湊徨勵弌傍利 > 哂囂窮徨慕 > three dialogues >

及8准

three dialogues-及8准

弌傍�� three dialogues 忖方�� 耽匈4000忖

梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈��梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈��梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何��
!!!!隆堋響頼��紗秘慕禰厮宴和肝写偬堋響��



support your body��

     。 No�察�that is the literal sense。

     。 Pray let me know any sense�察�literal or not literal��
that you understand it in。  How long must I wait for an answer��
Hylas��

     。 I declare I know not what to say。 I once thought I
understood well enough what was meant by Matter's supporting
accidents。 But now�察�the more I think on it the less can I
comprehend it�此�in short I find that I know nothing of it。

     。 It seems then you have no idea at all�察�neither
relative nor positive�察�of Matter�察�you know neither what it is in
itself�察�nor what relation it bears to accidents��

     。 I acknowledge it。

     。 And yet you asserted that you could not conceive how
qualities or accidents should really exist�察�without conceiving at
the same time a material support of them��

     。 I did。

     。 That is to say�察�when you conceive the real existence
of qualities�察�you do withal conceive Something which you cannot
conceive��

     。 It was wrong�察�I own。 But still I fear there is some
fallacy or other。 Pray what think you of this�拭�It is just come
into my head that the ground of all our mistake lies in your
treating of each quality by itself。 Now�察�I grant that each
quality cannot singly subsist without the mind。 Colour cannot
without extension�察�neither can figure without some other sensible
quality。 But�察�as the several qualities united or blended together
form entire sensible things�察�nothing hinders why such things may
not be supposed to exist without the mind。

     。 Either�察�Hylas�察�you are jesting�察�or have a very bad
memory。 Though indeed we went through all the qualities by name
one after another�察�yet my arguments or rather your concessions��
nowhere tended to prove that the Secondary Qualities did not
subsist each alone by itself�察�but�察�that they were not ��200��  without the mind。 Indeed�察�in treating of figure and motion
we concluded they could not exist without the mind�察�because it
was impossible even in thought to separate them from all
secondary qualities�察�so as to conceive them existing by
themselves。 But then this was not the only argument made use of
upon that occasion。 But ��to pass by all that hath been hitherto
said�察�and reckon it for nothing�察�if you will have it so�� I am
content to put the whole upon this issue。 If you can conceive it
possible for any mixture or combination of qualities�察�or any
sensible object whatever�察�to exist without the mind�察�then I will
grant it actually to be so。

     。 If it comes to that the point will soon be decided。
What more easy than to conceive a tree or house existing by
itself�察�independent of�察�and unperceived by�察�any mind whatsoever��
I do at this present time conceive them existing after that
manner。

     。 How say you�察�Hylas�察�can you see a thing which is at
the same time unseen��

     。 No�察�that were a contradiction。

     。 Is it not as great a contradiction to talk of
 a thing which is ��

     。 It is。

     。 The�察�tree or house therefore which you think of is
conceived by you��

     。 How should it be otherwise��

     。 And what is conceived is surely in the mind��

     。 Without question�察�that which is conceived is in the
mind。

     。 How then came you to say�察�you conceived a house or
tree existing independent and out of all minds whatsoever��

     。 That was I own an oversight�察�but stay�察�let me
consider what led me into it。  It is a pleasant mistake enough。
As I was thinking of a tree in a solitary place�察�where no one was
present to see it�察�methought that was to conceive a tree as
existing unperceived or unthought of�察�not considering that I
myself conceived it all the while。 But now I plainly see that all
I can do is to frame ideas in my own mind。 I may indeed conceive
in my own thoughts the idea of a tree�察�or a house�察�or a mountain��
but that is all。 And this is far from proving that I can conceive
them 。

     。 You acknowledge then that you cannot possibly
conceive how any one corporeal sensible thing should exist
otherwise than in the mind�拭。�201��

     。 I do。

     。 And yet you will earnestly contend for the truth of
that which you cannot so much as conceive��

