1 62 
Analyses of Books. 
March, 
lute egoism, the assumption that all things are subjective 
within ourselves. “ If nothing exists except my thoughts, then 
no othei mind can exist beyond my thought of it. The ground 
we have for believing in the existence of other minds is not a 
whit stionger than the ground for believing in the existence of 
other bodies.” Here, therefore, morality is again subverted. 
How then are we to accept the evident element of truth in 
each of the two contending systems, and yet bid farewell to each 
in turn when it would lead us into the quagmire ? The union 
between Idealism and Materialism is effected by our recognising 
the lelativity of the two : without subjectivity no objectivity; 
without objectivity no subjectivity. It is by the relation between 
them both that both exist.” Elsewhere our author writes : — 
The . union consists in the recognition that subjectivity and ob- 
jectivity are, as it were, reverses of the same medal ; that 
subjectivity arises only from combinations and qualities of what 
must be regarded as the objective, namely matter ; and that ob- 
jectivity, in its turn, arises also from the combinations and 
qualities of matter which have produced a subjective organisation 
capable of perceiving and responding to the objective. Matter 
matter, everywhere ; but let me point out, — avoiding the difficulty 
of the crude Materialistic hypothesis, which denies the subject- 
ivity of Matter, — Hylo-Idealism admits that the subjective does 
exist, but shows that it exists as a phase of, but not independently 
of, matter. This is the point, both of union and of divergence, 
between Hylo-Idealism and Materialism.” On the other hand, 
turning to the side of agreement with pure Idealism, we find 
that in the sight of the Hylo-Idealist “ the whole universe of 
things and thoughts is only an automorphosis, each ego bein°* to 
itself, as Protagoras postulated the measure and standard of all 
existing things, of all thought and objects of thought whatso- 
ever. 
For the solution of the old difficulty of necessity and free will 
as given in the words of Dr. Lewins, we must refer our readers* 
to the work itself. Nor can we summarise, much less discuss, 
the tram of reasoning in which Mr. McTaggart— referring to the 
possibility of space of four, five, six, and even n dimensions - 
contends that a point of contaCI between spirit and matter seems 
“ more tkan probable.” But we must call attention to the 
author’s peroration ' “ Matter is affeCted by spirit, spirit by 
matter. Their union is the ‘ think’ of thp Ah C nl„f« Tim ma- 
matter. Their union is the ‘ think’ of the Absolute iilc 11Jtt 
tenal universe is this ‘ think,’ and it has become a reality to the 
Absolute, just as much as space and time, trees and men are our 
‘ thinks ’ an d have become realities to us. Beyond this we can- 
not go What is matter, or what is spirit, we cannot know ; and 
what their point of contaCI is we may not even imagine The 
outcome of the universe, then, which is objeCt to us, is the 
think of the Absolute, not the Absolute itself. Under this 
1 7 uov.il. U11UCI LIllS 
luminous conception crude Materialism vanishes away like an 
