'It is much to be regretted that Sir W. Hamilton did not write the history of philosophy, instead of choosing, as the direct object of his intellectual exertions, philosophy itself. He possessed a knowledge of the materials such as no one, probably for many generations, will take the trouble of acquiring again. Independently of the great interest and value attaching to a knowledge of the historical development of speculation, there is much in the old writers on philosophy, even those of the middle ages, really worth preserving for its scientific value. But this should be extracted, and rendered into the phraseology of modern thought, by persons as familiar with that as with the ancient, and possessing a command of its language: a combination never yet so perfectly realized as in Sir W. Hamilton. This, which no one but himself could have done, he has left undone, and has given us, instead, a contribution to mental philosophy, which has been more than equalled by many not superior to him in powers, and wholly destitute of erudition. Of all persons in modern times entitled to the name of philosophers, the two, probably, whose reading on the subject was the scantiest, in proportion to their intellectual capacity, were Archbishop Whately and Dr Brown. Accordingly they are the only two of whom Sir W. Hamilton, though acknowledging their abilities, speaks with some tinge of superciliousness. It cannot be denied that both Dr Brown and Whately would have thought and written better than they did, if they had been better read in the writings of previous thinkers; but I am not afraid that posterity will contradict me when I say, that either of them has done far greater service to the world in the origination and diffusion of important thought, than Sir W. Hamilton with all his learning; because, though indolent readers, they were both of them active and fertile thinkers.'It is not that Sir W. Hamilton's erudition is not frequently of real use to him on particular questions of philosophy. It does him one valuable service: it enables him to know all the various opinions which can be held on the questions he discusses, and to conceive and express them clearly, leaving none of them out. This it does, though even this not always; but it does little else, even of what might be expected from erudition when enlightened by philosophy. He knew, with extraordinary accuracy, the [Greek: hoti] of each philosopher's opinions, but gave himself little trouble about the [Greek: dihoti]. With one exception, I find no remark bearing upon that point in any part of his writings. I imagine he would have been much at a loss if he had been required to draw up a philosophical estimate of the mind of any great thinker. He never seems to look at any opinion of a philosopher in connection with the same philosopher's other opinions. Accordingly he is weak as to the mutual relations of philosophical doctrines. One of the most striking examples of this inability is in the case of Leibnitz,' &c.
'It is much to be regretted that Sir W. Hamilton did not write the history of philosophy, instead of choosing, as the direct object of his intellectual exertions, philosophy itself. He possessed a knowledge of the materials such as no one, probably for many generations, will take the trouble of acquiring again. Independently of the great interest and value attaching to a knowledge of the historical development of speculation, there is much in the old writers on philosophy, even those of the middle ages, really worth preserving for its scientific value. But this should be extracted, and rendered into the phraseology of modern thought, by persons as familiar with that as with the ancient, and possessing a command of its language: a combination never yet so perfectly realized as in Sir W. Hamilton. This, which no one but himself could have done, he has left undone, and has given us, instead, a contribution to mental philosophy, which has been more than equalled by many not superior to him in powers, and wholly destitute of erudition. Of all persons in modern times entitled to the name of philosophers, the two, probably, whose reading on the subject was the scantiest, in proportion to their intellectual capacity, were Archbishop Whately and Dr Brown. Accordingly they are the only two of whom Sir W. Hamilton, though acknowledging their abilities, speaks with some tinge of superciliousness. It cannot be denied that both Dr Brown and Whately would have thought and written better than they did, if they had been better read in the writings of previous thinkers; but I am not afraid that posterity will contradict me when I say, that either of them has done far greater service to the world in the origination and diffusion of important thought, than Sir W. Hamilton with all his learning; because, though indolent readers, they were both of them active and fertile thinkers.
'It is not that Sir W. Hamilton's erudition is not frequently of real use to him on particular questions of philosophy. It does him one valuable service: it enables him to know all the various opinions which can be held on the questions he discusses, and to conceive and express them clearly, leaving none of them out. This it does, though even this not always; but it does little else, even of what might be expected from erudition when enlightened by philosophy. He knew, with extraordinary accuracy, the [Greek: hoti] of each philosopher's opinions, but gave himself little trouble about the [Greek: dihoti]. With one exception, I find no remark bearing upon that point in any part of his writings. I imagine he would have been much at a loss if he had been required to draw up a philosophical estimate of the mind of any great thinker. He never seems to look at any opinion of a philosopher in connection with the same philosopher's other opinions. Accordingly he is weak as to the mutual relations of philosophical doctrines. One of the most striking examples of this inability is in the case of Leibnitz,' &c.
