( su* a k ( our "* z w\ld w>rant confid5t calculation ( our conduct1 & if ! calculation 0 av[$ly drawn n f p]sonal k at all1 b f g5]al propositions ( ,psy*ology or ,an?ropology1 we %\ld pretty c]ta9ly feel t a m ?an accid5tal success ?reat5$ our moral individuality4 ,n[1 :at is ! explanation ( ?is diff]5ce ( feel+8 ,manife/ly x mu/ be s\ght 9 ! great diff]5ce betwe5 ! gr\nds on :i* ! calculation is bas$ 9 ! two cases4 ,9 ! fir/ case we expect$ & welcom$ ! calculation1 because we felt x to be f\nd$ ^u our fri5d's p]sonal acqua9tance ) ! guid+ int]e/s & purposes ( our life2 x 0 an inf]5ce bas$ ^u insight into our individual "*4 ,9 ! o!r case we res5t$ ! success ( ! calculation1 because we assum$ x to be made 9 ! abs5ce ( any su* p]sonal insight into our individual purposes & int]e/s1 on ! basis ( m]e g5]al propositions ab\t human nature4 ,we rightly feel t ! regul> success ( calculation ( ?is second sort is inconsi/5t ) ! ascription ( any reality to our individual "*4 ,if all our actions c be calculat$ f g5]al !orems 9 a sci5ce ( human nature1 )\t tak+ individual purpose into acc\nt1 !n ! app>5t efficacy ( individual int]e/s & purposes 9 det]m9+ ! c\rse ( our hi/ory mu/ be an empty illusion2 we _c be truly intellig5t ag5ts1 see+ t we nev] really d any?+ at all4 ,?us we see t x seems necess>y to draw a m>k$ di/9ction betwe5 two types ( calculability4 ,calculation bas$ on insight into individual "* & purpose is s f> f be+ inconsi/5t ) purposiv5ess & intellig5ce1 t ! m coh]5t & sy/ematic ! purposes by :i* a life is controll$1 ! m confid5t does su* calculation become4 ,calculation )\t su* special k1 & bas$ ^u m]e g5]al propositions1 on ! o!r h&1 _c be regul>ly successful :]e "o has to deal ) ! behavi\r ( individual purposive be+s4#abi ,n[1 ! difficulty z to our int]pretation ( ! physical ord] z ! pres5tation to our s5se ( a sy/em ( intellig5t purposive be+s1 is t ! successes ( physical sci5ce seem at fir/ sight to %[ t j ?is 8me*anical0 calculation ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts f obs]v$ sequ5ce1 )\t insight into und]ly+ individual purpose1 is possible :5 we are deal+ ) physical nature4 ,=1 on ! "o h&1 we ourselves admitt$ t if physical nature is p]meat$ by individual purposes1 we d n "k :at ^? purposes 9 detail are2 &1 on ! o!r1 x is und5iable t physical sci5ce1 :i* sy/ematically disreg>ds _! pres5ce1 has be5 signally successful 9 ! pa/1 & may be expect$ to be ev5 m successful 9 ! future1 9 detect+ uni=mities 9 physical nature1 & s submitt+ x to exact calculation4 ,h5ce x might be ?\ght t ! actual success ( ! empirical sci5ces _c be reconcil$ ) ! pr9ciples ( our metaphysical int]pretation ( ! c\rse ( nature4 ,we mu/1 h[ev]1 draw a v important di/9ction4 ,!re is "o me?od by :i* uni=mities ( a c]ta9 k9d c be detect$ 9 ! behavi\r ( purposive intellig5t be+s1 )\t insight into ! nature ( _! individual purposes--! me?od ( /ati/ical av]ages4 ,?us1 ?\gh x w\ld be q impossible to say ) c]ta9ty ( any individual man t he w %oot himself or w get m>ri$1 except on ! /r5g? ( insight into 8 individual "* & int]e/s1 we f9d by exp]i5ce t x is possible to say1 )9 a c]ta9 n>r[ range ( error1 :at p]c5tage ( ,engli%m5 w %oot !mselves or w get m>ri$ 9 ! ye>4 ,! p]c5tage is1 ( c\rse1 r>ely or nev] precisely realis$ 9 any "o ye>1 b ! long] ! p]iod ( ye>s we take = exam9ation1 ! m exactly d ! deviations f ! av]age 9 individual ye>s comp5sate "o ano!r4 ,! explanation is1 ( c\rse1 t on ! :ole ! inc5tives to m>riage or suicide1 9 a reasonably /able /ate ( society1 rema9 con/ant f ye> to ye>1 s t by tak+ an av]age ( sev]al ye>s we c elim9ate results :i* are due to individual peculi>ities ( temp]am5t & situation1 & obta9 some?+ l a measure ( ! degree 9 :i* ! g5]al conditions ( social exi/5ce impose a c]ta9 common tr5d or "* on ! int]e/s & purposes ( individuals4 ,two ?+s are at once noticeable 9 connection ) all uni=mities obta9$ by ! me?od ( av]ages4 ,"o is t ! result =mulat$ 9 ! /ati/ical law is always "o to :i* ! actual c\rse ( ev5ts may reasonably be expect$ to con=m )9 c]ta9 limits ( deviation1 nev] "o to :i* we h a "r to expect absolute con=mity4 ,n only is ! actual numb] ( m>riages1 e4g41 9 any "o ye>1 usually slightly above or bel[ ! av]age p]c5tage comput$1 e4g41 = a t5 ye>s' p]iod1 b z we comp>e "o long] p]iod ) o!rs1 ! av]age p]c5tage = ! long] p]iod itself fluctuates4 ,x is only 9 ! 8long run10 t is1 9 ! impossible case ( ! actual completion ( an int]m9able s]ies1 t ! comput$ av]age w\ld be exactly realis$4 ,z e "o :o has to deal ) av]ages 9 any =m kn[s1 precise realisation ( ! comput$ av]age )9 a f9ite s]ies ( cases w\ld at once awak5 suspicions ( an error some:]e 9 our calculations4 ,?us ! uni=mities ( ?is k9d are nev] absolutely rigid2 !y are ideal limits to :i* ! actual c\rse ( ev5ts is f\nd to approximate )9 c]ta9 limits ( div]g5ce4 ,! second po9t is t ! exi/5ce ( su* a uni=mity nev] af=ds logical gr\nd = confid5t affirmation z to ! actual ev5t 9 a p>ticul> concrete case4 ,to rev]t to our illu/ration1 j z we h no "r to inf] f ! approximately con/ant p]c5tage ( m>riages p] ye> 9 a giv5 society1 t ?is precise p]c5tage w be realis$ 9 any "o special ye>1 s we h /ill less "r to inf] t a p>ticul> memb] ( t society w or w n m>ry4 ,no?+ b insight into ! "*1 situation1 & int]e/s ( ?is special memb] ( society c give me ! "r to judge ) confid5ce h[ he w actually behave4 ,simil>ly1 x is possible to say )9 c]ta9 limits ( error h[ _m p]sons ov] sixty ye>s ( age may be expect$ to die 9 ! next twelve mon?s1 b x w\ld be ! height ( logical presumption to inf] t a p>ticul> man w die dur+ ! ye>1 except on ! /r5g? ( special in=mation ab\t 8 pursuits1 habits1 & g5]al /ate ( heal?4#acj ,?us our g5]al conclusion mu/ be1 t calculation & ! e/abli%m5t ( uni=mities is possible1 )\t insight into individual purpose1 b t ! uni=mities ?us obta9$ are always v>iable & approximate1 & af=d no safe gr\nd = inf]5ce z to special concrete cases4 #c4 7#b7 ,uni=mity 9 ,physical ,nature4 ,! exi/5ce ( asc]ta9able uni=mities 9 physical nature1 !n1 w n conflict ) our g5]al int]pretation ( ! physical ord]1 provid$ t ^! uni=mities are ( ! type j illu/rat$ by ref]5ce to ord9>y social /ati/ics4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! exact & rigid con=mity ( ! actual c\rse ( concrete ev5ts ) su* uni=m g5]al 8laws10 w\ld c]ta9ly be inconsi/5t ) ! pres5ce ( teleological adaptation to ends4 ,a reign ( rigid r\t9e con=mity to g5]al law _c co-exi/ ) individual purposive life4 ,n[1 x is commonly assum$1 & we %all %ortly see t ! assumption is bo? necess>y & ju/ifi$ z a practical me?odological po/ulate1 t ! 8reign ( law0 9 physical nature is absolute4 ,b are !re any gr\nds = recognis+ ?is assumption z m ?an a possibly unrealis$ po/ulate made = human practical purposes8 ,i ?9k x is easy to %[ t !re are none :atev]1 & t ! conception ( a nature devoid ( purpose & s5ti5ce1 & sway$ absolutely by me*anical 8laws10 is simply a metaphysical nightm>e ( our own inv5tion4 ,to beg9 )1 x is cle> t ! undeviat+ con=mity ( ! actual c\rse ( any concrete process to sci5tific 8law0 _c be v]ifi$ z an empirical fact by obs]vation or exp]im5t4 ,= 9 no obs]vation or exp]im5t c we ev] deal ) ! :ole ( any concrete actual ev5t or process4 ,we h always1 = ! purposes ( our obs]vation1 to select c]ta9 ( ! g5]al aspects ( ! process1 to :i* we att5d z ! 8relevant factors0 or 8conditions0 ( ! result1 :ile we disreg>d o!r aspects z 8immat]ial0 or 8accid5tal0 circum/ances4 ,& ?is artificial ab/raction1 z we saw 9 discuss+ ,causality1 ?\gh indisp5sable = our practical purposes1 is logically indef5sible4 ,aga91 )9 ! aspects select$ = att5tion1 all t exp]im5t c e/abli% is t ! deviation f uni=m law1 if !re is any deviation1 is n suffici5tly great to affect our measurem5ts & calculations4 ,b h[ f> our /&>ds ( measurem5t are f rigid precision may be readily le>n$ f ! *apt] on physical /&>ds 9 any good "w on ! logic ( ! inductive sci5ces4#aca ,our failure to detect deviation f law is absolutely wor?less z evid5ce t no deviation has tak5 place4 ,?us1 if ! absolute uni=mity ( natural processes is m ?an a practical po/ulate1 x mu/ be an axiom1 t is1 x mu/ be impli$ 9 ! v notion ( ^? processes z elem5ts 9 a sy/ematic :ole4 ,b x %\ld at once be cle> t we h no m gr\nd = ass]t+ su* uni=mity z an axiom1 ?an we _h = treat+ ! causal po/ulate z axiomatic4 ,x is by no means impli$ 9 ! concept ( a sy/ematic :ole t its p>ts %all be connect$ by uni=m law4 ,= ! unity ( ! sy/em may be teleological1 t is1 ! p>ts may be connect$ by ! fact t !y "w toge!r to realise ! same end1 to execute ! same function4 ,9 t case ! behavi\r ( any "o "p w dep5d on ! dem&s laid ^u x by ! plan :i* ! work+ ( ! sy/em fulfils4 ,z ^! dem&s v>y f "t to "t1 ! behavi\r ( ! "p "u consid]ation w !n v>y correspond+ly1 ?\gh to all appe>ance its surr\nd+s may1 = a spectator :o fails to grasp ! end or purpose realis$ by ! sy/em1 be id5tical4#acb ,?is is actually ! case ) ^? sy/ematic :oles 9 :i* human insight c directly detect unity ( purpose or aim4 ,a man ) def9ite purposes be=e him does n react 9 a uni=mly id5tical way ^u situations :i*1 ap>t f _! relation to 8 purpose1 w\ld be pron\nc$ id5tical4 ,he le>ns1 = in/ance1 f previ\s failure 9 ! same circum/ances1 & s acquires ! p[] to react on !m 9 a way bett] adapt$ to ! obta9+ ( 8 end4 ,or 8 progressive execution ( 8 purpose1 :]e !re has be5 no failure1 may require diff]5t conduct on ! two occasions4 ,to speak ) /rict logical accuracy1 ! situations1 relatively to 8 special purpose1 are nev] id5tical1 ?\gh x may be no diff]5ce c\ld be detect$ 9 !m ap>t f t relation to ?is peculi> purpose4 ,relatively to ! sy/em ( intellig5t purposes :i* realises itself ?r\gh ! circum/ances1 e situation is1 prop]ly speak+1 unique4 ,n[1 if we consid] ! me?ods by :i* ! uni=mities call$ 8laws0 ( nature are actually =mulat$1 we may see gr\nd to conclude t !y may "o & all be uni=mities ( ! approximate non-exact type4 ,9 _m cases1 if n all1 ^! uni=mities h manife/ly be5 obta9$ by /ati/ical me?ods4 ,?us1 = example1 :5 x is said t all ! atoms ( a giv5 *emical elem5t are absolutely alike1 e4g41 t e atom ( oxyg5 has ! atomic weight #af1 !re is absolutely no valid gr\nd = reg>d+ ?is uni=mity z actually realis$ )\t deviation 9 individual cases4 ,if ! atom %\ld prove1 z x may1 to be no m ?an a conv5i5t device ( our own1 useful = comput+ ! behavi\r ( s5sible masses b ) no real exi/5ce ( its own1 x is ( c\rse evid5t t !re c be no "q ( ! real con=mity ( individual cases to ! law4 ,b ev5 if !re really are indivisible bodies answ]+ to our conception ( atoms1 /ill we h to rememb] t we h no means ( deal+ ) ! individual atom directly4 ,we inf] its prop]ties indirectly f ! behavi\r ( ! s5sible masses ) :i* we c deal m directly4 ,h5ce1 at mo/1 ! /atem5t t ! atom ( oxyg5 has a c]ta9 weight means no m ?an t we c = our practical purposes disreg>d any possible individual div]g5ces f ?is value4 ,! oxyg5 atoms1 if !y really exi/1 might actually fluctuate 9 individual atomic weight ab\t an av]age2 yet1 s long z we _c deal ) !m individually b only 9 bulk1 ^! fluctuations1 if only suffici5tly small1 w\ld produce no appreciable effect on our results1 & w\ld !re=e prop]ly be treat$ 9 our sci5ce z non-exi/5t4 ,conceivably1 !n1 su* *emical uni=mities may af=d no saf] gr\nd = precise /atem5ts ab\t ! weight ( ! individual atom1 ?an an?ropological /ati/ics d = precise /atem5t ab\t ! actual height1 weight1 or expectation ( life ( an individual man4 ,& we c readily see t a non-human obs]v] ) s5ses incapable ( p]ceiv+ ! individual diff]5ces betwe5 "o man & ano!r1 might be l$ f ! app>5t uni=mity ( behavi\r exhibit$ by l>ge collections ( human be+s to ! same sort ( conclusions :i* we are tempt$ to make ab\t atoms4#acc ,simil>ly ) o!r cases ( app>5tly rigid uni=mity4 ,z any "o :o has work$ 9 a laboratory kn[s1#acd su* results are 9 actual practice obta9$ by tak+ ! mean ( a long s]ies ( p>ticul> results & treat+ ! m9or div]g5ces f ?is mean z non-exi/5t because !y are negligible = all practical purposes4 ,9 o!r words1 ! app>5tly rigid con=mity ( natural processes to uni=m law is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! fact t we are deb>r$ by v>i\s limitations ( a subjective k9d f foll[+ ! c\rse ( any process 9 its individual detail1 & h !re=e to make all our inf]5ces f ! obs]vation & comp>ison ( s]ies ( processes suffici5tly ext5d$ = individual diff]5ces to neutralise ea* o!r4 ,b 9 all ?is !re is absolutely no w>rant = ! conclusion t ! c\rse ( any "o individual process is absolutely uni=m ) t ( any o!r4 ,!re is room )9 ! uni=mity got by ^! me?ods ( comp>ison = an inf9ite v>iety ( individual detail1 ( :i* our sci5tific con/ructions take no acc\nt1 ei!r because our means ( obs]vation are insuffici5t to detect x1 or because1 :5 detect$1 x is ( no significance = ! orig9al object ( our sci5ce--practical success 9 int]f]5ce ) ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,x is easy to po9t out "s ( ! conditions ^u :i* failure to detect actually exi/+ individual deviations f uni=mity may dep5d4 ,pr(essor ,royce has1 9 ?is connection1 laid special /ress ^u "o su* condition1 ! limitation ( :at he calls ! "t-span ( our att5tion4 ,we are unable1 z ! /ud5t ( ,psy*ology kn[s1 to att5d to a process z a :ole if its duration exce$s or falls %ort ( c]ta9 n>r[ limits4 ,n[1 !re seems no f\ndation 9 ! nature ( ! att5tive process = ! special temporal limitations to :i* x is subject 9 our own exp]i5ce1 & we h no means ( d5y+ ! possibility t !re may be intellig5t be+s ^: att5tion-span is mu* wid]1 or aga91 mu* m contract$1 ?an our own4 ,"o c ev5 conceive ! possibility ( a be+ ) a p[] ( v>y+ ! span ( att5tion at w4 ,n[1 x is cle> t if we c\ld s v>y our att5tion-span z to be able to take 9 z s+le :oles processes :i* are at pres5t too rapid or too sl[ to be p]ceiv$ by u 9 _! individual detail1 su* a purely subjective *ange 9 ! conditions ( our own att5tion might reveal individuality & purpose :]e at pres5t we see no?+ b r\t9e uni=mity4 ,9 ! same way1 we c readily und]/& t a be+ ) a mu* wid] att5tion-span ?an our own might fail to see any?+ b purposeless r\t9e 9 ! c\rse ( human hi/ory4 ,suppos+ t we are plac$ 9 ! mid/ ( a univ]se ( intellig5t purposive action1 x is cle> t we c only hope to recognise ! nature ( t action 9 ! case ( be+s :o live1 s to say1 at ! same rate z ourselves4 ,a purposive adaptation to environm5t ) consequ5t deviation f uni=mity 9 reaction w\ld necess>ily escape our notice if x took place ) ! rapidity ( ! beat ( a gnat's w+1 or aga91 if x requir$ c5turies = its e/abli%m5t4#ace ,o!r simil> subjective conditions :i* w\ld necess>ily cut u (f f ! recognition ( purposive fre% adaptations widely diff]5t f ^? :i* occur 9 our own life1 are ! limitations ( our p[] ( att5d+ to m ?an a c]ta9 numb] ( pres5tations simultane\sly2 & aga91 ! re/riction ( our s5se-p]ception to a few types1 & ! impossibility ( p]ceiv+ cont5ts belong+ to ^? types :5 !y fall bel[ or above ! l[] & upp] 8?re%olds0 ( s5sibility4 ,^! consid]ations d n1 ( c\rse1 positively prove t ! r\t9e uni=mity ( natural processes is only subjective appe>ance1 b !y are suffici5t to %[ t !re is no valid reason = tak+ x to be m1 & 9 conjunction ) our previ\s positive argum5t = ! s5ti5t individuality ( all real exi/5ce1 !y suffice to br+ our g5]al int]pretation ( ! physical ord] "u ,mr4 ,bradley's canon t 8,:at mu/ be & c be1 t is40 #d4 7#c7 ,:at1 !n1 are we to make ( ! pr9ciple ( ! 8,uni=mity ( ,nature08 ,any pr9ciple :i* does actual "w 9 sci5ce mu/ someh[ be capable ( ju/ification1 & if our int]pretation ( ! physical ord] really conflicts ) a fundam5tal sci5tific pr9ciple1 x mu/ conta9 fallacy some:]e4 ,=tunately1 !re is no real conflict4 ,9 deal+ ) ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity1 we mu/ di/+ui% v c>efully betwe5 ! s5se 9 :i* x is actually requir$ = ! purposes ( sci5ce & ! s5se :i* has be5 put ^u x 9 ! set ( metaphysical doctr9es popul>ly b illogically d$uc$ f ! actual proc$ure ( ! sci5ces4 ,z we h se5 already1 x is impossible to affirm ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity z an axiom ( sy/ematic ?\ght4 ,x is also n capable ( v]ification z an empirical tru?4 ,its logical "* mu/ !re=e be t ( a po/ulate1 an assumption def5sible on ! gr\nd ( practical usefulness1 b only s f> z x actually succe$s4 ,n[1 ?is is precisely ! place :i* ! pr9ciple fills 9 ! actual proc$ure ( ! sci5ces4 ,we h absolutely no means ( %[+ t ! concrete c\rse ( ,nature is /rictly uni=m1 z has already be5 se54 ,b also1 we h no ne$1 = our sci5tific ends1 t x %\ld be uni=m4 ,all t we require is t natural processes1 :5 dealt ) 9 ! bulk1 %\ld exhibit no div]g5ce f uni=m r\t9e except su* z we may neglect = ! purposes ( practical calculation & control ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,! actual success ( ! empirical sci5ces %[s t ?is dem& = approximate uni=mity is actually fulfill$ ) suffici5t clos5ess = all our practical purposes4 ,t x w\ld be s fulfill$ we c\ld h _h no !oretical means ( div9+ be=e putt+ x to ! actual te/4 ,9 ?is s5se ! pr9ciple1 l t ( ,causality may be said to be a po/ulate made a priori & 9 advance ( exp]i5ce4 ,b1 once m l ! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 x c\ld n be presum$ to be tru/wor?y unless ! subsequ5t results ( its employm5t v9dicat$ x2 x _c1 !re=e1 be a priori 9 ! ,kantian s5se ( be+ kn[n to be true indep5d5t ( empirical v]ification4#acf ,?is result is confirm$ by consid]ation ( ! way 9 :i* ! pr9ciple ( uni=m law is actually appli$ to concrete cases4 ,sci5tific laws1 z we all "k1 are purely g5]al & ab/ract4 ,!y /ate n :at w happ51 b :at w\ld happ5 provid+ t c]ta9 specifi$ conditions & no o!rs 7 op]ative 9 det]m9+ ! result4 ,9 ?is ab/ract =m !y are1 ( c\rse1 /atem5ts ( exact & absolute uni=mities4 ,b 9 ?is ab/ract =m !y _c be directly appli$ to ! calculation ( ! actual c\rse ( any process4 ,to take1 = in/ance1 an example :i* has be5 us$ by ,pr(essor ,w>d4#acg ,we le>n 9 ,me*anics t equilibrium is ma9ta9$ on ! lev] :5 ! mom5ts ( ! weights ab\t ! fulcrum are equal & opposite4 ,z an ab/ract g5]alisation ?is is a /atem5t ( a rigid uni=mity4 ,b 9 ord] t x may be univ]sally true1 we mu/ suppose ! conditions impli$ 9 ! =mulation ( ! proposition to be fulfill$4 ,! lev] itself mu/ be absolutely rigid1 & mu/ be weightless2 x mu/ be ( absolutely uni=m /ructure1 ! fulcrum mu/ be a ma!matical po9t1 9 ord] t friction may be exclud$1 & s =?4 ,simil>ly1 ! weights mu/ be ?\ght ( z m]e masses )\t any fur!r diff]5ce ( quality1 & ?us only capable ( affect+ ! lev] ?r\gh ! "o prop]ty ( _! weight2 _! atta*m5ts1 aga91 mu/ be ( ideal t5uity1 or fre% complications w be introduc$4 ,b :5 all ^! conditions h be5 tak5 into acc\nt1 ! pr9ciple has become s ab/ract z to am\nt to ! tautology t :at only op]ates by its mass & its di/ance f ! fulcrum w n op]ate by any o!r prop]ty4 ,9 any actual case1 ! c\rse ( ev5ts w be liable to be affect$ by all ! conditions :i* _h to be exclud$ f ! ab/ract =mulation ( ! pr9ciple4 ,no actual lev] w be weightless or incapable ( be+ b5t or brok52 its con/ruction w nev] be uni=m4 ,actual loads1 aga91 may influ5ce ! behavi\r ( a lev] diff]5tly accord+ to _! bulk1 _! *emical composition1 ! nature ( _! atta*m5ts4 ,at an actual fulcrum !re w be "s degree ( friction betwe5 ! lev]-b> & its support1 & s on4 ,9 actual fact1 any or all ( ^! circum/ances may affect ! behavi\r ( ! lev] b> :5 ! loads are susp5d$ f x4 ,consequ5tly1 x is q impossible to apply ! me*anical g5]alisation ) c]ta9ty to det]m9e ! c\rse ( ev5ts 9 a concrete case4 ,:at holds good 9 ?is in/ance holds good 9 all simil> cases ( ! 8laws0 ( nature4 ,9 s f> z ^! laws are really exact !y are all hypo!tical1 & deal only ) ! problem4 ,:at w\ld be ! c\rse ( a physical sequ5ce1 assum+ its complete gr\nd to be conta9$ 9 ! conditions enum]at$ 9 ! enunciation ( ! law8 ,t is1 !y all1 9 s f> z !y are absolute1 are diff]5t =ms ( ! tautological proposition1 t :]e !re is no?+ to make any diff]5ce betwe5 two cases1 !re w be no diff]5ce4 ,b ! mom5t we apply our laws to ! calculation ( ! actual c\rse ( an individual process1 we h to recognise t ! condition = _! rigid exactness is abs5t2 9 ! individual process !re are always aspects n compris$ 9 ! conditions = :i* ! law 0 enunciat$1 & no?+ b actual exp]i5ce c in=m u :e!r ! pres5ce ( ^! aspects w p]ceptibly affect ! result 9 :i* we are int]e/$4 ,z appli$ to ! /udy ( an individual process1 ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity is ?us a po/ulate1 l ! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 :i* c only be ju/ifi$ by its actual success4 ,aga91 l ! pr9ciple ( ,causality1 ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity may be successful to diff]5t degrees1 accord+ to ! special nature ( ! processes = :i* x is assum$4 ,z ! causal po/ulate re/$ on ! assumption t a selection f ! antec$5ts ( an ev5t may = practical purposes be treat$ z equival5t to its complete gr\nd1 s ! m g5]al po/ulate ( ,uni=mity re/s on ! assumption t individual purpose may be left out ( acc\nt 9 assign+ ! gr\nd ( a process4 ,x does n foll[ t ^! po/ulates w receive ! same am\nt ( empirical ju/ification = all dep>tm5ts ( ! physical ord]4 ,!re may well be c]ta9 processes 9 :i* ! individual purposive "* is s prom95t t1 ev5 = our practical purposes1 we _c safely calculate _! c\rse )\t tak+ _! end or purpose into consid]ation4 ,9 t case ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity & t ( ,causality w\ld1 = ?is "p ( ! physical ord]1 lose _! practical value4 ,x is a popul> belief t su* a failure ( ^! practical po/ulates actually takes place :]e we come to deal ) ! consci\s volitions ( human ag5ts4 ,! problem is "o :i* mu/ be kept = full] consid]ation 9 our next ,book1 b we c at pres5t make two g5]al /atem5ts4 7#a7 ,su* a failure ( ! po/ulates ( ,causality & ,uni=mity 9 application to a p>ticul> sph]e w\ld n involve a brea* ( ! fundam5tal logical pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 s9ce1 z we h se5 suffici5tly already1 bo? po/ulates impose special re/rictions on t pr9ciple = :i* ! nature ( ! pr9ciple itself af=ds no w>rant4 ,x w\ld ?us n be an un?9kable or logically unt5able position to hold t no g5]al laws ( human action c be =mulat$4 7#b7 ,:ile ?is extreme d5ial ( ! possibility ( laws ( human action is logically possible1 ! actual success ( ^? sci5ces :i* deal ) human behavi\r 9 ! /ati/ical way =bids u to accept x4 ,! success ( ^! sci5ces %[s t human behavi\r1 consid]$ 9 ! gross1 does exhibit c]ta9 approximate uni=mities4 ,b !re seems to be no means ( prov+ t all aspects ( human behavi\r w\ld %[ su* uni=mity if consid]$ 9 gross 9 ! same fa%ion4 ,x is at lea/ conceivable t "s social activities w\ld fail to exhibit approximation to an av]age value1 no matt] h[ ext5d$ ! area & p]iod tak5 z ! basis ( inve/igation4 ,we might conceivably h to admit t !re are dep>tm5ts ( social life = :i* no 8laws0 c be =mulat$4 ,if we disreg>d ?is possibility 9 practice1 ! reason is a me?odological "o4 ,x is our int]e/ to discov] su* uni=mities1 & !re=e1 z failure may only mean a tempor>y *eck to ! success ( our inve/igations1 we prop]ly make x a rule ( me?od to assume t x is no m ?an ?is4 ,we treat all sequ5ces z capable1 by prop] me?ods1 ( r$uction to uni=mity1 = ! same reason t we treat all (f5d]s z possibly reclaimable4 ,we desire t !y %\ld be s1 & we _c prove !y are n s1 & we !re=e behave z if we knew !y 7 s4 ,a ^w may be said z to ! nature ( ! practical ne$ ^u :i* ! po/ulate ( ,uni=mity is bas$4 ,z we h previ\sly se51 ! alli$ po/ulate ( ,causality arose f ! practical ne$ ( devis+ means = ! control ( natural processes4 ,b ! causal po/ulate alone is n en\gh to satisfy ?is ne$4 ,= ev5 if we c assume t e ev5t is det]m9$1 suffici5tly = practical purposes1 by its antec$5ts1 & ?us t ! k ( ^? antec$5ts1 :5 obta9$1 is a k ( ! means to its production1 our practical comm& ov] ! production ( ! ev5t is n yet assur$4 ,= we c h no g5]al confid5ce 9 our p[] to produce ! ev5t by employ+ ! asc]ta9$ means1 s long z x is possible t ! result may on ea* occasion be affect$ by v>iations too m9ute = our detection1 or = o!r reasons n accessible to our p]ception4 ,we ne$ to be assur$ t :at seems ! same to u is1 = practical purposes1 ! same1 & s t ! employm5t ( ! same means may be tru/$ to lead to ! same result4 ,?is is ! condition :i* is express$ 9 an ab/ract =m by ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity1 :i* /ates t ! c\rse ( natural processes con=ms to g5]al laws2 9 _! actual application to ! concrete processes ( actual nature ^! laws are prop]ly practical rules = ! production ( effects1 & _! inviolability means no m ?an t we may successfully treat z ! same1 9 _! be>+ on ! results 9 :i* we are int]e/$1 ?+s :i* appe> ! same 9 relation to c]ta9 /&>ds ( comp>ison4 ,z we h se51 ! validity ( ?is assumption c\ld nev] h be5 kn[n a priori2 x c only be said to be actually valid :]e actual use has ju/ifi$ x4 ,at ! same "t1 x is cle>ly a pr9ciple ( me?od to assume ! univ]sal applicability ( our practical po/ulates :]ev] x is to our int]e/ t !y %\ld be applicable1 z expla9$ 9 ! la/ p>agraph4 ,?is is :y we rightly assume ! applicability ( ! po/ulates 9 sph]es :]e ! successful e/abli%m5t ( g5]al uni=mities has n hi!rto be5 effect$1 s long z no positive reason c be %[n :y !y %\ld n apply4 ,we %all f9d ?is la/ reflection sugge/ive :5 we come to deal ) ! e?ical difficulties :i* h be5 felt ab\t ! application ( ! po/ulates ( ,uni=mity & ,causality to volunt>y action4 ,x is ( c\rse cle> t our r$uction ( ,uni=mity to a m]e practical po/ulate does n introduce any elem5t ( pure 8*ance0 into ! actual ord] ( exi/+ ?+s4 8,*ance0 is a t]m ) m ?an "o mean+1 & its ambiguity may easily lead to misappreh5sions4 ,*ance may mean 7a7 any sequ5ce = :i* our actual k _c assign ! gr\nd4 ,9 ?is s5se *ance1 z ano!r "n = our own m]e ignorance1 mu/ ( c\rse be recognis$ by any !ory :i* does n lose sight ( ! fact ( human ignorance & fallibility4 ,or aga91 *ance may mean 7b7 a sequ5ce ( :i* ! gr\nd is p>tially und]/ood4 ,we may "k en\gh ( ! gr\nd ( ! sequ5ce to be able to limit ! possibilities to a def9ite numb] ( alt]natives1 )\t kn[+ en\gh to say :i* alt]native completely satisfies ! conditions 9 a special case4 ,x is 9 ?is s5se t we speak ( ! 8*ances0 ( any "o ( ! alt]native ev5ts z capable ( computation1 & make ! rules = _! computation ! object ( special ma!matical elaboration 9 ! s-call$ 8,!ory ( ,probability40 7c7 ,f9ally1 *ance may mean 8pure0 *ance1 ! exi/5ce ( some?+ = :i* !re is no 8gr\nd0 :atev]1 z x /&s 9 no organic int]connection ) a wid] sy/em ( real exi/5ce4 ,*ance 9 ?is la/ s5se is1 ( c\rse1 absolutely exclud$ by our conception ( ! sy/ematic unity ( ! real z express$ 9 ! pr9ciple ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 z an ultimate axiom ( all consi/5t ?\ght4 ,our d5ial ( ! absolute validity ( ! pr9ciples ( ,causality & ,uni=mity w\ld only am\nt to ! admission ( 8pure0 *ance into ?+s if we accept$ ^? pr9ciples z necess>y consequ5ces ( ! axiom ( ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce4 ,if !y are m]e practical po/ulates1 :i* pres5t ! axiom ( ,gr\nd "u artificial re/rictions = :i* !re is no logical ju/ification 9 ! axiom itself1 ! admission t !y are n ultimately true 9 no way conflicts ) full recognition ( ! ?or\gh sy/ematic unity ( exi/5ce2 x m]ely means t ! view ( ! nature ( t unity assum$ by our practical po/ulates1 ?\gh em95tly useful1 is inadequate4 ,we may "h conv5i5tly recapitulate our results4 ,on metaphysical gr\nds1 we felt compell$ to reg>d ! physical ord] z ! manife/ation to our special s5sibility ( a sy/em ( int]connect$ be+s ) s5ti5t & purposive exp]i5ces l ourselves4 ,! app>5t purposelessness & deadness ( ! great] "p ( t ord] we expla9$ z intelligible on ! supposition t ! subjective purposes & int]e/s ( _m ( its memb]s are too unlike our own = our recognition4 ,we !n saw t if nature consi/s ( su* s5ti5t exp]i5ces1 ! app>5t dom9ation ( x by absolute law & uni=mity _c be ! f9al tru?4 ,su* uni=mity z !re is mu/ be approximate1 & mu/ result f our hav+ to deal 9 bulk ) collections ( facts :i* we _c foll[ 9 _! individual detail1 & w ?us be ( ! same type z ! /ati/ical uni=mities e/abli%$ by ! an?ropological sci5ces 9 v>i\s dep>tm5ts ( human conduct4 ,next1 we saw t ! uni=mities we call ! 8laws0 ( nature are1 9 fact1 ( ?is type2 t !y repres5t av]age results comput$ f a comp>ison ( l>ge collections ( in/ances ) :i* we _c1 or _c s long z we adh]e to our sci5tific purpose1 deal individually1 are only absolute :ile !y rema9 hypo!tical1 & nev] af=d gr\nd = absolute ass]tion z to ! c\rse ( concrete ev5ts4 ,we fur!r saw t ! only uni=mity sci5ce requires ( ! actual c\rse ( nature is uni=mity suffici5tly close to enable u1 = our special purposes1 to neglect ! individual deviations1 & t ! pr9ciple ( ,uni=mity itself is n a logical axiom b a practical po/ulate1 express+ ! condition necess>y = ! successful =mulation ( rules = practical int]v5tion 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,f9ally1 :ile we saw t we h no a priori logical w>rant = ! assumption t su* rules c be =mulat$ = all dep>tm5ts ( ! physical ord]1 we are b\nd on me?odological gr\nds to assume t !y c1 unless we h special positive reasons = believ+ ! contr>y4 ,?us ! univ]sality ( a po/ulate ( uni=mity does n mean t x is univ]sally true1 b t x has univ]sally to be made :]ev] we h an int]e/ 9 attempt+ ! =mulation ( g5]al rules4 #e4 7#d7 ,! ,conception ( ! ,physical ,ord] z a ,me*anism4 ,! conception ( nature z rigidly con=mable to g5]al laws1 f9ds its complete/ expression 9 ! view ( ! :ole physical ord] z a complicat$ me*anism4 ,x is n easy to say j h[ mu* is always impli$ :5 we he> ( a 8purely me*anical0 !ory ( ! _w or ( physical processes4 ,sometimes all t is meant is t ! !ory 9 "q treats ! pr9ciple ( rigid uni=mity accord+ to g5]al laws z an ultimate axiom4 ,sometimes1 aga91 a 8me*anical view0 ( ! _w is tak5 to mean1 9 a n>r[] s5se1 "o :i* reg>ds all ! *emical1 electrical1 & o!r processes ( ! physical ord] z m]ely complicat$ cases ( *ange ( configuration 9 a sy/em ( mass p>ticles4 ,9 ?is n>r[] s5se ! 8me*anical0 !ory ( ! physical _w is ano!r "n = ! some:at crude =m ( reali/ ,metaphysics accord+ to :i* no?+ exi/s b mov+ masses1 ev]y?+ 9 ! =m ( second>y qualities be+ a subjective illusion4 ,bo? ! wid] & ! n>r[] =m ( ! me*anical view agree 9 treat+ ! processes ( physical nature z un9tellig5t & unconsci\s1 & reg>d+ !m z completely det]m9$ by antec$5t conditions1 )\t ref]5ce to any end or purpose :i* !y effect4 ,! !ory owes ! epi!t 8me*anical0 to ! analogy :i* is !n suppos$ to subsi/ betwe5 ! physical ord] & ! v>i\s ma*9es ( human con/ruction1 9 :i* ! v>i\s con/itu5t p>ts simil>ly execute movem5ts det]m9$ by relation to ! rema9+ p>ts1 & n by any consci\sness ( an end to be atta9$4#ach ,x is ( c\rse manife/ t1 s und]/ood1 ! me*anical view ( physical processes is =c$ ^u u by our practical ne$s :]ev] x is requisite to =mulate rules = successful int]v5tion 9 ! c\rse ( nature4 ,if we are to int]v5e ) success 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 t c\rse mu/1 z we h already se51 be capable ( be+ reg>d$ z approximately uni=m1 o!rwise we c h no security t our int]v5tion accord+ to rule & prec$5t w h a uni=m & unambigu\s result4 ,h5ce1 if we are to =mulate g5]al rules = practical int]v5tion1 we mu/ be able to treat ! c\rse ( ?+s z--to all int5ts & purposes--me*anical4 ,&1 on ! contr>y1 if !re are processes :i* _c be ev5 approximately reg>d$ z me*anical1 our p[] ( fram+ g5]al rules = ! practical manipulation ( ev5ts _c ext5d to ^? processes4 ,! limits ( ! me*anical view ( ev5ts are likewise ! limits ( empirical sci5ce & ( ! g5]al precepts ( ! practical arts4 ,we see ?is admirably exemplifi$ 9 ! /udy ( human natures4 ,! behavi\r ( l>ge aggregates ( human be+s1 z we h already le>n$1 exhibits approximate uni=mity1 at lea/ 9 _m respects1 & may ?us be treat$ z to all int5ts & purposes me*anical 9 ^? respects4 ,h5ce x is possible to h a numb] ( empirical sci5ces ( human nature1 su* z ,e?nology & ,sociology1 9 :i* ^? uni=mities are collect$ & codifi$1 & to base on ^! sci5ces a numb] ( g5]al prud5tial maxims = ! regulation ( our behavi\r t[>ds our fell[-m5 consid]$ 9 ! ab/ract4 ,b :5 we come to deal ) ! actual conduct ( concrete human individuals1 ! me*anical view1 z we h se51 fails u4 ,:at a concrete individual w d c only be inf]r$ ) c]ta9ty f ! k ( 8 int]e/s & purposes2 !re c ?us be no g5]al sci5ce ( individual "*1 & consequ5tly no g5]al rules ( prud5ce = behavi\r t[>ds an individual fell[-man4 ,x is n to ! s-call$ sci5ces ( human nature1 b to p]sonal exp]i5ce ( ! individual himself1 we h to g = ! k h[ to regulate our conduct t[>ds ! actual individuals ) :om life br+s u into direct & intimate p]sonal relation4 ,philosophical reflection ^u ! nature & limits ( sci5tific k fully confirms ! v]dict pass$ by ! practical s5se ( mank9d on ! doctr9aire p$antry :i* seeks to d$uce rules = deal+ ) actual individuals f any?+ b concrete und]/&+ ( individual "* & purpose4 ,! me*anical view ( physical processes is ?us an indisp5sable po/ulate ( ! v>i\s empirical sci5ces :i* seek to describe ^? processes by ! aid ( g5]al =mul4 ,h5ce ! prote/s :i* are sometimes urg$ aga9/ ! use ( me*anical int]pretations 9 descriptive sci5ce are really 9 _s no m ?an ! expression ( a p]sonal di/a/e = ! :ole bus9ess ( sci5tific g5]alisation & description4 ,if !re are to be sci5ces ( physical processes at all1 ^! sci5ces mu/ be me*anical1 9 ! wid] acceptation ( ! t]m4 ,x does n1 h[ev]1 foll[ because ! me*anical view ( physical processes is a necessity = our empirical sci5ces1 t ?is view is consequ5tly ultimately true4 ,z we h le>n$ already1 :5 we pass f ! /atem5t t ! processes ( ! physical ord] may1 = ! purpose ( description by g5]al =mul1 & ! inv5tion ( practical me?ods = _! production1 be treat$ z to all int5ts me*anical1 to ! v diff]5t ass]tion t ! physical ord] really is rigidly me*anical1 we h des]t$ empirical sci5ce = dogmatic ,metaphysics1 & our metaphysical dogma mu/ /& or fall by its own ultimate coh]5cy & intelligibility z a way ( ?9k+ ab\t ,reality4 ,! usefulness ( ! me*anical int]pretation = o!r purposes is no evid5ce :atev] ( its value = ! special purpose ( ! metaphysician4#aci #f4 ,our previ\s discussion has already satisfi$ u t1 z ,metaphysics1 ! po/ulate ( ,uni=mity ^u :i* ! me*anical view ( ! physical ord] re/s1 is un9telligible & !re=e indef5sible4 ,b we may supplem5t ! discussion by "o or two reflections :i* ?r[ into /rik+ relief ! inadequacy ( t concept ( ! physical ord] z a huge self-act+ ma*9e :i* is s (t5 (f]$ u to-day z ! la/ ^w ( sci5tific ?\ght4 ,9 ! me*anical metaphysical !ories two po9ts always receive special emphasis4 ,! physical ord]1 accord+ to ! ?or\gh-go+ expon5ts ( ! doctr9e1 is a me*anism :i* is 7a7 self-conta9$ & self-act+1 & 7b7 entirely devoid ( int]nal purpose4 ,n[1 9 bo? ^! respects ! suppos$ _w-ma*9e diff]s absolutely f ! real ma*9es ^u analogy ) :i* ! me*anical !ory is 9 ! la/ resort bas$4 ,e real ma*9e is1 to beg9 )1 ! inc>nation ( ! int]nal purpose ( a s5ti5t be+4 ,x is some?+ :i* has be5 fa%ion$ = ! express object ( atta9+ a c]ta9 result1 & ! m p]fect its /ructure ! great] is ! impossibility ( und]/&+ ! pr9ciple ( con/ruction )\t compreh5sion ( ! result x is devis$ to effect4 ,:y ! v>i\s p>ts h precisely ! %ape1 size1 /r5g?1 & o!r qualities !y h1 y c only tell :5 y "k :at is ! "w ! mak] ( ! ma*9e int5d$ x to d4 ,9 s f> z ?is is n ! case1 & ! /ructure ( ! ma*9e c be expla9$1 ap>t f its specific purpose1 by consid]ation ( ! prop]ties ( ! mat]ial1 ! patt]ns ( con/ruction consecrat$ by tradition1 & s =?1 x mu/ be reg>d$ z an imp]fect realisation ( its type4 ,9 a p]fect ma*9e ! "* & behavi\r ( e "p w\ld be absolutely det]m9$ by ! dem&s made on t "p by ! purpose to be fulfill$ by ! work+ ( ! :ole2 our inability ev] to produce su* a p]fect me*anical /ructure causes all our actual ma*9es to be imp]fect & inadequate repres5tations ( ! ideal we h be=e u 9 _! con/ruction4 ,?us a true ma*9e1 s f> f be+ purposeless1 is a typical embodim5t ( consci\s purpose4 ,x is true t ! ma*9e1 once set go+1 w cont9ue to "w accord+ to ! l9es embodi$ 9 its con/ruction irrespective ( ! adequacy ) :i* !y effect ! realisation ( ! mak]'s purpose4 ,a wat*1 once w\nd up1 w cont9ue to g1 ?\gh ! indication ( ! lapse ( "t may1 "u fre% circum/ances1 cease to meet ! int]e/s ( its mak] or own]2 & aga91 if ! con/ruction ( ! wat* 0 faulty1 x w n prop]ly execute ! purpose = :i* x 0 made4 ,! ma*9e has 9 itself no p[] ( fre% purposive adaptability by :i* to modify ! purpose x reflects1 or to rem$y an initial defect 9 its execution4 ,b ?is m]ely %[s t ! purpose exhibit$ 9 ! ma*9e's con/ruction orig9at$ outside ! ma*9e itself1 & t ! orig9ator _h n ! p[] to c>ry out 8 purpose ) complete consi/5cy4 ,x does n 9 ! lea/ detract f ! ess5tially teleological & purposive "* ( ! ma*9e qu ma*9e4 ,?is br+s u to our second po9t4 ,j z no true ma*9e is purposeless1 s no true ma*9e is self-act+4 ,n only are all ma*9es 9 ! end ! product ( design+ intellig5ce1 b all ma*9es are dep5d5t ^u ext]nal purposive intellig5ce = control4 ,!y require intellig5ce to set !m go+1 & !y require x equally1 9 "o =m or ano!r1 to regulate & sup]vise _! work+4 ,h[ev] complicat$ a piece ( ma*9]y may be1 h[ev] intricate its provisions = self-regulation1 self-adju/m5t1 self-fe$+1 & s =?1 !re is always1 if y look c>efully en\gh1 a man some:]e to "w x4 ,! obvi\s "* ( ?is reflection has un=tunately n prev5t$ metaphysicians f draw+ /range inf]5ces f _! own neglect ( x4 ,clos] reflection ^u ! true "* ( ma*9]y w\ld ?us sugge/ a v diff]5t int]pretation ( ! analogy betwe5 ! uni=mities ( ! physical ord] & ! regul> work+ ( our ma*9es f t adopt$ by ! 8me*anical0 view ( nature1 z elaborat$ into a metaphysical doctr9e4 ,x w\ld lead u to conceive ( ! app>5tly me*anical z play+ ev]y:]e ! same "p :i* x fulfils 9 our own sy/em ( social life4 ,we %\ld ?9k ( ! me*anical z fill+ an indisp5sable b subord9ate place 9 processes :i*1 9 _! complete "*1 are ess5tially teleological & purposive4 ,teleological action obvi\sly dep5ds = its success ^u two fundam5tal conditions4 ,x requires ! e/abli%m5t ( types ( reaction :i* rema9 uni=m s long z _! ma9t5ance satisfies ! atta9m5t ( ! end t[>ds :i* !y are direct$1 & at ! same "t ! p[] ( modify+ ^? types ( reaction f "t to "t s z to meet fre% situations enc\nt]$ or creat$ 9 ! progressive atta9m5t ( t end4 ,9 our own individual physical life ^! two conditions are f\nd z ! p[] to =m habits1 & ! p[] to initiate spontane\sly fre% response to v>iation 9 ! environm5t4 ,9 s f> z our dom9ant int]e/s c be be/ foll[$ by ! uni=m repetition ( "o type ( reaction1 att5tion is div]t$ f ! execution ( ! reaction :i* becomes habitual1 semi-consci\s1 &1 z we correctly say1 8me*anical10 ! att5tion be+ ?us set free = ! "w ( initiat+ ! necess>y fre% modifications ( habitual action4 ,our v>i\s indu/rial & o!r ma*9es are devices = facilitat+ ?is same division ( lab\r4 ,! ma*9e1 once prop]ly con/ruct$ & set 9 action1 executes ! habitual reaction1 leav+ ! att5tion ( its sup]visor free to introduce ! requisite relatively novel v>iations ( response accord+ to new situations 9 ! environm5t4 ,!re is no?+ to prev5t our int]pret+ ! me*anical uni=mities exhibit$ by ! physical ord] 9 t]ms ( ?is analogy4 ,we %\ld !n h to ?9k ( ! 8laws0 or 8uni=mities0 9 physical nature z correspond+ to ! habitual modes ( reaction ( ! s5ti5t be+s ( ^: inn] life ! physical ord] is ph5om5al2 ^! uni=mities w\ld ?us be ess5tially teleological 9 _! own nature1 & w\ld also /& 9 intimate int]relation ) ! spontane\s initiation ( fre% responses to v>iations 9 ! environm5t on ! "p ( ! same s5ti5t be+s4 ,habit & spontaneity w\ld mutually imply ea* o!r 9 nature at l>ge z !y d 9 our own psy*ical life1 & ! 8me*anical0 w\ld 9 bo? cases be simply ! l[] level to :i* teleological action approximates 9 proportion z att5tion ceases to be necess>y to its execution4 ,?is conception w\ld h>monise admirably ) ! result ( our previ\s inquiry into ! k9d ( evid5ce by :i* ! exi/5ce ( uni=m 8laws ( nature0 is e/abli%$4 ,= x w\ld be an inevitable consequ5ce ( ^? subjective limitations :i* compel u to deal 9 bulk ) processes we are unable to foll[ 9 _! individual detail1 t our obs]vation ( ! physical ord] %\ld reveal ! broad g5]al types ( habitual response to typical ext]nal conditions1 :ile fail+ to detect ! subtl] modifications 9 ^? responses answ]+ to special v>iations 9 ^? conditions4 ,j s ! uni=mities asc]ta9$ by ! /ati/ical /udy ( human nature are simply ! exhibition on a l>ge scale ( ! lead+ habitual reactions ( human be+s ^u typical ext]nal situations1 z dis5tangl$ f ! non-habitual spontane\s responses to fre% elem5ts 9 ! ext]nal situation ) :i* !y are insep>ably unit$ 9 any concrete life ( individual intellig5t purpose4 ,!re seems no objection to ?is conception ( 8laws ( nature0 z be+ ! =mul descriptive ( ! habitual behavi\r ( a complex sy/em ( s5ti5t be+s1 beyond t bas$ on ! allegation t ^! 8laws0 are absolute1 exact1 & )\t exception4 ,we h se5 already t physical sci5ce has no means ( prov+ ?is allegation1 & no ne$ :atev] to make x1 ! :ole doctr9e ( 8rigid10 8unv>y+0 con=mity to law be+ a m]e practical po/ulate falsely tak5 by a c]ta9 s*ool ( ?9k]s = an axiom4 ,we h also se5 t ! notion ( rigid unv>y+ law is fundam5tally irreconcilable ) ! only intelligible int]pretation we 7 able to give to ! conception ( ! real exi/5ce ( ! physical ord]4 ,?us we h no reason to accept x z true1 & ! fulle/ gr\nd = dismiss+ x z false4 ,b = ! un9tellig5t sup]/ition ) :i* ! 8laws ( nature0 are wor%ipp$ 9 c]ta9 qu>t]s1 x w\ld inde$ h be5 unnecess>y to deal at su* l5g? & ) su* reit]ation ) s simple a matt]4 ,"o sugge/ion1 already made 9 slightly diff]5t words1 may be once m emphasis$ 9 conclusion4 ,ev5 among human be+s ! relative prom95ce ( fre% spontane\s adaptations & habitual reactions 9 ! life ( ! individual fluctuates greatly ) ! diff]5t individuals4 ,! 8intellig5ce0 ( diff]5t m51 z gaug$ by _! p[] ( fre% adaptive modification ( e/abli%$ habits ( reaction1 ranges ov] a great v>iety ( diff]5t values4 ,if we c\ld acquire ! same k9d ( insight into ! individual purposes ( non-human ag5ts t we h into ^? ( our imm$iate fell[s1 we %\ld presumably f9d an ev5 wid] range ( diff]5ces 9 ?is respect4 ,9 pr9ciple we h no means ( sett+ any def9ite limits to ! range 9 ei!r direction4 ,we c conceive a degree ( att5tive control ( reaction s complete t e reaction repres5ts a fre% /age 9 ! realisation ( an und]ly+ idea1 s t intellig5ce is ev]y?+ & habit no?+2 & aga91 we c conceive a /ate ( ?+s 9 :i* m]e habit is ev]y?+ & intellig5t spontaneity no?+4 ,some:]e betwe5 ^! ideal limits all cases ( f9ite purposive intellig5ce mu/ be compris$1 & x w\ld be easy to %[ t nei!r limit c be actually rea*$ by f9ite intellig5ce1 ?\gh !re may be indef9ite approximation to ei!r4#adj ,consult fur!r3--,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 ,introduction ,x4 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 i4 p4 #ah71 bk4 ii4 *aps4 #g1 #h 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 ii4 pp4 #ff-afb72 ,e4 ,ma*1 ,! ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 pp4 #dha-ejd 7,eng4 trans472 ,k4 ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 *aps4 #c 7,! ,sci5tific ,law71 #i 7,! ,laws ( ,motion72 ,j4 ,royce1 8,nature1 ,consci\sness1 & ,self-consci\sness0 79 ,/udies ( ,good & ,evil72 ,j4 ,/allo1 ,concepts & ,!ories ( ,mod]n ,physics1 *aps4 #a1 #aj-ab 7metaphysical /&po9t1 8,ph5om5ali/072 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 "p #a1 lects4 #b-e4 ----- ,footnote #abg3 ,speak+ /rictly1 all necessity w\ld appe> to arise f ! pres5ce ( conflict+ purposes or int]e/s 9 ! same exp]i5ce4 ,e4g41 ! logical necessity ( affirm+ ! conclusion :5 ! premisses are affirm$1 implies 7#a7 ! pres5ce ( ! g5]al purpose to ?9k logically2 7#b7 ! pres5ce ( "s purpose or int]e/ :i*1 if gratifi$1 w\ld dem& ! affirmation ( a result inconsi/5t ) ! previ\sly affirm$ premisses2 7#c7 ! repression ( ?is affirmation by ! dom9ant purpose 7#a74 ,i believe t c>eful analysis w reveal ^! same elem5ts 9 e g5u9e case ( necessitation4 ,i4e4 ! m]e defeat ( my purpose is n true necessitation unless x is defeat$ by a second int]e/ or purpose :i* ,i also id5tify ) myself4 ,?us all necessity w\ld ultimately be self-impos$4 ,?is is n )\t its be>+ on ,e?ics1 z we %all see4 ,footnote #abh3 ,comp>e ) :at foll[s1 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,e?ical ,/udies1 ,essay #a1 & infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #d4 ,footnote #abi3 ,our ord9>y calculations z to ! behavi\r ( our fell[-m51 beyond ! circle ( our own intimates1 seem to involve a mixture ( ! two types4 ,we base our conclusions p>tly on conjectures drawn f ! obs]v$ pa/ acts ( our fell[s z to _! special int]e/s & purposes1 p>tly on g5]alisations z to ! purposes & int]e/s :i* are mo/ widely op]ative 9 human life4 ,practical m5 nev] all[ !mselves to =get t ! conclusions ?us obta9$ are problematical 9 ! highe/ degree4 ,! :ole c\rse ( our inve/igation w g to %[ t ! notion ( a d$uctive sci5ce ( human nature1 by :i* ! concrete conduct ( an individual man might be inf]r$ ) c]ta9ty f physiological & psy*ological g5]alities1 is a ridicul\s *im]a4 ,see infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #d4 ,footnote #acj3 ,x w be recollect$ t ! approximate con/ancy ( su* social /ati/ics has be51 fooli%ly en\gh1 br\ght =w>d z an alleg$ dispro( ( moral fre$om4 ,! m vulg> =ms ( ! necessit>ian argum5t h ev5 be5 pu%$ to ! inf]5ce t1 if ! numb] ( suicides up to ,decemb] #ca has be5 "o less ?an ! av]age 9 "s giv5 ye>1 "s "o mu/ kill himself be=e ! day is out to make up ! p]c5tage4 ,:at mu/ happ5 if ! numb] has be5 "o m ?an ! av]age we are nev] told4 ,footnote #aca3 ,comp>e ,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 p4 #bhj ff4 7,eng4 trans472 ,jevons1 ,pr9ciples ( ,sci5ce1 *aps4 #ac1 #ad4 ,footnote #acb3 ,comp>e ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 i4 ,introduction ,x41 *ap4 #c1 #cc 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 i4 pp4 #ah1 #ij-ic72 bk4 i4 *ap4 #g1 #bjh ff4 7,eng4 trans41 vol ii4 pp4 #hh-ia74 ,footnote #acc3 ,see ! full exposition ( ?is view 9 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 i4 lecture #d1 on :i* ! pres5t p>agraph is f\nd$4 ,cf4 ,j4 ,t4 ,m]z1 ,hi/ory ( ,european ,?\ght1 vol4 i4 pp4 #dcg-dda4 ,footnote #acd3 ,my rem>k is f\nd$ m p>ticul>ly ^u ! me?ods by :i* quantitative uni=mities are obta9$ 9 ! inve/igations ( ,psy*ophysics4 ,i h no direct acqua9tance ) fir/-h& exp]im5tation 9 o!r sph]es1 b ! me?od by :i* x is made to yield g5]al uni=mities seems to be ( ! same k9d4 ,footnote #ace3 ,cf4 ,mr4 ,h4 ,g4 ,wells's tale1 ,! ,new ,accumulator4 ,footnote #acf3 ,comp>e once m ! passage already quot$ f ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 i4 #c4 #cc4 ,footnote #acg3 ,see ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 i4 lecture #b1 & comp>e ! elaborate pro( giv5 by ,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 pp4 #i-bc1 t all ! s-call$ demon/rations ( ! g5]al !ory ( ! lev] are m]e r$uctions ( ! m complicat$ to ! simple/ cases ( a relation :i* ultimately dep5ds = its recognition on no?+ m cog5t ?an ! evid5ce ( ! s5ses4 ,footnote #ach3 ,= "s comm5ts ^u ! 8me*anical view0 9 ! n>r[] & m special s5se1 see ,*apt] ,,vi4 ( ! pres5t ,book4 ,x may be conv5i5t1 = ! sake ( precision1 to call ?is m special =m ( ! me*anical view ! 8me*ani/ic0 !ory ( nature4 ,footnote #aci3 ,psy*ology ought probably to be exclud$ f ! sci5ces = :i* ! me*anical view is fundam5tal4 ,b ,psy*ology does n deal ) any "p ( ! physical ord]4 ,see ! pres5t writ]s review ( ,mn/]b]g's 8,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie0 9 ,m9d = ,april #aijb2 & cf4 infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *aps4 #a1 #b4 ,footnote #adj3 ,comp>e ) ! argum5t ( ?is *apt]1 ,royce1 8,nature1 ,consci\sness1 & ,self-consci\sness10 9 ,/udies ( ,good & ,evil2 & 8,m9d & ,nature10 by ! pres5t writ] 9 ,int]national ,j\rnal ( ,e?ics1 ,octob] #aijb4 ,! invet]ate prejudice t 8laws ( nature10 to be ( sci5tific use1 mu/ be rigidly exact uni=mities is s /rong1 t x may be wor? :ile1 ev5 aft] ! prec$+ discussion ( g5]al pr9ciples1 to assi/ ! read] by rem9d+ him ( ! elem5t>y fact t ! mo/ famili> quantities involv$ 9 our sci5tific =mul 71 e1 ! va/ majority ( second & ?ird roots1 ( log>i?ms ( ! natural numb]s1 ( circul> functions ( angles1 etc47 are incapable ( exact evaluation4 ,?is ( itself r5d]s a sci5tific law1 9 ! =m 9 :i* x c be appli$ to ! det]m9ation ( actual occurr5ces1 m]ely approximate1 & ?us %[s t exact uni=mity is unnecess>y = ! practical objects ( ! empirical sci5ces4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,space ,,& ,,"t #a4 ,are "t & space ultimately real or only ph5om5al8 #b4 ,! space & "t ( p]ception are limit$1 s5sibly cont9u\s1 & consi/ ( a quantitative elem5t toge!r ) a qualitative "* dep5d5t on relation to ! "h & n[ ( imm$iate individual feel+4 #c4 ,conceptual space & "t are creat$ f ! p]ceptual data by a comb9$ process ( syn!sis1 analysis1 & ab/raction4 #d4 ,!y are unlimit$1 inf9itely divisible1 & !re is valid positive gr\nd = reg>d+ !m z ma!matically cont9u\s4 ,?us !y =m inf9ite cont9u\s s]ies ( positions4 ,!y involve ab/raction f all ref]5ce to ! "h & n[ ( imm$iate feel+1 & are ?us homog5e\s1 i4e4 ! positions 9 !m are indi/+ui%able4 ,!y are also commonly tak5 to be unities4 #e4 ,p]ceptual space & "t _c be ultimately real1 because !y involve ref]5ce to ! "h & n[ ( a f9ite exp]i5ce2 conceptual space & "t _c be ultimately real1 because !y conta9 no pr9ciple ( int]nal di/9ction1 & are ?us n individual4 #f4 ,! attempt to take space & "t z real leads to ! difficulty ab\t qualities & relations1 & s to ! indef9ite regress4 #g4 ,space & "t conta9 no pr9ciple ( unity2 !re may be _m space & "t ord]s 9 ! ,absolute :i* h no spatial or temporal connection ) ea* o!r4 #h4 ,! ant9omies ( ! inf9ite divisibility & ext5t ( space & "t arise f ! indef9ite regress involv$ 9 ! s*eme ( qualities & relations1 & are insoluble s long z ! space & "t con/ruction is tak5 = ,reality4 #i4 ,! space & "t ord] is an imp]fect ph5om5al manife/ation ( ! logical relation betwe5 ! inn] purposive lives ( f9ite individuals4 ,"t is an inevitable aspect ( f9ite exp]i5ce4 ,h[ space & "t are transc5d$ 9 ! ,absolute exp]i5ce we _c say4 #a4 ,! problems :i* arise = ! metaphysician f ! fact t ! physical ord]1 z x is pres5t$ to our s5ses1 consi/s ( elem5ts hav+ position 9 space & "t1 are among ! olde/ & mo/ p]plex+ ( all ! riddles sugge/$ by ! c\rse ( our exp]i5ce4 ,adequate discussion ( !m w\ld dem& n only f> m space ?an we are at lib]ty to be/[ on ! topic1 b su* a famili>ity ) ! ma!matical !ory ( ord] & s]ies z is sc>cely possible to any "o b an orig9al ma!matician4 ,all t we c d 9 ! pres5t *apt] is to deal v sup]ficially ) "o or two ( ! lead+ problems1 m ) a view to indicat+ ! nature ( ! que/ions :i* ,metaphysics has to face1 ?an ( provid+ def9ite answ]s to !m4 ,! fundam5tal problem = ,metaphysics is1 ( c\rse1 :e!r space & "t are ultimate ,realities or only appe>ances2 t is1 w\ld ! :ole sy/em ( ,reality1 z directly appreh5d$ by an absolute all-conta9+ exp]i5ce1 we> ! =ms ( ext5sion & succession 9 "t1 or is x m]ely a consequ5ce ( ! limitations ( our own f9ite exp]i5ce t ?+s come to u 9 ?is guise8 ,x may inde$ be urg$ t ! cont5ts ( ! univ]se mu/ =m an ord] ( "s sort = ! absolute exp]i5ce1 9 virtue ( _! sy/ematic unity1 b ev5 s x is n cle> t ord] z su* is necess>ily spatial or temporal4 ,inde$1 mo/ ( ! =ms ( ord] ) :i* we are acqua9t$1 bo? 9 ev]yday life & 9 our ma!matical /udies1 appe> to be1 prop]ly speak+1 bo? non-spatial & non-temporal4 ,?us1 e4g41 x is seem+ly by a m]e metaphor t we speak ( ! 8successive0 integ]s ( ! natural numb]-s]ies1 ! 8successive0 p[]s ( an algebraical symbol1 ! 8successive0 approximations to ! value ( a cont9u$ fraction1 9 language borr[$ f ! temporal fl[ ( ev5ts1 ! true relation involv$ be+ 9 ! fir/ two cases ! non-temporal "o ( logical d]ivation1 & 9 ! ?ird ! equally non-temporal "o ( resemblance to an ideal /&>d4 ,! full solution ( ! metaphysical problem ( space & "t w\ld ?us involve 7#a7 ! discrim9ation ( spatial & temporal ord] f o!r alli$ =ms ( ord]1 & 7#b7 a decision z to ! claim ( ?is special =m ( ord] to be ultimately coh]5t & intelligible4 ,! problem ?us pres5t$ = solution is (t51 & usually ) special ref]5ce to ! ,kantian treatm5t ( space & "t 9 ! ,transc5d5tal /hetic1 put 9 ! =m ( ! "q :e!r space & "t are subjective or objective4 ,?is is1 h[ev]1 at be/ a mislead+ & un=tunate mode ( expression :i* we %all d well to avoid4 ,! :ole di/9ction betwe5 a subjective & an objective factor 9 exp]i5ce loses mo/ ( its significance ) ! abolition1 n[ effect$ by ,psy*ology1 ( ! vici\s ,kantian di/9ction betwe5 ! 8giv50 9 p]ception & ! 8"w ( ! m9d40 ,:5 once we h recognis$ t ! 8giv50 itself is con/itut$ by ! movem5t ( selective att5tion1 x becomes impossible any long] to di/+ui% x z an objective factor 9 k f ! subjective /ructure subsequ5tly rais$ ^u x4 ,kant's adh]5ce to ?is false psy*ological anti!sis s completely di/orts 8 :ole treatm5t ( ! 8=ms ( intuition10 t x w be absolutely necess>y 9 a brief discussion l our own to deal ) ! subject 9 entire indep5d5ce ( ! doctr9es ( ! /hetic1 :i* un=tunately cont9ue to ex]cise a disproportionate influ5ce on ! curr5t metaphysical pres5tm5t ( ! problem4#ada ,x %\ld sc>cely be necess>y to po9t out t ! metaphysical que/ions h /ill less to d ) ! psy*ological problems1 s prom95t 9 rec5t sci5ce1 ( ! precise way 9 :i* we come by our p]ception ( ext5sion & succession4 ,= ,metaphysics ! sole "q is "o n ( ! orig9 b ( ! logical value ( ^! ideas4 ,x is ( fundam5tal importance = ! :ole metaphysical treatm5t ( ! subject1 to beg9 by di/+ui%+ cle>ly betwe5 space & "t z =ms ( p]ception1 & space & "t z conceptual =ms 9 :i* we con/ruct our sci5tific notion ( ! physical ord]4 ,"o *ief s\rce ( ! confusions :i* beset ! ,kantian view is ! neglect ( ,kant & mo/ ( 8 foll[]s to make ?is di/9ction ) suffici5t cle>ness4 ,we _c insi/ too /rongly ^u ! po9t t ! space & ! "t ( :i* we ?9k 9 our sci5ce z conta9+ ! entire physical ord]1 are n space & "t z directly kn[n to u 9 s5se-p]ception1 b are concepts elaborat$ out ( ! space & "t ( direct p]ception by a complicat$ process ( syn!sis & analysis1 & involv+ ab/raction f "s ( ! mo/ ess5tial features ( ! space & "t ( actual exp]i5ce4 ,! foll[+ brief discussion may s]ve to illu/rate ! g5]al nature ( ! relation betwe5 ! two =ms ( space & "t1 & to exhibit ! lead+ diff]5ces betwe5 !m4 #b4 ,p]ceptual ,space & ,"t4 ,bo? space & "t1 z we are aw>e ( !m 9 imm$iate p]ception1 are 7#a7 limit$4 ,! space we actually behold z we look out be=e u ) a re/+ eye is always t]m9at$ by a horizon :i* has a m or less well-def9$ outl9e2 ! 8speci\s pres5t10 or portion ( duration ( :i* we c be at any "t aw>e at once z an imm$iately pres5t$ cont5t1 has be5 %[n by elaborate psy*ological exp]im5tation to h a fairly well-def9$ span4 ,:atev] lies outside ?is 8span ( att5tion0 belongs ei!r to ! no long] pres5t$ pa/ or to ! n yet pres5t$ future1 & /&s to ! s5sible pres5t mu* z ! space beh9d my back to ! actually beheld space be=e my eyes4 ,( c\rse1 9 ei!r case ! limits ( ! actually pres5t$ space or "t are n absolutely def9$4 ,to "r & left ( ! l9e ( vision ! visible horizon gradually fades (f into ! indi/9ctly pres5t$ 8m>g9 ( consci\sness02 ! 8s5sible pres5t0 %ades away gradually at ei!r end into ! pa/ & ! future4 ,yet1 ?\gh ?us n absolutely def9$1 s5sible space & "t are nev] b\ndless4 7#b7 ,p]ceptual space & "t are bo? int]nally s5sibly cont9u\s or unbrok54 ,conc5trate y\r att5tion on any less] "p ( ! actually se5 expanse1 & y at once f9d t x is itself an expanse ) all ! *>act]i/ics ( ! wid] expanse 9 :i* x =ms a "p4 ,space z actually se5 is n an aggregate ( m9ima visibilia or p]ceptual po9ts 9 :i* no less] p>ts c be discrim9at$2 s long z space is visually or tactually p]ceiv$ at all1 x is p]ceiv$ z conta9+ less] p>ts :i*1 on att5d+ to !m1 are f\nd to repeat ! *>act]i/ics ( ! l>g] space4 ,s any "p ( ! 8speci\s pres5t0 to :i* special att5tion c be direct$1 turns out itself to be a s5sible duration4 ,p]ceiv$ space is made ( less] spaces1 p]ceiv$ "t ( less] times2 ! 8p>ts0 n be+1 ( c\rse1 actually di/+ui%$ f ea* o!r 9 ! orig9al p]cept1 b be+ capable ( be+ s di/+ui%$ 9 consequ5ce ( v>y+ movem5ts ( att5tion4 7#c7 ,on inve/igat+ ! "* ( our actual p]ception ( space & "t1 x appe>s to conta9 two aspects1 :i* we may call ! quantitative & ! qualitative4 ,on ! "o h&1 :5ev] we p]ceive space we p]ceive a c]ta9 magnitude ( ext5sion1 :5ev] we p]ceive "t we p]ceive a long] or %ort] lapse ( duration4 ,diff]5t spaces & diff]5t times c be quantitatively comp>$ 9 respect ( ! bigness ( ! ext5sion or ! duration compris$ 9 !m4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! p]cept ( space or "t is n "o ( m]e ext5sion or duration4 ,x has a v diff]5t qualitative aspect4 ,we p]ceive along ) ! magnitude ( ! ext5sion ! =m ( its outl9e4 ,?is p]ception ( spatial =m dep5ds 9 ! la/ resort ^u p]ception ( ! direction assum$ by ! b\nd+ l9e or l9es4 ,simil>ly1 9 deal+ ) only "o dim5sion ( p]ceiv$ space1 we nev] p]ceive l5g? 7a spatial magnitude7 ap>t f ! p]ception ( direction 7a spatial quality74 ,! same is true ( ! p]ception ( "t4 ,! lapses ( duration we imm$iately p]ceive h all _! special direction-quality2 ! 