of very difficult discussion, and upon which I shall not presume to offer an opinion. The failure of Wilkins' very ingenious attempt towards a real character, and a philosophical language, is not perhaps decisive against such a project; for, not to mention some radical defects in his plan, the views of that very eminent philosopher do not seem to have extended much farther than to promote and extend the literary intercourse among different nations. Leibnitz, so far as I know, is the only author who has hitherto conceived the possibility of aiding the powers of invention and of reasoning, by the use of a more convenient instrument of thought: but he has no where explained his ideas on this very interesting subject. It is only from a conversation of his with Mr. Boyle and Mr. Oldenburgh, when he was in England in 1673, and from some imperfect hints in different parts of his works,* that we find it had engaged his attention. In the course of this conversation he observed, that Wilkins had mistaken the true end of a real character, which was not merely to enable different nations to correspond easily together, but to assist the reason, the invention, and the memory. In his writings, too, he somewhere speaks of an alphabet of human thoughts, which he had been employed in forming and which, probably, (as Fontenelle has remarked) had some relation to his universal language.t

The new nomenclature which has been introduced into chemistry, seems to me to furnish a striking illustration of the effect of appropriated and well defined expressions in aiding the iutellectual powers; and the period is probably not far distant, when similar innovations will be attempted in some of the other sciences.

SECTION V.

Of the Purposes to which the Powers of Abstraction and Generalization are subservient.

Ir has been already shewn, that, without the use of signs, all our knowledge must necessarily have been limited to individuals, and that we should have been perfectly incapable both of classification and general reasoning. Some authors have maintained, that without the power of generalization, (which I have endeavoured to shew, means nothing more than the capacity of employing general terms,) it would

"M. Leibnitz avoit conçu le projet d'une langue philosophique et universelle. Wilkins Evêque de Chester, et Dalgarno y avoient travaillé; mais dès le tems qu'il étoit en Angleterre, il avoit dit à Messieurs Boyle et d'Oldenbourg qu'il ne croyoit pas que ces grands hommes eussent encore frappé au but. Ils pouvoient bien faire que des nations qui ne s'entendoient pas eussent aisément commerce, mais ils n'avoient pas attrappé les véritables caractères réels, qui étoient l'instrument le plus fin dont l'esprit humain se pût servir, et qui devoient extrêmement faciliter et le raisonnement, et la mémoire, et l'invention des choses. Ils devoient ressembler, autant qu'il étoit possible, aux caractères d'algebre, qui en effet sont très simples, et très expressifs, qui n'ont jamais ni superfluité, ni équivoque et dont toutes les variétés sont raisonnées. Il a parlé en quelque endroit, d'un alphabet des pensées humaines, qu'il méditoit. Selon toutes les apparences, cet alphabet avoit rapport à sa langue universelle."

Eloge de M. LEIBNITZ par M. de FONTENELLE.

have been impossible for us to have carried on any species of reasoning whatever. But I cannot help thinking that this opinion is erroneous, or, at least, that it is very imperfectly stated. The truth is, it appears to me to be just in one sense of the word reasoning, but false in another; and I even suspect it is false in that sense of the word in which it is most commonly employed. Before, therefore, it is laid down as a general proposition, the meaning we are to annex to this very vague and ambiguous term, should be ascertained with precision.

It has been remarked by several writers, that the expectation which we feel of the continuance of the laws of nature, is not founded upon reasoning; and different theories have of late been proposed to account for its origin. Mr. Hume resolves it into the association of ideas. Dr. Reid, on the other hand, maintains, that it is an original principle of our constitution, which does not admit of any explanation, and which, therefore, is to be ranked among those general and ultimate facts, beyond which philosophy is unable to proceed. Without this principle of expectation, it would be impossible for us to accommodate our conduct to the established course of nature; and, accordingly, we find that it is a principle coeval with our very existance; and, in some measure, common to man with the lower animals.

It is an obvious consequence of this doctrine, that, although philosophers be accustomed to state what are commonly called the laws of nature, in the form of general propositions, it is by no means necessary for the practical purposes of life that we should express them in this manner; or even that we should express them in words at all. The philosopher, for example, may state it as a law of nature, that "fire scorches;" or that "heavy bodies, when unsupported, fall downwards :" but, long before the use of artificial signs and even before the dawn of reason, a child learns to act upon both of these suppositions. In doing so, it is influenced merely by the instinctive principle which has now been mentioned, directed in its operation (as is the case with many other instincts) by the experience of the individual. If man, therefore, had

*In inquiries of this nature, so far removed from the common course of literary pursuits, it always gives me pleasure to remark a coincidence of opinion among different philosophers; particularly among men of original genius, and who have been educated in different philosophical systems. The following passage, in which M. de Condorcet gives an account of some of the metaphysical opinions of the late Mr. Turgot, approaches very nearly to Dr. Reid's doctrines.

