One of the propositions,'things are caused'and 'things are not caused,'must be true,and both are inconceivable.But this would be to destroy the axiom of causation.The appearance of an antinomy is obtained by changing the question.Instead of asking why we take things to be caused,we ask whether we can imagine an infinite series of causes.The antinomy in this case is simply the old formula over again.This central position of Hamilton's philosophy is thus an illegitimate application of Kant's argument.Kant admits an antinomy only where it is at least plausible,namely,as applied to the universe which we clearly have to extend indefinitely if not to absolute infinity.But no such difficulty is involved in the problem of unity.Hamilton seems to have been so delighted with the 'antinomy'that he 'enounces'it as a general law;applies it where it has no meaning whatever,and invariably 'illustrates'it by repeating the case in which it is plausible.
Hamilton thus contrives to blend two arguments into one.His view is the germ of inextricable confusions,and,one might have thought,too obvious a bit of logical legerdemain to impose even upon a metaphysician.It plays,however,a most important part in the attempt made by Mansel to bring Hamilton to bear against the unbeliever.Mansel's whole aim is to put his antagonists in a dilemma.They must not be allowed to say simply that an argument becomes meaningless;they must be taken to say that it leads to a balance between two alternatives.We therefore get a double result.On the one hand,we are reduced to complete scepticism --that is,reason is made impotent in regard to a question which necessarily arises.On the other hand,we are left with an impression that we are compelled to take some position in this region of inconceivables,and this is translated into the pious assertion that 'belief'extends beyond 'knowledge.'Thus Hamilton emphatically declares that it is the 'main scope'of his speculation to show articulately that we 'must believe as actual much that we are unable (positively)to conceive as actual.'(92)To follow him through the maze of 'inconceivables,''absolutes,''infinites,''unconditioneds'and so forth would be idle.(93)I shall be content with one argument which in Mansel's hands led to an important conflict with Mill.The Infinite,says Mansel,'if it is to be conceived at all,must be conceived as potentially'everything and actually nothing;for if there is anything in general which it cannot become,it is thereby limited;and if there is anything in particular which it actually is,it is thereby excluded from being any other thing.(94)It must also be conceived as 'actually everything and potentially nothing;for an unrealised potentiality is likewise a limitation.'Hamilton had put the same argument.'The infinite is conceived only by thinking away every character by which the finite was conceived.'(95)That is,the 'infinite'is equivalent to the 'indeterminate,'or the result of unsaying all that you have said.This logically leads to pure nothing,not to an antinomy.We are told that we must believe something where we get not to a contradiction but to an absolute vacuum.Mill makes an obvious criticism.(96)When I talk of infinite space,I do not 'think away'the character of space,but I only think of an indefinite extension of space.To believe in infinite space would otherwise be to disbelieve in geometry.We cannot think at all about an utterly indeterminate object,but we can think of space without asking how much space there is in the universe.'The Infinite'may be meaningless,but to predicate infinity of space does not destroy the space conception.If,then,the infinity of space does not hinder us from obtaining a perfectly accurate knowledge of its properties,does the infinite or absolute nature of the Deity prevent us from understanding his attributes?Here is the real problem;and it leads to the odd spectacle of the sceptic arguing on behalf of theology against the divine.There is no contradiction,as Mill argues,in speaking of an infinitely knowing or powerful or good being.A being has infinite knowledge if nothing is unknown to him;and is infinitely powerful if nothing is impossible to him.That gives a plain meaning on the human side,though we are of course unable adequately to imagine the result on the divine side.Infinite goodness is,indeed,a less natural phrase than 'absolute,'because absolute does not suggest a numerical measure of 'goodness.'Goodness is a quality,not a quantity.But,understood as meaning the absence of even an infinitesimal degree of badness,it may be called infinite,and the 'limit'which is denied is not that implied by 'good,'but by the degree of goodness.Infinite,if it means anything,must mean an infinite amount or degree of something definite.
