original forms or archetypes, such as had been asserted to exist by the Realists, but that there are no universal abstract ideas of any kind. On the contrary, it seems to have been his opinion, as well as the sentiment of those, who have subsequently approved of this doctrine, that nothing can be called general or universal but names, and that even to them universality can be ascribed only virtually, and not in the strict and literal sense of the term.-That is, the names are in the first instance given to individuals, but when any indiuals are specified, the nature of the mind is such, that we naturally and immediately think of other individuals of the same kind. So that the names are in fact particular, although owing to the operation of the principle of association, the practical effect is the same as if it were otherwise, and hence the epithets "general" and "universal" are applied to them. This opinion in respect to general ideas and names, or some doctrine essentially of this description, has found many advocates from the days of Roscelinus and Abelard to those of Berkeley and Hume.

§. 150. Of the opinions of the Conceptualists.

Those, who hold to the actual existence of general abstract ideas, which are not permanent archetypes independent of the mind, but only states of the mind, have generally been called Conceptualists. We have already given what we suppose to be the true mental process in the formation of such ideas. Whether we can have such ideas is best decided by each one's personal experience; and when the examination of his internal experience is conducted with care, it can hardly be doubted, in what way such a question will be generally answered.

As far as the Realists are concerned, the mere statement of their doctrine is sufficient at the present day to ensure its immediate rejection. The question lies then between the Nominalists, and those who have commonly been called Conceptualists; and if there be insuperable objections to the doctrine of the former, that of the latter enhances its claims on our adoption.Some of the objections to the sentiment of Roscelinus and those who have thought with him are forcibly summed up in the following passage from Brown's Philosophy of the Mind. (Lect. XLVI, XLVII.)

"Of that rigid Nominalism, which involves truly no mixture of Conceptualism or of the belief of those feelings of relation for which I have contended, but denies altogether the existence of that peculiar class of feelings, or states of mind which have been denominated general notions, or general ideas, asserting the existence only of individual objects perceived, and of general terms that comprehend these, without any peculiar mental state denoted by the general term, distinct from those separate sensations or perceptions which the particular objects, comprehended under the term, might individually excite,—it seems to me that the very statement of the opinion itself is almost a sufficient confutation, since the very invention of the general term, and the extension of it to certain objects only, not to all objects, implies some reason for this limitation,-some feeling of general agreement of the objects included in the class, to distinguish them from the objects not included in it, which is itself that very general notion professedly denied.* As long as some general notion of circumstances of resemblance is admitted, I see very clearly how a general term may be most accurately limited; but if this general notion be denied, I confess that I cannot discover any principles of limitation whatever. Why have certain objects been classed together, and not certain other objects, when all have been alike perceived by us; and all, therefore, if there be nothing more than mere perception in the process, are capable of receiving any denomination which we may

It is proper to remark, in introducing this passage from Dr. Brown, that this acute writer is to be considered as expressing himself too strongly, when he asserts, as he does near the close of it, that the feeling of resemblance is all, that the general name truly designates. Possibly he meant to convey by this assertion nothing more than this, that the feeling of resemblance is the prominent and distinguishing circumstance in the notions expressed by general names; since, in another passage, he speaks of general terms being "invented to express all that multitude of objects, which agree in exciting one common feeling of relation, the relation of a certain similarity." If that were not his intention, then we are to consider his views as correct only so far as they go. The feeling of resemblance is a prominent circumstance; but there is something more than this. Whenever we form a complex notion, which is both general and abstract, we combine the feeling of resemblance, the existence of which Dr. Brown has so clearly demonstrated, with the notion of those properties, which are found to be possessed in common.

please to bestow on them? Is it arbitrarily and without any reason whatever, that we do not class a rose-bush with birds, or an elephent with fish? and if there be any reason for these exclusions, why will not the Nominalist tell us what that reason is-in what feeling it is found-and how it can be made accordant with his system? Must it not be that the rose-bush and a sparrow, though equally perceived by us, do not excite that general notion of resemblance which the term bird is invented to express-do not seem to us to have those relations of a common nature, in certain respects, which lead us to class the sparrow and the ostrich, however different in other respects, as birds; or the petty natives of our brooks and rivulets with the mighty monsters of the deep, under one general and equal denomination? If this be the reason, there is more in every case, than perception, and the giving of a general name; for there is a peculiar state of mind-a general relative feeling-intervening between the perception and the invention of the term, which is the only reason that can be assigned for that very invention."

