Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

"To conclude, sensation convinces us, that there are solid extended substances; and reflection, that there are thinking ones: experience assures us of the existence of such beings; and that the one hath a power to move body by impulse, and the other by thought. If we would inquire farther into their nature, causes, and manner, we perceive not the nature of extension clearer than we do of thinking. If we would explain them any farther, one is as easy as the other; and there is no more difficulty to conceive how a substance we know not, should by thought set body into motion, than how a substance we know not, should by impulse set body into motion."--Locke, Essay, book ii. chap. xxiii. ¿? 28, 29.

It is not indeed very easy to reconcile the foregoing observations, which are, in every respect, worthy of the sagacity of this excellent philosopher, with the passage quoted from him in page 104 of this work.

Some of Mr. Hume's reasonings concerning the nature of the connexions among physical events, coincide perfectly with those of Malebranche on the same subject; but they were employed by this last writer to support a very different conclusion.

At a still earlier period, Hobbes expressed himself with respect to physical connexions, in terms so nearly approaching to Mr. Hume's, that it is difficult to suppose that they did not suggest to him the language which he has employed ou that subject. "What we call experience," he remarks, "is nothing else but remembrance of what antecedents have been followed by what consequents." "No man," he continues, "can have in his mind a conception of the future; for the future is not yet; but of our conceptions of the past we make a future, or rather call past, future relatively. Thus after a man hath been accustomed to see like antecedents followed by like consequents, whensoever he seeth the like come to pass to anything he had seen before, he looks there should follow it the same that followed then. When a man hath so often observed like antecedents to be followed by like consequents, that whensoever he seeth the antecedent, he looketh again for the consequent, or when he seeth the consequent, maketh account there hath been the like antecedent, then he calleth both the antecedent and the consequent signs of one another.”—Tripos.

I am doubtful whether I should not add to these authorities that of Lord Bacon, who, although he has nowhere formally stated the doctrine now under consideration, has plainly taken it for granted in all his reasonings on the method of prosecuting philosophical inquiries; for if we could perceive in any instance the manner in which a cause produces its effect, we should be able to deduce the effect from its cause by reasoning a priori, the impossibility of which he everywhere strongly inculcates. "Homo naturæ minister et interpres tantum facit et intelligit quantum de naturæ ordine re vel mente observaverit; nec amplius scit aut potest." I acknowledge, at the same time, that, from the general scope of Lord Bacon's writings, as well as from some particular expressions in them with regard to causes, I am inclined to believe that his metaphysical notions on the subject were not very accurate, and that he was led to perceive the necessity of recurring to observation and experiment in natural philosophy, not from a speculative consideration of our ignorance concerning necessary connexions, but from a conviction, founded on a review of the history of science, of the insufficiency of those methods of inquiry which his predecessors had pursued. The notion which the ancients

had formed of the object of philosophy, (which they conceived to be the investigation of efficient causes,) was the principal circumstance which misled them in their researches: and the erroneous opinions of Descartes on the same subject, frustrated all the efforts of his great and inventive genius, in the study of physics. "Perspicuum est," says he, in one passage, “optimam philosophandi viam nos sequuturos, si ex ipsius Dei cognitione rerum ab eo creatarum cognitionem deducere conemur, ut ita scientiam perfectissimam quæ est effectuum per causas acquiramus."

[ocr errors]

The strong prejudice which has been entertained of late against Mr. Hume's doctrine concerning the connexion among physical events, in consequence of the dangerous conclusions to which it has erroneously been supposed to lead, will, I hope, be a sufficient apology for multiplying so many authorities in support of it.*

NOTE D, p. 99.-External Perception. (2.)