8speci\s pres5t0 is ess5tially a simultane\sly pres5t$ succession1 i4e4 a transition f be=e to aft]4 ,x mu/ be add$ t1 9 p]ceptual space & "t1 ! directions ?us p]ceiv$ h a unique relation to ! p]ceiv+ subject1 & are ?us all qualitatively di/9ct & irrev]sible4 ,direction 9 space is e/imat$ z "r1 left1 up1 d[n1 etc41 by ref]5ce to axes ?r\gh ! c5tre ( ! p]cipi5t's body at "r angles to ea* o!r1 & is ?us = any giv5 mom5t ( exp]i5ce uniquely & unambigu\sly det]m9$4 ,direction 9 "t is simil>ly e/imat$ ) ref]5ce to ! actual cont5t ( ! 8focus ( consci\sness40 ,:at is actually focal is 8n[10 :at is ceas+ to be focal is 8pa/10 :at is j com+ to be focal is 8future0 9 its direction4#adb ,?is is p]haps ! mo/ fundam5tal & important peculi>ity ( ! space & "t ( actual p]ception4 ,all directions 9 !m are unambigu\sly det]m9$ by ref]5ce to ! "h & n[ ( ! imm$iate exp]i5ce ( an individual subject4 ,z a consequ5ce1 e individual subject has 8 own special p]ceptual space & "t2 ,geometry & ,me*anics dep5d1 to be sure1 on ! possibility ( ! e/abli%m5t ( correspond5ces betwe5 ^! spatial & temporal sy/ems1 b x is ess5tial to rememb] t1 prop]ly speak+1 ! space & "t sy/em ( ea* individual's p]ception is compos$ ( directions radiat+ out f 8 unique "h & n[1 & is !re=e individual to himself4#adc #c4 ,! ,con/ruction ( ! ,conceptual ,space & ,"t ,ord] ( ,sci5ce4 ,= ! purposes ( practical life1 no less ?an = ! subsequ5t object ( sci5tific description ( ! physical ord]1 x is indisp5sably necess>y to e/abli% equations or correspond5ces betwe5 ! individual space & "t sy/ems ( diff]5t p]cipi5ts4 ,ap>t f su* correspond5ces1 x w\ld be impossible = "o subject to translate ! spatial & temporal sy/em ( any o!r into t]ms ( 8 own exp]i5ce1 & ?us all practical int]c\rse = ! purpose ( communicat+ directions = action w\ld come to an end4 ,= ! communication ( su* practical directions x is imp]ative t we %\ld be able m5tally to recon/ruct ! spatial & temporal aspects ( our exp]i5ce 9 a =m indep5d5t ( ref]5ce to ! special "h & n[ ( ?is or t individual mom5t ( exp]i5ce4 ,?us1 l ! re/ ( our sci5tific con/ructions1 ! e/abli%m5t ( a s+le conceptual space & "t sy/em = ! :ole ( ! physical ord] is ultimately a po/ulate requir$ by our practical ne$s1 & we mu/ !re=e be prep>$ to face ! possibility t1 l o!r po/ulates ( ! same k9d1 x involves assumptions :i* are n logically def5sible4 ,! con/ruction is valuable1 s f> z x does its "w ( r5d]+ int]communication betwe5 individuals possible2 t x %\ld correspond to ! ultimate /ructure ( ,reality any fur!r ?an ! requirem5ts ( practical life dem& is sup]flu\s4 ,! ma9 processes involv$ 9 ! con/ruction ( ! conceptual space & "t ( descriptive sci5ce are ?ree1--syn!sis1 analysis1 ab/raction4 7a7 ,syn!sis4 ,psy*ologically speak+1 x is ultimately by ! active movem5ts ( individual p]cipi5ts t ! syn!sis ( ! individual's v>i\s p]ceptual spaces into "o is effect$4 ,z att5tion is successively direct$1 ev5 :ile ! body z a :ole rema9s /ation>y1 to diff]5t p>ts ( ! :ole expanse be=e ! eye1 ! visual space :i* 0 orig9ally 8focal0 9 pres5tation becomes 8m>g9al10 & ! 8m>g9al0 focal by a s5sibly gradual transition4 ,:5 to ! movem5ts ( head & eyes :i* accompany su* *anges 9 att5tion !re are add$ movem5ts ( locomotion ( ! :ole body1 ?is process is c>ri$ fur!r1 & we h ! gradual disappe>ance ( orig9ally pres5t$ spaces f pres5tation1 accompani$ by ! gradual em]g5ce ( spaces previ\sly n pres5t$ at all4 ,?is leads to ! m5tal con/ruction ( a wid] space conta9+ all ! individual's diff]5t pres5tation-spaces1 ! ord] 9 :i* x conta9s !m be+ det]m9$ by ! felt direction ( ! movem5ts requir$ = ! transition f "o to ano!r4 ,z we le>n1 ?r\gh int]communication ) our fell[s1 ( ! exi/5ce = _! p]ception ( p]ceptual ext5sion nev] directly pres5t$ to our own s5ses1 ! process ( syn!sis is ext5d$ fur!r1 s z to comprise 9 a s+le spatial sy/em all ! pres5tation-spaces ( all ! individual p]cipi5ts 9 an ord] once aga9 det]m9$ by ! direction ( ! movem5ts ( transition f ea* to ! o!rs4 ,f9ally1 z !re is no?+ 9 ! pr9ciple ( su* a syn!sis to impose limits ^u its repetition1 we ?9k ( ! process z capable ( indef9ite cont9uance1 & ?us arrive at ! concept ( a space /ret*+ out 9 all directions )\t def9ite b\nds4 ,?is un5d+ repetition ( ! syn!sis ( p]ceiv$ spaces seems to be ! f\ndation ( :at appe>s 9 !ory z ! ,inf9ity ( ,space4 ,precisely simil> is ! syn!sis by :i* we m5tally con/ruct a s+le "t sy/em = ! ev5ts ( ! physical ord]4 ,n[ means = me ! cont5t :i* occupies ! c5tre ( att5tive int]e/4 ,z att5tion is conc5trat$ on ! diff]5t /ages 9 ! realisation ( an int]e/1 ?is c5tre %ifts2 :at 0 c5tral becomes fir/ m>g9al & !n evanesc5t1 :at 0 m>g9al becomes c5tral4 ,h5ce arises ! conception ( ! ev5ts ( my own inn] life z =m+ a succession ( mom5ts1 ) a det]m9ate ord]1 ea* ( :i* has be5 a n[1 or po9t ( dep>ture = directions 9 p]ceptual "t1 9 its turn4 ,z ) space s ) "t1 ! intrasubjective int]c\rse ( man ) man makes x possible = me m5tally to ext5d ?is conceptual syn!sis ( mom5ts ( "t s z to include n[s belong+ to ! exp]i5ce ( o!rs :i* 7 already pa/ be=e ! fir/ n[ ( _! exp]i5ces :i* ,i c syn*ronise ) a n[ ( my own1 & aga9 n[s ( _! exp]i5ces relatively to :i* ! la/ n[ :i* syn*ronises ) "o ( my own is pa/4 ,! indef9ite repetition ( su* a syn!sis leads1 z be=e ) space1 to ! ?\ght ( a duration rea*+ out endlessly into pa/ & future1 & ?us gives u ! famili> concept ( ! ,inf9ity ( ,"t4#add 7b7 ,analysis4 ,equally important is ! "p play$ by m5tal analysis 9 ! =mation ( ! conceptual space & "t sy/em4 ,z we h already se51 successive att5tion to less] p>ts ( a pres5t$ ext5sion1 or a pres5t$ lapse1 reveals )9 ea* less] "p ! same /ructure :i* belongs to ! :ole1 & ?us e/abli%es ! s5sible cont9uity ( space & "t4 ,9 actual fact1 ! process ( att5d+ successively to small] & yet small] portions ( space & "t _c1 ( c\rse1 be c>ri$ on indef9itely1 b we c conceptually frame to ourselves ! ?\ght ( ! indef9ite repetition ( ! process beyond ! limits arbitr>ily impos$ on x by ! span ( our own att5tion4 ,?us1 by an act ( m5tal analysis1 we arrive at ! concept ( space & "t z indef9itely divisible1 or possess$ ( no ultimately unanalysable la/ p>ts1 :i* is an indisp5sable pre-requisite ( ,geometry & ,dynamics4 ,?is indef9ite divisibility ( conceptual space & "t is n ( itself en\gh1 z is (t5 suppos$1 to e/abli% _! cont9uity 9 ! /rict ma!matical s5se ( ! ^w2 _! cont9uity dep5ds ^u ! fur!r assumption t :atev] divides a s]ies ( positions 9 space or ev5ts 9 "t unambigu\sly into two mutually exclusive classes1 is itself a position 9 ! space or ev5t 9 ! "t s]ies4 ,?is assumption does n seem to be absolutely requisite = all sci5tific treatm5t ( ! problems ( space & "t1#ade b is dem&$ = ! sy/ematic e/abli%m5t ( ! correspond5ce betwe5 ! spatial & temporal s]ies & ! cont9u\s s]ies ( ! real numb]s4 ,moreov]1 x seems impossible to assign any positive cont5t to ! notion ( a some?+ :i* %\ld bisect ! spatial or temporal ord] )\t occupy+ a position 9 t ord]4 ,h5ce we seem inevitably l$ by ! same analytical process :i* conducts u to ! conception ( ! spatial & temporal ord]s z inf9ite s]ies to ?9k ( !m also z cont9u\s s]ies 9 ! /rict s5se ( ! t]m4 ,! alt]native conception ( !m z discont9u\s1 if n absolutely exclud$1 does n seem to be call$ = by any positive motive1 & is incompatible ) ! complete execution ( ! purposes :i* dem& application ( ! numb]-s]ies to a spatial or temporal cont5t4 7c7 ,ab/raction4 ,! "p play$ by ab/raction 9 ! =mation ( ! conceptual space & "t ord] out ( ! data ( p]ception is (t5 ov]look$ by !ori/s1 b is ( fundam5tal importance1 z we %all see imm$iately4 ,we h already le>n$ t ! mo/ significant fact ab\t ! "t & space ord] ( individual exp]i5ce is t its directions are unique1 because !y radiate out f ! unique "h & n[ ( imm$iate feel+4 ,9 ! con/ruction ( ! conceptual space & "t ord] we make entire ab/raction f ?is dep5d5ce on ! imm$iate feel+ ( a subject4 ,conceptual space conta9s an inf9ity ( positions1 b none ( !m is a "h2 conceptual "t an inf9ity ( mom5ts1 b none ( !m is a n[4 ,z ! "t & space ( ! conceptual ord] are tak5 9 ab/raction f ! diff]5ces betwe5 individual po9ts ( view1 no "o po9t 9 ei!r c be reg>d$ z hav+ m claim ?an any o!r to be ! natural 8orig9 ( co-ord9ates0 ) ref]5ce to :i* directions are e/imat$4 ,we %all h repeat$ opportunity 9 ! rema9d] ( ?is *apt] to obs]ve h[ important are ! consequ5ces ( ?is ab/raction4 ,ab/raction also ent]s 9 ano!r way into ! con/ruction by :i* conceptual space & "t are creat$4 ,actual p]ceiv$ space & "t are inde$ nev] empty1 b always fill$ ) a cont5t ( 8second>y0 qualities4 ,9 o!r words1 !y are always "o aspect ( a l>g] :ole ( fact4 ,ext5sion is nev] p]ceiv$ ap>t f "s fur!r visual or tactual quality ( ! ext5d$1 temporal lapse nev] p]ceiv$ )\t "s *ange 9 pres5t$ cont5t1 h[ev] slight4 ,b 9 con/ruct+ ! conceptual space & "t sy/em1 we ab/ract altoge!r f ?is qualitative aspect2 we ?9k solely ( ! v>iety ( positions & directions 9 "t & space )\t tak+ any acc\nt ( ! fur!r qualitative diff]5ces ) :i* !y are accompani$ 9 concrete exp]i5ce4 ,?us we come by ! notion ( an empty space & an empty "t z m]e sy/ems ( positions into :i* v>i\s cont5ts may subsequ5tly be put4 ,/rictly speak+1 ! notion ( an empty space or an empty "t is unmean+1 z ! simple exp]im5t ( ?9k+ ( _! exi/5ce is suffici5t to %[4 ,we _c 9 ?\ght successfully sep>ate ! spatial & temporal aspects ( exp]i5ce f ! re/ ( ! :ole to :i* !y belong & take !m z subsi/+ by !mselves1 any m ?an we c take timbre z subsi/+ ap>t f musical pit* or col\r-tone f saturation4 ,we c1 h[ev]1 conf9e our att5tion to ! spatial-temporal sy/em ( positions )\t tak+ into acc\nt ! special second>y prop]ties ( ! ext5d$ & successive4 ,x is f ?is logical ab/raction t ! illusion arises :5 we imag9e an empty set ( spatial & temporal positions z hav+ fir/ to exi/ 9 ord] t !y may be subsequ5tly 8fill$0 ) a v>iety ( cont5ts4#adf #d4 ,*>act]i/ics ( ! ,conceptual ,"t & ,space ,ord]4 ,! foll[+ *>act]i/ics ( ! conceptual space & "t creat$ by ! con/ruction we h j exam9$1 call = special notice4 ,conceptual space & "t are necess>ily tak51 = reasons already expla9$1 to be unlimit$1 & indef9itely divisible4 ,?\gh x does n seem inevitable t !y %\ld be cont9u\s1 we appe> to be unable to atta* any positive mean+ to ! notion ( _! discont9uity1 &1 9 ! practical ne$ = ! application to !m ( ! complete numb]-s]ies1 we h a valid positive gr\nd = tak+ !m z cont9u\s4 ,b space & "t are ?us resolv$1 9 ! process ( _! conceptual con/ruction1 into cont9u\s inf9ite s]ies ( :i* ! t]ms are spatial & temporal positions or po9ts4 ,unlike ! p>ts ( p]ceptual space & "t1 ^! conceptual t]ms are n !mselves spaces or times1 z !y conta9 no int]nal multiplicity ( /ructure4 ,conceptual space & "t are ?us n :oles or aggregates ( p>ts1 b sy/ems ( relations betwe5 t]ms :i* possess no quantitative "*4 ,betwe5 any two t]ms ( ! spatial1 or aga9 ( ! temporal1 s]ies !re is "o unique relation1 :i* is completely det]m9$ by ! assignm5t ( ! t]ms1 _! di/ance4 ,9 ! temporal s]ies1 :i* has only "o dim5sion1 y c only pass f any "o giv5 t]m to any o!r ?r\gh a s]ies ( int]m$iate t]ms :i* is once & = all det]m9$ :5 ! initial & f9al t]ms are giv51 h5ce no?+ is requir$ beyond ! t]ms !mselves to fix _! di/ance4 ,! spatial s]ies is multi-dim5sional1 i4e4 y c pass f any "o t]m 9 x to any second by an indef9ite v>iety ( r\tes ?r\gh int]m$iate t]ms1 b x is /ill true t !re is "o & only "o su* r\te :i* is completely det]m9$ :5 ! t]ms 9 "q are kn[n1 namely1 ! /raight l9e pass+ ?r\gh bo?4 ,?is /raight l9e con/itutes ! unique di/ance ( ! two po9ts f ea* o!r4#adg ,?us ! g5u9e concept ( :i* ^? ( space & "t are species is n t ( magnitude or quantity1 b ( s]ial ord]4 ,fur!r1 & ?is is a po9t ( fundam5tal diff]5ce betwe5 conceptual space & "t1 & ! spaces & times ( imm$iate p]ception1 any "o position 9 ei!r ord]1 tak5 by itself1 is qualitatively indi/+ui%able f any o!r4 ,all po9ts ( space1 all mom5ts ( "t1 are alike1 or1 z x is also phras$1 conceptual space & "t are homog5e\s ?r\gh\t4 ,x is n until y take at lea/ two t]ms ( ! spatial or temporal s]ies & consid] ! relation !y det]m9e1 t di/9ction becomes possible4 ,?is homog5eity ( conceptual space & "t is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! ab/raction f ! imm$iate feel+s ( ! individual subject ( exp]i5ce involv$1 z we saw1 9 ! process ( _! con/ruction4 ,9 our actual p]ception ( spatial & temporal ext5sion1 t "p ( p]ceiv$ space & "t :i* /&s 9 direct unity ) imm$iate feel+ is qualitatively di/+ui%$ z ! "h & n[ f all ! re/1 & ?us does n dep5d ^u ! specification ( a second spatial or temporal position = its recognisability4 ,"h is :]e ,i am1 n[ is ?is felt pres5t4 ,& simil>ly1 e o!r "p ( ! actually pres5t$ space & "t gets a unique qualitative "* f its special relation to ?is "h & n[2 x is "r or left1 beh9d or 9 front1 be=e or aft]4 ,:5 we ab/ract altoge!r f ! unique relation ) individual exp]i5ce :i* ?us makes ! "h & n[ ( p]ception1 z we d 9 con/ruct+ our conceptual space & "t ord]1 e position alike becomes ! m]e possibility ( a "h or a n[1 & z su* m]e possibilities ! v>i\s positions are indi/+ui%able4 ,practically1 ?is homog5eity is important z ! indisp5sable condition = ! quantitative comp>ison ( diff]5t portions ( ext5sion or duration4 ,an app>5tly inevitable consequ5ce ( ! homog5eity ( conceptual space & "t is ! relativity ( spatial & temporal position4 ,z we h se51 positions 9 conceptual space & "t are n di/+ui%able until y take !m 9 pairs4 ,9 o!r words1 to fix "o position 9 space or "o date y h to give its relation to ano!r position or date1 & simil>ly to fix ?is y mu/ specify a ?ird1 & s on indef9itely4 ,to say :]e ,a is means to say h[ y get to x f ,b1 & ,b aga9 is only kn[n by ! way x is rea*$ f ,c1 & s on )\t end4 ,logically1 ?is is a simple consequ5ce ( ! nature ( space & "t z conceptually analys$ into endless s]ies4 ,to specify any t]m 9 ! s]ies y mu/ give ! unique relation x be>s to "s o!r t]m1 its logical di/ance4 ,&1 9 a s]ies :i* has nei!r fir/ nor la/ t]m1 ?is second t]m _c be def9$ except by its logical di/ance f a ?ird4 ,9 actual p]ception ?is difficulty is avoid$1 ow+ to ! fact t imm$iate feel+ gives u ! "h & n[ f :i* all our directions are measur$4 ,b 9 conceptual space or "t !re is no?+ to di/+ui% any "o "h :i* we may take z our 8orig9 ( co-ord9ates10 or any "o n[ :i* we take z our pres5t f any o!r1 & h5ce ! endless regress seems inevitable4 ,x foll[s1 ( c\rse1 t 9 conceptual space & "t !re is no pr9ciple by :i* to di/+ui% diff]5t directions4 ,9 p]ception !y c be di/+ui%$ z "r & left1 up & d[n1 & s =?4 ,b s9ce :at is "r to "o p]cipi5t is left to ano!r1 9 conceptual space1 :]e complete ab/raction is made f ! pres5ce ( an individual p]cipi5t1 !re is nei!r "r nor left1 up nor d[n1 nor any o!r qualitative diff]5ce betwe5 "o direction & ano!r1 all su* diff]5ces be+ relative to ! individual p]cipi5t4 ,:5 we wi% to introduce into conceptual space di/9ctions betwe5 directions1 we always h to beg9 by arbitr>ily assign+ "s /&>d direction z our po9t ( dep>ture4 ,?us we take1 e4g41 an arbitr>ily select$ l9e ,a----------,b z su* a /&>d = a giv5 plane1 & proce$ to di/+ui% all o!r directions by ! angle !y make ) ,a ,b & ! s5se 9 :i* !y are e/imat$ 7:e!r z f ,b to ,a or f ,a to ,b74 ,b bo? ! l9e ,a ,b & ! diff]5ce ( s5se betwe5 ,a ,b & ,b ,a c only be def9$ by simil> ref]5ce to "s o!r /&>d direction1 & s on ?r\gh ! endless regress4 ,simil>ly ) conceptual "t4 ,"h1 z !re is only "o dim5sion1 ! difficulty is less obvi\s1 b x is no less real4 ,9 conceptual "t !re is absolutely no means ( di/+ui%+ be=e f aft]1 pa/ f future4 ,= ! pa/ means ! direction ( our memories1 ! direction qualifi$ by ! feel+ ( 8no long]02 ! future is ! direction ( anticipation & purposive adaptation1 ! direction ( 8n yet40 ,&1 ap>t f ! ref]5ce giv5 by imm$iate feel+ to ! purposive life ( an individual subject1 ^! directions _c be discrim9at$4 ,9 %ort1 conceptual "t & space are ess5tially relative1 because !y are sy/ems ( relations :i* h no mean+ ap>t f qualitative diff]5ces 9 ! t]ms :i* !y relate2 :ile yet aga91 = ! purpose ( ! conceptual con/ruction :i* yields !m1 ! t]ms h to be tak5 z hav+ no "* b t :i* !y possess 9 "r ( ! relations4#adh ,"o o!r feature ( ! space & "t con/ruction is suffici5tly important to call = special m5tion4 ,space & "t are commonly ?\ght ( z unities ( "s k9d4 ,all spatial positions1 x is usually assum$1 fall )9 "o sy/em ( space-relations2 all dates h _! place 9 "o all-inclusive "t4 ,?is "* ( unity completes ! curr5t conception ( ! spatial & temporal ord]4 ,ea* ( ^? ord]s is a unity1 includ+ all possible spatial or temporal positions2 ea* is an endless1 inf9ite1 cont9u\s s]ies ( positions1 :i* all are purely relative4 ,!re are o!r peculi>ities1 especially ( ! curr5t concepts ( space1 ) :i* x is n necess>y to deal "h1 z !y are ( an accid5tal k9d1 n aris+ out ( ! ess5tial nature ( ! process by :i* ! conception is con/ruct$4 ,?us x is probably a curr5t assumption t ! numb] ( dim5sions 9 space is ?ree & no m1 & aga9 t ! ,euclidean po/ulate ab\t p>allels is v]ifi$ by its con/itution4 ,z f> z p]ceptual space is conc]n$1 ^? assumptions dep5d1 ,i presume1 ^u empirical v]ification2 !re seems to be no reason :y !y %\ld be made = ! conceptual space-ord]1 s9ce x is q c]ta9 t a coh]5t sci5ce ( spatial relations c be con/ruct$ )\t rec\rse to !m4#adi #e4 ,! "q n[ is1 :e!r ! :ole ( ?is spatial & temporal con/ruction is m ?an imp]fect1 & !re=e contradictory1 appe>ance4 ,i w fir/ /ate 9 a g5]al =m ! argum5ts = reg>d+ x z appe>ance1 & !n proce$ to re9=ce ?is conclusion by deal+ ) "s special difficulties4 ,f9ally1 ,i propose to ask :e!r we c =m "s positive conception ( ! high] ord] ( ,reality ( :i* ! spatial & temporal s]ies are ph5om5al4 ,t ! space & "t ord] is ph5om5al & n ultimate1 c1 ,i ?9k1 be conclusively %[n by a g5]al argum5t :i* ,i w fir/ enunciate 9 pr9ciple & !n develop some:at m 9 detail4 ,an all-compreh5sive exp]i5ce _c appreh5d ! detail ( exi/5ce "u ! =ms ( space & "t = ! foll[+ reason4 ,su* an exp]i5ce c\ld be nei!r ( space & "t z we p]ceive !m1 nor ( space & "t z we conceptually recon/ruct !m4 ,x w\ld n be ( p]ceptual space & "t1 because ! :ole "* ( our p]ceptual space & "t dep5ds ^u ! v imp]fections & limitations :i* make our exp]i5ce fragm5t>y & imp]fect4 ,p]ceptual space & "t are = me :at !y are1 because ,i see !m1 s to say1 9 p]spective f ! special /&po9t ( my own p>ticul> "h & n[4 ,if t /&po9t 7 alt]$1 s t :at are actually = me !re & !n became my "h & n[1 my :ole outlook on ! space & "t ord] w\ld suff] *ange4 ,b ! ,absolute _c look at ! space & "t ord] f ! /&po9t ( my "h & n[4 ,= x is ! f9itude ( my int]e/s & purposes :i* conf9e me 9 my outlook to ?is "h & n[4 ,if my int]e/s 7 n b\nd up 9 ! special way 9 :i* !y are ) j ?is special "p or aspect ( ! life ( a wid] :ole1 if !y 7 co-ext5sive ) ! life ( t :ole1 e place & e "t w\ld be my "h & n[4 ,z x is1 "h is :]e my body is1 n[ is ?is p>ticul> /age 9 ! developm5t ( ,european social life1 because ^! are ! ?+s 9 :i* ,i am prim>ily int]e/$4 ,& s ) all ! o!r f9ite exp]i5ces 9 :i* ! detail ( ! absolute exp]i5ce f9ds expression4 ,h5ce ! absolute exp]i5ce1 be+ free f ! limitations ( int]e/ :i* condition ! f9ite exp]i5ces1 _c see ! ord] ( exi/5ce f ! special /&po9t ( any ( !m1 & !re=e _c appreh5d x "u ! guise ( ! p]ceptual space & "t sy/em4 ,aga91 x _c appreh5d exi/5ce "u ! =ms ( space & "t z we conceptually recon/ruct !m4 ,= ,reality1 = ! absolute exp]i5ce1 mu/ be a complete individual :ole1 ) ! gr\nd ( all its diff]5tiations )9 itself4 ,b conceptual space & "t are con/ruct$ by delib]ate ab/raction f ! relation to imm$iate exp]i5ce impli$ 9 all individuality1 & consequ5tly1 z we h j se51 !y conta9 no real pr9ciple ( int]nal di/9ction1 _! con/itu5t t]ms be+ all exactly alike & indi/+ui%able4 ,9 %ort1 if ! p]ceptual "t & space sy/ems ( our concrete exp]i5ce repres5t individual b imp]fect & f9ite po9ts ( view1 ! conceptual space & "t ( our sci5tific con/ruction repres5ts ! m]e ab/ract possibility ( a f9ite po9t ( view2 nei!r gives a po9t ( view bo? individual & inf9ite1 & nei!r1 !re=e1 c be ! po9t ( view ( an absolute exp]i5ce4 ,an absolute exp]i5ce mu/ be out ( "t & out ( space1 9 ! s5se t its cont5ts are n appreh5d$ 9 ! =m ( ! spatial & temporal s]ies1 b 9 "s o!r way4 ,space & "t1 !n1 mu/ be ! ph5om5al appe>ance ( a high] reality :i* is spaceless & timeless4 #f4 ,9 pr9ciple1 ! =ego+ argum5t appe>s to me to be complete1 b1 = ! sake ( read]s :o c>e to h its lead+ ?\ght m fully develop$1 x may be re-/at$ ?us4 ,p]ceptual space & "t _c be ultimately real z !y /&4 ,!y are condemn$ already by ! old difficulty :i* we f\nd 9 ! notion ( reality z made up ( qualities 9 relation4 ,p]ceptual space & "t are aggregates ( less] p>ts1 :i* are !mselves spaces & times2 ?us !y are relations betwe5 t]ms1 ea* ( :i* conta9s ! same relation once m 9 itself1 & s imply ! n[ famili> indef9ite regress4#aej ,aga91 :5 we try 9 our conceptual space & "t con/ruction to rem$y ?is defect by r$uc+ space & "t altoge!r to m]e sy/ems ( relations1 ! difficulty turns out to h be5 m]ely evad$ by su* a process ( ab/raction4 ,=1 s long z we keep rigidly to our conceptual con/ruction1 ! t]ms ( our relations are indi/+ui%able4 ,9 purely conceptual space & "t1 z we h se51 !re is no possibility ( di/+ui%+ any "o direction f any o!r1 s9ce all are qualitatively id5tical4 ,inde$1 x is obvi\s f fir/ pr9ciples t :5 ! sets ( t]ms betwe5 :i* a numb] ( relations ( ! same type holds are indi/+ui%able1 ! relations _c be discrim9at$4 ,to di/+ui% directions at all1 we mu/1 9 ! end1 take at lea/ our />t+-po9t & "o or m /&>d directions reckon$ f x--accord+ to ! numb] ( dim5sions ) :i* we are deal+--z indep5d5tly giv51 t is1 z hav+ recognisable qualitative diff]5ces f o!r possible />t+-po9ts & /&>d directions4 7,?us1 to di/+ui% be=e & aft] 9 conceptual "t1 y mu/ at lea/ assume "s mom5t ( "t1 qualitatively recognisable f o!rs1 z ! epo* f :i* y reckon1 & mu/ also h "s recognisable qualitative di/9ction betwe5 ! direction 8pa/0 & ! direction 8future407 ,& ) ?is ref]5ce to qualitative diff]5ces we are at once ?r[n back1 z 9 ! case ( p]ceptual "t & space1 on ! insoluble old problem ( ,quality & ,relation4 ,! assum$ />t+-po9t & /&>d directions mu/ h qualitative individuality1 or !y c\ld n be indep5d5tly recognis$ & made ! basis = discrim9ation betwe5 ! rema9+ directions & positions3 yet1 because ( ! necess>y homog5eity ( ! space & "t ( conceptual con/ruction1 !y _c h any su* qualitative individuality1 b mu/ be arbitr>ily assum$4 ,!y w !re=e !mselves be capable ( det]m9ation only by ref]5ce to "s o!r equally arbitr>y /&>d1 & ?us we are once m committ$ to ! indef9ite regress4 ,! practical usefulness ( ^! con/ructions ?us dep5ds on ! v fact t we are n consi/5t 9 our use ( !m4 ,9 all practical applications we use !m to map out ! spatial & temporal ord] ( ev5ts z se5 9 p]spective f a /&po9t :i* is1 z reg>ds ! conceptual "t & space ord] itself1 arbitr>y & indi/+ui%able f o!rs4 #g4 ,in/ead ( fur!r elaborat+ ?is g5]al argum5t1 a task :i* w\ld be sup]flu\s if its pr9ciple is grasp$1 & unconv9c+ if x is miss$1 ,i w proce$ to po9t out "o or two special ways 9 :i* ! ess5tial arbitr>9ess ( ! spatial & temporal con/ruction is /rik+ly exemplifi$4 ,to beg9 )1 a ^w may be said ab\t ! alleg$ unity ( space & "t4 ,x is con/antly tak5 = grant$1 by philosoph]s z well z by practical m51 t !re c be only "o spatial & "o temporal ord]1 s t all spatial relations1 & aga9 all temporal relations1 belong to ! same sy/em4 ,?us1 if ,a has a spatial relation to ,b & ,c to ,d1 x is assum$ t !re mu/ be spatial relations betwe5 ,a & ,c1 ,a & ,d1 & ,b & ,c1 ,b & ,d4 ,simil>ly if ,a is temporally relat$ ) ,b1 & ,c ) ,d4 ,?is view is manife/ly presuppos$ 9 ! curr5t conception ( ,nature1 ! 8physical univ]se10 ! 8physical ord]10 z ! aggregate ( all processes 9 space & "t4 ,b !re seems to be no real logical w>rant = x4 ,9 pr9ciple ! alleg$ unity ( all spatial & temporal relations might be dismiss$1 on ! /r5g? ( ! "o consid]ation t space & "t are n individual :oles1 & !re=e c conta9 no pr9ciple ( int]nal /ructural unity4 ,?is is manife/ f ! me?od by :i* ! space & "t ( our conceptual s*eme h be5 con/ruct$4 ,!y arose1 z we saw1 f ! indef9ite repetition ( a s+le type ( relation betwe5 t]ms 9 :i* we 7 unable to f9d any ultimately intelligible pr9ciple ( int]nal /ructure4 ,b unity ( /ructure _c be br\ght into t :i* does n already possess x by su* m]e endless repetition4 ,! result ( su* a process w be z int]nally incoh]5t & devoid ( /ructure z ! orig9al data4 ,h5ce space & "t1 be+ m]e repetitions ( ! s*eme ( qualities 9 relation1 _c be true unities4 ,?is becomes cle>] if we reflect on ! gr\nds :i* actually w>rant u 9 assign+ position 9 ! same space & ! same "t to a numb] ( ev5ts4 ,= me ,a & ,b are ultimately 9 ! same space :5 !re is a way ( travell+ f ,a to ,b2 !y are 9 ! same "t :5 !y belong to diff]5t /ages 9 ! accompli%m5t ( ! same sy/ematic purposes4 ,?us 9 bo? cases x is ultimately f relation to an id5tical sy/em ( purposes & int]e/s t diff]5t sets ( positions or ev5ts belong to "o space or "o "t4 ,! unity ( su* a space or "t is a pale reflection 9 ab/ract =m ( ! unity ( a life ( sy/ematic purpose1 :i* is "o because x has unique individual /ructure4 ,x is 9 ?is way1 f ! individual unity ( ! purpose & int]e/s ( my ord9>y wak+ life1 t ,i d]ive ! "r to ref] its exp]i5ces to a s+le space & "t sy/em4 ,simil>ly1 x is 9 virtue ( ! inclusion ( my own & my fell[-m5's purposes 9 a wid] :ole ( social sy/ematic purpose t ,i c br+ ! space & "t relations ( _! exp]i5ce into "o sy/em ) my own4 ,& aga91 ! s5sible occurr5ces ( ! physical ord] belong to "o space & "t ) ! space & "t relations ( human exp]i5ce1 because ( ! v>y+ ways 9 :i* !y condition ! developm5t ( our own inn] purposive life4 ,b !re are cases1 ev5 )9 our own consci\s life1 :]e ?is condition appe>s to be abs5t1 & 9 ^! cases we d n seem to be able to make intelligible use ( ! conception ( a s+le "t or a s+le space4 ,take ! case ( our dreams4 ,! ev5ts ( my dreams /& 9 spatial & temporal relations )9 ! dream itself1 b !re w\ld be no s5se 9 ask+ :at are ! spatial relations betwe5 ! places se5 9 my dreams & ! places m>k$ on ! map ( ,engl&2 or :at are aga9 ! temporal relations betwe5 ! ev5ts ( la/ night's dream & ^? ( ?is morn+1 or ^? ( ! dreams ( la/ week4 ,precisely because !re is usually no sy/ematic id5tity ( purpose connect+ ! dream ) ! wak+ life or ) o!r dreams1 ! "t & space ( ! dream h no position ) respect to ! "t & space sy/em ( wak+ life1 nor ^? ( "o dream ) relation to ^? ( ano!r4#aea ,( c\rse1 x may be said t ! dream-space & dream-"t are 8imag9>y10 b ! problem _c be got rid ( by ! use ( an epi!t4 ,to call !m imag9>y is m]ely to say t !y are n sy/ematically connect$ ) ! "t & space ( wak+ life1 n to disprove _! g5u95ess z actual space & "t con/ructions4 ,simil>ly1 if !re are intellig5t purposes ( :i* our human purposive life is deb>r$ f tak+ acc\nt z su*1 z we urg$ t !re mu/ be beh9d ! ph5om5al physical ord]1 ! "t & space )9 :i* ^? purposes are conceiv$ & execut$ w\ld h no place 9 our spatial & temporal sy/em4 ,! ph5om5al ev5ts ( ! physical ord] w\ld fall )9 our sy/em1 b n ! life ( inn] purpose ( :i* t ord] is ! manife/ation to our s5ses4 ,ultimately1 9 fact1 all spaces & all times c\ld only =m "o spatial & temporal sy/em on condition t ! inf9ite absolute exp]i5ce views all its cont5ts 9 spatial & temporal =m2 !n ! v>i\s space & "t sy/ems correspond+ to ! purposes ( ! v>i\s gr\ps ( f9ite individuals w\ld f9ally1 = ! inf9ite individual1 =m "o great sy/em ( "t & space relations4 ,b we h already se5 t ! inf9ite exp]i5ce _c compreh5d its cont5ts 9 spatial or temporal =ms4 ,we inf]1 !n1 t !re may be--inde$1 if our int]pretation ( ! physical ord] is valid1 !re mu/ be--a plurality ( spaces & times )9 ! ,real4 ,)9 any "o su* space or "t all its memb]s are spatially & temporally int]relat$1 b ! v>i\s spaces are n !mselves relat$ 9 space1 nor ! v>i\s times be=e or aft] "o ano!r 9 "t4 ,_! relation is ! purely logical "o ( be+ v>y+ modes ( ! expression 9 a f9ite detail ( ! und]ly+ nature ( ! ultimate ,reality4#aeb ,= ! absolute exp]i5ce !y mu/ be all at once & toge!r1 n 9 ! s5se ( be+ 9 8"o space & "t10 b 9 ! s5se ( =m+ toge!r ! sy/ematic embodim5t ( "o coh]5t gr\nd or pr9ciple4 #h4 ,simil> consequ5ces1 z to ! ph5om5al "* ( space & "t1 foll[ f ! consid]ation ( ! famili> ,kantian ant9omies f\nd$ ^u ! concept ( spatial & temporal inf9ity4 ,space & "t mu/ be ext]nally b\ndless & int]nally indef9itely divisible1 & yet aga9 _c be ei!r4 ,fre$ f uness5tial accessories1 ! argum5t = ei!r side ( ! ant9omy may be /at$ ?us4 ,space & "t mu/ be b\ndless because all spatial & temporal exi/5ce means spatial & temporal relation to a second t]m1 itself simil>ly relat$ to a ?ird t]m4 ,= precisely ! same reason bo? mu/ be indef9itely divisible4 ,yet aga91 !y c be nei!r1 s9ce only ! individual exi/s1 & )9 su* an int]m9able network ( relations betwe5 t]ms :i* are no?+ b ! support]s ( ^! relations !re is no pr9ciple ( individual /ructure4#aec ,?us ! ,kantian ant9omies are a simple consequ5ce ( ! old difficulty ab\t quality & relation4 ,space & "t mu/ be m]e relations1 & ! t]ms ( ^? relations !re=e qualitatively indi/+ui%able2 aga91 s9ce !y are relations !y _c be relations betwe5 no?+s or1 :at is ! same ?+1 betwe5 t]ms ) no individual "*4 ,z 9 all cases :]e ! problem ( relation & quality arises1 x !n conducts u to ! indef9ite regress4 ,s long z we cont9ue to look ^u space & "t z real1 we h !re=e to *oose betwe5 two equally illogical alt]natives4 ,we mu/ ei!r arbitr>ily refuse to cont9ue ! indef9ite regress beyond ! po9t at :i* its difficulties become app>5t1 z is done by ! ass]tion t space & "t h f9ite b\nds or indivisible p>ts1 or we mu/ hold t ! absolute exp]i5ce actually a*ieves ! summation ( an un5d+ s]ies4 ,) ! recognition t space & "t are ph5om5al1 ! result ( a process ( con/ruction =c$ on u by our practical ne$s1 b n adequately correspond+ to ! real nature ( individual exi/5ce1 ! difficulty disappe>s4 ,bo? sides ( ! ant9omy become relatively true1 9 ! s5se t = our practical purposes we mu/ be cont5t to adopt n[ ! "o & aga9 ! o!r2 bo? become ultimately untrue 9 ! s5se t space & "t1 be+ con/ructions ( our own1 are really nei!r f9ite nor inf9ite s]ies1 b are ! "o or ! o!r accord+ to ! purposes = :i* we use our con/ruction4 #i4 ,if spatial & temporal position & direction mu/ ?us 9 ! end be appe>ance1 ph5om5al ( "s m individual reality1 we h f9ally to ask1 ,( :at are !y ! appe>ance8 ,x is n en\gh to say 8( ultimate ,reality10 or 8( ! ,absolute40 ,ultimately ?is is1 no d\bt1 true ( space & "t1 z x is ( ev]y?+ else1 b we desire fur!r to "k if !y are n proximately ! appe>ance ( "s special features ( ! inn] physical life ( ! less] individuals :i* compose ! ,absolute4 ,we naturally look = "s ?ird t]m1 9 ! nature ( f9ite individuality1 to m$iate betwe5 ! /ructureless ab/ract g5]ality ( space & "t relation1 & ! p]fect individual /ructure ( ! spaceless & timeless ,absolute ,individual4 ,we want1 9 fact1 to connect ! spatial & temporal =m :i* our exp]i5ce we>s1 ) "s fundam5tal aspect ( our nature1 z be+s at once individual & f9ite4 ,nor is x p>ticul>ly difficult to make ! connection4 ,:5 we rememb] t space & "t1 z !y actually condition our p]ception & movem5t1 are ! space & "t :i* radiate out f an unique "h & n[ ( imm$iate feel+1 x is fairly evid5t t ! spatial & temporal aspect ( our exp]i5ce is1 z already sugge/$1 a consequ5ce ( t limitation ( our att5tive int]e/s :i* con/itutes our f9itude4 ,x is ! n>r[ness ( my int]e/s1 or at lea/ ( ^? :i* are suffici5tly explicit to rise into ! 8focus0 ( consci\sness1 t is reflect$ 9 ! di/9ction ( my "h f all ! !res :i* are ar\nd me4 ,"h is :]e my body is1 because ( ! specially intimate connection ( ! realisation ( my int]e/s & purposes ) ^? ev5ts 9 ! ph5om5al physical ord] :i* ,i call ! /ate ( my body4 ,7 my int]e/s wid5$ s z to embrace ! :ole s*eme ( ! univ]se1 ,i %\ld no long] p]ceive ! cont5ts ( t univ]se z disp]s$ ?r\gh space1 because ,i %\ld no long] h z my special /&po9t a "h to :i* o!r exi/5ce w\ld be !re4 ,my special /&po9t 9 space may ?us be said to be ph5om5al ( my special & peculi> int]e/s 9 life1 ! special logical /&po9t f :i* my exp]i5ce reflects ! ultimate /ructure ( ! ,absolute4 ,& s1 g5]ally1 ?\gh ! conclusion c = v>i\s reasons n be press$ 9 respect ( e detail ( spatial appe>ance1 ! spatial gr\p+ ( intellig5t purposive be+s is ph5om5al ( _! inn] logical aff9ity ( int]e/ & purpose4 ,gr\ps ( su* be+s1 closely associat$ toge!r 9 space1 are commonly also associat$ 9 _! peculi> int]e/s1 _! special purposes1 _! *>act]i/ic attitude t[>ds ! univ]se4 ,! local contiguity ( ! memb]s ( ! gr\p is b an 8outw>d & visible sign0 ( an 8inw>d & spiritual0 community ( social aspiration4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 only approximately ! case2 ! less ! ext5t to :i* any section ( mank9d h succe$$ 9 actively controll+ ! physical ord] = ! realisation ( _! own purposes1 ! m ne>ly is x ! tru? t spatial remot5ess & inn] dissimil>ity ( social purposes co9cide4 ,9 proportion z man's conque/ ov] 8 non-human environm5t becomes complete1 he devises = himself means to reta9 ! inn] unity ( social aims & int]e/s 9 spite ( spatial sep>ation4 ,b ?is only %[s once m h[ completely ! spatial ord] is a m]e imp]fect appe>ance :i* only confus$ly adumbrates ! nature ( ! high] ,reality beh9d x4 ,?us we may say t ! 8abolition ( di/ance0 effect$ by sci5ce & civilisation is1 z x 71 a practical v9dication ( our metaphysical doctr9e ( ! comp>ative unreality ( space4 ,simil>ly ) "t1 ?\gh ! temporal s]ies may1 9 a s5se1 be said to be less ( an unreality ?an ! spatial4 ,= x does n seem possible to %[ t spatial appe>ance is an inevitable =m ( f9ite exp]i5ce4 ,we c at lea/ conceive ( a f9ite exp]i5ce compos$ entirely ( successive arrangem5ts ( second>y qualities1 su* z s\nds or smells1 & ! accompany+ feel+-tones1 ?\gh we h no positive gr\nd = affirm+ ! exi/5ce ( su* a type ( exp]i5ce4 ,b ! temporal =m seems insep>able f f9ite intellig5ce4 ,= ! limitation ( my exi/5ce to a c]ta9 portion ( "t is cle>ly simply ! ab/ract & ext]nal aspect ( ! fact t my int]e/s & purposes1 s f> z ,i c appreh5d ! mean+ ( my own life1 occupy j ?is special place 9 ! logical developm5t ( ! l>g] :ole ( social life & purpose ( :i* my own life is a memb]4 ,s ! position ( a p>ticul> purposive act 9 ! temporal s]ies ( acts :i* ,i call ! hi/ory ( my own life1 is ! outw>d indication ( ! logical place fill$ by ?is p>ticul> act 9 ! connect$ s*eme ( int]e/s :i* =m my life on its inn] side4 ,b x is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! want ( complete int]nal h>mony we call f9itude1 t ! aims & int]e/s ( ! f9ite subject _c be 9 ! same degree pres5t to its appreh5sion all at once & toge!r4 ,9 be+ aw>e ( its own int]nal purpose or mean+1 x mu/1 because x is f9ite & !re=e n ultimately a completely h>moni\s sy/ematic :ole1 be aw>e ( t purpose z only p>tially fulfill$4 ,& 9 ?is s5se ( "o's own purposes z only p>tially fulfill$1 we h ! f\ndation ( ! "t-exp]i5ce1 ) its contra/ betwe5 ! 8n[0 ( fulfilm5t & ! 8no long]0 & 8n yet0 ( dissatisfi$ aspiration4 ,= ?is reason1 dissatisfaction1 unfulfill$ crav+1 & ! "t-exp]i5ce seem to be b\nd up toge!r1 & "t to be m]ely ! ab/ract expression ( ! ye>n+ ( ! f9ite individual = a sy/ematic realisation ( its own purpose :i* lies = ev] beyond its rea* z f9ite4 ,if ?is is s1 only ! absolute & inf9ite individual ^: exp]i5ce is ?r\gh\t t ( p]fectly h>moni\s sy/ematic realisation ( mean+1 c be outside ! "t-process2 to x1 8vani%$ & pres5t are ! same10 because its :ole nature is once = all p]fectly express$ 9 ! detail ( exi/5ce4 ,b ! f9ite1 j because its v nature z f9ite is to aspire to a p]fection :i* is out ( rea*1 mu/ h its exp]i5ce m>k$ ) ! di/9ction ( n[ f by & by1 ( desire f p]=mance4 ,9 ?is temporal "* ( all f9ite exp]i5ce we may p]haps aft]w>ds disc]n ! ultimate gr\nd ( morality1 z we c already disc]n 9 ! unre/+ /ruggle ( ! f9ite to ov]come its f9itude1 practical evid5ce t "t is n a =m :i* adequately expresses ! nature ( ,reality1 & mu/ !re=e be imp]fect appe>ance4#aed ,?us we seem f9ally to h rea*$ ! conclusion t "t & space are ! imp]fect ph5om5al manife/ation ( ! logical relations betwe5 ! purposes ( f9ite individuals /&+ 9 social relations to ea* o!r2 ! inn] purposive life ( ea* ( ^! individuals be+ itself 9 its turn1 z we h previ\sly se51 ! imp]fect expression1 f a special logical 8po9t ( view10 ( ! /ructure & life ( ! ultimate inf9ite individual4 ,= ! inf9ite individual itself ! :ole ( ! purposes & int]e/s ( ! f9ite individuals mu/ =m a s+le h>moni\s sy/em4 ,?is sy/em _c itself be 9 ! spatial & temporal =m2 space & "t mu/ ?us 9 "s way cease to exi/1 z space & "t1 = ! absolute exp]i5ce4 ,!y mu/1 9 t exp]i5ce1 be tak5 up1 re>rang$1 & transc5d$1 s z to lose _! "* ( an endless *a9 ( relations betwe5 o!r relations4 ,precisely h[ ?is is effect$1 we1 f our f9ite /&po9t1 _c presume to say4 ,x is natural to draw illu/rations f ! 8speci\s pres5t0 ( p]ception1 9 :i* we appe> to h a succession t is also simultane\s2 or aga91 f ! timeless & purely logical "* sci5ce seeks to ascribe to its 8laws ( nature40 ,b 9 ! 8speci\s pres5t0 we seem oblig$ to att5d to "o aspect1 succession or simultaneity1 to ! exclusion ( ! o!r2 probably we nev] succe$ 9 equally fix+ bo? aspects at once4 ,x ?us pres5ts u r ) ! problem ?an ) its solution4 ,& aga91 aft] our discussion ( ! mean+ ( law1 we _c affirm t ,nature is1 = ! absolute exp]i5ce1 a sy/em ( g5]al laws4 ,h5ce x seems well n to take ^! illu/rations = m ?an !y are actually wor? z indications ( ! m]ely ph5om5al "* ( "t4 ,metaphysics1 l ! old s*ola/ic !ology1 ne$s sometimes to be rem9d$ t ,god's ?\ghts are n z ours1 & ,8 ways1 9 a v real s5se :5 ,philosophy has done its be/1 /ill pa/ f9d+ out4#aee ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #d 7,space & ,"t71 #ah 7,temporal & ,spatial ,appe>ance72 ,l4 ,c\turat1 ,l',inf9i ,ma?matique1 pt4 #b1 bk4 iv4 *ap4 #d 7aga9/ ! ,kantian ant9omies72 ,h4 ,po9c>1 ,la ,sci5ce et ,l',hypo?se1 pp4 #fh-aji2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 ii4 *aps4 #a-c2 ,w4 ,o/wald1 ,vorlesung5 b] ,naturphilosophie1 lects4 #e1 #h2 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lect4 #c2 ,b4 ,russell1 ,f\ndations ( ,geometry3 ,is ,position 9 ,space & ,"t ,absolute or ,relative 7,m9d1 ,july #aija71 ,pr9ciples ( ,ma!matics1 pt4 #f1 vol4 i42 ,h4 ,sp5c]1 ,fir/ ,pr9ciples1 pt4 #b1 *ap4 #c4 ----- ,footnote #ada3 ,! /ud5t :o desires to ?9k out ! problems = himself w\ld probably d well to take ! discussions ( ,locke 7,essay1 bk4 ii4 *aps4 #ac-ae7 & ,hume 7,treatise ( ,human ,nature1 bk4 i4 pt4 #b7 r ?an t ( ,kant z 8 />t+-po9t1 z !y are less vitiat$ by psy*ological sup]/itions4 ,9 rec5t metaphysical "w ! *apt]s on ! subject 9 ,mr4 ,bradley's ,appe>ance & ,reality w probably be f\nd mo/ useful4 ,mu* may be le>n$ f ,mr4 ,russell's "w1 ,f\ndations ( ,geometry1 ) :i* %\ld1 h[ev]1 be comp>$ ! l>gely discrepant results ( 8 lat] article1 8,is ,position 9 ,space & ,"t ,relative or ,absolute80 7,m9d1 ,july #aija74 ,footnote #adb3 ,we are n call$ ^u to ent] into su* specially psy*ological que/ions z1 e4g41 :e!r bo? directions1 pa/ & future1 c be detect$ )9 ! 8speci\s pres5t0 ( direct p]ception1 or :e!r ! speci\s pres5t only conta9s ! elem5ts 8n[0 & 8no long]10 ! 8n yet0 be+ a subsequ5t intellectual con/ruction1 z is held1 e4g41 by ,mr4 ,bradley & ,mr4 ,%adwor? ,hodgson4 ,footnote #adc3 ,we may inde$ g /ill fur!r1 & say t e unique mom5t or exp]i5ce has its own unique spatial & temporal sy/em4 ,! me?od by :i* ,i weave ! p]ceiv$ space-"t sy/ems ( diff]5t exp]i5ces )9 my own m5tal life into a s+le conceptual sy/em1 is 9 pr9ciple ! same by :i* ! spaces & times ( myself & o!r m5 are made into "o sy/em = ! purpose ( practical int]c\rse4 ,footnote #add3 ,= an acc\nt ( ! psy*ological processes involv$ 9 all ?is1 see1 e4g41 ,/\t1 ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c bk4 iii4 pt4 #b1 *aps4 #c-e2 bk4 iv4 *ap4 #f4 ,footnote #ade3 ,?us ,d$ek9d 7,0 s9d und 0 soll5 die ,zahl58 p4 xii47 ma9ta9s t none ( ! con/ructions ( ,euclid involve ! cont9uity ( space4 ,footnote #adf3 ,( c\rse1 a physical vacuum is n ! same ?+ z empty space4 ,= ! purposes ( any special sci5ce a vacuum means a space n occupi$ by cont5ts ( ! special k9d 9 :i* t special sci5ce is int]e/$4 ,?us1 9 ! ord9>y p>lance ( ,physics1 a vacuum means simply a space 9 :i* !re is no mass4 ,:e!r x is desirable1 = ! purposes ( physical sci5ce1 to assume ! exi/5ce ( vacuum1 is altoge!r a "q = ,physics itself1 & to decide x 9 ! affirmative is n to ma9ta9 ! exi/5ce ( t unmean+ ab/raction1 absolutely empty space4 ,9 any case1 x may be obs]v$ t ! widespread notion t motion is only possible 9 a physical vacuum is a mi/ake1 motion be+ p]fectly possible 9 a fluid pl5um4 ,footnote #adg3 ,x mu/ be c>efully not$ t di/ance z ?us def9$ is n prop]ly a quantitative relation1 & involves no notion ( magnitude1 b only ( relative place 9 a s]ies4 ,x %\ld also be obs]v$ t 9 assum+ ! exi/5ce ( su* a unique relation betwe5 e pair ( po9ts1 x is tacitly tak5 = grant$ t ! numb] ( dim5sions ( ! spatial ord] is f9ite4 ,9 a space ( an inf9ite numb] ( dim5sions1 su* unique relation w\ld be impossible4 7,see ,russell1 ,f\ndations ( ,geometry1 p4 #afa ff47 ,our ju/ification = mak+ ?is assumption1 z also = tak+ "t to be ( "o dim5sion only1 seems to be t x is indisp5sable = all ^? practical purposes :i* dep5d on our ability to create a sci5ce ( ,geometry1 & t we h no positive gr\nd = assum+ ! opposite4 ,?us ultimately ! assumption appe>s to be ( ! nature ( a po/ulate4 ,footnote #adh3 ,! able/ detail$ acc\nt ( ! relativity ( spatial position readily accessible to ! ,engli% read]1 w be f\nd 9 ,mr4 ,russell's ,f\ndations ( ,geometry1 *aps4 iii,a1 iv4 ,mr4 ,russell has s9ce1 9 ,m9d = ,july #aija1 attempt$ to prove ! opposite view1 t positions 9 space & "t are inh]5tly di/9ct1 b )\t discuss+ 8 own previ\s argum5ts = relativity4 ,into ! purely ma!matical "p ( ,mr4 ,russell's lat] cont5tions ,i am n compet5t to ent]4 ,i may1 h[ev]1 sugge/ t ! "q ( ,metaphysics _c be decid$ m]ely by urg+1 z ,mr4 ,russell does1 t few] assumptions are requir$ to con/ruct a geometry on ! hypo!sis ( absolute ?an on t ( relative position4 ,! sup]ior conv5i5ce ( an assumption = c]ta9 special purposes is no pro( ( its ultimate intelligibility4 ,& :5 ,mr4 ,russell goes on to admit t po9ts 9 space are indi/+ui%able = u1 he seems to me to give up 8 case4 ,= is n ?is to admit t1 aft] all1 ! space ) :i* we deal 9 our geometrical sci5ce is relative f beg9n+ to end8 ,h[ diff]5ces ( quality ( :i* we1 by hypo!sis1 c "k no?+1 c help or h9d] our sci5tific con/ructions1 x is inde$ h>d to see4 ,footnote #adi3 ,?is may be br\ght home ev5 to ^? :o1 l myself1 are n ma!maticians1 by ! p]usal ( su* a "w z ,lobat*evsky's ,unt]su*ung5 zur ,!orie d] ,p>allel-,l9i51 :]e a consi/5t geometry ( triangles is con/ruct$ 9 entire indep5d5ce ( ! po/ulate ( p>allelism4 ,( c\rse1 9 ! end x mu/ be a m]e "q ( nom5clature :e!r a =m ( s]ial ord] indep5d5t ( ^! quasi-empirical re/rictions is to be call$ 8space0 or n4 ,footnote #aej3 ,x mu/ be c>efully rememb]$ t ! ess5tial defect ( ! indef9ite regress is n its int]m9abl5ess1 b its monotony4 ,we ourselves held t ,reality is an individual compos$ ( less] individuals :i* repeat ! /ructure ( ! :ole1 & t ! numb] ( ^! individuals ne$ n be f9ite4 ,b1 9 our view1 ! high] ! ord] ( individuality ! m self-explanatory 0 its /ructure1 :]eas 9 ! indef9ite regress an incompreh5sible con/ruction is endlessly repeat$ 9 ! same =m4 ,footnote #aea3 ,normally1 t is2 = brevity's sake ,i omit to note ! possible case ( a coh]5t dream-life cont9u$ f night to night4 ,9 pr9ciple !re w\ld be a diff]5ce betwe5 ! case ( ! space & "t ( su* a dream-life & ^? ( our wak+ h\rs4 ,footnote #aeb3 ,s ! ev5ts ( my dreams1 ?\gh n occupy+ any place 9 ! temporal s]ies ( ! ev5ts ( wak+ life1 are s f> logically connect$ ) t s]ies z bo? sets ( ev5ts /& 9 relation to c]ta9 id5tical elem5ts ( psy*ical temp]am5t & disposition4 ,ano!r int]e/+ case is t ( s-call$ 8dual p]sonality40 ,! exp]i5ce ( bo? ! two alt]nat+ p]sonalities c be arrang$ 9 a s+le temporal s]ies only because ( ! way 9 :i* bo? sets are inwov5 ) ! sy/ematic int]e/s ( o!r m51 ^: p]sonality does n alt]nate1 or alt]nates ) a diff]5t rhy?m4 ,if all mank9d 7 subject to simultane\s alt]nations ( p]sonality1 ! con/ruction ( a s+le "t-s]ies = all our exp]i5ces w\ld be impossible4 ,9 ?is discussion ,i h ?r\gh\t foll[$ ! full & ?or\gh treatm5t ( ! problem by ,mr4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #ah4 ,footnote #aec3 ,o!rwise1 conceptual space & "t are1 z we h se51 d]ivatives ( ! numb]-s]ies1 & we h already le>n$ t ! numb]-s]ies leads to ! problem ( summ+ an endless s]ies1 & is !re=e n an adequate way ( repres5t+ ultimate ,reality4 7,bk4 ,,ii4 *ap4 #d1 #aj74 ,ano!r =m ( ! same difficulty w\ld be t conceptual space & "t are applications ( ! num]ical s]ies1--b application to :at8 ,to a mat]ial :i* is already spatial & temporal4 ,all ^! puzzles are only diff]5t ways ( express+ ! ess5tial relativity ( space & "t4 ,b see ! anti-,kantian view 91 e4g41 ,c\turat1 ,l',inf9i ,ma?matique1 pt4 #b4 ,footnote #aed3 ,comp>e ,pr(4 ,royce's rem>ks1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lect4 #c1 8,! ,temporal & ! ,et]nal10 p4 #acd4 ,i %\ld c]ta9ly h _h to ackn[l$ge consid]able obligation to ,pr(4 ,royce's discussion _h n ! pres5t *apt] be5 writt5 be=e ,i _h an opportunity ( /udy+ x4 ,footnote #aee3 ,aga9/ ! plausible attempt to solve ! problem by simply ?9k+ ( ! :ole physical ord] z =m+ a 8speci\s pres5t0 to ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce1 we may urge t ! 8speci\s pres5t0 itself regul>ly consi/s = u ( a multiplicity ( detail1 :i* we appreh5d z simultane\s )\t insight into its inn] unity z ! embodim5t ( coh]5t sy/em4 ,h5ce ! direct insight ( ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce into its own int]nal mean+ or /ructure _c be adequately ?\ght ( z m]e simultane\s aw>5ess ( ! detail ( exi/5ce4 ,s long z a succession is m]ely appreh5d$ z simultane\s1 its mean+ is n yet grasp$4 ----- ,,*apt] ,v ,,"s ,,conditions ,,( ,,evolution #a4 ,! concept ( evolution an attempt to int]pret natural processes 9 t]ms ( individual gr[?4 #b4 ,evolution means *ange culm9at+ 9 an end :i* is ! result ( ! process & is qualitatively new4 ,! concept is ?us teleological4 #c4 ,evolution1 be+ teleological1 is ess5tially ei!r progress or deg5]ation4 ,if x is m ?an illusion1 !re mu/ be real ends 9 ! physical ord]4 ,& ends c only be real z subjective int]e/s ( s5ti5t be+s :i* are actualis$ by ! process ( *ange4 #d4 ,?us all evolution mu/ take place )9 an individual subject4 #e4 ,fur!r1 ! subject ( evolution mu/ be a f9ite individual4 ,all attempts to make 8evolution0 a prop]ty ( ! :ole ( ,reality lead to ! inf9ite regress4 #f4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 progressive evolution & deg5]ation has an 8objective0 basis 9 ! metaphysical di/9ction betwe5 high] & l[] degrees ( individuality4 #g4 ,9 ! evolution>y process1 old individuals disappe> & fre% ones orig9ate4 ,h5ce evolution is incompatible ) ! view t ,reality consi/s ( a plurality ( ultimately indep5d5t f9ite individuals4 #a4 ,we saw1 9 ! fir/ *apt] ( ! pres5t ,book1 t evolution or ord]ly developm5t is a fundam5tal *>act]i/ic ( ! processes :i* compose ! physical ord] z appreh5d$ by ! v>i\s empirical sci5ces4 ,= ! purposes ( ,me*anics & ,me*anical ,physics1 inde$1 we h no ne$ to look ^u ,nature z ! sc5e ( developm5t2 = ^! sci5ces x is en\gh to conceive ( x z a va/ complex ( *anges ( configuration & trans=mations ( en]gy1 connect$ by regul> uni=mities ( sequ5ce4 ,z soon1 h[ev]1 z we come to reg>d ,nature f ! /&po9t ( ^? sci5ces :i* explicitly recognise diff]5ces ( quality1 z well z diff]5ces 9 position & quantity1 among ! objects ) :i* !y deal1 ?is n>r[ly me*ani/ic conception ( natural processes becomes inadequate4 ,) ! notion ( physical processes z productive ( *anges ( quality we are inevitably l$ to ?9k ( ! physical ord] z a _w 9 :i* ! qualitatively new is d]iv$ f1 or develop$ out (1 ! previ\sly famili> by fix$ l9es ( deviation & "u det]m9ate conditions4 ,naturally en\gh1 x is f ! biological sci5ces1 9 :i* ! /udy ( organic gr[? plays s prom95t a "p1 t ! impulse to conceive ( physical *ange z developm5t orig9ally comes4 ,z long ago z ! f\r? c5tury ,b4,c41 ,ari/otle _h tak5 ! concept ( gr[? or developm5t z ! f\ndation ( ! mo/ influ5tial s*eme ( metaphysical con/ruction yet produc$ 9 ! :ole hi/ory ( speculation4 ,9 ,ari/otle's view1 h[ev]1 ! process ( developm5t 0 reg>d$ z /rictly conf9$ )9 ! limits ( ! individual life4 ,! individual organism1 beg9n+ its exi/5ce z an undevelop$ g]m or pot5tiality1 gradually unfolds itself 9 a s]ies ( successive /ages ( gr[?1 :i* culm9ates at ! p]iod ( complete maturity4 ,b ! individual g]m itself is a product or secretion d]iv$ f a pre-exi/+ mature individual ( ! same type z t into :i* ?is g]m w ultimately gr[4 ,! numb] ( di/9ct typical processes ( gr[? is ?us /rictly det]m9$1 & ea* su* process implies ! previ\s exi/5ce ( its complet$ result4 ,9 o!r words1 ! b\nd>ies betwe5 species are fix$ & ultimate2 !re c be no beg9n+ 9 "t ( ! exi/5ce ( a new species1 & !re=e no orig9ation ( new species by developm5t f o!r types4 ,z ,ari/otle epigrammatically puts x1 8,x takes a man to beget a man40 ,a fur!r po9t ( weakness 9 ! ,ari/otelian !ory is ! abs5ce ( any def9ite acc\nt ( ! ma*9]y by :i* ! process ( gr[? is effect$4 ,we le>n1 inde$1 t ! lat5t capacity ( ! organic g]m to develop accord+ to a c]ta9 specific type is /imulat$ into activity by influ5ces conta9$ 9 ! environm5t1 b ! precise nature ( ?is process ( /imulation 0 necess>ily left 9 obscurity1 9 consequ5ce ( ! imp]fect k possess$ by ,ari/otle ( ! m9ute "* ( natural processes 9 g5]al4 ,9 ! evolution>y !ories ( mod]n biology1 x is precisely ! problems ( ! orig9ation ( new species1 & ( ! special "* ( ! relations betwe5 ! species & its environm5t by :i* ?is process is condition$1 t h attract$ almo/ exclusive att5tion4 ,&1 ) ! /eadily increas+ success ( evolution>y hypo!ses 9 deal+ ) biological problems1 !re has naturally aris5 a t5d5cy to ext5d ! application ( ! g5]al concept ( evolution f> beyond ! sph]e 9 :i* x fir/ orig9at$4 ,we h n[ n only m or less well-accr$it$ hypo!ses ( ! production by evolution ( our *emical elem5ts1 b ev5 ambiti\s philosophical con/ructions :i* treat ! concept ( evolution z ! "o & only key to all ! problems ( exi/5ce4 ,9 ! pres5ce ( ^! f>-rea*+ applications ( evolution>y ideas1 x becomes all ! m necess>y to be> 9 m9d1 9 our e/imate ( ! wor? ( ! evolution concept1 t its logical "* rema9s unalt]$ by ! ext5sion ( its sph]e ( applicability2 x is /ill1 9 spite ( all m9or modifications1 ess5tially an attempt to int]pret natural processes 9 g5]al 9 t]ms ( individual gr[?4 ,we are n1 ( c\rse1 9 ! pres5t *apt] 9 any way conc]n$ ) ! details ( any "o p>ticul> !ory z to ! special conditions :i* det]m9e ! c\rse ( organic or o!r evolution4 ,:at ^? conditions 9 any special case are1 is a "q1 9 ! fir/ in/ance1 = t p>ticul> bran* ( empirical sci5ce :i* deals ) ! description ( ! p>ticul> aspect ( ! processes ( ! physical ord] "u inve/igation4 ,& ?\gh x w\ld be a prop] "q = a complete ,philosophy ( ,nature h[ ! details ( a well-e/abli%$ sci5tific !ory mu/ be int]pret$ s z to h>monise ) ! g5]al metaphysical implications ( ! physical ord]1 x is = _m reasons premature to raise su* a "q 9 ! pres5t /ate ( our actual k ( ! details ( evolution>y processes4 ,all t c be done "h is to ask :at 9 g5]al are ! logical implications involv$ 9 ?9k+ ( a process z an evolution at all1 & h[ ^? implications are relat$ to our g5]al int]pretation ( ! physical ord]4 #b4 ,evolution obvi\sly involves ! two concepts1 already criticis$ at l5g?1 ( *ange & ! dep5d5ce ( ! ord] & direction ( *ange ^u det]m9ate conditions4 ,b an evolution>y process is nev] a m]e ord]ly sequ5ce ( *anges4 ,= in/ance1 ! *anges ( configuration & ex*anges ( en]gy :i* take place :5 "w is done 9 a mat]ial sy/em1 conceiv$ z compos$ ( mov+ masses )\t any elem5t ( second>y quality1 are n prop]ly to be call$ a process ( evolution4 ,!y are n an evolution or developm5t1 because1 s long z we keep to ! /rictly k9etic view ( natural processes z consi/+ solely 9 ! v>y+ configuration ( sy/ems ( mass-p>ticles1 ! end ( ! process is qualitatively undi/+ui%able f its beg9n+2 no?+ qualitatively new has em]g$ z its result4 ,or r1 to speak ) m accuracy1 ! process has really no end & no unity ( its own4 ,x is only by an entirely arbitr>y limitation ( view1 due to purely subjective int]e/s ( our own1 t we isolate j ?is collection ( mass-p>ticles f ! l>g] aggregate ( su* p>ticles :i* =m ! physical ord] z reg>d$ f ! /rictly k9etic /&po9t1 & call x "o sy/em2 & aga91 x is ) equal arbitr>9ess t we det]m9e ! po9t ( "t beyond :i* we %all cease to foll[ ! sy/em's *anges ( configuration4 ,9 ! indef9itely prolong$ s]ies ( successive configurations !re is no /age :i* c prop]ly be call$ f9al4 ,h5ce f ! rigidly me*ani/ic po9t ( view ( ,k9etics & ,k9ematics !re are no evolutions or developm5ts 9 ! univ]se1 !re is only cont9u\s *ange4 ,developm5t or evolution1 !n1 def9itely implies ! culm9ation ( a process ( *ange 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( a /ate ( ?+s :i* is relatively new1 & implies1 fur!r1 t ! relatively new /ate ( ?+s may truly be reg>d$ z ! end or completion ( ?is special process ( *ange4 ,?us ! fundam5tal peculi>ity ( all evolution>y ideas is t !y are ess5tially teleological2 ! *anges :i* are evolutions are all *anges ?\ght ( z ?r\gh\t relative to an end or result4 ,except 9 s f> z a process ( *ange is ?us ess5tially relative to ! result 9 :i* x culm9ates1 !re is no s5se 9 call+ x a developm5t4 ,we may see ?is ev5 by consid]+ ! way 9 :i* ! concepts ( evolution & developm5t are us$ 9 ! v>i\s dep>tm5ts ( ,physics4 ,we sometimes speak ( a *emical process z m>k$ by ! 8evolution0 ( heat1 or aga9 we say t1 if ! second law ( ,!rmo-dynamics is rigidly & univ]sally true1 ! physical univ]se mu/ be 9 a process ( evolution t[>ds a /age 9 :i* none ( its en]gy w be available = "w4 ,b we c only atta* a mean+ to su* language s long z we all[ ourselves to reta9 ! common-s5se po9t ( view accord+ to :i* !re are real qualitative diff]5ces betwe5 :at ab/ract ,me*anics treats z equival5t =ms ( 8en]gy40 ,we c speak ( ! evolution ( heat1 j because we1 consci\sly or unconsci\sly1 ?9k ( heat z be+ really1 :at x is = our s5ses1 some?+ qualitatively new & di/9ct f ! o!r k9ds ( en]gy :i* are conv]t$ into x by ! *emical process4 ,s we c intelligibly talk ( ! gradual conv]sion ( "o =m ( en]gy into ano!r z an evolution only s long z we reg>d ! v>i\s =ms ( en]gy z qualitatively diff]5t1 & are !re=e entitl$ to look ^u ! complete conv]sion ( ! "o into ano!r z ! qualitatively new result ( a process :i* is !re=e t]m9at$ by its complete e/abli%m5t4 ,f ! /&po9t ( ! physical !ories :i* reg>d ! di/9ction betwe5 ! =ms ( en]gy z only 8subjective10 !re w\ld be no s5se 9 reg>d+ t p>ticul> /age 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts at :i* "o =m ( en]gy disappe>$ z ! end or result ( a process :i* t]m9ates 9 x1 & ?us su* t]ms z evolution & developm5t w\ld lose _! mean+4 ,only ! e/abli%m5t ( ! qualitatively new c =m a real end or result1 & s af=d a logical basis = ! recognition ( ! *anges 9 ! physical ord] z di/9ct processes ( developm5t4 #c4 ,?is ess5tially teleological "* ( developm5t is emphasis$ 9 ! language ( ! biological sci5ces by ! con/ant use ( ! concepts ( progress & deg5]ation4 ,= biology an evolution is ess5tially a process ei!r 9 ! progressive or 9 ! regressive direction4 ,e evolution is an advance to a 8high]0 or a decl9e to a 8l[]0 /ate ( developm5t4 ,n[ progress & regress are only possible :]e ! process ( *ange is reg>d$ z ?r\gh\t relative to ! end to be atta9$ by ! process4 ,exactly h[ we conceive ?is end1 :i* s]ves u z a /&>d = di/+ui%+ progress f deg5]ation1 is a second>y "q2 ! po9t ( fundam5tal importance is t1 except 9 ref]5ce to su* an end1 !re c be no di/9ction at all betwe5 progressive & retrogressive *ange4 ,?us1 unless !re are really ends 9 ! physical ord] :i* det]m9e ! processes ( *ange t culm9ate 9 _! actual e/abli%m5t1 evolution _c be real4 ,if ! ends1 by ! e/abli%m5t ( :i* we e/imate progress 9 developm5t1 are m]ely arbitr>y /&>ds ( our own to :i* no?