1. Objection. 'Knowledge placed in our Ideas may be all unreal or
chimerical'
I DOUBT not but my reader, by this time, may be apt to think that I have
been all this while only building a castle in the air; and be ready to
say to me:--
'To what purpose all this stir? Knowledge, say you, is only the
perception of the agreement or disagreement of our own ideas: but who
knows what those ideas may be? Is there anything so extravagant as the
imaginations of men's brains? Where is the head that has no chimeras in
it? Or if there be a sober and a wise man, what difference will
there be, by your rules, between his knowledge and that of the most
extravagant fancy in the world? They both have their ideas, and perceive
their agreement and disagreement one with another. If there be any
difference between them, the advantage will be on the warm-headed man's
side, as having the more ideas, and the more lively. And so, by your
rules, he will be the more knowing. If it be true, that all knowledge
lies only in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our own
ideas, the visions of an enthusiast and the reasonings of a sober man
will be equally certain. It is no matter how things are: so a man
observe but the agreement of his own imaginations, and talk conformably,
it is all truth, all certainty. Such castles in the air will be as
strongholds of truth, as the demonstrations of Euclid. That an harpy is
not a centaur is by this way as certain knowledge, and as much a truth,
as that a square is not a circle.
'But of what use is all this fine knowledge of MEN'S OWN IMAGINATIONS,
to a man that inquires after the reality of things? It matters not what
men's fancies are, it is the knowledge of things that is only to be
prized: it is this alone gives a value to our reasonings, and preference
to one man's knowledge over another's, that it is of things as they
really are, and not of dreams and fancies.'
2. Answer Not so, where Ideas agree with Things.
To which I answer, That if our knowledge of our ideas terminate in them,
and reach no further, where there is something further intended, our
most serious thoughts will be of little more use than the reveries of
a crazy brain; and the truths built thereon of no more weight than the
discourses of a man who sees things clearly in a dream, and with great
assurance utters them. But I hope, before I have done, to make it
evident, that this way of certainty, by the knowledge of our own ideas,
goes a little further than bare imagination: and I believe it will
appear that all the certainty of general truths a man has lies in
nothing else.
3. But what shall be the criterion of this agreement?
It is evident the mind knows not things immediately, but only by the
intervention of the ideas it has of them. Our knowledge, therefore, is
real only so far as there is a CONFORMITY between our ideas and the
reality of things. But what shall be here the criterion? How shall the
mind, when it perceives nothing but its own ideas, know that they agree
with things themselves? This, though it seems not to want difficulty,
yet, I think, there be two sorts of ideas that we may be assured agree
with things.
4. As, First All Simple Ideas are really conformed to Things.
FIRST, The first are simple ideas, which since the mind, as has been
showed, can by no means make to itself, must necessarily be the product
of things operating on the mind, in a natural way, and producing therein
those perceptions which by the Wisdom and Will of our Maker they are
ordained and adapted to. From whence it follows, that simple ideas are
not fictions of our fancies, but the natural and regular productions of
things without us, really operating upon us; and so carry with them all
the conformity which is intended; or which our state requires: for they
represent to us things under those appearances which they are fitted
to produce in us: whereby we are enabled to distinguish the sorts of
particular substances, to discern the states they are in, and so to take
them for our necessities, and apply them to our uses. Thus the idea of
whiteness, or bitterness, as it is in the mind, exactly answering
that power which is in any body to produce it there, has all the real
conformity it can or ought to have, with things without us. And this
conformity between our simple ideas and the existence of things, is
sufficient for real knowledge.
5. Secondly, All Complex Ideas, except ideas of Substances, are their
own archetypes.
Secondly, All our complex ideas, EXCEPT THOSE OF SUBSTANCES, being
archetypes of the mind's own making, not intended to be the copies
of anything, nor referred to the existence of anything, as to their
originals, cannot want any conformity necessary to real knowledge. For
that which is not designed to represent anything but itself, can never
be capable of a wrong representation, nor mislead us from the true
apprehension of anything, by its dislikeness to it: and such, excepting
those of substances, are all our complex ideas. Which, as I have showed
in another place, are combinations of ideas, which the mind, by its free
choice, puts together, without considering any connexion they have in
nature. And hence it is, that in all these sorts the ideas themselves
are considered as the archetypes, and things no otherwise regarded, but
as they are conformable to them. So that we cannot but be infallibly
certain, that all the knowledge we attain concerning these ideas is
real, and reaches things themselves. Because in all our thoughts,
reasonings, and discourses of this kind, we intend things no further
than as they are conformable to our ideas. So that in these we cannot
miss of a certain and undoubted reality.
