to all kinds of knowledge, however diverse these kinds may be in all other particulars; and thus they define knowledge in a manner eminently Platonic. Socrates himself would have been satisfied with this definition of knowledge, for his illustration of the clay, prescribes the very terms mutatis mutandis, in which it is to be defined.
My opponent, as if sensible that the stability of the "Institutes" could not be shaken, unless people could be brought to swallow certain palpable contradictions, goes boldly to work. He asserts some very astonishing positions. Thus, he affirms that although mind and matter can only be known together, they can, nevertheless, be known as not existing together; and that, although matter cannot be known per se, still matter per se can be known. What would be thought of a cattle-dealer, who should say,—These cows, without their calves, cannot be sold; but they can be sold without their calves? This is exactly what my critic affirms in regard to matter per se.[1]
In order that there may be no mistake about these contradictions, the reviewer repeats them. He first of all admits that "the relation of object and subject cannot be dissolved, as regards knowledge" (p. 140); thus admitting that the two together are required to constitute the minimum of knowledge, either by itself being insufficient. He them says,—"We deny that object plus subject constitutes the minimum of knowledge, for, if this were true, object plus subject, would be one indivisible thing, whereas, in reality, they are two things made known by one indivisible act." But, surely, if not less than two things can
- ↑ The following is the passage in which these statements are presented. "Matter and mind can be known only together, therefore, mind and matter can be known only as existing together. Matter cannot be known per se; therefore, matter per se cannot be known. Such is Mr Ferrier's reasoning. It is a complete non sequitur, a rope of sand, and this, accordingly, we hold to be the great logical fallacy of the Institutes."—(Rev., p. 140.) This is scarcely my reasoning; for it is stronger than any reasoning can be. If this is the only great logical fallacy of the Institutes, they must be sufficiently safe. In each case, these are identical propositions, and to assent to the one is to assent to the other. In each case, however, the reviewer accepts the one proposition, and rejects the other!
