Books: The Principles of Philosophy
R >>
Rene Descartes >> The Principles of Philosophy
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 | 4 |
5 |
6 |
7
XLVII. That, to correct the prejudices of our early years, we must
consider what is clear in each of our simple [Footnote: "first."--
FRENCH.] notions.
And, indeed, in our early years, the mind was so immersed in the
body, that, although it perceived many things with sufficient
clearness, it yet knew nothing distinctly; and since even at that
time we exercised our judgment in many matters, numerous prejudices
were thus contracted, which, by the majority, are never afterwards
laid aside. But that we may now be in a position to get rid of
these, I will here briefly enumerate all the simple notions of which
our thoughts are composed, and distinguish in each what is clear
from what is obscure, or fitted to lead into error.
XLVIII. That all the objects of our knowledge are to be regarded
either (1) as things or the affections of things: or (2) as eternal
truths; with the enumeration of things.
Whatever objects fall under our knowledge we consider either as
things or the affections of things,[Footnote: Things and the
affections of things are (in the French) equivalent to "what has
some (i.e., a REAL) existence," as opposed to the class of "eternal
truths," which have merely an IDEAL existence.] or as eternal truths
possessing no existence beyond our thought. Of the first class the
most general are substance, duration, order, number, and perhaps
also some others, which notions apply to all the kinds of things. I
do not, however, recognise more than two highest kinds (SUMMA
GENERA) of things; the first of intellectual things, or such as have
the power of thinking, including mind or thinking substance and its
properties; the second, of material things, embracing extended
substance, or body and its properties. Perception, volition, and all
modes as well of knowing as of willing, are related to thinking
substance; on the other hand, to extended substance we refer
magnitude, or extension in length, breadth, and depth, figure,
motion, situation, divisibility of parts themselves, and the like.
There are, however, besides these, certain things of which we have
an internal experience that ought not to be referred either to the
mind of itself, or to the body alone, but to the close and intimate
union between them, as will hereafter be shown in its place. Of this
class are the appetites of hunger and thirst, etc., and also the
emotions or passions of the mind which are not exclusively mental
affections, as the emotions of anger, joy, sadness, love, etc.; and,
finally, all the sensations, as of pain, titillation, light and
colours, sounds, smells, tastes, heat, hardness, and the other
tactile qualities.
XLIX. That the eternal truths cannot be thus enumerated, but that
this is not necessary.
What I have already enumerated we are to regard as things, or the
qualities or modes of things. We now come to speak of eternal
truths. When we apprehend that it is impossible a thing can arise
from nothing, this proposition, EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT, is not
considered as somewhat existing, or as the mode of a thing, but as
an eternal truth having its seat in our mind, and is called a common
notion or axiom. Of this class are the following:--It is impossible
the same thing can at once be and not be; what is done cannot be
undone; he who thinks must exist while he thinks; and innumerable
others, the whole of which it is indeed difficult to enumerate, but
this is not necessary, since, if blinded by no prejudices, we cannot
fail to know them when the occasion of thinking them occurs.
L. That these truths are clearly perceived, but not equally by all
men, on account of prejudices.
And, indeed, with regard to these common notions, it is not to be
doubted that they can be clearly and distinctly known, for otherwise
they would not merit this appellation: as, in truth, some of them
are not, with respect to all men, equally deserving of the name,
because they are not equally admitted by all: not, however, from
this reason, as I think, that the faculty of knowledge of one man
extends farther than that of another, but rather because these
common notions are opposed to the prejudices of some, who, on this
account, are not able readily to embrace them, even although others,
who are free from those prejudices, apprehend them with the greatest
clearness.
LI. What substance is, and that the term is not applicable to God
and the creatures in the same sense.
But with regard to what we consider as things or the modes of
things, it is worth while to examine each of them by itself. By
substance we can conceive nothing else than a thing which exists in
such a way as to stand in need of nothing beyond itself in order to
its existence. And, in truth, there can be conceived but one
substance which is absolutely independent, and that is God. We
perceive that all other things can exist only by help of the
concourse of God. And, accordingly, the term substance does not
apply to God and the creatures UNIVOCALLY, to adopt a term familiar
in the schools; that is, no signification of this word can be
distinctly understood which is common to God and them.
