Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

gives to the several propositions or parts of them, which it joins by this monosyllable.

First, "But to say no more;" here it intimates a stop of the mind, in the course it was going, before it came quite to the end of it.

Secondly, "I saw but two plants:" here it shews, that the mind limits the sense to what is expressed, with a negation of all other. Thirdly, "You pray: but it is not that God would bring you to the true religion."

Fourthly," But that he would confirm you in your own:" the first of these buts intimates a supposition in the mind of something otherwise than it should be; the latter shews, that the mind makes a direct opposition between that, and what goes before it.

Fifthly, "All animals have sense; but a dog is an animal :" here it signifies little more, but that the latter proposition is joined to the former, as the minor of a syllogism.

§ 6. To these, I doubt not, might be added a great many other significations of this particle, if it were my business to examine it in its full latitude, and consider it in all the places it is to be found: which if one should do, I doubt, whether in all those manners it is made use of, it would deserve the title of discretive, which grammarians give to it. But I intend not here a full explication of this sort of signs. The instances I have given in this one, may give occasion to reflect upon their use and force in language, and lead us into the contemplation of several actions of our minds in discoursing, which it has found a way to intimate to others by these particles, some whereof constantly, and others in certain constructions, have the sense of a whole sentence contained in them.

CHAP. VIII.

OF ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE TERMS.

§ 1. Abstract terms not predicable one of another, and why.—The ordinary words of language, and our common use of them, would have given us light into the nature of our ideas, if they had been but considered with attention. The mind, as has been shewn, has a power to abstract its ideas, and so they become essences, general essences, whereby the sorts of things are distinguished. Now each abstract idea being distinct, so that of any two, the one can never be the other, the mind will, by its intuitive knowledge, perceive their difference; and therefore in propositions, no two whole ideas can ever be affirmed one of another. This we see in the common use of language, which permits not any two abstract words, or names of abstract ideas, to be affirmed one of another. For how near of kin soever they may seem to be, and how certain soever it is, that man is an animal, or rational, or white, yet every one, at first hearing, perceives the falsehood of these propositions; humanity is animality, or rationality, or whiteness: and this is as evident as any of the most allowed maxims. All our affirmations, then, are only inconcrete, which is the affirming, not one abstract idea to be another, but one abstract idea to be joined to another; which abstract ideas, in substances, may be of any sort; in all the rest, are little else.

but of relations; and in substances, the most frequent are of powers; v. g. a man is white, signifies, that the thing that has the essence of a man, has also in it the essence of whiteness, which is nothing but a power to produce the idea of whiteness in one, whose eyes can discover ordinary objects; or a man is rational, signifies, that the same thing that hath the essence of a man, hath also in it the essence of rationality, i. e. a power of reasoning.

§ 2. They shew the difference of our ideas.-This distinction of names, shews us also the difference of our ideas for if we observe them, we shall find, that our simple ideas have all abstract, as well as concrete, names: the one whereof is (to speak the language of grammarians) a substantive, the other an adjective; as whiteness, white; sweetness, sweet. The like also holds in our ideas of modes and relations, as justice, just; equality, equal; only with this difference, that some of the concrete names of relations, amongst men, chiefly are substantives; as paternitas, pater; whereof it were easy to render a reason. But as to our ideas of substances, we have very few or no abstract names at all. For though the schools have introduced animalitas, humanitas, corporietas, and some others; yet they hold no proportion with that infinite number of names of substances, to which they never were ridiculous enough to attempt the coining of abstract ones: and those few that the schools forged, and put into the mouths of their scholars, could never yet get admittance into common use, or obtain the licence of public approbation. Which seems to me at least to intimate the confession of all mankind, that they have no ideas of the real essences of substances, since they have not names for such ideas: which no doubt they would have had, had not their consciousness to themselves of their ignorance of them, kept them from so idle an attempt. And therefore, though they had ideas enough to distinguish gold from a stone, and metal from wood; yet they but timorously ventured on such terms, as aurietas and saxietas, metallietas and lignietas, or the like names, which should pretend to signify the real essences of those substances, whereof they knew they had no ideas. And, indeed, it was only the doctrine of substantial forms, and the confidence of mistaking pretenders to a knowledge that they had not, which first coined, and then introduced, animalitas, and humanitas, and the like; which yet went very little farther than their own schools, and could never get to be current amongst understanding men. Indeed, humanitas was a word familiar amongst the Romans; but in a far different sense, and stood not for the abstract essence of any substance; but was the abstract name of a mode, and its concrete, humanus, not homo.

