The Philosophy of the ConditionedMansel, Henry Longueville
Religion
The Philosophy of the Conditioned
Mansel, Henry Longueville
Hamilton, William, Sir, 1788-1856; Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873. Examination of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy
But though Hamilton himself distinguishes between the _unconditioned_ and
the _absolute_, using the former term generally, for that which is out of
all relation, and the latter specially, for that which is out of all
relation as complete and finished, his opponent Cousin uses the latter
term in a wider sense, as synonymous with the former, and the _infinite_
as coextensive with both. This, however, does not affect the validity of
Hamilton's argument. For if it can be shown that the absolute and the
infinite (in Hamilton's sense) are both inconceivable, the unconditioned
(or absolute in Cousin's sense), which must be conceived as one or the
other, is inconceivable also. Or, conversely, if it can be shown that the
unconditioned, the unrelated in general, is inconceivable, it follows
that the absolute and the infinite, as both involving the unrelated, are
inconceivable also.
We may now proceed with Mr. Mill's criticism. He says:--
"Absolute, in the sense in which, it stands related to Infinite,
means (conformably to its etymology) that which is finished or
completed. There are some things of which the utmost ideal amount
is a limited quantity, though a quantity never actually reached....
We may speak of absolutely, but not of infinitely, pure water. The
purity of water is not a fact of which, whatever degree we suppose
attained, there remains a greater beyond. It has an absolute limit:
it is capable of being finished or complete, in thought, if not in
reality."--(P. 34.)
This criticism is either incorrect or _nihil ad rem_. If meant as a
statement of Hamilton's use of the term, it is incorrect: _absolute_, in
Hamilton's philosophy, does not mean simply "completed," but "out of
relation as completed;" _i.e._, self-existent in its completeness, and
not implying the existence of anything else. If meant in any other sense
than Hamilton's, it is irrelevant. Can Mr. Mill really have believed that
Schelling thought it necessary to invent an intellectual intuition out of
time and out of consciousness, in order to contemplate "an ideal limited
quantity," such as the complete purity of water?
Mr. Mill continues:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account