Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

the positive existence of a thing in order to disprove its existence.

But if an external fact cannot in this case be brought forward in proof or disproof, it is equally plain that a purely mental or internal fact cannot be adduced for either purpose.

The only mental or internal fact which can be mentioned as at all relating to the subject is, that we perceive external objects: but this cannot of course be alleged in proof of itself, or of its own truth; nor can it be brought without egregious absurdity in disproof of itself.

That there are external objects perceived by us is therefore a primary fact, which admits neither of being proved nor of being disproved, and it is amazing that philosophers of great depth and acuteness should have attempted to do either.

LETTER XVII.

THEORIES OF PERCEPTION, CONTINUED. - BERKELEY, HUME, AND BROWN.

I HAVE not yet done with the ideal theory.

So transparent appears to me the assumption of the identical point to be proved, as I showed in my last Letter, that I cannot myself refrain from marvelling how this baseless theory should ever have been considered both by its supporters, and even by some of those who have dissented from it, as unanswerable.

Hume, for example, whose doctrine I purpose next to examine, as set forth in the work which he expressly desired might alone be regarded as containing his philosophical opinions, declares that Berkeley's arguments admit of no answer; adding, however, that they produce no conviction *:-an impossible state of things. That they produce no conviction. indicates not only that an answer may be found, but that the reason may be assigned why the arguments seem to be incontrovertible. If a philosopher in such a case appears irrefutable in argument, it

Essays and Treatises, vol. 2. note N.

is almost invariably because he has, by the substitution of one term for another, or by the identification of two different things, incorporated in his premises the truth of the very conclusion he is labouring to enforce. In this predicament Berkeley stands, as I have shown, or endeavoured to show; and seeing that he begins by begging the question, I cannot certainly deem him entitled to the praise of reasoning well in support of his thesis.

Much as his arguments have been extolled, whoever closely examines them will find that he does not adduce a single one (arguments in a circle excepted) to prove his fundamental position; but, having assumed it without proof, he is thenceforward occupied, partly in deducing conclusions from it, partly in explaining facts according to it, partly in contending with objections which nothing but his original assumption enables him to combat, partly in overturning doctrines not necessarily held in connexion with the absolute existence of an external world, and partly in attempting, by a retroactive process, to confirm the truth of the assumed proposition from its own consequences.

That in doing this he has shown great logical adroitness and fertility of invention, much metaphysical knowledge and acumen, a wide range of thought, and a fluent and felicitous style, I most cheerfully admit.

Without some such high qualities as these, indeed,. his theory could never have met with the reception

which it obtained. What has rendered them of no effect in the establishment of truth, is the gratuitous and groundless assumption from which he so unconsciously sets out.

Hume's strong declaration as to the irrefutable character of Berkeley's arguments, whether with or without conviction of the position they were brought to prove, is the more extraordinary that, although he professedly favours Berkeley's theory, most of his expressions clearly imply Locke's untenable position already examined, which Berkeley explicitly rejects. After remarking that mankind in general "suppose the very images presented by the senses to be the external objects, and never entertain the suspicion that the one are nothing but representations of the other," Hume goes on to assert, "that no man who reflects ever doubted that the existences which we consider when we say, house, and that land, are nothing but perceptions in the mind, and fleeting copies or representations of other existences which remain uniform and independent." Here, in direct contradiction to Berkeley, he plainly admits the independent existence of external objects, although he maintains in the same breath that we perceive nothing but representations of them, and even speaks of such objects as remaining uniform and independent existences in contrast with their copies, which are fleeting. Yet he subsequently says, "The mind

this

Berkeley, as already explained, does not maintain that

has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connection with objects. The supposition of such a connection is therefore without any foundation in reasoning."

It is scarcely needful to point out here the inconsistent assertions, that there are firm and independent existences of which we perceive only the copies or representations, and yet that we cannot possibly attain to any knowledge of such existences, nor to any experience of their connection with the said copies, consequently not even to the knowledge that the copies we perceive are copies, or that such existences exist.

Nor ought we to overlook the quiet self-complacent way in which, after assuming the really monstrous fiction that there are images presented by the senses, he puts all persons who doubt that external objects, houses and land, are nothing but perceptions or mental representations, into the dreaded class of the unreflecting.

Hume, as a metaphysician, is exceedingly ingenious, inventive, acute, and profound; but, at the same time, loose and inaccurate. While he is less consistent on the question before us than his distinguished predecessor in philosophy, whose logic he extols, but whose theory (if he intends the passages

there are both ideas and objects, the one being copies of the other, but that objects are ideas.

L

« AnteriorContinuar »