     。 I profess I know not what to think�察�but still there
are some scruples remain with me。 Is it not certain I  a distance�拭�Do we not perceive the stars and moon�察�for
example�察�to be a great way off�拭�Is not this�察�I say�察�manifest to
the senses��

     。 Do you not in a dream too perceive those or the like
objects��

     。 I do。

     。 And have they not then the same appearance of being
distant��

     。 They have。

     。 But you do not thence conclude the apparitions in a
dream to be without the mind��

     。 By no means。

     。 You ought not therefore to conclude that sensible
objects are without the mind�察�from their appearance�察�or manner
wherein they are perceived。

     。 I acknowledge it。 But doth not my sense deceive me in
those cases��

     。 By no means。 The idea or thing which you immediately
perceive�察�neither sense nor reason informs you that it actually
exists without the mind。 By sense you only know that you are
affected with such certain sensations of light and colours�察�&c。
And these you will not say are without the mind。

     。 True�此�but�察�beside all that�察�do you not think the
sight suggests something of ��

     。 Upon approaching a distant object�察�do the visible
size and figure change perpetually�察�or do they appear the same at
all distances��

     。 They are in a continual change。

     。 Sight therefore doth not suggest�察�or any way inform
you�察�that the visible object you immediately perceive exists at a
distance�察�or will be perceived when you advance farther onward��
there being a continued series of visible objects succeeding each
other during the whole time of your approach。

     。 It doth not�察�but still I know�察�upon seeing an object��
what object I shall perceive after having passed over a certain
distance�此。�202�� no matter whether it be exactly the same or no��
there is still something of distance suggested in the case。

     。 Good Hylas�察�do but reflect a little on the point��
and then tell me whether there be any more in it than this�此�from
the ideas you actually perceive by sight�察�you have by experience
learned to collect what other ideas you will ��according to the
standing order of nature�� be affected with�察�after such a certain
succession of time and motion。

     。 Upon the whole�察�I take it to be nothing else。

     。 Now�察�is it not plain that if we suppose a man born
blind was on a sudden made to see�察�he could at first have no
experience of what may be  by sight��

     。 It is。

     。 He would not then�察�according to you�察�have any notion
of distance annexed to the things he saw�察�but would take them for
a new set of sensations�察�existing only in his mind��

     。 It is undeniable。

     。 But�察�to make it still more plain�此�is not 
a line turned endwise to the eye��

     。 It is。

     。 And can a line so situated be perceived by sight��

     。 It cannot。

     。 Doth it not therefore follow that distance is not
properly and immediately perceived by sight��

     。 It should seem so。

     。 Again�察�is it your opinion that colours are at a
distance��

     。 It must be acknowledged they are only in the mind。

     。 But do not colours appear to the eye as coexisting
in the same place with extension and figures��

     。 They do。

     。 How can you then conclude from sight that figures
exist without�察�when you acknowledge colours do not�察�the sensible
appearance being the very same with regard to both��

     。 I know not what to answer。

     。 But�察�allowing that distance was truly and
immediately perceived by the mind�察�yet it would not thence follow
it existed out of the mind。 For�察�whatever is immediately
perceived is an idea�此�and can any idea exist out of the mind��

     。 To suppose that were absurd�此�but�察�inform me��
Philonous�察�can we perceive or know nothing beside our ideas��

     。 As for the rational deducing of causes from effects��
��203�� that is beside our inquiry。 And�察�by the senses you can best
tell whether you perceive anything which is not immediately
perceived。 And I ask you�察�whether the things immediately
perceived are other than your own sensations or ideas�拭�You have
indeed more than once�察�in the course of this conversation��
declared yourself on those points�察�but you seem�察�by this last
question�察�to have departed from what you then thought。

     。 To speak the truth�察�Philonous�察�I think there are two
kinds of objects�此 �the one perceived immediately�察�which are
likewise called �察�the other are real things or external
objects�察�perceived by the mediation of ideas�察�which are their
images and representations。 Now�察�I own 

卦指朕村 貧匯匈 和匯匈 指欺競何 壘��0�� 家��0��

低辛嬬浪散議