history of philosophy-第38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！


“That　the　conceptions　contain　more　or　less　reality；　and　those　moments　have　just　as　much　evidence
as　thought　itself；　because　they　not　only；　say　that　we　think；　but　how　we　think。”　These　determinate
modes　as　differences　in　the　simplicity　of　thought；　had；　however；　to　be　demonstrated。　Spinoza　adds
to　this　step　in　advance　that　“The　degrees　of　reality　which　we　perceive　in　ideas　are　not　in　the　ideas
in　as　far　as　they　are　considered　merely　as　kinds　of　thought；　but　in　so　far　as　the　one　represents　a
substance　and　the　other　a　mere　mode　of　substance；　or；　in　a　word；　in　so　far　as　they　are　considered
as　conceptions　of　things。”　“The　objective　reality　of　Notions　（i。e。；　the　entity　of　what　is　represented
in　so　far　as　it　is　in　the　Notion）；　〃demands　a　first　cause　in　which　the　same　reality　is　contained　not
merely　objectively”　（that　is　to　say　in　the　Notion）；　“but　likewise　formally　or　even　eminenter　—
formally；　that　is　perfectly　likewise：　eminenter；　more　perfectly。　For　there　must　at　least　be　as　much
in　the　cause　as　in　the　effect。”　“The　existence　of　God；　is　known　immediately”　—　a　priori　—
“from　the　contemplation　of　His　nature。　To　say　that　anything　is　contained　in　the　nature　or　in　the
Notion　of　a　thing　is　tantamount　to　saying　that　it　is　true：　existence　is　directly　contained　in　the　Notion
of　God。　Hence　it　is　quite　true　to　say　of　Him　that　existence　pertains　of　necessity　to　Him。　There　is
implied　in　the　Notion　of　every　particular　thing　either　a　possible　or　a　necessary　existence　—　a
necessary　existence　in　the　Notion　of　God；　i。e。　of　the　absolutely　perfect　Being；　for　else　He　would
be　conceived　as　imperfect。”　（19）

Descartes　likewise　argues　after　this　manner：　“Problem：　to　prove　a　posteriori　from　the　mere
Notion　within　us　the　existence　of　God。　The　objective　reality　of　a　Notion　demands　a　cause　in　which
the　same　reality　is　not　merely　contained　objectively”　（as　in　the　finite）；　“but　formally”　（freely；
purely　for　itself；　outside　of　us）　“or　eminenter”　（as　original）。　（Axiom。）　“We　now　have　a　Notion　of
God；　but　His　objective　reality　is　neither　formally　nor　eminenter　contained　within　us；　and　it　can　thus
be　only　in　God　Himself。”　（20）　Consequently　we　see　that　with　Descartes　this　Idea　is　an
hypothesis。　Now　we　should　say　we　find　this　highest　Idea　in　us。　If　we　then　ask　whether　this　Idea
exists；　why；　this　is　the　Idea；　that　existence　is　asserted　with　it。　To　say　that　it　is　only　a　conception　is
to　contradict　the　meaning　of　this　conception。　But　here　it　is　unsatisfactory　to　find　that　the　conception
is　introduced　thus：　‘We　have　this　conception；’　and　to　find　that　it　consequently　appears　like　an
hypothesis。　In　such　a　case　it　is　not　proved　of　this　content　in　itself　that　it　determines　itself　into　this
unity　of　thought　and　Being。　In　the　form　of　God　no　other　conception　is　thus　here　given　than　that
contained　in　Cogito；　ergo　sum；　wherein　Being　and　thought　are　inseparably　bound　up　—　though
now　in　the　form　of　a　conception　which　I　possess　within　me。　The　whole　content　of　this　conception；
the　Almighty；　All…wise；　&c。；　are　predicates　which　do　not　make　their　appearance　until　later；　the
content　is　simply　the　content　of　the　Idea　bound　up　with　existence。　Hence　we　see　these
determinations　following　one　another　in　an　empirical　manner；　and　not　philosophically　proved　—
thus　giving　us　an　example　of　how　in　a　priori　metaphysics　generally　hypotheses　of　conceptions　are
brought　in；　and　these　become　objects　of　thought；　just　as　happens　in　empiricism　with　investigations；
observations；　and　experiences。

