1.1. PART I.
OF IDEAS, THEIR ORIGIN, COMPOSITION,
CONNEXION, ABSTRACTION, ETC.
SECT. I
Of the Origin of our Ideas.
All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call IMPRESSIONS and
IDEAS. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind,
and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we
may name impressions: and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first
appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the
perceptions excited by the present discourse, excepting only those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the
immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion. I believe it will not be very necessary to employ many words in explaining
this distinction. Every one of himself will readily perceive the difference betwixt feeling and thinking. The common degrees
of these are easily distinguished; tho' it is not impossible but in particular instances they may very nearly approach to each
other. Thus in sleep, in a fever, in madness, or in any very violent emotions of soul, our ideas may approach to our
impressions, As on the other hand it sometimes happens, that our impressions are so faint and low, that we cannot
distinguish them from our ideas. But notwithstanding this near resemblance in a few instances, they are in general so very
different, that no-one can make a scruple to rank them under distinct heads, and assign to each a peculiar name to mark the
difference.
(1)
There is another division of our perceptions, which it will be convenient to observe, and which extends itself both to our
impressions and ideas. This division is into SIMPLE and COMPLEX. Simple perceptions or impressions and ideas are such
as admit of no distinction nor separation. The complex are the contrary to these, and may be distinguished into parts. Tho' a
particular colour, taste, and smell, are qualities all united together in this apple, 'tis easy to perceive they are not the same,
but are at least distinguishable from each other.
Having by these divisions given an order and arrangement to our objects, we may now apply ourselves to consider with the
more accuracy their qualities and relations. The first circumstance, that strikes my eye, is the great resemblance betwixt our
impressions and ideas in every other particular, except their degree of force and vivacity. The one seem to be in a manner the
reflexion of the other; so that all the perceptions of the mind are double., and appear both as impressions and ideas. When I
shut my eyes and think of my chamber, the ideas I form are exact representations of the impressions I felt; nor is there any
circumstance of the one, which is not to be found in the other. In running over my other perceptions, I find still the same
resemblance and representation. Ideas and impressions appear always to correspond to each other. This circumstance seems
to me remarkable, and engages my attention for a moment.
Upon a more accurate survey I find I have been carried away too far by the first appearance, and that I must make use of
the distinction of perceptions into simple and complex, to limit this general decision, that all our ideas and impressions are
resembling. I observe, that many of our complex ideas never had impressions, that corresponded to them, and that many of
our complex impressions never are exactly copied in ideas. I can imagine to myself such a city as the New Jerusalem, whose
pavement is gold and walls are rubies, tho' I never saw any such. I have seen Paris; but shall I affirm I can form such an idea
of that city, as will perfectly represent all its streets and houses in their real and just proportions?
I perceive, therefore, that tho' there is in general a great, resemblance betwixt our complex impressions and ideas, yet the
rule is not universally true, that they are exact copies of each other. We may next consider how the case stands with our
simple, perceptions. After the most accurate examination, of which I am capable, I venture to affirm, that the rule here holds
without any exception, and that every simple idea has a simple impression, which resembles it, and every simple impression a
correspondent idea. That idea of red, which we form in the dark, and that impression which strikes our eyes in sun-shine,
differ only in degree, not in nature. That the case is the same with all our simple impressions and ideas, 'tis impossible to
prove by a particular enumeration of them. Every one may satisfy himself in this point by running over as many as he
pleases. But if any one should deny this universal resemblance, I know no way of convincing him, but by desiring him to
shew a simple impression, that has not a correspondent idea, or a simple idea, that has not a correspondent impression. If he
does not answer this challenge, as 'tis certain he can-not, we may from his silence and our own observation establish our
conclusion.
Thus we find, that all simple ideas and impressions resemble each other; and as the complex are formed from them, we may
affirm in general, that these two species of perception are exactly correspondent. Having discovered this relation, which
requires no farther examination, I am curious to find some other of their qualities. Let us consider how. they stand with
regard to their existence, and which of the impressions and ideas are causes, and which effects.
The full examination of this question is the subject of the present treatise; and therefore we shall here content ourselves with
establishing one general proposition, That all our simple ideas in their first appearance are deriv'd from simple
impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent.
In seeking for phenomena to prove this proposition, I find only those of two kinds; but in each kind the phenomena are
obvious, numerous, and conclusive. I first make myself certain, by a new, review, of what I have already asserted, that every
simple impression is attended with a correspondent idea, and every simple idea with a correspondent impression. From this
constant conjunction of resembling perceptions I immediately conclude, that there is a great connexion betwixt our
correspondent impressions and ideas, and that the existence of the one has a -considerable influence upon that of the other.
