131.

the

considera

question shows that the continuous does

The not lie in

in

the single

a parts, but

in a prinIf the ciple embracing ground them all

in

at once,

this and hence

that the

part continuous

cannot ex

as the term

of the act principle.

of a simple

The terms of this question, when closely con- A close sidered, so far from containing the contradiction tion of this which at first sight they seem to imply, are the expression of the simple and only truth of matter. The outcome of this truth is this: continuously extended cannot exist save simple principle, as the term of its act. case were otherwise, there would be no for the continuity of the parts assignable extended term, since the existence of one terminates with that part, and does not contain ist, except the ground of the other part which adheres to it. The ground of continuity, therefore, does not lie in the single parts, but in a principle, and that a simple one, which embraces all the parts at once. Moreover, but for this principle, the parts themselves, of which we suppose the continuous to be made up, would vanish the instant we tried to look for them; for, the extended being divisible ad indefinitum, the first parts of it could never be found, and, indeed, do not exist. It is not possible, therefore, to consider the continuous as an aggregate of parts, and yet every part of it assignable by thought is outside every other, and has an existence independent of every other. It is impossible, therefore, that the continuous, as a whole, should exist otherwise than by a single act in the simple principle which feels it.

This section expresses one of the important doctrines of Rosmini's system, viz., that the principle of all continuity is sensation; that even space is continuous only through and to something in which all the parts of it are at once present. That this something is not extended is clear. If it were, it would have to contain some higher principle in which all its parts were simultaneously present, and the same difficulty as before would occur. The only way, therefore, in which extension or space can be continuous, or in which each part can so involve the rest as to be separable from them only mentally, is that the unity of the parts shall be constituted by something having the form of sensibility, that is, something in which the whole is present in each assignable part. That space involves a sensitive principle is, therefore, manifest. We must not conclude, however, that this sensitive principle actually feels, as a sensitive principle connected with a body does; but merely that it is something which, if connected with a body, would feel. Neither must we conclude that space is simply the correlate or term of the various sensitive principles connected with bodies, as in men and animals, and, therefore, that there are as many spaces as there are such principles. On the contrary, it is perfectly plain that there is but one space, in and through which all sensitive principles communicate with each other. The truth is that the sensitive principle of space is the whole, whereof all other sensitive principles are but determinate parts, or, more correctly, embodied manifestations. When these other particular sensitive principles become disembodied, they return into their universal principle, except in so far as they are prevented from doing so by their union with something which has not space for its term, that is, with intelligence, whose object and form is being (cf. under § 127).

"I take as the object of my contemplation," says Rosmini, "any body, and I ask myself, What is the characteristic and essential property of this body? I reply, What forms the characteristic and essential property of this body, as I conceive it (and I always speak only of what I con

ceive), is that every part of it is outside of every other. see also that what I affirm of this body, I may affirm of every other body. Hence I conclude that body is a being of such essence that every part assignable in it by thought, whether great or small, is outside of every other.

"Having fixed this essential property of body, I wish now to see whether body can be the sentient principle itself, or whether to suppose so would involve contradiction. In order to arrive at clearness in this matter, I reason as follows-Let it be supposed that sensitivity adheres to body as a property of it. Then, obviously, all the parts that I can assign in it will be sentient. But as every part of it is outside of every other part, through the essential nature of body, and no one goes beyond its own limits, it must follow, according to the supposition, that likewise the sensitivity adhering to these parts will not go beyond their limits, and hence the sensitivity of one part will be outside that of all the other parts. If this were the case, the sensitivity would no longer be truly a single sensitive principle; but there would be as many such principles as there were parts in the body in question, and each of these principles would not be able to feel the entire body, but each only its own part, not going beyond it to the others, for the reason assigned, viz., that each part to which the sentient principle adheres is outside of every other. Now, it is clear that the parts which may be thought and marked in a body may be divided and subdivided indefinitely, and that, however far we carry this division, each of the assignable parts of which the body is essentially composed is outside of the others. Consequently, the sensitivity of each of these minute particles will be outside of the sensitivity of all the other minute particles. Moreover, no particle can be rendered so minute that particles still more minute cannot be assigned in it; which is the same thing as saying that we may go on indefinitely assigning sensitive principles without ever arriving at an ultimate sensitive principle. Finally, we may make one or other of two suppositions-the one, that each particle always remains extended, and, therefore, with parts always located outside of each other; the other (which,

however, I have elsewhere shown to be absurd), that, by dint of division, each extended particle comes at last to be changed into simple points. In this second case, the sensitivity would adhere to simple points and would be incapable of feeling anything extended. In the other case, the true seat of sensitivity would never be found. In either case, the same consequence would follow the particle remaining extended, and every point assignable in the extended being outside of every other, it would always result that the sensitivity adhering to each point could never go beyond such point, because the point does not go beyond itself. Therefore, once more, the sensitive principle would not be capable of feeling the extended.

"From this reasoning we derive a most important and undeniable truth, viz., that the extended cannot feel the extended. . . . Since extension, therefore, forms an essential property of bodies, it is clear that the essential properties of bodies contradict the essential properties of feeling. Feeling, therefore, cannot exist in the extended, but only in a perfectly simple subject, to which all the extended is simultaneously present" (Psychology, §§ 94-97).

In order to understand the following quotation it is necessary to know that, according to Rosmini, the ultimate elements of matter are animate; that each atom has, united with it and forming its unity or atomicity, a sensitive principle. He holds, moreover, that, when atoms chemically combine, their sensitive principles become one. With this view, he, of course, sees no difficulty in accepting the doctrine of spontaneous generation. It is, indeed, difficult to see what could form a unity in anything other than a principle having the form of sense, and existing altogether independent of space or extension (see Psychology, vol. i. $$ 500 sqq.).

"All the phenomena presented by bodily feeling presuppose that every sensitive soul has for its natural term solid space, or, if the expression be preferred, unmeasured space, within which the corporeal terms of feeling expand in a space limited and measured by determinate boundaries. If to this doctrine we add that of the animation of the

elements of matter, it will follow that the corporeal elements described by us resemble, in a certain way, the monads of Leibniz, which are representatives of the universe. Our elements, or, rather, our first sentient principles, would not, indeed, be representatives of the universe in the sense in which the monads of Leibniz were supposed to be, because that great man supposed these to represent the universe with all that it contains, corporeal as well as spiritual beings, whereas our sensitive principles embrace only unlimited, unmeasured space, in which corporeal beings subsist. . . .

66

Having reached the result stated above,

we are

now obliged to propose to ourselves the question: Can there be a sentient principle which feels nothing but solid, unlimited space; and if there were such, would it be an individual? . . .

"We say that the concept of such a principle involves no absurdity, and, if there were such a principle, it would certainly be an individual, on account of the simplicity and reality attached to the nature of principle and of such a principle. But hence there springs a consequence of some moment, which is, that there could only be one such individual. If two principles had an identical term, such as unlimited space, they could not in any way have a distinct reality, and hence they would not be two, but one; reality being the principle of individuation. Now, that such principles could not have a distinct reality, is proved in this way. Principles, as such, have no activity or reality but what they receive from their terms. If with the imagination we add any other reality to them, they will no longer be mere principles, as the hypothesis requires. If, therefore, the term is one and identical, the reality and activity of the correlative principle must likewise be one and identical. But solid, unlimited space is one and identical. Therefore the correlative principle of this term must also be one and identical. . . . If we admit this, what relation will such a single principle bear to the sensitive souls of bodies? These will rise and individuate themselves within this principle by means of new terms, that is,