Chapter XXVIII: Section I: Names of Names (5)

Having assumed a certain case of successions as a standard, and marked it into quantities, by distinctive names, we mark or name all other successions, by the names applied to the standard case. Thus, that grand succession, on which so much of what we are interested in depends, a revolution of the earth upon its own axis, we distinguish, by the term, twenty-four hours; which we also call by the name, day; and afterwards make use of, as a standard, to mark still slower successions, such as a revolution of the moon about the earth, a revolution of the earth about the sun. In all these measurements, and expressions, of time, it is still seen, that there is nothing in reality conceived but successions.

Beside the standards, more distinctly conceived and expressed, there is always, in these estimates of time, a tacit reference to another standard, which is regarded as the unit, or minimum of time. The case here is precisely analogous to that of the unit, or minimum, of extension, which we have already observed. Our tactual, and muscular, senses are not sufficiently fine to discern objects of less than a certain magnitude. {123} The least which they can discern is tacitly assumed as the unit of extension. Nor are any of our senses fine enough to discern successions which have more than a certain degree of rapidity. Thus, if the seven primitive colours are made to pass with a certain velocity before the eye, they do not appear separate, but blended into one continuous white. In like manner, if sounds are made to succeed one another, at first, slowly, afterwards, with greater and greater rapidity, they cannot, at last, be distinguished as different sounds, but appear as one continuous sound. In fact, this is probably the account of all sounds, which are merely effects of the vibrations in the air, and therefore pulses; but often so quick, in succession, that no interval is distinguishable, and the perception is that of a continuous sound.

The close resemblance, in this respect, between sensations and ideas, is remarkable. When sensations are brought into close conjunction they become blended, and appear, not several, but one. We have seen, in a most important case of association, that when ideas are called up together in close conjunction, they, too, cease to be distinguishable, and, being blended together, assume, even where there is the greatest complexity, the appearance, not of many ideas, but of one. Of this we have very remarkable examples, in the two cases of SPACE, and TIME.

There is a certain succession, then, of sensations and ideas, in which the antecedent and consequent can be distinguished: another, in which the antecedent and consequent, on account of quickness, cannot be distinguished. The quickest that can be distinguished, is that to which, as the unit or minimum, a tacit {124} reference is made, in our several estimates of time.

Having thus shewn how far the account of TIME, presented by one of the most recent Philosophers of high name, goes in expounding the phenomenon, and how far it leaves it unexpounded; it will be instructive next to observe, how far the genius of the ancient Greek Philosophers carried them, in this important inquiry. It is satisfactory, that we can refer the unlearned reader to a very clear and accurate exposition of their doctrines, in a well known work in our own language, the "Hermes" of Mr. Harris; from which, for the sake of this convenience, the present account of those ancient doctrines shall be drawn.

"Time and Space," says that author,[5*] "have this in common, that they are both of them by nature _continuous_. But in this they differ, that all the parts of Space exist _at once_ and _together_, while those of Time only exist in _Transition_ or Succession." This is only transcribing the common language. What remained was, to shew what are the real facts couched under this language.[6*]

[Mill's footnote 5: Hermes, B. I. ch. vii.]

[Mill's footnote 6: The expression of Ammonius, here quoted by Harris, comes nearer the fact than his own--[Greek: o( chro/nos u(phi/sta/tai kata/ mo/non to\ NUN, e)n ga/r tô=| gi/nesthai kai/ phthei/resthai to/ ei=nai e)/chei]. Time subsists only in a single NOW or INSTANT, for it hath its being in beginning and ceasing to be. In other words, Time never is; all you can say of it is only this, it has been, or it is about to be.--(_Author's Note_.)]

"In every given time we may assume anywhere a _Now_ or _Instant_, and therefore, in every given _Time_, there may be assumed infinite _Nows_ or _Instants_.

{125} "A NOW or INSTANT is the _Bound_ of every finite _Time_. But although a _Bound_, it is not a _Part of Time_. If this appear strange, we may remember, that if a _Now_ or _Instant_ were a _Part of Time_ it being essential to the character of Parts, that they should measure the _Whole_, it would contain within itself infinite other nows; and this, it is evident, would be absurd and impossible."

"_The same Now_ or _Instant_, may be the end of one _Time_, and the _Beginning_ of another; the first, necessarily Past Time, as being previous to _the Now_ or _Instant_, which both Times include; the other necessarily FUTURE, as being _subsequent_. As, therefore, every NOW or INSTANT always exists in Time, and without being Time, is _Time's Bound_; the Bound of _Completion_ to the _Past_, and the Bound of _Commencement_ to the Future: from hence we may conceive its nature or end, which is _to be the Medium of Continuity between the Past and the Future, so as to render Time, through all its parts, one Intire and Perfect Whole_."

It must be obvious to every one, who has correctly followed me through the preceding deductions, that this mysterious language, if applied to actual successions, has a distinct meaning; if not so applied, it is jargon merely, without one idea annexed. This NOW, which is not _Time_, and, not being _Time_, is of course nothing else; this NOTHING, then, which, though nothing is the medium of continuity between Somethings, namely, time past, and time future, seems to be only a mysterious name for that link which is supposed to be between every antecedent and its consequent; which supposition of a link, or medium of continuity, we have already shewn to be a mere case {126} of association, involving a prejudice; the antecedent and consequent, and nothing else, being really included in a case of succession. Thus understood, however, it is a medium of continuity, forming the "_Bound of Completion_" to the previous train of successions, the "_Bound of Commencement_" to the following.

