28 
But Mr. Spencer’s fallacies are palpable. What can be 
more so than his confounding consciousness with knowledge, 
and unconsciousness with ignorance ? It is surely absurd to 
hold that everything of which I am unconscious is unknown 
to me, even if you take the word in the meaning which we 
have already quoted as that of Professor Bain. If I am not at 
a particular moment “ conscious of a horse,” it surely does 
not follow that I am ignorant of all such quadrupeds. Is it 
true that everything of which we are unconscious at the 
moment is unknown to us ” ? If Mr. Spencer should 
insist on holding i( unconscious ” to be equivalent to “ un- 
known,” then what is the force of his “ therefore ” ? He would 
thus simply argue that what is unknown to us is unknown to 
ns ! And if there is a difference between the true meaning 
of “ unconscious ” and “ unknown,” his reasoning is worth- 
less ; for the one cannot logically follow as the necessary 
consequence of the other. Then, if an object is “unknown” 
to us, does it follow that we “ can have ” no “ evidence of its 
existence” ? And is it “ absurd to suppose existing” every- 
thing of which we are either unconscious or ignorant ? Is it 
absurd to suppose that when one has passed the night in 
sound slumber he has nevertheless existed ? Is it absurd for 
the man himself to “ suppose ” even that he was not quite 
annihilated — that he ceased not to be for some hours — and 
was not created afresh ? We hear of cultivated minds ” that 
cannot get on without something like this sort of writing. 
Surely it must be strange “ culture ” that makes a man 
capable of relishing such confusion of both idea and language. 
Look a little at the fallacy of the ego considered as a state. 
That which is a state of nothing is only nothing. It is not at 
all “ unthinkable,” it is perfectly intelligible ; but only as it is, 
and that is as nothing. A state which is a state of something 
is a mode of being belonging to that of which it is a state ; 
but a state which is only a state of nothing is just nothing. 
If, then, there be not an ego , of which consciousness is a state, 
consciousness as positive is only an unmeaning term — that is, 
it means nothing. If Mr. Spencer should wish us to think of 
a state which has no ego of which it is a state, then let us try 
how his idea will stand a very simple test. Here are the 
vocables — “I am conscious.” We remove the pronoun “ I” 
for it has no meaning — it represents nothing, and need not 
stand there. Then we must remove the “ am” for if the “ I” 
is not the “am” is false. The “ conscious ” alone must 
remain ; and the inevitable question arises, “ Conscious 
what ?” There is no answer but “ conscious nothing ” which 
is just nothing. 
