[44] [F. H. Bradley: _Appearance and Reality_, second edition, pp. 152-153, 23, 118, 104, 108-109, 570.] [45] Compare Professor MacLennan's admirable _Auseinandersetzung_ with Mr. Bradley, in _The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. I, [1904], pp. 403 ff., especially pp. 405-407. [46] [Hume: _Treatise of Human Nature_, Appendix, Selby-Bigge's edition, p. 636.] [47] Technically, it seems classable as a 'fallacy of composition.' A duality, predicable of the two wholes, _L--M_ and _M--N_, is forthwith predicated of one of their parts, _M_. [48] See above, pp. 42 ff. [49] I may perhaps refer here to my _Principles of Psychology_, vol. I, pp. 459 ff. It really seems 'weird' to have to argue (as I am forced now to do) for the notion that it is one sheet of paper (with its two surfaces and all that lies between) which is both under my pen and on the table while I write--the 'claim' that it is two sheets seems so brazen. Yet I sometimes suspect the absolutists of sincerity! [50] [For the author's criticism of Hegel's view of relations, cf. _Will to Believe_, pp. 278-279. ED.] [51] [Cf. A. Spir: _Denken und Wirklichkeit_, part I, bk. III, ch. IV (containing also account of Herbart). ED.] [52] [See above, pp. 42, 49.] [53] Here again the reader must beware of slipping from logical into phenomenal considerations. It may well be that we _attribute_ a certain relation falsely, because the circumstances of the case, being complex, have deceived us. At a railway station we may take our own train, and not the one that fills our window, to be moving. We here put motion in the wrong place in the world, but in its original place the motion is a part of reality. What Mr. Bradley means is nothing like this, but rather that such things as motion are nowhere real, and that, even in their aboriginal and empirically incorrigible seats, relations are impossible of comprehension. [54] Particularly so by Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, in his _Man and the Cosmos_; by L. T. Hobhouse, in chapter XII ("The Validity of Judgment") of his _Theory of Knowledge_; and by F. C. S. Schiller, in his _Humanism_, essay XI. Other fatal reviews (in my opinion) are Hodder's, in the _Psychological Review_, vol. I, [1894], p. 307; Stout's in the _Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society_, 1901-2, p. 1; and MacLennan's in [_The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. I, 1904, p. 403].