The _practical utility_ of that knowledge is not disputed, but its _objective reality_, or the possibility of proving it, is, to a large extent, denied.

Still he admits a primitive _dualism_, and a radical distinction between _the subject and the object_, between the mind which thinks and the matter of its thoughts.

The _matter_ comes from without, the _form_ from within; and the senses are the channels through which the phenomena of nature are poured into the mould of the human mind.

All knowledge implies this combination of _matter_ with _form_, and is possible only on the supposition of the concurrent action both of the _object_ and _subject_; not that either of the two is known to us in its essence, or that their real existence can be scientifically demonstrated, for we know the subject only in its relation to the object, and the object only in its relation to the subject; but that this _relation_ necessarily requires the joint action of both, by which alone we can acquire the only knowledge of which we are capable, and which is supposed to be purely phenomenal, relative, and subjective.

It is true that we are capable of forming certain grand ideas, such as that of God, the universe, and the soul; but these are the pure products of Reason, the mere personifications of our own modes of thinking, and have no objective reality, at least none that can be scientifically demonstrated.