This language has even been adopted by philosophers, and by atheists as well as theists. The latter have represented natural events as parts of a great chain, the highest link of which is supported by the Deity. The former have pretended, that there is no absurdity in supposing the number of links to be infinite. Mr. Hume had the merit of showing clearly to philosophers, that our common language, with respect to cause and effect, is merely analogical; and that if there be any links among physical events, they must for ever remain invisible to us. If this part of his system be admitted, and if, at the same time, we admit the authority of that principle of the mind, which leads us to refer every change to an efficient cause; Mr. Hume's doctrine seems to be more favourable to theism, than even the common notions upon this subject, as it keeps the Deity always in view, not only as the first, but as the constantly operating efficient cause in nature, and as the great connecting principle among all the various phenomena which we observe. This, accordingly, was the conclusion which Malebranche deduced from premises very nearly the same with Mr. Hume's.

NOTE E, p. 133.-Attention.

Mr. Locke, in his Essay on Human Understanding, has taken notice of the quickness † with which the operations of the mind are carried on, and has referred to the acquired perceptions of sight, as a proof of it. The same author has been struck with the connexion between this class of facts and our habitual actions; but he does not state the question, whether such actions are voluntary or not. I think it probable, from his mode of expression, that his opinion on the subject was the same with mine. The following quotation contains all the remarks I recollect in his writings, that have any connexion with the doctrines of the present chapter:

"We are farther to consider concerning perception, that the ideas we receive by sensation are often, in grown people, altered by the judgment, without our taking notice of it. When we set before our eyes a round globe, of any uniform colour, v.g., gold, alabaster, or jet, it is certain that the idea thereby imprinted in

1 There is, I believe, reason to doubt if Descartes had ever read the works of Bacon.-[But ree above, vol. i. p. 544.-Ed.]

* Compare also Note O, of Elements, vol. ii. -Ed.

So likewise Aristotle, Hobbes, &c., &c.-Ed.

our mind is of a flat circle, variously shadowed, with several degrees of light and brightness coming to our eyes. But we, having by use been accustomed to perceive what kind of appearance convex bodies are wont to make in us, and what alterations are made in the reflections of light by the difference of the sensible figure of bodies, the judgment presently, by a habitual custom, alters the appearances into their causes; so that, from that which truly is variety of shadow or colour, collecting the figure, it makes it pass for a mark of figure, and frames to itself the perception of a convex figure, and a uniform colour; when the idea we receive from thence is only a plane variously coloured, as is evident in painting."[Book ii.] chap. ix. 28.

"But this is not, I think, usually in any of our ideas but those received by sight; because sight, the most comprehensive of all our senses, conveying to our minds the ideas of light and colours, which are peculiar only to that sense, and also the far different ideas of space, figure, and motion, the several varieties whereof change the appearances of its proper object, viz., light and colours, we bring ourselves by use to judge of the one by the other. This, in many cases, by a settled habit in things whereof we have frequent experience, is performed so constantly, and so quick, that we take that for the perception of our sensation, which is an idea formed by our judgment; so that one, viz., that of sensation, serves only to excite the other, and is scarce taken any notice of itself; as a man who reads or hears with attention and understanding, takes little notice of the characters or sounds, but of the ideas that are excited in him by them.

"Nor need we wonder that this is done with so little notice, if we consider how very quick the actions of the mind are performed; for as itself is thought to take up no space, to have no extension, so its actions seem to require no time, but many of them seem to be crowded into an instant. I speak this in comparison to the actions of the body. Any one may easily observe this in his own thoughts, who will take the pains to reflect on them. How, as it were in an instant, do our minds, with one glance, see all parts of a demonstration, which may very well be called a long one, if we consider the time it will require to put it into words, and step by step shew it to another? Secondly, We shall not be much surprised that this is done in us with so little notice, if we consider how the facility which we get of doing things by a custom of doing, makes them often pass in us without our notice. Habits, especially such as are begun very early, come at last to produce actions in us, which often escape our observation. How frequently do we in a day cover our eyes with our eyelids, without perceiving that we are at all in the dark? Men that by custom have got the use of a bye-word, do almost in every sentence pronounce sounds, which, though taken notice of by others, they themselves neither hear nor observe; and, therefore, it is not so strange that our mind should often change the idea of its sensation into that of its judgment, and make one serve only to excite the other, without our taking notice of it."— Ibid. 89, 10.

