Tnh 1 4 04 11

Secondly, the impressions of touch are simple impres- sions (except with regard to their extent, which is irrelevant to the present purpose); and from this simplicity I infer that they don’t represent solidity or any real object. Consider these two cases ·in which solidity is manifested·:
•A man presses a stone or other solid body with his hand;
•Two stones press each other. You will agree that these two cases are not in every respect alike, because the former involves not just solidity but also a feeling or sensation that doesn’t appear in the latter. So to bring out the likeness between these two cases alike we must remove ·at least· some part of the impression that the man feels by his hand; but a simple impression doesn’t have parts, so we have to remove the whole impression; which proves that this whole impression has no archetype or model in external objects. To which we may add that solidity necessarily involves •two bodies along with •contiguity [= ‘nextness’] and •impact; but that ·trio· is a compound object, and can’t possibly be represented by a simple impression. Not to mention the fact that though •solidity is always the same, •tactual impressions keep changing, which is a clear proof that •the latter are not representations of •the former.

Si no se indica lo contrario, el contenido de esta página se ofrece bajo Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.