|
Ideas
and Senses
by John Locke
It is an established opinion among some men that
there are in the understanding certain innate
principles; some primary notions, 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 ... 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 anyone will easily grant
that it would be impertinent to suppose the ideas
of colors 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.
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.
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.
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 gives an universal assent. I shall begin
with the speculative, and instance in those
magnified principles of demonstration, "Whatever
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 anyone 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.
***
Every man being conscious to himself, that he
thinks; and that which his mind is applied about
while thinking being the ideas that are there, it
is past doubt that men have in their minds several
ideas, -- such as are those expressed by the words
whiteness, hardness, sweetness, thinking,
motion, man, elephant, army, drunkenness, and
others: it is in the first place, then, to be
inquired. How he comes by them? I know it is
a received doctrine, that men have native ideas,
and original characters, stamped upon their minds
in their very first being. This opinion I have at
large examined already; and I suppose what I have
said in the foregoing Book will be much more easily
admitted, when I have shown whence the
understanding may get all. the ideas it has; and by
what ways and degrees they may come into the mind;
-- for which I shall appeal to every one's own
observation and experience.
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say,
white paper, void of all characters, without any
ideas; -- how comes it to be furnished? Whence
comes it by that vast store which the busy and
boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an
almost endless variety? Whence has it all the
materials of reason and knowledge? To this I
answer, in one word, from experience. In that all
our knowledge is founded; and from that it
ultimately derives itself. Our observation,
employed either about external sensible objects, or
about the internal operations of our minds,
perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that
which supplies our understandings with all the
materials of thinking. These two are the
fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas
we have, or can naturally have, do spring.
First our senses, conversant about particular
sensible objects, do convey into the mind several
distinct perceptions of things, according to those
various ways wherein those objects do affect them.
And thus we come by those ideas we have of
yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter,
sweet, and all those which we call sensible
qualities; which when I say the senses convey into
the mind, I mean, they from external objects convey
into the mind what produces there those
perceptions. This great source of most of the ideas
we have, depending wholly upon our senses, and
derived by them to the understanding, I call
Sensation.
Secondly, the other fountain from which
experience furnisheth the understanding with ideas
is, -- the perception of the operations of our own
mind within us, as it is employed about the ideas
it has got; -- which operations, when the soul
comes to reflect on and consider, do furnish the
understanding with another set of ideas, which
could not be had from things without. And such are
perception, thinking, doubting, believing,
reasoning, knowing, willing, and all the
different actings of our own minds; which we being
conscious of and observing in ourselves, do from
these receive into our understandings as distinct
ideas as we do from bodies affecting our senses.
This source of ideas every man has wholly in
himself; and though it be not sense, as having
nothing to do with external objects be called
internal sense. But as I call the other
sensation, so I call this Reflection, the ideas it
affords being such only as the mind gets by
reflecting on its own operations within itself. By
reflection then, in the following part of this
discourse, I would be understood to mean that
notice which the mind takes of its own operations,
and the manner of them, by reason whereof there
come to be ideas of these operations in the
understanding. These two, I say, viz. external
material things, as the objects of sensation, and
the operations of our minds within, as the objects
of reflection, are to me the only originals from
whence all our ideas take their beginnings. The
term operations here I use in a large sense,
as comprehending not barely the actions of the mind
about its ideas, but some sort of passions arising
sometimes from them, such as is the satisfaction or
uneasiness arising from any thought.
The understanding seems to me not to have the
least glimmering of any ideas which it doth not
receive from one of these two. External
objects furnish the mind with the ideas of
sensible qualities, which are all those different
perceptions they produce in us; and the mind
furnishes the understanding with ideas of its own
operations.
These, when we have taken a full survey of them,
and their several modes [combinations, and
relations], we shall find to contain all our
whole stock of ideas; and that we have nothing in
our minds which did not come in one of these two
ways. Let any one examine his own thoughts, and
thoroughly search into his understanding; and then
let him tell me, whether all the original ideas he
has there, are any other than of the objects of his
senses, or of the operations of his mind,
considered as objects of his reflection. And how
great a mass of knowledge soever he imagines to be
lodged there, he will, upon taking a strict view,
see that he has not any idea in his mind but what
one of these two have imprinted, -- though perhaps
with infinite variety compounded and enlarged by
the understanding, as we shall see hereafter.
***
To discover the nature of our ideas the better,
and to discourse of them intelligibly, it will be
convenient to distinguish them as they are ideas
or perceptions in our minds; and as they are
modifications of matter in the bodies that cause
such perceptions in us; that so we may not
think (as perhaps usually is done) that they are
exactly the images and resemblances of something
inherent in the subject; most of those of sensation
being in the mind no more the likeness of something
existing without us, than the names that stand for
them are the likeness of our ideas, which yet upon
hearing they are apt to excite in us.
