________________
66
THE KEY OF KNOWLEDGE.
have at the same time not one, but several ideas of the object. Our consciousness, however, tells us this is not the case. Lastly, if the whole idea were located in part or element of the composite substance, either this part is itself composite or simple. If the latter, then our thesis-that the ultimate subject of thought is indivisibleis established at once. If the former, then the old series of impossible alternatives will recur again until we are finally forced to the same conclusion."
The same argument also proves the simplicity of the subject of judgment. Maher S. J. again points out:
"The simplest judgment pre-supposes the comparison of two distinct ideas, which must be simultaneously apprehended by one indivisible agent. Suppose the judgment, 'Science is useful,' to be elicited. If the subject which apprehends the two concepts science' and useful' is not indivisible, then we must assume that one of these terms is apprehended by one part and the other by a second : or else that separate elements of the divisible subject are each the seat of both ideas. In the former case, however, we cannot have any judgment at all. The part a apprehends science, the different part b conceives the notion useful,' but the indivisible act of comparison requiring a single agent who combines the two ideas is wanting, and we can no more have the affirmative predication than if one man thinks science,' and another forms the concept useful,' In the second alternative, if a and b each simultaneously apprehended both science and useful,' then we should have not one, but a multiplicity of judgments. The simplicity of the inferential act of the mind by which we seize the logical sequence of a conclusion, is still more irreconcilable with the hypothesis of a composite substance. The three judgments-- Every y is z: every x is y; therefore, every x is 2--could no more constitute a syllogism if they proceeded from a composite substance than if each proposition was apprehended alone by a separate man."
In respect of memory, also, it is not difficult to see that it cannot be the function of matter, or of a composite substance like the brain. There can be no recollection unless the identity of the person who recalls a past experience with the one who had undergone it is
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org