________________
ON QUALITY
AS A CATEGORY.
383
or later Blue', even in tlie absence of any such Qualities as Priority and Posteriority ; because no Quality can subsist in a Quality:-why cannot the same be accepted in the case of the Jar and other things also ?
What is meant by this is as follows If what is meant by the Opponent is to prove the mere fact of being dependent on something else, then the Reason adduced is 'Inconclusive', as it is present in the contrary of the Probandum also.-If what is meant to be proved is the fact that the notion in question is based upon the particular Quality brought about by the eternal substances of Time and Space,-then there can be no Corroborative Instance. -The conclusion is also annulled by Inference for instance, it is possible to set up the following inference The notion of Fore' and 'Aft' is based upon a certain regularity in the successive appearance of things without any such quality as has been postulated by the other party--because it is the notion of Fore' and 'Aft-like the notion of Fore' and 'Aft' in regard to Colour and such things tho notion in question in regard to Jar, etc. also is such a notion of Fore' and 'Aft:hence it is a natural reason (for regarding it as being based upon the said regularity, etc.).
It might be argued by the Opponent that-"In the case of the Blue, etc., the notion of Priority of Posteriority is figurative, based upon the notion subsisting in the same object as the Blue, etc.; and hence the Reason is not open to the fallacy of 'Inconclusiveness'; and inasmuch as, in the case of the Blue, etc. also, the qualities of Priority, etc. are admitted to form the basis of the said notion, the Corroborative Instance cited is not devoid of the Probandum."
But this cannot be so ; it has been already answered by the statement that as the notion is not found to be fallible, it cannot be regarded as * figurativo '; and further, as the two qualities are not perceived even in their own substratum, it is not right to accept any notion as based upon it; how then could it ever be based upon it in the case of Blue and the rest 2-What too could be assumed to be the basis in the case of such things as Pleasure and the like? As there is no co-subsistence in the same substratum.
Further, as Time and Space have already been rejected abovo, they cannot be regarded as existent; the * Priority' and Posteriority based upon these should also be regarded as non-existent ; bow then could the notion be believed to be based upon those ? Consequently any such idea cannot save the Reagon from being *Inconclusive '.-According to you again, Time and Space have no parts, from contact with which, as associated with unitary conception', the notion of Priority and Posteriori by could be produced; the reason for this lying in their being essentially one and without parts. Nor can it be right to seek explanation for a state of things in a merely imaginary
part' conceived figuratively; as all such assumptions are restricted within well-defined limits by the real state of things; and what is merely figura. tive' is essentially unreal and false. Hence our Reason is not Inconclusive.
As for the Reason adduced by the Opponent, it may be pointed out that it is . Upproven , not admissible':-(676-676)
With the following Texts, the Author anticipates and answers the arguments adduced in favour of such qualities ng Number and the rest :