Whatsoever the mind perceives in itself, or is
the immediate object of perception, thought, or
understanding, that I call idea; and the
power to produce any idea in our mind, I call
quality of the subject wherein that power
is. Thus a snowball having the power to produce in
us the ideas of white, cold, and round, -- the
power to produce those ideas in us, as they are in
the snowball, I call qualities; and as they are
sensations or perceptions in our understandings, I
call them ideas; which ideas, if I speak of
sometimes as in the things themselves, I would be
understood to mean those qualities in the objects
which produce them in us.
[Qualities thus considered in bodies are.
First, such as are utterly inseparable from
the body, in what estate soever it be]; and
such as in all the alterations and changes it
suffers, all the force can be used upon it, it
constantly keeps; and such as sense constantly
finds in every particle of matter which has bulk
enough to be perceived; and the mind finds
inseparable from every particle of matter, though
less than to make itself singly be perceived by our
senses: v.g. take a grain of wheat, divide it into
two parts; each part has still solidity, extension,
figure, and mobility; divide it again, and it
retains still the same qualities; and so divide it
on, until the parts become insensible; they must
retain still each of them all those qualities. For
division (which is all that a mill, or pestle, or
any other body, does upon another, in reducing it
to insensible parts) can never take away either
solidity, extension, figure, or mobility from any
body, but only makes two or more distinct separate
masses of matter, of that which was but one before;
all which distinct masses, reckoned as so many
distinct bodies, after division, make a certain
number. [These I call original or
primary qualities of body, which I think we
may observe to produce simple ideas in us, viz.
solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and
number.]
Secondly, such qualities, which in truth
are nothing in the objects themselves but powers to
produce various sensations in us by their primary
qualities, i.e., by the bulk, figure, texture, and
motion of their insensible parts, as colors,
sounds, tastes, etc. These I call secondary
qualities. To these might be added a
third sort, which are allowed to be barely
powers; though they are as much real qualities in
the subject as those which I, to comply with the
common way of speaking, call qualities, but for
distinction, secondary qualities. [For
the power in fire to produce a new color, or
consistency, in wax or clay, -- by its primary
qualities, is as much a quality in fire, as the
power it has to produce in me a new idea or
sensation of warmth or burning, which I felt not
before, -- by the same primary qualities, viz. the
bulk, texture, and motion of its insensible
parts].
[The next thing to be considered is, how
bodies produce ideas in us; and that is manifestly
by impulse, the only way which we can conceive
bodies to operate in].
If, then, external objects be not united to our
minds when they produce ideas therein; and yet we
perceive these original qualities in such of them
as singly fall under our senses, it is evident that
some motion must be thence continued by our nerves,
or animal spirits, by some parts of our bodies, to
the brains or the seat of sensation, there to
produce in our minds the particular ideas we have
of them. And since the extension, figure, number,
and motion of bodies of an observable bigness, may
be perceived at a distance by the sight, it is
evident some singly imperceptible bodies must come
from them to the eyes, and thereby convey to the
brain some motion; which produces these ideas which
we have of them in us.
After the same manner that the ideas of these
original qualities are produced in us, we may
conceive that the ideas of secondary
qualities are also produced, viz. by the operation
of insensible particles on our senses. For, it
being manifest that there are bodies and good store
of bodies, each whereof are so small, that we
cannot by any of our senses discover either their
bulk, figure, or motion, -- as is evident in the
particles of the air and water, and others
extremely smaller than those, perhaps as much
smaller than the particles of air or water, as the
particles of air or water are smaller than peas or
hail stones; -- let us suppose at present that the
different motions and figures, bulk and number, of
such particles, affecting the several organs of our
senses, produce in us those different sensations
which we have from the colors and smells of bodies;
v.g. that a violet, by the impulse of such
insensible particles of matter, of peculiar figures
and bulks, and in different degress and
modifications of their motions, causes the ideas of
the blue color, and sweet scent of that flower to
be produced in our minds. It being no more
impossible to conceive that God should annex such
ideas to such motions, with which they have no
similitude, than that he should annex the idea of
pain to the motion of a piece of steel dividing our
flesh, with which that idea hath no
resemblance.
What I have said concerning colors and smells,
may be understood also of tastes and sounds, and
other the like sensible qualities; which, whatever
reality we by mistake attribute to them, are in
truth nothing in the objects themselves, but powers
to produce various sensations in us; and depend on
those primary qualities, viz. bulk, figure,
texture, and motion of parts [as I have
said].
