IDEA OF DURATION AND ITS SIMPLE MODES.
1. Duration is fleeting Extension.
There is another sort of distance, or length, the idea whereof we get
not from the permanent parts of space, but from the fleeting and
perpetually perishing parts of succession. This we call DURATION; the
simple modes whereof are any different lengths of it whereof we have
distinct ideas, as HOURS, DAYS, YEARS, &c., TIME and ETERNITY.
2. Its Idea from Reflection on the Train of our Ideas.
The answer of a great man, to one who asked what time was: Si non rogas
intelligo, (which amounts to this; The more I set myself to think of
it, the less I understand it,) might perhaps persuade one that time,
which reveals all other things, is itself not to be discovered.
Duration, time, and eternity, are, not without reason, thought to have
something very abstruse in their nature. But however remote these may
seem from our comprehension, yet if we trace them right to their
originals, I doubt not but one of those sources of all our knowledge,
viz. sensation and reflection, will be able to furnish us with these
ideas, as clear and distinct as many others which are thought much less
obscure; and we shall find that the idea of eternity itself is derived
from the same common original with the rest of our ideas.
3. Nature and origin of the idea of Duration.
To understand TIME and ETERNITY aright, we ought with attention to
consider what idea it is we have of DURATION, and how we came by it. It
is evident to any one who will but observe what passes in his own mind,
that there is a train of ideas which constantly succeed one another in
his understanding, as long as he is awake. Reflection on these
appearances of several ideas one after another in our minds, is that
which furnishes us with the idea of SUCCESSION: and the distance
between any parts of that succession, or between the appearance of any
two ideas in our minds, is that we call DURATION. For whilst we are
thinking, or whilst we receive successively several ideas in our minds,
we know that we do exist; and so we call the existence, or the
continuation of the existence of ourselves, or anything else,
commensurate to the succession of any ideas in our minds, the duration
of ourselves, or any such other thing co-existent with our thinking.
4. Proof that its idea is got from reflection on the train of our
ideas.
That we have our notion of succession and duration from this original,
viz. from reflection on the train of ideas, which we find to appear one
after another in our own minds, seems plain to me, in that we have no
perception of duration but by considering the train of ideas that take
their turns in our understandings. When that succession of ideas
ceases, our perception of duration ceases with it; which every one
clearly experiments in himself, whilst he sleeps soundly, whether an
hour or a day, a month or a year; of which duration of things, while he
sleeps or thinks not, he has no perception at all, but it is quite lost
to him; and the moment wherein he leaves off to think, till the moment
he begins to think again, seems to him to have no distance. And so I
doubt not it would be to a waking man, if it were possible for him to
keep ONLY ONE idea in his mind, without variation and the succession of
others. And we see, that one who fixes his thoughts very intently on
one thing, so as to take but little notice of the succession of ideas
that pass in his mind whilst he is taken up with that earnest
contemplation, lets slip out of his account a good part of that
duration, and thinks that time shorter than it is. But if sleep
commonly unites the distant parts of duration, it is because during
that time we have no succession of ideas in our minds. For if a man,
during his sleep, dreams, and variety of ideas make themselves
perceptible in his mind one after another, he hath then, during such
dreaming, a sense of duration, and of the length of it. By which it is
to me very clear, that men derive their ideas of duration from their
reflections on the train of the ideas they observe to succeed one
another in their own understandings; without which observation they can
have no notion of duration, whatever may happen in the world.
5. The Idea of Duration applicable to Things whilst we sleep.
Indeed a man having, from reflecting on the succession and number of
his own thoughts, got the notion or idea of duration, he can apply that
notion to things which exist while he does not think; as he that has
got the idea of extension from bodies by his sight or touch, can apply
it to distances, where no body is seen or felt. And therefore, though a
man has no perception of the length of duration which passed whilst he
slept or thought not; yet, having observed the revolution of days and
nights, and found the length of their duration to be in appearance
regular and constant, he can, upon the supposition that that revolution
has proceeded after the same manner whilst he was asleep or thought
not, as it used to do at other times, he can, I say, imagine and make
allowance for the length of duration whilst he slept. But if Adam and
Eve, (when they were alone in the world,) instead of their ordinary
night’s sleep, had passed the whole twenty-four hours in one continued
sleep, the duration of that twenty-four hours had been irrecoverably
lost to them, and been for ever left out of their account of time.