The habit mentioned by Locke, in this paragraph, of occasionally winking with the eyelids, (which is not accompanied with any memory of our being, in every such instance, in a momentary state of total darkness,) deserves to be added to the cases already mentioned, to shew the dependence of Memory upon Attention.

NOTE F, p. 170.-Abst action. (§ 2.)

. . . . Platoni quid Idea sit, peculiari tractatione prolixe excussimus, quæ consuli ab iis debet, qui accurate totam rei seriem pernoscere cupiunt. Nos pro præsentis instituti modo paucis notamus, Platoni ideam non esse illam, quæ ex contemplatione objectorum singularium exsurgit notionem universalem reique alicujus generalem conceptum, quem recentiores ideam vocant, ille sidos vocavit et ab idea distinxit. Sed ideæ sunt illi essentialia rerum omnium singularium exemplaria, autovi gaudentia, ad quorum naturam indolemque res singulares formatæ sunt, et quæ illis veram certamque atque stabilem essentiam largiuntur. Has ideas ex divina mente oriri, inque ea radicari, sua autem propria substantia gaudere, et esse aütws naì övtws övta statuit, et circa earum cognitionem versati intellectum humanum, in his rerum essentiis separatim et extra materiam existentibus cognoscendis cardinem verti totius philosophiæ asseruit. Ridiculum id visum Aristoteli, dari extra materiam ejusmodi essentias universales, quibus res omnes singulares essentialiter modificarentur, rato, esse hæc rigsríoμara et nugas otiosi ingenii, Platonemque sine causa rationeque sufficienti hæc somnia ex scholis Pythagoreoruin, quæ istis entibus personabant, recepisse, suoque intulisse systemati. Cum autem negare non auderet, esse in rebus formas essentiales, has ideas, sive formas, qua voce Platonicum nomen exprimere maluit, materiæ ab æterno esse impressas, et in eo latere affirmavit, et ita demum ex rationibus istis formisque seminalibus, materiam esse formatam statuit."-Bruck. Hist. Phil., vol. iii. p. 905.

NOTE G, p. 171.-Abstraction. (2 2.)

The Stoics, who borrowed many of their doctrines from the other schools of philosophy, seem, in particular, to have derived their notions on this subject from some of their predecessors. Stilpo, who was of the Megaric sect, is said to have held opinions approaching nearly to those of the Nominalists.

"Stilpo universalia plane sustulit. Dicebat enim: qui hominem dicat eum neminem dicere, quod non hunc vel illum ea vox significet, nec huic magis, quam alteri conveniat.-Scilicet supponebat Stilpo, non dari Hominem in abstracto, adeoque has species et genera rerum non natura existere; cum neque in hoc neque in alio homine, ille homo universalis queat ostendi. Inductione itaque facta, cum neque hunc, neque illum, neque alium hominem esse colligeret, inferebat nullum esse hominem, sicque ludendo ambigua hominis in genere sive abstracto, uti logici dicunt, et in individuo sive singulari considerati notione, incautos exagitabat. Altiora tamen hic latere putat P. Bayle, et non in solo verborum lusu substitisse Stilponem, sed universalia sive prædicabilia negavisse.-Neque prorsus est dissimile, fuisse Stilponem inter eos, qui universalia præter nuda nomina nihil esse dicerent, quod et Cynicos fecisse et alios, alibi docuimus: quorum partes postea susceperunt Abelardi sequaces et tota Nominalium secta."—Bruck. Hist. Phil., vol. i. p. 619.

NOTE H, p. 172.-Abstrac ion. (2.)