Descartes　then　proceeds：　“Mind　is　the　more　convinced　of　this　when　it　notices　that　it　discovers
within　itself　the　conception　of　no　other　thing　wherein　existence　is　necessarily　implied。　From　this　it
will　perceive　that　that　idea　of　highest　reality　is　not　imagined　by　it；　it　is　not　chimerical；　but　a　true　and
unalterable　fact　which　cannot　do　otherwise　than　exist；　seeing　that　existence　is　necessarily　involved
in　it。　Our　prejudices　hinder　us　from　apprehending　this　with　ease；　for　we　are　accustomed　to
distinguish　in　all　other　things　the　essence”　（the　Notion）　“from　the　existence。”　Respecting　the
assertion　that　thought　is　not　inseparable　from　existence；　the　common　way　of　talking　is　as　follows：
‘If　what　men　think　really　existed；　things　would　be　different。’　But　in　saying　this　men　do　not　take
into　account　that　what　is　spoken　of　in　this　way　is　always　a　particular　content；　and　that　in　it　the
essential　nature　of　the　finality　of　things　simply　signifies　the　fact　that　Notion　and　Being　are　separable。
But　how　can　one　argue　from　finite　things　to　the　infinite？　“This　Notion；”　Descartes　continues；　“is
furthermore　not　made　by　us。”　It　is　now　declared　to　be　an　eternal　truth　which　is　revealed　in　us。
“We　do　not　find　in　ourselves　the　perfections　which　are　contained　in　this　conception。　Thus　we　are
certain　that　a　first　cause　in　which　is　all　perfection；　i。e。；　God　as　really　existent；　has　given　them　to　us；
for　it　is　certain　to　us　that　from　nothing；　nothing　arises”　（according　to　Boehme　God　derived　the
material　of　the　world　from　Himself）；　“and　what　is　perfect　cannot　be　the　effect　of　anything
imperfect。　From　Him　we　must　thus　in　true　science　deduce　all　created　things。”　（21）　With　the　proof
of　the　existence　of　God　the　validity　of　and　evidence　for　all　truth　in　its　origin　is　immediately
established。　God　as　First　Cause　is　Being…for…self；　the　reality　which　is　not　merely　entity　or　existence
in　thought。　An　existence　such　as　this　first　cause　（which　is　not　what　we　know　as　a　thing）　rests　in　the
Notion　of　the　not…I；　not　of　each　determinate　thing　—　since　these　as　determinate　are　negations　—
but　only　in　the　Notion　of　pure　existence　or　the　perfect　cause。　It　is　the　cause　of　the　truth　of　ideas；
for　the　aspect　that　it　represents　is　that　of　their　Being。

d。　Fourthly；　Descartes　goes　on　to　assert：　“We　must　believe　what　is　revealed　to　us　by　God；　though
we　cannot　understand　it。　It　is　not　to　be　wondered　at；　since　we　are　finite；　that　there　is　in　God’s
nature　as　inconceivably　infinite；　what　passes　our　comprehension。”　This　represents　the　entrance　of
a　very　ordinary　conception。　Boehme　on　the　other　hand　says　（supra；　p。　212）：　‘The　mystery　of　the
Trinity　is　ever　born　within　us。’　Descartes；　however；　concludes：　“Hence　we　must　not　trouble
ourselves　with　investigations　respecting　the　infinite；　for　seeing　that　we　are　finite；　it　is　absurd　for　us
to　say　anything　about　it。”　（22）　This　matter　we　shall　not；　however；　enter　upon　at　present。

“Now　the　first　attribute　of　God　is　that　He　is　true　and　the　Giver　of　all　light；　it　is　hence　quite　contrary
to　His　nature　to　deceive　us。　Hence　the　light　of　nature　or　the　power　of　acquiring　knowledge　given
us　by　God　can　affect　no　object　which　is　not　really　true　in　as　far　as　it　is　affected　by　it”　（the　power
of　acquiring　knowledge）　“i。e。；　as　it　is　perceived　clearly　and　distinctly。”　We　ascribe　truth　to　God。
From　this　Descartes　goes　on　to　infer　the　universal　bond　which　exists　between　absolute　knowledge
and　the　objectivity　of　what　we　thus　know。　Knowledge　has　objects；　has　a　content　which　is　known；
we　call　this　connection　truth。　The　truth　of　God　is　just　this　unity　of　what　is　thought　by　the　subject　or
clearly　perceived；　and　external　reality　or　existence。　“Thereby　an　end　is　put　to　doubt；　as　if　it　could
be　the　case　that　what　appears　quite　evident　to　us　should　not　be　really　true。　We　can　thus　no　longer
have　any　suspicion　of　mathematical　truths。　Likewise　if　we　give　heed　to　what　we　distinguish　by　our
senses　in　waking　or　in　sleeping；　clearly　and　distinctly；　it　is　easy　to　recognize　in　each　thing　what　in　it
is　true。”　By　saying　that　what　is　rightly　and　clearly　thought　likewise　is；　Descartes　maintains　that　man
comes　to　know　by　means　of　thought　what　in　fact　is　in　things；　the　sources　of　errors　lie　on　the　other
hand　in　the　finitude　of　our　nature。　“It　is　certain；　because　of　God’s　truth；　that　the　faculty　of
perceiving　and　that　of　assenting　through　the　will；　if　it　extends　no　further　than　to　that　which　is　clearly
perceived；　cannot　lead　to　error。　Even　if　this　cannot　be　in　any　way　proved；　it　is　by　nature　so
established　in　all　things；　that　as　often　as　we　clearly　perceive　anything；　we　assent　to　it　from
ourselves　and　can　in　no　wise　doubt　that　it　is　true。”　（23）