6. The Idea of Succession not from Motion.
Thus by reflecting on the appearing of various ideas one after another
in our understandings, we get the notion of succession; which, if any
one should think we did rather get from our observation of motion by
our senses, he will perhaps be of my mind when he considers, that even
motion produces in his mind an idea of succession no otherwise than as
it produces there a continued train of distinguishable ideas. For a man
looking upon a body really moving, perceives yet no motion at all
unless that motion produces a constant train of successive ideas: v.g.
a man becalmed at sea, out of sight of land, in a fair day, may look on
the sun, or sea, or ship, a whole hour together, and perceive no motion
at all in either; though it be certain that two, and perhaps all of
them, have moved during that time a great way. But as soon as he
perceives either of them to have changed distance with some other body,
as soon as this motion produces any new idea in him, then he perceives
that there has been motion. But wherever a man is, with all things at
rest about him, without perceiving any motion at all,—if during this
hour of quiet he has been thinking, he will perceive the various ideas
of his own thoughts in his own mind, appearing one after another, and
thereby observe and find succession where he could observe no motion.
7. Very slow motions unperceived.
And this, I think, is the reason why motions very slow, though they are
constant, are not perceived by us; because in their remove from one
sensible part towards another, their change of distance is so slow,
that it causes no new ideas in us, but a good while one after another.
And so not causing a constant train of new ideas to follow one another
immediately in our minds, we have no perception of motion; which
consisting in a constant succession, we cannot perceive that succession
without a constant succession of varying ideas arising from it.
8. Very swift motions unperceived.
On the contrary, things that move so swift as not to affect the senses
distinctly with several distinguishable distances of their motion, and
so cause not any train of ideas in the mind, are not also perceived.
For anything that moves round about in a circle, in less times than our
ideas are wont to succeed one another in our minds, is not perceived to
move; but seems to be a perfect entire circle of the matter or colour,
and not a part of a circle in motion.
9. The Train of Ideas has a certain Degree of Quickness.
Hence I leave it to others to judge, whether it be not probable that
our ideas do, whilst we are awake, succeed one another in our minds at
certain distances; not much unlike the images in the inside of a
lantern, turned round by the heat of a candle. This appearance of
theirs in train, though perhaps it may be sometimes faster and
sometimes slower, yet, I guess, varies not very much in a waking man:
there seem to be certain bounds to the quickness and slowness of the
succession of those ideas one to another in our minds, beyond which
they can neither delay nor hasten.
10. Real succession in swift motions without sense of succession.
The reason I have for this odd conjecture is, from observing that, in
the impressions made upon any of our senses, we can but to a certain
degree perceive any succession; which, if exceeding quick, the sense of
succession is lost, even in cases where it is evident that there is a
real succession. Let a cannon-bullet pass through a room, and in its
way take with it any limb, or fleshy parts of a man, it is as clear as
any demonstration can be, that it must strike successively the two
sides of the room: it is also evident, that it must touch one part of
the flesh first, and another after, and so in succession: and yet, I
believe, nobody who ever felt the pain of such a shot, or heard the
blow against the two distant walls, could perceive any succession
either in the pain or sound of so swift a stroke. Such a part of
duration as this, wherein we perceive no succession, is that which we
call an INSTANT, and is that which takes up the time of only one idea
in our minds, without the succession of another; wherein, therefore, we
perceive no succession at all.
11. In slow motions.
This also happens where the motion is so slow as not to supply a
constant train of fresh ideas to the senses, as fast as the mind is
capable of receiving new ones into it; and so other ideas of our own
thoughts, having room to come into our minds between those offered to
our senses by the moving body, there the sense of motion is lost; and
the body, though it really moves, yet, not changing perceivable
distance with some other bodies as fast as the ideas of our own minds
do naturally follow one another in train, the thing seems to stand
still; as is evident in the hands of clocks, and shadows of sun-dials,
and other constant but slow motions, where, though, after certain
intervals, we perceive, by the change of distance, that it hath moved,
yet the motion itself we perceive not.
