The Ideas of Sight and Touch

44. The Ideas of Sight and Touch make two Species, intirely distinct and heterogeneous. The former are Marks and Prognostics of the latter.

That the proper Objects of Sight neither exist without the Mind, nor are the Images of external Things, was shewn even in that Treatise.

Though throughout the same, the contrary be supposed true of tangible Objects: Not that to suppose that vulgar Error, was necessary for establishing the Notion therein laid down; but because it was beside my Purpose to examine and refute it in a Discourse concerning Vision.

So that in strict Truth the Ideas of Sight, when we apprehend by them Distance and Things placed at a Distance, do not suggest or mark out to us Things actually existing at a Distance, but only admonish us what Ideas of Touch will be imprinted in our Minds at such and such distances of Time, and in consequence of such or such Actions.

Sect. 147 and elsewhere of the Essay concerning Vision have explained that visible Ideas are the Language whereby the governing Spirit, on whom we depend, informs us what tangible Ideas he is about to imprint upon us, in case we excite this or that Motion in our own Bodies. But for a fuller Information in this Point, I refer to the Essay it self.

45. Fourthly, It will be objected that from the foregoing Principles it follows, Things are every moment annihilated and created anew. The Objects of Sense exist only when they are perceived: The Trees therefore are in the Garden, or the Chairs in the Parlour, no longer than while there is some body by to perceive them. Upon shutting my Eyes all the Furniture in the Room is reduced to nothing, and barely upon opening them it is again created.

In answer to all which, I refer the Reader to what has been said in Sect. 3, 4, &c. and desire he will consider whether he means any thing by the actual Existence of an Idea, distinct from its being perceived. For my part, after the nicest Inquiry I could make, I am not able to discover that any thing else is meant by those Words.

And I once more intreat the Reader to sound his own Thoughts, and not suffer himself to be imposed on by Words. If he can conceive it possible either for his Ideas or their Archetypes to exist without being perceived, then I give up the Cause: But if he cannot, he will acknowledge it is unreasonable for him to stand up in defence of he knows not what, and pretend to charge on me as an Absurdity, the not assenting to those Propositions which at Bottom have no meaning in them.

46. It will not be amiss to observe, how far the received Principles of Philosophy are themselves chargeable with those pretended Absurdities.

It is thought strangely absurd that upon closing my Eyelids, all the visible Objects round me should be reduced to nothing; and yet is not this what Philosophers commonly acknowledge, when they agree on all hands, that Light and Colours, which alone are the proper and immediate Objects of Sight, are mere Sensations that exist no longer than they are perceived?

Again, it may to some perhaps seem very incredible, that things should be every moment creating, yet this very Notion is commonly taught in the Schools. For the Schoolmen, though they acknowledge the Existence of Matter, and that the whole mundane Fabrick is framed out of it, are nevertheless of Opinion that it cannot subsist without the Divine Conservation, which by them is expounded to be a continual Creation.

47. Farther, a little Thought will discover to us, that though we allow the Existence of Matter or Corporeal Substance, yet it will unavoidably follow from the Principles which are now generally admitted, that the particular Bodies of what kind soever, do none of them exist whilst they are not perceived.

For it is evident from Sect. XI. and the following Sections, that the Matter Philosophers contend for, is an incomprehensible Somewhat which hath none of those particular Qualities, whereby the Bodies falling under our Senses are distinguished one from another.

But to make this more plain, it must be remarked, that the infinite Divisibility of Matter is now universally allowed, at least by the most approved and considerable Philosophers, who on the received Principles demonstrate it beyond all Exception. Hence it follows, that there is an infinite Number of Parts in each Particle of Matter, which are not perceived by Sense.

The Reason therefore, that any particular Body seems to be of a finite Magnitude, or exhibits only a finite Number of Parts to Sense, is, not because it contains no more, since in itself it contains an infinite Number of Parts, but because the Sense is not acute enough to discern them.

In proportion therefore as the Sense is rendered more acute, it perceives a greater Number of Parts in the Object, that is, the Object appears greater, and its Figure varies, those Parts in its Extremities which were before unperceivable, appearing now to bound it in very different Lines and Angles from those perceived by an obtuser Sense.

And at length, after various Changes of Size and Shape, when the Sense becomes infinitely acute, the Body shall seem infinite. During all which there is no Alteration in the Body, but only in the Sense. Each Body therefore considered in it self, is infinitely extended, and consequently void of all Shape or Figure.

From which it follows, that though we should grant the Existence of Matter to be ever so certain, yet it is withal as certain, the Materialists themselves are by their own Principles forced to acknowledge, that neither the particular Bodies perceived by Sense, nor any thing like them exists without the Mind. Matter, I say, and each Particle thereof is according to them infinite and shapeless, and it is the Mind that frames all that variety of Bodies which compose the visible World, any one whereof does not exist longer than it is perceived.

48. If we consider it, the Objection proposed in Sect. 45. will not be found reasonably charged on the Principles we have premised, so as in truth to make any Objection at all against our Notions.

For though we hold indeed the Objects of Sense to be nothing else but Ideas which cannot exist unperceived; yet we may not hence conclude they have no Existence except only while they are perceived by us, since there may be some other Spirit that perceives them, though we do not.

Wherever Bodies are said to have no Existence without the Mind, I would not be understood to mean this or that particular Mind, but all Minds whatsoever. It does not therefore follow from the foregoing Principles, that Bodies are annihilated and created every moment, or exist not at all during the Intervals between our Perception of them.

49. Fifthly, It may perhaps be objected, that if Extension and Figure exist only in the Mind, it follows that the Mind is extended and figured; since Extension is a Mode or Attribute, which (to speak with the Schools) is predicated of the Subject in which it exists.

I answer, Those Qualities are in the Mind only as they are perceived by it, that is, not by way of Mode or Attribute, but only by way of Idea; and it no more follows, that the Soul or Mind is extended because Extension exists in it alone, than it does that it is red or blue, because those Colours are on all hands acknowledged to exist in it, and no where else.

As to what Philosophers say of Subject and Mode, that seems very groundless and unintelligible. For Instance, in this Proposition, a Die is hard, extended, and square, they will have it that the Word Die denotes a Subject or Substance, distinct from the Hardness, Extension and Figure, which are predicated of it, and in which they exist.

This I cannot comprehend: To me a Die seems to be nothing distinct from those things which are termed its Modes or Accidents.

And to say a Die is hard, extended and square, is not to attribute those Qualities to a Subject distinct from and supporting them, but only an Explication of the meaning of the Word Die. L. Sixthly, You will say there have been a great many things explained by Matter and Motion: Take away these, and you destroy the whole Corpuscular Philosophy, and undermine those mechanical Principles which have been applied with so much Success to account for the Phænomena.

In short, whatever Advances have been made, either by ancient or modern Philosophers, in the study of Nature, do all proceed on the Supposition, that Corporeal Substance or Matter doth really exist.

To this I answer, that there is not any one Phænomenon explained on that Supposition, which may not as well be explained without it, as might easily be made appear by an Induction of Particulars. To explain the Phænomena, is all one as to shew, why upon such and such Occasions we are affected with such and such Ideas.

But how Matter should operate on a Spirit, or produce any Idea in it, is what no Philosopher will pretend to explain.

It is therefore evident, there can be no use of Matter in Natural Philosophy. Besides, they who attempt to account for Things, do it not by Corporeal Substance, but by Figure, Motion, and other Qualities, which are in truth no more than mere Ideas, and therefore cannot be the Cause of any thing, as hath been already shewn. See Sect. 25.