FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE IMAGINATION IN SPINOZA A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN THE LIGHT OF SOME RECENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF ARTS DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY) BY WILLARD CLARK GORE CHICAGO 1902 NOTE. THE page references to Spinoza's writings refer either to the translation by Elwes, two volumes, London, 1891, or to the Opera, two volumes, edited by Van Vloten and Land, The Hague, 1882-83. When both are referred to, E. designates the translation, and L. the Opera. The page references to Hume's writings refer to the Treatise of Human Nature, edited by SelbyBigge, Oxford, 1896. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE THEORIES OF THE IMAGINATION IN SPINOZA AND HUME. THE object of this study is to make a specific test, or at least to find an illustration, of the general proposition that philosophy, or metaphysics, and psychology form a logical partnership, an organic unity, which cannot be ignored or dissolved without impairing interests that each holds to be peculiarly its own. Such a proposition is liable to be greeted either as harmlessly commonplace, or as hopelessly behind the times, or as absurdly premature, according to the local conditions which it chances to encounter. Few would deny, I suppose, that philosophy and psychology are related members of one body of knowledge, and a good deal of philosophizing as to the organic nature of that relationship would doubtless be goodnaturedly tolerated even by some who would be the first to resent the logical consequences of this kind of philosophizing. Again, there are those who, granting that philosophy, or "metaphysics," and psychology have been intimately associated in the past, perhaps not altogether to the detriment of the latter in some instances, would at the same time dwell upon the fact that psychology, following the example of the natural sciences, has long made good its escape from the leading-strings of its ancient mother. And, finally, there are those who would assert that a new and real unification of the two disciplines, a recognition of the partnership, would seem to be quite unwarrantable and premature, being without adequate scientific backing from any source, and thus affording a prospect so vague and remote as not to appear worthy of serious consideration. It is not so much with the intention of verifying the proposition or hypothesis in question as it is with the hope of making it less vague and remote in some particulars, that this critical examination of a narrowly restricted portion of the field has been attempted, namely, the theories regarding the imagination which are found in the philosophies of Spinoza and of Hume. No especial reason need be given for choosing this particular subject-matter, save that it is concerned with psychological specimens which are found growing in philosophical soil; many |