306 CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. [xn. 



marked out to his mind bodies or solid things which were perceived by 

 the resistance they gave. But there is no solidity, no resistance or 

 protrusion perceived by sight.&quot; 



Here &quot; solidity &quot; means resistance to pressure, which is 

 apprehended by the muscular sense ; but when in section 

 154 Berkeley says of his pure intelligence- 



&quot; It is certain that the aforesaid intelligence could have no idea of a 

 solid or quantity of three dimensions, which follows from its not having 

 any idea of distance &quot; 



he refers to that notion of solidity which may be ob 

 tained by the tactile sense, without the addition of any 

 notion of resistance in the solid object ; as, for example, 

 when the finger passes lightly over the surface of a 

 billiard ball. 



Yet another source of difficulty in clearly understand 

 ing Berkeley arises out of his use of the word &quot; outness.&quot; 

 In speaking of touch he seems to employ it indifferently, 

 both for the localization of a tactile sensation in the 

 sensory surface, which we really obtain through touch ; 

 and for the notion of corporeal separation, which is 

 attained by the association of muscular and tactile 

 sensations. In speaking of sight, on the other hand, 

 Berkeley employs &quot; outness &quot; to denote corporeal sepa 

 ration. 



When due allowance is made for the occasional loose 

 ness and ambiguity of Berkeley s terminology, and the 

 accessories are weeded out of the essential parts of his 

 famous Essay, his views may, I believe, be fairly and 

 accurately summed up in the following propositions : 



1. The sense of touch gives rise to ideas of extension, 

 figure, magnitude, and motion. 



2. The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of &quot; out 

 ness,&quot; in the sense of localization. 



3. The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of resist- 