Here we find in a few sentences the conclusion which Mr Mill conceives to be established by his book. We shall state how far we are able to concur with it. He has brought the matter to a direct issue, by weighing Sir W. Hamilton in the balance against two other actual cotemporaries; instead of comparing him with some unrealized ideal found only in the fancy of critics and reviewers.
Comparing Sir W. Hamilton with Dr Brown, we cordially subscribe to the opinion of Mr Mill. We think that Dr Brown has 'done far greater service to the world than Sir W. Hamilton, in the origination and diffusion of important thought.' To speak only of two chief subjects in the field of important thought—Causality and the Freedom of the Will—we not only adopt the conclusions of Dr Brown, but we admire both his acuteness and his originality in vindicating and illustrating the first of the two, while we dissent entirely from the views of Sir W. Hamilton. This alone would be sufficient to make us approve the superiority assigned by Mr Mill to Dr Brown. We discover no compensating item to be placed to the credit of Sir W. Hamilton: for the great doctrine of the Relativity of Knowledge, which is our chief point of philosophical brotherhood with him, was maintained by Brown also.
But in regard to Dr Whately, our judgment is altogether different. We cannot consent to admit him as a superior, or even as an equal, to Sir W. Hamilton, 'in the origination and diffusion of important thought.' He did much service by reviving an inclination and respect for Logic, and by clearing up a part of the technical obscurity which surrounded it: but we look upon him as an acute and liberal-minded English theologian, enlarging usefully, though timidly, the intellectual prison in which many orthodox minds are confined—rather than as a fit aspirant to the cosmopolitan honours of philosophy. 'An active and fertile thinker,' Mr Mill calls Whately; and such he undoubtedly was. But such also we consider Sir W. Hamilton to have been in a degree, at least equal. If the sentence which we have quoted above be intended to deny the predicate, 'active and fertile thinker,' of Sir W. Hamilton, we cannot acquiesce in it. His intellect appears to us thoroughly active and fertile, even when we dissent from his reasonings—nay, even in the midst of his inconsistencies, when a new growth of opinions is unexpectedly pushed up on ground which we supposed to be already pre-occupied by another both older and different. And we find this same judgment implied in the discriminating remarks upon his philosophical procedure made by Mr Mill himself—(pp. 271, 272). For example, respecting Causality and the Freedom of the Will, we detect no want of activity and fertility, though marked evidence of other defects—especially the unconditional surrender of a powerful mind to certain privileged inspirations, worshipped as 'necessities of thought.'
While thus declaring how far we concur in the parallel here drawn of Sir W. Hamilton with Brown and Whately, we must at the same time add that the comparison is taken under circumstances unduly favourable to these two last. There has been no exposure oftheirerrors and inconsistencies, equal in penetration and completeness to the crushing volume which Mr Mill has devoted to Sir W. Hamilton. To make the odds fair, he ought to furnish a similar systematic examination to Brown and Whately; enabling us to read their works (as we now do those of Sir W. Hamilton) with the advantage of his unrivalled microscope, which detects the minutest breach or incoherence in the tissue of reasoning—and of his large command of philosophical premisses, which brings into full notice what the author had overlooked. Thus alone could the competition between the three be rendered perfectly fair.
We regret, as Mr Mill does, that Sir W. Hamilton did not undertake the composition of a history of philosophy. Nevertheless we must confess that we should hardly feel such regret, if we could see evidence to warrant Mr Mill's judgment (p. 554) that Sir W. Hamilton was 'indifferent to the [Greek: dihoti] of a man's opinions, and that he was incompetent to draw up an estimate of the opinions of any great thinker,' &c. Such incompetence, if proved to be frequent and considerable, would deprive an author of all chance of success in writing a history of philosophy. But the study of Sir William Hamilton's works does not prove it to us, though Mr Mill has convicted him of an erroneous estimate of Leibnitz. We sayfrequentandconsiderable, because no historian of philosophy is exempt from the defect more or less; or rather (to pass out of the self-confidence of the Absolute into the modesty of the Relative) we seldom find any historian whose estimate of great philosophical thinkers does not often differ from our own. Hence we are glad when ample original extracts are produced, enabling us to test the historian, and judge for ourselves—a practice which Sir W. Hamilton would have required no stimulus to enforce upon him. There ought, indeed, to be various histories of philosophy, composed from different points of view; for the ablest historian cannot get clear of a certain exclusiveness belonging to himself. But, so far as we can conjecture what Sir W. Hamiltonwouldorcouldhave done, we think that a history of philosophy composed by him would have surpassed any work of the kind in our language.
