# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/778263916:0263
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/778263916:0263?run=74
# Title: An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding (shelfmarks Leibn. Marg. 38; ZEN Leibn. Marg. 38)
# Folio 247, page id 778263916:0263
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=778263916&page=263
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/778263916/jpgs/default/00000263.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 53 lines, status machine
# Lines: 53 recognised, mean confidence 0.91
# Machine transcription. Not an edition. Errors are expected: about 8% character error rate on Latin and French lines, higher on German.
# Licence: CC BY 4.0, Leibniz Legible. Machine output: do not ingest it as verified text; keep this provenance with the text.
# Wording rule: say "the machine reads it as …", never "Leibniz wrote".
# After the first blank line: the recognised lines in reading order, one per line.

a more or lesS pertect Collectiori oF simple Ldeas, serres to design that
sore of Body rell enoustr in ciril Discourse) comes to have no Significa
tion at all, beins put for lomerhat wtrereor re have no Ldea at all; and
(0 can lienitie nothins at all, orhien the Body it selE is araz. Por how-
ever it mas De thought all one; Tet, it tvell considered, it will be Pound
a quite difterent thing, to argue about Giold in name, and about a parcet
olthe Body it Selt, v. 8. 2 Diece oF LeaF Cold laid before us; thouetr in
Discourse, ire are fain to substiture the name For the thing.
5. 29. That Which, Pchink, very much disposes Men ro substiturocheir
names For the real FSences oF Species, is the supposition belore mentioned,
that Nature wortes regularls in the Production of Things, and sets che
Boundaries to cach ot those Species, by giving exactls the lame real in-
ternal Constitution to cach intividual, wrhich e ranke under one general
name. Wrhereas ans one who obserres their ditterent ualities, can hard-
Iy doube that mans ofthe Indiriduals, called by the lame name, are in
their internal Consticution, as difterent one trom another, as several of
ehose wrhich are ranted under different speciticke Names. This supposition
hoirerer rhat the same precise internal constitution soes alvars vith the
same specisicte name, makees Men forvard to take thole names for the Repre-
seniatives or thole real Fssences, though indeed ther signitie nothino buE
the complex deas ther have in their Minds, When they use them. So
that, il Lmay (0 laz, Eisnilz ins one chins, and beins supposed fOr, or
put in the place of arocher, ther cannot bur, in such a tind ot ulc, cause
a great deal os Incertaintr in MenS Discourses; especiallr in thole who
havethrouslils imbibed the Doctrine ot substantial Forms, Wherebr they
frmly imasine the several Species oF Thiries ro be determined and distin-
Guithed.
S. 2F. But horever preposterous and absurd it be, to makce our natmes
Stand For Ideas ire have not, or (rhich is all One) Fsences thatwe lnoir
nOt, it being in effect, to make our Nords tho SignS OF nothins; vet
eis cvident to anz one, erhoerer so litele reflects on the ule Nen makce ot
their Words, that there is nothins more samiliar. When a Man astS
Whecher this or thatthines he secs, let it be a Drill, or a monstrous l’aetus, be
a Man Or no; tis evident, the Ouestion is not, WVhecher that particular
thino aorecto his complex idea expresled by the name Man: Buc Wvhe
ther it has in it the real Fssence oF a Species ot Thinos, Wtich he supposes
hisname Man to Cand FOr. In Which vay of usine the names of Substances,
there are these false suypositions contained.
First, That there are certain precise Fsences, accordino to irhieh Na-
ture malies all particular Things, and by wrhich ther are distinouisted
into Species. Thac every thine has a real Constitution, Whereby it is
wrtrat it is, and on hich its sensible Oualities depend, is past doube: But
Ithinke it has been proved, thac this makces not the distinction os Species,
as Wre rants them; nor the Boundaries oF cheirnames.
Seconaly ThistacitY also insinuares, 25 it wehad Ideas oFthese propo-
sed Fstences. For to what purpose else is ic, to enguire wrhether chis or
that thing hare the real FiPenee oF che Species Ntan, it we did nor suppose
thar there ere tuch a specitick Fssence knomn. Which yet is utterly falle:
And theretore such Application of names, as rould makce them stand for
Ideas ae hare nOE, must necds cause oreat dilorder in Discourles and Rea-
soninss abour them, and be a Gredt inconrenience in our Communication
Dy WorctS.
2.2