NewThoughtLibrary.com / DivineLibrary.org

errors, or betrays the errors, held by them; and yet more from the indication it gives of an unconscious influence of truths not formally recognized. Thus, Locke speaks of the "inseparable" nature of extension as a quality of matter, while declining to accept the antecedent necessity of space as a condition of matter, and a knowledge of matter. Herein he grants to matter the necessity which he has denied to mind; whereas by necessity can only be meant something which the mind inevitably affirms, a union of things which it sees to be indissoluble. No matter how often things are practically connected, unless the mind can so far penetrate that connection as to see the one to be involved in the other, their dependence would not seem to be a necessary one. Yet this father of sensationalism speaks of inseparable qualities, when experience in many cases had neither by sight nor in any way tested their existence. Why this judgment of universal, of necessary extension and solidity? Because of a conviction latent in the mind through its intuitive ideas, a conviction independent of the complete expansion of experience.

Hamilton, again, looking at this division of qualities through the doctrine of direct perception, jumps at the conclusion that primary qualities are those more immediately revealed, whereas inquiry shows that solidity, the most undeniable of them, is often wholly unapproachable to any form of direct perception, and is arrived at by reasonings from sensations which arise indirectly from the object of experiment. The staff so quickly clutched at has become a broken reed. Thus philosophers furnish undesigned and most valuable proof to an adverse theory, by recognizing and striving to use in a disguised form the truths which it proclaims, and assigns their true position. The acknowledged necessity of primary qualities is not in them, but in that intuitive action of the mind which they call forth.