Dialogue

 1 1|       existing in the external objects. We must not therefore conclude
 2 1|        that we see them on the objects?~PHIL. The objects you speak
 3 1|      on the objects?~PHIL. The objects you speak of are, I suppose,
 4 1|        IN IT, you make visible objects to be corporeal substances;
 5 1|        naturally no colours on objects: because by artificial managements
 6 1|     penetrating, and represent objects as they would appear to
 7 1|        do not always represent objects to us after the same manner.
 8 1|      but the situation of some objects, and they shall present
 9 1|        are colours on external objects, yet, how is it possible
10 1|  different surfaces of outward objects to the eyes, communicate
11 1|        taken for the immediate objects of sight, cannot agree to
12 1| reality of Matter, or external objects; seeing it is no more than
13 1|    intellect and its spiritual objects, as VIRTUE, REASON, GOD,
14 1|      indeed call them EXTERNAL OBJECTS, and give them in words
15 1|     perceive those or the like objects?~HYL. I do.~PHIL. And have
16 1|      to conclude that sensible objects are without the mind, from
17 1|    continued series of visible objects succeeding each other during
18 1|   think there are two kinds of objects:—the one perceived immediately,
19 1|        real things or external objects, perceived by the mediation
20 1|         but the latter sort of objects do. I am sorry I did not
21 1|       PHIL. Are those external objects perceived by sense or by
22 1|        of the iron are not the objects of sight, but suggested
23 1|        REAL THINGS OR MATERIAL OBJECTS. Or, whether you remember
24 1|      the existence of material objects, and that your belief is
25 1|       any determinate material objects be properly represented
26 1|        all. Which are material objects in themselves—perceptible
27 2|     the body; and that outward objects, by the different impressions
28 2|     have it that the immediate objects existed without the mind;
29 3|  sensible qualities are on the objects. I cannot for my life help
30 3|        to denote the immediate objects of the understanding. But,
31 3|       qualities are not on the objects: or that we cannot be sure
32 3|       me evident. And that the objects immediately perceived are
33 3|    that sensible qualities are objects immediately perceived no
34 3|   UNTHINKING-SUBSTRATUM of the objects of sense, and IN THAT ACCEPTATION
35 3|        perceive are not on the objects: that we must not believe
36 3|  things; since those immediate objects of perception, which, according
37 3|      follows. Pray are not the objects perceived by the SENSES
38 3|     between the former sort of objects and the latter?~PHIL. I
39 3|       a difference between the objects of sense and those of imagination.
40 3|       cannot say that sensible objects exist unperceived, because
41 3|       solidity? You cannot say objects are in your mind, as books
42 3|         Hylas, when I speak of objects as existing in the mind,
43 3|      to speak of the immediate objects of the understanding as
44 3|       IDEAS you mean immediate objects of the understanding, or
45 3|      same. In common talk, the objects of our senses are not termed
46 3|         but His creatures. All objects are eternally known by God,
47 3|    MATTER, and apply it to the objects of sense, if you please;
48 3|       to signify the immediate objects of sense. One would think,