Go to Beginning of this Book |
Back to Philosopher's Page |
Table of Contents |
Fig Home |
Volume
I., by John Locke
This
eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost
no restrictions whatsoever. You
may copy it, give it away or
re-use
it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
Title:
An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume I.
MDCXC,
Based on the 2nd Edition, Books I. and II. (of 4)
Author:
John Locke
Release
Date: January 6, 2004 [EBook #10615]
Language:
English
Character
set encoding: ASCII
***
START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HUMANE UNDERSTANDING, V1 ***
Produced
by Steve Harris and David Widger
Quam
bellum est velle confiteri potius nescire quod nescias, quam ista effutientem
nauseare, atque ipsum sibi displicere.
·
Cic. De Natur.
Deor. 1. i.
Printed
by Eliz. Holt, for Thomas Basset, at the George in Fleet Street, near St.
Dunstan’s Church.
[Based
on the 2d Edition]
I.
NO INNATE SPECULATIVE PRINCIPLES
II.
NO INNATE PRACTICAL PRINCIPLES
III.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING INNATE PRINCIPLES, BOTH
I.
OF IDEAS IN GENERAL, AND THEIR ORIGINAL
II.
OF SIMPLE IDEAS
III.
OF SIMPLE IDEAS OF SENSATION
IV.
IDEA OF SOLIDITY
V.
OF SIMPLE IDEAS OF DIVERS SENSES
VI.
OF SIMPLE IDEAS OF REFLECTION ...
VII.
OF SIMPLE IDEAS OF BOTH SENSATION AND REFLECTION
VIII.
SOME FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING OUR SIMPLE
IX.
OF PERCEPTION
X.
OF RETENTION
XI.
OF DISCERNING, AND OTHER OPERATIONS OF THE MIND
XII.
OF COMPLEX IDEAS
XIII.
OF SIMPLE MODES:--AND FIRST, OF THE SIMPLE MODES OF
XIV.
IDEA OF DURATION AND ITS SIMPLE MODES
XV.
IDEAS OF DURATION AND EXPANSION, CONSIDERED TOGETHER
XVI.
IDEA OF NUMBER AND ITS SIMPLE MODES
XVII.
OF THE IDEA OF INFINITY
XVIII.
OF OTHER SIMPLE MODES
XIX.
OF THE MODES OF THINKING
XX.
OF MODES OF PLEASURE AND PAIN
XXI.
OF THE IDEA OF POWER
XXII.
OF MIXED MODES
XXIII.
OF OUR COMPLEX IDEAS OF SUBSTANCES
XXIV.
OF COLLECTIVE IDEAS OF SUBSTANCES
XXV.
OF IDEAS OF RELATION
XXVI.
OF IDEAS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, AND OTHER RELATIONS
XXVII.
OF IDEAS OF IDENTITY AND DIVERSITY
XXVIII.
OF IDEAS OF OTHER RELATIONS
XXIX.
OF CLEAR AND OBSCURE, DISTINCT AND CONFUSED IDEAS
XXX.
OF REAL AND FANTASTICAL IDEAS
XXXI.
OF ADEQUATE AND INADEQUATE IDEAS
XXXII.
OF TRUE AND FALSE IDEAS
XXXIII.
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS, EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY, BARON HERBERT OF
CARDIFF LORD ROSS, OF KENDAL, PAR, FITZHUGH, MARMION, ST.
QUINTIN, AND SHURLAND;
LORD
PRESIDENT OF HIS MAJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL; AND LORD
LIEUTENANT OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, AND OF SOUTH WALES.
MY
LORD,
This
Treatise, which is grown up under your lordship’s eye, and has ventured into
the world by your order, does now, by a natural kind of right, come to your
lordship for that protection which you several years since promised it. It is
not that I think any name, how great soever, set at the beginning of a book,
will be able to cover the faults that are to be found in it. Things in print
must stand and fall by their own worth, or the reader’s fancy. But there
being nothing more to be desired for truth than a fair unprejudiced hearing,
nobody is more likely to procure me that than your lordship, who are allowed
to have got so intimate an acquaintance with her, in her more retired
recesses. Your lordship is known to have so far advanced your speculations in
the most abstract and general knowledge of things, beyond the ordinary reach
or common methods, that your allowance and approbation of the design of this
Treatise will at least preserve it from being condemned without reading, and
will prevail to have those parts a little weighed, which might otherwise
perhaps be thought to deserve no consideration, for being somewhat out of the
common road. The imputation of Novelty is a terrible charge amongst those who
judge of men’s heads, as they do of their perukes, by the fashion, and can
allow none to be right but the received doctrines. Truth scarce ever yet
carried it by vote anywhere at its first appearance: new opinions are always
suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are
not already common. But truth, like gold, is not the less so for being newly
brought out of the mine. It is trial and examination must give it price, and
not any antique fashion; and though it be not yet current by the public stamp,
yet it may, for all that, be as old as nature, and is certainly not the less
genuine. Your lordship can give great and convincing instances of this,
whenever you please to oblige the public with some of those large and
comprehensive discoveries you have made of truths hitherto unknown, unless to
some few, from whom your lordship has been pleased not wholly to conceal them.
This alone were a sufficient reason, were there no other, why I should
dedicate this Essay to your lordship; and its having some little
correspondence with some parts of that nobler and vast system of the sciences
your lordship has made so new, exact, and instructive a draught of, I think it
glory enough, if your lordship permit me to boast, that here and there I have
fallen into some thoughts not wholly different from yours. If your lordship
think fit that, by your encouragement, this should appear in the world, I hope
it may be a reason, some time or other, to lead your lordship further; and you
will allow me to say, that you here give the world an earnest of something
that, if they can bear with this, will be truly worth their expectation.
This,
my lord, shows what a present I here make to your lordship; just
such
as the poor man does to his rich and great neighbour, by whom the
basket
of flowers or fruit is not ill taken, though he has more plenty
of
his own growth, and in much greater perfection. Worthless things
receive
a value when they are made the offerings of respect, esteem, and
gratitude:
these you have given me so mighty and peculiar reasons to
have,
in the highest degree, for your lordship, that if they can add a
price
to what they go along with, proportionable to their own greatness,
I
can with confidence brag, I here make your lordship the richest
present
you ever received. This I am sure, I am under the greatest
obligations
to seek all occasions to acknowledge a long train of favours
I
have received from your lordship; favours, though great and important
in
themselves, yet made much more so by the forwardness, concern,
and
kindness, and other obliging circumstances, that never failed to
accompany
them. To all this you are pleased to add that which gives yet
more
weight and relish to all the rest: you vouchsafe to continue me in
some
degrees of your esteem, and allow me a place in your good thoughts,
I
had almost said friendship. This, my lord, your words and actions so
constantly
show on all occasions, even to others when I am absent, that
it
is not vanity in me to mention what everybody knows: but it would be
want
of good manners not to acknowledge what so many are witnesses of,
and
every day tell me I am indebted to your lordship for. I wish they
could
as easily assist my gratitude, as they convince me of the great
and
growing engagements it has to your lordship. This I am sure, I
should
write of the UNDERSTANDING without having any, if I were not
extremely
sensible of them, and did not lay hold on this opportunity to
testify
to the world how much I am obliged to be, and how much I am,
MY
LORD,
Your
Lordship’s most humble and most obedient servant,
JOHN
LOCKE
2
Dorset Court, 24th of May, 1689
THE
EPISTLE TO THE READER
READER,
I
have put into thy hands what has been the diversion of some of my idle and
heavy hours. If it has the good luck to prove so of any of thine, and thou
hast but half so much pleasure in reading as I had in writing it, thou wilt as
little think thy money, as I do my pains, ill bestowed. Mistake not this for a commendation of my work; nor conclude,
because I was pleased with the doing of it, that therefore I am fondly taken
with it now it is done. He that hawks at larks and sparrows has no less sport,
though a much less considerable quarry, than he that flies at nobler game: and
he is little acquainted with the subject of this treatise—the UNDERSTANDING—who
does not know that, as it is the most elevated faculty of the soul, so it is
employed with a greater and more constant delight than any of the other. Its
searches after truth are a sort of hawking and hunting, wherein the very
pursuit makes a great part of the pleasure. Every step the mind takes in its
progress towards Knowledge makes some discovery, which is not only new, but
the best too, for the time at least.