§. 151. Further remarks of Brown on general abstractions.

"Can the Nominalist then assert, that there is no feeling of the resemblance of objects, in certain respects, which thus intervenes between the perception of them as separate objects, which is one stage of the process, and the comprehension of them under a single name, which is another stage of the process, or must he not rather confess, that it is merely in consequence of this intervening feeling we give to the number of objects their general name, to the exclusion of the multitudes of objects to which we do not apply it, as it is in consequence of certain other feelings, excited by them individually, we give to each separate object its proper name, to the exclusion of every other object? To repeat the process, as already described to you, we perceive two or more objects,

we are struck with their resemblance in certain respects. We invent a general name to denote this feeling of resemblance, and we class under this general name, every particular object, the perception of which is followed by the same feeling of resemblance, and no object but these alone. If this be a faithful statement of the process,-and for its fidelity I

may safely appeal to your consciousness,-the doctrine of the Nominalists is not less false than that of the Realists. It is false, because it excludes that general feeling of resemblance, -the relative suggestion, which is all that the general name itself truly designates, and without which, therefore, it never would have been invented; while the doctrine of the Realists is false, by inserting in the process those supposed separate entities, which form no part of it. The one errs, as . I have already said by excess, the other by deficiency."

CHAPTER FOURTEENTH.

OF ATTENTION.

§, 152. Of the general nature of attention.

WITHOUT Considering it necessary to speak of attention as a separate intellectual power or faculty, as some may be inclined to do, it seems to be sufficient to say, that ATTENTION expresses the state of the mind, when it is steadily directed, for a length of time, to some object of sense or intellect, exclusive of other objects. When we say, that any external object, or any subject of thought, which is purely internal, receives attention, it seems to be the fact, as far as we are able to determine, that the intellect is occupied with the subject of its attention, whatever it is, for a certain period, and that all other things are, for the time being, shut out. In other words, the grasp, which the perceptive power fixes upon the object of its contemplations, is an undivided, an unbroken one. -But this does not appear to be all. There is not only a distinct and exclusive mental perception ; but also an act of the will, directing, condensing, and confining the perception. So that, in all cases of attention, the act of the mind may be regarded as a complex one, involving not only the mere perception or series of perceptions, but also

an act of the will, founded on some feeling of desire or sentiment of duty. It is the act of the will, prompted in general by the feeling of desire or interest, which keeps the mind intense and fixed in its position.

§. 153. Of different degrees of attention.

In agreement with this view of the subject, we often speak of attention as great or small, as existing in a very high or a very slight degree. When the view of the mind is only momentary, and is unaccompanied, as it generally is at such times, with any force of emotion or energy of volitive action, then the attention is said to be slight. When, on the contrary, the mind directs itself to an object or series of objects with earnestness, and for a considerable length of time, and refuses to attend to any thing else, then the attention is said to be intense.

We commonly judge at first of the degree of attention to a subject from the length of time, during which the mind is occupied with it. But when we look a little further, it will be found, that the time will generally depend upon the strength and permanency of the attendant emotion of interest. And hence both the time and the degree of feeling are to be regarded in our estimate of the power of attention in any particular case; the former being the result, and, in some sense, a measure of the latter.

Of instances of people, who are able to give but slight attention to any subject of thought, who cannot bring their minds to it with steadiness and power, we every where find multitudes, and there are some instances, where this ability has been possessed in such a high degree as to be worthy of notice. There have been mathematicians, who could investigate the most complicated problems amid every variety and character of disturbance. It was said of Julius Cæsar, that, while writing a despatch, he could at the same time dictate four others to his secretaries; and if he did not write himself, could dictate seven letters at once. The same thing is asserted also of the emperor Napoleon, who had a wonderful capability of directing his whole mental energy to whatever came before him.*

*Segur's History of the Expedition to Russia, Bk. VII, CH. 18.