Mr. Harris proceeds to shew some of the conclusions, resulting from the account which he had thus rendered of Time. "_In the first place_," he says, "_there cannot_ (strictly speaking) _be any such thing as time present_." We will draw from this a conclusion, which Mr. Harris appears not to have seen, or does not choose to acknowledge; That, if there be no such thing as Time present, neither can there be any such thing as Time past. For what is the past, but that which has been present? But if there be no such thing as time present, or time past, there can be no such thing as time future. Time, therefore, is an impossibility.

Mr. Harris himself, indeed, goes a certain way toward this conclusion. "If _no Portion_ of time," he says, "be the object of _any Sensation_; further, if the Present _never_ exist; if the past be _no more_; if the Future be not as yet; and if these are all the parts, out of which _Time_ is compounded: how strange and shadowy a Being do we find it? How nearly approaching to a perfect non-entity?"[7*]

[Mill's footnote 7: It is but justice to Aristotle, to say, that he expressed the right conclusion much more distinctly than Harris thought proper to do. His mode of inferring, as translated by Harris, is as follows: That, therefore, _Time_ exists not at all, or at least, has but a faint and obscure existence, one may suspect from hence. A part of it has been, and is no more; a part of it is coming, and is not as yet; and out of these is made that Time, which is without end, and ever to be assumed farther and farther. Now, that which is made up of nothing but non-entities, it should seem was incapable ever to participate of Entity.--(_Author's Note_.)]

{127} Mr. Harris then says, "Let us try, however, since the senses fail us, if we have not faculties of higher power, to seize this fleeting Being." What then is it he does in the search of those "faculties of higher power?" It will be seen, from the following quotation, that he merely describes a few cases of actual succession; and says, that from them, by the help of memory, and imagination, we come by the idea of Time. But the Memory and Imagination of successions present to us nothing but the successions themselves. If then the Memory and Imagination of successions, give us the idea of Time, the idea of Time can only be some part or the whole of the idea of the successions.

"The World has been likened to a variety of Things, but it appears to resemble no one more than some moving spectacle (such as a procession or a triumph) that abounds in every part with splendid objects, some of which are still departing, as fast as others make their appearance. The Senses look on, while the sight passes, perceiving as much as is immediately present, which they report with tolerable accuracy to the Soul's superior powers. Having done this, they have done their duty, being concerned with nothing, save what is present and instantaneous. But to the _Memory_, to the _Imagination_, and above all, to {128} the _Intellect_, the several _Nows_ or _Instants_, are not lost, as to the _Senses_, but are presented and made objects of _steady_ comprehension, however, in their own nature, they may be _transitory_ and _passing_.

"Now it is from contemplating two or more of these Instants under one view, together with that Interval of Continuity, which subsists between them, that we acquire insensibly the Idea of TIME. For example: _The Sun rises_: this I remember: _it rises again_: this too, I remember. These Events are not together; there is an _Extension_ between them--not however of _Space_, for we may suppose the place of rising the same, or at least, to exhibit no sensible difference. Yet still we recognise some Extension between them. Now what is this Extension, _but a natural day_? And what is that, but pure _Time_? It is after the same manner, by recognising two new Moons, and the Extension between these; two several Equinoxes, and the extension between these; that we gain Ideas of other Times, such as _Months_ and _Years_, which are all so many Intervals, described as above; that is to say, _passing Intervals of Continuity between two Instants viewed together_.

"And thus it is THE MIND acquires the Idea of TIME. But this Time it must be remembered is PAST TIME ONLY, which is always the _first Species_, that occurs to the human Intellect. How then do we acquire the Idea of TIME FUTURE? The answer is, we acquire it by _Anticipation_. Should it be demanded still further, _And what is Anticipation_? We answer, that, in this case, it is a kind of reasoning by analogy from similar to similar; from successions of events, that are past already, to similar successions, {129} that are presumed hereafter. For example: I observe, as far back as my memory can carry me, how every day has been succeeded by a night; that night, by another day; that day, by another night; and so downwards in order to the Day that is now. Hence, then, I _anticipate a similar succession_ from the present Day, and thus gain the Idea of days and nights in _futurity_. After the same manner, by attending to the periodical returns of New and Full Moons; of Springs, Summers, Autumns, and Winters, all of which, in Time past, I find never to have failed, I anticipate a like orderly and diversified succession, which makes Months, and Seasons, and Years, _in Time future_."

It is to be observed, that, in the above passage, Harris, beside Memory and Imagination, introduces the name of _Intellect_, as concerned in generating the idea of Time. But it will be seen that he makes no use of it, whatsoever, in giving his explanation, nor mentions any other operations than those of, memory for the past, and anticipation for the future. Indeed, it appears from a passage of his work, immediately following, that when Mr. Harris, in this inquiry, uses the word Intellect, he means nothing but Anticipation and Memory. "There is nothing," he says, "appears so clearly an object of the MIND or INTELLECT only, as _the Future_ does, since we can find no place for its existence any where else. Not but the same, if we consider, is equally true of _the Past_.*"[8*] Here we see, that {130} both _the Future_, and _the Past_, are said to be objects of the INTELLECT only. But the future is the object of anticipation, the past of memory; and both memory, and anticipation, as we have seen, are cases of association.

