SEC 5: RELATIONS
- The word ‘relation’ is commonly used in two different senses:
- For that quality which connects two ideas in the imagination.
- The one naturally introduces the other.
- This is the common meaning of ‘relation’.
- For the arbitrary union of two ideas in the fancy, which we compare those ideas with.
- This is the philosophical meaning of ‘relation’.
- We extend this to mean any subject of comparison, without a connecting principle.
- For that quality which connects two ideas in the imagination.
- Thus, philosophers will allow distance to be a true relation, because we acquire an idea of it by comparing objects.
- But we commonly say that:
- nothing can be more distant than such or such things from each other
- nothing can have less relation, as if distance and relation were incompatible.
- But we commonly say that:
- It is an endless task to enumerate all those qualities:
- which make objects admit of comparison, and
- which the ideas of philosophical relation are produced by.
- But they may be comprised under seven general headings.
- These are the sources of all philosophical relation.
- The first kind of relation is resemblance.
- This is a common relation.
- Without it, no philosophical relation can exist since only resembling objects will admit of comparison.
- Resemblance is necessary for all philosophical relations.
- But it does not follow that it always produces a connection of ideas.
- When a quality becomes very general and common to many individuals, it does not lead the mind directly to any one of them.
- By presenting at once too great a choice, the quality prevents the imagination from fixing on any single object.
- This is a common relation.
- Identity is a second kind of relation.
- This relation is applied to unchangeable objects, without examining the nature of personal identity.
- Personal identity shall be examined afterwards.
- The most universal relation is the relation of identity.
- It is common to every being whose existence has any duration.
- This relation is applied to unchangeable objects, without examining the nature of personal identity.
- After identity, the most universal and comprehensive relations are those of space and time.
- These are the sources of an infinite number of comparisons, such as distant, contiguous, above, below, before, after, etc.
- All those objects which admit of quantity, or number, may be compared.
- This is another very fertile source of relation.
- When any two objects have the same common quality, their degrees, form a fifth kind of relation.
- One heavy object may be heavier or lighter than the other object.
- Two colours of the same kind may be of different shades.
- In that respect, it may admit of comparison.
- The relation of contrariety may initially be regarded as an exception to the rule, that no relation of any kind can subsist without some degree of resemblance.
- Only the ideas of existence and non-existence are contrary in themselves.
- These plainly resemble, as both imply an idea of the object.
- Though non-existence excludes it from all times and places, in which it is supposed to not exist.
- All other objects, such as fire and water, heat and cold, are only found to be contrary from:
- experience, and
- the contrariety of their causes or effects
- The relation of cause and effect is a seventh philosophical and natural relation.
- The resemblance in this relation, shall be explained afterwards.
- I might naturally be expected to join difference to the other relations.
- But I consider it as a negation of relation, than as anything real or positive.
- Difference is of two kinds as opposed to identity or resemblance.
- The first is called a difference of number.
- The second is a difference of kind.
SEC 6: MODES AND SUBSTANCES
- Some philosophers:
- founded so much of their reasonings on the distinction of substance and accident
- imagined we have clear ideas of substance and accident.
- Is the idea of substance derived from the impressions of sensation or of reflection?
- If it is conveyed to us by our senses, which of them and how?
- If it is perceived by:
- the eyes, it must be a colour
- the ears, a sound
- the palate, a taste, and so of the other senses.
- No one will assert that substance is a colour, sound, or a taste.
- The idea of substance must therefore be derived from an impression of reflection, if it really exists.
- But the impressions of reflection resolve themselves into our passions and emotions.
- None of these can possibly represent a substance.
- We therefore have no idea of substance, distinct from the idea of a collection of particular qualities.
- We have no other meaning when we talk or reason concerning it.
- The idea of a substance and mode is nothing but a collection of simple ideas that:
- are united by the imagination
- have a particular name assigned them for us to recall that collection.
- The difference between substance and mode is that the particular qualities of a substance are commonly referred to an unknown something.
- This something is supposed to:
- exist essentially in that substance, or
- at least be closely and inseparably connected by the relations of contiguity and causation.
- This something is supposed to:
- The effect of this is that whatever new simple quality we discover connected with the rest, we immediately comprehend it among them.
- Even though it did not enter into the first conception of the substance.
- Thus, our idea of gold may at first be a yellow colour, weight, malleableness, fusibility.
- But after discovering its dissolubility in hydrochloric acid, we:
- join that to the other qualities
- suppose it to belong to the substance as much as if its idea had made a part of the compound one, from the beginning.
- But after discovering its dissolubility in hydrochloric acid, we:
- The principal of union regarded as the chief part of the complex idea:
- gives entrance to whatever quality afterwards occurs
- is equally comprehended by it, as are the others which first presented themselves.
- By considering their nature, it is obvious that this cannot take place in modes.
- The simple ideas which form modes either represent:
- qualities which are not united by contiguity and causation but are dispersed in different subjects, or
- that the uniting principle is not regarded as the foundation of the complex idea, if they are united at all.
- The simple ideas which form modes either represent:
- The idea of a dance is an instance of the first kind of modes.
- The idea of beauty is an instance of the second.
- It is obvious why such complex ideas cannot receive any new idea without changing the name which distinguishes the mode.
Words: 1033
For comments or corrections, please emailL jddalisay@gmail.com