Such a constant conjunction, in such an infinite number of instances, can never arise from chance; but clearly proves a
dependence of the impressions on the ideas, or of the ideas on the impressions. That I may know on which side this
dependence lies, I consider the order of their first appearance; and find by constant experience, that the simple impressions
always take the precedence of their correspondent ideas, but never appear in the contrary order. To give a child an idea of
scarlet or orange, of sweet or bitter, I present the objects, or in other words, convey to him these impressions; but proceed
not so absurdly, as to endeavour to produce -the impressions by exciting the ideas. Our ideas upon their appearance produce
not their correspondent impressions, nor do we perceive any colour, or feel any sensation merely upon thinking of them. On
the other hand we find, that any impression either of the mind or body is constantly followed by an idea, which resembles it,
and is only different in the degrees of force and liveliness, The constant conjunction of our resembling perceptions, is a
convincing proof, that the one are the causes of the other; and this priority of the impressions is an equal proof, that our
impressions are the causes of our ideas, not our ideas .of our, impressions.
To confirm this I consider Another plain and convincing phaenomenon; which is, that, where-ever by any accident the
faculties, which give rise to any impressions, are obstructed in their operations, as when one is born blind or deaf; -not only
the impressions are lost, but also their correspondent ideas; so that there never appear in the mind the least traces of either of
them. Nor is this only true, where the organs of sensation are entirely destroy'd, but likewise where they have never been put
in action to produce a particular impression. We cannot form to ourselves a just idea of the taste of a pine apple, without
having actually tasted it.
There is however one contradictory phaenomenon, which may prove, that 'tis not absolutely impossible for ideas to go
before their correspondent impressions. I believe it will readily be allow'd that the several distinct ideas of colours, which
enter by the eyes, or those of sounds, which are convey'd by the hearing, are really different from each other, tho' at the
same time resembling. Now if this be true of different colours, it must be no less so of the different shades of the same
colour, that each of them produces a distinct idea, independent of the rest. For if this shou'd be deny'd, 'tis possible, by the
continual gradation of shades, to run a colour insensibly into what is most remote from it; and if you will not allow any of
the means to be different, you cannot without absurdity deny the extremes to be the same. Suppose therefore a person to
have enjoyed his sight for thirty years, and to have become perfectly well acquainted with colours of all kinds, excepting one
particular shade of blue, for instance, which it never has been his fortune to meet with. Let all the different shades of that
colour, except that single one, be plac'd before him, descending gradually from the deepest to the lightest; 'tis plain, that he
will perceive a blank, where that shade is wanting, said will be sensible, that there is a greater distance in that place betwixt
the contiguous colours, than in any other. Now I ask, whether 'tis possible for him, from his own imagination, to supply this
deficiency, and raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade, tho' it had never been conveyed to him by his senses? I
believe i here are few but will be of opinion that he can; and this may serve as a proof, that the simple ideas are not always
derived from the correspondent impressions; tho' the instance is so particular and singular, that 'tis scarce worth our
observing, and does not merit that for it alone we should alter our general maxim.
But besides this exception, it may not be amiss to remark on this head, that the principle of the priority of impressions to
ideas must be understood with another limitation, viz., that as our ideas are images of our impressions, so we can form
secondary ideas, which are images of the primary; as appears from this very reasoning concerning them. This is not, properly
speaking, an exception to the rule so much as an explanation of it. Ideas produce the images of them. selves in new ideas;
but as the first ideas are supposed to be derived from impressions, it still remains true, that all our simple ideas proceed
either mediately or immediately, from their correspondent impressions.
This then is the first principle I establish in the science of human nature; nor ought we to despise it because of the simplicity
of its appearance. For 'tis remarkable, that the present question concerning the precedency of our impressions or ideas, is the
same with what has made so much noise in other terms, when it has been disputed whether there be any innate ideas, or
whether all ideas be derived from sensation and reflexion. We may observe, that in order to prove the ideas of extension and
colour not to be innate, philosophers do nothing but shew that they are conveyed by our senses. To prove the ideas of
passion and desire not to be innate, they observe that we have a preceding experience of these emotions in ourselves., Now
if we carefully examine these arguments, we shall find that they prove nothing but that ideas are preceded by other more
lively perceptions, from which the are derived, and which they represent. I hope this clear stating of the question will remove
all disputes concerning it, and win render this principle of more use in our reasonings, than it seems hitherto to have been.
[1.]
I here make use of these terms, impression and idea, in a sense different from what is usual, and I hope this liberty will be
allowed me. Perhaps I rather restore the word, idea, to its original sense, from which Mr Locke had perverted it, in making it
stand for all our perceptions. By the terms of impression I would not be understood to express the manner, in which our
lively perceptions are produced in the soul, but merely the perceptions themselves; for which there is no particular name
either in the English or any other language, that I know of.
