But what, pray, has pure economics in common with psychology? The purists start from the hedonistic postulate, _i.e._ from the economic nature itself of man, and deduce from it the concepts of _utility_ (_economic_ utility which Pareto has proposed to call by a special name, _ofelimita_, from the Greek ωφἑλιμοϛ) of _value_, and directly, all the other special laws in accordance with which man behaves in so far as he is an abstract _homo oeconomicus_. They do exactly what the science of ethics does with the moral nature; and the science of logic with the logical nature; and so on. At this rate then would ethics be a _psychology of ethics_ and logic a _psychology of logic_? And, since all that we know passes through the human mind, ontology would be a _psychology of existence_, mathematics a _psychology of mathematics_, and we should thus have confused the most diverse things, ending in a disorder the aim of which would be no longer comprehensible. Hence we conclude, that with care and the exercise of a little thought, it will necessarily be agreed that pure economics is not a psychology, but is the true and essential _general science of economic facts_. Professor Labriola, too, shows a certain ill-humour which does not seem to me entirely justified, towards the pure economists, 'who', he says, 'translate into _psychological conceptualism_ the influence of _risk_ and other analogous considerations of ordinary commercial practice! And they do well--I answer--because the mind desires to give an account even of the influences of risk and of commercial practice, and to explain their mechanism and character. And then, _psychological conceptualism_; is not this an unfortunate connection between what your intellect shows you that pure economics really is (science which takes as its starting point an irreducible concept), and that hazardous definition of _psychology_ which has been criticised above? Are not the noun and adjective in opposition to one another? And further, Labriola speaks contemptuously of the '_abstract atomism_' of the hedonists, in which, 'one no longer knows what history is, and progress is reduced to mere appearance.'[37] Here too, it does not seem to me that his contempt is justified; for Labriola is well aware that in all abstract sciences, concrete and individual things disappear and that their _elements_ alone remain as objects to be considered: hence this cannot be made a ground for special complaint against economic science. But _history_ and _progress_, even if they are alien to the study of abstract economics, do not therefore cease to exist and to form the subject of other studies of the human mind; and this is what matters.