For　instance　we　form　the　general　conception　of　space　from　the　perception　of　the　distance　of
  bodies　by　means　of　sight　and　feeling。（8）　Or　in　other　words；　we　perceive　a　definite　space；　abstract
  from　it；　and　then　we　have　the　conception　of　space　generally；　the　perception　of　distances　gives　us
  conceptions　of　space。　This　however　is　no　deduction；　but　only　a　setting　aside　of　other
  determinations；　since　distance　itself　is　really　space；　mind　thus　determines　space　from　space。
  Similarly　we　reach　the　notion　of　time　through　the　unbroken　succession　of　conceptions　during　our
  waking　moments；（9）　i。e；。　from　determinate　time　we　perceive　time　in　general。　Conceptions　follow
  one　another　in　a　continual　succession；　if　we　set　aside　the　particular　element　that　is　present　we
  thereby　receive　the　conception　of　time。　Substance　（which　Locke　does　not　accept　in　so　lofty　a
  sense　as　Spinoza）；　a　complex　idea；　hence　arises　from　the　fact　that　we　often　perceive　simple　ideas
  such　as　blue；　heavy；　etc。；　in　association　with　one　another。　This　association　we　represent　to
  ourselves　as　something　which　so　to　speak　supports　these　simple　ideas；　or　in　which　they　exist。（10）
  Locke　likewise　deduces　the　general　conception　of　power。（11）　The　determinations　of　freedom　and
  necessity；　cause　and　effect；　are　then　derived　in　a　similar　way。　“In　the　notice　that　our　senses　take
  of　the　constant　vicissitude　of　things；　we　cannot　but　observe；　that　several　particulars；　both　qualities
  and　substance；　begin　to　exist；　and　that　they　receive　this　their　existence　from　the　due　application
  and　operation　of　some　other　being。　From　this　observation　we　get　our　ideas　of　cause　and　effect；”
  for　instance　when　wax　is　melted　by　the　fire。（12）　Locke　goes　on　to　say：　“Every　one；　I　think；　finds　in
  himself　a　power　to　begin　or　forbear；　continue　or　put　an　end　to　several　actions　in　himself。　From　the
  consideration　of　the　extent　of　this　power　of　the　mind　over　the　actions　of　the　man；　which　every　one
  finds　in　himself；　arise　the　ideas　of　liberty　and　necessity。”（13）
  We　may　say　that　nothing　can　be　more　superficial　than　this　derivation　of　ideas。　The　matter　itself；　the
  essence；　is　not　touched　upon　at　all。　A　determination　is　brought　into　notice　which　is　contained　in　a
  concrete　relationship；　hence　the　understanding　on　the　one　hand　abstracts　and　on　the　other
  establishes　conclusions。　The　basis　of　this　philosophy　is　merely　to　be　found　in　the　transference　of
  the　determinate　to　the　form　of　universality；　but　it　was　just　this　fundamental　essence　that　we　had　to
  explain。　As　to　this　Locke　confesses　of　space；　for　example；　that　he　does　not　know　what　it　really
  is。（14）　This　so…called　analysis　by　Locke　of　complex　conceptions；　and　his　so…called　explanation　of
  the　same；　has；　on　account　of　its　uncommon　clearness　and　lucidity　of　expression；　found　universal
  acceptance。　For　what　can　be　clearer　than　to　say　that　we　have　the　notion　of　time　because　we
  perceive　time；　if　we　do　not　actually　see　it；　and　that　we　conceive　of　space　because　we　see　it？　The
  French　have　accepted　this　most　readily　and　they　have　carried　it　further　still；　their　Idéologie
  contains　nothing　more　nor　less。
  When　Locke　starts　by　saying　that　everything　is　experience　and　we　abstract　for　ourselves　from　this
  experience　general　conceptions　regarding　objects　and　their　qualities；　he　makes　a　distinction　in
  respect　of　external　qualities　which　was　before　this　made　by　Aristotle　（De　anima；　II。　6）；　and　which
  we　likewise　met　with　in　Descartes　（supra；　pp。　245；　246）。　That　is　to　say；　Locke　distinguishes
  between　primary　and　secondary　qualities；　the　first　pertain　to　the　objects　themselves　in　truth；　the
  others　are　not　real　qualities；　but　are　founded　on　the　nature　of　the　organs　of　sensation。　Primary
  qualities　are　mechanical；　like　extension；　solidity；　figure；　movement；　rest；　these　are　qualities　of　the
  corporeal；　just　as　thought　is　the　quality　of　the　spiritual。　But　the　determinations　of　our　individual
  feelings　such　as　colours；　sounds；　smells；　taste；　etc。；　are　not　primary。”（15）　In　Descartes'　case　this
  distinction　has　however　another　form；　for　the　second　class　of　these　determinations　is　defined　by
  him　in　such　a　way　as　that　they　do　not　constitute　the　essence　of　body；　while　Locke　says　that　they
  exist　for　sensation；　or　fall　within　existence　as　it　is　for　consciousness。　Locke；　however；　no　doubt
  reckons　figure；　etc。；　as　still　pertaining　to　reality；　but　by　so　doing　nothing　is　ascertained　as　to　the
  nature　of　body。　In　Locke　a　difference　here　appears　between　the　implicit　and　being　'for　another；'　in
  which　he　declares　the　moment　of　'for　another'　to　be　unreal　…　and　yet　he　sees　all　truth　in　the　relation
  of　'for　another'　only。