For
the understanding, like the eye, judging of objects only by its own sight,
cannot but be pleased with what it discovers, having less regret for what has
escaped it, because it is unknown. Thus he who has raised himself above the
alms-basket, and, not content to live lazily on scraps of begged opinions,
sets his own thoughts on work, to find and follow truth, will (whatever he
lights on) not miss the hunter’s satisfaction; every moment of his pursuit
will reward his pains with some delight; and he will have reason to think his
time not ill spent, even when he cannot much boast of any great acquisition.
This,
Reader, is the entertainment of those who let loose their own thoughts, and
follow them in writing; which thou oughtest not to envy them, since they
afford thee an opportunity of the like diversion, if thou wilt make use of thy
own thoughts in reading. It is to them, if they are thy own, that I refer
myself: but if they are taken upon trust from others, it is no great matter
what they are; they are not following truth, but some meaner consideration;
and it is not worth while to be concerned what he says or thinks, who says or
thinks only as he is directed by another. If thou judgest for thyself I know
thou wilt judge candidly, and then I shall not be harmed or offended, whatever
be thy censure. For though it be certain that there is nothing in this
Treatise of the truth whereof I am not fully persuaded, yet I consider myself
as liable to mistakes as I can think thee, and know that this book must stand
or fall with thee, not by any opinion I have of it, but thy own.
If thou findest little in it new or instructive to thee, thou art not
to blame me for it. It was not meant for those that had already mastered this
subject, and made a thorough acquaintance with their own understandings; but
for my own information, and the satisfaction of a few friends, who
acknowledged themselves not to have sufficiently considered it.
Were
it fit to trouble thee with the history of this Essay, I should tell thee,
that five or six friends meeting at my chamber, and discoursing on a subject
very remote from this, found themselves quickly at a stand, by the
difficulties that rose on every side. After we had awhile puzzled ourselves,
without coming any nearer a resolution of those doubts which perplexed us, it
came into my thoughts that we took a wrong course; and that before we set
ourselves upon inquiries of that nature, it was necessary to examine our own
abilities, and see what OBJECTS our understandings were, or were not, fitted
to deal with. This I proposed to the company, who all readily assented; and
thereupon it was agreed that this should be our first inquiry. Some hasty and
undigested thoughts, on a subject I had never before considered, which I set
down against our next meeting, gave the first entrance into this Discourse;
which having been thus begun by chance, was continued by intreaty; written by
incoherent parcels; and after long intervals of neglect, resumed again, as my
humour or occasions permitted; and at last, in a retirement where an
attendance on my health gave me leisure, it was brought into that order thou
now seest it.
This
discontinued way of writing may have occasioned, besides others, two contrary
faults, viz., that too little and too much may be said in it. If thou findest
anything wanting, I shall be glad that what I have written gives thee any
desire that I should have gone further. If it seems too much to thee, thou
must blame the subject; for when I put pen to paper, I thought all I should
have to say on this matter would have been contained in one sheet of paper;
but the further I went the larger prospect I had; new discoveries led me still
on, and so it grew insensibly to the bulk it now appears in. I will not deny,
but possibly it might be reduced to a narrower compass than it is, and that
some parts of it might be contracted, the way it has been writ in, by catches,
and many long intervals of interruption, being apt to cause some repetitions.
But to confess the truth, I am now too lazy, or too busy, to make it shorter.
I am not ignorant how little I herein consult my own reputation, when I
knowingly let it go with a fault, so apt to disgust the most judicious, who
are always the nicest readers. But they who know sloth is apt to content
itself with any excuse, will pardon me if mine has prevailed on me, where I
think I have a very good one. I will not therefore allege in my defence, that
the same notion, having different respects, may be convenient or necessary to
prove or illustrate several parts of the same discourse, and that so it has
happened in many parts of this: but waiving that, I shall frankly avow that I
have sometimes dwelt long upon the same argument, and expressed it different
ways, with a quite different design. I pretend not to publish this Essay for
the information of men of large thoughts and quick apprehensions; to such
masters of knowledge I profess myself a scholar, and therefore warn them
beforehand not to expect anything here, but what, being spun out of my own
coarse thoughts, is fitted to men of my own size, to whom, perhaps, it will
not be unacceptable that I have taken some pains to make plain and familiar to
their thoughts some truths which established prejudice, or the abstractedness
of the ideas themselves, might render difficult. Some objects had need be
turned on every side; and when the notion is new, as I confess some of these
are to me; or out of the ordinary road, as I suspect they will appear to
others, it is not one simple view of it that will gain it admittance into
every understanding, or fix it there with a clear and lasting impression.
There are few, I believe, who have not observed in themselves or others, that
what in one way of proposing was very obscure, another way of expressing it
has made very clear and intelligible; though afterwards the mind found little
difference in the phrases, and wondered why one failed to be understood more
than the other. But everything does not hit alike upon every man’s
imagination. We have our
understandings no less different than our palates; and he that thinks the same
truth shall be equally relished by every one in the same dress, may as well
hope to feast every one with the same sort of cookery: the meat may be the
same, and the nourishment good, yet every one not be able to receive it with
that seasoning; and it must be dressed another way, if you will have it go
down with some, even of strong constitutions. The truth is, those who advised
me to publish it, advised me, for this reason, to publish it as it is: and
since I have been brought to let it go abroad, I desire it should be
understood by whoever gives himself the pains to read it. I have so little
affection to be in print, that if I were not flattered this Essay might be of
some use to others, as I think it has been to me, I should have confined it to
the view of some friends, who gave the first occasion to it. My appearing
therefore in print being on purpose to be as useful as I may, I think it
necessary to make what I have to say as easy and intelligible to all sorts of
readers as I can. And I had much rather the speculative and quick-sighted
should complain of my being in some parts tedious, than that any one, not
accustomed to abstract speculations, or prepossessed with different notions,
should mistake or not comprehend my meaning.
It
will possibly be censured as a great piece of vanity or insolence in me, to
pretend to instruct this our knowing age; it amounting to little less, when I
own, that I publish this Essay with hopes it may be useful to others. But, if
it may be permitted to speak freely of those who with a feigned modesty
condemn as useless what they themselves write, methinks it savours much more
of vanity or insolence to publish a book for any other end; and he fails very
much of that respect he owes the public, who prints, and consequently expects
men should read, that wherein he intends not they should meet with anything of
use to themselves or others: and should nothing else be found allowable in
this Treatise, yet my design will not cease to be so; and the goodness of my
intention ought to be some excuse for the worthlessness of my present. It is that chiefly which secures me from the fear of censure,
which I expect not to escape more than better writers. Men’s principles,
notions, and relishes are so different, that it is hard to find a book which
pleases or displeases all men. I acknowledge the age we live in is not the
least knowing, and therefore not the most easy to be satisfied. If I have not the good luck to please, yet nobody ought to be
offended with me. I plainly tell all my readers, except half a dozen, this
Treatise was not at first intended for them; and therefore they need not be at
the trouble to be of that number. But yet if any one thinks fit to be angry
and rail at it, he may do it securely, for I shall find some better way of
spending my time than in such kind of conversation. I shall always have the
satisfaction to have aimed sincerely at truth and usefulness, though in one of
the meanest ways. The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without
master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave
lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity: but every one must not hope
to be a Boyle or a Sydenham; and in an age that produces such masters as the
great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some others of that
strain, it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing
the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to
knowledge;--which certainly had been very much more advanced in the world, if
the endeavours of ingenious and industrious men had not been much cumbered
with the learned but frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible
terms, introduced into the sciences, and there made an art of, to that degree
that Philosophy, which is nothing but the true knowledge of things, was
thought unfit or incapable to be brought into well-bred company and polite
conversation. Vague and
insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for
mysteries of science; and hard and misapplied words, with little or no
meaning, have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning
and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those
who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance,
and hindrance of true knowledge. To
break in upon the sanctuary of vanity and ignorance will be, I suppose, some
service to human understanding; though so few are apt to think they deceive or
are deceived in the use of words; or that the language of the sect they are of
has any faults in it which ought to be examined or corrected, that I hope I
shall be pardoned if I have in the Third Book dwelt long on this subject, and
endeavoured to make it so plain, that neither the inveterateness of the
mischief, nor the prevalency of the fashion, shall be any excuse for those who
will not take care about the meaning of their own words, and will not suffer
the significancy of their expressions to be inquired into.
