meditations on first philosophy-第1节
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！
Meditations on First Philosophy
by Rene Descartes
1641
Prefatory Note To The Meditations。
The first edition of the Meditations was published in Latin by Michael Soly of Paris 〃at the Sign of the Phoenix〃 in 1641 cum Privilegio et Approbatione Doctorum。 The Royal 〃privilege〃 was indeed given； but the 〃approbation〃 seems to have been of a most indefinite kind。 The reason of the book being published in France and not in Holland； where Descartes was living in a charming country house at Endegeest near Leiden； was apparently his fear that the Dutch ministers might in some way lay hold of it。 His friend； Pere Mersenne； took charge of its publication in Paris and wrote to him about any difficulties that occurred in the course of its progress through the press。 The second edition was however published at Amsterdam in 1642 by Louis Elzevir； and this edition was accompanied by the now completed 〃Objections and Replies。〃2 The edition from which the present translation is made is the second just mentioned； and is that adopted by MM。 Adam and Tannery as the more correct； for reasons that they state in detail in the preface to their edition。 The work was translated into French by the Duc de Luynes in 1642 and Descartes considered the translation so excellent that he had it published some years later。 Clerselier； to complete matters； had the 〃Objections〃 also published in French with the 〃Replies；〃 and this； like the other； was subject to Descartes' revision and correction。 This revision renders the French edition specially valuable。 Where it seems desirable an alternative reading from the French is given in square brackets。 Elizabeth S。 Haldane
TO THE MOST WISE AND ILLUSTRIOUS THE DEAN AND DOCTORS OF THE SACRED FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN PARIS。
The motive which induces me to present to you this Treatise is so excellent； and； when you become acquainted with its design； I am convinced that you will also have so excellent a motive for taking it under your protection； that I feel that I cannot do better； in order to render it in some sort acceptable to you； than in a few words to state what I have set myself to do。 I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theological argument。 For although it is quite enough for us faithful ones to accept by means of faith the fact that the human soul does not perish with the body； and that God exists； it certainly does not seem possible ever to persuade infidels of any religion； indeed； we may almost say； of any moral virtue； unless； to begin with； we prove these two facts by means of the natural reason。 And inasmuch as often in this life greater rewards are offered for vice than for virtue； few people would prefer the right to the useful； were they restrained neither by the fear of God nor the expectation of another life； and although it is absolutely true that we must believe that there is a God； because we are so taught in the Holy Scriptures； and； on the other hand； that we must believe the Holy Scriptures because they come from God （the reason of this is； that； faith being a gift of God； He who gives the grace to cause us to believe other things can likewise give it to cause us to believe that He exists）； we nevertheless could not place this argument before infidels； who might accuse us of reasoning in a circle。 And； in truth； I have noticed that you； along with all the theologians； did not only affirm that the existence of God may be proved by the natural reason； but also that it may be inferred from the Holy Scriptures； that knowledge about Him is much clearer than that which we have of many created things； and； as a matter of fact； is so easy to acquire； that those who have it not are culpable in their ignorance。 This indeed appears from the Wisdom of Solomon； chapter xiii。； where it is said 〃Howbeit they are not to be excused； for if their understanding was so great that they could discern the world and the creatures； why did they not rather find out the Lord thereof？〃 and in Romans； chapter i。； it is said that they are 〃without excuse〃； and again in the same place； by these words 〃that which may be known of God is manifest in them；〃 it seems as through we were shown that all that which can be known of God may be made manifest by means which are not derived from anywhere but from ourselves； and from the simple consideration of the nature of our minds。 Hence I thought it not beside my purpose to inquire how this is so； and how God may be more easily and certainly known than the things of the world。 And as regards the soul； although many have considered that it is not easy to know its nature； and some have even dared to say that human reasons have convinced us that it would perish with the body； and that faith alone could believe the contrary； nevertheless； inasmuch as the Lateran Council held under Leo X （in the eighth session） condemns these tenets； and as Leo expressly ordains Christian philosophers to refute their arguments and to employ all their powers in making known the truth； I have ventured in this treatise to undertake the same task。 More than that； I am aware that the principal reason which causes many impious persons not to desire to believe that there is a God； and that the human soul is distinct from the body； is that they declare that hitherto no one has been able to demonstrate these two facts； and although I am not of their opinion but； on the contrary； hold that the greater part of the reasons which have been brought forward concerning these two questions by so many great men are； when they are rightly understood； equal to so many demonstrations； and that it is almost impossible to invent new ones； it is yet in my opinion the case that nothing more useful can be accomplished in philosophy than once for all to seek with care for the best of these reasons； and to set them forth in so clear and exact a manner； that it will henceforth be evident to everybody that they are veritable demonstrations。 And； finally； inasmuch as it was desired that I should undertake this task by many who were aware that I had cultivated a certain Method for the resolution of difficulties of every kind in the Sciences； a method which it is true is not novel； since there is nothing more ancient than the truth； but of which they were aware that I had made use successfully enough in other matters of difficulty I have thought that it was my duty also to make trial of it in the present matter。 Now all that I could accomplish in the matter is contained in this Treatise。 Not that I have here drawn together all the different reasons which might be brought forward to serve as proofs of this subject： for that never seemed to be necessary excepting when there was no one single proof that was certain。 But I have treated the first and principal ones in such a manner that I can venture to bring them forward as very evident and very certain demonstrations。 And more than that； I will say that these proofs are such that I do not think that there is any way open to the human mind by which it can ever succeed in discovering better。 For the importance of the subject； and the glory of God to which all this relates； constrain me to speak here somewhat more freely of myself than is my habit。 Nevertheless； whatever certainty and evidence I find in my reasons； I cannot persuade myself that all the world is capable of understanding them。 Still； just as in Geometry there are many demonstrations that have been left to us by Archimedes； by Apollonius； by Pappus； and others； which are accepted by everyone as perfectly certain and evident （because they clearly contain nothing which； considered by itself； is not very easy to understand； and as all through that which follows has an exact connection with； and dependence on that which precedes）； nevertheless； because they are somewhat lengthy； and demand a mind wholly devoted to their consideration； they are only taken in and understood by a very limited number of persons。 Similarly； although I judge that those of which I here make use are equal to； or even surpass in certainty and evidence； the demonstrations of Geometry； I yet apprehend that they cannot be adequately understood by many； both because they are also a little lengthy and dependent the one on the other； and principally because they demand a mind wholly free of prejudices； and one which can be easily detached from the affairs of the senses。 And； truth to say； there are not so many in the world who are fitted for metaphysical speculations as there are for those of Geometry。 And more than that； there is still this difference； that in Geometry； since each one is persuaded that nothing must be advanced of which there is not a certain demonstration； those who are not entirely adepts more frequently err in approving what is false； in order to give the impression that they understand it； than in refuting the true。 But the case is different in philosophy where everyone believes that all is problematical
