Review of the Work of Mr John Stuart Mill Entitled, 'Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy.' by George Grote
page 33 of 63 (52%)
page 33 of 63 (52%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
I call my life--both these notions are, by an irresistible
association, recalled by every sensation I have. They represent two things, with both of which the sensation of the moment, be it what it may, stands in relation; and I cannot be conscious of the sensation without being conscious of it as related to these two things. They have accordingly received relative names, expressive of the double relation in question. The thread of consciousness which I apprehend the relation as a part of, is called the _Subject_; the group of Permanent Possibilities of Sensation to which I refer it, and which is partially realized and actualized in it, is called the _Object_ of the sensation. The sensation itself ought to have a correlative name, or rather ought to have two such names--one denoting the sensation as opposed to its Subject, the other denoting it as opposed to its Object; but it is a remarkable fact that this necessity has not been felt, and that the need of a correlative name to every relative one has been considered to be satisfied by the terms Object and Subject themselves. It is true that these two are related to one another, but only through the sensation. We have no conception of either Subject or Object, either Mind or Matter, except as something to which we refer our sensations, and whatever other feelings we are conscious of. _The very existence of them both, so far as cognizable by us, consists only in the relation they respectively bear to our states of feeling._ Their relation to each other is only the relation between those two relations. The immediate correlatives are, not the pair, _Object, Subject,_ but the two pairs, Object, _Sensation objectively considered_--Subject, _Sensation subjectively |
|