I have elsewhere proposed _psychoses_ as a substantive name for mental phenomena.
[19] As this has been denied, it may be as well to give Descartes's words: "Par le mot de penser, j'entends tout ce que se fait dans nous de telle sorte que nous l'apercevons immediatement par nous-memes: c'est pourquoi non-seulement entendre, vouloir, imaginer, mais aussi sentir, c'est le meme chose ici que penser."-- _Principes de Philosophie_.

Ed.
Cousin.

57.
"Toutes les proprietes que nous trouvons en la chose qui pense ne sont que des facons differentes de penser."-- _Ibid._ 96.
[20] On the whole, it is pleasant to find satisfactory evidence that Hume knew nothing of the works of Spinoza; for the invariably abusive manner in which he refers to that type of the philosophic hero is only to be excused, if it is to be excused, by sheer ignorance of his life and work.
[21] For example, in discussing pride and humility, Hume says:-- "According as our idea of ourselves is more or less advantageous, we feel either of these opposite affections, and are elated by pride or dejected with humility ...

when self enters not into the consideration there is no room either for pride or humility." That is, pride is pleasure, and humility is pain, associated with certain conceptions of one's self; or, as Spinoza puts it:--"Superbia est de se prae amore sui plus justo sentire" ("amor" being "laetitia concomitante idea causae externae"); and "Humilitas est tristitia orta ex eo quod homo suam impotentiam sive imbecillitatem contemplatur.".