REFERENCES.

Origin of moral ideas - Locke, Book 2, chap. 2, secs. 1, 2; book 2, chap. 21, sec. 42; book 2, chap. 28, sec. 5.

Cousin, chap. 5.

Necessity of patient thought in cultivating original suggestion — Locke,

Book 4, chap. 3, sec. 22—30.

Abercrombie, Part 4, sec. 1.

CHAPTER IV.

ABSTRACTION.

In order the more definitely to understand the nature of Abstraction, let us review the ground which we have passed over, that we may the more distinctly perceive the point from which we are about to proceed.

We have seen that by perception we cognize external objects, and that by consciousness we cognize our internal energies. Our knowledge, however, derived from both of these sources, is individual and concrete. I perceive a tree; it is an individual tree. I perceive fifty trees; they are all individuals, differing in various respects from each other, but each a distinct and unique object of perception. So, also, I am conscious of an act of memory, that is, of remembering a particular object. I am conscious of remembering another. Each act is numerically, and as I think of it, distinct from every other act. Our conceptions of these acts are of the same character as the acts themselves, and, with these powers alone, every idea would be as distinct from every other idea as the grains of sand on the sea-shore, without either cohesion or fusibility.

The same remark applies in substance to the ideas derived from original suggestion. Of these ideas some I know are general, and can be referred to no particular object. Such are the ideas of space, duration, infinity, and perhaps some others. These are cognized as universal and necessary as

soon as the mind begins to think; and, as they are at the beginning, so they remain forever, unsusceptible of either change or modification. Another class of our suggestive ideas is, however, of a different character. I perceive, for instance, a case of change, as the rolling of a ball, or the falling of a pin. The idea of cause and power at once suggests itself, but it is of the power requisite to produce this effect, and this only. It is the idea, not of causation in general, but of causation in this individual instance. Should I see another case of change, the same notion of causation would arise, but it would again be of an individual change, and would be wholly disconnected from that which I observed before. That is, every idea of causation would be indissolubly connected with the change by which it was occasioned, and thus our knowledge of causation would be nothing more than the remembrance of these several isolated and separate facts.

If, then, our intellectual powers were limited to those which we have already considered, it is easy to imagine what must be our condition. We could perceive individual objects, and be conscious of the exertion of individual energies, or of the putting forth of certain intellectual acts. Every object of perception would be distinct and disconnected, and equally so the conceptions which it originated. Our knowledge would be all of individuals, and every object must have its own proper name, or that which is equivalent to it. When we speak of different men, we call them John, James, William, meaning by each of these terms to designate an individual unlike every other in existence. would be our knowledge if we had no other faculties than those already examined.

Such

But, if we look into our own minds, and observe the minds of other men, we find our condition to be the reverse of all this. Proper names, or those used to designate individuals,

are the rarest words in a language. We use them only to point out persons and places, and when these are not alluded to such words are never employed. In works of science they have no place whatever, unless we find it necessary to refer to some historical fact. Language is made up altogether of words designating classes of things, as book, house, tree, idea; or of qualities, as red, white, blue, warrn, cold; or of actions, as walk, ride, think, give, take; or of relations, as by, to, upon, &c. When we use these words we have no reference to individuals, and desire merely to indicate classes of things, actions, qualities or relations, signified by these terms. So universally is this the case, that, when we wish to individualize a particular object, we are obliged to use several descriptive terms, in order to distinguish it from its class. Thus, if I wish to direct attention to a particular table, I am obliged to refer to it as my table, of such a color and size, or standing in such a place, or bought of such a person. In this manner we select an individual from a class, in order to make it an object of particular attention.

We observe, then, what our conceptions would be, were we endowed with no other powers than those which we have thus far considered. We see, on the other hand, what our conceptions actually are. With no other powers than those of perception, consciousness, and original suggestion, our ideas would be all of individuals. But we find, in fact, that they are the reverse of this-that they are all of classes. We naturally inquire, How does this change take place? How do we pass from the conception of individuals to the conception of generals? How, from single, isolated, concrete facts, do we form notions of classes, or of genera and species? It is to this subject that we are now to direct our attention.

Abstraction is that faculty of the mind by which from

individual, concrete conceptions, we form general and abstract ideas.

Though I speak of abstraction as a faculty of the mind, I am aware that it is, in many respects, unlike those of which I have thus far treated. It gives us no new knowledge, like perception, consciousness and original suggestion; it only modifies the knowledge which we have acquired by these faculties. It does not, like them, perform its office by a single act. On the contrary, it accomplishes its object by a succession of acts, each one different from both the others. Yet, as it performs a function which could be performed by no other power, as it actually does something, and as a faculty is the power of doing something, I think we cannot err in designating it by the same general name which is given to the other intellectual energies.

In the mental process by which we pass from individuals to generals, three separate acts can be distinctly perceived; these are analysis, generalization and combination.

1. Analysis. I have remarked, when treating of conception, that we have the power of retaining a notion of any object of perception after the object is removed, precisely similar to that which we formed when we were perceiving it. For instance, I saw a rose yesterday. I cognized it then as present, and observed its color, form, magnitude, as a distinct and concrete object, uniting in itself these various and dissimilar qualities. I retain to-day a notion of it as an object absent, uniting in itself all the various qualities which I cognized in it as present. The difference, subjectively, is merely between the notion of the object as present and the notion of it as absent. Now, when I make the conception of this rose an object of reflection, I am able to separate, in thought, these qualities from each other; that is, to think of each quality separately, without thinking of the others. Thus, I may think exclusively of