[Mill's footnote 8: _Ibid_. He goes on to say, that, from this same doctrine, that Time exists only in the mind, some philosophers inferred, that if mind did not exist, neither could Time. [Greek: Po/teron de\ mê\ ou)/sês psuchê=s ei)/ê| a)\n o( chro/nos, a)porê/seien a)/n tis]. (_Aristot. Nat. Auscult._ 1. iv. c. 20.) Themistius, who comments the above passage, expresses himself more positively. [Greek: Ei) toi/nun dichô=s le/getai, to/ te a)rithmêto\n, kai\ to\ a)rithmou/menon, to\ me\n, to\ a)rithmêto\n dêladê\, duna/mei, to\ de\ e)nergei/a|, tau=ta de\ ou)k a)\n u(postai/ê|, mê\ o)/ntos tou= a)rithmê/sontos, mê/te duna/mei mê/t' e)nergei/a|,--phanero\n ô(s ou)k a)\n o( chro/nos ei)/ê|, mê\ ou)/sês psuchê=s]. (_Them._ p. 48. Edit. Aldi.)--(_Author's Note_.)]

In the cases of succession which he adduces, as examples, to shew, in what manner we acquire, he says, "insensibly," the idea of time, he tells us, there is sensation of the consequent, memory of the antecedent, and beside these, "contemplation of two or more instants under one view, together with that Interval of continuity, which subsists between them." But the contemplation of two instants, one prior, another posterior, in one view, with the interval between them, is a circumlocution for memory. It denotes obscurely, and imperfectly, that union, in one idea, of all the parts of a train, to which the name memory is affixed. From this contemplation, he says it is, "that we acquire the idea of Time." The real meaning is thus shewn to be, that we acquire it from memory. Mr. Harris, therefore, at the bottom, agrees with Dr. Reid; and the same observations by which we shewed {131} the imperfection of Dr. Reid's account, are equally applicable to that, of Mr. Harris. The case, in truth, is, that neither of them does any thing more than merely state the fact, without an attempt to explain it. That we cannot have the idea of time, without the observation of successions; and that memory is joined with sense in the observation of successions,--is the matter of fact. What TIME is, distinct from the memory and the sensations, they ought to have told us, but have not. They would not have found it difficult, had they been familiar with the distinction (of such infinite importance, in all accurate inquiries into the human mind) between the mode of signification of concrete words, and the mode of signification of abstract ones; the latter, in its more complicated cases, of not very easy comprehension. Unfortunately, we have no concrete term, corresponding with Time. Hence a great part of the difficulty of conceiving distinctly the meaning of the abstract. Time, also, is not the abstract name of any one train, but of all trains; as redness is not the name of one red, but of all reds. And there is this further complication, that the word "time" is never applied to any train, in particular; as time of a race, time of a battle, and so on; without the predominating association of that particular train, whatever it be, minutes, hours, or days, which we are accustomed to employ, as the measure of other successions. Without much and accurate practice, therefore, in conceiving the meaning of abstract terms, especially in the more complex and intricate cases; it is extremely difficult steadily to contemplate either TIME, as the {132} abstract name of all successive, or SPACE, as the abstract name of all simultaneous order.[9*]

[Mill's footnote 9: "Multos autem in errorem ducit, quod voces generales et abstractas in disserendo utiles esse videant, nec tamen earum vim satis capiant. Partim vero à consuetudine vulgari inventæ sunt illæ ad sermonem abbreviandum, partim à philosophis ad docendum excogitatæ, non quod ad naturas rerum accommodatæ sint, quæ quidem singulares et concretæ existunt, sed quod idoneæ ad tradendas disciplinas, propterea quod faciant notiones, vel saltem propositiones, universales."--_Berkeley de Motu_, s. 7. No predecessor of Berkeley was so fully aware, as he was, of the deceptions practised on the human mind by abstract terms.--(_Author's Note_.)]

It will be instructive, to recapitulate the indissoluble associations which are contained in the idea of Time. With every present event, is indissolubly associated the idea of an antecedent; with that antecedent, the idea of another antecedent; and so on without end. These are the ideas of Succession, and of Infinity; forced upon us by indissoluble association. The events of the present moment, are innumerable. With every one of these we associate the ideas of antecedents without end. This is the Past; an Infinity of simultaneous successions, each having antecedents, running back without end. These are successions in the concrete; successions of objects. Drop the connotation, to form the abstract, as is done in other cases; you have then successions without the objects; which is precisely the meaning of the word TIME.

As with every present event, and those infinite in number, is indissolubly associated the idea of a series of antecedents, without end, which, in the abstract, is {133} TIME PAST, so with every such event, is indissolubly associated the idea of a consequent, with that the idea of another consequent, and so on, without end; which, in the abstract, is TIME FUTURE.

The synchronous Line, or Line of _Extension_, and the successive Line, or Line of _Time_, bear a pretty close analogy. As, in the Line of _Extension_, we have the concrete line, and the abstract line; the concrete line being the positions with the objects; the abstract or mathematical line, the positions without the objects; so, in the line of _Time_, we have the concrete line, and the abstract line; the concrete line being the successions with the objects; the abstract line, the successions without the objects; to which abstract line, we give the name TIME.

