152 J. ELLIS MCTAGGAET : But this gradual subordination of the triadic form to a more direct movement is a characteristic to be found throughout the Logic, and one which by no means impairs its validity. 1 The transition must therefore be judged as a transition to a Synthesis. Now the evidence for such a transition is always to some degree negative only. We have reached a category to which the dialectic inevitably leads us, and which we cannot therefore give up, but which presents a contradiction, and which we cannot therefore accept as it stands. The contradiction must be removed. Now the necessity of the proposed Synthesis lies in the fact that it can do this, and that no other idea can, so that our choice lies between accepting the Synthesis in question, and as- serting a contradiction. So far, therefore, the proof of the validity of the Synthesis is in a sense incomplete. For it is never possible to prove that no other idea could be proposed which could remove the contradiction. All that can be done is to consider any particular idea which may be put forward for that purpose. So, in this case, our justification in asserting the claim of Cognition to be a category of the Logic lies in our belief that no other solution can be found for the difficulties of the category of Life. But, until some other solution has been found, or at least suggested, it would be futile to doubt the validity of the transition because of such a bare possibility. It is abstractly possible that there is some simple logical fallacy in the fifth proposition of Euclid, which has escaped the attention of every person who has ever read it, but will be found out some day. But possibilities of this sort are meaningless. 2 We must remember, too, that any idea which involves any of the previous categories of the Logic, except in a transcended form, can be pronounced beforehand inadequate to solve the problems offered by the category of Life, since all such have themselves been transcended by that category. And this confines the field in which an alternative solution could appear to very narrow limits. The unity, then, is for each of the individuals. Such is the conclusion which we have so far reached. But is it also true that the individuals are for the unity ? At first sight this would seem the most probable view, when we consider
- I have endeavoured to prove this in my Studies in the Hegelian
Dialectic, chap. iv. 2 Cp. Mr. Bradley's Logic, book 1, chap. vii.
