Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1837-1839, 1838-05-26

specie payments.
For the Richmond Palladium.
- does bu, divert from the road i
in which things vugaTy understood,
And force mistake and ignorance TO own
a bstter sense than commonly is known.
BUTLER. !
writer on language should recommend his
opinions by the excellence Of his dictioD, the !
noralist enforces his instruction by his per-
sOnal example. A rule should De plain. Ii a
man attempt to teach the art OF rightly interpre-
ting language, while his own phraseology is OBJ
scurc, no would nuify his cndcavors. The an
Their OF the Treatise under review, although he
displays the scntimentalism Of St. Peirre, the
sta,elness Of Johnson, and the method Of Locke,
is without the pcrsplcuty Of either. Thus, to
keep up his exalted style, he says: 'Experience
ncu,ralizcs the implied onencss.'' Some Of his
ambiguity, however, arises from want Of exem
plification; examples are like telescopes; they
bring things within the reach Of ones senses.
Some abstract truths remote from the
! sphere Of cogi,ations, that they cannot be
without them.
Bat our author is not altogether unintellie ible;
his language within the bounds of interpreta-
bility. | am therefore able 10 give my readers
some insight into his system.
| lie div ide, all knowledge into five parts.
cordng with tho five senses; and names them,
Sights, feels, tastes, sounds, and smells. 1t Is
somew what remarkable that he departs widely
! from his usual grandicloquence; in conformity to
this, he should have used the terms, visibiiIties
tangibiiiIes, gus;abities, andb,i,,c., md olfaci
bili,ies. But tho former names are preferable.
We NAV look upon tho senses, purveyors for
! the mind; the eye provides 1t with sights, the
car feeds 1t with sounds, the tongue with fusfcs.
the touch with feels, and the pays its tribute
ID smells. Thus each has its respective
duties to perform; and can supply the
place Of another; the eye cannot perceive taste,
and the cannot smell i sound. la consider
inu an ~
scheme, that knowledge Of IL, consists oi
sights, tastes, feels smells, sounds, either alone
or combined. 4 shadow is q sight, it cannot be
tasted, sincI., heard or felt; it IS pure sight
a muskmeUon is sight, taste, smell, and feel
''rasies and SMELL our author says, 'are nevc,
other existence. / recollect only one exception
and VIC designate u, when 1t occurs, BY saying
we have unpleasant taste IN mouths
Here then is tho alphabet Of the hole system
here is the thread by which we may find our wa,
, through the labyrinth of nearly 300 pages. The
reader will! now be better able to comprehend tht
leading preccpt mentioned in the last weeks es
say: ITO interpret language by nature. 1t
, point to an object and say, there is orange;
, verbally signate single article; the word or
ange conveys an idea OF oncHess; ii my language
be interpreted s.by nature, il signifies puraiit,
of ..exis,cnces;" Qualities agreebly to the oil,
nomcncaturc) IT means sight, taste, feel. an'
smell. But nature would interpret the word or
aage blind man, n taste, feel and smell on
Iy; il could never mean TO him sight. Thu
words shadow and orange both mean respectivei.
one thing; verbally understood, each thing Is one
bat interpreted .by nature" orange signifies sew
eral ..existcnccs" specified above; while shad
ow, is interpreted rer5oliy and sensibly as unit
il is 4 sight only here language and nature agree
To a man naturally deaf, sound IS not ln,erpreia
c bic by nature: the term is the reore to HIM a
4 unmeanpg one; TO man connatura!ly b.Int
~, ~. nd he Of a
sights would be insignificant. To q blind man
: to another who had lost his power OF smelling.
another Invested OF taste, and to another dcvoi
+ Of all feeling, the word camphor would slgnifi
: the same thing; il would point every indi. idu;
, To- ono object; but nature would interpret IN
word differently TO every one Of them; TO the bin
u man il would be a smell, taste, and feel; TO III
: without o!facibility. it would be sight, tas
J. and feel; it would be sight smell and feel to IN
blind person; 4 sight, smell s. taste to the fourth
need not add that TO a man enjoying ever
= sense. it would have still more extensive sil
e niication-
A. The author continually endeavors to show Il
j. dclusivcness of interpreting nature by word
. and insists that the only right method of Inte
probation il that whch has now been exhibited
IN explaining words by nature. To him the strea
re appears TO run the wrong way And this wro,
n course. he imagines fills metaphysics, and scieu
10 an general, with perplexisv and TIL
touch - the only sense which acquaints US "
an external world. is, saws he. q ''puzzling ten
ch # speculative philosophy, founded the error
n estimating sensible existcnces BY the oneness
:. their name, instead of estimating the name
. duality Of nature The word external nan
10 usually sight and feel. II look At this tai
he discover the sight external; if touch the tab
IL realise the feel external. When We speak
r external, We should therefore explain to which
!. alIude,-the sight the feel" So also the ",
- white, signifies verbally one color; but if Il
n at the various objects we call white. We see
~ an identical wilderness; the whiteness Of 81