+ 9 ext]nal reality corresponds1 !n ! physical ord] mu/ really be a m]e succession ( *anges :i* are 9 no true s5se developm5ts1 & ! :ole concept ( nature z m>k$ by developm5t w be a m]e human delusion4 ,&1 on ! contr>y1 if !re is any tru? 9 ! great sci5tific conceptions ( evolution1 !re mu/ be real ends 9 ! physical ord]4 ,n[1 !re is only "o intelligible way 9 :i* we c ?9k ( a process ( *ange z really relative to an end4 ,! resultant /ate :i* we call ! end ( ! process1 z be+ ! f9al /age :i* completes ?is special process1 & enables u to m>k (f all t succe$s x z belong+ to a fre% process ( developm5t1 mu/ also be its end 9 ! s5se ( be+ ! consci\s atta9m5t ( an int]e/ or purpose und]ly+ ! :ole process4 ,x is only 9 s f> z any /ate ( ?+s is1 = "s s5ti5t be+1 ! realisation ( a subjective int]e/ previ\sly manife/$ 9 an e>li] /age ( exp]i5ce1 t t /ate ( ?+s =ms ! real culm9ation ( a process :i* is di/+ui%$ f all o!r processes1 & /amp$ ) an individuality ( its own1 by ! fact t x does culm9ate 9 precisely ?is result4 ,! conceptions ( end or result & ( subjective int]e/ are logically insep>able4 ,h5ce we seem =c$ to inf] t1 s9ce evolution is an unmean+ ^w1 unless !re are g5u9e1 & n m]ely arbitr>ily assign$1 ends und]ly+ ! processes ( physical nature1 ! concept ( evolution z *>act]i/ic ( ! physical ord] involves ! metaphysical int]pretation ( t ord] z consi/+ ( ! teleological acts ( s5ti5t be+s1 :i* we _h previ\sly accept$ on m g5]al gr\nds4 ,x w\ld be useless to attempt an escape f ?is conclusion by draw+ a di/9ction betwe5 two mean+s ( 8end0--8a la/ /ate0 & 8! a*ievem5t ( a purpose40 ,= ! :ole po9t ( ! prec$+ argum5t 0 t no?+ c be an 8end0 9 ! =m] s5se )\t also be+ an end 9 ! latt]4 ,unless processes h ends :i* are _! subjective fulfilm5t1 x is only by an arbitr>y conv5tion ( our own t we assign to !m ends :i* are _! la/ /ates4 ,& if x is only an arbitr>y conv5tion t physical processes h ends 9 ?is s5se1 evolution itself is j su* a conv5tion & no?+ m4#aef #d4 ,:at is 9 pr9ciple ! same argum5t may be put 9 ano!r =m1 & ! equival5ce ( ! two =ms is itself v sugge/ive f ! metaphysical po9t ( view4 ,evolution or developm5t1 l all *ange1 implies ! pres5ce ?r\gh\t successive /ages 9 a process ( some?+ :i* is p]man5t & un*ang+4 ,b x implies some?+ m def9ite /ill4 ,:atev] develops mu/ !re=e h a p]man5t individual "* ( its own ( :i* ! successive /ages 9 ! developm5t process are ! gradual unfold+4 ,unless ! e>li] & ! lat] /ages 9 a connect$ s]ies ( *anges belong alike to ! gradual unfold+1 "u ! influ5ce ( surr\nd+s1 ( a s+le individual nature1 !re is no mean+ 9 speak+ ( !m z belong+ to a process ( developm5t4 ,only ! individual c develop1 if we are to attribute precise mean+ to our words4 ,we speak ( ! evolution ( a society or a species1 b if our words are n to be empty we mu/ mean by su* phrases "o ( two ?+s4 ,ei!r we mu/ mean t ! species & ! society :i* develop are !mselves individuals ( a high] ord]1 no less real ?an ! memb]s :i* compose !m1 or our language mu/ be m]ely a way ( say+ t ! life ( ea* memb] ( ! social or biological gr\p exhibits developm5t4 ,:5 we reflect on :at is really involv$ 9 our ord9>y loose expressions ab\t ! 8inh]itance0 ( ?is or ! o!r physical or social trait1 we %all see t ! =m] alt]native is f> less remov$ f ord9>y ways ( ?\ght ?an might at fir/ seem to be ! case4 ,if any k9d ( reality corresponds to our curr5t metaphor ( ! 8inh]itance0 ( qualities1 ! gr\ps )9 :i* su* 8inh]itance0 takes place mu/ be some?+ mu* m ?an m]e aggregates ( mutually exclusive individuals4 ,a gr\p )9 :i* qualities c be ?us inh]it$ mu/1 z a :ole1 possess a m>k$ individual nature ( its own4 ,n[ we h already se5 t all individuality is 9 ! end teleological4 ,a gr\p ( processes =ms an individual life 9 ! degree to :i* x is ! expression ( a unique & coh]5t int]e/ or aim1 & no fur!r4 ,h5ce1 once m1 only :at is truly individual c develop or evolve4 ,& we readily see t x is precisely 9 s f> z a set ( processes =m ! expression ( individual int]e/1 t ! dem>cation ( ! gr\p z a connect$ :ole f all previ\s & subsequ5t processes possesses m ?an a conv5tional significance4 ,h5ce only processes :i* are ! expression ( individual int]e/ possess 8ends0 or 8la/ /ates10 & ?us ! two =ms ( our argum5t are 9 pr9ciple id5tical4 ,once m1 !n1 ! significance ( evolution>y ideas1 if !y are to be m ?an a purely conv5tional s*eme devis$ = ! fur!rance ( our own practical purposes1 & z an artificial aid to classification1 is b\nd up ) ! doctr9e t ! ev5ts ( ! physical ord] are really ! expression ( ! subjective int]e/s ( s5ti5t subjects ( exp]i5ce4#aeg #e4 ,to proce$ to a fur!r po9t ( ! utmo/ importance4 ,n only does evolution imply ! pres5ce ( individuality 9 ! subject ( ! evolution>y process2 x implies its possession ( f9ite individuality4 ,an inf9ite individual _c h developm5t or evolution ascrib$ to x )\t contradiction4 ,h5ce ! ,absolute1 ! ,univ]se1 or :atev] o!r "n we pref] to give to ! inf9ite individual :ole ( exi/5ce1 _c develop1 _c progress1 _c deg5]ate4 ,?is conclusion might be d]iv$ at once f reflect+ ^u ! s+le consid]ation t temporal succession is involv$ 9 all evolution1 :e!r progressive or retrogressive4 ,= temporal succession is1 z we h se51 an insep>able consequ5ce ( f9ite individuality4 ,b x w be z well to rea* our result 9 a diff]5t way1 by consid]+ c]ta9 fur!r implications ( ! concept ( evolution :i* are manife/ly only pres5t 9 ! case ( f9ite individuality4 ,9 e process ( developm5t or evolution !re are involv$ a pair ( int]relat$ factors1 ! individual nature :i* develops1 & ! environm5t :i* conta9s ! conditions "u :i* & ! /imuli 9 response to :i* x develops4 ,! undevelop$ g]m is z yet a m]e possibility1 some?+ :i* w yet exhibit qualities n z yet possess$ by x4 ,9 its undevelop$ /ate1 :at x possesses is n ! qualities *>act]i/ic ( its lat] /ages1 b only 8t5d5cies0 or 8dispositions0 to manife/ ^? qualities1 provid$ t ! environm5t provides ! suitable /imulus4 ,h5ce1 if ei!r ( ! two int]relat$ factors ( developm5t1 ! individual or ! environm5t1 is miss+1 !re c be no evolution4 ,n[1 ! inf9ite individual :ole ( exi/5ce has no environm5t outside itself to supply conditions ( developm5t & inc5tives to *ange4 ,or1 :at is ! same ?+1 s9ce ! 8possible0 means simply t :i* w foll[ if c]ta9 conditions are realis$1 !re is no region ( unrealis$ possibility outside ! realis$ exi/5ce ( ! inf9ite :ole4 ,h5ce 9 ! inf9ite :ole !re c be no developm5t3 x _c progressively adapt itself to new conditions ( exi/5ce2 x mu/ once & = all be 9 its reality all t x is 9 8idea40 ,! inf9ite :ole !re=e evolves nei!r =w>d nor backw>d4 ,?is impossibility ( ascrib+ developm5t to ! :ole ( ,reality is /rik+ly illu/rat$ by a consid]ation ( ! impasse into :i* we are l$ :5 we try 9 practice to ?9k ( ! :ole univ]se z 9 process ( evolution4 ,s long z y are /ill 9 ! pres5ce ( ! fundam5tal di/9ction betwe5 ! develop+ subject & its environm5t1 y are logically driv51 if ev]y?+ is to be tak5 z a product ( evolution1 to supplem5t e evolution>y !ory by a fre% evolution>y problem4 ,to acc\nt = ?is special evolution 7e4g41 ! evolution ( ! v]tebrata7 y h to assume an environm5t ) det]m9ate qualities ( its own1 influ5c+ ! evolution 9 "q 9 a det]m9ate way 9 consequ5ce ( ^! qualities4 ,b if ev]y?+ has be5 evolv$1 y h aga9 to ask by :at process ( evolution ?is special environm5t came to be :at x is4 ,to solve ?is problem y h once m to po/ulate a second 8environm5t0 det]m9+1 by int]action1 ! c\rse ( ! evolution ( ! =m]4 ,& ?us y are ?r[n back ^u ! indef9ite regress4 ,unless1 inde$1 y are prep>$ boldly to ass]t t1 z all det]m9ate "* is ! product ( evolution1 ! univ]se z a :ole mu/ h evolv$ out ( no?+4 7,y w\ld n escape ?is dilemma by an appeal to ! v anci5t notion ( a 8cycle0 or 8p]iodic rhy?m0 ( evolution1 9 virtue ( :i* ! product ( a process ( evolution s]ves 9 its turn z ! environm5t = ! reit]at$ evolution ( its own antec$5t conditions1 ,a ?us pass+ by evolution into ,b & ,b back aga9 into ,a4 ,= y w\ld at lea/ h to accept ?is t5d5cy to p]iodic rhy?m itself z an ultimate prop]ty ( all exi/5ce1 n itself result+ by evolution f some?+ else47 ,! dilemma ?us creat$ by ! attempt to apply ! concept ( evolution to ! :ole ( ,reality1 is suffici5t to %[ t evolution itself is only ?9kable z a *>act]i/ic ( processes :i* fall )9 ! nature ( a sy/em :i*1 z a :ole1 does n evolve4 ,we may re/ate ! same cont5tion 9 ! foll[+ =m3--,all developm5t means advance t[>ds an end4 ,b only t :i* is z yet 9 imp]fect possession ( its end c advance t[>ds x4 ,= t :i* already is all t x has x 9 its nature to be !re c be no advance1 & h5ce no progressive developm5t4 ,nei!r c su* a complete individual deg5]ate4 ,= ev5 9 deg5]at+1 t :i* deg5]ates is gradually realis+ "s feature ( its own nature :i* 0 previ\sly only an unrealis$ pot5tiality4 ,?us ev5 deg5]ation implies ! realisation ( an end or int]e/1 & is itself a k9d ( advance4 ,z ! biologi/s tell u1 ! atrophy ( an organ1 :i* we call deg5]ation1 is itself a /ep 9 ! progressive adaptation ( ! organisation to new conditions ( life1 &1 z ! morali/s rem9d u1 9 ! e?ical sph]e a 8fall0 is1 9 its way1 an upw>d /ep4 ,h5ce :at _c rise high] 9 ! scale ( exi/5ce also _c s9k l[]4 #f4 ,evolution is ?us an insep>able *>act]i/ic ( ! life ( f9ite individuals1 & ( f9ite individuals only4 ,& ?is consid]ation gives u ! clue to ! metaphysical int]pretation ( ! di/9ction1 s significant = all evolution>y !ory1 betwe5 ! progressive & retrogressive directions ( ! evolution process4 ,to a l>ge ext5t x is1 ( c\rse1 a matt] ( conv5tion :at we %all reg>d z progress & :at z deg5]ation4 ,s long z we are specially int]e/$ 9 ! atta9m5t ( any end or culm9at+ result1 we call ! l9e ( developm5t :i* leads up to t result progressive1 & ! l9e :i* leads to its subsequ5t de/ruction deg5]ation4 ,& ?us ! same developm5t may be view$ z progress or z deg5]ation1 accord+ to ! special "* ( ! int]e/s ) :i* we /udy x4 ,?us1 = in/ance1 ! successive modifications ( ! v]tebrate /ructure :i* h result$ 9 ! production ( ! human skeleton are naturally ?\ght ( z progressive1 because our special int]e/ 9 human intellig5t life & "* leads u to reg>d ! human type z sup]ior to its pr$ecessors 9 ! l9e ( developm5t4 ,at ! same "t1 _m ( ^! modifications consi/ 9 ! gradual loss ( *>act]i/ics previ\sly evolv$1 & are !re=e deg5]ative f ! po9t ( view ( ! anatomical /ud5t1 :o is specially int]e/$ 9 ! production ( organs ( increas+ complexity ( /ructure1 & !re=e takes ! complexity ( ^? /ructures z 8 /&>d 9 di/+ui%+ progress f retrogression4 ,b ! di/9ction is n a purely conv5tional "o4 ,z we h se51 degrees ( individuality are also degrees ( reality2 :at is m completely individual is also a complet] repres5tative ( ! ultimate /ructure ( ! inf9ite individual :ole1 & !re=e m completely real4 ,h5ce we may say t advance 9 individuality is really1 & n 9 a m]ely conv5tional s5se1 progress 9 developm5t2 loss ( individuality is real deg5]ation4 ,?us we get at lea/ ! possibility ( a true 8objective0 basis = di/9ction betwe5 ! directions ( evolution>y progress4 ,b we mu/ rememb] t x is only :]e we are able to "k some?+ ( ! actual int]e/s ( f9ite exp]i5c+ be+s t we h safe gr\nds = judg+ :e!r ^? int]e/s receive m adequate embodim5t 9 consequ5ce ( ! *anges ( /ructure & habit produc$ by evolution or n4 ,h5ce1 :ile our insight into ! inn] lives ( ourselves & our animal cong5]s !oretically w>rants u 9 pron\nc+ ! v>i\s developm5ts 9 human social life to be g5u9ely progressive or retrogressive1 & aga9 9 reg>d+ ! s]ies ( organic types :i* leads directly up to man z a true 8asc5t10 our ignorance ( ! special "* ( ! individual exp]i5ces ( :i* ! inorganic physical ord] at l>ge is ! ph5om5al manife/ation1 makes x impossible = u to det]m9e :e!r an 8evolution0 outside ^! limits is really progressive or n4 ,we h to treat 8cosmic evolution0 9 g5]al1 outside ! special l9e ( animal developm5t :i* leads up to man1 z indiff]5tly a 8progress0 or a 8deg5]ation0 accord+ to our own arbitr>y po9t ( view1 n because x is n 8objectively0 def9itely ! "o or ! o!r1 b because our insight is n suffici5t to disc]n :i* x is4 #g4 ,"o m po9t may be not$1 :i* is ( "s importance 9 view ( c]ta9 metaphysical problems connect$ ) ! nature ( f9ite individuality4 ,if evolution is m ?an an illusion1 x seems necess>y to hold t x is a process 9 ! c\rse ( :i* f9ite individuals may disappe> & new f9ite individuals orig9ate4 ,?is po9t is metaphysically significant1 because x means t ! fact ( evolution is irreconcilable ) any ( ! philosophical !ories ( anci5t & mod]n times1 :i* reg>d ,reality z compos$ ( a plurality ( ultimately indep5d5t f9ite individuals or 8p]sonalities40#aeh ,if ^! philosophical !ories are s\nd1 ! c\rse ( ! _w's hi/ory mu/ be made up ( ! successive trans=mations ( f9ite individuals1 :o someh[ rema9 unaffect$ & unalt]$ 9 _! "* by ! v>i\s ext]nal disguises !y assume4 ,! individuals ( su* a philosophy w\ld1 9 fact1 be z little modifi$ by ^! *anges z ! actors on a /age by _! *anges ( co/ume1 or ! s\ls ( ! 8transmigration0 hypo!sis by ! bodies into :i* !y successively ent]4 ,& ?us developm5t w\ld n be ev5 a relatively g5u9e feature ( ! life ( f9ite individuals2 x w\ld be a m]e illusion1 inevitable inde$ 9 ! pres5t condition ( our acqua9tance ) ! detail$ cont5ts ( exi/5ce1 b correspond+ to no actual fact ( inn] exp]i5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if evolution is n a pure illusion1 ^! metaphysical con/ructions _c be valid4 ,= ! :ole ess5ce ( ! mod]n doctr9e ( evolution is conta9$ 9 ! pr9ciple t radical diff]5ces 9 k9d result f ! accumulation ( successive modifications ( individual /ructure1 & once e/abli%$ cont9ue to be p]petuat$ z diff]5ces 9 k9d4 ,n[1 su* diff]5ces 9 k9d c only be int]pret$ metaphysically z radical diff]5ces 9 ! det]m9+ aims & int]e/s ( ! exp]i5c+ subjects con/itut+ ! physical ord]1 & we h already se5 t x is precisely ! "* ( ^! dom9ant unique int]e/s :i* =ms ! individuality ( ! individual4 ,?us ! metaphysical int]pretation ( ! evolution process seems inevitably to resolve x into a process ( ! developm5t ( fre% & disappe>ance ( old individual int]e/s1 & ?us into a process ( ! orig9ation & disappe>ance ( f9ite individuals )9 ! "o inf9ite individual :ole4 ,a conclusion ( ! same sort w\ld be sugge/$ by consid]ation ( ^? facts ( our own individual developm5t f :i* ! wid] evolution>y !ories h1 9 ! la/ resort1 borr[$ _! ideas & _! t]m9ology4 ,! m5tal gr[? ( ! individual human be+ is ess5tially a process ( ! =mation ( int]e/s 9 ?+s4 ,bo? our =mal education1 & our in=mal intellectual & moral tra9+ effect$ by ! influ5ce ( social tradition & mutual int]c\rse1 are processes consi/+ ( an accumulation ( m9or modifications :i* ultimately culm9ate 9 ! e/abli%m5t ( m or less unique p]sonal int]e/s 9 diff]5t aspects ( exi/5ce4 ,& inasmu* z ?is process is nev] t]m9at$1 x is always possible = our previ\sly acquir$ int]e/s to und]go su* modification z r5d]s !m obsolete1 & sub/itutes novel int]e/s 9 _! places4 ,s f> z ?is is effect$1 we rightly say t we are no long] our 8old selves40 ,a new 8self0 or c5tre ( unique individual int]e/s has !n develop$ )9 ! =m] self4 ,usually ! process /ops %ort ( ! po9t at :i* all s5sible cont9uity seems susp5d$1 b t ?is po9t c be actually rea*$1 "u exceptional conditions1 is %[n to sup]fluity by su* facts z ^? ( 8conv]sion10 to say no?+ ( ! m pa?ological ph5om5a ( 8multiple p]sonality40 ,! same ph5om5a illu/rate ! fact t a new individuality1 once evolv$1 may /& 9 v>i\s relations to ! old individual int]e/s x displaces4 ,x may p]man5tly replace !m1 or1 z 9 s _m cases ( 8conv]sion10 may prove only tempor>y & pass back aga9 into ! old individuality1 or ! two may alt]nate p]iodically4#aei ,! "o important po9t 9 :i* all ^! cases agree is simply ! g5]al "o ( ! production 9 ! c\rse ( developm5t ( a new individuality )9 ! fir/ individuality4 ,x may p]haps be sugge/$ t we h 9 ^! features ( individual gr[? a h9t z to ! true nature ( ! process we call ! orig9ation ( new species by evolution4#afj ,to recapitulate3 evolution implies *ange det]m9$ by ref]5ce to an end1 & ?us con/itut$ into an individual process4 ,su* 8ends0 h no mean+1 except 9 s f> z ! processes ( *ange are view$ z ! progressive atta9m5t ( individual int]e/s1 & ?us evolution is only possible :]e !re is f9ite individuality4 ,?is is ! philosophical ju/ification = our previ\s ass]tion t evid5ce ( /ructural evolution1 :]e x c be _h1 af=ds reasonable presumption t :at appe>s to u "o ?+ is really a true individual ( "s degree1 & n a m]e arbitr>y gr\p+ toge!r on our "p ( /ates :i* possess no inn] unity4 ,fur!r1 evolution is a process 9 :i* new individuals arise & old ones disappe>4 ,h5ce its significance = ,metaphysics z exclud+ all !ories :i* make ,reality consi/ ( a m]e plurality ( un*ang+ f9ite individuals4 ,x is significant also f ano!r po9t ( view4 ,imply+1 z x s manife/ly does1 ! pres5ce ( individual subjects ( exp]i5ce ?r\gh\t ! physical ord]1 ! concept ( ,nature z a realm ( evolution>y processes is inf9itely ne>] to ! full tru? = ,metaphysics ?an ! purely me*ani/ic view ( x z a m]e succession ( connect$ *anges4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #bg1 #bh 7pp4 #dig1 #dii1 #ejh ( ed4 i4 = criticism ( concept ( ,progress72 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 ii4 *ap4 #h 78,=ms ( ! ,c\rse ( ,nature10 ,eng4 trans41 vol4 ii4 pp4 #aji1 #afb72 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lect4 #e2 ,h4 ,sidgwick1 ,philosophy3 its ,scope & ,relations1 lects4 #f & #g 7= "s g5]al consid]ation ( ! be>+ ( evolution on ,metaphysics72 ,g4 ,e4 ,und]hill1 8,! ,limits ( ,evolution0 79 ,p]sonal ,idealism72 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 i4 lects4 #g-i 7criticism ( ,sp5c]'s evolution>y philosophy71 #aj 7on biological evolution74 ----- ,footnote #aef3 ,x might be object$ t1 e4g41 dea? is ! end ( life 9 ! s5se ( be+ its la/ /age1 )\t be+ ! atta9m5t ( ! int]e/s :i* compose our inn] life4 ,b ! illu/ration w n be> exam9ation4 ,! processes ( *ange )9 ! organism1 :5 view$ simply z connect$ *anges1 d n cease ) dea?2 9 fact1 !y h no end or la/ /ate4 ,to call a man's dea? 8 end only means t ! purposes = :i* we are int]e/$ 9 ! /udy ( 8 behavi\r get complete fulfilm5t :5 we h foll[$ him f ! cradle to ! grave4 ,he is 8done )0 at dea?1 because we h done ) him4 ,only teleological processes c h a la/ /age4 ,note z a consequ5ce ( ! significance ( ! concept ( 8ends0 = evolution1 t :]eas ! purely me*ani/ic int]pretation ( ! processes ( ,nature logically leads to ! ?\ght ( !m z a cont9u\s s]ies1 ! s]ies ( successive organic or social types is ess5tially discont9u\s1 a po9t well br\ght out by ,pr(essor ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lects4 #e1 #g4 ,footnote #aeg3 ,i ne$ h>dly rem9d ! read] ( ! va/ diff]5ce betwe5 ! view inculcat$ above & ! doctr9e ( 8ends 9 nature0 z x figures 9 ! old-fa%ion$ 8argum5t f design40 ,! old-fa%ion$ teleology assum$ 7#a7 t ! 8subjective int]e/s0 manife/$ 9 ! evolution>y process are fundam5tally human4 ,we1 x held1 c recognise :at ^! ends are1 & fur!r1 !y are = ! mo/ "p summ$ up 9 ! 8design0 ( fur!r+ our human conv5i5ce4 7#b7 ,t ^! int]e/s exi/ z ! reflective designs ( an an?ropomorphic ,rul] ( ,nature4 ,our doctr9e is consi/5t ) nei!r assumption4 ,x foll[s f our :ole int]pretation ( ! physical ord]1 t we d n & _c "k :at k9d ( subjective int]e/ ( f9ite individuals is realis$ by any portion ( x beyond t con/itut$ by our own bodies & ^? ( our ne> cong5]s1 & !re=e are absolutely )\t any "r to fancy ourselves ! culm9at+ end ( all evolution4 ,aga91 a subjective int]e/ ne$ n exi/ 9 ! =m ( a def9itely preconceiv$ design2 mo/ ( our own int]e/s exi/ z unreflective crav+s & impulses4 ,:e!r any "p ( ! evolution>y process is due to delib]ate reflective design on ! "p ( sup]human intellig5ces1 ,metaphysics1 ,i take x1 has no means ( decid+4 ,?is w\ld be a "q = solution by ! same empirical me?ods :i* we employ 9 detect+ ! pres5ce ( design 9 ! products ( human art4 ,9 any case1 reflective design is b\nd up ) ! "t-process1 & _c !re=e be ascrib$ to ! inf9ite individual4 ,footnote #aeh3 ,comp>e1 e4g41 ! fir/ ( ! argum5ts = immortality 9 ,plato's ,phd1 p4 #gj ff41 & ! rem>k 9 ! ,republic1 ) obvi\s ref]5ce to ?is argum5t1 t ! 8numb] ( s\ls is always ! same0 7#faa;,a74 ,9 ,plato ! doctr9e is pretty c]ta9ly ( ,orphic prov5ance4 ,comp>e also ! cyclic alt]nation ( dea? & life 9 ,h]acleitus1 ! 7,orphic7 cycle ( bir?s ( ,emp$ocles1 t ( ! ,/oics1 & 9 ! mod]n _w1 to take only "o in/ance1 ! 8et]nal recurr5ce0 ( ,nietzs*e4 ,footnote #aei3 ,! same ph5om5on ( ! =mation ( a new individuality )9 ! limits ( an already exi/+ "o1 is illu/rat$ by ! famili> facts ( ! moral conflict betwe5 ! 8high]0 & 8l[]0 self4 ,footnote #afj3 ,comp>e ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 p4 #cje ff41 :]e a view ( ?is k9d is work$ out 9 "s detail4 ,pr(4 ,royce's second volume un=tunately came into my h&s too late to enable me to make all ! use ( x ,i c\ld h wi%$2 ! same is ! case ) ,mr4 ,und]hill's essay on 8,! ,limits ( ,evolution0 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,! ,,logical ,,"* ,,( ,,descriptive ,,sci5ce #a4 ,sci5tific description may be contra/$ ) philosophical or teleological int]pretation1 b ! contra/ is n absolute4 #b4 ,! prim>y end ( all sci5tific description is int]communication ) a view to active co-op]ation4 ,h5ce all su* description is necess>ily re/rict$ to objects capable ( be+ exp]i5c$ 9 ! same way by a plurality ( individuals4 #c4 ,a second end ( sci5tific description is ! economis+ ( intellectual lab\r by ! creation ( g5]al rules = deal+ ) typical situations 9 ! environm5t4 ,9 ! c\rse ( evolution ?is object becomes p>tially indep5d5t ( ! =m]4 #d4 ,f ! int]e/ 9 =mulat+ g5]al rules arise ! ?ree fundam5tal po/ulates ( physical sci5ce1 ! po/ulates ( ,uni=mity1 ,me*anical ,law1 & ,causal ,det]m9ation4 #e4 ,! me*anical view ( physical ,nature det]m9$ by ^! ?ree po/ulates is sy/ematically c>ri$ out only 9 ! ab/ract sci5ce ( ,me*anics2 h5ce ! logical completion ( ! descriptive process w\ld mean ! r$uction ( all descriptive sci5ce to ,me*anics4 ,t ! *emical1 biological1 & psy*ological sci5ces conta9 elem5ts :i* _c be r$uc$ to me*anical t]ms1 is due to ! fact t _! descriptions are inspir$ by /hetic & hi/orical z well z by prim>ily 8sci5tific0 int]e/s4 #f4 ,! analysis ( su* lead+ concepts ( me*anical ,physics z ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass & ( ,en]gy %[s !m to h only relative validity4 #a4 ,9 its g5]al outl9es our int]pretation ( ! significance ( ! physical ord] is n[ complete4 ,we h se5 reason to hold t 9 t ord] we h ! appe>ance to our human s5ses ( a great sy/em or complex ( sy/ems compos$ ( purposive s5ti5t be+s1 ^: int]e/s are = ! mo/ "p s widely remov$ f our own z to preclude all direct int]c\rse1 b :o are nev]!less hi/orically connect$ ) ourselves by t unceas+ process ( ! developm5t ( new =ms ( individual int]e/ :i* we "k empirically z ! evolution ( life & intellig5ce on our planet4 ,z we h tri$ ?r\gh\t ! f\r prec$+ *apt]s to %[ 9 detail1 !re is no real inconsi/5cy betwe5 ?is g5]al int]pretation ( ! mean+ ( ! physical ord] & ! work+ assumptions ( our v>i\s empirical sci5ces4 ,at ! same "t x is obvi\s t 9 execut+ ! task ( ! detail$ description & calculation ( ! ph5om5al c\rse ( ev5ts1 ! empirical sci5ces1 :ile n reject+ su* a metaphysical int]pretation1 ignore x2 & ! m consci5ti\sly !y exclude f _! programme all amateur excursions into extrane\s metaphysical speculation1 ! m ?or\ghly is ! "w ( description & ma!matical =mulation done4 ,x seems advisable1 !re=e1 to conclude our brief sket* ( ! pr9ciples ( ,cosmology ) a %ort discussion ( ! nature ( ! limitations impos$ on empirical sci5ce1 by ! special "* ( ! objects x sets be=e x1 & ( ! way 9 :i* ! exi/5ce ( ^! limitations is reveal$ by analysis ( ! mo/ g5]al concepts ( ! empirical sci5ces !mselves4 ,x is important1 9 ! fir/ place1 to be q cle> z to ! s5se 9 :i* we speak ( description z ! "w ( ! empirical sci5ces1 & z to ! mean+ ( ! contra/ betwe5 su* description & a philosophical int]pretation ( exi/5ce4 ,9 ?is connection !re are two po9ts :i* seem to call = special & repeat$ emphasis4 7#a7 ,! contra/ betwe5 int]pretation & description is n an absolute "o4 ,complete description w\ld ( itself be some?+ m ?an m]e description1 & w\ld pass into philosophical int]pretation4 ,?us a significant purposive movem5t is n adequately describ$ :51 e4g41 its direction1 velocity1 mom5tum1 & duration h be5 assign$4 ,! complete description ( su* a movem5t w\ld require ! recognition ( its mean+ = ! be+ execut+ x z a /ep 9 ! realisation ( a crav+ or a design1 & w\ld ?us m]ge 9 :at we h call$ philosophical int]pretation4 ,s g5]ally1 if all exi/5ce is ultimately exp]i5ce & all exp]i5ce ess5tially teleological1 su* description z c be di/+ui%$ f int]pretation mu/ always be incomplete f ! logical /&po9t1 ?\gh adequate to fulfil c]ta9 special purposes4 7#b7 ,! descriptions ( sci5ce1 aga91 mu/ be c>efully di/+ui%$ f su* descriptions z c be effect$ by ! m]e multiplication ( unanalys$ s5sible detail4 ,sci5tific description1 x mu/ be rememb]$1 is always description und]tak5 ) a view to ! calculation & pr$iction ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts4 ,?is implies t x mu/ be description 9 g5]al t]ms1 &1 :]ev] possible1 by ! aid ( ma!matical analysis4 ,natural processes are describ$ by ! empirical sci5ces :i* deal ) !m1 n 9 _! concrete individual detail1 b only 9 s f> z !y exhibit c]ta9 uni=m aspects p]mitt+ ( r$uction to =mul suitable = calculation4 ,su* description is frequ5tly spok5 ( z explanation1 & is expressly contra/$ by ?is diff]5ce 9 nom5clature ) ! m]e accumulation ( s5sible detail4 ,we mu/ n1 h[ev]1 all[ ! diff]5ce 9 "q to bl9d u to ! ess5tially descriptive "* ( all sci5tific hypo!ses4 ,x is sometimes urg$ t sci5tific explanation mu/ diff] 9 its logical "* f description1 because ! 8sub/ance10 8ag5cies10 & 8m$ia10 9 t]ms ( :i* explanation is c\*$1 are l>gely ( a k9d inaccessible to s5se-p]ception4 ,x mu/ be rememb]$1 h[ev]1 t hypo!ses z to su* imp]ceptible objects are only valuable s f> z !y s]ve z connect+-l9ks by :i* we may calculate s5sible ev5ts f s5sible data4 ,:atev] int]m$iate l9ks empirical sci5ce may f9d x useful to assume1 x inv>iably takes ! s5sible occurr5ces ( ! ph5om5al physical ord] z ! />t+-po9t1 & aga9 z ! goal ( its inf]5ces4#afa ,all its hypo!tical con/ructions are ?us subs]vi5t to ! ma9 int]e/ ( ! accurate description ( ! c\rse ( s5sible ev5ts4 ,! only k9d ( 8explanation0 :i* c be reasonably contra/$1 9 respect ( its logical "*1 ) description is teleological int]pretation1 & ev5 "h ! contra/1 z we h se51 is n f9al4 #b4 ,we h to ask1 !n1 :at is ! object at :i* sci5tific descriptions aim8 ,:at purpose d !y seek to fulfil1 & h[ does ! ess5tial "* ( ?is purpose det]m9e ! logical "* ( ! descriptive process8 ,n[1 x is at once evid5t t all description has = its imm$iate object "o or o!r ( two practical ends1 :i* are s closely connect$ z to be ultimately co9cid5t4 ,hi/orically1 x is beyond a d\bt t ! orig9al purpose ( all description ( physical ev5ts 0 int]communication ) a view to social co-op]ation4 ,i h already ref]r$ to ?is function ( description ) special ref]5ce to ! use ( causal descriptions 9 sci5ce1 b may conv5i5tly deal ) ! same po9t r m fully & 9 a m g5]al way "h4 ,9 a society ( f9ite individuals ) int]relat$ aims & objects1 ea* ( ! individuals c only atta9 satisfaction = 8 own subjective int]e/s by "s degree ( conc]t$ action along ) ! re/4 ,& conc]t$ action is only possible :]e ! co-op]at+ individuals c r$uce _! v>i\s views ( _! common ext]nal environm5t to common t]ms1 equally intelligible to all1 & simil>ly indicate to ea* o!r _! respective special contributions to ! common task4 ,!re mu/ be a common und]/&+ ( ! difficulty to be met1 & ( ! precise "p ea* is to play 9 meet+ x4 ,?us int]communication betwe5 individuals is an indisp5sable requisite ( all effective practical co-op]ation4 ,b aga91 int]communication is only possible by means ( description 9 g5]al t]ms4 ,only 9 s f> z !re are id5tical elem5ts 9 ! exp]i5ces ( ! v>i\s individuals c "o communicate ! cont5ts ( 8 exp]i5ce to ano!r4 ,imm$iate feel+1 precisely because ( its unique individual "*1 is ess5tially incommunicable4 ,?us 9 communicat+ in=mation ab\t my own body to ano!r1 ,i am ( necessity =c$ to speak ( my body 9 t]ms n ( ! imm$iate exp]i5ce ,i h ( x 9 organic s5sation1 b ( ^? complexes ( s5se-pres5tations :i* he & ,i alike get ?r\gh our organs ( special p]ception4 ,& s ! :ole physical ord] c only s]ve z a basis ( co-op]ation betwe5 individuals s f> z x is describable 9 ! la/ resort z a complex ( s5se-pres5tations equally accessible to ! obs]vation ( all ! individuals4 ,any k9d ( exp]i5ce ( nature :i* is uniquely peculi> to myself1 & !re=e incapable ( be+ got "u assignable conditions by any o!r individual end[$ ) ! same organs ( p]ception1 is necess>ily incommunicable1 & !re=e useless z a basis = conc]t$ action4 ,h5ce sci5ce is re/rict$ by its v purpose to describe ! physical ord] 9 su* a way t its descriptions may be available = ! objects ( practical art1 to ! description ( x 9 its ph5om5al aspect z a m]e complex ( relat$ pres5tations or possibilities ( pres5tation4 ,x is no accid5t1 b a logical consequ5ce ( ! conditions ( int]communication1 t all sci5tific description mu/ />t f & end ) occurr5ces ( ! ph5om5al ord] :i* any individual may exp]i5ce by con=m+ to ! prescrib$ conditions ( p]ception4 ,?us we see t x is an epi/emological *>act]i/ic ( ! physical ord] z inve/igat$ by sci5ce1 t x consi/s exclusively ( ^? objects :i* are1 9 pr9ciple1 p]ceptible by m ?an "o individual4 ,if !re are objects 9 _! own nature incapable ( be+ exp]i5c$ by m ?an "o individual1 su* z1 e4g41 my own inn] life1 ^? objects _c belong to ! physical ord] ( sci5ce4#afb #c4 ,!re is a second purpose ( description :i* arises out ( ! fir/ z human exp]i5ces become m reflective4 ,description n only enables me to communicate ! p>ticul> situation ( ! mom5t to o!rs1 & devise 9 conc]t ) !m means = cop+ ) x2 x also enables me to =mulate be=eh& g5]al rules = my own behavi\r 9 recurr5t situations ( ! same type4 ,! ne$ = ! possession ( su* g5]al views orig9ates1 ( c\rse1 :ile description is /ill conf9$ to its orig9al function 9 assi/+ social co-op]ation4 ,f ! practical po9t ( view ( ^? indu/rial arts out ( :i* our v>i\s physical sci5ces h aris51 x is an economical advantage ( ! fir/ magnitude to be able once & = all to =mulate a g5]al rule = deal+ ) ! indef9itely num]\s occurr5ces ( typical situations1 in/ead ( hav+ to deal ) ea* occurr5ce sep>ately z x arises4 ,! advantages ( su* g5]al rules spe$ily make !mselves felt 9 ! increas$ p[] & importance enjoy$ by ! section ( society :i* is 9 possession ( !m1 a consid]ation :i* may help u to und]/& :y1 9 e>ly /ages ( civilisation1 su* rules are commonly jeal\sly gu>d$ z ! h]$it>y secrets ( close corporations4#afc ,?us x comes to be ! special aim ( sci5tific description to assi/ ! =mulation ( g5]al rules = ! practical manipulation ( ! objects ( ! physical ord]4 ,&1 ) ! progress ( reflection1 ?is orig9ally second>y object ( ! descriptive process becomes to a l>ge ext5t indep5d5t ( ! prim>y object ( int]communication4 ,ev5 :]e ,i h no ne$ or no desire = int]communication & co-op]ation ) my fell[s1 x becomes my int]e/ to seek g5]alis$ descriptions ( typical situations 9 ! physical ord] z ! basis ( practical rules = my own volunt>y int]v5tion 9 t ord]4 #d4 ,! int]e/ 9 ! =mulation ( g5]al rules = practical int]f]5ce ) nature1 aga91 necess>ily dictates ! =m :i* our sci5tific descriptions w take1 & is ?us ! s\rce ( ^? practical po/ulates ( empirical sci5ce ) :i* we h already made "s acqua9tance4 ,x compels u to assume1 9 ! fir/ place1 z an indisp5sable condition ( success 9 our descriptions1 t !re are situations 9 ! physical ord] :i* may be treat$ ) suffici5t accuracy = our practical purposes1 z recurr+ id5tically2 9 ! second place1 t1 s long z we ab/a9 f int5tional int]v5tion 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 !y succe$ "o ano!r 9 a fix$ r\t9e ord]1 or1 9 o!r words1 t !re are no dep>tures 9 nature f e/abli%$ r\t9e ( su* a k9d z to int]f]e ) our calculations2 9 ! ?ird place1 t e ev5t 9 ! physical ord] is1 )9 ! limits requisite = our successful devis+ ( means to our ends1 det]m9$ by antec$5t ev5ts4 ,x is ?us our int]e/ 9 obta9+ g5]al rules = ! production ( effects 9 ! physical ord] by int5tional int]f]5ce ) x :i* is ! s\rce ( ! ?ree fundam5tal po/ulates ( empirical physical sci5ce1 ! po/ulates ( uni=mity1 ( ! omnipres5ce ( r\t9e or me*anical 8law10 & ( ! causal det]m9ation ( subsequ5t by antec$5t ev5ts4 ,! dep5d5ce ( physical sci5ce ^u ^! ?ree fundam5tal po/ulates ?us does n prove _! ultimate tru?1 z we h already %[n at l5g? 9 prec$+ *apt]s3 x proves only t :]e !y _c be treat$ z approximately true1 )9 ! limits 9 :i* _! falsity c\ld be detect$ by s5sible exp]im5t1 our special int]e/ 9 devis+ rules = ! manipulation ( ev5ts _c be gratifi$4 ,conv]sely1 :]ev] t int]e/ c be successfully gratifi$1 ^! po/ulates mu/ be = all practical purposes equival5t to ! tru?4 ,h5ce1 if we rememb] t ! ultimate object ( all physical sci5ce is ! successful =mulation ( su* practical rules = action1 we c see t x is a logical consequ5ce ( ! "* ( ! int]e/s :i* dom9ate our sci5tific descriptions1 t ! physical sci5ces %\ld adopt a rigidly me*anical view ( ! physical ord]4 ,only1 9 proportion z any "o bran* ( physical sci5ce succe$s 9 c>ry+ out 9 detail ?is conception ( ! physical ord] z an int]connect$ me*anism ( sequ5ces rigidly det]m9$ by laws ( sequ5ce1 does x succe$ 9 effect+ ! purposes by :i* all physical sci5ce has be5 call$ into exi/5ce4 ,we may ?us call ! me*anical conception ( ! physical ord] ! mo/ g5]al po/ulate ( physical sci5ce4 ,only1 we mu/ once m take c>e to recollect t a fundam5tal po/ulate ( physical sci5ce ne$ n 9 ! lea/ be an ultimate tru?2 su* a po/ulate is 9 ! end no?+ m ?an a way ( /at+ ! nature ( ! int]e/ :i* physical sci5ce subs]ves1 &1 z we h suffici5tly se51 t int]e/ is n ! purely logical "o ( consi/5t ?9k+1 b ! practical "o ( successful int]f]5ce ) nature4 #e4 ,x does n1 ( c\rse1 foll[ t all ! sci5ces :i* deal 9 any way ) ! ev5ts ( ! physical ord] c z a matt] ( fact c>ry out ?is me*anical view ( _! objects ) equal success4 ,x is only 9 ! v>i\s bran*es ( ab/ract ,me*anics t we get any?+ l complete sy/ematic adh]5ce to ! po/ulates ( ! me*anical !ory ( physical nature z previ\sly enum]at$4 ,= ! physical1 *emical1 & /ill m = ! biological sci5ces1 x rema9s an unrealis$ ideal--& "o we h no "r to ?9k ev] completely realisable--t all ! facts ( electrical & *emical1 & aga9 ( physiological process %\ld be ultimately capable ( r$uction to r\t9e uni=mities ^u :i* confid5t calculation & pr$iction c be bas$4 ,?us1 ev5 9 ,*emi/ry1 limits are set to ! successful adoption ( ! purely me*anical po9t ( view1 by ! fact t *emical comb9ation is regul>ly productive ( new qualities 9 ! comp\nd :i* c\ld n h be5 pr$ict$ f a k ( ! prop]ties ( its con/itu5ts1 b h to be asc]ta9$ a po/]iori by actual exp]im5t4 ,x is true1 no d\bt1 t we seem to be increas+ly able1 z our *emical k advances1 to say 9 g5]al :at prop]ties may be expect$ to result f ! comb9ation ( giv5 elem5ts1 b !re is no logical gr\nd = suppos+ t we %all ev] be able to =etell all ! prop]ties ( an z yet unexam9$ comp\nd1 & 9 any case su* k c\ld only be ( a g5]al sort4 ,h[ev] mu* we might "k1 9 advance ( ! results ( ! comb9ation ( c]ta9 elem5ts 9 c]ta9 proportions1 x w\ld /ill be impossible to pr$ict ) absolute c]ta9ty ! precise result ( try+ ! comb9ation 9 a p>ticul> concrete case4 ,/ill less realisable w\ld be ! ideal ( ! r$uction ( ,biology to appli$ ,me*anics4 ,x is n m]ely t ! isolat$ physiological process regul>ly exhibits qualitative aspects ( a *emical or electrical k9d1 :i* we h no "r to r$uce to m]e quantitative *anges4 ,beyond ?is1 z ! v t]m9ology ( our evolution>y hypo!ses is en\gh to %[1 x is impossible to /ate ! facts ( biological evolution )\t introduc+1 "u su* names z 8sexual selection10 cont9ual ref]5ce to a subjective factor1 9 ! =m ( ! likes & dislikes1 habits & crav+s ( s5ti5t be+s1 & ?is selective factor1 be+ 9 its own nature incapable ( direct pres5tation 9 id5tical =m to a plurality ( exp]i5ces1 is n ev5 a memb] ( ! physical ord]4 ,) ! case ( ,psy*ology we %all be bett] able to deal 9 connection ) ! special discussions ( ! foll[+ ,book4 7,see especially ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #a47 ,consid]ations ( ?is k9d seem to necessitate ! foll[+ g5]al view ( ! logical "* ( descriptive physical sci5ce4 ,! only sci5ce 9 :i* ! po/ulates ( description are rigidly c>ri$ out to _! logical consequ5ces is ! sci5ce ( ab/ract ,me*anics 9 its v>i\s bran*es 7,/atics1 ,k9etics1 etc474 ,me*anics owes its p[] to foll[ out ^! po/ulates to its ab/ract "*4 ,precisely because x reg>ds only ^? aspects ( ! actual physical ord] :i* are consi/5t ) ! fundam5tal po/ulate ( describability by g5]al =mul1 ,me*anics is con/ra9$ to be a purely ab/ract & hypo!tical sci5ce4 ,= s9ce e actual process involves ! appe>ance ( ! qualitatively novel1 & s9ce all concrete quality is 9 its ess5ce unique1 no actual process c be m]ely me*anical4 ,?us ! only way ( conceiv+ ! physical ord] :i* is logically consi/5t ) ! po/ulates ( descriptive sci5ce 9 _! rigidity1 is "o :i* treats all natural *anges z r$ucible to equations4 ,& x is only 9 ab/ract ,me*anics t ?is view is sy/ematically c>ri$ out4#afd ,consequ5tly1 x is only 9 s f> z all physical sci5ce c be r$uc$ to ab/ract ,me*anics t we c atta9 ! ultimate purpose ( our sci5tific con/ructions1 ! calculation & pr$iction ( ! c\rse ( occurr5ces by means ( g5]al =mul4 ,?is conclusion1 d]iv$ 9 ! fir/ in/ance f reflection on ! logical nature ( sci5tific description1 is fully borne out by our actual exp]i5ce ( ! results ( our sci5tific !ories4 ,j because we _c ultimately r$uce all *emical & biological processes to m]e quantitative *anges 9 a mat]ial ( uni=m quality1 we are unable to pr$ict ) absolute confid5ce ! precise result ( a concrete *emical exp]im5t1 & /ill m unable to =etell ! precise behavi\r ( a liv+ organism4 ,h5ce foll[ two v important results4 7#a7 ,!re is a real practical ju/ification = ! attempt1 z f> z possible1 to treat ! *emical & biological ph5om5a z if !y 7 simply m complicat$ in/ances ( ! relations famili> to u 9 ,me*anics4 ,= ?\gh !y are n really purely me*anical1 x is only 9 s f> z we c treat !m )\t appreciable error z exactly measurable t !y admit 9 pr9ciple ( calculation4 7#b7 ,at ! same "t1 !re is also ample ju/ification = ! use ( qualitative & teleological categories 9 ,*emi/ry & ,biology4 ,= ! int]e/s :i* *emical & biological k subs]ve are n limit$ by our ne$ = practical rules = int]v5tion 9 ! c\rse ( nature4 ,ov] & above ?is orig9al sci5tific int]e/1 :i* c only be gratifi$ by a me*anical treatm5t ( ! subject1 we h an /hetic int]e/ 9 ! s]ial gr\p+ ( processes accord+ to _! qualitative aff9ities1 & an hi/orical int]e/ 9 trac+ ! successive modifications :i* h l$ to ! e/abli%m5t ( a relatively /able =m ( human social exi/5ce4 ,9 s f> z ! *emical & biological sci5ces involve ! recognition ( qualitative di/9ctions & ! consequ5t use ( categories :i* are non-me*anical1 x is ^! /hetic & hi/orical int]e/s1 & n ! prim>y sci5tific int]e/ 9 ! control ( natural ph5om5a1 :i* are subs]v$ by _! elaboration4 ,h5ce1 :ile ,*emi/ry & ,biology1 ev5 ap>t f ! possibility ( _! conv]sion into bran*es ( appli$ ,me*anics1 are ess5tially descriptive sci5ces1 ! task fulfill$ by !m1 s f> z !y use qualitative & teleological categories1 is "o ( /hetic & hi/orical r ?an ( prop]ly sci5tific description4 ,& /hetic & hi/orical description1 hav+ ano!r object ?an t ( purely sci5tific description1 are "u no necessity to con=m to ! po/ulates impos$ on ! latt] by ! special "* ( ! int]e/s x aims at satisfy+4 ,?us we c see h[ ! "r ( ,*emi/ry & ,biology to be reg>d$ z some?+ m ?an m]e appli$ ,me*anics1 c be reconcil$ ) ,kant's pr(\ndly true ass]tion t any bran* ( k conta9s j s mu* sci5ce z x conta9s ( ,ma!matics4 ,:5 we come1 9 connection ) ! special problems ( ! foll[+ ,book1 to discuss ! aims & me?ods ( ,psy*ology1 we %all f9d 9 t /udy a /ill m /rik+ example ( ! way 9 :i* ! n>r[ly 8sci5tific0 int]e/ may play a m>k$ly subord9ate "p 9 det]m9+ ! proc$ure ( a bran* ( k :i* mu/1 because ( its sy/ematic "*1 be call$ a 8sci5ce0 9 ! wid] acceptation ( ! t]m4#afe #f4 ,s9ce x is only complete & all-embrac+ k :i* c be 9 ! la/ resort a completely self-conta9$ & self-expla9+ sy/em1 we mu/ expect to f9d t ! concepts employ$ 9 ! me*anical int]pretation ( ! physical ord] lead u into contradiction ! mom5t we try to treat !m z a complete acc\nt ( ! concrete nature ( ! :ole ( ,reality4 ,?is is %[n m p>ticul>ly 9 two ways4 ,on ! "o h&1 ! application ( ! categories ( ,me*anics to ! :ole ( ,reality leads inevitably to ! indef9ite regress4 ,on ! o!r1 9 _! legitimate application to a less] "p ( exi/5ce !y are all demon/rably relative1 t is1 !y always appe> z "o aspect ( a fact :i* has o!r aspects1 & )\t ^! o!r aspects w\ld h no mean+4 ,x is wor? our :ile to consid] bo? ^! po9ts 9 "s detail4 ,= ! successful application ( ! me*anical view to ! physical ord]1 we ne$ to treat t ord] z consi/+ ( ! *ang+ configurations ( a :ole ( qualitatively homog5e\s relat$ p>ts4 ,any dep>ture f ?is po9t ( view w\ld involve ! recognition ( diff]5ces :i* _c be treat$ z m]ely quantitative1 z m]e subjects = calculation & pr$iction1 & w\ld ?us necessitate ! introduction ( a non-me*anical factor into our int]pretation ( ! univ]se4 ,! me*anical view1 fully c>ri$ out1 ?us involves ! conception ( ! univ]se z a sy/em ext5d$ & ord]$ 9 space & "t1 & capable ( spatial & temporal *ange1 b manife/+ a quantitative id5tity ?r\gh\t its *anges4 ,9 ! actual con/ructions ( physical sci5ce ?is quantitative id5tity is repres5t$ pr9cipally by ! pr9ciples ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass & ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy4 ,bo? ^! latt] pr9ciples are ?us1 9 _! g5]al =m1 nei!r axioms ( k nor v]ifiable empirical facts1 b a "p ( ! g5]al me*anical po/ulate4 ,!re is no ultimate logical pr9ciple 9 virtue ( :i* we are con/ra9$ to ?9k ( ! p>ticul> quantities we d5ote z mass & en]gy z incapable ( increase or dim9ution1 nor aga9 h we any exp]im5tal means ( prov+ t ^? quantities are m ?an approximately con/ant4#aff ,x is1 h[ev]1 a necess>y condition ( success 9 calculat+ ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 t !re %\ld be "s quantitative id5tity :i* rema9s unaffect$ 9 ! v>i\s processes ( physical *ange1 & x is *iefly 9 ! special =ms ( ! quantitative con/ancy ( ,mass & ,en]gy t we seem at pres5t able to give def9ite expression to ?is a priori po/ulate ( me*anical con/ruction4 ,n[1 ) reg>d to spatial & temporal direction & position1 we h se5 already bo? t !y are always relative1 position & direction be+ only def9able ) respect to o!r positions & directions arbitr>ily select$ to s]ve z /&>ds ( ref]5ce1 & t1 :5 tak5 z ultimate realities1 !y involve ! indef9ite regress4 ,x only rema9s to %[ t ! same is true ( ! o!r fundam5tal concepts ( ! me*anical s*eme1 mass & en]gy4 ,tak+ ! two sep>ately1 we may deal fir/ ( all ) ! notion ( mass4 ,! mass ( a mat]ial sy/em is (t5 loosely spok5 ( z its 8quantity ( matt]10 b requires1 = ! purposes ( logical analysis1 a m precise def9ition4 ,su* a def9ition may be giv5 9 ! foll[+ way4 ,9 ord] to expla9 :at is meant by ! con/ancy ( ! mass ( a body1 x is necess>y to consid] ! mutual relations ( at lea/ ?ree diff]5t bodies1 :i* we w call ,a1 ,b1 & ,c4 ,x is f\nd t1 at a giv5 di/ance1 9 ! pres5ce ( ,a1 ,c receives an accel]ation m1 & 9 ! pres5ce ( ,b a second accel]ation n2 !n ! mass ( ,a is said to /& to t ( ,b 9 ! ratio m_/n1 :i* is ! ratio ( ! accel]ations :i* !y respectively produce on ,c1 & ?is ratio is con/ant1 :atev] body we *oose = ,c4 ,h5ce1 if we arbitr>ily take ,b z our unit = ! measurem5t ( mass1 ! mass ( ,a z det]m9$ by ! =ego+ exp]im5t w be repres5t$ by ! numb] m4 ,by ! pr9ciple ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass is meant ! doctr9e t ! ratio m_/n z above det]m9$ does n alt] ) ! lapse ( "t4#afg ,t is1 ! ratio betwe5 ! accel]ations produc$ by any pair ( bodies or a ?ird body is con/ant & indep5d5t ( ?is ?ird body itself4 ,?is proposition is v]ifiable approximately by direct exp]im5t = a p>ticul> pair ( bodies1 b :5 affirm$ z univ]sally true becomes a "p ( ! g5]al me*anical po/ulate4 ,n[1 x is obvi\s f ! =ego+ explanation ( ! mean+ ( mass 7#a7 t mass is a relative t]m4 ,x is a "n = a c]ta9 con/ant ratio :i* requires no less ?an ?ree di/9ct t]ms = its complete def9ition4 ,h5ce !re w\ld be no mean+ 9 ascrib+ mass to ! :ole physical ord] or 8univ]se40 ,! 8univ]se0 c\ld only h a mass z a :ole if !re 7 "s body outside ! univ]se1 b capable ( int]action ) x1 s t we c\ld comp>e ! relative accel]ations1 9 ! pres5ce ( ?is body1 ( ! :ole 8physical univ]se10 & ( our arbitr>ily select$ unit ( mass4 ,b ! 8univ]se10 by supposition1 conta9s all physical exi/5ce1 & !re is !re=e no su* accel]at+ body outside x4 ,h5ce we _c say1 )\t an implicit contradiction1 t ! :ole ( exi/5ce possesses ! prop]ty ( mass1 nor a =tiori t its mass is con/ant4 ,x is only subord9ate p>ts ( ! univ]se to :i* ! pr9ciple ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,mass c be intelligibly appli$4 7#b7 ,x is also cle> t ! mass ( a body is only "o aspect ( a :ole ( exi/5ce :i* possesses o!r aspects1 n reg>d$ 9 our me*anical con/ructions4 ,! bodies :i* actually exhibit a con/ant ratio 9 _! accel]ations h o!r prop]ties ov] & above ! fact ( ?is con/ant ratio4 ,!y h always1 9 actual fact1 qualitative diff]5ces f "o ano!r & f o!r ?+s1 :i* we disreg>d 9 our me*anical treatm5t ( !m because !y make no diff]5ce to ?is special prop]ty1 9 :i* = purposes ( calculation we are peculi>ly int]e/$4 ,x is by ! b>e/ & mo/ palpable ( ab/ractions t1 9 ,me*anics1 we treat bodies z if !y 7 masses & no?+ m4 ,?us ! facts tak5 into acc\nt by ! me*anical int]pretation ( nature are1 s f> z its r$uction ( bodies to masses is conc]n$1 a m]e aspect ( a full] reality :i* we treat z equival5t to ! :ole = no bett] reason ?an ! practical "o t x suits a special object ( our own t x %\ld be s equival5t1 & t ?is object is empirically f\nd to be atta9$ by reg>d+ x z equival5t4 ,precisely ! same is ! case ) ! complem5t>y concept ( ,en]gy4 ,! k9etic en]gy1 or capacity ( a body = do+ "w aga9/ resi/ance1 is f\nd exp]im5tally to be measur$ by half ! squ>e ( its velocity multipli$ by its mass4 ,x is fur!r f\nd by exp]im5t t1 s f> z we c measure1 ! en]gy ( a mat]ial sy/em n act$ ^u f )\t rema9s con/ant4 ,t ! con/ancy is absolute is1 ( c\rse1 once m n a matt] = direct empirical pro(1 b a "p ( ! po/ulate t ! physical ord] %all be capable ( a me*anical int]pretation4 ,n[ we c see at once1 f :at has be5 previ\sly said ( ! concept ( ,mass1 t ! physical ord] or 8univ]se0 z a :ole _c be intelligibly said to possess k9etic en]gy1 :e!r con/ant or o!rwise4 ,:at _c be said to h mass cle>ly _c h a prop]ty only explicable 9 t]ms ( mass4 ,we might inde$ h inf]r$ ! same consequ5ce directly f ! def9ition ( en]gy z capacity = do+ 8"w0 9 ov]com+ resi/ance4 ,! 8univ]se10 hav+ no?+ outside itself1 c h no s\rce ( possible resi/ance to ov]come1 & !re=e _c be ?\ght ( z do+ 8"w40 ,h5ce1 once m1 x is only ! p>ts ( ! physical ord]1 consid]$ z p>ts1 to :i* en]gy c be ascrib$4 7#c7 ,aga91 x is ev5 m evid5t 9 ! case ( en]gy ?an 9 ! case ( mass1 t we are deal+ ) "o aspect s+l$ out by ab/raction f a :ole possess$ ( o!r aspects n reg>d$ 9 a purely me*anical con/ruction4 ,= 7a7 ! capacity = "w ( an actual body does n always exi/ 9 ! 8k9etic0 =m ( actual motion4 ,!re are v>i\s =ms ( non-k9etic en]gy1 su* z1 e4g41 ! en]gy ( 8position0 ( a re/+ body1 ! heat ( a body ( high] temp]ature ?an its surr\nd+s1 :i* ,me*anics treats z equival5t to 8k9etic0 en]gy1 because !y are !oretically capable ( be+ conv]t$ into x4 ,& ^! =ms ( non-k9etic en]gy are qualitatively diff]5t bo? f en]gy ( actual motion & f ea* o!r4 ,x is by a m]e ab/raction t we treat !m z id5tical because !y are1 = c]ta9 special purposes1 equival5t4 ,! qualitative diff]5ces may make no diff]5ce ) respect to a p>ticul> purpose ( our own1 b !y are none ! less really !re4 ,aga91 ! me*anical s*eme itself is q insuffici5t to expla9 :y or :5 ^! diff]5t =ms ( en]gy are replac$ by "o ano!r4 ,z has be5 well said by ,pr(essor ,w>d1 ! doctr9e ( ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy ass]ts no m ?an t a c]ta9 quantitative id5tity is ma9ta9$ 9 all ex*anges ( en]gy4 ,b :5 or 9 :at direction ^! ex*anges %all take place1 ! pr9ciple itself does n enable u to say4 ,?us1 to take a simple example3 if ,i "k ! mass ( a /one lodg$ on a ro(1 ! height ( ! ro( f ! gr\nd1 & ! accel]ation produc$ by gravity at ! spot 9 "q1 ,i c det]m9e ! 8pot5tial en]gy0 ( ! /one4 ,b my data tell me no?+ z to :e!r ?is pot5tial en]gy w rema9 = ev] 9 its pot5tial =m1 or :e!r ! /one w yet be dislodg$ & its en]gy conv]t$ into k9etic %ape1 & if s1 :54 ,! pr9ciples ( ! me*anical int]pretation ( nature are ?us inadequate to describe ! concrete c\rse ( ev5ts 9 s simple a case z t ( ! fall ( a /one4 ,if ! /one falls1 !n by ! aid ( ! me*anical po/ulate ,i c describe "o aspect ( ! process1 namely1 ! am\nt ( k9etic en]gy :i* w be evolv$2 & aga91 if c]ta9 previ\s conditions are fulfill$1 e4g41 if ! support gives way1 & if ! desc5t ( ! /one is n previ\sly arre/$1 ! me*anical po/ulate enables me to inf] t ! /one w fall & w rea* ! gr\nd ) j ?is k9etic en]gy4 ,b ,i c nev] escape1 s long z ,i keep )9 ! me*anical s*eme1 f ?is necessity ( hypo!tically assum+ z giv5 data :i* ! me*anical s*eme itself _c fully det]m9e4 ,all ^! consid]ations %[ h[ ! v nature ( ! me*anical s*eme itself ju/ifies our previ\s conclusion1 t x is 9 all its details simply ! expression ( a po/ulate creat$ by our practical ne$ t ! c\rse ( nature %all admit ( calculation ) suffici5t exactitude = ! devis+ ( successful rules = int]v5tion 9 x1 b logically incapable ( be+ )\t contradiction reg>d$ z ! real tru? ab\t any concrete natural process4 ,! int]nal evid5ce1 d]iv$ f exam9ation ( ! fundam5tal concepts ( sci5tific ,me*anism1 ?us confirms ! view we h already adopt$ on diff]5t gr\nds1 t ! :ole physical ord] is m]ely ! appe>ance ( a m ultimate reality ( a k9d ak9 to our own s5ti5t & purposive life4 ,at ! same "t1 our exam9ation ( me*anism may s]ve to ?r[ "s useful light on ! (t5 misconceiv$ anti!sis betwe5 ,reality & ,appe>ance4 ,we call ! physical ord]1 z conceiv$ by me*anical sci5ce1 8appe>ance10 n because we reg>d x z illusory or deceptive 9 itself1 or because x is n ! manife/ation ( a true reality1 b because x takes acc\nt only ( ^? p>ticul> aspects ( ,reality :i* are important & significant = c]ta9 v special purposes4 ,:at appe>s to u z ! physical ord] is1 inde$1 true ,reality1 & is1 9 fact1 an integral "p ( ! only ,reality !re is1 b x appe>s to u 9 ?is special =m & "u ^! special re/rictions because we h arbitr>ily exclud$ e o!r aspect ( ! concrete facts f our purview by ! *oice ( our initial po/ulates ( descriptive sci5ce4 ,by ! nature ( ! special que/ions we put to our _w1 9 our physical sci5ce1 we det]m9e 9 advance = ourselves ! g5]al "* ( ! answ] we are to receive4 ,rigidly sci5tific inve/igation1 = in/ance1 f9ds me*anical det]m9ation ev]y:]e 9 ! _w1 & purposive spontaneity n[h]e1 j because x has previ\sly resolv$ t x w accept 8me*anical explanation0 & no?+ else z ! answ] to its que/ions4 ,s f> z we be> 9 m9d ! pres5ce ( ^! self-impos$ logical limitations ?r\gh\t our me*anical sci5ce1 _! exi/5ce ne$ lead to no illusion or deception4 ,! success ( our me*anical po/ulates %[s t1 )9 ! sph]e ( _! logical applicability1 ! c\rse ( ! _w does really con=m to !m1 & ?us ! results won by _! application are g5u9e tru?1 s f> z !y g4 ,x is only :5 we =get ! limits set to ! logical applicability ( ! me*anical po/ulates1 by ! special nature ( ! int]e/s !y subs]ve1 & proce$ to treat !m z logically indisp5sable conditions ( all exi/5ce & all k1 t ! tru?s ( me*anical sci5ce are p]v]t$ into ! illusions & falsehoods ( a me*anical philosophy4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #aa 7,ph5om5alism71 #bb 7,nature72 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 ii4 *aps4 #g1 #h2 ,e4 ,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 *ap4 #b1 #e1 p4 #baf ff42 ,k4 ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 *aps4 #g1 #h2 ,h4 ,po9c>1 ,la ,sci5ce et ,l',hypo?se1 p>ts #c & #d1 *aps4 #f-aj2 ,j4 ,b4 ,/alle1 ,concepts & ,!ories ( ,mod]n ,physics1 *aps4 #b-f1 #aj-ab2 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 i4 lects4 #b-f4 ----- ,footnote #afa3 ,&1 aga91 ! int]m$iate l9ks !mselves1 h[ev] imp]ceptible1 h always to be ?\ght ( z exhibit+ prop]ties id5tical 9 k9d ) ^? ( objects giv5 9 direct pres5tation4 ,z ,mill said1 a hypo!sis :i* assumes at once an entirely unfamili> ag5t & an equally unfamili> mode or law ( op]ation1 w\ld be useless4 ,?us ! imp]ceptibles ( sci5tific hypo!sis belong ess5tially to ! physical ord]4 ,footnote #afb3 ,?is is ! *>act]i/ic select$ by ,pr(4 ,mn/]b]g z ! basis ( 8 own di/9ction betwe5 8physical0 or 8sup]9dividual0 & 8psy*ical0 or 8individual0 objects4 ,see ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 i4 #ae-gg4 ,footnote #afc3 ,cf4 ,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 p4 #d4 ,ma*1 h[ev]1 errone\sly z ,i ?9k1 makes ! int]communication a second>y consequ5ce ( ! rise ( specialis$ indu/rial classes4 ,footnote #afd3 ,i4e41 ! me*anical view ( ,nature1 to be ?or\ghly self-consi/5t1 mu/ be purely me*ani/ic4 ,footnote #afe3 ,to put ! matt] m succ9ctly1 z reg>ds ! position ( ,*emi/ry & ,biology1 we may say t :ile *emical & biological facts are nev] m]ely me*anical1 *emical & biological sci5ce1 s f> z !y subs]ve ! /rictly sci5tific int]e/ ( calculation & ! =mulation ( g5]al rules1 mu/ always be s4 ,! facts only l5d !mselves to ?is special purpose 9 s f> z !y admit ( be+1 )\t s5sible error1 treat$ z if !y con=m$ to ! po/ulates ( univ]sal ,me*anism4 ,! special & m difficult case ( psy*ological facts ,i res]ve = sep>ate discussion 9 ! foll[+ ,book 7infra1 ,bk4 ,,iv4 *ap4 #a74 ,i am glad to be able to ref] ! read]1 = a view ( ! logical wor? ( ! me*anical po/ulates :i* appe>s 9 pr9ciple id5tical ) my own1 to ! int]e/+ discussion ( ,mr4 ,w4 ,r4 ,b4 ,gibson 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism1 p4 #add ff4 ,footnote #aff3 ,comp>e ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bc1 note #b to p4 #cca 7#a/ ed472 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 ii4 *ap4 #g1 pp4 #bji1 #baj 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 ii4 p4 #hi ff472 ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 i4 pp4 #hd-ia 7,cons]vation ( ,mass71 #agj-aha 7,cons]vation ( ,en]gy74 ,footnote #afg3 ,if we m]ely desir$ to fix ! s5se ( ! t]m mass )\t introduc+ ! concept ( con/ant mass1 we might ( c\rse consid] two bodies only1 ,a & ,b4 ,!n ! ratio mass ( ,b accel]ation ( ,a 9 pres5ce ( ,b --------- ---------------------------------- mass ( ,a accel]ation ( ,b 9 pres5ce ( ,a4 ,see ,ma*1 ,sci5ce ( ,me*anics1 p4 #baf ff42 & ,pe>son1 ,gramm> ( ,sci5ce1 p4 #cjb 7#bnd ed471 on :i* ! above acc\nt is bas$4 ----- ,,book ,,iv ,,rational ,,psy*ology3 ,,! ,,int]pretation ,,( ,,life ,,*apt] ,i ,,! ,,logical ,,"* ,,( ,,psy*ological ,,sci5ce #a4 ,! v>i\s sci5ces :i* deal ) ! int]pretation ( human life all avail !mselves ( ! fundam5tal categories ( ,psy*ology4 ,h5ce we mu/ ask h[ ! concepts ( ,psy*ology are relat$ to actual exp]i5ce4 #b4 ,psy*ology is a body ( ab/ract descriptive =mul1 n a direct transcript ( ! individual processes ( real life4 ,x presupposes ! previ\s con/ruction ( ! physical ord]4 #c4 ,! psy*ological conception ( consci\s life z a succession ( 8m5tal /ates0 or 8images0 is a trans=mation ( actual exp]i5ce devis$ prim>ily to acc\nt = ! exp]i5ce ( o!r subjects1 & subsequ5tly ext5d$ to my own4 ,! trans=mation is effect$ by ! hypo!sis ( 8introjection40 #d1 #e4 ,! logical ju/ification ( ! psy*ological trans=mation ( facts is tw(old4 ,! psy*ological s*eme s]ves p>tly to fill up ! gaps 9 our !ories ( physiological ,me*anism1 & also1 9 respect ( ! teleological categories ( ,psy*ology1 to describe ! c\rse ( human conduct 9 a =m capable ( e?ical & hi/orical appreciation4 ,psy*ology may legitimately employ bo? me*anical & teleological categories4 #f4 ,! objections sometimes br\ght aga9/ ! possibility ( 7a7 psy*ological1 7b7 teleological description are unt5able4 #a4 ,! net result ( our brief exam9ation ( "s ( ! mo/ important cosmological concepts has be5 to confirm u 9 ! 