We have before remarked, as an important case of indissoluble association, that the idea of Position, that is, of a modification of Space, is indissolubly associated with the idea of every sensible object. It is now to be remarked, as a not less important case, that the idea of succession or of antecedent and consequent, that is, a modification of Time, is indissolubly associated with the idea of every object. The idea of a modification of Space, and the idea of a modification of Time, form parts of our complex idea of every object. It is no wonder that they appear to be necessary, seeing that they force themselves upon us, by irresistible association, with the idea of every object.[29] [30]

[Editor's footnote 29: As is shewn in the text. Time is a name for the aggregate of the successions of our feelings, apart from the feelings themselves. I object, however, in the case of time, as I did in the {134} case of Space, to considering it as an abstract term. Time does not seem to me to be a name (as the author says) for the pastness, the presentness, and the futureness of our successive feelings. It is rather, I think, a collective name for our feeling of their succession--for what the author called, in a previous section, the part of the process "which consists in being sensible of their successiveness," for which part, he then said, "we have not a name." This taking notice of the successiveness of our feelings, whether we prefer to call it a part of the feelings themselves, or another feeling superadded to them, is yet something which, in the entire mass of feeling which the successive impressions give us, we are able to discriminate, and to name apart from the rest. A perception of succession between two feelings is a state of consciousness _per se_, which though we cannot think of it separately from the feelings, we can yet think of as a completed thing in itself, and not as an attribute of either or both of the two feelings. Its name, if it had one, would be a concrete name. But the entire series of these perceptions of succession has a name, Time; which I therefore hold to be a concrete name.

However inextricably these feelings of succession are mixed up with the feelings perceived as successive, we are so perfectly able to attend to them, and make them a distinct object of thought, that we can compare them with one another, without comparing the successive feelings in any other respect. We can judge two or more successions to be of equal, or of unequal, rapidity. And if we find any series of feelings of which the successive links follow each other with uniform rapidity, such as the tickings of a clock, we can make this a standard of comparison for all other successions, and measure them as equal to one, two, three, or some other number of links of this series: whereby the aggregate Time is said to be divided into equal portions, and every event is located in some one of those portions. The succession of our sensations, therefore, however closely implicated with the sensations themselves, may be abstracted from them in thought, as completely {135} as any quality of a thing can be abstracted from the thing.

The apparent infinity of Time the author, very rightly, explains in the same manner as that of Space.--_Ed._]

[Grote's footnote 30: In this section Mr. James Mill explains Time. He tells us that "it is a comprehensive word including all successions, or the whole of successive order" (p. 116)--"a perpetual flow of instants, of which only one can ever be present. The very idea of Time is an idea of successions. It consists of this and of nothing else" (pp. 116--117)--"it is the single worded abstract, involving the meaning of the three several abstracts, pastness, presentness, futureness" (p. 118). In the line of "Time, we have the concrete line, and the abstract line: the concrete line being the successions with the objects: the abstract line, the successions without the objects: to which abstract line, we give the name Time" (p. 133).

In p. 120 he gives us in a few words Dr. Reid's explanation of Time:--and in pp. 124--130 he cites at greater length Aristotle's explanation, as reproduced by Harris in the Hermes.

Both Aristotle and Reid include in their meaning of Time, not merely succession, but duration or continuity. Mr. James Mill includes only succession--antecedents and consequents. He thinks that continuity is nothing else than an illusion or prejudice, arising from extreme rapidity of succession (pp. 123--125).

"Time and Space (says Harris, cited p. 124) have this in common, that they are both of them by nature continuous. But in this they differ--that all the parts of space exist at once and together; while those of Time only exist in Transition or Succession." Mr. James Mill proceeds to say--"This is only transcribing the common language. What remained was, to show what are the real facts couched under this language."

Undoubtedly these facts ought to be shewn, and shewn fully. But I cannot think that they are shewn fully in the {136} present Chapter of the Analysis. On the contrary, a most important part of the case is omitted--Duration or Continuity--which Aristotle has put in the front of his exposition, and after him *Reid as well as Harris.

If it were true that the word Time is the abstract, having for its concrete succeeding objects and nothing more, we should not need the term at all. The abstract term "Succession" already answers this purpose, much more perspicuously and obviously. But Time includes something more than succession. It comprehends not merely potentiality for succeeding objects or events, but also potentiality for continuous motions or sensations: it embraces duration as well as succession.

The exposition of Aristotle is adapted to readers and debates so different from those of the present day, that it often appears strange, and even mystical, when ever so well translated. In the present case, however, we derive satisfaction from knowing, that his doctrine is, with a very small reserve, adopted by Hobbes, the most anti-mystical of all philosophers. (Hobbes' First Grounds of Philosophy--Part II., Sect. 7. 3). Aristotle has given a theory of Time at great length, perfectly clear as to its main features, though in several of its details, obscure and difficult to follow. I will add that throughout nearly the whole exposition, he keeps the abstract in close implication with the concrete: the neglect of which precaution, by many philosophers, is so justly censured by the Author of the Analysis.

