Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural PhilosophyNewcastle, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of
Philosophy
Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy
Newcastle, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of
Newcastle, William Cavendish, Duke of, 1592-1676; Philosophy
[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2. _c._ 1. _a._ 1, 6, 7.
XV.
_MADAM,_
Your _Author_ is pleased, in Mirth, and to disgrace the opinion of
those which hold, that Perception is made by figuring, to bring in
this following example:[1] _Suppose_, says he, _one Particle should
shape it self into a_ George on Horse-back _with a Lance in his hand,
and another into an Inchanted Castle; this_ George on Horse-back
_must run against the Castle, to make the Castle receive his impress
and similitude: But what then? Truly the Encounter will be very
Unfortunate, for S._ George _indeed may easily break his Lance, but
it is impossible that he should by justling against the Particle in
the form of a Castle, conveigh the intire shape of himself and his
Horse thereby, such as we find our selves able to imagine of a man
on Horse-back; which is a Truth as demonstrable as any Theorem in
Mathematicks._ I answer, first, That there is no Particle single and
alone by it self; Next, I say, It is more easie for the rational
matter to put it self into such figures, and to make such encounters,
then for an Immaterial mind or substance to imagine it; for no
imagination can be without figure, and how should an Immaterial created
substance present such Figures, but by making them either in it self
or upon matter? For S. _George_ and the _Castle_ are figures, and
their encounters are real fighting actions, and how such figures and
actions can be in the mind or memory, and yet not be, is impossible
to conceive; for, as I said, those figures and actions must be either
in the incorporeal mind, or in the corporeal parts of matter; and if
the figures and motions may be in an incorporeal substance, much more
is it probable for them to be in a corporeal; nay if the figures and
their actions can be in gross corporeal matter, why should they not be
in the purest part of matter, which is the rational matter? And as for
being made known to the whole body, and every part thereof, it is not
necessary, no more then it is necessary, that the private actions of
every Man or Family should be made known to the whole Kingdom, or Town,
or Parish: But my opinion of self-corporeal motion and perception, may
be as demonstrable as that of Immaterial Natural Spirits, which, in
my mind, is not demonstrable at all, by reason it is not corporeal or
material; For how can that be naturally demonstrable, which naturally
is nothing? But your _Author_ believes the Mind or rational Soul
to be individable, and therefore concludes, that the Parts of the
same Matter, although at great distance, must of necessity know each
Particular act of each several Part; but that is not necessary; for
if there were not ignorance through the division of Parts, every man
and other creatures would know alike; and there is no better proof,
that matter, or any particular creature in nature is not governed by
a created Immaterial Spirit, then that knowledg is in parts; for the
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