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