Treatise Mapping
Map · Book 1: Of the Understanding · Part 2: Of the ideas of space and time · T 1.2.4 Objections answer'd

T 1.2.4.30

SBN 51-2 · cited directly by 5 papers, reached by 1 more through page or section ranges

Now since these ideas are so loose and uncertain, I wou'd fain ask any mathematician what infallible assurance he has, not only of the more intricate and obscure propositions of his science, but of the most vulgar and obvious principles? How can he prove to me, for instance, that two right lines cannot have one common segment? Or that 'tis impossible to draw more than one right line betwixt any two points? Shou'd he tell me, that these opinions are obviously absurd, and repugnant to our clear ideas; I wou'd answer, that I do not deny, where two right lines incline upon each other with a sensible angle, but 'tis absurd to imagine them to have a common segment. But supposing these two lines to approach at the rate of an inch in twenty leagues, I perceive no absurdity in asserting, that upon their contact they become one. For, I beseech you, by what rule or standard do you judge, when you assert, that the line, in which I have suppos'd them to concur, cannot make the same right line |with those two, that form so small an angle betwixt them? You must surely have some idea of a right line, to which this line does not agree. Do you therefore mean, that it takes not the points in the same order and by the same rule, as is peculiar and essential to a right line? If so, I must inform you, that besides that in judging after this manner you allow, that extension is compos'd of indivisible points (which, perhaps, is more than you intend) besides this, I say, I must inform you, that neither is this the standard from which we form the idea of a right line; nor, if it were, is there any such firmness in our senses or imagination, as to determine when such an order is violated or preserv'd. The original standard of a right line is in reality nothing but a certain general appearance; and 'tis evident right lines may be made to concur with each other, and yet correspond to this standard, tho' corrected by all the means either practicable or imaginable.

Who cites it

5 of 6 papers cite this paragraph directly; the rest reach it through a page or section range. Snippets are the words around each citation.

PaperCited asContext
Spector 19982.2.1. 52
T 1.2.4 (2 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
… Hume. See 3.3.1 note, for more on property and Hume's account of personal identity. 51In 2.2.1. 52whether "forensick" …
Falkenstein 1999(52)
T 1.2.4 (2 paragraphs)
Checked by model
…se external objects to have features incompatible with those exhibited by our impressions (52). The fact that all …
Mcintyre 2009T 1.4.2.51-2
T 1.2.4 (3 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
…up the opinion that resembling impressions are interrupted and different from each other (T 1.4.2.51-2). This leads to the…
Rocknak 2012
focused
T 1.4.2.52
T 1.2.4 (2 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
…ses all of our perceptions (distinct existences), as the philosophers mistakenly do (e.g. T 1.4.2.52; SBN 214-15; recall…
Rocknak 2019T 1.4.2.52
T 1.2.4 (2 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
…ophical conception of objects is the "monstrous offspring" of reason and the imagination (T 1.4.2.52; SBN 215). Hume's …
T 1.4.2.43-53
T 1.2.4.10 to T 1.2.5.1 (26 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
…to the senses," where he discusses the philosopher's rejection of the vulgar perspective (T 1.4.2.43-53; SBN 209-16). Hume'…
Cottrell 2015T 1.4.2.46 - 55
T 1.2.4.20 to T 1.2.5.5 (19 paragraphs)
Citation pattern
…uses of our sensory impressions and attributes the defining properties of a body to them (T 1.4.2.46 - 55; SBN 211 - 17). He …