THEORIES CONCERNING AXIOMS. 



i8i 



when 35 and 9 are really called up 

 before it ; but this is not done. And 

 not only schoolboys, but men and 

 thinkers, do not always "distinctly 

 translate into their equivalent states 

 of consciousness the words they use." 

 It is but just to give Mr. Spencer's 

 doctrine the benefit of the limitation 

 he claims, viz. that it is only applicable 

 to propositions which are assented to 

 on simple inspection, without any in- 

 tervening media of proof. But this 

 limitation does not exclude some of 

 the most marked instances of proposi- 

 tions now known to be false or ground- 

 less, but whose negative was once 

 found inconceivable : such as, that in 

 sunrise and sunset it is the sun which 

 moves ; that gravitation may exist 

 without an intervening medium ; and 

 even the case of antipotles. The dis- 

 tinction drawn by Mr Spencer is real ; 

 but, in the case of the propositions 

 classed by him as complex, conscious- 

 ness, until the media of proof are 

 supplied, gives no verdict at all : it 

 neither declares the equality of the 

 square of the hypothenuse with the 

 sum of the squares of the sides to be 

 inconceivable, nor their inequality to 

 be inconceivable. But in all the three 

 cases which I have just cited, the in- 

 conceivability seemsto be apprehended 

 directly ; no train of argument was 

 needed, as in the case of the square of 

 the hypothenuse, to obtain the verdict 

 of consciousness on the point. Neither 

 is any of the three a case like that of 

 the schoolboy's mistake, in which the 

 mind was never really brought into 

 contact with the proposition. They 

 are cases in which one of two opposite 

 predicates, mero adspectu,^ seemed to 

 be incompatible with the subject, and 

 the other, therefore, to be proved 

 always to exist with it.* 



* In one of the three cases, Mr. Spencer, 

 to my no small surprise, thinks tnat the 

 belief of mankind " cannot be rightly said 

 to have undergone " the change I allege. 

 Mr. Spencer himself still thinks we are un- 

 able to conceive gravitation acting through 

 empty space. "If an astronomer vowed 

 that he could conceive gravitative force as 

 exercised through space absolutely void, 



As now limited by Mr. Spencer, 

 the ultimate cognitions fit to be sub- 

 mitted to his test are only those of so 

 universal and elementary a character 

 as to be represented in the earliest 

 and most unvarying experience, or 

 apparent experience, of all mankind. 

 In such cases the inconceivability of 

 the negative, if real, is accounted for 

 by the experience : and why (I have 

 asked) should the truth be tested by 

 the inconceivability, when we can go 

 farther back for proof — namely, to 

 the experience itself? To this Mr. 

 Spencer answers, that the experiences 

 cannot be all recalled to mind, and if 

 recalled, would be of unmanageable 

 multitude. To test a proposition by 

 experience seems to him to mean that 

 " before accepting as certain the pro- 

 position that any rectilineal figure 

 must have as many angles as it ha8 

 sides," I have "to think of every 

 triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, 

 &c., which I have ever seen, and to 

 verify the asserted relation in each 

 case." I can only say, with surprise, 

 that I do not understand this to be 

 the meaning of an appeal to experi- 

 ence. It is enough to know that one 

 has been seeing the fact all one's life, 

 and has never remarked any instance 

 to the contrary, and that other people, 

 with every opportunity of observation, 



my private opinion would be that he mis. 

 took the nature of conception. Conception 

 implies representation. Here the elements 

 of the representation are the two bodies 

 and an agency by which either affects the 

 other. To conceive this agency is to re- 

 present it in some terms derived from our 

 experiences — that is, from our sensations. 

 As this agency gives us no sensai ions, we 

 are obliged (if we try to conceive it) to use 

 symbols idealised from our sensations — 

 imponderable units forming a medium." 



If Mr. Spencer means that the action of 

 gravitation gives us no sensations, the 

 assertion is one than which I have not seen, 

 j in the writings of philosophers, many more 

 startling. What other sensation do wo 

 need than the sensation of one body moving 

 towards another? "The elements of the 

 representation" are not two bodies and 

 an " agency," but two bodies and an 

 effect, viz. the fact of their approaching 

 one another. If we are able to conceive a 

 vacuum, is there any difficulty in conceiv- 

 ing a body falling to the earth through itf 



