biology, and in politics. He was not a very consistent or systematic thinker, but he had other gifts perhaps as valuable. He was a man of great common sense and breadth of view, and was able thereby to take a conspectus of the general situation in the various spheres of inquiry, to notice the obvious differences in our knowledge of mathematics, of chemical and biological fact, and of theology, and to see that these constituted a problem. We find in him the first statement of the necessity of philosophical criticism. It is contained in his account of the origin of the Essay concerning Human Understanding. "Were it fit to trouble thee with the history of this Essay, I should tell thee that five or six friends, meeting at my chamber, and discoursing on a subject very remote from this" (they were discussing the "principles of morality and revealed religion"), "found themselves quickly at a stand, by the difficulties that rose on every side. After we had awhile puzzled ourselves, without coming any nearer a resolution of those doubts which perplexed us, it came into my thoughts that we took a wrong course; and that, before we set ourselves upon inquiries of that nature, it was necessary to examine our own abilities, and see what objects our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with."

We have here the same general starting point of inquiry as we shall afterwards find in Kant. There are certain, obstinate puzzles which we meet with in discussion which can only be solved by going back and inquiring into the nature of knowledge and the powers of our minds. Unfortunately, as Kant points out, Locke went the wrong way about his task. He describes it as "a plain historical inquiry." He thought that he had only to look into his mind and see what was in it, as he might open a door and look into a room. The result is that he thinks of all knowledge as consisting simply in looking at what is present to the mind. We can know, therefore, whatever can be present to the mind, and the limitations of knowledge are discovered by asking what can be so present to the mind. The conclusions to which he comes as to different spheres of human inquiry are roughly these: We can have knowledge of mathematics because there we are concerned only with ideas present to the mind, and with noting their agreement and disagreement. We can have no knowledge of such questions as the immortality of the soul, or the nature of spirits, for they are beyond our observation. As regards existing things, we can have knowledge of them, in so far as they are present to our minds, and no further. The meaning of "present to the mind" was never clearly analysed by Locke; but he meant, for example, that we can observe that an object which is yellow, and which we call gold, is also heavy, and can be dissolved by Aqua Regia, but we cannot say why that is so, and we ought not, on Locke's principles, to have any ground for supposing that these qualities will go on co-existing.

The element of truth in Locke's position is this. When we are examining concrete things like pieces of gold or any chemical substance, we find in them a number of varying qualities whose connection we cannot understand. We do not know why a metal of a certain specific gravity should also be yellow; we can only note the fact. Hence in chemistry our method must be quite different from the method of mathematics. In mathematics we start from the definition, and we can understand the connection of the properties of a geometrical figure, and see that they all follow necessarily from the definition. But in sciences like chemistry a definition does not take us any further; we can only find out the properties of a substance by observation and experiment. Locke explains this difference by saying that in the former case we are only concerned with agreement among our own ideas, in the second place we are concerned somehow with things outside us. This explanation will not stand. It is not true that mathematics is simply analysis of an arbitrary definition, as Locke seems to suggest. It involves construction, or, as Kant calls it, synthesis. It is a process of discovering new truths. Secondly, our statements about concrete objects are not statements of qualities we see co-existing at the moment. They are statements about all gold or all men; in other words, they are universal, and Locke found it impossible to explain the universality of such propositions--what we mean, e.g. when we talk about the nature of gold or of man, not of this gold or this man that I see before me. Lastly, this distinction of mathematics and the empirical sciences by a distinction of spheres does not allow, as we saw, for a science like astronomy, which builds on mathematics and yet applies to the concrete world.

These difficulties were seen more clearly by Hume, at once the greatest and the most thorough-going of empiricists. He cut the knot in regard to mathematics by asserting that geometry, just because it has clearly an application to the existing world, had no more certainty than any other empirical inquiry, while arithmetic and algebra, he agreed, were certain, but confined their application to the sphere of our own ideas. Both positions are almost obviously inconsistent with the facts. In considering the nature of our judgments about concrete existences he raised a more profound problem. All such judgments, as he said, imply the principle of causation, or of what is called, in modern times, the principle of the uniformity of nature. That principle we take with us in our investigation of the existing world. Yet, as Hume saw, we do not observe causes; we only observe succession and change. We seem, therefore, to put into the world we see a necessity and uniformity which the observed facts do not warrant. How is this to be explained?

Hume's answer is ingenious. The principle of causation cannot be rationally justified, and the necessary connection we predicate of changes in the outside world is not in the things; it is only a feeling in ourselves, and is the result of custom. After seeing the same succession several times, we come somehow to feel differently about it, and that feeling of difference we express by saying that we have before us an instance not of simple succession, but of cause and effect.

This is not the place to discuss the difficulties of Hume's position; it is enough to notice how entirely passive it makes the mind, and how alien such an explanation is from the spirit of inquiry and discovery. If cause is simply the effect of custom on the mind, then the facts either produce that effect or they do not. In neither case is there anything to find out. But the scientist, in investigating causes, however strongly he may hold that he has to observe the facts, knows also that he has a problem to solve, that he has to discover the right way to go about it, must adopt some principle in dealing with the facts. Pure passivity will help him little.

Hume's account of causation, then, is really a denial of even empirical science, and yet it helped to make clear an important truth; for, although we do not get the principle of causation from experience, we have to go to experience to discover causal laws. We do not discover causation by analysing a cause and seeing that it is such that, from its nature, it must produce a certain effect. All knowledge of causation goes back to observed succession, though all cases of observed and even repeated succession are not cases of causation. Hume, therefore, was right in saying that where there could be no observed succession there could be no knowledge of causation.

Both the rationalistic and the empirical explanations of science had failed, the one