When two terms are _similar_,
their very natures enter into the relation.
---
1 Particularly so by Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, in his _Man_and_
_the_Cosmos_; by L.T. Hobhouse, in chapter XII ("The Validity of
Judgement") of his _Theory_of_Knowledge_; and by F.C.S. Schiller, in his
_Humanism_, essay XI. Other fatal reviews (in my opinion) are Hodder's,
in the _Psychological_Review_, vol. I [1894], p. 307; Stout's in the
_Proceedings_of_the_Aristotelian_Society, 1901-2, p.1; and MacLennan's
in [_The_Journal_of_Philosophy,_Psychology_and_Scientific_Methods_,
vol. I, 1904, p. 403].
110
Being _what_ they are, no matter where or when,
the likeness never can be denied, if asserted.
It continues predictable as long as the terms
continue. Other relations, the _where_ and the
_when_, for example, seems adventitious. The
sheet of paper may be 'off' or 'on' the table,
for example; and in either case the relation
involves only the outside of its terms. Having
an outside, both of them, they contribute by it
to the relation. It is external: the term's inner
nature is irrelevant to it. Any book, any table,
may fall into the relation, which is created _pro_
_hac_vice_, not by their existence, but by their
causal situation.
Pages:
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