66 THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE
К оглавлению1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 181 182 183 184 185 186
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237
238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288
289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305
306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339
340
the solid earth itself would vanish, and we should even lose
the companionship of that most faithful ally our own body!
If we hold three marbles in our hand and we are told they
are not truly of the tint we suppose, or that they really have
an odour of garlic which escapes our notice, we are not
greatly disturbed thereby. If, however, it were asserted to
us that they were not three and not solid objects at all, that
we could not touch distinct parts of the surface of any one
of them, or that they were not spherical in shape, or that
when we dropped them from one hand to the other there was
no real motion in them apart from our feelings of touch,
effort, and movement then, if we were not Idealists, we
should consider the assertor, if serious, to be irrational, or
that he regarded our own rationality as dubious.
The colour of any object, as we all know, is said to be
nothing but a result of the undulation of certain waves of
light reflected from its surface to us, and we are asked how
there can possibly be any real resemblance between that con-
dition of any object, which causes it to reflect such waves, and
our sensations of colour ? How also, it is further asked, can
there be any possible likeness between the real condition of a
body thrown into rapid vibration and the sounds those rapid
vibrations occasion in us ? As well, they exclaim, might a
wound be like the knife which inflicted it thus tacitly assert-
ing the necessary adequacy of a cause for its effect !
Now, of course, as we have before said, no subjective
feeling can be like an objective quality belonging to an
external object. The simplest rustic, with his senses about
him, knows as much philosophy as that. But he also knows
that there are in external things real qualities which give rise
to the feelings he experiences. This can be easily ascertained
(as we have ascertained it) by questioning such rustics in
language they can understand. The conviction they really
entertain is the spontaneous and universal conviction of
the solid earth itself would vanish, and we should even lose
the companionship of that most faithful ally our own body!
If we hold three marbles in our hand and we are told they
are not truly of the tint we suppose, or that they really have
an odour of garlic which escapes our notice, we are not
greatly disturbed thereby. If, however, it were asserted to
us that they were not three and not solid objects at all, that
we could not touch distinct parts of the surface of any one
of them, or that they were not spherical in shape, or that
when we dropped them from one hand to the other there was
no real motion in them apart from our feelings of touch,
effort, and movement then, if we were not Idealists, we
should consider the assertor, if serious, to be irrational, or
that he regarded our own rationality as dubious.
The colour of any object, as we all know, is said to be
nothing but a result of the undulation of certain waves of
light reflected from its surface to us, and we are asked how
there can possibly be any real resemblance between that con-
dition of any object, which causes it to reflect such waves, and
our sensations of colour ? How also, it is further asked, can
there be any possible likeness between the real condition of a
body thrown into rapid vibration and the sounds those rapid
vibrations occasion in us ? As well, they exclaim, might a
wound be like the knife which inflicted it thus tacitly assert-
ing the necessary adequacy of a cause for its effect !
Now, of course, as we have before said, no subjective
feeling can be like an objective quality belonging to an
external object. The simplest rustic, with his senses about
him, knows as much philosophy as that. But he also knows
that there are in external things real qualities which give rise
to the feelings he experiences. This can be easily ascertained
(as we have ascertained it) by questioning such rustics in
language they can understand. The conviction they really
entertain is the spontaneous and universal conviction of