LECTURE XXIII. THE PRESENTATIVE FACULTY. 1.- PERCEPTION, WAS REID A NATURAL REALIST? Ends proposed in the review of Reid's account of opinions on Perception. IN our last Lecture, I concluded the review of Reid's Historical Account of the previous Opinions on Perception. In entering upon this review, I proposed the following ends. In the first place, to afford you, not certainly a complete, but a competent, insight into the various theories on this subject; and this was sufficiently accomplished by limiting myself to the opinions touched upon by Reid. My aim, in the second place, was to correct some errors of Reid arising from, and illustrative of, those fundamental misconceptions which have infected his whole doctrine of the cognitive faculties with confusion and error; and, in the third place, I had in view to vindicate Reid from the attack made on him by Brown. I, accordingly, showed you, that though not without mistakes, owing partly to his limited acquaintance with the works of previous philosophers, and partly to not having generalized to himself the various possible modifications of the hypothesis of representative perception, I showed you, I say, that Reid, though certainly anything but exempt from error, was, however, absolutely guiltless of all and every one of that marvellous tissue of mistakes, with which he is so recklessly accused by Brown, whereas Brown's own attack is, from first to last, itself that very series of misconceptions which he imputes to Reid. Nothing, indeed, can be more applicable to himself than the concluding observations which he makes in reference to Reid; and as these observations, addressed to his pupils, embody in reality an edifying and well-expressed advice, they will lose nothing of their relevancy or effect, if the one philosopher must be substituted for the other.1 "That a mind so vigorous as that of Dr. Reid should have been capable of the series of misconceptions which we have traced, may seem wonderful, and truly is so; and equally, or rather 1 Discussions, p. 82. — Ed. still more wonderful, is the general admission of his merit in this respect. I trust it will impress you with one important lesson-to consult the opinions of authors in their own works, and not in the works of those who profess to give a faithful account of them. From my own experience I can most truly assure you, that there is scarcely an instance in which I have found the view which I had received of them to be faithful. There is usually something more, or something less, which modifies the general result; and by the' various additions and subtractions thus made, so much of the spirit of the original doctrine is lost, that it may, in some cases, be considered as having made a fortunate escape, if it be not at last represented as directly opposite to what it is."1 Reid right in attributing to philosophers in general the cruder doctrine of Representative Perception. The mistakes of Dr. Brown in relation to Reid, on which I have hitherto animadverted, are comparatively unimportant. Their refutation only evinces that Reid did not erroneously attribute to philosophers in general the cruder form of the representative hypothesis of perception; and that he was fully warranted in this attribution, is not only demonstrated by the disproval of all the instances which Brown has alleged against Reid, but might be shown by a whole crowd of examples, were it necessary to prove so undeniable a fact. In addition to what I have already articulately proved, it will be enough now simply to mention that the most learned and intelligent of the philosophers of last century might be quoted to the fact, that the opinion attributed by Reid to psychologists in general, was in reality the prevalent; and that the doctrine of Arnauld, which Brown supposes to have been the one universally received, was only adopted by the few. To this point Malebranche, Leibnitz, and Brucker, the younger Thomasius, 'S Gravesande, Genovesi, and Voltaire, are conclusive evidence. Was Reid himself a Natural Realist? But a more important historical question remains, and one which even more affects the reputations of Reid and Brown. It is this:-Did Reid, as Brown supposes, hold, not the doctrine of Natural Realism, but the finer hypothesis of a Representative Perception? If Reid did hold this doctrine, I admit at once that Brown is right. Reid accomplished nothing; his philosophy is a blunder, and his whole polemic against the philosophers, too insignificant for refutation or comment. The one form of representation may 1 Philosophy of the Human Mind, Lect. 2 These testimonies are given in full, Disxxvii. p. 175 (edit. 1830). cussions, p. 83. - ED. The distinction of Intuitive and Representative Knowledge, to be first considered. -I be somewhat simpler and more philosophical than the other; but the substitution of the former for the latter is hardly deserving of notice; and of all conceivable hallucinations the very greatest would be that of Reid, in arrogating to himself the merit of thus subverting the foundation of Idealism and Skepticism, and of philosophers at large in acknowledging the pretension. The idealist and skeptic can, establish their conclusions indifferently on either form of a representative perception; nay, the simpler form affords a securer, as the more philosophical, foundation. The idealism of Fichte is accordingly a system far more firmly founded than the idealism of Berkeley; and as the simpler involves a contradiction of consciousness more extensive and direct, so it furnishes to the skeptic a longer and more powerful lever. Before, however, discussing this question, it may be proper here, to consider more particularly a matter of which we have hitherto treated only by the way, mean the distinction of Immediate or Intuitive, in contrast to Mediate or Representative Knowlèdge. This is a distinction of the most important kind, and it is one which has, however, been almost wholly overlooked by philosophers. This oversight is less to be wondered at in those who allowed no immediate knowledge to the mind, except of its proper modes; in their systems the distinction, though it still subsisted, had little relevancy or effect, as it did not discriminate the faculty by which we are aware of the presence of external objects, from that by which, when