IDEAS. 33 



undoubtedly animals differ from men in not presenting the 

 faculty of abstraction ; for this is no more than to say that 

 animals have not the faculty of speech. But if the term in 

 question be not thus limited — if it be taken to mean the first 

 of the above-named processes irrespective of the second, — 

 then, no less undoubtedly, animals resemble men in pre- 

 senting the faculty of abstraction. In accordance with the 

 former definition, it necessarily follows that " we conceive the 

 abstract characters of things by means of abstract names zvhich 

 ARE 07ir abstract ideas ; " and, therefore, that " the formation 

 of our abstract ideas is nothing more than the formation of 

 names." But, in accordance with the latter view, great as 

 may be the importance of affixing a name to a compound of 

 simple ideas for the purpose of giving that compound greater 

 clearness and stability, the essence of abstraction consists in 

 the act of compounding, or in the blending together of 

 particular ideas into a general idea of the class to which the 

 individual things belong. The act of bestowing upon this 

 compound idea a class-name is quite a distinct act, and one 

 which is necessarily subsequent to the previous act of com- 

 pounding : why then, it may be asked, should we deny that 

 such a compound idea is a general or abstract idea, only 

 because it is not followed up by the artifice of giving it a 

 name .'* 



In my opinion so much has to be said in favour of both of 

 these views that I am not going to pronounce against either. 

 What I have hitherto been endeavouring to do is to reveal 

 clearly that the question whether or not there is any difference 

 between the brute and the man in respect of abstraction, is 

 nothing more than a question of terminology. The real 

 question will arise only when we come to treat of the faculty 

 of language : the question before us now is merely a question 

 of psychological classification, or of the nomenclature of ideas. 

 Now, it appears to me that this question admits of being 

 definitely settled, and a great deal of needless misunder- 

 standing removed, by a slight re-adjustmcnt and a closer 

 definition of terms. For it must be on all hands atlmittcd 



D 