12. This Train, the Measure of other Successions.
So that to me it seems, that the constant and regular succession of
IDEAS in a waking man, is, as it were, the measure and standard of all
other successions. Whereof if any one either exceeds the pace of our
ideas, as where two sounds or pains, &c., take up in their succession
the duration of but one idea; or else where any motion or succession is
so slow, as that it keeps not pace with the ideas in our minds, or the
quickness in which they take their turns, as when any one or more ideas
in their ordinary course come into our mind, between those which are
offered to the sight by the different perceptible distances of a body
in motion, or between sounds or smells following one another,—there
also the sense of a constant continued succession is lost, and we
perceive it not, but with certain gaps of rest between.
13. The Mind cannot fix long on one invariable Idea.
If it be so, that the ideas of our minds, whilst we have any there, do
constantly change and shift in a continual succession, it would be
impossible, may any one say, for a man to think long of any one thing.
By which, if it be meant that a man may have one self-same single idea
a long time alone in his mind, without any variation at all, I think,
in matter of fact, it is not possible. For which (not knowing how the
ideas of our minds are framed, of what materials they are made, whence
they have their light, and how they come to make their appearances) I
can give no other reason but experience: and I would have any one try,
whether he can keep one unvaried single idea in his mind, without any
other, for any considerable time together.
14. Proof.
For trial, let him take any figure, any degree of light or whiteness,
or what other he pleases, and he will, I suppose, find it difficult to
keep all other ideas out of his mind; but that some, either of another
kind, or various considerations of that idea, (each of which
considerations is a new idea,) will constantly succeed one another in
his thoughts, let him be as wary as he can.
15. The extent of our power over the succession of our ideas.
All that is in a man’s power in this case, I think, is only to mind and
observe what the ideas are that take their turns in his understanding;
or else to direct the sort, and call in such as he hath a desire or use
of: but hinder the constant succession of fresh ones, I think he
cannot, though he may commonly choose whether he will heedfully observe
and consider them.
16. Ideas, however made, include no sense of motion.
Whether these several ideas in a man’s mind be made by certain motions,
I will not here dispute; but this I am sure, that they include no idea
of motion in their appearance; and if a man had not the idea of motion
otherwise, I think he would have none at all, which is enough to my
present purpose; and sufficiently shows that the notice we take of the
ideas of our own minds, appearing there one after another, is that
which gives us the idea of succession and duration, without which we
should have no such ideas at all. It is not then MOTION, but the
constant train of IDEAS in our minds whilst we are waking, that
furnishes us with the idea of duration; whereof motion no otherwise
gives us any perception than as it causes in our minds a constant
succession of ideas, as I have before showed: and we have as clear an
idea of succession and duration, by the train of other ideas succeeding
one another in our minds, without the idea of any motion, as by the
train of ideas caused by the uninterrupted sensible change of distance
between two bodies, which we have from motion; and therefore we should
as well have the idea of duration were there no sense of motion at all.
17. Time is Duration set out by Measures.
Having thus got the idea of duration, the next thing natural for the
mind to do, is to get some measure of this common duration, whereby it
might judge of its different lengths, and consider the distinct order
wherein several things exist; without which a great part of our
knowledge would be confused, and a great part of history be rendered
very useless. This consideration of duration, as set out by certain
periods and marked by certain measures or epochs, is that, I think,
which most properly we call TIME.
18. A good Measure of Time must divide its whole Duration into equal
Periods.
