Page:Of the conduct of the understanding (IA ofconductofunder00lock).pdf/45

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
CONDUCT OF THE UNDERSTANDING
39

Would you have a man write or paint, dance or fence well, or perform any other manual[1] operation dexterously and with case; let him have ever so much vigor and activity, suppleness and address naturally, yet nobody expects this from him unless he has been used to it, and has employed time and pains in fashioning and forming his hand or outward parts to these motions. Just so it is in the mind; would you have a man reason well, you must use him to it betimes, exercise his mind in observing the connection of ideas and following them in train. Nothing does this better than mathematics, which therefore I think should be taught all those who have the time and opportunity, not so much to make them mathematicians as to make them reasonable creatures; for though we all call ourselves so because we are born to it if we please, yet we may truly say, nature gives us but the seeds of it; we are born to be, if we please, rational creatures, but it is use and exercise only that makes us so, and we are indeed so no further than industry and application has carried us. And therefore, in ways of reasoning which men have not been used to, he that will observe the conclusions they take up must be satisfied they are not all rational.[2]

This has been the less taken notice of because every one in his private affairs uses some sort of reasoning or other enough to denominate him reasonable. But the mistake is that he that is found reasonable in one thing is concluded to be so in all, and to think or to

  1. Manual.What is the inaccuracy in the use of this word?
  2. Not all rational.This is the reading in the edition of 1781, and is probably what Locke wrote, though in the first edition the expression is “not at all rational.”