the ethics(part iv)-第1章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
The Ethics 'Part 4'
(Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata)
by Benedict de Spinoza
Translated by R。 H。 M。 Elwes
PART IV: Of Human Bondage; or the Strength of the Emotions
PREFACE
Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage:
for; when a man is a prey to his emotions; he is not his own master; but
lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so; that he is often compelled;
while seeing that which is better for him; to follow that which is worse。
Why this is so; and what is good or evil in the emotions; I propose to
show in this part of my treatise。 But; before I begin; it would be well
to make a few prefatory observations on perfection and imperfection;
good and evil。
When a man has purposed to make a given thing; and has brought it
to perfection; his work will be pronounced perfect; not only by
himself; but by everyone who rightly knows; or thinks that he knows;
the intention and aim of its author。 For instance; suppose anyone sees a
work (which I assume to be not yet completed); and knows that the aim
of the author of that work is to build a house; he will call the work
imperfect; he will; on the other hand; call it perfect; as soon as he
sees that it is carried through to the end; which its author had purposed
for it。 But if a man sees a work; the like whereof he has never seen
before; and if he knows not the intention of the artificer; he plainly
cannot know; whether that work be perfect or imperfect。 Such seems to
be the primary meaning of these terms。
But; after men began to form general ideas; to think out types of
houses; buildings; towers; &c。; and to prefer certain types to others;
it came about; that each man called perfect that which he saw agree
with the general idea he had formed of the thing in question; and called
imperfect that which he saw agree less with his own preconceived type;
even though it had evidently been completed in accordance with the idea
of its artificer。 This seems to be the only reason for calling natural
phenomena; which; indeed; are not made with human hands; perfect or
imperfect: for men are wont to form general ideas of things natural; no
less than of things artificial; and such ideas they hold as types;
believing that Nature (who they think does nothing without an object)
has them in view; and has set them as types before herself。 Therefore;
when they behold something in Nature; which does not wholly conform to
the preconceived type which they have formed of the thing in question;
they say that Nature has fallen short or has blundered; and has left
her work incomplete。 Thus we see that men are wont to style natural
phenomena perfect or imperfect rather from their own prejudices; than
from true knowledge of what they pronounce upon。
Now we showed in the Appendix to Part I。; that Nature does not work
with an end in view。 For the eternal and infinite Being; which we call
God or Nature; acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists。 For
we have shown; that by the same necessity of its nature; whereby it
exists; it likewise works (I:xvi。)。 The reason or cause why God or Nature
exists; and the reason why he acts; are one and the same。 Therefore;
as he does not exist for the sake of an end; so neither does he act for
the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither
origin nor end。 Wherefore; a cause which is called final is nothing else
but human desire; in so far as it is considered as the origin or cause
of anything。 For example; when we say that to be inhabited is the final
cause of this or that house; we mean nothing more than that a man;
conceiving the conveniences of household life; had a desire to build a
house。 Wherefore; the being inhabited; in so far as it is regarded as
a final cause; is nothing else but this particular desire; which is
really the efficient cause; it is regarded as the primary cause;
because men are generally ignorant of the causes of their desires。
They are; as I have often said already; conscious of their own actions
and appetites; but ignorant of the causes whereby they are determined
to any particular desire。 Therefore; the common saying that Nature
sometimes falls short; or blunders; and produces things which are
imperfect; I set down among the glosses treated of in the Appendix to
Part 1。 Perfection and imperfection; then; are in reality merely modes
of thinking; or notions which we form from a comparison among one
another of individuals of the same species; hence I said above
(II:Def。vi。); that by reality and perfection I mean the same thing。
For we are wont to refer all the individual things in nature to one
genus; which is called the highest genus; namely; to the category of
Being; whereto absolutely all individuals in nature belong。 Thus; in
so far as we refer the individuals in nature to this category; and
comparing them one with another; find that some possess more of being or
reality than others; we; to this extent; say that some are more perfect
than others。 Again; in so far as we attribute to them anything implying
negation … as term; end; infirmity; etc。; we; to this extent; call them
imperfect; because they do not affect our mind so much as the things
which we call perfect; not because they have any intrinsic deficiency;
or because Nature has blundered。 For nothing lies within the scope of a
thing's nature; save that which follows from the necessity of the nature
of its efficient cause; and whatsoever follows from the necessity of the
nature of its efficient cause necessarily comes to pass。
As for the terms good and bad; they indicate no positive quality in
things regarded in themselves; but are merely modes of thinking; or
notions which we form from the comparison of things one with another。
Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good; bad; and
indifferent。 For instance; music is good for him that is melancholy;
bad for him that mourns; for him that is deaf; it is neither good nor
bad。
Nevertheless; though this be so; the terms should still be retained。
For; inasmuch as we desire to form an idea of man as a type of human
nature which we may hold in view; it will be useful for us to retain
the terms in question; in the sense I have indicated。
In what follows; then; I shall mean by; 〃good〃 that; which we
certainly know to be a means of approaching more nearly to the type
of human nature; which we have set before ourselves; by 〃bad;〃 that
which we certainly know to be a hindrance to us in approaching the
said type。 Again; we shall that men are more perfect; or more imperfect;
in proportion as they approach more or less nearly to the said type。
For it must be specially remarked that; when I say that a man passes
from a lesser to a greater perfection; or vice versa; I do not mean
that he is changed from one essence or reality to another; for instance;
a horse would be as completely destroyed by being changed into a man;
as by being changed into an insect。 What I mean is; that we conceive the
thing's power of action; in so far as this is understood by its nature;
to be increased or diminished。 Lastly; by perfection in general I shall;
as I have said; mean reality in other words; each thing's essence; in so
far as it exists; and operates in a particular manner; and without paying
any regard to its duration。 For no given thing can be said to be more
perfect; because it has passed a longer time in existence。 The duration
of things cannot be determined by their essence; for the essence of
things involves no fixed and definite pe