I
have been told that a short Epitome of this Treatise, which was printed in
1688, was by some condemned without reading, because INNATE IDEAS were denied
in it; they too hastily concluding, that if innate ideas were not supposed,
there would be little left either of the notion or proof of spirits. If any
one take the like offence at the entrance of this Treatise, I shall desire him
to read it through; and then I hope he will be convinced, that the taking away
false foundations is not to the prejudice but advantage of truth, which is
never injured or endangered so much as when mixed with, or built on,
falsehood. In the Second Edition I added as followeth:--
The
bookseller will not forgive me if I say nothing of this New Edition, which he
has promised, by the correctness of it, shall make amends for the many faults
committed in the former. He desires too, that it should be known that it has
one whole new chapter concerning Identity, and many additions and amendments
in other places. These I must inform my reader are not all new matter, but
most of them either further confirmation of what I had said, or explications,
to prevent others being mistaken in the sense of what was formerly printed,
and not any variation in me from it.
I
must only except the alterations I have made in Book II. chap. xxi.
What
I had there written concerning Liberty and the Will, I thought deserved as
accurate a view as I am capable of; those subjects having in all ages
exercised the learned part of the world with questions and difficulties, that
have not a little perplexed morality and divinity, those parts of knowledge
that men are most concerned to be clear in.
Upon a closer inspection into the working of men’s minds, and a
stricter examination of those motives and views they are turned by, I have
found reason somewhat to alter the thoughts I formerly had concerning that
which gives the last determination to the Will in all voluntary actions. This I cannot forbear to acknowledge to the world with as
much freedom and readiness; as I at first published what then seemed to me to
be right; thinking myself more concerned to quit and renounce any opinion of
my own, than oppose that of another, when truth appears against it.
For it is truth alone I seek, and that will always be welcome to me,
when or from whencesoever it comes. But what forwardness soever I have to
resign any opinion I have, or to recede from anything I have writ, upon the
first evidence of any error in it; yet this I must own, that I have not had
the good luck to receive any light from those exceptions I have met with in
print against any part of my book, nor have, from anything that has been urged
against it, found reason to alter my sense in any of the points that have been
questioned. Whether the subject I have in hand requires often more thought and
attention than cursory readers, at least such as are prepossessed, are willing
to allow; or whether any obscurity in my expressions casts a cloud over it,
and these notions are made difficult to others’ apprehensions in my way of
treating them; so it is, that my meaning, I find, is often mistaken, and I
have not the good luck to be everywhere rightly understood.
Of
this the ingenious author of the Discourse Concerning the Nature of Man has
given me a late instance, to mention no other. For the civility of his
expressions, and the candour that belongs to his order, forbid me to think
that he would have closed his Preface with an insinuation, as if in what I had
said, Book II. ch. xxvii, concerning the third rule which men refer their
actions to, I went about to make virtue vice and vice virtue, unless he had
mistaken my meaning; which he could not have done if he had given himself the
trouble to consider what the argument was I was then upon, and what was the
chief design of that chapter, plainly enough set down in the fourth section
and those following. For I was there not laying down moral rules, but showing
the original and nature of moral ideas, and enumerating the rules men make use
of in moral relations, whether these rules were true or false: and pursuant
thereto I tell what is everywhere called virtue and vice; which “alters not
the nature of things,” though men generally do judge of and denominate their
actions according to the esteem and fashion of the place and sect they are of.
If
he had been at the pains to reflect on what I had said, Bk. I. ch.
ii. sect. 18, and Bk. II. ch. xxviii. sect. 13, 14, 15 and 20, he would
have known what I think of the eternal and unalterable nature of right and
wrong, and what I call virtue and vice. And if he had observed that in the
place he quotes I only report as a matter of fact what OTHERS call virtue and
vice, he would not have found it liable to any great exception. For I think I
am not much out in saying that one of the rules made use of in the world for a
ground or measure of a moral relation is—that esteem and reputation which
several sorts of actions find variously in the several societies of men,
according to which they are there called virtues or vices. And whatever
authority the learned Mr. Lowde
places in his Old English Dictionary, I daresay it nowhere tells him (if I
should appeal to it) that the same action is not in credit, called and counted
a virtue, in one place, which, being in disrepute, passes for and under the
name of vice in another. The taking notice that men bestow the names of ‘virtue’
and ‘vice’ according to this rule of Reputation is all I have done, or can
be laid to my charge to have done, towards the making vice virtue or virtue
vice. But the good man does well, and as becomes his calling, to be watchful
in such points, and to take the alarm even at expressions, which, standing
alone by themselves, might sound ill and be suspected.
‘Tis
to this zeal, allowable in his function, that I forgive his citing as he does
these words of mine (ch. xxviii. sect. II): “Even the exhortations of
inspired teachers have not feared to appeal to common repute, Philip, iv. 8;”
without taking notice of those immediately preceding, which introduce them,
and run thus: “Whereby even in the corruption of manners, the true
boundaries of the law of nature, which ought to be the rule of virtue and
vice, were pretty well preserved. So that even the exhortations of inspired
teachers,” &c. By which words, and the rest of that section, it is plain
that I brought that passage of St. Paul, not to prove that the general measure
of what men called virtue and vice throughout the world was the reputation and
fashion of each particular society within itself; but to show that, though it
were so, yet, for reasons I there give, men, in that way of denominating their
actions, did not for the most part much stray from the Law of Nature; which is
that standing and unalterable rule by which they ought to judge of the moral
rectitude and gravity of their actions, and accordingly denominate them
virtues or vices. Had Mr. Lowde considered this, he would have found it little
to his purpose to have quoted this passage in a sense I used it not; and would
I imagine have spared the application he subjoins to it, as not very
necessary. But I hope this Second Edition will give him satisfaction on the
point, and that this matter is now so expressed as to show him there was no
cause for scruple.
Though
I am forced to differ from him in these apprehensions he has expressed, in the
latter end of his preface, concerning what I had said about virtue and vice,
yet we are better agreed than he thinks in what he says in his third chapter
(p. 78) concerning “natural inscription and innate notions.” I shall not
deny him the privilege he claims (p. 52), to state the question as he pleases,
especially when he states it so as to leave nothing in it contrary to what I
have said. For, according to him, “innate notions, being conditional things,
depending upon the concurrence of several other circumstances in order to the
soul’s exerting them,” all that he says for “innate, imprinted,
impressed notions” (for of innate IDEAS he says nothing at all), amounts at
last only to this—that there are certain propositions which, though the soul
from the beginning, or when a man is born, does not know, yet “by assistance
from the outward senses, and the help of some previous cultivation,” it may
AFTERWARDS come certainly to know the truth of; which is no more than what I
have affirmed in my First Book. For I suppose by the “soul’s exerting
them,” he means its beginning to know them; or else the soul’s ‘exerting
of notions’ will be to me a very unintelligible expression; and I think at
best is a very unfit one in this, it misleading men’s thoughts by an
insinuation, as if these notions were in the mind before the ‘soul exerts
them,’ i. e. before they are known;--whereas truly before they are known,
there is nothing of them in the mind but a capacity to know them, when the ‘concurrence
of those circumstances,’ which this ingenious author thinks necessary ‘in
order to the soul’s exerting them,’ brings them into our knowledge.
P.
