"Absolute, in the sense in which, it stands related to Infinite,
means (conformably to its etymology) that which is finished or
completed. There are some things of which the utmost ideal amount
is a limited quantity, though a quantity never actually reached....
We may speak of absolutely, but not of infinitely, pure water. The
purity of water is not a fact of which, whatever degree we suppose
attained, there remains a greater beyond. It has an absolute limit:
it is capable of being finished or complete, in thought, if not in
reality."--(P. 34.)
This criticism is either incorrect or _nihil ad rem_. If meant as a
statement of Hamilton's use of the term, it is incorrect: _absolute_, in
Hamilton's philosophy, does not mean simply "completed," but "out of
relation as completed;" _i.e._, self-existent in its completeness, and
not implying the existence of anything else. If meant in any other sense
than Hamilton's, it is irrelevant. Can Mr. Mill really have believed that
Schelling thought it necessary to invent an intellectual intuition out of
time and out of consciousness, in order to contemplate "an ideal limited
quantity," such as the complete purity of water?