CHAPTER II.

We hope to see those necessities of thought which underlie all Philosophical systems. We set out to account for all the diversities of opinion, and to see identity in the world of thought. But necessity in the realm of thought may be phenomenal. If there be anything which is given out as fixed, we must try its validity.

Many of the “impossibilities” of thought are easily shown to rest upon ignorance of psychological appliances. The person is not able because he does not know _how_—just as in other things. We must take care that we do not confound the incapacity of ignorance with the necessity of thought. (The reader will find an example of this in Sir Wm. Hamilton’s “Metaphysics,” page 527.) One of these “incapacities” arises from neglecting the following:

Among the first distinctions to be learned by the student in philosophy is that between the imaginative form of thinking and _pure_ thinking. The former is a sensuous grade of thinking which uses _images_, while the latter is a more developed stage, and is able to think objects in and for themselves. Spinoza’s statement of this distinction applied to the thinking of the Infinite—his “Infinitum imaginationis” and “Infinitum actu vel rationis”—has been frequently alluded to by those who treat of this subject.

At first one might suppose that when finite things are the subject of thought, it would make little difference whether the first or second form of thinking is employed. This is, however, a great error. The Philosopher must always “think things under the form of eternity” if he would think the truth.

_Imagination_ pictures objects. It represents to itself only the bounded. If it tries to realize the conception of infinitude, it represents a limited somewhat, and then _Reflection_ or the _Understanding_ (a form of thought lying between Imagination and Reason) passes beyond the limits, and annuls them. This process may be continued indefinitely, or until _Reason_ (or pure thinking) comes in and solves the dilemma. Thus we have a dialogue resulting somewhat as follows:

_Imagination._ Come and see the Infinite just as I have pictured it.

_Understanding._ [Peeping cautiously about it.] Where is your frame? Ah! I see it now, clearly. How is this! Your frame does not include all. There is a “beyond” to your picture. I cannot tell whether you intend the inside or outside for your picture of the Infinite, I see it on both.

_Imag._ [Tries to extend the frame, but with the same result as before.] I believe you are right! I am well nigh exhausted by my efforts to include the unlimited.

_Un._ Ah! you see the Infinite is merely the negative of the finite or positive. It is the negative of those conditions which you place there in order to have any representation at all.

[While the Understanding proceeds to deliver a course of wise saws and moral reflections on the “inability of the Finite to grasp the Infinite,” sitting apart upon its bipod—for tripod it has none, one of the legs being broken—it self-complacently and oracularly admonishes the human mind to cultivate humility; Imagination drops her brush and pencil in confusion at these words. Very opportunely _Reason_ steps in and takes an impartial survey of the scene.]

_Reason._ Did you say that the Infinite is unknowable?

_Un._ Yes. “To think is to limit, and hence to think the Infinite is to limit it, and thus to destroy it.”

_Reason._ Apply your remarks to Space. Is not Space infinite?

_Un._ If I attempt to realize Space, I conceive a bounded, but I at once perceive that I have placed my limits _within_ Space, and hence my realization is inadequate. The Infinite, therefore, seems to be a beyond to my clear conception.

_Reason._ Indeed! When you reflect on Space do you not perceive that it is of such a nature that it can be limited only by itself? Do not all its limits imply Space to exist in?

_Un._ Yes, that is the difficulty.

_Reason._ I do not see the “difficulty.” If Space can be limited only by itself, its limit continues it, instead of bounding it. Hence it is universally continuous or infinite.

_Un._ But a mere negative.

_Reason._ No, not a mere negative, but the negative of all negation, and hence truly affirmative. It is the exhibition of the utter impossibility of any negative to it. All attempts to limit it, continue it. It is its own other. Its negative is itself. Here, then, we have a truly affirmative infinite in contradistinction to the _negative_ infinite—the “infinite progress” that you and Imagination were engaged upon when I came in.

_Un._ What you say seems to me a distinction in words merely.

_Reason._ Doubtless. All distinctions are merely in words until one has learned to see them independent of words. But you must go and mend that tripod on which you are sitting; for how can one think at ease and exhaustively, when he is all the time propping up his basis from without?

_Un._ I cannot understand you. [Exit.]

_Note._

It will be well to consider what application is to be made of these distinctions to the mind itself, whose form is consciousness. In self-knowing, or consciousness, the subject knows itself—it is its own object. Thus in this phase of activity we have the affirmative Infinite. The subject is its own object—is continued by its other or object. This is merely suggested here—it will be developed hereafter.