con at all there is no reason why knowledge should be limited knowledge as wc have seen is now what grounds have we for supposing that the must be for on this ground alone can knowledge be that our knowledge of the universe is in point of fact no one will question new objects and new for o are presented to us every day and if by knowledge we an of facts and observations tliis is a defect in kind as well as degree wo cannot safely until wc have gathered the universe into a heap and weighed measured and the whole of it this however being knowledge is so too or else the theory is wrong it will not help us at all to call our present knowledge an as if it were only in degree there is not the slightest hope that all mankind in any imaginable lapse of ages could even a single grain of sand � for this reason � that matter is di and can be stretched to match any extent of time this however is at least as fatal to knowledge ae to any other of what use ia it to talk about a partial when the part must be an infinitely or rather small quantity � and a merely abstract or imaginary amount degree and kind arc here one we either know or else the argument against absolute knowledge falls to the ground here again the theory is beaten by own weapons it for its authority to experience or common sense but common j the sense claims to know and moreover to know the i s tlie distinction between the and the essence is altogether foreign to it the contradiction in the tliat the universal can lie contained in a in other words that particular things are real � exists therefore in its whole strength in the theory itself as we have already sh wn the perception even of phenomena things then ought not even to to be for this e the contradiction it is not enough to say that objects make impressions on our senses � for they make also on other objects � one stone for instance on another � hut there being no no sensation is caused the of with does not indeed seem to satisfy even oar author in its practical working says he is a single instance in some cases sufficient for a while in others of instances without a single exception known or presumed go such a very little way toward establishing an universal proposition can answer this question knows more of the of logic than the wisest of the and has solved the great problem of tliat this should occur is indeed most natural for wore the theory sound ought to proceed in exact proportion to the amount of facts collected the force of evidence ought to he with precision � a certain number of instances being given we must know � the number being less believe or conjecture accordingly but without having the slightest intention of measuring ourselves with even the less wise among the wc think the answer to the problem a very plain one � simply tliis that in some cases wo apprehend the idea at once and at times a long time for it the difficulty is confined to the system and our business in this examination has been only to show this and thereby to answer the arguments founded upon it as to the question what us the theory of knowledge we do not propose to go much into it at present all or systems of philosophy are necessarily self contradictory since the problem proposed is with the means employed for its solution to know is to but cannot be accomplish s the � d by sensation nor by any of sensations for t ic reason that sensation and has to do only with particulars whereas to is to perceive the secondary and dependent nature of particulars and thus that the faculty to particulars � namely sensation � ia a subordinate one of this indeed the theory n partly conscious for that less weight is given to particulars as such and a more or less distinct feeling that the point is what is common to all of them but its error consists in this tliat instead of seeing that the common principle must be the one itself under these various it sees in it only an accidental coincidence of certain attributes to be got at by the other attributes instead of a common principle therefore we have as many as there are attributes by the understanding it is thus a system of we hear various that of for instance or blamed for their by writers of this school but the of all is the for it i great principle is abstraction and its results are abstract attributes v� it seeks again to by them to fancied � the existence of which it does not always even pretend to believe and can in no instance show where do we find such a string of as in the modern english � their philosophy par excellence f � la and tlie rest any one ever seen these so far from it that it is not pretended that tliey are things at all yet a separate existence is given to them and they are supposed to be induced upon or imparted to matter now to the philosophy if consistent is no that is has not material existence � is hence the of c � in which qualities arc supposed to exist yet to matter that is to exist and not exist at the same time thus for instance it was formerly fancied by that u communication must take place by means of a and accordingly they up for the occasion not only the but through tlie nerves for it to run in but the es found to be solid and meanwhile offering itself as a 