CHAPTER XIV.

REFLECTING FACULTIES.

ALL reasoning is mere matter of fact. The most profound, subtle, and logical argument, is nothing whatever but a statement of truisms, or of things which have been observed to exist. In a brief space, all that is most admirable in ratiocination may be comprised. Reflection may be reduced to the very simplest elements. To talk of inferences or deductions as any thing else than the mere statement of a rule, is absurd; and rules are made up in the discovery of a resemblance betwixt individual phenomena. When we speak of a resemblance betwixt objects, all that we mean is, that they strike us to be the same in certain particulars; and when we have got to that point, we can proceed no further. A conclusion is nothing more than an assertion of fact; to speak of there being a reason for it, is to maintain that there is no such thing as an ultimate truth. Take the simplest proposition, and try it by the test of this principle. When we say, that "things equal to the same thing are equal to one another," we have no abstract reason for the statement, or any ground a priori for making such an assertion. Before discovering that it is a fact, we had no more warrant for saying that they were equal to one another, than that they were not. It is only from having observed that a great number of A's are equal to a great number of B's and of C's, and that all these B's which are equal to A's, are also equal to C's, that we say all the B's and C's which are equal to A's, are equal to one another; and substituting the word Things for B C, at last aver, that because things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to one another. The term "because," here means simply, "it has been observed that;" and in all cases, this latter phrase may be most usefully substituted. Take the common syllogism:-Man is mortal; John is a man; therefore, John is mortal. Adam, before the death of Abel, could not have understood this proposition. Even when Abel died, he would not have had any idea that other men would undergo a like change, until all men within the sphere of his past observation being found to share exactly the same fate, he had been led to expect that all men in future would also die. But why would he make such an inference? Only from this, that in all things around him, he perceived that what was true of the past and present, uniformly turned out to be true of the future, and therefore, that men to come, would be the same as those who had gone or were going. But because ten thousand men have died, it does not follow that John will die, unless two things are observed; first, that John resembles in every respect the ten thousand men; second, that in all cases, it has been found that entities which agree with each other in all other respects, agree in their ultimate fate, and that an individual existence which is exactly similar to a great number in its present conditions, uniformly resembles them in its final result. This is the reason why John is called mortal, because man is mortal; and it means no more than that it is a fact established by invariable experience, that all future events, precisely the same as all past events, have been predicated, at any given punctum temporis, to terminate in the same way, and that predication has been uniformly verified by the issue.

Referring the reader to Dr. Thomas Brown's Theory of Cause and Effect, the infallibility of which we consider as proved, by a minute examination of all the contingencies to which his principle has been applied, we shall not pursue this illustration further. We shall rather proceed, in the application of these remarks, to observe, that as the construction of the human intellect must, of course, be exactly adapted to the external world, and to the laws of the Creator, it follows, that as all which has hitherto been named reflection or ratiocination, has been discovered to be nothing more than the observation of facts, those powers of the mind which many have conspired to term reflecting faculties, are simply perceiving faculties-organs adapted to the observation of the relations of phenomena, whether of matter or

mind.

Ratiocination proceeds from a combination of two powers. The one is the faculty of perceiving succession-sequence-the relation of antecedent and consequent-ory the fact, that one event is immediately followed by another. This function is per vi formed by the organ of Causality. The other is the faculty of perceiving the resem ce blance of sequence; the similarity betwixt a number of antecedents and consequents at

