1. Our knowledge conversant about our ideas only. Since the mind, in al its thoughts and
reasonings, hath no other immediate object but its own ideas, which it alone does or can
contemplate, it is evident that our knowledge is only conversant about them.
2. Knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. Knowledge then
seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connexion of and agreement, or disagreement
and repugnancy of any of our ideas. In this alone it consists. Where this perception is, there is
knowledge, and where it is not, there, though we may fancy, guess, or believe, yet we always come
short of knowledge. For when we know that white is not black, what do we else but perceive, that
these two ideas do not agree? When we possess ourselves with the utmost security of the
demonstration, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones, what do we more but
perceive, that equality to two right ones does necessarily agree to, and is inseparable from, the
three angles of a triangle?
3. This agreement or disagreement may be any of four sorts. But to understand a little more
distinctly wherein this agreement or disagreement consists, I think we may reduce it all to these four
sorts:
I. Identity, or diversity.
II. Relation.
III. Co-existence, or necessary connexion.
IV. Real existence.
4. Of identity, or diversity in ideas. First, As to the first sort of agreement or disagreement, viz.,
identity or diversity. It is the first act of the mind, when it has any sentiments or ideas at all, to
perceive its ideas; and so far as it perceives them, to know each what it is, and thereby also to
perceive their difference, and that one is not another. This is so absolutely necessary, that without it
there could be no knowledge, no reasoning, no imagination, no distinct thoughts at all. By this the
mind clearly and infallibly perceives each idea to agree with itself, and to be what it is; and all
distinct ideas to disagree, i.e., the one not to be the other: and this it does without pains, labour, or
deduction; but at first view, by its natural power of perception and distinction. And though men of art
have reduced this into those general rules, What is, is, and It is impossible for the same thing to be
and not to be, for ready application in all cases, wherein there may be occasion to reflect on it: yet it
is certain that the first exercise of this faculty is about particular ideas. A man infallibly knows, as
soon as ever he has them in his mind, that the ideas he calls white and round are the very ideas
they are; and that they are not other ideas which he calls red or square. Nor can any maxim or
proposition in the world make him know it clearer or surer than he did before, and without any such
general rule. This then is the first agreement or disagreement which the mind perceives in its ideas;
which it always perceives at first sight: and if there ever happen any doubt about it, it will always be
found to be about the names, and not the ideas themselves, whose identity and diversity will always
be perceived, as soon and clearly as the ideas themselves are; nor can it possibly be otherwise.
5. Of abstract relations between ideas. Secondly, the next sort of agreement or disagreement the
mind perceives in any of its ideas may, I think, be called relative, and is nothing but the perception of
the relation between any two ideas, of what kind soever, whether substances, modes, or any other.
For, since all distinct ideas must eternally be known not to be the same, and so be universally and
constantly denied one of another, there could be no room for any positive knowledge at all, if we
could not perceive any relation between our ideas, and find out the agreement or disagreement they
have one with another, in several ways the mind takes of comparing them.
6. Of their necessary co-existence in substances. Thirdly, The third sort of agreement or
disagreement to be found in our ideas, which the perception of the mind is employed about, is co-
existence or non-co-existence in the same subject; and this belongs particularly to substances.
Thus when we pronounce concerning gold, that it is fixed, our knowledge of this truth amounts to no
more but this, that fixedness, or a power to remain in the fire unconsumed, is an idea that always
accompanies and is joined with that particular sort of yellowness, weight, fusibility, malleableness,
and solubility in aqua regia, which make our complex idea signified by the word gold,
7. Of real existence agreeing to any idea. Fourthly, The fourth and last sort is that of actual real
existence agreeing to any idea.
Within these four sorts of agreement or disagreement is, I suppose, contained al the knowledge we
have, or are capable of For all the inquiries we can make concerning any of our ideas, all that we
know or can affirm concerning any of them, is, That it is, or is not, the same with some other; that it
does or does not always coexist with some other idea in the same subject; that it has this or that
relation with some other idea; or that it has a real existence without the mind. Thus, "blue is not
yellow," is of identity. "Two triangles upon equal bases between two parallels are equal," is of
relation. "Iron is susceptible of magnetical impressions," is of co-existence. "God is," is of real
existence. Though identity and co-existence are truly nothing but relations, yet they are such
peculiar ways of agreement or disagreement of our ideas, that they deserve well to be considered
as distinct heads, and not under relation in general; since they are so different grounds of
affirmation and negation, as will easily appear to any one, who will but reflect on what is said in
several places of this Essay.
I should now proceed to examine the several degrees of our knowledge, but that it is necessary first,
to consider the different acceptations of the word knowledge.
