to remark in human nature, and shall explain more fully in its proper
place, that when objects are united by any relation, we have a strong
propensity to add some new relation to them, in order to compleat the
union. In our arrangement of bodies we never fail to place such as are
resembling, in contiguity to each other, or at least in correspondent
points of view: Why? but because we feel a satisfaction in joining the
relation of contiguity to that of resemblance, or the resemblance of
situation to that of qualities. The effects this propensity have been
[Sect. 2, towards the end.] already observed in that resemblance, which
we so readily suppose betwixt particular impressions and their external
causes. But we shall not find a more evident effect of it, than in the
present instance, where from the relations of causation and contiguity
in time betwixt two objects, we feign likewise that of a conjunction in
place, in order to strengthen the connexion.
But whatever confused notions we may form of an union in place betwixt
an extended body, as a fig, and its particular taste, it is certain
that upon reflection we must observe this union something altogether
unintelligible and contradictory. For should we ask ourselves one
obvious question, viz. if the taste, which we conceive to be contained
in the circumference of the body, is in every part of it or in one only,
we must quickly find ourselves at a loss, and perceive the impossibility
of ever giving a satisfactory answer. We cannot rely, that it is only
in one part: For experience convinces us, that every part has the same
relish. We can as little reply, that it exists in every part: For
then we must suppose it figured and extended; which is absurd and
incomprehensible. Here then we are influenced by two principles directly
contrary to each other, viz. that inclination of our fancy by which we
are determined to incorporate the taste with the extended object, and
our reason, which shows us the impossibility of such an union. Being
divided betwixt these opposite principles, we renounce neither one nor
the other, but involve the subject in such confusion and obscurity, that
we no longer perceive the opposition. We suppose, that the taste exists
within the circumference of the body, but in such a manner, that it
fills the whole without extension, and exists entire in every part
without separation. In short, we use in our most familiar way of
thinking, that scholastic principle, which, when crudely proposed,
appears so shocking, of TOTUM IN TOTO & TOLUM IN
QUALIBET PARTE: Which
is much the same, as if we should say, that a thing is in a certain
place, and yet is not there.
All this absurdity proceeds from our endeavouring to bestow a place on
what is utterly incapable of it; and that endeavour again arises from
our inclination to compleat an union, which is founded on causation,
and a contiguity of time, by attributing to the objects a conjunction in
place. But if ever reason be of sufficient force to overcome prejudice,
it is certain, that in the present case it must prevail.
For we have
only this choice left, either to suppose that some beings exist without
any place; or that they are figured and extended; or that when they are
incorporated with extended objects, the whole is in the whole, and the
whole in every part. The absurdity of the two last suppositions proves
sufficiently the veracity of the first. Nor is there any fourth
opinion. For as to the supposition of their existence in the manner of
mathematical points, it resolves itself into the second opinion, and
supposes, that several passions may be placed in a circular figure,
and that a certain number of smells, conjoined with a certain number of
sounds, may make a body of twelve cubic inches; which appears ridiculous
upon the bare mentioning of it.
But though in this view of things we cannot refuse to condemn the
materialists, who conjoin all thought with extension; yet a little
reflection will show us equal reason for blaming their antagonists, who
conjoin all thought with a simple and indivisible substance. The most
vulgar philosophy informs us, that no external object can make itself
known to the mind immediately, and without the interposition of an
image or perception. That table, which just now appears to me, is only a
perception, and all its qualities are qualities of a perception. Now the
most obvious of all its qualities is extension. The perception consists
of parts. These parts are so situated, as to afford us the notion
of distance and contiguity; of length, breadth, and thickness. The
termination of these three dimensions is what we call figure. This
figure is moveable, separable, and divisible. Mobility, and separability
are the distinguishing properties of extended objects.
And to cut short
all disputes, the very idea of extension is copyed from nothing but an
impression, and consequently must perfectly agree to it.
To say the idea
of extension agrees to any thing, is to say it is extended.
The free-thinker may now triumph in his turn; and having found there are
impressions and ideas really extended, may ask his antagonists, how
they can incorporate a simple and indivisible subject with an extended
perception? All the arguments of Theologians may here be retorted upon
them. Is the indivisible subject, or immaterial substance, if you
will, on the left or on the right hand of the perception? Is it in this
particular part, or in that other? Is it in every part without being
extended? Or is it entire in any one part without deserting the rest? It
is impossible to give any answer to these questions, but what will both
be absurd in itself, and will account for the union of our indivisible
perceptions with an extended substance.
