home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing?
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing (1998)(Marshall Media)[Mac-PC].iso
/
mac
/
ILLUSION
/
SROCK_TX.CXT
/
00414_Text_res23at.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-12-31
|
3KB
|
76 lines
The head, which is painted
[by which Berkeley means
imaged on the retina] nearest
earth, seems to be furthest from
it; and on the other hand, the
feet which are painted furthest
from the earth, are thought
nearest to it. Herein lies the
difficulty, which vanishes if
we express the thing more
clearly and free from
ambiguity....
If we confine our thoughts to
the proper objects of sight, the
whole is plain and easy. The
head is painted furthest from,
and the feet nearest to the
visible earth; and so they
appear to be. What is there
strange or unaccountable in
this? Let us suppose the
pictures in the fund of the eye,
to be the immediate objects of
the sight. The consequence is,
that things should appear in
the same posture they are
painted in; and is it not so? The
head which is seen, seems
furthest from the earth which
is seen; and the feet which are
seen, seem nearest to the earth
which is seen; and just so they
are painted.
But, say you, the picture of
the man is inverted, and yet
the appearance is erect: I ask,
what mean you by the picture of
the man, or, which is the same
thing, the visible manΓÇÖs being
inverted? You tell me it is
inverted, because the heels are
uppermost, and the head
undermost? Explain me this.
You say, that by the headΓÇÖs
being undermost, you mean
that it is nearest to the earth;
and by the heels being
uppermost, that they are
furthest from the earth. I ask
again, what earth you mean?
You cannot mean the earth that
is painted on the eye, or the
visible earth: for the picture of
the head is furthest from the
picture of the earth, and the
picture of the feet nearest to
the picture of the earth; and
accordingly the visible head is
furthest from the visible earth,
and the visible feet nearest to
it. It remains, therefore, that
you mean the tangible earth,
and so determine the situation
of visible things with respect to
tangible things: contrary to
what hath been demonstrated
[earlier]. The two distinct
provinces of sight and touch
should be considered apart, and
as if their objects had no
intercourse, no matter of
relation to one another, in
point of distance or position.