  c。　Since　the　universal　as　such；　the　idea　of　species；　is；　according；　to　Locke；　merely　a　product　of
  our　mind；　which　is　not　itself　objective；　but　relates　merely　to　objects　which　are　germane　to　it；　and
  from　which　the　particular　of　qualities；　conditions；　time；　place；　etc。；　are　separated；　Locke
  distinguishes　essences　into　real　essences　and　nominal　essences；　the　former　of　these　express　the
  true　essence　of　things；　while　species　on　the　other　hand　are　mere　nominal　essences　which　no　doubt
  express　something　which　is　present　in　the　objects；　but　which　do　not　exhaust　these　objects。　They
  serve　to　distinguish　species　for　our　knowledge；　but　the　real　essence　of　nature　we　do　not
  know。（16）　Locke　gives　good　reasons　for　species　being　nothing　in　themselves　…　for　their　not　being
  in　nature；　or　absolutely　determined　…　instancing　in　exemplification　the　production　of　monstrosities
  （Bk。　III。　chap。　iii。　§　17）：　were　species　absolute　no　monster　would　be　born。　But　he　overlooks　the
  fact　that　since　it　pertains　to　species　to　exist；　it　thereby　likewise　enters　into　relationship　with　other
  determinations；　thus　that　is　the　sphere　in　which　individual　things　operate　upon　one　another；　and
  may；　hence　be　detrimental　to　the　existence　of　the　species。　Locke　thus　argues　just　as　one　would
  who　wished　to　prove　that　the　good　does　not　exist　in　itself；　because　there　are　likewise　evil　men；
  that　the　circle　does　not　exist　absolutely　in　nature；　because　the　circumference　of　a　tree；　for　example；
  represents　a　very　irregular　circle；　or　because　I　draw　a　circle　badly。　Nature　just　signifies　the　lack　of
  power　to　be　perfectly　adequate　to　the　Notion；　it　is　only　in　spirit　that　the　Notion　has　its　true
  existence。　To　say　that　species　are　nothing　in　themselves；　that　the　universal　is　not　the　essential
  reality　of　nature；　that　its　implicit　existence　is　not　the　object　of　thought；　is　tantamount　to　saying　that
  we　do　not　know　real　existence：　it　is　the　same　litany　which　has　since　been　so　constantly　repeated
  that　we　are　tired　of　listening　to　it：
  Das　Innere　der　Natur　kennt　kein　erschaffener　Geist；
  and　which　goes　on　until　we　have　perceived　that　Being…for…another；　perception；　is　not　implicit；　a
  point　of　view　which　has　not　made　its　way　to　the　positive　position　that　the　implicit　is　the　universal。
  Locke　is　far　back　in　the　nature　of　knowledge；　further　back　than　Plato；　because　of　his　insistence　on
  Being…for…another。
  It　is　further　noteworthy　that　from　the　sound　understanding　Locke　argues　（Vol。　111。　Bk。　IV。　chap。
  vii。　§　8…11）　against　universal　propositions　or　axioms　such　as　that　A=A；　i。e。；　if　anything　is　A　it
  cannot　be　B。　He　says　they　are　superfluous；　of　very　little　use　or　of　no　use　at　all；　for　nobody　yet　has
  built　up　a　science　on　a　proposition　which　asserts　a　contradiction。　From　such　the　true　may　be
  proved　as　easily　as　the　false；　they　are　tautological。　What　Locke　has　further　achieved　in　respect　of
  education；　toleration；　natural　rights　or　universal　state…right；　does　not　concern　us　here；　but　has　to　do
  with　general　culture。
  This　is　the　philosophy　of　Locke；　in　which　there　is　no　trace　of　speculation。　The　great　end　of
  Philosophy；　which　is　to　know　the　truth；　is　in　it　sought　to　be　attained　in　an　empiric　way；　it　thus
  indeed　serves　to　draw　attention　to　general　determinations。　But　such　a　philosophy　not　only
  represents　the　standpoint　of　ordinary　consciousness；　to　which　all　the　determinations　of　its　thought
  appear　as　if　given；　humble　as　it　is　in　the　oblivion　of　its　activity；　but　in　this　method　of　derivation　and
  psychological　origination　that　which　alone　concerns　Philosophy；　the　question　of　whether　those
  thoughts　and　relationships　have　truth　in　and　for　themselves；　is　not　present　at　all；　inasmuch　as　the
  only　object　aimed　at　is　to　describe　the　manner　in　which　thought　accepts　what　is　given　to　it。　It　may
  be　held　with　Wolff　that　it　is　arbitrary　to　begin　with　concrete　conceptions；　as　when　our　conception
  of　identity　is　made　to　take　its　origin　from　such　things　as　blue　flowers　and　the　blue　heavens。　One
  can　better　begin　directly　from　universal　conceptions　and　say　that　we　find　in　our　consciousness　the
  conceptions　of　time；　cause　and　effect　these　are　the　later　facts　of　consciousness。　This　method　forms
  the　basis　of　the　Wolffian　system　of　reasoning；　only　here　we　must　still　distinguish　amongst　the
  different　conceptions　those　that　are　to　be　regarded　as　most　essential；　in　Locke's　philosophy；　this
  distinction　cannot　really　be　said　to　come　under　consideration。　From　this　time；　according　to　Locke；
  or　in　this　particular　aspect　of　Philosophy；　there　is　a　complete　and　entire　change　in　the　point　of　view
  adopted；　the　whole　interest　is