SECT. II.
Division of the Subject.
Since it appears, that our simple impressions are prior to their correspondent ideas, and that the exceptions are very rare,
method seems to require we should examine our impressions, before we consider our ideas. Impressions way be divided into
two kinds, those Of SENSATION and those of REFLEXION. The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown
causes. The second is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order. An impression first strikes
upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other. Of this
impression there is a copy taken by the mind, which remains after the impression ceases; and this we call an idea. This idea
of pleasure or pain, when it returns upon the soul, produces the new impressions of desire and aversion, hope and fear,
which may properly be called impressions of reflexion, because derived from it. These again are copied by the memory and
imagination, and become ideas; which perhaps in their turn give rise to other impressions and ideas. So that the impressions
of reflexion are only antecedent to their correspondent ideas; but posterior to those of sensation, and deriv'd from them. The
examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at
present be enter'd upon. And as the impressions of reflexion, viz. passions, desires, and emotions, which principally deserve
our attention, arise mostly from ideas, 'twill be necessary to reverse that method, which at first sight seems most natural; and
in order to explain the nature and principles of the human mind, give a particular account of ideas, before we proceed to
impressions. For this reason I have here chosen to begin with ideas.
SECT. III.
Of the Ideas of the Memory and Imagination.
We find by experience, that when any impression bas been present with the mind, it again makes its appearance there as an
idea; and this it may do after two different ways: either when in its new appearance it retains a considerable degree of its first
vivacity, and is somewhat intermediate betwixt an impression and an idea: or when it entirely loses that vivacity, and is a
perfect idea. The faculty, by which we repeat our impressions in the first manner, is called the MEMORY, and the other the
IMAGINATION. 'Tis evident at first sight, that the ideas of the memory are much more lively and strong than those of the
imagination, and that the former faculty paints its objects in more distinct colours, than any which are employ'd by the latter.
When we remember any past event, the idea of it flows in upon the mind in a forcible manner; whereas in the imagination the
perception is faint and languid, and cannot without difficulty be preserv'd by the mind steddy and uniform for any
considerable time. Here then is a sensible difference betwixt one species of ideas and another. But of this more fully
hereafter.
(2)
There is another difference betwixt these two kinds of ideas, which:-s no less evident, namely that tho' neither the ideas, of
the memory nor imagination, neither the lively nor faint ideas can make their appearance in the mind, unless their
correspondent impressions have gone before to prepare the way for them, yet the imagination is not restrain'd to the same
order and form with the original impressions; while the memory is in a manner ty'd down in that respect, without any power
of variation.
'Tis evident, that the memory preserves the original form, in which its objects were presented, and that where-ever we
depart from it in recollecting any thing, it proceeds from some defect or imperfection in that faculty. An historian may,
perhaps, for the more convenient Carrying on of his narration, relate an event before another, to which it was in fact
posterior; but then he takes notice of this disorder, if he be exact; and by that means replaces the idea in its due position. 'Tis
the same case in our recollection of those places and persons, with which we were formerly acquainted. The chief exercise
of the memory is not to preserve the simple ideas, but their order and position. In short, this principle is supported by such a
number of common and vulgar phaenomena, that we may spare ourselves the trouble of insisting on it any farther.
The same evidence follows us in our second principle, of the liberty of the imagination to transpose and change its ideas.
The fables we meet with in poems and romances put this entirely out of the question. Nature there is totally confounded, and
nothing mentioned but winged horses, fiery dragons, and monstrous giants. Nor will this liberty of the fancy appear strange,
when we consider, that all our ideas are copy'd from our impressions,' and that there are not any two impressions which are
perfectly inseparable. Not to mention, that this is an evident consequence of the division of ideas into simple and complex.
Where-ever the imagination perceives a difference among ideas, it can easily produce a separation.
SECT. IV.
Of the Connexion or Association of Ideas.
As all simple ideas may be separated by the imagination, and may be united again in what form it pleases, nothing wou'd be
more unaccountable than the operations of that faculty, were it not guided by some universal principles, which render it, in
some measure, uniform with itself in all times and places. Were ideas entirely loose and unconnected, chance alone wou'd
join them; and 'tis impossible the same simple ideas should fall regularly into complex ones (as they Commonly do) without
some bond of union among them, some associating quality, by which one idea naturally introduces another. This uniting
principle among ideas is not to be consider'd as an inseparable connexion; for that has been already excluded from the
imagination: Nor yet are we to conclude, that without it the mind cannot join two ideas; for nothing is more free than that
faculty: but we are only to regard it as a gentle force, which commonly prevails, and is the cause why, among other things,
languages so nearly correspond to each other; nature in a manner pointing out to every one those simple ideas, which are
most proper to be united in a complex one. The qualities, from which this association arises, and by which the mind is after
this manner convey'd from one idea to another, are three, viz. RESEMBLANCE., CONTIGUITY in time or place, and
CAUSE and EFFECT.