CHAP. IX.

OF THE IMPERFECTION OF WORDS.

§1. Words are used for recording and communicating our thoughts. -From what has been said in the foregoing chapters, it is easy to perceive what imperfection there is in language, and how the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful

and uncertain in their significations. To examine the perfection or imperfection of words, it is necessary first to consider their use and end for as they are more or less fitted to attain that, so are they more or less perfect. We have in the former part of this discourse, often, upon occasion, mentioned a double use of words.

First, One for the recording of our own thoughts.

Secondly, The other for the communicating of our thoughts to others.

§ 2. Any words will serve for recording.-As to the first of these, for the recording our own thoughts for the help of our own memories, whereby, as it were, we talk to ourselves, any words will serve the turn. For since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any ideas, a man may use what words he pleases, to signify his own ideas to himself and there will be no imperfection in them, if he constantly use the same sign for the same idea, for then he cannot fail of having his meaning understood, wherein consists the right use and perfection of language.

§3. Communication by words civil or philosophical.-As to communication of words, that too has a double use: 1. civil; 2. philosophical.

First, By their civil use, I mean such a communication of thoughts, and ideas by words, as may serve for the upholding common conversation and commerce about the ordinary affairs and conveniences of civil life, in the societies of men one amongst another.

Secondly, By the philosophical use of words, I mean such a use of them as may serve to convey the precise notion of things, and to express, in general propositions, certain and undoubted truths, which the mind may rest upon, and be satisfied with, in its search after true knowledge. These two uses are very distinct; and a great deal less exactness will serve in the one, than in the other, as we shall see in what follows.

§ 4. The imperfections of words, is the doubtfulness of their signification.-The chief end of language in communication being understood, words serve not well for that end, neither in civil, nor philosophical, discourse, when any word does not excite in the hearer the same idea which it stands for in the mind of the speaker. Now since sounds have no natural connexion with our ideas, but have all their signification from the arbitrary imposition of men, the doubtfulness and uncertainty of their signification, which is the imperfection we here are speaking of, has its cause more in the ideas they stand for, than in any incapacity there is in one sound more than in another, to signify any idea for in that regard they are all equally perfect.

That then which makes doubtfulness and uncertainty in the signification of some more than other words, is the difference of ideas they stand for.

§ 5. Causes of their imperfection.-Words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for, must be learned and retained by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others, in any language. But this is hardest to be done, where,

First, The ideas they stand for are very complex, and made up of a great number of ideas put together.

Secondly, Where the ideas they stand for have no certain connexion in nature; and so no settled standard any where in nature existing, to rectify and adjust them by.

Thirdly, When the signification of the word is referred to a standard, which standard is not easy to be known.

Fourthly, Where the signification of the word, and the real essence of the thing, are not exactly the same.

These are difficulties that attend the signification of several words that are intelligible. Those which are not intelligible at all, such as names standing for any simple ideas, which another has not organs or faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man, or sounds to a deaf man, need not here be mentioned.

In all these cases we shall find an imperfection in words, which I shall more at large explain, in their particular application to our several sorts of ideas for if we examine them, we shall find, that the names of mixed modes are most liable to doubtfulness and imperfection for the two first of these reasons; and the names of substances chiefly for the two latter.

§ 6. The names of mixed modes doubtful: first, because the ideas they stand for, are so complex.-First, The names of mixed modes, are many of them liable to great uncertainty and obscurity in their signification.