We trust that Sir W. Hamilton's works will long continue to be read, along with Mr Mill's examination of them; and we should be glad if the works of other philosophers could be read along with a comment of equal acuteness and impartiality. Any point of view which could command the adherence of such a mind as Sir W. Hamilton's, deserves to be fully considered. Moreover, the living force of philosophy, as directress of human intelligence, depends upon keeping up in each of her devotees a full mastery of many divergent and opposite veins of reasoning—a knowledge, negative and affirmative, of the full case of opponents as well as of his own.
It is to Philosophy alone thatourallegiance is sworn; and while we concur mostly with Mr Mill's opinions, we number both him and Sir W. Hamilton as a noble pair of brethren, serving alike in her train.
Amicus Hamilton; magis amicus Mill; amica ante omnes Philosophia.FOOTNOTES:
[1]
Mr Mansel and Mr Veitch, the editors of Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, posthumously published, say in their preface (p. xiii.)—'For twenty years—from 1836 to 1856—the courses of logic and metaphysics were the means through which Sir William Hamilton sought to discipline and imbue with his philosophical opinions the numerous youth who gathered from Scotland and other countries to his classroom; and while, by these prelections, the author supplemented, developed, and moulded the national philosophy, leaving thereon the ineffaceable impress of his genius and learning, he, at the same time and by the same means, exercised over the intellects and feelings of his pupils an influence which, for depth, feeling, and elevation, was certainly never surpassed by that of any philosophical instructor. Among his pupils there are not a few who, having lived for a season under the constraining power of his intellect, and been led to reflect on those great questions regarding the character, origin, and bounds of human knowledge, which his teaching stirred and quickened, bear the memory of their beloved and revered instructor inseparably blended with what is highest in their present intellectual life, as well as in their practical aims and aspirations.'
Mr Mansel and Mr Veitch, the editors of Sir W. Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, posthumously published, say in their preface (p. xiii.)—
'For twenty years—from 1836 to 1856—the courses of logic and metaphysics were the means through which Sir William Hamilton sought to discipline and imbue with his philosophical opinions the numerous youth who gathered from Scotland and other countries to his classroom; and while, by these prelections, the author supplemented, developed, and moulded the national philosophy, leaving thereon the ineffaceable impress of his genius and learning, he, at the same time and by the same means, exercised over the intellects and feelings of his pupils an influence which, for depth, feeling, and elevation, was certainly never surpassed by that of any philosophical instructor. Among his pupils there are not a few who, having lived for a season under the constraining power of his intellect, and been led to reflect on those great questions regarding the character, origin, and bounds of human knowledge, which his teaching stirred and quickened, bear the memory of their beloved and revered instructor inseparably blended with what is highest in their present intellectual life, as well as in their practical aims and aspirations.'
[2]
We are happy to find such high authorities as Dr Whewell, Mr Samuel Bailey, and Sir John Herschel concurring in this estimation of the new logical point of view thus opened by Mr Mill. We will not call it adiscovery, since Sir John Herschel thinks the expression unsuitable.—See the recent sixth edition of the 'System of Logic,' vol. i. p. 229.
We are happy to find such high authorities as Dr Whewell, Mr Samuel Bailey, and Sir John Herschel concurring in this estimation of the new logical point of view thus opened by Mr Mill. We will not call it adiscovery, since Sir John Herschel thinks the expression unsuitable.—See the recent sixth edition of the 'System of Logic,' vol. i. p. 229.
