h
philosophy,"[306] and asserts, as a regulative law of thought, that the
quality implies the substance, and the phenomenon the noumenon, but
makes the substratum or noumenon (the object in itself) unknown and
unknowable. The "phenomenon" of Kant was, however, something essentially
different from the "quality" of Reid. In the philosophy of Kant,
_phenomenon_ means an object as we envisage or represent it to
ourselves, in opposition to the _noumenon_, or a thing as it is in
itself. The phenomenon is composed, in part, of subjective elements
supplied by the mind itself; as regards intuition, the forms of space
and time; as regards thought, the categories of Quantity, Quality,
Relation, and Modality. To perceive a thing in itself would be to
perceive it neither in space nor in time. To think a thing in itself
would be not to think it under any of the categories. The phenomenal is
thus the product of the inherent laws of our own constitution, and, as
such, is the sum and limit of all our knowledge.[307]

[Footnote 305: Martineau's "Essays," p. 234.]

[Footnote 306: M'Cosh's "Defense of Fundamental Truth," p. 106.]

[Footnote 307: Mansel's "Lectures on the Philosophy of Kant," pp. 21,
22.]

This, in its main features, is evidently the doctrine propounded by
Hamilton. The special modes in which existence is cognizable" are
presented to, and known by, the mind _under modifications determined by
the faculties themselves_."[308] This doctrine he illustrates by the
following supposition: "Suppose the total object of consciousness in
perception is=12; and suppose that the external reality contributes 6,
the material sense 3, and the mind 3; this may enable you to form some
rude conjecture of the nature of the object of perception."[309] The
conclusion at which Hamilton arrives, therefore, is that things are not
known to us as they exist, but simply as they appear, and as our minds
are capable of perceiving them.

[Footnote 308: Hamilton's "Lectures on Metaphysics," vol. i. p. 148.]

[Footnote 309: Hamilton's "Lectures on Metaphysics," vol. ii. p. 129;
and also vol. i. p. 147.]

Let us test the validity of this majestic deliverance. No man is
justified in making this assertion unless, 1. He knows things as they
exist; 2. He knows things not only as they exist but as they appear; 3.
He is able to compare things as they exist with the same things as they
appear. Now, inasmuch as Sir William Hamilton affirms we do not know
th