6. Hence the reality of Mathematical Knowledge
I doubt not but it will be easily granted, that the knowledge we have of
mathematical truths is not only certain, but real knowledge; and not the
bare empty vision of vain, insignificant chimeras of the brain: and yet,
if we will consider, we shall find that it is only of our own ideas.
The mathematician considers the truth and properties belonging to a
rectangle or circle only as they are in idea in his own mind. For it is
possible he never found either of them existing mathematically, i.e.
precisely true, in his life. But yet the knowledge he has of any truths
or properties belonging to a circle, or any other mathematical figure,
are nevertheless true and certain, even of real things existing: because
real things are no further concerned, nor intended to be meant by any
such propositions, than as things really agree to those archetypes in
his mind. Is it true of the IDEA of a triangle, that its three angles
are equal to two right ones? It is true also of a triangle, wherever
it REALLY EXISTS. Whatever other figure exists, that it is not exactly
answerable to that idea of a triangle in his mind, is not at all
concerned in that proposition. And therefore he is certain all his
knowledge concerning such ideas is real knowledge: because, intending
things no further than they agree with those his ideas, he is sure
what he knows concerning those figures, when they have BARELY AN IDEAL
EXISTENCE in his mind, will hold true of them also when they have A REAL
EXISTANCE in matter: his consideration being barely of those figures,
which are the same wherever or however they exist.
7. And of Moral.
And hence it follows that moral knowledge is as capable of real
certainty as mathematics. For certainty being but the perception of the
agreement or disagreement of our ideas, and demonstration nothing but
the perception of such agreement, by the intervention of other ideas
or mediums; our moral ideas, as well as mathematical, being archetypes
themselves, and so adequate and complete ideas; all the agreement or
disagreement which we shall find in them will produce real knowledge, as
well as in mathematical figures.
8. Existence not required to make Abstract Knowledge real.
[For the attaining of knowledge and certainty, it is requisite that we
have determined ideas:] and, to make our knowledge real, it is requisite
that the ideas answer their archetypes. Nor let it be wondered, that I
place the certainty of our knowledge in the consideration of our ideas,
with so little care and regard (as it may seem) to the real existence of
things: since most of those discourses which take up the thoughts and
engage the disputes of those who pretend to make it their business to
inquire after truth and certainty, will, I presume, upon examination, be
found to be general propositions, and notions in which existence is not
at all concerned. All the discourses of the mathematicians about the
squaring of a circle, conic sections, or any other part of mathematics,
concern not the existence of any of those figures: but their
demonstrations, which depend on their ideas, are the same, whether there
be any square or circle existing in the world or no. In the same manner,
the truth and certainty of moral discourses abstracts from the lives of
men, and the existence of those virtues in the world whereof they treat:
nor are Tully's Offices less true, because there is nobody in the world
that exactly practises his rules, and lives up to that pattern of a
virtuous man which he has given us, and which existed nowhere when he
writ but in idea. If it be true in speculation, i.e. in idea, that
murder deserves death, it will also be true in reality of any action
that exists conformable to that idea of murder. As for other
actions, the truth of that proposition concerns them not. And thus it is
of all other species of things, which have no other essences but those
ideas which are in the minds of men.
9. Nor will it be less true or certain, because Moral Ideas are of our
own making and naming.
But it will here be said, that if moral knowledge be placed in the
contemplation of our own moral ideas, and those, as other modes, be
of our own making, What strange notions will there be of justice and
temperance? What confusion of virtues and vices, if every one may make
what ideas of them he pleases? No confusion or disorder in the things
themselves, nor the reasonings about them; no more than (in mathematics)
there would be a disturbance in the demonstration, or a change in the
properties of figures, and their relations one to another, if a man
should make a triangle with four corners, or a trapezium with four right
angles: that is, in plain English, change the names of the figures, and
call that by one name, which mathematicians call ordinarily by another.
