do we perceive them by the mediation of anything which has a necessary
connexion with them. Those ideas that now suggest unto us the various
magnitudes of external objects before we touch them, might possibly have
suggested no such thing: or they might have signified them in a direct
contrary manner: so that the very same ideas, on the perception whereof
we judge an object to be small, might as well have served to make us
conclude it great. Those ideas being in their own nature equally fitted
to bring into our minds the idea of small or great, or no size at all of
outward objects; just as the words of any language are in their own
nature indifferent to signify this or that thing or nothing at all.

65. As we see distance, so we see magnitude. And we see both in the same
way that we see shame or anger in the looks of a man. Those passions are
themselves invisible, they are nevertheless let in by the eye along with
colours and alterations of countenance, which are the immediate object of
vision: and which signify them for no other reason than barely because
they have been observed to accompany them. Without which experience we
should no more have taken blushing for a sign of shame than of gladness.

66. We are nevertheless exceeding prone to imagine those things which are
perceived only by the mediation of others to be themselves the immediate
objects of sight; or, at least, to have in their own nature a fitness to
be suggested by them, before ever they had been experienced to coexist
with them. From which prejudice everyone, perhaps, will not find it easy
to emancipate himself, by any [but] the clearest convictions of reason.
And there are some grounds to think that if there was one only invariable
and universal languages in the world, and that men were born with the
faculty of speaking it, it would be the opinion of many that the ideas of
other men's minds were properly perceived by the ear, or had at least a
necessary and inseparable tie with the sounds that were affixed to them.