136 THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE

К оглавлению1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  181 182 183 184 185 186 
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 
238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 
255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 
272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 
289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 
306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 
340 

 

of instinct. So we think no more need be said here upon

that subject.

 

More remarkable still are the results produced by means

of those structures we term "organs of sense." Were we

pure intelligences devoid of bodies and ignorant of the

characteristic psychical endowments of animals, there is

nothing in an eye which could lead us to suppose that the

inverted .picture thrown upon the backs of a pair of them

could enable their possessor to see real external objects,

and to see them upright and single, and not inverted and

double, as they are in each man's pair of eyes. Of course,

the mere eyes could not see apart from the brain or apart

from the brain's rich supply of duly conditioned blood, etc.

Where sight takes place, who knows? The exact nature

of the relation of the brain and its parts to actual visual

cognition, who can tell ? Moreover, as we have seen, the

brain is double as well as the organ of sight. But the

practical outcome of an organization so incomprehensible

in its innermost nature is none the less satisfactory. That

the perception of the eyes is valid, and the cognitions it

affords are true, can be shown by comparing small solid

objects apprehended by our sight with the same objects

as known to us by the use of our hands. Not that we have

any ground for considering our physical means of sight less

perfect than any other possible physical means any organ

which was not an eye for obtaining a visual knowledge

of objectivity. No such means, which we can in any way

imagine, could appear better adapted or less mysterious,

because every psychical result of physical antecedents is

most absolutely mysterious But we can hence at least

obtain one practical lesson the lesson, namely, that because

we do not know how our bodily organization enables us to

obtain a real and true knowledge of what is objective, we

can be none the less sure that it does enable us to obtain

 

 

of instinct. So we think no more need be said here upon

that subject.

 

More remarkable still are the results produced by means

of those structures we term "organs of sense." Were we

pure intelligences devoid of bodies and ignorant of the

characteristic psychical endowments of animals, there is

nothing in an eye which could lead us to suppose that the

inverted .picture thrown upon the backs of a pair of them

could enable their possessor to see real external objects,

and to see them upright and single, and not inverted and

double, as they are in each man's pair of eyes. Of course,

the mere eyes could not see apart from the brain or apart

from the brain's rich supply of duly conditioned blood, etc.

Where sight takes place, who knows? The exact nature

of the relation of the brain and its parts to actual visual

cognition, who can tell ? Moreover, as we have seen, the

brain is double as well as the organ of sight. But the

practical outcome of an organization so incomprehensible

in its innermost nature is none the less satisfactory. That

the perception of the eyes is valid, and the cognitions it

affords are true, can be shown by comparing small solid

objects apprehended by our sight with the same objects

as known to us by the use of our hands. Not that we have

any ground for considering our physical means of sight less

perfect than any other possible physical means any organ

which was not an eye for obtaining a visual knowledge

of objectivity. No such means, which we can in any way

imagine, could appear better adapted or less mysterious,

because every psychical result of physical antecedents is

most absolutely mysterious But we can hence at least

obtain one practical lesson the lesson, namely, that because

we do not know how our bodily organization enables us to

obtain a real and true knowledge of what is objective, we

can be none the less sure that it does enable us to obtain