FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235  
236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   >>   >|  
other, it being the very nature of a relative to be thinkable only through the conjunct thought of its correlative." We comprehend nothing more completely than the infinite; "for the idea of illimitation is as clear, precise, and intelligible as the idea of limitability, which is its basis. The propositions "A is X" "A is not X," are equally comprehensible; the conceptions A and X are in both cases positive data of experience, while the affirmation and negation consist solely in the copulative or disjunctive nature of the predication. Consequently, if X is comprehensible, so is not--X; if the finite is comprehensible, so is the infinite."[341] Whilst denying that the infinite can by us be _known_, Hamilton tells us he is "far from denying that it is, must, and ought to be _believed_."[342] "We must believe in the infinity of God." "Faith--belief--is the organ by which we apprehend what is beyond knowledge."[343] We heartily assent to the doctrine that the Infinite Being is the object of faith, but we earnestly deny that the Infinite Being is not an object of knowledge. May not knowledge be grounded upon faith, and does not faith imply knowledge? Can we not obtain knowledge through faith? Is not the belief in the Infinite Being implied in our knowledge of finite existence? If so, then God as the infinite and perfect, God as the unconditioned Cause, is not absolutely "the unknown." [Footnote 340: Hamilton's "Logic," p. 73.] [Footnote 341: North American Review, October, 1864, article "Conditioned and the Unconditioned," pp. 441, 442.] [Footnote 342: Letter to Calderwood, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 530.] [Footnote 343: "Lectures on Metaphysics," vol. ii. p. 374.] A full exposition of Sir William Hamilton's views of _Faith_ in its connection with Philosophy would have been deeply interesting to us, and it would have filled up a gap in the interpretation of his system. The question naturally presents itself, how would he have discriminated between faith and knowledge, so as to assign to each its province? If our notion of the Infinite Being rests entirely upon faith, then upon what ultimate ground does faith itself rest? On the authority of Scripture, of the Church, or of reason? The only explicit statement of his view which has fallen in our way is a note in his edition of Reid.[344] "We _know_ what rests upon reason; we _believe_ what rests upon authority. But reason itself must rest at last upon authority; for th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235  
236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
knowledge
 

Infinite

 
infinite
 

Footnote

 
comprehensible
 

Hamilton

 

authority

 
reason
 

denying

 

belief


object
 

finite

 

nature

 

Lectures

 

William

 
edition
 

exposition

 
Metaphysics
 
Conditioned
 

Unconditioned


article

 

October

 

Appendix

 

Calderwood

 

Letter

 

notion

 

province

 

interpretation

 

ultimate

 

assign


question
 

naturally

 

Review

 
system
 

discriminated

 

filled

 

Philosophy

 

statement

 
presents
 
connection

explicit

 

Church

 
interesting
 

ground

 

deeply

 

Scripture

 

fallen

 

positive

 

conceptions

 

propositions