Page:Philosophical Review Volume 27.djvu/246

234 by the very meaning of the term, and it is the self to whom they are presented.

Admitting, then, the existence of at least some selves, is it possible to explain the facts of experience entirely in terms of selves? As a matter of fact, the explanation has already been partially accomplished, and modern pluralists are engaged in applying it to the remaining difficulties. While at the present stage there seems to be no reason for supposing their attempts will be unsuccessful, many pluralists are of opinion that the bare hypothesis as stated above is incomplete. It seems probable that, for the complete solution of the problem, pluralism must be supplemented by some form of Theism. However that may be, the pluralistic hypothesis is admissible until disproved by fact, and therefore it is justifiable to continue to apply it as far as possible.

It is no part of our present purpose to analyze in detail the application of pluralism to the solution of philosophic problems, but the type of method adopted may be briefly illustrated by a consideration of its application to the case of what is commonly called 'inorganic matter.' The chief feature of that class of sense-data from which we construct the concept of inorganic matter, is the uniformity of the sequences manifested therein. There seems to be no expression of individuality observable. The opposite is true of selves. A self is essentially individual, for it is unique. In fact it is only to a self and its particular experience that we can correctly apply the term 'individual.' Animals manifest individuality and we have every reason of analogy to regard them as selves or subjects of experience. The animal merges insensibly into the vegetable world, and there is little difficulty in applying the pluralistic hypothesis to the latter. Now one fundamental characteristic of mind is its plastic retentiveness, which is manifested in the formation of habits. The lower we go in the scale of life, the more habit do we find, and the less spontaneity. The latter, however, and consequently individuality, never entirely disappear. Remembering how narrow is the line dividing the organic from the inorganic, we are led to