1. Because of that great composition these complex ideas are often made up of. To make words serviceable to the end of communication, it is necessary (as has been said) that they excite in the hearer, exactly the same idea they stand for in the mind of the speaker. Without this, men fill one another's heads with noise and sounds; but convey not thereby their thoughts, and lay not before one another their ideas, which is the end of discourse and language. But when a word stands for a very complex idea, that is compounded and decompounded, it is not easy for men to form and retain that idea so exactly, as to make the name in common use stand for the same precise idea, without any the least variation. Hence it comes to pass, that men's names of very compound ideas, such as for the most part are moral words, have seldom in two different men the same precise signification, since one man's complex idea seldom agrees with another's, and often differs from his own, from that which he had yesterday, or will have to-morrow.

§ 7. Secondly, because they have no standards.-2. Because the names of mixed modes, for the most part, want standards in nature, whereby men may rectify and adjust their significations; therefore they are very various and doubtful. They are assemblages of ideas put together at the pleasure of the mind, pursuing its own ends of discourse, and suited to its own notions, whereby it designs not to copy any thing really existing, but to denominate and rank things as they come to agree with those archetypes or forms it hath made. He that first brought the words sham, or weedle, or banter, in use, put together, as he thought fit, those ideas he made it stand for and as it is with any new names of modes, that are now brought into any language; so it was with the

old ones, when they were first made use of. Names, therefore, that stand for collections of ideas, which the mind makes at pleasure, must needs be of doubtful signification, when such collections are no where to be found constantly united in nature, nor any patterns to be shewn whereby men may adjust them. What the words murder, or sacrilege, &c. signifies, can never be known from things themselves; there be many of the parts of those complex ideas, which are not visible in the action itself, the intention of the mind, or the relation of holy things, which make a part of murder, or sacrilege, have no necessary connexion with the outward and visible action of him that commits either: and the pulling the trigger of the gun, with which the murder is committed, and is all the action that perhaps is visible, has no natural connexion with those other ideas that make up the complex one named murder. They have their union and combination only from the understanding, which unites them under one name: but uniting them without any rule, or pattern, it cannot be but that the signification of the name, that stands for such voluntary collections, should be often various in the minds of different men, who have scarce any standing rule to regulate themselves and their notions by, in such arbitrary ideas.

§ 8. Propriety not a sufficient remedy. It is true, common use, that is the rule of propriety, may be supposed here to afford some aid, to settle the signification of language; and it cannot be denied, but that in some measure it does. Common use regulates the meaning of words pretty well for common conversation; but nobody having an authority to establish the precise signification of words, nor determine to what ideas any one shall annex them, common use is not sufficient to adjust them to philosophical discourses; there being scarce any name, of any very complex idea (to say nothing of others), which, in common use, has not a great latitude, and which keeping within the bounds of propriety, may not be made the sign of far different ideas. Besides, the rule and measure of propriety itself being no where established, it is often matter of dispute, whether this or that way of using a word, be propriety of speech, or no. From all which, it is evident, that the names of such kind of very complex ideas, are naturally liable to this imperfection, to be of doubtful and uncertain signification; and even in men that have a mind to understand one another, do not always stand for the same idea in speaker and hearer. Though the names glory and gratitude, be the same in every man's mouth through a whole country, yet the complex collective idea, which every one thinks on or intends by that name, is apparently very different in men using the same language. $9. The way of learning these names, contributes also to their doubtfulness.-The way also wherein the names of mixed modes are ordinarily learned, does not a little contribute to the doubtfulness of their signification. For if we will observe how children learn languages, we shall find, that to make them understand what the names of simple ideas, or substances, stand for, people ordinarily shew them the thing whereof they would have them have the idea, and then repeat to them the name that stands for it, as white, sweet, milk, sugar, cat, dog. But as for mixed modes, especially the most material of them, moral words, the sounds are usually learned first, and then to know what complex ideas

« AnteriorContinuar »