a person. From the outside we see only physical, from the inside only psychical phenomena.
Now take external Nature — the Cosmos — instead of the brain. The observer from the outside sees, and can see, only physical phenomena; there is absolutely nothing else there to see. But must there not be in this case also, on the other side, psychical phenomena — consciousness, thought, emotion, will? — in a word, a Self, a Person? There is only one place in the whole world where we can get behind physical phenomena — behind the veil of matter; viz., in our own brain; and we find there — a self, a person. Is it not reasonable to think that if we could get behind the veil of Nature we should find the same, i.e. a Person? But if so, we must conclude, an Infinite Person, and therefore the only Complete Personality that exists. Perfect personality is not only self-conscious but self-existent. Our personalities are self-conscious, indeed, but not self-existent. They are only imperfect images, and, as it were, separated fragments of the Infinite Personality — God.
So much for my habitual preference, as contrasted
with Professor Royce’s, in the matter of proving God
to exist; and there seem to be differences between us
on other matters too, though perhaps these are more
apparent than real.
For instance: Professor Royce accounts it best to state the essential nature of God in terms of Omniscience, and with this my customary preference of thinking would hardly seem to accord. For Professor Royce, God is Thought; conscious, indeed, but
