On the Improvement of the Understanding by Benedict de Spinoza (find a book to read .txt) 📖

order that all ideas may be reduced to unity, we shall endeavor so to associate and arrange them that our mind may, as far as possible, reflect subjectively the reality of nature, both as a whole and as parts.

[92] (1) As for the first point, it is necessary (as we have said) for our purpose that everything should be conceived, either solely through its essence, or through its proximate cause. (2) If the thing be self-existent, or, as is commonly said, the cause of itself, it must be understood through its essence only; if it be not self-existent, but requires a cause for its existence, it must be understood through its proximate cause. (3) For, in reality, the knowledge, [92f] of an effect is nothing else than the acquisition of more perfect knowledge of its cause.

[93] (1) Therefore, we may never, while we are concerned with inquiries into actual things, draw any conclusion from abstractions; we shall be extremely careful not to confound that which is only in the understanding with that which is in the thing itself. (2) The best basis for drawing a conclusion will be either some particular affirmative essence, or a true and legitimate definition. (93:3) For the understanding cannot descend from universal axioms by themselves to particular things, since axioms are of infinite extent, and do not determine the understanding to contemplate one particular thing more than another.

[94] (1) Thus the true method of discovery is to form thoughts from some given definition. (2) This process will be the more fruitful and easy in proportion as the thing given be better defined. (3) Wherefore, the cardinal point of all this second part of method consists in the knowledge of the conditions of good definition, and the means of finding them. (4) I will first treat of the conditions of definition.

[95] (1) A definition, if it is to be called perfect, must explain the inmost essence of a thing, and must take care not to substitute for this any of its properties. (2) In order to illustrate my meaning, without taking an example which would seem to show a desire to expose other people’s errors, I will choose the case of something abstract, the definition of which is of little moment. (95:3) Such is a circle. (4) If a circle be defined as a figure, such that all straight lines drawn from the center to the circumference are equal, every one can see that such a definition does not in the least explain the essence of a circle, but solely one of its properties. (5) Though, as I have said, this is of no importance in the case of figures and other abstractions, it is of great importance in the case of physical beings and realities: for the properties of things are not understood so long as their essences are unknown. (6) If the latter be passed over, there is necessarily a perversion of the succession of ideas which should reflect the succession of nature, and we go far astray from our object.

[96] In order to be free from this fault, the following rules should be observed in definition:- I. (1) If the thing in question be created, the definition

must (as we have said) comprehend the proximate cause.

(2) For instance, a circle should, according to this rule,

be defined as follows: the figure described by any line

whereof one end is fixed and the other free. (3) This

definition clearly comprehends the proximate cause. II. (4) A conception or definition of a thing should be such

that all the properties of that thing, in so far as it is

considered by itself, and not in conjunction with other

things, can be deduced from it, as may be seen in the

definition given of a circle: for from that it clearly follows

that all straight lines drawn from the center to the

circumference are equal. (5) That this is a necessary

characteristic of a definition is so clear to anyone, who

reflects on the matter, that there is no need to spend time

in proving it, or in showing that, owing to this second

condition, every definition should be affirmative. (6) I

speak of intellectual affirmation, giving little thought to

verbal affirmations which, owing to the poverty of language,

must sometimes, perhaps, be expressed negatively, though

the idea contained is affirmative.

[97] The rules for the definition of an uncreated thing are as follows:— I. The exclusion of all idea of cause - that is, the thing

must not need explanation by Anything outside itself. II. When the definition of the thing has been given, there must

be no room for doubt as to whether the thing exists or not. III. It must contain, as far as the mind is concerned, no

substantives which could be put into an adjectival form;

in other words, the object defined must not be explained

through abstractions. IV. Lastly, though this is not absolutely necessary, it should

be possible to deduce from the definition all the properties

of the thing defined. All these rules become obvious to anyone giving strict attention to the matter.

[98] (1) I have also stated that the best basis for drawing a conclusion is a particular affirmative essence. (2) The more specialized the idea is, the more it is distinct, and therefore clear. (3) Wherefore a knowledge of particular things should be sought for as diligently as possible.