"Seculo xi, Roscelinus vel Rucelinus sacerdos et philosophus Compendiensis, ab Aristotele secessum fecit, et in Stoicorum castra ita transiit, ut statuerit, uni1 Brucker here alludes to his work, entitled, Historia Philosophica de Ideis, which I have never had an opportunity of seeing.

VOL. II.

2 H

versalia, nec ante rem, nec in re existere, nce ullam habere realem existentiam, sed esse nuda nomina et voces, quibus rerum singularium genera denotentur."— Bruck. Hist. Phil., vol. iii. p. 906.

"Dum Porphyrius prudenter quæstionem; an universalia revera existant, omittendam esse censet de quâ inter Platonicos et Stoicos mire decertari noverat, occasionem suppeditavit otioso Roscelini ingenio, eam novo acumine ingenii aggrediendi definiendique."—Ibid. vol. iii. p. 674.

Roscelinus was a native of Brittany, and canon of Compiegne. He is much celebrated, even by his adversaries, for the acuteness and subtlety of his genius, which he displayed both in scholastical and theological controversy. He was condemned for Tritheism by a council assembled at Soissons in the year 1092.-(See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.) It does not appear that he ever taught in Paris, or that he gave public lectures; but he had the honour to direct the studies, and to form the philosophical opinions of Abelard, by whose means the innovations he had introduced into Dialectics obtained a very wide and rapid circulation.— (Brucker, vol. iii. p. 728.) He is mentioned as an Englishman by Mallet, in his life of Bacon, and by other writers; a mistake into which they have fallen by confounding Britain with Bretagne. Very little is known of the particulars of his life. "Primum Nominalium aiunt fuisse," says Leibnitz, "nescio quem Rucelinum Britonem."-See his Dissertatio de Stylo Philosophico Marii Nizolii. [Opera, Dutensii, tom. iv. p. 59-Ed.]

The opinion of Abelard concerning Universals, is said to have differed in some respects from that of his master. "Alius consistit in vocibus," says John of Salisbury, who was a scholar of Abelard, "licet hæc opinio cum Roscelino suo fere omnino jam evanuerit: alius sermones intuetur, et ad illos detorquet, quicquid alicubi de universalibus meminit scriptum. In hac autem opinione deprehensus est Peripateticus Abelardus noster."-Metalog. lib. ii. c. 17.

Of this difference between the doctrines of Roscelinus and Abelard, I find myself perfectly unable to give any account, and I am glad to find that Morhoff acknowledges his ignorance upon the same subject.. "Alii fuerunt, qui universalia quæsiverunt, non tam in vocibus quam in sermonibus integris; quod Joh. Sarisberiensis adscribit Petro Abelardo; quo quid intelligat ille, mihi non satis liquet.”1—Polyhist., tom. ii. lib. i. cap. 13, sect. 2.

Absurd as these controversies may now appear, such was the prevailing taste of the twelfth century, that they seduced the young and aspiring mind of Abelard from all the other pursuits which Europe then presented to his ambition.—“ Ut

1 [Perhaps this doctrine, which appeared so unintelligible to Morhoff, and which, when I first published this volume, appeared no less so to myself, amounted to nothing more than what is stated in the following remark of Hobbes:"Of names universal, some are of more, and some of less extent, the larger comprehending the less large, and some again of equal extent, comprehending each other reciprocally. But here we must take notice, that by a name is not always to be understood, as in grammar, one only word, but sometimes by circumlocution, many words together. For all these words,

he that in his actions observeth the laws of his
country, make but one name equivalent to this
one word, just.”—(Of Man, part 1. chap. 4)
When with this observation we combine a re-
mark, (ascribed by Dr. Gillies to Aristotle,
that "
general names are nothing more than
abridgments of definitions," we shall probably
approach pretty nearly to the opinion ascribed
to Abelard by John of Salisbury. According to
this interpretation, Abelard taught, that in con-
sidering the question between the Nominalists
and the Realists, it is the definition rather than
the general name which we ought to attend to.]

« PredošláPokračovať »