MONISM CANNOT EXPLAIN PLURALITY. 353 



explains what is after all the real crux of plurality, 

 viz., its indefinite multiplication of imperfect individ- 

 uals under the same types, the lavish prodigality 

 and meaningless repetition of the Many. Why were 

 so many millions of fleas essential to the happiness 

 or comfort of the Absolute ? Would not a single 

 specimen, nicely got up, have sufficed to show what 

 absolute wisdom combined with absolute power could 

 effect in the region of the infinitely little and infin- 

 itely disagreeable ? Et niutato nomine de te, oh 

 monistic philosopher, y^^^//^ narratur ! 



It appears here again that monistic Pantheism 

 has to deny the reality of our world of Becoming 

 and plurality. All systems which profess to explain 

 the world from monistic principles have to make this 

 transition from the One to the Many, and not one of 

 them can make it intelligible. 



They labour in vain to describe it by inexplicable 

 and unintelligible processes, which severely tax their 

 resources in the way of obscure metaphor. But in 

 reality the gulf between the One and the Many can 

 be bridged by no fair or valid means : nor has the 

 self-sacrifice of monistic philosophers, who have dis- 

 carded all restraints of prudence and consistency in 

 order to precipitate themselves into it with a reck- 

 less devotion worthy of Mettius Curtius, availed to 

 close the gulf. 



§ 22. We may reasonably conclude, then, that 

 Monism is a failure, that by assuming zmity at the 

 outset it incapacitates itself for the task of explain- 

 ing phenomenal ^///r<3;///jj/, and a fortiori for the still 

 higher task of really uniting the Many in a signi- 

 ficant union. 



But is Pluralism any better ofT? Pluralism, by 

 assuming the ultimateness of plurality, does indeed 



A A 



R. of S. 



