"But when we consider how the human Body stands connected with the Rest of the visible Creation, and depends, as to its Motions that immediatly affect the Mind, upon the Impressions which from thence it receiveth; 'tis very obvious, that the Mind derives her Pleasures or Pains, by means of her Body, from numberless other Objects."
— Campbell, Archibald (1691-1756)
Place of Publication
Westminster
Publisher
Printed by J. Cluer and A. Campbell
Date
1728 (1733)
Metaphor
"But when we consider how the human Body stands connected with the Rest of the visible Creation, and depends, as to its Motions that immediatly affect the Mind, upon the Impressions which from thence it receiveth; 'tis very obvious, that the Mind derives her Pleasures or Pains, by means of her Body, from numberless other Objects."
Metaphor in Context
But when we consider how the human Body stands connected with the Rest of the visible Creation, and depends, as to its Motions that immediatly affect the Mind, upon the Impressions which from thence it receiveth; 'tis very obvious, that the Mind derives her Pleasures or Pains, by means of her Body, from numberless other Objects. Those common Powers of every human Body (or rather of the Mind awaken'd by some Particular Motions in the Body, after a Manner we do not now understand) that go by the general Name of the Senses, are the great Instruments which convey to the Mind either Pleasure or Pain from every Object we here converse with. And tho' these Senses be counted only five in Number, yet with what an infinite Variety of pleasing Ideas, and painful Sensations, is every one of 'em capable to entertain us? There is no Man, I am sure, who has reflected on his own Experience of Things, or who has attended to what passes into his Mind by his Senses, but must be sensible of thus much, and stand amazed at the wonderful Frame of human Nature, and the surprizing Effects, which the whole, and the several Parts of this visible World, as they fall under our Cognizance, have upon us.
(p. 178-9)
(p. 178-9)
Categories
Provenance
Google Books
Citation
At least 4 entries in ESTC (1728, 1733, 1734, 1748).
See Arete-Logia or, an Enquiry Into the Original of Moral Virtue; Wherein the False Notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Mr. Bayle, As They Are Collected and Digested by the Author of the Fable of the Bees, Are Examin'd and Confuted; ... To Which Is Prefix'd, a Prefatory Introduction, in a Letter to That Author. By Alexander Innes (Westminster: Printed by J. Cluer and A. Campbell, for B. Creake, 1728). <Link to ECCO><Link to Google Books>
Note, the work's publication history is detailed in the ODNB: Campbell wrote the work after reading Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, and in 1726 he entrusted the manuscript to Alexander Innes, who published the work under his own name. In 1730 Campbell asserted his authorship of the Enquiry in the "Advertisement" to his Discourse Proving that the Apostles were no Enthusiasts. In the 1733 republication of the Enquiry, Innes's duplicity was made public.
See Arete-Logia or, an Enquiry Into the Original of Moral Virtue; Wherein the False Notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Mr. Bayle, As They Are Collected and Digested by the Author of the Fable of the Bees, Are Examin'd and Confuted; ... To Which Is Prefix'd, a Prefatory Introduction, in a Letter to That Author. By Alexander Innes (Westminster: Printed by J. Cluer and A. Campbell, for B. Creake, 1728). <Link to ECCO><Link to Google Books>
Note, the work's publication history is detailed in the ODNB: Campbell wrote the work after reading Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, and in 1726 he entrusted the manuscript to Alexander Innes, who published the work under his own name. In 1730 Campbell asserted his authorship of the Enquiry in the "Advertisement" to his Discourse Proving that the Apostles were no Enthusiasts. In the 1733 republication of the Enquiry, Innes's duplicity was made public.
Date of Entry
07/16/2013
