Page:Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu/52

42 should appropriate it exclusively to himself. But here the argument was interrupted by the statement that the reason of animals is not their own. This was rebutted by the question: Is man's reason, then, his own? Was the answer No? then freedom, morality, and responsibility were struck dead, and other consequences followed, too appalling to be thought of. Was the answer Yes? then some reason for this answer was demanded, and must be given, for it contradicts the other statement with regard to the reason of animals, in which it was declared that this power was not their own. To find, then, a satisfactory reason of fact for this answer, we again looked forth over the life-fraught fields of creation. We there still beheld reason operating on a great and marvellous scale, and yet at the same time we found no consciousness thereof. This, then, plainly proved that the presence of reason by no means necessarily implied a cognisance of reason in the creature manifesting it. It proved that man, like other beings, might easily have been endowed with reason, without at the same time becoming aware of his endowment, or blending with it the notion of himself. The first question, then, is completely answered. It does not follow that man must necessarily take cognisance of his operations, and refer his actions to himself because he is rational, for all the other creatures around are also rational, without taking any such cognisance, or making any such reference; neither can reason be pointed out as his peculiar or distinguishing