The Ethics [Part 4]
B >>
Benedict de Spinoza >> The Ethics [Part 4]
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 Benedict de Spinoza, THE ETHICS
(Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata)
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 period of existence; but everything,
whether it be more perfect or less perfect, will always be able to persist
in existence with the same force wherewith it began to exist; wherefore, in
this respect, all things are equal.
DEFINITIONS.
I. By good I mean that which we certainly know to be useful to us.
II. By evil I mean that which we certainly know to be a hindrance
to us in the attainment of any good. (Concerning these terms see the
foregoing preface towards the end.)
III. Particular things I call contingent in so far as, while regarding
their essence only, we find nothing therein, which necessarily asserts
their existence or excludes it.
IV. Particular things I call possible in so far as, while regarding the
causes whereby they must be produced, we know not, whether such causes
be determined for producing them.
(In I:xxxiii.note.i., I drew no distinction between possible and
contingent, because there was in that place no need to distinguish
them accurately.)
V. By conflicting emotions I mean those which draw a man in different
directions, though they are of the same kind, such as luxury and
avarice, which are both species of love, and are contraries, not
by nature, but by accident.
VI. What I mean by emotion felt towards a thing, future, present, and
past, I explained in III:xviii.,notes.i.,&ii., which see.
(But I should here also remark, that we can only distinctly conceive
distance of space or time up to a certain definite limit; that is, all
objects distant from us more than two hundred feet, or whose distance
from the place where we are exceeds that which we can distinctly conceive,
seem to be an equal distance from us, and all in the same plane; so also
objects, whose time of existing is conceived as removed from the present
by a longer interval than we can distinctly conceive, seem to be all
equally distant from the present, and are set down, as it were, to the
same moment of time.)
VII. By an end, for the sake of which we do something, I mean a desire.
VIII. By virtue (virtus) and power I mean the same thing; that is
(III:vii.), virtue, in so far as it is referred to man, is a man's
nature or essence, in so far as it has the power of effecting what
can only be understood by the laws of that nature.
AXIOM.
There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not
another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is
something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.
PROPOSITIONS.
Prop. I. No positive quality possessed by a
false idea is removed by the presence of
what is true, in virtue of its being true.
Proof.- Falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge which
inadequate ideas involve (II:xxxv.), nor have they any positive
quality on account of which they are called false (II:xxxiii.); contrariwise, in so far as they
are referred to God, they are true
(II:xxxii.). Wherefore, if the positive quality possessed by a false
idea were removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of its
being true, a true idea would then be removed by itself, which
(IV:iii.) is absurd. Therefore, no positive quality possessed by a
false idea, &c. Q.E.D.
Note.- This proposition is more clearly understood from II:xvi.Coroll.ii.
For imagination is an idea, which indicates rather the present disposition
of the human body than the nature of the external body; not indeed
distinctly, but confusedly; whence it comes to pass, that the mind is
said to err. For instance, when we look at the sun, we conceive that it
is distant from us about two hundred feet; in this judgment we err, so
long as we are in ignorance of its true distance; when its true distance
is known, the error is removed, but not the imagination; or, in other
words, the idea of the sun, which only explains tho nature of that
luminary, in so far as the body is affected thereby: wherefore, though
we know the real distance, we shall still nevertheless imagine the sun
to be near us. For, as we said in III:xxxv.note, we do not imagine the sun
to be so near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but because
the mind conceives the magnitude of the sun to the extent that the body is
affected thereby. Thus, when the rays of the sun falling on the surface of
water are reflected into our eyes, we imagine the sun as if it were in the
water, though we are aware of its real position; and similarly other
imaginations, wherein the mind is deceived whether they indicate the
natural disposition of the body, or that its power of activity is
increased or diminished, are not contrary to the truth, and do not vanish
at its presence. It happens indeed that, when we mistakenly fear an evil,
the fear vanishes when we hear the true tidings; but the contrary also
happens, namely, that we fear an evil which will certainly come, and our
fear vanishes when we hear false tidings; thus imaginations do not vanish
at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because
other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the
present existence of that which we imagined, as I have shown in II:.xvii.
Prop. II. We are only passive, in so far as
we are apart of Nature, which cannot be
conceived by itself without other parts.
Proof.- We are said to be passive, when something arises in us, whereof
we are only a partial cause (III:Def.ii.), that is (III:Def.i.), something
which cannot be deduced solely from the laws of our nature. We are passive
therefore in so far as we are a part of Nature, which cannot be conceived
by itself without other parts. Q.E.D.
Prop. III. The force whereby a man persists
in existing is limited, and is infinitely
surpassed by the power of external causes.
