The Scottish Philosophy [133]
which he admits first principles too readily. But he should have done more: it is only when we have carefully ascertained the precise nature of the original perception, and expressed it in a law, that we are entitled {223} to employ it in constructing a philosophy or in opposing scepticism. As long as it is a mere loose appeal to an undetermined principle, the argument may be very illusive. At this point Reid has often failed, owing to a deficiency of logical power. What he calls in is commonly a genuine mental principle; but, owing to his not furnishing a rigid account of its nature and its laws, we may be in doubt whether the application which he makes of it is legitimate. The important work of Reid needs to be supplemented by an investigation, conducted in his own careful manner, of the precise nature of the principles of common sense, of their points of agreement and of difference, of their precise laws and varied modes of action.
It is not easy to determine to what the appeal is ultimately to be in the philosophy of Reid. It is to common sense: but in what signification? Because it is a sense? Or because it is so constituted as to discern objects and truth? Or because it is common to all men? Or because we must trust to it whether we will or no? It is not easy to ascertain what would be Reid's, or even Hamilton's, answers to these questions. There are frequent passages in which Reid's appeal seems to be to the constitution of our minds (Hamilton's ultimate test, like Kant's, seems to be necessity); for he says, we " cannot have a better reason for trusting consciousness, than that every man, while his mind is sound, is determined by the constitution of his nature, to give implicit belief to it." But some one may ask, Why should we trust our constitution? May not our constitution, common or individual, deceive us? Has Hume succeeded in showing that our constitution followed out in different ways leads to contradictions? To such questions Reid would have little else to say than that we attend to these principles of common sense; and this would make his appeal to be, like that of Kant and Hamilton, to stern necessity. It is worthy of being stated that, in his manuscript papers,[64] an answer is attempted to some of these questions, and this of a more satisfactory kind than any thing I have noticed in his published writings. " As soon as this truth is understood, that two and two make four, I immediately assent to it; because God has given me the faculty of immediately discerning its truth, and if I had not this faculty, I would not perceive its truth. The truth {224} itself, therefore, does not depend on my constitution; for it was a truth before my existence, and will be a truth, although I were annihilated: but my perception evidently depends on my constitution, and particularly upon my having, as a part of my constitution, that faculty, whether you call it reason or common sense, by which I perceive or discern this truth." "The truth of this proposition, that a lion is a ravenous beast, depends on the constitution of a lion, and upon nothing else." In like manner as to right and wrong "although the rectitude or depravity has a real existence in this case, yet it cannot be discerned by a spectator who has not the faculty of discerning objects of this kind." "Evidence is the sole and ultimate ground of belief, and self-evidence is the strongest possible ground of belief; and he who desires reason for believing what is self-evident knows not what he means." Any one who would join into a consistent whole the various characteristics referred to in this paper, and give each its exact place, will advance a step beyond Reid, and, I may add, beyond Hamilton. The question occurs, Why has he not' placed these statements in his published works? Was it because he was not prepared to reduce them to a rigid consistency, and was averse to utter anything which he could not stand by in every respect?
It is also worthy of being noticed that, in one of the manuscripts, he shows that he had a glimpse of the distinction
It is not easy to determine to what the appeal is ultimately to be in the philosophy of Reid. It is to common sense: but in what signification? Because it is a sense? Or because it is so constituted as to discern objects and truth? Or because it is common to all men? Or because we must trust to it whether we will or no? It is not easy to ascertain what would be Reid's, or even Hamilton's, answers to these questions. There are frequent passages in which Reid's appeal seems to be to the constitution of our minds (Hamilton's ultimate test, like Kant's, seems to be necessity); for he says, we " cannot have a better reason for trusting consciousness, than that every man, while his mind is sound, is determined by the constitution of his nature, to give implicit belief to it." But some one may ask, Why should we trust our constitution? May not our constitution, common or individual, deceive us? Has Hume succeeded in showing that our constitution followed out in different ways leads to contradictions? To such questions Reid would have little else to say than that we
It is also worthy of being noticed that, in one of the manuscripts, he shows that he had a glimpse of the distinction