The Scottish Philosophy [229]
objects into a class of which so many predications may be made; and, as might be expected, he has no idea that there is such a thing as classes in nature. By taking a superficial view, he is able to throw ridicule on the theory of ideas by Plato, by Philo, by Cudworth, and Harris, in which there is no doubt much mysticism, but also much truth, which it should be the business of a correct analysis to bring out to view. The father thus set his son to what he is so fond of in his " Logic " and other works, - - the exposure of the error of looking on concepts as if they were individual existences. True, universals are not the same as singulars, yet they may have a reality which we should try to seize: some of them , in the Divine mind arranging classes in nature; in re, in the common attributes which join the objects in the class; and , in the concepts formed by the mind, and performing most important functions in thought. Both Mr. Grote and Mr. John Stuart Mill in their notes have tried to improve Mill's doctrine of generification, but have left it, and their own doctrine as well, in a most unsatisfactory state. Abstract terms " are simply the concrete terms with the connotation dropped," whereon his son annotates. " This seems a very indirect and circuitous mode of making us understand what an abstract name signifies. Instead of aiming {383} directly at the mark, it goes round it. It tells us that one name signifies a part of what another name signifies, leaving us to infer that part." Neither father nor son has seen that abstraction in all cases implies a high exercise of judgment or comparison, in which we perceive the relation of a part to a whole, a process which is the basis of so many other intellectual exercises.
He turns (Chap. X.) to memory, which has so puzzled the son, who says: "Our belief in the veracity of memory is evidently ultimate: no reason can be given for it which does not presuppose the belief and assume it to be well grounded." The subject presents no difficulties to the father. He acknowledges that in memory there is not only the idea of the thing remembered; there is also the idea of my having seen it: and he shows that this implies "the idea of my present self, the remembering self; and the idea of my past self, the remembered or witnessing self? " But where has he got self? Where a past self? He brings in, without attempting to explain them,, and
He turns (Chap. X.) to memory, which has so puzzled the son, who says: "Our belief in the veracity of memory is evidently ultimate: no reason can be given for it which does not presuppose the belief and assume it to be well grounded." The subject presents no difficulties to the father. He acknowledges that in memory there is not only the idea of the thing remembered; there is also the idea of my having seen it: and he shows that this implies "the idea of my present self, the remembering self; and the idea of my past self, the remembered or witnessing self? " But where has he got self? Where a past self? He brings in, without attempting to explain them,