In the measuring of extension, there is nothing more required but the
application of the standard or measure we make use of to the thing of
whose extension we would be informed. But in the measuring of duration
this cannot be done, because no two different parts of succession can
be put together to measure one another. And nothing being a measure of
duration but duration, as nothing is of extension but extension, we
cannot keep by us any standing, unvarying measure of duration, which
consists in a constant fleeting succession, as we can of certain
lengths of extension, as inches, feet, yards, &c., marked out in
permanent parcels of matter. Nothing then could serve well for a
convenient measure of time, but what has divided the whole length of
its duration into apparently equal portions, by constantly repeated
periods. What portions of duration are not distinguished, or considered
as distinguished and measured, by such periods, come not so properly
under the notion of time; as appears by such phrases as these, viz.
‘Before all time,’ and ‘When time shall be no more.’
19. The Revolutions of the Sun and Moon, the properest Measures of Time
for mankind.
The diurnal and annual revolutions of the sun, as having been, from the
beginning of nature, constant, regular, and universally observable by
all mankind, and supposed equal to one another, have been with reason
made use of for the measure of duration. But the distinction of days
and years having depended on the motion of the sun, it has brought this
mistake with it, that it has been thought that motion and duration were
the measure one of another. For men, in the measuring of the length of
time, having been accustomed to the ideas of minutes, hours, days,
months, years, &c., which they found themselves upon any mention of
time or duration presently to think on, all which portions of time were
measured out by the motion of those heavenly bodies, they were apt to
confound time and motion; or at least to think that they had a
necessary connexion one with another. Whereas any constant periodical
appearance, or alteration of ideas, in seemingly equidistant spaces of
duration, if constant and universally observable, would have as well
distinguished the intervals of time, as those that have been made use
of. For, supposing the sun, which some have taken to be a fire, had
been lighted up at the same distance of time that it now every day
comes about to the same meridian, and then gone out again about twelve
hours after, and that in the space of an annual revolution it had
sensibly increased in brightness and heat, and so decreased
again,—would not such regular appearances serve to measure out the
distances of duration to all that could observe it, as well without as
with motion? For if the appearances were constant, universally
observable, in equidistant periods, they would serve mankind for
measure of time as well were the motion away.
20. But not by their Motion, but periodical Appearances.
For the freezing of water, or the blooming of a plant, returning at
equidistant periods in all parts of the earth, would as well serve men
to reckon their years by, as the motions of the sun: and in effect we
see, that some people in America counted their years by the coming of
certain birds amongst them at their certain seasons, and leaving them
at others. For a fit of an ague; the sense of hunger or thirst; a smell
or a taste; or any other idea returning constantly at equidistant
periods, and making itself universally be taken notice of, would not
fail to measure out the course of succession, and distinguish the
distances of time. Thus we see that men born blind count time well
enough by years, whose revolutions yet they cannot distinguish by
motions that they perceive not. And I ask whether a blind man, who
distinguished his years either by the heat of summer, or cold of
winter; by the smell of any flower of the spring, or taste of any fruit
of the autumn, would not have a better measure of time than the Romans
had before the reformation of their calendar by Julius Caesar, or many
other people, whose years, notwithstanding the motion of the sun, which
they pretended to make use of, are very irregular? And it adds no small
difficulty to chronology, that the exact lengths of the years that
several nations counted by, are hard to be known, they differing very
much one from another, and I think I may say all of them from the
precise motion of the sun. And if the sun moved from the creation to
the flood constantly in the equator, and so equally dispersed its light
and heat to all the habitable parts of the earth, in days all of the
same length without its annual variations to the tropics, as a late
ingenious author supposes, I do not think it very easy to imagine, that
(notwithstanding the motion of the sun) men should in the antediluvian
world, from the beginning, count by years, or measure their time by
periods that had no sensible mark very obvious to distinguish them by.
