287 
beings), can only be depended upon to choose always the right, when in 
some way identified with the nature of the only One who is Good, 
that is God Himself. — With these criticisms, I leave to others the more 
grateful task of appreciating and acknowledging all that is excellent in 
the very able paper now read. 
Rev. W. H. Heckler. — May I be allowed to bear my humble testi- 
mony to one statement made in this paper? — “Hence the lament 
amongst the more soberminded Germans at Hartmann’s popularity, as at a 
sign of widespread degeneracy in the logical thought of Germany.” In 
1871 the Gth edition of Hartmann’s book appeared. The stir caused by 
it in Germany was extraordinary. In conversing at that time with many 
professors of German universities, I found some considered that it was 
really a wonderful work, whilst others were of opinion that it was dis- 
graceful ; and I cannot help mentioning a remark made by a young 
friend of mine at Heidelberg. We were talking about the difficulty 
experienced by young German students in carrying on their studies. 
He said, “ If I wanted to make money, I should write a book on the 
greatest absurdities I could think of, and it would be bought by every 
German.” Now, I cannot help thinking that Hartmann has succeeded to 
a certain extent in carrying out my young friend’s idea. It has been said 
tonight that the English mind ought to be better educated in reference to 
these philosophical questions. How is it that the Germans, as a rule, are 
all more or less well acquainted with these subjects? Whenever they meet 
with a book or paper on matters of this kind, they take it up, read it, and 
thoroughly digest it in their own minds. That is because their minds are 
early led to take a delight in the study of philosophical questions. I only 
wish that this paper, and others on similar questions, could be translated 
and sent over to Germany and circulated in large numbers, because 
the Germans, as a rule, would read them. I have often heard it said 
why the English people do not care to think, and that that is the reason 
that they do not take up these subjects ; but this can scarcely be said 
of the better-informed, who, when they take them up, do so in a 
thoroughly practical manner. I congratulate the Society on Professor 
Morris’s paper. 
Rev. W. M. Sinclair.— -When any one comes to a conclusion which is 
repugnant to our reason, we usually take the first opportunity of finding 
out the logical fallacy inherent in his argument. The logical fallacy com- 
mitted by Hartmann lies in the use he makes of the word “ monad.” What 
he and his school pretend to say is, that the idea was originally in the 
atom ; but what they mean to say is something quite different — that it was 
not there at all — that originally the whole was blind, and that it gathers its 
intelligence as it goes along — as it develops itself — one particle acting 
upon another, and thus creating harmony, unity, and completeness. 
Thus, by combining these two separate logical ideas, they deceive us into 
