ce,
thus: 'Major--this is a tin can; minor--it lies neglected in the
garden; conclusion--tin cans get abandoned to neglect.' And so
on, as to the use of the contents and the value of the can,
running out into a long series of inferences."

As we have now reached the seventh heaven of Concord philosophy, and
know how to distinguish an old tin can from an elephant, let us rest
in peace, to meditate and enjoy its serene delights. We have had the
supreme satisfaction of listening to the modern Plato, the leader at
Concord. The _Herald_ has informed us that on another day "the school
listened with great satisfaction to Prof. Harris, who is constantly
adding to the deep impression he has already made, and to the high
opinion in which he is held as the most acute and profound thinker of
the times, in his field."

Lest the reader should fail to see in the foregoing what the _great
contribution_ to philosophy is, let us look in the _Open Court_ of
Chicago, which has a most affectionate partiality for metaphysical
mystery. It says this "Best contribution to philosophy" "may be summed
up thus," "We can perceive nothing but what we can identify with what
was familiar already." If this were true, the babe could never
perceive anything, as it begins without any knowledge, and it would be
impossible for us to learn anything or acquire any new ideas. This is
rather an amusing _discovery_! but it is barely possible or
conceivable that there are some old fossils whose minds are in that
melancholy condition.

P. S. After a few hours of repose to recover from mental fatigue and
digest the new wisdom so suddenly let loose upon mankind, we discover
the new aspect of the world of (Concord) philosophy. The great
question of the future will be to syllogize or not to syllogize. Is it
possible to distinguish an elephant from a tin can by any other method
than the syllogism? When that question is decisively settled, if it
ever can be settled (for metaphysical questions generally last through
the centuries) Prof. Harris will have an opportunity to win still
brighter laurels, and make still greater contributions to philosophy,
by finding more syllogisms. Will he not prove that mathematics is the
sphere of syllogism also, for if two and two make four, does not the
conception of four assume the position of the major predicate, which
is the generalized idea of one to a quadruple extent, and also of twos
duplicated. Thus the major pr