which the mind acquires experimental knowledge, to four kindsto quantity, quality, relation, and modality; of these the two first concern objects in general, and the two last the relations of objects to each other and to our understanding. Thus Kant admits notions independent of experience, as conceptions of space, time, cause, and others; and considers these conceptions, not as the result of external impressions, but of the faculties of the subject: they exist from within, and by their means we are acquainted with the objects. Our notions of morality, of God, and of immortality, are not experimental, but belong to the practical understanding, and originate a priori. Liberty is a postulatum.

Fichte went farther, and taught the system of transcendental idealism, according to which all certainty and reality is confined to the subject, who has knowledge only of his own modifications, and by means of abstraction and reflection, arrives at intellectual intuition.

The philosophy of nature of Schelling rejects subject and object, makes no abstraction or reflection, but begins with intellectual intuition, and professes to know objects immediately in themselves. It does not consider the objects as existing but as originating; it constructs them speculatively a priori. Absolute liberty and existence without qualities, are the basis of this system.

As the philosophy of Locke has hitherto prevailed in England, as it has given occasion to that of Condillac, and as the system of Dr. Th. Brown admits more fundamental powers of the mind than any former philosophy, I shall compare them with phrenology.

I agree with both authors in placing truth above any other consideration, and in maintaining that we cannot examine the mind in itself, but are confined to the contemplation of the mental phe

nomena.

Locke and Brown consider the functions of the external senses as dependent on the nervous system, but the other mental operations as independent of organization; whilst phrenology proves that every mental phenomenon depends on some bodily condition or organ, after the example of the external senses.

Locke admits in the mind understanding and will ;-Dr. Brown, intellect and emotions. The subdivision of understanding by Locke is into perception, retention or memory, contemplation or judgment and imagination; and that of will into various degrees, from simple desire to passion. The subdivision of intellect by Th. Brown is, 1st, into simple suggestions, including every association of ideas, conception, memory, imagination, habit, and all conceptions and feelings of the past; and 2d, into relative suggestions of coexistence or of succession; the former of which include the suggestions of resemblance or difference, of position, of degree, of proportion, and of the relation which the whole bears to its parts; and of which the second comprehends judgment, reason and abstraction. His subdivision of emotions is into immediate, retrospective and prospective. He admits a greater number of primitive emotions independent of intellect, and in this respect he comes nearer phrenology than any other philosopher; he also calls the division of Locke into understanding and will, illogical. Thus in the great division of the mental phenomena he agrees with phrenology, which positively has the priority over him. But Dr. Brown's subdivisions of the mental phenomena are very different from the phrenological analysis and classification. Farther, Dr. Brown considers the various emotions of the mind independently of brain. His philosophy therefore coincides with phrenology only in the first principle, viz. in admitting mental phenomena different from the intellectual states of mind; but his philosophy can never be confounded with phrenology.

Locke denied the innate ideas and the innate moral principles. I agree with him in that respect, but he admits only innate dispositions for ideas, and derives the moral principles from them, whilst I admit also innate moral dispositions, which are as essential to the conception of moral principles as the innate intellectual dispositions to the formation of ideas.

The reason why Locke denied the innate maxims of morality, viz. because certain children or adults and certain nations are without them or possess them variously modified, is not at all valuable,

since innate faculties may be inactive on account of the defective developement of their respective organs, and their functions may be modified by their combined operation with other faculties.

Locke derives the primitive activity of the mind, from external impressions on the senses; phrenology on the contrary, in admitting external senses and two orders of internal faculties, maintains that the internal dispositions, though they may be excited by external impressions, are often active by their own inherent power alone. According to Locke, moral principles must be proved. I think they must be felt. It is to be remarked that according to phrenology, there is an internal and spontaneous or instinctive activity, independent of external impressions, as far as the feelings are concerned, but also as the intellectual faculties and experimental knowledge are implicated. The abstract conceptions or intuitive notions are furnished by the intellectual faculties themselves. The notion of identity, for instance, or that the same is the same; that the whole is greater than the half; that two and two are four ; that nothing can exist except in space; that nothing can happen except in time; and that there is nothing without a cause, &c., are internal operations of mind as well as the instincts, propensities, and sentiments.