LII. That the term is applicable univocally to the mind and the
body, and how substance itself is known.
Created substances, however, whether corporeal or thinking, may be
conceived under this common concept; for these are things which, in
order to their existence, stand in need of nothing but the concourse
of God. But yet substance cannot be first discovered merely from its
being a thing which exists independently, for existence by itself is
not observed by us. We easily, however, discover substance itself
from any attribute of it, by this common notion, that of nothing
there are no attributes, properties, or qualities: for, from
perceiving that some attribute is present, we infer that some
existing thing or substance to which it may be attributed is also of
necessity present.
LIII. That of every substance there is one principal attribute, as
thinking of the mind, extension of the body.
But, although any attribute is sufficient to lead us to the
knowledge of substance, there is, however, one principal property of
every substance, which constitutes its nature or essence, and upon
which all the others depend. Thus, extension in length, breadth, and
depth, constitutes the nature of corporeal substance; and thought
the nature of thinking substance. For every other thing that can be
attributed to body, presupposes extension, and is only some mode of
an extended thing; as all the properties we discover in the mind are
only diverse modes of thinking. Thus, for example, we cannot
conceive figure unless in something extended, nor motion unless in
extended space, nor imagination, sensation, or will, unless in a
thinking thing. But, on the other hand, we can conceive extension
without figure or motion, and thought without imagination or
sensation, and so of the others; as is clear to any one who attends
to these matters.
LIV. How we may have clear and distinct notions of the substance
which thinks, of that which is corporeal, and of God.
And thus we may easily have two clear and distinct notions or ideas,
the one of created substance, which thinks, the other of corporeal
substance, provided we carefully distinguish all the attributes of
thought from those of extension. We may also have a clear and
distinct idea of an uncreated and independent thinking substance,
that is, of God, provided we do not suppose that this idea
adequately represents to us all that is in God, and do not mix up
with it anything fictitious, but attend simply to the characters
that are comprised in the notion we have of him, and which we
clearly know to belong to the nature of an absolutely perfect Being.
For no one can deny that there is in us such an idea of God, without
groundlessly supposing that there is no knowledge of God at all in
the human mind.
LV. How duration, order, and number may be also distinctly
conceived.
We will also have most distinct conceptions of duration, order, and
number, if, in place of mixing up with our notions of them that
which properly belongs to the concept of substance, we merely think
that the duration of a thing is a mode under which we conceive this
thing, in so far as it continues to exist; and, in like manner, that
order and number are not in reality different from things disposed
in order and numbered, but only modes under which we diversely
consider these things.
LVI. What are modes, qualities, attributes.
And, indeed, we here understand by modes the same with what we
elsewhere designate attributes or qualities. But when we consider
substance as affected or varied by them, we use the term modes; when
from this variation it may be denominated of such a kind, we adopt
the term qualities [to designate the different modes which cause it
to be so named]; and, finally, when we simply regard these modes as
in the substance, we call them attributes. Accordingly, since God
must be conceived as superior to change, it is not proper to say
that there are modes or qualities in him, but simply attributes; and
even in created things that which is found in them always in the
same mode, as existence and duration in the thing which exists and
endures, ought to be called attribute and not mode or quality.
LVII. That some attributes exist in the things to which they are
attributed, and others only in our thought; and what duration and
time are.
Of these attributes or modes there are some which exist in the
things themselves, and others that have only an existence in our
thought; thus, for example, time, which we distinguish from duration
taken in its generality, and call the measure of motion, is only a
certain mode under which we think duration itself, for we do not
indeed conceive the duration of things that are moved to be
different from the duration of things that are not moved: as is
evident from this, that if two bodies are in motion for an hour, the
one moving quickly and the other slowly, we do not reckon more time
in the one than in the other, although there may be much more motion
in the one of the bodies than in the other. But that we may
comprehend the duration of all things under a common measure, we
compare their duration with that of the greatest and most regular
motions that give rise to years and days, and which we call time;
hence what is so designated is nothing superadded to duration, taken
in its generality, but a mode of thinking.
