BOOK I. CH. II. PART II.

§ 14. The psycho

examined.

theory, that theory is not thereby strengthened but weakened; and, I will add, the unreserved reference of conscious states to nerve action completes its destruction. In the first place, a vera causa is acquired logical theory for the emotional as well as for the sensational element in emotions; and in the next, the nerve action, which supports sensations and their association, replaces the sensations and their association as the cause of the emotional states. That which is new in the emotion, its acknowledged and apparent difference from the sensations out of which it is supposed to be constructed, must now be referred not to the sensations and their association, but to the nerve and nerve action which support them, and, when continued, support the emotion. The notion that sensations grow by association into emotions supposes, on the contrary, that the cause of the emotions lies in the sensations and their association, not in the nerve and nerve action supporting them. Otherwise its doctrine, that emotion could be entirely analysed into sensation and association, if only we had sufficient insight, would have no meaning; unless indeed it meant, what its maintainers will be slow to admit, that emotions are not different in kind from sensations.

14. It seems to me an error common to all psychological, and indeed more or less to all empirical, schools of thought, that they content themselves with giving the history or genesis of the phenomena before them, assuming as if already known the nature or analysis of each phenomenon in the series, phenomena which may indeed be familiar, but which are not on that account known; and then that they imagine that each new phenomenon, so left unanalysed, con

BOOK I.
CH. II.

PART II.

§ 14. The psycho

examined.

tains those elements only which they were acquainted with in its antecedent phenomena. In psychology, the first and most important instance of this error logical theory is the assumption of the division between the body and its sensitive organs, on the one side, and the external objects of the world on the other; or, what is equivalent in this case, of the division between mind and matter, as a primitive fact of consciousness. The psychological schools all make shipwreck on this rock; for in consequence of this assumption they set down everything which we either know or feel about external objects, except what is contained in their structure and functions as masses of solid, that is, of visible and tangible bodies, as if it belonged exclusively to the mind and not also to the objects. Hence they look to the objects as the causes of all our feelings, and attempt to discover changes in them which cause corresponding changes in feeling; and so far without error; but then, since the only changes contemplated in the objects are such as cause changes in the sensations, it follows from this view, that all our feelings, the emotions included, must be either sensations or representations of sensation. They are however, as it seems to me, strangely forgetful of what they admit and indeed proclaim in the case of the sensations, namely, the important part which the nervous organism plays in the production of states of consciousness; and if it is in a great measure to the nature and operation of this nervous organism that we owe the particular kinds of sensation as well as sensation itself, why should we imagine it to play a less important part in the production of emotions, and, restricting it in this field to being the mere medium or means of putting sensations together in

BOOK I. CH. II. PART II.

§14. The psycho

examined.

representations, deny it the office of determining in any way a change in the kind of feeling which these representations contain? It is surely agreable to analogy with the case of sensations to suppose, that with logical theory every change, even the least, in the representations, carried on by this nervous matter in its function, there should arise, correspondingly, a certain difference or change in the feelings which they contain, as well as in the grouping of those feelings; and all such changes may properly be called emotional.

15. This oversight and this assumed difference between the sensations and the emotions, the sensations appearing objective as well as subjective, but the emotions subjective alone, causes the appearance of the comparative unreality of the emotions. Yet they are as stable in their obedience to fixed laws, and in their nature as capable of analysis and classification, as the sensations. It is not in point of reality but in point of truth that they may differ from sensations. If, however, a certain emotion always arises in a certain representation, it is as true as that representation itself, for the truth of states of consciousness consists in their permanence under examination. Experience and repeated examination is the test of truth. If therefore any emotions are found always arising in the same representations, as their permanent occupants, and if these representations are themselves permanent, it will be as difficult to eliminate these emotions from consciousness as it is to eliminate those conclusions of reasoning which always result from an examination into the phenomena about which they are concluded. There is no difference in this respect between emotions, the moral character of representations, and those relations of

CH. II. PART II.

$ 14. The psycho

examined.

BOOK I. the represented objects which are expressed by logical propositions; for the properties of generality and permanence under examination are common prological theory perties of both. While, then, the sensible qualities. of objects admit readily of being brought to the test of presentation, from which there is no appeal, it is on the other hand the common property of emotions and conclusions of reasoning about representations that they are liable to contain error, from being founded on an imperfect acquaintance with the phenomena which they belong to or are concerned with. Hence only some of them are true and permanent, and the progress of enquiry eliminates the untrue or partially true, establishes and discovers the true. In the case of emotions, the laws which determine their truth or their permanence are also laws of their connection with their representational framework, just as, in the case of conclusions of reasoning, these laws are the laws of the connection of the represented phenomena between themselves. The laws which govern the connection of emotions with their representational framework, which bind them up together, or rather determine how they are bound up, what emotion with what framework, these laws must be discovered, in the first instance, by analysis of the emotional states into emotion and framework; and this will give the first hypothesis or sketched theory, which must be afterwards tested by facts of experience.

§ 15. Spinoza's

theory examined.

§ 15. 1. Before proceeding however to the analysis of the emotions it is requisite to examine briefly the work of one of the greatest intellects ever yet employed on these questions, so far at least as may be necessary to show why the analysis offered in that work is unacceptable to the student at the pre

sent day. I mean the immortal Spinoza. I cannot allow either that his analysis is correct, so as to serve for the basis of present or future labours, or that its failure involves the failure of the metaphysical method; though one or other of these views would possibly be welcomed by many with eagerness. That Spinoza may have had as profound an insight into the characters of the several emotions. and passions as we can easily imagine attainable by any one, no one will more readily admit than I; but he did not owe this to his deduction of them from the first principles of his system. It is in vain to attempt to change a science of observation into a science of deduction merely by exhibiting the results of observation as deductions, by a mathematical method, from certain definitions, postulates, and axioms; for these first principles will always be mere expressions for the general results of the observations, and will need interpreting by them. Let any one take the Definitions of the First Part of Spinoza's Ethic, and he will find them vague to so great an extent that he will say to himself, 'What does he mean by this, and this? I must see what he makes of it before I can assent to it.' Now in Euclid the definitions need no such future interpretation; they are as clear as if they were the statements of single and particular facts, while they are also the most general truths; and this they owe to the object-matter with which they deal, namely, space relations, space being not only the general form of all extended things and of reasoning itself, but also of every individual extended thing; and both in its first intention, as perceived space.

2. Now it may seem an extraordinary assertion,

Book I. CH. II. PART II.

§ 15. Spinoza's theory examined.