of space is bounded only by another space. The limited portion of space is continuous with its environment of space. § 28. This is a positive idea and not a negative one. It is most important to consider carefully this point. The idea would be a negative idea if our thinking of it could not transcend the limit—that is to say, if we could not think space beyond the limit. But as our thought of space is not thus conditioned (we are, in fact, obliged to think a continuous space under all spatial limitations) space is a positive or affirmative idea. We see that the mind thinks a positive infinite space under any idea of a thing extended in space.— Let us state this in another way: We perceive or think things as having environments-each thing as being related to something else or to other things surrounding it. This is the thought of relativity. But we think both things and environments as contained in pure space and pure space is not limited or finite, because all limitation implies space beyond. The difficulty in this psychological question arises through a confusion of imagination with conception or thinking. While we conceive infinite space positively, and are unable to think space otherwise than as infinite or selfcontinued, yet, on the other hand, we can not image, or envisage, or form a mental picture of, infinite space. This inability to imagine infinite space has been supposed by Sir William Hamilton (see his Lectures on Metaphysics, page 527 of the American edition) to contradict our thought of infinite space. His doctrine was adopted by Mansell and from him borrowed by Herbert Spencer, who made it the foundation thought of his "Unknowable " (First Principles, Part I, chapter i). Now, a little reflection (and introspection) will convince us that this incapacity of imagination to picture infinite space is not a proof that we can not conceive or think that idea, but the contrary: Our incapacity to image infinite space is another proof of the infinitude of space! § 29. When we form a mental picture of space, why do we know that that picture does not represent all space? Simply because we are conscious that our thought of the mental picture finds boundaries to that picture, and that these boundaries imply space beyond them; hence the limited picture (and all images and pictures must be limited) includes a portion of space, but not all space. Thus it is our thought of space as infinite, or self-continued, that makes us conscious of the inadequacy of the mental picture. If we could form a mental picture of all space, then it would follow of necessity that the whole of space is finite. In that case imagination would contradict thinking or conceiving. As it is, however, imagination confirms conception. Thinking says that space is infinite because it is of such a nature that all limitations posit space beyond them, and thus only continue space instead of bound it. Imagination tries to picture space as a limited whole, but finds it impossible because all its limitations fall within space, and do not include space as a bounded whole. Thus both mental operations agree. The one is a negative confirmation of the other. Thinking reason sees positively that space is infinite, while imagination sees that it can not be imagined as finite. 30. Time is also infinite. Any beginning presupposes a time previous to it. Posit a beginning to time itself, and we merely posit a time previous to time itself. Time can be limited by time only. The now is limited by time past and by time future; no, it is not correct to say that it is limited, for it is continued by them. Time did not begin; nor will it end. But one can not perceive an event without thinking it under the idea of time. No sensation that man may have had could be construed as a change, or event happening in the world, except by the idea of time. But it is impossible to derive the idea of time, such as we have it, from sense-impressions, for any one or any series of such impressions could not furnish an infinite time nor the idea of a necessary condition. Nor could the experience of any limited extension give us the idea of infinite space, or of the necessity of space as a condition of that experience. If it seems as if this discussion belongs to metaphysics rather than psychology, this suggestion is made: Psychology treats of the nature of the mind. It treats of the forms which the mind gives to its contents. Hence it relates above all to our world-views, in so far as these are a priori and reveal the structure of cognition. It relates to the theory of knowledge in its most general form, and concerns, too, all concrete theories of the world, as well as the abstract questions of knowledge. In fact, the attitude of modern science against philosophy-the attitude of positivism against metaphysics—the attitude of mysticism and "theosophy" against Christianity—in short, all agnosticism and pantheism branch out at the point treated in this chapter. Most of it starts professedly from Sir William Hamilton's supposed proof that the idea of the infinite is merely a negative idea-an incapacity instead of a real insight. From the psychological doctrine of the negativity of our ideas of the infinite and absolute (first applied by Hamilton in his famous critique of Cousin) it is easy to establish the world-view of pantheism and to deny the doctrine of the personality of God. Surely that part of psychology which treats of the capacity of the mind to know ultimate reality is the foundation of the rest! To him who asserts that psychology is not important for the teacher it may be replied: Upon it depends the spirit of his instruction whether he gives a pantheistical or a theistical implication to the science and literature that he teaches. Psychology, as a mere classification of so-called faculties, or as a mechanical theory of sense-perception, conception, imagination, will, and emotions, is undoubtedly of little worth; but as revealing to us the foundations of ultimate principles in our view of the world it is of decidedly great importance! It is true that the psychology offered to teachers is often only a mere classification of the activities of the mind. But in order that psychology shall be more than a classification-namely, an investigation of the essential forms of mind itself—it is indispensable that its operations shall be studied before they are classified. Without such study it is easy to pass off a spurious theory of ideas—a theory, for example, that all ideas are derived from sense-impressions. On such a theory agnosticism may sit securely and deny God, freedom, and immortality. CHAPTER VII. Causality and the Absolute. 8 31. In the preceding chapter we have discussed space and time as ideas that involve the conception of infinity. We trust that every one who has carefully considered the exposition has become convinced that we actually think space and time as infinite— that, in short, we think the infinite positively, or affirmatively, and not negatively. In this chapter we must discuss another idea that is equally essential to experience. Without the idea of Causality there could be no experience; experience can not begin until the idea of causality awakens in the mind. Space and time are not derived from external perception, but they are perceived by insight, or the mind's own self-activity; they are perceived as necessary conditions for the existence of things and events. Space and time are not mere subjective ideas which have no objective validity. They are the primary |