104

Logic IV. 112
has, I think not been fully apprehende either by its defenders or by its antagonists. It seems to have been looked upon by both parties as absolutely unique in its character. Now an argument which should be unique would be condemned by that very circumstance. It would not merely be a bad argument which we are at a loss to set a value upon owing to its strangenextt is to imagine a precisely parallel arguments relating to some familiar matter. This can always be done because we cannot think of a juxtaposition of facts as a arguments without thinking of it having a parallel. Now how shall we form a parallel to this argument? With all due respect to Spinoza, I doubt if the conception of a cause has anything to do with it although we may say if we divise that distinct arguments are confused by Plato.

Logic IV. 112
has,