[99] (1) As regards the order of our perceptions, and the manner in which they should be arranged and united, it is necessary that, as soon as is possible and rational, we should inquire whether there be any being (and, if so, what being), that is the cause of all things, so that its essence, represented in thought, may be the cause of all our ideas, and then our mind will to the utmost possible extent reflect nature. (2) For it will possess, subjectively, nature’s essence, order, and union. (3) Thus we can see that it is before all things necessary for us to deduce all our ideas from physical things - that is, from real entities, proceeding, as far as may be, according to the series of causes, from one real entity to another real entity, never passing to universals and abstractions, either for the purpose of deducing some real entity from them, or deducing them from some real entity. (4) Either of these processes interrupts the true progress of the understanding.

[100] (1) But it must be observed that, by the series of causes and real entities, I do not here mean the series of particular and mutable things, but only the series of fixed and eternal things. (2) It would be impossible for human infirmity to follow up the series of particular mutable things, both on account their multitude, surpassing all calculation, and on account of the infinitely diverse circumstances surrounding one and the same thing, any one of which may be the cause of its existence or non-existence. (3) Indeed, their existence has no connection with their essence, or (as we have said already) is not an eternal truth.

[101] (1) Neither is there any need that we should understand their series, for the essences of particular mutable things are not to be gathered from their series or order of existence, which would furnish us with nothing beyond their extrinsic denominations, their relations, or, at most, their circumstances, all of which are very different from their inmost essence. (101:2) This inmost essence must be sought solely from fixed and eternal things, and from the laws, inscribed (so to speak) in those things as in their true codes, according to which all particular things take place and are arranged; nay, these mutable particular things depend so intimately and essentially (so to phrase it) upon the fixed things, that they cannot either be conceived without them.

[102] (1) But, though this be so, there seems to be no small difficulty in arriving at the knowledge of these particular things, for to conceive them all at once would far surpass the powers of the human understanding. (2) The arrangement whereby one thing is understood, before another, as we have stated, should not be sought from their series of existence, nor from eternal things. (3) For the latter are all by nature simultaneous. (4) Other aids are therefore needed besides those employed for understanding eternal things and their laws. (5) However, this is not the place to recount such aids, nor is there any need to do so, until we have acquired a sufficient knowledge of eternal things and their infallible laws, and until the nature of our senses has become plain to us.

[103] (1) Before betaking ourselves to seek knowledge of particular things, it will be seasonable to speak of such aids, as all tend to teach us the mode of employing our senses, and to make certain experiments under fixed rules and arrangements which may suffice to determine the object of our inquiry, so that we may therefrom infer what laws of eternal things it has been produced under, and may gain an insight into its inmost nature, as I will duly show. (2) Here, to return to my purpose, I will only endeavor to set forth what seems necessary for enabling us to attain to knowledge of eternal things, and to define them under the conditions laid down above.

[104] (1) With this end, we must bear in mind what has already been stated, namely, that when the mind devotes itself to any thought, so as to examine it, and to deduce therefrom in due order all the legitimate conclusions possible, any falsehood which may lurk in the thought will be detected; but if the thought be true, the mind will readily proceed without interruption to deduce truths from it. (104:2) This, I say, is necessary for our purpose, for our thoughts may be brought to a close by the absence of a foundation.

[105] (1) If, therefore, we wish to investigate the first thing of all, it will be necessary to supply some foundation which may direct our thoughts thither. (2) Further, since method is reflective knowledge, the foundation which must direct our thoughts can be nothing else than the knowledge of that which constitutes the reality of truth, and the knowledge of the understanding, its properties, and powers. (3) When this has been acquired we shall possess a foundation wherefrom we can deduce our thoughts, and a path whereby the intellect, according to its capacity, may attain the knowledge of eternal things, allowance being made for the extent of the intellectual powers.

[106] (1) If, as I stated in the first part, it belongs to the nature of thought to form true ideas, we must here inquire what is meant by the faculties and power of the understanding. (2) The chief part of our method is to understand as well as possible the powers of the intellect, and its nature; we are, therefore, compelled (by the considerations advanced in the second part of the method) necessarily to draw these conclusions from the definition itself of thought and understanding.

[107] (1) But, so far as we have not got any rules for finding definitions, and, as we cannot set forth such rules without a previous knowledge of nature, that is without a definition of the understanding and its power, it follows either that the definition of the understanding must be clear in itself, or that we can understand nothing. (2) Nevertheless this definition is not absolutely clear in itself; however, since its properties, like all things that we possess through the understanding, cannot be known clearly and distinctly, unless its nature be known previously, understanding makes itself manifest, if we pay attention to its properties, which we know clearly and distinctly. (3) Let us, then, enumerate here the properties of the understanding, let us examine them, and begin by discussing the instruments for research which we