"The question is, how this Familiarity arises? and how the Cabinet comes to be sensible of any thing that's put into it? A Scritore knows nothing of the Papers which the careful Banker locks up in it? Or a Glass, tho' it may be said to receive the Image of a Beau, and he really sees somewhat of himself in it; yet it can hardly be said to see any thing of him. It would rather seem the Mind had some native Light of its own, which is awaken'd we know not how, and flies out, as it were, thro' the Senses to the things it apprehends or lays hold on."
— Forbes of Pitsligo, Alexander Forbes, Lord (1678-1762)
Place of Publication
London
Publisher
Printed for J. Osborn and T. Longman
Date
1734
Metaphor
"The question is, how this Familiarity arises? and how the Cabinet comes to be sensible of any thing that's put into it? A Scritore knows nothing of the Papers which the careful Banker locks up in it? Or a Glass, tho' it may be said to receive the Image of a Beau, and he really sees somewhat of himself in it; yet it can hardly be said to see any thing of him. It would rather seem the Mind had some native Light of its own, which is awaken'd we know not how, and flies out, as it were, thro' the Senses to the things it apprehends or lays hold on."
Metaphor in Context
LUCINUS
As to the first Entry of Ideas into the Mind, you know Aristotle has been blamed for affirming that nothing is in the Understanding which was not before in the Senses. But there seems to be no great danger in that Opinion, if we do not limit the Senses to too small a number. You remember Mr. Locke's Account of their Entry?
AEMILIUS
Not well.
LUCINUS
'Tis to this purpose:
"The Senses at first let in particular Ideas, and furnish the yet empty Cabinet: and the Mind, by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodg'd in the Memory, and Names got to them, &c."
AEMILIUS
Obscurum per Obscurius. The question is, how this Familiarity arises? and how the Cabinet comes to be sensible of any thing that's put into it? A Scritore knows nothing of the Papers which the careful Banker locks up in it? Or a Glass, tho' it may be said to receive the Image of a Beau, and he really sees somewhat of himself in it; yet it can hardly be said to see any thing of him. It would rather seem the Mind had some native Light of its own, which is awaken'd we know not how, and flies out, as it were, thro' the Senses to the things it apprehends or lays hold on.
(p. 88)
As to the first Entry of Ideas into the Mind, you know Aristotle has been blamed for affirming that nothing is in the Understanding which was not before in the Senses. But there seems to be no great danger in that Opinion, if we do not limit the Senses to too small a number. You remember Mr. Locke's Account of their Entry?
AEMILIUS
Not well.
LUCINUS
'Tis to this purpose:
"The Senses at first let in particular Ideas, and furnish the yet empty Cabinet: and the Mind, by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodg'd in the Memory, and Names got to them, &c."
AEMILIUS
Obscurum per Obscurius. The question is, how this Familiarity arises? and how the Cabinet comes to be sensible of any thing that's put into it? A Scritore knows nothing of the Papers which the careful Banker locks up in it? Or a Glass, tho' it may be said to receive the Image of a Beau, and he really sees somewhat of himself in it; yet it can hardly be said to see any thing of him. It would rather seem the Mind had some native Light of its own, which is awaken'd we know not how, and flies out, as it were, thro' the Senses to the things it apprehends or lays hold on.
(p. 88)
Categories
Provenance
ECCO-TCP
Citation
Three entries in ESTC (1734, 1762, 1763).
See Essays Moral and Philosophical, on Several Subjects: Viz. A View of the Human Faculties. (London: Printed for J. Osborn and T. Longman, 1734). <Link to ECCO-TCP>
See Essays Moral and Philosophical, on Several Subjects: Viz. A View of the Human Faculties. (London: Printed for J. Osborn and T. Longman, 1734). <Link to ECCO-TCP>
Theme
Lockean
Date of Entry
08/18/2013