Aristotle, according to a practice frequent with him, begins by enumerating various puzzles and difficulties which stand in the way of any theory ([Greek: diaporê=sai] Physic. IV. 10. p. 217. 6. 30). In doing this, here as elsewhere, he states the difficulties in a manner somewhat paradoxical. The citation of page 126, (together with note, page 127,) are all taken from this preliminary excursion, the beginning and end of which Aristotle distinctly marks (Physica IV. c. 10. p. 217 b. 30. p. 218 a. 30). He then proceeds to exposition; and after remarking that Time is one and alike every where, amidst the greatest {137} diversity of events succeeding each other--he says that it is not indeed identical with Motion, (as some theorists considered it), but that it is nevertheless inseparable from Motion being one of the aspects or appurtenances of Motion. Magnitude or Body moved--Motion--Time--all go together in Aristotle's conception. Magnitude is continuous: Motion is continuous: Time is continuous (Physica IV. 11. p. 219. a. 12. 223. a. 10): Line is continuous. On the other hand, the Point is separate and indivisible; no two Points have any common term: a Line is not made up of Points, but of smaller Lines; and every Line has Points for its bounds or limits. What the Point is to a Line, the Now or Instant is to Time: the Instant is not a portion of Time, but the boundary of each portion, and the conjoining boundary between Time past and Time future. (Physica IV. 11. p. 220. a. 5-25--VI. 3. 234. a. 1-24).

Aristotle defines Time as the Number of Motion according to Former and Later: _i.e._, Continuous Motion, considered as numerable and successive. To take the words of Harris, from Aristotle (cited p. 128 of the Analysis)--"It is from contemplating two or more Instants under one view, together with that Interval of Continuity which subsists between them, that we acquire insensibly the Idea of Time."--"Months and Years are all so many Intervals described as above; that is to say, passing Intervals of Continuity between two Instants viewed together."

Mr. James Mill hardly does justice to this exposition, when he observes (p. 131)--"Neither Harris *nor Reid does anything more than merely state the fact, without an attempt to explain it. That we cannot have the idea of time, without the observation of succession; and that memory is joined with sense in the observation of successions,--is the matter of fact. What Time is, distinct from the memory and the sensations, they ought to have told us, but have not."--In this passage, the word "sensations" is evidently used by Mr. James Mill as equivalent to "successions" or successive {138} sensations: and the observation appears to me not well founded. I think that Aristotle has told us, and Harris after him, what Time is, distinct from the successive sensations. It includes Motion and the Continuity of Motion. These are elements of which Mr. James Mill takes no notice: and they supply the deficiency of which he complains.

It is one of the many merits of Mr. James Mill's Analysis that he has paid more attention to movements and muscular sensibility, as elements of our consciousness, than philosophers had done before him. But in this chapter unfortunately, he has left them out, and has confined himself to successions. The explanation of Time, given in the main by Aristotle, is completed and elucidated by Professor Bain in his work on the Senses and the Intellect (chapter on the Muscular Feelings, sect. 20--23, pp. 95, 96; compare also p. 183, in ed. 3rd). The feeling of continuance in our muscular exertions, of longer or shorter duration in the sweep of our limbs, is one of the primordial varieties of sensibility. A longer expenditure of our energy affects the consciousness differently from a shorter. In a full sweep of the arm, we are conscious of the instant of commencement as antecedent,--the interval of continued effort,--and the instant of termination as following. This is the clearest illustration of that which Aristotle and Harris describe as Time: two instants former and later, with continuous interval between them. Motion is the most striking and obvious example of Continuity, and is therefore employed by Aristotle as the basis for his exposition of Time. The eternal and uniform motions of the celestial bodies were to him the most impressive of all phenomena; the great standard by which all other motions were to be measured. Hobbes also takes the Line as the proper exponent of time. But though motion affords the best and amplest illustrations of Continuity, it is not motion only that is felt as continuous. The sense of continuance is felt in regard to other impressions also. Professor Bain observes--"All impressions made on the mind, whether those of muscular energy, or those of the ordinary senses, are felt differently according as they endure {139} for a longer or a shorter time. This is true of the higher emotions also. The continuance of a mental state must be discriminated by us from the very dawn of consciousness; and hence our estimate of time is one of our earliest mental aptitudes. It attaches to every feeling that we possess"--(p. 93).

We thus perceive that the sense of continuance is just as much an original presentation to our consciousness, as the sense of succession. This is an important fact, which has not been sufficiently adverted to in the exposition of complex ideas such as Time and Space. The _fundamentum_ of Continual Quantity is an immediate manifestation of our sensitive discriminations not less than that of Discrete Quantity. The complex Idea of Time embodies both.[a] Mr. James Mill insists everywhere, with laudable emphasis, upon the necessity of seeking the meaning of every abstract term in the concrete particulars out of which it grows. But in explaining Time, he has not set before himself all the concrete particulars in their full variety and amplitude. Confining himself to Succession, and scarcely touching Continuance, he has not been led to follow out the facts of motion in all their diversified aspects, nor the many abstractions and generalisations which {140} spring from comparison of motions with each other, under some one of these aspects.

[Footnote a: Aristotle's definition of Time was much discussed by his contemporaries and successors. Both his pupils, Theophrastus and Eudemus, accepted it: but there were many objectors, and the earliest of them notified to us is, Straton of Lampsakus, pupil and successor of Theophrastus. Straton objected on the ground that the definition combined Number and Motion--Discrete Quantity and Continual Quantity--which combination he held to be inadmissible. But this seems no valid objection. Aristotle very properly recognises the two as distinct varieties of Quanta--(see Categor. p. 4, b. 20): but that is no reason why both of them may not be combined in the same complex idea--especially when we see that each of them has its distinct root in different original presentations of our discriminative consciousness.

