strict sense, implies succession, and that when we apply its idea to
any unchangeable object, it is only by a fiction of the imagination, by
which the unchangeable object is supposd to participate of the
changes of the co-existent objects, and in particular of that of our
perceptions. This fiction of the imagination almost universally takes
place; and it is by means of it, that a single object, placd before us,
and surveyd for any time without our discovering in it any interruption
or variation, is able to give us a notion of identity.
For when we
consider any two points of this time, we may place them in different
lights: We may either survey them at the very same instant; in which
case they give us the idea of number, both by themselves and by the
object; which must be multiplyd, in order to be conceivd at once, as
existent in these two different points of time: Or on the other hand,
we may trace the succession of time by a like succession of ideas,
and conceiving first one moment, along with the object then existent,
imagine afterwards a change in the time without any VARIATION or
INTERRUPTION in the object; in which case it gives us the idea of unity.
Here then is an idea, which is a medium betwixt unity and number; or
more properly speaking, is either of them, according to the view, in
which we take it: And this idea we call that of identity. We cannot, in
any propriety of speech, say, that an object is the same with itself,
unless we mean, that the object existent at one time is the same with
itself existent at another. By this means we make a difference, betwixt
the idea meant by the word, OBJECT, and that meant by ITSELF, without
going the length of number, and at the same time without restraining
ourselves to a strict and absolute unity.
Thus the principle of individuation is nothing but the INVARIABLENESS
and UNINTERRUPTEDNESS of any object, thro a supposd variation of
time, by which the mind can trace it in the different periods of its
existence, without any break of the view, and without being obligd to
form the idea of multiplicity or number.
I now proceed to explain the SECOND part of my system, and shew why
the constancy of our perceptions makes us ascribe to them a perfect
numerical identity, tho there be very long intervals betwixt their
appearance, and they have only one of the essential qualities of
identity, VIZ, INVARIABLENESS. That I may avoid all ambiguity and
confusion on this head, I shall observe, that I here account for the
opinions and belief of the vulgar with regard to the existence of body;
and therefore must entirely conform myself to their manner of thinking
and of expressing themselves. Now we have already observd, that however
philosophers may distinguish betwixt the objects and perceptions of the
senses; which they suppose co-existent and resembling; yet this is a
distinction, which is not comprehended by the generality of mankind, who
as they perceive only one being, can never assent to the opinion of a
double existence and representation. Those very sensations, which enter
by the eye or ear, are with them the true objects, nor can they
readily conceive that this pen or paper, which is immediately perceivd,
represents another, which is different from, but resembling it. In
order, therefore, to accommodate myself to their notions, I shall at
first suppose; that there is only a single existence, which I shall call
indifferently OBJECT or PERCEPTION, according as it shall seem best to
suit my purpose, understanding by both of them what any common man means
by a hat, or shoe, or stone, or any other impression, conveyd to him
by his senses. I shall be sure to give warning, when I return to a more
philosophical way of speaking and thinking.
To enter, therefore, upon the question concerning the source of the
error and deception with regard to identity, when we attribute it to our
resembling perceptions, notwithstanding their interruption; I must here
recal an observation, which I have already provd and explaind [Part II.
Sect. 5.]. Nothing is more apt to make us mistake one idea for another,
than any relation betwixt them, which associates them together in the
imagination, and makes it pass with facility from one to the other.
Of all relations, that of resemblance is in this respect the most
efficacious; and that because it not only causes an association of
ideas, but also of dispositions, and makes us conceive the one idea by
an act or operation of the mind, similar to that by which we conceive
the other. This circumstance I have observd to be of great moment; and
we may establish it for a general rule, that whatever ideas place the
mind in the same disposition or in similar ones, are very apt to be
confounded. The mind readily passes from one to the other, and perceives
not the change without a strict attention, of which, generally speaking,
it is wholly incapable.
In order to apply this general maxim, we must first examine the
disposition of the mind in viewing any object which preserves a perfect
identity, and then find some other object, that is confounded with it,
by causing a similar disposition. When we fix our thought on any object,
and suppose it to continue the same for some time; it is evident we
suppose the change to lie only in the time, and never exert ourselves to
produce any new image or idea of the object. The faculties of the mind
repose themselves in a manner, and take no more exercise, than what is
necessary to continue that idea, of which we were formerly possest, and
which subsists without variation or interruption. The passage from one
moment to another is scarce felt, and distinguishes not itself by a
different perception or idea, which may require a different direction of
the spirits, in order to its conception.
