ON THE REALITY OF THE SELF. 213 
and it is a valid ground for affirming the reality of the perceiving 
self precisely in the same degree as it is for affirming that of the 
things perceived. ‘The reality we affirm for the self is of precisely 
the same kind as that which we affirm for the object of perception, 
for the constituents of the external world of things. The pre- 
dominant influence of physical science often leads men to speak 
as though evidence of reality must lie in something visible, tangible, 
material. In the last analysis it will be found that, even for the 
things of nature,—for the objects with which physical science 
deals,—the sole test and evidence of reality lies in that inner 
consciousness of reality which is available in the same manner and 
to the same degree for the immaterial self. It should be remem- 
bered that much of the language of physical science is largely 
hypothetical or suppositional, arising from the speculative interpre- 
tation, rather than from the positive observation of Nature and 
experience, due in short to the process which the Byzantine logicians 
called suppositio. 
As to Professor Huxley’s contention that the ultimate proposi- 
tion of psychology is “ thoughts, feelings, and volitions exist,” 
I will only say that it indicates the straits into which the exigen- 
cies of an arbitrarily preconceived theory may lead a man. It is, 
as Lotze remarks, singular that those who profess to be positive 
and empirical in method should, at the very outset, arbitrarily 
mutilate the real ultimates of psychology as they are given in 
experience, and thus start their speculation from a basis as unreal 
as any adopted by the thinkers they condemn. 
Dr. Courtney’s Paper was largely occupied with a defence of our 
affirmation of the reality of the soul. Now, this is doubtless of 
great importance, but I think we should constantly keep very 
clearly in mind the distinction between declaring the ground 
of an affirmation, and defending that affirmation from adverse 
criticism. We are apt, I fear, to lay too much stress upon the 
work of defence, and too apt to embark upon long trains of pro- 
fessedly demonstrative ratiocination. We should remember that 
the instruments of dialectic will never lead us to the apprehension 
of reality, this can only be given by and through experience. The 
ultimate truths with which we are concerned are premises, not 
conclusions, and are to be sought among the data of consciousness, 
rather than among the results of our reasoning. They are given 
antecedent to and not consequent upon the operations of peoeete 
Q 4 