8ideali/ic0 or 8spirituali/ic0 int]pretation ( exi/5ce to :i* our fir/ two books 9 pr9ciple committ$ u4 ,! read] :o has foll[$ u s f> ) acquiesc5ce w n[ be fully prep>$ to admit t we %all at lea/ be ne>] ! tru? 9 conceiv+ ! univ]se z compos$ ( s5ti5t & purposive subjects ( exp]i5ce1 ak9 9 pr9ciple to ! memb]s ( human society1 ?an z con/itut$1 entirely or 9 "p1 ( me*anically int]act+ & int]dep5d5t elem5ts4 ,! acceptance ( an ideali/ int]pretation ( ! univ]se1 h[ev]1 /ill leaves u face to face ) a numb] ( problems ( ! grave/ philosophical import4 ,we h /ill to ask h[ 9 p>ticul> we c mo/ truly conceive ! sy/ematic unity :i* is =m$ by ! :ole multiplicity ( app>5tly m or less indep5d5t subjects ( exp]i5ce1 :at degree ( p]man5ce & individuality1 s f> z we c judge1 belongs to ourselves z memb]s ( t sy/em1 & :at light is ?r[n by our e?ical1 religi\s1 & /hetic aspirations & ideals on ! concrete "* ( ! :ole sy/em & on our own place 9 x4 ,aga91 be=e we c attack ^! mom5t\s problems ) any reasonable hope ( success1 we %all ne$ to "k :i* among ! categories employ$ by ! v>i\s sci5ces deal+ ) m5tal life are ( fundam5tal significance1 & :at is ! logical relation ( ^? sci5ces to ! concrete realities ( imm$iate exp]i5ce1 & to ! con/ructions ( physical sci5ce4 ,only on ! basis ( a rational !ory z to ! purposes subs]v$ by ! v>i\s m5tal sci5ces1 & ! possible limitations impos$ by ^? purposes on ! use ( ! correspond+ categories1 c we decide h[ f> ! int]pretation ( exi/5ce z a :ole 9 t]ms ( ,psy*ology1 ,sociology1 or ,e?ics1 is legitimate4 ,x is cle> t ! complete execution ( ! programme indicat$ 9 ! previ\s p>agraph w\ld involve a sy/ematic philosophical int]pretation ( ! significance ( human life = :i* "s su* "n z ! ,metaphysics ( ,society or ,metaphysics ( ,hi/ory w\ld be a m adequate designation ?an ! traditional title ( ,rational ,psy*ology4 ,i h1 h[ev]1 reta9$ ! anci5t "n = ?is subdivision ( our task1 ma9ly on ! gr\nd t our own elem5t>y discussion w be prim>ily conc]n$ ) ^? mo/ simple & univ]sal psy*ological concepts ( :i* ! v>i\s m concrete social & hi/orical sci5ces make ! same con/ant use z *emi/ry & ! o!r physical sci5ces d ( ! me*anical concepts ( mass1 en]gy1 velocity1 etc4 ,:atev] view we adopt ( ! precise degree ( connection betwe5 ,psy*ology on ! "o side & ! v>i\s social & hi/orical sci5ces on ! o!r1 x is at lea/ manife/ t ,e?ics1 ,sociology1 ,hi/ory1 & ! re/ all involve ! con/ant use ( su* psy*ological categories z ^? ( self1 w1 ?\ght1 fre$om1 & t ?us any s\nd metaphysical int]pretation ( hi/ory & society mu/ beg9 ) inve/igation into ! logical "* ( ! sci5ce to :i* ^! concepts belong1 j z a s\nd ,metaphysic ( nature _h to />t by an exam9ation ( ! po/ulates ( ,me*anics4 ,i suppose t !re is no ne$ to utt] m ?an a pass+ ^w by way ( rem9d] to ! read]1 t su* an inve/igation presupposes ! previ\s creation ( a purely empirical sci5ce ( ,psy*ology4 ,! bus9ess ( ,metaphysics ) ,psy*ology is n to dictate 9 advance h[ x mu/ con/ruct its view ( ! _w1 b to asc]ta9 ! logical "* ( ! complet$ con/ruction1 & its relation to ! g5]al sy/em ( human k4 #b4 ,! ,place ( ,psy*ology among ! ,sci5ces4--,f ! metaphysician's po9t ( view1 x is ( ! utmo/ importance to recognise cle>ly & con/antly t ,psy*ology1 l ! o!r sci5ces1 deals ?r\gh\t n ) ! actual exp]i5ces ( real subjects1 b ) 8data0 obta9$ by ! artificial manipulation & trans=mation ( actual exp]i5ce into a %ape dictat$ by c]ta9 special int]e/s & purposes4 ,?is is a po9t ^u :i* ! ideali/ metaphysician1 9 p>ticul>1 is peculi>ly liable to g wrong :5 left to himself4 ,/>t+ ) ! conviction t ! key to ! nature ( exi/5ce z a :ole is to be f\nd 9 our own direct exp]i5ce ( our s5ti5t & purposive life1 he almo/ inevitably t5ds1 unless he has giv5 p>ticul> att5tion to ! me?odology ( psy*ological sci5ce1 to take x = grant$ t ! concepts & hypo!ses ( ! psy*ologi/ af=d a description ( ?is exp]i5ce 9 its concrete directness1 & may !re=e be treat$ )\t misgiv+ z a fruitful s\rce ( c]ta9 k ab\t ! inmo/ /ructure ( ! absolute or inf9ite individual itself4 ,& ev5 ! reit]at$ demon/ration t "o or ano!r ( ! curr5t categories ( ,psy*ology _c be pr$icat$ ( ! absolute :ole ( reality )\t flagrant contradiction1 frequ5tly fails to produce conviction :]e x is n accompani$ by direct pro( ( ! artificiality & remot5ess f concrete actuality ( ! psy*ologi/'s data4 ,h5ce x w\ld be worse ?an useless to discuss su* que/ions z1 :e!r ! inf9ite individual c prop]ly be ?\ght ( z a 8self0 or an 8e?ical p]son10 or aga9 z a 8society ( e?ical p]sons10 or aga9 :e!r f9ite 8selves0 are 8et]nal0 or only transitory con/itu5ts ( ! _w-sy/em1 )\t fir/ arriv+ at "s def9ite view z to ! way 9 :i* ^! psy*ological concepts are d]iv$ f ! concrete actualities ( exp]i5ce1 ! special int]e/s :i* lead to _! =mulation1 & ! re/rictions impos$ by ^? int]e/s on ! sph]e ( _! valid application4 ,t ,psy*ology1 l all descriptive sci5ce1 deals ?r\gh\t ) data :i* are n concrete exp]i5ce-realities1 b artificial products ( a process ( ab/raction & recon/ruction1 %\ld be suffici5tly cle> f ! v consid]ation t1 l ! o!r sci5ces1 x is a body ( g5]al descriptions ( typical situations4 ,an actual process ( kn[+ or act+1 l e actual ev5t1 is always individual1 & because ( its individuality defies adequate description4 ,x is only 9 s f> z a situation admits ( be+ g5]alis$ by ! selection ( c]ta9 ( its aspects or qualities z repres5tative ( its :ole reality1 t x is capable ( be+ describ$ at all4 ,ev5 ,hi/ory & ,biography1 9 :i* ! teleological int]pretation ( a s]ies ( ev5ts z int]nally unit$ by ! s+l5ess ( ! purpose und]ly+ !m takes ! place ( ext]nal connection 9 accord ) me*anical laws ( sequ5ce z ! ideal ( explanation1 are only possible on ! condition t su* trans=mation ( ! concrete realities ( life z is impli$ 9 su* a degree ( ab/raction & recon/ruction c be c>ri$ out )\t detrim5t to ! special int]e/s ( ! hi/orian & ! biograph]4 ,& ,psy*ology is unreal & ab/ract ev5 z comp>$ ) hi/ory4 ,x provides u ) g5]al =mul :i* are1 or %\ld be1 valuable z af=d+ a means ( describ+ c]ta9 univ]sal features ( ! processes ( will+ & kn[+ :i* x is desirable to /udy 9 isolation1 b x is ( itself z incapable ( adequately trac+ ! actual c\rse ( a real process ( will+ or ?9k+1 z ,me*anics is ( foll[+ ! actual c\rse ( a real individual process 9 8ext]nal0 nature4 ,9 ?is respect ! concepts & =mul ( sci5tific ,psy*ology /& on precisely ! same foot+1 z reg>ds _! relation to ! individual & actual1 z d ^? ( sci5tific ,physics4 ,_! tru? & validity means simply t by sub/itut+ !m = concrete actualities we c get answ]s to c]ta9 special que/ions :i* we h an int]e/ 9 solv+1 n t !y are unalt]$ transcripts ( ! actualities !mselves4 ,?is is p]haps mo/ /rik+ly %[n by obs]v+ t ! v exi/5ce ( ,psy*ology z a di/9ct bran* ( sci5ce presupposes t artificial sev]ance ( ! unity ( direct exp]i5ce into a physical ord] & a non-physical realm ext]nal to t ord]1 ( :i* we h already inve/igat$ ! orig94 ,psy*ology has no subject-matt] at all until we h fir/1 = ! practical reasons already discuss$1 con/ruct$ ! physical ord] by ! inclusion 9 x ( all ^? exp]i5ce-cont5ts :i* are equally accessible "u specifi$ conditions to ! obs]vation ( a plurality ( subjects1 & !n gone on to assign to ! realm ( 8psy*ical0 or 8m5tal0 exi/5ce :atev] exp]i5ce-cont5ts fall outside ! sy/em s def9$4 ,& ?is :ole sep>ation ( ! physical & ! psy*ical or m5tal1 z we h already se51 has no place 9 ! direct exp]i5ce ( actual life4 ,9 actual life1 until we come to recon/ruct x 9 ?\ght = ! purposes ( description & calculation1 !re are nei!r mat]ial bodies nor 8immat]ial m9ds0 or 8consci\snesses0 :i* are 890 !m or 8animate0 !m2 !re are simply s5ti5t & purposive be+s & ! environm5t ( ?+s to :i* !y h to adju/ !mselves 9 ! execution ( _! purposes4 ,h[ & = :at reasons ?is navely reali/ic view ( exi/5ce comes to give place to ! duali/ic conception ( a physical _w & a plurality ( non-physical be+s 9 relation ) x1 we h already se5 9 our /udy ( ! me?odology ( ! physical sci5ces4 ,we h n[ to foll[ ! developm5t ( ! duali/ic l9e ( ?\ght some:at fur!r1 be=e we c see precisely :at is ! "* ( ! logical recon/ruction ( actual exp]i5ce presuppos$ by ! exi/5ce ( a sci5ce ( ,psy*ology4 #c4 ,z we h already le>n$1 our recognition ( ! actuality ( our own & our fell[-m5's life ( unique & incommunicable feel+ compell$ u to admit ! exi/5ce ( mu* t1 f its incommunicable nature1 falls outside ! sph]e ( physical reality4 ,we h n[ to see h[ ,psy*ology1 9 tak+ ?is non-physical exi/5ce z its subject-matt]1 conceives ( its mode ( exi/5ce & its relation to ! subject-matt] ( ! physical sci5ces4 ,9 rec5t ye>s1 mu* light has be5 ?r[n ^u ! me?odological problem 9 "q by ! lab\rs ( ,av5>ius & 8 foll[]s1 f :om ! sub/ance ( our acc\nt w be l>gely drawn4 ,:at ,av5>ius has = ! fir/ "t made p]fectly cle> is1 t ! psy*ological int]pretation ( our own exp]i5ce is ?r\gh\t bas$ ^u read+ into t exp]i5ce a !ory orig9ally devis$ to meet a difficulty sugge/$ by ! exi/5ce ( our fell[-m54 ,we h already se51 9 deal+ ) ! subjectivi/'s fallacy1 :at ?is difficulty is4 ,s long z ,i am conc]n$ only ) ! analysis ( my own exp]i5ce1 !re is no?+ to sugge/ ! di/9ction betwe5 a physical & a psy*ical aspect ( exi/5ce4 ,all t ,i require1 or r all t ,i %\ld require _h ,i any int]e/ 9 analys+ my own exp]i5ce indep5d5t ( ! ne$ = int]communication1 is ! simpl] & m primitive di/9ction betwe5 myself z "o ?+ 9 ! _w & ! o!r ?+s :i* =m my environm5t4 ,b ! case is alt]$ :5 ,i come1 aft] ! creation ( ! concept ( a physical ord]1 to analyse ! exp]i5ce ( my fell[-m54 ,my fell[-m51 on ! "o h&1 belong to ! physical ord]1 &1 z belong+ to x1 are kn[n to me z objects cognisable ?r\gh my s5ses4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x is necess>y = all ! purposes ( practical int]c\rse to cr$it !m ) ! same k9d ( s5ti5ce & feel+ :i* ,i directly "k 9 myself4 ,?is s5ti5ce & feel+ are1 ( c\rse1 inaccessible to ! p]ception ( my own s5ses2 ,i c see my fell['s eye & c he> 8 voice1 b ,i _c see t he sees or he> t he he>s4 ,my fell[ ?us comes to be ?\ght ( z hav+ a d\ble exi/5ce2 besides t aspect ( him 9 :i* he is simply "o among o!r ?+s p]ceiv$1 or 9 pr9ciple p]ceptible1 by my s5ses1 he has ano!r aspect1 n directly p]ceptible b necess>ily presuppos$ 9 all social relation ) him4 ,on ! side ( 8 body he belongs entirely to ! physical ord]2 b !re is1 associat$ ) ?is bodily exi/5ce1 ano!r side to him :i* ,i call 8 psy*ical aspect4 ,n[1 h[ mu/ ?is 8psy*ical aspect0 be suppos$ to be con/itut$ :5 once x has come to be ?us artificially sep>at$ 9 ?\ght f ! physical side ( my fell['s exi/5ce8 ,x is "h t ! !ory ( 8introjection10 z work$ out by ,av5>ius1 comes to our aid4 ,:5 ,i p]ceive any object directly1 )\t sophi/icat+ myself by devis+ psy*ological hypo!ses ab\t ! process1 :at ,i am aw>e ( is1 on ! "o side1 ! ?+ z a con/itu5t ( my environm5t1 &1 on ! o!r1 a v>iety ( movem5ts or impulses to movem5t 9 myself1 m>k$ by a peculi> tone ( satisfi$ or dissatisfi$ feel+1 & det]m9$ by ! relation 9 :i* ! ?+ 9 "q /&s to my v>i\s int]e/s4 ,b :5 ,i come to expla9 to myself :at is meant by my fell[-man's ass]tion t he also p]ceives ! same object1 a difficulty seems to arise :i* r5d]s ?is simple analysis inadequate4 ,! p]ceiv$ object1 ! sun = example1 appe>s to belong to my _w ( s5sible ?+s1 = ,i too see ! sun4 ,n s my fell[-man's p]ception ( x2 z ,i _c 8see him see+ ! sun10 s to say1 ,i f9d x h>d to und]/& h[ ! sun1 :i* is a ?+ 9 my s5sible _w1 c be an object = 8 p]ception1 :i* is n 9 my s5sible _w4 ,h5ce ,i draw ! inf]5ce t :ile ,i see ! actual sun1 ! cont5t ( my fell['s p]ception is an image or idea ( ! sun 7cf4 p4 #ha74 ,by ! ext5sion ( ?is process ( inf]5ce ,i come to ?9k ( ! non-physical aspect ( my fell['s exi/5ce z consi/+1 z a :ole1 ( a va/ complex ( successive ideas or images1 att5d$ ) _! *>act]i/ic tone ( satisfi$ & dissatisfi$ feel+2 z ?is s]ies ( 8m5tal /ates0 or 8ideas0 has n[ to be repres5t$ z 9 "s way relat$ to ! s5sible physical reality ,i call my fell['s body1 ,i imag9e x z go+ on 8)90 8 sk9 some:]e1 & ?us arrive at ! conception ( my fell[ z a duali/ic comp\nd ( a physical factor1 p]ceptible by my s5ses1 8 body1 & a non-physical factor1 compos$ ( a /ream ( 8m5tal images10 & imp]ceptible to s5se1 8 m9d4 ,"o fur!r /ep rema9s to be tak5 & ! "w ( 8introjection0 is complete4 ,t /ep is ! artificial re-int]pretation ( my own exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( ! di/9ction ,i h be5 l$ to e/abli% = ! case ( my fell[4 ,i come to ?9k ( my own consci\s life 9 t]ms ( ! di/9ction betwe5 body & m9d1 & to analyse :at z orig9ally exp]i5c$ 0 ! direct reaction ( a unit>y self ^u ! ?+s :i* =m$ its environm5t into a succession ( 8m5tal /ates0 or 8images0 go+ on 8)90 a body1 _! relation to :i* w yet =m a prom95t sci5tific problem4 ,n[1 x is only :5 ?is process ( 8introjection0 has rea*$ its f9al issue1 & ! actual life ( s5ti5t purposive int]c\rse ) ! o!r actual ?+s ( our environm5t has be5 replac$ 9 ?\ght by ! conception ( a m5tal succession ( 8images0 or 8cont5ts ( consci\sness10 tak5 to 8ref]0 to 8?+s0 :i* are !mselves 8outside consci\sness10 :ile ! felt unity ( exp]i5ce has giv5 way to ! radical sund]+ ( human exi/5ce into a physical & a psy*ical aspect1 t we h rea*$ ! po9t ( view f :i* psy*ological sci5ce takes its dep>ture4 ,only :5 ! actualities ( exp]i5ce h be5 artificially trans=m$ into 8m5tal /ates0 or 8images0 ( actualities by ! hypo!sis ( 8introjection10 & ?us def9itely con/itut$ into a non-physical ord]1 h we ! mat]ials = ! con/ruction ( a special sci5ce ( ! 8psy*ical side0 ( our nature4 ,psy*ology1 9 fact1 presupposes 8psy*ical /ates0 z ! mat]ial ( its /udies1 & 8psy*ical /ates0 are n data ( imm$iate exp]i5ce1 b symbols d]iv$ f & sub/itut$ = ! actual data ( exp]i5ce by an elaborately artificial me?od ( trans=mation4 ,h5ce we %\ld be committ+ a grave fallacy 9 ,logic if we 7 to argue t s9ce subjects ( exp]i5ce are ! sole real ?+s1 ! hypo!ses ( ,psy*ology mu/ be ! f9al metaphysical tru? ab\t ! _w4 ,:5 we attempt to criticise ! logical validity ( ! process ( 8introjection10 & ! sci5tific con/ructions ( a ,psy*ology built up on an introjectioni/ f\ndation1 we _c fail to obs]ve c]ta9 app>5t gross brea*es ( logic :i* affect x4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ! fundam5tal assumption t my fell['s 8m5tal life0 is compos$ ( 8images0 ( ! actual ?+s ( my own exp]i5ce1 is cle>ly at v>iance ) ! pr9ciple previ\sly impli$ 9 ! con/ruction1 = purposes ( co-op]ation1 ( ! physical ord] z compos$ ( ?+s equally accessible to ! p]ception ( a plurality ( individuals4 ,?is discrepancy is once m done away )1 :5 ! process ( introjection has be5 complet$1 by ! r$uction ( my own m5tal life to a succession ( images or /ates ( consci\sness1 b only at ! co/ ( =gett+ t ! orig9al motive to 8introjection0 0 a suppos$ disp>ity betwe5 my own & my fell['s relation to ! physical ?+s ( my environm5t4 ,h5ce x is n /range t ,av5>ius %\ld app>5tly hold ! :ole introjectioni/ trans=mation ( ! 8navely reali/ic0 /&po9t to be ess5tially fallaci\s1 & %\ld close 8 discussion ( ! subject ) ! proposition t all attempts to v>y ! 8natural view ( ! _w0 lead to sup]fluities or contradictions4#afh ,x does n1 h[ev]1 seem necess>y to foll[ him 9 ?is unfav\rable judgm5t4 ,inde$1 if we reflect t su* a ?or\gh-go+ rejection ( all ! results ( introjection mu/ involve z a consequ5ce ! repudiation ( ! :ole sci5ce ( ,psy*ology1 a sci5ce :i* may fairly be said to be at pres5t ab\t z fully ju/ifi$ by its successful gr[? z mo/ ( ! physical sci5ces1 we %all probably be incl9$ to hold t a process s fruitful 9 results mu/ h its logical ju/ification1 h[ev] artificial ! assumptions ^u :i* x re/s4 #d4 ,:at1 !n1 is ! logical ju/ification = t elaborate trans=mation ( exp]i5ce :i* is necess>y to br+ x into ! =m presuppos$ by psy*ological sci5ce8 ,9 pr9ciple ! "q is n h>d to answ]4 ,! 8ideas10 8m5tal /ates10 & s =?1 ( ,psy*ology are1 z we h se51 symbols :i* we sub/itute = c]ta9 concrete actualities1 &1 l all symbols1#afi !y only p>tially correspond to ! mat]ial !y symbolise4 ,b1 l o!r symbols1 !y are admissible z sub/itutes = ! ?+s symbolis$ on two conditions3 7#a7 t ! individual symbol corresponds to t :i* x symbolises accord+ to a def9ite & unambigu\s s*eme1 & 7#b7 t ! sub/itution ( ! symbol = ! ?+ symbolis$ is requir$ 9 ord] to make ! latt] am5able to su* manipulation z is necess>y = ! solution ( "s p>ticul> class ( problem4 ,n[1 !re c be no d\bt t ! fir/ ( ^! conditions is fulfill$ by ! translation ( our actual exp]i5ce into ! introjectioni/ symbols ( ,psy*ology4 ,= 9 ! ext]nal or 8physical0 ev5ts :i* correspond to a 8m5tal /ate10 ,i possess an unambigu\s means ( recognis+ ! actual exp]i5ce = :i* ! m5tal /ate 9 "q /&s 9 ! symbolism ( ,psy*ology4 ,if ! v>i\s physical 8conditions0 & =ms ( 8expression0 ( ! m5tal /ate are indicat$ ) suffici5t fulness & accuracy1 !y enable me to id5tify ! correspond+ actual exp]i5ce :5 x occurs 9 my own life1 or ev5 to produce x exp]im5tally = ! express purpose ( int]pret+ ! ,psy*ologi/'s symbolism4 ,! only "q1 !n1 t c reasonably be rais$ z to ! legitimacy ( psy*ological symbolism1 is ! "q :e!r su* a trans=mation ( ! actualities ( imm$iate exp]i5ce is dem&$ = ! atta9m5t ( "s specific purpose or int]e/4 ,x seems1 ,i ?9k1 t ! trans=mation is really requir$ = m purposes ?an "o4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 "o obvi\s use ( psy*ological hypo!ses is t1 l ! hypo!ses ( physical sci5ce1 !y assi/ u to calculate ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 9 s f> z x is indep5d5t ( purposive int]f]5ce ( our own1 & ?us to =m prud5tial rules = our own guidance 9 s int]f]+4 ,?is seems to be ! pr9cipal use ( ^? p>ts ( ,psy*ology :i* deal ) ! m me*anical aspects ( m5tal life1 e4g41 ! laws ( ! =mation ( fix$ habits & associations by repetition1 ! gradual pass+ ( volunt>y into involunt>y att5tion1 & s =?4 ,we are int]e/$ 9 /udy+ ! laws ( habit & association1 j z we are 9 =mulat+ me*anical laws ( physical nature1 because we require to guide ourselves by su* k :5ev] we directly & int5tionally int]f]e 9 ! life ( our fell[s = educational1 punitive1 or g5]al social purposes4 ,unless we c =eca/ ! way 9 :i* our fell[ w cont9ue to act1 s f> z 8 behavi\r is n modifi$ by fre% purposive initiative1 we %all be helpless to decide h[ we mu/ int]v5e 9 8 life to produce a giv5 desir$ effect4 ,simil>ly1 ! direct m\ld+ ( our own future 9 a desir$ direction w\ld be impossible ap>t f su* k ( :at t future is likely to be )\t int5tional direction4 ,x may be said1 ( c\rse1 ) ju/ice1 t1 s f> z ,psy*ology pres5ts u ) su* r\t9e uni=mities ( succession1 x is a m]e supplem5t>y device = mak+ good ! defects 9 our anatomical & physiological k4 ,if our physiological sci5ce 7 only suffici5tly ext5sive & m9ute1 we might reasonably expect to be able to describe ! :ole c\rse ( human action1 s f> z x is am5able to me*anical law1 & exhibits r\t9e uni=mity 9 purely physiological t]ms4 ,in/ead ( talk+ ab\t ! 8association0 ( 8ideas0 or ! production ( a 8habit0 by repetition1 we %\ld !n1 = in/ance1 be able to describe 9 physiological t]m9ology ! *anges effect$ 9 a c]ebral tract by ! simultane\s excitem5t ( two n]v\s c5tres1 & to write ! complete hi/ory ( ! process by :i* a p]man5t 8conduction-pa?0 arises f ! reit]ation ( ! excitem5t4 ,su* a def9ite sub/itution ( physiological = psy*ological hypo!ses is pretty evid5tly ! goal :i* ! mod]n 8exp]im5tal ,psy*ology0 has set be=e itself1 & :i* x is con/antly try+ to p]suade itself x has rea*$1 9 respect ( "s p>ts at lea/ ( its subject4 ,nor does !re seem any reason to d\bt t1 s9ce ! physiological c\nt]p>t ( a r\t9e uni=mity ( m5tal sequ5ce mu/ itself cle>ly be a r\t9e uni=mity1 all psy*ological laws ( uni=m me*anical sequ5ce might be ultimately replac$ by _! physiological equival5ts1 if only our k ( ! /ructure & functions ( ! n]v\s sy/em 7 suffici5tly advanc$4 ,h5ce ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g is p]fectly self-consi/5t 9 argu+ f ! premisses t ! sole function ( psy*ological sci5ce is to provide u ) me*anical uni=mities ( sequ5ce by ! aid :]e( to calculate ! future behavi\r ( our fell[s1 9 s f> z x is n modifi$ by fre% purposive initiative1 to ! conclusion t ! :ole ( ,psy*ology is a tempor>y /op-gap by :i* we eke out our defective ,physiology1 b :i* mu/ soon] or lat] cease to be ( use1 & !re=e cease to exi/ z ,physiology advances4#agj ,x w\ld1 ( c\rse1 rema9 true1 ev5 if we 7 to accept ?is view ( ! case )\t res]vation1 t ,psy*ology is1 9 ! pres5t /ate ( our k1 an indisp5sable adjunct to ,physiology4 ,=1 :ile our k ( ! physiology ( ! n]v\s sy/em is at pres5t too fragm5t>y & vague to be ( mu* practical use 9 enabl+ u to =eca/ ev5 ! simple/ sequ5ces 9 ! behavi\r ( our fell[s1 ,psy*ology is1 tempor>ily at lea/1 9 _m respects 9 a m advanc$ condition4 ,?us1 if x 7 necess>y1 be=e we c\ld inf] ! probable effects ( exposure to a p>ticul> /imulus on a man's behavi\r1 to frame a workable hypo!sis z to ! physiological occurr5ces 9 ! n]v\s sy/em betwe5 ! fir/ reception ( ! /imulus & ! issu+ ( ! ultimate bodily reaction1 we %\ld /ill be wait+ helplessly = ! means ( fram+ ! simple/ g5]al judgm5ts z to ! probable effects ( our actions on our social circle4 ,?is is because ! n]v\s *anges int]v5+ betwe5 ! reception ( ! /imulus & ! reaction c only be r5d]$ accessible to obs]vation by devices :i* po/ulate = _! inv5tion an extremely advanc$ condition ( physical sci5ce 9 g5]al & ( ,physiology 9 p>ticul>4 ,!re is no direct me?od ( translat+ ! actual processes :i* we exp]i5ce into an unambigu\s physiological symbolism1 or1 vice v]s1 ( te/+ a physiological hypo!sis by retranslat+ x into facts ( direct liv+ exp]i5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 :5 we h giv5 ! assum$ conditions ( ! occurr5ce ( ! /imulus1 x is comp>atively easy to obs]ve :at foll[s on !m 9 actual life1 & to translate x into ! introjectioni/ ,psy*ology1 or1 vice v]s1 to te/ a !ory c\*$ 9 t]ms ( t ,psy*ology by comp>ison ) ! actualities ( exp]i5ce4 ,= ?is reason psy*ological hypo!ses are1 9 ! pres5t /ate ( k1 an indisp5sable m$iat+ l9k betwe5 actual exp]i5ce & physiological !ory1 & if ev] !y %\ld come to be f9ally sup]s$$ by purely physiological descriptions ( human conduct1 we may be sure t ! triumphant physiological !ories w !mselves fir/ h be5 won by ! process ( e/abli%+ psy*ological =mul & !n seek+ _! physiological analogues4 ,?is is illu/rat$ 9 ! actual hi/ory ( contempor>y sci5ce by ! ext5t to :i* ! c]ebral physiologi/s are dep5d5t = _! conception ( ! /ructure ( ! n]v\s sy/em on ! previ\s results ( purely psy*ological inve/igation4 ,we might pres5t ! mutual relations ( concrete exp]i5ce1 ,psy*ology & n]v\s ,physiology1 9 an epigrammatic =m1 by say+ t ! connect+ l9k betwe5 ! subject ( exp]i5ce & ! bra9 ( ,physiology is ! 8m9d0 or 8consci\sness0 ( ,psy*ology4 #e4 ,x is1 ,i ?9k1 que/ionable :e!r su* a view z ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g's does full ju/ice to ! int]e/s :i* prompt u to ! con/ruction ( ! psy*ological symbolism4 ,on 8 !ory1 ,psy*ology1 x w be se51 is ess5tially a sci5ce ( r\t9e or me*anical uni=mities ( sequ5ce1 j l ! v>i\s bran*es ( me*anical ,physics4 ,accord+ to him1 teleology mu/ be ru?lessly bani%$ f sci5tific ,psy*ology4 ,9 o!r words1 ?\gh all ! actual processes ( direct exp]i5ce are p]vad$ by teleological unity ( int]e/ or purpose1 yet 9 sub/itut+ our psy*ological symbols = ! actualities we mu/ deprive !m ( e ve/ige ( ?is teleological "*4 ,nor is ?is dem& t ,psy*ology %all translate exp]i5ce into a s]ies ( non-purposive r\t9e sequ5ces an arbitr>y "o on ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g's "p4 ,if ! sole function ( ,psy*ology is to facilitate calculation & pr$iction ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 s f> z x is n controll$ by purposive int]f]5ce1 ,psy*ology mu/1 ( c\rse1 ei!r foll[ rigidly me*anical l9es 9 its descriptions1 or fail ( its object4 ,b ,i w\ld sugge/ t ov] & above ?is function ( facilitat+ calculation & pr$iction at pres5t fulfill$ by ,psy*ology z locum t55s = a p]fect$ ,physiology1 ,psy*ology has ano!r & an entirely di/9ct function1 9 :i* x w\ld be impossible = x to be replac$ by ,physiology or by any o!r bran* ( /udy4 ,?is function is t ( af=d+ a set ( symbols suitable = ! description1 9 ab/ract g5]al t]ms1 ( ! teleological processes ( real life1 & ?us provid+ ,e?ics & ,hi/ory & _! k9dr$ /udies ) an appropriate t]m9ology4 ,x is manife/ en\gh t nei!r ! e?ical appreciation ( human conduct by comp>ison ) an ideal /&>d1 nor ! hi/orical int]pretation ( x 9 ! light ( ! actual ends & ideals :i* p]vade x & give x its individuality1 w\ld be possible unless we c\ld fir/ ( all describe ! ev5ts ) :i* ,e?ics & ,hi/ory are conceiv$ 9 teleological language4 ,ap>t f ! pres5ce ?r\gh\t ^? ev5ts ( m or less consci\s /riv+ t[>ds an ideal end1 !re w\ld be no?+ 9 !m = ! morali/ to applaud or blame1 or = ! hi/orian to int]pret4 ,?us1 if ,e?ics & ,hi/ory are to h _! subject-matt]1 !re mu/ be "s sci5ce :i* describes ! processes ( human life & conduct 9 t]ms ( teleological relation to an end4 ,n[1 to :at sci5ce c we g = su* descriptions8 ,f our previ\s exam9ation ( ! po/ulates ( physical sci5ce1 x is cle> t ! requisite mat]ial _c be af=d$ by any bran* ( physical sci5ce :i* rema9s rigidly consi/5t ) its own po/ulates4 ,! nature ( ! int]e/s 9 response to :i* ! concept ( ! physical ord] 0 con/ruct$1 z we saw1 requir$ t ! physical ord] %\ld be ?\ght ( & describ$ 9 t]ms ( rigid me*anism4 ,h5ce no sci5ce :i* describes ! processes ( human life 9 purely physical t]m9ology c indicate _! purposive or teleological "* 9 its descriptions4 ,! purposive "* ( human conduct1 if recognis$ at all 9 our descriptions1 mu/ f9d its recognition 9 t sci5ce :i* describes ! aspect ( human exp]i5ce t is 9 pr9ciple exclud$ f ! physical ord]4 ,9 o!r words1 x is ,psy*ology to :i* we h to g = su* a g5]al ab/ract conception ( teleological unity z is necess>y = ! purposes ( ! m concrete sci5ces ( ,e?ics & ,hi/ory4 ,?is function ( ,psy*ology is inde$ q famili> to ! /ud5t ( ! moral & hi/orical sci5ces4 ,9 ,e?ics1 z ,pr(essor ,sidgwick has obs]v$1 ! :ole vocabul>y us$ to *>act]ise human conduct1 ap>t f ! specially e?ical pr$icates ( wor?1 is purely psy*ological4 ,all ! mat]ial :i* ,e?ics pron\nces 8good0 or 8bad10 8"r0 or 8wrong0--8acts10 8feel+s10 8temp]s10 8desire10 etc41--x has tak5 ov] bodily f ,psy*ology4 ,& s1 too1 ,hi/ory w\ld h no?+ left to appreciate if a record ( m]ely physical movem5ts 7 sub/itut$ = acc\nts ( ev5ts :i* imply at e turn ! psy*ological categories ( 8desire10 8purpose10 8int5tion10 8temptation10 & ! re/4 ,univ]sally1 we may say all ! teleological categories ( human ?\ght on exam9ation prove to be ei!r av[$ly ! prop]ty ( ,psy*ology1 or1 z is ! case ) ! concepts ( biological evolutionism1 ?9ly disguis$ borr[+s f x4 ,if ?is is s1 we seem to be ju/ifi$ 9 draw+ c]ta9 important inf]5ces4 7#a7 ,x w foll[ t ( ! two di/9ct (fices :i* ,psy*ology at pres5t fulfils1 "o belongs to x1 s to say1 9 its own "r & inali5ably1 :ile ! o!r is ex]cis$ by x tempor>ily1 p5d+ ! majority ( ,c]ebral ,physiology4 ,:ile1 z we h se51 ^? p>ts ( psy*ological doctr9e :i* are conc]n$ ) ! m me*anical aspects ( conduct may ultimately be replac$ by ,physiology1 ! p>ts :i* deal ) ! initiation ( fre% purposive adju/m5ts1 su* z ! psy*ology ( att5tion & ( feel+1 are 9 pr9ciple irr$ucible to ,physiology1 & mu/ reta9 a p]man5t value s long z mank9d cont9ues to be int]e/$ 9 ! e?ical & hi/orical appreciation ( human life4#aga 7#b7 ,x w also foll[ t1 at pres5t & = long en\gh to come1 ,psy*ology is b\nd1 pace ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g1 to use bo? me*anical & teleological hypo!ses & categories4 ,su* a mixture ( two diff]5t logical /&po9ts w\ld no d\bt be intol]able 9 a sci5ce :i* ow$ its exi/5ce to ! ne$ ( satisfy+ a s+le int]e/ ( our nature4 ,= ! k9d ( int]e/ :i* is met by me*anical hypo!ses is baffl$ by ! introduction ( teleological modes ( ?\ght1 & vice v]s4 ,b1 accord+ to our view1 ! int]e/ to :i* ,psy*ology owes its creation is n s+le b d\ble4 ,we h an int]e/ 9 ! me*anical =eca/+ ( human action1 & an int]e/ 9 its e?ical & hi/orical int]pretation1 & ,psy*ology1 z at pres5t con/itut$1 has to satisfy bo? ^! conflict+ int]e/s at once4 ,h5ce ! impossibility ( conf9+ x ei!r to purely me*anical or to purely teleological categories4 ,if1 inde$1 our ,physiology _h rea*$ ! po9t ( ideal complet5ess1 s t e r\t9e uni=mity at pres5t express$ 9 psy*ological t]m9ology z ! e/abli%m5t ( an 8association0 or 8habit0 c\ld be translat$ into its physiological correlate1 we %\ld be able to disp5se altoge!r ) psy*ological hypo!ses z aids to ! calculation ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 & to re/ore logical unity to ,psy*ology by conf9+ x entirely to ! task ( provid+ ,e?ics & ,hi/ory ) ! teleological categories !y require = ! description ( _! subject-matt]4 ,b su* a re=m ( me?od w\ld be mo/ premature 9 ! pres5t condition ( our physiological k4#agb #f4 ,!re are two po9ts ( difficulty :i* our discussion has s f> fail$ to deal )1 b mu/ n leave entirely unnotic$4 ,we h all[$ ourselves to assume 7a7 t description 9 psy*ological t]ms1 & 7b7 t description 9 teleological t]ms1 are possible4 ,bo? ^! assumptions h be5 que/ion$1 & x is cle> t if ! fir/ is uns\nd !re c be no sci5ce ( ,psy*ology at all1 :ile1 if ! second is uns\nd1 ,psy*ology _c use teleological conceptions4 ,h5ce x is absolutely necess>y to attempt "s ju/ification ( our position on bo? que/ions4 ,z to 7a71 x has be5 argu$ t s9ce only t :i* is accessible on equal t]ms to ! p]ception ( a plurality ( subjects c be describ$ by "o subject to ano!r1 & s9ce all objects s accessible to ! p]ception ( a plurality ( subjects 7 includ$ 9 our con/ruction ( ! physical ord]1 description c only be ( physical objects4 ,a 8m5tal /ate0 mu/ be 9 pr9ciple incapable ( description1 because x c only be exp]i5c$ by "o subject4 ,n[1 if ,psy*ology claim$ to be ! direct description ( imm$iate exp]i5ce1 z x is exp]i5c$1 ?is cont5tion w\ld c]ta9ly be fatal to its v exi/5ce4 ,b1 z we h se51 ,psy*ology makes no su* claim4 ,its data are n ! actualities ( imm$iate exp]i5ce !mselves1 b symbols d]iv$ f ^? actualities by a c]ta9 process ( trans=mation4 ,& ?\gh :at ,psy*ology calls its 8facts0 _c1 ( c\rse1 l physical facts1 be directly exhibit$ to ! s5se-p]ception ( a plurality ( subjects1 we h 9 ! physical conditions & concomitants ( a 8m5tal /ate0 assignable m>ks by :i* we may recognise :5 x occurs 9 our own life1 ! actual exp]i5ce ( :i* ! psy*ologi/'s 8m5tal /ate0 is ! symbol4 ,?us1 ?\gh ,i _c directly produce = inspection a sample ( :at 9 ,psy*ology ,i call 8! s5sation ( r$10 ,i c indirectly1 by assign+ ! upp] & l[] limits ( ! wave-l5g? correspond+ to ! s5sation1 make e "o und]/& :at actual exp]i5ce ,i am ?9k+ ( :5 ,i use ! t]m4 7b7 ,! second difficulty ne$ n deta9 u long4 ,! view t all description mu/ be exclusively me*anical1 re/s ^u ! assumption t no o!r k9d ( description w answ] ! purpose = ! sake ( :i* we set out to describe ?+s4 ,n[1 s f> z description is und]tak5 = ! purpose ( e/abli%+ practical rules = int]v5tion 9 ! c\rse ( occurr5ces1 ?is assumption is p]fectly ju/ifi$4 ,if we are to lay d[n g5]al rules = m$dl+ 9 ! c\rse ( ev5ts1 we mu/ ( c\rse assume t1 ap>t f our m$dl+1 x goes on ) r\t9e regul>ity4 ,& we h already se5 t = ?is v reason ! me*anical int]pretation ( ,nature is a fundam5tal po/ulate ( physical sci5ce1 s long z x conf9es itself /rictly to ! "w ( =mulat+ 8laws ( ,nature10 & does n attempt ! task ( hi/orical appreciation4 ,b1 z we h also se51 ! hi/orical appreciation ( a s]ies ( ev5ts z m>k$ by ! progressive execution ( an und]ly+ plan or purpose1 is only possible :5 ! ev5ts !mselves h be5 describ$ 9 ess5tially teleological t]ms z processes relative to ends4#agc ,h5ce we h no "r to cont5d t all sci5tific descriptions %all be ( ! me*anical type1 unless we are also prep>$ to ma9ta9 t ! only purpose !y subs]ve is t ( ! =mulation ( g5]al rules = practice4 ,if ! hi/orical appreciation ( ev5ts is a legitimate human int]e/1 ! description ( ev5ts 9 t]ms ( end & purpose mu/ also be a legitimate =m ( description4 ,n[1 9 po9t ( fact1 ev5 ! 8physical sci5ces0 !mselves1 :5 !y come to deal ) ! facts ( organic life1 l>gely des]t ! prim>y sci5tific ideal ( ! =mation ( g5]al laws = ! hi/orical ideal ( ! detection ( l9es ( individual developm5t1 & if our previ\s conclusions are correct1 x is mu* m = ! latt] ?an = ! =m] purpose t we are int]e/$ 9 ! con/ruction ( a sci5ce ( ,psy*ology4 ,:at a human be+ wants ,psy*ology =1 9 ! ma91 is n s mu* to help him to =eca/ ! behavi\r ( o!r m51 z to assi/ him to und]/& h[ ! successive /ages ( 8 own individual developm5t & t ( 8 8social environm5t0 are knit into a unity by ! pres5ce ( all-p]vad+ p]man5t int]e/s & ends4 ,! cont5tion t psy*ological description mu/1 on gr\nds ( logical me?od1 be ( ! me*anical type1 seems !re=e to repose on misconception z to ! uses ( ,psy*ology4 ,! prec$+ discussion may p]haps appe> some:at arid & we>isome1 b x 0 indisp5sable t our subsequ5t exam9ation ( ! metaphysical problems sugge/$ by ! recognition ( ! psy*ical realm ( exi/5ce %\ld be bas$ ^u a def9ite view z to ! connection betwe5 psy*ological conceptions & ! actualities ( exp]i5ce1 & su* a view1 9 its turn1 presupposes a positive !ory ( ! int]e/s to :i* psy*ological con/ruction m9i/]s & ! logical proc$ure by :i* x is affect$4 ,! g5]al result ( our inve/igation has gone to %[ negatively t ,psy*ology is n a direct transcript ( real exp]i5ce1 b an intellectual recon/ruction involv+ sy/ematic ab/raction f & trans=mation ( exp]i5ce1 & positively t ! recon/ruction dep5ds = its legitimacy ^u its s]viceabl5ess = ! special purposes1 p>tly ( ! practical anticipation ( ev5ts1 b pr9cipally ( _! hi/orical & e?ical appreciation4 ,! significance ( ^? conclusions w be m app>5t 9 ! c\rse ( ! two foll[+ *apt]s4 ,consult fur!r3--,r4 ,av5>ius1 ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff2 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 8,a ,def5ce ( ,ph5om5alism 9 ,psy*ology0 7,m9d1 ,janu>y #aijj72 ,h4 ,mn/]b]g1 ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 vol4 i4 *ap4 #b 7,! ,epi/emological ,basis ( ,psy*ology71 #aa 7,connection ?r\gh ! ,body72 ,j4 ,w>d1 ,art4 8,psy*ology0 9 ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 ad init4 78,! ,/&po9t ( ,psy*ology072 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 ii4 lect4 #af4 ----- ,footnote #afh3 ,see ,av5>ius1 ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff1 p4 #aae ad f94 ,footnote #afi3 ,or r1 l all symbols :i* are n id5tical ) ! ?+s !y repres5t4 ,9 ! latt] case1 z :51 e4g41 = any purpose ,i c\nt ! numb]s ( ! natural numb] s]ies !mselves1 beg9n+ ) #a1 !re may appe> to be complete correspond5ce4 ,b ! usefulness ( ! process dep5ds on ! fact t ! #a :i* ,i c\nt & ! #a by :i* ,i c\nt x are at lea/ num]ically di/9ct--h[ mu* m di/9ction ?is implies ,i d n /ay to discuss "h--& h5ce1 ,i take x1 x is by an abuse ( language t ! process is call$ 8repres5tation ( a ?+ by itself40 ,footnote #agj3 ,see ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 vol4 i4 *ap4 #aa1 pp4 #dae-dcf4 ,footnote #aga3 ,?is is /rik+ly illu/rat$ by ! proc$ure ( ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g himself4 ,he expels selective int]e/ f 8 psy*ological acc\nt ( att5tion1 9 ob$i5ce to ! pr9ciple t teleological ideas mu/ be kept out ( a descriptive sci5ce1 & !n1 :5 confront$ ) ! problem :at x is t does decide :at pres5tations %all actually be att5d$ to1 makes ! selection a function ( ! sub-cortical motor-c5tres 9 ! bra91 ?us re9troduc+ into biology ! teleological categories previ\sly decl>$ inadmissible4 ,see ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 vol4 i4 *ap4 #ae1 pp4 #ebe-efb4 ,i may once m note1 = ! b5efit ( ! read] :o is int]e/$ 9 me?odology1 t :]eas ! processes ( ! me*anical sci5ces are ess5tially cont9u\s1 ! teleological processes ( f9ite life z conceiv$ by e?ical & hi/orical sci5ce appe>1 z ,pr(essor ,royce has insi/$1 to be ( ! nature ( discont9u\s s]ies1 i4e4 to consi/ ( t]ms betwe5 :i* int]m$iate l9ks _c be int]polat$4 ,:y ,i _c accept :at appe>s to be ,pr(essor ,royce's view1 t ultimate ,reality itself is a discont9u\s s]ies1 w p]haps be cle> f ,*ap4 #c & ! foll[+ *apt] ( ! pres5t ,book4 ,b see also ! ,supplem5t>y ,note at ! end ( ! pres5t *apt]4 ,footnote #agb3 ,psy*ology is1 ( c\rse1 f> f be+ ! only bran* ( /udy :i*1 9 its pres5t /ate1 employs categories ( bo? types4 ,comp>e ! con/ant use made 9 biological evolution>y !ories ( ! teleological ideas (1 e4g41 ! 8/ruggle = exi/5ce10 ! 8survival ( ! fitte/10 8sexual selection10 etc41 ideas bodily convey$ f ,sociology & ,psy*ology4 ,z we h j se51 ! precisians :o object to ?is mixture ( high] & l[] categories 9 ,psy*ology are 9 ! awkw>d pr$icam5t ( only be+ able to get rid ( x !re by acc5tuat+ its pres5ce 9 ,physiology & ,biology4 ,:]e !y g wrong is 9 exagg]at+ ! am\nt ( logical unity attributable to any body ( inquiries :i* happ5s1 9 virtue ( be+ pursu$ by ! same m5 & ) ! same accessories1 to be call$ by a common "n4 ,x w\ld require only a slight fur!r exagg]ation to argue t s9ce all bran*es ( k are alike k1 !y mu/ be all ei!r exclusively me*anical or exclusively teleological4 ,!re is no reason 9 ! nature ( ?+s :y 8,psy*ology0 %\ld n at a p>ticul> p]iod 9 ! gr[? ( k cov] z wide a range ( inquiries1 ) z mu* int]nal v>iety ( aim & me?od1 z1 say 8,ma!matics40 ,footnote #agc3 ,& !y _c be s describ$ )\t ! introduction ( psy*ological ideas4 ,?us1 e4g41 9 classify+ a s]ies ( implem5ts dat+ f diff]5t p]iods 9 ! hi/ory ( civilisation1 s z to ?r[ light on ! evolution ( "s p>ticul> type ( tool or ma*9e1 we h to take z our fundam5tum divisionis ! adequacy ) :i* ! diff]5t v>ieties accompli% ! k9d ( "w !y 7 design$ to p]=m1 & are ?us committ$ at once to ! use ( ! psy*ological concepts ( purpose & satisfaction4 ----- ,,supplem5t>y ,,note ,,to ,,*apt] ,i4 ,,on ,,! ,,discont9uity ,,( ,,! ,,teleological ,,s]ies ,,( ,,e?ics ,,& ,,hi/ory4 ,we h previ\sly se5 t e cont9u\s s]ies is indef9itely divisible1 & t consequ5tly no two t]ms ( su* a s]ies are imm$iately coadjac5t4 ,on ! o!r h&1 any s]ies :i* consi/s ( t]ms :i* are imm$iately coadjac5t1 & betwe5 :i* int]m$iate t]ms ( ! same s]ies _c be ins]t$1 is n indef9itely divisible1 & a =tiori n cont9u\s4 ,apply+ ?is to ! case ( a s]ies ( psy*ical processes1 we c see t :]e ! sequ5ce is ( a me*anical r\t9e type x is cont9u\s1 s9ce x c be indef9itely divid$ into small] fragm5ts1 ea* exhibit+ ! same law ( sequ5ce z ! :ole4 7,/rictly1 x ought to be add$ t ! o!r condition ( cont9uity is also fulfill$1 s9ce :atev] po9t ( "t ?us divides ! sequ5ce falls )9 ! s]ies itself47 ,b :]e y h new teleological adaptation !re is a manife/ solution ( ?is cont9uity4 ,! new purpose em]ges at a def9ite po9t 9 ! sequ5ce3 :at has gone be=e up to ?is po9t belongs to ! work+ out ( a diff]5t int]e/ or purpose1 :at comes aft] to ! work+ out ( ! n[ fre%ly em]g$ int]e/4 ,ea* may =m a cont9u\s process )9 itself1 b ! transition f ! "o to ! o!r is n cont9u\s4 ,!re is :]e ! old purposive s]ies ends & ! new "o beg9s1 a g5u9e case ( imm$iate coadjac5cy ( t]ms betwe5 :i* int]m$iate memb]s _c be int]pos$4 ,9 ano!r connection1 x w\ld1 ,i ?9k1 be easy to %[ h[ ?is consid]ation is ( itself fatal to ! reality ( ,"t4 ,my po9t "h is simply to ma9ta9 t ! facts j ref]r$ to d n w>rant ! inf]5ce t 8ultimate ,reality0 or 8! ,absolute0 is = itself a discont9u\s s]ies4 ,my objection to ?is view is t ! 8em]g5ce ( new selective int]e/0 is itself ess5tially a feature ( ! f9ite exp]i5ce :i*1 because f9ite1 appe>s 9 a temporal =m4 ,! di/9ction betwe5 ! 8new0 & ! 8habitual0 has no mean+ = a complet$ & inf9ite exp]i5ce1 :i* embraces all exi/5ce 9 a p]fectly h>moni\s =m4 ,or1 to put x 9 ano!r way1 ! s]ial =m ( arrangem5t itself has no significance except = an exp]i5ce :i* has to advance progressively f "o /age to ano!r ( p>tial insight & compreh5sion4 ,?is seems z true ( 8logical0 ord] or e?ical ord] ( valuation accord+ to moral wor? z ( m]ely num]ical ord]4 ,9 fact1 we said 9 ,book ,,ii4 *ap4 #d1 #aj1 t ! s]ial arrangem5t is ! simple/ & mo/ g5]al expression ( t relational mode ( appreh5sion :i* we decid$ to be at once inevitable = f9ite k & inadequate to express ,reality4 ,x is on ?is gr\nd t ,i feel oblig$1 z ,i und]/& ! problem at pres5t1 to hold t ultimate ,reality is nei!r a cont9u\s nor a discont9u\s s]ies1 = ! reason t x is n = itself a s]ies at all4 ,,*apt] ,,ii ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,s\l ,,& ,,body #a4 ,! problem ( psy*ophysical connection has to d ) ! correlation ( sci5tific ab/ractions1 n ( giv5 facts ( exp]i5ce4 #b4 ,! 8consci\sness0 ( ,psy*ology is ?us n ! same ?+ z ! f9ite individual subject ( exp]i5ce1 & ,reality mu/ n be said to consi/ ( 8m9ds0 9 ! psy*ologi/'s s5se4 ,aga91 we mu/ n assume a priori t !re c be only "o work+ hypo!sis ( psy*ophysical connection4 #c4 ,! possible hypo!ses may be r$uc$ to ?ree1 ,epiph5om5alism1 ,p>allelism1 & ,int]action4 #d4 ,epiph5om5alism is legitimate z a me?odological pr9ciple 9 ,physiology2 x is unt5able z a basis = ,psy*ology because x implies ! r$uction ( psy*ical facts to me*anical law4 #e4 ,p>allelism4 ,! argum5ts = ,p>allelism z necess>ily valid to ,psy*ophysics because ( its congruity ) ! po/ulates ( me*anical ,physics1 are fallaci\s4 ,we _c assume t ,psy*ology mu/ necess>ily con=m to ^! po/ulates4 #f4 ,z a work+ hypo!sis ,p>allelism is available = _m purposes1 b breaks d[n :5 we attempt to apply x to ! case ( ! initiation ( fre% purposive reactions4 ,a teleological & a me*anical s]ies _c ultimately be 8p>allel40 #g4 ,we are ?us ?r[n back on ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action z ! only "o :i* af=ds a consi/5t s*eme = ! correlation ( ,physiology & ,psy*ology4 ,we h1 h[ev]1 to rememb] t :at ! hypo!sis correlates is sci5tific symbols1 n actual facts4 ,! actuality repres5t$ by bo? sets ( symbols is ! same ?+1 ?\gh ! psy*ological symbolism af=ds a wid] & m adequate repres5tation ( x ?an ! physiological4 #a4 ,few que/ions h m con/antly attract$ ! att5tion ( philosoph]s1 especially p]haps ( ^? philosoph]s :o h liv$ s9ce ! e/abli%m5t ( ,*ri/ianity z ! religion ( ! ,we/]n _w1 ?an t ( ! relation betwe5 ! s\l or m9d & ! body2 & p]haps no "q has giv5 rise to grav] misconceptions = want ( a correct insight into ! true logical "* ( ! problem "u discussion4 ,bo? 9 ! half-sci5tific speculations ( ord9>y p]sons & 9 ! m sy/ematic !ories ( metaphysicians & psy*ologi/s1 ! subject is con/antly approa*$ "u ! totally errone\s preconception t ! duali/ic sep>ation ( human life into a bodily & a m5tal "p or aspect is a datum ( imm$iate exp]i5ce :i* we c directly v]ify 9 ourselves1 & t ! task ( philosophy is by +5i\s b unv]ifiable hypo!sis to transc5d ?is *asm betwe5 giv5 realities4 ,f ! /&po9t ( our previ\s *apt] we c easily see t su* a view fundam5tally misrepres5ts ! real philosophical problem4 ,s long z we are conc]n$ ) human exi/5ce z we directly f9d x 9 our imm$iate exp]i5ce1 or assume x 9 our practical social relations ) our fell[s1 no "q ( ! relation betwe5 body & m9d c arise1 because nei!r t]m ( ! relation is z yet be=e u4 ,= my own imm$iate exp]i5ce ,i am nei!r a body nor a s\l1 nor yet a composite ( ! two1 b simply an individual subject ( exp]i5ces 9 direct int]communion ) o!r individuals4 ,"u ! influ5ce ( consci\s or unconsci\s duali/ic prepossessions1 we (t5 speak z if x 7 a directly exp]i5c$ fact t ,i c communicate ) my fell[-subjects only indirectly ?r\gh ! m$ium ( an ali5 8mat]ial0 body1 & we sometimes contra/ ?is suppos$ re/riction ) an imag9$ high] /ate ( exi/5ce1 9 :i* 8disembodi$ spirits0 may conceivably h direct int]c\rse ) ea* o!r4 ,b ! tru? is1 t ?is direct int]c\rse & influ5ce ( "o intellig5t & purposive individual on ano!r is no privilege res]v$ = our enjoym5t 9 8a bett] _w ?an ?is02 x is1 z we c see if we w only =get our duali/ic prepossessions1 ! v tru? ab\t our actual life4 ,9 actual life1 be=e we h contam9at$ our direct enjoym5t ( x ) psy*ological prejudices1 we "k no?+ ( ! int]position ( an in]t 8mat]ial0 organisation betwe5 ourselves & ! memb]s ( our social environm5t4 ,! sev]ance ( ! orig9al unity ( exp]i5ce into a physical & a psy*ical aspect is entirely a product ( our own ab/raction-mak+ intellect4 8,body0 & 8s\l0 are n giv5 actualities ( exp]i5ce1 b artificial m5tal con/ructions ( our own d]iv$ f ! actual 8facts0 ( life by ! elaborate processes :i* we h j be5 /udy+4 ,z we h se5 9 con/ruct+ our concept ( a me*anical physical ord]1 we ab/ract c]ta9 elem5ts ( our direct exp]i5ce f ! :ole1 & consid] !m "u ! "n ( our 8bodies0 z if !y _h a sep>ate exi/5ce2 we !n1 by ! aid ( ! hypo!sis ( 8introjection10 repres5t ^? elem5ts ( direct self-exp]i5ce :i* 7 omitt$ f ! physical ord] z =m+ by !mselves a second di/9ct :ole or sy/em call$ ! 8s\l40 ,:5 we h rea*$ ?is po9t1 we are1 ( c\rse1 compell$ to raise ! "q h[ ^! two sy/ems1 ! bodily & ! m5tal1 mu/ be suppos$ to be connect$4 ,b ! important fact to rememb] is t ! two sy/ems are n facts ( exp]i5ce1 b products ( ab/raction4 ,our task 9 discuss+ _! relation is n to transc5d a giv5 dualism1 b to get rid ( "o :i* we h manufactur$ = ourselves by ! manipulation ( exp]i5ce 9 ! int]e/s ( c]ta9 special sci5tific problems4 ,h5ce1 z ,mn/]b]g well puts x1 we h n to f9d ! connection :i* subsi/s1 z an actual fact1 betwe5 body & s\l1 b to inv5t a connection 9 keep+ ) ! g5]al s*eme ( our artificial physical & psy*ological hypo!ses4#agd #b4 ,z f> z ! int]e/s ( ,metaphysics are conc]n$1 ?is recognition t ! problem ( s\l & body has to d solely ) highly artificial products ( sci5tific ab/raction1 & n ) any?+ :i* c be call$ a 8giv50 actuality1 is ! "o pr9ciple ( supreme importance :i* em]ges f ! discussion ( ! subject4 ,two v significant inf]5ces may at once be drawn f x4 7#a7 ,we cle>ly mu/ n call ! f9ite subjects ( exp]i5ce1 ( :om we saw reason to hold t ultimate ,reality is exclusively con/itut$1 8m9ds0 or 8s\ls0 9 ! psy*ologi/'s s5se4#age ,to call !m s w\ld inevitably be to imply t exclusion f ! physical ord] ( 8bodies0 ap>t f :i* ! psy*ological concept ( ! 8s\l0 or 8m9d0 has no significance4 ,or1 9 o!r words1 x w\ld id5tify !m n ) :at !y are = _! own direct exp]i5ce1 b ) :at !y become = "o ano!r's !oretical reflection "u ! influ5ce ( 8introjection40 ,z we h se51 x is legitimate & necess>y = special sci5tific purposes to treat ourselves & o!r individuals z if we 7 su* s]ies ( 8m5tal /ates10 b x is nev] legitimate to =get t1 :5 we d ?is1 we are sub/itut+ a highly unreal symbolism = directly exp]i5c$ facts4 ,"o consequ5ce ( confus+ ! symbolism ) ! fact may be not$ 9 pass+3 :5 we h sub/itut$ ! s]ies ( m5tal /ates = ! felt unity ( actual consci\s life1 we g on to ask ourselves h[ ! fact & its symbol--! symbolic nature ( :i* we h =gott5--are relat$4 ,& ?us arise all ! unansw]able1 because fundam5tally unmean+1 que/ions z to ! way 9 :i* ! 8self0 has or owns ! succession ( 8/ates40 ,fail+ to see t ! succession ( /ates is simply ! unit>y subject itself1 z x appe>s f ! po9t ( view ( ! 8introjection0 hypo!sis1 we !n f9d ourselves confront$ by ! alt]natives ( foi/+ ^u our ,psy*ology ! useless & un?9kable fiction ( a *angeless 8sub/ratum0 ( m5tal /ates--! s\l-sub/ance ( ! pre-,kantian psy*ologi/s--or resolv+ real life into a succession ( discont9u\s 8m5tal images40 ,) ! recognition t ,psy*ology nev] deals directly ) exp]i5c$ reality1 b always ) ! hypo!tical products ( an ab/raction :i* is only ju/ifi$ by its usefulness = ! special purposes ( ! psy*ologi/1 all ^! difficulties disappe>4 7#b7 ,ano!r important consequ5ce ( our pr9ciple is t we _c dogmatically ass]t t !re c be only "o legitimate !ory ( ! 8connection betwe5 m9d & body40 ,if 8m9d0 & 8body0 7 really giv5 z di/9ct b connect$ 9 direct exp]i5ce1 x might well be t !re c\ld only be "o acc\nt ( _! connection answ]+ to exp]i5c$ fact4 ,b s9ce ! sep>ation is itself ( our own intellectual manufacture1 z we are deal+ ?r\gh\t ) artificial creations ( our own ab/raction1 any !ory ( _! connection :i* is desirable = ! solution ( a special problem or class ( problems w be legitimate = t p>ticul> class ( problems4 ,?us ! physiologi/ may legitimately1 if x answ]s 8 special purposes1 adopt a work+ hypo!sis :i* ! psy*ologi/ may f9d unt5able1 & aga9 diff]5t types ( psy*ological problem may legitimately assume diff]5t work+ hypo!ses4#agf ,i %all aim at %[+ 9 ! imm$iately foll[+ p>agraphs t !re is "o typical psy*ophysical hypo!sis :i*1 on ! :ole1 l5ds itself bett] ?an its rivals to ! g5]al purposes ( bo? ,physiology & ,psy*ology1 b we %all see1 z we proce$1 t ! hypo!ses we reject are also legitimate = ! solution ( important special problems4 ,9 fact1 our *ief int]e/1 z /ud5ts ( ,metaphysics1 9 ! fur!r discussion ( psy*ophysical connection w be to po9t out ! fallaci\sness ( ! metaphysical argum5ts :i* are commonly us$ to e/abli% "s "o hypo!sis z necess>ily & exclusively true4 #c4 ,turn+ n[ to consid] ! *ief types ( hypo!sis :i* h be51 or are at pres5t1 actually put =w>d by metaphysicians & psy*ologi/s1 we may p]haps gr\p !m "u ! five ma9 heads ( 7#a7 ,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony1 7#b7 ,occasionalism1 7#c7 ,epiph5om5alism1 7#d7 ,psy*ophysical ,p>allelism1 7#e7 ,int]action4 ,= our purpose 9 ! pres5t *apt] ! numb] ( alt]natives may be fur!r r$uc$ by ! omission ( ! fir/ two4 ,nei!r ! ,pre-e/abli%$ ,h>mony ( ,leibnitz nor ! ,occasionalism advocat$ by ,geul9cx & ,malebran*e1 & 9 a "o-sid$ =m by ,b]keley1 is likely to f9d mu* support f ! philosophy ( ! pres5t day4 ,bo? doctr9es are1 moreov]1--t ( ,leibnitz av[$ly & t ( ! ,occasionali/s by implication1--mu* m ?an special psy*ophysical hypo!ses4 ,!y are 9 pr9ciple attempts to get rid ( all transeunt causality1 & h be5 discuss$ 9 _! g5]al be>+s 9 our *apt] on ! ,causal ,po/ulate1 :]e we satisfi$ ourselves t any sci5ce :i* recognises1 z ,psy*ology has to d1 ! exi/5ce ( f9ite ?+s mu/ also admit ! pr9ciple ( transeunt causality1 at any rate z a work+ hypo!sis4 ,ea* ( ! ?ree rema9+ types ( view has its support]s among contempor>y /ud5ts ( sci5ce & philosophy4 ,! epiph5om5ali/ !ory is l>gely adopt$ by ! work]s 9 ! physical sci5ces1 & ?\gh n mu* c\nt5anc$ by psy*ologi/s & metaphysicians1 has ! explicit support ( ,dr4 ,%adwor? ,hodgson1 :ile "s v]sions ( ! p>alleli/ doctr9e1 notably t ( ,mn/]b]g1 approa* x v closely4 ,! p>alleli/ hypo!sis is p]haps at pres5t ! mo/ popul> among ! psy*ological speciali/s1 & is repres5t$ by writ]s ( su* em95ce z ,wundt1 ,mn/]b]g1 ,ebb+haus1 ,hffd+ & ,/\t4 ,f9ally1 ,int]action has p[]ful *ampions 9 ,bradley1 ,w>d1 & ,james2 to say no?+ ( its adoption by s s\nd a physiologi/ z ,mr4 ,mc,dougall4 ,bo? ! latt] doctr9es1 aga91 h hi/orical connections ) ! great philosophical sy/ems ( ! pa/1 ,p>allelism ) t ( ,sp9oza1 & ,int]action ) ^?1 to m5tion no o!r names1 ( ,desc>tes & ,locke4 ,9 ! philosophy ( ! anci5t _w ! psy*ophysical issue c h>dly be said to appe> 9 a well-def9$ =m1 b we may p]haps /ate t ,plato's psy*ological doctr9e is decid$ly "o ( ,int]action1 :ile ! view ( ,ari/otle1 ?\gh too complex to admit ( v precise =mulation1 incl9es r t[>ds ,p>allelism4 #d4 ,epiph5om5alism4 ,( ! ?ree hypo!ses :i* rema9 = discussion1 ! !ory ( ,epiph5om5alism has ! lea/ to recomm5d x1 & is op5 to ! mo/ s]i\s objections4 ,accord+ to ?is view1 all causal connections are exclusively betwe5 physical /ates4 ,bodily *anges succe$ "o ano!r 9 accord ) uni=m laws ( sequ5ce1 :i* x is ! prov9ce ( ! physiologi/ to discov]1 & e bodily *ange is completely det]m9$ by bodily antec$5ts4 ,c]ta9 bodily conditions are fur!r att5d$ by correspond+ 8/ates ( consci\sness10 b ^? /ates /& 9 no causal connection ) subsequ5t bodily /ates1 nor yet ) "o ano!r4 ,!y are ?us consequ5ces or effects1 b are nev] causes4 ,! :ole s]ies ( physical *anges1 f bir? to dea?1 :i* makes up ! hi/ory ( ! human body1 goes on precisely z x w\ld if 8consci\sness0 7 entirely abs5t4 ,?is is :at is meant by ! ass]tion t all m5tal /ates are epiph5om5a1 sup]flu\s accessories1 :i* arise 9 ! c\rse ( ! connect$ s]ies ( bodily *anges1 b are entirely )\t any det]m9+ influ5ce ^u x4 ,! doctr9e may be diagrammatically repres5t$ ?us a---- b---- c----1 :]e ! italic lett]s symbolise physical & ! ,greek lett]s psy*ical /ates1 ! v]tical l9es indicat+ ! c\rse ( causal sequ5ce4 ,if a psy*ophysical hypo!sis 7 ev] directly applicable to ! actualities ( exp]i5ce1 we might1 ( c\rse1 dismiss ,epiph5om5alism at once z inh]5tly absurd4 ,= no?+ is m c]ta9 ?an t 9 ! actual life ( direct exp]i5ce our k & our int]e/s d det]m9e ! c\rse ( our actions4 ,t :at we believe & desire does make all ! diff]5ce 9 ! _w to ! way 9 :i* we behave1 is "o ( ^? elem5t>y v]ities out ( :i* no sci5tific hypo!sis c claim to reason u4 ,h5ce1 :5 ! def5d]s ( ! !ory attempt to draw practical moral & juri/ic consequ5ces f _! doctr9es1 we are )9 our rights 9 simply decl9+ to conc]n ourselves ) s absurd a trave/y ( ! simple/ facts ( exp]i5ce4 ,s long1 h[ev]1 z ! hypo!sis is put =w>d simply z a work+ hypo!sis = ! correlation ( our physiological & psy*ological !ories1 ! case is diff]5t4 ,its validity z a psy*ophysical !ory mu/ be e/imat$ solely by ! degree 9 :i* x r5d]s ?is sy/ematic correlation feasible1 & is n necess>ily impair$ by ! manife/ absurdities :i* result f mi/ak+ ! doctr9e = a description ( actual life4 ,n[1 if we look at ! hypo!sis f ?is po9t ( view1 we c at once see t x is really legitimate = "s purposes4 ,= ! purpose ( physiological sci5ce x is obvi\sly to our int]e/ t we %\ld be able to d$uce ! lat] f ! e>li] /ages ( a physiological process4 ,we h ?us an int]e/ 9 treat+ physiological *anges1 if we c1 z uncondition$ by any b physiological antec$5ts4 ,& e actual success 9 e/abli%+ a uni=mity or 8law0 ( ,c]ebral ,physiology is pro( t ! assumption t1 = ! process 9 "q1 ! only det]m9+ conditions :i* c\nt are physiological1 is equival5t to ! tru?4 ,! physiologi/1 !n1 is cle>ly ju/ifi$ 9 treat+ ! psy*ical s]ies z epiph5om5al1 if he means no m by ?is ?an t he int5ds to deal1 z a physiologi/1 only ) processes :i* c be successfully resolv$ into uni=m sequ5ces on ! assumption t !y involve only physiological t]ms4 ,?\gh :e!r any processes 9 ! n]v\s sy/em c be successfully treat$ z purely physiological sequ5ces1 no?+ b ! physiologi/'s actual success 9 obta9+ results f 8 initial po/ulate c decide4 ,if1 h[ev]1 ! physiologi/ %\ld g on1 z he sometimes does1 to make ! ass]tion t n only c "s n]v\s processes be treat$ z if _! psy*ical accompanim5ts made no diff]5ce1 b t !y really are :at !y w\ld be )\t ^? accompanim5ts1 or ev5 t all n]v\s process is :at x w\ld be )\t 8consci\sness10 he commits a gross logical fallacy4 ,x is a m]e blund] 9 logic to argue t because ! pres5ce ( c]ta9 circum/ances makes no diff]5ce to ! special result :i* foll[s on a giv5 antec$5t1 ! result w\ld equally foll[ 9 _! abs5ce4 ,= x might be t 9 _! removal ! v antec$5ts 9 :i* we are int]e/$ w\ld disappe>4 ,we are n at lib]ty to inf] t1 because ! c\rse ( c]ta9 physiological processes c be comput$ )\t tak+ _! m5tal correlates into acc\nt1 !y c\ld occur ap>t f ^? correlates4 ,ev5 m s]i\s are ! consequ5ces :i* foll[ :5 x is assum$ t all m5tal processes )\t exception may be reg>d$ z epiph5om5al1 i4e4 t all human action1 if only our ,physiology 7 suffici5tly advanc$1 might be br\ght "u laws ( purely physiological sequ5ce4 ,su* an assumption w\ld lead at once to ! foll[+ dilemma3 ,ei!r our ,physiology mu/ rema9 rigidly fai?ful to ! fundam5tal po/ulates ( me*anical sci5ce1 or n4 ,if x is fai?ful to !m1 its descriptions ( human action mu/ rigidly exclude all ref]5ce to teleological det]m9ation by ref]5ce to conceiv$ & desir$ ends4 ,i4e4 we mu/ treat human conduct z if x 7 fatally det]m9$ ap>t f any possible influ5ce ( human *oice & int5tion1 & ?us /ultify t :ole "w ( hi/orical & e?ical appreciation :i* we h already se5 to be ! pr9cipal raison d'tre ( ,psy*ology z a sci5ce4 ,we mu/ rev]t1 9 fact1 to a !ory ( life :i* is id5tical ) ! extreme/ =ms ( ,pagan or ,mohamm$an fatalism 9 ev]y?+ except ! "n x gives to its ineluctabile fatum4 ,or1 if we are n prep>$ to d ?is1 we mu/ all[ ,physiology itself to use ! psy*ological categories ( desire1 selection1 & *oice1 & ?us cov]tly admit t human action1 aft] all1 _c be describ$ )\t ! introduction ( factors n includ$ 9 ! physical ord]4 ,x is no d\bt due to _! realisation ( ?is dilemma t psy*ologi/s are all b univ]sally agre$ to reject ! epiph5om5ali/ hypo!sis1 :ile its popul>ity ) physiologi/s may be expla9$ by obs]v+ t physiological uni=mities c manife/ly only be successfully e/abli%$ = ^? processes :i* c be treat$ z if !y 7 only physiologically condition$4 #e4 ,p>allelism4 ,! hypo!sis ( ,p>allelism attempts1 :ile pres]v+ "s ( ! *>act]i/ic features ( ! crud] view j describ$1 to avoid its unsatisfactory consequ5ces4 ,agree+ ) ,epiph5om5alism 9 ! doctr9e t physiological *anges mu/ be treat$ z det]m9$ only by physiological antec$5ts1 ,p>allelism d5ies t ! ev5ts ( ! psy*ical s]ies are m]e 8second>y0 effects ( _! physiological correlates4 ,accord+ to x1 ! s]ies ( physical & t ( psy*ical ev5ts are /rictly 8p>allel10 b n causally connect$4 ,ea* ev5t 9 ei!r s]ies has its precise c\nt]p>t 9 ! o!r1 b ! physical ev5ts d n cause ! psy*ical ev5ts1 nor vice v]s4 ,! successive memb]s ( ! physical s]ies =m a connect$ causal sequ5ce1 indep5d5t ( _! psy*ical concomitants1 :ile ^! latt]1 x is g5]ally assum$1#agg =m a simil> *a9 ( causally connect$ psy*ical /ates4 ,?us e n]v\s *ange is det]m9$ solely by prec$5t n]v\s *anges1 & ! correspond+ psy*ical *ange by ! correspond+ antec$5t psy*ical *anges4 ,9 diagrammatic %ape our hypo!sis n[ takes ! =m a b c ,usually x is fur!r add$ t ! ultimate metaphysical explanation ( ?is p>allelism )\t mutual dep5d5ce mu/ be f\nd 9 ! 