to extend the boundaries of the subject. That will, in short, stick hopelessly for ever within the confines of the presented. Let us examine this contention.
It will be more convenient, in the first place, to dismiss the word “unique.” For that seems (as we saw) to introduce the idea of existence in a series, together with a negative relation towards other elements. And, if such a relation is placed within the essence of the “this,” then the “this” has become part of a larger unity.
The objection may be stated better thus.[1] “All reality must fall within the limits of the given. For, however much the content may desire to go beyond, yet, when you come to make that content a predicate of the real, you are forced back to the ‘this-mine,’ or the ‘now-felt,’ for your subject. Reality appears to lie solely in what is presented, and seems not discoverable elsewhere. But the presented, on the other hand, must be the felt ‘this.’ And other cases of ‘this,’ if you mean to take them as real, seem also to fall within the ‘now-mine.’ If they are not indirect predicates of that, and so extend it adjectivally, then they directly will fall within its datum. But, if so, they themselves become distinctions and features there. Hence we have the ‘this-mine’ as before, but with an increase of special internal particulars. And so we still remain within the confines of one presentation, and to have two at once seems impossible.”
Now in answer, I admit that, to find reality, we must betake ourselves to feeling. It is the real, which there appears, which is the subject of all predicates. And to make our way to another fact, quite outside of and away from the “this” which is “mine,” seems out of the question. But, while admitting so much, I reject the further consequence. I deny that the felt reality is shut up and confined
- ↑ On this whole matter compare my Principles of Logic, Chapter ii.