8. Knowledge is either actual or habitual. There are several ways wherein the mind is possessed of
truth; each of which is called knowledge.
I. There is actual knowledge, which is the present view the mind has of the agreement or
disagreement of any of its ideas, or of the relation they have one to another.
II. A man is said to know any proposition, which having been once laid before his thoughts, he
evidently perceived the agreement or disagreement of the ideas whereof it consists; and so lodged it
in his memory, that whenever that proposition comes again to be reflected on, he, without doubt or
hesitation, embraces the right side, assents to, and is certain of the truth of it. This, I think, one may
call habitual knowledge. And thus a man may be said to know all those truths which are lodged in
his memory, by a foregoing clear and full perception, whereof the mind is assured past doubt as
often as it has occasion to reflect on them. For our finite understandings being able to think clearly
and distinctly but on one thing at once, if men had no knowledge of any more than what they
actually thought on, they would all be very ignorant: and he that knew most, would know but one
truth, that being all he was able to think on at one time.
9. Habitual knowledge is of two degrees. Of habitual knowledge there are, also, vulgarly speaking.
two degrees:
First, The one is of such truths laid up in the memory as, whenever they occur to the mind, it actually
perceives the relation is between those ideas. And this is in all those truths whereof we have an
intuitive knowledge; where the ideas themselves, by an immediate view, discover their agreement or
disagreement one with another.
Secondly, The other is of such truths whereof the mind having been convinced, it retains the
memory of the conviction, without the proofs. Thus, a man that remembers certainly that he once
perceived the demonstration, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones, is
certain that he knows it, because he cannot doubt the truth of it. In his adherence to a truth, where
the demonstration by which it was at first known is forgot, though a man may be thought rather to
believe his memory than really to know, and this way of entertaining a truth seemed formerly to me
like something between opinion and knowledge; a sort of assurance which exceeds bare belief, for
that relies on the testimony of another;--yet upon a due examination I find it comes not short of
perfect certainty, and is in effect true knowledge. That which is apt to mislead our first thoughts into
a mistake in this matter is, that the agreement or disagreement of the ideas in this case is not
perceived, as it was at first, by an actual view of all the intermediate ideas whereby the agreement
or disagreement of those in the proposition was at first perceived; but by other intermediate ideas,
that show the agreement or disagreement of the ideas contained in the proposition whose certainty
we remember. For example: in this proposition, that "the three angles of a triangle are equal to two
right ones," one who has seen and clearly perceived the demonstration of this truth knows it to be
true, when that demonstration is gone out of his mind; so that at present it is not actually in view,
and possibly cannot be recollected: but he knows it in a different way from what he did before. The
agreement of the two ideas joined in that proposition is perceived; but it is by the intervention of
other ideas than those which at first produced that perception. He remembers, i.e., he knows (for
remembrance is but the reviving of some past knowledge) that he was once certain of the truth of
this proposition, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones. The immutability of
the same relations between the same immutable things is now the idea that shows him, that if the
three angles of a triangle were once equal to two right ones, they will always be equal to two right
ones. And hence he comes to be certain, that what was once true in the case, is always true; what
ideas once agreed will always agree; and consequently what he once knew to be true, he will
always know to be true; as long as he can remember that he once knew it. Upon this ground it is,
that particular demonstrations in mathematics afford general knowledge. If then the perception, that
the same ideas will eternally have the same habitudes and relations, be not a sufficient ground of
knowledge, there could be no knowledge of general propositions in mathematics; for no
mathematical demonstration would be any other than particular: and when a man had demonstrated
any proposition concerning one triangle or circle, his knowledge would not reach beyond that
particular diagram. If he would extend it further, he must renew his demonstration in another
instance, before he could know it to be true in another like triangle, and so on: by which means one
could never come to the knowledge of any general propositions. Nobody, I think, can deny, that Mr.
Newton certainly knows any proposition that he now at any time reads in his book to be true; though
he has not in actual view that admirable chain of intermediate ideas whereby he at first discovered it
to be true. Such a memory as that, able to retain such a train of particulars, may be well thought
beyond the reach of human faculties, when the very discovery, perception, and laying together that
wonderful connexion of ideas, is found to surpass most readers' comprehension. But yet it is evident
the author himself knows the proposition to be true, remembering he once saw the connexion of
those ideas; as certainly as he knows such a man wounded another, remembering that he saw him
run him through. But because the memory is not always so clear as actual perception, and does in
all men more or less decay in length of time, this, amongst other differences, is one which shows
that demonstrative knowledge is much more imperfect than intuitive, as we shall see in the following
chapter.