absent, these are imaged to the mind. In neither case, on this doctrine, are we conscious or immediately cognizant of the external reality, but only of the mental mode through which it is represented. But it is more astonishing that those who maintain that the mind is immediately percipient of external things, should not have signalized this distinction; as on it is established the essential difference of Perception as a faculty of intuitive, Imagination as a faculty of representative, knowledge. But the marvel is still more enhanced when we find that Reid and Stewart (if to them this opinion really belongs) so far from distinguishing Perception as an immediate and intuitive, from Imagination (and under Imagination, be it observed, I include both the Conception and the Memory of these philosophers), as a mediate or representative, faculty, — in Reid's view of this distinction obscure. in Memory we language make them both equally immediate. You will recollect the refutation I formerly gave you of Reid's self-contradictory assertion, that are immediately cognizant of that which, as past, is not now existent, and cannot, therefore, be known in itself; and that, in Imagination, we are immediately cognizant of that which is distant, or of that which is not, and probably never was, in being. Here the term immediate is either absurd, as contradictory; or it is applied only, in a certain special meaning, to designate the simpler form of representation, in which nothing is supposed to intervene between the mental cognition and the external reality; in contrast to the more complex, in which the representative or vicarious image is supposed to be something different from both. Thus, in consequence of this distinction not only not having been traced by Reid, as the discriminative principle of his doctrine, but having been even overlaid, obscured, and perplexed, his whole philosophy has been involved in haze and confusion; insomuch that a philosopher of Brown's acuteness could (as we have seen and shall see) actually so far misconceive, as even to reverse its import. The distinction is, therefore, one which, on every account, merits your most sedulous attention; but though of primary importance, it is fortunately not of any considerable difficulty. His whole philosophy hence involved in confusion. This distinction in general stated and illustrated. As every cognitive act which, in one relation, is a mediate or representative, is, in another, an immediate or intuitive, knowledge, let us take a particular instance of such an act; as hereby we shall at once obtain an example of the one kind of knowledge, and of the other, and these also in proximate contrast to each other. I call up an image of the High Church. Now, in this act, what do I know immediately or intuitively; what mediately or by representation? It is manifest that I am conscious or immediately cognizant of all that is known as an act or modification of my mind, and, consequently, of the modification or act which constitutes the mental image of the Cathedral. But as, in this operation, it is evident, that I am conscious or immediately cognizant of the Cathedral, as imaged in my mind; so it is equally manifest, that I am not conscious or immediately cognizant of the Cathedral as existing. But still I am said to know it; it is even called the object of my thought. I can, however, only know it mediately, only through the mental image which represents it to consciousness; and it can only be styled the object of thought, inasmuch as a reference to it is necessarily involved in the act of representation. From this example is manifest, what in general 1 See Lect. xii. p. 151 et seq.-ED. The contrasts between Intuitive and Representative Cogni tion. is meant by immediate or intuitive, - what by mediate or representative knowledge. All philosophers are at one in regard to the immediate knowledge of our present mental modifications; and all are equally agreed, if we remove some verbal ambiguities, that we are only mediately cognizant of all past thoughts, objects, and events, and of every external reality not at the moment within the sphere of sense. There is but one point on which they are now at variance, — viz., whether the thinking subject is competent to an intuitive knowledge of aught but the modifications of the mental self; in other words, whether we can have any immediate perception of external things. Waiving, however, this question for the moment, let us articulately state what are the different conditions involved in the two kinds of knowledge. In the first place, considered as acts.—An act of immediate knowledge is simple; there is nothing beyond the mere consciousness, by that which knows, of that which is known. Here consciousness is simply contemplative. On the contrary, an act of mediate knowledge is complex; for the mind is not only conscious of the act as its own modification, but of this modification as an object representative of, or relative to, an object beyond the sphere of consciousness. In this act, consciousness is both representative and contemplative of the representation. 1. Considered acts. as 2. In relation to their objects. In the second place, in relation to their objects. In an immediate cognition, the object is single, and the term unequivocal. Here the object in consciousness, and the object in existence, are the same; in the language of the schools, the esse intentionale or representativum, coincides with the esse entitativum. In a mediate cognition, on the other hand, the object is twofold, and the term equivocal; the object known and representing being different from the object unknown, except as represented. The immediate object, or object known in this act, should be called the subjective object, or subject-object, in contradistinction to the mediate or unknown object, which might be discriminated as the object-object. A slight acquaintance with philosophical writings will show you how necessary such a distinction is; the want of it has caused Reid to puzzle himself, and Kant to perplex his readers. In the third place, considered as judgments (for you will recollect that every act of Consciousness involves an affirmation). In an intuitive act, the object known is known as actually existing; the cognition, therefore, is 3. As judgments. |