I believe it will not be very necessary to prove, that these qualities produce an association among ideas, and upon the
appearance of one idea naturally introduce another. 'Tis plain, that in the course of our thinking, and in the constant
revolution of our ideas, our imagination runs easily from one idea to any other that resembles it, and that this quality alone is
to the fancy a sufficient bond and association. 'Tis likewise evident that as the senses, in changing their objects, are
necessitated to change them regularly, and take them as they lie contiguous to each other, the imagination must by long
custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects. As to the
connexion, that is made by the relation of cause and effect, we shall have occasion afterwards to examine it to the bottom,
and therefore shall not at present insist upon it. 'Tis sufficient to observe, that there is no relation, which produces a stronger
connexion in the fancy, and makes one idea more readily recall another, than the relation of cause and effect betwixt their
objects.
That we may understand the full extent of these relations, we must consider, that two objects are connected together in the
imagination, not only when the one is immediately resembling, contiguous to, or the cause of the other, but also when there
is interposed betwixt them a third object, which bears to both of them any of these relations. This may be carried on to a
great length; tho' at the same time we may observe, that each remove considerably weakens the relation. Cousins in the
fourth degree are connected by causation, if I may be allowed to use that term; but not so closely as brothers, much less as
child and parent. In general we may observe, that all the relations of blood depend upon cause and effect, and are esteemed
near or remote, according to the number of connecting causes interpos'd betwixt the persons.
Of the three relations above-mention'd this of causation is the most extensive. Two objects may be considered as plac'd in
this relation, as well when one is the cause of any of the actions or motions of the other, as when the former is the cause of
the existence of the latter. For as that action or motion is nothing but the object itself, consider'd in a certain light, and as the
object continues the same in all its different situations, 'tis easy to imagine how such an influence of objects upon one
another may connect them in the imagination.
We may carry this farther, and remark, not only that two objects are connected by the relation of cause and effect, when the
one produces a motion or any action in the other, but also when it has a power of producing it. And this we may observe to
be the source of all the relation,; of interest and duty, by which men influence each other in society, and are plac'd in the ties
of government and subordination. A master is such-a-one as by his situation, arising either from force or agreement, has a
power of directing in certain particulars the actions of another, whom we call servant. A judge is one, who in all disputed
cases can fix by his opinion the possession or property of any thing betwixt any members of the society. When a person is
possess'd of any power, there is no more required to convert it into action, but the exertion of the will; and that in every case
is considered as possible, and in many as probable; especially in the case of authority, where the obedience of the subject is a
pleasure and advantage to the superior.
These are therefore the principles of union or cohesion among our simple ideas, and in the imagination supply the place of
that inseparable connexion, by which they are united in our memory. Here is a kind of ATTRACTION, which in the mental
world will be found to have as extraordinary effects as in the natural, and to shew itself in as many and as various forms. Its
effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv'd into original
qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain. Nothing is more requisite for a true philosopher, than to restrain
the intemperate desire of searching into causes, and having established any doctrine upon a sufficient number of experiments,
rest contented with that, when he sees a farther examination would lead him into obscure and uncertain speculations. In that
case his enquiry wou'd be much better employ'd in examining the effects than the causes of his principle.
Amongst the effects of this union or association of ideas, there are none more remarkable, than those complex ideas, which
are the common subjects of our thoughts and reasoning, and generally arise from some principle of union among our simple
ideas. These complex ideas may be divided into Relations, Modes, and Substances. We shall briefly examine each of these in
order, and shall subjoin some considerations concerning our general and particular ideas, before we leave the present
subject, which may be consider'd as the elements of this philosophy.
SECT. V.
Of Relations.
The word RELATION is commonly used in two senses considerably different from each other. Either for that quality, by
which two ideas are connected together in the imagination, and the one naturally introduces the other, after the manner
above-explained: or for that particular circumstance, in which, even upon the arbitrary union of two ideas in the fancy, we
may think proper to compare them. In common language the former is always the sense, in which we use the word, relation;
and tis only in philosophy, that we extend it to mean any particular subject of comparison, without a connecting principle.
Thus distance will be allowed by philosophers to be a true relation, because we acquire an idea of it by the comparing of
objects: But in a common way we say, that nothing can be more distant than such or such things from each other, nothing
can have less relation: as if distance and relation were incompatible.'
It may perhaps be esteemed an endless task to enumerate all those qualities, which make objects admit of comparison, and
by which the ideas of philosophical relation are produced. But if we diligently consider them, we shall find that without
difficulty they may be compriz'd under seven general heads, which may be considered as the sources of all philosophical
relation.
