362 F. H. BRADLEY I

habit or pleasure), but in its own right and simply. 1 Turn- ing now from these conditions to one not mechanical, though hardly ideal, we reach the influence of pleasure and pain. That these work seems certain (though of course not de- monstrable), but the way in which they work is still matter of controversy and I shall pass it by, and for the same reason shall do no more than mention Contrast. But there is one point which, before we go on, I must notice the nature of " traces " or " residues " or " disposi- tions". Associations are set up, and we say that these exist, but how can that be ? Do the elements continue as psychical facts, and if not, do their relations remain some- how apart from them ? Or what is the real nature of a general tendency ? This is a problem which, in my judg- ment, falls outside psychology. To ask what a law is belongs to metaphysics, and such a question elsewhere can bring nothing but mischief. There are, so far as I know, four courses we may take, three bad and one good. We may follow the line laid down by Herbart, and force out an explanation by audacious assumptions and complicated fictions. And then we know where we are ; as we may think -we do, again, when we deny that a disposition is really psychical, and leave psychology for a region which I assuredly would not venture to call physiology. We clearly do not know where we are when we take a very common third course, and use phrases which may mean anything, to hide the fact that there is nothing distinct that we mean. But there is only one scientific course, to say plainly that what a disposition really may be, we neither know nor care. We have in science to do solely with events and their laws, events not being laws, and laws not being events, and we mean by a disposition that, because something has happened, therefore something will happen, suppose that something else happens and nothing interferes. And for this reason we cannot talk (except by a licence) of the blending of one dis- position with others or with presentations. If no element is there in existing fact, blending has no proper meaning. 1 When we get sensations possessed of a special community we can say of the stronger, It is the less plus some more. On the vexed question of ' units ' I can say nothing here. The feature of domination in conscious- ness, or superiority general or special, becomes, of course, an idea, and we can so get the idea of without the reality of strength. The reader will see that I dissent partly from Lotze's view as to strength (Mikrokosmus, i. 229, Metaph., 262). The whole question is very difficult, and would require a long discussion. The reader should consult Mr. Ward's remarks (Encyc. Brit., xx. 58), which, however, good as they are, still leave much to be desired.