3 o2 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



be conceived as having attributes.' Now, here the metaphysical doctrine en- 

 ables us to conceive them as real existences, and rebuts the argument for their 

 inconceivability; for the other element, the material element, the feeling or 

 quality occupying Space and Time, stands in the place and performs the func- 

 tion of the required attributes, composing, together with the space and time 

 which is occupied, the empirical phenomena of perception. So far as this argu- 

 ment of Mr. Spencer goes, then, we are entitled to say that his case for the 

 inconceivability of Space and Time as real existences is not made out." 



Whether the fault is in me or not I cannot say, but I fail to see 

 that my argument is thus rebutted. On the contrary, it appears to 

 me substantially conceded. What kind of entity is that which can 

 exist only when occupied by something else? Dr. Hodgson's own 

 argument is a tacit assertion that Space by itself cannot be conceived 

 as an existence; and this is all that I have alleged. 



Dr. Hodgson deals next with the further argument, familiar to all 

 readers, which I have added as showing the insurmountable difficulty 

 in the way of conceiving Space and Time as objective entities : 

 namely, that " all entities which we actually know as such are lim- 

 ited. . . . But of Space and Time we cannot assert either limitation 

 or the absence of limitation." Without quoting at length the rea- 

 sons Dr. Hodgson gives for distinguishing between Space as perceived 

 and Space as conceived, it will suffice if I quote his own statement 

 of the result to which they bring him : " So that Space and Time, 

 as perceived, are not finite but infinite ; as conceived, are not infinite 

 but finite." 



Most readers will, I think, be startled by the assertion that con- 

 ception is less extensive in range than perception; but, without 

 dwelling on this, I will content myself by asking in what case Space 

 is perceived as infinite? Surely Dr. Hodgson does not mean to say 

 that he can perceive the whole surrounding Space at once — that the 

 Space behind is united in perception with the Space in front. Yet 

 this is the necessary implication of his words. Taking his statement 

 less literally, however, and not dwelling on the fact that in perception 

 Space is habitually bounded by objects more or less distant, let us 

 test his assertion under the most favorable conditions. Supposing 

 the eye directed upward toward a clear sky ; is not the Space then 

 perceived laterally limited ? The visual area, restricted by the visual 

 apertures, cannot include in perception even 180° from side to side, 

 and is still more confined in a direction at right angles to this. Even 

 in the third direction, to which alone Dr. Hodgson evidently refers, 

 it cannot properly be said that it is infinite in perception. Look at a 

 position in the sky a thousand miles off. Now look at a position a 

 million miles off. What is the difference in perception ? Nothing. 

 How, then, can an infinite distance be perceived, when these immensely 

 unlike finite distances cannot be perceived as differing from one 

 another, or from an infinite distance? Dr. Hodgson has used the 