"La mémoire de nos sensations, et la faculté que nous avons de réfléchir sur ses sensations passées et de les combiner, sont le seul principe denos connoissances. La supposition qu'il existe des loix constantes auxquelles tous les phénomènes observés sont assujettis de manière à reparoitre dans tous les temps, dans toutes les circonstances, tels qu'ils sont déterminés par ces loix, est le seul fondement de la certitude de ces connoissances.

"Nous avons la conscience d'avoir observé cette constance, et un sentiment involontaire nous force de croire qu'elle continuera de subsister. La probabilité qui en résulte, quelque grande qu'elle soit, n'est pas une certitude. Aucune relation nécessaire ne lie pour nous le passé à l'avenir, ni la constance de ce que j'ai vu à celle de ce que j'aurois continué d'observer si j'étois resté dans des circon. stances semblables; mais l'impression qui me porte à regarder comme existant, comme, réel ce qui m'a présenté ce caractere de constance est irrésistible."-Vie de TURGOT, partie ii. p. 56.

“Quand un François et un Anglois pensent de même, (says Voltaire,) il faut bien qu'ils aient raison."

been destined for no other purposes, than to acquire such an acquaintance with the course of nature as is necessary for the preservation of his animal existence, he might have fulfilled all the ends of his being without the use of language.

As we are enabled, by our instinctive anticipation of physical events, to accommodate our conduct to what we foresee is to happen, so we are enabled, in many cases, to increase our power, by employing physical causes as instruments for the accomplishment of our purposes; nay, we can employ a series of such causes, so as to accomplish very rem te effects. We can employ the agency of air, to increase the heat of a furnace; the furnace to render iron malleable; and the iron to all the various purposes of the mechanical arts. Now, it appears to me, that all this may be conceived and done without the aid of language: and yet, assuredly, to discover a series of meaus su servient to a particular end, or, in other words, an effort of mechanical invention, implies, according to the common doctrines of philosophers. the exercise of our reasoning powers. In this sense, therefore, of the word reasoning, I am inclined to think, that it is not essentially connected with the faculty of generalization, or with the use of signs.

It is some confirmation of this conclusion, that savages, whose minds are almost wholly occupied with particulars, and who have neither inclination nor capacity for general speculations, are yet occasionally observed to employ a long train of meaus for accomplishing a particular purpose. Even something of this kind, but in a very inferior degree, may, I think, be remarked in the other animals; and that they do not carry it farther, is probably not the effect of their want of generalization, but of the imperfection of some of those faculties which are common to them with our species, particularly of their powers of attention and recollection. The instances which are commonly produced to prove that they are not destitute of the power of reasoning, are all examples of that species of contrivance which has been mentioned; and are perfectly distinct from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is essentially subservient.*

*One of the best attested instances which I have met with, of sagacity in the lower animals, is mentioned by M. Bailly, in his Lettre sur les Animaux, addressed to M. Le Roy.

:

"Un de mes amis, homme d'esprit et digne de confiance, m'a raconté deux faits dont il a été temon. Il avoit un singe très intelligent; il s'amusoit à lui donner des noix dont l'animal étoit très friand; mais il les plaçoit assez loin, pour que retenu par sa chaine, le singe ne put pas les atteindre après bien des efforts inutiles qui ne servent qu'à préparer Pinvention, le singe, voyant passer un domestique portant une serviette sous le bras, se saisit de cette serviette, et s'en servit pour atteindre à la noix et l'amener jusqu'à lui. La manière de casser la noix exigea une nouvelle invention; il en vint àbout, en plaçant la noix à terre, en y faisant tomber de haut une pierre ou un cailloux pour la briser. Vous voyez, Monsieur, que sans avoir connu, comme Gallilée, les loix de la chûte des corps, le singe avoit bien remarqué la force que ces corps acquièrent par la chûte. Ce moyen cependant se trouva en défaut. Un jour qu'il avoit plu, la terre étoit molle, la noix enfonçoit, et la pierre n'avoit plus d'action pour la briser. Que fit le singe? Il alla chercher un tuileau, plaça la noix dessus, et en laissant tomber la pierre il brisa la noix qui n'enfonçoit plus."-Discours et mémoires par l'Auteur de l'Histoire de l'Astronomie. A Paris, 1790, tome ii. p. 126.

Admitting these facts to be accurately stated, they still leave an essential distinction between man and brute; for in none of the contrivances here mentioned, is VOL. F.

14

Whether that particular species of mechanical contrivance which has now been mentioned, and which consists merely in employing a series of physical causes to accomplish an effect which we cannot produce immediately, should or should not be dignified with the name of reasoning, I shall not now inquire. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that it is essentially different from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is indispensably necessary. At the same time, I am ready to acknowledge, that what I have now said, is not strictly applicable to those more complicated mechanical inventions, in which a variety of powers are made to conspire at once to produce a particular effect. Such contrivances, perhaps, may be found to involve processes of the mind which cannot be carried on without signs. But these questions will fall more properly under our consideration when we enter on the subject of reasoning.