For, let a man make to himself the idea of a figure with three angles,
whereof one is a right one, and call it, if he please, EQUILATERUM or
TRAPEZIUM, or anything else; the properties of, and demonstrations about
that idea will be the same as if he called it a rectangular triangle. I
confess the change of the name, by the impropriety of speech, will at
first disturb him who knows not what idea it stands for: but as soon as
the figure is drawn, the consequences and demonstrations are plain and
clear. Just the same is it in moral knowledge: let a man have the idea
of taking from others, without their consent, what their honest industry
has possessed them of, and call this JUSTICE if he please. He that takes
the name here without the idea put to it will be mistaken, by joining
another idea of his own to that name: but strip the idea of that name,
or take it such as it is in the speaker's mind, and the same things will
agree to it, as if you called it INJUSTICE. Indeed, wrong names in moral
discourses breed usually more disorder, because they are not so easily
rectified as in mathematics, where the figure, once drawn and seen,
makes the name useless and of no force. For what need of a sign, when
the thing signified is present and in view? But in moral names, that
cannot be so easily and shortly done, because of the many decompositions
that go to the making up the complex ideas of those modes. But yet for
all this, the miscalling of any of those ideas, contrary to the usual
signification of the words of that language, hinders not but that we may
have certain and demonstrative knowledge of their several agreements and
disagreements, if we will carefully, as in mathematics, keep to the same
precise ideas, and trace THEM in their several relations one to another,
without being led away by their names. If we but separate the idea under
consideration from the sign that stands for it, our knowledge goes
equally on in the discovery of real truth and certainty, whatever sounds
we make use of.
10. Misnaming disturbs not the certainty of the Knowledge
One thing more we are to take notice of, That where God or any other
law-maker, hath defined any moral names, there they have made the
essence of that species to which that name belongs; and there it is
not safe to apply or use them otherwise: but in other cases it is bare
impropriety of speech to apply them contrary to the common usage of
the country. But yet even this too disturbs not the certainty of that
knowledge, which is still to be had by a due contemplation and comparing
of those even nick-named ideas.
11. Thirdly, Our complex Ideas of Substances have their Archetypes
without us; and here knowledge comes short.
THIRDLY, There is another sort of complex ideas, which, being referred
to archetypes without us, may differ from them, and so our knowledge
about them may come short of being real. Such are our ideas of
substances, which, consisting of a collection of simple ideas, supposed
taken from the works of nature, may yet vary from them; by having more
or different ideas united in them than are to be found united in the
things themselves. From whence it comes to pass, that they may, and
often do, fail of being exactly conformable to things themselves.
12. So far as our complex ideas agree with those Archetypes without us,
so far our Knowledge concerning Substances is real.
I say, then, that to have ideas of SUBSTANCES which, by being
conformable to things, may afford us real knowledge, it is not enough,
as in MODES, to put together such ideas as have no inconsistence, though
they did never before so exist: v.g. the ideas of sacrilege or perjury,
&c., were as real and true ideas before, as after the existence of any
such fact. But our ideas of substances, being supposed copies, and
referred to archetypes without us, must still be taken from something
that does or has existed: they must not consist of ideas put together at
the pleasure of our thoughts, without any real pattern they were taken
from, though we can perceive no inconsistence in such a combination. The
reason whereof is because we, knowing not what real constitution it is
of substances whereon our simple ideas depend, and which really is the
cause of the strict union of some of them one with another, and the
exclusion of others; there are very few of them that we can be sure
are or are not inconsistent in nature: any further than experience and
sensible observation reach Herein, therefore, is founded the reality of
our knowledge concerning substances--That all our complex ideas of them
must be such, and such only, as are made up of such simple ones as have
been discovered to co-exist in nature. And our ideas being thus true,
though not perhaps very exact copies, are yet the subjects of real (as
far as we have any) knowledge of them. Which (as has been already shown)
will not be found to reach very far: but so far as it does, it will
still be real knowledge. Whatever ideas we have, the agreement we
find they have with others will still be knowledge. If those ideas be
abstract, it will be general knowledge. But to make it real concerning
substances, the ideas must be taken from the real existence of things.
Whatever simple ideas have been found to co-exist in any substance,
these we may with confidence join together again, and so make abstract
ideas of substances. For whatever have once had an union in nature, may
be united again.
13. In our inquiries about Substances, we must consider Ideas, and not
confine our Thoughts to Names, or Species supposed set out by Names.
