104 COSMIC PHILOSOPHY. [pt. i». 



Bidered, the act of the astronomer is the same as that of the 

 naturalist, save that, while the former classifies together 

 sundry groups of relations as equal to one another, or indistin- 

 guishable from one another, the latter clasaifies togethei 

 sundry groups of relations as like one another, )r but slightly 

 distinguishable from one another. Now, in ihis statement! 

 we see that what is meant by equality is merely exact like- 

 ness ; but something more is needed for the accurate descrip- 

 tion of the difference between the two cases. The objects 

 which the astronomer contemplates are simple triangles, 

 presenting simple relations of position and magnitude ; 

 while the objects contemplated by the naturalist are com- 

 plex organisms, presenting immensely compounded relations 

 of structure and function. Now, in speaking of simple 

 things or simple relations, such as lengths and breadths, 

 weights, times, and velocities, we habitually predicate 

 equality or inequality of them. " Wherever the terms of the 

 comparison, being both elementary, have only one aspect under 

 which they can be regarded, and can be specifically posited 

 as either distinguishable or indistinguishable, we call them 

 either unequal or equal. But when we pass to complex things, 

 exhibiting at once the attributes, size, form, colour, weight, 

 texture, hardness — things which, if equal in some particulars, 

 are rarely equal in all, and therefore rarely indistinguishable 

 —then we use the term liTce to express, partly the approximate 

 equality of the several attributes separately considered, and 

 partly the grouping of them in a parallel manner in time and 

 space. Similarly with the relations involved in reasoning. 

 If simple, they are recognized as equal or unequal ; if com- 

 plex, as like or unlike!^ 



The essential difference, then, between the quantitative rea- 

 soning employed in the most advanced sciences, and the 

 qualitative reasoning employed in those which are less ad- 

 vanced, may be thus stated : in the first case the relations 

 contemplated are so simple that they may be directly juxta* 



