Page:Ferrier's Works Volume 1 - Institutes of Metaphysic (1875 ed.).djvu/309

RhPROP. X.———— It is founded on the obliteration of the distinction which, at an early period, was drawn, although not very clearly, between sense and intellect. If this distinction be not kept up in all its stringency—that is to say, unless it be held that the functions of the two are altogether disparate, and that the senses are totally incompetent to execute the office of intelligence—the distinction had much better be abandoned. This is what the extreme sensualists maintain. The doctrine had been continually gaining ground, either per incuriam, or by design, that the senses were to some extent intellectual, were capable of cognition, or were competent to place intelligible data before the mind. But if sense can act as intellect, what is the use of intellect—why any intellect at all? If sense can intelligently apprehend anything, why can it not intelligently apprehend everything? Let man diligently cultivate his senses, and his advances in knowledge shall be immense. And why not? All that is wanted is a commencement. This is found in the admission that the senses possess an inherent tincture, a nascent capacity, of intelligence. Their data are not in themselves nonsensical. Once admit this, and the plea of intellect is at an end. Why multiply faculties without necessity? These considerations led by degrees to the adoption of the counter-proposition in all its latitude. All cognition was held to be mere sensation, and all intellect was sense.