(1) The first is resemblance: And this is a relation, without which no philosophical relation can exist; since no objects will
admit of comparison, but what have some degree of resemblance. But tho' resemblance be necessary to all philosophical
relation, it does not follow, that it always produces a connexion or association of ideas. When a quality becomes very
general, and is common to a great many individuals, it leads not the mind directly to any one of them; but by presenting at
once too great a choice, does thereby prevent the imagination from fixing on any single object.
(2) Identity may be esteem'd a second species of relation. This relation I here consider as apply'd in its strictest sense to
constant and unchangeable objects; without examining the nature and foundation of personal identity, which shall find its
place afterwards. Of all relations the most universal is that of identity, being common to every being whose existence has any
duration.
(3) After identity the most universal and comprehensive relations are those of Space and Time, which are the sources of an
infinite number of comparisons, such as distant, contiguous, above, below, before, after, etc.
(4) All those objects, which admit of quantity, or number, may be compar'd in that particular; which is another very fertile
source of relation.
(5) When any two objects possess the same quality in common, the degrees, in which they possess it, form a fifth species of
relation. Thus of two objects, which are both heavy, the one may be either of greater, or less weight than the other. Two
colours, that are of the same kind, may yet be of different shades, and in that respect admit of comparison.
(6) The relation of contrariety may at first sight be regarded as an exception to the rule, that no relation of any kind can
subsist without some degree of resemblance. But let us consider, that no two ideas are in themselves contrary, except those
of existence and non-existence, which are plainly resembling, as implying both of them an idea of the object; tho' the latter
excludes the object from all times and places, in which it is supposed not to exist.
(7) All other objects, such as fire and water, heat and cold, are only found to be contrary from experience, and from the
contrariety of their causes or effects; which relation of cause and effect is a seventh philosophical relation, as well as a
natural one. The resemblance implied in this relation, shall be explain'd afterwards.
It might naturally be expected, that I should join difference to the other relations. But that I consider rather as a negation of
relation, than as anything real or positive. Difference is of two kinds as oppos'd either to identity or resemblance. The first is
call'd a difference of number; the other of kind.
SECT. VI.
Of Modes and Substances
I wou'd fain ask those philosophers, who found so much of their reasonings on the distinction of substance and accident,
and imagine we have clear ideas of each., whether the idea of substance be deriv'd from the impressions of sensation pr of
reflection? If it be convey'd to us by our senses, I ask, which of them; and after what manner? If it be perceiv'd by the eyes, it
must be a colour; if by the ears, a sound; if by the palate, a taste; and so of the other senses. But I believe none will assert,
that substance is either a colour, or sound, or a taste. The idea, of substance must therefore be deriv'd from an impression of
reflection, if it really exist. But the impressions of reflection resolve themselves into our passions and emotions: none of
which can possibly represent a substance. We have therefore no idea of substance, distinct from that of a collection of
particular qualities, nor have we any other meaning when we either talk or reason concerning it.'
The idea of a substance as well as that of a mode, is nothing but a collection of Simple ideas, that are united by the
imagination, and have a particular name assigned them, by which we are able to recall, either to ourselves or others, that
collection. But the difference betwixt these ideas consists in this, that the particular qualities, which form a substance, are
commonly refer'd to an unknown something, in which they are supposed to inhere; or granting this fiction should not take
place, are at least supposed to be closely and inseparably connected by the relations of contiguity and causation. The effect
of this is, that whatever new simple quality we discover to have the same connexion with the rest, we immediately
comprehend it among them, even tho' it did not enter into the first conception of the substance. Thus our idea of gold may at
first be a yellow colour, weight, malleableness, fusibility; but upon the discovery of its dissolubility in aqua regia, we join
that to the other qualities, and suppose it to belong to the substance as much as if its idea had from the beginning made a
part of the compound one. The principal of union being regarded as the chief part of the complex idea, gives entrance to
whatever quality afterwards occurs, and is equally comprehended by it, as are the others, which first presented themselves.
themselves.
That this cannot take place in modes, is evident from considering their mature. The. simple ideas of which modes are
formed, either represent qualities, which are not united by contiguity and causation, but are dispers'd in different subjects; or
if they be all united together, the uniting principle is not regarded as the foundation of the complex idea. The idea of a dance
is an instance of the first kind of modes; that of beauty of the second. The reason is obvious, why such complex ideas cannot
receive any' new idea, without changing the name, which distinguishes the mode.
SECT. VII.
Of Abstract Ideas.
