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