meditations on first philosophy-第9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!
is manifest by the natural light that there must at least be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect。 For; pray; whence can the effect derive its reality; if not from its cause? And in what way can this cause communicate this reality to it; unless it possessed it in itself? And from this it follows; not only that something cannot proceed from nothing; but likewise that what is more perfect¥that is to say; which has more reality within itself¥cannot proceed from the less perfect。 And this is not only evidently true of those effects which possess actual or formal reality; but also of the ideas in which we consider merely what is termed objective reality。 To take an example; the stone which has not yet existed not only cannot now commence to be unless it has been produced by something which possesses within itself; either formally or eminently; all that enters into the composition of the stone 'i。e。 it must possess the same things or other more excellent things than those which exist in the stone' and heat can only be produced in a subject in which it did not previously exist by a cause that is of an order 'degree or kind' at least as perfect as heat; and so in all other cases。 But further; the idea of heat; or of a stone; cannot exist in me unless it has been placed within me by some cause which possesses within it at least as much reality as that which I conceive to exist in the heat or the stone。 For although this cause does not transmit anything of its actual or formal reality to my idea; we must not for that reason imagine that it is necessarily a less real cause; we must remember that 'since every idea is a work of the mind' its nature is such that it demands of itself no other formal reality than that which it borrows from my thought; of which it is only a mode 'i。e。 a manner or way of thinking'。 But in order that an idea should contain some one certain objective reality rather than another; it must without doubt derive it from some cause in which there is at least as much formal reality as this idea contains of objective reality。 For if we imagine that something is found in an idea which is not found in the cause; it must then have been derived from nought; but however imperfect may be this mode of being by which a thing is objectively 'or by representation' in the understanding by its idea; we cannot certainly say that this mode of being is nothing; nor consequently; that the idea derives its origin from nothing。 Nor must I imagine that; since the reality that I consider in these ideas is only objective; it is not essential that this reality should be formally in the causes of my ideas; but that it is sufficient that it should be found objectively。 For just as this mode of objective existence pertains to ideas by their proper nature; so does the mode of formal existence pertain tot he causes of those ideas (this is at least true of the first and principal) by the nature peculiar to them。 And although it may be the case that one idea gives birth to another idea; that cannot continue to be so indefinitely; for in the end we must reach an idea whose cause shall be so to speak an archetype; in which the whole reality 'or perfection' which is so to speak objectively 'or by representation' in these ideas is contained formally 'and really'。 Thus the light of nature causes me to know clearly that the ideas in me are like 'pictures or' images which can; in truth; easily fall short of the perfection of the objects from which they have been derived; but which can never contain anything greater or more perfect。 And the longer and the more carefully that I investigate these matters; the more clearly and distinctly do I recognise their truth。 But what am I to conclude from it all in the end? It is this; that if the objective reality of any one of my ideas is of such a nature as clearly to make me recognise that it is not in me either formally or eminently; and that consequently I cannot myself be the cause of it; it follows of necessity that I am not alone in the world; but that there is another being which exists; or which is the cause of this idea。 On the other hand; had no such an idea existed in me; I should have had no sufficient argument to convince me of the existence of any being beyond myself; for I have made very careful investigation everywhere and up to the present time have been able to find no other ground。 But of my ideas; beyond that which represents me to myself; as to which there can here be no difficulty; there is another which represents a God; and there are others representing corporeal and inanimate things; others angels; others animals; and others again which represent to me men similar to myself。 As regards the ideas which represent to me other men or animals; or angels; I can however easily conceive that they might be formed by an admixture of the other ideas which I have of myself; of corporeal things; and of God; even although there were apart from me neither men nor animals; nor angels; in all the world。 And in regard to the ideas of corporeal objects; I do not recognise in them anything so great or so excellent that they might not have possibly proceeded from myself; for if I consider them more closely; and examine them individually; as I yesterday examined the idea of wax; I find that there is very little in them which I perceive clearly and distinctly。 Magnitude or extension in length; breadth; or depth; I do so perceive; also figure which results from a termination of this extension; the situation which bodies of different figure preserve in relation to one another; and movement or change of situation; to which we may also add substance; duration and number。 As to other things such as light; colours; sounds; scents; tastes; heat; cold and the other tactile qualities; they are thought by me with so much obscurity and confusion that I do not even know if they are true or false; i。e。 whether the ideas which I form of these qualities are actually the ideas of real objects or not 'or whether they only represent chimeras which cannot exist in fact'。 For although I have before remarked that it is only in judgments that falsity; properly speaking; or formal falsity; can be met with; a certain material falsity may nevertheless be found in ideas; i。e。 when these ideas represent what is nothing as though it were something。 For example; the ideas which I have of cold and heat are so far from clear and distinct that by their means I cannot tell whether cold is merely a privation of heat; or heat a privation of cold; or whether both are real qualities; or are not such。 And inasmuch as 'since ideas resemble images' there cannot be any ideas which do not appear to represent some things; if it is correct to say that cold is merely a privation of heat; the idea which represents it to me as something real and positive will not be improperly termed false; and the same holds good of other similar ideas。 To these it is certainly not necessary that I should attribute any author other than myself。 For if they are false; i。e。 if they represent things which do not exist; the light of nature shows me that they issue from nought; that is to say; that they are only in me so far as something is lacking to the perfection of my nature。 But if they are true; nevertheless because they exhibit so little reality to me that I cannot even clearly distinguish the thing represented from non…being; I do not see any reason why they should not be produced by myself。 As to the clear and distinct idea which I have of corporeal things; some of them seem as though I might have derived them from the idea which I possess of myself; as those which I have of substance; duration; number; and such like。 For 'even' when I think that a stone is a substance; or at least a thing capable of existing of itself; and that I am a substance also; although I conceive that I am a thing that thinks and not one that is extended; and that the stone on the other hand is an extended thing which does not think; and that thus there is a notable difference between the two conceptions¥they seem; nevertheless; to agree in this; that both represent substances。 In the same way; when I perceive that I now exist and further recollect that I have in former times existed; and when I remember that I have various thoughts of which I can recognise the number; I acquire ideas of duration and number which I can afterwards transfer to any object that I please。 But as to all the other qualities of which the ideas of corporeal things are composed; to wit; extension; figure; situation and motion; it is true that they are not formally in me; since I am only a thing that thinks; but because they are merely certain modes of substance 'and so to speak the vestments under which corporeal substance appears to us' and because I myself am also a substance; it would seem that they might be contained in me eminently。 Hence there remains only the idea of God; concerning which we must consider whether it is something which cannot have proceeded from me myself。 By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite 'eternal; immutable'; independent; all…knowing; all…powerful; and by which I myself and everything else; if