See Simplikius ad Aristot. Physic. IV. Scholia, p. 394, b. 27--47. Brandis.]

In a note to this chapter of the Analysis (p. 129) attention is called by Mr. James Mill to another important doctrine cited by Harris out of Aristotle--to the relative nature of Time. Can there be any time, apart from the percipient mind? asks Aristotle--since time is the numerable element in motion, and there can be no numeration without a rational mind to number.[b] He does not affirm positively, but he speaks as conceiving number and the numbering mind to be Relatum and Correlatum, so that the former cannot exist without the latter.[c] Both Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius thought so likewise after him: though Boëthius and other commentators dissented from the opinion.[d] Upon this general question of relativity, Aristotle is not always consistent with himself. Though he declares explicitly, that Relata reciprocate in predication, and are implicated each with the other--and though he says that "the Soul is in a certain sense all things" (_i.e._ is the implied correlate of all our beliefs and disbeliefs, affirmations and negations)--yet in other places, he limits this {141} universal principal by exceptions, which some of his commentators deprecate as inadmissible.[e]--_G._

[Footnote b: Aristot. Physica. IV. 14, p. 223, a. 26.]

[Footnote c: So also Hobbes' First Philosophy, Part II. 7, 3, 5:--"Seeing all men confess a year to be time, and yet do not think a year to be the accident or affection of any body, they must needs confess it to be, not in the things without us, but only in the thought of the mind." (Here Hobbes goes too far, divesting time of all objective character; instead of considering it as relative to the mind, which implies a subjective and an objective aspect combined. The next passage exhibits this.) "Time is the phantasm of before and after in motion: which agrees with the definition of Aristotle. Time is the number of motion according to former and latter--for that numbering is an act of the mind. To divide Space or Time, is nothing else but to consider one and another within the same--division is not made by the operation of the hands, but of the mind."]

[Footnote d: Themistius ad Aristot. Physic. IV. p. 337, in Spengel's edition of Themistius--partly extracted by Brandis in Scholia to Aristotle, p. 393, b. 27.]

[Footnote e: Aristot. Categor., c. 7, p. 6, a. 37, b. 28; p. 7, b. 23. Scholia ad Categor., p. 65, b. 10--20. Brandis.

Aristot. de Animâ, III., 8, 431, b. 21, [Greek: ê( psuchê\ ta\ o)/nta pô/s e)sti pa/nta; ê)\ ga\r ai)sthêta\ ta\ o)/nta ê)\ noêta\, e)/sti d' ê( e)pistê/mê me\n ta\ e)pistêta/ pôs, ê( d' ai)/sthêsis ta\ ai)sthêta/].]]

{142} SECTION VI.

MOTION.

It is necessary to take notice of this term, because the idea which is named by it is apt to present the appearance of something mysterious, though, after the expositions with which we are now familiar, the materials of which it is compounded, will not be difficult to find.

The word Motion, is the abstract of Moving. What we have to investigate, therefore, are the sensations, on account of which, we call a body "moving;" motion being merely moving, the connotation dropped.

All motion is in a Line, either a straight line, or some other line. The idea of "moving," therefore, contains, for one ingredient, the idea of a line.

A body "moving," is a body which is successively at every point of a line. Every point of a line, as we have seen, is a particular position. A body "moving," therefore, is a body first in one position, then in another, then in another, through a certain series.

In the idea of a Body moving, then, we can enumerate the following particulars: the idea of a body, the idea of a position, the idea of a line, the idea of succession. These are all complex ideas; some of them highly complex; united into one idea, motion, they compose one of the most complex of all our {143} ideas. The ingredients, however, being already explained, there can be no great difficulty in understanding the compound.

It is commonly said, that motion includes the idea both of Space, and of Time. As it includes the idea of Succession, it includes the idea of Time, successions in the abstract (otherwise called instants), without end, receiving the name of Time. As it includes the idea of a Line, it includes the idea of extension in one direction. As it includes the idea of Position, which is that of lines, in every direction, it includes the idea of extension in every direction; but extension in every direction, taken abstractly, is Space.

It is important to observe, that, though we receive, and that the most frequently, information of motions by the eye, it is not from the sensations of sight, that the idea of motion is derived. It is by association of ideas alone, that we fancy we see motion, as it is thence we fancy that we see figure, and distance. The classes of sensations, from which we derive the idea of motion, and the idea of extension, are the same; they are the muscular and tactual sensations. The man born blind, is not without the idea of motion, as he is without that of colour; on the contrary, he has the idea probably much more precise, than we who have entangled it inextricably with the perceptions of sight.

To recur to the exposition which we have already given; we may remember, that the sensations (taking the simplest case), on account of which we apply the name Line, are partly sensations of Touch, partly sensations of Muscular Action. If we touch a line at one point with any part of our bodies, say the finger; so long as the finger is still, we have merely the {144} sensations, on account of which we call the line tangible. As soon as we move the finger along the line, we have the sensations and ideas, on account of which we call it extended. But these new feelings, on account of which we call the line extended, are also the feelings, on account of which we call the finger moved. The sensations, therefore, whence we derive our ideas of extension, and of motion, exist simultaneously. We have a certain compound of feelings, partly sensations, and partly ideas; for we have already seen, that the perception of succession consists in a present sensation, associated with the idea of a past one; and we assign to this compound, not one name, as on other occasions, but two names, after a very peculiar and remarkable manner. These two names are, Line Extended, Finger Moved. The complication of the feelings here, and of course the obscurity of them, is very remarkable; though the naming, as in certain other cases of obscure ideas, is very distinct. We are never misled in the application of the terms, Line Extended, Finger moved; though we may be very much puzzled to shew, of the compound of feelings which are thus named, and which, in the compound, are easily, and infallibly traced, how much is included under the one term, and how much under the other. A certain portion of the sensations in the compound is peculiar to what is called the Line, another portion is peculiar to what is called the Finger. The rest is common to both. The common part, united to what is peculiar to line, is called line extended; the same common part, united with what is peculiar to finger, is called Finger moved.

