here, but it is not accurately unfolded. The correct statement is: By self-consciousness we know self in its present state, say as thinking, and this knowledge of self goes on with all our states, and, among others, the acts of the understanding in judgment.

He calls in an à priori use of imagination and a schematismus. Both are meant to bridge over gaps in his system. It is true that if an object be absent and we have to think of it, we must have an image, or what Aristotle calls a phantasm of it, and the mind can put these phantasms in all sorts of forms. Kant brings in an à priori imagination to represent to the judgment the manifold of the senses in unity. I regard it as an important function of the phantasy to represent absent or imaginary objects to the understanding to judge of them. The office of the schematism is to show how the categories, which are à priori forms, are applicable to the empirical intuitions of sense. I do not need such an intermediary, as I hold that the mind can at once know things and the relations of things.

At the close of the Analytic, Kant lays down a number of principles which follow from his theory and seem to confirm it. We have Axioms of Intuition, Anticipations of Perception, Analogies of Experience, The Postulates of Empirical Thought. These are not essential parts of his system, and have no value to those who do not adopt them. I think it expedient, therefore, to omit the discussion of them, as in no way helping, in one way or other, the controversy about the idealism of Kant.

He is now prepared to give us a division of all objects into Phenomena and Noumena. His account of each and of the relation between them is very unsatisfactory. Of the first it is supposed that we know only appearances which do not correspond to realities. Of the second we know that they exist, but then they are unknown and unknowa

ble. Nothing but agnosticism can issue logically and practically from such a doctrine. How much more natural and reasonable to regard the phenomenon as a thing appearing and so far known, as in fact a noumenon implying intelligence.

TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC.

Dialectic was a method introduced by Zeno, the Eleatic, and followed by Socrates, who established truth by discussion, in which division, definition, and the law of contradiction played an important part. Aristotle used the phrase to describe the logic of the probable as distinguished from the apodictic. The dialectics of Kant estimate the reality to be found in the exercises of reason. He arrives at the

conclusion that these all end, not just in deceit, but in illusion. He has been laboriously building a mighty fabric; but he now proceeds to pluck it down with his own hands. At this point he is guilty of intellectual suicide. He is described by Sir W. Hamilton as the dialectical Samson, who, in pulling down the house upon others, has also pulled it down upon himself.

The professor of Logic at Königsberg was nothing if not logical. Beginning with intuition he has gone on to the Notion and Judgment, and now rises to Reasoning beyond der Verstand to die Vernunft. All his critics think that, strange as it may seem of one who has studied Reason so profoundly, he confounds what most of our deeper philosophers have distinguished, reason and reasoning-the first of which perceives certain truths-such as the axioms of Euclid immediately, whereas the other deduces a conclusion from premises. As the forms of space and time give unity to the manifold of the senses, and the categories give unity to our perceptions, so reason or reasoning gives a unity to the judgments. The form which gives this unity is called by him an Idea. All human cognition begins with intui

tion, proceeds from thence to conceptions, and ends with ideas. This word Idea is one of the vaguest terms used in metaphysics. Introduced into philosophy by Plato, who signifies by it the napádyμa in or before the mind, it had a different meaning attached to it by Descartes and Locke, the latter of whom makes it the object of the understanding when it thinks; and now it embraces in popular use nearly every mental apprehension, and in particular two such different things as the individual image or phantasm, say of a rose, and the general notion as the class rose. Kant employs it in a sense of his own to denote the form which gives unity (a vague enough phrase, as we have seen) to the Categories.

Reason, according to Kant, takes three forms-Categorical, Conditional, Disjunctive. This may be true of reasoning, but is certainly not true of Pure Reason. As to reasoning, I hold that it is always one and the same. But it does take the three forms spoken of by Kant, and I look on the division of Kant as founded on fact. But I reckon

the use of it by him as artificial in the extreme.

THE FORMS OF REASONING.

Categorical,

Conditional,

THE BINDING IDEAS.

Disjunctive.

God.

Substance, Interdependence of Phenomena,

It is hard to discover how the Ideas as forms give the Reasoning, or how the Ideas are given by the Reasoning. In particular, his derivation of God from Disjunctive Rcasoning seems to me very constrained. No doubt Disjunctive Reasoning, which proceeds by Division, implies a unity in the thing divided. But it is scarcely reverent to designate it God. This may seem pious, but it is not so; I wish he had called it by some other name. The God who is the issue of this logical process is not the living and the

true God. Certainly no one could cherish love towards such a product. It turns out that this God is discarded and cast out as peremptorily as he has been brought in.

But my search is after the reality, supposed to be in these ideas. What reality remains, except, indeed, a subjective reality implying an objective existence? Is it not virtually gone? The light has been reflected from mirror to mirror, till now nothing definable is left. There was a sort of reality, phenomenal and subjective, in the intuition; this had still an attached reality in the judgment. But it is difficult to detect it, and impossible to determine what it is in the third transformation-a reality or an illusion, a something or a nothing, a shadow or a reflection of a shadow. Kant acknowledges, "The categories never mislead us, object being always in perfect harmony therewith, whereas ideas are the parents of irresistible illusions" (Trans., p. 394). These illusions are like the concave shape we give the sky; like the rising, rounded form we give the ocean when we stand on the shore; like the foam made by the waters, which we may wipe away, only to find it gather again. Kant is still pursuing the reality, the Ding an sich, but it is as the boy pursues the rainbow, without ever catching it. He argues powerfully that if we suppose these ideas to be realities we fall into logical fallacies.

SUBSTANCE.-If from the intuitions of sense or the categories of the understanding we suppose substance to be real, we have a paralogism—that is more in the conclusion than is justified by the premises. This is undoubtedly true if we regard our primitive intuitions as appearances and not things, and the categories as having to do solely with appearances. Kant examines the cogito ergo sum of Descartes. If the ego is in the cogito we have no inference, but merely a reassertion. If the ego is not in the cogito, then the con

clusion does not follow-we have a paralogism; we have only an appearance and not a thing. I have a very decided opinion that we should not try to prove the existence of self, or of body, by mediate reasoning. We should assume the existence of ego cogitans as made known by self-consciousness, and also of body as extended and resisting our energy by the senses. We know both mind and body as having Being, Potency, and as having Objective Existence, and not created by our contemplating them, and this makes them substances.

INTERDEPENDENCE OF PHENOMENA.-Under this head he maintains that we are landed in contradictions or antinomies, that is, if we look on the Ideas as implying things. He resolves the contradictions by showing that we are not to imagine that what we can affirm and can prove to be contradictory in phenomena is necessarily so of things. Those of us who hold that the mind knows things have to meet these contradictions. This we do by showing that the counter propositions in some cases are not proven, and that in other cases the alleged contradictions are merely in our own mutilated statements, and not in the things themselves, or our native convictions about them.

FIRST ANTINOMY.

The world has a beginning in time and is limited as to space.

The world has no beginning in time, and no limits in space, but is in regard to both infinite.

Now upon this I have to remark, first, that as to the "world" we have, so far as I can discover, no intuition whatever. We have merely an intuition as to certain things in the world, or, it may be, out of the world. Our reason does declare that space and time are infinite, but it does not declare whether the world is or is not infinite in extent and duration.