36 DOGMATISM AND EVOLUTION 



the simple idea enters, and is not supposed in the least to affect 

 the absolute simplicity of the idea as an existential unit. 



The doctrine of the externality of relations has been repeatedly 

 foreshadowed in these last pages. The recognition of ultimate 

 elements, of whatever sort, implies that these elements have in 

 themselves a character, which is independent of the mutual rela 

 tions into which the processes of combination bring them; so 

 that in contrast to the inner nature of the separate elements the 

 relations may be properly described as unessential, or external. 

 Such is conceived to be the case with the relation into which the 

 straight line and the number three are brought in the concept of 

 the triangle; and such is similarly the case with the relation into 

 which two musical notes are brought when they become parts 

 of a single chord. For since to take the latter example the 

 notes in their elementary character are the same in and out of 

 the chord, the relation which they sustain is no true part or 

 property of either of the two. Furthermore, if we consider a 

 relation between complex terms, what each term is in its own 

 nature must obviously be determined by what it contains ; that 

 is to say, by the nature of its elementary constituents, together 

 with the relations between these constituents which make up 

 its ow T n structure. The larger relation of which it is a term must 

 be as absolutely external to it, as the internal structural relations 

 are to its ultimate elements. 



However, the externality of relations is a doctrine too plausible 

 on its own account to depend wholly upon such support. The 

 very notion of a relation common sense will say is of some 

 thing extending between distinct terms, with which it is no more 

 to be confounded than they are with each other. The supreme 

 paradox of a term constituted by its relations, or of a system of 

 relations in which nothing is related, was not then familiar to 

 philosophers; but it would have been explained as only more 

 extensive, not more inherently ridiculous, than the initial absur 

 dity of a relation which affects or modifies its terms. 