Proof.-This is evident from the axiom of this part. For, when man is
given, there is something else - say A - more powerful; when A is given,
there is something else - say B - more powerful than A, and so on to
infinity; thus the power of man is limited by the power of some other
thing, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes. Q.E.D.
Prop. IV. It is impossible, that man should
not be a part of Nature, or that he should
be capable of undergoing no changes, save
such as can be understood through his nature
only as their adequate cause.
Proof.- The power, whereby each particular thing, and consequently man,
preserves his being, is the power of God or of Nature (I:xxiv.Coroll.);
not in so far as it is infinite, but in so far as it can be explained by
the actual human essence (III:vii.). Thus the power of man, in so far
as it is explained through his own actual essence, is a part of the
infinite power of God or Nature, in other words, of the essence thereof
(I:xxxiv.). This was our first point. Again, if it were possible, that man
should undergo no changes save such as can be understood solely through
the nature of man, it would follow that he would not be able to die, but
would always necessarily exist; this would be the necessary consequence
of a cause whose power was either finite or infinite; namely, either of
man's power only, inasmuch as he would be capable of removing from himself
all changes which could spring from external causes; or of the infinite
power of Nature, whereby all individual things would be so ordered, that
man should be incapable of undergoing any changes save such as tended
towards his own preservation. But the first alternative is absurd (by the
last Prop., the proof of which is universal, and can be applied to all
individual things). Therefore, if it be possible, that man should not be
capable of undergoing any changes, save such as can be explained solely
through his own nature, and consequently that he must always (as we have
shown) necessarily exist; such a result must follow from the infinite
power of God, and consequently (I:xvi.) from the necessity of the divine
nature, in so far as it is regarded as affected by the idea of any given
man, the whole order of nature as conceived under the attributes of
extension and thought must be deducible. It would therefore follow (I:xxi.)
that man is infinite, which (by the first part of this proof) is absurd.
It is, therefore, impossible, that man should not undergo any changes save
those whereof he is the adequate cause. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- Hence it follows, that man is necessarily always a prey to
his passions, that he follows and obeys the general order of nature, and
that he accommodates himself thereto, as much as the nature of things
demands.
Prop. V. The power and increase of every
passion, and its persistence in existing
are not defined by the power, whereby we
ourselves endeavour to persist in existing,
but by the power of an external cause
compared with our own.
Proof.- The essence of a passion cannot be explained through our
essence alone (III:Def.i.&.ii.), that is (III:vii.), the power of
a passion cannot be defined by the power, whereby we ourselves
endeavour to persist in existing, but (as is shown in II:xvi.) must
necessarily be defined by the power of an external cause compared
with our own. Q.E.D.
Prop. VI. The force of any passion or emotion
can overcome the rest of a man's activities or
power, so that the emotion becomes obstinately
fixed to him.
Proof.- The force and increase of any passion and its persistence in
existing are defined by the power of an external cause compared with
our own (by the foregoing Prop.); therefore (IV:iii.) it can overcome a
man's power, &e. Q.E.D.
Prop. VII. An emotion can only be controlled
or destroyed by another emotion contrary
thereto, and with more power for controlling
emotion.
Proof.- Emotion, in so far as it is referred to the mind, is an idea,
whereby the mind affirms of its body a greater or less force of existence
than before (cf. the general Definition of the Emotions at the end of
Part III.) When, therefore, the mind is assailed by any emotion, the
body is at the same time affected with a modification whereby its power
of activity is increased or diminished. Now this modification of the body
(IV:v.) receives from its cause the force for persistence in its being;
which force can only be checked or destroyed by a bodily cause (II:vi.),
in virtue of the body being affected with a modification contrary to
(III:v.) and stronger than itself (IV.Ax.); wherefore (II:xii.) the mind
is affected by the idea of a modification contrary to, and stronger than
the former modification, in other words, (by the general definition
of the emotions) the mind will be affected by an emotion contrary to and
stronger than the former emotion, which will exclude or destroy the
existence of the former emotion; thus an emotion cannot be destroyed nor
controlled except by a contrary and stronger emotion. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- An emotion, in so far as it is referred to the mind, can
only be controlled or destroyed through an idea of a modification of
the body contrary to, and stronger than, that which we are undergoing.
For the emotion which we undergo can only be checked or destroyed by an
emotion contrary to, and stronger than, itself, in other words, (by the
general Definition of the Emotions) only by an idea of a modification
of the body contrary to, and stronger than, the modification which we
undergo.
Prop. VIII. The knowledge of good and evil
is nothing else but the emotions of pleasure
or pain, in so far as we are conscious
thereof.
Proof.- We call a thing good or evil, when it is of service or the
reverse in preserving our being (IV:Def.i.&.ii.), that is (III:vii.),
when it increases or diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity.