This gives me an occasion to take a-new into consideration the question
concerning the substance of the soul; and though I have condemned that
question as utterly unintelligible, yet I cannot forbear proposing some
farther reflections concerning it. I assert, that the doctrine of the
immateriality, simplicity, and indivisibility of a thinking substance
is a true atheism, and will serve to justify all those sentiments, for
which Spinoza is so universally infamous. From this topic, I hope at
least to reap one advantage, that my adversaries will not have any
pretext to render the present doctrine odious by their declamations,
when they see that they can be so easily retorted on them.
The fundamental principle of the atheism of Spinoza is the doctrine
of the simplicity of the universe, and the unity of that substance, in
which he supposes both thought and matter to inhere.
There is only one
substance, says he, in the world; and that substance is perfectly simple
and indivisible, and exists every where, without any local presence.
Whatever we discover externally by sensation; whatever we feel
internally by reflection; all these are nothing but modifications of
that one, simple, and necessarily existent being, and are not possest
of any separate or distinct existence. Every passion of the soul; every
configuration of matter, however different and various, inhere in
the same substance, and preserve in themselves their characters of
distinction, without communicating them to that subject, in which
they inhere. The same substratum, if I may so speak, supports the most
different modifications, without any difference in itself; and varies
them, without any variation. Neither time, nor place, nor all the
diversity of nature are able to produce any composition or change in its
perfect simplicity and identity.
I believe this brief exposition of the principles of that famous atheist
will be sufficient for the present purpose, and that without entering
farther into these gloomy and obscure regions, I shall be able to
shew, that this hideous hypothesis is almost the same with that of the
immateriality of the soul, which has become so popular.
To make this
evident, let us [Part II, Sect. 6.] remember, that as every idea is
derived from a preceding perception, it is impossible our idea of
a perception, and that of an object or external existence can ever
represent what are specifically different from each other. Whatever
difference we may suppose betwixt them, it is still incomprehensible to
us; and we are obliged either to conceive an external object merely as
a relation without a relative, or to make it the very same with a
perception or impression.
The consequence I shall draw from this may, at first sight, appear a
mere sophism; but upon the least examination will be found solid and
satisfactory. I say then, that since we may suppose, but never can
conceive a specific deference betwixt an object and impression;
any conclusion we form concerning the connexion and repugnance of
impressions, will not be known certainly to be applicable to objects;
but that on the other hand, whatever conclusions of this kind we form
concerning objects, will most certainly be applicable to impressions.
The reason is not difficult. As an object is supposed to be different
from an impression, we cannot be sure, that the circumstance, upon
which we found our reasoning, is common to both, supposing we form the
reasoning upon the impression. It is still possible, that the object may
differ from it in that particular. But when we first form our reasoning
concerning the object, it is beyond doubt, that the same reasoning must
extend to the impression: And that because the quality of the object,
upon which the argument is founded, must at least be conceived by
the mind; and coued not be conceived, unless it were common to an
impression; since we have no idea but what is derived from that origin.
Thus we may establish it as a certain maxim, that we can never, by any
principle, but by an irregular kind [Such as that of Sect. 2, form the
coherence of our perceptions.] of reasoning from experience, discover
a connexion or repugnance betwixt objects, which extends not to
impressions; though the inverse proposition may not be equally true,
that all the discoverable relations of impressions are common to
objects.
To apply this to the present case; there are two different systems
of being presented, to which I suppose myself under necessity of
assigning some substance, or ground of inhesion. I observe first the
universe of objects or of body: The sun, moon and stars; the earth,
seas, plants, animals, men, ships, houses, and other productions either
of art or nature. Here Spinoza appears, and tells me, that these are
only modifications; and that the subject, in which they inhere, is
simple, incompounded, and indivisible. After this I consider the other
system of beings, viz. the universe of thought, or my impressions and
ideas. There I observe another sun, moon and stars; an earth, and seas,
covered and inhabited by plants and animals; towns, houses, mountains,
rivers; and in short every thing I can discover or conceive in the
first system. Upon my enquiring concerning these, Theologians present
themselves, and tell me, that these also are modifications, and
modifications of one simple, uncompounded, and indivisible substance.
Immediately upon which I am deafened with the noise of a hundred voices,
that treat the first hypothesis with detestation and scorn, and the
second with applause and veneration. I turn my attention to these
hypotheses to see what may be the reason of so great a partiality; and
find that they have the same fault of being unintelligible, and that
as far as we can understand them, they are so much alike, that it is
impossible to discover any absurdity in one, which is not common to both
of them. We have no idea of any quality in an object, which does not
agree to, and may not represent a quality in an impression; and that
because all our ideas are derived from our impressions.