A very material question has been started concerning abstract or general ideas, whether they be general or particular in the
mind's conception of them. A great philosopher
(3)
has disputed the receiv'd opinion in this particular, and has asserted, that
all general ideas are nothing but particular ones, annexed to a certain term, which gives them a more extensive signification,
and makes them recall upon occasion other individuals, which are similar to them. As I look upon this to be one of the
greatest and most valuable discoveries that has been made of late years in the republic of letters, I shag here endeavour to
confirm it by some arguments, which I hope will put it beyond all doubt and controversy.
'Tis evident, that in forming most of our general ideas, if not all of them, we abstract from every particular degree of
quantity and quality, and that an object ceases not to be of any particular species on account of every small alteration in its
extension, duration and other properties. It may therefore be thought, that here is a plain dilemma, that decides concerning
the nature of those abstract ideas, which have afforded so much speculation to philosophers. The abstract idea of a man
represents men of all sizes and all qualities; which 'tis concluded it cannot do, but either by representing at once all possible
sizes and all possible qualities, or by, representing no particular one at all. Now it having been esteemed absurd to defend the
former proposition, as implying an infinite capacity in the mind, it has been commonly infer'd in favour of the letter: and our
abstract ideas have been suppos'd to represent no particular degree either of quantity or quality. But that this inference is
erroneous, I shall endeavour to make appear, first, by proving, that 'tis utterly impossible to conceive any quantity or quality,
without forming a precise notion of its degrees: And secondly by showing, that tho' the capacity of the mind be not infinite,
yet we can at once form a notion of all possible degrees of quantity and quality, in such a manner at least, as, however
imperfect, may serve all the purposes of reflection and conversation.
To begin with the first proposition, that the mind cannot form any notion of quantity or quality without forming a precise
notion of degrees of each; we may prove this by the three following arguments. First, We have observ'd, that whatever
objects are different are distinguishable, and that whatever objects are distinguishable are separable by the thought and
imagination.' And we may here add, that these propositions are equally true in the inverse, and that whatever objects are
separable are also distinguishable, and that whatever objects are distinguishable, are also different. For how is it possible we
can separate what is not distinguishable, or distinguish what is not different? In order therefore to know, whether abstraction
implies a separation, we need only consider it in this view, and examine, whether all the circumstances, which we abstract
from in our general ideas, be such as are distinguishable and different from those, which we retain as essential parts of them.
But 'tis evident at first sight, that the precise length of a line is not different nor distinguishable from the line itself. nor the
precise degree of any quality from the quality. These ideas, therefore, admit no more of separation than they do of
distinction and difference. They are consequently conjoined with each other in the conception; and the general idea of a. line,
notwithstanding all our abstractions and refinements, has in its appearance in the mind a precise degree of quantity and
quality; however it may be made to represent others, which have different degrees of both.
Secondly, 'tis contest, that no object can appear to the senses; or in other words, that no impression can become present to
the mind, without being determined in its degrees both of quantity and quality. The confusion, in which impressions are
sometimes involv'd, proceeds only from their faintness and unsteadiness, not from any capacity in the mind to receive any
impression, which in its real existence has no particular degree nor proportion. That is a contradiction in terms; and even
implies the flattest of all contradictions, viz. that 'tis possible for the same thing both to be and not to be.
Now since all ideas are deriv'd from impressions, and are nothing but copies and representations of them, whatever is true
of the one must be acknowledg'd concerning the other. Impressions and ideas differ only in their strength and vivacity. The
foregoing conclusion is not founded on any particular degree of vivacity. It cannot therefore be affected by any variation in
that particular. An idea is a weaker impression:2 and as a strong impression must necessarily have a determinate quantity
and quality, the case must be the same with its copy or representative.
Thirdly, 'tis a principle generally receiv'd in philosophy that everything in nature is individual, and that 'tis utterly absurd to
suppose a triangle really existent, which has no precise proportion of sides and angles. If this therefore be absurd in fact and
reality, it must also be absurd in idea; since nothing of which we can form a clear and distinct idea is absurd and impossible.
But to form the idea of an object, and to form an idea simply, is the same thing; the reference of the idea to an object being
an extraneous denomination, of which in itself it bears no mark or character. Now as 'tis impossible to form an idea of an
object, that is possest of quantity and quality, and yet is possest of no precise degree of either; it follows that there is an
equal impossibility of forming an idea, that is not limited and confin'd in both these particulars. Abstract ideas are therefore
in themselves individual, however they may become general in their representation. The image in the mind is only that of a
particular object, tho' the application of it in our reasoning be the same, as if it were universal.