52 I find him express it thus: ‘These natural notions are not so imprinted
upon the soul as that they naturally and necessarily exert themselves (even in
children and idiots) without any assistance from the outward senses, or
without the help of some previous cultivation.’ Here, he says, they ‘exert
themselves,’ as p. 78, that the ‘soul exerts them.’ When he has
explained to himself or others what he means by ‘the soul’s exerting
innate notions,’ or their ‘exerting themselves;’ and what that ‘previous
cultivation and circumstances’ in order to their being exerted are—he will
I suppose find there is so little of controversy between him and me on the
point, bating that he calls that ‘exerting of notions’ which I in a more
vulgar style call ‘knowing,’ that I have reason to think he brought in my
name on this occasion only out of the pleasure he has to speak civilly of me;
which I must gratefully acknowledge he has done everywhere he mentions me, not
without conferring on me, as some others have done, a title I have no right
to.
There
are so many instances of this, that I think it justice to my reader and myself
to conclude, that either my book is plainly enough written to be rightly
understood by those who peruse it with that attention and indifferency, which
every one who will give himself the pains to read ought to employ in reading;
or else that I have written mine so obscurely that it is in vain to go about
to mend it. Whichever of these be the truth, it is myself only am affected
thereby; and therefore I shall be far from troubling my reader with what I
think might be said in answer to those several objections I have met with, to
passages here and there of my book; since I persuade myself that he who thinks
them of moment enough to be concerned whether they are true or false, will be
able to see that what is said is either not well founded, or else not contrary
to my doctrine, when I and my opposer come both to be well understood.
If
any other authors, careful that none of their good thoughts should be lost,
have published their censures of my Essay, with this honour done to it, that
they will not suffer it to be an essay, I leave it to the public to value the
obligation they have to their critical pens, and shall not waste my reader’s
time in so idle or ill-natured an employment of mine, as to lessen the
satisfaction any one has in himself, or gives to others, in so hasty a
confutation of what I have written.
The
booksellers preparing for the Fourth Edition of my Essay, gave me notice of
it, that I might, if I had leisure, make any additions or alterations I should
think fit. Whereupon I thought it convenient to advertise the reader, that
besides several corrections I had made here and there, there was one
alteration which it was necessary to mention, because it ran through the whole
book, and is of consequence to be rightly understood. What I thereupon said
was this:--
CLEAR
and DISTINCT ideas are terms which, though familiar and frequent in men’s
mouths, I have reason to think every one who uses does not perfectly
understand. And possibly ‘tis but here and there one who gives himself the
trouble to consider them so far as to know what he himself or others precisely
mean by them. I have therefore in most places chose to put DETERMINATE or
DETERMINED, instead of CLEAR and DISTINCT, as more likely to direct men’s
thoughts to my meaning in this matter. By those denominations, I mean some
object in the mind, and consequently determined, i. e. such as it is there
seen and perceived to be. This, I think, may fitly be called a determinate or
determined idea, when such as it is at any time objectively in the mind, and
so determined there, it is annexed, and without variation determined, to a
name or articulate sound, which is to be steadily the sign of that very same
object of the mind, or determinate idea.
To
explain this a little more particularly. By DETERMINATE, when applied to a
simple idea, I mean that simple appearance which the mind has in its view, or
perceives in itself, when that idea is said to be in it: by DETERMINED, when
applied to a complex idea, I mean such an one as consists of a determinate
number of certain simple or less complex ideas, joined in such a proportion
and situation as the mind has before its view, and sees in itself, when that
idea is present in it, or should be present in it, when a man gives a name to
it. I say SHOULD be, because it is not every one, nor perhaps any one, who is
so careful of his language as to use no word till he views in his mind the
precise determined idea which he resolves to make it the sign of. The want of
this is the cause of no small obscurity and confusion in men’s thoughts and
discourses.
I
know there are not words enough in any language to answer all the variety of
ideas that enter into men’s discourses and reasonings. But this hinders not
but that when any one uses any term, he may have in his mind a determined
idea, which he makes it the sign of, and to which he should keep it steadily
annexed during that present discourse. Where he does not, or cannot do this,
he in vain pretends to clear or distinct ideas: it is plain his are not so;
and therefore there can be expected nothing but obscurity and confusion, where
such terms are made use of which have not such a precise determination.
Upon
this ground I have thought determined ideas a way of speaking less liable to
mistakes, than clear and distinct: and where men have got such determined
ideas of all that they reason, inquire, or argue about, they will find a great
part of their doubts and disputes at an end; the greatest part of the
questions and controversies that perplex mankind depending on the doubtful and
uncertain use of words, or (which is the same) indetermined ideas, which they
are made to stand for. I have made choice of these terms to signify, (1) Some
immediate object of the mind, which it perceives and has before it, distinct
from the sound it uses as a sign of it. (2) That this idea, thus determined,
i.e. which the mind has in itself, and knows, and sees there, be determined
without any change to that name, and that name determined to that precise
idea. If men had such determined ideas in their inquiries and discourses, they
would both discern how far their own inquiries and discourses went, and avoid
the greatest part of the disputes and wranglings they have with others.
Besides
this, the bookseller will think it necessary I should advertise the reader
that there is an addition of two chapters wholly new; the one of the
Association of Ideas, the other of Enthusiasm. These, with some other larger
additions never before printed, he has engaged to print by themselves, after
the same manner, and for the same purpose, as was done when this Essay had the
second impression.
In
the Sixth Edition there is very little added or altered. The greatest part of
what is new is contained in the twenty-first chapter of the second book, which
any one, if he thinks it worth while, may, with a very little labour,
transcribe into the margin of the former edition.
ESSAY
CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
INTRODUCTION.
1.
An Inquiry into the Understanding pleasant and useful.
Since
it is the UNDERSTANDING that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and
gives him all the advantage and dominion which he has over them; it is
certainly a subject, even for its nobleness, worth our labour to inquire into.
The understanding, like the eye, whilst it makes us see and perceive all other
things, takes no notice of itself; and it requires and art and pains to set it
at a distance and make it its own object. But whatever be the difficulties
that lie in the way of this inquiry; whatever it be that keeps us so much in
the dark to ourselves; sure I am that all the light we can let in upon our
minds, all the acquaintance we can make with our own understandings, will not
only be very pleasant, but bring us great advantage, in directing our thoughts
in the search of other things.
2.
Design.
This,
therefore, being my purpose—to inquire into the original, certainty, and
extent of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, together with the grounds and degrees of BELIEF,
OPINION, and ASSENT;--I shall not at present meddle with the physical
consideration of the mind; or trouble myself to examine wherein its essence
consists; or by what motions of our spirits or alterations of our bodies we
come to have any SENSATION by our organs, or any IDEAS in our understandings;
and whether those ideas do in their formation, any or all of them, depend on
matter or not. These are speculations which, however curious and entertaining,
I shall decline, as lying out of my way in the design I am now upon. It shall
suffice to my present purpose, to consider the discerning faculties of a man,
as they are employed about the objects which they have to do with.
And I shall imagine I have not wholly misemployed myself in the
thoughts I shall have on this occasion, if, in this historical, plain method,
I can give any account of the ways whereby our understandings come to attain
those notions of things we have; and can set down any measures of the
certainty of our knowledge; or the grounds of those persuasions which are to
be found amongst men, so various, different, and wholly contradictory; and yet
asserted somewhere or other with such assurance and confidence, that he that
shall take a view of the opinions of mankind, observe their opposition, and at
the same time consider the fondness and devotion wherewith they are embraced,
the resolution and eagerness wherewith they are maintained, may perhaps have
reason to suspect, that either there is no such thing as truth at all, or that
mankind hath no sufficient means to attain a certain knowledge of it.
3.
Method.
It
is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and
knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain
knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. In
order whereunto I shall pursue this following method:--
First,
I shall inquire into the original of those ideas, notions, or whatever else
you please to call them, which a man observes, and is conscious to himself he
has in his mind; and the ways whereby the understanding comes to be furnished
with them.
Secondly,
I shall endeavour to show what knowledge the understanding hath by those
ideas; and the certainty, evidence, and extent of it.
Thirdly,
I shall make some inquiry into the nature and grounds of FAITH or OPINION:
whereby I mean that assent which we give to any proposition as true, of whose
truth yet we have no certain knowledge. And here we shall have occasion to
examine the reasons and degrees of ASSENT.
