Page:The World and the Individual, First Series (1899).djvu/546

Rh the life is. The mathematician’s interests are not the philosopher’s. But neither of the two has a monopoly of the abstractions; and in the end each of them — and certainly the philosopher — can learn from the other. The metaphysic of the future will take fresh account of mathematical research.

The foregoing observation as to the parallelism between the structure of the number-series and the bare skeleton of the ideal Self, is due, then, in its present form, rather to Dedekind than to the idealistic philosophers proper. It shall be briefly expounded in the form in which he has suggested it to me, although his discussion seems to have been written wholly without regard to any general philosophical consequences. And the present is the first attempt, so far as I know, to bring Dedekind’s research into its proper relation to general metaphysical inquiry.

The numbers have been so far taken as we find them. But how do we men come by our number-series? The usual answer is, by learning to count external objects. We see collections of objects, with distinguishable units, the “bare conjunctions” of Mr. Bradley once more. Their mysterious unity in diversity arouses our curiosity. We form the habit, however,