This application of ideas beyond their nature proceeds from our collecting all their possible degrees of quantity and quality
in such an imperfect manner as may serve the purposes of life, which is the second proposition I propos'd to explain. When
we have found a resemblance
(4)
among several objects, that often occur to us, we apply the same name to all of them,
whatever differences we may observe in the degrees of their quantity and quality, and whatever other differences may appear
among them. After we have acquired a custom of this kind, the hearing of that name revives the idea of one of these objects,
and makes the imagination conceive it with all its particular circumstances and proportions. But as the same word is
suppos'd to have been frequently applied to other individuals, that are different in many respects from that idea, which is
immediately present to the mind; the word not being able to revive the idea of all these individuals, but only touches the soul,
if I may be allow'd so to speak, and revives that custom, which we have acquir'd by surveying them. They are not really and
in fact present to the mind, but only in power; nor do we draw them all out distinctly in the imagination, but keep ourselves
in a readiness to survey any of them, as we may be prompted by a present design or necessity. The word raises up an
individual idea, along with a certain custom; and that custom produces any other individual one, for which we may have
occasion. But as the production of all the ideas, to which the name may be apply'd, is in most eases impossible, we abridge
that work by a more partial consideration, and find but few inconveniences to arise in our reasoning from that abridgment.
For this is one of the most extraordinary circumstances in the present affair, that after the mind has produc'd an individual
idea, upon which we reason, the attendant custom, reviv'd by the general or abstract term, readily suggests any other
individual, if by chance we form any reasoning, that agrees not with it. Thus shou'd we mention the word triangle, and form
the idea of a particular equilateral one to correspond to it, and shou'd we afterwards assert, that the three angles of a triangle
are equal to each other, the other individuals of a scalenum and isosceles, which we overlooked at first, immediately crowd
in upon us, and make us perceive the falshood of this proposition, tho' it be true with relation to that idea, which we had
form'd. If the mind suggests not always these ideas upon occasion, it proceeds from some imperfection in its faculties; and
such a one as is often the source of false reasoning and sophistry. But this is principally the case with those ideas which are
abstruse and compounded. On other occasions the custom is more entire, and 'tis seldom we run into such errors.
Nay so entire is the custom, that the very same idea may be annext to several different words, and may be employ'd in
different reasonings, without any danger of mistake. Thus the idea of an equilateral triangle of an inch perpendicular may
serve us in talking of a figure, of a rectilinear figure, of a regular figure, of a triangle, and of an equilateral triangle. AR these
terms, therefore, are in this case attended with the same idea; but as they are wont to be apply'd in a greater or lesser
compass, they excite their particular habits, and thereby keep the mind in a readiness to observe, that no conclusion be
form'd contrary to any ideas, which are usually compriz'd under them.
Before those habits have become entirely perfect, perhaps the mind may not be content with forming the idea of only one
individual, but may run over several, in order to make itself comprehend its own meaning, and the compass of that
collection, which it intends to express by the general term. That we may fix the meaning of the word, figure, we may revolve
in our mind the ideas of circles, squares, parallelograms, triangles of different sizes and proportions, and may not rest on one
image or idea. However this may be, 'tis certain that we form the idea of individuals, whenever we use any general term; that
we seldom or never can exhaust these individuals; and that those, which remain, are only represented by means of that habit,
by which we recall them, whenever any present occasion requires it. This then is the nature of our abstract ideas and general
terms; and 'tis after this manner we account for the foregoing paradox, that some ideas are particular in their nature, but
general in their representation. A particular idea becomes general by being annex'd to a general term; that is, to a term,
which from a customary conjunction has a relation to many other particular ideas, and readily recalls them in the
imagination.
The only difficulty, that can remain on this subject, must be with regard to that custom, which so readily recalls every
particular idea, for which we may have occasion, and is excited by any word or sound, to which we commonly annex it.
The most proper method, in my opinion, of giving a satisfactory explication of this act of the mind, is by producing other
instances, which are analogous to it, and other principles, which facilitate its operation. To explain the ultimate causes of
our mental actions is impossible. 'Tis sufficient, if we can give any satisfactory account of them from experience and
analogy.
First then I observe, that when we mention any great number, such as a thousand, the mind has generally no adequate idea
of it, but only a power of producing such an idea, by its adequate idea of the decimals, under which the number is
comprehended. This imperfection, however, in our ideas, is never felt in our reasonings; which seems to be an instance
parallel to the present one of universal ideas.
Secondly, we have several instances of habits, which may be reviv'd by one single word; as when a person, who has by
rote any periods of a discourse, or any number of verses, will be put in remembrance of the whole, which he is at a loss to
recollect, by that single word or expression, with which they begin.
Thirdly, I believe every one, who examines the situation of his mind in reasoning' will agree with me, that we do not annex
distinct and compleat ideas to every term we make use of, and that in talking of government, church, negotiation, conquest,
we seldom spread out in our minds all the simple ideas, of which these complex ones are compos'd. 'Tis however observable,
that notwithstanding this imperfection we may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects, and may perceive any repugnance
among the ideas, as well as if we had a fall comprehension of them. Thus if instead of saying, that in war the weaker have
always recourse to negotiation, we shou'd say, that they have always recourse to conquest, the custom, which we have
acquir'd of attributing certain relations to ideas, still follows the words, and makes us immediately perceive the absurdity of
that proposition; in the same manner as one particular idea may serve us in reasoning concerning other ideas, however
different from it in several circumstances.
