What is Existence?

Are there 2 kinds of visible extension?

• one perceivd by a confus’d view
• the other perceeived by a distinct successive direction of the optique axis to each point?

I. There are no general ideas. General ideas are a cause of mistake or confusion in mathematiques.

The Principle may be apply’d to the difficulties of conservation, co-operation, &c.

N. Trifling for the [natural] philosophers to enquire the cause of magnetical attractions, &c. They onely search after co-existing ideas48.

M. P. Whatever in Scripture argues against Copernicus, argues for me

M. P. All things in the Scripture wch side with the vulgar against the learned, side with me also. I side in all things with the mob.

M. A mighty sect of men will oppose me. But I expect to be supported by those whose minds are not so far overgrown wth madness.

These are the greatest part of mankind—especially Moralists, Divines, Politicians, all but Mathematicians and Natural Philosophers.

I mean only the hypothetical gentlemen. Experimental philosophers have nothing whereat to be offended in me.

Newton begs his Principles; I demonstrate mine.

E. I will explaining what is meant by things existing—in houses, chambers, fields, caves, &c.— both not perceiv’d and perceived.

The vulgar notion agrees with mine, when we inspect the meaning and definition of the word existence, which is no simple idea, distinct from perceiving and being perceived50.

The Schoolmen have noble subjects, but handle them ill.

The mathematicians have trifling subjects, but reason admirably about them. Certainly their method and arguing are excellent.

God knows how far our knowledge of intellectual beings may be enlarg’d from the Principles.

M. The reverse of the Principle I take to have been the chief source of all that scepticism and folly, all those contradictions and inextricable puzzling absurdities, that have in all ages been a reproach to human reason, as well as of that idolatry, whether of images or of gold, that blinds the greatest part of the world, and that shamefull immorality that turns us into beasts.

E. היה Vixit & fuit.

οὐσία, the name for substance, used by Aristotle, the Fathers, &c.

If at the same time we shall make the Mathematiques much more easie and much more accurate, wt can be objected to us51?

We need not force our imagination to conceive such very small lines for infinitesimals. They may every whit as well be imagin’d big as little, since that the integer must be infinite.

Evident that wch has an infinite number of parts must be infinite.

We cannot imagine a line or space infinitely great—therefore absurd to talk or make propositions about it.

We cannot imagine a line, space, &c., quovis lato majus. Since yt what we imagine must be datum aliquod; a thing can’t be greater than itself.

If you call infinite that wch is greater than any assignable by another, then I say, in that sense there may be an infinite square, sphere, or any other figure, wch is absurd.

Qu. if extension be resoluble into points it does not consist of?

No reasoning about things whereof we have no ideas52; therefore no reasoning about infinitesimals.

No word to be used without an idea.

S. If uneasiness be necessary to set the Will at work, Qu. how shall we will in heaven?

Bayle’s, Malbranch’s, &c. arguments do not seem to prove against Space, but onely against Bodies.

M. P. I agree in nothing wth the Cartesians as to ye existence of Bodies & Qualities53.

Aristotle as good a man as Euclid, but he was allowed to have been mistaken.

Lines not proper for demonstration.

M. We see the house itself, the church itself; it being an idea and nothing more. The house itself, the church itself, is an idea, i.e. an object—immediate object—of thought.

Instead of injuring, our doctrine much benefits geometry.

E. Existence is percipi, or percipere, [or velle, i.e. agere55]. The horse is in the stable, the books are in the study as before.