Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Inasmuch as their principles were said to be derived from Locke, he has sometimes been considered the founder of the sensual school.

It is, however, to be observed, that Locke did not perceive, much less would he have admitted, the result to which his doctrines led. He speaks of the ideas to which I have alluded, such as space, power, &c., as legitimate objects of human thought, and gives quite a correct account of their origin. Thus, speaking of power, he remarks: "The mind being every day informed by the senses of the alteration of those simple ideas it observes in things without, and taking notice how one comes to an end and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before; reflecting, also, on what passes within itself, and observing a constant change in its ideas, sometimes by the impression of outward objects on the senses, and sometimes from the determination of its own choice; and concluding, from what it has always observed to have been, that like changes will for the future be made in the same things by the same agents, and by the like way considers in the one thing the possibility of having any of its simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that change, and so it comes by that idea which we call power."- Book 2, chap. 21, sec. 1.

Here we perceive that Locke acknowledges the existence of ideas or knowledges derived neither from sensation nor reflection, and gives a very intelligible account of their origin. It is obvious that the idea of power is not derived from the senses; we neither see, nor feel, nor hear it. It is not an operation of the mind, therefore is not derived from reflection. And, besides, comparing, adding together, uniting, are acts of the mind, wholly different either from perception or consciousness. It is evident, therefore, that Locke, when he examined the ideas in his own mind, observed among them many which neither perception nor con

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

sciousness could give; and he, perhaps carelessly, accounted for their origin by the use of the indefinite expressions, "takes notice of," "concludes," "comes to the idea," &c. We see, therefore, that Locke went beyond his own theory, and really saw what his theory declared could not be seen. Had he pursued a different method, and first observed the ideas of which we are conscious, and afterwards investigated their origin, his system would probably have been greatly modified. He, however, pursued the opposite course; first determining the origin of our ideas, and then limiting our ideas by the sources which he supposed himself to have exhausted.

The manner in which Locke was led into this error is apparent. He had been at great pains to refute the doctrine of innate ideas, and to show that the human mind could have no thought until some impression was made upon it from without. It was also obvious to him that the only objects which we are able to cognize are matter and mind. He compared the mind to a sheet of white paper, entirely blank until something is written on it by a power external to itself. This, however, although the truth, is only a part of the truth. As I have before remarked, if the sheet of paper had the power of uniting the letters written upon it into words, and these words into discourse, and of proceeding forever in the elimination of new and original truth, it would much more accurately represent the intellect of man. This illustration of a sheet of white paper evidently misled our philosopher, and prevented him from giving due prominence to the originating or suggestive power of the mind.

This brief notice of the opinions of Locke seemed necessary, especially since so great and important conclusions have been deduced from his doctrine. The whole subject has been treated in a most masterly manner by Cousin, in

his Review of the Philosophy of Locke, to which I would specially refer the student.

But to what conclusion are we led by this brief examination of the theory of Locke? We have seen that, on the supposition that all our ideas are derived from perception and consciousness, a large portion of the most important ideas of which the human soul is conscious must be abandoned as the groundless fictions of the imagination, having no foundation in the true processes of the understanding. On the other hand, we know from our own consciousness that these ideas are universally developed in the human intellect as soon as it begins to exercise independent thought. We must, therefore, conclude, that the theory of Locke is imperfect, and that it does not recognize some of our most important sources of original knowledge. It is, then, our business to inquire for some other sources besides those recognized by Locke.

REFERENCES.

Sources of our knowledge-Locke, Book 2, chap. 1, sec. 3, sec. 4, sec. 5; Book 2, chap. 12, sec. 8, chap. 22, sec. 1, 2, 9.

Suggestion a power of the mind - Reid, Inquiry, chap. 2, sec. 7; Int. Powers, Essay 3, chap. 5; Essay 2, chap. 10, 12.

Examination of Locke's Theory-Stewart, vol. i., chap. 1.

Before all others. - Cousin's Examination of Locke's Philosophy, chap. 1, 2, 3, 4.

SECTION II.- THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL SUGGESTION, OR THE POWER OF INTUITIVE COGNITION.

LOCKE has truly stated that all the substances to which in our present state we are related are matter and mind. By perception we obtain a knowledge of the qualities of the one, and by consciousness a knowledge of the operations of

he other.

Each is distinct and complete within itself, and each terminates definitely at its own appropriate limit. The thought, however, thus awakened, does not thus terminate. The mind of man is endowed not only with a receptive, but also with what may be called a suggestive power. When the ideas of perception and consciousness terminate, or even while they are present, a new series of mental phenomena arises by virtue of the original power of the intellect itself. These phenomena present themselves in the form of intuitive cognitions, occasioned by the ideas of consciousness and perception, but neither produced by them nor in any respect similar to them. They may be considered acts of pure intellection. To the ideas of perception or consciousness there by necessity belongs an object either objective or subjective. To those ideas of the intellect I think no such object belongs. Hence they could not be cognized originally either by perception or conscious

ness.

They could not exist within us except we were endowed with a different and superior intellectual energy. We can give but little account of these intellections, nor can we offer any proof of their verity. As soon as they arise within us, they are to us the unanswerable evidence of their own truth. As soon as we are conscious of them, we know that they are true, and we never offer any evidence in support of them. So far as our powers of perception and consciousness are concerned, the mind resembles in many respects a sheet of white paper. Here, however, the analogy terminates. There is nothing in the paper which in any respect resembles this power of “intuitive knowledge of which we here speak.

What we here refer to may, perhaps, be best illustrated by a familiar example. A child, before it can talk, throws a ball and knocks down a nine-pin. By perception aided by memory, it derives no other ideas besides those of a rolling

ball and of a falling ninepin.

This is all that the senses

could give it. It might be all that would be apparent tc the mind of a brute. But is this the case with the child? Far otherwise. There arises in his mind, by virtue of its own energy, the notion of cause and effect; of something in the ball capable of producing this change, and of something in the ninepin which renders it susceptible of this change. He instinctively cognizes a most important relation existing between these two events. Still more, he has an intuitive belief that the same event can be produced again in the same way. Relying on this belief, he sets up the ninepin again, and throws the ball in the confident expectation that it will produce the same result as at first. There has thus been created in his mind, not only the relation of cause and effect, but the important conviction that like causes will produce like effects. In consequence of the relations which have thus been revealed to him, he sets a value upon his toys which he did not before. The same idea is developed as soon as the infant puts his finger in the candle. He will not try the experiment a second time. He immediately obtains a knowledge of the relation of cause and effect, and that the same cause will again produce the same effect. He does not see this relation; it is not an object of perception, nor is it an operation of the mind. He does not feel it when he is burned. As soon, however, as he cognizes the relative ideas, the relation in which they stand to each other presents itself to him as an intuitive cognition.

I have here used an illustration from external objects. I, however, by no means assert that in this manner we first arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect. The same idea is evidently suggested by every act of voluntary motion. A child wishes to move his hand; it moves, but perhaps not in the right direction. He tries again with better success. At last he accomplishes his object. Here is, perhaps, the

« ElőzőTovább »