This, if we rightly consider, and confine not our thoughts and abstract
ideas to names, as if there were, or could be no other SORTS of things
than what known names had already determined, and, as it were, set out,
we should think of things with greater freedom and less confusion than
perhaps we do. It would possibly be thought a bold paradox, if not a
very dangerous falsehood, if I should say that some CHANGELINGS, who
have lived forty years together, without any appearance of reason, are
something between a man and a beast: which prejudice is founded upon
nothing else but a false supposition, that these two names, man and
beast, stand for distinct species so set out by real essences, that
there can come no other species between them: whereas if we will
abstract from those names, and the supposition of such specific essences
made by nature, wherein all things of the same denominations did exactly
and equally partake; if we would not fancy that there were a certain
number of these essences, wherein all things, as in moulds, were cast
and formed; we should find that the idea of the shape, motion, and life
of a man without reason, is as much a distinct idea, and makes as much a
distinct sort of things from man and beast, as the idea of the shape of
an ass with reason would be different from either that of man or beast,
and be a species of an animal between, or distinct from both.
14. Objection against a Changeling being something between a Man and
Beast, answered.
Here everybody will be ready to ask, If changelings may be supposed
something between man and beast, pray what are they? I answer,
CHANGELINGS; which is as good a word to signify something different from
the signification of MAN or BEAST, as the names man and beast are to
have significations different one from the other. This, well considered,
would resolve this matter, and show my meaning without any more ado. But
I am not so unacquainted with the zeal of some men, which enables them
to spin consequences, and to see religion threatened, whenever any one
ventures to quit their forms of speaking, as not to foresee what names
such a proposition as this is like to be charged with: and without doubt
it will be asked, If changelings are something between man and beast,
what will become of them in the other world? To which I answer, I. It
concerns me not to know or inquire. To their own master they stand or
fall. It will make their state neither better nor worse, whether we
determine anything of it or no. They are in the hands of a faithful
Creator and a bountiful Father, who disposes not of his creatures
according to our narrow thoughts or opinions, nor distinguishes them
according to names and species of our contrivance. And we that know so
little of this present world we are in, may, I think, content ourselves
without being peremptory in defining the different states which
creatures shall come into when they go off this stage. It may suffice
us, that He hath made known to all those who are capable of instruction,
discoursing, and reasoning, that they shall come to an account, and
receive according to what they have done in this body.
15. What will become of Changelings in a future state?
But, Secondly, I answer, The force of these men's question (viz. Will
you deprive changelings of a future state?) is founded on one of these
two suppositions, which are both false. The first is, That all things
that have the outward shape and appearance of a man must necessarily be
designed to an immortal future being after this life: or, secondly, That
whatever is of human birth must be so. Take away these imaginations, and
such questions will be groundless and ridiculous. I desire then those
who think there is no more but an accidental difference between
themselves and changelings, the essence in both being exactly the same,
to consider, whether they can imagine immortality annexed to any outward
shape of the body; the very proposing it is, I suppose, enough to make
them disown it. No one yet, that ever I heard of, how much soever
immersed in matter, allowed that excellency to any figure of the gross
sensible outward consequence of it; or that any mass of matter
should, after its dissolution here, be again restored hereafter to an
everlasting state of sense, perception, and knowledge, only because it
was moulded into this or that figure, and had such a particular frame
of its visible parts. Such an opinion as this, placing immortality in a
certain superficial figure, turns out of doors all consideration of soul
or spirit; upon whose account alone some corporeal beings have hitherto
been concluded immortal, and others not. This is to attribute more to
the outside than inside of things; and to place the excellency of a man
more in the external shape of his body, than internal perfections of his
soul: which is but little better than to annex the great and inestimable
advantage of immortality and life everlasting, which he has above other
material beings, to annex it, I say, to the cut of his beard, or the
fashion of his coat. For this or that outward mark of our bodies no more
carries with it the hope of an eternal duration, than the fashion of a
man's suit gives him reasonable grounds to imagine it will never wear
out, or that it will make him immortal. It will perhaps be said, that
nobody thinks that the shape makes anything immortal, but it is the
shape that is the sign of a rational soul within, which is immortal. I
wonder who made it the sign of any such thing: for barely saying it,
will not make it so. It would require some proofs to persuade one of it.
