SECT.

II.

Of the infinite

that human reason is nothing but a play of words, or that the person himself, who talks so, has not a capacity equal to such subjects. Demonstrations may be difficult to be comprehended, because of the abstracted- divisibility ness of the subject; but can never have any such difficulties as will weaken their authority, when once they are comprehended.

'Tis true, mathematicians are wont to say, that there are here equally strong arguments on the other side of the question, and that the doctrine of indivisible points is also liable to unanswerable objections. Before I examine these arguments and objections in detail, I will here take them in a body, and endeavour, by a short and decisive reason, to prove, at once, that 'tis utterly impossible they can have any just foundation.

'Tis an established maxim in metaphysics, That whatever the mind clearly conceives includes the idea of possible existence, or, in other words, that nothing we imagine is absolutely impossible. We can form the idea of a golden mountain, and from thence conclude, that such a mountain may actually exist. We can form no idea of a mountain without a valley, and therefore regard it as impossible.

Now 'tis certain we have an idea of extension; for otherwise, why do we talk and reason concerning it? 'Tis likewise certain, that this idea, as conceived by the imagination, though divisible into parts or inferior ideas, is not infinitely divisible, nor consists of an infinite number of parts: for that exceeds the comprehension of our limited capacities. Here then is an idea of extension, which consists of parts or inferior ideas, that are perfectly indivisible: consequently this idea implies no contradiction: consequently 'tis possible for extension really to exist conformable to it: and con

of

space and

time.

II.

PART sequently, all the arguments employed against the pos sibility of mathematical points are mere scholastic quib→ bles, and unworthy of our attention.

Of

the ideas of space

These consequences we may carry one step farther, and time. and conclude that all the pretended demonstrations for the infinite divisibility of extension are equally sophistical; since 'tis certain these demonstrations cannot be just without proving the impossibility of mathematical points; which 'tis an evident absurdity to pretend to.

SECTION III.

OF THE OTHER QUALITIES of our ideas of space

AND TIME.

No discovery could have been made more happily for deciding all controversies concerning ideas, than that above mentioned, that impressions always take the precedency of them, and that every idea, with which the imagination is furnished, first makes its appearance in a correspondent impression. These latter perceptions are all so clear and evident, that they admit of no controversy; though many of our ideas are so obscure, that 'tis almost impossible even for the mind, which forms them, to tell exactly their nature and composition. Let us apply this principle, in order to discover farther the nature of our ideas of space and time.

Upon opening my eyes and turning them to the surrounding objects, I perceive many visible bodies; and upon shutting them again, and considering the distance

III.

betwixt these bodies, I acquire the idea of extension. SECT. As every idea is derived from some impression which is exactly similar to it, the impressions similar to this of the other idea of extension, must either be some sensations derived from the sight, or some internal impressions arising from these sensations.

Our internal impressions are our passions, emotions, desires, and aversions; none of which, I believe, will ever be asserted to be the model from which the idea of space is derived. There remains, therefore, nothing but the senses which can convey to us this original impression. Now, what impression do our senses here convey to us? This is the principal question, and decides without appeal concerning the nature of the idea.

The table before me is alone sufficient by its view to give me the idea of extension. This idea, then, is borrowed from, and represents some impression which this moment appears to the senses. But my senses convey to me only the impressions of coloured points, disposed in a certain manner. If the eye is sensible of any thing farther, I desire it may be pointed out to me. But, if it be impossible to shew any thing farther, we may conclude with certainty, that the idea of extension is nothing but a copy of these coloured points, and of the manner of their appearance.

Suppose that, in the extended object, or composition of coloured points, from which we first received the idea of extension, the points were of a purple colour; it follows, that in every repetition of that idea we would not only place the points in the same order with respect to each other, but also bestow on them that precise colour with which alone we are acquainted. But afterwards, having experience of the other colours

qualities

of

of

space and
time.

Extension

II.

Of

the ideas of

space and time.

PART of violet, green, red, white, black, and of all the different compositions of these, and finding a resemblance in the disposition of coloured points, of which they are composed, we omit the peculiarities of colour, as far as possible, and found an abstract idea merely on that disposition of points, or manner of appearance, in which they agree. Nay, even when the resemblance is carried beyond the objects of one sense, and the im pressions of touch are found to be similar to those of sight in the disposition of their parts; this does not hinder the abstract idea from representing both, upon account of their resemblance. All abstract ideas are really nothing but particular ones, considered in a certain light; but being annexed to general terms, they are able to represent a vast variety, and to comprehend objects, which, as they are alike in some particulars, are in others vastly wide of each other.

The idea of time, being derived from the succession of our perceptions of every kind, ideas as well as impressions, and impressions of reflection as well as of sensation, will afford us an instance of an abstract idea, which comprehends a still greater variety than that of space, and yet is represented in the fancy by some particular individual idea of a determined quantity and quality.

As 'tis from the disposition of visible and tangible objects we receive the idea of space, so, from the succession of ideas and impressions we form the idea of time; nor is it possible for time alone ever to make its appearance, or be taken notice of by the mind. A man in a sound sleep, or strongly occupied with one thought, is insensible of time; and according as his perceptions succeed each other with greater or less rapidity, the same duration appears longer or shorter to

III.

Of the other
qualities

of

our ideas

of

his imagination. It has been remarked by a great phi- SECT.
losopher, * that our perceptions have certain bounds
in this particular, which are fixed by the original na-
ture and constitution of the mind, and beyond which
no influence of external objects on the senses is ever
able to hasten or retard our thought. If you wheel space and
about a burning coal with rapidity, it will present to
the senses an image of a circle of fire; nor will there
seem to be any interval of time betwixt its revolutions ;
merely because 'tis impossible for our perceptions to
succeed each other, with the same rapidity that motion

time.

may be communicated to external objects. Wherever Contradict

we have no successive perceptions, we have no notion
of time, even though there be a real succession in the lates
objects. From these phenomena, as well as from
many others, we may conclude, that time cannot make
its appearance to the mind, either alone or attended
with a steady unchangeable object, but is always dis-
covered by some perceivable succession of changeable
objects.

To confirm this we may add the following argument, which to me seems perfectly decisive and convincing. 'Tis evident, that time or duration consists of different parts for otherwise, we could not conceive a longer or shorter duration. 'Tis also evident, that these parts are not co-existent: for that quality of the co-existence of parts belongs to extension, and is what distinguishes it from duration. Now as time is composed of parts that are not co-existent, an unchangeable object, since it produces none but co-existent impressions, produces none that can give us the idea of time; and, consequently, that idea must be derived from a succession

* Mr Locke.