82 THE RELATIVITY OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. 



be a first cognition, and hence there can be no cognition; 

 the reply is, that cognition proper arises gradually — that 

 during the first stage of incipient intelligence, before the 

 feelings produced by intercourse with the outer world have 

 been put into order, there are no cognitions, stricly so called ; 

 and that, as every infant shows us, these slowly emerge out 

 of the confusion of unfolding consciousness as fast as the ex- 

 periences are arranged into groups — as fast as the most fre- 

 quently repeated sensations, and their relations to each 

 other, become familiar enough to admit of their recognition 

 as such or such, whenever they recur. Should it be further 

 objected that if cognition pre-supposes recognition, there 

 can be no cognition, even by an adult, of an object 

 never before seen ; there is still the sufficient answer that in 

 so far as it is not assimilated to previously-seen objects, it is 

 not known, and that it is known in so far as it is assimilated 

 to them. Of this paradox the interpretation is, that an ob- 

 ject is classifiable in various ways, with various degrees of 

 completeness. An animal hitherto unknown (mark the 

 word), though not referable to any established species or 

 genus, is yet recognized as belonging to one of the larger di- 

 visions — mammals, birds, reptiles, or fishes ; or should it be 

 so anomalous that its alliance with any of these is not deter- 

 minable, it may yet be classed as vertebrate or invertebrate ; 

 or if it be one of those organisms of which it is doubtful 

 whether the animal or vegetal characteristics predominate, 

 it is still known as a living body; even should it be ques- 

 tioned whether it is organic, it remains beyond question that 

 it is a material object, and it is cognized by being recognized 

 as such. Whence it is manifest that a thing is perfectly 

 known only when it is in all respects like certain things pre- 

 viously observed; that in proportion to the number of re- 

 spects in which it is unlike them, is the extent to which it is 

 unknown; and that hence when it has absolutely no attri- 

 bute in common with anything else, it must be absolutely be- 

 yond the bounds of knowledge. 