h

So

the fact, that a number of events are, in the features of all their conditions, and in the order of their series of occurrence, exactly the same. The organ of Comparison produces this power.* Causality marks the order in which impressions are made upon the mind; Comparison perceives the resemblance betwixt the impressions, and also betwixt the series in which they are observed. We do not suppose that these organs perceive the external world. Our present impression is, that they only observe the action of other organs. We are not of opinion, for example, that Comparison sees a man's face and his portrait, and finds a resemblance betwixt them; or, that Causality marks a lighted match, then its application to the touch-hole of a cannon, and lastly, the explosion. We rather incline to the idea, that these organs perceive only the changes in the states of the rest; and that the perceptive faculties themselves mark the phenomena. Thus, Form is impressed with the face of Sir Walter Scott, it is thereafter presented with his bust; and, in both cases, the action of the external figure has the effect of superinducing in that organ the same state. Comparison, probably, merely perceives the similarity in the two states of the organ of Form, and does not directly observe the likeness of the bust to the living countenance. of Causality. We presume, that it does not perceive the order of succession of the events or objects of the external world. The Knowing Faculties, as they are called, probably perceive these; and the function of Causality seems to be, simply to observe the succession of states which the other organs experience, by the orderly consequential action of the circumstances of which they respectively take cognisance, and the series in which they are impressed by the phenomena of the external world. The mode of action whereby reasoning is produced from the action of these organs, will be very easily understood by all who have studied the work of Dr. Thomas Brown. A fair developement of both organs is essentially necessary to the production of a philosophical understanding. To reason correctly, the addition of an average endowment of all the perceptive faculties is absolutely indispensable; for, incorrectness of observation of the external phenomena, or an omission of part of them from the chain of survey, are equally fatal to the accuracy of our conclusions. Deficient in Causality, it is plain that we will not perceive events in the proper order of their occurrence; and on endeavouring to recall them, we will transpose and confuse the series in which they happened. Deprived of a proper share of Comparison, we will be indisposed to observe the resemblance of different orders of sequence, both in the nature of the objects classed, and in the relation of succession in which each occurs in its respective order. Inaccuracy in either of these points, will most certainly produce a flaw in the whole chain of our ratiocination. If there be a false resemblance betwixt the series of sequences which we compare, of course the conclusion will be wrong which anticipates the same result from the one that has already occurred in the other, and our generalised principles will be educed erroneously. If there be a transposition of any one member in the order of sequence, then the most precise analogy in the world will not produce an accurate conclusion; because the event, in the case which is adduced as the pattern of the one immediately in question, is produced by circumstances which occurred in a different series from those of that chain with which it is compared. A mind which should perceive every step in the class of circumstances which produced any given result, and be strictly accurate in recollection of the series in which they occurred, and which should combine with this element, an infallible perception of the resemblance of any two series of circumstances, would be a truly perfect mind, because its deductions would be absolutely certain.

66

It is not uncommon to hear metaphysical and moral writers speaking with contempt of men who reason merely by analogy. Comparison," observes Mr. Combe, "gives a tendency to what is frequently called reasoning, but which is very different from the correct and severe inductions of a sound logic; namely, it endeavours to prove that one thing is of such and such a nature, because it resembles another which is so-in short, it reasons by analogy, and is prone to convert an illustration

* Mr. Phineas Deseret, a very ingenious Phrenologist, was, so far as we know, the first to state that the function of Causality and Comparison was simply the perception of sequence and resemblance. He also claims, but we think with less success, to be the discoverer of certain views as to the function of Eventuality, which he conceives have anticipated our theory. We do not however perceive any thing in his opinions materially different from those of Spurzheim and Combe.

into an argument." And what is any argument whatever, but simply an illustration? Or what possible reason can be assigned for coming to any conclusion, upon any subject-we care not what-but simply, that all the premises exactly resemble others which had a similar conclusion? Nor can there be the least doubt in the mind of any man who understands the question at all, that where all the circumstances in two series of events are the same, the result of the one must be precisely that of the other; and all our notions of design in the government of the universe, and all our impressions of the existence of laws, physical, organic, and mental, emanating from God, have no other origin than this, that it is not in the least uncertain what conclusion will follow from given premises, but that so far from its being left to chance whether any series of conditions will have a peculiar end, it is inevitable that because exactly similar orders of succession have had a certain conclusion, this which is under immediate consideration must and will terminate in the same result. All errors in logic, indeed, arise only from this circumstance, that men do not reason from analogy, but rather derive the same conclusion from two sets of circumstances which do not resemble each other. Mr. Combe has mistaken altogether the cause of superficial reasoning, when he attributes it to an over-developement of Comparison. That organ perceives resemblances in the objects or relations furnished to it by the other organs; and if it be large, these will be perfectly accurate. But if the other organs give in a false report, the keenest perception of analogy must of course produce only error in its conclusions. The general fault in superficial logicians, is, not the possession of too large Comparison, but of too small Causality, which, either omitting some steps of the series of sequences, or not being sufficiently powerful to register the series in which they occur with precision, but, on the contrary, transposing some of the steps, gives to Comparison a false representation of their order, and thus tempts it to make a false conclusion, by furnishing it with erroneous premises. Take away reasoning by analogy, and there will remain absolutely nothing. Causality without Comparison, is inoperative in logic. It perceives the premises, but never can make the conclusion. It observes the chain of succession in events-the series in which circumstances occur; but there its function begins, and there it ends. It is to Comparison, as are objects in their abstract and simple state to objects in their relative and classified form-the tools of trade, but not the workman. As in the case of Widow Quickly, it can detail every step in the progress of occurrences, in the exact order in which they happened; but, destitute of the power of detecting any resemblance betwixt these and another series of events which had a certain issue, it has of course no datum for a conclusion. We speak advisedly, when we adduce the detailed appeal of Widow Quickly to Falstaff, as a specimen of active Causality; and it needed but the same precision in the perception of sequence, transferred to the observation of other events, and a powerful Comparison to detect the resemblance of the order of sequents in any particular class of phenomena to any other, in order to have enabled her to generalise and draw conclusions with the most profound philosopher. Let any Phrenologist study this question with strict reference to fact, and he will very soon discover many persons endowed with considerable Causality, and a very limited intellect. He may find an individual in whom the prominence of this organ amounts to a singularity, if not a deformity, and yet who is incompetent to the task of generalising, or of forming any great principles of causation. Accurate indeed, and punctiliously precise, he will be, in perceiving the order of any series of events; but he will be found totally incompetent so to class various chains of circumstances, as, from detecting the resemblance of their premises, to predicate the similarity of their conclusion.