Now what other objects, beside identical ones, are capable of placing
the mind in the same disposition, when it considers them, and of causing
the same uninterrupted passage of the imagination from one idea to
another? This question is of the last importance. For if we can find any
such objects, we may certainly conclude, from the foregoing principle,
that they are very naturally confounded with identical ones, and are
taken for them in most of our reasonings. But though this question be
very important, it is not very difficult nor doubtful.
For I immediately
reply, that a succession of related objects places the mind in this
disposition, and is considered with the same smooth and uninterrupted
progress of the imagination, as attends the view of the same invariable
object. The very nature and essence of relation is to connect our ideas
with each other, and upon the appearance of one, to facilitate the
transition to its correlative. The passage betwixt related ideas is,
therefore, so smooth and easy, that it produces little alteration on
the mind, and seems like the continuation of the same action; and as the
continuation of the same action is an effect of the continued view of
the same object, it is for this reason we attribute sameness to every
succession of related objects. The thought slides along the succession
with equal facility, as if it considered only one object; and therefore
confounds the succession with the identity.
We shall afterwards see many instances of this tendency of relation to
make us ascribe an identity to different objects; but shall here confine
ourselves to the present subject. We find by experience, that there is
such a constancy in almost all the impressions of the senses, that their
interruption produces no alteration on them, and hinders them not from
returning the same in appearance and in situation as at their first
existence. I survey the furniture of my chamber; I shut my eyes, and
afterwards open them; and find the new perceptions to resemble perfectly
those, which formerly struck my senses. This resemblance is observed in
a thousand instances, and naturally connects together our ideas of these
interrupted perceptions by the strongest relation, and conveys the
mind with an easy transition from one to another. An easy transition
or passage of the imagination, along the ideas of these different and
interrupted perceptions, is almost the same disposition of mind with
that in which we consider one constant and uninterrupted perception. It
is therefore very natural for us to mistake the one for the other.
[Footnote 9 This reasoning, it must be confest, is somewhat
abstruse, and difficult to be comprehended; but it is
remarkable, that this very difficulty may be converted into
a proof of the reasoning. We may observe, that there are two
relations, and both of them resemblances, which contribute
to our mistaking the succession of our interrupted perceptions for an identical object. The first is, the
resemblance of the perceptions: The second is the resemblance, which the act of the mind in surveying a
succession of resembling objects bears to that in surveying
an identical object. Now these resemblances we are apt to
confound with each other; and it is natural we shoud,
according to this very reasoning. But let us keep them
distinct, and we shall find no difficulty in conceiving the
precedent argument.]
The persons, who entertain this opinion concerning the identity of
our resembling perceptions, are in general an the unthinking and
unphilosophical part of mankind, (that is, all of us, at one time or
other) and consequently such as suppose their perceptions to be their
only objects, and never think of a double existence internal and
external, representing and represented. The very image, which is present
to the senses, is with us the real body; and it is to these interrupted
images we ascribe a perfect identity. But as the interruption of the
appearance seems contrary to the identity, and naturally leads us to
regard these resembling perceptions as different from each other, we
here find ourselves at a loss how to reconcile such opposite opinions.
The smooth passage of the imagination along the ideas of the resembling
perceptions makes us ascribe to them a perfect identity.
The interrupted
manner of their appearance makes us consider them as so many resembling,
but still distinct beings, which appear after certain intervals. The
perplexity arising from this contradiction produces a propension to
unite these broken appearances by the fiction of a continued existence,
which is the third part of that hypothesis I proposed to explain.
Nothing is more certain from experience, than that any contradiction
either to the sentiments or passions gives a sensible uneasiness,
whether it proceeds from without or from within; from the opposition
of external objects, or from the combat of internal principles. On the
contrary, whatever strikes in with the natural propensities, and either
externally forwards their satisfaction, or internally concurs with their
movements, is sure to give a sensible pleasure. Now there being here an
opposition betwixt the notion of the identity of resembling perceptions,
and the interruption of their appearance, the mind must be uneasy in
that situation, and will naturally seek relief from the uneasiness.