LVIII. That number and all universals are only modes of thought.
In the same way number, when it is not considered as in created
things, but merely in the abstract or in general, is only a mode of
thinking; and the same is true of all those general ideas we call
universals.
LIX. How universals are formed; and what are the five common, viz.,
genus, species, difference, property, and accident.
Universals arise merely from our making use of one and the same idea
in thinking of all individual objects between which there subsists a
certain likeness; and when we comprehend all the objects represented
by this idea under one name, this term likewise becomes universal.
For example, when we see two stones, and do not regard their nature
farther than to remark that there are two of them, we form the idea
of a certain number, which we call the binary; and when we
afterwards see two birds or two trees, and merely take notice of
them so far as to observe that there are two of them, we again take
up the same idea as before, which is, accordingly, universal; and we
likewise give to this number the same universal appellation of
binary. In the same way, when we consider a figure of three sides,
we form a certain idea, which we call the idea of a triangle, and we
afterwards make use of it as the universal to represent to our mind
all other figures of three sides. But when we remark more
particularly that of figures of three sides, some have a right angle
and others not, we form the universal idea of a right-angled
triangle, which being related to the preceding as more general, may
be called species; and the right angle the universal difference by
which right-angled triangles are distinguished from all others; and
farther, because the square of the side which sustains the right
angle is equal to the squares of the other two sides, and because
this property belongs only to this species of triangles, we may call
it the universal property of the species. Finally, if we suppose
that of these triangles some are moved and others not, this will be
their universal accident; and, accordingly, we commonly reckon five
universals, viz., genus, species, difference, property, accident.
LX. Of distinctions; and first of the real.
But number in things themselves arises from the distinction there is
between them: and distinction is threefold, viz., real, modal, and
of reason. The real properly subsists between two or more
substances; and it is sufficient to assure us that two substances
are really mutually distinct, if only we are able clearly and
distinctly to conceive the one of them without the other. For the
knowledge we have of God renders it certain that he can effect all
that of which we have a distinct idea: wherefore, since we have now,
for example, the idea of an extended and corporeal substance, though
we as yet do not know with certainty whether any such thing is
really existent, nevertheless, merely because we have the idea of
it, we may be assured that such may exist; and, if it really exists,
that every part which we can determine by thought must be really
distinct from the other parts of the same substance. In the same
way, since every one is conscious that he thinks, and that he in
thought can exclude from himself every other substance, whether
thinking or extended, it is certain that each of us thus considered
is really distinct from every other thinking and corporeal
substance. And although we suppose that God united a body to a soul
so closely that it was impossible to form a more intimate union, and
thus made a composite whole, the two substances would remain really
distinct, notwithstanding this union; for with whatever tie God
connected them, he was not able to rid himself of the power he
possessed of separating them, or of conserving the one apart from
the other, and the things which God can separate or conserve
separately are really distinct.
LXI. Of the modal distinction.
There are two kinds of modal distinctions, viz., that between the
mode properly so-called and the substance of which it is a mode, and
that between two modes of the same substance. Of the former we have
an example in this, that we can clearly apprehend substance apart
from the mode which we say differs from it; while, on the other
hand, we cannot conceive this mode without conceiving the substance
itself. There is, for example, a modal distinction between figure or
motion and corporeal substance in which both exist; there is a
similar distinction between affirmation or recollection and the
mind. Of the latter kind we have an illustration in our ability to
recognise the one of two modes apart from the other, as figure apart
from motion, and motion apart from figure; though we cannot think of
either the one or the other without thinking of the common substance
in which they adhere. If, for example, a stone is moved, and is
withal square, we can, indeed, conceive its square figure without
its motion, and reciprocally its motion without its square figure;
but we can conceive neither this motion nor this figure apart from
the substance of the stone. As for the distinction according to
which the mode of one substance is different from another substance,
or from the mode of another substance, as the motion of one body is
different from another body or from the mind, or as motion is
different from doubt, it seems to me that it should be called real
rather than modal, because these modes cannot be clearly conceived
apart from the really distinct substances of which they are the
modes.