21. No two Parts of Duration can be certainly known to be equal.
But perhaps it will be said,—without a regular motion, such as of the
sun, or some other, how could it ever be known that such periods were
equal? To which I answer,—the equality of any other returning
appearances might be known by the same way that that of days was known,
or presumed to be so at first; which was only by judging of them by the
train of ideas which had passed in men’s minds in the intervals; by
which train of ideas discovering inequality in the natural days, but
none in the artificial days, the artificial days, or nuchthaemera, were
guessed to be equal, which was sufficient to make them serve for a
measure; though exacter search has since discovered inequality in the
diurnal revolutions of the sun, and we know not whether the annual also
be not unequal. These yet, by their presumed and apparent equality,
serve as well to reckon time by (though not to measure the parts of
duration exactly) as if they could be proved to be exactly equal. We
must, therefore, carefully distinguish betwixt duration itself, and the
measures we make use of to judge of its length. Duration, in itself, is
to be considered as going on in one constant, equal, uniform course:
but none of the measures of it which we make use of can be KNOWN to do
so, nor can we be assured that their assigned parts or periods are
equal in duration one to another; for two successive lengths of
duration, however measured, can never be demonstrated to be equal. The
motion of the sun, which the world used so long and so confidently for
an exact measure of duration, has, as I said, been found in its several
parts unequal. And though men have, of late, made use of a pendulum, as
a more steady and regular motion than that of the sun, or, (to speak
more truly,) of the earth;—yet if any one should be asked how he
certainly knows that the two successive swings of a pendulum are equal,
it would be very hard to satisfy him that they are infallibly so; since
we cannot be sure that the cause of that motion, which is unknown to
us, shall always operate equally; and we are sure that the medium in
which the pendulum moves is not constantly the same: either of which
varying, may alter the equality of such periods, and thereby destroy
the certainty and exactness of the measure by motion, as well as any
other periods of other appearances; the notion of duration still
remaining clear, though our measures of it cannot (any of them) be
demonstrated to be exact. Since then no two portions of succession can
be brought together, it is impossible ever certainly to know their
equality. All that we can do for a measure of time is, to take such as
have continual successive appearances at seemingly equidistant periods;
of which seeming equality we have no other measure, but such as the
train of our own ideas have lodged in our memories, with the
concurrence of other PROBABLE reasons, to persuade us of their
equality.
22. Time not the Measure of Motion
One thing seems strange to me,—that whilst all men manifestly measured
time by the motion of the great and visible bodies of the world, time
yet should be defined to be the ‘measure of motion’: whereas it is
obvious to every one who reflects ever so little on it, that to measure
motion, space is as necessary to be considered as time; and those who
look a little farther will find also the bulk of the thing moved
necessary to be taken into the computation, by any one who will
estimate or measure motion so as to judge right of it. Nor indeed does
motion any otherwise conduce to the measuring of duration, than as it
constantly brings about the return of certain sensible ideas, in
seeming equidistant periods. For if the motion of the sun were as
unequal as of a ship driven by unsteady winds, sometimes very slow, and
at others irregularly very swift; or if, being constantly equally
swift, it yet was not circular, and produced not the same
appearances,—it would not at all help us to measure time, any more than
the seeming unequal motion of a comet does.
23. Minutes, hours, days, and years are, then, no more Minutes, Hours,
Days, and Years not necessary Measures of duration, necessary to time
or duration, than inches, feet, yards, and miles, marked out in any
matter, are to extension. For, though we in this part of the universe,
by the constant use of them, as of periods set out by the revolutions
of the sun, or as known parts of such periods, have fixed the ideas of
such lengths of duration in our minds, which we apply to all parts of
time whose lengths we would consider; yet there may be other parts of
the universe, where they no more use these measures of ours, than in
Japan they do our inches, feet, or miles; but yet something analogous
to them there must be. For without some regular periodical returns, we
could not measure ourselves, or signify to others, the length of any
duration; though at the same time the world were as full of motion as
it is now, but no part of it disposed into regular and apparently
equidistant revolutions. But the different measures that may be made
use of for the account of time, do not at all alter the notion of
duration, which is the thing to be measured; no more than the different
standards of a foot and a cubit alter the notion of extension to those
who make use of those different measures.
