Summary of the previous argument.-What we are to understand
by Pleasure. The name of Pleasure ambiguous-and some-
times in a moral sense odious.-How far is it possible and
necessary to define Pleasure?-We can only define the laws
and conditions under which it is produced.-How little has
been done towards a science of Pleasure-though the subject is
scarcely ever out of our thoughts.-The philosophers have
examined Pleasure from the moral rather than the scientific
point of view-and peer into any mystery of human existence
sooner than into that of Pleasure.-Sir William Hamilton's
history of opinions regarding Pleasure.-Summary statement
of his account-and how far that account is defective.-Sir
William Hamilton's own speculation on Pleasure-and his
character as a philosopher.-His character is assailed by Mr.
Mill-and needs consideration.-The view of it given by
Mr. Mill.-How far the attack concerns Sir W. Hamilton's
individual reputation.-An argument in Hamilton's behalf.—
A second consideration in his behalf.-A third consideration.
-But in truth it is not so much Hamilton as European phi-
losophy that Mill attacks.-What is the European philosophy?
-What is the counter philosophy of Mill?-A re-assertion of
Hume's philosophy.-Sir William Hamilton is thus according
to Mill the representative of the established philosophy.—
Hamilton's position in relation to Mill-And the conclusion is