Gall and Spurzheim form a happy illustration of the effect of the separate action of the two organs of Causality and Comparison. Gall's Causality was large, and his Comparison barely average. Spurzheim possessed only fair Causality, but very large Comparison. What was the result? It is notorious, that Gall seldom ventured to generalise; while the fault of Spurzheim was, that he was apt to generalise rashly, and before he had sufficient data for warranting the classification of phenomena into principles. Gall told exactly what he saww-Spurzheim what he inferred from what he saw. Gall observed Destructiveness as the antecedent, and murder as the consequent; Spurzheim found that there were two antecedents of large Destructiveness which resembled each other, but that the two consequents which followed, were dissimilar-the one resulting in murder, the other not. But he observed, in

1

all cases of large Destructiveness, a uniform similarity in great liability to anger and malice; and by thus reasoning analogically, approached nearer the function of the organ.

To the attainment of correct logical inference, is required the possession, not only of the organ of Causality-which observes the order of sequence, and Comparison, which perceives the resemblance of the orders of sequences, and of the nature of the objects which exist in the relation of succession, or, in other words, discovers the uniformity of antecedents and consequents, but also of all the perceptive faculties. We have already remarked, that all reasoning is but the statement of mere matter of fact, and learned altogether from experience. Correct observation of facts, is, therefore, of course, essential to sound ratiocination. Colour, Form, Number, very frequently, for example, may, in a series of events, by which we mean the order in which objects or subsistences occur in time or place, be an essential condition of resemblance in two sets of phenomena; and, if a man with the finest Causality, be deficient in the power of discriminating shades or hues, shapes or quantities, or possess so small a developement of the Knowing faculties just enumerated, as not to take notice of the qualities which are their related objects, it is very clear, that his perception of the analogous conditions in the steps of the series of the events compared, must be defective and erroneous. Thus, for example, Dr. Dalton, the celebrated chemist, is unable to perceive colours, or the differences of shades; and in his observation of the succession in the order of chemical phenomena, he, of course, although Comparison and Causality were ever so powerful, might easily mistake one ingredient or substance which forms an essential element in the chain of sequences, for another; not possessing the organ of Colour to guide him, as a condition of the perception of resemblance betwixt the two series of phenomena. Were his Causality small, the order of succession of sequences would be forgotten-all the steps remembered—but jumbled together so heterogeneously, that the result would be a complete obliteration of the whole principle upon which causation or rather sequence depends.

Suppose a being who had never heard of gunpowder or cannon, to see them applied to their purposes, he would observe that the powder was put into the cannon, then colphin, and pushed down with the rammer; he would remark, that a ball then followed, colphin again, with a second application of the rammer. At last, a lighted match is applied to the touchhole, followed by a flash, a loud noise, a starting of smoke, and a ball bounding forth and mowing down the enemy. If the observer's Causality be good, he will remark the exact order in which these sequences occur, and will be able to repeat them correctly, with the same result. If his Causality be bad, he may, when directed to perform the same operation, transpose the whole sequence. He may put the colphin in first, then the ball, and apply the match to the touch hole before loading with the powder, and wonder that, remembering all the steps of the process, he should not attain a successful result as before. If his Comparison be weak, it will be impossible for him to generalise upon these phenomena. The slightest deviation from the line of sequences, or the smallest omission in the steps, will be looked upon by him as a totally different process, and expected to terminate in another issue. But Comparison will detect the points in the series of antecedents in which many trains of phenomena and their results resemble each other, and what steps and particulars, by not resembling each other, are not essential to produce the same termination. These various particulars of discrepancy in the antecedents being left out of the process, the real elements of the effect, will, by their resemblance, be detected, and an abstract principle evolved; for all generalization consists of abridgement, the omission of accidental attributes, and the reduction of a series of sequences by a comparison of their analogical features, to other series, or, in short, to the exact number of resembling steps. Thus, an unlearned man, with large Causality and small Comparison, mixes a solution of carbonate of soda, with tartaric acid, and the result is an effervescence. But mere Causality could never generalise, or proceed farther. The whole proposition would, after a thousand antecedents and consequents, of the same kind, still be simply, that by adding carbonate of soda to tartaric acid, there will result an effervescence. It might see a thousand mixtures of alkalis and acids, with the same result of effervescence; but the individual with only Causality, remembering the series of steps in each particular case, and the identical consequents from the various antecedents, with minute precision,

