psychology, which deals only with events in time; but the "timeless self" is not a psychological, but a metaphysical concept. The notion of "a timeless self acting in a particular way" is also absurd, if it be taken to mean "acting at particular times and from particular motives," or without any motives at all, just as in theology confusion results if we put the metaphysical conception of God as eternal and unchangeable alongside of the picture-thinking of popular religious belief, so that the Unchangeable is spoken of as repenting, etc. I think it unfortunate that T. H. Green seemed to countenance this confusion of ideas by his phrase "a timeless act."[1] It seems impossible to keep the notion of time out of the idea of an act: it is difficult enough to keep it out of the idea of a self, even though the logical argument for the existence of a timeless self is the possibility of being aware of succession in time. It must be clearly realized that in transferring any term such as 'self' or 'thought,' to the ultimate unity of the cosmos, we must get rid of the notions of particularity, of difference, of change, which belong to such terms in their psychological use. On the other hand, it must be equally borne in mind that this ultimate reality is a reality which appears, which manifests itself in many selves, in the multiplicity of particular things, in the change and process of the world of time: and perhaps the most urgent of problems in any philosophical system is to attempt to show how the One, the Eternal, the Real, manifests itself in the manifold appearances of time—the problem, that is to say, of the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of History. The mysticism which simply turns away from the manifold empties the One of any meaning it can have for us. On the other hand the attempt to construct an 'evolutional' philosophy by assuming the absolute reality of time and change and multiplicity is equally suicidal. These concepts are meaningless except for, and relatively to, an eternal One. As in the logical question of the judgment, so here either Eleaticism or Heracleiteanism taken by itself leads only to nescience or scepticism. The mystical solution is not popular at present; but to many
- ↑ Prolegomena to Ethics, § 102.
