HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. 



29 



is to go far beyond any system of human philosophy and human 

 psychology. 



In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In Him 

 the Relative and the Absolute meet. 



And just as the human mind can distinguish between the Ego 

 and the Non-Ego, and b}^ so doing can transcend the use of mere 

 philosophical terms, so a man in Christ Jesus sees that no human 

 system of psychology can ever set forth that which is Reality indeed. 



Mr. AV. E. Leslie said : On p. 12, Knowledge is divided into two 

 classes, of which the first includes the knowledge of self-evident 

 facts. Knowledge of the fact of self is placed in the second class, 

 although it is self-evident. 



On pp. 13 and 14 are suggested definitions oi the terms Deduction, 

 Induction, and Faculty. Each, however, contains the term to be 

 defined, and is therefore invalid. 



On p. 13 four terms for " the field to be explored " are mentioned. 

 They are Mind, Soul, Consciousness, and Experience. Of these Mind 

 and Experience are adopted, the latter at once, and the former a 

 little further on. Experience is further defined as " the process 

 of becoming expert by experiment.'* Since these terms are equal 

 to the same thing they are equal to each other. But how can a 

 process be a " substance " (mind) or possess a " faculty " ? 



The major premiss of the syllogism that underlies the last para- 

 graph on p. 15 is neither Every different phenomenon implies a 

 different substance, nor Every different class of phenomena implies 

 a different class of substances, for from either his minor premiss 

 would give him many substances instead of the two which he seeks 

 to establish. The argument must therefore be — 



Every different class of phenomena implies a different substance ; 

 " form, extension, colour," and " feeling, willing, knowing " 

 are different classes of phenomena — 

 therefore they imply different substances. 



If it could then be established that these were the only classes 

 of phenomena, it would follow that the substances they imply were 

 the only substances. The necessary major premiss is not self-evident 

 and therefore requires proof. None is given, and I fear none is pos- 

 sible. 



These defects appear to undermine the foundations of Dr. Anderson- 

 Berry's thesis. 