Since the uneasiness arises from the opposition of two contrary
principles, it must look for relief by sacrificing the one to the
other. But as the smooth passage of our thought along our resembling
perceptions makes us ascribe to them an identity, we can never without
reluctance yield up that opinion. We must, therefore, turn to the other
side, and suppose that our perceptions are no longer interrupted, but
preserve a continued as well as an invariable existence, and are by that
means entirely the same. But here the interruptions in the appearance
of these perceptions are so long and frequent, that it is impossible to
overlook them; and as the appearance of a perception in the mind and
its existence seem at first sight entirely the same, it may be doubted,
whether we can ever assent to so palpable a contradiction, and suppose a
perception to exist without being present to the mind.
In order to clear
up this matter, and learn how the interruption in the appearance of a
perception implies not necessarily an interruption in its existence,
it will be proper to touch upon some principles, which we shall have
occasion to explain more fully afterwards. [Sect. 6.]
We may begin with observing, that the difficulty in the present case
is not concerning the matter of fact, or whether the mind forms such a
conclusion concerning the continued existence of its perceptions,
but only concerning the manner in which the conclusion is formed, and
principles from which it is derived. It is certain, that almost all
mankind, and even philosophers themselves, for the greatest part of
their lives, take their perceptions to be their only objects, and
suppose, that the very being, which is intimately present to the mind,
is the real body or material existence. It is also certain, that this
very perception or object is supposed to have a continued uninterrupted
being, and neither to be annihilated by our absence, nor to be brought
into existence by our presence. When we are absent from it, we say it
still exists, but that we do not feel, we do not see it.
When we are
present, we say we feel, or see it. Here then may arise two questions;
First, How we can satisfy ourselves in supposing a perception to be
absent from the mind without being annihilated.
Secondly, After what
manner we conceive an object to become present to the mind, without some
new creation of a perception or image; and what we mean by this seeing,
and feeling, and perceiving.
As to the first question; we may observe, that what we call a mind,
is nothing but a heap or collection of different perceptions, united
together by certain relations, and supposed, though falsely, to be
endowed with a perfect simplicity and identity. Now as every perception
is distinguishable from another, and may be considered as separately
existent; it evidently follows, that there is no absurdity in separating
any particular perception from the mind; that is, in breaking off all
its relations, with that connected mass of perceptions, which constitute
a thinking being.
The same reasoning affords us an answer to the second question. If the
name of perception renders not this separation from a mind absurd and
contradictory, the name of object, standing for the very same thing, can
never render their conjunction impossible. External objects are seen,
and felt, and become present to the mind; that is, they acquire such a
relation to a connected heap of perceptions, as to influence them very
considerably in augmenting their number by present reflections and
passions, and in storing the memory with ideas. The same continued and
uninterrupted Being may, therefore, be sometimes present to the mind,
and sometimes absent from it, without any real or essential change in
the Being itself. An interrupted appearance to the senses implies not
necessarily an interruption in the existence. The supposition of the
continued existence of sensible objects or perceptions involves
no contradiction. We may easily indulge our inclination to that
supposition. When the exact resemblance of our perceptions makes us
ascribe to them an identity, we may remove the seeming interruption by
feigning a continued being, which may fill those intervals, and preserve
a perfect and entire identity to our perceptions.
But as we here not only feign but believe this continued existence, the
question is, from whence arises such a belief; and this question leads
us to the fourth member of this system. It has been proved already, that
belief in general consists in nothing, but the vivacity of an idea; and
that an idea may acquire this vivacity by its relation to some present
impression. Impressions are naturally the most vivid perceptions of
the mind; and this quality is in part conveyed by the relation to every
connected idea. The relation causes a smooth passage from the impression
to the idea, and even gives a propensity to that passage. The mind falls
so easily from the one perception to the other, that it scarce perceives
the change, but retains in the second a considerable share of the
vivacity of the first. It is excited by the lively impression; and this
vivacity is conveyed to the related idea, without any great diminution
in the passage, by reason of the smooth transition and the propensity of
the imagination.
But suppose, that this propensity arises from some other principle,
besides that of relation; it is evident it must still have the same
effect, and convey the vivacity from the impression to the idea. Now
this is exactly the present case. Our memory presents us with a vast
number of instances of perceptions perfectly resembling each other,
that return at different distances of time, and after considerable
interruptions. This resemblance gives us a propension to consider these
interrupted perceptions as the same; and also a propension to connect
them by a continued existence, in order to justify this identity, and
avoid the contradiction, in which the interrupted appearance of these
perceptions seems necessarily to involve us. Here then we have a
propensity to feign the continued existence of all sensible objects; and
as this propensity arises from some lively impressions of the memory, it
bestows a vivacity on that fiction: or in other words, makes us believe
the continued existence of body. If sometimes we ascribe a continued
existence to objects, which are perfectly new to us, and of whose
constancy and coherence we have no experience, it is because the manner,
in which they present themselves to our senses, resembles that of
constant and coherent objects; and this resemblance is a source of
reasoning and analogy, and leads us to attribute the same qualities to
similar objects.