From whence I think it is easy to draw this
observation, -- that the ideas of primary qualities
of bodies are resemblances of them, and their
patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves,
but the ideas produced in us by these secondary
qualities have no resemblance of them at all. There
is nothing like our ideas, existing in the bodies
themselves. They are, in the bodies we denominate
from them, only a power to produce those sensations
in us; and what is sweet, blue, or warm in idea, is
but the certain bulk, figure, and motion of the
insensible parts, in the bodies themselves, which
we call so.
The qualities, then, that are in bodies, rightly
considered, are of three sorts: --
First, The bulk, figure, number,
situation, and motion or rest of their solid parts.
Those are in them, whether we perceive them or not;
and when they are of that size that we can discover
them, we have by these an idea of the thing as it
is in itself; as is plain in artificial things.
These I call primary qualities.
Secondly, The power that is in any body,
by reason of its insensible primary qualities, to
operate after a peculiar manner on any of our
senses, and thereby produce in us the different
ideas of several colors, sounds, smells, tastes,
etc. These are usually called sensible
qualities.
Thirdly, The power that is in any body,
by reason of the particular constitution of its
primary qualities, to make such a change in the
bulk, figure, texture, and motion of another
body, as to make it operate on our senses
differently from what it did before. Thus the sun
has a power to make wax white, and fire to make
lead fluid. [These are usually called
powers].
The first of these, as has been said, I think
may be properly called real, original, or primary
qualities; because they are in the things
themselves, whether they are perceived or not; and
upon their different modifications it is that the
secondary qualities depend.
The other two are only powers to act differently
upon other things; which powers result from the
different modifications of those primary
qualities.
But, though the two latter sorts of qualities
are powers barely, and nothing but powers, relating
to several other bodies, and resulting from the
different modifications of the original qualities,
yet they are generally otherwise thought of. For
the second sort, viz. the powers to produce several
ideas in us, by our senses, are looked upon as real
qualities in the things thus affecting us; but the
third sort are called and esteemed barely powers.
V.g. The idea of heat or light, which we receive by
our eyes, or touch, from the sun are commonly
thought real qualities existing in the sun, and
something more than mere powers in it. But when we
consider the sun in reference to wax, which it
melts or blanches, we look on the whiteness and
softness produced in the wax, not as qualities in
the sun, but effects produced by powers in it.
Whereas, if rightly considered, these qualities of
light and warmth, which are perceptions in me when
I am warmed or enlightened by the sun, are no
otherwise in the sun, than the changes made in the
wax, when it is blanched or melted, are in the sun.
They are all of them equally powers in the sun,
depending on its primary qualities; whereby it
is able, in the one case, so to alter the bulk,
figure, texture, or motion of some of the
insensible parts of my eyes or hands, as thereby to
produce in me the idea of light or heat; and in the
other, it is able so to alter the bulk, figure,
texture, or motion of the insensible parts of the
wax, as to make them fit to produce in me the
distinct ideas of white and fluid.
The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for
real qualities and the other only for bare powers,
seems to be, because the ideas we have of distinct
colors, sounds, etc., containing nothing at all in
them of bulk, figure, or motion, we are not apt to
think them the effects of these primary qualities;
which appear not, to our senses, to operate in
their production, and with which they have not any
apparent congruity or conceivable connection. Hence
it is that we are so forward to imagine, that those
ideas are the resemblances of something really
existing in the objects themselves; since sensation
discovers nothing of bulk, figure, or motion of
parts in their production; nor can reason show how
bodies, by their bulk, figure, and motion,
should produce in the mind the ideas of blue or
yellow, etc. But, in the other case, in the
operations of bodies changing the qualities one of
another, we plainly discover that the quality
produced hath commonly no resemblance with anything
in the thing producing it; wherefore we look on it
as a bare effect of power.
For, through receiving the idea of heat or light
from the sun, we are apt to think it is a
perception and resemblance of such a quality in the
sun; yet when we see wax, or a fair face, receive
change of color from the sun, we cannot imagine
that to be the reception or resemblance of
anything in the sun, because we find not those
different colors in the sun itself. For, our senses
being able to observe a likeness or unlikeness of
sensible qualities in two different external
objects, we forwardly enough conclude the
production of any sensible quality in any subject
to be an effect of bare power, and not the
communication of any quality which was really in
the efficient, when we find no such sensible
quality in the thing that produced it. But our
senses, not being able ft, to discover any likeness
between the idea produced in us, and the quality of
the object producing it, we are apt to imagine that
our ideas are resemblances of something in the
objects, and not the effects of certain powers
placed in the modification of their primary
qualities, with which primary qualities the ideas
produced in us have no resemblance.
Excerpted from An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding, by John
Locke
|
An
Essay Concerning
Human
Understanding,
by
John Locke
|