Our ideas of extension and motion, are, no doubt, {145} originally derived from the action of our own bodies. I touch something, and have the sensation of resistance. The idea of resistance is the fundamental part in every combination to which I give the name of object. In this case, there is the object touched, and there is the finger touching. A certain action is given to my finger, still touching the object. That action involves certain feelings; these I combine both with the object, and with the finger, and to these two combinations I give the two names, Object Extended, Finger Moved.

If any one shut his eyes, excluding as much as possible, the ideas of sight, and conceiving, without admixture, the feelings in the finger and the arm, while the finger passes along a line, he will get some notion of the series of antecedents and consequents, whence the idea of Motion is derived. They are feelings, which language does not enable us to communicate by words; but it does not seem very difficult for any man to raise the ideas of them in himself.

Let any one suppose, that the line commences opposite to the centre of his body. He begins by touching it at that point with the finger of his right hand; and in this there is one state of feeling. He gives the finger the smallest perceptible motion towards the right: this is another state of feeling. He gives it a further motion, the smallest perceptible, in the same direction: this is another state of feeling; and so on, as far as the arm can reach. The antecedent states are in each instance united with the present by memory, and by the amount of the states, thus united, the amount of the motion is computed.

Conceiving the case of a man born blind, the more {146} easily to exclude the illusions of association; it is obvious, that such a man can obtain the idea of another body in motion, only by accompanying it with his hand; or by associating the ideas, on account of which he calls the hand, moved, with the body in question. By frequent operations of the hand, such as that described above, he becomes familiar with the idea of the hand moved. The ideas of the sensations, on account of which, he calls it moved, are easily raised, easily form themselves into combination, and easily associate themselves with the object, Hand. The idea of Hand, and the idea of Hand moved, having become very familiar, it is an easy case of association to transfer the term _moved_ to other things, as the foot moved, the body moved, the stone moved. When he has become familiar with the application of Moved, as a connotative term, to various objects, it is easy, in this, as in other cases, to drop the connotation; and then he has the abstract, MOTION.[31] [32]

[Bain's footnote 31: The author correctly, in my opinion, refers to our muscular sensibility (aided by Touch), the fundamental notions of Resistance, Motion, Extension, Space. He also remarks properly, that the idea of motion and the idea of extension are the same; they are merely different modes of viewing one experience. In a mutually involved series of properties such as these, the Analysis may proceed in several different arrangements, no one being apparently very decisive. The following mode is suggested as on the whole, the most consecutive.

The feeling of Resistance expresses what is probably the most fundamental state of all, the consciousness of muscular energy or expended force. Taking the case of a dead strain, or a pressure without movement, we have mere muscular energy and nothing else. We have an indivisible, unanalysable, mode {147} of consciousness, distinct from all modes of passive sensation, and from all forms of emotion. It is a kind of consciousness remarkably constant in its character; it varies in degree, but with this peculiarity that because a man is physically weaker than usual, he does not on that account exaggerate or misrepresent the degree of his muscular expenditure; the feeling of lifting two pounds is not made the same as the feeling of lifting four pounds, although in some of the incidents of exertion, as in the organic state of exhaustion, the smaller expenditure in one state is held to be equal to the greater expenditure in another state. The consciousness of putting forth power is the most uniform, the least variable, of all our sensibilities; the same amount of actual force expended is estimated as nearly the same under all circumstances.

In being conscious of expended energy, we discriminate its degrees, within certain limits; we know when we increase or diminish the amount; and our sensibility is measured by the smallness of the difference that makes a change in our consciousness. This discrimination is the basis of our estimate of the property termed Force, Resistance, Momentum, in moving bodies. Our idea of force is a muscular idea, an idea of muscular force of a certain amount. Force may be viewed in other ways, or from other aspects, but its direct and simple estimate is muscular energy in the dead strain.

2. We are farther conscious of muscular energy as more or less enduring or continuing. Our consciousness varies according as a strain is protracted; a weight supported half a minute gives a feeling different from a weight supported a quarter of a minute.

Farther, it is important to remark that increase of continuance is not confounded with increase of force in the same time. Mechanically speaking, it is the same to us, whether we support two pounds one minute, or one pound two minutes; the energy gone out of us, the oxidation, or consumption of material, must be the same for both. But the consciousness is not the same for both; each has a character of its own, and we recognise the distinction in clear consciousness. If we {148} confounded all modes of expended energy that are dynamically equal, we should be disqualified from attaining the ideas of motion and extension.

