BOOK I. § 6. method. § 6. 1. Let us now enter more closely upon the method which Metaphysic follows in applying its Need for this subjective observation to the phenomena of Ethic. Metaphysic claims for this method that it is equally positive with the objective method, that is, demonstrates facts which are equally verifiable with the facts demonstrated by the objective method. The guarantee of this consists in its strict application of the distinction between first and second intentions, that is, between things as perceived directly by consciousness and things described in comparison with other things by general names. ("Time and Space" § 10.) This distinction is the logical corner-stone of Metaphysic, which primarily deals only with things as they are to consciousness alone, not in their second intentions or general descriptions. A general term reasoned on by itself is at once eo ipso elevated into an abstract entity. For instance, time, space, matter, are such general terms which might be reasoned on by themselves and made into entities though abstractions; but instead of this Metaphysic deals always with the things containing these abstractions, analyses the phenomena in which they are combined, using the terms, time, space, and matter, solely to fix and connote the features which are actually perceived in the phenomena. The ontological philosophers, on the other hand, not having drawn the distinction in question, always use such abstract and descriptive terms, words of second intention, as connoting independent things, and in this way make entities of abstractions. Finiteness and infiniteness, unity and plurality, being and not-being, possibility and actuality, thought and intuition, and many more such terms, are reasoned on as if they were pheno BOOK I. § 6. method. mena instead of being descriptions of phenomena; and thus the description becomes an entity, and philosophy an ontology. See an instance in Schelling's Need for this Bruno, Werke, vol. iv. Abth. 1. The same was shown at some length in respect to Hegel's Logic in "Time and Space" § 45. Notwithstanding, therefore, that Metaphysic approaches phenomena from the subjective side, the fact that it keeps steady to phenomena in their first intention, that is, to phenomena as they are perceived, renders it as positive and verifiable as objective science. 2. But does not the Metaphysician claim to construct the world out of his consciousness? This is the most usual objection. Most certainly he does not, in the sense of constructing it a priori out of abstract descriptions of phenomena. This is the ontological method. The metaphysician bases himself on perceived phenomena, experience, alone. The grain of truth in the objection is, that the metaphysician approaches phenomena from the subjective side, appealing to experience to verify the fact which he asserts, namely, that all phenomena are subjective as well as objective. How else indeed could they be verified; is not all verification an appeal to subjective perception,-look and see, hear, touch, measure, and so on, all of them subjective acts? It is, on the contrary, the usual division and separation of the world into two compartments, mind here, objects there, which makes verification, logically speaking, impossible, and at the same time introduces an absolute existence, unknowable as well as unknown, behind phenomena. For suppose, to take an instance, I am looking at a tree; if you tell me that what I see is determined partly by my own BOOK I. § 6. Need for this method. constitution of nerve or of mind, and is no real in- 3. In arguing as above I do not claim for Metaphysic that it has not taken new ground, or is enforcing only what it has always urged. Some old ground has been abandoned, namely, Ontology; for Metaphysic had not till lately separated itself from Ontology, and perhaps would not have done so but under the influence of positive science, and especially, at least if I may speak of myself, of the works of Auguste Comte. His writings will be prized, and his name honoured, by all seekers after truth. But BOOK I. CH. I. § 6. method. I think that in the old compound structure of ontology and metaphysic there were truths, which were not and are not now recognised by the positive Need for this schools, truths which can be separated and made the basis of a systematic and verifiable structure, which structure is or will be Metaphysic. The first step towards this, in this country at least, was taken in 1841 by the late Prof. Ferrier, in a short paper to be found in his Remains, vol. ii., entitled The Crisis of Modern Speculation. Yet even he afterwards wrote as an Ontologist. I claim then for Metaphysic not only that it is a verifiable, but also that it is an advancing study. It must not be thought, because the objects which are proper to it are universal and necessary, being the elements of all phenomena, that the mode of conceiving these objects, the theories about them, are therefore bound to be stationary. I see no connection between these two things. Metaphysic advances in dependence on the advance of the special sciences; its method alone, subjective observation of the elements of phenomena logically and not empirically separable, is what it retains as its constant distinguishing characteristic. 4. The need for Metaphysic, as the complement of the special sciences, and as their logical basis, may be brought to a very simple test. If the elements of phenomena, which Metaphysic speaks of, are universally present in combination and yet only logically discernible, as is maintained, then they ought to be discernible in the simplest and ultimate objects which are known to physical science, out of which the physical sciences construct their hypotheses and explain their facts, or into which they resolve them analytically. Now there are two things which at BOOK I. § 6. method. the present day are regarded by physicists, I believe almost unanimously, as such ultimate aud simplest Need for this objects, namely, Atoms and Force. What is an atom? It is an extremely minute body, size and shape not agreed upon, but far smaller in size than to be seen by the microscope, yet still occupying space in three dimensions, and capable of affecting our sense of touch were that sense sufficiently acute, just as it is capable of affecting our sense of sight had we sufficient visual energy. In short, an atom is imagined like a grain of dust extremely reduced in size. I hope physicists will pardon my untechnical phraseology. Now what I want to point out is, that the qualities of visibility and tangibility are not altered in kind by this extreme reduction in size. The grain of dust is a presentation, the atom is a representation or mental image; this is the only difference. It still occupies space in three dimensions, and still contains tangible and visible qualities; we picture ourselves seeing and touching it. It also occupies some duration of time, since to exist for no time is not to exist at all. Here then is the union of feeling, or matter, with space and time, or form, which are the metaphysical elements of the empirical or complete object, the atom. In other words, the ultimate element of the physical sciences is analysed metaphysically into elements which are only logically separable; and subjectively is the product of imagination working on the perceptions of visible and tangible objects of presentative experience. 5. Again as to Force. I think I shall not be contradicted in saying that no physicist conceives force apart from atoms, or from molecules, or from masses, except by way of logical abstraction. Force, |