4.
Useful to know the Extent of our Comprehension.
If
by this inquiry into the nature of the understanding, I can discover the
powers thereof; how far they reach; to what things they are in any degree
proportionate; and where they fail us, I suppose it may be of use to prevail
with the busy mind of man to be more cautious in meddling with things
exceeding its comprehension; to stop when it is at the utmost extent of its
tether; and to sit down in a quiet ignorance of those things which, upon
examination, are found to be beyond the reach of our capacities. We should not
then perhaps be so forward, out of an affectation of an universal knowledge,
to raise questions, and perplex ourselves and others with disputes about
things to which our understandings are not suited; and of which we cannot
frame in our minds any clear or distinct perceptions, or whereof (as it has
perhaps too often happened) we have not any notions at all. If we can find out
how far the understanding can extend its view; how far it has faculties to
attain certainty; and in what cases it can only judge and guess, we may learn
to content ourselves with what is attainable by us in this state.
5.
Our Capacity suited to our State and Concerns.
For
though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of the
vast extent of things, yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the bountiful
Author of our being, for that proportion and degree of knowledge he has
bestowed on us, so far above all the rest of the inhabitants of this our
mansion. Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit
for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says) [words in Greek],
whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of
virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable
provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever
their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of
whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light
enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their
own duties. Men may find matter
sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight,
and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution,
and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not
big enough to grasp everything. We shall not have much reason to complain of
the narrowness of our minds, if we will but employ them about what may be of
use to us; for of that they are very capable. And it will be an unpardonable,
as well as childish peevishness, if we undervalue the advantages of our
knowledge, and neglect to improve it to the ends for which it was given us,
because there are some things that are set out of the reach of it.
It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant, who would not
attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine.
The Candle that is set up in us shines bright enough for all our purposes. The
discoveries we can make with this ought to satisfy us; and we shall then use
our understandings right, when we entertain all objects in that way and
proportion that they are suited to our faculties, and upon those grounds they
are capable of being proposed to us; and not peremptorily or intemperately
require demonstration, and demand certainty, where probability only is to be
had, and which is sufficient to govern all our concernments. If we will
disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall
do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and
perish, because he had no wings to fly.
6.
Knowledge of our Capacity a Cure of Scepticism and Idleness.
When
we know our own strength, we shall the better know what to undertake with
hopes of success; and when we have well surveyed the POWERS of our own minds,
and made some estimate what we may expect from them, we shall not be inclined
either to sit still, and not set our thoughts on work at all, in despair of
knowing anything; nor on the other side, question everything, and disclaim all
knowledge, because some things are not to be understood. It is of great use to
the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all
the depths of the ocean. It is well he knows that it is long enough to reach
the bottom, at such places as are necessary to direct his voyage, and caution
him against running upon shoals that may ruin him. Our business here is not to
know all things, but those which concern our conduct. If we can find out those
measures, whereby a rational creature, put in that state in which man is in
this world, may and ought to govern his opinions, and actions depending
thereon, we need not to be troubled that some other things escape our
knowledge.
7.
Occasion of this Essay.
This
was that which gave the first rise to this Essay concerning the understanding.
For I thought that the first step towards satisfying several inquiries the
mind of man was very apt to run into, was, to take a survey of our own
understandings, examine our own powers, and see to what things they were
adapted. Till that was done I suspected we began at the wrong end, and in vain
sought for satisfaction in a quiet and sure possession of truths that most
concerned us, whilst we let loose our thoughts into the vast ocean of Being;
as if all that boundless extent were the natural and undoubted possession of
our understandings, wherein there was nothing exempt from its decisions, or
that escaped its comprehension. Thus men, extending their inquiries beyond
their capacities, and letting their thoughts wander into those depths where
they can find no sure footing, it is no wonder that they raise questions and
multiply disputes, which, never coming to any clear resolution, are proper
only to continue and increase their doubts, and to confirm them at last in
perfect scepticism. Whereas, were the capacities of our understandings well
considered, the extent of our knowledge once discovered, and the horizon found
which sets the bounds between the enlightened and dark parts of things;
between what is and what is not comprehensible by us, men would perhaps with
less scruple acquiesce in the avowed ignorance of the one, and employ their
thoughts and discourse with more advantage and satisfaction in the other.
8.
What Idea stands for.
Thus
much I thought necessary to say concerning the occasion of this inquiry into
human Understanding. But, before I proceed on to what I have thought on this
subject, I must here in the entrance beg pardon of my reader for the frequent
use of the word IDEA, which he will find in the following treatise. It being
that term which, I think, serves best to stand for whatsoever is the OBJECT of
the understanding when a man thinks, I have used it to express whatever is
meant by PHANTASM, NOTION, SPECIES, or WHATEVER IT IS WHICH THE MIND CAN BE
EMPLOYED ABOUT IN THINKING; and I could not avoid frequently using it. I
presume it will be easily granted me, that there are such IDEAS in men’s
minds: every one is conscious of them in himself; and men’s words and
actions will satisfy him that they are in others.
Our
first inquiry then shall be,--how they come into the mind. BOOK I
NEITHER
PRINCIPLES NOR IDEAS ARE INNATE
CHAPTER
I.
NO
INNATE SPECULATIVE PRINCIPLES.
1.
The way shown how we come by any Knowledge, sufficient to prove it not
innate.
It
is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the
understanding certain INNATE PRINCIPLES; some primary notions, KOIVAI EVVOIAI,
characters, as it were stamped upon the mind of man; which the soul receives
in its very first being, and brings into the world with it. It would be
sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this
supposition, if I should only show (as I hope I shall in the following parts
of this Discourse) how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties may
attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate
impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or
principles. For I imagine any one will easily grant that it would be
impertinent to suppose the ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God
hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external
objects: and no less unreasonable would it be to attribute several truths to
the impressions of nature, and innate characters, when we may observe in
ourselves faculties fit to attain as easy and certain knowledge of them as if
they were originally imprinted on the mind.
But
because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in
the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road,
I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion,
as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by
those who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth wherever they find it.
2.
General Assent the great Argument.
There
is nothing more commonly taken for granted than that there are certain
PRINCIPLES, both SPECULATIVE and PRACTICAL, (for they speak of both),
universally agreed upon by all mankind: which therefore, they argue, must
needs be the constant impressions which the souls of men receive in their
first beings, and which they bring into the world with them, as necessarily
and really as they do any of their inherent faculties.
3.
Universal Consent proves nothing innate.
This
argument, drawn from universal consent, has this misfortune in it, that if it
were true in matter of fact, that there were certain truths wherein all
mankind agreed, it would not prove them innate, if there can be any other way
shown how men may come to that universal agreement, in the things they do
consent in, which I presume may be done.
4.
“What is is,” and “It is possible for the same Thing to be and
not to be,” not universally assented to.
But,
which is worse, this argument of universal consent, which is made use of to
prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such:
because there are none to which all mankind give an universal assent. I shall
begin with the speculative, and instance in those magnified principles of
demonstration, “Whatsoever is, is,” and “It is impossible for the same
thing to be and not to be”; which, of all others, I think have the most
allowed title to innate. These have so settled a reputation of maxims
universally received, that it will no doubt be thought strange if any one
should seem to question it. But yet I take liberty to say, that these
propositions are so far from having an universal assent, that there are a
great part of mankind to whom they are not so much as known.
5.
Not on Mind naturally imprinted, because not known to Children, Idiots,
&c.