When energy is accompanied by _movement_, there is a new and characteristic mode of consciousness, of vital importance. Energy in the dead strain and energy with motion may be equal as regard expended force, but they are not the same to our feelings. Continuance in the one is a different fact from continuance in the other. The feeling of continuance in moving energy is the fact that we call motion; and also the fundamental property, the starting point, with reference to Extension; although much more is wanted to complete that cognition. Mere dead strain would not amount to extension; and the discriminating of dead strain from moving strain is thus of essential moment. From the sense of this distinction, and the estimate of degree of continuance in movement, we begin at once the experience of motion and the ground-work of extension.

The consciousness of continuance whether of dead strain or of movement is also a consciousness of duration, but not the only mode of becoming versed in this property. All our mental states,--whether muscular feelings, sensations, emotions, thoughts, volitions,--are different as they are more or less continued, and this consciousness of difference is a consciousness of Duration or Time. Hence the usual saying that Time is a property common to the Object and to the subject. The object experiences of motion and extension are the most convenient modes of measuring time, they are the most accurate and discriminative, but they are not the only nor the chief concrete embodiments of it. We often measure time by the duration and succession of our feelings and thoughts.

3. Another mode of discrimination inhering in our muscular consciousness is the degree of movement, as slow or quick. We are differently affected according to the rapidity of our movements; an accelerated pace in the arm, or in the whole body, sensibly alters our feelings. Farther, we do not compound this alteration with its dynamical equivalents in the {149} other modes--with increase in the amount of the dead strain, in the continuance of the dead strain, or in the continuance of movement. A characteristic mode of feeling attends this special form of augmenting or reducing our expenditure of force. The consequence is, a feeling of velocity or speed of movement. But this feeling of speed is not all. We gain another equivalent of degrees of extension; more speed in the same time being equal to more time with the same speed. It is proper to remark, however, that we are premature in speaking of extension, or in regarding it as arrived at, at once by our primary experiences of movement; much has to be gone through before this is fully formed or developed. Motion is the fundamental fact, but motion is a fact of succession, and can do nothing to suggest a group of contemporaneous phenomena, an outspread universe of the co-existing in time. Our primary sensibility is a mere thread of succession, duration, or continuance; we have to acquire by a process of aggregation and association, the highly artificial experience of things permanently situated in a relationship of co-existence in space or extension.

It is at this point that Sensation comes to our aid. Passive sensation by itself is incompetent to give us the foundations of extension; through it, we have neither resistance nor movement, nor any fact partaking in what is essential to the extended or object universe. Mere warmth, odour, relish, touch, sound, colour, contain no elements of extension. The co-operation with moving energy is what introduces us to the object world.

How then does Sensation aid muscularity in evolving Extension? In various ways, but chiefly thus. Our movements are not performed in vacuo, but in conjunction with sensation. The movements of the hand and arm, are usually conjoined with sensations of touch. We draw the hand across a table; there is an arm sensibility, purely motor or energetic, which is distinct from every mode of passive sensation. There accompanies it, however, a series of tactile sensations, making a united experience, active and passive. If this conjunction {150} were to happen but once, nothing would be thought of it farther than as a mere experience of succession. Again, in another situation the sweep of the movement ends in a contact or sensation of touch, or begins in the loss of such a contact. So far, these are mere casual conjunctions, unions of moving energy and passive sensibility. But in the course of many trials, there arise uniform conjunctions of movement with passive sensibility: the same movement being associated with the same tactile series, or with the same beginning or ending of tactile sensation. Take the case of the movement of the hand over the surface of our own body. A certain definite start, and definite amount of exertion brings with it a uniform tactile sensation, as in drawing the hand over the face. This uniformity generates an expectation that the same sensation will follow on the same definite energy. Many such conjunctions are formed in this manner. There is an interesting variety of the experience of such concurrences; namely, when we reverse a movement, and find a series of sensations identified as the same in an inverted order. The hand passed along the side of a knife, experiences movement coupled with sensations, as often as the movement is made; the inverted movement inverts the sensations.

The supposition, hitherto, has been confined to Touch. When we take in sight, the scope for the operation is greatly enlarged. Almost all our movements are conjoined with optical changes--sensations of colour and of visible form in a certain sequence. We speedily detect a number of uniform occurrences of movement and visible sensation. The same movement gives the same series of appearances at all times; and an inverted movement corresponds with an inverted order. Here too we attain to a number of uniformities of coincidence, with the expectation of future occurrence. A certain movement of the eyes is accompanied with an optical series, as scanning the starry heavens; as often as the movement is repeated from the same stand-point, the optical series is repeated; the inverted movement gives the inverted series. We {151} contract an expectation, that such a coincidence will occur in the future, and this expectation is our idea of the starry space.

Our idea of extended things is thus completed by sensation. It is a series of conjunctions, or associations, of movements and sensations, in a fixed order. We do not in our idea of space, command an entire view at one glance; the successive perception of points or limited portions is what we begin with, and is the character of the mind's working even after we are educated to the utmost. The co-existing in space, is the mind's potentiality of finding definite sensations by means of definite movements; and it seems impossible to assign any other meaning or import to the phenomena. The genesis of the idea of space determines our mode of settling the great question of the Perception of a material world.--_B._]

[Editor's footnote 32: It will be both useful and interesting to the inquiring reader, if I add to the analysis of these very complex ideas by the author of the present treatise, and to that by Mr. Bain, the analysis given of them by the other great living master of the Association psychology, Mr. Herbert Spencer. The following passages are from his "Principles of Psychology." First, of Resistance: