The Scottish Philosophy [150]
from one state to another. Now that passage is motion." He proves the immateriality of mind in general, (1) from the nature of motion, (2) from the nature of body, (3) from the nature of mind. He establishes the two first , and the third by a demonstration . He has then proof. " Sensation cannot be produced by a material cause; reasoning and consciousness far less."
Coming to minds, he adopts the Aristotelean distinction between the gnostic and orective powers. The gnostic powers are sense, phantasy, and comparison. In sense, the mind is not conversant with the visible object itself, but with the image or [Greek word], as the Epicureans called it, thrown off from the object. The essential distinction between sense and phantasia is, that what we perceive by the sense is present and operating upon the sense, whereas the object of the imagination is not present. Phantasy is only of sensible objects. Memory is only of ideas, and belongs exclusively to man. " Brutes have no idea of time, or of first and last. Phantasy serves to them the purpose of memory." The object is painted on the brute's phantasia, but without any perception of the time when he first saw it. Sense and phantasy perceive particular things, -- comparison, generals or ideas. He thinks that brutes possess the comparative faculty, and that here the mind of the brute acts without the assistance of the body. As to will, he reckons " all will as free, and, at the same time, it is necessary; but of a necessity very different from material or physical." Much of this psychology is avowedly taken from Aristotle, but at the same time exhibits traces of shrewdness and independence, and, it has to be added, of eccentricity.
He criticises Locke's theory of the origin of ideas. He acknowledges no innate ideas, if we mean ideas present to the mind, and contemplated before they are excited by objects; but they are there though "latent and unproductive," and are there even before our existence in this world. Nature, however, has so ordained it, that they can only be excited by the impulse of objects upon our organs of sense." It should be noticed here, that notwithstanding the prominence given to it by {252} Locke, Lord Monboddo has no recognition of reflection or consciousness as a separate source of ideas.
He dwells with evident fondness on categories or universal forms. All things are to be known by their causes. The knowledge of first causes belongs to metaphysics. Every thing that is to be known falls under one or other of the categories. He shows that God must have ideas. Man is capable of forming ideas. Time is not a cause, but is a necessary adjunct or concomitant of the material world. If nothing existed, it is evident there could be no such thing as time. His definition of time does not make the subject much clearer, as it introduces the phrase duration, which needs explanation quite as much as time does: " it is the measure of the duration of things that exist in succession by the motion of the celestial bodies. Beings which suffer no change, neither in substance, qualities, nor energies, cannot be in time. Of this kind we conceive Divinity to be, and therefore he is not in time but in eternity." As to space, it is nothing actually, but it is something potentially; for it has the capacity of receiving body, "for which it furnishes room or place." Here it should be observed that room or place comes in to explain space, which is as clear as either room or place, -- which are, in, fact embraced in it. " Space has not the capacity of becoming any thing, but only of receiving any thing."
He represents Aristotle as saying that the beauty of nature consists in final causes, without which we can conceive no beauty in any thing. In expounding his own views, he tells us that in a single object there may be truth, but no beauty. In order to give beauty to truth, there must be " a system, of which the mind, perceiving the union, is at the same time struck with that most agreeable of all perceptions which we
Coming to minds, he adopts the Aristotelean distinction between the gnostic and orective powers. The gnostic powers are sense, phantasy, and comparison. In sense, the mind is not conversant with the visible object itself, but with the image or [Greek word], as the Epicureans called it, thrown off from the object. The essential distinction between sense and phantasia is, that what we perceive by the sense is present and operating upon the sense, whereas the object of the imagination is not present. Phantasy is only of sensible objects. Memory is only of ideas, and belongs exclusively to man. " Brutes have no idea of time, or of first and last. Phantasy serves to them the purpose of memory." The object is painted on the brute's phantasia, but without any perception of the time when he first saw it. Sense and phantasy perceive particular things, -- comparison, generals or ideas. He thinks that brutes possess the comparative faculty, and that here the mind of the brute acts without the assistance of the body. As to will, he reckons " all will as free, and, at the same time, it is necessary; but of a necessity very different from material or physical." Much of this psychology is avowedly taken from Aristotle, but at the same time exhibits traces of shrewdness and independence, and, it has to be added, of eccentricity.
He criticises Locke's theory of the origin of ideas. He acknowledges no innate ideas, if we mean ideas present to the mind, and contemplated before they are excited by objects; but they are there though "latent and unproductive," and are there even before our existence in this world. Nature, however, has so ordained it, that they can only be excited by the impulse of objects upon our organs of sense." It should be noticed here, that notwithstanding the prominence given to it by {252} Locke, Lord Monboddo has no recognition of reflection or consciousness as a separate source of ideas.
He dwells with evident fondness on categories or universal forms. All things are to be known by their causes. The knowledge of first causes belongs to metaphysics. Every thing that is to be known falls under one or other of the categories. He shows that God must have ideas. Man is capable of forming ideas. Time is not a cause, but is a necessary adjunct or concomitant of the material world. If nothing existed, it is evident there could be no such thing as time. His definition of time does not make the subject much clearer, as it introduces the phrase duration, which needs explanation quite as much as time does: " it is the measure of the duration of things that exist in succession by the motion of the celestial bodies. Beings which suffer no change, neither in substance, qualities, nor energies, cannot be in time. Of this kind we conceive Divinity to be, and therefore he is not in time but in eternity." As to space, it is nothing actually, but it is something potentially; for it has the capacity of receiving body, "for which it furnishes room or place." Here it should be observed that room or place comes in to explain space, which is as clear as either room or place, -- which are, in, fact embraced in it. " Space has not the capacity of becoming any thing, but only of receiving any thing."
He represents Aristotle as saying that the beauty of nature consists in final causes, without which we can conceive no beauty in any thing. In expounding his own views, he tells us that in a single object there may be truth, but no beauty. In order to give beauty to truth, there must be " a system, of which the mind, perceiving the union, is at the same time struck with that most agreeable of all perceptions which we