!

This comparison will be objected to on the ground that the two processes differ not in their lengths only but in their natures. Doubtless they do this. As we shall see in the next chapter, the process carrying us to the Realistic conception, is qualitatively so immensely superior that, lengths being supposed equal, its outcome is far more trustworthy than that of the process carrying us to the Idealistic conception. But claiming nothing here for this superiority, the two processes are, otherwise, so far alike that they may be properly compared in respect to their lengths. This will need a little explanation.

§ 408. The metaphysical argument, whatever be its particular species, habitually begins by offering proof that the Realistic belief is inferential. Now in one case and now in another, the listener is made to admit that the thing present to his consciousness is some feeling; that along with, say, a particular sensation of colour, there have habitually been joined, through certain motions made, sensations of hardness or softness, of smell, of taste, of temperature; that when he again has this particular sensation of colour, he infers that these other sensations will follow if he makes the appropriate motions; that this is the whole content of his consciousness; and that if he thinks there is any objective substratum serving as cause for this cluster of sensations, its existence is an inference-the inferred substratum can never be itself presented in consciousness. Thus the metaphysician shows that the Realistic belief is reached through a process of drawing conclusions-a process of reasoning. Consequently, as his own belief is also reached through a process of reasoning, the two processes are comparable in respect to their lengths. Let us see how they stand when thus compared.

In the first place, this alleged demonstration that the Realistic belief is inferential, itself consists of many inferences. Whatever risk there may be in drawing

the Realistic inference, is a risk over and over again encountered in drawing the successive inferences proving the inferential nature of Realism. And hence to suppose the inference of Realism disproved by this series of inferences, is to suppose, as above, that while there is much danger in one step there is little danger in many steps. Nay, the case is even stronger; for whatever difference there is between the natures of these inferential steps, is in favour of that taken by Realism, which is far simpler than any one of those taken in showing the inferential character of Realism. Let it be granted that knowledge of the external object is reached by synthesis. Is it not obvious that the alleged demonstration of its synthetic origin, consists of syntheses, each of which is more complex than the one called in question?

This, however, is by no means all. After the supposed disproof of Realism comes the supposed proof of Idealism or Scepticism. This has throughout the same character, and involves throughout the same multiplication of possibilities of error. The conception to be justified cannot even be framed without uniting several highly-synthetic acts; and every step of the argument used to justify it, is synthetic in a still higher degree. Take, for example, the proposition of Berkeley-" Ideas exist in Mind." Here are three syntheses. Idea is a general word applicable to each of our multitudinous states of consciousness of all orders; and, as we see in the child, can be understood only after the putting together of many experiences. Mind is a synthesis of states of consciousness-is a thing we can form no notion of without re-membering, re-collecting, some of our mental acts. Every conception of relation is a synthesis— that of inclusion being one. The child is enabled to recognize one thing as in another, by observations similar to, and simultaneous with, those which teach it the externality of things; and until these observations have been generalized, the proposition that ideas are in mind is un

thinkable. Thus, each of the words idea, in, mind, presupposes a synthesis; and the proposition—" Ideas exist in mind," is a synthesis of syntheses. Passing from the proposition of Idealism to its reasoning, it might be shown that each of its syllogisms is a synthesis of syntheses; and that its conclusion, reached by putting together many syllo. gisms, is a synthesis of syntheses of syntheses.

§ 409. Here, then, in its briefest form, is the issue raised :-That deliverance of consciousness which yields Realism, is either immediate or mediate. If it is immediate, everything is surrendered, and the controversy ends. If it is mediate, then it is comparable in its intrinsic nature with that deliverance of consciousness which is said to yield Idealism this also is mediate. Being both mediate, the question arises-In what respect do they differ? and their most conspicuous difference we find to be that while the first involves but a single mediate act, the second involves a succession of mediate acts, each of which is itself made up of several mediate acts. Hence, if the one mediate act of Realism is to be invalidated by the multitudinous mediate acts of Idealism, it must be on the supposition exemplified at the outset; namely, that if there is doubtfulness in a single step of a given kind, there is less doubtfulness in many steps of this kind.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE ARGUMENT FROM DISTINCTNESS.

§ 410. A man passing an acquaintance when it is dusk, may feel some doubt about his identity-a doubt he would not feel in broad daylight. A witness testifying to words whispered at the other end of a room, scarcely dares to assert their import as positively as if they were spoken in loud tones close to him. The trustworthiness of any outer perception is universally held to be great, in proportion as the elements of it are distinctly presented.

In like manner among ideas, we always put greater faith in those of which the components can be clearly recalled, than in those of which the components can be dimly recalled. If I repeat a sentence I heard a moment since, while the impressions made on me are quite fresh, I feel, and my hearers feel, far greater confidence in the exactness of my repetition than if the sentence was one I heard last week. The description of a person or a place seen yesterday, is regarded as much less liable to be erroneous than the description of a person or a place seen a year ago or ten years ago.

Immensely more marked is a further contrast of kindred nature. Deliverances of consciousness given in the vivid terms we call sensations, excite a confidence immeasurably exceeding the confidence excited by deliverances given in the faint terms we distinguish as ideas. If I think I left a book

on the table in the next room, and on going to fetch it find it is not there, I do not suppose that the presence of the book on the table as mentally represented, is comparable in certainty to its absence as actually observed. If, when humming an air I heard yesterday on a musical box, I imagine its cadences as taking this or that particular turn; and if to-day on hearing again this same air on the musical box, I find the cadences are not as I thought; it never occurs to me to accept my recollection and reject my perception.

By all persons, then, and in all cases, where the characters of the acts of consciousness are in other respects the same, the deliverances given in vivid terms are accepted in preference to those given in faint terms. Obscure perceptions are rejected rather than clear ones; remembrances which are definite are trusted rather than those which are indefinite; and, above all, the deliverances of consciousness composed of sensations, are unhesitatingly preferred to those composed of the ideas of sensations.

§ 411. The one proposition of Realism is presented in vivid terms; and each of the many propositions of Idealism or Scepticism is represented in faint terms. Let us grant that in both cases the process of thought is inferential. The two are nevertheless contrasted in this, that the single inference of the one is made up of elements most, if not all, of which have the highest degree of distinctness; while the many inferences of the other are severally made up of extremely indistinct elements. Suppose we consider a moment the composition of a link in the Idealistic argument.

Each link is a consciousness that some one thing or group of things, which comes within a larger group of things distinguished by a certain character, has also that character. In the process of thought yielding the conclusion, there is thus a mental representation of a sub-class (the representation being usually but partial); there is a