Abstract
The ideas of sense, observes Berkeley, come to us with sufficient regularity to admit of an expectancy growing up by habit and custom, whereby on the occasion of one idea we anticipate another. The first idea is then the sign of the second: “Ideas which are observed to be connected with other ideas come to be considered as signs, by means whereof things not actually perceived by sense are signified or suggested to the imagination, whose objects they are, and which alone perceives them” (T.V.V. 39). If there be a great variety of such arbitrary signs, closely articulated together, they will constitute a language — artificial if it be of human devising, but if instituted by the Author of Nature, then a natural language (T.V.V. 40). The non-visual senses provide us with signs, but their variety and articulation are not (except to some degree for sound) of a sufficiently high order for the ensemble to be called a language. It is vision, above all, (and in a minor degree sound) which provides us with a natural language: “All signs are not language: not even all significant sounds, such as the natural cries of animals, or the inarticulate sounds and interjections of men. It is the articulation, combination, variety, copiousness, extensive and general use and easy application of signs (all which are commonly found in vision) that constitute the true nature of language” (Alc. iv, 12). Hence Berkeley can say boldly “Vision is the language of the Author of Nature” (T.V.V. 38), therein re-affirming the pioneer doctrine of the New Theory of Vision. “Upon the whole, I think we may fairly conclude that the proper objects of vision constitute an universal language of the Author of Nature, whereby we are instructed how to regulate our actions in order to attain those things that are necessary to the preservation and well-being of our bodies, as also to avoid whatever may be hurtful and destructive of them” (N.T.V. 147). Adding, on later reflection, sound as the junior partner of vision in this divine sensible language (T.V.V. 40).
Keywords
Apparent Magnitude Note Book Synoptic VIew Vital Level Human DevisePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
- 1.In considering the hierarchy of Nature’s workings, Berkeley is primarily concerned to elucidate physics. The entities of physics being distinguished by the akribeia mathematica are, he believes, always abstract and ideal, and can never, by their nature, be observable to the senses. On the other hand, we can investigate the “fine grain” structure of things, notably by the microscope, and remain within the sense order. Hence we can explore “the curious organisation of plants, and the admirable mechanism in the parts of animals” (Pr. 60); we can see through our glasses “inconceivably small animals.” (H.P. I., p. 185). The laws and entities of mathematical physics equally underlie, in the grammatical analogy, all levels of the sensible hierarchy of Nature. So, in a modern context, to ask does a certain virus exist? is a very different question from does the electron exist?Google Scholar