I believe an intelligent reader will find less difficulty to assent to
this system, than to comprehend it fully and distinctly, and will allow,
after a little reflection, that every part carries its own proof
along with it. It is indeed evident, that as the vulgar suppose their
perceptions to be their only objects, and at the same time believe the
continued existence of matter, we must account for the origin of the
belief upon that supposition. Now upon that supposition, it is a false
opinion that any of our objects, or perceptions, are identically the
same after an interruption; and consequently the opinion of their
identity can never arise from reason, but must arise from the
imagination. The imagination is seduced into such an opinion only by
means of the resemblance of certain perceptions; since we find they are
only our resembling perceptions, which we have a propension to suppose
the same. This propension to bestow an identity on our resembling
perceptions, produces the fiction of a continued existence; since that
fiction, as well as the identity, is really false, as is acknowledged
by all philosophers, and has no other effect than to remedy the
interruption of our perceptions, which is the only circumstance that
is contrary to their identity. In the last place this propension causes
belief by means of the present impressions of the memory; since without
the remembrance of former sensations, it is plain we never should have
any belief of the continued existence of body. Thus in examining all
these parts, we find that each of them is supported by the strongest
proofs: and that all of them together form a consistent system, which is
perfectly convincing. A strong propensity or inclination alone, without
any present impression, will sometimes cause a belief or opinion. How
much more when aided by that circumstance?
But though we are led after this manner, by the natural propensity of
the imagination, to ascribe a continued existence to those sensible
objects or perceptions, which we find to resemble each other in their
interrupted appearance; yet a very little reflection and philosophy
is sufficient to make us perceive the fallacy of that opinion. I have
already observed, that there is an intimate connexion betwixt those two
principles, of a continued and of a distinct or independent existence,
and that we no sooner establish the one than the other follows, as a
necessary consequence. It is the opinion of a continued existence, which
first takes place, and without much study or reflection draws the other
along with it, wherever the mind follows its first and most natural
tendency. But when we compare experiments, and reason a little upon
them, we quickly perceive, that the doctrine of the independent
existence of our sensible perceptions is contrary to the plainest
experience. This leads us backward upon our footsteps to perceive our
error in attributing a continued existence to our perceptions, and is
the origin of many very curious opinions, which we shall here endeavour
to account for.
It will first be proper to observe a few of those experiments, which
convince us, that our perceptions are not possest of any independent
existence. When we press one eye with a finger, we immediately perceive
all the objects to become double, and one half of them to be removed
from their common and natural position. But as we do not attribute to
continued existence to both these perceptions, and as they are both
of the same nature, we clearly perceive, that all our perceptions are
dependent on our organs, and the disposition of our nerves and
animal spirits. This opinion is confirmed by the seeming encrease and
diminution of objects, according to their distance; by the apparent
alterations in their figure; by the changes in their colour and other
qualities from our sickness and distempers: and by an infinite number
of other experiments of the same kind; from all which we learn, that
our sensible perceptions are not possest of any distinct or independent
existence.
The natural consequence of this reasoning should be, that our
perceptions have no more a continued than an independent existence; and
indeed philosophers have so far run into this opinion, that they change
their system, and distinguish, (as we shall do for the future) betwixt
perceptions and objects, of which the former are supposed to be
interrupted, and perishing, and different at every different return; the
latter to be uninterrupted, and to preserve a continued existence and
identity. But however philosophical this new system may be esteemed, I
assert that it is only a palliative remedy, and that it contains all the
difficulties of the vulgar system, with some others, that are peculiar
to itself. There are no principles either of the understanding or fancy,
which lead us directly to embrace this opinion of the double existence
of perceptions and objects, nor can we arrive at it but by passing
through the common hypothesis of the identity and continuance of
our interrupted perceptions. Were we not first perswaded, that our
perceptions are our only objects, and continue to exist even when they
no longer make their appearance to the senses, we should never be led
to think, that our perceptions and objects are different, and that our
objects alone preserve a continued existence. The latter hypothesis
has no primary recommendation either to reason or the imagination, but
acquires all its influence on the imagination from the former. This
proposition contains two parts, which we sha