so-called same object is explicitly defined as being the same for many thinkers or knowers; that is, as being the same just in so far forth as many moments stand to it in the relation of meaning it, despite their own supposed mutual separateness, and their isolation from this their common object. For the relation of meaning, or referring to, an object is confessedly unique. It is a relation whereof one fragment is presented as a fact of experience in the very inner intent of the moment that knows or refers to the object. This, so to speak, is the moment which possesses the empirically conscious end, or aspect, of the supposed meaning. And the relation of reference or meaning is such, in its objective capacity, and in its wholeness, as to fulfil that subjective intent of the moment. But how? Answer: In precisely such wise as such an intent is fulfilled when, in an empirical unity of consciousness, a moment that means an object is found present together with the object meant, and is found to be related thereto in the well-known fashion that exemplifies this unique relation of reference itself. To suppose such a relation objectively realised without a transcendent objective unity of consciousness in which it is realised, is to suppose a question answered without an answer being given, a wish fulfilled without any concrete fact of fulfilment. In brief, an objective relation of meaning or reference, existing apart from any unity of consciousness, is precisely like an unfelt pain or an undesired object of desire.
The value of the realist’s argument is here once more the fact that its consideration forces Idealism