For,
first, it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least
apprehension or thought of them. And the want of that is enough to destroy
that universal assent which must needs be the necessary concomitant of all
innate truths: it seeming to me near a contradiction to say, that there are
truths imprinted on the soul, which it perceives or understands not:
imprinting, if it signify anything, being nothing else but the making certain
truths to be perceived. For to imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s
perceiving it, seems to me hardly intelligible. If therefore children and
idiots have souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, THEY must
unavoidably perceive them, and necessarily know and assent to these truths;
which since they do not, it is evident that there are no such impressions. For
if they are not notions naturally imprinted, how can they be innate? and if
they are notions imprinted, how can they be unknown? To say a notion is
imprinted on the mind, and yet at the same time to say, that the mind is
ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it, is to make this impression
nothing. No proposition can be said to be in the mind which it never yet knew,
which it was never yet conscious of. For if any one may, then, by the same
reason, all propositions that are true, and the mind is capable ever of
assenting to, may be said to be in the mind, and to be imprinted: since, if
any one can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, it must be
only because it is capable of knowing it; and so the mind is of all truths it
ever shall know. Nay, thus truths may be imprinted on the mind which it never
did, nor ever shall know; for a man may live long, and die at last in
ignorance of many truths which his mind was capable of knowing, and that with
certainty. So that if the capacity of knowing be the natural impression
contended for, all the truths a man ever comes to know will, by this account,
be every one of them innate; and this great point will amount to no more, but
only to a very improper way of speaking; which, whilst it pretends to assert
the contrary, says nothing different from those who deny innate principles.
For nobody, I think, ever denied that the mind was capable of knowing
several truths. The capacity, they say, is innate; the knowledge acquired. But
then to what end such contest for certain innate maxims?
If truths can be imprinted on the understanding without being
perceived, I can see no difference there can be between any truths the mind is
CAPABLE of knowing in respect of their original: they must all be innate or
all adventitious: in vain shall a man go about to distinguish them.
He therefore that talks of innate notions in the understanding, cannot
(if he intend thereby any distinct sort of truths) mean such truths to be in
the understanding as it never perceived, and is yet wholly ignorant of. For if
these words “to be in the understanding” have any propriety, they signify
to be understood. So that to be in the understanding, and not to be
understood; to be in the mind and never to be perceived, is all one as to say
anything is and is not in the mind or understanding. If therefore these two
propositions, “Whatsoever is, is,” and “It is impossible for the same
thing to be and not to be,” are by nature imprinted, children cannot be
ignorant of them: infants, and all that have souls, must necessarily have them
in their understandings, know the truth of them, and assent to it.
6.
That men know them when they come to the Use of Reason answered.
To
avoid this, it is usually answered, that all men know and assent to them, WHEN
THEY COME TO THE USE OF REASON; and this is enough to prove them innate. I
answer:
7.
Doubtful expressions, that have scarce any signification, go for clear
reasons to those who, being prepossessed, take not the pains to examine even
what they themselves say. For, to apply this answer with any tolerable sense
to our present purpose, it must signify one of these two things: either that
as soon as men come to the use of reason these supposed native inscriptions
come to be known and observed by them; or else, that the use and exercise of
men’s reason, assists them in the discovery of these principles, and
certainly makes them known to them.
8.
If Reason discovered them, that would not prove them innate.
If
they mean, that by the use of reason men may discover these principles, and
that this is sufficient to prove them innate; their way of arguing will stand
thus, viz. that whatever truths reason can certainly discover to us, and make
us firmly assent to, those are all naturally imprinted on the mind; since that
universal assent, which is made the mark of them, amounts to no more but
this,--that by the use of reason we are capable to come to a certain knowledge
of and assent to them; and, by this means, there will be no difference between
the maxims of the mathematicians, and theorems they deduce from them: all must
be equally allowed innate; they being all discoveries made by the use of
reason, and truths that a rational creature may certainly come to know, if he
apply his thoughts rightly that way.
9.
It is false that Reason discovers them.
But
how can these men think the use of reason necessary to discover principles
that are supposed innate, when reason (if we may believe them) is nothing else
but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles or propositions
that are already known? That certainly can never be thought innate which we
have need of reason to discover; unless, as I have said, we will have all the
certain truths that reason ever teaches us, to be innate. We may as well think
the use of reason necessary to make our eyes discover visible objects, as that
there should be need of reason, or the exercise thereof, to make the
understanding see what is originally engraven on it, and cannot be in the
understanding before it be perceived by it. So that to make reason discover
those truths thus imprinted, is to say, that the use of reason discovers to a
man what he knew before: and if men have those innate impressed truths
originally, and before the use of reason, and yet are always ignorant of them
till they come to the use of reason, it is in effect to say, that men know and
know them not at the same time.
10.
No use made of reasoning in the discovery of these two maxims.
It
will here perhaps be said that mathematical demonstrations, and other truths
that are not innate, are not assented to as soon as proposed, wherein they are
distinguished from these maxims and other innate truths. I shall have occasion
to speak of assent upon the first proposing, more particularly by and by. I
shall here only, and that very readily, allow, that these maxims and
mathematical demonstrations are in this different: that the one have need of
reason, using of proofs, to make them out and to gain our assent; but the
other, as soon as understood, are, without any the least reasoning, embraced
and assented to. But I withal beg leave to observe, that it lays open the
weakness of this subterfuge, which requires the use of reason for the
discovery of these general truths: since it must be confessed that in their
discovery there is no use made of reasoning at all. And I think those who give
this answer will not be forward to affirm that the knowledge of this maxim,
“That it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be,” is a
deduction of our reason. For this would be to destroy that bounty of nature
they seem so fond of, whilst they make the knowledge of those principles to
depend on the labour of our thoughts. For all reasoning is search, and casting
about, and requires pains and application. And how can it with any tolerable
sense be supposed, that what was imprinted by nature, as the foundation and
guide of our reason, should need the use of reason to discover it?
11.
And if there were this would prove them not innate.
Those
who will take the pains to reflect with a little attention on the operations
of the understanding, will find that this ready assent of the mind to some
truths, depends not, either on native inscription, or the use of reason, but
on a faculty of the mind quite distinct from both of them, as we shall see
hereafter. Reason, therefore, having nothing to do in procuring our assent to
these maxims, if by saying, that “men know and assent to them, when they
come to the use of reason,” be meant, that the use of reason assists us in
the knowledge of these maxims, it is utterly false; and were it true, would
prove them not to be innate.
12.
The coming of the Use of Reason not the Time we come to know these
Maxims.
If
by knowing and assenting to them “when we come to the use of reason,” be
meant, that this is the time when they come to be taken notice of by the mind;
and that as soon as children come to the use of reason, they come also to know
and assent to these maxims; this also is false and frivolous. First, it is
false; because it is evident these maxims are not in the mind so early as the
use of reason; and therefore the coming to the use of reason is falsely
assigned as the time of their discovery.
How many instances of the use of reason may we observe in children, a
long time before they have any knowledge of this maxim, “That it is
impossible for the same thing to be and not to be?” And a great part of
illiterate people and savages pass many years, even of their rational age,
without ever thinking on this and the like general propositions. I grant, men
come not to the knowledge of these general and more abstract truths, which are
thought innate, till they come to the use of reason; and I add, nor then
neither. Which is so, because, till after they come to the use of reason,
those general abstract ideas are not framed in the mind, about which those
general maxims are, which are mistaken for innate principles, but are indeed
discoveries made and verities introduced and brought into the mind by the same
way, and discovered by the same steps, as several other propositions, which
nobody was ever so extravagant as to suppose innate. This I hope to make plain
in the sequel of this Discourse. I allow therefore, a necessity that men
should come to the use of reason before they get the knowledge of those
general truths; but deny that men’s coming to the use of reason is the time
of their discovery.
13.
By this they are not distinguished from other knowable Truths.
In
the mean time it is observable, that this saying that men know and assent to
these maxims “when they come to the use of reason,” amounts in reality of
fact to no more but this,--that they are never known nor taken notice of
before the use of reason, but may possibly be assented to some time after,
during a man’s life; but when is uncertain. And so may all other knowable
truths, as well as these which therefore have no advantage nor distinction
from other by this note of being known when we come to the use of reason; nor
are thereby proved to be innate, but quite the contrary.
14.
If coming to the Use of Reason were the Time of their Discovery, it
would not prove them innate.
