SCIENCE. 



dition to the full comprehension of which we cannot at- 

 tain, although we cannot fail to recognize it. .The 

 positive is, therefore, something to which this absolute 

 existence attaches itself — it is in fact, a quality. 



According to Spencer, 2 positiveness is nothing more 

 than persistence in the consciousness; " unconditional 

 persistence, such as the mental perception of space, or 

 conditional, such as the intuition of a body we hold in 

 the hand. That which establishes the persistence is 

 really what we call positiveness, of which, (although we 

 have demonstrated that the positive within our own con- 

 sciousnsss is not objective) we, nevertheless, form an 

 indefinite idea as being something which persists abso- 

 lutely, in spite of all change of mode, form or appear- 

 ance." 



Spencer's definition, however, is in some respects open 

 to criticism. First of all, if by consciousness, individual 

 consciousness is to be understood, can anything persist 

 which is merely an illusion without any definite existence ? 

 This can only happen under certain pathological con- 

 ditionns of the mind. But there is still another point. 

 Persistence in the consciousness is certainly a relation, 

 because no thought can be produced without a relation, 

 and even Spencer affirms this when he says ; " We think 

 relatively, every thought is based upon a relation." 



However, according to Herbart, one of the principal 

 conditions of absolute reality, is to be free from every- 

 thing pertaining to dependence or relation. To avoid 

 confusion, we must give more than one signification to 

 the word positiveness. To begin with, we cannot ignore 

 a relative positiveness which comprises all the conscious 

 conditions of our being, and the famous sentence " cogito, 

 ergo sum," is in itself a peremptory demonstration of it. 

 Sensations, representations, sentiments and all other 

 familiar modifications are embodied in such positiveness. 

 Whether they correspond to an objective effect or not : 

 whether they are illusions of a diseased mind, or nor- 

 mal representations, is of little consequence. We know 

 that they exist in our consciousness, and that is sufficient, 

 inasmuch as they typify a real function. 



We cannot say as much for objective or absolute posi- 

 tiveness. In regard to this, the experience of our senses 

 teaches us nothing. We only know that it does not 

 correspond to our individual sensations and that it differs 

 from them essentially. In all our relations with the 

 exterior world there is nevertheless a common and con- 

 stant condition — an inexplicable something which acts 

 upon our organs of sense and determnes the inward 

 modifications. If, however, we rob Nature of our com- 

 plex determinations, we leave nothing remaining but 

 stimulus or action, which works upon us incessantly. 

 The idea of objective or cosmic positiveness, originating 

 from the da'a of experience, presents to us a conception 

 of force or energy, combined with continual action. Ab- 

 solute positiveness we can only understand as something 

 corresponding to permanent acitvily. 



The most ancient philosophers of Greece and India 

 made extensive speculations as to what this natural force 

 or activity might be, which operates in such manifold 

 ways upon our senses and creates in us the most stupen- 

 dous and varied phenomena. Indeed, human reason in 

 Ionian, Pythagorean and Eleatic schools, seems to have 

 been directed solely upon Nature under its various 

 aspects. 



According to Thales, water is the first general princi- 

 ple from which all other things are derived. In 

 Anaximander of Miletus, a more condensed cosmological 

 conception appears concerning the universe as being con- 

 structed out of primitive matter, which he called funda- 

 mental principle— an eternal, infinite, indefinite basis, 

 from which everything originates and to which everything 

 in the course of time, returns. This principle is not, as 

 Aristotle appears to think, a compound which upon sepa- 



• Herbert Spencer. First Principles. 1871. 



ration resolves itself later into particular forms. It seems 

 easier to believe that the specification could only occur 

 under some peculiar influence. 8 



•We may well be astonished when we consider that six 

 centuries ago a conception concerning the universe arose, 

 which intimately resembles our modern cosmology. And 

 our wonder is increased ten-fold when we see Anaximan- 

 der produce from his fundamental principle the original 

 antithesis of heat and cold by means of an inherent and 

 eternal movement of the substance. 4 



According to Anaximanes, Air is the first general 

 principle from which everything is produced by means of 

 the double process of condensation and rarefaction. This 

 theory should not appear strange to our modern mechan- 

 ical school, according to which, particular forms of ethereal 

 atoms are diffused throughout sidereal space, from which 

 chemical atoms, and, consequently, all ulterior bodies are 

 produced. 



While the Ionian school deals principally with the sen- 

 sible qualities of bodies, it aims more directly towards 

 their inward substance. But we see in that of Pythagoras 

 a new tendency, an increased abstraction. Paying but 

 little attention to Nature, which is unknown to existence, 

 he turns to consider order and quality, which are, indeed, 

 realities. Numbers are the principle of all things ; the 

 Universe is only measure and harmony. Our quantita- 

 tive relations, dimension, extension, form, distance, etc., 

 are impossible without the aid of numbers, and therefore 

 numbers are the first principle in all things, as they deter- 

 mine the order in which everything presents itself. With- 

 out stopping to discuss with Zeller as to whether the 

 Pythagorean numbers are the substance or model of sen- 

 sible things, we must particularly note that the idea of 

 order and numbers is chiefly important in our modern 

 conception of the Universe. If Nature really consists of 

 but a single substance of various formations from whose 

 elementary parts the specification of individual bodies is 

 produced, it is natural to suppose that the true essence 

 of all things by which they are determined, cannot be the 

 indefinite cosmic prirciple, but a special disposition, 

 which assumes its elements and the number in which they 

 unite. Numbers and disposition form, as we shall see, 

 the basis upon which modern chemistry r rests. 



With the Eleatic school which arose from a concep- 

 tion of unity and immovability, exaggerated to such an 

 extent as to lead Zeno to a paradoxical denial of all mo- 

 tion, we come to Heraclitus, who, in direct opposition to 

 the Eleatic school, speaks of perpetual flux and move- 

 ment. The permanence of existence is merely an illu- 

 sion. Positiveness may be compared to a river which 

 disappears as it rises, and into whose waters, conse- 

 quently, we can plunge but once. Heraclitus affirms 

 that nothing remains equal to itself, that everything in- 

 creases, diminishes, and finally dissolving, passes into 

 other forms. Hence, from lite to death, and from death 

 to life again. The appearance and disappearance of 

 these forms is, therefore, the perpetual vicissitude of the 

 universe. In this stupendous doctrine we have the con- 

 ception of future existence, which is nothing more than 

 the harmonious blending of adverse tendencies. And 

 in it we think to perceive the germs of the future theory 

 of evolution. But it contains something else also. Ac- 

 cording to Heraclitus fire symbolizes the law of vicissi- 

 tude. This is a profound doctrine which demonstrates 

 to modern theories that no new formation or division of 

 elementary bodies is possible without a corresponding 

 modification in the inward action from which thermal 

 phenomena are derived. 



In the four roots of all things — fire, air, water and 

 earth — there is first of all connection with the sphere and 

 later a division. Upon this blending and separation de- 

 pends the source and dissolution of all particular forms. 



8 Zeller, quoted l>y Florentine-. Manuale i/i Storia delta Filosofia, 

 Naples, 1879. 

 * Schwegler. Ceschichte tier fhilosophie. 



