Chapter II (part 6)

." 1 But the formula defining "space" as "the form of matter in the universe" suffers from this deficiency, that there is introduced in it the concept of "matter," i.e., the unknown . I have already spoken of that "dead-end siding," x=y, y=x, to which all attempts at the physical definition of matter inevitably lead. Psychological definitions lead to the same thing. In a well-known book, The Psychology of the Soul , A. I. Herzen says: We call matter everything which directly or indirectly offers resistance to motion, directly or indirectly produced by us, manifesting a remarkable analogy with our passive states. And we call force (motion) that which directly or indirectly communicates movement to us or to other bodies, thus manifesting the greatest similitude to our active states. Consequently, "matter" and "motion" are something like projections of our active and passive states. It is clear that it is possible to define the passive state only in terms of the active, and the active in terms of the passive—again two unknowns, defining one another. E. Douglas Fawcett, in an article entitled Idealism and the Problem of Nature in The Quest (April, 1910), discusses matter from this point of view. p. 32 Matter (like force) does not give us any trouble. We know all about it, for the very good reason that we invented it . By "matter" we think of sensuous objects. It is mental change of concrete but too complicated facts, which are difficult to deal with. Strictly speaking, matter exists only as a concept. Truth to tell, the character of matter, even when treated only as a conception, is so unobvious that the majority of persons are unable to tell us exactly what they mean by it. An important fact is here brought to light: matter and force are just logical concepts , i.e., only words accepted for the designation of a lengthy series of complicated facts. It is difficult for us, educated almost exclusively along physical lines, to understand this clearly, but in substance it may be stated as follows: Who has seen matter and force , and when? We see things, see phenomena. Matter , independently of the substance from which a given thing is made, or of which it consists, we have never seen and never shall see; but the given substance is not quite matter , this is wood , or iron or stone . Similarly, we shall never see force separately from motion . What does this mean? It means that " matter " and " force " are just such abstract conceptions as "value" or "labor," as "the purchasing value of a coin" or the "contents" of a book; it means that matter is "such stuff as dreams are made of." And because we can never touch this "stuff" and can see it only in dreams, so we can never touch physical matter, nor see, nor hear, nor photograph it, separately from the object . We cognize things and phenomena which are bad or good, but we never cognize " matter " and " force " separately from things and phenomena . Matter is as much an abstract conception as are truth, good and evil. It is as impossible to put matter or any part of matter into a chemical retort or crucible as it is impossible to sell " Egyptian darkness " in vials. However as it is said that "Egyptian darkness" is sold as a black powder in Athos, or elsewhere, therefore perhaps somewhere, by some one, even matter has been seen. 1 p. 33 In order to discuss questions of this order a certain preparation is necessary, or a high degree of intuition; but unfortunately it is customary to consider fundamental questions of cosmogony very lightly.