Phil.  Have all other animals as good grounds to think the same of the figure and extension which they see and feel?

HYL.  Without doubt, if they have any thought at all.

Phil.  Answer me, Hylas.  Think you the senses were bestowed upon all animals for their preservation and well-being in life? or were they given to men alone for this end?

HYL.  I make no question but they have the same use in all other animals.

Phil.  If so, is it not necessary they should be enabled by them to perceive their own limbs, and those bodies which are capable of harming them?

HYL.  Certainly.

Phil.  A mite therefore must be supposed to see his own foot, and things equal or even less than it, as bodies of some considerable dimension; though at the same time they appear to you scarce discernible, or at best as so many visible points?

HYL.  I cannot deny it.

Phil.  And to creatures less than the mite they will seem yet larger?

HYL.  They will.

Phil.  Insomuch that what you can hardly discern will to another extremely minute animal appear as some huge mountain?

HYL.  All this I grant.

Phil.  Can one and the same thing be at the same time in itself of different dimensions?

HYL.  That were absurd to imagine.

Phil.  But, from what you have laid down it follows that both the extension by you perceived, and that perceived by the mite itself, as likewise all those perceived by lesser animals, are each of them the true extension of the mite’s foot; that is to say, by your own principles you are led into an absurdity.

HYL.  There seems to be some difficulty in the point.

Phil.  Again, have you not acknowledged that no real inherent property of any object can be changed without some change in the thing itself?

HYL.  I have.

Phil.  But, as we approach to or recede from an object, the visible extension varies, being at one distance ten or a hundred times greater than another.  Doth it not therefore follow from hence likewise that it is not really inherent in the object?

HYL.  I own I am at a loss what to think.

Phil.  Your judgment will soon be determined, if you will venture to think as freely concerning this quality as you have done concerning the rest.  Was it not admitted as a good argument, that neither heat nor cold was in the water, because it seemed warm to one hand and cold to the other?

HYL.  It was.

Phil.  Is it not the very same reasoning to conclude, there is no extension or figure in an object, because to one eye it shall seem little, smooth, and round, when at the same time it appears to the other, great, uneven, and regular?

HYL.  The very same.  But does this latter fact ever happen?