The Scottish Philosophy [268]
and his cognitive mind. So much, then, I freely allow. But, on the ether hand, I demur, first, to the statement that we do not know existence in itself, or, as he expresses it elsewhere in Kantian phraseology, that we do not know the thing in itself (Ding an sich). I do not like the language: it is ambiguous. I doubt whether there be such a thing as " existence in itself and, of course, what does not exist cannot be known. If he mean to assert that we do not know things as existing, I deny the statement. Every thing we know, we know as existing; not only so, but we know the thing itself, -- not all about the things, but so much of the very thing itself. Then I demur secondly, to the statement, which is thoroughly Kantian, that the mind in cognition adds elements of its own: as he expresses it elsewhere, " Suppose that the total object of consciousness in perception = 12; and suppose that the external reality contributes 6, the material sense 3, and the mind 3; this may enable you to form some rude conjecture of the nature of the object of perception." (Vol. II., p. 129.) I allow that sensations, feelings, impressions associate themselves with our knowledge: but every man of sound sense knows how to distinguish between them, and it is surely the business of the philosopher not to confound them, but to point out the essential difference. To suppose that in perception, or cognition proper, the mind adds any thing, is a doctrine fraught with perilous consequences; for, if it adds one thing, why not two things, or ten things, or all things, till we are landed in absolute idealism, or, what is nearly allied to it, in absolute scepticism?
The defective nature of the whole Hamiltonian philosophy comes out in its results. Comparing his philosophy with that {445} of Germany he says: " Extremes meet. In one respect both coincide, for both agree that the knowledge of nothing is the principle or the consummation of all true philosophy, `' But the one doctrine openly maintaining that the nothing must yield everything, is a philosophic omniscience, whereas the other holding, that nothing can yield nothing, is a philosophic nescience In other words: the doctrine of the unconditioned is a philosophy confessing relative ignorance, but professing absolute knowledge; while the doctrine of the conditioned, is a philosophy professing relative knowledge, but confessing absolute ignorance." (Dis. p. 609.) Surely this is a pitiable enough conclusion to such an elaborate process. A mountain labors, and something infinitely less than the mouse emerges.
I suspect that Sir William Hamilton was wont to meet all such objections, and try to escape from such a whirlpool as that in which Ferrier would engulf him, by taking refuge in belief, -- in faith. And I am thoroughly persuaded of the sincerity of his faith, philosophic and religious. But it is unsatisfactory, it is unphilosophic, to allow that cognition and intelligence may lead to nihilism, and then resort to faith to save us from the consequences. Surely there is faith involved in the exercises of intelligence; there is faith (philosophical) involved, when from a seen effect we look up to an unseen cause. I am sure that human intelligence does not lead to absolute knowledge, but as little does it lead to scepticism or to nothing. Of this I am further sure, that the same criticism which pretends to demonstrate that intelligence ends in absolute ignorance, will soon -- probably in the immediately succeeding age -- go on to show with the same success, that our beliefs are not to be trusted.
The same doctrine of relativity carried out led him to deny that there could be any valid argument in behalf of the divine existence, except the moral one. I acknowledge that the moral argument, properly enunciated, is the most satisfactory of all. I admit that the argument from order and adaptation (the physico-theological) can prove no more, than that there is a living being of vast power and wisdom, presiding over the universe; but this
The defective nature of the whole Hamiltonian philosophy comes out in its results. Comparing his philosophy with that {445} of Germany he says: " Extremes meet. In one respect both coincide, for both agree that the knowledge of nothing is the principle or the consummation of all true philosophy, `
I suspect that Sir William Hamilton was wont to meet all such objections, and try to escape from such a whirlpool as that in which Ferrier would engulf him, by taking refuge in belief, -- in faith. And I am thoroughly persuaded of the sincerity of his faith, philosophic and religious. But it is unsatisfactory, it is unphilosophic, to allow that cognition and intelligence may lead to nihilism, and then resort to faith to save us from the consequences. Surely there is faith involved in the exercises of intelligence; there is faith (philosophical) involved, when from a seen effect we look up to an unseen cause. I am sure that human intelligence does not lead to absolute knowledge, but as little does it lead to scepticism or to nothing. Of this I am further sure, that the same criticism which pretends to demonstrate that intelligence ends in absolute ignorance, will soon -- probably in the immediately succeeding age -- go on to show with the same success, that our beliefs are not to be trusted.
The same doctrine of relativity carried out led him to deny that there could be any valid argument in behalf of the divine existence, except the moral one. I acknowledge that the moral argument, properly enunciated, is the most satisfactory of all. I admit that the argument from order and adaptation (the physico-theological) can prove no more, than that there is a living being of vast power and wisdom, presiding over the universe; but this