Philosophic Evolution. 173 



between "instinct" and "reason" is utterly ignored. 

 " Instinct " is " fatal," but blind. Reason is " fatal/' but 

 sees. Axioms cannot be " instincts/' because they are 

 seen to be true, and are not blindly followed. 



But is it possible for modern philosophy to culminate 

 in such unsatisfactory and misleading exhibitions as this ? 

 It may be safely affirmed that self-contradiction, con- 

 fusion, and that speculative annihilation, philosophical 

 scepticism, must be the logical outcome of all such modern 

 philosophy as either ignores the distinctive characters of 

 reason, or denies our certainty of our own continued 

 substantial existence, as does the philosophy alike of 

 Mill, of Huxley, and of Spencer. The limits of this 

 essay prohibit any attempt to demonstrate the latter 

 operation ; and it is the less necessary as the present 

 writer has endeavoured elsewhere * to make it clear. 

 But it may be here remarked, first, that it is logically 

 impossible to deny our knowledge of the substantial and 

 persisting ego without at the same time implying such 

 knowledge ; and secondly, that uncertainty on the matter 

 can alone be justified by introducing a scepticism so 

 complete that the doubt itself vanishes in the uncertainty 

 which follows as to whether such doubt is not after all, 

 certainty, ending in mental paralysis and the breakdown 

 of all possible philosophy. But, once more, is this and 



* See " Lessons from Nature." chap. i. 