[3]
See Sir William. Hamilton's 'Lectures on Logic' (Lect. xvii. p. 320, 321; also Appendix to those Lectures, p. 361). He here distinguishes also formal induction from, material induction, which latter he brings under the grasp of syllogism, by an hypothesis in substance similar to that of Whately. There is, however, in Lecture xix. (p. 380), a passage in a very different spirit, which one might almost imagine to have been written by Mr Mill: 'In regard to simple syllogisms, it was an original dogma of the Platonic school, and an early dogma of the Peripatetic, that science, strictly so called, was only conversant with, and was exclusively contained in, universals; and the doctrine of Aristotle, which taught that all our general knowledge is only an induction from an observation of particulars, was too easily forgotten or perverted by his followers. It thus obtained almost the force of an acknowledged principle that everything to be known must be known under some general form or notion. Hence the exaggerated importance attributed to definition and deduction; it not being considered that we only take out of a general notion what we had previously placed therein, and that the amplification of our knowledge is not to be sought for from above but from below—not from speculation about abstract generalities, but from the observation of concrete particulars. Bat however erroneous and irrational, the persuasion had its day and influence, and it perhaps determined, as one of its effects, the total neglect of one half, and that not the least important half of the reasoning process.'These very just observations are suggested to Sir William Hamilton by a train of thought which has little natural tendency to suggest them, viz., by the distinction upon which he so much insists, between the logic of comprehension and the logic of extension, and by his anxiety to explain why the former had been exclusively cultivated and the latter neglected.That which Sir William Hamilton calls here truly the doctrine of Aristotle (enunciated especially at the close of the Analyt. Post.), and which he states to have been forgotten by Aristotle's followers, was not always remembered by Aristotle himself.
See Sir William. Hamilton's 'Lectures on Logic' (Lect. xvii. p. 320, 321; also Appendix to those Lectures, p. 361). He here distinguishes also formal induction from, material induction, which latter he brings under the grasp of syllogism, by an hypothesis in substance similar to that of Whately. There is, however, in Lecture xix. (p. 380), a passage in a very different spirit, which one might almost imagine to have been written by Mr Mill: 'In regard to simple syllogisms, it was an original dogma of the Platonic school, and an early dogma of the Peripatetic, that science, strictly so called, was only conversant with, and was exclusively contained in, universals; and the doctrine of Aristotle, which taught that all our general knowledge is only an induction from an observation of particulars, was too easily forgotten or perverted by his followers. It thus obtained almost the force of an acknowledged principle that everything to be known must be known under some general form or notion. Hence the exaggerated importance attributed to definition and deduction; it not being considered that we only take out of a general notion what we had previously placed therein, and that the amplification of our knowledge is not to be sought for from above but from below—not from speculation about abstract generalities, but from the observation of concrete particulars. Bat however erroneous and irrational, the persuasion had its day and influence, and it perhaps determined, as one of its effects, the total neglect of one half, and that not the least important half of the reasoning process.'
These very just observations are suggested to Sir William Hamilton by a train of thought which has little natural tendency to suggest them, viz., by the distinction upon which he so much insists, between the logic of comprehension and the logic of extension, and by his anxiety to explain why the former had been exclusively cultivated and the latter neglected.
That which Sir William Hamilton calls here truly the doctrine of Aristotle (enunciated especially at the close of the Analyt. Post.), and which he states to have been forgotten by Aristotle's followers, was not always remembered by Aristotle himself.
[4]
The distinction is given by Stier and other logicians. 1. Infinitum simpliciter. 2. Infinitum secundum quid, sive in certo genere.
The distinction is given by Stier and other logicians. 1. Infinitum simpliciter. 2. Infinitum secundum quid, sive in certo genere.
[5]
This doctrine has been affirmed (so far as reason is concerned, apart from revelation) not merely by Mr Mansel, but also by Pascal, one of the most religious philosophers of the seventeenth century, in the 'Pensées':—'Parlons selon les lumieres naturelles. S'il y a un Dieu, il est infiniment incompréhensible; puisque, n'ayant ni principes ni bornes, il n'a nul rapport à nous; nous sommes done incapables de connâitre ni ce qn'il est, ni s'il est.'—(See Arago, Biographie de Condorcet, p. lxxxiv., prefixed to his edition of Condorcet's works.)