Thus, in so far as we perceive that a thing affects us with pleasure or
pain, we call it good or evil; wherefore the knowledge of good and evil
is nothing else but the idea of the pleasure or pain, which necessarily
follows from that pleasurable or painful emotion (II:xxii.). But this idea
is united to the emotion in the same way as mind is united to body
(II:xxi.); that is, there is no real distinction between this idea and
the emotion or idea of the modification of the body, save in conception
only. Therefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the
emotion, in so far as we are conscious thereof. Q.E.D.
Prop. IX. An emotion, whereof we conceive
the cause to be with us at the present time,
is stronger than if we did not conceive the
cause to be with us.
Proof.- Imagination or conception is the idea, by which the mind regards
a thing as present (II:xvii.note), but which indicates the disposition of
the mind rather than the nature of the external thing (II:xvi.Coroll.ii).
An emotion is therefore a conception, in so far as it indicates the
disposition of the body. But a conception (by II:xvii.) is stronger,
so long as we conceive nothing which excludes the present existence
of the external object; wherefore an emotion is also stronger or more
intense, when we conceive the cause to be with us at the present time,
than when we do not conceive the cause to be with us. Q.E.D.
Note.- When I said above in III:xviii. that we are affected by the image
of what is past or future with the same emotion as if the thing conceived
were present, I expressly stated, that this is only true in so far as we
look solely to the image of the thing in question itself ; for the thing's
nature is unchanged, whether we have conceived it or not; I did not deny
that the image becomes weaker, when we regard as present to us other
things which exclude the present existence of the future object: I did
not expressly call attention to the fact, because I purposed to treat
of the strength of the emotions in this part of my work.
Corollary.- The image of something past or future, that is, of a thing
which we regard as in relation to time past or time future, to the
exclusion of time present, is, when other conditions are equal, weaker
than the image of something present; consequently an emotion felt towards
what is past or future is less intense, other conditions being equal,
than an emotion felt towards something present.
Prop. X. Towards something future, which we
conceive as close at hand, we are affected
more intensely, than if we conceive that
its time for existence is separated from
the present by a longer interval; so too
by the remembrance of what we conceive to
have not long passed away we are affected
more intensely, than if we conceive that
it has long passed away.
Proof.- In so far as we conceive a thing as close at hand, or not long
passed away, we conceive that which excludes the presence of the object
less, than if its period of future existence were more distant from the
present, or if it had long passed away (this is obvious) therefore (by the
foregoing Prop.) we are, so far, more intensely affected towards it. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- From the remarks made in IV:Def.vi. of this part it follows
that, if objects are separated from the present by a longer period than
we can define in conception, though their dates of occurrence be widely
separated one from the other, they all affect us equally faintly.
Prop. XI. An emotion towards that which
we conceive as necessary is, when other
conditions are equal, more intense than
an emotion towards that which impossible,
or contingent, or non-necessary.
Proof.- In so far as we conceive a thing to be necessary, we, to that
extent, affirm its existence; on the other hand we deny a thing's
existence, in so far as we conceive it not to be necessary :xxxiii.note.i.);
wherefore (IV.ix.) an emotion towards that which is necessary is, other
conditions being equal, more intense than an emotion that which is
non-necessary. Q.E.D.
Prop. XII. An emotion towards a thing,
which we know not to exist at the present
time, and which we conceive as possible,
is more intense, other conditions being
equal, than an emotion towards a thing
contingent.
Proof.- In so far as we conceive a thing as contingent, we are affected
by the conception of some further thing, which would assert the existence
of the former (IV:Def.iii.); but, on the other hand, we (by hypothesis)
conceive certain things, which exclude its present existence. But, in
so far as we conceive a thing to be possible in the future, we there by
conceive things which assert its existence (IV:iv.), that is (III:xviii.),
things which promote hope or fear: wherefore an emotion towards something
possible is more vehement. Q.E.D.
Corollary.- An emotion towards a thing, which we know not to exist in the
present, and which we conceive as contingent, is far fainter, than if we
conceive the thing to be present with us.
Proof.- Emotion towards a thing, which we conceive to exist, is more
intense than it would be, if we conceived the thing as future V:ix.Coroll.),
and is much more vehement, than if the future time be conceived as far
distant from the present (IV:x.). Therefore an emotion towards a thing,
whose period of existence we conceive to be far distant from the present,
is far fainter, than if we conceive the thing as present; it is,
nevertheless, more intense, than if we conceived the thing as contingent,
wherefore an emotion towards a thing, which we regard as contingent,
will be far fainter, than if we conceived the thing to be present with us.
Q.E.D.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6