7,sp9ozi/ic7 doctr9e ( ,id5tity1 i4e4 ! doctr9e t ! physical & psy*ical s]ies are two diff]5t 8sides0 or 8aspects0 ( a s+le reality4 ,"s support]s ( ,p>allelism 7e4g41 ,ebb+haus7 conceive ?is s+le reality z a t]tium quid1 equally adequately express$ by bo? ! s]ies1 o!rs 7e4g41 ,/\t7 hold t its real nature is m adequately reveal$ 9 ! m5tal ?an 9 ! physical s]ies4 ,! gr\nds commonly adduc$ 9 fav\r ( ! p>alleli/ic view z ! mo/ satisfactory psy*ophysical !ory1 are ( two k9ds4 ,z a positive argum5t x is urg$ t c]ebral anatomy has already to "s ext5t confirm$ ! doctr9e ( correspond5ce betwe5 def9ite physical & psy*ical processes by its successful 8localisation0 ( specific s5sory & motor processes 9 v>i\s cortical 8c5tres10 & may reasonably be expect$ to accompli% fur!r su* 8localisations0 9 ! future4 ,/ress is also laid ^u ! =mal analogy betwe5 ! psy*ological laws ( ret5tiv5ess1 association1 & habit1 & ! physiological !ories ( ! =mation ( 8conduction-pa?s0 9 ! bra94 ,^! positive cont5tions d n1 h[ev]1 take u f>4 ,! correspond5ces ^u :i* !y re/1 s f> z !y are asc]ta9$ exp]im5tally & are n m]e d$uctions f ! pr9ciple ( ,p>allelism itself1 w\ld be equally natural on a !ory ( ,int]action1 or ( "o-sid$ dep5d5ce ( ei!r s]ies on ! o!r4 ,! real /r5g? ( ! case = ,p>allelism re/s ^u c]ta9 negative assumptions :i* are widely believ$ to exclude ! hypo!sis ( causal dep5d5ce ( ei!r s]ies on ! o!r4 ,^! negative assumptions appe> to be 9 ! ma9 ?ree4 7#a7 ,x is said t1 :ile we c )\t difficulty conceive h[ ! lat] /ages ( a cont9u\s physical or psy*ical process c be connect$ by causal law ) its e>li] /ages1 we are entirely unable to conceive h[ psy*ical ev5ts c arise f physical antec$5ts1 or vice v]s1 because ( ! utt] disp>at5ess ( ! physical & ! psy*ical4 ,! physical process1 x is urg$1 is cont9u\s1 & s1 on ! o!r side1 is ! psy*ical1 b :5 we attempt to ?9k ( a c]ebral *ange condition+ a m5tal *ange1 or vice v]s1 !re is a complete solution ( cont9uity :i* we _c bridge by any causal =mula4 7#b7 ,! doctr9e ( ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy is sometimes suppos$ to be incompatible ) ! admission ( psy*ical /ates among ! antec$5ts or consequ5ts ( physical /ates4 ,x is said t if psy*ical /ates c influ5ce ! c\rse ( n]v\s *ange1 !re w be 8"w0 done 9 ! organism )\t ! exp5diture ( en]gy1 & if ! total effect ( n]v\s *ange is n exclusively physical !re w be loss ( en]gy )\t 8"w0 be+ done by ! organism1 & 9 ei!r case ! pr9ciple ( ,cons]vation w be contrav5$4 7#c7 ,f9ally1 x is ma9ta9$ t x is a fundam5tal po/ulate ( ! physical sci5ces1 t e *ange ( configuration 9 a mat]ial sy/em su* z ! liv+ organism is assum$ to be1 is due to exclusively physical antec$5ts1 & t ?is po/ulate mu/ !re=e be respect$ 9 ,psy*ophysics4 ,^! are1 s f> z ,i c ga!r !m f ! works ( ! psy*ologi/s :o adopt ! p>alleli/ view1 ! pr9cipal argum5ts by :i* _! case is support$4 ,x is cle> t if all--or any--( ^! cont5tions are valid1 x mu/ foll[ t ,p>allelism is n only a legitimate b ! only legitimate hypo!sis = ! co-ord9ation ( physical & psy*ical sci5ce4 ,i believe1 h[ev]1 t e "o ( !m is fallaci\s1 & t = ! foll[+ reasons3-- 7#a7 ,! argum5t f ! inconceivability ( causal relation betwe5 ! physical & ! psy*ical is p]haps ! mo/ effective ( ! alleg$ gr\nds = d5y+ int]action betwe5 ! psy*ical & ! physical4 ,yet its =ce is n really s great z x might appe>4 ,x is n d5i$ t we c1 9 simple cases1 assign ! conditions "u :i* a m5tal /ate foll[s on a physical /ate 7e4g41 we c assign ! physical conditions ( ! em]g5ce ( a giv5 s5sation74 ,b1 x is argu$1 we _c %[ :y ^? conditions 7e4g41 ! /imulation ( ! ret9a1 & indirectly ( ! 8optical c5tres0 9 ! bra9 by light ( a giv5 wave l5g?7 %\ld be foll[$ by ?is p>ticul> s5sation 7e4g41 gre51 & n "s o!r col\r74 ,?is means t we _c con/ruct a ma!matical equation connect+ ! "* ( ! s5sation ) t ( ! /imulus1 z we c to connect ! e>li] ) ! lat] /ages ( a purely physical process4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 obvi\s en\gh4 ,x is only by mak+ complete ab/raction f ! appe>ance ( new qualities 9 ! c\rse ( a process1 & by treat+ x z a purely geometrical & quantitative trans=mation1 t we c r5d] x am5able to our equations4 ,z we saw 9 our discussion ( ,causality1 ma!matical ,physics only succe$s 9 its con/ructions on ! condition ( exclud+ all qualitative *ange1 z 8subjective10 f its purview4 ,b we also saw !re t ! orig9ation ( ! qualitatively new is an ess5tial "p ( ! idea ( ,causality1 & t 9 r$uc+ all *ange 9 ! physical _w to quantitative trans=mation1 ma!matical ,physics really does away ) ! causal concept4 ,we are1 9 fact1 9 precisely ! same logical position if we speak ( physiological *anges z caus+ s5sation1 z :5 we speak ( a quantitative *ange 9 ! proportions ( a *emical comp\nd z ! cause ( alt]ation 9 its qualities4 ,! objection t ! psy*ical effect _c be connect$ by an equation ) its alleg$ cause1 w\ld hold equally 9 any case ( ! production ( ! qualitatively new1 i4e4 9 e case :]e we use ! category ( causality at all4 ,& = t v reason x has no =ce :5 urg$ z an objection to psy*ophysical causality 9 p>ticul>4#agh 7#b7 ,! argum5t f ! ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy may be m briefly dismiss$1 z its fallaci\s "* has be5 fully recognis$ by ! able/ rec5t expon5ts ( ! p>alleli/ic view1 su* z ,dr4 ,/\t & ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g4 ,z ,dr4 ,/\t po9ts out1 ! argum5t involves a =mal petitio pr9cipii4 ,! pr9ciple ( ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy has only be5 e/abli%$ = :at are te*nically kn[n z cons]vative mat]ial sy/ems1 & no absolute pro( has be5 giv51 or seems likely to be giv51 t ! human organism is su* a cons]vative sy/em4 ,fur!r1 z has be5 urg$ by _m critics1 & notably by ,pr(essor ,w>d1 ! pr9ciple ( cons]vation1 tak5 by itself1 is simply a law ( ex*anges4 ,x ass]ts t ! quantity ( ! en]gy ( a cons]vative sy/em rema9s con/ant "u all ! trans=mations ?r\gh :i* x passes1 b1 ap>t f ! re/ ( ! po/ulates ( me*anical sci5ce1 x af=ds no means ( decid+ :at trans=mations ( en]gy %all occur 9 ! sy/em1 or :5 !y %all occur4 ,h5ce !re w\ld be no brea* ) ! special pr9ciple ( ,cons]vation ( ,en]gy if we 7 to assume t psy*ical conditions c det]m9e ! mom5t at :i* en]gy 9 ! organism is trans=m$ e4g41 f ! k9etic to ! pot5tial /ate1 )\t affect+ its quantity4 7#c7 ,x is1 h[ev]1 true t x is inconsi/5t ) ! po/ulates ( me*anical ,physics1 tak5 z a :ole1 to admit ! det]m9ation ( physical sequ5ces by non-physical conditions4 ,to admit su* det]m9ation w\ld be to /ultify ! :ole proc$ure ( ! me*anical sci5ces4 ,=1 z we h se5 9 our ,?ird ,book1 ! prim>y object ( me*anical sci5ce is to r$uce ! c\rse ( ev5ts to rigid laws ( uni=m sequ5ce1 & ?us to facilitate ! =mulation ( practical rules = our own int]f]5ce ) x4 ,x is !re=e a legitimate po/ulate ( me*anical sci5ce t--= its special object--desire & w %all be exclud$ f our conception ( ! conditions :i* det]m9e ev5ts1 & ! :ole c\rse ( nature treat$ z if condition$ only by physical antec$5ts4 ,if !re is any dep>tm5t ( exp]i5c$ reality :i* _c be successfully dealt ) accord+ to ^! po/ulates1 !n ! =mulation ( rigid laws ( uni=m sequ5ce is1 9 pr9ciple1 impossible = t dep>tm5t1 & x mu/ be exclud$ f ! 8_w0 :i* me*anical sci5ce inve/igates4 ,b ! fact t me*anical sci5ce c only atta9 its end by treat+ all physical ev5ts z indep5d5t ( non-physical conditions1 does n af=d ! slighte/ presumption t !y mu/ be treat$ 9 ! same way = all purposes & by e bran* ( inquiry4 ,:e!r ,psy*ology1 9 p>ticul>1 is "u ! logical necessity ( con=m+ to ! me*anical po/ulates1 w dep5d ^u our view z to :e!r ! object subs]v$ by ,psy*ology is ! same z t ( ! me*anical sci5ces1 or diff]5t4 ,if our purpose 9 psy*ological inve/igation is n id5tical ) ! purposes ( me*anical sci5ce1 !re is no s5se 9 dem&+ t we %all hamp] our proc$ure z psy*ologi/s by adh]5ce to po/ulates bas$ ^u ! special nature ( ! int]e/s to :i* me*anical sci5ce has to m9i/]4 ,n[1 we h already cont5d$ t ! aims ( ,psy*ology only p>tially & tempor>ily co9cide ) ^? ( ! me*anical sci5ces4 ,if we 7 "r 9 hold+ t ! pr9cipal object ( ,psy*ology is to provide a g5]al t]m9ology ( :i* ,hi/ory & ,e?ics c avail !mselves 9 _! appreciations ( life1 x foll[s at once t ,psy*ology imp]atively ne$s ! recognition ( t v teleological aspect ( human action :i* is exclud$ on pr9ciple1 & rightly s = ! special purpose ( me*anical ,physics1 by ! fundam5tal me*anical po/ulates4 ,?us ! argum5t t ! p>alleli/ic hypo!sis mu/ be ! mo/ suitable = ! psy*ologi/1 because x con=ms to ! me*anical po/ulates ( sci5ces :i* deal ) exp]i5ce f a diff]5t /&po9t & 9 a diff]5t int]e/1 loses all its cog5cy4#agi ,n[ t we h1 z ,i tru/1 suffici5tly dispos$ ( ! a priori argum5ts = ! p>alleli/ic view1 we are 9 a position to e/imate x1 z a psy*ological hypo!sis1 purely on its m]its z ev9c$ by its actual success4 ,b fir/ we mu/ po9t out once m t ! :ole "q is n "o z to actualities1 b purely z to ! mo/ satisfactory way ( br++ two sets ( ab/ractions1 orig9ally devis$ = div]g5t purposes1 into t\* ) "o ano!r2 & fur!r1 t if ! hypo!sis 7 put =w>d z a f9al metaphysical tru? ab\t ! con/itution ( ! real _w1 x w\ld be manife/ly self-contradictory4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 ,p>allelism1 tak5 = any?+ m ?an a conv5i5t work+ hypo!sis1 w\ld involve a flagrant brea* ( logic4 ,x is obvi\s t1 z ,mr4 ,bradley has urg$1 y _c inf] f ! premisses t "o total /ate1 conta9+ bo? a physical & a psy*ical elem5t1 causes ano!r complex /ate ( ! same k9d1 ! conclusion t ! physical aspect ( ! fir/1 by itself1 has caus$ ! physical1 & ! psy*ical ! psy*ical aspect ( ! second4 ,to get ?is conclusion y ne$ a 8negative in/ance10 9 :i* ei!r ! physical or ! psy*ical /ate is f\nd ap>t f its correlate1 b foll[$ by ! same consequ5t z be=e1 & ,p>allelism itself d5ies ! possibility ( su* an in/ance4 ,f ! premisses t a is always foll[$ by b 1 x attempts to inf]1 )\t any 8dissection ( nature10 t a by itself 0 ! necess>y & suffici5t condition ( b1 & ( 4 ,& ?is is1 ( c\rse1 logically fallaci\s4 ,dr4 ,w>d expresses ! same po9t diff]5tly :5 he urges t unv>y+ & precise concomitance )\t causal connection is a logical absurdity4 ,t ! support]s ( ! hypo!sis !mselves are consci\s ( ! difficulty1 is %[n by _! unanim\s ass]tion t ! psy*ical & physical s]ies are ultimately manife/ations ( "o & ! same reality4 ,:at !y d n expla9 is h[1 if ?is is s1 ! two s]ies c be ph5om5ally s utt]ly disp>ate z to exclude mutual influ5ce on "o ano!r4 ,! difficulty becomes insup]able :5 we reflect t on ! p>alleli/ic view ! physical s]ies mu/ be rigidly me*anical1 z o!rwise we %all h a brea* ) ^? me*anical po/ulates :i* are suppos$ to require ! exclusion ( psy*ical /ates f ! det]m9+ conditions ( physical occurr5ces4 ,?us1 if teleology is to be recognis$ any:]e 9 our sci5tific con/ructions1 x mu/ be 9 our conception ( ! psy*ical s]ies4 ,& on ! :ole ! support]s ( ,p>allelism admit ?is 9 practice by ! free use ( teleological categories 9 _! ,psy*ology4 ,b x ought by n[ to be cle> to u t ! nature ( ! id5tical reality _c be express$ ) equal adequacy 9 a teleological s]ies1 & 9 "o :i* is1 by ! pr9ciples ( its con/ruction1 purely me*anical4 ,"h1 aga91 mo/ ( ! p>alleli/s are really 9 agreem5t ) u1 = !y usually 9 ! end call !mselves 8,ideali/s10 & ass]t t ! 8m5tal0 s]ies is a m fai?ful repres5tation ( ,reality ?an ! physical4 ,b if ! two s]ies are n on ! same level 9 respect ( _! ne>ness to ,reality1 x is h>d to see h[ !re c be exact correspond5ce betwe5 !m4 ,?is is a po9t to :i* we %all imm$iately h to return4#ahj #f4 ,:5 we ask1 h[ev]1 :e!r ,p>allelism1 ap>t f ^! que/ions ( ultimate philosophy1 is legitimate z a work+ hypo!sis 9 ,psy*ology1 ! answ] mu/ be t1 9 c]ta9 dep>tm5ts ( psy*ological inve/igation1 x c]ta9ly is s4 ,9 practice1 ! doctr9e ( ! p>allel b indep5d5t s]ies am\nts1 = ! mo/ "p1 to little m ?an a me?odological device = ! division ( lab\r betwe5 ! physiologi/ & ! psy*ologi/1 ! physiologi/ re/rict+ himself to ! =mulation ( su* uni=mities z c be e/abli%$ betwe5 n]v\s processes1 consid]$ z if indep5d5t ( ext]nal influ5ce1 & ! psy*ologi/ do+ ! same = _! psy*ical accompanim5ts4 ,z a pr9ciple ( me?odical proc$ure1 !re=e1 9 ^? p>ts ( ,psy*ology :i* deal ) ! m passive &1 z we may say1 r\t9e-l aspects ( m5tal life1 ,p>allelism is a useful & !re=e a legitimate work+ hypo!sis4 ,! "q by :i* its claim to be ! be/ hypo!sis mu/ be decid$ is1 to my m9d1 t ( its applicability to ! case ( ! fre% initiation ( new purposive adaptations to *anges 9 ! organism's environm5t4#aha ,= x is j 9 deal+ ) ^! cases t ,psy*ology1 if x is to fulfil ! purpose we h ascrib$ to x1 mu/ mo/ obvi\sly disc>d me*anical = teleological categories4 ,h5ce x is "h1 if any:]e1 t a difficulty ( pr9ciple mu/ make itself felt :5 we attempt to treat ! psy*ical & ! physical s]ies z exactly p>allel & correspond+4 ,x seems to foll[ necess>ily f ! conception ( physical sci5ce z bas$ ^u ! me*anical po/ulate1 t a teleological & a me*anical s]ies _c possibly run 8p>allel0 9 all _! details 9 ! fa%ion presuppos$ by ! hypo!sis "u consid]ation4 ,if ,psy*ology is to be ( any use 9 supply+ ,e?ics & ,hi/ory ) ! subject-matt] ( _! appreciations1 x is manife/ t x mu/ make ! assumption t desire & *oice are op]ative 9 det]m9+ ! c\rse ( human action1 & ?us mu/--at c]ta9 po9ts at lea/--explicitly employ ! categories ( teleology4 ,^! categories1 aga91 _c possibly be translat$ into ! rigidly non-teleological symbolism ( a physical sci5ce1 bas$ ^u ! me*anical po/ulates1 z e sci5ce ( 8g5]al laws0 mu/ be4 ,x foll[s t 8exact p>allelism )\t mutual int]f]5ce0 _c1 consi/5tly ) ! purpose :i* ,psy*ology subs]ves1 be employ$1 ev5 z a work+ hypo!sis ?r\gh\t ! :ole field ( psy*ological inve/igation itself4 ,:5 ! attempt to ext5d its employm5t to ! :ole sph]e ( psy*ical processes is s]i\sly made1 x leads inevitably to ! crude fatalism ( ! doctr9e t !re is no su* ?+ z *oice or action 7free or o!rwise7 9 ! univ]se4 ,9 actual practice1 ! support]s ( ,p>allelism1 :o reject ?is doctr9e :5 x is explicitly av[$ "u ! "n ( ,epiph5om5alism1 only succe$ 9 do+ s because !y d n really insi/ on c>ry+ out ! p>alleli/ic hypo!sis 9 _! ,psy*ology4 ,!y commonly make _! hypo!sis prom95t1 :ile !y are deal+ ) ! comp>atively passive & r\t9e-l aspects ( m5tal life1 association1 habituation1 etc41 b all[ !mselves to lose sight ( x z soon z !y come to treat ( su* explicitly teleological concepts z att5tion & *oice4 ,_! proc$ure is also r5d]$ easi] = !m by ! lib]al use :i* evolution>y biologi/s1 ev5 :ile pr(ess+ ) _! lips fidelity to ! me*anical po/ulates1 all[ !mselves to make ( teleological categories :i* are really purely psy*ological4 ,x w\ld be an easy task1 if space p]mitt$1 to %[ 9 detail h[ ! fundam5tally diff]5t pr9ciples und]ly+ ! con/ruction ( ! me*anical & ! teleological s]ies involve ! pres5ce1 9 ! individual memb]s ( ea* s]ies1 ( *>act]s to :i* no?+ corresponds 9 ^? ( ! o!r4 ,?us we might ask1 ) ,dr4 ,w>d1 :at corresponds 9 ! psy*ical s*eme to ! composition ( ! units ( ! physiological s*eme out ( _! v>i\s *emical compon5ts1 & ( ^!1 aga91 out ( m elem5t>y physical 8prime atoms08#ahb or1 f ! opposite side1 we might ask1 :at is ! c]ebral equival5t1 9 t]ms ( a rigidly me*anical ,physiology1 ( ! psy*ological "* ( 8mean+0 or 8significance08 ,b ! multiplication ( ^! problems becomes sup]flu\s if ! read] has once grasp$ our pr9ciple1 t exact correspond5ce is only possible betwe5 s]ies :i* are ei!r bo? me*anical or bo?--& bo? 9 ! same degree--teleological4 ,betwe5 a g5u9ely teleological & an hone/ly me*anical s]ies su* correspond5ce is logically impossible1 because ( ! fundam5tal diff]5ce betwe5 _! types ( con/ruction4 #g4 ,= ! reasons j produc$1 x is1 ,i ?9k1 necess>y to hold t ! olde/ & simple/ hypo!sis ( ! connection betwe5 body & m9d1 t ( ,int]action1 is aft] all ! mo/ satisfactory4 ,accord+ to ?is view1 ! two s]ies _c be ?\ght ( z pres5t+ an exact correspond5ce1 & mu/ be ?\ght ( z causally influ5c+ ea* o!r at diff]5t po9ts1 precisely z any two sets ( physical ev5ts d4 ,if we adopt x we %all recognise 9 s5sation a psy*ical /ate :i* has physical processes among its imm$iate antec$5ts1 & 9 motor reaction simil>ly a physical process ) psy*ical antec$5ts4 ,x is sc>cely to be d5i$ t ?is conception ( body & m9d1 z two ?+s :i* /& 9 causal relation1 is ! hypo!sis :i* mo/ naturally pres5ts itself1 :5 once we h artificially brok5 up ! unity ( imm$iate exp]i5ce into a physical & a psy*ical side1 & s creat$ ! problem ( psy*ophysical connection4 ,s natural is x1 t ev5 psy*ologi/s :o accept "o ( ! o!r hypo!ses are to be f\nd con/antly speak+ ( volunt>y movem5t 9 t]ms :i*1 if !y mean any?+1 imply causal det]m9ation ( bodily by m5tal process1 :ile no psy*ologi/ ( any s*ool has ev] succe$$ 9 express+ ! relation ( s5sation to /imulus 9 any o!r phraseology ?an t ( ,int]action4 ,probably ! hypo!sis w\ld nev] h be5 expos$ to ho/ile criticism at all1 b = ! metaphysical objections1 already dismiss$ by u z fallaci\s1 f\nd$ ^u ! notion t ! me*anical po/ulates ) :i* ,int]action conflicts are asc]ta9$ tru?s ab\t ! actual /ructure ( ! reality ) :i* we are 9 t\* 9 imm$iate exp]i5ce4 ,x is cle> t1 f ! nature ( ! problem to be solv$1 we _c be call$ ^u to prove ! actual occurr5ce ( psy*ophysical int]action4 ,z a work+ hypo!sis = ! int]relation ( two sets ( sci5tific ab/ractions1 ! !ory is 9 pr9ciple incapable ( direct e/abli%m5t by ! 8appeal to facts40 ,all t is requisite = its ju/ification is to %[ t x is 7a7 n 9 pr9ciple at v>iance ) any fundam5tal axiom ( sci5tific proc$ure1 & 7b7 enables u to co-ord9ate our sci5tific results 9 ! mann] mo/ suitable = ! uses to :i* we propose to put !m4 ,bo? ^! conditions are fulfill$ by ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action1 if our =ego+ argum5ts are s\nd4 ,we h se5 ! fallaci\s nature ( ! objections br\ght aga9/ x on a priori gr\nds ( logical me?od1 & h also se5 t x is positively dem&$ if we are at once to be fai?ful to ! me*anical po/ulates ^u :i* physical sci5ce dep5ds = its successes1 & to recognise 9 our psy*ological con/ructions t teleological "* ( human action :i* is all-ess5tial = ,hi/ory & ,e?ics4 ,9 sub/ance ?is is ! :ole case = ! ,int]action hypo!sis1 & no fur!r accession ( /r5g? w\ld result f its elaboration 9 detail4 ,x may be add$ t x is "o great recomm5dation ( ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action1 t x is q consi/5t ) ! full recognition ( ! relative usefulness ( ! alt]native !ories1 ?\gh !y1 z we h se51 are unable to d ju/ice to ^? aspects ( fact :i* c only be express$ 9 t]ms ( ,int]action4 ,?us ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action c readily af=d to admit t1 = c]ta9 purposes & up to a c]ta9 po9t1 x is possible to treat physical or psy*ical processes z if !y 7 det]m9$ solely by physical or psy*ical conditions respectively1 & ev5 to treat "s physical processes z if ! pres5ce ( _! psy*ical concomitants made no diff]5ce at all to _! occurr5ce4 ,! reason ( ?is is1 t :]eas a me*anical hypo!sis c give no intelligible acc\nt ( a purposive process at all1 a teleological hypo!sis c q easily acc\nt = ! app>5tly me*anical "* ( "s ( ! processes :i* fall "u x4 ,z we h se5 7,book ,,iii4 *ap4 #c1 #f71 a purposive reaction1 once e/abli%$1 approximates to me*anical uni=mity 9 ! regul>ity ) :i* x cont9ues to be repeat$1 :ile ! conditions are un*ang$1 & ! end ( ! reaction is !re=e /ill secur$ by its repetition4 ,?us we c readily see t1 ev5 if we cont5t$ ourselves ) ! attempt to translate into ! language ( psy*ological sci5ce ! processes :i* make up ! life ( an individual subject1 _m ( !m w\ld appe> to be go+ on ) r\t9e uni=mity4 ,& :5 we delib]ately set ourselves to obta9 uni=mities by tak+ an av]age result1 d]iv$ f comp>ison ( a multitude ( subjects1 our results are1 ( c\rse1 always me*anical 9 appe>ance1 because ! elem5t ( individual purpose & initiative has be5 exclud$ by ourselves f our data 9 ! v process ( tak+ ! av]age4 ,h5ce we c und]/& h[1 on ! hypo!sis ( ,int]action itself1 all ^? m5tal processes :i* consi/ 9 ! repetition ( an already e/abli%$ type ( reaction %\ld come to appe> me*anical1 & ?us to sugge/ t me*anical conception ( psy*ical processes :i* is common to ! epiph5om5ali/ & ! p>alleli/ view4 ,int]action1 & ,int]action alone1 is ?us a hypo!sis capable ( be+ appli$ to ! :ole field ( psy*ological inve/igation4 ,i w conclude ?is *apt] ) "s consid]ations on ! be>+ ( our result ^u ! special problems ( ,metaphysics4 ,we h explicitly def5d$ ,int]action z be+ no /atem5t ( actual exp]i5c$ fact1 b a work+ hypo!sis = ! conv5i5t correlation ( two sci5tific con/ructions1 nei!r ( :i* directly corresponds to ! actualities ( exp]i5ce4 ,?is means1 ( c\rse1 t ,int]action _c possibly be ! f9al tru? = ,metaphysics4 ,x _c ultimately be ! 8fact0 t 8m9d0 & 8body0 are ?+s :i* react ^u ea* o!r1 because1 z we h se51 nei!r 8m9d0 nor 8body0 is an actual datum ( exp]i5ce2 = direct exp]i5ce & its social relations1 ! duality subsequ5tly creat$ by ! con/ruction ( a physical ord] simply has no exi/5ce4 ,nor c x be ma9ta9$ t ?is duality1 ?\gh n directly giv5 z a datum1 is a concept :i* has to be assum$ 9 ord] to make exp]i5ce consi/5t ) itself1 & is !re=e ! tru?4 ,= ! concept ( ,int]action manife/ly reposes ^u ! logically prior conception ( ! physical z a rigidly me*anical sy/em4 ,x is because we h fir/ con/ruct$ ! notion ( ! 8body0 on rigidly me*anical l9es t we h subsequ5tly to devise ! concept ( 8m9d0 or 8s\l0 z a means ( recognis+ & symbolis+ 9 our sci5ce ! non-me*anical "* ( actual human life4 ,& s9ce we h already se5 t ! me*anical1 z su*1 _c be real1 ?is :ole s*eme ( a me*anical & a non-me*anical sy/em 9 causal relation ) "o ano!r c only be an imp]fect sub/itute = ! ,reality x is int5d$ to symbolise4 ,9 fact1 we might h drawn ! same conclusion f ! v fact t ! psy*ophysical hypo!sis we h adopt$ is c\*$ 9 t]ms ( ,transeunt ,causality1 s9ce we h already satisfi$ ourselves t all =ms ( ! causal po/ulate are m or less defective appe>ance4 ,! proposition t ! psy*ophysical !ory ( ! 8connection0 ( 8body0 & 8m9d0 is an artificial trans=mation1 due to ! ne$s ( empirical sci5ce1 ( ! actual teleological unity ( human exp]i5ce1 is sometimes express$ by ! /atem5t t m9d & body are really "o & ! same ?+4 ,9 its insi/5ce ^u ! abs5ce ( ! psy*ophysical duality f actual exp]i5ce1 ?is say+ is correct en\gh1 b x p]haps fails to express ! tru? ) suffici5t precision4 ,=1 z x /&s1 ! say+ conveys no h9t ( ! v diff]5t levels on :i* ! two concepts /& 9 respect to ! degree ( tru? ) :i* !y reproduce ! purposive teleological "* ( real human exp]i5ce4 ,x w\ld p]haps be ne>] ! m>k to say t1 :ile ! physiologi/'s object1 ! 8body10 & ! psy*ologi/'s object1 ! 8m9d10 are alike conceptual symbols1 sub/itut$1 f special causes1 = ! s+le subject ( actual life1 & may bo? be !re=e said to 8mean0 or 8/& =0 ! same ?+1 _! actual cont5t is diff]5t4 ,= :at 9 ! language ( physiology ,i call my 8body0 includes only ^? processes ( actual life :i* approximate to ! me*anical ideal suffici5tly closely to be capable ( be+ successfully treat$ z m]ely me*anical1 & !re=e br\ght "u a s*eme ( g5]al 8laws0 ( nature4 ,:]eas :at1 z a psy*ologi/1 ,i call my 8m9d0 or 8s\l10 ?\gh x includes processes ( an approximately me*anical type1 includes !m only z subord9ate to ! initiation ( fre% individual reactions aga9/ environm5t :i* c only be adequately express$ by teleological categories4 ,?us1 ?\gh 8m9d0 & 8body0 9 a s5se mean ! same actual ?+1 ! "o /&s = a full] & cle>] view ( its true nature ?an ! o!r4 ,9 ,dr4 ,/\t's t]m9ology _! int5t may be ! same1 b _! cont5t is diff]5t4#ahc ,consult fur!r3--,r4 ,av5>ius1 ,d] ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff2 ,b4 ,bosanquet1 ,psy*ology ( ! ,moral ,self1 lect4 #aj2 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bc2 ,%adwor? ,hodgson1 ,metaphysic ( ,exp]i5ce1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #bgf-djc2 ,william ,james1 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 vol4 i4 *aps4 #e & #f2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 iii4 *aps4 #a & #e 7,eng4 trans41 vol4 ii4 pp4 #afc-aih1 #bhc-eag72 ,h4 ,mn/]b]g1 ,grundzge d] ,psy*ologie1 i4 *aps4 #aa4 7pp4 #djb-dcf71 #ae 7pp4 #ebe-efb72 ,g4 ,f4 ,/\t1 ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c ,introduction1 *ap4 #c2 ,james ,w>d1 ,naturalism & ,agno/icism1 vol4 ii4 lects4 #aa & #ab 7art4 8,psy*ology0 9 ,supplem5t to ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 p4 #ff ff474 ----- ,footnote #agd3 ,comp>e ! foll[+ /rik+ passage f ,av5>ius1 ,m5s*li*e ,weltbegriff1 p4 #ge3 8,let an individual ,m d5ote a def9ite :ole ( #8p]ceiv$ ?+s' 7trunk1 arms & h&s1 legs & feet1 spee*1 movem5ts1 etc47 & ( #8pres5t$ ?\ghts' z ,i1 444 !n :5 ,m says #8,i h a bra91' ?is means t a bra9 belongs z "p to ! :ole ( p]ceiv$ ?+s & pres5t$ ?\ghts d5ot$ z ,i4 ,& :5 ,m says #8,i h ?\ghts1' ?is means t ! ?\ghts !mselves belong z a "p to ! :ole ( p]ceiv$ ?+s & pres5t$ ?\ghts d5ot$ z ,i4 ,b ?\gh ?or\gh analysis ( ! d5otation ( ,i ?us leads to ! result t we h a bra9 & ?\ght1 x nev] leads to ! result t ! bra9 has ! ?\ghts4 ,! ?\ght is1 no d\bt1 a ?\ght ( #8my ,ego1' b n a ?\ght ( #8my bra9' any m ?an my bra9 is ! bra9 ( #8my ?\ght4' ,i4e4 ! bra9 is no habitation1 seat1 g5]ator1 in/rum5t or organ1 no support or sub/ratum ( ?\ght4 ,?\ght is no indwell] or comm&]1 no o!r half or side1 & also no product1 inde$ n ev5 a physiological function or s mu* z a /ate ( ! bra940 ,footnote #age3 ,z else:]e 9 ?is "w1 ,i am us+ ! t]ms 8m9d0 & 8s\l0 z virtually int]*angeable names = ! object /udi$ by ! psy*ologi/4 ,s f> z !re is any def9ite di/9ction ( mean+ betwe5 ! t]ms z curr5tly us$ by ,engli% writ]s1 8s\l0 seems to c>ry ) x m ( ! implication ( sub/antiality & relative indep5d5ce ?an 8m9d40 ,x might n be amiss to adopt ! t]m 8s\l0 z a "n = ! f9ite subject ( exp]i5ce z he is = himself 9 actual social life1 & to conf9e ! "n 8m9d0 to ! con/ruction :i* symbolises ?is subject = psy*ological purposes4 ,b ! popul> anti!sis betwe5 s\l & body is p]haps too /rongly root$ to admit ( ?is sugge/ion4 ,9 e>li] passages1 e4g41 ,book ,,ii4 *ap4 #b1 #f1 ,i h us$ ! t]m 8_s0 9 ! s5se "h sugge/$ = 8s\l40 ,footnote #agf3 ,s1 9 deal+ ) a/ronomical problems1 we are free to adopt ei!r ! ,cop]nican or ! ,ptolemaic s*eme1 :i*ev] happ5s to be ! m conv5i5t = our special purpose4 ,! sup]ior tru? ( ! ,cop]nican sy/em seems to mean no m ?an t ! range ( its utility is ! wid] ( ! two4 ,i may obs]ve t ,i d n "h employ ! t]m 8utility0 9 ! n>r[ly practical s5se ( ^? philosoph]s :o1 e4g41 condemn all speculation ab\t ! 8,absolute0 on ! gr\nd ( inutility4 ,:atev] satisfies any human aspiration is = me1 s f>1 8useful40 ,x foll[s t !re is1 = me1 no su* ?+ z ! 8useless k0 :i* 8,pragmatism0 d5\nces4 ,?us1 if a man's peace ( m9d dep5ds ^u speculation ab\t ! 8,absolute0--on ! habits ( angels1 or any o!r topic y l 7& ?is is a matt] 9 :i* e man mu/ 9 ! end decide = himself7--,pragmatism w\ld appe> to be false to its own pr9ciple 9 =bidd+ him to speculate4 ,footnote #agg3 ,! assumption is n always made1 h[ev]4 ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g1 :o classes himself z a support] ( ,p>allelism1 holds on metaphysical gr\nds t all causal connection mu/ be betwe5 physical /ates4 ,h5ce he d5ies t psy*ical /ates c be causally connect$ ) "o ano!r1 except indirectly ?r\gh ! causal relations ( _! physical correlates4 ,8 doctr9e is ?us h>dly to be di/+ui%$ f ,epiph5om5alism1 except 9 t]m9ology1 ?\gh he avoids ! consequ5ce ( practical ,fatalism by 8 insi/5ce ^u ! purely artificial nature ( bo? ! physical & ! psy*ical s]ies4 7,8 reason = refus+ to admit causal relation betwe5 psy*ical /ates is t causal connection c only be e/abli%$ betwe5 univ]sals1 :]eas e psy*ical /ate is unique4 ,does n ?is argum5t imply a confusion betwe5 ! actual exp]i5ce & its psy*ological symbol87 ,footnote #agh3 ,mo/ support]s ( ,p>allelism1 x may be not$1 /ultify _! own case1 s f> z x re/s on ?is special cont5tion1 by admitt+ ! causal det]m9ation ( psy*ical /ates by "o ano!r1 ?\gh1 z psy*ical /ates are ess5tially qualitative1 ! r$uction ( causation to quantitative id5tity is p>ticul>ly inadmissible "h4 ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g is q consi/5t1 !re=e1 9 d5y+ psy*ical causality & r$uc+ ,p>allelism to ,epiph5om5alism4 ,footnote #agi3 ,! read] :o has foll[$ ! argum5t ( our ,?ird ,book w n ne$ to be rem9d$ t ! _w ( purely me*anical processes is simply an ideal con/ruction bas$ on po/ulates :i* we make = _! practical conv5i5ce1 & 9 no s5se a direct transcript ( ! _w ( actual exp]i5ce4 ,footnote #ahj3 ,! 8neutral ,monism0 to :i* ! doctr9e ( rigid ,p>allelism logically leads1 :5 put =w>d z m ?an a work+ hypo!sis1 w1 "o may hope1 9 ,engl& at lea/1 fail to survive ! exposure ( its illogicalities 9 ! second volume ( ,pr(essor ,w>d's ,naturalism & ,agno/icism4 ,footnote #aha3 ,?is case includes1 z w be app>5t on a little reflection1 n only ! initiation ( new motor reactions ^u a s5sation or p]cept1 b also t ( s5sation itself z a qualitatively novel reaction ^u physiological /imulation1 & ?us includes bo? ! processes 9 :i* support]s ( ,int]action h always recognis$ ! causal int]connection ( ! physical & ! psy*ical4 ,footnote #ahb3 ,x is ) great pleasure t ,i note ! co9cid5ce ( my own view on ! impossibility ( reconcil+ ,p>allelism ) ! recognition ( ! psy*ological importance ( 8mean+0 ) t ( ,mr4 ,gibson 7essay on 8,! ,problem ( ,fre$om10 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism1 p4 #aej ff474 ,pr(essor ,mn/]b]g's decl>ation1 t ! consci\sness inve/igat$ by ,psy*ology 8kn[s no?+ by its k & wills no?+ by its w10 seems to me a confession ( ! bankruptcy ( ,p>allelism z a basal psy*ological hypo!sis4 ,/ill m s 8 elaborate & brilliant demon/ration t ! 8bra90 ) :i* my 8m9d0 may be reg>d$ z 8p>allel0 is n ! bra9 z /udi$ & *>t$ by ! anatomi/1 i4e4 n ! bra9 z a physical object at all4 ,see ,psy*ologie1 i4 #dae-dbh4 ,footnote #ahc3 ,see 8 essay on 8,error0 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iii ,,! ,,place ,,( ,,! 8,,self0 ,,9 ,,reality #a4 ,! 8self0 is 7#a7 a teleological concept1 7#b7 implies a contra/$ n-self 7:]e ?is contra/ is abs5t f an exp]i5ce !re is no g5u9e s5se ( self72 7#c7 b ! limits :i* divide self & n-self are n fix$ b fluctuat+4 ,! n-self is n a m]ely ext]nal limit1 b consi/s ( discordant elem5ts )9 ! individual1 :i* are extrud$ f x by a m5tal con/ruction4 7#d7 ,! self is a product ( developm5t1 & has its be+ 9 ! "t-s]ies4 7#e7 ,! self is nev] giv5 complete 9 a mom5t ( actual exp]i5ce1 b is an ideal con/ruction2 probably selfhood implies "s degree ( intellectual developm5t4 #b4 ,! ,absolute or ,inf9ite ,individual1 be+ free f all int]nal discord1 c h no n-self1 & !re=e _c prop]ly be call$ a self4 #c4 ,/ill less c x be a p]son4 #d4 ,9 a society ( selves we h a m g5u9ely self-det]m9$ individual ?an 9 ! s+le self4 ,h5ce x w\ld be ne>] ! tru? to ?9k ( ! ,absolute z a ,society1 ?\gh no f9ite :ole adequately expresses ! ,absolute's full nature4 ,we mu/ rememb]1 h[ev]1 7a7 t probably ! individuals 9 ! ,absolute are n all 9 direct relation1 & 7b7 t 9 ?9k+ ( x z a ,society we are n d5y+ its real individuality4 #e4 ,! self is n 9 its own nature imp]i%able2 z to ! p>ticul> problem ( its cont9uance aft] dea?1 no decision c be arriv$ at on gr\nds ( ,metaphysics4 ,nei!r ! negative presumption drawn f our inability to und]/& ! conditions ( cont9uance1 nor ! lack ( empirical evid5ce1 is conclusive2 on ! o!r h&1 !re is n suffici5t metaphysical reason = tak+ immortality z c]ta94 #a4 ,we h already1 9 ,book ,,ii4 *ap4 #a1 #e1 incid5tally rais$ ! "q :e!r ! :ole spiritual sy/em :i* we f\nd gr\nd to reg>d z ! reality ( ! univ]se1 c prop]ly be spok5 ( z a 8self40 ,we decid$ t to apply su* a pr$icate to x 0 at lea/ mislead+1 & might prep>e ! way = s]i\s intellectual sophi/ication4 ,our discussion ( ! g5]al "* ( psy*ological conceptions has n[ made x possible = u to return to ! problem ) reasonable hopes ( be+ able to treat x m fully1 & to arrive at "s def9ite conclusion z to ! am\nt ( tru? embodi$ by ! notion ( 8self40 ,fir/ ( all1 !n1 let u attempt to fix ! g5]al mean+ ( ! concept1 & to s+le out "s ( its m prom95t *>act]i/ics4 ,x w\ld cle>ly require mu* m space ?an we c sp>e to enum]ate all ! s5ses 9 :i* ! notion ( 8self0 has be5 us$ 9 ,psy*ology1 & ! "w1 :5 done1 w\ld n be entirely g]mane to our metaphysical purpose4 ,:at ,i propose to attempt "h w be simply to consid] c]ta9 aspects ( ! concept ( 8self0 :i* are manife/ly indisp5sable = ! purpose ( e?ical & hi/orical appreciation1 & to ask :at _! value is = ! metaphysical int]pretation ( exi/5ce4 7#a7 ,x is manife/1 to beg9 )1 t 8self0 is a teleological concept4 ,! self ^: quality is reveal$ 9 ,biography & ,hi/ory1 & judg$ 9 ,e?ics1 has = its exclusive mat]ial our emotional int]e/s & purposive attitudes t[>ds ! v>i\s con/itu5ts ( our surr\nd+s2 ( ^!1 & ( no?+ else1 our self is made4 ,& ! self1 aga91 is "o & individual1 j 9 s f> z ^! int]e/s & purposes c be ?\ght ( z =m+ ! expression1 9 ! detail ( succession1 ( a c5tral coh]5t int]e/ or purpose4 ,:]e ?is c5tral int]e/ appe>s n to exi/ at all1 we h no logical "r to speak ( a succession ( purposive acts z ! expression ( a s+le self4 ,?us1 ?\gh x may be necess>y = "s ( ! practical purposes ( police adm9i/ration to take bodily id5tity z evid5ce ( id5tity ( self1 we all recognise t :at a man does 9 a /ate ( m5tal ali5ation complete en\gh to aboli% cont9uity ( purpose1 is n mat]ial = 8 biograph] except 9 s f> z ! k ( x may modify 8 int]e/s & purposes on 8 return to sanity4 ,& ev5 9 cases :]e we may acquiesce 9 ! necessity = assum+ responsibility be=e ! law = 8de$s done 9 ! body10 consci5ce acquits u ( moral guilt if we hone/ly feel we c say1 8,i 0 n myself :5 x 0 done40#ahd ,! teleological "* ( ! unity we ascribe to ! self is fur!r illu/rat$ by ! puzzles sugge/$ by ! 8alt]nate0 & 8multiple0 p]sonalities occasionally br\ght to light 9 ! /udy ( hypnotism & ( m5tal pa?ology4 ,f9ally1 9 ! fairly num]\s cases ( 8conv]sion10 :]e a man1 z we say1 becomes a 8new be+0 or p>ts ) 8 8old self10 we only recognise him z id5tical ) 8 pa/ self 9 s f> z we succe$ 9 ?9k+ ( 8 8new life0 z be+ ! expression ( aims & int]e/s :i* 71 at lea/ implicitly & z 8t5d5cies10 already pres5t1 ?\gh conceal$1 9 ! 8old40 7#b7 ,! self implies1 & has no exi/5ce ap>t f1 a n-self1 & x is only 9 ! contra/ ) ! n-self t x is aw>e ( itself z a self4 ,?is seems to me cle>1 z a matt] ( pr9ciple1 ?\gh ! consequ5ces ( ! pr9ciple are 9 mu* curr5t speculation p>tly misconceiv$1 p>tly neglect$4 ,! mo/ important among !m1 = our purposes1 are ! foll[+4 ,! feel+ ( self is c]ta9ly n an insep>able concomitant ( all our exp]i5ce4 ,= x only arises--& "h no?+ b direct exp]im5tation c be appeal$ to z evid5ce--z a contra/-effect 9 connection ) our aw>5ess ( a n-self1 :e!r z impos+ re/ra9ts ^u ! expression ( ! self1 or z und]go+ modification by ! self4 ,h5ce exp]i5ces f :i* ?is contra/ is abs5t seem to exhibit no trace ( g5u9e 8self-consci\sness40#ahe ,feel+1 :]e y c get x 9 its simple =m1 seems to be univ]sally all[$ to be an in/ance 9 po9t4 ,mu* ( our p]ception appe>s to me1 ?\gh ,i "k ! view is n widely curr5t among psy*ologi/s1 to be 9 ! same position4 ,e4g41 normally :5 ,i am look+ at an object1 say = in/ance1 a :ite-wa%$ wall1 ,i d n f9d t ,i am 9 any real s5se 8consci\s ( self40 ,! cont5t ( my aw>5ess seems1 to me at lea/1 to be j ! wall 9 a sett+ ( a mass ( unanalys$ feel+1 organic & o!r1 :i* y may1 if y please1 f y\r /&po9t z an ext]nal obs]v]1 call my p]ceiv+ self1 b ( :i* ,i am only aw>e z ! sett+ ( ! p]ceiv$ wall4 ,x is only :5 att5tion to ! cont5t ( ! p]ception becomes difficult 7z1 e4g41 ?r\gh fatigue ( ! organs ( s5se1 or conflict ) "s incompatible purpose7 t ,i am normally aw>e ( ! p]ceiv$ object z a n-self oppos$ to & re/rict+ my self4 ,! same is1 ,i ?9k1 true ( mu* ( our life ( consci\s purposive action4 ,i d n f9d t 9 my intellectual pursuit ( a *os5 /udy1 or aga9 9 my social relations to ! o!r memb]s ( my community1 ,i h explicit aw>5ess ( ! 8facts0 ( sci5ce1 or ! int]e/s & purposes ( o!rs z a n-self ) :i* my own int]e/s are contra/$ z ^? ( ! self1 except 9 s f> z ,i ei!r f9d ^! facts & int]e/s 9 actual collision ) "s aim ( my own1 or exp]i5ce ! removal ( su* a collision4 ,9 ord9>y social life1 = in/ance1 ,i h a /rong feel+ ( self z oppos$ to n-self :5 ! plans ( "s memb] ( my imm$iate circle cla% ) my own1 & aga9 :5 ,i succe$ 9 w9n+ su* a recalcitrant ov] to my own side2 my self 9 ! "o case feels repression1 9 ! o!r expansion4 ,b ,i d n ?9k x c be said t ! self-feel+ arises 9 actual life :]e !re is tempor>ily no consci\sness ( opposition or its removal4 ,= in/ance1 :ile we are h>moni\sly work+ ) o!r m5 = a previ\sly conc]t$ end1 ! consci\sness ( self & its contra/$ n-self sc>cely appe>s to ent] into our exp]i5ce4#ahf ,?is is1 ,i presume1 :y practical worldly wisdom has always reg>d$ 8self-consci\sness0 z a s\rce ( weakness & moral failure4 ,:ile we are /eadily engag$ 9 ! progressive execution ( a purpose1 we 8lose ourselves0 9 ! "w2 x is only ^u a *eck t we become 8self-consci\s40 7#c7 ,! next po9t to be not$ is t !re is no def9ite l9e ( dem>cation betwe5 self & n-self4 ,9 p>ticul>1 we mu/ n fall into ! error ( suppos+ t ! :ole cont5t ( ! relation betwe5 self & n-self is social1--! self on its side consi/+ ( me1 & ! n-self ( o!r m54 ,x is true1 no d\bt1 t ! orig9 ( ! di/9ction is ma9ly social1 s9ce x is 9 ! ma9 ?r\gh exp]i5ce ( :at x is to h my execution ( a desir$ act repress$ by o!rs1 & aga9 to h ! /umbl+-blocks :i* h previ\sly re/rict$ my action remov$ by _! co-op]ation1 t ,i come to be def9itely aw>e ( :at ,i want1 & ( ! fact t x is ,i :o want x4 ,b x w\ld be h>d to %[ t ! di/9ction betwe5 ! self & ! n-self c\ld n orig9ate at all except 9 a social m$ium1 & x is cle> t ! range ( its applicability1 :5 orig9at$1 is n limit$ to ! social relation4 ,!re seems1 on ! "o h&1 to be no feature 9 our exp]i5ce :atev] :i* is entirely exclud$ f ent]+ into ! con/itution ( :at is felt z ! self4 ,my social intimates1 my pr(essional colleagues1 my regul> occupations1 ev5 my clo!s or articles ( furniture1 to :i* ,i h gr[n accu/om$1 may be s ess5tial to ! cont9uity ( my *>act]i/ic int]e/s 9 life t _! removal w\ld make my "* unrecognisable1 or possibly ev5 lead to insanity or dea?4 ,& z ?us indisp5sable to ! teleological unity or my exi/5ce1 all ^! 8ext]nal0 objects seem to be capable ( pass+ into & becom+ "p ( ! self4 ,we see an extreme in/ance ( ?is 9 ! case ( ! savage transplant$ into civilis$ surr\nd+s1 :o fails 9 body & m9d & f9ally dies1 )\t recognisable disease1 simply f ! disappe>ance ( ! int]e/s connect$ ) 8 old surr\nd+s2 or t ( ! cl++ affectionate p]sons :o1 9 ! same way1 fade away ^u ! loss ( a belov$ relative or fri5d4 ,9 a m9or degree we see ! same ?+ 9 ^? *anges ( "* :i* common spee* happily describe by su* phrases z 8he has nev] be5 himself s9ce--8 wife di$1 s9ce he lo/ t money10 & s =?4 ,9 pr9ciple !re seems to be no factor ( :at we %\ld curr5tly call ! self's environm5t :i* may n 9 ?is way come to be "p ( ! cont5t ( ! self4#ahg ,on ! o!r side1 x seems difficult to say :e!r !re is any?+ :i* ord9>ily =ms "p ( ! 8self0 :i* may n1 "u special conditions1 become a "p ( :at we recognise z ! 8n-self40 ,?us our bodily feel+s & s5sations1 our ?\ghts & desires1 & 9 p>ticul> our virtu\s & vici\s habits1 are usually reckon$ z def9itely belong+ to our self4 ,yet 9 s f> z we c ?9k ( any desire or habit z an elem5t :i* is discordant ) ! re/ ( our self1 & ought n to be !re1--& ! :ole bus9ess ( moral progress dep5ds on our be+ able to take up ?is attitude1--we1 s f>1 relegate t elem5t to ! n-self4 ,to w ! habit or desire to be o!rwise is already1 9 pr9ciple1 to expel x f ! teleological unity :i* makes up our inn] life4 ,s aga9 ) our ?\ghts3 9 s f> z we c susp5d our ass5t to a judgm5t1 & balance reasons = or aga9/ accept+ x into ! g5]al sy/em ( our beliefs1 ! judgm5t cle>ly belongs to ! ext]nal n-self4 ,yet x is at lea/ conceivable t !re may be intellectual z well z moral habits s deeply engra9$ 9 our con/itution t we _c ?us set !m ov]-aga9/ ! self = judgm5t & s5t5ce4 ,we mu/ n d5y t !re are cases 9 :i* we c\ld n w or ?9k diff]5tly1 or ev5 m5tally ent]ta9 ! possibility ( ?9k+ or will+ diff]5tly1 )\t ! de/ruction ( our life's cont9uity ( purpose4 ,aga91 our bodily s5sations seem to belong 9 a v special way to our self4 ,yet 9 s f> z we c acquire ! p[] ( volunt>ily obs]v+ !m1 or aga9 ( )draw+ att5tion f !m1 !y are 9 pr9ciple r$uc$ to ! position ( elem5ts 9 ! n-self4 ,ev5 pleasure & pa9 d n seem to belong inali5ably to ! self's side ( ! contra/4 ,e4g41 to adapt a ,platonic illu/ration1 if ,i feel pleasure 9 contemplat+ ! vulg> or obsc5e1 & at ! same "t feel disgu/$ ) myself = be+ s pleas$1 ! pleasure seems 9 ! act ( condemnation to be recognis$ z no "p ( my 8true0 self1 b an ali5 elem5t obtrud$ on ! self aga9/ its nature4 ,pa91 by reason ( t urg5cy & insi/5cy :i* give x its biological importance1 is mu* h>d] to bani% f ! self2 b exp]i5ce1 ,i ?9k1 w conv9ce any "o :o c>es to make ! exp]im5t1 t bodily pa9s1 :5 n too int5se 7e4g41 a mod]ately sev]e too?a*e71 c1 by direct+ att5tion to _! s5sational quality1 be sometimes made to appe> z def9itely =eign to ! exp]i5c+ self4 ,& ! hi/ory ( asceticism1 anci5t & mod]n1 z well z ! practice ( 8m9d-cur]s10 sugge/s t ?is process ( extrusion c be c>ri$ fur!r ?an we commonly suspect4 ,organic or 8common0 s5sations ( g5]al bodily condition probably =m ! elem5t 9 exp]i5ce :i* mo/ ob/9ately resi/s all attempts to sev] x f ! :ole self & treat x z a =eign object1 ?\gh 9 "s cases we c]ta9ly seem able to extrude ! organic s5sation f ! felt self by analysis ( its quality & 8localisation40 ,/ill1 x mu/ be admitt$ t if !re are any elem5ts 9 exp]i5ce :i* are absolutely incapable ( transf]5ce to ! n-self1 !y are probably 9 ! ma9 masses ( unanalys$ & unanalysable organic s5sation4#ahh ,all ^! consid]ations make two po9ts v cle>4 7a7 ,! self 9 :i* we are int]e/$ 9 ,e?ics & ,hi/ory is n any?+ ) def9itely fix$ b\nd>ies4 ,! l9e divid+ x f its complem5t1 ! n-self1 is "o :i* we _c draw accord+ to any precise logical rule2 & aga91 :at is at "o "t on "o side ( ! b\nd>y is at ano!r on ! o!r4 ,if !re is any "p ( our exp]i5ce at all :i* mu/ be reg>d$ z always & ess5tially belong+ to ! self's side ( ! divid+ l9e1 x w 9 all probability be m]ely masses ( bodily feel+ :i* are manife/ly n ! :ole ( :at ,e?ics & ,hi/ory contemplate :5 !y appraise ! wor? ( a self4#ahi ,fur!r1 a conclusion foll[s z to ! nature ( ! opposition ( self to n-self4 ,! n-self1 z ! read9ess ) :i* mo/ ( ! cont5ts ( exp]i5ce c pass f "o side ( ! anti!sis to ! o!r %[s1 is 9 a s5se includ$ 9 at ! v "t t x is exclud$ f ! self4 ,! v>i\s factors ( :i* ! n-self c1 at diff]5t times1 be compos$1 our fell[s1 ! physical _w1 ?\ghts1 habits1 feel+s1 all agree 9 possess+ "o common *>act]i/ic2 :5 ref]r$ to ! self1 !y are all elem5ts ( discord )9 ! :ole ( pres5t exp]i5ce1 & x is on acc\nt ( ?is discordancy t we treat !m z =eign to our real nature1 & !re=e z belong+ to ! n-self4 ,we may ?us say ) accuracy t :at is ascrib$ to ! n-self is s ascrib$ because previ\sly f\nd to be discrepant1 & !re=e exclud$ f ! self2 9 o!r words1 ! n-self is n an ext]nal limit :i* we someh[ f9d 9 exp]i5ce side by side ) ! self1 b is con/ruct$ out ( exp]i5ce-data by ! extrusion ( ^? data :i*1 if admitt$ into ! self1 w\ld de/roy its h>mony4 ,?us we f9ite be+s are confront$ by a n-self ultimately because 9 our v f9itude1 z we h se5 9 e>li] *apt]s1 we conta9 9 ourselves a pr9ciple ( /rife & di%>mony4 ,! n-self is no m]ely ext]nal environm5t1 b an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! imp]fection ( int]nal /ructure :i* belongs to all f9itude4 7#d7 ,! self is ess5tially a ?+ ( developm5t1 & z su* has its be+ 9 ! "t-process4 ,?is is a po9t ^u :i* x seems = _m reasons necess>y to insi/4 ,its tru? seems manife/ f our previ\s consid]ation ( ! nature ( ! exp]i5ces ^u :i* ! concept ( ! self is bas$4 ,z we h se51 x is prim>ily to our exp]i5ce ( int]nal di%>mony & ! collision ( purpose t we owe our di/9ction betwe5 self & n-self4 ,& su* exp]i5ce seems only possible to be+s :o c oppose an ideal ( :at ought to be1 h[ev] dimly t ideal may be appreh5d$1 to :at is4 ,a be+ :o ei!r 0 already all t x 0 its nature to become1 or 0 incapable ( 9 "s way appreh5d+ ! fact t x 0 n s1 w\ld ?us n h 9 its exp]i5ce any mat]ial = ! di/9ction betwe5 ! self & ! =eign & ho/ile elem5ts 9 exp]i5ce4 ,&1 z we h already se5 9 our ,?ird ,book1 "t is ! expression 9 ab/ract =m ( ! fundam5tal nature ( an exp]i5ce :i* has z yet atta9$ only ! p>tial fulfilm5t ( its purpose & aspirations1 & is !re=e int]nally subject to t want ( p]fect h>mony 9 :i* we h n[ s\ght ! orig9 ( ! di/9ction betwe5 self & n-self4 ,h5ce we may1 ,i ?9k1 take x z c]ta91 at lea/ = u :o accept ?is acc\nt ( ! orig9 ( ! self concept1 t selves are necess>ily 9 "t & z su* are necess>ily products ( developm5t4 ,?is conclusion seems 9 accord ) positive facts :i* are too well e/abli%$ to p]mit ( "q4 ,x is probable t !re is n a s+le elem5t 9 :at ,i call my pres5t self :i* is n demon/rably ! product ( my pa/ developm5t1 physical & m5tal4 ,nor does x appe> reasonable to cont5d t ?\gh ! mat]ial ( my exi/+ self is a result ( developm5t1 its =m ( selfhood is und]iv$4 ,x is n m]ely t my pres5t self is n z my pa/ self1 b we _c avoid ! admission t my m5tal life is ! result ( a process ( developm5t by :i* x is cont9u\sly connect$ ) t ( ! embryo & ev5 ! sp]matozoon4 ,& ?us x seems to h its beg9n+s 9 exp]i5ces :i* are probably s little remov$ f simple feel+ z to af=d no opportunity = ! s5se ( self z contra/$ ) n-self4 ,or if we ma9ta9 t ! contra/ _c be altoge!r abs5t f ev5 ! crude/ =ms ( exp]i5ce1 we /ill h to reckon ) ! fact t1 "o /age fur!r back 9 my p]sonal hi/ory1 ,i _h no exi/5ce ev5 z an animalcule4 ,an embryonic self is at lea/ n positively inconceivable1 b :]e 0 ,levi's selfhood :ile he 0 yet 9 ! lo9s ( 8 fa!r8 ,if we w consid] :at we mean :5 we say we h all _h p>5ts1 x w1 ,i ?9k1 be confess$ t our self mu/ be admitt$ to h be5 actually orig9at$ 9 ! c\rse ( developm5t1 impossible z we f9d x to imag9e ! /age ( su* a process4#aij 7#e7 ,f9ally1 we mu/ deal briefly ) "o m po9t ( "s importance4 ,! self1 z we c n[ see1 is nev] id5tical ) any?+ t c\ld be f\nd completely exi/+ at any "o mom5t 9 my m5tal life4 ,= "o ?+1 x is ?\ght ( z hav+ a temporal cont9uity :i* goes f> beyond any?+ t c be imm$iately exp]i5c$ at any giv5 mom5t4 ,x /ret*es out bo? into ! pa/ & ! future beyond ! n>r[ limits ( ! 8s5sible pres5t40 ,aga91 ?is temporal cont9uity is only an ab/ract expression ( ! inn] sam5ess & cont9uity ( aims & int]e/s we ascribe to ! self4 ,my exp]i5ces are1 z we h se51 ?\ght ( z be+ ! life ( "o self ultimately because ,i look on !m z ! h>moni\s expression ( a consi/5t attitude ( int]e/ 9 ! _w4 ,& any elem5ts 9 exp]i5ce :i* w n coalesce 9 su* a h>mony are1 by "o device or ano!r1 extrud$ f ! true self & decl>$ to be ali5 intrud]s f else:]e4 ,n[1 9 real life we nev] f9d ?is complete & absolute h>mony ( ! cont5ts ( exp]i5ce2 !re are always1 if we look = !m1 elem5ts 9 our actual exp]i5ce :i* are discordant1 & conflict ) ! sy/em ( int]e/s :i*1 on ! :ole1 dom9ates x4 ,h5ce self1 9 ! la/ resort1 is se5 to be an ideal :i* actual exp]i5ce only imp]fectly realises1--! ideal ( a sy/em ( purposes & int]e/s absolutely 9 h>mony ) itself4 ,& !re mu/ be1 at lea/1 grave d\bt z to ! logical self-consi/5cy ( ?is ideal1 d\bts :i* we mu/ %ortly face4 ,= ! pres5t ! po9t to :i* ,i want to call att5tion is ?is4 ,mu/ we say t any degree ( felt cont9uity ( exi/5ce is en\gh to con/itute rudim5t>y selfhood1 or ought we to hold t !re is no true self :]e !re is n at lea/ z mu* intellectual developm5t z is impli$ 9 ! p[] to rememb] ! pa/ & anticipate ! future1 z "o's own8 ,9 o!r words1 are we to make selfhood z wide 9 its range z s5ti5t life1 or to limit x to life suffici5tly rational to involve "s di/9ct & explicit recognition ( ! contra/ betwe5 self & n-self8 ,?is is p]haps1 9 ! ma91 a "q z to t]m9ology2 = my own "p1 ,i confess ,i f9d ! second alt]native ! m satisfactory4 ,i d n see t su* a degree ( teleological cont9uity z is impli$ 9 ! m]e feel+ ( pa91 = in/ance1 des]ves to be recognis$ z g5u9e selfhood2 & !re is1 ,i ?9k1 9 ! unre/rict$ use ( ! t]m self1 selfhood1 z appli$ to m]ely feel+ consci\sness1 a dang] ( ambiguity4 ,:5 we h once appli$ ! t]ms 9 su* a case1 we are inevitably tempt$ to ov]-int]pret ! facts ( su* simple m5tal life 9 ord] to br+ !m into full] accord ) :at we "k ( selfhood 9 our own life4#aia ,at ! same "t1 x is cle> t we h no "r dogmatically to d5y ! pres5ce ( ! intellectual processes involv$ 9 ! recognition ( self :]e our me?ods ( obs]vation fail to detect !m4 #b4 ,we may n[ approa* ! problem ( ! degree ( reality :i* belongs to ! self4 ,we h to ask1 h[ f> is ! conception ( self applicable to ! individual exp]i5ces :i* 9 our ,second ,book we id5tifi$ z ! cont5ts ( ! sy/em ( real exi/5ce8 ,is ! inf9ite individual exp]i5ce prop]ly to be call$ a self8 ,aga91 is e f9ite exp]i5ce a self8 ,& h[ mu/ we take f9ite selves1 if !y are real1 to be relat$ to ea* o!r8 ,la/ly1 p]haps1 we might be call$ on 9 ?is connection to face ! "q h[ f> an individual f9ite self is m ?an a tempor>y feature 9 ! sy/em ( exi/5ce4 ,our conclusions on all ^! po9ts 7 no d\bt 9 pr9ciple decid$ by ! discussions ( our ,second ,book1 b x is desirable to make "s ( !m m explicit ?an 0 possible !re4 ,fir/1 !n1 ,i ?9k x is cle> t ! inf9ite exp]i5ce or 8,absolute0 _c prop]ly be call$ a self4 ,?is is imm$iately app>5t if our view z to ! ess5tial implications ( self-feel+ be accept$4 ,we h urg$ t self is only appreh5d$ z su* 9 contra/ to a simultane\sly appreh5d$ n-self4 ,& ! n-self1 we h se51 is compos$ ( all ! discordant elem5ts ( exp]i5ce1 s f> z _! discord has n be5 ov]come4 ,x 0 = ?is reason t we held ! self to be indissolubly b\nd up ) t exp]i5ce ( ! _w z a process 9 "t1 ) a 8no long]0 & 8n yet10 :i* is ! univ]sal *>act]i/ic ( f9itude4 ,x mu/ foll[ t an exp]i5ce :i* conta9s no discordant elem5ts1 9 _! "* z unresolv$ discords1 is n *>act]is$ by ! contra/-effect :i* is ! f\ndation ( selfhood4 ,an exp]i5ce :i* conta9s ! :ole ( ,reality z a p]fectly h>moni\s :ole c appreh5d no?+ z outside or oppos$ to itself1 & = t v reason _c be qualifi$ by :at we "k z ! s5se ( self4 ,to put ! same ?+ 9 ano!r way1 8self0 z we h se51 is ess5tially an ideal1 & an ideal :i* is appreh5d$ z contra/$ ) ! pres5t actuality4 ,h5ce only be+s :o are aw>e ( !mselves z 9 process ( becom+ m fully h>moni\s 9 _! life ( feel+ & purpose ?an !y at pres5t are1 c be aw>e ( !mselves z selves4 ,self & imp]fection are insep>able1 & any be+ :i* kn[s no?+ ( ! opposition betwe5 ! ideal & ! actual1 ! ought & ! is1 mu/ also "k no?+ ( ! feel+ ( self4 ,or 9 yet a ?ird =m ( words1 only creatures ^: life is 9 "t--& !re=e only f9ite creatures--c be selves1 s9ce ! "t-exp]i5ce is an integral con/itu5t ( selfhood4 ,"o objection :i* might be br\ght aga9/ ?is inf]5ce is suffici5tly +5i\s to des]ve special exam9ation4 ,x may be urg$ t ?\gh ! exp]i5ce ( imp]fection & ?w>t$ purpose are conditions )\t :i* we 9 p>ticul> c\ld n come to ! appreh5sion ( self1 !y d n rema9 z +r$i5ts 9 ! exp]i5ce ( selfhood :5 once x has be5 develop$4 ,h5ce1 x might be said1 ! 8,absolute0 may conceivably h ! exp]i5ce )\t hav+ to acquire x ?r\gh ^! conditions4 ,9 g5]al pr9ciple1 no d\bt ?is l9e ( argum5t is s\nd en\gh4 ,x is p]fectly true t ! special conditions ?r\gh :i* we come to h exp]i5ce ( a c]ta9 quality _c1 )\t inve/igation1 be tak5 z ev]y:]e indisp5sable = t exp]i5ce4 ,e4g41 ev5 if x 7 prov$ t ! pessimi/s are "r 9 say+ t we nev] exp]i5ce pleasure except z a contra/ ) previ\s pa91 x w\ld /ill n foll[ t ! pleasure1 z felt1 is ! m]e reb\nd f ! pa91 & has no fur!r positive quality ( its own1 & x w\ld !n /ill be an op5 "q :e!r o!r be+s might n exp]i5ce ! pleasure )\t ! antec$5t pa94 ,b ! pr9ciple does n seem applicable to ! case n[ "u consid]ation1 s9ce x is our cont5tion t ! contra/ ( ! discordant factor ) ! re/ ( ! exp]i5ce to :i* x belongs is n simply an antec$5t condition1 b is 9 fact ! c5tral core ( ! actual appreh5sion ( self4 ,x is n simply t we d n1 if our previ\s analysis has be5 correct1 h ! feel+ ( self except 9 cases :]e su* a contra/ is pres5t1 b t ! feel+ ( self is ! feel+ ( ! contra/4 ,h5ce our result seems unt\*$ by ! und\bt$ly s\nd g5]al pr9ciple to :i* we h ref]r$4 ,t our conclusion is s frequ5tly oppos$ by philosoph]s :o adopt a g5]ally ideali/ic position1 is1 ,i believe1 to be acc\nt$ = by ! preval5ce ( ! belief t exp]i5ce1 z su*1 is ess5tially *>act]is$ by consci\sness ( self4 ,to exp]i5ce at all1 x is commonly ?\ght1 is to be aw>e ( "o's self z 9 relation to an environm5t ( ! n-self4 ,h5ce to d5y t ! absolute ,reality is a self is (t5 ?\ght to be equival5t to d5y+ t x is an exp]i5ce at all & ?is1 f ! ideali/ic po9t ( view1 w\ld mean to d5y t x is real4 ,b if our previ\s analysis 0 s\nd1 x is n ev5 true ( human exp]i5ce z su* t x is ev]y:]e condition$ by ! felt contra/ ( self ) n-self4 ,f ! po9t ( view ( t analysis1 ! contra/ only exi/s :]e !re is felt discord betwe5 exp]i5ce z a :ole & "s ( its con/itu5ts4 ,! conception ( our exp]i5ce z ess5tially m>k$ by a s5se ( self1 mu/ !re=e re/ ^u our intellectual recon/ruction effect$ by ! transp>5t fiction ( ascrib+ to e exp]i5ce features :i* analysis detects only 9 special cases & "u special conditions4 ,h5ce x is q possible = u to unite ! affirmation t all real exi/5ce ultimately =ms a s+le exp]i5ce-sy/em1 ) ! d5ial t t sy/em is qualifi$ by ! contra/-effect we "k z ! s5se ( self4 ,h[1 inde$1 %\ld t outside :i* !re is no?+ to af=d ! contra/1 s di/+ui% itself f a purely imag9>y o!r8#aib #c4 ,if ! ,absolute is n a self1 a =tiori x is manife/ t x _c be a 8,p]son40 ,exactly h[ mu* is int5d$ :5 ! 8p]sonality0 ( ! ,absolute1 or inde$ ( any?+ else1 is affirm$1 x w\ld n be easy to det]m9e4 ,a 8self0 does n seem to be necess>ily a 8p]son10 s9ce ^? philosoph]s :o hold t !re is no reality b t ( selves1 :ile admitt+ t ! l[] animals are selves1 d n usually call !m p]sons4 ,b x is h>d to say h[ mu* m is includ$ 9 p]sonality ?an 9 selfhood4 ,if we be> 9 m9d t p]sonality is1 9 its orig91 a legal conception1 & t x is usually ascrib$ only to human be+s1 or to su* sup]human intellig5ces z are held capable ( associat+ on t]ms ( mutual obligation ) human be+s1 we may p]haps sugge/ ! foll[+ def9ition4 ,a p]son is a be+ capable ( be+ ! subject ( ! specific obligations atta*+ to a specific position 9 human society4 ,& x becomes manife/ t1 if ?is is s1 p]sonality is1 z ,mr4 ,bradley has said1 f9ite or mean+less4 ,= a society ( p]sons is ess5tially "o ( 1 social pe]s1 ) purposes mutually complem5t>y ?\gh n id5tical1 & /&+ 9 ne$ ( ea* o!r's aid = ! realisation ( ^? purposes4 ,only ^? be+s are p]sonal = me ^: aims & purposes are includ$ along ) m9e 9 "s wid] & m h>moni\s sy/em1 & to :om ,i !re=e am b\nd by ties ( reciprocal obligation4 ,b x is cle> t1 to ask :e!r ! wid] sy/em :i* is ?us ! f\ndation ( our mutual rights & duties z p]sons1 is itself a p]son1 w\ld be ridicul\s4 ,?us1 e4g41 !re w\ld be no s5se 9 ask+ :e!r 8human society0--! f\ndation ( our moral p]sonality--is itself a p]son4 ,y might1 9 fact1 z reasonably ask :e!r x c be su$ = trespass or assess$ "u s*$ule ,d = ,income ,tax4 ,/ill m manife/ly is ?is true ( ! ,absolute :i* includes )9 x all ! 7conceivably inf9itely num]\s7 gr\ps ( mutually recognis+ p]sons1 & all ^? o!r =ms ( exp]i5ce :i* we _c prop]ly call p]sonal4 ,betwe5 ! :ole sy/em & its compon5t elem5ts !re c be no su* relation ( mutual supplem5tation & completion z is ! ess5ce ( g5u9e p]sonality4 ,if ! sy/em1 z a :ole1 may be said to supplem5t & correct our defects & %ortcom+s1 we _c be said1 9 any way1 to supplem5t x2 ! ,absolute & ,i are emphatically n1 9 any true s5se1 1 & ! relation betwe5 u _c !re=e be ?