This doctrine has been affirmed (so far as reason is concerned, apart from revelation) not merely by Mr Mansel, but also by Pascal, one of the most religious philosophers of the seventeenth century, in the 'Pensées':—
'Parlons selon les lumieres naturelles. S'il y a un Dieu, il est infiniment incompréhensible; puisque, n'ayant ni principes ni bornes, il n'a nul rapport à nous; nous sommes done incapables de connâitre ni ce qn'il est, ni s'il est.'—(See Arago, Biographie de Condorcet, p. lxxxiv., prefixed to his edition of Condorcet's works.)
[6]
The indictment under which Socrates was condemned at Athens, as reported by Xenophon at the commencement of the Memorabilia, ran thus—'Socrates is guilty of crime, inasmuch as he does not believe in those Gods in whom the City believes, but introduces other novelties in regard to the Gods; he is guilty also, inasmuch as he corrupts the youth.'These words express clearly a sentiment entertained not merely by the Athenian people, but generally by other societies also. They all agree in antipathy to free, individual, dissenting reason; though that antipathy manifests itself by acts, more harsh in one place, less harsh in another. The Hindoo who declares himself a convert to Christianity, becomes at the same time an outcast ([Greek:aphrhêtôr, athhemistos, anhestios]) among those whose Gods he has deserted. As a general fact, the man who dissents from his fellows upon fundamentals of religion, purchases an undisturbed life only by being content with that 'semi-liberty under silence and concealment,' for which Cicero was thankful under the dictatorship of Julius Cæsar. 'Obsecro—abiiciamus ista et semi-liberi saltern, simus; quod assequemuret tacendo et latendo'(Epist. ad Attic, xiii. 31). Contrast with this the memorable declaration of Socrates, in the Platonic Apology, that silence and abstinence from cross-examination were intolerable to him; that life would not be worth having under such conditions.
The indictment under which Socrates was condemned at Athens, as reported by Xenophon at the commencement of the Memorabilia, ran thus—'Socrates is guilty of crime, inasmuch as he does not believe in those Gods in whom the City believes, but introduces other novelties in regard to the Gods; he is guilty also, inasmuch as he corrupts the youth.'
These words express clearly a sentiment entertained not merely by the Athenian people, but generally by other societies also. They all agree in antipathy to free, individual, dissenting reason; though that antipathy manifests itself by acts, more harsh in one place, less harsh in another. The Hindoo who declares himself a convert to Christianity, becomes at the same time an outcast ([Greek:aphrhêtôr, athhemistos, anhestios]) among those whose Gods he has deserted. As a general fact, the man who dissents from his fellows upon fundamentals of religion, purchases an undisturbed life only by being content with that 'semi-liberty under silence and concealment,' for which Cicero was thankful under the dictatorship of Julius Cæsar. 'Obsecro—abiiciamus ista et semi-liberi saltern, simus; quod assequemuret tacendo et latendo'(Epist. ad Attic, xiii. 31). Contrast with this the memorable declaration of Socrates, in the Platonic Apology, that silence and abstinence from cross-examination were intolerable to him; that life would not be worth having under such conditions.
[7]
Aeschyl. Prometh., 996-1006—pros tauta, rhipthesthô men aithaloussa phlox,leykoptherps de niphadi kai bronthêmasinchthonhiois kykhatô phanta kahi tarasshetôgnhampsei gar ouden tôndhe m'——eiselthetô se mhêpot, hôs egô, Diosgnhômên phobêtheis, thêlhynoys genhêsomai,kai liparhêsô ton mhega stygohymenongynaikomhimois hyptihysmasin cherhôn,lyshai me dhesmôn tônde toy pantos oheô.Also v. 1047, et seq. The memorable ode of Goethe, entitledPrometheus, embodies a similar vein of sentiment in the finest poetry.
Aeschyl. Prometh., 996-1006—
pros tauta, rhipthesthô men aithaloussa phlox,leykoptherps de niphadi kai bronthêmasinchthonhiois kykhatô phanta kahi tarasshetôgnhampsei gar ouden tôndhe m'——eiselthetô se mhêpot, hôs egô, Diosgnhômên phobêtheis, thêlhynoys genhêsomai,kai liparhêsô ton mhega stygohymenongynaikomhimois hyptihysmasin cherhôn,lyshai me dhesmôn tônde toy pantos oheô.
Also v. 1047, et seq. The memorable ode of Goethe, entitledPrometheus, embodies a similar vein of sentiment in the finest poetry.