No figure that I know speaks any such language. For it may as rationally
be concluded, that the dead body of a man, wherein there is to be found
no more appearance or action of life than there is in a statue, has yet
nevertheless a living soul in it, because of its shape; as that there
is a rational soul in a changeling, because he has the outside of a
rational creature, when his actions carry far less marks of reason with
them, in the whole course of his life than what are to be found in many
a beast.
16. Monsters
But it is the issue of rational parents, and must therefore be concluded
to have a rational soul. I know not by what logic you must so conclude.
I am sure this is a conclusion that men nowhere allow of. For if they
did, they would not make bold, as everywhere they do to destroy
ill-formed and mis-shaped productions. Ay, but these are MONSTERS.
Let them be so: what will your drivelling, unintelligent, intractable
changeling be? Shall a defect in the body make a monster; a defect in
the mind (the far more noble, and, in the common phrase, the far more
essential part) not? Shall the want of a nose, or a neck, make a
monster, and put such issue out of the rank of men; the want of reason
and understanding, not? This is to bring all back again to what was
exploded just now: this is to place all in the shape, and to take the
measure of a man only by his outside. To show that according to the
ordinary way of reasoning in this matter, people do lay the whole stress
on the figure, and resolve the whole essence of the species of man (as
they make it) into the outward shape, how unreasonable soever it be, and
how much soever they disown it, we need but trace their thoughts
and practice a little further, and then it will plainly appear. The
well-shaped changeling is a man, has a rational soul, though it appear
not: this is past doubt, say you: make the ears a little longer, and
more pointed, and the nose a little flatter than ordinary, and then you
begin to boggle: make the face yet narrower, flatter, and longer, and
then you are at a stand: add still more and more of the likeness of a
brute to it, and let the head be perfectly that of some other animal,
then presently it is a monster; and it is demonstration with you that it
hath no rational soul, and must be destroyed. Where now (I ask) shall be
the just measure; which the utmost bounds of that shape, that carries
with it a rational soul? For, since there have been human foetuses
produced, half beast and half man; and others three parts one, and one
part the other; and so it is possible they may be in all the variety of
approaches to the one or the other shape, and may have several degrees
of mixture of the likeness of a man, or a brute;--I would gladly know
what are those precise lineaments, which, according to this hypothesis,
are or are not capable of a rational soul to be joined to them. What
sort of outside is the certain sign that there is or is not such an
inhabitant within? For till that be done, we talk at random of MAN: and
shall always, I fear, do so, as long as we give ourselves up to certain
sounds, and the imaginations of settled and fixed species in nature, we
know not what. But, after all, I desire it may be considered, that those
who think they have answered the difficulty, by telling us, that a
mis-shaped foetus is a MONSTER, run into the same fault they are arguing
against; by constituting a species between man and beast. For what else,
I pray, is their monster in the case, (if the word monster signifies
anything at all,) but something neither man nor beast, but partaking
somewhat of either? And just so is the CHANGELING before mentioned. So
necessary is it to quit the common notion of species and essences, if we
will truly look into the nature of things, and examine them by what our
faculties can discover in them as they exist, and not by groundless
fancies that have been taken up about them.
17. Words and Species.
I have mentioned this here, because I think we cannot be too cautious
that words and species, in the ordinary notions which we have been used
to of them, impose not on us. For I am apt to think therein lies one
great obstacle to our clear and distinct knowledge, especially in
reference to substances: and from thence has rose a great part of the
difficulties about truth and certainty. Would we accustom ourselves to
separate our contemplations and reasonings from words, we might in a
great measure remedy this inconvenience within our own thoughts: but yet
it would still disturb us in our discourse with others, as long as we
retained the opinion, that SPECIES and their ESSENCES were anything else
but our abstract ideas (such as they are) with names annexed to them, to
be the signs of them.
18. Recapitulation.
Wherever we perceive the agreement or disagreement of any of our ideas,
there is certain knowledge: and wherever we are sure those ideas agree
with the reality of things, there is certain real knowledge. Of which
agreement of our ideas with the reality of things, having here given
the marks, I think, I have shown WHEREIN IT IS THAT CERTAINTY, REAL
CERTAINTY, CONSISTS. Which, whatever it was to others, was, I confess,
to me heretofore, one of those desiderata which I found great want of.