\ght ( z p]sonal4 ,all ?is is s obvi\s1 t1 z ,i take x1 ! p]sonality ( ! ,absolute or :ole ( exi/5ce w\ld f9d no def5d]s b = ! gratuit\s assumption t :atev] is an individual exp]i5ce or spiritual unity mu/ be p]sonal4 ,?is1 z f> z ,i c see1 is to assume t su* an individual mu/ h an ext]nal environm5t ( o!r exp]i5ce-subjects ( ! same degree ( h>moni\s & compreh5sive individuality4 ,& = ?is assumption ,i c1 speak+ = myself1 see no gr\nd :atev]4#aic #d4 ,if we _c1 !n1 prop]ly say t ! ,absolute1 or ! ,univ]se1--or :atev] may be our *os5 "n = ! inf9ite individual :i* is ! :ole ( exi/5ce1--is a self or p]son1 c we say t ! f9ite individuals :i* compose x are "o & all selves1 & t ! ,absolute is !re=e a society ( selves8 ,our answ] to ?is "q mu/ dep5d1 ,i ?9k1 ^u two consid]ations1--7a7 ! am\nt ( cont9uity we reg>d z ess5tial to a self1 & 7b7 ! k9d ( unity we attribute to a society4 7a7 ,if we reg>d any & e degree ( felt teleological cont9uity z suffici5t to con/itute a self1 x is cle> t we %all be compell$ to say t selves1 & selves only1 are ! mat]ial ( :i* reality is compos$4 ,= we h already agre$ t ,reality is exclusively compos$ ( psy*ical fact1 & t all psy*ical facts are satisfactions ( "s =m ( subjective int]e/ or crav+1 & consequ5tly t e psy*ical fact compris$ 9 ! :ole sy/em ( exi/5ce mu/ =m "p ( ! exp]i5ce ( a f9ite individual subject4 ,h5ce1 if e su* subject1 :atev] its degree ( individuality1 is to be call$ a self1 !re w be no facts :i* are n includ$ some:]e 9 ! life ( "o or m selves4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if we pref]1 z ,i h done myself1 to reg>d "s degree ( intellectual developm5t1 suffici5t = ! recognition ( c]ta9 p]man5t int]e/s z ^? ( ! self1 z ess5tial to selfhood1 we %all probably conclude t ! self is an individual ( a relatively high type1 & t !re are consequ5tly exp]i5ces ( s imp]fect a degree ( teleological cont9uity z n to m]it ! title ( selves4 ,& ?is conclusion seems borne out by all ! empirically asc]ta9$ facts (1 e4g41 ! life ( ! l[] animals1 ( human infants1 & aga9 ( adults ( abnormally defective intellectual & moral developm5t4 ,few p]sons1 unless committ$ to ! def5ce ( a !ory ?r\gh ?ick & ?91 w\ld be prep>$ to call a worm a self1 & mo/ ( u w\ld probably feel "s hesitation ab\t a new-born baby or a cong5ital idiot4 ,aga91 f9ite societies are cle>ly compon5ts ( ,reality1 yet1 z we h se51 x is probably an error to speak ( a society z a self1 ?\gh e true society is cle>ly an individual ) a community & cont9uity ( purpose :i* enable u rightly to reg>d x z a unity capable ( developm5t1 & to appreciate its e?ical wor?4 ,h5ce x is1 p]haps1 less likely to lead to misund]/&+s if we say simply t ! con/itu5ts ( reality are f9ite individual exp]i5ces1 ?an if we say t !y are selves4 ,! self1 z we h se51 is a psy*ological category :i* only imp]fectly repres5ts ! facts ( exp]i5ce x is employ$ to correlate4 7b7 ,aga91 if we speak ( ! ,absolute z a society ( f9ite individuals1 we ought at lea/ to be c>eful 9 gu>d+ ourselves aga9/ misund]/&+4 ,su* an expression has c]ta9ly "s manife/ advantages4 ,x br+s out bo? ! spiritual "* ( ! sy/em ( exi/5ce & ! fact t1 ?\gh x conta9s a plurality ( f9ite selves & conta9s !m )\t discord1 x is n prop]ly ?\ght ( z a self1 b z a community ( _m selves4 ,at ! same "t1 su* language is op5 to miscon/ructions1 "s ( :i* x may be well to enum]ate4 ,we mu/ n1 = in/ance1 assume t all ! individuals 9 ! ,absolute are necess>ily 9 direct social int]relation4 ,= social relation1 prop]ly speak+1 is only possible betwe5 be+s :o are at lea/ 9 ! s5se ( hav+ int]e/s ( a suffici5tly id5tical k9d to p]mit ( int]communication & conc]t$ coop]ation = ! realisation ( a common int]e/4 ,& our own exp]i5ce tea*es u t ! range ( exi/5ce ) :i* we ourselves /& 9 ?is k9d ( relation is limit$4 ,ev5 )9 ! b\nds ( ! human race ! social relations ( ea* ( u ) ! majority ( our fell[s are ( an indirect k9d1 & ?\gh ) ! advance ( civilisation ! range ( ^? relations is con/antly be+ enl>g$1 x /ill rema9s to be se5 :e!r a 8cosmopolitan0 society is a realisable ideal or n4 ,) ! non-human animal _w our social relations1 9 consequ5ce ( ! great] div]g5ce ( subjective int]e/1 are only ( a rudim5t>y k9d1 & ) :at appe>s to u z inanimate nature1 z we h already se51 direct social relation seems to be all b absolutely preclud$4 ,among ! non-human animals1 aga91 we c]ta9ly f9d traces ( relations ( a rudim5t>ily social k9d1 b once m only )9 relatively n>r[ limits2 ! diff]5t species & gr\ps seem 9 ! ma9 to be indiff]5t to "o ano!r4 ,& we h no means ( disprov+ ! possibility t !re may be 9 ! univ]se an indef9ite plurality ( social gr\ps1 ( an organisation equal or sup]ior to t ( our human communities1 b ( a type s ali5 to our own t no direct communication1 n ev5 ( ! elem5t>y k9d :i* w\ld suffice to e/abli% _! exi/5ce1 is possible4 ,we mu/ be prep>$ to ent]ta9 ! possibility1 !n1 t ! individuals compos+ ! ,absolute fall into a numb] ( gr\ps1 ea* consi/+ ( memb]s :i* h direct social relations ( "s k9d ) ea* o!r1 b n ) ! memb]s ( o!r gr\ps4 ,& also1 ( c\rse1 we mu/ rememb] t !re may v well be v>ieties ( degree ( /ructural complexity 9 ! social gr\ps !mselves4 ,9 "s ! am\nt ( intellig5t recognition on ! "p ( ! individuals ( _! own & _! fell[s' common s*eme ( int]e/s & purposes is probably less articulate1 9 o!rs1 aga91 x may be m articulate ?an is ! case 9 ^? gr\ps ( co-op]at+ human be+s :i* =m ! only societies ( :i* we "k any?+ by direct exp]i5ce4 ,on ! o!r h&1 we mu/1 if we speak ( ! ,absolute z a society1 be c>eful to avoid ! implication1 :i* may readily arise f a false conception ( human societies1 t ! unity ( ! ,absolute is a m]e conceptual fiction or 8po9t ( view0 ( our own1 f :i* to reg>d :at is really a m]e plurality ( sep>ate units4 ,9 spite ( ! n[ fairly complete ab&onm5t 9 words ( ! old atomi/ic !ories1 :i* treat$ society z if x 7 a m]e collective "n = a multitude ( really indep5d5t 8individuals10 x may be d\bt$ :e!r we always realise :at ! rejection ( ?is view implies4 ,we /ill t5d too mu* to treat ! selves :i* compose a society1 at lea/ 9 our ,metaphysics1 z if !y 7 giv5 to u 9 direct exp]i5ce z m]ely exclusive ( "o ano!r1 r ?an z complem5t>y to "o ano!r4 ,9 o!r words1 ( ! two typical =ms ( exp]i5ce f :i* ! concept ( self appe>s to be d]iv$1 ! exp]i5ce ( conflict betwe5 our subjective int]e/s & our environm5t1 & t ( ! removal ( ! discord1 we too (t5 pay att5tion 9 our ,metaphysics to ! =m] to ! neglect ( ! latt]4 ,b 9 actual life x is (t5] ! latt] t is prom95t 9 our relations ) our fell[-m54 ,we--! category ( co-op]ation--is at lea/ z fundam5tal 9 all human ?\ght & language z ,i & ?\1 ! categories ( mutual exclusion4 ,t y & ,i are mutually complem5t>y factors 9 a wid] :ole ( common int]e/s1 is at lea/ z e>ly a discov]y ( mank9d z t our private int]e/s & /&po9ts collide4 ,if we speak ( exi/5ce z a society1 !n we mu/ be c>eful to rememb] t ! individual unity ( a society is j z real a fact ( exp]i5ce z ! individual unity ( ! memb]s :i* compose x1 & t1 :5 we call ! ,absolute a society r ?an a self1 we d n d s ) any int5tion ( ca/+ d\bt ^u its complete spiritual unity z an individual exp]i5ce4 ,) ^! re/rictions1 x w\ld1 ,i ?9k1 be fair to say t if ! ,absolute _c be call$ a society )\t qualification1 at any rate human society af=ds ! be/ analogy by :i* we c attempt to repres5t its sy/ematic unity 9 a concrete conceptual =m4 ,to put x o!rwise1 a g5u9e human society is an individual ( a high] type ( /ructure ?an any "o ( ! selves :i* compose x1 & !re=e m adequately repres5ts ! /ructure ( ! "o ultimately complete sy/em ( ! ,absolute4 ,we see ?is m p>ticul>ly 9 ! sup]ior indep5d5ce ( ,society z comp>$ ) "o ( its own memb]s4 ,x is true1 ( c\rse1 t no human society c\ld exi/ ap>t f an ext]nal environm5t1 b x does n appe> to be z necess>y to ! exi/5ce ( society z to t ( a s+le self1 t x %\ld be s5sible ( ! contra/ betwe5 itself & its rivals4 ,z we h already suffici5tly se51 x is 9 ! ma9 f ! exp]i5ce ( contra/ ) o!r human selves t ,i come by ! s5se ( my own selfhood4 ,?\gh ! cont5ts ( my concept ( self are n purely social1 x does at lea/ seem cle> t ,i c\ld nei!r acquire x1 nor reta9 x long1 except = ! pres5ce ( o!r l selves :i* =m ! complem5t to x4 ,b ?\gh hi/ory tea*es h[ closely simil> is ! "p play$ by w> & o!r relations betwe5 diff]5t societies 9 develop+ ! s5se ( a common national h]itage & purpose1 yet a society1 once />t$ on its c\rse ( developm5t1 does appe> to be able to a l>ge ext5t to fl\ri% )\t ! con/ant /imulus af=d$ by rivalry or co-op]ation ) o!r societies4 ,"o man on a des]t l&1 if left long en\gh to himself1 w\ld probably become insane or bruti%2 !re seems no suffici5t reason to hold t a s+le civilis$ community1 devoid ( relations ) o!rs1 c\ld n1 if its int]nal organisation 7 suffici5tly ri*1 fl\ri% 9 a purely 8natural0 environm5t4 ,on ! /r5g? ( ?is high] self-suffici5cy1 itself a consequ5ce ( sup]ior int]nal weal? & h>mony1 a true society may reasonably be held to be a f9ite individual ( a high] type ?an a s+le human self4 ,! g5]al result ( ?is discussion1 !n1 seems to be1 t nei!r 9 ! self nor 9 society--at any rate 9 ! only =ms ( x we "k to exi/--d we f9d ! complete h>mony ( /ructure & indep5d5ce ( ext]nal conditions :i* are *>act]i/ic ( ultimate reality4 ,bo? ! self & society mu/ !re=e be pron\nc$ to be f9ite appe>ance1 b ( ! two1 society exhibits ! full] & high] individuality1 & is !re=e ! m truly real4 ,we f\nd x q impossible to reg>d ! univ]se z a s+le self2 b1 ) c]ta9 important qualifications1 we said t x might be ?\ght ( z a society )\t v s]i\s error4#aid ,x w1 ( c\rse1 foll[ f :at has be5 said1 t we _c frame any f9ally adequate conception ( ! way 9 :i* all ! f9ite individual exp]i5ces =m ! unity ( ! inf9ite exp]i5ces4 ,t !y mu/ =m su* a p]fect unity we h se5 9 our ,second ,book2 t ! unity ( a society is1 p]haps1 ! ne>e/ analogy by :i* we c repres5t x1 has be5 %[n 9 ! pres5t p>agraph4 ,t we h no high] categories :i* c adequately indicate ! precise way 9 :i* all exi/5ce ultimately =ms an ev5 m p]fect unity1 is an inevitable consequ5ce ( ! fact ( our own f9itude4 ,we _c frame ! categories1 because we1 z f9ite be+s1 h n ! correspond+ exp]i5ce4 ,to ?is ext5t1 at lea/1 x seems to me t any s\nd philosophy mu/ end ) a mode/ confession ( ignorance4 8,!re is 9 ,god1 m5 say1 ,a deep b dazzl+ d>kness10 is a tru? :i* ! metaphysician's natural desire to "k z mu* z possible ( ! f9al tru?1 %\ld n lead him to =get4 #e4 ,?is is probably ! place to make "s ref]5ce to ! "q :e!r ! self is a p]man5t or only a tempor>y =m 9 :i* ,reality appe>s4 ,9 popul> ?\ght ?is "q commonly appe>s z t ( ! immortality 7sometimes1 too1 ( ! pre-exi/5ce7 ( ! s\l4 ,! real issue is1 h[ev]1 a wid] "o1 & ! problem ( immortality only "o ( its subsidi>y aspects4 ,i propose to say some?+ briefly on ! g5]al "q1 & also on ! special "o1 ?\gh 9 ?is latt] case r ) a view to indicat+ ! l9e along :i* discussion ought to proce$1 ?an ) ! aim ( sugge/+ a result4 ,x w\ld n1 ,i ?9k1 be possible to d5y ! tempor>y "* ( ! self aft] ! inve/igations ( ! e>li] "p ( ?is *apt]4 ,a self1 we said1 is "o & ! same only 9 virtue ( teleological cont9uity ( int]e/ & purpose4 ,b exactly h[ mu* v>iation is en\gh to de/roy ?is cont9uity1 & h[ mu* aga9 may exi/ )\t aboli%+ x1 we f\nd x impossible to det]m9e by any g5]al pr9ciple4 ,yet ! facts ( individual developm5t seem$ to make x cle> t new selves--i4e4 new unique =ms ( int]e/ 9 ! _w--come into be+ 9 ! "t-process1 & t old ones disappe>4 ,& aga91 bo? f m5tal ,pa?ology & f normal ,psy*ology1 we f\nd x easy to cite examples ( ! =mation & disappe>ance1 )9 ! life-hi/ory ( a s+le man1 ( selves :i* x seem$ impossible to reg>d z connect$ by any felt cont9uity ( int]e/ ) ! re/ ( life4 ,9 ! case ( multiple p]sonality1 & alt]nat+ p]sonality1 we seem$ to f9d evid5ce t a plurality ( su* selves might alt]nate regul>ly1 or ev5 co-exi/ 9 connection ) ! same body4 ,! less /rik+1 b m famili>1 cases ( ! pass+ selves ( our dreams1 & ( tempor>y p]iods 9 wak+ life :]e our int]e/ & *>act]s are modifi$1 b n 9 a p]man5t way by exceptional excitem5ts1 belong 9 pr9ciple to ! same category4 ,9 %ort1 unless y are to be cont5t ) a begg>ly modicum ( cont9uity ( purpose too meagre to be m ?an an empty "n1 y seem =c$ to conclude t ! orig9ation & aga9 ! disappe>ance ( selves 9 ! c\rse ( psy*ical ev5ts is a fact ( con/ant occurr5ce4 ,no d\bt1 ! high] ! int]nal organisation ( our int]e/s & purposes1 ! m fix$ & ! less liable to s]i\s modification 9 ! flux ( circum/ance our self becomes2 b a self absolutely fix$ & unalt]able 01 z we saw1 an unrealis$ &1 on ! /r5g? ( our metaphysical c]ta9ty t only ! absolute :ole is entirely self-det]m9$1 we may add1 an unrealisable ideal4 ,we seem driv51 !n1 to conclude t ! p]man5t id5tity ( ! self is a matt] ( degree1 & t we are n entitl$ to ass]t t ! self correspond+ to a s+le organism ne$ be ei!r s+le or p]si/5t4 ,x is possible = me1 ev5 9 ! p]iod betwe5 bir? & dea?1 to lose my old self & acquire a new "o1 & ev5 to h m selves ?an "o1 & ^? ( diff]5t degrees ( individual /ructure1 at ! same "t4 ,nor c we assign any c]ta9 crit]ion by :i* to decide 9 all cases :e!r ! self has be5 "o & id5tical ?r\gh a s]ies ( psy*ical ev5ts4 ,beyond ! g5]al ass]tion t ! m completely occupi$ our v>i\s int]e/s & purposes are1 ! m p]man5t is our selfhood1 we are unable to g4#aie ,^! consid]ations h an important be>+ on ! vex$ "q ( a future life4 ,if !y are ju/ifi$1 we cle>ly _c h any positive demon/ration f ! nature ( ! self ( its inde/ructibility1 & x w\ld !re=e be 9 va9 to dem& t philosophy %all prove ! p]man5ce ( all selves4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if ! p]man5ce ( a self is ultimately a function ( its inn] unity ( aim & purpose1 !re is no a priori gr\nd = hold+ t ! physical ev5t ( dea? mu/ necess>ily de/roy ?is unity1 & s t ! self mu/ be p]i%able at dea?4 ,= ,metaphysics1 ! problem ?us seems to resolve itself into a balanc+ ( probabilities1 &1 z an illu/ration ( ! k9d ( consid]ation :i* has to be tak5 into acc\nt1 x may be wor? :ile to inquire :at probable argum5ts may fairly be all[$ to c\nt on ei!r side4 ,on ! negative side1 if we dismiss1 z we fairly may1 ! unprov$ ass]tions ( dogmatic ,mat]ialism1 we h to take acc\nt ( ! possibility t a body may1 = all we "k1 be a necess>y condition = ! exi/5ce ( an individual exp]i5ce cont9u\s 9 int]e/ & purpose ) t ( our pres5t life1 & also ( ! alleg$ abs5ce ( any positive empirical evid5ce = exi/5ce aft] dea?4 ,^! consid]ations1 h[ev]1 sc>cely seem decisive4 ,z to ! fir/1 ,i d n see h[ x c be %[n t a body is indisp5sable1 at lea/ 9 ! s5se ( ! t]m 8body0 requir$ by ! argum5t4 ,x is no d\bt true t 9 ! exp]i5ce ( any individual !re mu/ be ! two aspects ( fre% teleological initiative & ( already sy/ematis$ habitual & quasi-me*anical repetition ( useful reactions already e/abli%$1 & fur!r1 t int]c\rse betwe5 diff]5t individuals is only possible ?r\gh ! m$ium ( su* a sy/em ( e/abli%$ habits4 ,z we h already se51 :at we call our body is simply a "n = su* a set ( habitual reactions ?r\gh :i* int]communication betwe5 memb]s ( human societies is r5d]$ possible4 ,h5ce1 if we g5]alise ! t]m 8body0 to /& = any sy/em ( habitual reactions dis*>g+ ?is function ( s]v+ z a m$ium ( communication betwe5 individuals =m+ a society1 we may fairly say t a body is indisp5sable to ! exi/5ce ( a self4 ,b x seems impossible to %[ t ! possibility ( su* a m$ium ( communication is remov$ by ! dissolution ( ! p>ticul> sy/em ( reactions :i* con/itutes our pres5t m$ium ( int]c\rse4 ,! dissolution ( ! pres5t body might mean no m ?an ! individual acquisition ( *ang$ types ( habitual reaction1 types :i* no long] s]ve ! purpose ( communication ) ! memb]s ( our society1 b yet may be an initial condition ( communication ) o!r gr\ps ( intellig5t be+s4 ,z to ! abs5ce ( empirical evid5ce1 x is1 ( c\rse1 notori\s t "s p]sons at lea/ claim to possess su* evid5ce ( ! cont9u$ exi/5ce ( ! dep>t$4 ,until ! alleg$ facts h be5 made ! subject ( s]i\s & unbiass$ collection & exam9ation1 x is1 ,i ?9k1 premature to pron\nce an op9ion z to _! evid5tial value4 ,i w !re=e make only "o obs]vation ) respect to "s ( ! alleg$ evid5ce f 8necromancy40 ,x is manife/ t ! only k9d ( cont9uance :i* c\ld fairly be call$ a survival ( ! self1 & c]ta9ly ! only k9d 9 :i* we ne$ feel any int]e/1 w\ld be ! p]si/5ce aft] dea? ( our *>act]i/ic int]e/s & purposes4 ,unless ! 8s\l0 cont9u$ to live = aims & int]e/s teleologically cont9u\s ) ^? ( its e>?ly life1 !re w\ld be no g5u9e ext5sion ( our selfhood beyond ! grave4 ,h5ce any k9d ( evid5ce = cont9u$ exi/5ce :i* is n at ! same "t evid5ce = cont9uity ( int]e/s & purposes1 is really wor?less :5 (f]$ z te/imony to 8immortality40 ,! read] w be able to apply ?is reflection = himself if he kn[s any?+ ( ! 8ph5om5a0 ( ! vulg> ,spiritualism4#aif ,:5 we turn to ! positive side ( ! "q1 x seems necess>y to rem>k t ?\gh ! negative consid]ations we h j ref]r$ to are n ( !mselves en\gh to disprove 8immortality10 provid$ !re is any /rong gr\nd = tak+ x z a fact1 !y w\ld be q suffici5t to decide aga9/ x1 unless !re is positive reason = accept+ x4 ,t we h no direct evid5ce ( su* a /ate ( ?+s1 & _c see precisely h[ 9 detail x c\ld come ab\t1 w\ld n be good logical gr\nd = d5y+ its exi/5ce if x 7 dem&$ by s\nd philosophical pr9ciples4 ,on ! o!r h&1 if !re 7 no reasons = believ+ 9 x1 & good1 ?\gh n conclusive1 probable reasons aga9/ x1 we %\ld be b\nd to come provisionally to a negative conclusion4 ,h we !n any positive gr\nds at all to set aga9/ ! negative consid]ations j discuss$8 ,p5d+ ! result ( inquiries :i* h rec5tly be5 set on foot1 x is h>d to speak ) absolute confid5ce2 /ill1 ! /udy ( lit]ature does1 ,i ?9k1 w>rant u 9 provisionally say+ t !re seems to be a /rong & widely diffus$ feel+1 at lea/ 9 ! ,we/]n _w1 t life )\t any hope ( cont9uance aft] dea? w\ld be an unsatisfactory ?+4 ,?is feel+ expresses itself 9 _m =ms1 b ,i ?9k !y c all be trac$ to "o root4 ,normally1 z we "k1 ! ext9ction ( a p>ticul> teleological int]e/ is effect$ by its realisation2 our purposes die out1 & our self s f> suff]s *ange1 :5 _! result has be5 a*iev$4 7,& incid5tally ?is may help u to see once m t dissatisfaction & imp]fection are ( ! ess5ce ( ! f9ite self4 ,! f9ite self lives on ! division ( idea f reality1 ( int5t f execution4 ,if ! two c\ld become id5tical1 ! self w\ld h lo/ ! atmosph]e f :i* x draws its life-brea?47 ,h5ce1 if dea?1 9 our exp]i5ce1 always took ! =m ( ! dissolution ( a self :i* _h already se5 its purposes fulfill$ & its aims a*iev$1 !re w\ld probably be no inc5tive to desire or believe 9 future cont9uance4 ,b x is a famili> fact t dea? is con/antly com+ z a viol5t & irrational int]rupt] ( unrealis$ plans & in*oate "w4 ,! self seems to disappe> n because x has play$ its "p & f9i%$ its "w1 b z ! victim ( ext]nal accid5t4 ,i ?9k t analysis w\ld %[1 "u ! v>i\s special =ms :i* ! desire = immortality takes1 su* z ! ye>n+ to r5ew int]rupt$ fri5d%ips or ! long+ to cont9ue unf9i%$ "w1 z _! common pr9ciple1 ! feel+ ( res5tm5t aga9/ ?is app>5t defeat ( intellig5t purpose by brute ext]nal accid5t4#aig ,n[1 :at is ! logical value ( ?is feel+ z a basis = argum5t8 ,we may fairly say1 on ! "o h&1 t x re/s on a s\nd pr9ciple4 ,= x embodies ! conviction1 ( :i* all ,philosophy is ! elaboration1 t ! real _w is a h>moni\s sy/em 9 :i* irrational accid5t plays no "p1 & t1 if we c\ld only see ! :ole tru?1 we %\ld realise t !re is no f9al & irrem$iable defeat = any ( our aspirations1 b all are someh[ made good4 ,on ! o!r side1 we mu/ rememb] t ! argum5t f ! desire = cont9uance to its reality also goes on to ass]t n only t our aspirations are someh[ fulfill$ & our unf9i%$ "w someh[ p]fect$1 b t ?is fulfilm5t takes place 9 ! p>ticul> way :i* we1 ) our pres5t lights1 w\ld wi%4 ,& 9 ma9ta9+ ?is1 ! argum5t goes beyond ! conclusion :i* philosophical fir/ pr9ciples w>rant4 ,= x might be t1 if our insight into ! s*eme ( ! _w 7 less defective1 we %\ld cease to desire ?is special =m ( fulfilm5t1 j z 9 gr[+ into manhood we cease to desire ! k9d ( life :i* appe>$ to u z *ildr5 ! ideal ( happ9ess4 ,! man's life-"w may be ! realisation ( ! *ild's dreams1 b x does n realise !m 9 ! =m imag9$ by *ildhood4 ,& conceivably x might be s ) our desire = a future life4 ,fur!r1 ( c\rse1 ! logical value ( ! argum5t f feel+ mu/ to "s ext5t dep5d ^u ! univ]sality & p]si/5ce ( ! feel+ itself4 ,we mu/ n mi/ake = a fundam5tal aspiration ( humanity :at may be l>gely ! effect ( special traditions & tra9+4 ,h5ce we _c truly e/imate ! wor? ( ! inf]5ce f feel+ until we "k bo? h[ f> ! feel+ itself is really p]man5t 9 our own society1 & h[ f>1 aga91 x exi/s 9 societies ) diff]5t beliefs & traditions4 ,9 itself ! s5tim5t1 e4g41 ( ,*ri/ian civilisation1 _c be tak5 z evid5ce ( ! univ]sal feel+ ( mank9d1 9 ! face ( ! app>5tly opposite feel+s1 e4g41 ( ,brahm9s & ,buddhi/s4 ,i %\ld conclude1 !n1 t ! "q ( a future life mu/ rema9 an op5 "o = ,metaphysics4 ,we seem unable to give any valid metaphysical argum5ts = a future life1 b !n1 on ! o!r h&1 ! negative presumptions seem to be equally devoid ( cog5cy4 ,philosophy1 9 ?is matt]1 to use ! f9e phrase ( ,dr4 ,mc,taggart1 8gives u hope10#aih & ,i _c1 = my own "p1 see t x c d m4 ,possibly1 z ,br[n+ sugge/s 9 ,la ,saisiaz1 x is n desirable1 9 ! int]e/s ( practical life1 t x %\ld d m4 ,& "h ,i mu/ leave ! "q ) ! read]1 only ?r[+ out "o t5tative sugge/ion = 8 approval or rejection z he pleases4 ,s9ce we h se5 t ! p]man5ce ( ! self dep5ds ^u its degree ( int]nal h>mony ( /ructure1 x is at lea/ conceivable t its cont9uance z a self1 beyond ! limits ( e>?ly life1 may dep5d on ! same condition4 ,conceivably ! self may survive dea?1 z x survives less] *anges 9 ! c\rse ( physical ev5ts1 if its unity & h>mony ( purpose are /rong en\gh1 & n o!rwise4 ,if s1 a future exi/5ce w\ld n be a h]itage into :i* we are safe to /ep :5 ! "t comes1 b a conque/ to be won by ! /r5u\s devotion ( life to ! acquisition ( a ri*1 & at ! same "t ord]ly & h>moni\s1 moral selfhood4 ,& ?us ! belief 9 a future life1 9 s f> z x acts 9 any giv5 case z a spur to su* /r5u\s liv+1 might be itself a factor 9 br++ ab\t its own fulfilm5t4 ,x is impossible to affirm ) c]ta9ty t ?is is s1 b1 aga91 we _c d5y t x may be ! case4 ,& "h1 z ,i say1 ,i mu/ be cont5t to leave ! problem4#aii ,consult fur!r3--,b4 ,bosanquet1 ,psy*ology ( ! ,moral ,self1 lect4 #e2 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #i 7,! ,mean+s ( ,self71 #aj 7,! ,reality ( ,self71 #bf 7,! ,absolute & its ,appe>ances1--especially ! end ( ! *apt]1 pp4 #dii-eaa ( #a/ ed471 #bg 7,ultimate ,d\bts72 ,l4 ,t4 ,hobh\se1 ,!ory ( ,k1 "p #c1 *ap4 #e2 ,s4 ,hodgson1 ,metaphysic ( ,exp]i5ce1 bk4 iv4 *ap4 #d2 ,hume1 ,treatise ( ,human ,nature1 bk4 i "p #d1 #e1 #f2 ,w4 ,james1 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 vol4 i4 *ap4 #aj2 ,h4 ,lotze1 ,metaphysic1 bk4 iii *aps4 #a 7especially #bde71 #e2 ,microcosmus1 bk4 iii4 c4 #e2 ,j4 ,m4 ,e4 ,mc,taggart1 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology1 *ap4 #b 7= a detail$ ho/ile exam9ation ( ,dr4 ,mc,taggart's argum5t1 :i* ,i w\ld n be und]/ood to endorse except on special po9ts1 see ,g4 ,e4 ,moore 9 ,proce$+s ( ,ari/otelian ,society1 ,n4,s4 vol4 ii4 pp4 #ahh-baa72 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lects4 #f1 #g4 ----- ,footnote #ahd3 8,bodily id5tity0 itself1 ( c\rse1 might give rise to difficult problems if we _h space to g into !m4 ,"h ,i c m]ely sugge/ c]ta9 po9ts = ! read]'s reflection4 7#a7 ,all id5tity appe>s 9 ! end to be teleological & !re=e psy*ical4 ,i believe ?is to be ! same human body :i* ,i h se5 be=e1 because ,i believe t ! int]e/s express$ 9 its actions w be cont9u\s1 exp]i5ce hav+ taught me t a c]ta9 am\nt ( physical resemblance is a r\gh-&-ready crit]ion ( psy*ical cont9uity4 7#b7 ,z to ! e?ical problem ( responsibility ref]r$ to 9 ! text1 x is obvi\sly entirely "o ( less & m4 ,our moral v]dicts ^u our own acts & ^? ( o!rs are 9 practice habitually influ5c$ by ! conviction t !re are degrees ( moral responsibility )9 :at ! imm$iate necessities ( adm9i/ration compel u to treat z absolute4 ,we d n1 e4g41 ?9k a man free f all moral blame = :at he does :5 drunk1 or undes]v+ ( all cr$it = :at he p]=ms :5 8tak5 out ( himself10 i4e4 out ( ! rut ( 8 habitual int]e/s by excitem5t1 b we c]ta9ly d1 :5 n "u ! influ5ce ( a !ory1 reg>d him z des]v+ ( less blame or cr$it1 z ! case may be1 = 8 behavi\r ?an if he _h p]=m$ ! acts :5 he 0 8m himself40 ,on all ^! topics see ,mr4 ,bradley's article 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb4 ,footnote #ahe3 ,s 8self-consci\sness10 9 ! bad s5se1 always arises f a s5se ( an incongruity betwe5 ! self & "s contra/$ object or environm5t4 ,footnote #ahf3 ,?\gh1 ( c\rse1 x does appe> 9 ! process ( fram+ & initiat+ ! s*eme ( conc]t$ action2 ! o!r self is "h contra/$ ) my own1 precisely because ! removal ( ! collision betwe5 my purpose & my environm5t is felt z com+ f )\t4 ,footnote #ahg3 ,x might be said t x is n ^! features ( ! environm5t !mselves1 b my 8ideas0 ( !m1 :i* ?us belong to ! self4 ,?is s\nds plausible at fir/1 b only because we are habitually accu/om$ to ! 8introjectioni/0 sub/itution ( psy*ological symbols = ! actualities ( life4 ,on ! "q ( fact1 see ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #h1 p4 #hh ff4 7#a/ ed474 ,footnote #ahh3 ,a colleague ( my own tells me t 9 8 case movem5ts ( ! eyes appe> to be insep>able f ! consci\sness ( self1 & are incapable ( be+ extrud$ into ! n-self 9 ! s5se above describ$4 ,i d n d\bt t !re are1 9 ea* ( u1 bodily feel+s ( ?is k9d :i* refuse to be relegat$ to ! n-self & t x w\ld be well wor? :ile to in/itute sy/ematic inquiries ov] z wide an area z possible ab\t _! precise "* 9 individual cases4 ,x appe>s to me1 h[ev]1 z ,i h /at$ above1 t 9 ord9>y p]ception ^! bodily feel+s (t5 are appreh5d$ simply z qualify+ ! p]ceiv$ cont5t )\t any opposition ( self & n-self4 ,at any rate1 ! problem is "o ( ^? fundam5tal que/ions 9 ! !ory ( cognition :i* are too readily pass$ ov] 9 curr5t ,psy*ology4 ,footnote #ahi3 ,( c\rse1 y c frame ! concept ( a 8self0 f :i* ev5 ^! bodily feel+s h be5 extrud$1 & :i* is ?us a m]e 8cognitive subject0 )\t concrete psy*ical quality4 ,b z su* a m]e logical subject is c]ta9ly n ! self ( :i* we are aw>e 9 any concrete exp]i5ce1 & /ill m emphatically n ! self 9 :i* ! hi/orical & e?ical sci5ces are int]e/$1 ,i h n ?\ght x necess>y to deal ) x 9 ! text4 ,footnote #aij3 ,t we _c imag9e x does n appe> to be any gr\nd = d5y+ its actuality4 ,x is nev] a valid argum5t aga9/ a conclusion requir$ to br+ our k into h>mony ) itself1 t we d n happ5 to possess ! means ( envisag+ x 9 s5su\s imag]y4 ,footnote #aia3 ,i v5ture to ?9k t "s ( ! r gratuit\s hypo!ses z to ! rational selfhood ( animal species qu species put =w>d by ,pr(essor ,royce 9 ! second volume ( ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 are illu/rations ( ?is t5d5cy to unnecess>y ov]-int]pretation4 ,footnote #aib3 ,is x necess>y to ref] 9 p>ticul> to ! sugge/ion t = ! ,absolute ! contra/-effect 9 "q may be betwe5 itself & its compon5t manife/ations or appe>ances8 ,?is w\ld only be possible if ! f9ite appe>ances 7 conta9$ 9 ! :ole 9 "s way :i* all[$ !m to rema9 at discord ) "o ano!r1 i4e4 9 "s way incompatible ) ! sy/ematic "* :i* is ! fundam5tal quality ( ! ,absolute4 ,i am glad to f9d myself 9 accord1 on ! g5]al pr9ciple at lea/1 ) ,dr4 ,mc,taggart4 ,see ! ,?ird ,essay 9 8 rec5t ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology4 ,footnote #aic3 ,x w\ld be fruitless to object t 8societies0 c1 9 fact1 h a legal corporate p]sonality1 & s c--to rev]t to ! illu/ration us$ above--be su$ & tax$4 ,:at c be ?us dealt ) is always a m]e association ( def9ite individual human be+s1 :o may or may n =m a g5u9e spiritual unity4 ,e4g41 y might proce$ aga9/ ! ,commission]s ( ,income ,tax1 b ?is does n prove t ! ,commission]s ( ,income ,tax are a g5u9e society4 ,on ! o!r h&1 ! ,lib]al-,unioni/ ,p>ty probably possesses en\gh community ( purpose to enable x to be reg>d$ z a true society1 b has no legal p]sonality1 & consequ5tly no legal rights or obligations1 z a p>ty4 ,simil>ly1 ! corporation kn[n z ! ,simeon ,tru/ees has a legal p]sonality ) correspond+ rights & duties1 & x also /&s 9 close relation ) ! evangelical p>ty 9 ! ,e/abli%$ ,*ur*4 ,& ?is p>ty is no d\bt a true e?ical society4 ,b ! corporation is n ! evangelical p>ty1 & ! latt]1 9 ! s5se 9 :i* x is a true society1 is n a legal p]son4 ,i may j obs]ve t ! "q :e!r ! ,absolute is a self or a p]son mu/ n be conf\nd$ ) ! "q ( ! 8p]sonality ( ,god40 ,we mu/ n assume (f-h& t 8,god0 & ! ,absolute are id5tical4 ,only special exam9ation ( ! ph5om5a ( ! religi\s life c decide = u :e!r 8,god0 is necess>ily ! :ole ( ,reality4 ,if ,he is n1 x w\ld cle>ly be possible to unite a belief 9 8,god's0 p]sonality ) a d5ial ( ! p]sonality ( ! ,absolute1 z is done1 e4g41 by ,mr4 ,ra%dall 9 8 essay 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism4 ,= "s fur!r rem>ks on ! problem1 see bel[1 ,*apt] ,v4 ,footnote #aid3 ,i suppose t any doctr9e :i* d5ies ! ultimate reality ( ! f9ite self mu/ expect to be confront$ by ! appeal to ! alleg$ revelation ( imm$iate exp]i5ce4 ,cogito1 ergo sum1 is (t5 tak5 z an imm$iately c]ta9 tru? 9 ! s5se t ! exi/5ce ( myself is some?+ ( :i* ,i am directly aw>e 9 e mom5t ( consci\sness4 ,?is is1 h[ev]1 an entire p]v]sion ( ! facts4 ,und\bt$ly ! fact ( !re be+ exp]i5ce is "o :i* c be v]ifi$ by ! v exp]im5t ( try+ to d5y x4 ,d5ial itself is a felt exp]i5ce4 ,b x is 7a7 probably n true t we _c h exp]i5ce at all )\t an accompany+ p]ception ( self1 & 7b7 c]ta9ly n true t ! m]e feel+ ( self z 9 contra/ ) a n-self1 :5 we d get x1 is :at is meant by ! self ( ,e?ics & ,hi/ory4 ,! self ( ^! sci5ces always embraces m ?an c be giv5 9 any s+le mom5t ( exp]i5ce1 x is an ideal con/ruction by :i* we connect mom5ts ( exp]i5ce accord+ to a g5]al s*eme4 ,! value ( t s*eme = any sci5ce c only be te/$ by ! success ) :i* x does its "w1 & its tru? is c]ta9ly n e/abli%$ by ! m]e consid]ation t ! facts x aims at connect+ are actual4 ,metaphysics w\ld be ! easie/ ( sci5ces if y c\ld ?us take x = grant$ t any con/ruction :i* is bas$ ^u "s aspect ( exp]i5c$ fact mu/ be valid4 ,footnote #aie3 ,?is is :y ,plato seems ju/ifi$ 9 lay+ /ress ^u ! dreams ( ! wise man z evid5ce ( 8 sup]iority 7,republic1 bk4 ix4 p4 #ega74 ,8 ideal wise man is "o ^: inn] life is s completely unifi$ t !re is g5u9e cont9uity ( purpose betwe5 8 wak+ & sleep+ /ate4 ,plato might p]haps h repli$ to ,locke's qu]y1 t ,socrates wak+ & ,socrates asleep are ! same p]son1 & _! id5tity is te/imony to ! exceptional wisdom & virtue ( ,socrates4 ,if x be ?\ght t at lea/ ! simultane\s co-exi/5ce )9 "o ( two selves is inconceivable1 ,i w\ld ask ! read] to be> 9 m9d t ! self always includes m ?an is at any mom5t giv5 z actual matt] ( psy*ical fact4 ,at any mom5t ! self mu/ be tak5 to consi/ = ! mo/ "p ( unrealis$ t5d5cies1 & 9 s f> z su* ultimately incompatible t5d5cies are "p ( my :ole nature1 at ! same "t x seems reasonable to say t ,i h simultane\sly m ?an "o self4 ,ultimately1 no d\bt1 ?is l9e ( ?\ght w\ld lead to ! conclusion t 8my :ole nature0 itself is only relatively a :ole4 ,footnote #aif3 ,comp>e ! valuable essay by ,mr4 ,bradley on ! 8,evid5ce ( ,spiritualism0 9 ,=tnightly ,review = ,decemb] #ahhe4 ,footnote #aig3 ,dea?1 h[ev]1 ?\gh ! mo/ /rik+1 is n ! only illu/ration ( ?is app>5tly irrational int]f]5ce ( accid5t ) intellig5t purpose4 ,m5tal & bodily disablem5t1 or ev5 adv]se ext]nal =tune1 may h ! same effect ^u ! self4 ,?is mu/ be tak5 into acc\nt 9 any attempt to deal ) ! g5]al problem4 ,footnote #aih3 ,dr4 ,mc,taggart's phrase is m exactly adequate to describe my view ?an 8 own1 accord+ to :i* 8immortality0 is capable ( philosophical pro(4 7,see ! second *apt] ( 8 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology47 ,i h already expla9$ :y ,i _c accept ?is position4 ,i believe ,dr4 ,mc,taggart's satisfaction ) x mu/ be p>tly due to failure to raise ! "q :at x is t he decl>es to be a 8fundam5tal diff]5tiation0 ( ! ,absolute4 ,footnote #aii3 ,i ought p]haps to say a ^w--m ,i d n ?9k necess>y--^u ! doctr9e t immortality is a fundam5tal 8moral po/ulate40 ,if ?is /atem5t means no m ?an t x w\ld be inconsi/5t ) ! rationality ( ! univ]se t our "w z moral ag5ts %\ld be simply wa/$1 & t !re=e x mu/ someh[ h its accompli%m5t :e!r we see x 9 our human society or n1 ,i %\ld c]ta9ly agree ) ! g5]al proposition4 ,b ,i _c see t we "k en\gh ( ! /ructure ( ! univ]se to ass]t t ?is accompli%m5t is only possible 9 ! special =m ( immortality4 ,to rev]t to ! illu/ration ( ! text1 7#a7 our judgm5t t ! _w mu/ be a wor?less place )\t immortality might be on a level ) ! *ild's notion t 8gr[n-up0 life1 to be wor? hav+1 mu/ be a life ( cont9ual play & no "w4 7#b7 ,if x is meant1 h[ev]1 t x is n 8wor? :ile0 to be virtu\s unless y c look =w>d to remun]ation--:at ,hegel1 accord+ to ,he9e1 call$ a ,tr9kgeld--h]eaft] = n hav+ liv$ l a bea/1 ! proposition appe>s to me a piece ( immoral nons5se :i* x w\ld be wa/e ( "t to discuss4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,iv ,,! ,,problem ,,( ,,moral ,,fre$om #a4 ,! metaphysical problem ( free w has be5 hi/orically creat$ by extra e?ical difficulties1 especially by !ological consid]ations 9 ! e>ly ,*ri/ian era1 & by ! influ5ce ( me*anical sci5tific conceptions 9 ! mod]n _w4 #b-c4 ,! analysis ( our moral exp]i5ce %[s t true 8fre$om0 means teleological det]m9ation4 ,h5ce to be 8free0 & to 8w0 are ultimately ! same ?+4 ,fre$om or 8self-det]m9ation0 is g5u9e b limit$1 & is capable ( v>iations ( degree4 #d4 ,det]m9ism & ,indet]m9ism bo? arise f ! false assumption t ! me*anical po/ulate ( causal det]m9ation by antec$5ts is an ultimate fact4 ,! "q !n arises :e!r m5tal ev5ts are an exception to ! suppos$ pr9ciple4 #e4 ,det]m9ism4 ,! det]m9i/ argum5ts /at$4 #f4 ,!y re/ p>tly ^u ! false assumption t me*anical det]m9ation is ! "o & only pr9ciple ( rational connection betwe5 facts4 #g4 ,p>tly ^u fallaci\s !ories ( ! actual proc$ure ( ! m5tal sci5ces4 ,fallaci\s nature ( ! argum5t t complete k ( "* & circum/ances w\ld enable u to pr$ict human conduct4 ,! assum$ data are su* z1 f _! own nature1 c\ld n be kn[n be=e ! ev5t4 #h4 ,indet]m9ism4 ,! psy*ical facts to :i* ! indet]m9i/ appeals d n w>rant 8 conclusion1 :i* is1 moreov]1 metaphysically absurd1 z involv+ ! d5ial ( rational connection4 #i4 ,bo? doctr9es agree 9 ! initial error ( conf\nd+ teleological unity ) causal det]m9ation4 #a4 ,! problem ( ! mean+ & reality ( moral fre$om is popul>ly suppos$ to be "o ( ! pr9cipal issues1 if n ! pr9cipal issue1 ( ,metaphysics z appli$ to ! facts ( human life4 ,kant1 z ! read] w no d\bt "k1 includ$ fre$om ) immortality & ! exi/5ce ( ,god 9 8 li/ ( unprovable b indisp5sable 8po/ulates0 ( ,e?ics1 & ! conviction is /ill widespread among /ud5ts ( moral philosophy t e?ical sci5ce _c beg9 its "w )\t "s prelim9>y metaphysical ju/ification ( fre$om1 z a po/ulate at lea/1 if n z a prov$ tru?4 ,= my own "p1 ,i own ,i _c rate ! practical importance ( ! metaphysical inquiry into human fre$om s high1 & am r ( ,pr(essor ,sidgwick's op9ion z to its sup]flu\sness 9 /rictly e?ical inve/igations4#bjj ,at ! same "t1 x is impossible to pass ov] ! subject )\t discussion1 if only = ! excell5t illu/rations x af=ds ( ! mis*ief :i* results f ! =c+ ( false metaphysical !ories ^u ,e?ics1 & = ! confirmation x yields ( our view z to ! po/ulatory "* ( ! me*anico-causal s*eme ( ! natural sci5ces4 ,9 discuss+ fre$om f ?is po9t ( view z a metaphysical issue1 ,i w\ld h x cle>ly und]/ood t !re are two important inquiries into :i* ,i d n int5d to ent]1 except p]haps incid5tally4 ,"o is ! psy*ological "q z to ! precise elem5ts into :i* a volunt>y act may be analys$ = ! purpose ( psy*ological description2 ! o!r ! e?ical & juridical problem z to ! limits ( moral responsibility4 ,= our pres5t purpose bo? ^! que/ions may be left on "o side4 ,we ne$ nei!r ask h[ a volunt>y act is p]=m$--9 o!r words1 by :at set ( symbols x is be/ repres5t$ 9 ,psy*ology--nor :]e 9 a complicat$ case ! conditions requisite = acc\ntability1 & !re=e = fre$om ( action1 may be pron\nc$ want+4 ,our task is ! simpl] "o ( decid+1 9 ! fir/ place1 :at we mean by ! fre$om :i* we all reg>d z morally desirable1 & next1 :at g5]al view z to ! nature ( exi/5ce is impli$ 9 ! ass]tion or d5ial ( its actuality4 ,t ! exam9ation ( ! metaphysical implications ( fre$om is n an indisp5sable prelim9>y to e?ical /udy1 is =tunately suffici5tly e/abli%$ by ! actual hi/ory ( ! moral sci5ces4 ,! greate/ a*ievem5ts ( ,e?ics1 up to ! pres5t "t1 are und\bt$ly conta9$ 9 ! sy/ems ( ! great ,greek morali/s1 ,plato & ,ari/otle4 ,x w\ld n be too mu* to say t subsequ5t e?ical speculation has accompli%$1 9 ! dep>tm5t ( ,e?ics prop] z di/+ui%$ f metaphysical reflection ^u ! ontological problems sugge/$ by e?ical results1 little m ?an ! developm5t 9 detail ( g5]al pr9ciples already recognis$ & =mulat$ by ^! great obs]v]s & critics ( human life4 ,yet ! metaphysical problem ( fre$om1 z is well kn[n1 is entirely abs5t f ! ,platonic-,ari/otelian philosophy4 ,) ,plato1 z ! read] ( ! ,gorgias & ! eigh? & n9? books ( ! ,republic w be aw>e1 fre$om means j :at x does to ! ord9>y pla9 man1 ! p[] to 8d :at "o wills10 & ! only speculative int]e/ tak5 by ! philosoph] 9 ! subject is t ( %[+ t ! *ief practical ob/acle to ! atta9m5t ( fre$om arises f infirmity & inconsi/5cy 9 ! w itself2 t1 9 fact1 ! unfree man is j ! crim9al or 8tyrant0 :o wills ! incompatible1 &1 9 a less degree1 ! 8democratic0 creature ( moods & impulses1 :o1 9 popul> phrase1 8doesn't "k :at he wants0 ( life4 ,simil>ly1 ,ari/otle1 ) less ( spiritual insight b m att5tion to matt]s ( practical detail1 discusses ! 1 9 ! ?ird book ( 8 ,e?ics1 purely f ! /&po9t ( an ideally p]fect jurisprud5ce4 ,) him ! problem is to "k = :at acts an ideally p]fect sy/em ( law c\ld hold a man non-responsible1 & 8 answ] may be said to be t a man is n responsible 9 case ( 7#a7 physical compulsion1 9 ! /rict s5se1 :]e 8 limits are actually set 9 motion by "s ext]nal ag5t or cause2 & 7#b7 ( ignorance ( ! mat]ial circum/ances4 ,9 bo? ^! cases !re is no responsibility1 because !re has be5 no real act1 ! outw>d movem5ts ( ! man's limbs n correspond+ to any purpose ( 8 own4 ,an act :i* does translate into physical movem5t a purpose ( ! ag5t1 ,ari/otle1 l practical morality & jurisprud5ce1 recognises z ipso facto free1 )\t rais+ any metaphysical "q z to ! ontological implications ( ! recognition4 ,hi/orically1 x appe>s t ! metaphysical problem has be5 creat$ = u by purely non-e?ical consid]ations4 8,fre$om ( indiff]5ce0 0 ma9ta9$ 9 ! anci5t _w by ! ,epicureans1 b n on e?ical gr\nds4 ,z read]s ( ! second book ( ,lucretius "k1 !y d5i$ ! validity ( ! po/ulate ( rigidly me*anical causality simply to extricate !mselves f ! position into :i* _! arbitr>y physical hypo!ses _h l$ !m4 ,if me*anical causality 7 recognis$ z absolute 9 ! physical _w1 & if1 aga91 z ,epicurus held1 ! physical _w 0 compos$ ( atoms all fall+ ) con/ant velocities 9 ! same direction1 ! sy/em ( ?+s1 z we "k x1 c\ld nev] h aris54 ,h5ce1 r ?an give up _! initial hypo!sis ab\t ! atoms1 ! ,epicureans cr$it$ ! individual atom ) a p[] ( occasional uncaus$ & arbitr>y deviation f its pa?1 z a means ( br++ atoms into collision & comb9ation4 ,?us ) !m 8fre$om ( indiff]5ce0 0 ! result ( physical difficulties4 ,9 ! ,*ri/ian ,*ur* ! doctr9e seems to h ow$ its wide--?\gh n univ]sal--acceptance to equally non-e?ical difficulties ( a !ological k9d4 ,if ,god 8=eknew f all et]nity0 ! transgression ( ,adam & all its consequ5ces1 h[ c\ld x be compatible ) ,8 ju/ice to puni% ,adam & all 8 po/]ity = faults =ese5 by ,adam's ,creator8#bja ,! difficulty ( reconcil+ ! div9e omnisci5ce ) ! div9e ju/ice 0 suppos$ to be avoid$--9 tru?1 x 0 only evad$#bjb--;by assum+ t man 0 creat$ ) a 8free w ( indiff]5ce10 s t ob$i5ce w\ld h be5 j z easy z transgression if man _h *os5 to obey4 ,9 our own "t ! problem has assum$ a r diff]5t complexion1 ow+ to ! enorm\s developm5ts ( me*anical physical sci5ce1 :i* began ) ,galileo & ,desc>tes4 ,rigid causal det]m9ation be+ assum$ z a fir/ pr9ciple ( physical sci5ce1 ! "q arose :e!r ! assumption %\ld n also be ext5d$ to ! psy*ical sph]e4 ,if s ext5d$1 x seem$ to /rike at ! roots ( moral responsibility1 by mak+ all human acts ! inevitable 8consequ5ces ( circum/ances ov] :i* we h no control02 if n admitt$1 ! rejection ( ! pr9ciple ( rigid causal det]m9ation has (t5 be5 ?\ght to am\nt to ! d5ial t !re is any pr9ciple ( rational connection 9 ! psy*ical sph]e4 ,h5ce1 :ile p]sons specially int]e/$ 9 ! facts ( ! moral life h frequ5tly incl9$ to ! m or less radical d5ial ( rational connection betwe5 ! ev5ts ( ! psy*ical s]ies1 o!rs1 ^: special int]e/s h la9 9 ! direction ( ! unification ( k1 h /ill m commonly ?\ght x necess>y to hold t human action is det]m9$ by antec$5ts 9 ! same s5se & to ! same degree z ! occurr5ces ( ! purely physical ord]4 ,x w be our object to %[ t ^! rival doctr9es ( ,indet]m9ism & ,det]m9ism1 or ,necessit>ianism1 are alike irrational1 alike incompatible ) :at 9 practice we und]/& z moral fre$om ( action1 & alike bas$ ^u ! false assumption t rigid me*anical det]m9ation is itself an actual fact1 & n a m]e po/ulate ( ! special physical sci5ces1 valid only s f> z x is useful4 ,b be=e we ent] ^u our task1 x is necess>y to beg9 ) a /atem5t z to ! real mean+ ( e?ical fre$om itself4 ,until we "k :at we mean by ! k9d ( fre$om we1 z moral be+s1 desire & ?9k we ought to h1 x w be useless to ask :e!r we are or are n free4 #b4 8,free0 & 8fre$om0 are manife/ly :at are call$ by ! logicians 8privative0 t]ms2 !y d5ote ! abs5ce ( c]ta9 re/rictions4 ,to be 8free10 9 :atev] special s5se y may use ! ^w1 means to be free f some?+4 ,:at1 !n1 are ! typical limitations :i*1 9 practice1 we res5t z mak+ u unfree8 ,!y seem to be1 9 ! ma91 ! foll[+3--7#a7 ,we are n free :5 our limbs are actually set 9 motion by an ext]nal physical ag5cy1 human or non-human4 ,& ! reason :y we are !n unfree is t ! result+ movem5ts ( our bodies d n express a purpose ( our own4 ,!y ei!r express ! purpose ( "s o!r be+ :o moves our limbs z seems good to him1 or1 z 9 ! case :]e we are set 9 motion by ! 8=ces0 ( ! inanimate _w1 express no purpose at all t is recognisable to u z su*4 ,& 9 ei!r case we h express$ no purpose ( our own by our movem5ts2 !y d n truly belong to u at all1 & !re is !re=e no fre$om4 ,x is n necess>y t ! result ( ! movem5t %\ld be "o :i*1 if x _h be5 sugge/$1 we %\ld h decl9$ to ent]ta9 z a purpose ( our own4 ,we might p]haps1 if left to ourselves1 h done j :at ano!r man or ! sy/em ( physical =ces has done = u4 ,/ill1 s long z ! de$1 :atev] x 01 0 done = u & n by u1 s long z x correspond$ to no actual purpose ( ours1 x 0 n a free act4 7#b7 ,aga91 we are n truly free :5 we act 9 ignorance 7n due to previ\s free action ( our own7#bjc ( ! special circum/ances4 ,"h !re is1 z !re 0 n 9 ! =m] case1 a g5u9e act4 ,we actually purpose to d some?+1 b :at we purpose to d is n ! de$ :i* results f our movem5ts4 ,e4g41 if ,i %oot a comrade by mi/ake = "o ( ! enemy1 x is true t ,i purpose to %oot1 & s f> ! %oot+ is an act1 & a free act1 ( my own4 ,b ,i did n purpose to %oot my comrade1 & s ! result1 9 its concret5ess1 is n ! expression ( my purpose1 & ,i consequ5tly reg>d myself z n fully free 9 do+ x1 & !re=e n morally acc\ntable = x4 ,s f> our analysis co9cides ) t ( ,ari/otle1 previ\sly ref]r$ to4 7#c7 ,aga91 ,i am n act+ freely :]e ! circum/ances are n su* z to admit ( ! =mation ( purpose at all4 ,= ?is reason1 m]ely automatic action--if !re is su* a ?+--is n g5u9e action1 & !re=e n free4#bjd ,impulsive action )\t reflection1 aga91 comes "u ?is category4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 accompani$ by feel+s ( satisfaction1 & if imp$$ gives rise to crav+1 & s _c be call$ simply non-purposive4 ,b 9 g5u9ely impulsive reaction1 :]e ! possibility ( reflection is exclud$1 !re c be little cle> aw>5ess ( ! concrete "* ( ! purpose t is be+ put into execution1 & h5ce su* action is n truly free4 ,& 9 practical life1 ?\gh we are c]ta9ly held morally responsible = impulsive action1 9 s f> z x is ?\ght we might h modifi$ x by previ\s habitual practice ( reflection or by avoid+ a situation :i* we _h reason to ?9k w\ld deprive u ( ! p[] to reflect1 we are nev] held z fully acc\ntable = ! de$ ( impulse z = ! reflectively ?\ght out & delib]ately adopt$ purpose4#bje ,fur!r1 we feel ourselves unfree :5 we fail to execute our purposes1 ei!r f %e] inability to att5d to a consi/5t s*eme ( action1 or because we att5d equally to purposes :i* are int]nally incompatible4 ,?is is :y ! 8democratic0 man1 ^: int]e/s are an incoh]5t m$ley )\t logical unity1 & ! 8tyrannical man10 or1 z we %\ld n[ say1 ! 8crim9al type10 ^: passions are con/antly at w> ) "o ano!r & ) 8 judgm5t1 are reg>d$ by ,plato z ! typically unfree be+s4 ,to be really free1 9 ! la/ resort1 we mu/ h purposes :i* are coh]5t & abid+4 ,& x is ?us no p>adox to say t unfre$om 9 ! end means1 9 ! ma91 n kn[+ y\r own m9d1 :ile to be free is to "k :at y mean4 #c4 ,we may n[ draw "s important consequ5ces f ?is review ( ! facts ^u :i* e valid int]pretation ( fre$om has to be bas$4 7#a7 ,fre$om1 z ,locke said 9 t fam\s *apt] 8,on ,p[]0 :i* is /ill ! classic discussion ( ! :ole subject z f> z ,engli% philosophy is conc]n$1 8belongs to ! man1 n to ! w40 ,! prop] "q to ask is1 8,am ,i free80 n 8,is my w free80 or 8,h ,i a free w80 ,= 8fre$om0 & 8w10 z ! facts enum]at$ above %[1 are b ! negative & ! positive "n = ! same prop]ty1 ! prop]ty ( act+ s z to put :at we fir/ possess$ z our private purpose into execution 9 ! _w ( s5sible fact4 ,i 8w0 :5 my outw>d de$ is ?us ! expression ( my purpose2 9 ! same case1 & 9 no o!r1 ,i am 8free40 ,?us to 8w0 & to be 8free0 are "o & ! same ?+2 a w :i* 0 n free w\ld be a w :i* 0 n ! translation into s5sible fact ( any "o's purpose1 & ?us no w at all4 ,?us ! "q1 8,are we free80 might be also put 9 ! equival5t =m1 8,c we ev] w any?+80 & to ! "q1 z ?us put1 exp]i5ce gives a ready answ]4 ,= we c]ta9ly d conceive purposes1 & we c]ta9ly1 9 "s ( our movem5ts1 d translate ^? purposes 9 act4 ,& !re=e we may say t fre$om is und\bt$ly1 9 ! only s5se 9 :i* x is desir$1 a fact ( imm$iate exp]i5ce4#bjf 7#b7 ,if we reta9 ! expression 8fre$om to w0 by ! side ( ! phrase 8fre$om to act10 x c only be 9 a v special s5se4 ,x is cle> t n only may my outw>d de$ be a translation into fact ( my pres5t purpose1 b my pres5t purpose itself1 z a psy*ical ev5t1 may also be a translation into fact ( a =m] purpose4 ,?is is l>gely ! case ) all results ( delib]ate self-tra9+ & discipl9e1 & to a less degree ) all acquir$ habits4 ,?us1 e4g41 ! movem5ts by :i* ,i write ^! l9es are ! expression ( my preconceiv$ purpose to write ! pres5t p>agraph1 b t purpose itself1 z an ev5t 9 my hi/ory1 is simil>ly ! expression ( a =m] purpose to compose a "w on ,metaphysics4 ,?us !re is a real s5se 9 :i* we c agree ) ,leibnitz 9 criticis+ ,locke's dictum t we are free to act1 b n free to w4 ,= ! m5tal conception ( a purpose is itself an act1 & 9 s f> z x translates into exi/+ ?\ghts & feel+s a previ\s purpose x may be said itself to be 8freely will$40#bjg 7#c7 ,fre$om1 9 actual exp]i5ce1 is always limit$1 &1 moreov]1 admits ( ! mo/ v>i\s degrees4 ,z to ! fir/ po9t1 x foll[s imm$iately f our consid]ation ( ! circum/ances :i* make u unfree4 ,if to be fully free means t y\r outw>d de$ is ! full expression ( an inw>d consi/5t purpose1 !n we c see at once t complete fre$om is1 = all f9ite be+s1 an inf9itely di/ant ideal4 ,= x means 7a7 t ,i am n hamp]$ 9 ! execution ( my purpose by vacillation ( int]e/ or conflict ( incompatible int]e/s )9 myself2 7b7 nor by ! e/abli%m5t ( 8habitual0 reactions s ne>ly me*anical z to repeat !mselves out ( season unless *eck$ by special reflection2 7c7 nor by ! limits set to my p[] to 8act or to =be>0 9 ! physical _w by ! action ( my fell[s & ( 8brute0 nature4#bjh ,h5ce only an exp]i5ce :i* is absolutely devoid ( int]nal conflict & ext]nal1 p>tly discrepant environm5t1 9 o!r words1 only ! exp]i5ce :i* is ! inf9ite :ole1 c be 9 all its detail entirely & absolutely free4 ,f ! possibilities ( int]nal lack ( unity ( purpose & ext]nal collision ) rival purpose :i* are insep>able f our position z f9ite be+s1 x mu/ foll[ t we are nev] m ?an p>tially or relatively free4 ,& t ! degree to :i* we are free v>ies ) ! nature ( our purposes & _! relation to ! environm5t1 is also manife/4 ,!re is an indef9ite plurality ( su* degrees1 rang+ up f ! total or all b total abs5ce ( fre$om 9 ! case ( directly con/ra9$ motion up to ! case ( cordial co-op]ation ) ! o!r memb]s ( a relatively self-support+ social gr\p 9 ! consci\s & sy/ematic execution ( an elaborate & coh]5t s*eme ( action4 ,to indicate ! pr9cipal di/9ctions among su* grades ( fre$om :i* are ( practical importance = law & morality is ! task ( sy/ematic ,e?ics1 & ne$ n be attempt$ by u "h4 ,we may add t our inve/igation has made x app>5t t true moral fre$om1 ( :atev] degree1 is no inali5able h]itage into :i* m5 /ep by ! 8accid5t ( bir?10 b--9 ! ma9 & z an actual possession--a prize :i* has to be won by ! d\ble discipl9e ( self-k & self-ma/]y1 & ( social comrade%ip1 & may be1 & is1 =feit$ by ! neglect ( ! arts by :i* x 0 fir/ ga9$4 ,no d\bt "o man's inh]it$ disposition may make ! practice ( self-control1 or aga9 ( social fell[%ip1 easi] to him ?an to ano!r1 & to ?is ext5t we may say t we are born ) a great] or less] 8capacity = fre$om10 b ( its actual possession we h all to say1 8) a great price pur*as$ ,i ?is fre$om40 7#d7 ,f9ally1 our exam9ation ( ! facts ( morality enables u to def9e true fre$om4 ,we are free1 z we h se51 j s f> z our exp]i5ce is ! embodim5t ( coh]5t & p]man5t int]e/ or purpose1 & fre$om is1 l 8w10 simply an ab/ract expression = ! teleological unity :i*1 9 v>y+ degrees1 is an ess5tial feature ( all exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce we c at once see t fre$om does n mean 8abs5ce ( rational connection0 or 8abs5ce ( det]m9ation10 b does mean1 z s _m rec5t philosoph]s h told u1 = u f9ite be+s1 self-det]m9ation4 ,i am mo/ free :5 act+ = ! realisation ( a coh]5t rational purpose1 n because my conduct is 8undet]m9$02 9 o!r words1 because !re is 8no tell+0 :at ,i %all d next1 b because x is1 at su* times1 mo/ fully det]m9$ teleologically by ! "* ( my inn] purposes or int]e/s1--9 o!r words1 by ! con/itution ( my self4 ,! m abid+ & logically coh]5t my v>i\s purposes 9 action1 ! fre] ,i am1 because x is my :ole self or sy/em ( rationally connect$ int]e/s1 & n ! insi/5ce ( o!rs1 or "s pass+ :im or impulse :i* ,i may =?) dis[n z no "p ( my 8true self10 :i* is gett+ expression 9 my outw>d de$s4 ,& if x 7 possible = a f9ite be+ to become absolutely free1 z we h se5 t x is n1 su* a be+ w\ld1 9 ! v mom5t ( its entire deliv]ance1 become also absolutely det]m9$ f )92 its :ole life1 z manife/$ to ! outsid] 9 ! s]ies ( its de$s1 w\ld become ! p]fect & sy/ematic expression ( a s+le s*eme ( coh]5t purposes4 #d4 ,we see1 !n1 t su* a g5u9e b limit$ fre$om z is really impli$ 9 ! exi/5ce ( morality is n only compatible )1 b actually dem&$ by1 ! pr9ciples ( a s\nd ,metaphysics4 ,f ! side ( morality we meet ) ! dem& t human be+s %all be1 9 "p at lea/1 creatures ^: outw>d acts %all be ! g5u9e expression ( individual purpose2 f ! side ( ,metaphysics we h already le>n$ t j ?is teleological unity1 g5u9e ?\gh imp]fect1 is ! ess5tial nature ( e f9ite exp]i5ce4 ,we are n[ to see h[ a problem 9 itself q simple leads to insoluble difficulties & to ! rival absurdities ( ,indet]m9ism & ,det]m9ism :5 x is p]v]t$ by an initial metaphysical blund]4 ,! initial mi/ake ( bo? ! rival !ories consi/s simply 9 tak+ rigid me*anical det]m9ation ( ev5ts by _! antec$5ts 9 accord ) ! pr9ciple ( ,causality z an actual fact1 ! div]g5ce betwe5 !m only conc]n+ ! ext5t ( ! sph]e ( exi/5ce = :i* su* det]m9ation prevails4 ,accord+ to ! indet]m9i/1 ! action ( consci\s be+s =ms a solit>y exception to a pr9ciple ( det]m9ation :i* is absolutely valid = all purely physical processes4 ,accord+ to ! det]m9i/1 !re are no exceptions to ! pr9ciple1 & our confess$ inability to pr$ict ! c\rse ( an individual life or a p]iod ( hi/ory f g5]al laws 9 ! same way 9 :i* we pr$ict an eclipse or a display ( leonids1 is due m]ely to ! great] complexity ( ! necess>y data1 & ! tempor>y imp]fections ( our ma!matical me?ods4 ,x %\ld be not$ t !re is no sub/antial disagreem5t betwe5 ! m sob] repres5tatives ( ! two views z to ! actual facts ( life4 ,! indet]m9i/ usually admits t 9 practice1 :5 y "k en\gh ( a man's "* & ( ! influ5ces br\ght to be> ^u him1 y c tell ) "s confid5ce h[ he w conduct himself1 & t social int]c\rse1 education1 & p5al legislation w\ld be impossible if y c\ld n4 ,simil>ly1 ! det]m9i/ admits t x w\ld be v ra% to treat y\r pr$ictions ( human behavi\r 9 practice ) absolute confid5ce1 & t ! unexpect$ does frequ5tly happ5 9 human life4 ,! dispute is solely ab\t ! philosophical int]pretation ( facts z to :i* !re is virtually univ]sal agreem5t4 ,accord+ to ! det]m9i/ int]pretation1 if y 7 put 9 possession ( ! k ( a man's 8"*0 & ( 8 8circum/ances0 7& x is assum$ t x is !oretically possible to h ?is k71 & _h suffici5t skill to grapple ) ! ma!matical problems involv$1 y c\ld calculate 8 :ole behavi\r 9 advance1 f ! cradle to ! grave1 ) infallible precision4 ,accord+ to ! indet]m9i/1 y c\ld n d s1 & y\r failure w\ld arise n f any !oretical impossibility ( obta9+ ! suppos$ data1 b f _! insuffici5cy4 ,our behavi\r1 he alleges1 is n exclusively det]m9$ by ! int]action ( 8"*0 & circum/ances2 ev5 ) ! complete k ( bo? ^! elem5ts1 human action is incalculable1 because ( our possession ( a 8free w ( indiff]5ce0 or p[] to act indiff]5tly accord+ to or 9 violation ( our 8"*40 ,y c nev] say be=eh& :at a man w d1 because ( ?is capacity = act+1 "u any conditions1 ) equal facility 9 ei!r ( two alt]native ways4 ,i propose to %[ briefly t ! det]m9i/ is "r 9 say+ t conduct is completely det]m9$ by 8"*0--if ! t]m be und]/ood widely en\gh--& circum/ances1 b wrong 9 hold+ t ?is makes infallible pr$iction possible2 on ! o!r h&1 t ! indet]m9i/ is "r 9 d5y+ ! possibility ( su* pr$iction1 b wrong 9 ! reason he gives = 8 d5ial4 ,infallible pr$iction is impossible1 n because ( ! exi/5ce ( 8free w ( indiff]5ce10 b because ! assum$ data ( ! pr$iction are su* t y c\ld n possibly h !m until aft] ! ev5t4 ,f9ally1 x w be po9t$ out t ! two errors bo? arise f ! same false metaphysical !ory t ! causal pr9ciple is a /atem5t ( real fact4#bji #e4 ,det]m9ism4 ,to beg9 ) ! view ( ! det]m9i/4 ,human conduct1 he says1 mu/ be1 l o!r processes1 unequivocally det]m9$ by antec$5ts1 & ^! antec$5ts mu/ consi/ ( 7a7 "* & 7b7 ext]nal circum/ance4 ,= 7#a7 to d5y ! causal det]m9ation ( our acts by antec$5ts is to d5y ! pres5ce ( rational connection 9 ! psy*ical sph]e1 & ?us to pron\nce n only ,psy*ology1 b all ! sci5ces :i* take psy*ical ev5ts z _! mat]ial & attempt to discov] rational connections betwe5 !m1 9 pr9ciple impossible4 ,?us ! v exi/5ce ( ,psy*ology1 ,e?ics1 & ,hi/ory proves ! applicability ( ! pr9ciple ( causal det]m9ism to 8m5tal /ates40 7#b7 ,?is is /ill m evid5t if we reflect t all sci5ce consi/s 9 ! =mulation ( 8laws0 or 8uni=mities10 & t ! =mulation ( 8laws0 re/s ^u ! pr9ciple t 8same result foll[s "u same conditions0--i4e4 ^u ! pr9ciple ( causal det]m9ation4 7#c7 ,fur!r1 if psy*ical ev5ts are n s det]m9$1 !n ,psy*ology & ! m5tal sci5ces g5]ally are inconsi/5t ) ! g5]al pr9ciples ( ! me*anical physical sci5ces4 7#d7 ,&1 z a matt] ( fact1 we d all assume t psy*ical ev5ts are causally det]m9$ by _! antec$5ts4 ,9 ,psy*ology we assume t our *oices are det]m9$ by ! /r5g? ( ! motives betwe5 :i* we *oose4 ,h5ce1 if y "k :at are ! 8motives0 pres5t to a man's *oice1 & ! relative /r5g? ( ea*1 ! det]m9i/ ?9ks ! pr$iction ( 8 conduct is r$uc$ to ! purely ma!matical problem ( ! solution ( an equation or set ( equations4 ,t our pres5t ma!matical res\rces w n avail = ! unequivocal solution ( su* equations is1 on ?is view1 a m]e tempor>y defect incid5tal to ! pres5t condition ( ma!matical sci5ce4 ,9 pr9ciple ! equations mu/ be soluble1 or 8!re is no sci5ce ( human action40 7#e7 ,& 9 practical life we d all assume t x is possible to pr$ict ) consid]able confid5ce ! effect ( typical conditions ^u ! aggregate ( mank9d1 & also1 :5 y h ! requisite data1 ! effect ( a def9ite set ( conditions ^u an individual man4 ,?us we c\nt ^u ! det]r5t effects ( puni%m5t1 ! p]suasive influ5ce ( adv]tisem5t1 etc42 & aga91 9 proportion z we really "k our fri5ds1 we believe ourselves able to answ] = _! conduct 9 situations :i* h n z yet aris54 ,:y1 !n1 %\ld we suppose x !oretically impossible1 if adequate data 7 furni%$1 to calculate ! :ole c>e] ( a man or a society 9 advance1 z ! a/ronom] calculates ! pa? ( a planet f its elem5ts8 ,^! are1 ,i ?9k1 ! *ief ( ! /ock argum5ts by :i* ,det]m9ism has be5 def5d$4 7,) ! purely !ological argum5t f ! absolut5ess ( ! div9e =ekn[l$ge ,i h already dealt 9 pass+1 & d n propose to ref] to x aga947 #f4 ,x is n difficult to see t ! logical value ( all ^! argum5ts is no?