descartes-meditations-746, książki, Philosphy
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Meditations on First PhilosophyRene Descartes1641Copyright: 1996, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thisfile is of the 1911 edition of The Philosophical Works ofDescartes (Cambridge University Press), translated byElizabeth S. Haldane.1Prefatory Note To The Meditations.The first edition of the Meditations was published inLatin by Michael Soly of Paris "at the Sign of the Phoenix" in1641 cum Privilegio et Approbatione Doctorum. The Royal"privilege" was indeed given, but the "approbation" seems tohave been of a most indefinite kind. The reason of the bookbeing published in France and not in Holland, where Descarteswas living in a charming country house at Endegeest nearLeiden, was apparently his fear that the Dutch ministers mightin some way lay hold of it. His friend, Pere Mersenne, tookcharge of its publication in Paris and wrote to him about anydifficulties that occurred in the course of its progressthrough the press. The second edition was however publishedat Amsterdam in 1642 by Louis Elzevir, and this edition wasaccompanied by the now completed "Objections and Replies."2The edition from which the present translation is made is thesecond just mentioned, and is that adopted by MM. Adam andTannery as the more correct, for reasons that they state indetail in the preface to their edition. The work wastranslated into French by the Duc de Luynes in 1642 andDescartes considered the translation so excellent that he hadit published some years later. Clerselier, to completematters, had the "Objections" also published in French withthe "Replies," and this, like the other, was subject toDescartes' revision and correction. This revision renders theFrench edition specially valuable. Where it seems desirablean alternative reading from the French is given in squarebrackets.Elizabeth S. HaldaneTO THE MOST WISE AND ILLUSTRIOUS THEDEAN AND DOCTORS OF THE SACREDFACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN PARIS.The motive which induces me to present to you thisTreatise is so excellent, and, when you become acquainted withits design, I am convinced that you will also have soexcellent a motive for taking it under your protection, that Ifeel that I cannot do better, in order to render it in somesort acceptable to you, than in a few words to state what Ihave set myself to do.I have always considered that the two questionsrespecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that oughtto be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theologicalargument. For although it is quite enough for us faithfulones to accept by means of faith the fact that the human souldoes not perish with the body, and that God exists, itcertainly does not seem possible ever to persuade infidels ofany religion, indeed, we may almost say, of any moral virtue,unless, to begin with, we prove these two facts by means ofthe natural reason. And inasmuch as often in this lifegreater rewards are offered for vice than for virtue, fewpeople would prefer the right to the useful, were theyrestrained neither by the fear of God nor the expectation ofanother life; and although it is absolutely true that we mustbelieve that there is a God, because we are so taught in theHoly Scriptures, and, on the other hand, that we must believethe Holy Scriptures because they come from God (the reason ofthis is, that, faith being a gift of God, He who gives thegrace to cause us to believe other things can likewise give itto cause us to believe that He exists), we nevertheless couldnot place this argument before infidels, who might accuse usof reasoning in a circle. And, in truth, I have noticed thatyou, along with all the theologians, did not only affirm thatthe existence of God may be proved by the natural reason, butalso that it may be inferred from the Holy Scriptures, thatknowledge about Him is much clearer than that which we have ofmany created things, and, as a matter of fact, is so easy toacquire, that those who have it not are culpable in theirignorance. This indeed appears from the Wisdom of Solomon,chapter xiii., where it is said "Howbeit they are not to beexcused; for if their understanding was so great that theycould discern the world and the creatures, why did they notrather find out the Lord thereof?" and in Romans, chapter i.,it is said that they are "without excuse"; and again in thesame place, by these words "that which may be known of God ismanifest in them," it seems as through we were shown that allthat which can be known of God may be made manifest by meanswhich are not derived from anywhere but from ourselves, andfrom the simple consideration of the nature of our minds.Hence I thought it not beside my purpose to inquire how thisis so, and how God may be more easily and certainly known thanthe things of the world.And as regards the soul, although many have consideredthat it is not easy to know its nature, and some have evendared to say that human reasons have convinced us that itwould perish with the body, and that faith alone could believethe contrary, nevertheless, inasmuch as the Lateran Councilheld under Leo X (in the eighth session) condemns thesetenets, and as Leo expressly ordains Christian philosophers torefute their arguments and to employ all their powers inmaking known the truth, I have ventured in this treatise toundertake the same task.More than that, I am aware that the principal reasonwhich causes many impious persons not to desire to believethat there is a God, and that the human soul is distinct fromthe body, is that they declare that hitherto no one has beenable to demonstrate these two facts; and although I am not oftheir opinion but, on the contrary, hold that the greater partof the reasons which have been brought forward concerningthese two questions by so many great men are, when they arerightly understood, equal to so many demonstrations, and thatit is almost impossible to invent new ones, it is yet in myopinion the case that nothing more useful can be accomplishedin philosophy than once for all to seek with care for the bestof these reasons, and to set them forth in so clear and exacta manner, that it will henceforth be evident to everybody thatthey are veritable demonstrations. And, finally, inasmuch asit was desired that I should undertake this task by many whowere aware that I had cultivated a certain Method for theresolution of difficulties of every kind in the Sciences�amethod which it is true is not novel, since there is nothingmore ancient than the truth, but of which they were aware thatI had made use successfully enough in other matters ofdifficulty�I have thought that it was my duty also to maketrial of it in the present matter.Now all that I could accomplish in the matter iscontained in this Treatise. Not that I have here drawntogether all the different reasons which might be broughtforward to serve as proofs of this subject: for that neverseemed to be necessary excepting when there was no one singleproof that was certain. But I have treated the first andprincipal ones in such a manner that I can venture to bringthem forward as very evident and very certain demonstrations.And more than that, I will say that these proofs are such thatI do not think that there is any way open to the human mind bywhich it can ever succeed in discovering better. For theimportance of the subject, and the glory of God to which allthis relates, constrain me to speak here somewhat more freelyof myself than is my habit. Nevertheless, whatever certaintyand evidence I find in my reasons, I cannot persuade myselfthat all the world is capable of understanding them. Still,just as in Geometry there are many demonstrations that havebeen left to us by Archimedes, by Apollonius, by Pappus, andothers, which are accepted by everyone as perfectly certainand evident (because they clearly contain nothing which,considered by itself, is not very easy to understand, and asall through that which follows has an exact connection with,and dependence on that which precedes), nevertheless, becausethey are somewhat lengthy, and demand a mind wholly devotedtot heir consideration, they are only taken in and understoodby a very limited number of persons. Similarly, although Ijudge that those of which I here make use are equal to, oreven surpass in certainty and evidence, the demonstrations ofGeometry, I yet apprehend that they cannot be adequatelyunderstood by many, both because they are also a littlelengthy and dependent the one on the other, and principallybecause they demand a mind wholly free of prejudices, and onewhich can be easily detached from the affairs of the senses.And, truth to say, there are not so many in the world who arefitted for metaphysical speculations as there are for those ofGeometry. And more than that; there is still this difference,that in Geometry, since each one is persuaded that nothingmust be advanced of which there is not a certaindemonstration, those who are not entirely adepts morefrequently err in approving what is false, in order to givethe impression that they understand it, than in refuting thetrue. But the case is different in philosophy where everyonebelieves that all is problematical, and few give themselves tothe search after truth; and the greater number, in theirdesire to acquire a reputation for boldness of thought,arrogantly combat the most important of truths3.That is why, whatever force there may be in myreasonings, seeing they belong to philosophy, I cannot hopethat they wil...
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]