In general, it may be remarked, that, in so far as our thoughts relate merely to individual objects, or to individual events, which we have actually perceived, and of which we retain a distinct remembrance,* we are not under the necessity of employing words. It frequently, however, happens, that when the subjects of our consideration are particular, our reasoning with respect to them may involve very general notions; and, in such cases, although we may conceive, without the use of words, the things about which we reason, yet we must necessarily have recourse to language in carrying on our speculations concerning them. If the subjects of our reasoning be general (under which description I include all our reasonings, whether more or less comprehensive, which do not relate merely to individuals,) words are the sole objects about which our thoughts are employed. According as these words are comprehensive or limited in their signification, the conclusions we form will be more or less general; but this accidental circumstance does not in the least affect the nature of the intellectual process; so that it may be laid down as a proposition which holds without any ex

there any thing analogous to those intellectual processes which lead the mind to general conclusions, and which (according to the foregoing doctrine) imply the use of general terms. Those powers, therefore, which enable us to classify objects, and to employ signs as an instrument of thought, are, as far as we can judge, peculiar to the human species.

I have thought it proper to add this limitation of the general proposition; because individual objects, and individual events, which have not fallen under the examination of our senses, cannot possibly be made the subjects of our consideration, but by means of language. The manner in which we think of such objects and events, is accurately described in the following passage of Wollaston; however unphilosophical the conclusion may be which he deduces from his reasoning. "A man is not known ever the more to posterity, because his name is transmitted to them; he doth not live, because his name does. When it is said, Julius Cæsar subdued Gaul, beat Pompey, changed the Roman commonwealth into a monarchy, &c. it is the same thing as to say, the conqueror of Pompey was Cæsar; that is, Cæsar, and the conqueror of Pompey, are the same thing; and Cæsar is as much known by the one distinction as the other.-The amount then is only this: that the conqueror of Pompey conquered Pompey; or somebody conquered Pompey; or rather, since Pompey is as little known now as Cæsar, somebody conquered somebody. Such a poor business is this boasted immortality; and such, as has been here described, is the thing called glory among us!" Religion of NAT. DEL. P. 117.

ception, that, in every case, in which we extend our speculations beyond individuals, language is not only an useful auxiliary, but is the sole instrument by which they are carried on.

These remarks naturally lead me to take notice of what forms the characteristical distinction between the speculations of the philosopher and of the vulgar. It is not, that the former is accustomed to carry on his processes of reasoning to a greater extent than the latter; but that the conclusions he is accustomed to form, are far more comprehensive, in consequence of the habitual employment of more comprehensive terms. Among the most unenlightened of mankind, we often meet with individuals who possess the reasoning faculty in a very eminent degree, but as this faculty is employed merely about particulars, it never can conduct thein to general truths, and, of consequence, whether their pursuits in life lead them to speculation or to action, it can only fit them for distinguishing themselves in some very limited and subordinate sphere. The philosopher, whose mind has been familiarized by educa, tion, and by his own reflections, to the correct use of more comprehensive terms, is enabled, without perhaps a greater degree of intellectual exertion than is necessary for managing the details of ordinary business, to arrive at general theorems; which, when illustrated to the lower classes of men, in their particular applications, seem to indicate a fer. tility of invention, little short of supernatural.*

The analogy of the algebraical art may be of use in illustrating these observations. The difference, in fact, hetween the investigations we carry on by its assistance, and other processes of reasoning, is more inconsiderable than is commonly imagined; and, if I am not mistaken, amounts only to this, that the former are expressed in an appropriate language, with which we are not accustomed to associate particular notions. Hence they exhibit the efficacy of signs as an instrument of thought in a more distinct and palpable manner, than the speculations we carry on by words, which are continually awakening the power of Conception.

When the celebrated Vieta shewed algebraists, that by substituting in their investigations letters of the alphabet, instead of known quantities, they might render the solution of every problem subservient to the discovery of a general truth, he did not increase the difficulty of algebraical reasonings; he only enlarged the signification of the terms in which they were expressed. And if, in teaching that science, it is found expedient to accustom students to solve problems by means of the particular numbers which are given, before they are made acquainted with literal or specious arithmetic, it is not because the former processes are less intricate than the latter, but because their scope and utility are more obvious, and because it is more easy to illustrate, by examples, than by

* "General reasonings seem intricate, merely because they are general; nor is it easy for the bulk of mankind to distinguish, in a great number of particulars, that common circumstance in which they all agree, or to extract it, pure and unmixt, from the other superfluous circumstances. Every judgment or conclusion with them is particular. They cannot enlarge their view to those universal propositions, which comprehend under them an infinite number of individuals, and inélude a whole science in a single theorem. Their eye is confounded with such an xtensive prospect; and the conclusions derived from it, even though clearly exressed, seem intricate and obscure."

HUME'S Political Discourses