24. Our Measure of Time applicable to Duration before Time.
The mind having once got such a measure of time as the annual
revolution of the sun, can apply that measure to duration wherein that
measure itself did not exist, and with which, in the reality of its
being, it had nothing to do. For should one say, that Abraham was born
in the two thousand seven hundred and twelfth year of the Julian
period, it is altogether as intelligible as reckoning from the
beginning of the world, though there were so far back no motion of the
sun, nor any motion at all. For, though the Julian period be supposed
to begin several hundred years before there were really either days,
nights, or years, marked out by any revolutions of the sun,—yet we
reckon as right, and thereby measure durations as well, as if really at
that time the sun had existed, and kept the same ordinary motion it
doth now. The idea of duration equal to an annual revolution of the
sun, is as easily APPLICABLE in our thoughts to duration, where no sun
or motion was, as the idea of a foot or yard, taken from bodies here,
can be applied in our thoughts to distances beyond the confines of the
world, where are no bodies at all.
25. As we can measure space in our thoughts where there is no body.
For supposing it were 5639 miles, or millions of miles, from this place
to the remotest body of the universe, (for, being finite, it must be at
a certain distance,) as we suppose it to be 5639 years from this time
to the first existence of any body in the beginning of the world;—we
can, in our thoughts, apply this measure of a year to duration before
the creation, or beyond the duration of bodies or motion, as we can
this measure of a mile to space beyond the utmost bodies; and by the
one measure duration, where there was no motion, as well as by the
other measure space in our thoughts, where there is no body.
26. The assumption that the world is neither boundless nor eternal.
If it be objected to me here, that, in this way of explaining of time,
I have begged what I should not, viz. that the world is neither eternal
nor infinite; I answer, That to my present purpose it is not needful,
in this place, to make use of arguments to evince the world to be
finite both in duration and extension. But it being at least as
conceivable as the contrary, I have certainly the liberty to suppose
it, as well as any one hath to suppose the contrary; and I doubt not,
but that every one that will go about it, may easily conceive in his
mind the beginning of motion, though not of all duration, and so may
come to a step and non ultra in his consideration of motion. So also,
in his thoughts, he may set limits to body, and the extension belonging
to it; but not to space, where no body is, the utmost bounds of space
and duration being beyond the reach of thought, as well as the utmost
bounds of number are beyond the largest comprehension of the mind; and
all for the same reason, as we shall see in another place.
27. Eternity.
By the same means, therefore, and from the same original that we come
to have the idea of time, we have also that idea which we call
Eternity; viz. having got the idea of succession and duration, by
reflecting on the train of our own ideas, caused in us either by the
natural appearances of those ideas coming constantly of themselves into
our waking thoughts, or else caused by external objects successively
affecting our senses; and having from the revolutions of the sun got
the ideas of certain lengths of duration,—we can in our thoughts add
such lengths of duration to one another, as often as we please, and
apply them, so added, to durations past or to come. And this we can
continue to do on, without bounds or limits, and proceed in infinitum,
and apply thus the length of the annual motion of the sun to duration,
supposed before the sun’s or any other motion had its being, which is
no more difficult or absurd, than to apply the notion I have of the
moving of a shadow one hour to-day upon the sun-dial to the duration of
something last night, v. g. the burning of a candle, which is now
absolutely separate from all actual motion; and it is as impossible for
the duration of that flame for an hour last night to co-exist with any
motion that now is, or for ever shall be, as for any part of duration,
that was before the beginning of the world, to co exist with the motion
of the sun now. But yet this hinders not but that, having the IDEA of
the length of the motion of the shadow on a dial between the marks of
two hours, I can as distinctly measure in my thoughts the duration of
that candle-light last night, as I can the duration of anything that
does now exist: and it is no more than to think, that, had the sun
shone then on the dial, and moved after the same rate it doth now, the
shadow on the dial would have passed from one hour-line to another
whilst that flame of the candle lasted.
28. Our measures of Duration dependent on our ideas.
The notion of an hour, day, or year, being only the idea I have of the
length of certain periodical regular motions, neither of which motions
do ever all at once exist, but only in the ideas I have of them in my
memory derived from my senses or reflection; I can with the same ease,
and for the same reason, apply it in my thoughts to duration antecedent
to all manner of motion, as well as to anything that is but a minute or
a day antecedent to the motion that at this very moment the sun is in.
