The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4: Philosophical Works, 1705-21Berkeley, George
Philosophy
The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4: Philosophical Works, 1705-21
Berkeley, George
Philosophy -- Early works to 1800
Mem. The strange errours men run into about the pictures. We think them
small because should a man be suppos’d to see them their pictures would
take up but little room in the fund of his eye.
It seems all lines can’t be bisected in 2 equall parts. Mem. To examine
how the geometers prove the contrary.
’Tis impossible there should be a m. v. less than mine. If there be, mine
may become equal to it (because they are homogeneous) by detraction of
some part or parts. But it consists not of parts, ergo &c.
Suppose inverting perspectives bound to ye eyes of a child, & continu’d to
the years of manhood—when he looks up, or turns up his head, he shall
behold wt we call _under_. Qu. What would he think of _up_ and
_down_(238)?
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(M396) I wonder not at my sagacity in discovering the obvious tho’ amazing
truth. I rather wonder at my stupid inadvertency in not finding it out
before—’tis no witchcraft to see.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(M397) Our simple ideas are so many simple thoughts or perceptions; a
perception cannot exist without a thing to perceive it, or any longer than
it is perceiv’d; a thought cannot be in an unthinking thing; one uniform
simple thought can be like to nothing but another uniform simple thought.
Complex thoughts or ideas are onely an assemblage of simple ideas, and can
be the image of nothing, or like unto nothing, but another assemblage of
simple ideas, &c.
(M398) The Cartesian opinion of light & colours &c. is orthodox enough
even in their eyes who think the Scripture expression may favour the
common opinion. Why may not mine also? But there is nothing in Scripture
that can possibly be wrested to make against me, but, perhaps, many things
for me.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
(M399) Bodies &c. do exist whether we think of ’em or no, they being taken
in a twofold sense—
1. Collections of thoughts.
2. Collections of powers to cause those thoughts.
These later exist; tho’ perhaps _a parte rei_ it may be one simple perfect
power.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Qu. whether the extension of a plain, look’d at straight and slantingly,
survey’d minutely & distinctly, or in the bulk and confusedly at once, be
the same? N. B. The plain is suppos’d to keep the same distance.
The ideas we have by a successive, curious inspection of ye minute parts
of a plain do not seem to make up the extension of that plain view’d &
consider’d all together.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Ignorance in some sort requisite in ye person that should disown the
Principle.
Thoughts do most properly signify, or are mostly taken for the interior
operations of the mind, wherein the mind is active. Those yt obey not the
acts of volition, and in wch the mind is passive, are more properly call’d
sensations or perceptions. But yt is all a case of words.
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