visibhidfag 2 Magnitude. 
will follow, it being the purpose “of the i inquirer to use the con= 
clusions drawn from such a premise, in order to overthrow some. . 
other conclusion resting on independent evidence. So far then 
as this reasoning is concerned, the circumstance that existin 
bodies have different velocities, furnishes nothing to disprove <. 
existence of a least distance or a least magnitude. 
inet 
visible, in other words, is so limited by its finite nature as to be 
reducible only to a certain extent, is a proposition which would 
never have been questioned had philosophers paid more attention 
to the nature of the objects of thought which the premises of 
ees involve ; since an attentive consideration of these prem- 
ses ma ghow, that the conclusions of the nerne ange: respect 
“ing th nite divisibility of magnitude do in no way conflict 
math e de { Bre a natural philosophy and common sense, but, 
on the contrary, are simply the enunciation of what is true in re- 
spect ‘to he ap ae in which the objects of certain abstract gen- 
eral notions stand to each other, as deduced solely from what be- 
longs of necessity to their nature as mere objects of thought. 
“The distance just described has been shown to be the least 
ignitude which, in the nature of things, can be conceived to be.. 
things have been very beautifully classified into things 
isting as mere thinks, that is, as mere objects of thought ; ; 
nd things which are real existences, whether we think of them 
Thus, in the phrase “ the least magnitude which in 
ature of things can be conceived to be,” the term magnitude 
denote either the object of an abstract conception, or a 
re 
and the phrase “nature of things” is equally ambigu- 
y deriote either the nature of mere objects of thought 
e of real existences. Now if the term magnitude be 
noting a real as opposed to an ideal magnitude, that 
s 
fe. ig 
areal as opposed to an ideal ne i viz. that distance 
xt antecedent to.the contact of bodie 
_ If, on the other hand, the term magni be taken as s deno- 
€ be conc of eee it is Tati true that a 
im ney ails 
In fact, the proposition that every finite body is definitely di- © 