LXII. Of the distinction of reason (logical distinction).
Finally, the distinction of reason is that between a substance and
some one of its attributes, without which it is impossible, however,
we can have a distinct conception of the substance itself; or
between two such attributes of a common substance, the one of which
we essay to think without the other. This distinction is manifest
from our inability to form a clear and distinct idea of such
substance, if we separate from it such attribute; or to have a clear
perception of the one of two such attributes if we separate it from
the other. For example, because any substance which ceases to endure
ceases also to exist, duration is not distinct from substance except
in thought (RATIONE); and in general all the modes of thinking which
we consider as in objects differ only in thought, as well from the
objects of which they are thought as from each other in a common
object.[Footnote: "and generally all the attributes that lead us to
entertain different thoughts of the same thing, such as, for
example, the extension of body and its property of divisibility, do
not differ from the body which is to us the object of them, or from
each other, unless as we sometimes confusedly think the one without
thinking the other."--FRENCH.] It occurs, indeed, to me that I have
elsewhere classed this kind of distinction with the modal (viz.,
towards the end of the Reply to the First Objections to the
Meditations on the First Philosophy); but there it was only
necessary to treat of these distinctions generally, and it was
sufficient for my purpose at that time simply to distinguish both of
them from the real.
LXIII. How thought and extension may be distinctly known, as
constituting, the one the nature of mind, the other that of body.
Thought and extension may be regarded as constituting the natures of
intelligent and corporeal substance; and then they must not be
otherwise conceived than as the thinking and extended substances
themselves, that is, as mind and body, which in this way are
conceived with the greatest clearness and distinctness. Moreover, we
more easily conceive extended or thinking substance than substance
by itself, or with the omission of its thinking or extension. For
there is some difficulty in abstracting the notion of substance from
the notions of thinking and extension, which, in truth, are only
diverse in thought itself (i.e., logically different); and a concept
is not more distinct because it comprehends fewer properties, but
because we accurately distinguish what is comprehended in it from
all other notions.
LXIV. How these may likewise be distinctly conceived as modes of
substance.
Thought and extension may be also considered as modes of substance;
in as far, namely, as the same mind may have many different
thoughts, and the same body, with its size unchanged, may be
extended in several diverse ways, at one time more in length and
less in breadth or depth, and at another time more in breadth and
less in length; and then they are modally distinguished from
substance, and can be conceived not less clearly and distinctly,
provided they be not regarded as substances or things separated from
others, but simply as modes of things. For by regarding them as in
the substances of which they are the modes, we distinguish them from
these substances, and take them for what in truth they are: whereas,
on the other hand, if we wish to consider them apart from the
substances in which they are, we should by this itself regard them
as self-subsisting things, and thus confound the ideas of mode and
substance.
LXV. How we may likewise know their modes.
In the same way we will best apprehend the diverse modes of thought,
as intellection, imagination, recollection, volition, etc., and also
the diverse modes of extension, or those that belong to extension,
as all figures, the situation of parts and their motions, provided
we consider them simply as modes of the things in which they are;
and motion as far as it is concerned, provided we think merely of
locomotion, without seeking to know the force that produces it, and
which nevertheless I will essay to explain in its own place.
LXVI. How our sensations, affections, and appetites may be clearly
known, although we are frequently wrong in our judgments regarding
them.
