sible for him to feel this resemblance, he can only think it; and in thinking it he must have viewed the pain of yesterday as one of a number of possible cases of pain; that is to say, he must have taken into account something over and above the mere pain itself, and in thinking it (viz., the resemblance) he must also have viewed the pain of to-day as a case of which other instances were possible, and of which another instance had occurred yesterday; that is to say, he must have actually taken into account something over and above the mere present pain itself. It is thus not the mere feeling of the two pains which enables him to make the comparison, and to pronounce that they resemble each other, for in neither case is it possible for the mere feeling to indicate anything beyond itself. It is the thought of each sensation, that is, it is the thought of each sensation, and of something more than each sensation, which enables the man to make the comparison, and to pronounce on the similarity of the pains.
13. The preceding remarks, gathered up into a short statement, will amount to this. In answer to the question, What is sensation? I answer, A sensation is always particular; it is not possible for a sensation to be more than a particular sensation; and if we suppose sensation to have an object, it is always a sensation of a particular object, and of this merely. In answer to the question, What is thought? I answer, A thought is never particular; it is not possible