[8]
Euripid Hippol., 10—(Aph) oh gar me thaeseos pais, 'Amazonos tokosmonos politon taesde gaes Troizaeniaslegei kakistaen daimonon pephukenaiPhoibou d' adelphaen Artemin,—tima, megiotaen daimonon aegoumenos—(Hipp.) taen saen dhe Khyprin pholl' hegô Chairein lhego—(112.)See also v. 1328—1402.
Euripid Hippol., 10—
(Aph) oh gar me thaeseos pais, 'Amazonos tokosmonos politon taesde gaes Troizaeniaslegei kakistaen daimonon pephukenaiPhoibou d' adelphaen Artemin,—tima, megiotaen daimonon aegoumenos—
(Hipp.) taen saen dhe Khyprin pholl' hegô Chairein lhego—(112.)
See also v. 1328—1402.
[9]
Herodot. t. 32. O Kroise, epistumenon me to theion pan eohn phthonerohn te kai taraxodes, epeirotas ahnthropaeion pragmhaton pheri; also iii. 40
Herodot. t. 32. O Kroise, epistumenon me to theion pan eohn phthonerohn te kai taraxodes, epeirotas ahnthropaeion pragmhaton pheri; also iii. 40
[10]
See Eurip. Hipp., 6-96-149. The language of the attendant, after his affectionate remonstrance to Hippolytus had been disregarded, supplicating Aphroditê to pardon the recalcitrancy of that virtuous but obstinate youth, is characteristic and touching (114-120.)
See Eurip. Hipp., 6-96-149. The language of the attendant, after his affectionate remonstrance to Hippolytus had been disregarded, supplicating Aphroditê to pardon the recalcitrancy of that virtuous but obstinate youth, is characteristic and touching (114-120.)
[11]
See especially his chapter ii. on the Sensations of Sight, pp. 222, 241—247, in the second edition of this work.
See especially his chapter ii. on the Sensations of Sight, pp. 222, 241—247, in the second edition of this work.
[12]
Descartes says, in his 'Principia Philosophiæ,' i 51—'Et quidem substantia quæ nullâ planè re indigeat, unica tantum potest intelligi—nempe Deus. Alias vero omnes, non nisi ope concursûs Dei existere posse perspicimus. Atque ideo nomen substantiæ non convenit Deo et illisunivocè, ut dici solet in scholis, hoc est, nulla ejus nominis significatio potest distinctè intelligi, quæ Deo et creaturis sit communis.'
Descartes says, in his 'Principia Philosophiæ,' i 51—'Et quidem substantia quæ nullâ planè re indigeat, unica tantum potest intelligi—nempe Deus. Alias vero omnes, non nisi ope concursûs Dei existere posse perspicimus. Atque ideo nomen substantiæ non convenit Deo et illisunivocè, ut dici solet in scholis, hoc est, nulla ejus nominis significatio potest distinctè intelligi, quæ Deo et creaturis sit communis.'
[13]
At the same time, we cannot go along with Mr Mill in the following affirmation (p. 201):—'This natural probability is converted into certainty when we take into consideration that universal law of our experience which is termed the Law of Causation, and which makes usunable to conceive the beginning of anything withoutan antecedent condition,or cause.'Such 'inability to conceive' appears to us not in correspondence with facts. First, it cannot be properly either affirmed or denied, until agreement is obtained what the wordcausemeans. If three persons, A, B, and C, agree in affirming it—A adopting the meaning of Aristotle, B that of Sir William Hamilton, and C that of Mr Mill—the agreement is purely verbal; or rather, all three concur in having a mental exigency pressing for satisfaction, but differ as to the hypothesis which satisfies it.Next, if we reason upon Mr Mill's theory as to Cause, certainly those who deny his theory can have no difficulty in conceiving events without any cause (in that sense): nor have those who adopt this theory any greater difficulty. These latterbelievethat there are, throughout, constant and uniform conditions on which the occurrence of every event depends; but they can perfectlyconceiveevents as occurring without any such uniform sequence. In truth, the belief in such causation, as pervadingall nature, is an acquired result of scientific training. The greater part of mankind believe that some events occur in regular, others in irregular succession. Moreover, a full half of the metaphysical world espouse the doctrine of free-will, and consider that all volitions occur without any cause at all.