There remain our sensations, affections, and appetites, of which we
may also have a clear knowledge, if we take care to comprehend in
the judgments we form of them only that which is precisely contained
in our perception of them, and of which we are immediately
conscious. There is, however, great difficulty in observing this, at
least in respect of sensations; because we have all, without
exception, from our youth judged that all the things we perceived by
our senses had an existence beyond our thought, and that they were
entirely similar to the sensations, that is, perceptions, we ad of
them. Thus when, for example, we saw a certain colour, we thought we
saw something occupying a place out of us, and which was entirely
similar to that idea of colour we were then conscious of; and from
the habit of judging in this way, we seemed to see this so clearly
and distinctly that we esteemed it (i.e., the externality of the
colour) certain and indubitable.
LXVII. That we are frequently deceived in our judgments regarding
pain itself.
The same prejudice has place in all our other sensations, even in
those of titillation and pain. For though we are not in the habit of
believing that there exist out of us objects that resemble
titillation and pain, we do not nevertheless consider these
sensations as in the mind alone, or in our perception, but as in the
hand, or foot, or some other part of our body. There is no reason,
however, to constrain us to believe that the pain, for example,
which we feel, as it were, in the foot is something out of the mind
existing in the foot, or that the light which we see, as it were, in
the sun exists in the sun as it is in us. Both these beliefs are
prejudices of our early years, as will clearly appear in the sequel.
LXVIII. How in these things what we clearly conceive is to be
distinguished from that in which we may be deceived.
But that we may distinguish what is clear in our sensations from
what is obscure, we ought most carefully to observe that we possess
a clear and distinct knowledge of pain, colour, and other things of
this sort, when we consider them simply as sensations or thoughts;
but that, when they are judged to be certain things subsisting
beyond our mind, we are wholly unable to form any conception of
them. Indeed, when any one tells us that he sees colour in a body or
feels pain in one of his limbs, this is exactly the same as if he
said that he there saw or felt something of the nature of which he
was entirely ignorant, or that he did not know what he saw or felt.
For although, when less attentively examining his thoughts, a person
may easily persuade himself that he has some knowledge of it, since
he supposes that there is something resembling that sensation of
colour or of pain of which he is conscious; yet, if he reflects on
what the sensation of colour or pain represents to him as existing
in a coloured body or in a wounded member, he will find that of such
he has absolutely no knowledge.
LXIX. That magnitude, figure, etc., are known far differently from
colour, pain, etc.
What we have said above will be more manifest; especially if we
consider that size in the body perceived, figure, motion (at least
local, for philosophers by fancying other kinds of motion have
rendered its nature less intelligible to themselves), the situation
of parts, duration, number, and those other properties which, as we
have already said, we clearly perceive in all bodies, are known by
us in a way altogether different from that in which we know what
colour is in the same body, or pain, smell, taste, or any other of
those properties which I have said above must be referred to the
senses. For although when we see a body we are not less assured of
its existence from its appearing figured than from its appearing
coloured,[Footnote: "by the colour we perceive on occasion of it."--
FRENCH.] we yet know with far greater clearness its property of
figure than its colour.
LXX. That we may judge of sensible things in two ways, by the one
of which we avoid error, by the other fall into it.
It is thus manifest that to say we perceive colours in objects is in
reality equivalent to saying we perceive something in objects and
are yet ignorant of what it is, except as that which determines in
us a certain highly vivid and clear sensation, which we call the
sensation of colours. There is, however, very great diversity in the
manner of judging: for so long as we simply judge that there is an
unknown something in objects (that is, in things such as they are,
from which the sensation reached us), so far are we from falling
into error that, on the contrary, we thus rather provide against it,
for we are less apt to judge rashly of a thing which we observe we
do not know. But when we think we perceive colours in objects,
although we are in reality ignorant of what we then denominate
colour, and are unable to conceive any resemblance between the
colour we suppose to be in objects, and that of which we are
conscious in sensation, yet because we do not observe this, or
because there are in objects several properties, as size, figure,
number, etc., which, as we clearly know, exist, or may exist in them
as they are perceived by our senses or conceived by our
understanding, we easily glide into the error of holding that what
is called colour in objects is something entirely resembling the
colour we perceive, and thereafter of supposing that we have a clear
perception of what is in no way perceived by us.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 | 4 |
5 |
6 |
7