This is not philosophy, but might be called theology, and not legitimate theology even, but supra-theological--for all sane theology admits that man cannot know God. It is a desperate, insane suggestion that we must know the unknowable, and that if we cannot do that we can have no philosophy. Of course men who think this way know nothing of philosophy, and are beyond the reach of reason. Again, "in the nature of the truly independent and true being, it sees necessary transcendence of space and time, and this is essential immortality." This is a fair specimen of the skimmy-dashy style. Immortality is not a "transcendence of space," if that means anything at all, but a conscious existence without end. Perhaps by "transcendence of space" he means filling all the space there is, and going considerably beyond it where there is no space. His idea of infinity is worthy of Aristotle or Hegel, to whom, in fact, it belongs--he says, "self-conditioning is the form of the whole, the form of that _which is its own other_." That something should be "its own other" is just as clear as that it should be its own mother or father. Do such expressions represent any ideas, or do metaphysicians use words as a substitute for ideas--verily they do, in Hegelian metaphysics, and the same thing is done in asylums for the insane. Again, "our knowledge of quantity is a knowledge of what is universal and necessary, and _hence_ is not derived from experience." If this is true of the professor, he knew all of mathematics before he opened his eyes in the cradle. Common mortals know nothing of quantity or anything else, until they have had a little experience. If we know everything that is "universal and necessary" without experience, the little babes must be very wise indeed. Again, "causal energy is essentially a _self-separation_, for in order that a cause A. may produce an effect in B. outside of it, cause A. must detach or separate from itself the influence or energy which modifies B." What does the earth _detach from itself_ when it causes a heavy body to fall? In chemical catalysis what does the second body "detach from itself" to produce change in the first, which is changed by its mere presence. The assertion is but partially true, applying only to the transfer of force when one body strikes another. Aristotle has some thoroughly absurd suggestions on the same subject which Professor H. did not reproduce.