+ at all4 ,!y fall ( !mselves into two gr\ps1 "o bas$ ^u ! g5]al view t all rational connection1 or at lea/ all su* rational connection z is significant = our k1 is me*anical causal sequ5ce1 ! o!r ^u an appeal to ! suppos$ actual practice ( ! m5tal sci5ces4 ,we may deal ) ! fir/ gr\p 7argum5ts #a to #c7 fir/4 ,x is c]ta9ly n true t causal det]m9ation by antec$5ts is ! only =m ( rational connection4 ,= !re is manife/ly ano!r type ( connection1 :i* we h already se5 to be fundam5tal = ! m5tal sci5ces1 namely1 teleological coh]5ce4 ,& we h le>n$ 9 our prec$+ books t no truly teleological or purposive s]ies c really be me*anically det]m9$ by uni=m causal laws ( sequ5ce1 ?\gh x is (t5 conv5i5t = special purposes1 z 9 ! physical sci5ces1 to treat su* a s]ies z if x 7 me*anically det]m9$4 ,:e!r ?is type ( proc$ure w be valid 9 ! m5tal sci5ces1 dep5ds ^u ! fur!r "q :e!r our int]e/ 9 ! /udy ( m5tal processes is ( ! k9d :i* w\ld be satisfi$ by ! =mulation ( a numb] ( ab/ract uni=mities or laws ( sequ5ce1 & ! neglect ( all ^? features ( real m5tal life ( :i* su* laws take no acc\nt4 ,9 ! physical sci5ces1 z we saw1 ?is me*anical s*eme 0 valid only because we h an int]e/--t ( devis+ g5]al rules = deal+ ) typical physical situations--:i* is met by neglect+ all ^? aspects ( concrete fact :i* ! me*anical s*eme excludes4 ,b we also saw t ! nature ( our int]e/ 9 psy*ological inve/igation 0 pr$om9antly 7&1 9 ! case ( ! /udy ( volunt>y action1 exclusively7 ( a diff]5t k9d4 ,our int]e/ 9 ^! inve/igations 0 to obta9 su* a teleological repres5tation ( psy*ical processes z might be made available = ! appreciative judgm5ts ( ,e?ics & ,hi/ory & _! k9dr$ /udies4 ,?us1 ev5 admitt+ ! possibility ( treat+ psy*ical life = "s purposes1 by ab/raction f its teleological "*1 z if x 7 a me*anical sequ5ce1 ! ab/raction w\ld be fatal = ! purposes ( ! concrete m5tal sci5ces1 & is !re=e inadmissible 9 !m4 ,a teleological unity 9 :i* we are int]e/$ z a teleological unity _c1 )\t ! /ultification ( our :ole sci5tific proc$ure1 be treat$ 9 ab/raction f its teleological "*4 ,?is rejo9d] to ! fir/ ( ! det]m9i/'s argum5ts is at ! same "t a refutation ( ! second4 ,x is true t any sci5ce :i* aims exclusively at ! discov]y ( 8laws0 or 8uni=mities0 mu/ adopt ! causal pr9ciple1 & mu/ resolutely %ut its eyes to all aspects ( concrete fact :i* _c be resolv$ into me*anical sequ5ce ( 8same result0 on 8same conditions40 ,b1 z we saw 9 ! fir/ *apt] ( ?is book1 ! *>act]i/ic task ( ,psy*ology1 except 9 ^? p>ts ( x :i* appe> to be m]e tempor>y sub/itutes = ! ,physiology ( ! future1 is n ! discov]y ( 8laws ( m5tal process10 b ! repres5tation 9 ab/ract & g5]al =m ( ! teleological unity ( processes :i* are ! expression ( subjective int]e/s4 ,psy*ology1 !n1 9 its mo/ *>act]i/ic p>ts1 is n bas$ ^u ! causal po/ulate ( me*anical sci5ce1 b on ! conception ( teleological cont9uity4 ,our answ] to ! det]m9i/'s ?ird argum5t is !re=e t we admit ! tru? ( ! allegation t ,psy*ology & all ! m concrete m5tal sci5ces :i* make use ( ! symbolism ( ,psy*ology1 because ess5tially teleological 9 _! view ( m5tal process1 w\ld be inconsi/5t ) ! me*anical po/ulates1 if ^? po/ulates _h any claim to admission into m5tal sci5ce z its rul+ pr9ciples4 ,we d5y1 h[ev]1 t !y h any su* claim to recognition4 ,be+1 z we n[ "k t !y are1 m]e me?odological rules = ! elim9ation f our data ( ev]y?+ :i* is teleological1 ! me*anical po/ulates are only legitimate 9 ,psy*ology s f> z ,psy*ology desires me*anical results4 ,h[ f> t is1 we h le>n$ 9 ! fir/ two *apt]s ( ! pres5t ,book1 & we h f\nd t ! initiation ( purposive action is n a process :i* ,psy*ology c fruitfully treat z me*anical4 #g4 ,turn+ n[ to ! det]m9i/'s allegations z to ! factual proc$ure ( ! m5tal sci5ces1 we may make ! foll[+ obs]vations3--7#a7 ,z to ! argum5t f ! psy*ological treatm5t ( 8motives0 z ! det]m9+ antec$5ts ( *oice1 we say t x is ei!r an empty tautology or a fallacy1 accord+ to ! s5se y please to put on ! mu*-abus$ t]m 8motive40 ,*oice is causally det]m9$ by ! 8/ronge/ motive02 :at does ?is mean8 ,if ! 8/ronge/ motive0 simply means ! l9e ( action we d 9 fact *oose1 ! argum5t am\nts to ! true b irrelevant obs]vation t we *oose :at we d *oose1 & n some?+ else4 ,b if 8motives0 are to be reg>d$ z antec$5ts causally det]m9+ *oice 9 proportion to _! /r5g?1 z me*anical 8=ces0 det]m9e ! pa? ( a p>ticle 9 ab/ract ,me*anics1 we mu/ suppose ! 8/r5g?0 ( ! v>i\s 8motives10 l ! mass ( an attract+ body1 to be previ\sly fix$1 indep5d5t ( ! *oice !y det]m9e4 ,9 o!r words1 ! det]m9i/ argum5t requires u to hold t alt]native possibilities ( action are already 8motives0 ap>t f _! relation to ! purpose ( ! ag5t :o has to *oose betwe5 !m1 & moreov] h1 also 9 indep5d5ce ( ! purpose or 8"*0 ( ! *oos]1 a 8/r5g?0 :i* is 9 "s un9telligible way a function (--x w\ld n be easy to say ( :at1 ?\gh x is incumb5t on ! det]m9i/ to "k4 ,& ?is seems no bett] ?an rank nons5se4 ,an alt]native is n a 8motive0 at all1 except 9 relation to ! already exi/+1 b n fully def9$1 purpose ( "s ag5t1 & :e!r x is a 8/rong0 or a 8weak0 motive dep5ds likewise on ! "* ( ! ag5t's purpose4 ,! attempt to conceive ( 8motives0 z someh[ act+ on a m9d ) an inh]5t 8/r5g?0 ( _! own1 z mat]ial p>ticles attract o!r mat]ial p>ticles proportionately to _! masses1 is s palpable an absurdity1 t no?+ m ?an ! c&id /atem5t ( x is ne$$ = its complete exposure4 ,& 7#b7 !re is an equal absurdity inh]5t 9 ! det]m9i/ view z to ! k9d ( pr$iction ( conduct :i* is possible 9 concrete cases4 ,we h se5 already 9 our ,?ird ,book t no infallible pr$iction ( ! c\rse ( ev5ts 9 an individual case is ev] possible4 ,me*anical calculation & pr$iction we f\nd to be possible 9 ! physical sci5ces simply because !y deal ) ! av]age "* ( a va/ aggregate ( processes :i* !y nev] attempt to foll[ 9 _! concrete individual detail4 ,& tru/wor?y pr$iction ( human conduct by ! aid ( 8causal laws0 0 se5 to be ( ! same k9d4 ,y\r uni=mities might hold good1 s long z !y pr(ess$ to be no?+ m ?an /ati/ical av]ages got by neglect+ ! individual peculi>ities ( ! special cases compos+ !m1 b no?+ b acqua9tance ) individual "* & purpose w\ld ju/ify y 9 mak+ confid5t pr$ictions z to ! behavi\r ( an individual man4 ,n[1 :5 ! det]m9i/ says1 8if y knew a man's "* & 8 circum/ances y c\ld pr$ict 8 conduct ) c]ta9ty10 x is n ?is k9d ( individual acqua9tance :i* he has 9 view4 ,he means t ! 8"*0 ( an individual man c\ld be r$uc$ to a numb] ( g5]al =mul or 8laws ( m5tal action10 & t f ^! 8laws10 by simply putt+ !m toge!r1 y c\ld logically d$uce ! man's behavi\r4 ,to see h[ irrational ?is assumption is1 we ne$ only ask :at is meant exactly by ! 8"*0 :i* we suppose giv5 z "o ( ! elem5ts = our suppos$ calculation4 ,if x means ! sum-total ( ! cong5ital 8dispositions0 ) :i* we are born1 !n--ap>t f ! difficulty ( say+ precisely :at y mean by su* a 8disposition0--! det]m9i/ /atem5t is n ev5 approximately true4 ,= 7a7 ?\gh x may be true t a man's behavi\r 9 a giv5 situation is an expression ( 8 8"*10 yet ! 8"*0 is n ! same ?+ z 8cong5ital disposition40 ,disposition is ! m]e raw mat]ial ( ! 8"*10 :i* is =m$ out ( x by ! influ5ce ( circum/ance1 ! educational activity ( our social circle1 & delib]ate self-discipl9e on our own "p4 ,& ! 8"*0 ?us =m$ is n a fix$ & unv>y+ quantity1 giv5 once & = all at "s p]iod 9 ! individual's developm5t1 & !nce=w>d con/ant2 x is itself1 !oretically at lea/1 89 ! mak+0 ?r\gh\t life1 & ?\gh y may1 f p]sonal intimate acqua9tance ) an individual man1 feel /rongly conv9c$ t 8 8"*0 is n likely to und]go s]i\s *anges aft] a c]ta9 "t ( life1 ?is conviction c nev] am\nt to m ?an :at we prop]ly call 8moral0 c]ta9ty1 & is nev] ju/ifi$ except on ! /r5g? ( individual famili>ity4 7b7 ,?is leads u to our second po9t4 ,if--to suppose ! practically impossible--y did "k a man's 8"*0 ) ! k ( omnisci5ce1 y w\ld cle>ly also "k e act ( 8 life4 ,= 8 8"*0 is no?+ b ! sy/em ( purposes & int]e/s to :i* 8 outw>d de$s give expression1 & ?us to "k x completely w\ld be to "k !m completely too4 ,b--& ?is is :at ! det]m9i/ regul>ly ov]looks--y c\ld n possibly h ?is k ( ! man's 8"*0 until y 7 already acqua9t$ ) ! :ole ( 8 life4 ,y c\ld n possibly ?us "k 8"*0 z a datum giv5 9 advance1 f :i* to calculate1 ) ma!matical precision1 ! z yet unkn[n future acts ( ! man 9 "q1 because1 z we h se51 ! 8"*0 is1 9 fact1 n !re z a giv5 fact be=e ! acts ?r\gh :i* x is =m$4 ,y\r data c\ld at be/ be no m ?an a numb] ( 8dispositions0 or 8t5d5cies10 & f su* data !re c be no infallible pr$iction1 because1 9 ! fir/ place1 8dispositions0 are n always develop$ into actual fix$ habits2 &1 9 ! second1 y\r data1 su* z !y are1 are incomplete1 see+ t 8dispositions0 may1 & (t5 d1 rema9 lat5t & escape detection until ! em]g5ce ( a situation adapt$ to call !m out4 ,s t1 ev5 if x 7 true t complete k ( a man's orig9al /ock ( 8dispositions0 w\ld enable y to calculate 8 c>e] f its elem5ts1 x w\ld /ill be impossible to be sure t y\r k ( 8 8dispositions0 0 complete4 ,?us1 if a 8sci5ce ( human nature0 really means a p[] to calculate human conduct 9 advance f its elem5ts1 we mu/ admit t !re is n & c be no su* sci5ce4 ,z a fact1 h[ev]1 :at we really mean by a 8sci5ce ( human nature10 :5 we speak ( x z possible or z p>tly exi/5t already1 is some?+ q diff]5t4 ,we mean ei!r ,psy*ology1 individual & social1 :i* is simply an ab/ract symbolism = ! repres5tation ( teleological process 9 its g5]al nature1 or ,hi/ory1 :i* is ! detection ( coh]5t purpose 9 human action1 aft] ! ev5t2 or1 aga91 ,e?ics & ,politics1 :i* are appreciations ( su* purpose by an ideal /&>d ( wor?4 ,n "o ( ^! sci5ces has ev] attempt$ ! calculation ( human action 9 advance by g5]al laws2 su* =eca/s ( ! future z we d make1 ) rational confid5ce1 are palpably bas$1 :]ev] !y are ( value1 on concrete exp]i5ce1 our own or t ( o!rs1 & n ^u ! pr9ciples ( an imag9>y me*anics ( ! human m9d4 #h4 ,indet]m9ism4 ,) ! fallacies ( ! indet]m9i/ we mu/ n[ deal m briefly4 ,?is is ! m possible z ,indet]m9ism1 ?\gh common en\gh 9 popul> moralis+1 has nev] won any?+ l ! position ( ! rival doctr9e z ! pr(ess$ cre$ ( sci5tific inve/igators4 ,! ess5ce ( ! indet]m9i/ position is ! d5ial ( ! pr9ciple affirm$ alike by ! doctr9e ( self-det]m9ation &1 9 an un9tellig5t trave/y1 by ! det]m9i/ !ory t conduct results f ! reaction ( 8"*0 ^u circum/ances4 ,see+ t1 if all human action is me*anically det]m9$ 9 advance by its 8antec$5ts10 & is ?us !oretically capable ( be+ d$uc$ f its 8elem5ts10 !re c be no true moral fre$om1 &1 n see+ t ! ess5ce ( true fre$om is teleological z oppos$ to me*anical det]m9ation1 ! indet]m9i/ ?9ks himself compell$ to ass]t t human action is1 9 ! la/ resort1 n 8det]m9$0 ev5 by human "*4 ,!re is a 8free w ( indiff]5ce0 inh]5t 9 human nature1 9 virtue ( :i* a man's acts1 or at lea/ ^? ( !m 9 respect ( :i* he is morally 8acc\ntable10 are free1 9 ! s5se ( be+ indep5d5t ( 8 "*4 ,fre$om1 accord+ to ?is view1 consi/s 9 ! ability indiff]5tly to adopt ei!r ( two alt]native c\rses2 s long z "o alt]native is clos$ to y 7:e!r by y\r 8"*0 or by ext]nal circum/ances makes no diff]5ce accord+ to ! indet]m9i/71 y are n 8free0 & n act+ z a moral & acc\ntable be+4 ,y are only act+ freely 9 foll[+ y\r purpose :5 y c\ld equally well foll[ its direct opposite4 ,! argum5ts by :i* ?is doctr9e is support$1 ov] & above ! g5]al cont5tion t det]m9ation by antec$5ts is incompatible ) moral responsibility1 are *iefly ( ! nature ( appeals to imm$iate feel+4 ,?us we are told 7#a7 t :5 we act f *oice & n "u compulsion we always h ! imm$iate feel+ t we c\ld equally well act 9 ! opposite s5se2 & 7#b7 t x is a matt] ( direct exp]i5ce t1 9 resi/+ temptation1 we c & d act 89 ! l9e ( greate/ resi/ance10 & t ! 8w0 is !re=e indep5d5t ( det]m9ation by 8motives40 ,! detail$ discussion ( ! actuality ( ! alleg$ facts belongs1 ( c\rse1 to ,psy*ology1 & ,i d n propose to ent] into x "h4 ,b x %\ld be manife/ t1 ev5 admitt+ ! facts to be z ! indet]m9i/ /ates !m1 !y d n w>rant ! inf]5ce he bases on !m4 ,?us 7#a7 x is no d\bt true t ,i (t5 am aw>e1 9 resolv+ on a c]ta9 c\rse ( action1 t ,i c\ld1 if ,i pleas$1 act diff]5tly4 ,b ! conditional clause by its pres5ce makes all ! diff]5ce betwe5 teleological det]m9ation & no det]m9ation at all4 ,x is1 e4g41 no g5u9e fact ( exp]i5ce t ,i am aw>e t ,i c\ld violate all ! habits ( a lifetime1 practise all ! crimes ,i mo/ abhor1 & neglect all ! int]e/s to :i* ,i am mo/ devot$4 ,i c\ld d all ?is 8if ,i pleas$10 b be=e ,i c\ld 8please0 ,i %\ld h to become a diff]5t man2 :ile ,i am ! man ,i am1 x is a manife/ absurdity to hold t ,i c indiff]5tly express 9 my behavi\r ! purposes :i* con/itute my individuality or _! opposites4 7#b7 ,! argum5t f ! successful resi/ance ( temptations is equally fallaci\s4 ,we h se5 already t ! det]m9i/ assumption aga9/ :i* x is direct$1 namely1 t conduct is me*anically det]m9$ by ! inh]5t 8/r5g?0 ( 8motives10 is itself unmean+4 8,motives0 are1 if !y are any?+1 ano!r "n = ! int]e/s :i* con/itute our "*1 n ext]nal influ5ces :i* 8"w ^u0 t "*1 & ?us _! relative 8/r5g?0 is no?+ indep5d5t ( "*1 b a new expression = ! /ructure ( ! individual "* itself4 ,b ! c\nt]-argum5t ( ,indet]m9ism is j z unmean+4 ,to talk ( ! 8conque/0 ( temptation z ! 8l9e ( greate/ resi/ance0 is to use ! v same un9telligible me*anical analogy z ! det]m9i/ uses 9 talk+ ( ! antec$5t 8/r5g?0 ( a 8motive40 ,!re are1 9 fact1 only two possible int]pretations ( ! indet]m9i/'s cont5tion1 & nei!r ( !m supports 8 conclusion4 ,ei!r ! 8resi/ance0 ( :i* he speaks mu/ be measur$ by our actual success 9 resi/+ ! sugge/ion to act1 & 9 t case ! v fact t we d n yield to ! temptation %[s t = u yield+ w\ld h be5 ! 8l9e ( greate/ resi/ance02 or else 8resi/ance0 mu/ be measur$ by ! ext5t to :i* ! reject$ alt]native /ill p]si/s z a psy*ical fact aft] its rejection4 ,!n ! alleg$ exp]i5ce simply am\nts to ?is1 t we c & sometimes d1 9 ob$i5ce to tra9+ or conviction1 refuse to act ^u sugge/ions :i* z psy*ical facts h suffici5t int5sity to rema9 be=e ! m9d ev5 aft] our refusal4 ,& ?is1 int]e/+ & sugge/ive z x is1 seems no p>ticul> reason = d5y+ ! teleological det]m9ation ( our conduct4#baj ,! real metaphysical objection to ,indet]m9ism h[ev]1 is n t x is an unprovable & unnecess>y hypo!sis1 b t x involves ! d5ial ( rational connection betwe5 human actions4 ,by decl>+ t conduct is n det]m9$ by "*1 x virtually ass]ts t x is *ance :i* ultimately decides h[ we %all actually behave 9 a concrete case4 ,& *ance is simply ano!r "n = ! abs5ce ( rational connection4 ,?is is illu/rat$1 e4g41 by ! use we make ( ! conception ( *ance 9 ! v>i\s empirical sci5ces4 ,?us1 :5 ,i say t x is a matt] ( *ance :at c>d ,i %all draw f ! pack1 :at ,i mean is t ! result dep5ds 9 "p ^u conditions :i* ,i d n "k1 & !re=e _c use z data = a conclusion 9 fav\r ( "o result r ?an ano!r4 ,i d n1 ( c\rse1 mean t ! result is n condition$ at all1 or t1 ) a suffici5t k ( ! conditions x might n h be5 calculat$ 9 advance1 b m]ely t ,i 9 p>ticul> h n ?is suffici5t k4 ,h5ce ! admission ( *ance 9 ! relative s5se ( 8conditions n at pres5t accurately kn[n0 does n conflict ) ! fundam5tal axiom ( all ?9k+1 ! pr9ciple t all exi/5ce is a rational unity or s*eme ( "s sort4 ,9 fact1 s9ce we nev] c "k ! 8totality ( ! conditions0 ( any?+1 x w\ld be true to say t !re is an elem5t ( *ance1 9 ?is relative s5se1 9 all concrete actualities4 ,b absolute *ance1 su* z ! doctr9e ( an indet]m9ate free w ma9ta9s1 w\ld am\nt to ! simple abs5ce ( any rational connection :atev] betwe5 ! facts :i* are alleg$ to issue f su* a w4 ,?is is :y ! indet]m9i/ view leads 9 ! end1 if consi/5tly c>ri$ out1 to ! same metaphysical absurdity z ! det]m9i/4 ,f failure to see t rational connection1 su* z is presuppos$ :5 we impute praise or blame to an ag5t on ! score ( 8 conduct1 means teleological det]m9ation1 bo? ! rival !ories 9 ! end d5y ! rational int]connection ( human acts1 ! "o replac+ x by ! fiction ( a purposeless me*anical 8necessity10 ! o!r by ! equal fiction ( a 8bl9d *ance40 ,& ! two fictions are really ! same ?+ "u diff]5t names4 ,= ! only piece ( def9ite in=mation t c\ld be extract$ ei!r f ! ass]tion t human conduct is me*anically det]m9$1 or t x is ! result ( *ance1 is ! conclusion t 9 ei!r case x is n ! expression ( coh]5t purpose4 #i4 ,x is ?us obvi\s t ,indet]m9ism fails1 9 precisely ! same way z ! oppos+ !ory1 to af=d any !oretical basis = moral responsibility4 ,true1 ,i _c be 8responsible0 = de$s :i* are ! outcome ( a purely me*anical sy/em ( antec$5ts1 because su* de$s1 n issu+ f ! purposes ( my self1 are 9 no true s5se m9e2 b ! same w\ld be equally true ( ! results ( an indet]m9ate free w4 ,z n ow+ _! exi/5ce to my purpose1 ^? results are 9 no real s5se 8my0 acts1 & ! *oice ( ! "n 8free w0 = _! unkn[n s\rce only s]ves to disguise ?is consequ5ce )\t remov+ x4 ,only z issu+ f my "*1 & z ! expression ( my individual int]e/s1 c acts be ascrib$ to me z 8m9e0 & made ! basis ( moral approbation 9 c5sure ( my 8self40 ,?us we see t ! det]m9i/ & ! indet]m9i/ are l$ alike to impossible results because ( ! common error involv$ 9 _! po9t ( dep>ture4 ,bo? />t ) ! false assumption t ! causal det]m9ation ( an ev5t by its 8antec$5ts0--:i* we h 9 our e>li] books se5 to be a po/ulate ultimately n 9 accord ) reality1 b p]missible 9 s f> z x p]mits u to obta9 useful results by treat+ ev5ts z if !y 7 ?us det]m9$--is ultimately real z a feature ( concrete exi/5ce4 ,hav+ ?us at ! outset exclud$ g5u9e teleological det]m9ation f _! conception ( ! _w ( *ange1 bo? !ori/s are alike deb>r$ f ! correct und]/&+ ( ^? psy*ical processes = ! compreh5sion ( :i* teleological categories are indisp5sable4 ,9 ! t]ms ( !ories :i* treat det]m9ation z purely me*anical1 ! factors :i* manife/ly are ! det]m9+ conditions ( conduct1 namely1 "* & ! alt]native possibilities ( action1 inevitably come to be conceiv$ ( z ! temporal 8antec$5ts0 ( ! act :i* issues f !m4 ,& :5 once ?is notion ( "* z a sort ( pre-exi/+ mat]ial ^u :i* 8motives0 f )\t op]ate has be5 fram$1 x matt]s little 9 pr9ciple :e!r y take 8"*0 & 8motive0 by !mselves z ! complete antec$5ts by :i* action is det]m9$1 or add a ?ird 8antec$5t0 9 ! =m ( an inexplicable arbitr>y 8free w40 ,9 ei!r case all possibility ( a tru?ful repres5tation ( ! fre$om actually impli$ 9 moral acc\ntability 0 surr5d]$ :5 ! 8"*0 :i* expresses itself ?r\gh an act1 & ! 8motive0 :i* is ano!r "n = t "* z p>ticul>is$ by ref]5ce to circum/ances1 7 falsely sep>at$ 9 ?\ght f ea* o!r1 & !n fur!r treat$ z ! temporal antec$5ts ( ! act 9 :i* !y are express$4 ,9 our own treatm5t ( ! problem ( fre$om we 7 able to escape bo? sides ( ! dilemma1 because we recognis$ f ! fir/ t ! categories ( me*anical det]m9ation are n ! expression ( real fact1 b limitations artificially impos$ ^u facts = special purposes ( a k9d :i* h no?+ 9 common ) ! e?ical & hi/orical appreciation ( human conduct1 & !re=e irrelevant & mislead+ :5 appli$ out ( _! rightful sph]e4 ,consult fur!r3--,h4 ,b]gson1 ,sur les donnes immdiates de la consci5ce2 ,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,e?ical ,/udies1 ,essay #a2 ,w4 ,r4 ,b4 ,gibson1 8,! ,problem ( ,fre$om0 79 ,p]sonal ,idealism72 ,t4 ,h4 ,gre51 ,prolegom5a to ,e?ics1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #c1 bk4 ii4 *ap4 #a2 ,w4 ,james1 ,pr9ciples ( ,psy*ology1 vol4 ii4 *ap4 #bf2 ,w to ,believe 7,! ,dilemma ( ,det]m9ism72 ,j4 ,locke1 ,essay conc]n+ ,human ,und]/&+1 bk4 ii4 *ap4 #ba 7on ,p[]72 ,j4 ,m>t9eau1 ,types ( ,e?ical ,!ory1 vol4 ii4 bk4 i4 *ap4 #a2 ,j4 ,s4 ,mill1 ,logic1 bk4 vi4 *ap4 #b ff42 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lect4 #h2 ,h4 ,sidgwick1 ,me?ods ( ,e?ics1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #e2 ,lectures on ! ,e?ics ( ,gre51 etc41 pp4 #ae-bi4 ----- ,footnote #bjj3 ,see ,me?ods ( ,e?ics1 bk4 i4 *ap4 #d1 #f 7pp4 #gb-gf ( #e? ed474 ,footnote #bja3 ,s ,om> ,khayym-- 8,oh ,?\1 :o did/ ) pitfall & ) g9 ,beset ! ,road ,i 0 to w&] 91 ,?\ wilt n ) ,pr$e/9$ ,evil r\nd ,emme%1 & !n impute my ,fall to ,s940 7,,fitzg]ald1 ed4 #d1 /anza #hj47 ,& our own poet-- 8,?\ made/ man 9 ! g>d52 ?\ tempt$/ man1 & he fell10 etc4 7,= ! orig9al ( ! /anzas on ,pr$e/9ation 9 ,fitzg]ald's ,om>1 see1 e4g41 ! ,p]sian text ( ,:9field1 quatra9s #ajj1 #abf1 #aig47 ,footnote #bjb3 ,evad$1 because1 ev5 grant+ ! satisfactor9ess ( ! solution = ! special case ( ,adam1 !re w\ld /ill be ! problem ( reconcil+ ! alleg$ 8free w0 ( 8 desc5dants ) _! inh]itance ( 8orig9al s940 ,! m rigid ,calv9ism1 ) its insi/5ce on ! natural corruption ( man's he>t & ! absolut5ess ( pr$e/9ation1 seems to secure logical consi/5cy at ! exp5se ( outrag+ our moral convictions4 ,l s _m popul> !ological problems1 ?is ( ! conflict betwe5 ,god's omnisci5ce & ju/ice arises f a misconception ( ! issue4 ,x is only :5 ! category ( "t is illogically appli$ to ! ex hypo!si p]fect1 & !re=e timeless1 nature ( ,god t ,god's k comes to be ?\ght by z =e k be=e ! ev5t1 & ?us occasions ! difficulty :i* ! 8free-w0 !ory 0 int5d$ to remove4 ,see on ?is po9t1 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 vol4 ii4 lect4 #h1 & comp>e ,bradley1 ,e?ical ,/udies1 p4 #ai4 ,( c\rse1 ! case w\ld be alt]$ if we ?\ght ( ,god z f9ite & imp]fect1 & !re=e 9 "t4 ,b !re w\ld !n be no long] any reason = believ+ ei!r 9 ,8 omnisci5ce or ,8 omnipot5ce1 & s no problem w\ld arise4 ,footnote #bjc3 ,rememb] t ab/5tion f act+ is itself action1 j z 9 ,logic e significant d5ial is really an ass]tion4 ,h5ce our proviso meets ! case ( wilful neglect to in=m myself ( ! mat]ial circum/ances4 ,footnote #bjd3 ,! only automatic acts ( :i* we really "k ! psy*ical "* are our own 8second>ily automatic0 or 8habitual0 acts4 ,x is1 ( c\rse1 a problem = ! casui/ h[ f> any p>ticul> reaction has become s completely automatic z to be no long] an occasion = ! imputation ( m]it or guilt4 ,footnote #bje3 ,= purposes ( law x may (t5 be impossible to draw ! di/9ction1 & we may h to acquiesce 9 ! r\gh-&-ready alt]native betwe5 entire acc\ntability & complete non-acc\ntability4 ,b 9 pass+ moral judgm5t on ourselves or o!rs 9 =o consci5ti1 we always recognise t acc\ntability is a ?+ ( degrees4 ,on ?is po9t see ,mr4 ,bradley's previ\sly quot$ article 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb4 ,footnote #bjf3 ,x mu/1 h[ev]1 be c>efully not$ t w 9 ! s5se 9 :i* x is equival5t to fre$om mu/ be tak5 to include :at "s writ]s1 e4g41 ,bradley1 call a 8/&+0 w--i4e4 any s]ies ( acts orig9ally initiat$ by an idea ( ! resultant *anges1 :i* is approv$ ( by u unconditionally4 ,9 ! actual execution ( su* a s]ies ( acts _m ( ! /ages are habitual reactions :i*1 z su*1 are n accompani$ by ! 8idea0 ( _! specific result z a det]m9+ condition ( _! occurr5ce4 ,! sph]e ( moral fre$om is arbitr>ily re/rict$ :5 x is assum$ t an actual volition is indisp5sable = e /age ( ! 8free0 action4 ,footnote #bjg3 ,! read] %\ld /udy = himself ,locke's fam\s *apt] 7,essay1 bk4 ii4 *ap4 #ba74 ,locke's treatm5t1 hamp]$ z x is by 8 un=tunate ret5tion ( ! discussion ( 8 fir/ edition side by side ) a some:at modifi$ re-/atem5t1 comp>es fav\rably = cle>ness & s\nd s5se ) t ( mo/ subsequ5t philosoph]s1 notably ) ,kant's un9telligible attempt to reconcile ! absolute fre$om ( man z 8n\m5on0 7a fictiti\s quality ( a fictiti\s be+7 ) 8 equally absolute unfre$om z 8ph5om5on0 7ano!r equally palpable fiction74 ,= ,leibnitz's criticism ( ,locke1 see ,n\veaux ,essais1 ,,ii4 xxi41 p>ticul>ly #h-be4 7,! ,engli% translation by ,langley c only be us$ ) extreme caution47 ,on ! :ole "q ! read] %\ld also consult ,gre51 ,prolegom5a to ,e?ics1 bk4 ii *ap4 #a2 ,bradley1 ,e?ical ,/udies1 ,essay #a1 & article 9 ,m9d = ,july #aijb2 ,w4 ,r4 ,b4 ,gibson1 8,! ,problem ( ,fre$om0 79 ,p]sonal ,idealism74 ,footnote #bjh3 ,!n1 are 8animals0 free8 ,i see no reason to d5y t1 s9ce _! life1 9 z its degree1 mu/ h teleological cont9uity to be a life at all1 !y too mu/ possess a rudim5t>y degree ( fre$om1 ?\gh a degree n suffici5t to fit !m = a place z 9 human society1 & !re=e1 = ! special purposes ( human e?ical sy/ems1 negligible4 ,simil>ly1 a human imbecile may possess a degree ( fre$om :i* is important = ! educator :o is int]e/$ 9 ! 8c>e ( ! feeble m9d$10 & yet may rightly be treat$ = ! diff]5t purposes ( a p5al code z simply unfree4 ,footnote #bji3 ,comp>e ) :at foll[s1 ,bradley1 ,e?ical ,/udies1 ,essay #a1 & ! notes app5d$ to x4 ,= a typical /atem5t ( ! det]m9i/ case 9 its m sob] =m1 see ,mill1 ,sy/em ( ,logic1 bk4 vi4 *ap4 #b4 ,x is h>d] to f9d a reasonable /atem5t ( ! opposite view1 z mo/ capable moral philosoph]s h adopt$ ! doctr9e ( self-det]m9ation4 ,= a def5ce ( ?or\ghgo+ ,indet]m9ism1 see ,james1 ,! ,w to ,believe 7,essay on ,! ,dilemma ( ,det]m9ism74 ,9 ,pr(essor ,sidgwick's /atem5t ( ! indet]m9i/ view 7see1 e4g41 8 po/hum\s lecture on ,t4 ,h4 ,gre5's doctr9e ( fre$om 9 ,lectures on ! ,e?ics ( ,gre51 ,sp5c]1 & ,m>t9eau1 pp4 #ae-bh71 ,indet]m9ism seems to me to be qualifi$ to ! po9t ( be+ 9 pr9ciple surr5d]$4 ,footnote #baj3 ,see ! admirable discussion ( ?is exp]i5ce 9 ,dr4 ,/\t's ,manual ( ,psy*ology1#c bk4 iv4 *ap4 #aj1 #g4 ----- ,,*apt] ,v ,,"s ,,metaphysical ,,implications ,,( ,,e?ics ,,& ,,religion #a4 ,if ,reality is a h>moni\s sy/em1 x mu/ someh[ make provision = ! gratification ( our e?ical1 religi\s1 & /hetic int]e/s4 #b4 ,b we _c assume t e?ical & religi\s po/ulates are necess>ily true 9 ! =ms 9 :i* our practical int]e/s lead u to make !m4 #c4 ,?us1 :ile morality w\ld become impossible unless on ! :ole !re is co9cid5ce betwe5 virtue & happ9ess1 & unless social progress is a g5u9e fact1 8p]fect virtue10 8p]fect happ9ess10 8inf9ite progress0 are logically self-contradictory concepts4 #d4 ,b ?is does n impair ! practical usefulness ( our e?ical ideals4 #e4 ,9 religion we conceive ( ! ideal ( p]fection z already exi/+ 9 individual =m4 ,h5ce ultimately no "p ( ! temporal ord] c be an adequate object ( religi\s devotion4 #f4 ,?is leads to ! ,problem ( ,evil4 8,god0 _c be a f9ite be+ )9 ! ,absolute1 because1 if s1 ,god mu/ conta9 evil & imp]fection z "p ( ,8 nature1 & is ?us n ! already exi/+ realisation ( ! ideal4 #g4 ,?is difficulty disappe>s :5 we id5tify 8,god0 ) ! ,absolute1 because 9 ! ,absolute evil c be se5 to be m]e illusory appe>ance4 ,x may1 h[ev]1 be true t religi\s feel+1 to be practically effici5t1 may ne$ to imag9e its object 9 an ultimately incorrect an?ropomorphic =m4 #h4 ,! exi/5ce1 )9 ! ,absolute1 ( f9ite 8div9e0 p]sonalities1 c nei!r be affirm$ nor d5i$ on gr\nds ( g5]al ,metaphysics4 #i4 ,pro(s ( ! 8be+ ( ,god40 ,! pr9ciple ( ! 8ontological0 & 8cosmological0 pro(s c be def5d$ aga9/ ! criticism ( ,hume & ,kant only if we id5tify ,god ) ! ,absolute4 ,! 8physico!ological pro(0 c\ld only e/abli% ! reality ( f9ite sup]human intellig5ces1 & its =ce dep5ds purely ^u empirical consid]ations ( evid5ce4 #a4 ,! metaphysician is p]haps at times too ready to treat exp]i5ce z ?\gh x 7 con/itut$ solely by intellectual int]e/s2 z ?\gh our "o conc]n 9 deal+ ) its deliv]ances1 z !y come to u1 7 to con/ruct out ( !m a sy/em ( k satisfactory to our dem& = coh]5t ?9k+4 ,?is is1 ( c\rse1 a "o-sid$1 & !re=e1 f ! /&po9t ( ,metaphysics itself1 an imp]fect expression ( ! nature ( our attitude z intellig5ces t[>ds ! _w ( our exp]i5ce4 ,our moral1 religi\s1 & arti/ic1 no less ?an our logical1 ideals repres5t typical =ms ( our g5]al int]e/ z intellig5t be+s 9 br++ h>mony & ord] into ! app>5tly discordant mat]ial ( exp]i5ce4 ,h5ce no /udy ( metaphysical pr9ciples1 h[ev] elem5t>y1 w\ld be complete )\t "s discussion ( ! light ?r[n by ^! v>i\s ideals ^u ! ultimate /ructure ( ! sy/em ( ,reality 9 :i* we & our manifold int]e/s =m a "p4 ,if x is ! fundam5tal pr9ciple ( a s\nd philosophy t all exi/5ce =ms a h>moni\s unity1 !n1 if we c discov] :at are ! ess5tial & p]man5t features 9 ! dem&s made by art1 morality1 & religion ^u ! _w1 we may be sure t ^! dem&s are someh[ met & made good 9 ! s*eme ( ?+s4 ,= a _w :i* met our e?ical1 religi\s1 & ae/hetic dem&s ^u life ) a m]e negative w\ld inevitably conta9 aspects ( viol5t & irreconcilable discord1 & w\ld ?us be no true _w or sy/ematic unity at all4 ,9 :at foll[s ,i propose to discuss ! d\ble "q1 ,:at appe>s to be ! 8irr$ucible m9imum0 ( ! dem&s :i* morality & religion make ( ! _w1 & h[ f> ! g5]al conception ( exi/5ce def5d$ 9 our e>li] *apt]s provides = _! liquidation4 ,! consid]ation ( our ae/hetic ideals & _! metaphysical significance ,i propose to decl9e1 on ! gr\nd bo? ( its inf]ior practical int]e/ = mank9d at l>ge1 & ( ! v special & ?or\gh tra9+ 9 ! psy*ological analysis ( /hetic feel+ :i* is1 9 my own judgm5t at lea/1 ess5tial = ! satisfactory treatm5t ( ! "q4 #b4 ,9 deal+ ) ! subject ?us m>k$ out1 x w be necess>y to beg9 ) a ^w1 p>tly ( caution1 p>tly ( recapitulation ( previ\s results1 z to ! attitude t[>ds ! practical ideals ( morality & religion impos$ ^u ! metaphysician by ! special "* ( 8 int]e/s z a metaphysician4 ,x w ?us be app>5t :y ,i h spok5 9 ! la/ p>agraph ( an 8irr$ucible m9imum0 ( e?ical & religi\s po/ulation4 ,!re is a m>k$ t5d5cy among rec5t writ]s on philosophical topics1 enc\rag$ m specially by ,pr(essor ,james & 8 foll[]s1 to urge t any & e ideal :i* we ?9k valuable = ! purposes ( morality & religion has no less claim to be accept$ 9 ,metaphysics z ( value = our conception ( ,reality ?an ! fundam5tal pr9ciples ( logical ?\ght !mselves4 ,logical ?9k+1 x is cont5d$1 is aft] all only "o ( ! functions ( our nature1 by ! side ( o!rs su* z moral endeav\r t[>ds ! h>monis+ ( practice ) an ideal ( ! "r or ! good1 ae/hetic creation ( ! beautiful1 & religi\s co-op]ation ) a 8p[] n ourselves t makes = righte\sness40 ,:y1 !n1 %\ld ! metaphysician assume t ! univ]se is m specially b\nd to satisfy ! dem&s ( ! logical intellect ?an ^? ( ! 8practical reason0 ( morality & religion or ! 8creative reason0 ( art8 ,mu/ we n say t ! dem& ( ! logician t ! _w %all be intelligible /&s precisely on ! same foot+ z ! morali/'s dem& t x %all be righte\s1 or ! arti/'s t x %all be beautiful1 & t all ?ree are no m ?an 8po/ulates0 :i* we make1 9 ! la/ resort1 simply because x satisfies our deepe/ feel+s to make !m8 ,mu/ we n1 9 fact1 say alike to ! foll[]s ( ,logic1 ( ,e?ics1 ( ,religion1 & ( ,art1 8,y\r claims on ! _w are ultimately all ( ! same k9d2 !y are made ) equal "r1 & s long z any "o ( y is cont5t to advance 8 po/ulate z a po/ulate1 & at 8 own p]sonal risk1 no "o ( y has any pret5sion to criticise or reject ! po/ulates ( ! o!rs08 ,! doctr9e ,i h attempt$ to summ>ise ?us briefly1 ,i believe to be p>tly irrelevant 9 ,metaphysics1 p>tly mi/ak51 & !re=e1 s f> z mi/ak51 mis*iev\s4 ,i pass lightly ov] ! curi\s m5tal res]vation sugge/$ by ! claim to believe z y li/ 8at y\r own risk40 ,z ,george ,eliot has rem9d$ u 9 ,adam ,b$e1 x is a fundam5tal fact ( our position z memb]s ( a social ord]1 t no?+ 9 ! _w c be done exclusively at ! risk ( ! do]4 ,y\r beliefs1 s f> z !y receive expression at all1 l all ! re/ ( y\r conduct1 inevitably affect ! lives ( o!rs z well z y\r own1 & h5ce x is useless to urge 9 ext5uation ( a false & mis*iev\s belief to :i* expression has be5 giv5--& a belief :i* gets no k9d ( expression is no g5u9e belief at all--t x 0 ent]ta9$ at y\r 8p]sonal risk40 ,t no man live? to himself is j z true ( ! metaphysician z ( any o!r man1 & he has no m claim ?an ano!r to disreg>d ! tru? 9 practice4 ,to pass to a m important po9t4 ,x is no d\bt true t ! atta9m5t ( satisfaction = our intellectual ne$ = a coh]5t way ( ?9k+ ab\t exi/5ce is only "o ( a numb] ( human int]e/s4 ,& ?us we may readily grant t morality1 religion1 & art h a "r to exi/5ce no less ?an ,logic4 ,fur!r1 ! "q :e!r any "o ( ! f\r has a bett] "r to exi/5ce ?an ! o!rs seems to be really unmean+4 ,!re seems to be no s5se 9 ask+ :e!r any typical & ess5tial human aspiration has a sup]ior claim to recognition & fulfilm5t r ?an ano!r4 ,b x does n seem to foll[ t = all purposes our div]g5t int]e/s & attitudes are ( equal value1 & t !re=e !y may n legitimately be us$ z bases = mutual criticism4 ,9 p>ticul>1 x does n seem to foll[ t because ,logic & morality1 say1 h an equal "r to exi/1 !re mu/ be an equal am\nt ( tru? 9 ! pr9ciples ( ,logic & ! po/ulates ( ,e?ics4 ,tru?1 aft] all1 is p]haps n ! 8"o ?+ ne$ful0 = human life1 & x is n self-evid5t ev5 t tru? is ! supreme int]e/ ( morality & religion4 ,on ! face ( ?+s1 inde$1 x seems n to be s4 ,prim facie1 x looks z if ! logician's ideal ( tru? & ! morali/'s ideal ( goodness 71 9 "p at any rate1 div]g5t4 ,= x is by no means cle> t ! wide/ possible diffusion ( true ?9k+ & ! g5]al atta9m5t ( ! highe/ /&>d ( moral goodness mu/ necess>ily g toge!r4 ,x may ev5 be conducive to ! moral goodness ( a community t _m memb]s ( x %\ld n ?9k on c]ta9 topics at all1 or ev5 %\ld ?9k errone\sly ab\t !m4#baa ,& ! ideals ( goodness & beauty1 we may rem9d ourselves1 seem to be simil>ly div]g5t4 ,x is by no means self-evid5t1 & might ev5 be said to be1 s f> z hi/ory enables u to judge1 probably untrue1 t ! society 9 :i* ! appreciation ( beauty is mo/ highly develop$ is also ! society ) ! highe/ /&>d ( goodness4 ,n[1 if tru? & goodness are n simply id5tical1 we _c conclude t ! ultimate tru? ( a belief is proportionate to its moral usefulness 9 promot+ practical goodness4 ,& !re=e ! metaphysician1 :o takes ultimate tru? z 8 /&>d ( wor?1 w\ld appe> to be q )9 8 "r 9 refus+ to admit moral usefulness z suffici5t ju/ification = a belief1 j z ! morali/1 f ! po9t ( view ( 8 special /&>d ( wor?1 may rightly decl9e to take ! ae/hetic h>moni\sness ( a life z suffici5t evid5ce ( its moral excell5ce4 ,until y h %[n1 :at ! view ,i am "h oppos+ appe>s tacitly to assume1 t tru?1 moral goodness1 & beauty are "o ?+1 y _c rationally refuse ! metaphysician's claim to criticise1 & if necess>y to condemn z n f9ally true1 ! 8po/ulates0 ( :i* ,e?ics is entitl$ to ass5t1 n t !y are 8true10 b t !y are practically useful4 ,&1 ( c\rse1 ! same lib]ty mu/ be grant$ to ,e?ics itself4 ,! morali/1 ,i w\ld n only admit b insi/1 has a p]fect "r to criticise1 f 8 special /&po9t1 ! doctr9es ( ! metaphysician4 ,x may p]fectly well be t c]ta9 8tru?s0 are bett] n g5]ally kn[n1 9 ! int]e/s ( practical goodness1 & ! morali/ is fully ju/ifi$ 9 dwell+ ^u ! fact4 ,b :5 ! metaphysician ass]ts ! tru? ( a proposition solely on ! /r5g? ( its value = ! promotion ( morality1 he is des]t+ ! crit]ion ( value :i* he is b\nd 9 8 capacity ( metaphysician to respect4 ,x is q true t logic is n ! only game at :i* x int]e/s mank9d to play1 & t no "o ne$ play ?is special game unless he pref]s x2 b :5 y h once sat d[n to ! game y mu/ play x accord+ to its own rules1 & n ^? ( "s o!r4 ,if y neglect ?is caution1 y w mo/ likely produce some?+ :i* is nei!r good ,metaphysics nor s\nd ,e?ics4 ,!re is e reason = ,metaphysics to bew>e ( a 8w to believe0 :i* 9 practice mu/ mean t lic5ce to indulge 9 uncriticis$ ass]tion :i* ,socrates 9 ! ,phd calls by ! appropriate "n ( 8misology10 & id5tifies z ! psy*ological s\rce ( ! wor/ =ms ( practical 8disillusionm5t ) life40#bab ,x foll[s1 if ^! reflections are s\nd1 t we mu/ n1 z metaphysicians1 all[ ourselves to assume ! tru? ( any & e conviction ab\t ! nature ( ! _w :i* we f9d p]sonally inspir+ & attractive1 or ev5 :i* we believe to h an invigorat+ effect ^u ! moral practice ( mank9d 9 g5]al4 ,we _c1 on a priori gr\nds1 dismiss ! sugge/ion t x may make = practical goodness t all ( u to "s ext5t1 & _m ( u to a v great ext5t1 %\ld be dwell]s 9 ! imp]fectly illum9at$ regions on ! 8mid way b\nd>y ( light & d>k40#bac ,on ! o!r h&1 x w\ld manife/ly be incompatible ) ! pres5ce ( any rational unity ( /ructure 9 ! exp]i5ce-_w t !re %\ld be a f9al & absolute lack ( h>mony betwe5 t _w1 z x mu/ be conceiv$ by true ?9k+1 & z x mu/ be if our e?ical aspirations are to be satisfi$4 ,someh[ & some:]e1 if ! _w is a teleological unity at all1 ^! aspirations mu/ be provid$ = & made good by its real /ructure1 ?\gh possibly n 9 ! =m 9 :i*1 ) our pres5t limit$ insight1 we desire t !y %\ld be met1 & ?\gh1 aga91 we may be unable ev] to say precisely 9 :at =m !y are met4 ,:at is simply inconceivable 9 a rational _w is t our abid+ aspirations %\ld meet ) blank defeat4 #c4 ,:at1 !n1 appe>s to be ! 8indisp5sable m9imum0 ( accord betwe5 kn[n tru? & our 8e?ical po/ulates10 )\t :i* ! moral life itself w\ld become irrational8 ,on ! :ole1 ,i ?9k we may say t morality _c ma9ta9 itself except ^u two suppositions--7#a7 t 9 ! ma9 & on ! :ole ! _w is s ord]$ t our moral /ruggle = full] & /rong] individuality ( life is successful2 t by liv+ ! moral life our individual "* does become ri*] 9 coh]5t int]e/ & m completely unifi$2 & 7#b7 t ! ga9 ?us won by our private /ruggles does n p]i% ) our disappe>ance f ?is mortal sc5e1 b is h&$ on to ! successors :o replace u 9 ! life ( ! social ord] to :i* we belong4 ,speak+ r\ghly1 ?is means t unless morality is a delusion1 ! moral life is1 on ! :ole1 ! happy life1 & t !re is su* a ?+ z social progress4 ,n[1 bo? ^! conditions1 ,i w\ld cont5d1 are %[n by ! actual exp]i5ce ( mank9d to be met by ! con/itution ( ! real _w4 ,x 0 by ! analysis ( actual social life1 & n by an appeal to po/ulates ( a transc5d5tal k9d1 t ,plato & ,ari/otle %[$ t ! good man is1 9 ! ma91 ev5 9 ! pres5t /ate ( society1 ! 8happy0 man4 ,& x is by a simil> analysis t ! mod]n ?9k] mu/ conv9ce himself1 if he conv9ces himself at all1 t human societies are progressive4 ,s f>1 !n1 no "q ( ultimate metaphysical issues seems to be involv$ 9 ! practical dem& ( ! moral life4 ,! case w\ld1 ( c\rse1 be diff]5t if we 7 ) ,kant to reg>d x z a necess>y dem& ( ,e?ics t ! _w %all be s con/itut$ t1 9 ! end1 & = e individual ag5t1 happ9ess %all be exactly proportion$ to virtue4 ,/ill m s if we w5t on to ass]t t morality is a delusion unless e individual is pr$e/9$1 by ! nature ( ?+s1 to ! ultimate atta9m5t ( complete virtue & complete happ9ess4 ,views ( ?is k9d w\ld manife/ly h to be def5d$ by an appeal to metaphysical pr9ciples :i* d n f9d _! complete ju/ification 9 ! empirically kn[n /ructure ( human society4 ,s too ! dem& t human society itself %all be progressive beyond all limits1 _c be %[n to be ju/ifi$ by :at is empirically kn[n ( ! /ructure & ! non-human environm5t ( our society4 ,& if ,e?ics really does po/ulate ei!r ! complete co9cid5ce ( virtue ) happ9ess = ! individual1 or ! inf9ite progress ( society1 x is cle>ly committ$ to ! po/ulation ( v f>-rea*+ metaphysical doctr9es4 ,fur!r1 x mu/ be frankly own$ t ^! po/ulates1 z !y /&1 are inconsi/5t ) ! s*eme ( metaphysical doctr9e exp\nd$ & def5d$ 9 ! pres5t "w4 ,= bo? moral goodness & moral progress are b\nd up ) f9ite individuality & its *>act]i/ic =m ( exi/5ce1 ! "t-process4 ,( 8progress0 ?is is manife/3 all progress is advance 9 "t1 & is advance f a relatively worse to a relatively bett]4 ,& ) 8virtue0 x /&s no o!rwise4 ,= to be virtu\s is n simply to h an individuality :i* is at once h>moni\s & ri* 9 cont5ts1 b to make su* an individuality = ourselves out ( ! raw mat]ial ( disposition & environm5t4 ,only 9 ! progress t[>ds full] individuality are we moral ag5ts1 &1 j because we are f9ite1 ! complete atta9m5t ( an absolutely h>moni\s individuality is = ev] beyond u4 ,h5ce absolutely p]fect virtue--& consequ5tly absolutely p]fect happ9ess--are incompatible ) our nature z g5u9e b f9ite individuals4 ,9 all f9ite individuality !re is inevitably "s aspect ( imp]fection & consequ5tly ( sadness1 ?\gh s9 & sadness ought to fill1 & c be empirically se5 to fill1 an increas+ly subord9ate place 9 proportion to ! degree ( individuality atta9$4 ,! same reason+ is equally applicable to ! case ( any f9ite society4 ,nor does ?is seem any gr\nd = reg>d+ ! con/itution ( ! univ]se z e?ically unsatisfactory4 ,to repeat ! previ\sly quot$ rem>k ( ,mr4 ,bradley1 no "o has a "r to call ! univ]se morally unsatisfactory on ! gr\nd t x does n precisely apportion happ9ess to virtue1 unless he is prep>$ to %[ t m goodness w\ld be produc$ by mak+ ! correspond5ce exact1 & to %[ ?is is impossible4 ,/ill m absurd w\ld x be to c5sure ! univ]se because nei!r p]fect virtue nor p]fect happ9ess is atta9able4 ,= morality itself has no exi/5ce except z ! creation ( f9ite individuals1 & h5ce we _c )\t absurdity c5sure ! univ]se on moral gr\nds = conta9+ f9ite individuals1 & s provid+ = ! exi/5ce ( morality4 #d4 ,w\ld ! case be alt]$ if we _h1 or ?\ght we _h1 gr\nds = hold+ t ! progress ( human society has fix$ & kn[able b\nds set to x by ! nature ( ?+s8 ,if we c\ld "k1 = in/ance1 t ! physical environm5t ( humanity is s con/itut$ t human life mu/ ultimately disappe> f ! e>?8 ,i _c see t x w\ld4 ,no d\bt ! widespread acceptance ( a belief t ! end ( ?+s 0 at h& )9 a calculable p]iod1 might t5d to less5 our moral e>ne/ness1 & if ! p]iod 7 tak5 to be suffici5tly %ort1 might lead to d[nright lic5ce & wick$ness4 ,b s does a belief 9 ! approa*+ dissolution ( any hi/oric & wide-rea*+ social ord]2 & yet ! fact t societies suff] dissolution is n commonly reg>d$ z reasonable gr\nd = an indictm5t aga9/ ! univ]se4 ,nor is !re any logical connection betwe5 su* beliefs & _! consequ5ces4 ,we _c say t because human society is p]i%able1 if x is p]i%able1 its a*ievem5ts mu/ h be5 wa/$ & !re=e its progress useless4 ,! result ( our a*ievem5ts might1 9 "s way unkn[n to u1 survive our ext9ction z a race1 ev5 z we c p>tly see t ! results ( ! individual life are pres]v$ aft] our dea?4 ,&1 9 any case1 x is beyond ! p[] ( ,metaphysics to set any fix$ limits to ! exi/5ce & progress ( human society4 ,z we h se51 ,metaphysics gives u no reason to d5y1 ?\gh x does n enable u to affirm1 t ! social life begun "u pres5t conditions may be cont9u$ "u unkn[n conditions beyond ! grave4 ,& ev5 ! disappe>ance ( physical human life )9 a calculable p]iod _c be %[n to foll[ f any pr9ciple ( ,metaphysics4 ,at mo/ we c say t if c]ta9 assum$ physical laws1 especially t ( ! dissipation ( en]gy1 are valid = all physical processes1 & if aga91 ! psy*ical factor 9 liv+ organisms is incapable ( rev]s+ ! 8d[n-grade0 t5d5cy ( en]gy to pass into =ms unavailable = "w1 !n ! human society we "k mu/ come to an end )9 a calculable "t4 ,b :e!r ! assumptions ^u :i* ?is conclusion is bas$ are or are n true1 ,metaphysics by itself _c det]m9e4 ,we are ?us left 9 ! foll[+ position4 ,t on ! :ole ! virtu\s life is also ! happy life1 & t !re is g5u9e social progress1#bad seem to be empirically kn[n c]ta9ties4 8,absolute p]fection0 ( ! f9ite z f9ite1 & 8inf9ite progress0 seem alike exclud$ z metaphysical impossibilities4 ,b no def9ite limits c be set by ,metaphysics to ! possibilities ( individual & social advance t[>ds great] virtue & great] happ9ess4 ,z = ! !ories 9 ,physics :i* appe> to ?reat5 humanity ) ext9ction )9 a measurable "t1 _! tru? is1 to say ! lea/ ( x1 n assur$1 & we h1 9 our metaphysical conception ( ,reality z an individual :ole1 ! c]ta9ty t1 :atev] becomes ( ! human species1 no?+ ( all our aspirations & a*ievem5ts c be f9ally lo/ to ! univ]se1 ?\gh we may be q unable to imag9e ! mann] ( _! pres]vation4 ,& = ! purposes ( ! moral /ruggle f a worse to a bett]1 ?is seems to be q z mu* con=mity to our aspirations z we ne$ ask ( ! _w4 ,= ! sugge/ion t our ideals are n wor? liv+ = unless we enjoy ! fruit ( our lab\rs 9 ! =m we 9 p>ticul> %\ld l1 seems no?+ bett] ?an an appeal to ! bas] ,egoism4 #e4 ,:5 we consid] ! specially religi\s attitude ( m9d1 we %all f9d t its dem&s ^u ! _w g fur!r ?an ^? ( m]e ,e?ics1 & are1 9 "p1 ( a r diff]5t "*4 ,x w\ld be impossible 9 a "w l ?is to discuss at l5g? ! nature ( ! religi\s attitude1 b ?is mu* at lea/ w\ld probably be admitt$ z beyond d\bt4 ,! religi\s attitude t[>ds ! _w ( exp]i5ce is di/+ui%$ f all o!rs p>tly by ! specific "* ( ! emotions 9 :i* x f9ds its expression1 p>tly by ! intellectual beliefs to :i* ^? emotions give rise4 ,specifically religi\s emotion1 z we c detect x bo? 9 our own exp]i5ce1 if we happ5 to possess ! religi\s 8temp]am5t01#bae & 9 ! devotional lit]ature ( ! _w1 appe>s to be ess5tially a m+l$ condition ( exaltation & humility aris+ f an imm$iate s5se ( communion & co-op]ation ) a p[] great] & bett] ?an ourselves 9 :i* our ideals ( good f9d complet] realisation ?an !y ev] obta9 9 ! empirically kn[n "t-ord]4 ,9 ! v>i\s religi\s cre$s ( ! _w we h a numb] ( attempts to express ! nature ( su* a p[] & ( our relation to x 9 m or less logically satisfactory conceptual t]ms4 ,b x is important to rememb] t1 ?\gh a !ological belief :5 s9c]ely held may react p[]fully ^u religi\s feel+1 ! beliefs are 9 ! la/ resort bas$ ^u imm$iate feel+1 & n imm$iate feel+ ^u beliefs4 ,9 ?is s5se1 at any rate1 x is true t all g5u9e religi\s life implies ! practical influ5c+ ( feel+ & action by convictions :i* g beyond prov$ & kn[n tru?1 & may !re=e be said to be matt]s ( fai?4 ,:at ! convictions to :i* we ?us surr5d] ! practical guidance ( life are1 9 any individual case1 seems to be l>gely a "q ( individual con/itution & social tradition4 ,n only are ! convictions z to ! nature ( ! high] p[] repres5t$ by ! great typical hi/orical religions v v>i\s1 b :at we may call ! individual religion ( diff]5t p]sons exhibits ev5 great] v>iety4 ,!re is h>dly any important object ( human int]e/ :i* may n acquire = "s man ! significance :i* belongs to ! complet$ realisation ( 8 highe/ ideals4 ,x is no m ?an ! tru? to say t a "m1 a mi/ress1 a c\ntry1 or a movem5t1 social or political1 may be1 z we (t5 phrase x1 a man's 8religion40 ,amid all ?is v>iety two g5]al pr9ciples may be detect$ :i* are ( prim>y importance to ! metaphysical critic ( religi\s exp]i5ce4 7#a7 ,x is ess5tial to ! religi\s exp]i5ce t its object %\ld be accept$ z ! really exi/+ embodim5t ( an ideal4 ,?is is ! po9t 9 :i* ! religi\s attitude ( m9d diff]s mo/ /rik+ly f t ( m]e morality4 ,9 ! e?ical exp]i5ce ! ideal is appreh5d$ z some?+ :i* does n yet exi/1 b has to be br\ght into exi/5ce by human ex]tion4 ,h5ce = ! purely e?ical attitude ( m9d ! _w has to be ?\ght ( z ess5tially imp]fect1 ess5tially out ( accord ) :at x ought to be 9 ord] to correspond to our dem&s on x4 ,?us !re is n = morality1 z we %all directly see !re mu/ be = religion1 su* a ?+ z ! 8,problem ( ,evil40 ,t ! _w1 z x comes to u 9 ! temporal ord]1 conta9s imp]fection & evil :i* mu/ be done away )1 is a practical presupposition )\t :i* morality itself w\ld h no raison d'tre4 ,b 9 religion ! case is o!rwise4 ,x is only 9 s f> z ! object ( our adoration1 :atev] x may be1 is tak5 to be ! really exi/+ embodim5t ( our highe/ ideals1 t x c produce1 9 our spiritual communion ) x1 t comb9$ emotion ( exaltation & abasem5t1 t feel+ ( be+ at once ourselves already p]fect s f> z our w is "o 9 its contact ) our ideal1 & absolutely condemn$ & 8subject to wra?0 s f> z x is n1 :i* di/+ui%es ! religi\s f all o!r /ates ( m9d4 ,b all real exi/5ce1 z we saw 9 our ,second ,book1 is ess5tially individual4 ,h5ce x is ( ! ess5ce ( religion t x looks ^u ! ideal z already exi/+ 9 individual =m4 ,?is is :y devotion to an ab/ract pr9ciple1 su* z nationality1 socialism1 democracy1 humanity1 proves s mu* inf]ior z a p]man5t expression ( religi\s life1 to devotion to a p]son1 h[ev] imp]fect4#baf 7#b7 ,x foll[s t m]e appe>ance 9 ! "t-ord] _c be ! ultimate object ( religi\s devotion4 ,= ! "t-ord] itself1 z we h se51 is ess5tially unf9i%$ & incomplete1 & no "p ( x1 !re=e1 c be p]fectly individual4 ,! completely individual1 if x exi/s at all1 mu/ h an exi/5ce :i* is n temporal4 ,h5ce no "p ( ! temporal ord] ( ev5ts1 z su*1 c be f9ally satisfactory z an object ( religi\s adoration4 ,s f> z x is possible to succe$ 9 wor%ipp+ any?+ :i* =ms "p ( t ord]1 su* z a man or a cause1 ?is c only be done by reg>d+ ! temporal facts z an imp]fect appe>ance ( a reality :i*1 because completely & p]fectly individual1 is 9 its true nature timeless4 ,& x fur!r foll[s t1 s9ce all f9ite individuality is1 z we h already se51 only imp]fectly individual1 & because imp]fect is temporal1 ! only f9ally adequate object ( religi\s devotion mu/ be ! inf9ite individual or timeless ,absolute itself4 ,t ! great philosophical religions ( ! _w h felt ! =ce ( ?is1 is %[n 9 hi/ory by ! way 9 :i* !y h inevitably t5d$ to cr$it _! v>i\s 8gods0 ) omnipot5ce4 ,?us ! god ( ! ,hebrew religion1 z at fir/ pres5t$ to u 9 its e>li] records1 is repres5t$ z limit$ 9 p[] by ! exi/5ce ( o!r div9e be+s1 & temporally *angeable & mutable4 ,b 9 ! lat] ,old ,te/am5t writ+s1 ! ,new ,te/am5t1 & ! subsequ5t con/ructions ( ecclesia/ical !ology1 we see ! gradual developm5t f ^! ,hebrew beg9n+s ( an idea ( a ,god :o is 8all 9 all10 & limit$ nei!r by ! exi/5ce ( o!r div9e be+s ) oppos+ aims & int]e/s1 nor by ! inh]5t resi/ance ( 8matt]10 to ,8 purposes4 ,s ! ,zoroa/rian religion1 9 :i* ! limitation ( ! p[] ( ! good be+ ,ahura ,mazda by ! exi/5ce ( a co-ord9ate bad be+1 ,angro ,ma9yus1 0 orig9ally a fundam5tal t5et1 is said to h become among ! mod]n ,p>sis a pure mono!ism4 #f4 ,n[1 x %\ld be not$ t ?is inevitable t5d5cy ( ,religion itself to id5tify its object ) ultimate ,reality1 conceiv$ 9 its timeless p]fection z a complete & inf9ite individual :ole1 leads to ! difficult metaphysical 8problem ( evil40 ,= if ,god is ! same ?+ z ! ,absolute1 x w\ld appe> t evil itself mu/ be1 l ev]y?+ else1 a manife/ation ( ,8 nature4 ,& if s1 c we say t ,god is /rictly speak+ 8good10 or is ! complete realisation ( our ideals8 ,x is ?is difficulty ab\t evil1 m ?an any?+ else1 :i* has l$ _m philosoph]s 9 bo? anci5t & mod]n times to di/+ui% betwe5 ! ,absolute & ,god1 & to reg>d ,god z simply "o1 ?\gh ! highe/ & mo/ p]fect1 among ! f9ite individuals conta9$ 9 ! ,absolute4#bag ,9 ! foll[+ p>agraphs ,i propose n s mu* to (f] a solution ( ?is "t-hon\r$ puzzle1 z to make "s sugge/ions :i* may help to put ! issue at /ake cle>ly be=e ! read]'s m9d4 ,! doctr9e ( ! f9itude ( ,god does n appe> 9 any way to remove ! difficulty ab\t evil2 9 fact1 x r5d]s x1 if any?+1 m acute4 ,= evil mu/ n[ appe> 9 ! univ]se 9 a d\ble =m4 ,on ! "o h&1 x admitt$ly is tak5 to exi/ outside ,god1 z a ho/ile factor limit+ ,8 p[] ( %ap+ ! _w to ,8 purpose4 ,b aga91 z we h se51 e f9ite individual1 because f9ite1 falls %ort ( complete int]nal h>mony ( /ructure1 & ?us conta9s an elem5t ( defect & evil )9 itself4 ,?us evil w be inh]5t 9 ! nature ( a f9ite ,god1 z well z 9 t ( ! exi/5ce suppos$ to be outside ,him4 ,we h1 9 fact1 "o m illu/ration ( ! pr9ciple t all limitation involves self-limitation f )94 ,x is only by =gett+ ?is fundam5tal tru? t we c conceive ! possibility ( a be+ :o is 8p]fectly good0 & yet is less ?an ! ,absolute4 ,& ev5 :5 we ov]look ?is1 our difficulties are n remov$4 ,= a 8f9ite0 ,god ) a fur!r reality outside & 9 "s way oppos$ to ,8 own nature1 ev5 :5 illogically ?\ght ( z p]fectly good1 mu/ be at be/ only su* ano!r be+ z ourselves1 ?\gh on a l>g] scale4 ,he1 l u1 mu/ be simply a p>tly successful1 p>tly unsuccessful1 actor 9 a univ]se ( :i* ! con/itution & ultimate up%ot are ei!r unkn[n or kn[n n to satisfy our religi\s dem& = ! complete individual reality ( our ideal4#bah ,?is is ! view :i* has 9 hi/ory be5 actually adopt$ by religions l ^? ( ! ,hell5es & ! ,norsem51 9 :i* ! gods are reg>d$ z ultimately subject to an inscrutable & une?ical ,fate4 ,b a f9ite be+ /ruggl+1 h[ev] successfully1 aga9/ su* an ali5 ,fate is1 aft] all1 a fit object only = moral respect & sympa?y1 n = religi\s adoration4 ,su* a be+1 h[ev] exalt$1 is /ill n t complete & h>moni\s individual realisation ( all human aspiration = :i* ,religion ye>ns1 & is !re=e n1 9 ! full & true s5se1 ,god4 ,if1 !n1 a f9ite e?ical individual1 h[ev] exalt$1 _c be an adequate object ( religi\s devotion1 h[ does ! case /& ) ! inf9ite individual :ole ( ,reality8 ,c we wor%ip ! ,absolute8#bai ,?is is a "q :i* ne$s "s c>eful exam9ation be=e we c v5ture on a positive answ]4 #g4 ,! problem1 let x be obs]v$1 is n /rictly psy*ological4 ,exp]i5ce %[s t individual m5 c d]ive religi\s support f belief 9 ! mo/ v>i$ & mo/ defective conceptions ( ! nature ( ! ,deity4 ,beliefs :i* br+ "o man 8peace 9 believ+0 might1 if s]i\sly ent]ta9$1 blight ano!r man's life2 "o man's ,god may be ano!r's devil4 ,?is is1 h[ev]1 n ! po9t4 ,! real "q is1 :e!r ! ,absolute c be made into an object ( religi\s wor%ip1 z we h se5 t f9ite individuals _c1 )\t a brea* ( logic4 ,has x ! "* :i*1 z we h se51 any?+ :i* is to correspond to our ideal ( 8,god0 mu/ logically possess8 ,at fir/ sight x c]ta9ly w\ld seem t x has4 ,=1 z we h se51 ! ,absolute conta9s all f9ite exi/5ce1 & conta9s x z a p]fectly h>moni\s sy/em4 ,& !re=e all f9ite aspiration mu/ someh[ be realis$ 9 ! /ructure ( ! ,absolute :ole1 ?\gh n necess>ily 9 ! way 9 :i* we1 z be+s ( limit$ k & goodness1 actually wi% x to be realis$4 ,! ,absolute :ole is ?us1 z no?+ else c be1 ! concrete individual reality 9 :i* our ideals h actual exi/5ce4 ,z all our ideals !mselves are b s _m expressions ( our place 9 ! sy/em & our relation to ! re/ ( x1 s ! sy/em itself is _! concrete h>moni\s embodim5t4 ,x is true1 z we h already se51 t our ideals may n be realis$ 9 ! :ole j 9 ! =m 9 :i* we conceive !m1 b x mu/ be rememb]$ t 9 s f> z we set up our private judgm5t & wi%es z /&>ds to :i* ! :ole is b\nd to con=m on pa9 ( condemnation1 we are adopt+ an attitude :i* is at once illogical & irreligi\s4 ,x is illogical1 because x implies ! assumption t ) full] k ( ! sy/em ( ,reality z a :ole we %\ld /ill desire ! fulfilm5t ( our aspirations 9 ! special way :i* at pres5t recomm5ds itself to our imp]fect insight4 ,x is irreligi\s1 because ! dem& t human desires %all be fulfill$ 9 our way & n 9 8,god's way0 involves ! sett+ up ( human wisdom aga9/ ,god's1 & is ?us irreconcilable ) g5u9e union ( he>t & w ) ! div9e ord]4#bbj ,:at !n becomes1 f ?is po9t ( view1 ( ! problem ( evil8 ,h[ c ! pres5ce ( moral evil 9 ! temporal ord] be reconcil$ ) ! ?\ght ( ! ,absolute :ole z ! complete & h>moni\s realisation ( human ideals8 ,i ne$ n say t ! detail$ solution ( ! problem is out ( ! "q4 ,z be+s ^: insight is necess>ily limit$ by our own f9itude1 we _c hope to see h[ 9 detail ev]y?+ t appe>s to u z evil might1 ) l>g] k1 be kn[n z an integral con/itu5t ( a :ole :i*1 z a :ole1 is ! realisation ( human aspiration1 & !re=e free f evil4 ,b x is at lea/ possible to make sugge/ions :i* may %[ t ! problem is a m]e consequ5ce ( ! inevitable defects ( our insight1 & t x w\ld disappe> ) full] k4 ,x is n h>d to see t !re are two ma9 reasons :y ! /ructure ( ! univ]se seems to f9ite insight p>tly evil4 ,our insight into ! nature & connection ( our purposes !mselves is nev] complete2 we are all1 9 "p1 ignorant ( exactly :at x is to :i* we aspire4 ,h5ce our purposes 9 "p appe> to be met by exi/5ce ) a negative j because we are only imp]fectly aw>e ( :at !y mean & :i!r !y t5d4 ,!re is no m famili> fact ?an ?is1 t ev5 )9 ! limits ( our human life gr[+ exp]i5ce is con/antly tea*+ u h[ confus$ & defective our judgm5t at any mom5t z to :at we really want1 c be4 ,l>gely1 !n1 our ideals seem to be at v>iance ) actual exi/5ce1 because we nev] fully "k :at !y are4 ,aga91 our k ( ! effects ( our acts is always imp]fect 9 ! extreme4 ,we seem to fail because we _c see f> en\gh to und]/& fully :at x is we h effect$4 ,& bo? ^! causes ( ! app>5t discrepancy betwe5 ! real & ! ideal may be trac$ to a s+le root4 ,exi/5ce appe>s to be 9 "p evil1 because we _c take x 9 at once & z a :ole 9 its individual /ructure4 ,we h to make acqua9tance ) x by piecemeal1 & z a succession ( fragm5t>y ev5ts 9 ! "t-s]ies4 ,& imp]fection1 we h se51 belongs to ! "t-s]ies4 ,h5ce we c see t evil is at once a m]e appe>ance1 & an appe>ance :i* is inevitable to ! f9ite exp]i5ce condition$ by ! temporal =m4 ,! s-call$ 8problem0 is ?us 9 pr9ciple insoluble only s long z we falsely ?9k ( ! "t-ord] itself z a *>act]i/ic ( ! ,absolute :ole 9 its real individuality4#bba ,may we say1 !n1 t ! ,absolute or :ole is kn[n 9 ,metaphysics to be 8good08 ,! answ] dep5ds ^u ! precise mean+ we atta* to ! /atem5t4 ,9 ! s5se t x is ! really exi/+ embodim5t ( ! ideals we are try+ amid our ignorance & confusion to realise1 we cle>ly mu/ say 8yes40 ,b if we use ! ^w 8good0 9 a n>r[] s5se1 to mean 8e?ically good10 we c h>dly say )\t qualification t ! :ole is good4 ,= 8e?ical goodness0 belongs ess5tially to ! "t-ord]1 & means ! process ( ! gradual ass]tion ( ! ideal aga9/ app>5t evil4 ,to be morally good is to h an ideal t is n realis$ 9 ! ev5ts ( ! "t-ord] z !y come to u 9 our f9ite exp]i5ce1 & to m\ld ^? ev5ts into con=mity ) ! ideal4 ,! moral life is f fir/ to la/ a /ruggle1 & :]e ! /ruggle is abs5t x is mislead+ to speak ( morality4 ,h5ce x is bett] n to call ! ,absolute 8moral40 ,b we mu/ rememb] t ! ,absolute is only n moral1 because x is some?+ v mu* m ?an moral1 only n e?ical because !re is 9 x no divorce ( ideal f actuality1 z !re is 9 ! imp]fect exp]i5ce ( its f9ite memb]s4 ,or1 z we might say1 x is some?+ m ?an 8good0 precisely because x is already good4 ,9 morality1 let x be rememb]$1 we h1 z 9 all ! exp]i5ce ( f9ite be+s1 a process :i* is ?r\gh\t direct$ ^u a result t1 once atta9$1 w\ld transc5d ! process itself4 ,morality w\ld n be cont5t ) any?