An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2Locke, John
Philosophy
An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2
Locke, John
Knowledge, Theory of -- Early works to 1800
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
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account