All　this　is　set　forth　very　plausibly；　but　it　is　still　indeterminate；　formal；　and　shallow；　we　only　have　the
assertion　made　to　us　that　this　is　so。　Descartes’　method　is　the　method　of　the　clear　understanding
merely。　Certainty　with　him　takes　the　first　place；　from　it　no　content　is　deduced　of　necessity；　no
content　generally；　and　still　less　its　objectivity　as　distinguished　from　the　inward　subjectivity　of　the
‘I。’　At　one　time　we　have　the　opposition　of　subjective　knowledge　and　actuality；　and　at　another
their　inseparable　union。　In　the　first　case　the　necessity　of　mediating　them　enters　in；　and　the　truth　of
God　is　asserted　to　be　this　mediating　power。　It　consists　in　this；　that　His　Notion　contains　reality
immediately　in　itself。　The　proof　of　this　unity　then　rests　solely　upon　the　fact　of　its　being　said　that　we
find　within　us　the　idea　of　complete　perfection；　thus　this　conception　here　appears　simply　as　one
found　ready　to　hand。　With　this　is　compared　the　mere　conception　of　God　which　contains　no
existence　within　it；　and　it　is　found　that　without　existence　it　would　be　imperfect。　This　unity　of　God
Himself；　of　His　Idea；　with　His　existence；　is　undoubtedly　the　Truth；　in　this　we　find　the　ground　for
holding　as　true　what　is　for　us　just　as　certain　as　the　truth　of　ourselves。　As　Descartes　proceeds
further　we　thus　find　that　in　reality　everything　has　truth　for　him　only　in　so　far　as　it　is　really　an　object
of　thought；　a　universal。　This　truth　of　God　has　been；　as　we　shall　see；　expressed　even　more　clearly
and　in　a　more　concise　way　by　a　disciple　of　Descartes；　if　one　may　venture　to　call　him　so　—　I　mean
Malebranche　（who　might　really　be　dealt　with　here）；　（24）　in　his　Recherche　de　la　vérité。

The　first　of　the　fundamental　determinations　of　the　Cartesian　metaphysics　is　from　the　certainty　of
oneself　to　arrive　at　the　truth；　to　recognize　Being　in　the　Notion　of　thought。　But　because　in　the
thought　“I　think；”　I　am　an　individual；　thought　comes　before　my　mind　as　subjective；　Being　is　hence
not　demonstrated　in　the　Notion　of　thought　itself；　for　what　advance　has　been　made　is　merely　in　the
direction　of　separation　generally。　In　the　second　place　the　negative　of　Being　likewise　comes　before
self…consciousness；　and　this　negative；　united　with　the　positive　I；　is　so　to　speak　implicitly　united　in　a
third；　in　God。　God；　who　before　this　was　a　non…contradictory　potentiality；　now　takes　objective
form　to　self…consciousness；　He　is　all　reality　in　so　far　as　it　is　positive；　i。e。；　as　it　is　Being；　unity　of
thought　and　Being；　the　highest　perfection　of　existence；　it　is　just　in　the　negative；　in　the　Notion　of　this；
in　its　being　an　object　of　thought；　that　Being　is　contained。　An　objection　to　this　identity　is　now　old　—
Kant　urged　it　likewise　—　that　from　the　Notion　of　the　most　perfect　existence　more　does　not　follow
than　that　in　thought　existence　here　and　now　and　the　most　perfect　essence　are　conjoined；　but　not
outside　of　thought。　But　the　very　Notion　of　present　existence　is　this　negative　of　self…consciousness；
not　out　of　thought；　—　but　the　thought　of　the　‘out　of　t