We can
never, therefore, find any repugnance betwixt an extended object as
a modification, and a simple uncompounded essence, as its substance,
unless that repugnance takes place equally betwixt the perception or
impression of that extended object, and the same uncompounded essence.
Every idea of a quality in an object passes through an impression;
and therefore every perceivable relation, whether of connexion or
repugnance, must be common both to objects and impressions.
But though this argument, considered in general, seems evident beyond
all doubt and contradiction, yet to make it more clear and sensible, let
us survey it in detail; and see whether all the absurdities, which have
been found in the system of Spinoza, may not likewise be discovered in
that of Theologians. [See Bayle's dictionary, article of Spinoza.]
First, It has been said against Spinoza, according to the scholastic way
of talking, rather than thinking, that a mode, not being any distinct
or separate existence, must be the very same with its substance,
and consequently the extension of the universe, must be in a manner
identifyed with that, simple, uncompounded essence, in which the
universe is supposed to inhere. But this, it may be pretended, is
utterly impossible and inconceivable unless the indivisible substance
expand itself, so as to correspond to the extension, or the extension
contract itself, so as to answer to the indivisible substance. This
argument seems just, as far as we can understand it; and it is plain
nothing is required, but a change in the terms, to apply the same
argument to our extended perceptions, and the simple essence of the
soul; the ideas of objects and perceptions being in every respect
the same, only attended with the supposition of a difference, that is
unknown and incomprehensible.
Secondly, It has been said, that we have no idea of substance, which is
not applicable to matter; nor any idea of a distinct substance, which is
not applicable to every distinct portion of matter.
Matter, therefore,
is not a mode but a substance, and each part of matter is not a distinct
mode, but a distinct substance. I have already proved, that we have no
perfect idea of substance; but that taking it for something, that can
exist by itself, it is evident every perception is a substance,
and every distinct part of a perception a distinct substance: And
consequently the one hypothesis labours under the same difficulties in
this respect with the other.
Thirdly, It has been objected to the system of one simple substance in
the universe, that this substance being the support or substratum of
every thing, must at the very same instant be modifyed into forms,
which are contrary and incompatible. The round and square figures are
incompatible in the same substance at the same time. How then is it
possible, that the same substance can at once be modifyed into
that square table, and into this round one? I ask the same question
concerning the impressions of these tables; and find that the answer is
no more satisfactory in one case than in the other.
It appears, then, that to whatever side we turn, the same difficulties
follow us, and that we cannot advance one step towards the establishing
the simplicity and immateriality o the soul, without preparing the
way for a dangerous and irrecoverable atheism. It is the same case, if
instead o calling thought a modification of the soul, we should give it
the more antient, and yet more modish name of an action.
By an action we
mean much the same thing, as what is commonly called an abstract
mode; that is, something, which, properly speaking, is neither
distinguishable, nor separable from its substance, and is only conceived
by a distinction of reason, or an abstraction. But nothing is gained by
this change of the term of modification, for that of action; nor do we
free ourselves from one single difficulty by its means; as will appear
from the two following reflexions.
First, I observe, that the word, action, according to this explication
of it, can never justly be applied to any perception, as derived from
a mind or thinking substance. Our perceptions are all really different,
and separable, and distinguishable from each other, and from everything
else, which we can imagine: and therefore it is impossible to conceive,
how they can be the action or abstract mode of any substance. The
instance of motion, which is commonly made use of to shew after what
manner perception depends, as an action, upon its substance, rather
confounds than instructs us. Motion to all appearance induces no real
nor essential change on the body, but only varies its relation to other
objects. But betwixt a person in the morning walking a garden with
company, agreeable to him; and a person in the afternoon inclosed in a
dungeon, and full of terror, despair, and resentment, there seems to be
a radical difference, and of quite another kind, than what is produced
on a body by the change of its situation. As we conclude from the
distinction and separability of their ideas, that external objects
have a separate existence from each other; so when we make these ideas
themselves our objects, we must draw the same conclusion concerning
them, according to the precedent reasoning. At least it must be confest,
that having idea of the substance of the soul, it is impossible for us
to tell how it can admit of such differences, and even contrarieties of
perception without any fundamental change; and consequently can never
tell in what sense perceptions are actions of that substance. The use,
therefore, of the word, action, unaccompanyed with any meaning, instead
of that of modification, makes no addition to our knowledge, nor is of
any advantage to the doctrine of the immateriality of the soul.