would only, in each example, say, that the mixture of a specific drug with another, as exactly named, would produce an effervescence. It would be carbonate of soda, for example, and tartaric acid. But add large Comparison, and the effect will be very different. It will, in the first place, perceive a resemblance or identity in all of the consequents. The results will therefore be connected, or classified, in the first place. Then it will detect a resemblance in the taste and other qualities of the respective ingredients of the chemical compound in all the antecedents, until the qualities which truly resemble each other, in the elements of the materials forming the mixture, being, in all the examples, observed, soda and tartar will be omitted from the propositio evolved, that the commixtion of a solution of acids an alone all the antecedents agreed) will be productive of gagement of the fixed air.

ly seen, and classified, the general principle is (the points in which effervescence, or disen

Immediately adjoining the organ of Causality, outwards, and bounded by the upper part of Tune, another organ exists, which we have already had occasion to observe has been hitherto designated Wit. That it is a superior intellectual, or what is generally termed a reflecting faculty, we feel satisfied, from its position in the brain. That it performs functions of a high order, appears to us also certain, for it is uniformly found large in the most acute philosophical and subtle minded men. Mr. Hewett Watson terms it the faculty which detects the intrinsic proper ties of things, and which, "directed towards man, probably gives a tendency to investigate the real character, instead of resting content with observing appearances or actions." He disagrees with Mr. Scott's theory upon the subject, which is, that as Comparison perceives resemblances, Wit observes differences. Now, it appears to us, that there is strong ground to believe that Mr. Scott is in the right, or rath that both are so; because, by a process of analysis perfectly admissible, there is n much reason to doubt that the one definition is embraced in the other. Having perceived all those steps in the order of two series of events which resemble each other, the power of next detecting those which have no similarity, or the particulars in which the two disagree, is all that is necessary to ascertain the true elements of agreement, or the intrinsic properties of the sequences contrasted or compared. For example, in the following passage from Dr. Thomas Brown, whose organ of Wit was large, the true and intrinsic qualities of a chain of sequences are determined solely by an exposition of differences:-" It has been maintained by Dr. Reid, that there are cases of uniform succession, in which the belief of causation is never felt; since, from the very commencement of our existence, day has succeeded night in endless return, without any supposition arising that night is the cause of day. But it should be remembered, that day and night are not words which denote two particular phenomena, but are words invented by us to express long series of pheno mena. What various appearances of nature, from the freshness of the first morag beam to the last soft tint that fades into the twilight of the evening sky-changing the progress of the seasons, and dependent on the accidents of temperature, and vapour, and wind-are included in every day! These are not one, because the word which expresses them is one; and it is the believed relation of physical events, not the arbitrary combinations of language, which Mr. Hume professes to explain." In the argument which Brown here explodes, Reid had been endeavouring to show a resemblance betwixt the antecedence and consequence of night and day, and any other series of connected phenomena; and, by proving that the result is not the same in both cases, trying to show that Hume's principle of causation was erroneous, Strange, by the way, that he should have adopted, not hypothetically but sincerely, Hume's very theory, for the purpose of refuting it. Brown answers him by showing that there is a difference betwixt the terms day or night, and any series of phenomena related by sequence; and that there is no resemblance of the example given, to the other cases from which the general principle is educed. The intrinsic properties of things are, in fact, simply those in which there is a difference, distinguishing one from another. Sun, earth, tree, man, are what they are, simply because they are not the same as something to which we give a different title. Foreign or superfluous circumstances in a chain of events, are those which are not concerned in producing the result which we observe or expect to flow from them. To ascertain these, we compare the whole series with another which have produced the same In retaining the inherent and discarding the accidental properties of the

effect.