Fourthly, As the individuals are -collected together, said plac'd under a general term with a view to that resemblance, which
they bear to each other, this relation must facilitate their entrance in the imagination, and make them be suggested more
readily upon occasion. And indeed if we consider the common progress of the thought, either in reflection or conversation,
we shall find great reason to be satisfy'd in this particular. Nothing is more admirable, than the readiness, with which the
imagination suggests its ideas, and presents them at the very instant, in which they become necessary or useful. The fancy
runs from one end of the universe to the other in collecting those ideas, which belong to any subject. One would think the
whole intellectual world of ideas was at once subjected to our view, and that we did nothing but pick out such as were most
proper for our purpose. There may not, however, be any present, beside those very ideas, that are thus collected by a kind of
magical faculty in the soul, which, tho' it be always most perfect in the greatest geniuses, and is properly what we call a
genius, is however inexplicable by the utmost efforts of human understanding.
Perhaps these four reflections may help to remove an difficulties to the hypothesis I have propos'd concerning abstract
ideas, so contrary to that, which has hitherto prevail'd in philosophy, But, to tell the truth I place my chief confidence in
what I have already prov'd concerning the impossibility of general ideas, according to the common method of explaining
them. We must certainly seek some new system on this head, and there plainly is none beside what I have propos'd. If ideas
be particular in their nature, and at the same time finite in their number, 'tis only by custom they can become general in their
representation, and contain an infinite number of other ideas under them.
Before I leave this subject I shall employ the same principles to explain that distinction of reason, which is so much talk'd of,
and is so little understood, in the schools. Of this kind is the distinction betwixt figure and the body figur'd; motion and the
body mov'd. The difficulty of explaining this distinction arises from the principle above explain'd, that all ideas, which are
different, are separable. For it follows from thence, that if the figure be different from the body, their ideas must be separable
as well as distinguishable: if they be not different, their ideas can neither be separable nor distinguishable. What then is meant
by a distinction of reason, since it implies neither a difference nor separation.
To remove this difficulty we must have recourse to the foregoing explication of abstract ideas. 'Tis certain that the mind
wou'd never have dream'd of distinguishing a figure from the body figur'd, as being in reality neither distinguishable, nor
different, nor separable; did it not observe, that even in this simplicity there might be contain'd many different resemblances
and relations.' Thus when a globe of white marble is presented, we receive only the impression of a white colour dispos'd in
a certain form, nor are we able to separate and distinguish the colour from the form. But observing afterwards a globe of
black marble and a cube of white, and comparing them with our former object, we find two separate resemblances, in what
formerly seemed, and really is, perfectly inseparable. After a little more practice of this kind, we begin to distinguish the
figure from the colour by a distinction of reason; that is, we consider the figure and colour together, since they are in effect
the same and undistinguishable; but still view them in different aspects, according to the resemblances, of which they are
susceptible. When we wou'd consider only the figure of the globe of white marble, we form in reality an idea both of the
figure and colour, but tacitly carry our eye to its resemblance with the globe of black marble: And in the same manner, when
we wou'd consider its colour only, we turn our view to its resemblance with the cube of white marble. By this means we
accompany our ideas with a kind of reflection, of which custom renders us, in a great measure, insensible. A person, who
desires us to consider the figure of a globe of white marble without thinking on its colour, desires an impossibility but his
meaning is, that we shou'd consider the figure and colour together, but still keep in our eye the resemblance to the globe of
black marble, or that to any other globe of whatever colour or substance.
[4.]
[The following note is inserted from Humes Appendix to Book III]
'Tis evident, that even different simple ideas may have a similarity or resemblance to each other; nor is it necessary, that the
point or circumstance of resemblance shoud be distinct or separable from that in which they differ. Blue and green are
different simple ideas, but are more resembling than blue and scarlet; tho their perfect simplicity excludes all possibility of
separation or distinction. 'Tis the same case with particular sounds, and tastes and smells. These admit of infinite
resemblances upon the general appearance and comparison, without having any common circumstance the same. And of this
we may be certain, even from the very abstract terms simple idea. They comprehend all simple ideas under them. These
resemble each other in their simplicity. And yet from their very nature, which excludes all composition, this circumstance, In
which they resemble, Is not distinguishable nor separable from the rest. 'Tis the same case with all the degrees In any
quality. They are all resembling and yet the quality, In any individual, Is not distinct from the degree.