All things past are equally and perfectly at rest; and to this way of
consideration of them are all one, whether they were before the
beginning of the world, or but yesterday: the measuring of any duration
by some motion depending not at all on the REAL co-existence of that
thing to that motion, or any other periods of revolution, but the
having a clear IDEA of the length of some periodical known motion, or
other interval of duration, in my mind, and applying that to the
duration of the thing I would measure.
29. The Duration of anything need not be co-existent with the motion we
measure it by.
Hence we see that some men imagine the duration of of the world, from
its first existence to this present year 1689, to have been 5639 years,
or equal to 5639 annual revolutions of the sun, and others a great deal
more; as the Egyptians of old, who in the time of Alexander counted
23,000 years from the reign of the sun; and the Chinese now, who
account the world 3,269,000 years old, or more; which longer duration
of the world, according to their computation, though I should not
believe to be true, yet I can equally imagine it with them, and as
truly understand, and say one is longer than the other, as I
understand, that Methusalem’s life was longer than Enoch’s. And if the
common reckoning of 5639 should be true, (as it may be as well as any
other assigned,) it hinders not at all my imagining what others mean,
when they make the world one thousand years older, since every one may
with the same facility imagine (I do not say believe) the world to be
50,000 years old, as 5639; and may as well conceive the duration of
50,000 years as 5639. Whereby it appears that, to the measuring the
duration of anything by time, it is not requisite that that thing
should be co-existent to the motion we measure by, or any other
periodical revolution; but it suffices to this purpose, that we have
the idea of the length of ANY regular periodical appearances, which we
can in our minds apply to duration, with which the motion or appearance
never co-existed.
30. Infinity in Duration.
For, as in the history of the creation delivered by Moses, I can
imagine that light existed three days before the sun was, or had any
motion, barely by thinking that the duration of light before the sun
was created was so long as (IF the sun had moved then as it doth now)
would have been equal to three of his diurnal revolutions; so by the
same way I can have an idea of the chaos, or angels, being created
before there was either light or any continued motion, a minute, an
hour, a day, a year, or one thousand years. For, if I can but consider
duration equal to one minute, before either the being or motion of any
body, I can add one minute more till I come to sixty; and by the same
way of adding minutes, hours, or years (i.e. such or such parts of the
sun’s revolutions, or any other period whereof I have the idea) proceed
IN INFINITUM, and suppose a duration exceeding as many such periods as
I can reckon, let me add whilst I will, which I think is the notion we
have of eternity; of whose infinity we have no other notion than we
have of the infinity of number, to which we can add for ever without
end.
31. Origin of our Ideas of Duration, and of the measures of it.
And thus I think it is plain, that from those two fountains of all
knowledge before mentioned, viz. reflection and sensation, we got the
ideas of duration, and the measures of it.
For, First, by observing what passes in our minds, how our ideas there
in train constantly some vanish and others begin to appear, we come by
the idea of SUCCESSION. Secondly, by observing a distance in the parts
of this succession, we get the idea of DURATION.
Thirdly, by sensation observing certain appearances, at certain regular
and seeming equidistant periods, we get the ideas of certain LENGTHS or
MEASURES OF DURATION, as minutes, hours, days, years, &c.
Fourthly, by being able to repeat those measures of time, or ideas of
stated length of duration, in our minds, as often as we will, we can
come to imagine DURATION,—WHERE NOTHING DOES REALLY ENDURE OR EXIST;
and thus we imagine to-morrow, next year, or seven years hence.
Fifthly, by being able to repeat ideas of any length of time, as of a
minute, a year, or an age, as often as we will in our own thoughts, and
adding them one to another, without ever coming to the end of such
addition, any nearer than we can to the end of number, to which we can
always add; we come by the idea of ETERNITY, as the future eternal
duration of our souls, as well as the eternity of that infinite Being
which must necessarily have always existed.
Sixthly, by considering any part of infinite duration, as set out by
periodical measures, we come by the idea of what we call TIME in
general.