The Scottish Philosophy [267]
relations -- on which the mind so often dwells -- as those of space, time, quantity, properties of objects, cause and effect, and moral good.
V. We have now only to consider, and in doing so have to discuss, the Regulative Faculties of the mind. I like the phrase regulative, only we must dissociate it from the peculiar sense in which it is used by Kant (from whom Hamilton has borrowed it), who supposes that the mind in judging of objects imposes on them a relation not in the objects themselves. The epithet expresses that such principles as substance and quality, cause and effect, are "the laws by which the mind is governed in its operations " (Vol. II., P. I 5), which laws I may add -- but Hamilton would not-are not before the consciousness as principles when we exercise them. In calling them faculties, he acknowledges that he uses the word in a peculiar signification. (P. 347.) The truth is Hamilton does not see the relation in which they stand to the faculties: they are not separate faculties, but are involved in all the faculties, being, in fact, the necessary laws which spontaneously and unconsciously {443} guide their exercise. His treatment of this subject in a more elaborate manner, in the " Conditions of the Thinkable Systematized, or the Alphabet of Human Thought," appended to the Discussions, and in a somewhat more popular manner in his Lectures, was probably regarded by himself, and is certainly regarded by his admiring pupils, as the most important contribution made by him to philosophy. On the other hand, I look on the system as being, on the whole, a failure. He has labored to combine the philosophies of Reid and Kant; but we see everywhere the chinks at the line of junction. The principles of common sense looking at objective truth, will not join on to the empty forms which imply and -- guarantee no reality. In the construction of his philosophy of the relative or conditioned, as he calls it, he has expended an immense amount of logical ability; but he has lost himself in Kantian distinctions, giving in to Kant's theory as to space and time, making them, and also cause and effect, merely subjective laws of thought and not of things; and the system which be has reared is an artificial one, in which the flaws and oversights and rents are quite as evident as the great skill which he has shown in its erection. I dispute three of his fundamental and favorite positions.
(1) I dispute his theory of relativity. I acknowledge that there is a sense in which human knowledge is relative. There is a sense in which all thinkers, except those of the extravagant schools of Schelling and Hegel, hold a doctrine of relativity; but this is not the same as that elaborated by Hamilton: " From what has been said you will be able to understand what is meant by the proposition that all our knowledge is only relative. It is relative,-first, because existence is not cognizable absolutely and in itself, but only in special modes; second, because these modes can be known only if they stand in a certain relation to our faculties , and, thirdly, because the modes thus relative to our faculties are presented to, and known by, the mind only under modifications determined by these faculties themselves." (Vol. I., p. 148.)
In these three general propositions, and in the several clauses, there are an immense number and variety of assertions wrapped up: to some I assent, from others I as decidedly dissent. I acknowledge, first, that things are known to us {444} only so far as we have the capacity to know them; in this sense, indeed, even the divine knowledge is relative. I acknowledge, secondly, that we do not know all things; nay, that we do not know all about any one thing. Herein human knowledge differs from the divine: but the word relative is not the phrase to attach to human knowledge; in order to point out the difference, it would be better to say that man's knowledge is partial or finite as distinguished from perfect or absolute. I may admit, thirdly, that man discovers external objects under a relation to himself
V. We have now only to consider, and in doing so have to discuss, the Regulative Faculties of the mind. I like the phrase regulative, only we must dissociate it from the peculiar sense in which it is used by Kant (from whom Hamilton has borrowed it), who supposes that the mind in judging of objects imposes on them a relation not in the objects themselves. The epithet expresses that such principles as substance and quality, cause and effect, are "the laws by which the mind is governed in its operations " (Vol. II., P. I 5), which laws I may add -- but Hamilton would not-are not before the consciousness as principles when we exercise them. In calling them faculties, he acknowledges that he uses the word in a peculiar signification. (P. 347.) The truth is Hamilton does not see the relation in which they stand to the faculties: they are not separate faculties, but are involved in all the faculties, being, in fact, the necessary laws which spontaneously and unconsciously {443} guide their exercise. His treatment of this subject in a more elaborate manner, in the " Conditions of the Thinkable Systematized, or the Alphabet of Human Thought," appended to the Discussions, and in a somewhat more popular manner in his Lectures, was probably regarded by himself, and is certainly regarded by his admiring pupils, as the most important contribution made by him to philosophy. On the other hand, I look on the system as being, on the whole, a failure. He has labored to combine the philosophies of Reid and Kant; but we see everywhere the chinks at the line of junction. The principles of common sense looking at objective truth, will not join on to the empty forms which imply and -- guarantee no reality. In the construction of his philosophy of the relative or conditioned, as he calls it, he has expended an immense amount of logical ability; but he has lost himself in Kantian distinctions, giving in to Kant's theory as to space and time, making them, and also cause and effect, merely subjective laws of thought and not of things; and the system which be has reared is an artificial one, in which the flaws and oversights and rents are quite as evident as the great skill which he has shown in its erection. I dispute three of his fundamental and favorite positions.
(1) I dispute his theory of relativity. I acknowledge that there is a sense in which human knowledge is relative. There is a sense in which all thinkers, except those of the extravagant schools of Schelling and Hegel, hold a doctrine of relativity; but this is not the same as that elaborated by Hamilton: " From what has been said you will be able to understand what is meant by the proposition that all our knowledge is only relative. It is relative,-first, because existence is not cognizable absolutely and in itself, but only in special modes; second, because these modes can be known only if they stand in a certain relation to our faculties , and, thirdly, because the modes thus relative to our faculties are presented to, and known by, the mind only under modifications determined by these faculties themselves." (Vol. I., p. 148.)
In these three general propositions, and in the several clauses, there are an immense number and variety of assertions wrapped up: to some I assent, from others I as decidedly dissent. I acknowledge, first, that things are known to us {444} only so far as we have the capacity to know them; in this sense, indeed, even the divine knowledge is relative. I acknowledge, secondly, that we do not know all things; nay, that we do not know all about any one thing. Herein human knowledge differs from the divine: but the word relative is not the phrase to attach to human knowledge; in order to point out the difference, it would be better to say that man's knowledge is partial or finite as distinguished from perfect or absolute. I may admit, thirdly, that man discovers external objects under a relation to himself