But,
secondly, were it true that the precise time of their being known and assented
to were, when men come to the use of reason; neither would that prove them
innate. This way of arguing is as frivolous as the supposition itself is
false. For, by what kind of logic will it appear that any notion is originally
by nature imprinted in the mind in its first constitution, because it comes
first to be observed and assented to when a faculty of the mind, which has
quite a distinct province, begins to exert itself? And therefore the coming to
the use of speech, if it were supposed the time that these maxims are first
assented to, (which it may be with as much truth as the time when men come to
the use of reason,) would be as good a proof that they were innate, as to say
they are innate because men assent to them when they come to the use of
reason. I agree then with these men of innate principles, that there is no
knowledge of these general and self-evident maxims in the mind, till it comes
to the exercise of reason: but I deny that the coming to the use of reason is
the precise time when they are first taken notice of; and if that were the
precise time, I deny that it would prove them innate. All that can with any
truth be meant by this proposition, that men ‘assent to them when they come
to the use of reason,’ is no more but this,--that the making of general
abstract ideas, and the understanding of general names, being a concomitant of
the rational faculty, and growing up with it, children commonly get not those
general ideas, nor learn the names that stand for them, till, having for a
good while exercised their reason about familiar and more particular ideas,
they are, by their ordinary discourse and actions with others, acknowledged to
be capable of rational conversation. If assenting to these maxims, when men
come to the use of reason, can be true in any other sense, I desire it may be
shown; or at least, how in this, or any other sense, it proves them innate.
15.
The Steps by which the Mind attains several Truths.
The
senses at first let in PARTICULAR ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet,
and the mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodged in
the memory, and names got to them. Afterwards, the mind proceeding further,
abstracts them, and by degrees learns the use of general names. In this manner
the mind comes to be furnished with ideas and language, the MATERIALS about
which to exercise its discursive faculty. And the use of reason becomes daily
more visible, as these materials that give it employment increase. But though
the having of general ideas and the use of general words and reason usually
grow together, yet I see not how this any way proves them innate. The
knowledge of some truths, I confess, is very early in the mind; but in a way
that shows them not to be innate. For, if we will observe, we shall find it
still to be about ideas, not innate, but acquired; it being about those first
which are imprinted by external things, with which infants have earliest to
do, which make the most frequent impressions on their senses. In ideas thus
got, the mind discovers that some agree and others differ, probably as soon as
it has any use of memory; as soon as it is able to retain and perceive
distinct ideas. But whether it be then or no, this is certain, it does so long
before it has the use of words; or comes to that which we commonly call “the
use of reason.” For a child knows as certainly before it can speak the
difference between the ideas of sweet and bitter (i.e. that sweet is not
bitter), as it knows afterwards (when it comes to speak) that wormwood and
sugarplums are not the same thing.
16.
Assent to supposed innate truths depends on having clear and distinct
ideas of what their terms mean, and not on their innateness.
A
child knows not that three and four are equal to seven, till he comes to be
able to count seven, and has got the name and idea of equality; and then, upon
explaining those words, he presently assents to, or rather perceives the truth
of that proposition. But neither does he then readily assent because it is an
innate truth, nor was his assent wanting till then because he wanted the use
of reason; but the truth of it appears to him as soon as he has settled in his
mind the clear and distinct ideas that these names stand for. And then he
knows the truth of that proposition upon the same ground and by the same
means, that he knew before that a rod and a cherry are not the same thing; and
upon the same ground also that he may come to know afterwards “That it is
impossible for the same thing to be and not to be,” as shall be more fully
shown hereafter. So that the later it is before any one comes to have those
general ideas about which those maxims are; or to know the signification of
those generic terms that stand for them; or to put together in his mind the
ideas they stand for; the later also will it be before he comes to assent to
those maxims;--whose terms, with the ideas they stand for, being no more
innate than those of a cat or a weasel he must stay till time and observation
have acquainted him with them; and then he will be in a capacity to know the
truth of these maxims, upon the first occasion that shall make him put
together those ideas in his mind, and observe whether they agree or disagree,
according as is expressed in those propositions. And therefore it is that a
man knows that eighteen and nineteen are equal to thirty-seven, by the same
self-evidence that he knows one and two to be equal to three: yet a child
knows this not so soon as the other; not for want of the use of reason, but
because the ideas the words eighteen nineteen, and thirty-seven stand for, are
not so soon got, as those which are signified by one, two, and three.
17.
Assenting as soon as proposed and understood, proves them not innate.
This
evasion therefore of general assent when men come to the use of reason,
failing as it does, and leaving no difference between those supposed innate
and other truths that are afterwards acquired and learnt, men have endeavoured
to secure an universal assent to those they call maxims, by saying, they are
generally assented to as soon as proposed, and the terms they are proposed in
understood: seeing all men, even children, as soon as they hear and understand
the terms, assent to these propositions, they think it is sufficient to prove
them innate. For, since men never
fail after they have once understood the words, to acknowledge them for
undoubted truths, they would infer, that certainly these propositions were
first lodged in the understanding, which, without any teaching, the mind, at
the very first proposal immediately closes with and assents to, and after that
never doubts again.
18.
If such an Assent be a Mark of Innate, then “that one and two are
equal to three, that Sweetness if not Bitterness,” and a thousand the like,
must be inate.
In
answer to this, I demand whether ready assent given to a proposition, upon
first hearing and understanding the terms, be a certain mark of an innate
principle? If it be not, such a general assent is in vain urged as a proof of
them: if it be said that it is a mark of innate, they must then allow all such
propositions to be innate which are generally assented to as soon as heard,
whereby they will find themselves plentifully stored with innate principles.
For upon the same ground, viz. of assent at first hearing and understanding
the terms, that men would have those maxims pass for innate, they must also
admit several propositions about numbers to be innate; and thus, that one and
two are equal to three, that two and two are equal to four, and a multitude of
other the like propositions in numbers, that everybody assents to at first
hearing and understanding the terms, must have a place amongst these innate
axioms. Nor is this the prerogative of numbers alone, and propositions made
about several of them; but even natural philosophy, and all the other
sciences, afford propositions which are sure to meet with assent as soon as
they are understood. That “two bodies cannot be in the same place” is a
truth that nobody any more sticks at than at these maxims, that “it is
impossible for the same thing to be and not to be,” that “white is not
black,” that “a square is not a circle,” that “bitterness is not
sweetness.” These and a million of such other propositions, as many at least
as we have distinct, ideas of, every man in his wits, at first hearing, and
knowing, what the names stand for, must necessarily assent to. If these men
will be true to their own rule, and have assent at first hearing and
understanding the terms to be a mark of innate, they must allow not only as
many innate proposition as men have distinct ideas, but as many as men can
make propositions wherein different ideas are denied one of another. Since
every proposition wherein one different idea is denied of another, will as
certainly find assent at first hearing and understanding the terms as this
general one, “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be,” or
that which is the foundation of it and is the easier understood of the two,
“The same is not different”; by which account they will have legions of
innate propositions of this one sort, without mentioning any other But, since
no proposition can be innate unless the ideas about which it is be
innate, this will be to suppose all our ideas of colours, sounds, tastes,
figure, &c., innate, than which there cannot be anything more opposite to
reason and experience. Universal and ready assent upon hearing and
understanding the terms is, I grant, a mark of self-evidence; but
self-evidence, depending not on innate impressions, but on something else, (as
we shall show hereafter,) belongs to several propositions which nobody was yet
so extravagant as to pretend to be innate.
19.
Such less general Propositions known before these universal Maxims.
Nor
let it be said, that those more particular self-evident propositions, which
are assented to at first hearing, as that “one and two are equal to three,”
that “green is not red,” &c., are received as the consequences of
those more universal propositions which are looked on as innate principles;
since any one, who will but take the pains to observe what passes in the
understanding, will certainly find that these, and the like less general
propositions, are certainly known, and firmly assented to by those who are
utterly ignorant of those more general maxims; and so, being earlier in the
mind than those (as they are called) first principles, cannot owe to them the
assent wherewith they are received at first hearing.
20.
One and one equal to Two, &c., not general nor useful answered.