At the same time, we cannot go along with Mr Mill in the following affirmation (p. 201):—
'This natural probability is converted into certainty when we take into consideration that universal law of our experience which is termed the Law of Causation, and which makes usunable to conceive the beginning of anything withoutan antecedent condition,or cause.'Such 'inability to conceive' appears to us not in correspondence with facts. First, it cannot be properly either affirmed or denied, until agreement is obtained what the wordcausemeans. If three persons, A, B, and C, agree in affirming it—A adopting the meaning of Aristotle, B that of Sir William Hamilton, and C that of Mr Mill—the agreement is purely verbal; or rather, all three concur in having a mental exigency pressing for satisfaction, but differ as to the hypothesis which satisfies it.
Next, if we reason upon Mr Mill's theory as to Cause, certainly those who deny his theory can have no difficulty in conceiving events without any cause (in that sense): nor have those who adopt this theory any greater difficulty. These latterbelievethat there are, throughout, constant and uniform conditions on which the occurrence of every event depends; but they can perfectlyconceiveevents as occurring without any such uniform sequence. In truth, the belief in such causation, as pervadingall nature, is an acquired result of scientific training. The greater part of mankind believe that some events occur in regular, others in irregular succession. Moreover, a full half of the metaphysical world espouse the doctrine of free-will, and consider that all volitions occur without any cause at all.
[14]
Among the various authorities (upon this question of quantifying the predicate) collected by Sir W. Hamilton in the valuable Appendix to his 'Lectures on Logic,' we find one (p. 311) which takes the same ground of objection as Mr Mill, in these words:—'The cause why the quantitative note is not usually joined with the predicate, is, that there would thus be twoquæsitaat once; to wit, whether the predicate were affirmed of the subject, and whether it were denied of everything beside. For when we say,all man is all rational, we judge thatall man is rational, and judge likewisethat rational is denied of everything but man. But these are, in reality, two differentquæsita; and therefore it has become usual to state them, not in one, but in two several propositions. And this is self-evident, seeing that aquæsitum, in itself, asks only—Does or does not this inhere in that?andnotDoes or does not this inhere in that,and at the same time inhere in nothing else?'The author of this just and sagacious remark—much surpassing what the other writers quoted in the Appendix say—was a Jew who died at Perpignan in or near 1370, named Levi Ben Gerson or Gersonides. An interesting account of this man, eminent as a writer and thinker in his age, will be found in a biography by Dr Joel, published at Breslau in 1862, 'Levi Ben Gerson als Religions—philosoph.' He distinguished himself as a writer on theology, philosophy, and astronomy; he was one of the successors to the free speculative vein of Maimonides, and one of the continuators of the Arabic Aristotelian philosophy. He both commented on and combated the doctrines of Averroes. Dr Joel thinks that he died earlier than 1370.
Among the various authorities (upon this question of quantifying the predicate) collected by Sir W. Hamilton in the valuable Appendix to his 'Lectures on Logic,' we find one (p. 311) which takes the same ground of objection as Mr Mill, in these words:—'The cause why the quantitative note is not usually joined with the predicate, is, that there would thus be twoquæsitaat once; to wit, whether the predicate were affirmed of the subject, and whether it were denied of everything beside. For when we say,all man is all rational, we judge thatall man is rational, and judge likewisethat rational is denied of everything but man. But these are, in reality, two differentquæsita; and therefore it has become usual to state them, not in one, but in two several propositions. And this is self-evident, seeing that aquæsitum, in itself, asks only—Does or does not this inhere in that?andnotDoes or does not this inhere in that,and at the same time inhere in nothing else?'
The author of this just and sagacious remark—much surpassing what the other writers quoted in the Appendix say—was a Jew who died at Perpignan in or near 1370, named Levi Ben Gerson or Gersonides. An interesting account of this man, eminent as a writer and thinker in his age, will be found in a biography by Dr Joel, published at Breslau in 1862, 'Levi Ben Gerson als Religions—philosoph.' He distinguished himself as a writer on theology, philosophy, and astronomy; he was one of the successors to the free speculative vein of Maimonides, and one of the continuators of the Arabic Aristotelian philosophy. He both commented on and combated the doctrines of Averroes. Dr Joel thinks that he died earlier than 1370.