THE RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE 



known, must be an object existing in relation to 

 a subject ; it cannot be known in itself, but 

 only in its relations to the knowing mind ; that 

 is, it can be known only by ceasing to be the 

 Absolute. 



Thus by whatever road we travel, we are 

 brought up at last against the same impassable 

 barrier. By no power of conception or subtilty 

 of reasoning can we break down or undermine 

 the eternal wall which divides us from the know- 

 ledge of things in themselves. If we attempt to 

 frame any hypothesis concerning their nature, 

 origin, or modes of action, we find ourselves 

 speedily checkmated by alternative impossibili- 

 ties. And if, resting in despair after all our 

 efforts have proved fruitless, we inquire why 

 this is so, we find that from the very organiza- 

 tion of our minds, we can frame no cognition 

 into which there do not enter the elements of 

 likeness^ difference^ and relation ; so that the Ab- 

 solute, which presents none of these elements, 

 is utterly and forever unknowable. 



What is the meaning of this conclusion, when 

 translated from the metaphysical language in 

 which I have expressed it into language that is 

 somewhat more familiar? It means not only 

 that the Deity, in so far as absolute and infinite, 

 is inscrutable by us, and that every hypothesis 

 of ours concerning its nature and attributes can 

 serve only to illustrate our mental impotence ; 



21 



