The Soldier and the Hunchback ! and ?

THE EQUINOX it thought ?” The Buddhist may find it easy to image an act without an agent; I am not so clever. It may be possible for a sane man; but I should like to know more about his mind before I gave a final opinion. But apart from purely formal objections, we may still inquire: Is this Cogétatur true? Yes; reply the sages; for to deny it implies thought; Negatur is only a sub-section of Cogitatur. This involves, however, an axiom that the part is of the same nature as the whole; or (at the very least) an axiom that Ais A. Now, I do not wish to deny that 4 is 4, or may occa- sionally be 4. But certainly 4 7s A is a very different statement to our original Cogitatur. The proof of Cogitatur, in short, rests not upon itself but upon the validity of our logic; and if by logic we mean (as we should mean) the Code of the Laws of Thought, the irritating sceptic will have many more remarks to make: for it now appears that the proof that thought exists depends upon the truth of that which is thought, to say no more. We have taken Cogitatur, to try and avoid the use of esse; but 4 is A involves that very idea, and the proof is fatally flawed. Cogitatur depends on £s¢ ; and there’s no avoiding it. Til Shall we get on any better if we investigate this Ast— Something is—Existence is—nmx vw rae ? 116