+ less ?an ! total abolition ( ! evil 9 ! _w2 & ) ! disappe>ance ( evil1 ! /ruggle aga9/ x w\ld itself disappe> 9 "s high] =m ( exp]i5ce4 ,simil>ly1 k is con/antly /riv+ to exhau/ ! object ( k4 ,s long z ! object is 9 any respect unkn[n1 ! task ( kn[+ is incomplete2 yet if once we c\ld s "k any object t no?+ fur!r rema9$ to be kn[n ab\t x1 !re w\ld be no aspect ( n-self 9 ! object :i* c\ld di/+ui% x f ! subject by :i* x is kn[n1 & k itself w\ld ?us be done away4 ,?us we may see f ! side alike ( cognition & ( w h[ ! :ole life ( ! f9ite be+ =ms a con/ant endeav\r to wid5 exp]i5ce into ! complete appreh5sion ( a cont5t :i*1 because inf9ite1 c\ld n be appreh5d$ )\t ! disappe>ance ( f9itude itself4 ,?us does exp]i5ce witness to ! tru? ( our fundam5tal doctr9e1 t ! f9ite individual repeats 9 itself1 9 an imp]fect & inadequate =m1 ! /ructure ( ! inf9ite individual ( :i* x is an appe>ance4 ,i d n "k :e!r x is necess>y to say m ?an a ^w ) ref]5ce to ! ?\ghtless objection s (t5 urg$ aga9/ all philosophical & religi\s doctr9es :i* d5y ! ultimate reality ( evil1 or1 :at is ! same ?+1 ! exi/5ce ( an indep5d5t devil4 ,if exi/5ce is already p]fect1 x is said1 :y %\ld we seek to make x bett] at great tr\ble & inconv5i5ce to ourselves by moral & political endeav\r8 ,ought we n r to sit ) fold$ h&s acquiesc+ lazily 9 8?+s z !y are08 ,! d\bt might ev5 be c>ri$ fur!r ?an ?is4 ,= to 8take ?+s z !y are0 is j z mu* a c\rse ( self-*os5 action z any o!r l9e ( conduct1 & x might h5ce be argu$ t ab/5tion & moral ef=t are alike out ( place & absurd 9 a _w :]e ev]y?+ is 8p]fect40 ,! objection1 ( c\rse1 turns ^u a m]e confusion ( exi/5ce z x is 9 its individual reality1 & exi/5ce z x appe>s to u 9 ! "t-s]ies4 ,! argum5t = ,quietism is bas$ purely ^u attribut+ to ! ess5tially imp]fect & incomplete s]ies ( temporal ev5ts ! p]fection :i* only belongs to ! timeless :ole4 ,9 t p]fect :ole our moral ideals & moral ef=t1 z f9ite be+s belong+ to ! temporal ord]1 are ( c\rse includ$ along ) ev]y?+ else1 & its p]fection is !re=e no gr\nd = treat+ !m z nugatory4 ,our own moral /ruggle ) ! app>5t evil ( ! "t-s]ies is itself an integral "p ( ! ,reality :i*1 9 its complete individual "*1 is already p]fect1 if we c\ld b w9 to a po9t ( view f :i* to behold x z x is4 ,z ,plot9us expresses x1 8our /riv+ is aft] good & our turn+ away is f evil1 & ?\ght ) a purpose is ( good & evil1 & ?is is a good40#bbb ,if we may n say )\t qualification t ! ,absolute is good1 & c]ta9ly mu/ n say t x is 9 ! prop] s5se 8e?ical10 /ill less may we say t ! ,absolute is 8morally indiff]5t40 ,= ! ,absolute is only n e?ical because x is already all t e?ical life consi/s 9 /riv+ to become4 ,h5ce ! high] a f9ite be+ /&s 9 ! e?ical scale1 z judg$ by ! d\ble crit]ion ( ! weal? ( its int]e/s 9 ! _w & ! degree ( h>mony betwe5 !m1 ! m adequately does its /ructure repeat t ( ! :ole1 & ! high] is its degree ( reality4 ,& ?is means t ! good man's ideals are realis$ 9 ! _w-ord] ) less ( modification & recon/ruction ?an ! bad man's4 ,9 a s5se1 z ,pr(essor ,royce ma9ta9s1 ev5 ! bad man's confus$ & w>r+ ideals get _! fulfilm5t1 s9ce he too is aim+1 h[ev] bl9dly1 at a complete individuality z ! goal ( all 8 /riv+4 ,b he is seek+ x :]e x is n to be f\nd1 9 ! gratification ( desires :i* _c be all[$ ! supreme place 9 ! direction ( life )\t lead+ to ! di/raction & mutilation ( ! self4 ,z ,plato puts x1 ! bad man 8does z he pleases10 & = t v reason nev] 8does :at he wills40 ,h5ce ! place ( ! good man 9 ! economy ( ! univ]se is v diff]5t f t ( ! bad1 & ! _w-ord] itself is ! v rev]se ( 8indiff]5t0 to ! di/9ction betwe5 !m4#bbc ,my own conclusion1 !n1 :i* ,i (f] to ! read] simply z my own1 is t any?+ less ?an ! ,absolute is an inadequate object ( religi\s devotion1 & t ! ,absolute itself has ! /ructure :i* su* an object requires4 ,if x %\ld be fur!r sugge/$ t at any rate1 :5 we come to actual exp]i5ce1 we f9d t we _c repres5t ! object ( our wor%ip to ourselves 9 an individual =m ( suffici5t concret5ess to /ir effectual emotion & prompt to g5u9e action )\t clo?+ x 9 imag9ation ) an?ropomorphic qualities :i* metaphysical criticism proves inapplicable to ! inf9ite individual1 ,i %\ld be incl9$ to reply t ,i admit ! fact4 ,& ,i d n ?9k we ne$ %r9k f ! conclusion t practical religion involves a c]ta9 elem5t ( intellectual contradiction4 ,?us1 ?\gh ,god is n truly ,god until we d5y ! exi/5ce ( any indep5d5t 8evil0 by :i* ,8 nature is limit$1 x seems probable t ! ?\ght ( ourselves z 8fell[-work]s ) ,god0 w\ld h>dly lead to practical good works unless we also inconsi/5tly all[$ ourselves to imag9e ,god z /ruggl+ aga9/ a ho/ile p[] & /&+ 9 ne$ ( our assi/ance4 ,b ?is only %[s t ! practical value ( religion 9 guid+ action is n necess>ily dep5d5t ^u its sci5tific tru?4 #h4 ,( c\rse1 x w\ld be q op5 to u to hold t !re may be1 )9 ! ,absolute1 f9ite be+s ( sup]human p[] & goodness ) :om humanity is capable ( co-op]at+ = e?ical ends4 ,only su* be+s1 if !y exi/1 w\ld n be ,god 9 ! same s5se 9 :i* ! ,absolute may be call$ ,god4 ,!y might des]ve & w9 our rev]5ce & our co-op]ation1 b because !mselves f9ite & !re=e only imp]fectly real & individual1 !y c\ld n logically take ! place :i* belongs only to ! completely & p]fectly individual realisation ( ! ideal4 ,t w\ld /ill fall p>tly outside !m 9 ! nature1 z a :ole1 ( ! sy/em :i* h>moni\sly includes bo? ourselves & !m4 ,?us su* be+s w\ld be 8gods0 9 ! s5se ( poly!ism r ?an ,god 9 t ( mono!ism4 ,fur!r1 ,i c see no means ( decid+ a priori t !re c\ld be only "o su* be+ 9 ! univ]se4 ,ev5 suppos+ ! s]ies ( f9ite be+s to be itself f9ite1 x is n evid5t t x c\ld conta9 only "o 8be/0 memb]4 ,& suppos+ x inf9ite1 c\ld !re be a 8be/0 memb] at all8#bbd ,also x appe>s q beyond ! p[] ( ,metaphysics to f9d ei!r pro( or dispro( ( ! exi/5ce & ag5cy ( su* f9ite b exalt$ be+s4 ,we _c say t our g5]al conception ( ,reality is su* z to negative ! sugge/ion1 & yet aga9 t g5]al conception gives u no positive evid5ce 9 fav\r ( tak+ x z true4 ,x w\ld c]ta9ly be ! grosse/ presumption to ma9ta9 t ! ,absolute c conta9 no high] types ( f9ite individuality ?an ^? pres5t$ by human society2 on ! o!r h&1 x w\ld be equally presumptu\s to ass]t t we h reason$ k ( _! exi/5ce & _! direct social relation ) ourselves4 ,h5ce we mu/1 ,i ?9k1 be cont5t to say t ! hypo!sis1 s f> z x seems to be sugge/$ to any "o ( u by ! concrete facts ( 8 own individual exp]i5ce1 is a matt] = ! legitimate ex]cise ( ,fai?4 #i4 ,^! reflections may naturally lead to "s rem>ks1 :i* %all be made z brief z possible1 ab\t ! s-call$ philosophical 8argum5ts = ! exi/5ce ( ,god10 :i* play$ a prom95t "p 9 ,metaphysics be=e _! discr$it+ at ! h&s ( ,kant & ,hume4#bbe ,kant's great a*ievem5t lies 9 hav+ demon/rat$ t ! :ole =ce ( ! 8pro(s0 dep5ds ^u ! fam\s ontological argum5t1 be/ kn[n 9 mod]n ,philosophy 9 ! =m adopt$ by ,desc>tes 9 ! fif? ,m$itation4 ,desc>tes !re argues ?us3--,by 8,god0 ,i mean a completely p]fect be+4 ,n[1 exi/5ce is a p]fection1 & non-exi/5ce an imp]fection4 ,h5ce ,i _c ?9k ( a non-exi/+ p]fect be+ )\t self-contradiction4 ,h5ce ,god1 because by hypo!sis p]fect1 mu/ exi/1 & is ! only be+ ^: exi/5ce logically foll[s f its def9ition4 ,kant's ev5 m fam\s criticism ( ?is fam\s inf]5ce turns ^u ! pr9ciple :i* he _h le>n$ f 8 /udy ( ,hume1 t logical necessity is 8subjective40 ,if ,i ?9k ( a logical subject z def9$ by c]ta9 prop]ties1 he argues 9 effect1 ,i am necessitat$ to ascribe to x all ! pr$icates impli$ 9 t def9ition4 ,t is1 ,i mu/ affirm !m or contradict myself4 ,h5ce1 if 8exi/5ce0 is orig9ally includ$ among ! p]fections by :i* ! subject 8,god0 is def9$1 ! proposition ,god exi/s is c]ta9ly necess>y1 b is also tautological1 & am\nts1 9 fact1 to ! m]e ass]tion t 8an exi/+ p]fect be+ is an exi/+ p]fect be+40 ,b if ! 8exi/5ce0 spok5 ( 9 ! pr$icate is some?+ n includ$ 9 ! def9ition ( ! subject1 !n y _c inf] x f t def9ition4 ,n[ 8real exi/5ce0 is n a pr$icate :i* c be includ$ 9 ! def9ition ( a concept4 ,! pr$icates by :i* an imag9>y hundr$ doll>s are def9$ are ! same z ^? ( a real hundr$ doll>s4 ,x is n by ! possession ( a new pr$icate1 b by be+ actually giv5 9 a concrete exp]i5ce1 t ! real co9s diff] f ! imag9>y4 ,h5ce all propositions ass]t+ real exi/5ce are syn!tic1 7i4e4 ass]t ( _! subject some?+ :i* is n conta9$ 9 ! concept ( x71 & ! real exi/5ce ( ,god or any o!r object c nev] be d$uc$ f its def9ition4#bbf ,?is ,kantian criticism has itself be5 subject$ to mu* criticism1 pr9cipally at ! h&s ( ,hegel & ^? subsequ5t philosoph]s :o h be5 specially affect$ by ! ,hegelian influ5ce4 ,:at appe>s to be ! g5]al pr9ciple ( ! ,hegelian criticism has be5 mo/ cle>ly express$ 9 ,engli% philosophy by ,mr4 ,bradley1#bbg ^u ^: discussion ! foll[+ rem>ks are *iefly f\nd$4 ,9 e/imat+ ! wor? ( ! ontological pro(1 we mu/ di/+ui% betwe5 ! g5]al pr9ciple impli$ 9 x & ! p>ticul> =m 9 :i* x pres5ts t pr9ciple4 ,x is manife/ t ,kant is p]fectly "r :5 he cont5ds t1 tak+ exi/5ce to mean pres5ce 9 ! space & "t-ord]1 y _c reason f my possession ( any idea to ! exi/5ce ( a correspond+ object4 ,y _c say :atev] ,i conceive mu/ exi/ z ,i conceive x4 ,b ! pr9ciple ( ! ontological pro( is p]haps n necess>ily condemn$ by its failure to be ?us univ]sally applicable4 ,! pr9ciple involv$ appe>s to be simply ?is4 ,! idea & ! reality outside its own exi/5ce z a fact 9 ! "t-ord] :i* x 8means0 or 8/&s =0 are mutually complem5t>y aspects ( a :ole ,reality :i* include !m bo?4 ,= !re is1 on ! "o side1 no 8idea0 s poor & untrue z n to h "s mean+ or objective ref]5ce beyond its own pres5t exi/5ce4#bbh ,&1 on ! o!r1 :at has no significance = any subject ( exp]i5ce is no?+4 ,h5ce 9 its mo/ g5]al =m ! ontological argum5t is simply a /atem5t t reality & mean+ = a subject mutually imply "o ano!r4 ,b x does n foll[ t all ?\ghts are equally true & significant4 ,9 o!r words1 ?\gh e ?\ght means some?+ beyond its own exi/5ce1 diff]5t ?\ghts may repres5t ! /ructure ( t :i* !y mean ) v diff]5t grades ( adequacy4 ,t :i* my ?\ght means may be f> f be+ real 9 ! =m 9 :i* ,i ?9k x4 ,n[1 we may surely say t ! m int]nally h>moni\s & sy/ematic my ?\ght is1 ! m adequately x repres5ts ! true nature ( t :i* x means4 ,if ?or\ghly sy/ematic coh]5t ?\ght may be m]e misrepres5tation1 our :ole crit]ion ( sci5tific tru? is wor?less4 ,h[ freely we use ?is ontological argum5t 9 practice w be readily se5 by consid]+ ! way 9 :i*1 e4g41 9 ! int]pretation & recon/ruction ( hi/orical facts1 ! int]nal coh]5cy ( a sy/ematic & compreh5sive int]pretation is tak5 z itself ! evid5ce ( its tru?4#bbi ,h5ce x may be argu$ t if !re is a sy/ematic way ( ?9k+ ab\t ,reality :i* is absolutely & entirely int]nally coh]5t1 & f its own nature mu/ rema9 s1 h[ev] ! detail$ cont5t ( our ideas %\ld gr[ 9 complexity1 we may confid5tly say t su* a s*eme ( ?\ght fai?fully repres5ts ! ,reality = :i* x /&s1 s f> z any ?\ght c repres5t ,reality4 ,t is1 :ile ! ?\ght w\ld n be ! ,reality because x /ill rema9s ?\ght1 :i* means some?+ beyond its own exi/5ce1 x w\ld require no modification ( /ructure b only supplem5tation 9 detail to make x ! tru?4 ,b if we h any:]e ?\ght :i* is ?us int]nally coh]5t1 & f its own nature mu/ rema9 s1 h[ev] k may ext5d1 we h x surely 9 our metaphysical conception ( ! real z ! absolutely individual4 ,?us ! ontological pro( appe>s1 9 any s5se 9 :i* x is n fallaci\s1 to am\nt m]ely to ! pr9ciple t significant ?\ght gives u g5u9e k2 & !re=e1 s9ce ! ?or\ghgo+ individuality ( /ructure ( its object is presuppos$ 9 all significant ?\ght1 ,reality mu/ be a p]fect individual4 ,t ?is p]fect individual mu/ fur!r be 8,god10 i4e4 mu/ h ! special "* ascrib$ to x by beliefs bas$ ^u specifically religi\s emotions1 does n foll[4 ,h[ f> ! 8,god0 ( religion is a correct conception ( ! metaphysical ,absolute1 we c only le>n f ! analysis ( typical expressions ( ! religi\s exp]i5ce itself4 ,& x is obvi\s t if by 8,god0 we mean any?+ less ?an ! ,absolute :ole1 ! ontological pro( ceases to h any cog5cy4 ,x is impossible to %[ t ! possibility ( significant ?\ght implies ! pres5ce ( a special f9ite be+1 n empirically kn[n to u1 )9 ! ,absolute4 ,! 8cosmological0 pro(1 or 8argum5t f ! cont+5cy ( ! _w10 unlike ! ontological1 has ! appe>ance1 at fir/ sight1 ( />t+ ) giv5 empirical fact4 ,z summ>is$ by ,kant = purposes ( criticism1 x runs ?us3--8,if any?+ at all exi/s1 !re mu/ be also an absolutely necess>y be+4 ,n[1 ,i exi/ myself2 ergo1 ! absolutely necess>y be+ exi/s40 ,to make ! pro( q complete1 x w\ld be necess>y to %[ t ! be+ ^: exi/5ce is affirm$ 9 ! m9or premisses1 to wit1 myself1 is n itself ! 8absolutely necess>y be+10 & ! argum5t ?us complet$ w\ld become 9 pr9ciple id5tical ) ! second ( ! 8pro(s0 giv5 by ,desc>tes 9 ! ?ird ,m$itation1 :]e x is inf]r$ t if ,i1 a dep5d5t be+1 exi/1 !re mu/ be a ,god on :om ,i & all ?+s dep5d4#bcj ,z ,kant has po9t$ out1 ! :ole =ce ( ?is inf]5ce re/s ^u ! previ\s admission ( ! ontological argum5t4 ,by itself ! cosmological pro( only e/abli%es ! conclusion t if any dep5d5t exi/5ce is real1 indep5d5t exi/5ce ( "s k9d mu/ be real also4 ,to conv]t ?is into a 8pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( ,god0 y mu/ fur!r g on to id5tify ! 8indep5d5t exi/5ce0 ?us rea*$ ) ! 8mo/ real0 or 8mo/ p]fect0 be+ ( ! ontological pro(4 ,= o!rwise x might be sugge/$1 z is done by "o ( ! speak]s 9 ,hume's dialogue1 t ! s]ies ( ph5om5al ev5ts itself1 tak5 z an aggregate1 is ! 8necess>y exi/5ce0 ^u :i* ! 8cont+5t exi/5ce0 ( ea* sev]al ev5t dep5ds4 8,did ,i %[ y ! p>ticul> causes ( ea* individual 9 a collection ( tw5ty p>ticles ( matt]1 ,i %\ld ?9k x v unreasonable %\ld y aft]w>ds ask me :at 0 ! cause ( ! :ole tw5ty4 ,?is is suffici5tly expla9$ 9 expla9+ ! cause ( ! p>ts40 ,to avoid ?is objection1 we mu/ g on to ma9ta9 t only ! 8mo/ p]fect be+0 c be an ultimately necess>y be+1 & t its 8necess>y exi/5ce0 is a consequ5ce ( its "*4 ,?is1 z we h se51 is ! v ass]tion made 9 ! ontological pro(4 ,h5ce our criticisms ( ! ontological pro( w be equally applicable to ! cosmological4 ,if we comb9e ! two1 re/at+ !m 9 accord ) our previ\s remodell+ ( ! =m]1 ! argum5t w take ! foll[+ =m4 ,all propositions directly or indirectly ref] to real exi/5ce4 ,h5ce x w\ld be self-contradictory to ass]t t no?+ exi/s4 ,b exi/5ce itself is only conceivable z individual4 ,h5ce ! absolutely individual mu/ be really exi/5t4 ,& ?is is id5tical ) ! g5]al pr9ciple ( our own reason+ 9 ,book ,,ii4 ( ! pres5t "w4 ,cle>ly1 if valid1 x is valid simply z an argum5t = a metaphysical ,absolute2 x nei!r proves t ,absolute itself to be :at we mean 9 religion by ,god1 nor af=ds any gr\nd = ass]t+ ! exi/5ce ( ,god z a f9ite individual )9 ! ,absolute4#bca ,! physico-!ological argum5t1 also kn[n z ! argum5t f design1 or ! teleological pro(1 diff]s f ! prec$+ two 9 be+ 9 its curr5t =ms hone/ly empirical4 ,9 ! %ape ( an inf]5ce f ! app>5t pres5ce ( ord] & a reg>d = human good 9 ! /ructure ( nature to ! exi/5ce ( a wise & b5evol5t be+ or be+s z ! au?or or au?ors ( nature1 x has be5 ! mo/ popul> ( all !i/ic argum5ts bo? 9 ! anci5t _w1 :]e1 accord+ to ,x5ophon1 x 0 specially insi/$ ^u by ,socrates1 & 9 ! mod]n def5ces ( !ological beliefs aga9/ rationali/ic criticism4 ,x mu/1 h[ev]1 be obs]v$ t ! criticisms ( ,hume & ,kant are absolutely fatal to ! 8argum5t f design10 :5 x is put =w>d z a pro( ( ! exi/5ce ( a ,god ( inf9ite goodness & wisdom4 ,at be/1 z ,kant says1 ! obs]v$ ord] & h>mony ( ,nature w\ld enable u to inf] a f9ite degree ( wisdom & goodness 9 its au?or4 ,! ass]tion ( ! absolute h>moni\sness & goodness ( ,nature1 :i* we require to ju/ify ! inf]5ce to inf9ite wisdom & goodness 9 its au?or1 goes f> beyond ! limits ( ! empirically v]ifiable1 & c itself only be upheld by "s =m ( ! 8ontological pro(40 ,h5ce ! 8argum5t f design0 c\ld at be/ prove a ,god ^: wisdom & goodness are1 s f> z kn[able1 limit$4 ,z ,hume =cibly puts ! same po9t1 if ! empirically kn[n facts ( ! p>tial adaptation ( ,nature to human purposes are valid1 z !y /&1 to prove a wise & good intellig5ce1 are n ! equally well-asc]ta9$ facts ( ! p>tial want ( adaptation equally valid to prove defective goodness or defective wisdom8#bcb ,!re is a deep] metaphysical reason = ?is diff]5ce betwe5 ! results ( ! physico-!ological & ( ! o!r 8pro(s10 :i* may be briefly po9t$ out4 ,! :ole conception ( ! ord] & sy/ematic unity ( ! _w z due to preconceiv$ 8design0 is only intelligible if we suppose ! au?or ( t 8design0 to be f9ite1 & subject1 l ourselves1 to temporal mutability4 ,= 9 ! notion ( design itself are impli$ ! sev]ance ( ! m5tally conceiv$ ideal f ! actuality :i* waits to be br\ght into accord ) x1 & consequ5tly also ! "t-process1 :i* we h already f\nd to be *>act]i/ic ( all f9itude4 ,h5ce ! physico-!ological pro(1 by itself1 c at be/ be us$ to e/abli% ! reality ( f9ite 8gods10 n ( 8,god10 because x works ?r\gh\t ) ! categories ( f9itude4 ,^u ! logical =ce ( ! argum5t1 z ?us limit$ by its initial assumptions1 only "o obs]vation ne$ be made4 ,:at ! reason+ ass]ts is n m]ely t 8,nature0 is 9 reality a sy/em exhibit+ individuality & purposive int]e/1 or ev5 8design10 b t x reveals ! p>ticul> design ( assi/+ & fo/]+ human progress4 ,n[1 :e!r ?is is s or n w\ld appe> to be a "q ( empirical fact only capable ( det]m9ation by ! me?ods applicable to o!r problems ( ! same empirical k9d4 ,probably ! l9es along :i* x w h to be decid$ 9 ! future are ( ! foll[+ g5]al k9d4 ,evolution>y sci5ce seems cle>ly to h %[n t 9 ! influ5ces x kn[s1 e4g41 z 8natural0 & aga9 z 8sexual selection10 we h processes :i* lead to b5eficial results )\t be+1 s f> z we c see1 9 ! lea/ direct$ by ! consci\s 8design0 ( e/abli%+ ^? results4#bcc ,we %\ld h to ask1 !n1 :e!r !re is actual gr\nd = hold+ t su* influ5ces are n ( !mselves suffici5t to acc\nt = ! developm5t ( human civilisation1 s f> z x is due to factors belong+ to ! 8environm5t40 ,if !y are s suffici5t1 ! 8physico-!ological0 argum5t = b5evol5t sup]-human ag5cy 9 m\ld+ ! c\rse ( human developm5t1 becomes sup]flu\s2 if !y are n1 _! failure is1 s f>1 good gr\nd = ! recognition ( f9ite 8design+0 intellig5ces ( a non-human k9d z =m+ a factor 9 our environm5t4 ,9 ei!r case ! "q appe>s to be "o ( empirical fact1 & to be incapable ( det]m9ation 9 advance on g5]al metaphysical gr\nds4#bcd ,nor are we ju/ifi$ 9 assum+ t 8design 9 nature10 suppos+ x to exi/1 mu/ always be direct$ to secur+ ends :i* are ei!r intelligible to u1 or1 if intelligible1 8b5evol5t10 9 ! s5se ( fur!r+ our own special human int]e/s4 ,& "h ,i mu/ be cont5t to leave ! subject4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *aps4 #be1 #bf2 ,j4 ,e4 ,mc,taggart1 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology1 *aps4 #f1 #h2 ,j4 ,royce1 ,! ,_w & ! ,individual1 ,second ,s]ies1 lects4 #i1 #aj4 ----- ,footnote #baa3 ,to take a c\ple ( concrete illu/rations4 ,x may be--,i d n say x is--conducive to moral goodness t !re %\ld be a g5]al conviction t 9 ! long run our individual happ9ess is /rictly proportionate to our degree ( virtue4 ,b !re is no means :atev] ( %[+ t ?is belief is true1 &1 z ,mr4 ,bradley once p]t95tly argu$ aga9/ ,pr(essor ,sidgwick1 no philosoph] is entitl$ to ass]t its tru? on moral gr\nds unless he is prep>$ to ma9ta9 t he c\ld produce m goodness & less badness by su* an exact proportion+ ( happ9ess to m]it ?an )\t x4 ,aga91 mo/ ( u w\ld probably admit t ord9>y moral rules1 su* z t aga9/ wilful ly+1 h exceptions4 ,b we are n b\nd to hold x conducive to moral goodness t e "o %\ld be aw>e ( ?is4 ,footnote #bab3 ,i h n tak5 into acc\nt ! argum5t f orig9s1 because x does n appe> relevant4 ,t our intellectual int]e/ 9 8tru?0 is hi/orically a d]ivative f an int]e/ 9 ! 8useful10 8sci5ce0 an (f%oot ( ! arts1 is1 z we h se5 = ourselves1 true en\gh1 b x does n foll[ t ! tru? :i* is ! ideal ( ! develop$ intellect is ! same ?+ z ! 8useful0 f :i* x has aris54 ,we reject$ ! claims ( ! me*anical po/ulate to be f9al tru?1 n because ( _! orig9 9 ! ne$s ( indu/rial sci5ce1 b because1 z te/$ by ! /&>d ( f9al self-consi/5cy1 !y 7 unsatisfactory to ! intellect4 ,footnote #bac3 1 to use ! poet's phrase4 ,footnote #bad3 ,n1 ( c\rse1 pure progress4 ,x does n require pr(\nd insight to discov] t moral progress1 l ev]y?+ else1 has its price1 & t all 8progressive evolution0 implies 8deg5]ation0 z "o ( its aspects4 ,b ! moral progress ( society w be g5u9e if1 on ! :ole1 our ga9 is--f ! morali/'s special /&po9t--m ?an our loss4 ,we h no reason to despair ( our k9d if ! imp>tial hi/orian1 comp>+ ! facts--n ! self-complac5t fictions ( popul> optimism--ab\t our curr5t social life ) ! facts--n ! fancies ( ,apologetics--ab\t social life1 say1 9 ! fir/ c5tury ( ! ,roman ,empire1 c pron\nce t !re has be5 advance on ! :ole4 ,footnote #bae3 ,! 8religi\s0 temp]am5t is app>5tly %[n by exp]i5ce to be1 9 its int5s] manife/ations1 q z mu* an idiosyncrasy ( cong5ital end[m5t z ! 8/hetic40 ,!re are p]sons1 n o!rwise m5tally defective1 :o seem to be almo/ devoid ( x1 j z !re are o!rs :o h little or no s5se ( hum\r or feel+ = beauty4 ,z _m ( ^! p]sons are e?ically excell5t1 "s ( !m exceptionally s1 & z aga9 ! religi\s temp]am5t is (t5 f\nd /rongly develop$ 9 p]sons ( q inf]ior e?ical developm5t1 !re seems to be no direct connection betwe5 religi\s s5sibility & moral excell5ce1 ?\gh1 ( c\rse1 religi\s feel+ is ! mo/ p[]ful ( moral influ5ces :5 x is conjo9$ 9 ! same p]son ) e?ical f]v\r4 ,= a ma/]ly description ( "s typical =ms ( religi\s feel+ & belief ! read] %\ld consult ,pr(essor ,james's ,v>ieties ( ,religi\s ,exp]i5ce4 ,he w f9d my own views z to ! philosophical int]pretation ( religion1 if he c>es to "k !m1 9 ! f9al *apt] ( my ,problem ( ,conduct4 ,footnote #baf3 ,s ,hegel insi/$ t ! fundam5tal significance ( ! ,*ri/ian religion lies nei!r 9 ! hi/orical c>e] nor 9 ! moral tea*+ ( ,jesus 7:i* inde$ conta9$ little t _h n already be5 utt]$ 9 ! =m ( precept or pr9ciple71 b 9 ! recognition by ! ,*ri/ian community ( ! union ( ,god & ,man z a fact already realis$ 9 individual =m 9 ! p]son ( ,*ri/4 ,see ,dr4 ,mc,taggart's essay on 8,hegelianism & ,*ri/ianity0 9 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology4 ,footnote #bag3 ,s ,plato sugge/$ 9 ! second book ( ! ,republic1 t ,god is n ! cause ( all t happ5s to u1 b only ( ! good ?+s t befall u4 ,p]haps1 h[ev]1 ,plato is "h consci\sly adapt+ 8 expression to curr5t !ological doctr9e ( :i* he did n fully approve4 ,= a mod]n def5ce ( ! same conception ( a f9ite ,god1 see ,dr4 ,ra%dall's essay 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism4 ,o!r reasons :i* h (t5 l$ to ! same view1 su* z ! desire to ?9k ( ,god z a mutable be+ l ourselves1 capable ( be+ influ5c$ 9 ,8 attitude t[>d u by our attitude t[>ds ,him1 seem to re/ too mu* ^u idiosyncrasies ( private feel+ to be ( s]i\s philosophical weight4 ,if private feel+ is to c\nt at all1 "o does n see :y t ( ^? :o w\ld feel outrag$ by su* a conception ( a f9ite *angeable ,god %\ld n be all[$ an equal significance ) t ( _! oppon5ts4 ,x is a palpable mi/ake to treat private feel+1 :atev] its wor? may be1 z all on "o side 9 ?is matt]4 ,footnote #bah3 ,= if we once suppose t we "k ! univ]se1 9 :i* 8,god0 is only "o f9ite be+ among o!rs1 to be s con/itut$ z to correspond to ?is dem&1 x w be ! :ole ( :i* 8,god0 is "o factor1 & n 8,god0 by ,himself1 :i* w become ! supreme object ( religi\s emotion4 ,?us we may say1 until ,god is ?\ght ( z ! individual :ole1 ,he is n fully ,god4 ,footnote #bai3 ,x %\ld be sc>cely necess>y to po9t out t ! ,absolute1 if x c be wor%ipp$ at all1 c be wor%ipp$ only z conceiv$ z fully individual4 ,:5 x is falsely ?\ght ( z a 8collection0 or 8aggregate0 or 8totality0 ( indep5d5t ?+s1 x is no m div9e ?an any o!r collection4 ,?is is ! fatal objection to vulg> 8,pan!ism40 ,h[ f> any ( ! s]i\s ?9k]s :o are popul>ly *>g$ ) 8,pan!ism0 h c\nt5anc$ ?is view ( ! ,absolute z a m]e collection1 is ano!r matt]4 ,footnote #bbj3 ,i am afraid t ?is ess5tially irreligi\s feel+ has a great deal to d ) ! compla9ts sometimes urg$ aga9/ ! ,absolute z a poor sub/itute = a 8liv+ ,god40 ,p>tly ^! compla9ts spr+1 no d\bt1 f ! mi/ak5 notion t ! ,absolute is n a concrete individual b a m]e 8collective concept40 ,b !y seem also to be motiv$ by a suspicion t a f9ite ,deity might be m am5able ?an ! ,absolute to our wi% to h our ideals gratifi$ 9 our own fa%ion4 ,& s f> z ?is is ! motive ( !m1 su* compla9ts are ess5tially impi\s4 ,footnote #bba3 ,! read] w naturally ?9k ( ! fam\s ,socratic p>adox1 t 8wrong do+ is error10 8vice is ignorance40 ,if we int]pret ?is to mean t ! fundam5tal advantage ( ! good man ov] ! bad lies 9 8 tru] insight into :at he s]i\sly wants1 x seems to be true4 ,footnote #bbb3 ,enneads1 ,i4 #h1 #ae 7quot$ & translat$ 9 ,:ittak]1 ! ,neoplatoni/s1 p4 #hc74 ,plot9us _h j previ\sly made ! correct obs]vation t to d5y ! exi/5ce ( evil 9 any & e s5se means to d5y ! exi/5ce ( good4 7 1 47 ,we might ?us say1 if good is to be at all1 evil mu/ h "s k9d ( relative or ph5om5al exi/5ce z its antec$5t condition4 ,b1 z ?us s]v+ z a condition = ! realisation ( good1 evil is itself1 f a m univ]sal po9t ( view1 good1 & !re=e its exi/5ce z evil only app>5t4 ,on ! :ole "q ( ! position ( evil 9 ! _w-ord]1 see ! admirable essay on 8,s90 9 ,dr4 ,mc,taggart's ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology4 ,footnote #bbc3 ,:5 x is said t ! ,absolute1 if x exi/s1 mu/ be morally indiff]5t1 !re is (t5 a consci\s or unconsci\s confusion ( ?\ght4 ,! ,absolute mu/ c]ta9ly be 8indiff]5t0 9 ! s5se t x does n feel ! int]nal discord ( hatr$ & animosity aga9/ any ( its con/itu5ts4 ,deus1 z ,sp9oza says1 nem9em pote/ odio hab]e4 ,= ! ,absolute is n "o ( ! two combatants2 x is at once bo? combatants & ! field ( combat4 ,b to inf] t ! ,absolute1 because devoid ( ! feel+s ( hatr$ & private p>tisan%ip1 mu/ be indiff]5t 9 ! s5se t our goodness & badness make no diff]5ce to our place 9 x1 is a fallacy ( equivocation = :i* unconsci\sness & bona fides are sc>cely suffici5t excuse4 ,footnote #bbd3 ,?us ,i d n und]/& :y1 ap>t f respect = ! traditions ( ,*ri/ianity1 ,dr4 ,ra%dall %\ld hold t ,god1 9 8 s5se ( ! ^w1 is "o & n _m4 ,8 argum5t appe>s to me to id5tify ,god ) ! ,absolute1 :]e x is requir$ to ma9ta9 ,god's unity1 & to di/+ui% !m z soon z x becomes a "q ( prov+ ,god's 8,p]sonality0 7see 8 essay 9 ,p]sonal ,idealism74 ,pr(essor ,james appe>s m logical 9 8 obvi\s read9ess to reckon ) poly!ism z a possible consequ5ce ( 8 d5ial ( ,god's inf9ity 7,v>ieties ( ,religi\s ,exp]i5ce1 p4 #ebd ff474 ,footnote #bbe3 ,kant's fam\s onslaught w be f\nd 9 ! ,kritik d] ,re95 ,v]nunft1 ,transc5d5tal ,dialectic1 bk4 ii4 div4 #c 78,! ,ideal ( ,pure ,reason071 #c-g4 ,hume's criticisms are conta9$ 9 8 po/hum\s ,dialogues conc]n+ ,natural ,religion4 ,footnote #bbf3 ,kant's criticism _h be5 9 "p anticipat$ on ! fir/ circulation ( ! ,m$itations by bo? ,m]s5ne & ,gass5di4 ,see p>ticul>ly ,gass5di's /rictures on ,desc>tes' confusion ( exi/5ce ) prop]ties 9 ! 8,fif? ,objections10 ) ,desc>tes' unsatisfactory reply4 ,leibnitz repeat$ ! same objection1 & propos$ to am5d ! ,c>tesian pro( by a =mal demon/ration t ,god's exi/5ce is possible1 i4e4 does n imply a =mal contradiction4 ,he !n argues--,if ,god's exi/5ce is possible1 ,he exi/s 7by ! ,c>tesian pro(74 ,b ,god's exi/5ce is possible1 !re=e ,god exi/s4 ,see1 e4g41 ,leibnitz1 ,works1 ed4 ,erdmann1 p4 #agg2 & ,latta1 ,monadology ( ,leibniz1 p4 #bgd4 ,hume's comm5ts are ev5 m ak9 to ,kant's4 8,:atev] we conceive z exi/5t we c also conceive z non-exi/5t4 ,!re is no be+1 !re=e1 ^: non-exi/5ce implies a contradiction4 ,consequ5tly !re is no be+ ^: exi/5ce is demon/rable40 7,dialogues conc]n+ ,natural ,religion1 "p #i47 ,footnote #bbg3 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bd4 ,footnote #bbh3 ,no ?\ght c be m]ely & absolutely false1 any m ?an any act c be m]ely & )\t qualification bad4 ,?\gh words may be entirely mean+less1 ?\ghts _c be4 ,footnote #bbi3 ,! appeal to exp]im5t is no objection to ! pr9ciple4 ,= 9 mak+ ! exp]im5t we d n1 ( c\rse1 get out ( ! circle ( our ?\ghts1 & ! exp]im5t only af=ds a crit]ion ( tru? 9 s f> z x leaves u ) a new ?\ght :i* c only be br\ght into sy/ematic h>mony ) our old ideas 9 "o det]m9ate way4 ,except z int]pret$ by ?\ght1 ! exp]im5t has no be>+ on our k4 ,footnote #bcj3 ,?is 0 also a fav\rite argum5t ) ,leibnitz1 z ,kant notes4 ,= an acute exam9ation ( ,leibnitz's use ( x & ! o!r 8pro(s10 see ,b4 ,russell's ,philosophy ( ,leibniz *ap4 #ae4 ,= ,hume's objections to x1 see ! already quot$ "p #i ( ! ,dialogue conc]n+ ,natural ,religion4 ,! o!r 8pro(0 ( ! ,?ird ,m$itation1 namely1 t my possession ( an idea ( ,god1 :i* ,i c\ld n h d]iv$ f empirical s\rces1 proves ! reality ( ! idea's object1 is only a special =m ( ! ontological argum5t f idea to exi/5ce4 ,footnote #bca3 ,z ?us remodell$1 ! d\ble ontologico-cosmological argum5t might be attack$ on two gr\nds--7#a7 ,t x only proves1 once m1 t if we admit t all propositions are conc]n$ ) real exi/5ce1 ei!r directly or remotely1 we mu/ admit ! exi/5ce ( ! ,absolute1 b does n demon/rate t all propositions are s conc]n$4 7#b7 ,t 9 say+ t exi/5ce is only conceivable z individual we fall back into ! ,c>tesian misconception ( exi/5ce z a pr$icate4 ,i %\ld reply1 7#a7 t ! validity ( ! premiss 9 "q _c be d5i$ )\t be+ confirm$ 9 ! act ( d5ial4 ,i4e4 unless ! sugge/$ proposition t 8"s propositions at lea/ h no ref]5ce to a reality beyond _! own pres5ce z psy*ical facts 9 my m9d10 itself has ! v objective ref]5ce 9 "q1 x has no mean+1 & is !re=e no g5u9e proposition2 7#b7 t we mu/ di/+ui% betwe5 ! :at & ! t ( exi/5ce4 ,! 8t0 ( exi/5ce is n conceivable at all1 b our position is t ?is inconceivable t is only logically1 n really1 sep>able f a :at1 & t x is precisely ?is insep>ability ( ! t & ! :at :i* we mean by 8individuality40 ,footnote #bcb3 ,dialogues conc]n+ ,natural ,religion1 "p #aa4 ,footnote #bcc3 ,?is is q consi/5t ) our own view1 t all real processes are teleological 9 ! s5se ( be+ m>k$ by subjective int]e/4 ,= 7a7 n by any means all teleological process is actual 8design0 or 8volition0 7impulse1 organic crav+1 habit1 etc41 are all cases 9 po9t72 & 7b7 actual volition ne$ n always be volition = ! result x actually produces4 ,sexual selection 9 man w\ld be an in/ance ( a process :i* may take ! =m ( actual volition1 b 9 t case is r>ely1 if ev]1 volition = t improvem5t ( ! /ock :i* de facto issues f x4 ,footnote #bcd3 ,cf4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 pp4 #bjj1 #dif-dig 7#a/ ed474 ,pr(essor ,fl9t's attempt$ reply to ! ,humian & ,kantian criticism ( ! !i/ic 8pro(s0 7,agno/icism1 *ap4 #d7 has n induc$ me to modify any ( ! op9ions express$ 9 ?is *apt]4 ----- ,,*apt] ,,vi ,,conclusion #a4 ,c our ,absolute ,exp]i5ce be prop]ly call$ ! 8union ( ,?\ght & ,w08 ,! ,absolute is c]ta9ly ! f9al realisation ( our intellectual & our practical ideals4 ,b 7#a7 x includes aspects1 su* z1 e4g4 /hetic feel+1 pleasure1 & pa91 :i* are nei!r ,?\ght nor ,w4 7#b7 ,& x _c possess ei!r ,?\ght or ,w z su*4 ,bo? ,?\ght & ,w1 9 _! own nature1 presuppose a ,reality :i* transc5ds m]e ,?\ght & m]e ,w4 #b4 ,our conclusion may 9 a s5se be said to involve an elem5t ( ,agno/icism1 & aga9 ( ,my/icism4 ,b x is only agno/ic 9 hold+ t we d n "k ! precise nature ( ! ,absolute ,exp]i5ce4 ,x implies no di/ru/ ( ! validity ( k1 s f> z x goes1 & bases its app>5tly agno/ic result on ! witness ( k itself4 ,simil>ly1 x is my/ical 9 transc5d+1 n 9 refus+ to recognise1 ! con/ructions ( und]/&+ & w4 #c4 ,metaphysics adds no?+ to our in=mation1 & yields no fre% spr+s ( action4 ,x is f9ally only ju/ifi$ by ! p]si/5cy ( ! impulse to speculate on ! nature ( ?+s z a :ole4 #a4 ,x seems advisable1 9 br++ ?is "w to a conclusion1 to br+ toge!r by way ( recapitulation a few important consequ5ces ( our g5]al pr9ciple :i* c\ld n receive all ! notice !y des]ve 9 ! c\rse ( our previ\s exposition4 ,our ma9 cont5tion1 :i* x may be hop$ our discussion ( special problems has n[ confirm$1 0 t ! :ole ( ,reality ultimately =ms a s+le inf9ite individual sy/em1 ( :i* ! mat]ial is psy*ical matt] ( fact1 & t ! individuality ( ?is sy/em lies ultimately 9 a teleological unity ( subjective int]e/4 ,fur!r1 we saw t all subord9ate reality is aga9 9 its degree individual1 & t ! cont5ts ( ! ,absolute ?us =m a hi]>*y ( asc5d+ ord]s ( reality & individuality1 & t 9 ?is way1 :ile all f9ite individual exi/5ce is1 z f9ite1 appe>ance & n ultimate ,reality1 appe>ances1 !mselves are ( v>i$ degrees ( wor?1 & t1 ap>t f ! appe>ances1 !re is no reality at all4 ,& f9ally1 we le>n$ t all ! aspirations ( f9ite individuals mu/ be someh[ met & made good 9 ! ultimate ,reality1 ?\gh n necess>ily 9 ! =m 9 :i* !y are consci\sly ent]ta9$ by ! f9ite aspirant4 ,?is la/ conclusion naturally sugge/s ! "q1 :e!r x w\ld be a correct description ( ! ultimate ,reality to call x ! 8union ( ,?\ght & ,w40 ,i w briefly indicate ! reasons :y su* a description appe>s to be mislead+4 7#a7 ,! ,absolute may no d\bt be call$ ! 8union ( ,?\ght & ,w10 9 ! s5se t its complete individual /ructure corresponds at once to our logical ideal ( sy/ematic int]connection1 & our e?ico-religi\s ideal ( realis$ individual purpose4 ,b x mu/ be add$ t ! ,absolute appe>s to possess aspects :i* _c fairly be br\ght "u ei!r ( ^! heads4 /hetic feel+1 = in/ance1 & ! /hetic judgm5ts bas$ ^u x1 mu/ someh[ be includ$ z an integral aspect 9 ! absolute :ole ( exp]i5ce2 yet /hetic feel+ _c prop]ly be reg>d$ ei!r z ?\ght or z w4 ,& ! same objection might be rais$ 9 ! case ( pleasure4 ,h[ev] closely pleasure may be connect$ ) conative ef=ts t[>ds ! ret5tion or r5ewal ( ! pleasant exp]i5ce1 x seems q cle> t ! 8pure0 pleasures#bce are n =ms ( consci\s 8conation10 & t ev5 9 ^? 8mix$0 pleasures1 :i* dep5d 9 "p = _! pleasantness ^u relief f ! t5sion ( prec$5t crav+ or desire1 analysis enables u to di/+ui% two elem5ts1 t ( direct pleasure 9 ! new exp]i5ce1 & t ( ! feel+ ( relief f ! crav+4 ,h5ce1 if x be admitt$ t ! ,absolute conta9s pleasure1 x mu/ also be admitt$ t x conta9s some?+ :i* is nei!r ?\ght nor w4 ,! same argum5t w\ld hold good1 ,i ?9k1 ev5 if we held ) ! pessimi/s1 t ! ,absolute conta9s a balance ( pa9 ov] pleasure4 ,=1 intimate z ! connection is betwe5 pa9 & ?w>t$ conation1 x seems a psy*ological mon/rosity to ma9ta9 t felt pa9 is always & ev]y:]e an exp]i5ce ( ! fru/ration ( actual consci\s ef=t2 & unless ?is mon/rosity c be ma9ta9$1 we mu/ recognise 9 pa9 too a fundam5tal exp]i5ce-quality irr$ucible to ?\ght or w4 ,?us1 at be/1 ! description ( ! ,absolute1 z ! union ( ?\ght & w1 w\ld be incomplete4 7#b7 ,b1 fur!r1 ! description1 if tak5 to mean t ! ,absolute itself has ?\ght & w1 z su*1 w\ld be n only incomplete b false4 ,= actual ?\ght & actual w c easily be %[n to be ess5tially f9ite functions1 nei!r ( :i* c\ld ev] rea* its goal & become f9ally self-consi/5t1 )\t ceas+ to be m]e ?\ght or m]e w4 ,?us actual ?\ght always involves an aspect ( discrepancy betwe5 its cont5t & ref]5ce4 ,x is always ?\ght ab\t a reality :i* falls1 9 "p1 outside ! ?\ght itself1 is only imp]fectly repres5t$ by ! ?\ght's cont5t1 & = t v reason is a n-self to ! ?\ght = :i* x is an object4 ,& ! :ole process ( ?9k+ may be describ$ z a s]ies ( attempts on ! "p ( ?\ght to transc5d ?is limitation4 ,s long z ! cont5t ( ! ?\ght is n adequate to ! reality :i* x ?9ks1 s long1 t is1 z !re is any?+ left to "k ab\t ! reality1 ?\ght re/lessly presses =w>d t[>ds an unrea*$ consummation4 ,b if ! correspond5ce ideae cum ideato ev] became p]fect1 ?\ght's object w\ld cease to conta9 any?+ :i* w5t beyond ?\ght's own cont5t4 ,x w\ld no long] be an 8o!r0 or 8n-self0 to ! ?\ght :i* knew x1 & ?us ?\ght & its object w\ld h become a s+le ?+4 ,b 9 ?is consummation ?\ght w\ld h lo/ its special "* z an actual process1 j z ! object w\ld h lo/ its "* ( a some?+1 p>tly at lea/1 8giv50 f )\t4 ,bo? m]e ?\ght & m]e exi/5ce1 9 becom+ "o1 w\ld cease to h ! "* :i* belongs to !m 9 f9ite exp]i5ce precisely 9 virtue ( our failure completely to transc5d ! *asm betwe5 !m4 ,! same is ! case ) w4 ,if1 inde$1 by w we mean a g5u9e actual process ( volition1 ?is result is already includ$ 9 our criticism ( ! claim ( ?\ght z su* to p]si/ un*ang$ 9 ! ,absolute4 ,= all g5u9e w implies possession ( & actuation by an idea :i* is ent]ta9$ explicitly z an unrealis$ idea1 & is ?us insep>able f ?\ght4 7,?is1 ,i may incid5tally obs]ve once m1 is :y we c>efully avoid$ speak+ ( ! 8subjective int]e/0 we f\nd 9 all exp]i5ce-processes z 8w407 ,b ev5 if we improp]ly wid5 ! int]pretation ( ! t]m 8w0 to include all conative process1 ! g5]al conclusion w rema9 ! same4 ,= all su* processes imply ! contra/ betwe5 exi/5ce z x comes to u 9 ! "h & n[ ( actual feel+1 & exi/5ce z x %\ld be1 & z we seek to make x1 = ! satisfaction ( our v>i\s impulses1 crav+s1 & desires4 ,x is ! felt1 ev5 :5 n explicitly und]/ood1 discrepancy betwe5 ^! two aspects ( a reality1 :i* is ultimately "o & h>moni\s "u ! discrepancy1 t supplies all actual conative process ) its motive =ce4 ,& h5ce we seem driv5 to hold t conation z su*1 i4e4 z actual /riv+ or ef=t1 c f9d no place 9 an exp]i5ce 9 :i* ! aspects ( ideality & real exi/5ce are once = all f9ally unit$4 ,if we _c avoid speak+ ( su* an exp]i5ce 9 t]ms ( our own intellectual1 & aga9 ( our own volitional processes1 we mu/ at lea/ rememb] t :ile su* language is true 9 ! s5se t ! all-embrac+ h>moni\s exp]i5ce ( ! ,absolute is ! unatta9able goal t[>ds :i* f9ite intellect & f9ite volition are alike /riv+1 yet ea* 9 atta9+ its consummation1 if x ev] c\ld atta9 x1 w\ld cease to be itself z we "k x1 & pass into a high] & direct] =m ( appreh5sion1 9 :i* x c\ld no long] be di/+ui%$ f ! o!r4 ,9 ! old m$ival t]m9ology1 ! ,absolute mu/ be said to conta9 actual intellect & actual volition1 n =malit] b em95t]4#bcf #b4 ,x foll[s f all ?is t1 j because ! absolute :ole is nei!r m]e ?\ght nor m]e w1 nor an artificial syn!sis ( ! two1 m]e tru? = ! intellect c nev] be q ! same ?+ z ultimate ,reality4 ,= 9 m]e tru? we get ,reality only 9 its intellectual aspect z t :i* af=ds ! highe/ satisfaction to ?\ght's dem& = consi/5cy & sy/ematic unity 9 its object4 ,&1 z we h se51 ?is dem& c nev] be q satisfi$ by ?\ght itself4 ,= ?\ght1 to rema9 ?\ght1 mu/ always be some?+ less ?an ! :ole reality :i* x kn[s4 ,! reality mu/ always conta9 a fur!r aspect :i* is n itself ?\ght1 & is n capable ( be+ appreh5d$ 9 ! =m ( a ?\ght-cont5t4 ,or1 :at is ! same ?+1 :ile all reality is individual1 all ! ?\ght-con/ructions ?r\gh :i* we "k its "* mu/ rema9 g5]al4 ,we are always try+ 9 our ?\ght to grasp ! individual z su*1 & always fail+4 ,z individual1 ! reality nev] becomes ! actual cont5t ( our ?\ght1 b rema9s a 8transc5d5t0 object to :i* ?\ght ref]s1 or :i* x means4 ,& h5ce our true/ ?\ght c at be/ give u b an imp]fect satisfaction = its own dem& ( congru5ce1 betwe5 ?\ght's cont5t & its object4 ,! reality c nev] be ultimately m]ely :at x is = our ?\ght4 ,& ?is conclusion obvi\sly l5ds a c]ta9 ju/ification bo? to ! agno/ic & to ! my/ic4 ,x is important to und]/& h[ f> t ju/ification ext5ds4 ,fir/1 !n1 a ^w z to ! limits ( ju/ifiable ,agno/icism4 ,our conclusion w>rant$ u 9 ass]t+ t ,reality mu/ conta9 aspects :i* are n ?\ght1 & aga9 mu/ comb9e ?\ght ) ^! o!r aspects 9 a unity :i* is n itself m]ely intellectual4 ,9 o!r words1 we _h to confess t we _c und]/& ! concrete "* ( ! ,inf9ite ,exp]i5ce1 or1 to put x 9 a m homely way1 we d n "k h[ x w\ld feel to be 8,god40 ,& if ?is is ,agno/icism1 we cle>ly %all h to own t we too are agno/ics4 ,b our result gave u no gr\nd = d\bt+ our own g5]al conviction z to ! place :i* intellect & tru? hold 9 ! ,absolute4 ,on ! o!r h&1 x left u ) e reason = tru/+ t conviction4 ,= our conclusion t m]e tru? _c be ! same ?+ z ultimate ,reality 0 itself bas$ ^u ! pr9ciple t only h>moni\s individuality is f9ally real1 & ?is is ! v pr9ciple employ$ by ! intellect itself :5ev] x judges "o ?\ght-con/ruction relatively high] & tru] ?an ano!r4 ,?us our ,agno/icism1 if x is to be call$ s1 nei!r discr$its our human e/imate ( ! relative tru? ( diff]5t !ories ab\t ! real1 nor l5ds any support to ! notion t 8,k is relative0 9 ! s5se t !re may conceivably be no correspond5ce betwe5 ,reality & ! s*eme ( human k z a :ole4 ,x is bas$ n on ! di/ru/ ( human reason1 b ^u ! det]m9ation to tru/ t reason implicitly1 & x claims1 9 decl>+ m]e tru? to fall %ort ( ,reality1 to be express+ reason's own v]dict ^u itself4 ,h5ce x does n1 l vulg> ,agno/icism1 leave u 9 ! end 9 pure unc]ta9ty z to ! ultimate /ructure & up%ot1 s to say1 ( ! _w1 b def9itely holds t we h g5u9e & tru/wor?y k ( ! type ( t /ructure & ! nature ( its mat]ials4 ,& x is ^u ?is positive k1 & n ^u an uncritical appeal to unkn[n possibilities1 t x re/s its d5ial ( ! simple id5tity ( ,reality ) ?\ght itself4 ,= all we "k1 says ! common ,agno/icism1 our ?\ght is %e] illusion1 & !re=e we mu/ confess t we h 9 ! end no notion :at ! reality ( ! _w may be4 ,?\ght is n illusory1 says our sy/ematic ,idealism1 & !re=e its own witness t ,reality is an individual :ole ( exp]i5ce :i* is m ?an ?\ght is a positive contribution to our k4 ,betwe5 ^! two positions !re may be a sup]ficial resemblance1 b !re is an ess5tial diff]5ce 9 pr9ciple4 ,s aga9 ) ! my/ical elem5t 9 our result4 ,9 hold+ t all g5u9e individuality1 f9ite or inf9ite1#bcg involves a type ( imm$iate felt unity :i* transc5ds r$uction to ! relational categories ( ?\ght & w1 we may fairly be said to h rea*$ a conclusion :i*1 9 a s5se1 is my/ical4 ,b our result is n ,my/icism1 if by ,my/icism is meant a doctr9e :i* seeks ultimate ,reality 9 m]e unanalys$ imm$iate feel+ z su*4 ,! results ( intellectual & volitional con/ruction h n be5 treat$ by u z illusory & z a sort ( intellectual & moral mi/ake4 ,on ! o!r h&1 we urg$ t ! ultimate unity ( ! real mu/ transc5d1 & n m]ely fall %ort (1 ! rational s*eme ( ?\ght & w4 ,& we consequ5tly insi/$ t our result1 s f> z x is a my/ical "o1 c only be ju/ifi$ by foll[+ out ! con/ructions ( ! logical intellect & ! e?ical w to _! f9al consequ5ce1 & %[+ t ea* ( !m itself dem&s completion 9 an individual ,reality :i* includes & transc5ds bo?4 ,to quote ! admirable words ( ,dr4 ,mc,taggart3 8,a ,my/icism :i* ignor$ ! claims ( ! und]/&+ w\ld no d\bt be doom$4 ,none ev] w5t ab\t to break logic1 b 9 ! end logic broke him4 ,b !re is a ,my/icism :i* />ts f ! /&po9t ( ! und]/&+1 & only dep>ts f x 9 s f> z t /&po9t %[s itself n to be ultimate1 b to po/ulate some?+ beyond itself4 ,to transc5d ! l[] is n to ignore x40 ,& x is only 9 ?is s5se t philosophy is ju/ifi$ 9 ass]t+ 8above all k & volition "o all-embrac+ unity1 :i* is only n true1 only n good1 because all tru? & all goodness are b %ad[s ( its absolute p]fection40#bch #c4 ,! read] :o has p]sev]$ to ! conclusion ( ?is volume may p]haps1 on lay+ x d[n1 exp]i5ce a c]ta9 feel+ ( dissatisfaction4 ,our inve/igations1 x might be compla9$1 h add$ no?+ to our /ock ( sci5tific in=mation ab\t ! cont5ts ( ! _w1 & h suppli$ no fre% practical inc5tives t[>ds ! /r5u\s pursuit ( an elevat$ moral or religi\s ideal4 ,i mu/ at once admit ! ju/ice ( ?is hypo!tical criticism1 & dispute its relevancy4 ,q ap>t f ! defects due to p]sonal %ortcom+s & confusions1 x is inh]5t 9 ! nature ( metaphysical /udy t x c make no positive addition to our in=mation1 & c ( itself supply no motives = practical endeav\r4 ,& ! /ud5t :o turns to our sci5ce z a sub/itute = empirical ,physics or ,psy*ology1 or = practical morality1 is b\nd to g away disappo9t$4 ,! reason ( ?is we h already _h occasion to see4 ,metaphysics has to presuppose ! g5]al pr9ciples ( ! v>i\s sci5ces & ! g5]al =ms ( practical exp]i5ce z ! mat]ials ^u :i* x works4 ,its object z a /udy is n to add to or to modify ^! mat]ials1 b to af=d "s coh]5t & sy/ematic satisfaction = ! intellectual curiosity :i* we all feel at times z to ! g5]al nature ( ! :ole to :i* ^! v>i\s mat]ials belong1 & ! relative tru? & cle>ness ) :i* t g5]al nature is express$ 9 ! diff]5t dep>tm5ts ( exp]i5ce4 ,its aim is ! organisation1 n ! enl>gem5t ( k4 ,h5ce = ! /ud5t ^: int]e/s lie m 9 ! enl>gem5t ( human k by ! discov]y ( new facts & laws1 ?an 9 its organisation into a coh]5t :ole1 ,metaphysics is probably undesirable1 or desirable only z a protection aga9/ ! intrusion ( unrecognis$ & uncriticis$ metaphysical assumptions into ! doma9 ( empirical s]vice4 ,& simil>ly = ! practical man ^: int]e/s 9 life are pr$om9antly e?ical1 ! ma91 if n ! sole1 value ( metaphysical /udy lies 9 its critical function ( expos+ false metaphysical assumptions1 :i*1 if act$ ^u1 might impair ! vig\r ( spontane\s moral ef=t4 ,b = ^? 9 :om ! speculative desire to =m "s coh]5t conception ( ! s*eme ( ?+s to :i* we belong z a :ole is /rong1 ,metaphysics has a high] importance4 ,9 su* m9ds ! impulse to reflect on ! nature ( exi/5ce z a :ole1 if deb>r$ f sy/ematic & ?or\gh gratification1 is c]ta9 to f9d its outlet 9 unsy/ematic & uncriticis$ imag9ative con/ruction4 ,metaphysics !y w c]ta9ly h1 & if n consci\s & coh]5t1 !n unconsci\s & incoh]5t ,metaphysics4 ,! s\l t is n at re/ 9 itself )\t "s 8sight ( t immortal sea :i* br\ght x hi!r10 if h9d]$ f behold+ ! object ( its que/ ?r\gh ! cle> glass ( rational reflection1 w none ! less seek to disc]n x amid ! di/ort+ hazes & mi/s ( sup]/ition4 ,x is 9 su* seek]s aft] ! ,inf9ite t ,metaphysics has its natural & prop] foll[]s1 & = !m ! /udy is its own ju/ification & its own rew>d4 ,if a "w l ! pres5t %\ld prove ( any help to su* /ud5ts1 :e!r by (f]+ positive sugge/ions :i* !y c accept1 or by assi/+ !m to "k def9itely :y !y reject its conclusions1 x w p]haps h a*iev$ z mu* z its writ] c\ld reasonably expect4 ,consult fur!r3--,f4 ,h4 ,bradley1 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bg2 ,j4 ,e4 ,mc,taggart1 ,/udies m ,hegelian ,cosmology1 *ap4 #i4 ----- ----- ,footnote #bce3 ,i use ! epi!t 9 its famili> ,platonic s5se4 ,! 8pure0 pleasure is t :i* is n dep5d5t1 9 :ole or 9 "p1 = its pleasantness ^u a previ\s 1 or actual exp]i5ce ( crav+ or desire4 ,i d n mean1 z ,plato possibly did1 t a 8mix$0 pleasure1 prec$$ by su* 1 is a contra/-effect )\t positive quality ( its own4 ,footnote #bcf3 ,comp>e ! argum5t ( ,appe>ance & ,reality1 *ap4 #bf1 pp4 #dfi-dhe 7#a/ ed471 & ! fam\s s*olium to ,prop4 #ag ( "p #a ( ,sp9oza's ,e?ics1 :]e x is cont5d$ t 8if intellect & volition belong to ! et]nal ess5ce ( ,god1 ea* ( ^! attributes mu/ at lea/ be und]/ood 9 a diff]5t s5se f ! curr5t40 ,footnote #bcg3 ,i say 8f9ite or inf9ite0 advis$ly4 ,! my/ic's condemnation ( ! relational s*eme z inadequate to express ! full nature ( ! real1 holds good j z mu* 9 application to actual f9ite exp]i5ce z 9 application to ! ultimate :ole4 ,we may say n only ( 8,god10 b ( human p]sons1 t !y are mu* m ?an ! 8union ( ?\ght & w0 z su*4 ,& 9 p]sonal human love1 no less ?an 9 ! sa9t's 8beatific vision0 or ! philosoph]'s 8intellectual love ( ,god10 we h a type ( exp]i5ce :i* may = "s psy*ological purposes be analys$ into a comb9ation ( ideational & volitional processes1 b emphatically does n1 9 its concrete exi/5ce1 consi/ ( a syn!sis ( actual ideas & actual volitions4 ,see ante1 p4 #aeb4 ,footnote #bch3 ,/udies 9 ,hegelian ,cosmology1 p4 #bib4 ----- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,,index ,absolute1 mean+ (1 #ec ff42 g5]al "* (1 #fj ff42 n unkn[able1 #ga ff42 n a 8self10 #cdc ff42 is x a society8 #ajj1 #cdg ff42 a spiritual individual1 #ih ff42 n necess>ily ! same z 8,god10 #cii ff42 n 8union ( ?\ght & w10 #dji ff4 ,activity n id5tical ) conation1 #ee2 & causation1 #afi2 empirical nature (1 #ahi4 ,agno/icism1 #fh1 #fi1 #ga1 #gb2 h[ f> ju/ifiable1 #dab4 ,appe>ance & ,reality1 connection betwe51 #aje ff4 ,ari/otle1 #f1 #db1 #ig1 #bff1 #cfa1 #chf4 ,att5tion1 selective1 #ee1 #ff1 #hj2 8span0 (1 #bbf1 #bdd4 ,av5>ius1 #ce1 #de1 #hj1 #aba1 #agd1 #bih ff4 #cae4 ,baldw91 ,j4 ,m41 #bjf4 ,b]keley1 #bf1 #fd ff41 #ge1 #ahd1 #ahe1 #bja ff4 ,body1 my own1 z describable object1 #bhb4 ,body1 my own1 & o!rs1 #bjc ff4 ,body & ,s\l1 !ories (1 #cac ff42 9 :at s5se ! same1 #ccb4 ,bosanquet1 ,b41 #ai1 #bf1 #afd4 ,bradley1 ,f4 ,h41 #i1 #aa1 #bc1 #bf1 #ee1 #fg1 #hh1 #ij1 #aca1 #adf1 #aii1 #bbg1 #bdc1 #bei1 #bhi1 #cah1 #cbf1 #cce1 #cch1 #cee1 #cfd1 #cgj1 #chd1 #daa4 ,causation1 #afe ff42 cause n id5tical ) gr\nd1 #aff2 causation a po/ulate1 #afg ff42 popul> z di/+ui%$ f sci5tific s5se1 #afi2 causation & ! indef9ite regress1 #agg ff42 cont9uity ( causation1 #aga ff42 ,imman5t & ,transeunt ,causality1 #ahc ff42 psy*ophysical causation1 #cbb ff4 ,causes1 ,plurality (1 #ahj ff4 ,*ance1 8pure10 mean+ (1 #bca1 #bcb2 *ance & 8free-w10 #cgh4 ,*ange1 #aeh-afd4 ,"* & fre$om1 #cgd4 ,*oice & motives1 #cgc4 ,consci\sness1 a mislead+ t]m1 #gi4 ,consequ5ce 7see ,gr\nd74 ,cont9uity1 nature (1 #aga 7see ,causation72 cont9uity ( space & "t1 #bdd1 #bej4 ,contradiction1 pr9ciple (1 #ai ff4 ,cosmology ,rational1 nature (1 #dc-di1 #aib-aig4 ,c\turat1 ,l41 #adi1 #bfj4 ,d$ek9d1 #aaf1 #adi1 #aga4 ,degrees ( ,reality1 #ajh ff4 ,desc>tes1 #abh1 #ahe1 #cah1 #djj ff4 ,description1 z sci5tific ideal1 #agd2 9 physical ,sci5ce1 #bhj ff42 9 ,psy*ology1 #cjh ff4 ,det]m9ism1 #cgj-cgf4 ,discont9uity ( teleological s]ies1 #caa4 ,di/ance 9 space & "t1 #bej4 ,ends 9 ,nature1 #bgb1 #dje1 #djf4 ,en]gy1 cons]vation (1 #bib2 k9etic & non-k9etic1 #bia2 doctr9e (1 & psy*ophysical int]action1 #cbb ff4 ,epiph5om5alism1 #cag1 #cah-cbj4 ,epi/emology & ,metaphysics1 #af4 ,evil1 problem (1 #cia ff41 #cie ff4 ,evolution1 n id5tical ) m]e *ange1 #bfg2 implies real ends1 #bfh ff42 is ( f9ite be+s only1 #bgd ff42 implies real progress & deg5]ation1 #bge2 orig9ates new individuals1 #bgf4 ,exp]i5ce1 :at1 #bc ff41 #cc ff42 8pure10 #ce1 #ed4 ,feel+1 #bc ff41 #ee2 9 ! ,absolute1 #dfg ff4 ,fre$om1 mean+ (1 #cei ff4 ,free-w1 orig9s ( belief 91 #cfa ff4 ,geul9cx1 #ahd1 #ahe1 #ahf1 #cag4 ,gibson1 ,w4 ,r4 ,b41 #bhh1 #cbi1 #cff4 ,god1 pro(s ( be+ (1 #djj ff4 ,gr\nd & ,consequ5ce1 mean+ ( pr9ciple (1 #afd1 #afe4 ,h>mony1 ,pre-e/abli%$1 #ahg1 #cag4 ,hegel1 #dj ff41 #db ff41 #cia1 #dja4 ,h]b>t1 #ci1 #db1 #fh4 ,hobh\se1 ,l4 ,t41 #gd1 #acg1 #ach1 #aii4 ,hume1 #bi1 #g1 #acc1 #afi1 #agb1 #ahc1 #djj ff4 ,id5tity1 ,psy*ophysical1 doctr9e (1 #ajb1 #cba1 #cca1 #ccb4 ,id5tity1 a teleological concept1 #cce4 7,see also ,unity ( ,?+74 ,imitation1 significance (1 = p]sonality1 #bjf4 ,imman5t ,causality1 #ahc ff4 ,imm$iacy1 #cb4 8,immortality10 #ced ff4 ,indet]m9ism1 #cgf-cgi4 ,individuality1 nature (1 #eg1 #ih ff42 degrees (1 #aji ff42 inf9ite & f9ite1 #aae ff4 ,inf9ite ,regress1 #adh ff41 #aef2 9 space & "t1 #bee ff41 #bei2 9 causal relation1 #agg4 ,inf9ity1 mean+ (1 #aaf4 ,int]action1 ,psy*ophysical1 #cag1 #cbi-cca4 ,introjection1 mean+ (1 #ha2 orig9 (1 #ha1 #bii ff42 ju/ification (1 #cja ff4 ,james1 ,w41 #ec1 #ia1 #cah1 #cgj1 #chc1 #cij1 #djj4 ,kant1 #aa1 #bd1 #ci1 #dc1 #fi1 #acd1 #ahh1 #bdb ff41 #bei1 #cei1 #cff1 #chg1 #djj ff4 ,law1 mean+ (1 #bah ff4 ,laws 9 ,nature1 #aif1 #bbi4 ,leibnitz1 #fh1 #hb1 #hf1 #ia ff41 #aag1 #ahg ff41 #cag1 #cff1 #dja1 #djd4 ,locke1 #abh1 #acf1 #bjj1 #cah1 #cec1 #cfe1 #cff4 ,lotze1 #da1 #db1 #acc1 #bbd1 #bhi4 ,ma*1 ,e41 #agd1 #age1 #aib1 #bbc1 #bbh1 #bhc1 #bij4 ,ma*9e1 nature ( a1 #bcf1 #bcg4 ,mc,taggart1 ,j4 ,e41 #cde1 #ceg1 #cia1 #cih1 #dac4 ,malebran*e1 #ahd1 #ahe1 #cag4 ,mass1 def9ition (1 #bhi2 cons]vation (1 #bij2 a relative concept1 #bij1 #bia4 ,matt]1 mean+ (1 #aih ff4 ,me*anical view ( ,nature1 #bcc ff41 #bcg ff41 #bhc ff42 po/ulates (1 #bhd1 #bib ff4 ,me*anism1 mean+ (1 #aif1 #bcg ff4 ,me?od ( ,metaphysics1 #ch ff4 ,mill1 ,j4 ,s41 #bd1 #ahj ff41 #cgj4 ,monadism1 #hf1 #ia1 #id4 ,monism1 #he4 ,mn/]b]g1 ,h41 #de1 #fg1 #aih1 #bhc1 #cjc ff41 #cae1 #cah1 #cba1 #cbd1 #cbi4 ,my/icism1 #ad1 #cc1 #aec2 9 :at s5se ju/ifiable1 #dac4 ,necessity & causal relation1 #ahc4 ,newton1 #abh1 #bjj4 ,nietzs*e1 #bgf4 ,numb]-s]ies1 #aea ff41 #bdh-bej1 #bei4 ,occasionalism1 #ahd1 #cag4 ,ontology1 "* (1 #db4 ,ord]1 a teleological concept1 #aah2 ord] 9 space & "t1 #bea4 ,organism1 nature ( a1 #if4 ,p>allelism1 ,psy*ophysical1 #cag1 #cbj-cbi4 ,pe>son1 ,k41 #ge1 #bij4 ,ph5om5alism1 #aj1 #acf4 ,physical ord]1 nature ( !1 #aid ff41 #aih1 #bjh1 #bhb4 ,plato1 #c1 #ee1 #gg1 #ie1 #bgf1 #cff1 #chf1 #cic1 #cih1 #dji4 ,pleasure-pa91 #ee1 #cdd4 ,plot9us1 #cih4 ,pluralism1 #hf ff4 ,position n a pr9ciple ( individuation1 #eh2 relativity (1 #bec4 ,pragmatism1 #cag4 ,pr$iction 9 sci5ce1 #bai ff4 ,progress n inf9ite1 #chg-chi4 ,psy*ical ord]1 nature ( !1 #bih ff4 ,psy*ology1 "* (1 z a sci5ce1 #bif ff4 ,psy*ology & ,physiology1 #cjc ff4 ,psy*ology1 ,rational1 nature (1 #dc ff4 ,purpose1 nature (1 #ee ff4 ,qualities1 prim>y & second>y1 #abh ff4 ,quality & relation1 #adj ff4 ,quality & sub/ance1 #abh ff4 ,quality1 spatial & temporal1 #bdd4 ,ra%dall1 ,h41 #cdg1 #cic1 #djj4 ,realism1 ,agno/ic1 #fh1 #ga1 #gb2 ,dogmatic1 #fi1 #gb-ge4 ,relation & quality1 #adj ff4 ,relations & relat$ness1 #aee4 ,religion1 metaphysical presuppositions (1 #chi ff4 ,responsibility & ! self1 #cce4 ,royce1 ,j41 #ac1 #cc1 #ea1 #ef1 #gf1 #aaf1 #ade1 #adh ff41 #bjf1 #bbf1 #bci1 #bfc1 #bgj1 #bgg1 #cjg1 #cih4 ,russell1 ,b41 #cf1 #eh1 #ia1 #adb1 #ahi1 #bdc1 #bej1 #bec1 #djd4 ,self1 #ih1 #ajg2 nature (1 #ccd-cdj2 a teleological concept1 #cce2 temporal "* (1 #cda1 #cdb4 ,self-consci\sness1 g5u9e & fictiti\s1 #gi4 ,sidgwick1 ,h41 #acj1 #cei1 #cgj4 ,space1 p]ceptual1 #bdc-bde2 conceptual g5esis (1 #bde-bdi2 inf9ity (1 #bdg2 divisibility (1 #bdh2 cont9uity (1 #bdh1 #bej2 homog5eity (1 #bea2 relativity (1 #bea2 is x "o or _m8 #bec1 #beg2 is n ultimate1 #bed-beg2 ant9omies (1 #bei ff42 ( :at is x ph5om5al8 #bfj4 ,sp5c]1 ,h41 #dj1 #fh4 ,sp9oza1 #fb1 #aja ff41 #cah1 #cii1 #daa4 ,/\t1 ,g4 ,f41 #cc1 #fg1 #ace1 #aed ff41 #bjh1 #bdg1 #cah1 #cbd1 #ccb1 #cgh4 ,subjectivism1 :at1 #ge2 fallacy (1 #gf-ha1 #bjd ff4 ,sub/ance1 concept (1 #abh ff42 & quality1 #abh-adj4 ,suffici5t ,reason1 pr9ciple (1 #afd4 ,teleological description n impossible1 #cji4 ,teleological s]ies1 discont9uity (1 #caa4 ,teleology1 nature (1 #ee1 #ii1 #abe1 #bhg1 #cga ff42 9 ,psy*ology1 #cje ff42 9 ,biology1 #cjh2 & ,psy*ophysical ,p>allelism1 #cbf ff4 ,?\ght & ! ,absolute1 #fa2 n ultimate1 #dji4 ,"t1 p]ceptual1 #bdc-bde2 conceptual1 g5esis (1 #bde-bdi2 inf9ity (1 #bdg2 divisibility (1 #bdh2 cont9uity (1 #bdh1 #bej2 homog5eity (1 #bea2 relativity (1 #bea2 is x "o or _m8 #bec1 #beg2 n ultimate1 #bed-beg2 ant9omies (1 #bei ff42 ( :at is x ph5om5al8 #bfb2 "t & ! self1 #cda1 #cdd4 ,tru?1 degrees (1 #bad4 ,uni=mities1 /ati/ical1 #bbj ff4 ,uni=mity 9 physical nature1 #bbb1 #bbg4 ,unity ( ?+s teleological1 #abc-abh4 ,w>d1 ,j41 #de1 #fd1 #agd1 #bbe1 #bbh1 #bhi #cah1 #cbd1 #cbf-cbh4 ,:ole & ,"p1 category (1 #if4 ,w1 nature (1 #fa1 #aah2 n ultimate1 #daj4 ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,transcrib]'s ,note ,two words on ! fir/ l9e ( p4 #gj ( ?is edition 7not$ bel[7 7 miss+ 7blank74 ,!y h be5 suppli$ f ! #e? edition1 publi%$ 9 #aibj4 ,on p4 #bbf1 a footnote at 7#bbf4db7 ref]s to ,mr4 ,h4 ,g4 ,wells's tale1 ,! ,new ,accumulator1 :i* is c]ta9ly a ref]5ce to 8 #aija tale 8,! ,new ,accel]ator04 ,on p4 #cdj1 ! fir/ p>agraph ref]s to #8two po9ts'1 & prefaces ! fir/ ) #87a7'4 ,b !re is no #87b7' to d5ote ! second po9t4 ,x seems likely t #87b7' %\ld prec$e ! next p>agraph1 or p]haps foll[+ ! introductory #8,fur!r'4 ,! ,index ref]5ce to p4 #dfg = #8,feel+ 9 ! ,absolute' _c be v]ifi$4 ,! page does n exi/1 & no o!r page c be id5tifi$ ) c]ta9ty4 ,errors deem$ mo/ likely to be ! pr9t]'s h be5 correct$1 & are not$ "h4 ,! ref]5ces are to ! page & l9e 9 ! orig9al4 ,! mo/ common error is miss+ punctuation3 #f4ad purpose41 #ch4bi inquiry41 #dd4ab p]iph]y41 #dd4da o!r41 #ef4dg failure41 #eh4bg !ory41 #fb4ci 8purposive01 #fg4ag life41 #fg4ai subject41 #gi4df 8matt]01 #hb4ac x41 #hh4dj exclusive41 #hi4da facts41 #ii4ac purpose41 #ajh4bd admitt$41 #abh4bc 8sub/ance01 #adc4ai aris541 #bae4aj 8,nature1 #bbd4bb purpose41 #bcf4ad bas$41 #bea4de s]ies41 #bgd4af advance41 #cbj4cb fatum41 #cfa4bb consid]ations41 #cij4e 8temp]am5t01 #daj4bb ?+4 ,! "n ( ,pr(essor ,hugo ,mn/]b]g is spell$ v>iably z ,mn/]b]g1 ,mun/]b]g1 & occasionally ) a p>tial umlaut4 ,! spell+ has be5 r5d]$ z ,mn/]b]g to facilitate text se>*es at #bae4e1 #cje4ae1 #cae4h1 #cbi4dj1 #dah4c4 ,o!r correct$ errors are3 xviii4#aa to asc]ta9 ,ins]t$4 xxiii4#ab ,! concept ( evolution ,re/or$4 #cg4i c>ry out out_/r programme ,replac$4 #df4df ,grundzu_/ge d] ,psy*ologie ,replac$4 #ff4dd on :i* x 8works4'_/0 ,replac$4 #gj4a4a a modification ( y\r exp]i5ce4 ,re/or$4 #gj4a4b to ask :at y mean ,re/or$4 #hb4bb to "k y\r own mean+4_/1 ,replac$4 #acd4db too diffuse & te*nical1_/4 ,replac$4 #acf4bd does not de/roy ,re/or$4 #adi4ab 9 our illu/ration #ab1 #bc_/bb1 #cb 444 ,replac$4 #ahj4df increases indef9itely74 ,remov$4 #bae4f ,grundzu_/ge d] ,psy*ologie ,replac$4 #bae4ab 8,j4 ,w>d ,remov$4 #bbi4af deal only ) ! problem1_/4 ,replac$4 #cjf4d ! physical ord] 0 con/ruct$ ,ins]t$4 #cah4h ,ho_/ffd+ ,replac$4