The Relativity of Knowledge. 37 



that is capable of stimulating ears, when present, into 

 hearing a loud sound. The object I call red may be inno- 

 cent of redness in the absence of eyes, yet it always has 

 something that stirs up the red sensation when eyes are 

 turned toward it in the light. The universe emptied of 

 conscious beings would probably have no length, breadth 

 or thickness. It, however, would still possess some con- 

 stant properties as essential to its being as dimensions are 

 to our conception of it. If we compare things in them- 

 selves to the German language and our knowledge of them 

 to the English language, it will be seen that, so far as prac- 

 tical, every-day aifairs are concerned, our ignorance is not 

 pressingly important. All our ideas can freely be conveyed 

 by the English language, and, while a knowledge of Ger- 

 man might also have its advantages, we can really get along 

 very nicely without it. Even so, our knowledge of phe- 

 nomena can answer our requirements very well without our 

 knowing the answering facts of the noinnena. Should an 

 English-speaking person be called upon to give up his lan- 

 guage, he, if he knew no other, would feel that such an 

 edict demolished all language. When the doctrine of the 

 relativity of knowledge proves to us that in the actual uni- 

 verse of being there are neither time nor space, matter nor 

 motion, form nor force, as we know them, to those who can- 

 not look beyond this fact it seems positively a denial of 

 being itself. The Englishman forbidden to speak English 

 and unacquainted with any other language is struck per- 

 fectly dumb. Conscious beings forbidden to think in terms 

 of thought and experience are launched into helpless un- 

 thinkability. To conceive of matter without lengthy 

 breadth and thickness is utterly impossible ; and to attempt 

 to picture the universe in thought as spaceless would be 

 absui'd. If we are practical realists we have our theory of 

 the universe. We believe it to be just as it alfects us. If 

 we are savants, we know this is absurd, and so we alter it 

 into terms of extension and motion. If we are idealists, 

 we assert it as consciousness impressing consciousness. If 

 we are solipsists, Ave declare it to be non-existent save in 

 ourselves. Realist, scientist, idealist and solipsist are sim- 

 ply theorizers producing languages of their own, while the 

 true language lies behind and out of reach of all. We 

 must have a theory of the universe of some kind. With- 

 out it life would be, so far as we know, impossible. The 



