· Primary qualities vs. Secondary qualities
             o Objects have qualities that are "the power to produce any idea in our mind"
             o Primary qualities: really exist in the objects themselves
             § solidity, extension, figure (shape), motion or rest, number
             o Secondary qualities: produce ideas that have no exact counterpart in the object itself
             § colors, sounds, tastes, odors
             o Distinction between appearance and reality
             o There must be something in which these qualities subsist
             § Something solid and extended
             § What has solidity and extension?
             § The "substratum", substance
             o Locke's argument for substance is vague:
             "If any one will examine himself concerning his notion of pure substance in general, he will find he has no other idea of it at all, but only a supposition of he knows not what support of such qualities which are capable of producing simple ideas in us."
             The point is that the secondary qualities have changed in some sense. The primary qualities (extension, motion, form, solidity) remain unchanged as one can still say (granted an objective reality)that the grain of wheat has extension (one cannot ,for practical reasons, chop it into nothingness), it is still has solidity. The secondary qualities change in that one has the idea of what wheat looks like before it chopped up, but afterward, it is , in all likelihood dust or fibers, and does not have some immutable appearance as wheat. We recognize it due to our experience of what wheat typically appears as and the fact that we are the one who chopped it up. Once it is chopped up, the left over "substance" is still wheat but does not contain the same secondary qualities it had before. Therefore there is not a contradiction. The problem remains in Lockes justification of primary qualities as essential (being of substance) when in fact David Hume carried his philosop
             ...