I add in the second place, that if it brings any advantage to that
cause, it must bring an equal to the cause of atheism.
For do our
Theologians pretend to make a monopoly of the word, action, and may not
the atheists likewise take possession of it, and affirm that plants,
animals, men, &c. are nothing but particular actions of one simple
universal substance, which exerts itself from a blind and
absolute necessity? This you'll say is utterly absurd. I own it is
unintelligible; but at the same time assert, according to the principles
above-explained, that it is impossible to discover any absurdity in the
supposition, that all the various objects in nature are actions of
one simple substance, which absurdity will not be applicable to a like
supposition concerning impressions and ideas.
From these hypotheses concerning the substance and local conjunction of
our perceptions, we may pass to another, which is more intelligible
than the former, and more important than the latter, viz. concerning the
cause of our perceptions. Matter and motion, it is commonly said in the
schools, however varyed, are still matter and motion, and produce only
a difference in the position and situation of objects.
Divide a body as
often as you please, it is still body. Place it in any figure, nothing
ever results but figure, or the relation of parts. Move it in any
manner, you still find motion or a change of relation.
It is absurd to
imagine, that motion in a circle, for instance, should be nothing but
merely motion in a circle; while motion in another direction, as in an
ellipse, should also be a passion or moral reflection: That the shocking
of two globular particles should become a sensation of pain, and that
the meeting of two triangular ones should afford a pleasure. Now as
these different shocks, and variations, and mixtures are the only
changes, of which matter is susceptible, and as these never afford us
any idea of thought or perception, it is concluded to be impossible,
that thought can ever be caused by matter.
Few have been able to withstand the seeming evidence of this argument;
and yet nothing in the world is more easy than to refute it. We need
only reflect on what has been proved at large, that we are never
sensible of any connexion betwixt causes and effects, and that it is
only by our experience of their constant conjunction, we can arrive
at any knowledge of this relation. Now as all objects, which are not
contrary, are susceptible of a constant conjunction, and as no real
objects are contrary [Part III. Sect. 15.]; I have inferred from these
principles, that to consider the matter A PRIORI, any thing may produce
any thing, and that we shall never discover a reason, why any object may
or may not be the cause of any other, however great, or however little
the resemblance may be betwixt them. This evidently destroys the
precedent reasoning concerning the cause of thought or perception. For
though there appear no manner of connexion betwixt motion or thought,
the case is the same with all other causes and effects.
Place one body
of a pound weight on one end of a lever, and another body of the same
weight on another end; you will never find in these bodies any principle
of motion dependent on their distances from the center, more than of
thought and perception. If you pretend, therefore, to prove a priori,
that such a position of bodies can never cause thought; because turn it
which way you will, it is nothing but a position of bodies; you must by
the same course of reasoning conclude, that it can never produce motion;
since there is no more apparent connexion in the one case than in the
other. But as this latter conclusion is contrary to evident experience,
and as it is possible we may have a like experience in the operations of
the mind, and may perceive a constant conjunction of thought and motion;
you reason too hastily, when from the mere consideration of the ideas,
you conclude that it is impossible motion can ever produce thought, or
a different position of parts give rise to a different passion or
reflection. Nay it is not only possible we may have such an experience,
but it is certain we have it; since every one may perceive, that the
different dispositions of his body change his thoughts and sentiments.
And should it be said, that this depends on the union of soul and
body; I would answer, that we must separate the question concerning the
substance of the mind from that concerning the cause of its thought; and
that confining ourselves to the latter question we find by the comparing
their ideas, that thought and motion are different from each other,
and by experience, that they are constantly united; which being all
the circumstances, that enter into the idea of cause and effect, when
applied to the operations of matter, we may certainly conclude, that
motion may be, and actually is, the cause of thought and perception.
There seems only this dilemma left us in the present case; either to
assert, that nothing can be the cause of another, but where the mind can
perceive the connexion in its idea of the objects: Or to maintain, that
all objects, which we find constantly conjoined, are upon that account
to be regarded as causes and effects. If we choose the first part of the
dilemma, these are the consequences. First, We in reality affirm,
that there is no such thing in the universe as a cause or productive
principle, not even the deity himself; since our idea of that supreme
Being is derived from particular impressions, none of which contain any
efficacy, nor seem to have any connexion with any other existence. As to
what may be said, that the connexion betwixt the idea of an infinitely
po