then it is not true at all. For B, in that case, must have followed something more or less than A; and hence the judgment A—B was certainly false. Thus a stated fact of succession is untrue, till it has been taken as a fact of causation. And a fact of causation is truth which is, and must be, universal.[1] It is an abstracted relation, which is either false always, or always true. And hence, if we are able to say ever that B follows mere A, then this proposition A—B is eternal verity. But, further, a truth cannot be itself and at the same time something different. And therefore once affirm A—B, and you can not affirm also and as well A—Bβ, if (that is to say) in both cases you are keeping to the same A. For if the event β follows, while arising from no difference, you must assert of mere A both “—B” and “—Bβ.” But these two assertions are incompatible. In the same way, if Aα has, as a consequence, mere B, it is impossible that bare A should possess the same consequence. If it seems otherwise, then certainly A was not bare, or else α was not relevant. And any other conclusion would imply two incompatible assertions with regard to B.[2]
Hence we may come to a first conclusion about the view which makes an idle adjective of the soul. If it asserts that these adjectives both happen, and do not happen, for no reason at all, if it will say that the physical sequence is precisely the same, both without them and with them, then such a view flatly contradicts itself. For it not only supposes differences, which do not make any difference—a
- ↑ The addition of “unconditional” would be surplusage. Cp. Principles of Logic, p. 485.
- ↑ The judgments, “B follows from A” and “B follows from Aα,” are, if pure, not reconcilable. The same effect cannot have two causes, unless “cause” is taken loosely. See Mr. Bosanquet’s Logic, Book I, Chapter vi. I have remarked further on this subject below in Chapter xxiv.