If
it be said, that these propositions, viz. “two and two are equal to four,”
“red is not blue,” &c., are not general maxims nor of any great use, I
answer, that makes nothing to the argument of universal assent upon hearing
and understanding. For, if that be the certain mark of innate, whatever
propositions can be found that receives general assent as soon as heard
understood, that must be admitted for an innate proposition as well as this
maxim, “That it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be,”
they being upon this ground equal. And as to the difference of being more
general, that makes this maxim more remote from being innate; those general
and abstract ideas being more strangers to our first apprehensions than those
of more particular self-evident propositions; and therefore it is longer
before they are admitted, and assented to by the growing understanding. And as
to the usefulness of these magnified maxims, that perhaps will not be found so
great as is generally conceived, when it comes in its due place to be more
fully considered.
21.
These Maxims not being known sometimes till proposed, proves them not
innate.
But
we have not yet done with “assenting to propositions at first hearing and
understanding their terms.” It is fit we first take notice that this,
instead of being a mark that they are innate, is a proof of the contrary;
since it supposes that several, who understand and know other things, are
ignorant of these principles till they are proposed to them; and that one may
be unacquainted with these truths till he hears them from others. For, if they
were innate, what need they be proposed in order to gaining assent, when, by
being in the understanding, by a natural and original impression, (if there
were any such,) they could not but be known before? Or doth the proposing them
print them clearer in the mind than nature did? If so, then the consequence
will be, that a man knows them better after he has been thus taught them than
he did before. Whence it will follow that these principles may be made more
evident to us by others’ teaching than nature has made them by impression:
which will ill agree with the opinion of innate principles, and give but
little authority to them; but, on the contrary, makes them unfit to be the
foundations of all our other knowledge; as they are pretended to be. This
cannot be denied, that men grow first acquainted with many of these
self-evident truths upon their being proposed: but it is clear that whosoever
does so, finds in himself that he then begins to know a proposition, which he
knew not before, and which from thenceforth he never questions; not because it
was innate, but because the consideration of the nature of the things
contained in those words would not suffer him to think otherwise, how, or
whensoever he is brought to reflect on them. And if whatever is assented to at
first hearing and understanding the terms must pass for an innate principle,
every well-grounded observation, drawn from particulars into a general rule,
must be innate. When yet it is certain that not all, but only sagacious heads,
light at first on these observations, and reduce them into general
propositions: not innate but collected from a preceding acquaintance and
reflection on particular instances. These, when observing men have made them,
unobserving men, when they are proposed to them cannot refuse their assent to.
22.
Implicitly known before proposing, signifies that the Mind is capable
of understanding them, or else signifies nothing.
If
it be said, the understanding hath an IMPLICIT knowledge of these principles,
but not an EXPLICIT, before this first hearing (as they must who will say “that
they are in the understanding before they are known,”) it will be hard to
conceive what is meant by a principle imprinted on the understanding
implicitly, unless it be this,--that the mind is capable of understanding and
assenting firmly to such propositions. And thus all mathematical
demonstrations, as well as first principles, must be received as native
impressions on the mind; which I fear they will scarce allow them to be, who
find it harder to demonstrate a proposition than assent to it when
demonstrated. And few mathematicians will be forward to believe, that all the
diagrams they have drawn were but copies of those innate characters which
nature had engraven upon their minds.
23.
The Argument of assenting on first hearing, is upon a false supposition
of no precedent teaching.
There
is, I fear, this further weakness in the foregoing argument, which would
persuade us that therefore those maxims are to be thought innate, which men
admit at first hearing; because they assent to propositions which they are not
taught, nor do receive from the force of any argument or demonstration, but a
bare explication or understanding of the terms. Under which there seems to me to lie this fallacy, that men
are supposed not to be taught nor to learn anything DE NOVO; when, in truth,
they are taught, and do learn something they were ignorant of before. For,
first, it is evident that they have learned the terms, and their
signification; neither of which was born with them. But this is not all the
acquired knowledge in the case: the ideas themselves, about which the
proposition is, are not born with them, no more than their names, but got
afterwards. So that in all propositions that are assented to at first hearing,
the terms of the proposition, their standing for such ideas, and the ideas
themselves that they stand for, being neither of them innate, I would fain
know what there is remaining in such propositions that is innate. For I would
gladly have any one name that proposition whose terms or ideas were either of
them innate. We BY DEGREES get ideas and names, and LEARN their appropriated
connexion one with another; and then to propositions made in such, terms,
whose signification we have learnt, and wherein the agreement or disagreement
we can perceive in our ideas when put together is expressed, we at first
hearing assent; though to other propositions, in themselves as certain and
evident, but which are concerning ideas not so soon or so easily got, we are
at the same time no way capable of assenting. For, though a child quickly
assents to this proposition, “That an apple is not fire,” when by familiar
acquaintance he has got the ideas of those two different things distinctly
imprinted on his mind, and has learnt that the names apple and fire stand for
them; yet it will be some years after, perhaps, before the same child will
assent to this proposition, “That it is impossible for the same thing to be
and not to be”; because that, though perhaps the words are as easy to be
learnt, yet the signification of them being more large, comprehensive, and
abstract than of the names annexed to those sensible things the child hath to
do with, it is longer before he learns their precise meaning, and it requires
more time plainly to form in his mind those general ideas they stand for. Till
that be done, you will in vain endeavour to make any child assent to a
proposition made up of such general terms; but as soon as ever he has got
those ideas, and learned their names, he forwardly closes with the one as well
as the other of the forementioned propositions: and with both for the same
reason; viz. because he finds the ideas he has in his mind to agree or
disagree, according as the words standing for them are affirmed or denied one
of another in the proposition. But if propositions be brought to him in words
which stand for ideas he has not yet in his mind, to such propositions,
however evidently true or false in themselves, he affords neither assent nor
dissent, but is ignorant. For
words being but empty sounds, any further than they are signs of our ideas, we
cannot but assent to them as they correspond to those ideas we have, but no
further than that. But the showing by what steps and ways knowledge comes into
our minds; and the grounds of several degrees of assent, being; the business
of the following Discourse, it may suffice to have only touched on it here, as
one reason that made me doubt of those innate principles.
24.
Not innate because not universally assented to.
To
conclude this argument of universal consent, I agree with these defenders of
innate principles,--that if they are innate, they must needs have universal
assent. For that a truth should be innate and yet not assented to, is to me as
unintelligible as for a man to know a truth and be ignorant of it at the same
time. But then, by these men’s own confession, they cannot be innate; since
they are not assented to by those who understand not the terms; nor by a great
part of those who do understand them, but have yet never heard nor thought of
those propositions; which, I think, is at least one half of mankind. But were
the number far less, it would be enough to destroy universal assent, and
thereby show these propositions not to be innate, if children alone were
ignorant of them.
25.
These Maxims not the first known.
But that I may not be accused to argue from the thoughts of infants, which are unknown to us, and to conclude from what passes in their understandings before they express it; I say next, that these two general propositions are not the truths that first possess the minds of children, nor are antecedent to all acquired and adventitious notions: which, if they were innate, they must needs be. Whether we can determine it or no, it matters not, there is certainly a time when children begin to think, and their words and actions do assure us that they do so. When therefore they are capable of thought, of knowledge, of assent, can it rationally be supposed they can be ignorant of those notions that nature has imprinted, were there any such? Can it be imagined, with any appearance of reason, that they perceive the impressions from things without, and be at the same time ignorant of those characters which nature itself has taken care to stamp within? Can they receive and assent to adventitious notions, and be ignorant of those which are supposed woven into the very principles of their being, and imprinted there in indelible characters, to be the foundation and guide of all their acquired knowledge and future reasonings? This would be to make nature take pains to no purpose; or at least to write very ill; since its characters could not be read by those eyes which saw other things very well: and those are very ill supposed the clearest parts of truth, and the foundations of all our knowledge, which are not first known, and without which the undoubted knowledge of several other things may be had. The child certainly knows, that the nurse that feeds it is neither the cat it plays with, nor the blackmoor it is afraid of: that the wormseed or mustard it refuses, is not the apple or sugar it cries for: this it is certainly and undoubtedly assured of: but will any one say, it is by virtue of this principle, “That it is impossible for the same thing to be and