|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:41 pm
I'm new to the guild, so I figure I'll start this off with an excerpt of his essay on this issue.
"For, through receiving the idea of heat or light from the sun, we are apt to think it is a perception and resemblance of such a quality in the sun; yet when we see wax, or a fair face, receive change of color from the sun, we cannot imagine that to be the reception or resemblance of anything in the sun, because we find not those different colors in the sun itself. For, our senses being able to observe a likeness or unlikeness of sensible qualities in two different external objects, we forwardly enough conclude the production of any sensible quality in any subject to be an effect of bare power, and not the communication of any quality which was really in the efficient, when we find no sensible quality in the thing that produced it. But our senses, not being able to discover any unlikeness between the idea produced in us, and the quality of the object producing it, we are apt to imagine that our ideas are resemblances of something in the objects."
His essay is a hell of a lot longer, but this part here is nice for interpretation.
Anyone want to take a shot at what he means?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:36 pm
GuardianOfNature I'm new to the guild, so I figure I'll start this off an excerpt of his I read today. "For, through receiving the idea of heat or light from the sun, we are apt to think it is a perception and resemblance of such a quality in the sun; yet when we see wax, or a fair face, receive change of color from the sun, we cannot imagine that to be the reception or resemblance of anything in the sun, because we find not those different colors in the sun itself. For, our senses being able to observe a likeness or unlikeness of sensible qualities in two different external objects, we forwardly enough conclude the production of any sensible quality in any subject to be an effect of bare power, and not the communication of any quality which was really in the efficient, when we find no sensible quality in the thing that produced it. But our senses, not being able to discover any unlikeness between the idea produced in us, and the quality of the object producing it, we are apt to imagine that our ideas are resemblances of something in the objects." His essay is a hell of a lot longer, but this part here is nice for interpretation. Anyone want to take a shot at what he means? I think I saw you post this in the ED. :] I would guess he's saying that rely on our senses to the point where we assume what we perceive to be truth, and try to apply that truth to other things assuming that they are similar enough for us to apply said knowledge to. In doing this we lose focus on the true nature of the thing, and we stray farther from the truth as we apply our previous ideas and perceptions onto that which is new to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:20 pm
GuardianOfNature I'm new to the guild, so I figure I'll start this off with an excerpt of his essay on this issue. "For, through receiving the idea of heat or light from the sun, we are apt to think it is a perception and resemblance of such a quality in the sun; yet when we see wax, or a fair face, receive change of color from the sun, we cannot imagine that to be the reception or resemblance of anything in the sun, because we find not those different colors in the sun itself. For, our senses being able to observe a likeness or unlikeness of sensible qualities in two different external objects, we forwardly enough conclude the production of any sensible quality in any subject to be an effect of bare power, and not the communication of any quality which was really in the efficient, when we find no sensible quality in the thing that produced it. But our senses, not being able to discover any unlikeness between the idea produced in us, and the quality of the object producing it, we are apt to imagine that our ideas are resemblances of something in the objects." His essay is a hell of a lot longer, but this part here is nice for interpretation. Anyone want to take a shot at what he means? we see pretty much what we think and that seeing what we think is a resmbalnce to what we feel? lol idk well i mean i kno but i dont fell like typing it all cause it would take up the whole page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