Another essential difference between Locke, Dr. Brown and all other philosophers on one side, and phrenology on the other, is that the former think that we perceive the existence of external objects and their original qualities, such as size, figure, mobility, number, color, &c., by means of the five senses and their impressions alone; whilst I treat of the immediate and mediate functions of the senses (See Vol. I. Art. external senses,) and ascribe very few ideas to the external senses, but the greater number, as those of size, figure, weight, color, order and number, to internal faculties.

Thus I admit in the mind external senses by which the mind and the external world are brought into communication, and made mutually influential. The internal faculties are feelings and intellect. Both sorts may act by their internal power, or may be excited by appropriate impressions from without. The knowledge of our

Every

feelings is as positive as the experimental from without. determinate action of any faculty depends on two conditions, the faculty and the object. The intellectual faculties are perceptive and reflective. The feelings and perceptive faculties are in relation and adapted to the external world, whilst the reflective faculties are applied to the feelings and experimental knowledge and are destined to bring all the particular feelings and notions into harmony.

From this summary view of philosophy it follows, that the ancient philosophers were principally occupied with theogony, cosmogony, physics, logic, dialectics, ethics and politics, and that in reference to man they examined his intellectual operations, moral actions and social relations, rather than his nature.

Though this important object—the basis of all political sciences -has been investigated by later philosophers, its study will be newly modelled and its principles established by phrenology, in showing a posteriori the nature, number and origin of the human faculties, the conditions of their operations, their mutual influence, their modes of acting, and the natural laws by which their manifestations are regulated. I conclude this chapter with D'Alembert, in saying, that hitherto there has been a great deal of philosophizing in which there is but little philosophy.

CHAPTER II.

RECTIFICATION OF PARTICULAR VIEWS OF PHILOSOPHERS.

In order to prosecute advantageously the study of the mental functions, a capital error must be avoided,—an error which prevails in the systems of all philosophers, and which consists in their having been satisfied with general ideas, and not, like naturalists, having admitted three sorts of notions: general, common, and special. This distinction is essential to the classification of beings into kingdoms, classes, orders, genera, and species. In knowing the

general qualities of inanimate objects, such as extension, configuration, consistency, color, even in knowing the common qualities of metals, earths, or acids; we are not yet made acquainted with iron, copper, chalk, or vinegar. To indicate a determinate body, its specific qualities must be exposed. In natural history it is not sufficient to say that we possess a stone, a plant, an animal, a bird, &c., it is indispensable to mention the species of each possessed, and if varieties exist, to state even their distinctive characters.

In the study of the human body, general and common notions are also distinguished and separated from those which are particular; the body is divided into several systems, such as the muscular, osseous, nervous, glandular, &c.; determinate functions, too, are specified, as the secretion of saliva, of bile, tears, &c. But this distinction between general, common, and special notions is entirely neglected in the study of the mind, and even in that of the functions which in animals take place with consciousness.

Instinct.

Zoologists divide and subdivide the organization of the beings. they study, and determine the structure of each particularly, but they consider their animal life in a manner quite general. Whatever is done with consciousness is explained by means of the word instinct. Animals eat and drink, and construct habitations by instinct; the nightingale sings, the swallow migrates, the hamster makes provision for the winter, the chamois places sentinels, sheep live in society, &c., and all by instinct. This is certainly a very easy manner of explaining facts; instinct is the talisman which produces every variety in the actions of animals. The knowledge conveyed, however, is general, and therefore completely vague. What is instinct? Is it a personified being, an entity, a principle? or does the word, according to its Latin etymology, signify only an internal impulse to act in a certain way in ignorance of the cause? I take it in the latter signification; thus the word instinct denotes every inclination to act arising from within.